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

October 4

jocasta

what kind of person is jocasta —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.166.184 (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

We have an article on her at Jocasta. You could also read any number of classic Greek plays that feature her as a character, including Oedipus Rex and Phoenician Women. Good luck! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Man Who Liked Dickens

Hi. The article on A Handful of Dust states that the novel was an extrapolation of the author's short story The Man Who Liked Dickens. Does anyone know how I might be able to get hold of a copy of this short story, preferably online? Thanks! ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 18:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The story has been anthologized frequently. In a hasty search, I'm not seeing it in any in-print anthologies, but copies of The Penguin Book of Horror Stories and The Book of Fantasy should be readily available in libraries and in the used-book market. The Complete Short Stories of Evelyn Waugh seems to be in print in both the United States and Britain. Since the story is still in copyright, I wouldn't expect to find it online. Deor (talk) 06:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - think I might have tracked down a copy of Horror Stories in the library! ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 07:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, Waugh made only a few trivial changes when he used the story as Chapter VI of the novel, so don't expect any startling revelations. Deor (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it anything like "The woman who enjoyed kipling?" Edison (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Silly boy, I've never met a woman who'd ever admit to having kippled. Deor (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Affair of the Diamond Necklace question

What happened to the titular diamond necklace that so ruined Marie Antoinette? I can't seem to find any answers or pictures, just a single drawing of it that appears undated. (Image:Diamond Necklace Marie Antoinette.jpeg) Thanks! Zidel333 (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It was taken apart and the constituent gems sold in London and Paris by the Count & Countess de La Motte. Probably some of these have been reused in other settings. - Nunh-huh 19:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The London Times, in January 1959, covering the "Ageless Diamond" exhibition at Christie's, stated that the Duchess of Sutherland's sautoir displayed there was "part of the famous, or rather, notorious necklace" that brought about Marie Antoinette's downfall. The necklace stolen by the La Mottes had 629 diamonds. Among the sales mentioned by La Motte in his deposition were 22 stones from the "scallops" sold by him to Gray's, a jewel store in Bond Street, London. It is thought that the stones that were used in the Duchess of Sutherland's sautoir came from among those 22 stones. (We don't seem to have an article on sautoirs: these are rope necklaces, longer than opera length, falling below the waist, and often having a tassel or pendant.) - Nunh-huh 19:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! This definitely helps explain what happened. Seems a shame what happened to the necklace though, it would be a fabulous sight today. Any chance of pictures of some of the subsequent jewelry? Zidel333 (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

David Gisser

Can you please create a page on a man named David Gisser, he has engineering importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.98.14 (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the reference desk. I believe you're looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sistine chapel ceiling - classification requested

I'm wondering if there is any internationally standardized system to define parts of the Ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? --Scriberius (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure I understand the question, but the "religious and public buildings of papal Rome" are all on the Unesco list of World Heritage Sites [1], using the following criteria:

"(1) to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius; (2) to exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design; (3) to bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared; (4) to be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history; and (6) to be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance. (The Committee considers that this criterion should preferably be used in conjunction with other criteria)".

Some of these criteria apply specifically to the ceiling. DAVID ŠENEK 09:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I just need a classification system for locating parts the ceiling. --Scriberius (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just use the system used by the Vatican Museum? I doubt this is going to be standardized by ISO! Dmcq (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain as Maverick

When and by whom was the term "Maverick" first used to describe John McCain? 76.103.138.164 (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This profile mentions a 1993 Washington Post article that described McCain as "a conservative with maverick instincts." Not sure that was the first, though, it was soon afterwards that he got that reputation due to his efforts to towards campaign finance reform. Rockpocket 01:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It was his gunner, "Goose", who first called him that. But then Goose died when he ejected into the canopy. And Meg Ryan cried a lot. But its OK, cuz Kelly McGillis was WAY hotter. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

James Garner was well known as a maverick way back in 1957, long before McCain. Perhaps he should run for president. Edison (talk) 05:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

He did and with Jack Lemmon no less! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As an aside...Mel Gibson, another maverick, despite most people thinking of him as Australian, is eligible to be President himself, being born in the U.S. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think his drunken anti-Semitic comments probably tanked any actual eligibility. --140.247.11.44 (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Didn't do this guy too much harm. Rockpocket 18:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Gibson is an Australian by association, if not by citizenship. He was certainly claimed as one of us when he made Mad Max etc, but when he makes drunken anti-semitic comments he morphs into "the American actor Mel Gibson". He was named an honorary Officer of the Order of Australia back in 1997 for his services to Australian cinema. As well as being a U.S. citizen, he's also an Irish citizen, so I guess he could stand for President of Ireland some day. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What about Nick Cave, Jack? I'm interested to know whether he gets claimed as one of your own. He was born in Australia but hardly seems to live there much these days. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Nick's indisputably an Australian, Richard. We have a long history of performers, actors etc making their careers overseas, and then choosing to live o/s more or less permanently. They don't cease being Aussies just because of that. Unless they abandon their Australian citizenship, which various people have done. Others become dual citizens. I guess it all comes down to definition: a person could be simultaneously an Australian by birth, an American by citizenship, a Greek by residence, and a Briton by long association. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess it all comes down to whether they were born here, or were born Australian citizens overseas. Nick Cave was born here - end of story. Mel Gibson and Russell Crowe weren't, which enables us to claim them as Australians when they do good things but refer to them as foreigners when they do bad things. If Nicole Kidman ever did a bad thing, we'd probably remember only the fact that she was born in Hawaii as a U.S. citizen and conveniently ignore the fact that she also had Australian citizenship from birth through her parents, who just happened to be visiting Hawaii at the time. I'm not kidding, many people really do argue along these ridiculous lines when it suits their purpose, and the relevant talk pages are full of such debates. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

October 5

Today's bailout verses the 1929 depression

What are the differences between the great depression of 1929 compared to today's economic bailout —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.34.226 (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

For starters, the great depression was a recession and today's bailout is a bailout. To answer your question, this mentions a few differences and similarities. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

For starters, the Great Depression was no recession. The term wasn't popularly used to describe a brief economic contraction until the 1950s (although, many have redefined past depressions as recessions since then). As for the original question, the Great Depression was a stock market crash followed by a series of bad policy choices that coincided with poor weather (agriculture). From 1929 to 1933, the nominal size of the US economy declined from $103.6 billion to $56.4 billion, a drop of 45.6%. Consumer prices fell by 27.2%. In real terms, the economy dropped nearly 7.5% a year for four straight years. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A check at google news archive shows that "recession" has been used much longer than since the 50s. What I had heard was that "depression" was a euphemism for the earlier "recession", but this seems to be just a silly story, "depression" seems more popular than "recession" long ago.John Z (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought depression was euphemism for panic. —Tamfang (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A severe recession is still a recession. I haven't come across a definition of recession which exclusively limited it to "brief contractions". Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

By "brief" I mean contained in a year or so, rather than several years. My reference to recession being a 1950s term may not be correct, but I do recall hearing that the term was coined because government economists didn't want to suggest that the late 1940s or 1950s recessions were anything like the 1930s. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want a similar event in U.S. history, I would point to the New York City bailout. I don't remember the year and, because it is impossible to find anything about historical bailouts on Google right now, I can't search for it. Basically, it was nearly the same thing. Congress came up with the idea of sending a lot of taxpayer money to New York City to help cover losses made by large businesses - primarily based on rather stupid business decisions. -- kainaw™ 21:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be the this 1975 bailout. Incredibly, we don't have an article on it (any takers?) but it is covered briefly in the Presidency of Gerald Ford and History of New York City (1946–1977) articles. Ford at first refused to loan the city the billions it wanted, and the New York Daily News ran a headline: "Ford to City: Drop Dead." Antandrus (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

English Consumer Law

If an item has been purchased from a high street shop and it is faulty, is the consumer legally entitled to a refund? I have been reading many different pages on this and some say you are and others say they are only obliged to fix / replace. If the law states that a refund is obliged, can someone point me to the legislation that specifies this. Thanks Kirk UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.79.175 (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This is dealt with in our Sale of Goods Act 1979 article. "Within six months, beginning at the time at which the goods were delivered, the buyer can require the seller to repair the goods, reduce the price, or rescind (revesting property and requiring the return of any payment) the contract where the buyer successfully claims that the goods were not in accordance with the contract at the time of delivery." In other words, the consumer can make the choice. The supplier has to comply or counterclaim that there is no problem with the goods. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

And the specific legislation was amendments made to the Sale of Goods Act 1979 in the The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

'.....the goods were not in accordance with the contract at the time of delivery.' does this mean that if the goods worked on the day of delivery but then 'died' after two days (it was a hard drive) is it arguable that they were not faulty at the time of delivery? I've been going through the articles mentioned above, I'm no lawyer and getting more confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.79.175 (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The full term is six years (six months is just a change in the balance of evidence). BERR has a handy page on this regard here, which says Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale). and later the onus is on all purchasers to prove the goods did not conform to contract. For a transaction involving a business, the act notes that "durability" is one of the implied qualities (14(2b)e). Whether 2 days is an acceptable time for a "durable" hard drive to work, and the extent to which that failure indicates the product was "inherently faulty at time of sale" is a specific matter that we can't give you advice about. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

While this does not construe legal advice, I find it hard to believe in NZ that any electronic item would be considered durable if it only lasted 2 days Consumer Guarantees Act (the NZ law that applies to cases like these). And generally speaking, if an item dies/breaks, it would be considered the fault of the manufacturer/supplier/retailer unless you did something to cause the fault (for example, with a hard drive if you subjected it to forces beyond the allowed ranges). Most obviously, if the item shows any sign of external damage that is likely to cause or resulted from something that could be expected to damage the device it probably wouldn't be considered the manfacturers fault. However ultimately these claims would have to be tested in court or other appropriate forum. Whether this is the same in the UK, I don't know if you have a specific case in mind, you should see someone who can advise you Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

London railway station logos

A lot of London railway stations now have circular stylised logos, in various colours, like the X one shown in the image. Does anyone know where I can find a list of these logos, perhaps download them, or find out about their design? Thanks. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 18:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Each of the 18 stations run by Network Rail has a logo like this. I would have expected Network Rail's website to have them, but I haven't been able to find any! -- Arwel Parry _(talk) 22:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

is there any user with astrology and magick knowledge?

hi guys, is there anyone who knows about astrology, astral charts, the karma that you need to acomplish in life acording to your chart, ..crowley magick...and all that stuff? but probably a modern aproach? basically i'd like to discuss and find out what i need to acomplish and ger over in this life to be at peace with myself and others.

if you are versed in the subject and u think you can help me and you'd like to share views on the subject, i'll talk to you in your user page and we can exchange emails and stuff. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.11.185 (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and User talk pages should not contain extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia. Moreover, the reference desk is not a place for people to express opinions about your personal life and beliefs. You will probably find what you are looking for in a "magick" forum. In the meantime, have a look at magick and astrology, which might provide some of the information you seek. Gwinva (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Try also karma, Aleister Crowley, Jyotiṣa, divination, horoscope, astrological aspect, horoscopic astrology, & natal astrology. Strawless (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't this little girl....

wearing Hijab?. And why is she with other men (boys) if they're not related to her?. It's in Iraq and Muslims laws forbids women to be with other men if they are not realated to her.Here, it's on Commons. Thanks all. --Maru-Spanish (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Iraq is a secular society. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, not all people in Iraq are Muslims, and not all Muslims in Iraq are orthodox. Gwinva (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Did I read somewhere that girls aren't always expected to wear hijab until 'round about puberty? From their body language, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this is a little sister to at least some of those boys... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hijab is not compulsory until the age of puberty, which is 9 for girls. And then, it depends much on how tough and strict their parents and their community are. --Omidinist (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

And how could you know that they are not related?Mr.K. (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You might enjoy watching this excerpt of a wonderful segment from the Wholphin (DVD) series about a 13 year-old Yemeni girl who refuses to wear hijab. --Sean 14:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

While not addressing Iraq, you might want to read Sex segregation and Islam Nil Einne (talk)

Election of 1824 electoral college

What were some future political problems indicated by the Electoral College voting patterns in the United States presidential election, 1824? Thanks! Reywas92^Talk 20:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As the first paragraph of the article you linked to says, the Democratic-Republican Party split into several different parties. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like homework, so I'm giving you a few leads and hoping you research yourself - not eI was tempted to give several misleading answers but chose not to.

Andrew Jackson later said his only regrets were that he hadn't shot Clay or hung Calhoun. You might look into what Henry Clay did and the reaction.

Crawford suffered a stroke before the votes were counted. Look at elections and amendments after this. (Yes, he was only 4th here so it didn't matter, but one elction did have the candidate for a major party die before the electors voted.)

The Vice President was chosen so quickly - he had the majority of electors - while the Presidential one wasn't. think about how that wcould influence things.Somebody or his brother (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

book a rabbi carries

what book does a rabbi always carry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.70.242 (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The Tanakh? Rockpocket 02:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I would think that the most likely book that a Rabbi would carry would not be a Tanakh but a thin book containing the afternoon (Minchah) and evening (Arvit) prayers. Simonschaim (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

October 6

New Photographic Genre (style), undeclared, as such, anywhere...

...according to three days of extensive research, truly searching all available internet means to find such. The term and the supporting examples of that term are not to be found anywhere on the internet. OK, granted, I am a newby here at WIKIPEDIA, however, I have also read all of the information regarding submissions, and am still unsure that I may not be submitting an article that may be considered "self-promotional".

It is NOT my intention to be such, nevertheless, the term for the style of imagery that I have developed and practiced is, in my opinion legitimate and unique and deserves to be brought forward to be added to and further explained, as I believe that there are a good number of photographers practicing this artistic style, though, not heretofore spoken of as such, and to date not named. What I would like to find out is how I may go about submitting such an article and claim the declaration of the naming of the style, absent the risk of pissing anybody off in doing so. Jaybiss (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Your enthusiasm is appreciated. Wikipedia carries articles on what can be verified by (generally) reliable, third-party sources. See WP:RS and WP:V. You would need to wait until your style and terminology were generally in use before they would be appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia also (generally) tries to dissuade people from writing about themselves, their relatives, their business, inventions. It is difficult to find and keep the right neutral point of view if you are writing about something close to you. It is not so much that you might piss someone off (and, even if you did, we should be kind enough not to show such feelings to a newcomer) as that you would likely find your article up for a "speedy delete" either on the basis of not being verifiable or on the basis of a conflict of interest. If you would like more information, please add a note to my talk page and I will try to help you myself or to direct you to someone who can. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Short story called "The Mnemone"

I am looking for a science-fiction short story by Robert Sheckley. A friend of mine read it in a collection but has since lost the book, and now we are both in search of this story. I know little of the plot, except that it concerns a future in which there are only a few people who have memories, and they are called "mnemones" (a word coined by Sheckley). I have tried to search the Internet, but I have gotten literally one relevant hit: a link to the German Wikipedia's article on Sheckley, but I don't know German. I would really appreciate it if anyone could find out the name of the collection in which this was published, or anything, really. Thank you so much for your time! Cheers, Alitheiapsis (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's its Internet Speculative Fiction database entry. Looks like it's been included in four collections. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Political careers

I've been thinking lately that there might be some more stability in the US, economically and such, if politicians in appointed positions stayed in office longer. So, I looked through the cabinet of GWB and could only find one person who had been in their position for more than 5 years. That seems awfully short to me. If one were to compare this with people, maybe more specifically company executives, who aren't in politics, would both groups fall into a similar pattern or is there a difference? Dismas|^(talk) 05:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Successful directors move roles/companies a lot too, there is a lot of head-hunting and shuffling for positions. This link (http://www.cio.com/article/153600/Average_CIO_Tenure_Slips_But_Still_More_Than_Four_Years) suggests an average of around about 5 years. The politician is not a specialist knowledge in the area they head-up, that isn't their role - behind the scenes and in the committee groups there will be knowledge specialists, advisers and people with vast amounts of specific experience. The same is true for company directors. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There are civil servants that hold their positions far longer. For example, "permanent secretaries" in the UK - the clue is in the name! --Tango (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Technically, the members of the president's cabinet are not politicians. Cabinet posts are not elected positions, and if a member of Congress (who is an elected official) is appointed to a cabinet post, he or she must resign the seat in Congress. Since the term of office for the president is set at four years, with a maximum of two terms, it's hard to see how someone could stay in a cabinet post.

As Tango points out for the UK, in the U.S. there are many career civil service positions, even at the highest levels. As this article notes, in 2004 there were just over 9,000 positions in the federal government into which a political appointee can go -- out of 2.7 million.

In addition, most cabinet secretaries can and do earn far more money (usually with far less grief) outside of government. That said, I'm not sure Alberto "I Can't Recall" Gonzales, the previous attorney general, is raking in the big bucks. If he were, would he remember? --- OtherDave (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There have been some U.S. Cabinet members who have served over multiple administrations, even for presidents of different parties. For example, Norman Mineta served as Commerce Sect'y under Clinton, and was retained by GWBush as Transportation Sect'y. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Australian Public Service was modelled in many ways on the UK Civil Service. The heads of our departments used to be called "Permanent Head"; they're called "Secretary" these days. Their jobs often come to an end when there's a change of government, if the new government thinks the individual is too closely aligned with the policies of the previous government. In some cases, it's very obvious why they would think that - the person had formerly been on the previous PM's personal staff, had strongly influenced that government's policies for a significant period, and had then been given a Secretary's job to ensure the policies they helped draft on the political side of the fence were being implemented on the apolitical side of the fence. So much for the promises not to politicise the apolitical Public Service, which serves the government of the day whatever it's political colour, withour fear or favour. In other cases, it's just a matter of their personal style, or having made public statements that were seen to be overly supportive of the previous government's philosophies. The new Howard (Liberal) government in 1996 sacked a whole swag of Labor-appointed Secretaries. The Rudd (Labor) government didn't immediately sack any Liberal-appointed Secs when it came to power in 2007, but I think there's been some reshuffling and departures since. Many of them are outside appointments these days, although public servants can still rise through the ranks and achieve a Secretary's job. But even back when there were "Permanent Heads", they were not appointments for life, or till the then mandatory retirement age. They did tend to stay in their jobs longer than they do these days, but they were often shuffled between departments. In that sense, "Permanent" meant having attained that level (the First Division) of the Public Service, not necessarily being permanently the head of a particular department. When it was felt their usefulness to the Public Service had expired, they'd be appointed as an ambassador or high commissioner, perhaps to an out-of-the-way country, and I'm sure that UK "permanent" heads were sometimes also accorded such "honours". -- JackofOz (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

companies for $0.99c

Where can I buy a company for less than a dollar? Mr.K. (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Bankruptcy court. Once they've liquidated all the assets you can offer to buy everything that's left (which will be lots of debts) for whatever price you like and they'll likely say yes (they've no reason not to, although you may need to pay some admin fees as well). Of course, the company will be insolvent, so you can't actually do anything with it, but it would be yours. --Tango (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Going off at a slight tangent, Mr. K., I saw an interesting newspaper article a few days ago about a group of Germans who make their living by owning one share in every major listed German company. It seems that Germany´s laws are very protective of the rights of all shareholders, even the very smallest, and every time any German company makes a technical mistake which affects shareholders´rights, these people begin legal actions which the company needs to settle out of court, and that rarely comes cheap. Buying just one share is a relatively expensive thing to do, of course, thanks to trading costs, but if you buy and sell stocks and shares from time to time you can always sell all but one or two (two is a better number, for reasons I shan´t go into) of the shares you own, and over time you will build up a portfolio of these very small shareholdings. Strawless (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That is called a strike suit. -- kainaw™ 21:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice idea, however I suppose it is more of an urban legend. Germans tend to think that investors are better off in the US. Anyway, I could buy 7-8 companies just with the brokerage's costs of buying two shares. Furthermore, shares of companies like Porsche cost some thousand dollars. Mr.K. (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2008 UTC)

FYI, shares in Porsche specifically, manufactured by Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG, are currently trading on Deutsche Börse and FWB Frankfurter [2] at about 60 Euros (about $90 US/CAN). ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. My information was not up-to-date. After Porsche stock split (10:1) in March, its share price was not worth less than 100 Euros. Mr.K. (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

hindu

my daughter has a homework question which is . Are there any jobs hindus are not allowed to do which maybe against there religious beliefs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.95.246 (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Butcher, bull fighter, mice control?Mr.K. (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Pope? Adam Bishop (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, we should not help you with homework questions. Even if it is for someone else. 80.58.205.37 (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well. Allegedly for someone else. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, assume good faith. Mr.K. (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This isn't a "give examples of" question. It is a "yes/no" question. The answer is obviously "yes." -- kainaw™ 21:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

@Kainaw: although you are right, remember that homework questions are normally poorly written, and that the teacher doesn't expect that you simply answer 'yes'.Mr.K. (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This particular homework question is very poorly written. Indeed, if I weren't Assuming Good Faith, I'd suspect that the OP is not a (barely literate) parent helping with her offspring's homework, but a child herself. Malcolm XIV (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The questioner could look at Caste system in India. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Politics and Tribalism

I read this statement in the comments section of a blog today, and as it's something I think about fairly often, and as my political friends just seem to roll their eyes whenever they point it out, I was wondering if it had a name:

"People on both the left and right tend to only accept facts as reported by the people on their own side, because "the other side are liars." And I think it's just as likely that Palin is simply deluded herself (all politicians start their lives in the rank and file) as that she's deliberately treating the people with contempt; in other words, those "facts" that have been pointed out to her aren't really "facts" at all because they come from people she doesn't trust."

MelancholyDanish (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

A strong case of confirmation bias and selection bias, perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It may sound amazing given what they say, but I believe politicians do normally believe what they say rather than ever deliberately lying. As an aside (or just ignore this as own research) an interesting thing I've observed is people tend to point out their own faults in others, even if there's something far worse they could say. I wonder if there's a term for that. Dmcq (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This is simply called democracy. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't go quite that far, Dmcq. Very often, probably the majority of occasions, they really are speaking the truth, or what they believe to be the truth. But very often, they're publicly supporting a position of their party which in private they criticise and try to change. There are good reasons for a party to have a unified public position on an issue, even if behind the scenes there's all sorts of squabbling going on. And there have been many, many, many cases where politicians utter outright lies - there's no better way of putting it. They know it's not truthful, but they say it anyway because it suits their purpose and they think they can get away with it. This may not be true of any one politician chosen at random, but it's certainly true of them as a whole. (Later comment: It's also true of human beings as a whole, not just politicians.) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget, too, that in the old days, you could run for national office and tell a group of farmers in rural America one thing, and union officials in cities something else; that changed with mass media and reporting of national campaigns, of course. (Not sure which was the first reported on - Truman's 1948 whistle stop campaign, perhaps?) So, what you might be hearing, too, might just be a case of telling supporters what they want to hear - or think they want to hear - and it gets reported now whereas 75-100 years ago it didn't. And, int he case of national interviews and speeches, they have to make the choice to tell their supporters that or not.

Which also explains why politicians don't seem to hit on any real issues or what specific plans they have - at least from what little I've heard, though I'm disenchanted enough not to listen much anymore. (Though I will vote - maybe for Mickey Mouse :-) Somebody or his brother (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sort of off topic, but that sort of statement is very similar to the type of statements Karl Popper made in one of the first papers in 'Conjectures and Refutations'. The claim basically goes that people tend to think of those who believe differently as either evil or ignorant. They either know the truth and are ignoring it for personal profit or are too dumb to know the truth. He claims this is the result of a conception of truth where truth is obvious. With this conception, if someone is exposed to some situation then the truth of the matter will result from any fair-minded individual. Needless to say that he thinks this conception of the truth is wrong.--droptone (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Clock painting

What's the name of the famous painting with a bunch of melted clocks in the desert? I had thought it was like the Essence of Memory, but I couldn't find anything with that name. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 23:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You were close: The Persistence of Memory. Deor (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Afro-Desi

Is there such word called "Afro-Desi"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.187 (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There's aphrodisiac, meaning something that arouses (or is believed to arouse) sexual desire. Is that the word you had in mind? --- OtherDave (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

He probably means someone of mixed African-South Asian descent. Desi refers to people from Pakistan, India, and I think Bangladesh. That article has other terms that include African countries but I don't know if anyone has ever used "Afro-Desi" specifically. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It's also the title of an album by Martin Denny and [3] Afro Desi, on the Liberty label, in the late 1950s. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't help picturing Desi Arnaz with an Afro instead of the Brylcreem look which was typical. In fact his bongo music could be considered Afro-Cuban. Babalu! Edison (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

October 7

Existing Gulags?

Do gulags still exist in North Korea? 203.188.92.70 (talk) 03:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean prisoner work camps? If so, they exist all over. See Labor camp. Grsz^X 04:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

But there's nothing about North Korea specifically. Is there an article on this? 203.188.92.70 (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, here we go. Grsz^X 04:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It's peculiar, labour camp doesn't refer at all to the US, whereas prison farm deals only with the US. Anyway my guess is by 'gulag' the questioner was really thinking of places where political prisoners are included in the inmates and they do forced labour. Dmcq (talk) 07:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Industries open to the world to compete in but utterly dominated by a region or cultural bloc

For instance international corporate law is shockingly Anglo-American. 95 of the largest firms are UK/USA and a few of the remaining are Australian. Shipbuilding according to the latest stats (our article needs catchup) is 90-something% East Asian. Many European countries fully participate in international finance/business and have high English fluency so the composition of the list is shocking. Many American/European countries had as late as the 70s, the majority of expertise and infrastructure, so how did that reversal happen? Anyways, can you think of any other you-would-think open industry that is so dominated? Lotsofissues (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It does sound awful to dominate in law rather than producing something useful. I believe there was a state in the US which banned lawyers for a time. In Nigeria the people going to university all wanted to study law rather than anything else. Now they dominate in the email scam market. Dmcq (talk) 08:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Market dominance deals with some of this at a company level. Dmcq (talk) 09:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You could also look at Business cluster: the theory is that specialized industries tend to cluster in a single geographic area, even when there are competing firms. --Xuxl (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Treasury bonds' risk

If everything has a residual risk, why do so many people consider treasury bonds risk free?Mr.K. (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Risk-free interest rate#Why risk-free?. Remember that "risk-free" (in this case) generally refers to credit risk. So even if the US Treasury never defaults on its obligations, those assets may carry other market risks which is what you might be referring to as residual risk. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I suppose we must consider at least a tiny chance of default. Nothing can be risk-free. Nobody expects that serious governments will print money to pay debt. And what if a meteorite rain smashes major US cities?Mr.K. (talk) 10:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"Serious" governments won't end up in that situation very often. Extreme events are dealt with in the link above. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure Mr. K knows that risk is relative. "Risk-free" most often is verbal shorthand for "it's very unlikely that you'll lose money." Also, because some government securities sell at or below the real rate of inflation, in a sense you're paying for your low risk at the start, since the "investment" will end up with negative return. One way of looking at risk in government securities is to imagine a choice between two governments: if you could choose between a two-year U.S. treasury bond at 2.11% (the yield in the 9/30 auction), what interest would you demand from a two-year bond from the Russian or Chinese government? There's a pragmatic definition of risk. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The way I look at it is that if the US government (or another government whose debt is considered risk-free) were to default on its debt then the economic crisis that would ensue (or, rather, that would have to be already in progress) would be so major that the maths would break down anyway so it doesn't matter that one of your assumptions proved false. For example, the efficient market hypothesis is going to fail because computer systems won't be able to cope with the volume of trades, the assumption that people are rational actors will go out the window (during panic people do not behave rationally), etc. That your risk-free rate wasn't actually risk free will be the least of your worries. --Tango (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Offline information

What kind of information can't be found online?Mr.K. (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Check out the Resource Request page and notice what sorts of requests do not get filled. Now that isn't an indication that the information is not online, but I suspect there are a few there which are not going to be found online (like the three volumes of Monograph of the land and freshwater Mollusca of the British Isles). The factors that will decrease the likelihood of finding it online are: rarity (related to age of the information and overall availability), overall public interest, storage medium of the information (information printed on bad paper in the 1700s is unlikely survive the ravages of time nor will scrolls from Ancient Greece and Rome that happened to be in the hands of monks in Medieval Europe who thought the material was worthless and erased/wrote over the material), and interest by those who enjoy the material (rapid fans of certain types of fiction are likely to make even fairly obscure pieces available). The older the information is the more likely random chance will play a role in what survives (e.g. look at the extant works of ancient authors, there may be a correlation between the artistic worth of what survives but I suspect there will be exceptions).

Another place you could check out are the master lists compiled by the folks who make scanned comics available. They have a master list of all the comics produced by different companies and mark whether a scanned copy is available. I do not have the list handy and can't quite locate a copy, but I know several exist. If I remember correctly, the list follow the factors I listed above. Older comics were less likely to be available, along with comics that were not particularly popular.--droptone (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Other possibilities:

• Why don't they just get over it?
• Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
• Does a person who posts philosophy-undergrad questions ever leave the basement, or can pizza just get downloaded?

--- OtherDave (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Expensive information

What kind of information can't be found for free?Mr.K. (talk) 10:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Lots of information...You cannot find out detailed information about your health (from a medical professional) without paying - either you pay, your insurance company pays or your government pays. On IMDB you cannot find out certain information without 'IMDB pro' which costs money. In stock market trading terms a lot of information is free (level 1 I think?) but information at higher levels costs extra. Most knowledge that can be sold for a profit will be sold for a profit, though similarly with the right tools and techniques a hell of a lot of that info can be found for free...Or to use a point from Good Will Hunting you spent 100 thousand on a fancy education you could've gotten for $100 in late book fees at the library. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Proof of address

Why do banks care where we really live? Is that regulated by law? Or do they need our addresses for a potential civil law litigation? Mr.K. (talk) 11:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In Europe they must have proof of address to comply with money laundering legislation. If you deposit or withdraw a large sum they must ask you what it is for and record the answer. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Do they ask what is it for or where did it come from? What if you don't know what is if for?Mr.K. (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

They usually ask both. You can answer "general living expenses" or "top up current account". They might think that was odd if the sum was very large. Of course in the current climate you might say you felt it was safer to keep the cash under the bed and they would probably believe you. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Similar laws in the U.S. - Banks must demonstrate an attempt to avoid transactions of illegal funds. It used to be that banks should use ignorance as a defence. Now, they must show that they asked who owns the money (ie: who are you, where do you live, what do you do) and what the money is for (ie: where did you get it, what do you want to do with it). In all reality, the bank doesn't care. They are required to ask the questions, but not required to ensure the answers are truthful. -- kainaw™ 18:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Another reason is that if the person dies, they have a way of identifying the account. Accounts are frozen till the person in charge comes and asks for them. Yes, the Social Security number helps, but it's just another failsafe to make sure the person is receiving funds fromt he right deceased person. In fact, banks often have someone who scans the obituaries every day; if they read, "John Smoth, of 22nd Street in x township," and they have 3 John Smiths with accounts, they more easily know which one to freeze till the estate process begins.Somebody or his brother (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

do violinists get callouses the way guitar players do?

do all stringed players? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.232.170 (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am a guitarist, and not a violinist, so this is just speculation, but any activity which produces friction at the same point on the skin is likely to produce calluses. See Callus for more information. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Cellists certainly do, particularly on the side of the left thumb, from playing in thumb positions; to the degree that if you're as out of practice as I am, it can be quite painful until you develop the calluses. I also remember a friend once taking a week-long taster course on the sitar, and painting his fingers with something thick and robust after the first day. --ColinFine (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Recognizing that this is original research of the most ghastly kind (personal experience), I can tell you that as a violinist myself, the answer is YES. You only get them on the four fingers of your left hand, and a bit on the side of your thumb sometimes. Antandrus (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

fly"s eye dome

where do I buy fly"s eye domes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.127.86 (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

When was the last time Michigan voted for a Republican presidential candidate?

I'm from Michigan, and I know it's a strongly democratic state (or at least it has been for the past several presidential elections), and I was just wondering when the last time was when a Republican presidential candidate won in Michigan. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 18:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

See United States presidential election, 1988 -- kainaw™ 18:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, kainaw! I knew it had been a while, but wasn't sure when. Kind of ironic, because Jackson, Michigan is the birthplace of the Republican party... --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 18:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You may find people who dispute that. From History of the United States Republican Party "The Little White Schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin, where the Republican Party was first organized locally in 1854" - However, this apparent discrepancy is explained by the following from www.gop.com: "The first informal meeting of the party took place in Ripon, Wisconsin, a small town northwest of Milwaukee. The first official Republican meeting took place on July 6th, 1854 in Jackson, Michigan." [4] (Pick your definition of "birthplace".) -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The question of the "birthplace of the Republican party" is actually kind of indeterminate, since "Anti-Nebraska" meetings and coalition groups fairly spontaneously sprung up all over the northern U.S. in response to the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854. The place of the first meeting to use the word "Republican" to describe itself (or the first meeting for which there is currently-surviving evidence that it used the word "Republican") does not mark the founding of the Republican party in any very meaningful sense... AnonMoos (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

politic in USA

Can I know the processus of appointment of high personalities in USA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.207.217.5 (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You can look at Politics of the United States for information on the organization of the government, Elections in the United States for information on how political leaders are elected to office, or even read the United States Constitution, which lays out the entire process officially. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 18:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In USA, high personalities tend not to go into politics, but stick closer to the Entertainment field.--Wetman (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Some high personalities have simply claimed they stopped using years ago, when running for office. Edison (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't bite the newbies. The last two posters are joking about the fact that "high" can refer to drug usage. The original poster was obviously talking about high political offices. --Anonymous, 22:45 UTC, October 8, 2008.

Searching for an article on the problem of bearerless names

Salutations. I'm planning on writing an article on Meinong's Jungle, and I want to see if there are other similar articles I should look at first. The basic topic is the problem of bearerless names; that is, "how can we refer to things that don't exist?", "why is it that people seem to have serious converstaions about Harry Potter when there is no such person" etc. However, I can't find articles on The present King of France (a famous example), problem of bearerless names, non-referring names etc. The question arose most prominently around the birth of analytic philosophy amidst exchanges between Alexius Meinong, Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russel. There's an article on the theory of descriptions, but that is only a solution to the problem. Can anyone find the Wikipedia article I am looking for? the skomorokh 20:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

King of France? Do you mean the Legitimist claimnant, the Orleanist claimnant, the Bonapartist claimnant, or the Jacobite claimnant? I've always found "the present King of France" to be a silly example, since you are actually discussing something that does exist. --Carnildo (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? Who would that august personage be, Carnildo? (Btw, 10 marks for consistency with "claimnant", but it's spelled "claimant".) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Possibly The King of France? ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I sometimes refer to such persons as the king-subjunctive. —Tamfang (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you'll like definite description better than theory of descriptions? -Nunh-huh 04:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I proposed including Image:L actuel roi de France.jpg on the Definite description article, but no one seconded my suggestion... AnonMoos (talk) 05:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We have an article empty name. Algebraist 10:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Algebraist for hitting the jackpot, and everyone else for the entertaining sideshow! the skomorokh 12:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Need reference re: Aroostook War

Dear Wikipedians,

Wikipedia's article on the Aroostook War says that in February 1839, Mainers heard that the Mohawks had offered their military support to Quebec. I need to know the origin (reference, citation) for that fact, for an article I am writing on early West Branch Penobscot settlers.Mainehist (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

October 8

Opinions

Resolved

After looking up what an opinion is on Wikipedia. It made me greatly saddened that there was no truth to our personal judgments, beliefs, and thoughts. Why personally, do you live knowing that we cannot penetrate the system of nature in truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.45.41 (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Although the mysteries of life and death are ultimately unknowable, I go on living because sometimes I get pie. —Kevin Myers 04:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If there was no truth whatsoever in your personal judgements, beliefs and thoughts then you might have difficulty in continuing to live. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As a Christian, I have faith in the one who does know the unknowable, and that He (Jesus Christ) lives in me. So, faith plays a large part in how some poeple can live.Somebody or his brother (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is absolutely wrong to say that there is no truth to judgments, beliefs, thoughts. There are certainly beliefs with more truth than others. The fundamental epistemological issue is not so much whether truth is out there (which seems hard to avoid), but whether we do know it or can know it. --140.247.11.23 (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

My body continues to live despite my belief that this life is all that there is and that there is no God. I see no scientific reason why I should suddenly die because of my beliefs and in fact I'm very happy to continue living this way. Dmcq (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Zhuang people

I'm curious: How assimilated are these folks into the Chinese national fabric? (Are they anywhere near as assimilated as Manchu and Han?) It would be great if responders could note the extend of their Chinese studies/living experience.

Lotsofissues (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The Zhuang are of Tai origin, a people who migrated south from central China roughly 5000 years ago. Because of their long history in China, many Zhuang are assimilated with other Chinese groups in these urban areas.

2008 Thai political crisis

Okay, so some Thai people are protesting for less elected members of parliament and more appointed members. Do they "hate freedom" or something? 118.90.128.113 (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, basically, they (once known as the People's Alliance for Democracy, good Orwellian name) hate democracy, because they are (relatively) wealthy elites from the cities and military people who don't want the majority of poor farmers to have a lot of influence on how they run the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 09:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Swaziland's Territory Claims

In recent years we have seen Swaziland claiming some Territory from the Republic of South Africa and that the latter must give back the claimed territories so I want to know how far has Swaziland go in claiming the territories what measures are taken by Swaziland and if it can be possible to get the claimed land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zikodze (talk • contribs) 09:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As a practical matter, Swaziland is weaker in almost every respect than South Africa... AnonMoos (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Our Swaziland article doesn't seem to mention this matter? Rmhermen (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Pashtun

I am confused. Are the Pashtun people of Pakistan are really Pashto-speaking Pakistanis or Afghanistan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.18 (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There are both Pashtuns from Afghanistan and Pashtuns from Pakistan living in Pakistan -- but some Pashtuns think it would be a lot better to have a separate Pakhtunistan in place of the current Pakistan-Afghanistan border... AnonMoos (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This situation isn't unusual, of course, and there are large numbers of such national minorities almost everywhere you look. The modern state of India has about 1,500 different languages within its borders. Most of the borders of Asia, as with the rest of the world, have been decided by conquest and/or by the convenience of colonial powers pulling out, only a very few by the wish for self-determination shown by indigenous people united by speaking a particular language. Strawless (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Baloch sindhi film industry

There is no Baloch or Sindhi film industry in Pakistan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.18 (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure there is. List of Sindhi-language films and this google search should help. Fribbler (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Cults

I have a question about cults that has been puzzling me for a long time. I have read the article on cults and it's very informative but I still have some doubts. See cults may happen to be initiated by or grown around a single personality but they often continue after the founder is gone, the leadership taken by some other member. Now this new member also joined the group at some time, no doubt believing in the legitimacy of the cult's basic tenets. Now assuming we are talking about real "cults" (the kind that mislead people), how long does it take for a new member to be "in on the secret", and thus be in a position to run the cult? Secondly, why does he/she do it, why don't they just spill the beans... what motivates members to perpetuate the fraud? Take the case of scientology, Ron Hubbard may have started it out of whatever motivation, but how many of the group (obviously top of the hierarchy) know what the real deal is, when did they come to know about it, and why did they chose to perpetuate the myth? The question is why, how, and why do the "preys" (ones that were taken in by the chincanery) become the "predators" (that is ones who run the whole thing and attract new converts). Thank you very much. -- ReluctantPhilosopher(talk)

The people who lead a cult after the death of the founder may well be true believers, even to the point of being martyrs for the cause, rather than the cynical con men you posit, who share the "secret" that it is a scam. Some cults really get going only after the founder is dead, and are spread by people who never met him. Edison (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

My question is about the cynical con men who share the secret. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Only God knows the difference.--Wetman (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If those who take over are cynical con men or woman (and please note the "If"; I take no position on this), then, as with con men and woman in every field, the cult is merely the background or environment in which they operate their scam. A scam is a scam -in the boardroom, the church, a living room, a club. What the con person gets out of any one of them is a mix of personal power and prestige, along with worldy goods, all to feed a massive ego. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. Stepping into it with both feet. See Paul the Apostle. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

what makes a new edition of a book?

What constitutes a new edition of a book? We are discussing this at talk:Basic Chess Endings. The hardback book came out in 1941, and it was reprinted at least as late as 1960. Some of them had "second edition" and "fourth edition" although there was no change at all to the text. (I consider these reprints, not new editions.) Starting about 1969 to 1971 paperback copies were printed with exactly the same text. At least ten paperback printings were done. So if the text has not changed, can it be a new edition? (The book was revised in 2003.) Bubba73 (talk), 17:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The (dictionary) meaning seems to stem from printing. An "impression" is "one of a number of printings made at different times from the same set of type, without alteration (distinguished from edition)", whereas an "edition" is "one of a series of printings of the same book, newspaper, etc., each issued at a different time and differing from another by alterations, additions, etc.". So, by that definition, it's a different edition if they substantially have to re-set the type. For example a big-print version is a "big print edition", even if the text is identical with its regular-type cousin. So changing the font, changing the chess diagrams to a different style, or adding a different prolog would make it a different edition, as would a revision of the text. I guess small fixes for typos and fixing printing snafus would be added between impressions without counting as an edition. Now whether the dictionary meaning really relates to a reasonable expectation that a modern consumer might have, that a new edition is a change so great that buying the book again might well be worthwhile, as another matter. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. From the original publication in 1941 until the revision in 2003, the only thing that changed was hardcover to softcover, the cover, and the page that gives the copyright, the revision date, the printing number, and the ISBN. So in my mind, these were all the same edition. Bubba73 (talk), 19:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the ISBN. To normal people an ISBN is just a dumb number than you use to order a book at the library. To people in publishing land an ISBN is a magic key that makes book projects live (publishing projects spring into life when someone orders the ISBN, ISBN is the billing code that everyone uses to bill each other during prepress, and of course ISBN is what everyone calls a book when ordering it). So if you're a publisher and you want to get someone to print a book for you, they probably want you to give them an ISBN for it ('cos their systems all work off ISBNs). If you're publishing an old book (from the ancient times before ISBN) then you order an ISBN for it and that's what you have them print it under. But now there's one (or more) kinds of the book hanging around in the world that don't have that ISBN, and your new one that does. As you can't go back and write an ISBN on all those extant copies, I guess you call the new one "2nd edition", just to differentiate it. But that doesn't seem to explain your BCE problem, as it has different versions (which may, but probably aren't, editions) some with ISBNs and some without. Perhaps "edition" for this case isn't going to help disambiguate, and if you want to refer to a specific version you need to do so by printing too. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A self-publishing service Lulu has the following criteria: If you make the following types of major changes, it is considered a new edition:

• Adding, removing or moving text
• Adding or removing chapters or an index
• Changing the sequence of chapters
• Dramatically changing your cover design

MaxVT (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In this case, none of that happened except changing the cover design. My hardback copy doesn't have a dust jacket, and I don't know what the dust jacket looked like. Then there were at least three versions of the paperback version cover before the 2003 revision. Bubba73 (talk), 20:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

From a copyright point of view, if the content does not significantly change then it is not a derivative work but just a copy of the original work, and does not generate a new copyright. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The Electoral College

To Whom it May Concern

I heard the following and would like to know if it is indeed factual:

With regards to the Electoral College, if a candidate receives a majority of the vote, the Electoral College vote is irrelevant.

Now, I know that in 2000, George W. Bush won the electoral while losing the ‘popular’ vote, but neither candidate had a majority as Ralph Nader had several million votes. My question is can a candidate with 50.1% of the popular vote, or the majority of the popular vote, lose the election? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.105.156 (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It is even possible (though won't happen) that a candidate can receive zero votes from the people but still win the election. There is no Federal requirement that electoral votes be based on the votes of the people. I feel that I should also point out that there is no such thing as the "popular vote." People are not voting for a Presidential candidate. They are voting for an elector who will cast a vote for a Presidential candidate. So, if I vote a South Carolina elector and you vote for a Missouri elector, we are voting for two different people even though our electors may be voting for the same candidate. -- kainaw™ 19:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What I understand from that is that the only vote that really matters is the electoral college vote; hence, if any vote is "irrelevant", it's the popular vote. Wouldn't the answer therefore be "No", rather than "Yes"? -- JackofOz (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, a candidate may have more than 50% of the population vote for an elector that is sworn to vote for that candidate and still lose the election by not having enough electors to win the election. Depending on the state, the number of people per elector is different. In heavily populated states, you get more people per elector. In less populated states, there are less people per elector. That is why there is not a 1-to-1 correlation between people's votes and elector's votes. -- kainaw™ 19:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The electoral college is composed of the electors chosed by each state who convene together to themselves choose the president. Now, the U.S. Constitution leaves it up to each state as to how that state chooses its electors. It would be perfectly legal, for example, for all of the electors to simply be appointed by the governor, with no voting at all done by the people. Popular elections are only required in order to elect members of the House (in the original Constitution) and the Senate (since the 17th ammendment in 1913). The constitution does require that all states vote for national offices and for electors on the same day, but such a requirement could still be carried out such that the Governor of the state would announce the slate of electors on Election day, without any attempt at a popular election. The fact that every state holds popular elections to determine how their electors are appointed is a de facto reality, but it is not in any way required by law at the Federal level.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Furthermore, it's happened. In the United States presidential election, 1876, Democrat Samuel Jones Tilden received 51.0% of the popular vote, but lost to Republican Rutherford Birchard Hayes (47.9%) in the electoral college, 184 to 185. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

1876 was a special case because in at least 2 states, there were disputed returns; much like Florida in 2000. Ultimately, the case went to the Supreme court who abdicated responsibility, and appointed a 5 member commission to decide the fate of the election. The commission ended up 3-2 republican, so the gave the disputed electors to Hayes, the republican. The election could have easily gone the other way. As other examples, there have been other cases of elections where there were some electoral college problems:

• In United States presidential election, 1800, under very different election rules, there was a dead tie for the presidency between Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson, so it went to the House of Reps to choose. It took 36 ballots and a deal brokered by Alexander Hamilton to decide in favor of Jefferson over Burr. Burr would later famously shoot Hamilton over the issue. As far as popular vote, most states didn't hold a popular election to decide electors, and they were merely appointed by state legislatures, so it is impossible to say who got the most popular votes. As a result, the electoral college was reorganized under the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
• In United States presidential election, 1824 four candidates split the vote, with Andrew Jackson holding a plurality, but not the 50+% majority of all electoral votes needed to win. The decision then went to the House of Reps again. Under the rules of the constitution, only the top 3 candidates get to be voted on by the house. The fourth place candidate, Henry Clay, hated Jackson and used his influence as speaker of the House to give the election to Adams, who had neither a plurality of the electoral college votes nor of the popular vote (at least in those states that held a popular vote. Several in 1824 still left it to the legislatures to appoint the electors).
• In United States presidential election, 1960, was a very confusing one from an electoral college standing. Kennedy carried 22 states to Nixon's 26 states, and only won the popular vote by less than a tenth of a percent, and had only a 49.7% plurality of the popular vote. However, Kennedy carried all of the "big states" except for Nixon's home state of California. The election is noted for allegations of widespread voter fraud, as the close race in Illinois was largely decided by Chicago, whose mayor Richard Daley was a staunch Democrat. Also, several Democratic party electors pledged to Kennedy refused to vote for a northerner, and instead cast their ballots for Harry Byrd.
• Like 1960, the United States presidential election, 1888 neither candidate had a majority of the votes, though Grover Cleveland had the clear plurality over Benjamin Harrison, (0.8% advantage) in the popular vote, Harrison won more electoral college votes. As a quirk, Cleveland, who won every state south of the Mason Dixon, didn't even win his home state of New York.

Just some food for thought heading into the 2008 election... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The state legislature could appoint anyone to appoint the electors, or they could order a coin toss, or drawing for high card, or a foot race, or any other means to decide whose slate of electors gets to cast the state's electoral votes. They just have to establish a process then follow it. Edison (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This thread probably isn't being monitored by the OP anymore, but I did stumble across this site and thought it was relevant to the discussion. GreatManTheory (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Senators Obama and McCain, after the election

If Obama wins, will McCain still be a Senator? If McCain wins, will Obama still be a Senator? If so to both, for whichever becomes President, who will take their Senate seat? --140.247.249.14 (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Losing a Presidential election does not eject you from the Senate. Becoming President does. The state will hold a special election to elect a new Senator (similar to what would happen if a Senator left office for any other reason). This makes me think... Which one do you want as President just walking around and giving speeches and which one do you want in the Senate writing and passing laws? -- kainaw™ 20:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

For example, John F. Kennedy was elected president in November 1960, then resigned his Senate seat on December 22. Massachusetts Governor Foster Furcolo appointed Benjamin A. Smith II to serve in his place, until the next possible election, when JFK's brother Ted Kennedy was elected.

The 17th Amendment allows the governor to fill an opening until an election. Grsz^X 20:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand that a senator/representative who wins the presidency must resign before 20 January in order to be eligible to be sworn in. But can they be forced to resign? If Obama wins, say, then changes his mind about the presidency and chooses not to resign as a senator, what would happen? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Reading the constitution literally, I think he stops being a senator. There is provision for the resignation of a president (originally in Article II, Section 1, now in the 25th Amendment), but not for a president-elect. The articles about electing a president via the electoral college (also originally II.1, now in the 12th Amendment) say that the candidate winning the electoral vote "shall be the president", and if the election goes to the House of Representatives, then they "shall choose the president". But Article I, Section 6, requires that "no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office." If he's required to become president, but he's also required not to be both a senator and the president, then it logically follows that his term as senator is terminated.

(And before someone says "what if he refused to take the presidential oath of office" -- that would not stop someone from becoming president; it would just mean that he couldn't exercise his powers of office. The requirement for an oath or affirmation (also in II.1) specifically relates to "the Execution of his Office", not to becoming president. One president, in an era where it was not feared that a war could arise in a matter of minutes, preferred not to take the oath on a Sunday, so he just waited until Monday.)

But the US has a long history of interpreting their constitution in ways other than reading what it literally says, which means that we won't ever know for sure unless this situation actually happens and any resulting legal cases have been settled. And of course we cannot give legal advice here, so if the original poster is Obama or McCain, he therefore had better ignore this thread altogether. --Anonymous, 22:30 UTC, edited 22:41, October 8, 2008.

That's very enlightening, Anon. If the termination of their service as a senator occurs automatically, why don't they just let that process take its course rather than actively resigning? Is it because they feel the need to put some distance between themselves and the Congress some time before they take on the president's job? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

One very good reason to resign: seniority. A new congressman / senator who takes office a day before another new legislator has seniority, and that often makes a difference in things like committee membership and leadership. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, President of the US wasn't a ceremonial position. They do far more than give speeches - they can veto the laws passed by congress, for a start. --Tango (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. It is also the President's job to take the blame for all the laws passed by Congress. Seriously, the President is not powerless. He is simply the least powerful of the three branches of government - as expressed in many Presidential memoirs. -- kainaw™ 21:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The recent goings on have reminded me that, while the President can veto laws he doesn't like, he cannot insist on laws he does want coming into force. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Which, amusingly enough, means that the vast majority of campaign speeches are essentially pointless- the federal government has no control over education, anyway, so that's out, the President can't directly influence laws, so any of his/her policies on the economy/oil/whatever are also out... pretty much the only thing the candidates are arguing on that they might actually be able to do something about is the Iraq war, because the President is commander-in-chief. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 21:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(EC with above)The President is VERY powerful, if you consider that he has great leeway and control over appointments of the entire adminsitrative structure of the government, from the Justice department to State Department to the Joint Chiefs. He's essentially the CEO of the gigantic bureaucracy, and he has considerable power over how that bureaucracy operates. Congress may pass laws, but the executive puts them into action as it sees fit, and that is considerable power. The current administration even believes it has the power to ignore sections of laws it just doesn't like or to fire civil servants for not toeing the party line. Insofar as no other part of the government has made any attempt to curb this power, the President has it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(response to Alinnisawest). Actually, the federal government has considerable power over just about any part of the nation that it wants to, via Power of the purse. Basically, our government already partially funds everything that the states do, from education to road construction, and while it cannot change laws of states, it can refuse to provide federal money to states that don't pass the laws that it wants. For all intents and purposes, that means that it can do whatever it wants with regard to passing laws. While its power may be theoretically limited via the Constitution, it can, for example, withhold federal money for highway construction if states refuse to abide by a national speedlimit (it actually did this in the 1970's) or it can refuse to provide federal money for schools that do not meet arbitrary testing standards (No Child Left Behind legislation under the current administration) even though BOTH of these provisions are techinically left entirely for the states to decide for themselves. States could defy the federal government, but it would be financial suicide to do so, as states need this federal funding to operate. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've heard it said (that most quoted of sources!) that the Federal strings cost more than the cash to which they're attached, but any State legislator who gets serious about declining the deal is leaned on hard by the national parties. —Tamfang (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I expect that circumstances might occur under which a candidate "wins" but does not become President. The electoral vote totals might not be certified, due to objections and obstructionism in the Joint Session of Congress where the votes are counted. One might say thet he is not "elected" until the January 6 Joint Session says he is, but the opinion of the public and historians might be that a majority of electoral votes where in fact cast for him, meaning that he was "elected" for all purposes except for the actions of Congress. There are scenarios where the Senate elects a Vice President but the House is deadlocked and does not elect a President. The Senator in question might choose to remain in his Senate seat if there was no prospect for the House electing him or the Joint Session confirming the actions of the Electoral College. Edison (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe I just read that the executive branch is the least powerful. Just, wow. See Imperial Presidency, or alternatively, the last eight years. --Sean 23:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Right. Much of the federal government flows from the power of the executive (appointments, etc.—Michael D. Brown, anyone?), and the executive is in charge of nominating candidates to many aspects of the judicial branch (e.g. the Supreme Court). Congress has oversight over some of this but the power to nominate already balances things towards the executive. All of this ignores even more overt forms of power like Executive Orders. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The President can appoint people to various positions in government (ie: the Supreme Court), but Congress has to allow it. Unlike the Presidential veto, if Congress says "no", it is a solid "no." The President cannot override it. You will have cases where Congress opts to not decide - which is nothing more than a very passive aggressive way of deciding "yes." The President is also the Commander in Chief, but Congress holds the money. Could Bush have sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq without cash? Of course not. Congress allowed the invasions by voting to pay for them. Again, Congress has the power to say "no" to the President and the President is powerless to override it. When it comes to Executive Orders, Congress can come in again and impeach the President (or just give him a big raspberry) if they don't like it. They can even pass a law to make the actions of the executive order illegal - putting a stop to it. The President can veto the law, but Congress can override the veto and have the last word. When it really comes down to it, Congress has the ability to say "no" to the President and the President has to work hard at weaselling a way to get what he wants. The President can veto Congress, but Congress can easily override the veto if they want to. What really bugs me about all of this is that even if you consider the balance of power to be 50/50 (which it is clear I do not), why do we spend 99.9999999% of the time debating the Presidential election and ignore the Congressional elections? We don't even have signs or commercials for my local Congressional elections. Most people I know don't even know who our Senators/Representatives are -- and they wonder how this state kept reelecting Thurmond until he petrified. -- kainaw™ 23:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that the President can keep nominating people he or she wants until the end of time. Congress never get to nominate. That's a lot of power right there. Congress can say no. When it does so there is often a lot of controversy. It's harder for them to say no than it is to say yes, and the President still gets to pick the people they have to say yes or no to. I'd say the Executive still wields most of the power there, even if Congress does have some oversight. Ditto with power of the purse—yes, it's true that Congress has the power to not fund wars, but they do so at their own political peril (and even then Presidents have found ways to fund activities that Congress has explicitly prohibited them from doing—e.g. Iran-Contra).

As for Congressional elections.. it depends where you are. Some places are such strongholds for one party or the other than without some sort of major event or upheaval there's really no pressure to run a hard popular campaign. In some places they are heavily, heavily debated. And of course in some places there aren't even elections this term. In the case of South Carolina, the likelihood of a Democrat winning is so low as to make it not worth the time to campaign heavily, I'd imagine. The national party no doubt feels the efforts and resources in this regard should be concentrated on closer elections. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Because of the (ahem, ridiculous) seniority rules of the Senate, the earlier the respective governor appoints a replacement the more earmarks the state will get. Saintrain (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If a president nominates an evil doofus for the Supreme Court, and the Senate refuses to confirm, as soon as the Senate recesses, the President could appoint him/her as a "recess appointment" and they would serve until the end of the next session of the Senate. G.W. Bush appointed by a recess appointments 2 federal judges, a U.N. ambassador, an ambassador to Belgium, a head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and a Deputy Director of Social Security, who would likely not have been approved by the Senate. The Senate has recently prevented aditional recess appointments by Bush by having "pro forma" sessions every couple of days with a few Senators present, so the Senate never formally recesses. In the last year of the Continental Congress, there were similar pro forma sessions, for no obvious reason, where one or two members were present. Edison (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Chinese reform

Do we have an article for a PRC equivalent of Demokratizatsiya? Grsz^X 22:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's a direct equivalent, but Gaige Kaifang (reform and opening up) is one of the primary policies of the new post-Mao China. The article says it's more like perestroika. A direct translation of demokratizatsiya is 民主主义化 minzhuzhuyihua, but it doesn't seem to be a common word. Steewi (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Napoleon

what type of people did napolean have in his army? (ex: cooks, tailors, blacksmiths etc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.116.227 (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see our article on Napoleon's Grande Armée, which contains a lot of good information on these lines. I am not sure if its exactly what you are looking for, but there's lots of good info there. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If you mean what type of people by occupation, then we can almost say that the answer is "every type". The Emperor's famous comment Une armée marche à son estomac ("An army marches on its stomach") shows his attention to logistical planning. Strawless (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

October 9

date formats around the world

In the article Calendar date, there is a map (at right) showing which countries use small-endian DD-MM-YYYY style dates (blue), which big-endian YYYY-MM-DD (green), which Usonian MM-DD-YYYY (red), and which are mixed (aqua, purple, black). Unfortunately, a lot of the world is left blank, especially in Africa and the Mideast. If any of you are from a country that's been omitted, could you let us know your country's conventions on the image talk page? Thanks, kwami (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR? "Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed". --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If the user obtains references for the countries concerned then displaying this information in Image form would not be WP:OR. "This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." -- Q Chris (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

We can discuss on the Talk page how to verify the claims, if the user doesn't provide a ref. Something interesting might turn up. kwami (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is vital that if the image contains un-cited data then this is made clear. The whole image should be tagged "citation needed" and then details of which areas are unverified given later. If you have difficulty obtaining references for many countries then maybe you could use different shadings (e.g. pale variants of the colours) for unverified data. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The article lists the countries, though they might not all be there, or might not all have good refs. (I haven't worked on the article.) kwami (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why is Canada the only country in black? Did we do something bad? Or *gasp* is the black hole to be created by the Large Hadron Collider going to immigrate here? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's the only country that uses all three orders. kwami (talk) 10:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It is? That's news to me (and the reference in Calendar date used to back up the claim is less than convincing). How do you define "use"? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It would seem very unlikely that they would use two mutually ambiguous date systems. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, at work, the e-mail system uses dd/mm/yyyy, the computer clock uses mm/dd/yy, and the computer program with which we carry out our exciting tasks uses yyyy/mm/dd, so that's one example of all three being used in Canada. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That must be confusing. If you see write the date on a cheque, or put your date of birth on a form would you usually put dd/mm/yyyy, or mm/dd/yyyy or yyyy/mm/dd? -- Q Chris (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I write "October 9, 2008" :) Adam Bishop (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I confirm that all three styles are used in Canada. I probably see little-endian most often, followed by "US style", and big-endian least often. Printed forms usually ask for a specific format; if they don't, you can do as Adam says; and if you don't, you risk being misunderstood, that's all. --Anonymous, 2008-10-09, 18:45 UTC.

The map is certainly misleading, as the DD-MM-YYYY style is used extensively in the US; the Wikipedia article on calendar date is absolutely false on this matter. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson published in 1950, for example, tell us that the Declaration of Independence was adopted on 4 July 1776. I doubt if any American readers have ever been confused by that format, or even found it particularly unusual, as it is seen so often. I suspect that the idea that there is a single "US style" date format is a Wikipedia invention. —Kevin Myers 06:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Except that that is dd MMMM yyyy. dd/mm/yy would be 04/07/1776 which I imagine many people in the US would find confusing. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about number-only formats. If you write 04-07-1776 in the US, it will be almost universally read as April 7, not July 4. kwami (talk) 07:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Kevin, although we know what you mean by 4 July 1776, 99.999999999% of Americans do not use this format. I just saw your user page full of dates in this format and I suspect you are a foreign triple agent.  :-) Nricardo (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Foiled again! —Kevin Myers 09:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

So not only does every single other American besides Kevin use another format, but .997 of Kevin does as well! --ColinFine (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hummanities homework!!

Locate the following places on the world physical map and not the mojor eccosystem associated with each one:Nepal Mongolia South sea Islands Egypt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittymaree (talk • contribs) 08:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Gosh that's real power, Lets see, for starters I'd like to locate the South Sea Islands just a short hop away, now that would be really nice. I would much prefer to keep their major ecosystems with them though. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

ps we're not supposed to answer homework questions on the refdesk, see 'Before you ask a question' at the top for some tips for answering questions yourself. Dmcq (talk) 08:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Homework's getting easier: "Locate the following places on the world physical map and not the mojor eccosystem associated with each one:". We would have had to name the major ecosystems too. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Mojor ecosystem? Is that you, Dr. Evil? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, not ecosystem; eccosystem. And that's just confusing. --LarryMac | Talk 12:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps ask your English teacher for some extra homework?--Combatir (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

A good bit of general advice for doing homework: Pay attention in class for a few days before it's set. You'll find the teacher generally tells you how to do the homework prior to setting it. --Tango (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This question should be moved to the Hummanities desk. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps the WP:Reference Desk/Homework... hmm, now why does that show up as a red link, again? --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 18:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles Nepal , Mongolia , South Sea Islands , and Egypt which have the information you seek. Edison (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

<removed. Please don't provide false information. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)> --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, whatever. Better to learn the hard way that trying to get out of work can lead to unpredictable results! --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the damn website!

Has anyone here read Thomas Friedman's new book, "Hot, Flat, and Crowded"? Somewhere, early on in the book, he references a website about the origin or history of ideas. I know he does because I own the book, I read it, and I made a mental note to check it out sometime. Well, now I can't find. I skimmed the first half of the book, I searched the book on Amazon, I searched the web for the site. Nothing. Nada. Short of re-reading the book until I bump in to it again, I'm out of ideas. Does anyone have any clue? Pyro19 (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Does History of ideas help? ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it definitely wasn't Wikipedia nor was it the external link provided there. Pyro19 (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I found it. It's ideafinder.org. I searched the book on amazon for the term "according". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyro19 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Canterbury Tales

What were some examples of Chaucer's moral judgement of his characters in Canterbury Tales? Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 21:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

According to a member of Monty Python, he didn't like the knight... AnonMoos (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The best place to start would be reading the book. Then pay attention in class while discussing the book. Then sit and mull it over for a bit. Then you can do your homework. Good luck! --Tango (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It is rather a long time since I read any of The Canterbury Tales, and I did not read them all, but what I remember is that on the whole Chaucer, in his narrative, side-steps what we usually mean by moral judgements. For instance, he presents the Monk mostly from the Monk's own point of view. However, I have just taken a look at the General Prologue, and at least one passage there has caught my eye in which Chaucer praises the moral character of one of his characters: "A Knight ther was, and that a worthy man, / That fro the time that he first bigan / To riden out, he loved chivalrye, / Trouthe and honour, freedom and curteisye..." Strawless (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but as AnonMoos points out, it's possible to read Chaucer's praising of the knight as heavily ironic. Algebraist 08:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There are so many possible answers to this it is probably best to just look over your reading and class notes and do the homework on your own so we don't mislead you. Wrad (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Why Asian Women & White men?

Why do many Asian American women like to date and marry white men, but not with black men and brown men? Black men and brown men are sexy and "big", but why many asian american women don't date/marry them? 208.124.207.122 (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ask them. This is a reference desk. I seriously doubt anyone will find a respectable study on this topic. However, if someone does, they will surely give you a link to the reference. If you are simply attempting to get a discussion going, keep in mind that this is a reference desk, not a discussion forum. There are thousands of discussion forums available on the Internet that you can use. -- kainaw™ 22:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if someone has done a study on this subject - people do all kinds of studies on what different people find attractive. --Tango (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There are some references in the article on interracial marriages which may be interesting. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? White men in general have the most prestige in western society. Films, books, magazines, and newspapers reinforce this notion constantly. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And why do white chicks prefer black men? Seriously, Asian woman are specially narrow in some place, black men are specially well-developed in some place. How should it work?80.58.205.37 (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

In other words, 80.58.205.37 has never been to an Asian sex show. Narrow? You've got to be kidding. -- kainaw™ 16:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

White chicks prefer black men to what? White men? I don't think so. Interracial marriages aren't uncommon, but they aren't the norm. --Tango (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

October 10

Austrapolithecus

where did they live? what did they look like? what they dicovered of invented? when did they live? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luseta (talk • contribs) 00:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

See Australopithecus. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If only we had a giant encyclopedia with articles on virtually every topic totally for free that we could look things up in... --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here)

But it's sometimes hard to look things up when you spell them wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Russia/Georgia conflict

I'm having a little trouble understanding this, despite having read a number of articles on the subject (both news articles and Wikipedia articles). From what I gather (and simply put), South Ossetia and Abkhazia wanted to separate from Georgia, because they are not ethnically Georgian. Georgia attacked them. Then Russia attacked Georgia for attacking them. Now, many other countries are angry with Russia for flexing its military muscle. Have I got all this right, and if so, why are they angry with Russia when it seems that Georgia was the original aggressor? (Not to imply that it's okay for Russia to go around bombing other countries that did something wrong first - two wrongs don't make a right - but why do they seem to be getting the majority of the blame?) Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Just to make it clear: I'm not trying to start a debate with the "why" part of the question, just asking for clarification since I don't quite understand what's going on. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture this analogy then. States that are integral part of the U.S., like lets say North Dakota and Vermont, decide to secede from the union. The governments there organize armed forces, and declare that the U.S. is no longer sovereign over them, and that they are independent. Now, picture the U.S. Army marches in to stop this from happening. Now, here's the kicker, Canada then invades the U.S., and begins to place a seige on cities like Chicago, New York, and begins to push in on Washington D.C. Now, replace the words "U.S." with "Georgia", replace "North Dakota" and "Vermont" with "South Ossetia" and "Abkhazia" and the word "Canada" with "Russia" and that is the essense of the conflict. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's more complicated than either, and it isn't about Georgia. It's about NATO. Imagine that it was the US economy that collapsed at the end of the Cold War, and a victorious USSR extended the Warsaw Pact to Cuba and Mexico, reassuring everyone that the US would "get used to it". I don't think they would. For some odd reason, Russia is not reconciled to the expansion of NATO either. The invasion of South Ossetia had basically the same motivation as the USSR had in provoking the Cuban missile crisis: That wasn't about Cuba, but a way to force NATO to pull its missiles in Turkey off the Soviet border. (Which they did, BTW.) All the stuff about "Russian citizens" in SO is BS; it's just the diplomatic excuse for Russia's challenge to NATO. Georgia may have instigated the actual battle, which gave the Russians the excuse they were looking for, but they were not the original aggressor. They insisted at independence that all territories of the Georgian SSR become part of independent Georgia, and SO and Abkhazia refused to go along. They rebelled, and in the case of Abkhazia engaged in genocide (excuse me, I think we use the more polite term "ethnic cleansing" now) to establish a population plurality—the Abkhaz were only 15% of the population, after all. There are hundreds of thousands of Mingrelian refugees from Abkhazia in Georgia. If the US had been smart, 5-10 years ago they would have tried to get Abkhazia to cede its eastern (non-Abkhaz) territories to Georgia in exchange for recognition, and Georgia to recognize their independence in exchange for a place to return many of the refugees. But bluster and bellowing is easier than actually solving anything. Anyone want to bet that the US won't try doing anything about Karabagh until that blows up too? kwami (talk) 05:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The international community considers South Ossetia part of Georgia, so Georgian troops are perfectly entitled to enter it (although, under the circumstances, it may have been unwise). Russian troops entering Georgia, and independent country, is an act of war. At worst Georgia violated an agreement they had with Russia, Russia on the other hand invaded a foreign state. The latter is the far more serious offence under international law. --Tango (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, quite true. Which I'm sure is why they issued Russian passports, to be able to claim they were protecting their "citizens" regardless of whose territory it was legally. I don't think they (Putin?) are particularly interested in international law, but it is interesting many in the Kremlin see this as harming Russia's long-term interests in having a secure border and territorial integrity.

Cherry, a lot of it is propaganda. The main difference from Kosovo is that there were many countries that supported doing something about Kosovo, there were serious concerns about gross Serbian human-rights violations (though people conveniently forget that the Kosovars were using rape of Serb civilians as a tool of war, even teaching Albanian boys that raping Serb girls was a patriotic duty), Serb leaders have been charged with war crimes at the Hague, that attempts at mediation went on for years after the NATO invasion of Kosovo before there was diplomatic recognition, and that one condition of independence was remarkably strong constitutional protection of minority (Serb) rights. None of this happened in SO: Ossetes complained of being second-class citizens in Georgia, not of systematic murder, and Russian charges of genocide by Georgians have proved empty. No other country supported Russia, and Russia made no attempt at reconciliation between the warring parties. Instead of protecting all citizens of SO, Ossetian and perhaps Russian troops engaged in ethnic "cleansing" of Georgians residents in the southeast. Based on this precedent, the US could issue American passports to Chechens, then annex Chechnya "to protect American citizens", and kick out ethnic Russian grandmothers in wheelchairs as "foreign occupiers"—which is why none of Russia's allies but Nicaragua have rallied to the cause. Not even Serbia has recognized SO! kwami (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"Ethnic cleansing" is not a polite or politically acceptable or correct term. It's an abomination. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the words are perfectly acceptable; it's the act that's so nasty. YMMV. Matt Deres (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Which makes describing it in such a "polite" way so incongruous. We wouldn't describe the serial rape of 50 people as "exploring one's sexuality". Spades should be called spades. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I put it in scare quotes. I was being facetious. kwami (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

These days, the term "ethnic cleansing" is usually used ironically. It doesn't have positive connotations. --Tango (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Gets confusing but is "PC" self consciously used in a meta-critical way. Even then, sp*** could be misinterpreted given the right strength of magnifying glass, non? "Genocide" might invite a rush of blood to the head. Just saying, Julia Rossi (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I certainly was not having a go at you, kwami. I knew you were using it in an ironic sense. I was commenting on the general use of the term by those who do use it in a serious way as a euphemism. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Unusual, ribbony necktie thing

What is this kind of tie called? --Seans Potato Business 08:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Invalid URL.--SquareOuroboros (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"string tie" or "Colonel tie" seem to be the common names, at least in western/cowboy circles [5] [6] - not to be confused with a Bolo tie (also known as a Bootlace tie) or a skinny tie (as popular in the late 70s/early 80s). If you Google for those terms, you should see more info. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

In the mid-20th century U.S., they were strongly associated with old fashioned Southern males (or the stereotype of an old-fashioned Southern male). AnonMoos (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Creative Commons question

Is it possible to license a lower quality version of an image/song/film under a CC license and maintain full copyright on higher quality versions?--SquareOuroboros (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of it is that if you have a photo, you are not copyrighting the specific instance of it (the print), but the creative content (the image in the photo). While there are some ways in which you could systematically modify such a photo that would make it a derivative work (and thus independently copyrightable from the original work), it seems to me that it would have to be a systematic modification that substantially modified the creative content of the work. (So taking a Polaroid and blowing it up to the size of a building might do that, because the idea of enlargement, though systematic and uncreative as a process itself, is fairly creative in its own right. Maybe.) If this is the case, and again this is just my speculation, I would say then that the answer to your question would probably to be "no". But I'm reasoning from an exclusively print-medium point of view; things get complicated with digital rights and copyrights, and questions of specific instances vs. creative content get pretty murky (due to the "thing itself" lacking any real physicality).

In more plain language, my reasoning above is "no", because a CC license does not cover a specific file, but the copyrightable content inside the file. Something as "uncreative" (from a legal point of view) as reducing quality is unlikely to generate a new copyright claim. Thus you'd still be applying the license to the same copyrightable content, no matter the size.

But honestly, I'm not sure. I don't think it is very clear cut. You might consider asking the CC folks about it since it's a good question. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you could make your own license that specifically says you're only allowed to reuse it under a certain resolution. Writing your own licenses is not something you should do without professional legal advice, though. --Tango (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Collateral damage of fixing the financial system

What consequences will the actions - flooding the markets with liquidity - of many governments have? Hyperinflation? Another bubble? Mr.K. (talk) 11:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I am no economist, but I have heard many economists on TV and radio talk of the doctrine on Unintended consequence being largely ignored in short-term financial decisions WRT the current financial problem. The example I have heard cited over and over again is the trend, over the last few years, for the Fed to keep interest rates artificially low, in an attempt to keep the economy from "slowing down". The problem is that low interest rates lead to less saving (because people get lower returns on their investment) and larger debt (because people get cheap credit). The prevalence of cheap credit is why there were so many people making so many bad loans; the idea was that the relatively high risk of these loans was mediated by their very low cost. This was coupled with the fact that companies were disencouraged from keeping enough capital on hand to cover the debts, since they got so little return on this capital, due of course to the low interest rates. It turns out that the likely result of this policy was merely "robbing Peter to pay Paul"; that is it didn't actually prevent the economy from "slowing down", it merely pushed a whole bunch of slow, little slowdowns into the future (read: NOW) until they collided into a single big crash. I have heard at least 3 stories as to what the liquidity will do: 1) Exactly what the government wants and no more (riiiiiiigggghhhttt) 2) It will do nothing, since the high level of risk aversion in the market won't be corrected by the influx of cash. Basically, banks are going to avoid making the risky investments into the housing and credit markets, and the extra cash is likely only to remove the threat of collapse without actually encouraging increased lending. In other words, the markets are a bit punch-drunk, and the scare caused by the current crisis is not correctable in the short term. 3) It will make the sitution WORSE, since any institution that receives government money, either as a purchase of bad assets or by selling the government stock, will give the markets the perception that THAT particular company is in "trouble" causing investors to run away, and thus reducing capital valuation, and exacerbating the problem. None of these opinions seems to be prevailing right now, from what I can tell. So the new law is likely to do either 1) Good things 2) Nothing or 3) Bad things. Take your pick. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer (excluding, of course, your last sentence). I suppose injecting capital will have the same effect that the low interest rate have had: just blow more air into the bubble. Mr.K. (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

President and VP boarding the same plane

Is there a rule that prohibits the President and VP of boarding the same plane?Mr.K. (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

According to this article in TIME, it's not a rule, but a decision by the president in the interests of security. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

countries with the least discrimateion? [discrimination]

countries with the most discrimateion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.58.229 (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure there are strict quantitative measurements for that, but you could start with Gini coefficient... AnonMoos (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

i mean things like raceism, ageism, sexism... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.66.48 (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Any answer would be probably plain speculation, but here it goes: Sweden for less sexism, Brazil for less racism, USA for less ageism. Mr.K. (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Further speculate, Australia for less teetotalism. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Highest Stock Price

How do you found out which company has the highest stock price of the day? --Emyn ned (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The information can be found through many financial services websites where the financial indicators for all publicly traded companies are usually searchable. E-trade, for example, has a stock screener where you can search for companies based on your own preset criteria. Unfortunately for your direct question, the absolute price of an individual share of a company is meaningless. Since companies have different numbers of shares in open trading, the absolute value of one company as compared to another has no meaning at all. Other measures of a company's value are important, such as price-to-earnings ratio (or basically what the value of the stock is compared to the potential for the company's growth) or the market value as compared to real value (roughly the total number of stocks issued times the price of a stock is market value, this can be compared to the value of the company per the company's assets), or most perhaps importantly the gross trends in the stocks value. That one company trades at $200.00 per share and another trades at $5.00 a share means nothing with regards to the security of each company's stock as an investment. The information is easily sortable, just meaningless... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As of this typing, Berkshire Hathaway stock is trading at $ 108,886.79. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Can I buy, like, .0001 shares of that? Holy cow... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The link to the NYSE listing for BRKA, the preferred stock: [7] and BRKB, the common stock: [8] of Berkshire Hathaway, for those who care. Good find, NurseryRhyme. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, BRK-A shares are for "special" people. The unwashed are allowed to buy BRK-B, the "B" shares, which are trading today at fire-sale prices ($3652.01 as of this posting time). [9] (That's actually not such a bad deal.) Antandrus (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If Palin's elected, what happens to her governorship?

If Palin gets elected Vice President, will she remain governor of Alaska? If not, what's the procedure for choosing a replacement governor(and is this the same or different in other states)? 137.151.174.128 (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's like most other states, the Lieutenant Governor of Alaska will succeed her. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's an article that covers most of this. In short, the Lieutenant Governor becomes Governor, and the Attorney General becomes Lt. Governor. It looks like the current Lt. Governor had been running for US House, but lost the primary. If he had won the primary and then the general election, along with a McCain/Palin victory, then the AG would have become governor. AlexiusHoratius 21:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Painting of George III

I am trying to find the title and the name of the author of a painting of George III of the United Kingdom. The painting shows the King on a white horse in a redcoat, inbetween two other men on horseback (one in black and the other in red). In the background are troops marching. I have an image of the painting to send if that helps.--Johnbull (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If [10] is the picture, it is The King and His Sons on Parade by Charles Tomkins. --Omidinist (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but it is not that painting.--Johnbull (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Then please post a link to the picture so we can see it... --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 17:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have the picture as a bitmap image, I have not uploaded it anywhere. I can send it to you.--Johnbull (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that good with artwork, but if you upload it to a free hosting service like Imageshack, you can post a link and a more knowledgeable sort can probably help you. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 01:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

October 11

Why the Japanese Navy didn't occupy Hawaii in World War 2?

Why didn't the Imperial Japanese navy move into Hawaii and turn it into a Japanese military base after their aircrafts bombed the U.S. navy force in Pearl Habor? The Americans were going to build up the fleets again, so why the Japanese just bombed and then left? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

See Attack on Pearl Harbor#Possible third wave for some discussion on the Japanese decision not to follow-through after the second wave. ៛ Bielle (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The simple answer is that the attack was carried out by a naval task force. Invasion and occupation would have required a heavy troop presence. Emma Dashwood (talk) 05:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly; the attack consisted of submarines (with torpedoes) and airplanes (with bombs). There was no land force. The idea was to keep the US from immediately using those ships to go after them, because ships take a while to be built (or at least moved from one base to another). They also were prioritizing secrecy, to do the most damage possible. An invasion force would have had to been on normal ships, which would have been noticed a lot faster. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 17:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Maintaining and protecting a supply chain to feed and equip a large enough military force to occupy the islands and repel the inevitable U.S. attack would have strained the capabilities of the Japanese Navy. Edison (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The islands had vital dockyards, maintenance shops, and oil depots that the Japanese bombers didn't destroy. If the Japanese Navy had occupied Hawaii, they could steal some oil and equipments. There were many American casualities after the Attack of Pearl Habor and the American military on the islands were already weakened. So if the Japanese tried to land on Hawaii, they would have won a war. The army wouldn't go hungry because there were animals and foods on the islands. Isn't that right? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. I read a scholarly analysis of the question many years ago (don't remember the citation, sorry) which said it would have required vast numbers of tankers and cargo ships and a large military force to hold the islands. Capturing the the harbors and ports and major cities would have been easier than sustaining an occupation. There would have been partisans, supplied by U.S. subs, before the eventual U.S. landings. If the Japanese had conquered the Phillipines, they would have been even less able to defend the more strategically important islands closer to home, and their supply ships would have been hunted by U.S. subs. Edison (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese probably could have captured Hawaii if they'd really put their minds to it. But they didn't want to, and (despite attacking the US and declaring war against it) they weren't really looking for a general war against the US. They thought (very wrongly, to their cost) that the US was like China (which they'd be having their horrible fun with for a decade or so), fat and dumb and insular and consumed with its own internal problems, and that with its pacific fleet lost and the Philippines threatened the US would sue for peace and would withdraw. As the Isoroku Yamamoto article notes "Yamamoto hoped, but probably did not believe, if the Americans could be dealt such terrific blows early in the war, they might be willing to negotiate an end to the conflict". Yamamoto, who had been posted to Washington DC in the 1920s, had flown over the industrial vastness of the midwest and knew that the US, if woken to war, could outproduce and overwhelm Japan (cf his apocryphal "sleeping giant" quote" too). But seizing Hawaii wouldn't win Japan the war; a determined US could have waged it from Australia and New Guinea very well. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If the Japanese seized Hawaii, it would bring them more closer to the shores of United States. They would be at the doorstep of the U.S. Japan would have an advantage. The United States would have to go around the Pacific Ocean to wage wars against Japan from Australia or Alaska. It would be a very costly war for United States. 72.136.111.205 (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Military logistics. Occupying Hawaii would have lead to a vastly long and vulnerable supply line. The occupation of Hawaii is dealt with in Harry Turtledove's novels Days of Infamy and End of the Beginning. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 23:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking for a quote allegedly by Bertrand Russell

One of my girlfriend's pupils recently brought a quote into her philosophy class she said was by Bertrand Russell. She didn't have a source for the quote, so I suspect it came from some (more or less reliable) collection of quotes on the web (and thus is not even necessarily by Russell). What's worse, the quote she brought was in German which makes it a bit difficult to find a source for it - I've looked on Wikiquote and googled around for the German version and for various differently phrased English translations, but came up empty. The German quote goes as follows:

Mit der Zeit berauben uns die Maschinen zweier Dinge, die sicherlich zum wesentlichen Bestandteil des Menschglücks gehören: der Spontaneität und der Abwechslung.

...which roughly translates to:

As time goes on, machines are increasingly removing two things from our grasp which are certainly essential for human happiness: spontaneity and variety.

Does this sound familiar to anyone? It would be great if someone could identify the Russell text it comes from (or alternatively, tell me with some certainty that it is not a quote by Russell). Thanks a lot, Ferkelparade π 12:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I found it through google. This page: [11] has the quote in rotation in the little quote generator in the center of the page. I don't read german, but the google search had this text:

kalenderblatt24.de - Kalenderblatt - [ Translate this page ]Mit der Zeit berauben uns die Menschen zweier Dinge, die sicherlich zum Besten des Menschenglücks gehören: Der Spontaneität und der Abwechslung. ...

www.kalenderlexikon.de/Blatt24/index.php?Typ=Kalenderblatt&MJD=54238 - 9k - Cached - Similar pages

When I entered it. When I loaded the page, however, the quote changed, and after some experimentation, it looks like the quote changes everytime the page is loaded. Its the best I could find, and I couldn't find the quote anywhere else. Hope this helps some... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a trick: when you are trying to Google a quote that might be dubious, don't use the whole quote. Just use the most important words that probably won't change from translation to translation or copy to copy (I've used this to find plagiarism in student essays, for example). So in this case I tried "spontaneity and variety" and "machines". Came up with a Google Books hit on the first try: "Meanwhile, machines deprive us of two things which are certainly important ingredients of human happiness, namely, spontaneity and variety." — Betrand Russell, "Machines and Emotions", in Sceptical Essays. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, that was fast - looks like my Google fu was weak today. Thanks a lot! -- Ferkelparade π 20:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Google Brilliance!--Wetman (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

law

Dear friends,

Is there any substantial difference between `terms' and `conditions' of a contract? Is it just a matter of custom to put them together, as in `the terms and conditions of this agreement'? What count as terms and what count as conditions? Please give examples. Thank you very much.

-Alan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memorylink2008 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That's just how lawyers say "I'm a lawyer and you're not". See legal doublet. --Sean 18:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Aren't "terms" definitions, like "When I say Party of the First Part, I mean...", whereas "conditions" are "When I say will sell the property, this is what will happen..." Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

We had a similar question recently on the Language desk. We discovered Legal doublet. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Oops, I see that info has already been supplied. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That's very polite, honourable and obedient of you, Jack  ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Why, thank you, Julia. But did you really expect any less from one such as I?  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Causes of death in royal families in history

I'm currently working in my sandbox on a list of royal children who died as children, but some don't have causes of death, even when they died relatively late on, in their teens. Does anyone know where I could find out this sort of information?

• Dalai Lamas:
  • Lungtok Gyatso, 9th Dalai Lama (died 1815 aged 9)
  • Khedrup Gyatso, 11th Dalai Lama (died 1838 aged 17)
  • Trinley Gyatso, 12th Dalai Lama (died 1875 aged 18) - "died of a mysterious illness"
• Georgian Britain:
  • Prince Alfred of Great Britain (died 1783 aged 2)
  • Prince Octavius of Great Britain (died 1783 aged 4)
  • Princess Elizabeth Caroline of Wales (died 1759 aged 18)
  • Prince Frederick William of Wales (died 1765 aged 15)
• All these seem to be covered by this source, which still doesn't go into much more detail, so I suppose that's a dead end and maybe not much more needs to be said anyway.
• Others:
  • Madeleine of Valois (died 1537 aged 16) - "Very frail since birth, she was raised in the warm and temperate Loire Valley region of France, rather than at Paris, as her father feared that the cold would destroy her delicate health. By her sixteenth birthday, she had contracted tuberculosis. [...] Madeleine's health had deteriorated even further and she was very sick when the royal pair landed in Scotland. On July 7, 1537, a few short weeks later (and a month before her 17th birthday), Madeleine died in her husband's arms at Edinburgh, Scotland." - other sources seem to agree that it was the tuberculosis that she died from, but possibly this is still unclear.
  • Balthasar Charles, Prince of Asturias (died 1646 aged 16) - from the Spanish Wikipedia article: "Los médicos que le trataron le diagnosticaron viruela , en aquella época también se especuló con una enfermedad venérea como otra posible causa de su muerte aunque actualmente se piensa en una apendicitis como la enfermedad más probable que aquejó al príncipe. Doctors who treated him was diagnosed with smallpox, at that time also speculated with a venereal disease as another possible cause of his death but now we think of an appendicitis as the most likely disease afflicting the prince." (Google translation)
  • Princess Louisa Anne of Wales (died 1768 aged 19) - "Her health was delicate throughout her life. Princess Louisa died, at Carlton House, London, on 13 May 1768, unmarried, and without issue, at the age of 19."
  • Prince Oddone Eugenio Maria of Savoy (died 1866 aged 19) - From birth, Prince Oddone was marginalized due to the precarious state of his health. [...] The prince chose Genoa for his residence for its mild climate that benefited his ailing physical condition. [...] Oddone died at the age of 19 at the Royal Palace of Genoa shortly before dawn on 22 January 1866." - found some pictures of Oddone in this thread.
  • Princess Maria Luisa Immaculata of Bourbon-Two Sicilies (died 1874 aged 19)

I realise some of the causes of death may be vague (and I've added what I can find in the articles), but if anyone can help find sources for what is there and for the articles where the cause of death is not given, that would be great. Carcharoth (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Tuberculosis, q.v., had a high mortality rate prior to the application of antibiotics in the last century. It is still, in third world countries, Russia and China, one of the most deadly transmitted diseases. As it has rather diffuse symptoms, sufferers, even in developed countries, frequently die without it having been diagnosed prior to death. WP has a List of tuberculosis victims, but, of course, this proves nothing. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

In defense of poor women

In the countries Food for the Poor serve, why can't the women use their defenses on telling the men 'no' to their making moves on them?72.229.129.53 (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the question, could you rephrase it? What women are you talking about? What defences are you talking about? --Tango (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Guessing here, that men are taking food off women. Difference is women and men in not so poor countries have enforceable rights to make up for their lack of bulk when standover types make moves on them or their property. You can't so easily call the police in countries without those rights. And someone I forget where said that saying "No" to an enemy doesn't work because the enemy doesn't listen. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

In the countries Food for the Poor serve, the women should stand up for their rights to tell the men 'no'. But what part of 'no' do the men or the "enemy" not understand?72.229.129.53 (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What rights are you talking about? And I doubt, whatever it is, that it's a matter of people not understanding, it will be about them not caring. --Tango (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The rights I'm refering to is women's rights to practice abstinence. That way they won't have to go through a harder struggle while they don't have any types of resources on raising one child or more children in poverty. I guess neither the men nor the "enemy" care or understand that type of thing.72.229.129.53 (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

So you are talking about rape, not stealing food? Well then of course, the main reason is that a man who rapes a woman doesn't care what she thinks or wants to do. A rapist is a criminal that does not care about anyone but his own pleasure and certainly does not care about the law, or the rights of anybody else. It is not different in these countries from other countries, except maybe that the rape will result in pregnancy more often. To start, you could read our articles rape and motivation for rape. --Lgriot (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Nazi Germany map, confused

http:/upwiki/wikipedia/en/c/c1/Nazi_Germany.png

I am having trouble knowing what the bottom orange portion is, under Austria. What was that land before the Germans took it? How did they?

96.226.229.124 (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Dave

I believe that's the Prealpine Operations Zone. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Although why that map doesn't also reflect Operational Zone Adriatic Coast as well, a comparable region of the same period, I don't know. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It can´t be the Prealpine Operations Zone, as this was located in South Tyrol / Northern Italy. These are areas of Carinthia and Styria which (both prior and after the 3rd Reich) were / are within the borders of todays Slovenia. These areas had been part of the Austro-Hungarian empire until 1918, when the Empire was disolved. Slovenia itself was partitioned between the Axis powers, the various parts being ascribed to Italy, Germany and Hungary. The Operational Zone Adriatic Coast, mentioned above, was a puppet construct to the West of these areas around Trieste and, de jure, not part of the Third Reich. The Prealpine Operations Zone would have been, again, to the West of that, around Bolzano. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed those parts of Slovenia occupied and later annexed by Germany after the collapse of Yugoslavia in 1941. Do be careful with that map, though. It gives the impression that both the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and the General Government were incorporated into Grossdeutschland. They were not. The Wikipedia pages are quite confused on this issue. Emma Dashwood (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)