Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

December 29

Declining an Honorary Degree

Clearly a question prompted by the above exchange... I think honorary degrees are ridiculous, and if I am ever so esteemed to be offered one, I plan to decline it. I feel that universities handing these out willy-nilly cheapens the value of their real degrees and that a "We Really Like This Dude" award purpose-made would be more appropriate. I suspect these views are the minority opinion, however. Question: has anyone notable ever turned down the awarding of an honorary degree? Question 2: are there prestigious educational institutions with principles similar to mine which do not award them and bestow something else instead? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Honorary degree claims that Billy Graham has turned down many honorary degrees, but doesn't provide a reference. Many people have turned down honorary degrees, but usually because they have an objection to the institution that is honoring them, rather than to the degree in principle. Here are some links to those who have turned them down. [1] [2] [3]

Most people don't feel that handing out honorary degrees 'cheapens' the regular kind. Honorary degrees are almost always clearly differentiated from earned degrees, and don't make any pretense of being equivalent. Hardly anyone tries to pass off an honorary degree as the real thing (Maya Angelou is an exception - Stephen Colbert makes a joke of it). DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're objecting to an honorary, say, M.Sc. cheapening real M.Sc.s (rather than the fact of honorary degrees being called degrees at all), then there are several universities which have a set of degrees which are only honorary and a set of degrees which are only earned. Notable among the honorary-only set is DUniv, Doctor of the University. Furthermore, I believe that in the United States it is in general impossible to earn a higher doctorate: all higher doctorates are honorary, leading to a similar division. You should probably also direct your ire against the Oxbridge MA, which is never earned (as most people would understand earning an MA). Marnanel (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned in Honorary degree some universities in the US at least ", like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology[19], Cornell University[20], Stanford University, the California Institute of Technology, and the University of Virginia[21]" don't aware honorary degrees. MIT does award honorary professorships and the Stanford Alumni Association awards a Degree of Uncommon Man/Woman. UCLA also has a moratorium and awards an UCLA medal. Whether this is because any of them feel it 'cheapens' a real degree I don't know. As has been mentioned above and also in more detail in the article, some universities are making changes to the name to make it clearer the degrees are honorary. As also mentioned in the article, this isn't exactly a clear cut issue. Some universities award degrees to recognise "achievements of intellectual rigor that are comparable to an earned degree" (e.g. Higher doctorate, some of which require a formal application process but others I believe are awarded without any application when a committee studies the persons work and decides it's worthy, often this is for alumnis and current staff) and for some it may be somewhat in between Nil Einne (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II has not accepted any honorary degrees since her ascension to the throne, since this would place her under the jurisdiction of the university, which is not appropriate for a monarch. Gwinva (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

serial killer

where can i find the text of serial killer Wesley Dodds diary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekiller35789 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently parts of his journal were released in a book called: When the monster comes out of the closet: Westley Allan Dodd in his own words. This link contains a summary of his life as well as further sources. I was not able to find anything else. I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 04:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

what did a typical Tongmenghui / Chinese republican revolutionary look like?

I'm using February 12 as an excuse to dress up as a revolutionary of the Xinhai Revolution. I don't plan on being too hardcore, like I could totally use an appropriately-coloured coat, stitch together some cheap cloth, use cardboard rolls to vaguely look like what firearms they carried then (but not too authentic, cuz I don't want to be arrested for brandishing a fake firearm and such). Any suggestions? John Riemann Soong (talk) 09:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem you have is that the Tongmenghui did not have a uniform. I searched for a good example and found this. They were tradesmen. They wore the clothing of their trade. Instead of looking like a revolutionary, you will just look like a poor Chinese worker. -- kainaw™ 16:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is Dr. Sun holding up three fingers in the painting? Is that some sort of revolutionary salute? TomorrowTime (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it refers to Three Principles of the People. But I expect the revolutionaries came from many sources -- what did the rebels of the Wuchang Uprising look like? John Riemann Soong (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The three finger salute drew my attention because if the hand were turned towards us, it would be identical to a Serbian nationalist salute. Not sure what the three Serbian fingers are supposed to mean, though. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Photograph from Algiers 1899

The File:Algiers cafe 1899.jpg is showing a group of people sitting in front of or walking into an open entrance. The description at the Library of Congress database doesn't give more details about the scene. Let us believe that the photograph has been taken at Algiers in 1899. Although the title says that it is a cafe, you don't see anyone actually drinking, and no tables with or for cups. I wonder if this really is a cafe, perhaps where you drink inside, and perhaps have to wait outside because of the high attendance. Or: is it a mosque, where people sit and talk before or after a prayer? --Schwalker (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Café" is a term which has been used in western writings for traditional establishments in some Arab countries where males only congregated to smoke water pipes, drink heavy sweetened coffee, and discuss things at length. Not sure what the Arabic word for it is, but there's no particular reason why there should be a strong resemblance to the cafés of Paris... AnonMoos (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The fellow fifth from the left definite has a small glass in his hand. I suspect the fellow third from the left does as well. I love the bird cages over the door! --Mr.98 (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your hints. Indeed, on a second thought there is some evidence that the depicted location is a secular inn of some kind and not a mosque: First, the building on the photograph looks like a larger, then modern western-colonial-style building, not like the mauretanian-style mosque depicted for example on the painting File:Pierre-Auguste Renoir 149.jpg from 1883.

Then there are some details on the photograph: I now also believe that what I first thought where three gaslights are in fact bird-cages, perhaps to entertain the guests. And at least one of the guests is holding a glass (which by form an dimension resembles a coca-cola bottle, but these didn't exist yet in 1899 ;-) Above the entrance, there seem to be an inscript in large Romain capital letters, of which only the lower part of the left, first letter is visible on our picture. So the location probably has an European name. Also there is a small picture of a sitting man in oriental outfit right above the entrance, probalby a part of a larger picture with a second person or a water-pipe, which may advertise that you can purchase coffee or tobacco inside.

I'm also not entirely sure that all of the depicted people are male, since the two persons just entering the room could also well be a larger male and a smaller female, Greetings --Schwalker (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Do animals have nationality / citizenship?

Such a doubt ... --190.50.124.148 (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Well, according to your IP address, you're from Argentina, and I just plain don't know the law there. For the USA, though, the Supreme Court decision that you'd want to read would be Missouri v. Holland. Basically, migratory birds are protected from harm without regard to their national origin. The implication is that a wild animal is not the property of any nation. For domesticated animals, I would assume that most nations (including the USA) deem them chattel. --M@rēino 17:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

In the EU, pets need to get a pet passport if you travel abroad. It's not so much about nationality as it is a convenient piece of paper that has data on the various inoculations the pet has had, but they are defined by country of origin on the passports... TomorrowTime (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Great ape personhood may be of interest. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 20:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Purchasing music: profit breakdown

This question could be on /Entertainment, but I'm placing here because it's more about economics.

I often purchase my music in physical album form or online as single mp3s. What is the breakdown on profit of for vendor/artist/record company/other? Just a rough idea... I have a friend that asserts I'm insane for buying those because all the money goes to the record companies, and none to the artists. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It probably depends a lot on the individual record companies and their contracts with the performers. But in general, the rule of thumb has long been that record companies make most of the money from the physical sales of records, while performers make the money from touring. This is one of the reasons performers tour so much—it's the source of much of their profits. I am not sure how much that changed with electronic distribution—I recall reading some articles awhile back that implied that this was a contested battleground between performers and companies at the moment, a site for re-negotiation of contracts and etc. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This link may be of interest to you. I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 23:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

December 30

Statute of limitations and extradition

When Spain requested the extradition of Josias Kumpf from Austria for Nazi war crimes in September 2009, Austria stated that there was no legal basis to extradite him because Austria has a statute of limitations for Kumpf's alleged crimes [4] [5]. Based on this, is it generally the case that one cannot be extradited from country A to country B to stand trial for alleged crimes which fall under statutes of limitations in country A? TML (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It would depend on the terms of the extradition treaty between the two nations. The extradition article discusses the general topic at some length, but unfortunately it does not appear to specifically discuss the statute-of-limitations scenario. It does, however, suggest that international tensions can arise if the parties to a treaty disagree about the terms. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Kumpf: generally, war crimes and crimes against humanity may be prosecuted forever; that is, there exists no statute of limitations (see 1968 Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity). This is decided on a state-by-state basis. Thus, it's likely that Austria has simply not acceded to the above convention. Regarding extradition: it is a much more complicated subject that you suggest. I advise reading some introductory international law sources. (Though I'll note that yes, states sometimes have extradition treaties with one another, and states are sometimes bound by international law to extradite or prosecute certain crimes--e.g., genocide and torture.) Yukongiraffe (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

World citizenship

I've just read much of the Statelessness article and was wondering... I've heard of dual citizenship but have not found a limit to the number of States in which one might claim citizenship or if is possible in fact yet to become a World Citizen by taking up residence in every country in the world within one's lifetime? 71.100.6.153 (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Nearly all states place certain restrictions on obtaining citizenship. If you are not a natural born citizen of the U.S., for example, the process of becoming a citizen (called Naturalization, see also United_States_nationality_law#Naturalization) requires being a continuous permanent resident of the U.S. for at least 5 years (3 years in some cases). Many other states have similar requirements. The Naturalization notes similar requirements for other countries, such as 3 years in Canada and 5 years in the Netherlands). Likewise, many countries disallow "dual citizenship" entirely, and others only grant it in limited circumstances. So it would be impossible on several counts. First, you could not possibly live in all 193-ish sovereign states long enough to establish the residency requirements for citizenship in each of them. Secondly, many of these states do not allow multiple citizenships; you must renounce other citizenships before become a citizen of your new country. Third, some of these countries do not allow naturalization at all, or only in very limited circumstances.

Even living in every country of the world would be difficult. Lets just say you wanted to do so; you couldn't spend longer than 6 months or so in each country, and even in that case, consider that doing so would take about 95 years of your life. 95 years ago, something like half of the current list of sovereign states didn't exist, so 95 years from now I wouldn't even begin to guess what countries will or will not exist, further complicating your plan. --Jayron32 06:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well you don't become a citizen just for being a resident in every country, so even if you could become a resident in every nation state (which would be difficult in some, such as North Korea, and ill-advised in others, such as Somalia) you wouldn't really be a citizen of everywhere. There are ethnic Koreans in Japan, for instance, that do not have Japanese citizenship despite having lived there for generations. There are also countries that require you to give up citizenship if you become a citizen of another nation (multiple citizenship gives China, Denmark, Japan, Singapore and India as examples of these). So in short, there is no limit in some countries, but it would depend which countries you have in mind, and becoming a citizen of every country in the world does not seem possible. TastyCakes (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if residency requirements were achievable, many countries require you to renounce citizenships of other countries (or at least of some other countries) before you become a citizen of them. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I more or less expected as much but what about becoming a "citizen" of a world body like the UN under the same concept as one is a citizen of the US, they may only reside within the State of New York. 71.100.6.153 (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The United Nations doesn't give citizenship -- it issues diplomatic passports which confer limited diplomatic immunity (United Nations Laissez-Passer), it also assists refugees, and that's about it. However you could look at Nansen passport and Travel document, World Passport, World citizen, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Person with most citizenships

Who is the person with the most citizenships? --84.62.197.235 (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(Title changed - there is no point in having a title that is not specific to the question). I doubt whether there is anywhere that holds this information. --ColinFine (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sir Sean Connery was born Scottish, but has since been Irish American, Spanish, English, Russian, Greek, Saudi, Berber and a whole load of other nationalities - even "Brutal". Surely that takes the biscuit. --Dweller (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to start an argument here, but is Scottish a type of citizenship? Irish-American? Berber? --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 17:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if he was born Scottish, his passport will have said "British". In any case, Dweller was making a joke, rather than attempting to help the person asking the question. Dweller is listing characteristics of characters Sean Connery has played, rather than any citizenships he may have held. 86.176.48.114 (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Aha! Well, I'll lock me in the cupboard and kick myself stupid! There's me thinking it was a real answer! Gosh! :) --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 22:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In that case, Russian is wrong. The character was from the Lithuanian SSR. --Anonymous, 20:29 UTC, December 30, 2009.

Gnash! My mistake. I had a feeling he wasn't Russian, but couldn't pin it down. Thanks for the correction. My gag wouldn't have worked so well if I'd used British, as it would have covered two of the nationalities I used. --Dweller (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you are quite right, because while not mentioned in the film, he had a Russian passport in the book because of his father. Googlemeister (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but in the book he was not played by Sean Connery! --Anon, 20:16 UTC, January 1, 2010.

I think there are two different ways to interpret the question; 1) highest number of different citizenship held during a lifetime and 2) highest number of different citizenships held simultaneously. In any case, I think it would be impossible to judge. In the case of 1), perhaps finding a person that lived through tumulteous years of wars in Central/Eastern Europe of WWI and WWII, later obtaining a Western European citizenship, later US and/or Canadian, then Israeli. In the case of 2), such people generally hold low profile regarding 'reserve citizenships'. --Soman (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's quite possible for a person born in Lvov in the early 20th century, before 1918, to have been born an Austro-Hungarian citizen and then become successively Polish, Soviet, German, Soviet again, and finally Ukrainian - all without ever leaving their home town. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth the Second. 122.107.207.98 (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's about as wrong as you can get. The monarch of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis is not a citizen of any of those places -- the monarch is above such things as "citizenship". --Carnildo (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

French Guiana and the freedom of panorama

Has French Guiana the freedom of panorama? --84.62.197.235 (talk) 08:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine that the laws in French Guyana are more or less the same as in France, and apparently France doesn't have freedom of panorama, so my guess would be no. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

French Guiana is an intergral part of France, analogous to the relationship between Hawaii and the rest of the U.S. It is fully part of France, and subject to the same laws and regulations as Paris or Lyon would be. See Overseas department for more info. --Jayron32 20:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Inverted price elasticity of demand

Can anyone supply some actual examples of this and indicate where I can read more about it? Minor point - could such a product have different price elasticities at different price ranges? Thanks 78.149.161.55 (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that both Veblen goods and Giffen goods exhibit this property; those articles can get you started. -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes,assuming you want +ve PEDs, Veblen and Giffen. I would be very surprised if these goods didn't exhibit varying PEDs, since virtually all goods in the world do. Anything with a normal demand curve in fact. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 12:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact by definition Price elasticity is different at EVERY price. Consider A straight line demand curve (like this one) [[6]] At the points in the top left elasticity is high and at points in the borrom right elasticity is low. This is because elasticity is a ratio of percentage changes not absolute changes. Before you delve into the confusing (and probably non-existant) Giffen Good, try and understand what elasticity is actually measuring. normal good and inferior good are also good reads. Jabberwalkee (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

EUROPEAN HISTORY: THE IMPELLER

There was an ancient European Monarch who was said to have executed a lot of people by impelling them. Please could you help me with the name, country and period of his reign? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.222.209.90 (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Vlad the Impaler?--Jac16888^Talk 16:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think you're looking for an impaler, not an impeller. -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Death by impeller would also be painful, but at least swifter. Edison (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ivan the Terrible had something of a reputation for it, as well, and he was a monarch rather than a mere archduke (or whatever Vlad's aristocratic rank was). Tevildo (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Vlad's article gives his title as Prince--Jac16888^Talk 18:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Regnant princes (and dukes) are monarchs too. Marco polo (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

ANCIENT EGYPTIAN HISTORY

There is said to be an ancient Egyptian monarch who abandoned polytheism in favour of monotheism. He is said have established or move the capital city of Egypt to a new location. Please help me with the name of the monarch, the period of his reign and possibly his activities —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.222.209.90 (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Akhenaten, aka Amenhotep IV. Marnanel (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wire and the Life and Death of the American Stevedore...

I'm currently rewatching The Wire from start to finish (I had 60 or so hours to kill, and thought, hey, why not?) and I have a question about season two. One of the major themes of this season is the decline of the blue collar American working man, exemplified here by the stevedores of the port of Baltimore. All throughout the season, the leader of the local stevedore union is working like hell to keep his guys employed, but each year fewer and fewer of them can get enough "days" to get by.

Here's the thing: I don't buy it. I mean, certainly the American blue collar worker is having a very tough time, it can't be very fun to be a steel-mill or auto worker today. But those guys are involved in manufacturing, a sector which is rapidly moving overseas. The longshoremen that The Wire portrays are not in manufacturing, they make their money from ships coming in and delivering crap to Americans. And it seems to me like that sector is doing just fine (not counting the annoying economy we have right now, as the season is set in 2003). I mean, the more manufacturing moves overseas, the more stuff has to be shipped to the US, right? I suppose that you could argue that more automated ports is losing jobs for the stevedores, but the specific reason that the shows give is that fewer and fewer ships come in each year.

Is this just a convenient fiction on the part of the writers of The Wire? It seems out of character for the show that's this realistic to portray a societal shift that isn't really happening, at least not in the way they portray it. Or is it just that the port of Baltimore, specifically, is hurting? Belisarius (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There was a significant lockout of longshoremen on the West Coast in 2002. My understanding was that, in labor's view, automation was a threat to their jobs despite the amount of cargo coming in. -- Coneslayer (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I missed that you sort of addressed the automation issue in your question... but this page suggests that imports are declining in Baltimore. This may reflect a shift in the origin of goods, from Europe to Asia (which you would expect to make land on the west coast). Compare Long Beach. -- Coneslayer (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the message is at all that stevedores per se were declining, but that the port of Baltimore was. I seem to recall they talk at a number of points about the fact that the boat traffic is being siphoned off to cheaper ports. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly true that, if the trade volume at a given port is constant over time, increasing automation will mean fewer jobs for stevedores. So, automation is one dimension of the decline in blue-collar jobs in America (but also elsewhere). However, the trade volume in Baltimore has been declining, as Coneslayer has shown. This partly due to the shift in trade to the West Coast. However, this itself is a symptom of the deindustrialization of the United States. Trade has shifted to the West Coast because more and more of the goods that are consumed in the United States are produced in Asia rather than the United States. At one time, the port of Baltimore was busy exporting steel and manufactured goods from Pittsburgh and Ohio. Those goods are no longer made in Pittsburgh and Ohio. Instead, they are made in Asia and shipped to the United States via the West Coast. So, I would argue, the plight of Baltimore stevedores is emblematic of the decline of blue-collar labor in the United States. Marco polo (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Automation does not affect all ports equally: it requires considerable investment to set up, and large volumes to pay off. Thus the busiest ports are also the ones that use the most efficient automation. Along with containerization and the use of larger container ships, this effect has contributed to the centralization of traffic to fewer, larger ports. Of course it isn't wrong per se to say that the reason there is less work at Baltimore is that there are fewer visiting ships. 85.156.190.227 (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember one subplot being that the port is not deep enough for certain ships and there were some machinations to get the city to pay for dredging it deeper. --Sean 15:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Jerome's De Viris Illustribus translation

1. I understand Jerome's De Viris Illustribus was written around 393 AD. It was translated in 1893 to English. Obviously the translator did not have the original, so about how many copies down would the ultimate copy translated have been?
2. The original was written in ancient Latin. Of the copy translated, would it have been all that much different a kind of Latin than the original Latin (i.e. "ancient" Latin vs "modern" Latin)?
3. How much would you imagine would have been "lost" in this 1500 years of copying by the monks and "lost in translation" into English from what Jerome originally intended.

--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Almost no works from ancient times are attested in original autograph form (with some very limited exceptions such as graffiti, etc.). How much a particular work would have suffered in the copying process depends very much on the specific circumstances of transmission and preservation connected with that work. However, there was generally no attempt made to intentionally "update" classical Latin to medieval Latin (with the exception of a few spelling conventions, such as "e" for "ae", etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If I am following you correctly there probably would be degradation, however it would be indeterminable because each monk would have their own style of writing. Would you guess that perhaps it got recopied somewhere between 15 and 150 times downline in the 1500 years. Then you are saying the English translation came probably from a medieval Latin copy, but that copy was of the classical Latin?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The copy would have been in what the copyist(s) thought was classical Latin, i.e. they would not intentionally have altered it. But it's entirely possible that some of the errors introduced by copyists might have cause it to drift towards mediaeval Latin. --ColinFine (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I have no knowledge of this particular work, as a general rule modern (i.e. post-mediaeval) translators try to compare as many different copies of such a work as are available, as part of the process of Textual criticism, in order to detect any inadvertant differences that have crept into different 'lineages' of manuscript copies, and deduce the most likely correct original version. Some such differences are doubtless due to the evolution of Latin, but more problematic are are mistakes such as misread and/or incorrectly copied characters, omissions due to skipping a number of words (which were if detected at the time sometimes added back in the margin or between the lines), and inadvertant inclusions of marginal/interlinear notes (themselves sometimes factually incorrect) mistaken for such corrections; deliberate insertions of spurious material (for religious motives, for example) may also sometimes have occurred. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's a scholarly translation, it should give details about the Latin edition from which it is translated; even better, the Latin edition will almost certainly have detailed information about the textual transmission (of course, if it's from the 19th century, the intro might be in Latin too...). I can't seem to find it after a quick Google search, but there are some references to this being a particularly troublesome text. The more popular the text, the more it is copied in the Middle Ages, and the more chance that there are major errors and differences. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

From De Viris Illustribus (Jerome) at the bottom is the Wikisource translation. Wikisource says it is From the Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers series, published 1893. It was translated by one Ernest Cushing Richardson. Apparently he had a Phd in library science from Princeton UYniversity. So what you are saying is that he translated it from Classical Latin that probably had some medieval Latin "overtones" accidently or intentially entered in.
Taking a wild guess would you say it got recopied somewhere between 15 and 150 times downline in the 1500 years. If it was copied every 100 years, then it only got recopied by different individual copyist(s) some 15 times. If it got recopied somewhere around 150 times (every 10 years) downline by different individual copyist(s), then it is a copy of a copy to the 150th recopy. Maybe it got copied every 5 years to make sure this important document got to posterity centuries into the future. That would make it the 300th recopy downline. I would think that would enter in a lot degradation from what Jerome originally intended in 393 AD. Take a wild guess as to how many recopies there might have been going through these 1500 years. Not holding you to anything. Certainly it has got to be over 15.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea how many copies were made, it's really impossible to guess. You'll have to check the introduction to the book, if you can find it (it's apparently not online in any useful way). It wouldn't have been recopied for 1500 years though, at least not by hand. Google says Günther Zainer printed it in 1470, which is very early, and makes sense for such a popular work. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Will agree with you that it was not written by hand for 1500 years - my mistake on that! Using Jerome's date of writing of 393 AD to Günther Zainer printing it in 1470 would make it a little over 1000 years. Guessing it was recopied every 10 years then from the beginning, then that would produce some 100 or so downline handwritten recopies before it was printed. Could you agree with me on that? There would be no record how many times it was copied and recopied. It looks like in 1893 it was then translated into English. So far, so good?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you agree with me that from the time Jerome wrote it in 393 AD that it must have been recopied by copyist(s) at least a few times by hand by various different people (none knowing the other) in a type of classical Latin with medieval Latin "overtones" accidently or intentially entered in; until it finally got printed and from there printed copies were make?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Or would you say Ernest Cushing Richardson "translated" it from Jerome's original? From what language?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, there would be no record, but we could tell from the number of surviving copies, as well as the textual variants which may point to a number of lost versions; a good textual critic could tell roughly how many different manuscript traditions there are, and perhaps even a rough number of actual copies, surviving or lost. All this should be in the introduction to a standard Latin edition, if there is one. As for classical Latin, Jerome didn't really write classical Latin himself, since the 4th century is not exactly "classical" anymore, but it was at least still a natural spoken language at that point. Medieval copyists could have introduced medievalisms, but aside from spellings and abbreviations I don't think that would be a major issue. We'd have to find more info about a) what Zainer printed (a particular manuscript, most likely), b) if anyone else printed it, c) if there is a Latin critical edition, d) what Richardson translated, whether a particular manuscript or a (or the) Latin critical edition. Tracking down Richardson's translation in book form would be the most helpful step (since Wikisource doesn't include any of the introduction). From more brief Googling it seems that there were continuators of Jerome, and it is possible that in the Middle Ages or the Renaissance, someone had already compiled a rudimentary critical edition, which may then have a manuscript tradition of its own. It can get very complicated! Adam Bishop (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can see it could get very complicated! Thanks for all the detailed response above. Let me work on all that for awhile and if I need more I'll put up another question later or contact you at your Talk. Thanks again.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want someone to take a "wild guess", I would assume that the chains of transmission which led from Jerome himself to the attested manuscripts which have survived into modern times are much more likely to involve 5 to 10 sequential recopyings rather than 15 to 150 recopyings... AnonMoos (talk) 07:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the "wild guess". Now I have a better idea. That would mean about one recopy from a different person sequentially downline from various copyist(s) every 100 to 200 years, assuming it began from the 5th century to when it probably was started in printing in the 15th century.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it means that those are the ones that survive. The number of manuscripts of this text that ever existed is much different than the number of ones we know about, and this is true for probably every ancient and medieval work. There could have been 150 recopyings, but some of them could be lost or were destroyed somehow, through fire, bugs, rot, someone else scratched the text off and reused the parchment, etc. A poor copy is less likely to survive than a luxury copy. But as AnonMoos says, the chain of tranmission of the surviving ones should be relatively small and relatively simple. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks again for the detailed explanation. The copy that Ernest Cushing Richardson translated into English in 1893 from in all likelihood was probably Latin, wouldn't you guess? Verses say German, French, or Italian.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, yes, any translation into a modern language will be made from the original. And we're in luck! Saint Wiki (an actual Wiki as opposed to the patron saint of wikis) has a full edition of Richardson, which is actually Jerome plus Gennadius of Marseilles' later continuation. Here is Richardson's introduction, which, just as I had hoped, answers all these questions, and is not too lengthy. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Aha, Richardson says he was using the edition of Wilhelm Herding, which is on Google Books, here. Of course, as I suspected earlier, the introduction itself is also in Latin. Curse those 19th century Germans! Adam Bishop (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You are definitely the first man and an authority on matters like this.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well here are the basics of what Herding and Richardson said: According to Herding, the three oldest manuscripts are from the Vatican (7th century), Verona (8th century), and Vercelli (7th-8th century), but Herding only had access to the Vatican one (transcribed for him by the Bishop of Bamberg). He also used a manuscript from Bamberg (11th century), Bern (11th century), and Nuremberg (14th century, and damaged). He used the Vatican one as his base, since it was the best and oldest.

Richardson said he saw 84 manuscripts of Jerome, 57 of Gennadius, and knew of at least 25 and possibly 45 more. "It is certainly within bounds to say that there are more than 150 mss. of Jerome extant and not less than 100 of Gennadius." The earliest printing that he knew of was actually 1468. Erasmus printed a popular edition, but Vallarsi in 1734-42 was a better critical text, based on a manuscript from Corbie, which Migne also used for the Patrologia Latina.

Richardson did not translate Herding directly, since he didn't think Herding made the best critical text. He compiled a new edition, but it was unpublished at the time of the publication of the English translation, and I don't know if it was ever published. In addition to the manuscripts used by Herding, Richardson also used ones found in Paris (7th century, the "Corbie" one mentioned above), Montpellier (8th-9th century), Monaco (8th century), Vienna (8th-9th century), another one in Paris (9th or 10th century), Cassino (9th century), Florence (11th century), Toledo (13th century), and "Guelferbyrtinus", wherever that is (10th century).

He didn't make a "family tree" of the manuscripts, since that would have been too complicated, and apparently outside the scope of this kind of translation (honestly, I've seen discussions of manuscript transmission that take up many more pages than Richardson's entire introduction...)

I hope that is more helpful. Basically, the point is the oldest manuscripts are still from 400-500 years after Jerome, and while there may be 150 of them in total, only a dozen or so of the earliest ones are actually helpful to find Jerome's original text (all others being obvious copies of another manuscript). A Latin edition would try to recreate what Jerome actually wrote, by comparing the manuscripts and trying to find everything in common (which would, we assume, mean that is what Jerome actually wrote), and trying to reconcile the differences (to find what, we assume, Jerome probably wrote). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Anti-empiricism in medieval thought?

I have the idea that philosophers were generally against the scientific method and the power of observation in medieval Europe. Am I right in thinking that position is called 'scholasticism'? - the scholasticism article doesn't quite say so explicitly. In any case, I'm hoping for some direct quotes from the time that put forward the anti-empirical position. I'm especially hoping for some quotes from St. Augustine.

Thanks in advance Adambrowne666 (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Scholasticism does not mean what you think it means. What you're describing is what Richard E. Rubenstein has called the "origin myth of modern science" and the "fable of medieval ignorance" (Aristotle's Children, 272). —Kevin Myers 22:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

See particularly Roger Bacon, Jean Buridan and Nicholas Oresme for counter-examples. Tevildo (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Augustine lived in the fifth century, a very long time before the mediaeval period. True, his writings were influential, but so were those of Aristotle. Tevildo (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The senses were generally held to be limited by most philosophers of the time. Here's a quote about Augustine from the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[7] that might shed some light on the matter:

"Augustine, especially in his earlier works, focuses upon the contrast between the intelligible and the sensible, enjoining his reader to realize that the former alone holds out what we seek in the latter: the world of the senses is intractably private and isolated, whereas the intelligible realm is truly public and simultaneously open to all [De Libero Arbitrio II.7] ; the sensible world is one of transitory objects, whereas the intelligible realm contains abiding realities [De Libero Arbitrio II.6]; the sensible world is subject to the consumptive effects of temporality, whereas the intelligible realm is characterized by an atemporal eternity wherein we are safely removed from the eviscerating prospect of losing what and whom we love [Confessions XI.xxxix.39; see also Confessions IV.xii.18]. Indeed, in the vision at Ostia at Confessions IX.x.23-25, Augustine even seems to suggest that the intelligible realm holds out the prospect of fulfilling our desire for the unity that we seek in friendship and love, a unity that can never really be achieved as long as we are immersed in the sensible world and separated by physical bodies subject to inevitable dissolution [see Mendelson 2000]. The intelligible realm, with God as its source, promises the only lasting relief from the anxiety prompted by the transitory nature of the sensible realm."

-Pollinosisss (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much everyone - all extremely enlightening and helpful. Adambrowne666 (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Why can't America make homosexuality legal in Afghanistan

After the war, homosexuality was made legal in Iraq, because in the dark times of the Hanged Tyrant homosexuals (along with shias and Kurds) were brutally murdered. Why can't America make homosexuality legal in Afghanistan if the Taliban Government is gone since 2001? --SouthAmerican (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Why can't America make it all better?--Wetman (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The United States does not (officially...) govern Afghanistan or Iraq. Any laws made either country are (de jure) passed by the legislature of that country. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As J. delanoy correctly points out, the United States does not have the legal power to change the law in either country. It can only exert pressure on the governments of those countries. You seem to assume that the United States government would want to pressure the Afghan government to legalize homosexuality. I doubt that this is one of the objectives of the US government in Afghanistan. (I also doubt that the US government applied much pressure on this issue in Iraq.) Its top priority in Afghanistan is to establish a stable and friendly government and to defeat the Taliban. Because Afghanistan is a much more culturally conservative country than Iraq and most of its people are probably not ready for toleration of open homosexuality, US advocacy for homosexuals there would be likely to either alienate or undermine the government. It would also probably increase support for the Taliban among Afghans offended by that US policy. Marco polo (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Basically we've got a war going on there, and that kind of issue is way down the totem pole of priorities, if it's even on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it, is homosexuality even technically "legal" in the USA? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to make a workable law against being someone. Laws against certain practices commonly associated with homosexuality have fallen in the last few decades, partly because legislators gulped and noticed that heterosexuals did that stuff too. PhGustaf (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Those laws are typically now only used in the context of a crime, e.g. when forced. It's not so much that it's legal, though, but only that it's not enforced. Kind of like those laws still on the books in some places, that you have to have someone out front of you holding a lantern when you drive a car. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Bill James did a riff on blocking the plate some years ago, and concluded that, in the modest context of baseball, that Johnny Bench and Sammy White spent most of their lives cheating. He went on to suggest that rarely-enforced laws are evil, and mostly serve to give cops excuses to bust people they don't like anyway. PhGustaf (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The (ironically-named, for this section) Gaylord Perry even admitted to cheating, and he's in the Hall of Fame. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything to suggest that Perry knew anything about candlepin bowling? And the HOF selection process is not unflawed.PhGustaf (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware that Gaylord was into bowling. Probably more into activities like squirrel hunting. Murder at a bowling alley? That's crossing the line of decency. And in another odd connection to this section, the perp was living at the Y. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(@BB) Lawrence v Texas. True, that just established that one can't be prosecuted for sodomy; does that constitute "legalization", especially when it's done by the courts rather than the legislature? Tevildo (talk) 02:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a case I was trying to recall specifically, because I wasn't sure how it turned out. Seems like it was decriminalized, which is almost the same thing, i.e. they won't bother to enforce it because it would be tossed out anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

We can't even make homosexuality fully legal in the US. Contrary to popular belief, don't ask, don't tell has not prevented service members from being discharged. The US also allows private organizations to exclude homosexuals and others under the freedom of association. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason Afghanistan can't make eating pork illegal in the US. DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Except that argument doesn't totally work, since Afghanistan has not (to my knowledge) recently (within the last five years or so) overthrown the existing U.S. government and replaced it with a system more similar to its own government. Presumably if Afghanistan had done such a thing, it would be able to influence whether Sharia law was used in the U.S., which might have something to bear on the pork issue. But of course the general point—that the U.S. does not have and does not claim dictatorial powers over Afghanistan, especially on domestic issues—is true. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

My point was intended to be many-faceted. The main one is Soman's point below - the US can't actually dictate the writing of laws, despite the huge amount of pressure they can apply to Afghan leaders. If they force Afghanistan to pass laws they don't want to, they pretty much violate their own standards of democracy. The other main point is that laws have to be generally accepted by the populus to have any chance of being effective. Even if Afghanistan were to overthrow the US government and ban pork, the population would probably resist the ban by, I don't know, throwing beef into Boston Harbor or something. If the US forced the Afghan administration to pass laws the huge majority of Afghanis didn't agree with then it would give ammunition to those that oppose them. The US tends to frown on overtly and directly imposing their rules on other countries. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Formally, US can't write the laws of Afghanistan. In practice, they have a wide range of options to pressure the puppet politicians in states they occupy. See for example the Iraqi Oil Law, which no-one in Iraq really wanted but was passed anyway on orders from Washington. Now, the objective of the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq isn't to promote LGBT rights, but rather to secure control over natural resources and geopolitical influence. Regarding the question here, there was a bit of a similar question regarding Iraq and Israel. A group of U.S. congressmen sought to pressure Iraq to recognize the state of Israel through passing a bill in the U.S. congress. Needless to say, this initiative went in completly opposite direction of the official 'win hears and minds' strategy in Iraq. On the contrary it was a symbolic gesture that iraq, as a subordinate entitity to the U.S., must adhere to the foreign policy of the U.S.. I'm not sure whatever happened to that bill in the end, my guess is that the State Department plugged some plugs and explained to the gentlemen responsible that they can't treat Iraq like Puerto Rico. --Soman (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

man shaking hands with woman

i am a man. when i meet a woman ive never met before, is it etiquette for me to put my hand out for her to shake, or is it etiquette to allow the woman to do this, and if she doesnt carry on conversation? ive been told you wait for the woman to shake your hand, and you only offer handshakes to men, giving respect to women.--Good5567 (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You can always say with a smile what can be said by offering your hand in a handshake. And offering your hand in a handshake to a woman who may not be receptive might introduce a moment of slight discomfort. Bus stop (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The traditional form is that one should wait until the person one is being introduced to offers their hand. If you're introducing yourself, then you should (therefore) always wait, irrespective of the gender of the other person. If the introduction is being done by a third party, then males should be introduced to females (not vice-versa), so the male should be the one that waits in that situation. See Debrett's on the subject. Tevildo (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking a business setting or an informal occasion? Handshaking is pretty common in a business circumstance, in the USA at least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Silly Air kisses are sometimes used as a man/woman greeting. Edison (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Not in my office. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Mwah! Edison (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

December 31

Truth or myth about reading ability

I heard that, after you pass a certain age range (approximately between kindergarten and grade 5), it's very hard (some sources said even impossible) to obtain a high level of essential reading skills like recognizing an article, prose or book's main idea, recognizing author's purpose, tone, approach, and point of view, drawing conclusions, and so on because it has something to do with the development of the human mind. Is this a truth or myth?

Also, I wasn't taught any of these skills in K-12 and I never read a book annually on my own when I was K-12 (excluding the books required by school classes). So most of the time, I can't state the main idea of what I read. If the above is a myth, then what is the best way of obtaining these skills as a college student? Will it be the same advice as for kids in K-5, which is to just read a lot? I've recently started making it a habit to read some books daily to eventually gain these abilities, but this seems to be useless, because no one is standing by my side to go over what the main idea, author's purpose, etc. are and I can't figure those out by myself without any guide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ysk1 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Our article Reading skills acquisition may be of use. What you suggest seems unlikely to me, the ability to read and dissect what the 'point' of a book/text is is something that can be improved and is (in my experience) developed in your teenage years and just takes work. In terms of yourself you may want to check out Reading comprehension and the links therein. I'm not sure how helpful it'll be but it's a skill you'll acquire through reviewing what you've read and thinking about what the author is trying to say. Reading up on things like Symbolism and Metaphors etc may help too. Critical thinking is perhaps a useful link too. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Taking the content of a movie as gospel is always risky, but one point made in the recent film about Michael Oher is that he was deprived of proper teaching during that window of opportunity the OP is talking about, yet once he had the opportunity (with a tutor) he was able to succeed in high school and then in college. For studying literature, something like Cliff's Notes might be helpful. I have the same problem sometimes, of trying to figure out what an author is getting at, especially in fictional works. But there's usually someone else who has worked it out, and why re-invent the wheel? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not strictly utilitarian, but spotting underlying themes and metaphors while you're actually watching or reading a work usually adds to your enjoyment and appreciation of it. Despite being a voracious reader of fiction for pleasure over the last 47 years, I often get so caught up in the superficial story that I miss such deeper levels, and have 'D'oh!' moments when a subsequent comment by another reader or critic reveals what, in retrospect, seems both obvious and interesting to me also. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

After I wrote what I wrote about Cliff Notes, it occurred to me that the OP should read something and simply try to answer some of those basic questions. Even a whiz-bang is not going to think of everything. The guys who write Cliff Notes put a great deal of time and research into these things. And when a teacher seems to know a lot of stuff about a novel - of course they do, they've taught it dozens of times. I would just see what I could do with it, and then read the Cliff Notes to see how much I got right - and learn from that, as to their approach to these things. Learning is a layering process. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You might want to have a look at reading comprehension sheets aimed at children, like these. You'll either find that you actually are better at this than you thought, or you'll find them useful practice at this sort of thinking. If it's the second, remember that you can ask for guidance here if you're stuck (more likely on the poetry ones than the ones based on press-releases about pizza). Other than that, lots of reading should help.

Remember that the internet is your friend: there are plenty of online book groups if you can't find a real one near you. There are forums dedicated to discussing all sorts of books, so if you find a genre you particularly enjoy it should be easy to find people to discuss the books with. 86.176.48.114 (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

While some things are easier to learn at certain ages, I would be very surprised if you can't learn to read better at any age. I think reading a lot (and reading varied things - novels, short stories, newspaper articles, magazine articles, popular science books, etc., etc., etc.) is the best way forward. You might like to join a book club - that would involve reading a book each week or fortnight and then meeting up with other people that have just read that book and discussing it. That discussion would help you understand the book better and you will probably find that you contribute more and more to that discussion as the weeks go on and you get better at interpreting the books. One thing to remember is that there often isn't a "right answer" to these kind of things - good authors often write very thought provoking books where it isn't at all clear which characters were morally right, etc.. --Tango (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have worked with a lot of college students trying to teach this very skill. It is certainly teachable. It is a skill and a habit of mind, not some sort of fundamental neurological activity. It is something you can get better at over time. I see no reason to suspect it is something limited to a certain age range. Some people are going to be better at it than others, to be sure, but the idea that your brain turns off the ability to synthesize written material seems highly unlikely to me, assuming you weren't raised as a feral child or some other sort of extreme situation. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the article on hyperlexia relavant? ~AH1^(TCU) 19:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Which Eutropius is this?

That one.

I assume this bust (Ephesos, dated to around 450 AD) depicts Eutropius (historian), but possibly it is Eutropius (Byzantine official) or another Eutropius. Can anybody help me identify this guy? Thanks,  Sandstein  09:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at Google Images, and this is the first one I found.[8] How's your German? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This one looks like Portugese:[9] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! The museum website says that the bust was accompanied by an inscription naming him the sponsor of the city's road paving, and that the style is typical of that of representations of higher officials. So I assume that we are dealing with the official here, not the historian.  Sandstein  11:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Pleasant-looking chap, eh? Reminds me of my mother-in-law. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There's an odd modern-looking feel to that bust, almost as if it were created in the 20th century or later. Woogee (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Some clarification for the wikipedia article on Christmas.

The article in question says "The Restoration of King Charles II in 1660 ended the [Christmas] ban, but many clergymen still disapproved of Christmas celebration. In Scotland, the Presbyterian Church of Scotland also discouraged observance of Christmas. James VI commanded its celebration in 1618, however attendance at church was scant." How is it possible for James VI to commend the celebration of Christmas without lifting the ban on it? Thanks in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.31.180 (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The ban was in the 1640s and 1650s, during the English Civil War, while James VI (of Scotland) and I (of England) died in 1625... AnonMoos (talk) 12:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right, thanks! I read the article wrong. --86.159.31.180 (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright exceptions

In Swedish copyright law, there is an exception stating that you may copy music, videos, images et cetera for your own personal use, but also to give away to friends and relatives. The copyright infringement does not occur until you spread the copyrighted material for public use. Is there anything like this in other countries? I am mostly interested in United States copyright law, but also others. Caspian Rehbinder (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In US copyright law, certain actions are permitted under Fair use. I do not believe that copying for friends and relatives is something that's permitted under fair use. If you're asking for any reason more than curiosity, consult a lawyer. -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Under US law, the applicable law that defines fair use is, you'll notice, incredibly vague, so unfortunately it takes knowledge of many court decisions to shape an opinion on whether a particular act of copying is "fair use" or not. Our Fair use article is pretty good about US law in this area. Giving copies away to friends and relatives isn't, I think, fair use in the US — but this has probably not been tested in court; a copyright owner is unlikely to launch a court action against anyone for this, because the $ damages are so tiny. And without a court action having happened, we can all opine over whether it's fair use or not, but it's all opinion. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would be fair use in the U.S. at all. It's true that you need a court case to pound out the finer details, but there's no reason to think that simply making copies and distributing them would fall under fair use. It took rather fine argumentation to even make it clear that you could make copies of media for personal use. Later rulings have gone pretty far against the idea of file sharing as non-infringing use. Nowhere has there ever been a distinction about "friends and family," though. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Norwegian copyright laws are similar to what you describe, it is (so far) permitted to share files with friends and relatives, provided that you have acquired the files legally. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 00:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Geography Question

I am looking out for the place

1. Named after its founder who is an European with false claim to royal lineage 2. where a war Prisoner camp was built 3. It is related to one of the major wars world war I or II I have extensively searched Wiki and else where but with no luck. would appreciate any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.111.75 (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any clues about whether the prisoner camp was World War I, World War II, etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 达伟 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you first specify the source of this question? Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been unable to identify the place, but perhaps you might make some headway using the list at Pretender#False pretenders or those people in Category:Impostor pretenders. My first thought for the dubious lineage was Pierre Plantard, but I can't find a POW camp in a place named Plantard or Saint-Clair or anything similar. Karenjc 16:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Karl Wilhelm Naundorff and Schwarzheide (which has a district named Naundorf, a factory which "used Sachsenhausen concentration camp forced labor", and a "hydrotower build in 1943/44 by french prisoners of war")... AnonMoos (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I believeOz fits the bill...hotclaws 23:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Obama asks moms to return to school

Having seen a plethora of "Obama asks moms to return to school" advertisements, I just saw "Obama asks dads to return to school..." Does all of this have any origin in US federal policy, and/or has the government made any response or encouragement? --达伟 (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, all of the ads for that (and all of the Google hits for it) are pretty much the same company trying to get people to enter a contest for a "scholarship". What they get out of it, I don't know—my totally unfounded hunch is that they will start spamming people who enter with student loan offers. (Student loans are a huge business in the U.S.—they have a number of exploitive loopholes in them that other types of loans don't have. Once you have an audience of people who are looking for $10K to go back to school, you have a pretty good shot of finding people who would be willing to take out a $10K student loan.) They don't seem to correlate at all to anything other than generic federal student loan policies, and they don't seem to have anything to do with the Obama administration in particular. I suspect it is just a scam trying to capitalize on low-income people who are thinking about getting advanced education. (Which is not to say that all student loans are bad... but I wouldn't trust an organization that advertised in a misleading way over the internet. Student loans are trouble enough even when they are from legit organizations.) Be aware that much of this reply is speculative and I could be totally off the mark.--Mr.98 (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Exchange Rates in Germany 1930

What was the average exchange rate between Pounds Stirling and the German Mark in 1930? --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 20:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This link may be of use to you. I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 22:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! That's EXACTLY what I wanted! --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 13:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Why isnt the European Union regarded as a country?

We do have a European parliament, European laws, and people can go and live and work in any part of the EU they choose, so why isnt it regarded as a country yet? Surely its not that otherwise it would put the USA in 2nd place in a league table of GDPs? 89.243.151.121 (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, if a person were asked "Which country are you from?", and answered "I'm from Europe", they'd then be asked "Yes, but which country?". Europe is seen as a single administrative unit but not as a single country. There may well come a time when answers like "I'm from Europe" will be accepted without further question. Or maybe not. Look at the UK. After over 200 years, people are still likely to answer "England", "Scotland", "Wales" or "Northern Ireland" as much as "the United Kingdom", in answer to "Which country are you from?". And all those answers are correct. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

People may identify themselves as English, Scottish, or Welsh, but the UK is still a country. 89.243.151.121 (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but only in certain contexts. At the United Nations and the Oscars and in diplomatic and legal senses, the UK is certainly a country. QE2 is Queen of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". At the Commonwealth Games, however, the UK is not recognised (all the home countries field separate teams). At the Olympic Games, it's not recognised (the team there is "Great Britain", a geographical term that excludes Northern Ireland, but the team includes people from Northern Ireland). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It is rare for people to make a distinction betweeen Great Britasin and the United Kingdom as you have done, but the same reasoning applies to GB as to the UK. 78.146.210.81 (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Rare? Not sure what you mean by that. Does anyone ever answer the question "What country are you from?" with "Great Britain"? I certainly hope not. It would be like claiming to be from the country of California. So, people regularly make the distinction. "Britain", on the other hand, is a common name for the United Kingdom. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think most people within GB would answer "British" rather than Scottish, Welsh or English. We put British on out passports for example rather than Welsh, English, or Scottish. 92.24.69.222 (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a different issue. We're talking about which country they say they're from, not what they say their nationality is. But if WP is any guide, it's far less common than is generally supposed that people from there regard themselves as British first and foremost, and their individual nationality second. The reverse is very often the case. Category:English novelists has 1,024 entries, but Category:British novelists has only 414 (Category:Scottish novelists has 152, Category:Welsh novelists has 83). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You are making distinctions to suit your arguement. 92.24.69.222 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

He's not. Terminology of the British Isles is a whole world of people complaining that other people are using the wrong word, for various different reasons. See the article linked further down this section. English people are much more likely than Scottish or Welsh people to say they are British, but they're still pretty likely to consider themselves English followed by British. 86.177.121.171 (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, I've lived in Britain all my rather long life, but of course people who are living on the other side of the world and who may never have actually visited Britain must know far more about being British than I do. 78.146.22.20 (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, you must be the only Briton in this whole encyclopedia. Oh wait, you're not. If you want to know how broad chunks of the population feel about something, try reading some of the tabloids. Or read some of Kate Fox's anthropological work on the English. Or get to know some people who have considerably lower educational attainment/expectations than you. Either way, you will find that "English people are much more likely than Scottish or Welsh people to say they are British, but they're still pretty likely to consider themselves English followed by British." 86.177.121.171 (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This has become tedious, but I regard mysellf as British first and English second, and I would expect most people except Scottish nationalists or many people in Northern Ireland to have the same view. You are greatly mistaken to try to gauge public opinion from British newspapers as they often describe things like this in hysterical terms to generate controversies to keep their readers entertained and fill the pages - I recall when personal computers started to appear that according to newspapers these were very bad things that would put people out of work. Never heard of Kate Fox. Anyway you are forgetting that Parliament covers all of Great Britain. See this http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2007/08/22/cartoon-how-the-internet-brings-us-together/ 78.146.54.230 (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and not just all of Great Britain, but all of the United Kingdom. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as the individual nations retain their individual character and language, people will still tend to be identified by their country. The question can be revised, though, to (1) where are you from? and (2) where do you live? Speaking from the American side, there's a richness about the diversity in Europe that would be sad to have disappear. (As long as its persistence doesn't lead to more wars.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This is actually a very interesting question. From 1648 until recently, the Western World usually operated according to something called the Westphalian system. The world was divided into puzzle pieces called "states" and everyone belonged to a single state. You were Belgian or Dutch or French or American or whatever. You might live in a province with its own legislature, but sovereignty clearly belonged to the nation-state. Federalism made things a bit more complicated within states, but between states there were clear borders; you were either in Austria or Yugoslavia and that was that. Then the EU came along and threw political scientists for a loop because no one can quite describe what it is exactly. It's clearly more than an international organization because it has so many powers and such an impact on the everyday life of its citizens. Yet it has not quite reduced its member states into mere provinces -- they retain their own militaries, diplomats and in some cases their own currencies.

A common definition of a "state" is an entity that claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. If we're going to use that definition, the EU member states are clearly still the sovereigns because not only do they have their own militaries and police but they are the ones who decide when how and when force may be used in the course of state authority (through criminal law, e.g.). And if push came to shove, a member state could always (in theory) withdraw from the EU and use its national military to ensure its independence. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

See also, Terminology of the British Isles The Ministry (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

(Note: I'm not the OP) I don't think the original question has been answered. You all seem to be going on and on about the UK but have not mentioned the EU. Mwalcoff seems to have given the question a shot but still there isn't an answer. So, could some political science major please answer this? I agree with Mwalcoff, it's an interesting question and I'd like to see an answer. Dismas|^(talk) 00:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The simple, and not very helpful answer is that it is not a country because it doesn't claim to be one. If (somehow) the EU managed to pass a declaration through the EU parliament that EU considers itself a country (i.e. a sovereign state), that would put it most of the way to being a country. But that is very unlikely. There are far too many political and social divisions for that to happen. IMHO, it's more likely that countries will become smaller units rather than combine (no evidence, though). Were the EU parliament to pass such a bill, what it would require to be a country would be international recognition - i.e. that other countries recognise it as a country - and political relations with other countries - i.e. treaties, embassies, etc. Sovereign state lists the currently accepted requirements for being considered a country, as per the Montevideo Convention. Steewi (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional: State (polity) is also very relevant, here. Steewi (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there the requirement of issuing your own currency for official country status (UN, possibly)? Of course, we do have the euro, but that's a rather large way off being an EU-currency, for a number of important reasons (not to mention the fact that quite a chunk of the EU hasn't even adopted it yet). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not a requirement. The independent nations of San Marino and the Vatican City do not have their own unique currency, but use the Italian lira. Nauru is an independent nation but uses the Australian dollar. The Tuvaluan dollar and Kiribati dollar are used in those places alongside the Australian dollar, but they are not independent currencies, are fully interchangeable with the $A, and exist mainly for purposes of national pride, I guess. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No they don't - even Italy hasn't used the Italian lira for about ten years now :) (San Marino and Vatican did, of course, follow Italy into using the Euro, likewise Monaco when the French Franc ceased to exist) --Saalstin (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. Tks for the correction, Saalstin. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is Russia still so heavily involved in space despite a comparatively low GDP?

Russia, according to the tables given on Wikipedia, has somewhere between the sixth and ninth highest GDP in the world, yet despite the Cold War ending it still seems to spend a lot of resources on activities in space. Understandable when the cold war was active for military purposes, but now that has ended it seems like a luxury or a very expensive way of getting prestige. 89.243.151.121 (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You're making a false assumption that space actiivities are primarily for national prestige. While there was a strong element of that during the cold war - and still is for countries developing their space industries - there are many more important reasons for it, and once a nation has established a presence in space these become more important. Given that Russia already has the fundamentals of a space industry in place, these other reasons (scientific research, technological advancement, and the like) are an impetus for keeping an active presence beyond the Earth. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "making a false assumption" thanks - note the use of the colloquial phrase "seems like" rather than "is". De-whaffled, you're saying that space is a sunk cost for Russia. 89.243.151.121 (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)89.243.151.121 (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised to find that the space industry was turning a profit for Russia. A lot of the launches they do are paid for by other countries, or by private corporations. --Carnildo (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my understanding is that much of the Russian space effort today involves putting things in orbit for others for cash. Our article on the Russian Federal Space Agency seems to support this view: The 1990s saw serious financial problems because of the decreased cash flow, which encouraged Roskosmos to improvise and seek other ways to keep space programs running. This resulted in Roskosmos' leading role in commercial satellite launches and space tourism. While scientific missions, such as interplanetary probes or astronomy missions during these years played a very small role, Roskosmos managed to operate the space station Mir well past its planned lifespan, contribute to the International Space Station, and continue to fly additional Soyuz and Progress missions. So they used it primarily to put up satellites for others, some space tourism, and do a little bit of science on the side. It's not the worst model for a space program. The article continues to say that the Duma used some of their copious oil/gas profits to fund it even more—probably a mix of interest in future profits, national prestige, and probably national defense (Russia has been long working on rockets that would subvert any U.S. missile shield in the region). --Mr.98 (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is an instance of punching above their weight, like Spain, France, Turkey or Great Britain still pretending to be a major world power. Edison (talk) 05:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Until very recently Britain had the 4th. highest GDP in the world, so I don't see why it shouldnt be a world power. In GDP terms it has far more right than Russia. 78.146.210.81 (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the GDP can show a nation is an economic world power, but a nation's leaders might have nostalgia for the days when it was a military superpower. Edison (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

List of countries by military expenditures says the UK spends the 4th most amount on its military. It may not be a military superpower, but it is a military world power. Only the US spends significantly more (France and China spend slightly more). The UK is also a permanent member of the UN security council, a nuclear power and has one of the biggest financial centres in the world (London). The UK isn't pretending anything - it really is a major world power. --Tango (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yer! Wave that flag! 92.24.69.222 (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The misconception is that a space program is expensive. The US spends more than 100 times the amount on Social Security and Medicare that it spends on NASA's budget. NASA's budget is around two-tenths of one-percent of US GDP. Wikiant (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Er, it's still expensive. The social programs you cite are, in turn, super-expensive. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Poorer countries such as India have a well-developed space program, so I can't see why Russia wouldn't, even after its economy nearly collapsed in the early 1990's. Russia's space program is developed enough for it to propose knocking asteroid 99942 Apophis out of orbit, even as NASA has assured that it poses very little risk (and knocking it out of its orbit would probably make it worse).[10] ~AH1^(TCU) 19:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It does make sense to practice on a Apophis so we know what we're doing if there really is a risk. Hopefully they'll double check their maths and make sure they push it in the right direction so as not to increase the risk rather than decrease it! --Tango (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

January 1

US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit decisions

In opinions of the Ninth Circuit such as this [11] there are page numbers on the documents that indicate the document is part of a publication, i.e. the page numbers don't refer just to the pages in the particular document. What is this publication these pages are from? Nomad2005 (talk) 05:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not certain. Lexis has different page numbers assigned. FindLaw shows the page numbers in your link. The official U.S. F3d citation that should be used to cite the opinion is not ready yet. My guess is that FindLaw has its own pagination system. All the caases for a particular court or courts are collected. The fifth page of a United States Supreme Court decision might be page 690 of all the opinions reported. Some jurisdictions have public access reporting on the internet. The page number helps lawyers find a particular place in a decision. I hope this helps.20:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)75Janice (talk)75Janice.

They refer to the pages of the current volume of the Federal Reporter, Third Series, or "F.3d" for short. Look at Federal Reporter for some details. They are published by Thompson West (also the publisher of Westlaw) and are the "official" reporter for the federal appeals courts. The Supreme Court has its own reporter, refered to simply as "U.S.". The citation format is typically "<Case name>, <Volume> F.3d <Page> (<Court> <Year>)."

You can buy the whole set for $7,500[12], or download it for free. Shadowjams (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This has info too. Shadowjams (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Janice and Shadowjams, but I don't think these are pages from the Federal Reporter. They are too high. The example I linked too had pages in the 16,000 range, far too high for a volume of the Federal Reporter. I don't think that Findlaw supplied this pagination. It appears in the opinions on the Ninth Circuit's website. Any other thoughts? Nomad2005 (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The page reference is not to F.3d, the official reporter for Court of Appeals decisions. As I stated earlier, Lexis, the main commercial reporter, reports the case with different page numbers. The FindLaw opinion looks exactly the same as the document you cite. I never learned the entire process for publication of opinions. FindLaw Pro would be the place I would go to find answers. Maybe FindLaw supplied the page numbers. If you would explain why assignment of pagination is so crucial, it might help provide better answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 06:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Lexis isn't the official reporter, and while West and Lexis are neck and neck, I don't think there's any consesnsus that either West or Lexis are the "main" reporters. Obviously together they are, though. I don't see how findlaw would factor into it at all.

Perhaps they're slip opinion page numbers? I'm not familiar with 9th circuit practice so I'm at a bit of a loss, but I'll do a bit more indepth research. You're right, 16k is too high to be a page number within a volume. My guess is that it's some internal 9th circuit reporting; this PDF does come off of their website after all. Shadowjams (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Other courts of appeals don't do this format either. I'm as curious as you are at this point. Shadowjams (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not suggest Lexis as the official reporter. Lexis, Westlaw are the main commercial reporting services that lawyers use. Both Lexis and Westlaw report the official F.3d paginatoin when it becomes available. It is permissible to cite to either until the F.3d pagination is available. FindLaw pro reports this case exactly as shown in the example, including type face, spacing, the enitre document. My feeling is that FindLaw may supply its own pagination. If I knew why the assignment of pagination is so important, I believe I could help more. I am pressed for time now. Going to FindLaw and asking them for support may very well yield a definitive answer.17:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)68.81.42.101 (talk)75Janice

My guess is that FindLaw is just republishing the public domain release PDF from the court. The very first link is from the court's website. A good way to tell is find another case from outside of the 9th circuit and see if they have that pagination. The 8th circuit, for instance, does not have that kind of crazy pagination on theirs.

Like the OP, I'm still at a loss. Shadowjams (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The version is the one the Ninth Circuit uses for its public domain cases. Frankly, I graduated law school long before public domain cases were available on the Internet. I do not recall if the public domain case is the slip opinion. The Blue Book or ALWD might supply some information. As long as the citation is consitent, does it truly matter? I skimmed the case. It is fairly interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 23:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Bordeaux Diligence revisited

I have now been able to provide an answer to Lit Scholar's query on 14 December 2009, and have added it in the archive [13]. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"Forces of darkness"

Moved from Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. If this question is not appropriate for the reference desk, it can be removed.

On a train from Tampere to Helsinki, I saw two elderly couples, allegedly all Protestant Christians, discussing a pamphlet published by Jehovah's Witnesses. One woman called it "the work of the forces of darkness". Now being an atheist, I don't know much about how these religion-related things are supposed to work, but isn't it a bit too much to call another denomination within the same religion as yours "the forces of darkness" just because, although they believe in all the same deities in the exact same mythology, their belief happens to differ in some details? JIP | Talk 21:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

_{The Devil is in the details. -Pollinosisss (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)}

If you read the article on Jehovah's Witnesses and compare their beliefs and practices with those of, say, Lutherans, you will see that the religions differ quite radically on some points. If you read the "Criticisms" section of the JW article, you will see that some Christian critics find JW beliefs and practices disturbing. I don't think that most Protestants would consider JWs "another denomination within the same religion". JW's rejection of the Trinity puts them outside of mainstream Protestantism and other mainstream varieties of Christianity. Their belief that Armageddon is imminent and ultimately desirable is disturbing to many other Christians. Finally, the authoritarian structure of the JW community—forcing members to obey the dictates of religious leaders and punishing those who don't with shunning—is a radical departure from the freedom of individual conscience that was at the heart of Protestantism's original split with Catholicism. Marco polo (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

An enemy within is much more dangerous than one without. -Pollinosisss (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't consider myself Christian, so I don't see JW as an enemy within, or any kind of enemy for that matter, nor, I think, do most Protestants. Marco polo (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has studied Biblical Hebrew, I have a problem just with the name, since the word "Jehovah" itself is based on a mistaken form which never existed in ancient Hebrew... AnonMoos (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

See Sectarianism and Heresy. On the specific point, JW's don't follow "exactly the same mythology" as mainstream Protestantism, but I'm fairly confident the people in question have similar views on the Roman Catholic church, even though the doctrines are much closer. In any ideologically-charged environment, _corruption_ of the True Way is generally regarded as more objectionable than mere _rejection_ of it - an Arsenal fan will hate a Spurs fan far more than he'd hate a fan of Sporting Lisbon. Tevildo (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In general, mainstream Christians seem to regard the JW's as mostly-harmless eccentrics, and not infrequently an object of ridicule due to their unconventional ideas (starting with their fake/obsolete name, as AnonMoos points out). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness and hated it. A New Testament college course led a clear path away from their teachings. Despite my hatred of the group, they are not "forces of darkness" anymore than any other group. They possess many positive attributes. The Hugenots massacred in France probably saw a dark force and vice vera in England. The Witnesses are disdainful of any power other than their own. Worldly status is rejected. Wikipedia has an article on Christianity that shows a flow chart for what most Christians believe. The Witnesses are divergent. Countless thousands died during the struggle between Roman Catholics and Protestants. The divergent points were minor compared to the areas of agreement. My family suffered much from antiWitness persecution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 23:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Augustus word game

I'm playing a word game with someone and trying to get the correct words to fill in the puzzle. The bold italicized words are the key ones and I need the same number of letters with the last letter being the same. These are my guesses for those words. Do you have any further suggestions?

Rules of the Game

The basics to decode it are to use opposites, for example:

• With the use of the capitalized adjective On, the word it modifies is a coded word.
• With the use of a comma directly BEFORE the conjunctions "and" or "but" then that segment to the next comma is a true statement, otherwise it is the opposite.
• other meanings of the Biblical words that have EXACTLY the same number of letters with only the ending letter for sure the same.

(allegory)
Chapter 107 (Photinus the heresiarch)
Photinus, of Gallograecia, a disciple of Marcellus, and ordained bishop of Sirmium, attempted to introduce the Ebionite heresy, and afterwards having been expelled from the church by the Emperor Valentinianus, wrote many volumes, among which the most distinguished are Against the nations, and To Valentinianus.

Puzzel solution:
Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, better known as Augustus (23 September 63 BC – 19 August AD 14), of misericordia, a leader of movements, and ordained overseer of kingdom, undertook to introduce the opposite conformity, and afterwards having been expelled from the Roman Republic by the founder organizations, produced some history records among which the least humble are for himself and no organizations.

Thanks for any help.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any other criterion that the words have to meet? Does the final text have to be gramatically correct (which it isn't at the moment)? Does "no organizations" fill two gaps or one? Tevildo (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Part 1 - no.

Part 2 - no.

Part 3 - fills two gaps.

--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

OK... I don't see, in that case, how any answer can be "better" than yours, as there's no way of assessing it. Is it just a question of picking (using "kingdom" as an example) a random seven-letter word ending in "m" and hoping it's the right one? Your choices have as much chance of being right as anyone else's. I _was_ going to suggest "Capita Bubula" (the villa in which Augustus was born) as a replacement for "misericordia", but it's two words - I suppose that makes it invalid. Tevildo (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for input. I believe my guesses fit the description of Augustus however.

• misericordia - mercy, compassion
• movements - a progressive development of ideas toward a particular conclusion.
• kingdom - related to the new creation of Roman Empire.
• opposite - from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire.
• founder organizations - founder of the Roman Empire.
• no organizations - in some instances he was not humble.

Is that pretty close to Augustus' description?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really, to be honest. Augustus wasn't particularly merciful or compassionate (see Caesarion), "kingdom" is a very inappropriate word to describe the Roman Empire (one of the reasons for Julius Caesar's unpopularity was the suspicion that he intended to make himself king, even though his assumption of dictatorial powers was accepted), and Augustus was successor to the Second Triumvirate rather than the republic - by the time of the Battle of Actium, Rome had quite definitely passed from republican to oligarcic government, but it continued to be a de jure republic for some centuries - Diocletian was the first emperor to officially rule as an autocrat, rather than primus inter pares. On a more practical point, I don't think that the "right answer" will have _two_ "organizations" in it - you should change one of them, at least. Tevildo (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions and ideas and history lessons. After thinking over what you had to say, perhaps one of these words would be more appropriate in these positions below?

• First key definitely is a 12 letter word ending in a. Perhaps one of these apply better: hypochondria, bibliophobia, cerebrotonia, pseudolunula, respondentia, kleptophobia, coenesthesia.
• Third key definitely is a 7 letter word ending in m. Perhaps one of these apply better: problem, freedom, uniform, program, perform, conform, confirm, stratum, blossom, heroism, egotism
• Last key definitely is a 13 lettter word ending in s. Perhaps one of these apply better: opportunities, peculiarities, complications, modifications, contributions, ramifications, nationalities, deliberations, contingencies, preliminaries, proclamations, anticipations, civilizations.

Keeping the sentence that way, since that is the way the old historian gave it to me. He is also giving me history lessons in ancient Romans. Which might be better words of the suggestions I provided for those key words or others if you can think of them that use the same number of letters with the last letter being the same. This is the "rules" of the game.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Puzzel solution with revised possible replacements of key words:
Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, better known as Augustus (23 September 63 BC – 19 August AD 14), of hypochondria, a leader of movements, and ordained overseer of egotism, undertook to introduce the opposite conformity, and afterwards having been expelled from the Roman Republic by the founder organizations, produced some history records among which the least humble are for himself and no ramifications.

• If you feel "misericordia" is not an appropriate word, perhaps "hypochondria" fits better.
• Looks like to me "egotism" fits better than "kingdom."
• Perhaps "no ramifications" works better since he seemed to have absolute control.

Does that look better and fit his description?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Julius Caesar

(allegory)
Chapter 112 (Cyril the bishop)
Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem often expelled by the church, and at last received, held the episcopate for eight consecutive years, in the reign of Theodosius. Certain Catachetical lectures of his, composed while he was a young man, are extant.

(puzzel solution with same rules as above):
Julius Caesar, (100 BC - 44 BC) Dictator of modernize rarely received by the optimates and at last received, held the lower positions for eight separate times (military tribune 73 BC; quaestor 69 BC; aedile 67 BC; Pontifex Maximus 63 BC; praetor 62 BC; governor Hispania Ulterior 61 BC; consul 59 BC; governor Gaul 58 BC) in the life span of traditions (cursus honorum). All occupational praises of it dispersed while it was an older item and are no longer existing.

Then does this look O.K. using the same rules as above?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As Tevildo said, it's very difficult to judge whether anything is correct if the resulting paragraph doesn't have to make grammatical sense. You could stick anything in there, really. (Why doesn't it have to make grammatical sense, anyway?) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, using grammatical sense and keeping the just of the ideas and the key words, how might "Julius Caesar puzzle" look to ya'alls?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Humor me! This is the way I was given the sentence, so I would like to follow through. The key words seem to fit, as far as I know of this ancient history.

• First key word must be 8 letters and end in e.
• From my understanding of the material in the Julius Caesar article at first he was not received by the optimates, then later he was when he became dictator.
• The next key word of traditions seems to fit as the traditional method of progress for the ranks then was by cursus honorum. To my understanding this procedure went though the Roman Republic and Roman Empire, a very long time. After this time then, the procedure was no longer followed.
• The next key word of occupational seems to me to be appropriate as it was their occupation and eventually the occupational procedure was not followed.

Its just a game with certain "rules" he is playing with me for a teaching tool to learn ancient Roman history. It seems to work, as I have had to study up on these articles to see what he was talking about to fill in the key words. To me only certain words will work, not just any words. They must fit the ancient history or ancient character properly and have a certain number of letters with the last letter being a certain letter. Any further help would be appreciated.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have his original statement of the "rules", or an example of a "correct answer"? I think we're missing an essential compoment of the excercise. Tevildo (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, do not have his original statement of the "rules" as a written set was not given to me. What is it you are lacking to complete the Julius Caesar puzzel? The words I put in the key words seem to make sense to me, however I am the student, not an expert on ancient history as you are. Just looking for the correct key word. The other parts are immaterial as to correct grammatical sense. Are you saying it makes no sense at all? What is not correct as to the basic historical parts?

Domitian

(allegory)
Chapter 134 (Sophronius)
Sophronius, a man of superlative learning, wrote while yet a lad, In praise of Bethlehem and recently a notable volume, On the overthrow of Serapis, and also to Eustachius, On virginity, and a Life of Hilarion the monk. He rendered short works of mine into Greek in a very finished style, the Psalter also, and the Prophets, which I translated from Hebrew into Latin.

Below is another example with the key words I filled in.
(puzzle solution):
Titus Flavius Domitianus (51 AD – 96 AD), a man of ruthless teaching, did not write a history record while yet young, in lack of attention of criticism and long before a vague history record on the support of friends and also to principles, on having some previous experience and a time of children, the one by himself with no mother or siblings. They removed long history records of his from black out of a ruthless style (Damnatio memoriae), another chapter also and the numerous which he rendered from shadow to taken.

From the article on him it seems to make sense to me of the key words I put in. What part, in the way of the key words does not make sense to you?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Gaius Julius Alpinus Classicianus

(allegory)
Chapter 133 (Amphilochius the bishop)
Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium, recently read to me a book On the Holy Spirit, arguing that He is God, that He is to be worshipped, and that He is omnipotent.

Here is another I have recently worked on that I filled in the key words of the last letter being the same and fits the ancient history.
(puzzel solution):
Gaius Julius Alpinus Classicianus (d. 69 AD), procurator of problem of the rule of the United Kingdom long time ago wrote from him a history episode on the very object (unusual punitive policies), agreeing that it is bad, that it is to be despised and that it is unrestricted.

This one to me seems obvious and simple. Do you see this incorrect in any part as to the history?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This one, if nothing else, illustrates the difficulty we're having - this sentence just doesn't make sense, no matter what possible "keywords" are chosen. It looks very much as if it's been machine translated. We're really going to have to see an example that the person who set the problem thinks is right, and even then I doubt if there's much we can do to help. I'm sorry. Tevildo (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, right. We now have some rules and some other examples - we're getting somewhere. Where did you get them from? If we're going to get any further, we'll need the _full_ set of rules (including the basic statement of the problem - what is the end result supposed to be?) and a _complete_ question and _complete_ answer. I think the problem is still that we don't really know what's happening. Tevildo (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Marcus Claudius Marcellus Aeserninus

(allegory)
Chapter 108 (Phoebadius the bishop)
Phoebadius, bishop of Agen, in Gaul, published a book Against the Arians. There are said to be other works by him, which I have not yet read. He is still living, infirm with age.

(puzzel solution):
Marcus Claudius Marcellus Aeserninus, (f. 48 BC) overseer of town (Cordoba, Spain) in coal, published a history episode for the troops. There is said to be the same history by them, which they have likewise produced. It is still surviving strengthened with time.

This one to me also seems obvious and very simple. Apparently the town of Cordoba is known for coal mining. Do you see this incorrect in any part as to the history?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone can make sense of the history, when the grammar doesn't make sense. Has your professor made any corrections that you can show us? That would help us figure out what he wants you to do. Perhaps it is supposed to be like a cryptic crossword where the answers are anagrams or something unexpected like that. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I do believe you are correct. It is some sort of a cryptic crossword puzzel, maybe in the line of an allegory.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Basically he wants me to find the key word that plugs into the sentence. No, he has not given me any corrections. The history seems to be in the articles, so should be easy to decipher. The history does not change, even if the grammer is not perfectly correct. So, is the history correct, ignoring the grammer? Seems correct to me, however I'm biased.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Tevildo, now that we have the basic rules, we also have some more information from a discussion on Doug's talk page. As far as I understand it, it seems that Doug (or the person who made this puzzle, or both of them) have the idea that Jerome's De Viris Illustribus is an allegorical reworking of Plutarch's Lives. It seems also that Doug believes that De Viris Illustribus was not written in the 4th century, but the 14th, and in English, or that the 19th century English translator made it all up? It's entirely likely that Plutarch was an inspiration for Jerome, although this is not what I would consider "allegory". As for the rest, hopefully Doug can explain that better, because the way I've explained it is obviously impossible and I assume I've misunderstood something. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahh - so this is a Bible code sort of thing? Or - er - that chap who, about 30 years ago, interpreted Nostradamus by forming anagrams of the text (and leaving any inconvenient letters out)? (Who was he, and do we have an article on him?). Let's see how it develops. Tevildo (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ava Gardner article in Esquire Magasine

I am trying to find out if "Ava: Life in the Afternoon" by Rex Reed was published in the may 1967 issue of Esquire magazine. The Ministry (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it seems so [14].--Cam (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2

"FDR HIDES PLANE"

I have a family picture of my father circa 1928-1932 reading a newspaper and pointing to the headline "FDR HIDES PLANE" Is there any way to date the photo from historical info?? The picture was taken in the summertime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.44.21 (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you narrow it down for us by confirming in what English-speaking nation of the many in the World this photo was taken/the newspaper was published? While the USA would seem to be the most likely possibility, it would be tedious to work on that assumption if it were in fact wrong. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

For that matter, can you tell (either from the picture or by general knowledge) what newspaper it is? If it still exists, the newspaper's offices may be able to locate the date for you easily. At a good public library or a university library, especially in the city where the newspaper is from, it may also be possible to locate the paper by the headline. --Anonymous, 04:20 UTC, January 2, 2010.

Can you read any other headlines? Maybe his dramatic flight to the 1932 Democratic National Convention? Don't know why he would be accused of hiding the aircraft, but newspapers sometimes print strange things during an election.—eric 06:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wild-assed guess here, but is it possible that the headline actually reads "FDR Rides Plane"? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I did a ProQuest search on all multiple terms, multiple newspapers relating to Roosevelt and planes. I found no obvious candidates. I would also inquire as to whether you can be sure that is what the headline says, and if you could perhaps scan the newspaper part of the photograph for us to inspect on our own. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm with our anonymous contributor's savvy guess, if the flight was dramatic. "Hides" would be odd: in a barn at Campobello?

No results at Google News Archive for eithr "Hides" or "Rides." I agree that "rides" is more probable. It is hard to hide an airplane while confined to a wheelchair. A high def scan of the newspaper would be helpful. Edison (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

English governance

I am trying to learn more about governance in England. I know the broad outlines of what a parliamentary system is, but I want to learn more nitty gritty things like what causes an election to happen and what are all these different types of elections, who picks the prime minister, how are the districts determined, etc. The general articles like "Parliament of England" are all too broad. Any advice on where I can get some more specific information? 24.20.200.67 (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The general articles, such as House of Commons of the United Kingdom and Elections in the United Kingdom, really are the best place to start. Not only do they answer some of your questions ("The actual election may be held at any time before the end of the five-year term (...) The timing of an election is at the discretion of the incumbent Prime Minister"), they also have links to articles that may treat the nitty gritty things, for example the article on the Boundary Commissions that determine the constituencies (electoral districts). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The first thing to point out is that there is very little governance in England, specifically. There is UK governance and there is local governance in regions of England of various size, but there is very little that covers all of England without covering more than just England. There have been calls for a devolved parliament of England, but there are no signs of there being one any time soon. --Tango (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan and the Decendent Line of Cain

I recently watched an episode of John Safran vs. God where John tried to "join" the Ku Klux Klan. In the segment, the Grand Wizard showed John a chart and stated that Able came fro the union of Adam and Eve but that Cain came from a union of Satan and Eve. I read the artical on the KKK but I didn't see any reference to this. Can anyone help me to understand where this idea came from and what "evidence" there is to "support" it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.117.26 (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

see: Christian Identity, Serpent seed.—eric 06:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A little bit about the possible origin of the idea can be found in the second paragraph of the article Cain and Abel. Deor (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Weird. Do these - ahem - fringe theologians have any position on Seth? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

They regard Seth as the first - er - legitimate son of Adam and Eve (after Abel), and hence his descendents to be of pure blood. The _main_ problem with the theory is the position of Noah - either they have to reject the Flood (or, at least, claim that it wasn't a worldwide flood and/or the "sons of Cain" survived elsewhere - on floating mats of vegetation?), or try and come up with a theory that only _Ham_ had tainted blood, and the other two sons of Noah were pure - difficult on any theory of inheritance, even the most irrational. But, coherent thought and extreme racism tend not to be found together very frequently. Tevildo (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Utilitarian value of existence

Why does utilitarian ethics assign positive value to Earth's continued existence and to the average person's life, when most people seem to suffer from material existence more than they enjoy it, and to have more to fear than to hope for in this world? NeonMerlin 07:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps utilitarians do not share your premises ("most people seem to suffer from material existence more than they enjoy it" and "most people seem to have more to fear than to hope for in this world"). Life can be fun too you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I also require some citations on your two premises, but Kurt Vonnegut wrote that it was a pretty common combination for a human to be miserable yet have an iron determination to continue living. Possibly the assigning of a positive value to the survival of Earth and humanity is an extension of the survival drive. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

From a hedonist point of view, both egoism and utilitarianism (though not always interwoven in harmony) share positive values to human existence. I agree the utilitarianism is at the sometime is the subset of positive political theory that can only move things in a democratic society. It does not mean that individual egoism cannot be hidden in a positive political theory; minimum in a highly developed democracy. I think OP is saying that most people do not see (or enjoy) what they have but suffer from material existence and have more to fear than to hope for. Couchworthy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC).

Those who don't fear, don't survive. That was true of the dodo bird, anyway. The business world equivalent of that is, "If you snooze, you lose." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Antarctica and the freedom of panorama

Has Antarctica the freedom of panorama? --84.62.205.233 (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "freedom of panorama"? Shadowjams (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Presumably he or she means Panoramafreiheit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no government in Antarctica as such; its occupants co-exist under treaty arrangements. I don't see anything in the article about the subject of picture-taking. Freedom of panorama seems to figure mostly in the area of paintings and statues, and I doubt there are many paintings and statues in Antarctica (probably not even a brass monkey). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Would this be covered by the Antarctic Treaty? Adam Bishop (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any specific mention of it, and it's probably way down the priority list in such a hostile environment. But it does say that the criminal laws of the individual nations apply to their citizens who are stationed there. So, theoretically, if an American citizen violated the American rules restricting freedom of panorama, they could be held accountable for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation isn't usually criminal, it's civil. --Tango (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Presumably the copyright laws of the various nations of people who are in Antarctica still apply to them. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be guessing that people are allowed to take pictures of places in Antarctica, since there are very few people living there, and there are plenty of photos on Wikimedia Commons of the place (including research stations of different countries). ~AH1^(TCU) 19:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama only usually comes up in very limited circumstances anyway. National monuments, giant art exhibits, buildings done by great architects, etc.—and only in situations where there's the possibility of somebody making some money. It seems rather unlikely that the types of man-made structures in Antarctica would run afoul of that. It's possible, of course. The South Pole is not devoid of artistic flourish. The station certainly is distinctive looking. But yeah, I doubt anyone really cares about the copyright of the structures themselves, at least not enough to make a nuisance about it in such situations. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Mercury-vapor lamp usage

I understand that streetlights many times use mercury-vapor lamps. What type of areas or towns or cities favor these type of lights, verses say sodium-vapor lamps or other gas-discharge lamps that use an arcing mechanism?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This might not be entirely relavent, but mercury-vapor lamps contribute to more light pollution than sodium-vapor lamps do, so I'm guessing it's the areas that do not have legislation to mitigate light pollution. ~AH1^(TCU) 19:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What type would you guess are these in Street light interference?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

long live king who?

In January 1901 did the world welcome the new King Albert until he said "Naw, let's make it Edward," or had he made his preference known (at least to Downing Street) during his mother's lifetime? —Tamfang (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(Edward VII of the United Kingdom, for those who don't get the reference). Edward announced his desire to be known as "Edward" during the sitting of the Accession Council on 23 January 1901, before the official proclamation was made. See [15] for the London Gazette entries. It was a matter of public knowledge that he didn't like the name "Albert", but I don't think there was any official announcement before the actual accession. If he had died _before_ the proclamation (and after Victoria's death), it's quite possible that he'd be down in the lists as "Albert I", as well as holding the record for the shortest reign. Tevildo (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Victoria was first proclaimed as "Alexandrina Victoria"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

January 3

Startup license

In order to start an investment bank/security brokerage, does the entrepreneur have to be licensed as an individual?--LastLived 03:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)