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

September 9

DSM and masochism.

okay if we are being specific. Then if DSM is when a man or woman is dominant and just does strange things to people for their personal gratification then what is it when a person loves to be a slave but hates gratification. Its like they enjoy being a masochist its just that certain things in the symptoms of this masochistic disease just arent things that they want or feel. Is that still masochism? Im not asking for a diagnosis because im pretty sure this disease is what it is. I just want to know if it has a name. Wanting to be a physical slave and do phyisical labor for their "master" AND wanting pain enflicted on them in a sexual reference. What is this called?

--70.42.211.4 (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, one of our articles states:

The BDSM term is a portmanteau acronym intended to take in all of the following activities:

• Bondage and Discipline play (B & D or B/D)
• Dominance & submission (D & S or D/s) (including "master and slave" role-playing scenarios and ongoing relationship structures)
• Sadism and Masochism (S & M or S/M)

You appear to be describing masochism. I'm not sure / I doubt that masochism per se is a disease. DSM is not "when a man or woman is dominant", it indicates three things, dominance & sadism, and masochism. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What you describe also has a good "submission" component. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

yes but what if they dont want the "master" to lift a finger, but somtimes they do. Its just a mood that over takes them now and then that makes them just want to be submissive in everyway possible but other times be pure dominant. can you really have such strong lifestyles in both? i know its sadomasochism but isnt that wanting both at one time. what is it when you dont relize that you feel that way? If its not a disease and you dont know you feel that way then what can it be? its not a sexual fantasy because you feel it all day long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaela89 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You can choose to be a sadist. You can choose to be a masochist. You can choose to eat an apple. You can choose to watch a film. You can watch films all day. None of these are, as far as I know, a disease. They are a choice presumably based on factors such as the cost of the activity and the gratification it gives you. You appear to vacillate between thinking that those involved in S&M are sometimes S an sometimes M, or are M all the time. I'm sure there are examples of both types (and of the permanent S type, as well). "what is it when you dont relize that you feel that way?" Lack of self awareness? --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I really think you should read a couple of good books about BDSM. Obviously you've got certain needs, and obviously you don't know how to deal with them -- yet. That's most likely not a medical condition; having urges like that is typically not indicative of a disease. It's just a kink. Kinks are fairly commonplace and not such a big deal; you seem distressed about this, which is understandable, since you're finding out pretty fundamental things about yourself, but you really shouldn't worry. Don't freak out! Kinks aren't a bad thing -- if anything, they probably make you more interesting. But as you're obviously not an experienced kinkster, you should strive to get educated about this stuff... so, read up on it.

Yes, a lot of people can and do switch between a dominant and submissive role. No, even if you're into that kind of stuff, that doesn't mean that you're necessarily into it all the time, or into all aspects of it. There are people who just want to be spanked, for example, or to be verbally humiliated, or immobilized, or simply to be told what to do, whereas some people really want the whole shebang in all its forms. These are personal preferences that you don't need to justify any more than you need to justify whether you prefer coffee or tea.

Our article on BDSM is pretty informative, and so are the articles it links to. Safe, sane and consensual is probably something you want to take in. Just take it easy, and take the time to learn; you'll probably find out a whole lot about what you want and about what you don't want, and both of those are very valuable things to you. Also, the columns of people like Dan Savage and Mistress Matisse are likely to provide a lot of useful perspective. Just relax, you'll figure this out. There's no reason to think that you're not going to be okay, and there isn't anything wrong about having urges like this. If that's how you happen to be wired, hey, more power to you. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Reconstructed literary and musical works

I've been having a discussion over at Talk:Felix Mendelssohn#London cab about a report I read that he left the only available copy of his incidental music to "A Midsummer Night's Dream" in a London cab and had to rewrite the entire score from memory. As far as we can tell so far, there's no basis to this story. However, it got me thinking. We've mentioned 2 real cases where writers did have to start from scratch all over again, but I'm sure there are numerous other cases. The same might apply to composers whose scores were lost or destroyed before they were ever printed, and they had to be recreated from memory. Or painters. Any ideas, folks?

If we had an article with a list of such details, what would be a better title than the one I jocularly suggested? -- JackofOz (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

List of works rewritten from memory --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't seem to have that list, but we do have Lost work which isn't exactly what the OP was looking for. The question brought to mind Darkness at Noon, a novel whose original German manuscript was lost but was recreated from an English translation. —D. Monack ^talk 04:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Good. Do you know of any others? I think Tolstoy wrote out War and Peace in toto about 6 times before he was happy with the final version. But he had the previous versions by his side as aides-mémoire (? aides-mémoires, ? aide-mémoires). I'm sure I've heard of non-Mendelssohn cases where composers had to rewrite their operas or symphonies from memory, but I can't bring any to mind. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

T. E. Lawrence left his first version of Seven Pillars on a train; John Steinbeck lost Mice and Men. These mention others: [1], [2] . Gwinva (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You could argue that the First Folio is a collection of reconstructed works, cobbled together after Shakespeare's death. No doubt many parts, like deeds done in one's youth, were remembered "with advantages." --- OtherDave (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've heard a story that Zamenhoff's first grammar of Esperanto was burnt by his father, who thought it was a waste of time. Steewi (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't heard that one, but it would account for the paucity of information about early versions. —Tamfang (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble thinking of musical examples, but here's one: Alexander Glazunov had a prodigious memory, and produced a memorial reconstruction of the first movement of Alexander Borodin's Third Symphony from just hearing him perform it once on the piano (Borodin left only a few scattered sketches on his death; nothing continuous). Shostakovich's memoirs contain some entertaining reading about that magnificently talented alcoholic. Antandrus (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'd heard that one. And didn't he reconstruct the Prince Igor overture after only a few hearings, played on a piano, or something? Ah, I see it was a bit more complicated than that. Then there was Mozart writing out Allegri's Miserere note-perfect after one hearing (that wasn't lost, but it may as well have been since the score was not available to anyone except the choristers, I seem to recall). -- JackofOz (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't quite count as "lost" since it wasn't written down in the first place, but there is the case of Bach's 3-voice fugue improvisation for Frederick the Great, which he later wrote down from memory, apparently, with improvements no doubt, and sent to Frederick along with the rest of The Musical Offering. Pfly (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems we're straying into the whole subject of musical memory, which probably deserves an article. It would certainly encompass all the above examples, but it would also cover the ability of a soloist to play concertos and whole recital programs without a score in front of them; and the ability of singers to warble away in 4-hour operas in languages they don't speak at home. Thanks for all the contributions. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's one more: French composer Albéric Magnard, composer of huge symphonies, may be most famous today for his heroic (or maybe foolish) defense of his estate during World War I, during the German advance just before the First Battle of the Marne (he shot at least one of the Germans who approached his house; they set the house on fire: according to the account by Nicolas Slonimsky, he killed more than one of them, and they found his body by the window, in firing position). His scores were destroyed in the fire, but his opera Guercoeur received a performance in 1931, with the orchestration reconstructed entirely from memory by Joseph Guy Ropartz. (Presumably the piano reduction was extant.) Antandrus (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The Catholic Church and death before Jesus

Does the Catholic Church have (or has it ever had) a stance on what happened to people who died before Jesus was born? Did Jews go to heaven and no-one else, or did everyone go to hell? Have they ever taken a position with regards to people who didn't have the opportunity to learn about Christ? Thanks in advance. 90.192.223.228 (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The resurrection is trans-temporal. A simple answer is that, at Jesus' resurrection, everyone was saved (those who had died prior to the resurrection and those who would be born after). A more complicated answer is that God exists outside of time, so the question has no meaning as it implies false restrictions (i.e., linear time) on a greater reality. Wikiant (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You may find Limbo informative. DuncanHill (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This question made me wonder, assuming we evolve, at what point did we gain souls? But I'm thinking that that's a bit of a juvenile a-ha sort of a question arising out of the problem of squaring evolution and faith in the supernatural tales, and or a misunderstanding about what christian religions think a soul is. So scrap that question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There's an exciting scene in Dante's Inferno where Jesus mounts an invasion of Hell to rescue Moses and guys like that who had been waiting around for a long time. It was like a Missing in Action (film) prequel. See Harrowing of Hell. --Sean 14:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The next-to-last paragraph of Salvation#Roman Catholicism seems to answer your question. -- BenRG (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The assumption is that we have souls. Saintrain (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I know, you believe, he assumes... The noted theologian George Carlin commented on limbo, and would have had a field day with the language in the Vatican document. Not a great deal of spiritual comfort in "a possible theological hypothesis." It makes Pascal's gambit sound like a promissory note. --- OtherDave (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

With respect, that's a little unfair. Imagine the question was "Assuming the earth does go around the sun, when did we lose our wings?" Saintrain (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Saintrain was making a pun on Assumption. Corvus cornix_talk 20:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I wish, but no. Saintrain (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't intend to be unfair. Theology doesn't have much in the way of verifiable fact (always the best kind). Within the Catholic church, though, I think it's safe to say that the notion of a soul is more than an assumption. Outside it, I'd agree; you could say from that standpoint that someone else's dogma seems to you only an assumption. (My three verbs were just the usual debater's comparative: "I state, you assert, he purports...") --- OtherDave (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You also might want to check out Sheol Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

religion

I know that there are different religions with the same name like paganism with A higher power, Or believing in the nature's elements such as Sun, Wind, Fire, Forest and Earth so on and so forth. What category would this religion fall under: Beleiving in God and Satan not as enemies but as partners. When the earth was created it was created with Good and Bad. (Rocks can be beautiful but you can also throw one at someones head.) Beleiving that we were put here to see how far we could get from evolution. Like a bet. That is how people have happiness and anger. Whichever the person holds more of God or Satan has more power over their head and heart. and satan is not neccesarily evil. Just grumpy and in charge of peoples feelings of anger and sadness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaela89 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see how this is a question- this is a place on Wikipedia to ask questions about topics, not to post personal beliefs. If you're asking religious questions (as in, which religion is correct), I'm afraid we cannot answer questions like that here. You need to work that out for yourself. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 19:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Manichaeanism#Theology. (By the way, Alinnisawest, I read Chaela89's question as a factual question entirely appropriate for WP:RD). --ColinFine (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, after rereading the question, I see that it is indeed a question- at my first skim-through, I didn't catch the question bit. Punctuation, that's where it all is... oh, all right, and reading things thoroughly!! ^_^ --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 19:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the post contains a perfectly appropriate question. Manichaeanism is an example of a belief system like the one described by Chaela89. Such belief systems can be described as forms of dualism. Marco polo (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Amba Prasad G S (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)When we question ourselves or face querries regarding the existence of God and Satan. I acknowledge the fact of Good and Bad which has been mentioned above. Good and Bad are very absurd terms to use. What I feel is Good can not be accepted by the other. The relativity of usage depends on individuals' outlook and the culture in which they are brought up. Acceptence of certain facts depends on various cultures. However, i always believe that the moral standards remain the same across all countries, religions, cultures and people. The basic standard of living, respecting the other human being and living in the society as a human being is most required.

Is there an unwrapped mummy in the British Museum

You know, one of those mummies with the bandages removed like they have in the dark room in the Cairo museum? --Regents Park (count the magpies) 20:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, according to this. Karenjc 20:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Lovely! Thanks a ton. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 20:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theorist

I remember having a conversation with a friend a little while ago, and he brought up the subject of conspiracy theories. One of his favourite theories was one that seemed mild at first. Stories of banking families and all that, but then wound up with five people who controlled everything, except they weren't people, they were shape shifting lizard men from outer space who ate humans and ruled over us by pulling the strings so to speak.

Does this sound familiar? I'd like to know who came up with it or what radio show it's from. Cheers 70.79.61.172 (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

See David Icke#Conspiracy writings, excellent stuff, probably the source of some of the plots of recent Dr. Who episodes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The Lizard Men conspiracy theory is obviously false—everyone knows the world is actually controlled by the Crab People. —Kevin Myers 02:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Naturally we also have an article about the reptilian humanoids. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.49 (talk)

Crab People? No, it's the New World Order! -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 16:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

But the Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet did win the election, so you see -- it must be true! :D Antandrus (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

donating internationally

Recently, I've contacted the United States Postal Service regarding sending international money orders to a few museums in Italy and Switzerland. A representative told me that those two countries don't accept international United States Postal Service money orders. Are there any other ways I can send financial contributions to a few museums in Italy and Switzerland?72.229.139.13 (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

By cheque or certified cheque? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You can wire money through an agency and through a bank. You can also purchase international money orders in banks in almost any international currency, though there may be local limits on the amounts. You may also be able to use a credit card. If none of these ways works for you, I suggest you get in touch with the institutions and ask them. It seems unlikely in the extreme that there won't be a way that it can be done. ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

September 10

Modern Phillis Wheatley

Who is a famous person who is still alive who could be compared to Phillis Wheatley? Reywas92^Talk 00:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not post questions on multiple reference desks. Miscellaneous is probably the right place for this. Algebraist 00:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Phil Wheatley, if only on the grounds of name... in what respect were you thinking of?--Tagishsimon (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the duplicate of this question which you posted on the misc. ref desk. Please post questions only on one desk. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It was on Misc first, and is kinda Miscy, but whatever. Comparison is dead easy. George W Bush, for example, has significantly paler skin than she did. What do you actually want to know? Algebraist 00:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

She's a poet. They're sometime miscellaneous, but nearly always humane... --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think that would be so hard. A poet who faced difficulites (eg being a slave), etc. but is modern-day. Just something like that. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 00:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

For most countries of the world, the slave qualification would be hard to match. If we choose some other tribulation, like book banning, exile, death threats, then someone like Nawal El Saadawi. You can find more of the same by searching google for banned CCC poet, where CCC is a country such as Turkey, Egypt, and many others, I guess. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

She may work. Thanks! Reywas92^Talk 01:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Are the Russian Nuclear Missile Silos safe?

A terrorist group may break into the missile silo and kill the guards and then take the keys to control the launching of the ICBMs. They may even want to change the co-ordinates of the missile targets. I hope this never happen. Are the Russian Nuclear Missile Silos well-secured and protected from terrorism today? 72.136.110.93 (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In short, yes they are. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

How secured are the the Russian Nuclear Missile Silos? 72.136.110.93 (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Secured enough. See Strategic Rocket Forces for some more details of the force, if not their security methods. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A terrorist group may break into the missile silo and kill the guards and then take the keys to control the launching of the ICBMs

Terrorists could do this anywhere and to anything if they were smart/good enough. ;) Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 01:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Imran Zakhaev would agree that with a ultranationalist force of ~150 one could take a silo over. --mboverload@ 02:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Russia's nukes are protected by launch codes (see Cheget, akin to the U.S. Nuclear Football) which make it almost impossible to launch nuclear missiles merely by taking over a silo. If that weren't the case, I'd be more worried about some Russian (or American) missile silo guard having a really bad day and deciding to blow up Washington. —D. Monack ^talk 04:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. For many years the top-secret code that would allow a US launch was "00000000". The suitcase holding the president's underwear probably had better security, thanks to the Curtis LeMays of the world. (source). --Sean 15:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you want to spend your time worrying about unsecured nukes (which is not an unreasonable thing to worry about), I'd concentrate on Pakistan. --Sean 15:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A faith-based Christian experience.

One of our biography articles talks about conversion to a "faith-based Christian experience."

I'm wondering whether the phrase "faith-based Christian experience" is well enough defined and broadly understood to the extent that it can be used in the encyclopedia without explanation.

Or perhaps there IS an explanation elsewhere in Wikipedia to which this article could link.

Answers on these points would be appreciated. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Editorial nonsense. Which article? --mboverload@ 01:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Baldwin - I have marked the statement as needing clarification. DuncanHill (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The word 'experience' sounds kinda dodgy to me. You don't convert to an experience, you have one. I think if you can't find a reference for a particular denomination then just shorten it to Christianity. - Lambajan 02:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Christianity all about faith? Isn't any religion all about faith? If so, "faith-based Christian" seems a tautology to me. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess the writer is trying to draw a distinction between the "cultural" Christian ("I'm a Christian because it's my heritage" kind of reason) and the person who has made a conscious decision to believe and follow the Christian doctrines. (Just as you can be a Jew by descent and/or one by belief.) It's not a very clear way of putting it, but then my comments fairly ill-thought and rambling, so I'm not one to propose a better way! You could rephrase it with "deeply-held beliefs" or "strong faith", perhaps? Gwinva (talk)

Or perhaps "converted to the Christian faith"? Nyttend (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) I haven't seen "faith-based Christian experience." In the U.S., faith-based is often used in the political or public sector for endeavors that have some religious underpinning. For example, an explicitly religious group might develop a program for helping addicts overcome their addiction. The program could combine various therapies and medication with, say, prayer and Bible study (or might leave out the therapy and meds altogether). The result might be called a faith-based treatment program.

As Jack says, "faith-based Christian experience," for a Christian, seems something of a tautology, like "Torah-based Hasidic study." On the other hand, the expression "conversion experience" (like Paul on the road to Damascus) is common, though I don't know if it applies in this case. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Thinking about the above comments, it seems to me there is a problem with using adjectives such as "strong", "deeply-held", "faith-based" to describe a person's faith or conversion. Not to deny that someone's faith may be strong, but (for example) if A is described as being a person of faith and B as a person of strong faith, the implication is that B's faith is stronger. Even for someone who knows A and B well, this may be a tough call. It is a "ranking" that Wikipedia would be well to avoid, IMO. I wonder if this or similar questions have been discussed elsewhere in Wikipedia. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

NZ discovery

Who was the Dutch explorer who became the first European to discover NZ?

219.88.61.112 (talk) 04:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

He was Abel Tasman.

Wanderer57 (talk) 04:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a homework question. So, instead of giving you the answer, I suggest you read New Zealand: the answer is a few paragraphs in. Gwinva (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC) (Ah, I see someone just has told you the answer. However, I still suggest you read the articles!) Gwinva (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright on speeches by American politicians

Would copyright laws apply to a public speech given by an American holding a political office, or is it in the public domain? If that speech is reprinted verbatim by a news organization, does copyright apply there?

I'm asking this because I've obtained a copy of a speech given by then-Honolulu Mayor Neal Blaisdell in 1966, which is from a verbatim reprint in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, and I'd like to know if I can reproduce it and distribute without having to worry about copyright. Musashi1600 (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that the copyright would belong to the news agency, as they didn't create it; but I could be wrong. If you don't get a firm answer here, go to WP:MCQ. Nyttend (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't know about that page, thanks. Musashi1600 (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I would expect the copyright belongs to the politician (or possibly their office, rather than them personally, in the same way that what you produce while at work often belongs to your employer). It almost certainly doesn't belong to the news organisation, since they just reprinted it and there is no creativity involved. If it were a film of the speech, the copyright of the film may belong to the news organisation (as a derivative work, or something), but the words of the speech would still be the politician's. --Tango (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Most politician's like their speeches and ideas to be disseminated, so a request to use it would probably be accepted. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright belongs to the creator of the work, not the news organization that reprints it. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What if it's an US pol who cribs a UK pol? Saintrain (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles in constitutions

I've wondered for a long time: why is it that the US Constitution has articles that are so much longer than other constitutions? For example, the Stalin Constitution has approximately 150 articles, versus 7 for the US Constitution; although this is due partially to its greater length, the articles of the Stalin Constitution are typically smaller than the sections of the US Constitution. Perhaps I should say: why aren't the chapters of the Stalin Constitution called articles, and the articles called sections? Nyttend (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably because there's no set definition, let alone length, for any of these things. How long is a rope? How many words should be in a chapter? In a section? In a paragraph?

If you want to have some fun, take a look at the relentlessly prolix constitution of Alabama, largest in the world. Eighteen articles, 287 sections, and 799 amendments (example: amendment 781, "Baldwin County: Wastewater Utilities." Even Stalin in his glory was not arrayed like one of these. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it gets worse: Amendment 492 states that "the legislature may hereafter, by general law, provide for the promotion of the production, distribution, improvement, marketing, use and sale of catfish." — Lomn 14:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That one cracked me up by how they left the essential word to the very end; Catullus could have done no better! --Sean 15:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Do they actually have ordinary laws or is everything in their constitution? Nil Einne (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I've not read it, I'd guess that the Alabama constitution has a provision similar to the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution that is more faithfully observed than the Tenth Amendment. Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

State constitutions are often treated just like any other legislation. New York's state constitution has a provision regulating the width of ski slopes (article 14 sec. 1). —D. Monack ^talk 06:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Nyttend is right. I've read that in 182x several States lost a bundle building canals and suchlike that never amounted to anything, and responded by adopting constitutions forbidding or severely restricting such spending; Alabama's may be the only one not radically rewritten since that period. —Tamfang (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Gulbenkian collection images

Can someone[s] from the humanities department identify who or what is shown in any or all of these pictures from the Gulbenkian Museum? Just curious. They are: [3], [4], and [5] The images can be placed on Commons. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Flickr photo no. 3 shows 3 of a set of 7 Chinoiserie tapestries incorporating designs by Jean-Baptiste Pillement, woven in the Aubusson manufactory, after 1773 (ref: Maria Gordon-Smith, "The Influence of Jean Pillement on French and English Decorative Arts Part Two: Representative Fields of Influence" Artibus et Historiae 21.42 (2000:119-163) described and illustrated pp 142ff); one of a pair of encoignures: Charles Cressent (attrib.), ca 1735; bureau plat, Bernard II van Risamburgh?; fauteuils à la reine upholstered in Beauvais tapestry: M. Gourdin?. The gallery view is too general for this to make a good encyclopedia illustreation, though. --Wetman (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• The third picture can't really be used...agreed. It has too many different things in it. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Are multiple-murderers rare?

I wonder if it is true that most murders are committed by someone who has never murdered before (either because crimes of passion are more common than organized crime, or because the justice system prevents murderers from re-offending most of the time). Has anyone come across any statistics on this? -- Beland (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I remember an oft quoted statistic that most murder victims are murdered by someone known to them, I think that would suggest that the murders are usually one-offs. It may depend, however, on whether you could killed more than one person at the same time as a multiple murder (obvious, it is, technically speaking, but you can't consider it a failing of the justice system to prevent re-offending!). --Tango (talk) 11:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Members of rival gangs, for example, generally know each other's names; the statistic only means that most murders are not random (such as spree killings or robberies gone wrong). —Tamfang (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Dating My Dentist

Not sure if this belongs here or elsewhere on the reference desk, but I think this is the best fit. So, here goes...

My dentist is good looking. Very good looking. I've peeked around at various articles about medical ethics and my understanding is that medical professionals are allowed to have relationships with patients if doing so will not compromise their care. Putting aside all other considerations (i.e. she's still married but decided not to wear her ring anymore, she's divorced but seeing someone, she makes it a personal policy not to date patients, she's way out of my league, I creep her out, etc.), is there anything baring her from going out with me? Specifically, is my understanding (above) correct and does that apply to dental professionals too?

--98.112.20.247 (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any ethical problem. With a dentist I would expect it to be even less of a problem than many other professional-client relationships, as her professional relationship with you is pretty limited and impersonal (teeth cleaning and reminding you to floss) and easily interchangeable (dentists are, in my experience, all pretty similar from a professional perspective—it's not like you couldn't get a new dentist if things didn't work out well, and there's no real consequences to switching dentists). The areas where this sort of thing gets complicated is when they are a psychologist, a teacher, a boss, etc. But I don't see dating your dentist as being any ethically different than, say, dating your mechanic. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There are no laws barring health professionals from dating patients in the United States. However, the companies that the doctors/dentists work for may have regulations against it. -- kainaw™ 15:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as you have nice teeth! — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Just remember: breaking up can bite. --- OtherDave (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

For educational purposes, I recommend watching the dentist´s scene in Marathon Man. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"jus primae noctis" on a tropical island

I have heard some years ago on radio that there is a custom of "jus primae noctis" on some small tropical island kingdom, far away. It is said that the king must deflorate all the girls on island, sometimes 7 girls at one night, so that he is very exhausted. Also the outlook of girls is not an excuse, so he must delforate even the ugly, handicap and fat ones. Is this true? Which country it is? I recently remembered the places name is Tonga, but found nothing about such custom on the Tonga article. Maybe I remember the name wrong, and it is some other country? Tarvast (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you know this island, please add information about it on the article "jus primae noctis", thanks! Tarvast (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If it was Tonga I would be surprised - given the lack of attempted coup d'etats. Richard Avery (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a very distorted version of what happened on Pitcairn Island. Adam Bishop (talk) 205.210.170.49 (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No its nothing like that. The story was about a native king and apparently an old and respected custom.

I feel myself a bit fool now, because I really believed for years that such a custom exists, just because I once heard it on radio. I even told it to some of my friends. Its suprising that media has so much power!

Still I can't believe it was a total lie told as a fact. Maybe it is some historic custom, that is ended? Or maybe it is a historic story that such a custom existed? Tarvast (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as a story, I could see it. Think of all the mermaid tales and whatnot told by lonely, horny sailors over the centuries. A simple tale of "I met this one girl on at this one port..." could quickly distort to "all the girls on this island..." and then "the king gets to..." --98.112.20.247 (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Candidates on the issues

I think I have this right as to how each candidate stands on the issues and I hate to ask the reference to check it but I do not want to cast a vote on the basis of any misunderstanding or any misinformation nor do I think anyone else does either.

Political Positions of the Candidates

There are five possible positions

• a - strongly support
• b - support
• c - no opinion
• d - oppose
• e - strongly oppose

And your reference desk question is? Algebraist 13:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this really how each candidate stands on the issues or have I got it wrong?

I guess they want to know if we see any glaring misrepresentations of the candidates views as shown on the table. Do we have a pro-gun Obama, or a pro-abortion Palin etc. Just to ask the OP for clarification, what is "protect sexual orientation"? Fribbler (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation Protected By Civil Rights Law —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.11.145 (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know what this 'foreign aid Russia Israel etc.' McCain's opposed to is. Algebraist 13:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Continue Foreign Aid to Russia, Israel, Others —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.11.145 (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a very broad category. I don't think McCain is opposed to aid for Israel. And does the US even give any aid to Russia? Algebraist 13:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Had the US not helped Russia recover from pure economic absurdity we'd have loose nukes and plutonium all over the place not to mention anything else Russia could have ripped out of the ground and sold. American aid bridged the gap long enough for Russia to limit such sales to oil and Vodka and rocket engines and computer programs and a whole bunch of stuff that puts dollars in its pocket but does not represent that great of a threat to the rest of the world and it was not all one sided. America greatly benefited and continues to benefit as well. Both Countries should be proud of what they accomplished in not just ending the Cold War but in helping so many people as a result.

No, I am not kidding, and I would still like to know if the US is currently providing economic aid to Russia. Algebraist 14:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Even though the owner of the shop has not revealed the price he pays for a sack of potatoes I can pretty much assume that I am providing him with economic aid every time I pay the "market" price he charges me for one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.11.145 (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Buying and selling are not economic aid. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The US does still give Russia money: [6]. We also spend a lot for nuclear security stuff that is good for both the US and Russia. Also, the idea that McCain would oppose aid for Israel is an absurdity; half of US foreign aid goes to Israel, and most of the other half goes to Egypt to be nice to Israel, and any whiff of reducing these amounts would be a political death sentence for any US presidential candidate. --Sean 15:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. Short version for people who don't want to rummage in pdfs: The US foreign affairs budget included about $80 million allocated to Russia this year, a third to a half of which went to anti-Kremlin NGOs, media and suchlike, and so probably doesn't count as aid in the usual sense. Algebraist 16:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

According to McCain's campaign website, he does not "strongly support" privatizing Social Security but merely wants to "supplement" Social Security with private accounts. Pres. Bush's Social Sec. proposal was similar. —D. Monack ^talk 02:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me there are two questions here. What is McCain's (and Bush's) current plan, and what does he support. A person may have an opinion on something, but not be willing to commit to it yet because he doesn't feel the time is right (or for a variety of reasons). In other words, just because McCain's plan is to supplement SS with private accounts doesn't mean he has never publicly supported privatising SS. My gut feeling is that McCain has never publicly supported privatising Social Security, but I know next to nothing about American politican Nil Einne (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, no sitting U.S. senator has ever publicly advocated privatizing Social Security as this is considered political suicide (this is even more true for presidential candidates). McCain's home state of Arizona has a large retiree population, so he would be especially sensitive to this issue. —D. Monack ^talk 21:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It might be to go with the flow but I believe Obama has repeatedly stated he supports death penalty. I remember hearing he would not be opposed to extending it to child rapists, "as a father". 190.244.186.234 (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it natural to feel this way?

I know this is a unusual question but is it natural for a normal human being (like me) to feel that there is something wrong with the world? 122.107.177.150 (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. But with 180,000 google hits for the phrase "There is something wrong with the world", you would not be alone (if you happened to think that way).--Regents Park (count the magpies) 13:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It really depends on what you mean by it. If you mean, the state of political affairs is not going particularly swimmingly, then I think a good deal of people would (at any given time in history) agree with you, because indeed, such is something of the status quo (and at the moment, I would consider it an absolute mark of sanity). If you mean that you suspect everyone around you has been replaced with exact duplicates, well that's a psychiatric issue. As it is, you've stated something very vague, so who can tell what you mean? --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Many people have felt this way, at least in the U.S, since the end of the year 2000. The Gallup poll showed 36% of the US responders "dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States" before the 2000 election, compared with 81% dissatisfied today. Edison (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Slartibartfast would say that's perfectly normal paranoia and everyone in the universe has it. --Tango (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(Not directed at Edison... Directed at the general U.S. population...) I have a strong feeling that it goes back a little bit before 2000. I know it is rather surprising that the world wasn't a utopian environment before 2000, but there were problems. Some people thought the entire world was messed up. It resulted in some nasty things, such as attempting to exterminate entire populations, killing world leaders, sending young men off to pointless wars... In the United States in particular, an elementary understanding of history is obviously not required to graduate high school. -- kainaw™ 15:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Answering the question... There is a natural maturation that people go through (which you can study in psychology). To be overly general, as a kid you think the world revolves around you. As you mature, you experience many things where the world does not revolve around you. As a teen (ie: living with parents, but experiencing the world outside of family life), you will experience more conflicts between the world and your personal self. Eventually, it will be apparent that much of the world does conflict with your personal self. Governments want to take your money. Other religions don't believe what you believe. Other people think their music is better. Other countries dress differently. The natural reaction is that there is something wrong with the world. That isn't the end though. It is possible to mature past that point to a realization that most of the world is different and then accept that fact. As my grandfather put it to me when I was young, "No matter what you believe or how strong your beliefs are, at least half the world disagrees with you. Get over it." -- kainaw™ 15:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course there is/are something(s) wrong with the world. If ever I haplessly forget that, the more red lights pop up at intersections, the more ignoramuses cut me off, the more megalomaniacs hog all my work, and the more idiots I hopelessly run into, just to remind me. Personally, by no means do I think it is unusual to just throw up your hands, turn your eyes to the sky and ask "Why?" every once in a while.

But then, we can always assume that there is always more that is right with the world than wrong. Why else are we able to use a free, open-content encyclopedia to share knowledge, thoughts, and ideas, with people halfway around the world in the blink of an eye? —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 22:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Put it another way: "Is there something right with the world?" If you can ask that question and get an answer that is satisfactory to you, then why could you also not ask its opposite? Saukkomies 16:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The year’s at the spring and day’s at the morn,

Morning’s at seven’

The hillsides dew-pearled;

The lark’s on the wing;

The snails on the thorn:

God’s in his heaven

All’s right with the world!

Sometimes. Saintrain (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Credited with Introducing Potatoes into Ireland?

This is quoted from the article Thomas Harriot:

"Thomas Harriot (c. 1560 – July 2, 1621) was an English astronomer, mathematician, ethnographer, and translator. Some sources give his surname as Harriott or Hariot. He is sometimes credited with the introduction of the potato to Great Britain and Ireland."

Considering the potato famine, would the Irish people have been better off if potatoes had not been introduced there? Wanderer57 (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty goofy hypothetical question. Who knows what would have happened if you change a major variable for a country's agricultural situation 200 years in the future. Maybe they would have developed other monocultures. Maybe they've had done something else. Maybe maybe maybe maybe. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Did the introduction of potatoes maintain a fairly constant population, or did it spur fast and unsustainable population growth leading to famine when the 1845 potato blight hit? A graph of the Irish population [7] found in the article Great Famine (Ireland) compared to the population of the rest of Europe shows an amazing increase in the Irish population from about 3.2 million in the mid 1700's to about 8.2 million when the Hunger hit in the 1840s, with a drop of about 2 million due to the famine over the next few years, and a continuing drop for some time thereafter. Edison (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but think of the well-being and quality of life—indeed, the existence at all—of the "extra" six million Irish who were probably sustained to some extent (presumably great extent, considering the population devastated by the crop's failure in the Famine) by the potato. Or as the OP words it, those Irish people were better off— until the Famine generation. This is (nod to first respondent, 98.217.8.46) if we're allowing only the one variable. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Crediting someone with something doesn't have to mean giving them a pat on the back. For example we credit Oppenheimer with inventing the atomic bomb but that doesn't mean we're saying "well done, son". 90.192.223.127 (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ireland is warm, windy, and damp. There are few other staples suitable for such a climate. DuncanHill (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all. The rollercoaster rise and drop in Irish population suggests dramatic changes. I should turn to history books to get an idea of the human toll taken by those changes.

I agree that my question was hypothetical - I almost used that term in asking the question. But "pretty goofy"?? Though my experience of the reference desk is much less that that of 98.217.8.46, my impression is that compared to some questions, mine is quite sensible.

Could we institute a rating system for reference desk questions, the "goofiness scale"? (Now that is a pretty goofy question.) ;o) Wanderer57 (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a historian and all hypotheticals get a 3/5 on the goofiness scale by my rating anyway, and those which try to make sense out of how history would be different by changing some broad variable get an extra goofiness point. Now I'll admit though that even with this rating there are far more goofy questions on the Ref Desk, but this one struck me as goofy in the utter unanswerable nature of it. I think the answers offered are a bit too simplistic—I find it highly unlikely that the potato alone was responsible for all it is being given credit here for. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The question is far from goofy. The famine would likely not have killed as many people if the population had not increased so swiftly. But maybe the world was a better place for those extra people being in it, and were they personally better off being born than not being born? Hunger in Ireland provided Jonathan Swift with material for a satire, "A Modest Proposal" in 1729, Hunger and overpopulation were commonly understood to be the lot of the Irish over a century before the famine, before the same farmland was called on to feed another 5 million people while exporting grain for the financial benefit of the absentee landlords." (Ah Clio, where are ye to refute this?) Edison (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Urgent requirement!

I am a new user to Wikipedia.Can anyone please specify an internet link(External) from where I can get informations concerned with the 'Role and Duties of Judges in India'?Anyone to help is wholeheartedly welcomed.117.201.96.162 (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

We have great articles on many topics. May I ask why only an external link will do? --Sean 19:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of biting a newcomer, I'd suggest it's because they've been told not to reference wikipedia on their assigment. Steewi (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The article Indian law has a number of internal / external links which may be useful in your research. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oath of Allegiance

The Oath of Allegiance is required to be taken in the UK and other Commonwealth Realms by MPs, clergy of the Church of England, police constables and others. It is now sworn by new British citizens at citizenship ceremonies. To me, the oath appears feudal and obsolete; it pertains to swearing faithfulness and 'true allegiance' to the queen and her successors. I'm looking for comments and thoughts, legal and otherwise, as to what the oath legally or morally binds one. Is it possible for one seeking to abolish the monarchy to make such an oath? Certain MPs are avowed republicans and have made the oath. Has anyone, or can anyone, be prosecuted for breach of this oath? Has the oath been modified, scrapped or made optional in certain Commonwealth Realms? Thanks. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Police and Assembly members in Northern Ireland don't need to swear it. Dmcq (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect you've already look at the UK specific page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(UK)) and looked through the linked parliamentary report/document (http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2001/rp01-116.pdf). That goes into some detail about the current oath and includes examples of Sinn Fein MPs that were not allowed to sit because of their refusal to take the oath. Seeing as the oath has very little to I would find it unlikely for anyone to be prosecuted...

I ..... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

Apart from abiding by the laws of the land (which all would need to do) there is little to it. Yes there is the allegiance to the Queen but that's a hard one to 'prove' in terms of enforcing this. It's more symbolic than anything else I would say. ny156uk (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The UK oath of allegiance is much shorter and simpler than the equivalent US oath of citizenship. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In Australia, new MPs have the choice of an oath or an affirmation. The oath starts with "I do swear that ..." and ends with "So Help me God". The affirmation starts "I do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that ...", and there's no reference to God at the end. Otherwise, they are both about allegiance to the monarch and their heirs and successors. The wording is hard coded into the Constitution, and cannot be changed except by referendum. Any referendum that proposed to do away with swearing or affirming allegiance to the Queen would also probably propose to do away with the monarchy entirely. We had such a referendum in 1999, but it failed. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

UK MP's also have the choice of swearing or affirming. DuncanHill (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, Oath of allegiance (Canada). Americans are often astonished when they learn (on admittedly rare occasions) that the citizenship oath for new Canadians begins, "I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors..." "Queen of Canada" is virtually unknown in the U.S., except perhaps by bowtie-wearing columnists. --- OtherDave (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Who then do Americans imagine the Canadian Head of State to be? DuncanHill (talk) 12:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I imagine they imagine her to be Queen Elizabeth II of "England". That's the response most people would give, even in relatively enlightened places. Some few would say QEII of the United Kingdom. Even fewer are aware of the 16 separate crowns she wears, one for each Commonwealth realm. (She must have an awful headache by now.) -- JackofOz (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The Prime Minister, of course. I do find it a bit odd to hear citizens of a democracy pledging allegiance to a monarch, though I'm not a big fan of the U.S. Pledge either. -- BenRG (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a little problem with people of other religions persuasions bearing true allegiance whilst 'An Act for the Security of Her Majesties Person and Government and of the Succession to the Crown of Great Britain in the Protestant Line' is still in force. Dmcq (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Only if they intend to ignore the "according to law" part of the oath or affirmation. One can bear true allegiance while lawfully attempting to change a particular law. DuncanHill (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that religious tests have been removed from the oath as it now stands, especially as one can decide whether to swear by God or not, or to affirm rather than swear. That the succession is religiously limited by law seems a somewhat separate issue. In UK law, the oath has been whittled down to allow for a multitude of non-Anglicans to take it, thus suggesting that the limited succession is no impediment. There also seems to be a consensus that a republican can swear the oath on the basis that the allegiance boils down to a respect for rule of law, and allows for legal abolition of monarchy. Even so, I feel the oath is a rather outdated nonsense. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There is an English judicial review against the UK MP's oath, proposing an alternative to the country or constituents. In Northern Irish Queen's Counsel don't have to take it either. Even still, monarchists will tell you it reinforces national unity. As Edmund Burke said, Parliament isn't a Congress of hostile interests, but one Parliament of the entire Kingdom.78.144.107.126 (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Woman Vice President

Why do so many women jump boat and go from being a democrat to being a republican only because the republican VP candidate is a female. This is crazy to me.... Before Palin was announced as Mccain's running partner, the polls showed they were neck to neck, now Mccain is up. Why will women just vote for a woman?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.33.31 (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The same happened here in the UK and we got Maggie Thatcher for 11 years. Astronaut (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

People want leaders that will make the same decisions as they would make, which often means people support candidates that are most like them, that could well include gender. --Tango (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It just demonstrates that politics is not necessarily about policies. In fact, in the majority of cases it's not about policies, which is why the "charisma" or other personal qualities of candidates is considered so important; as is whether they've ever in their life put a joint to their lips, even if it happened when they were 15. JFK probably got over the line because of the Catholic vote; if Obama wins, it will no doubt be helped by lots of African-Americans voting for him who may not have voted for a white Democrat candidate. It also works in reverse: there will be people who would have voted Repulican if the VP running mate was a male, but will now not vote Republican; and there will be people who would have voted Democrat if the presidential candidate was white, but will now not vote Democrat. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

All presidential elections are decided by the "undecided" voters who are not ideologically attached to one party or the other. These people tend to pride themselves on voting for the person rather than the party. Because the parties nationally are so far apart on many issues, anyone who would vote Democrat one year and Republican the next presumably is not an issues-oriented person. Such a person would be swayed by little things like which candidate seems more honest or which seems more like a "regular person." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect we are actually talking about not too many voters here — a few percentage points — who are dumb enough to vote for someone just because they look (or don't look) like them. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Tango, most of these women were democrats and moved over to being republican as can be seen with the polls. It comes down to the only similarity is sex, and not beliefs. I just cant believe how incompetent people can be these days... And about the last comment, we are talking about a lot of voters, not just a few. I know these polls that they conduct dont cover all American voters or even close, but they show what American voters will do. These small studies of a few thousand people shows pretty much how all voters will vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.33.31 (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no way of knowing if anyone will tend to change party affiliation until after the vote on November 4th. Until then, it is only opinion polls and those are frequently inaccurate. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The question is based on a faulty assumption--that is, that McCain's jump in the polls is primarily attributable to women "crossing over" to support Sarah Palin purely because she is a woman. If one has been watching the polling figures (The Gallup Organization and Rasmussen Reports, for starters), a different picture emerges. It appears that few women have crossed over: if anything, counterintuitive as it might seem, the new McCain supporters are men. Statistically, McCain's gains among women voters in the last 10 days are very small...almost within the margin of error for the polls being taken. When we further consider that the rise in polls generally is likely attributable in part to a "convention bounce", I don't think there is a phenomenon to explain--at least, not the phenomenon the questioner believes is at work. Just my two cents, User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.112.41.113 (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

How dare you spoil a good discussion with references to actual data! ;-) You're right: there seems to be no data that shows Democratic women shifting support to McCain. Gallup, in fact, suggests that McCain actually lost ground with both Democratic and independent women after the selection of Palin. So far, Palin seems to have helped McCain primarily with white male independents and GOP women. Palin will presumably help McCain with conservatives, but whether she will attract many independent or Democratic women remains to be seen. —Kevin Myers 05:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I saw a news report earlier today on the Internet which quoted one poll (dont' know which one) that said that women's support had gone from 8% more for Obama, to 10% more for McCain. Corvus cornix_talk 05:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

American Helping Everyone

How come the USA is always helping every other country and you never hear of any other countries helping others in terms of free medicine or anything else? I don't have a problem with helping others in need, but I find it pretty sad that no one else cares to contribute, whether they are a wealthy country or not. This country is so broke right now and we are helping everyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.33.31 (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You will see from this article (Official development assistance) that many countries are (in terms of percentage of GNP) much more generous than the USA in this area. DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The ODA data is misleading because it only includes money given by governments. Individual Americans and U.S. private foundations give, collectively, almost four times what the U.S. government gives. When you include all US giving (not just giving by the government), Americans give more foreign assistance in total and on a per-capita basis than almost all other countries. Wikiant (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for that (with like-for-like figures for other developed nations)? DuncanHill (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a citation here which suggests that the US, public & private, gives less on a per capita basis than many other countries. YMMV. Oh. And another one which states "Even if you factor in private giving, the United States ranks 19th out of 21 rich countries in terms of per capita expenditures, according to the 2004 Ranking the Rich exercise.". One reason the US is pushed so low is the amount of "tied" aid - 57% of total giving [8] - which can be spent only with US firms. Halliburton, after all, also needs to be fed lest there be no jobs for retired top politicians in the future. Thus 'aid' funds the domestic Military-industrial-media complex and the Pork barrel. </rant>. Okay, to balance it up a bit, a long quote from the Rasmusen blog[9]: "This does not mean that the United States is particularly stingy on other dimensions of helping the poor. The Ranking the Rich exercise included aid as only one of seven components -- the others are trade, investment, migration, environment, technology, and security. When you aggregate the different components, the U.S. comes in at 7th out of the 21 countries (intriguingly, among the G-7, the Anglosphere countries -- Great Britain, Canada, and the U.S. -- come in at 1-2-3). It turns out that the U.S. is comparatively more generous on other dimensions." --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of where the USA ranks on the "giving" scale, one can safely say that many other countries do care to contribute, both money, and other types of aid (such as humanitarian, developmental, military). So, the question is "why do you never hear of any other countries helping"? Probably, because of media/political bias. The American press (or politicians) like to tell about what America is doing. Nothing wrong with that in principle (families like to discuss their own affairs, after all), but you might need to read more than headlines to find out what the rest of the world is doing. Gwinva (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a source (the numbers are from the world bank) I found about the US vs. other developed nations in terms of private donations, I didn't read into it too much. I've always heard that European governments will give more, but Americans give more individually as a percentage of GDP. AlexiusHoratius 22:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that's charitable giving in total, not just giving to other countries. I expect Americans give a greater proportion of their donations domestically than other countries (that's a guess based on general statistics about Americans and involvement with the rest of the world). That link also says charitable giving is generally higher in countries with lower taxes, which could explain a significant proportion of the difference, judging by this. --Tango (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Because America is the best! Ra ra ra! See American exceptionalism. USA!! USA!! USA!! What a load of jingoistic tosh. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Note also there is a difference in the types of aide countries give. Some give a lot of tied aide, others untied aide. Aide can come with a large variety of other preconditions which may benefit the donating country or can have few or none. Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the USA being broke and how that relates to foreign aid, most US foreign aid goes to propping up our only reliable Middle Eastern ally, Israel, rather than good-natured medicine distribution, and most of the rest goes to overpaying Iowa farmers for food aid. The whole kettle of fish takes up less than 1% of the US budget. Also, the USA is ludicrously far from being broke; anyone who thinks so is only counting our debts and not our assets. --Sean 00:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid after Iraq but by no means receives most US foreign aid. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Good figures on this issue here. Israel plus Egypt far outweigh all the rest, if we put Afghanistan and Iraq to one side. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Those figures don't show all countries. I believe Israel + Egypt = about 1/3 of US foreign aid (minus Iraq). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Rich countries like to think they are doing great things helping poor countries, but factor in the people from the poor countries who were enslaved, or abused by colonial regimes which worked them to death on plantations or in mines. Significant value went from the third world nations to the European nations who colonized them, and significant value went in the form of slaves from Africa to America. Much of the aid which goes to developing nations is in the form of weapons, and conveys little benefit to the common people, but instead keeps corrupt "friendly" regimes in power. Edison (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In its history, the United States has indeed given a lot of foreign aid to other countries. However, it should not be ignored that all through the 20th Century up to today that the US has immensely benefitted financially from its foreign investments. In other words, for every dollar that US investors have sent overseas, they realize a profitable return - sometimes at an incredibly high rate. What this means is that America has stripped capital - money - from other countries around the world for many years, which is one of the big reasons that the United States has been so rich for so long. The percentage of money that the US has then turned around and given back to these countries is almost negligible compared to the vast wealth it has stripped from the same countries by foreign investments. Saukkomies 16:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Foreign investment "strips wealth" from developing countries? Do you think it would be better for companies in the developed world not to invest in developing countries? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Economics is not a zero-sum game, it is possible to profit without it being at someone else's expense. A return on investment is usually such a case. I build a factory in China, a load of Chinese people get jobs and wages, some consumers get whatever it is I make and I get some profit - everybody wins (that's a little simplistic, but it is certainly possible to have a net gain overall from an investment). --Tango (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This indeed is true. However, such is not the case for many of the countries that the United States has given foreign aid to - especially in Latin America. When the trading arrangement between two countries - one a developed and one developing - entails that the poorer, developing country provides raw material and cheap labor, and the richer, developed country provides manufactured goods, there will be an inherent trade imbalance of capital (wealth) which will flow steadily from the developing to the developed country. The result of this is a steady flow of capital from the developing to the develoed country, keeping the developing country from fully realizing its potential. There are many examples of this, including the relation between the US and Brazil, Guatemala, Mexico, and other Latin American countries. Generally speaking, every US dollar invested in Latin America returns two dollars to the investor. Saukkomies 21:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

European countries take precedence over the U.S. in the severity of economic and cultural devastation imposed on colonies. In the realm of cultural rape, many countries were forced to abandon even their native languages in favor of those of the occupiers. Few countries (Guam? Puerto Rico? The Phillipines? the Indian Nations of North America?) speak English as a result of U.S. occupation, whereas many speak English as a result of British conquest, or speak French, or Spanish, or Russian due to conquest. Any other languages imposed by cultural imperialism? Edison (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Very edifying, Edison, but this seems to be drifting a long way off topic in order to prove a political point. And I'm sure that's against the Ref Desk rules. Malcolm XIV (talk) 09:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course they don't speak English as a result of US colonisation - the US was a British colony, it speaks English due to British colonisation! The US can't really claim innocence of things that happened before it become independent, since they were part of the British (and some other European countries) empire and were colonialists. --Tango (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

primary historical memories

I want to know if there is, and what it is called if there is a term that refers to a generations first collective memory of a significant historical event like President Kennedy's assassination was the first nation or world wide event that my parents can remember, or 9/11 will be the first worldwide event remembered by today's teenagers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.38.58 (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any specific term for it. But mine was the fall of the Berlin Wall, if anybody cares! ;-) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think such a term would apply, because what is "historically significant" and what is not, is all relative. From an English stand-point, I really doubt such a term exists. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think events that stand out as you describe are sometimes called landmark events or historical landmarks. However, since a 'generation' of people are not all born in the same year, the first landmark event for some is not the first for others. Because of this, there may not be a name for the first landmark event of a generation. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually though, looking back, what about the baby boomers? Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

People from the earliest age of reason upward remember these events: how they heard it, where they were, who they were with. It is multi-generational. I know people from an older generation whose memory of that sort is the announcement of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. For those a few years younger, it was the death of President Franklin Roosevelt. For a younger generation still, it was the assassination of President Kennedy. People could tell what class they were in, who announced that Kennedy had been shot, and who was sitting in front and behind them in the classroom. The next such event? Maybe the moon landing, although it was not a sudden unexpected event. Then 9/11. Perhaps these events are a creature of telecommunications. Was it such a shared historical moment when a newspaper arrived with word of the outbreak of the American Revolution in the fighting at Lexington and Concord? Then there would have been more word of mouth spreading of the news when a newspaper arrived via stagecoach, or later when the telegraph at the newspaper office received word that President Lincoln had been shot. There ought to be a name for these moments. Edison (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. For young people, it might be 9/11 (7 years ago today; the West's bad luck might finally have come to an end) or the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. My first such memory is the launch of Sputnik in 1957. It may not seem like much these days, but it was a very big event then, and I have a very clear memory of my mother going on in some detail about it. I can't believe someone hasn't come up with a name for this phenomenon at some time, but if so, it doesn't seem to have entered popular consciousness. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I too am unaware of a name for these events. Mine is the murder of Lord Mountbatten and some of his family and friends. DuncanHill (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The first major world event I remember vividly is the Challenger explosion. I remember the Berlin Wall falling and the Soviet Union collapsing too, but I was mostly interested in the new flags and capital cities I had to memorize...and it seems like there must be a word for this, but I can't think of it. Maybe there is one in German, they usually have words for this sort of thing, right? Adam Bishop (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely there must be a name for everything that can be described. - Lambajan 17:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've heard the names of the actual events being used as such a generic term, i.e. "9/11 was our generation's JFK." jeffjon (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Things like this have always happened. Before Pearl Harbor, it was "Remember Lusitania! Before that, farther back, it was "Remember the Alamo!" Things like that go back forever. Maybe "watershed moment" is what we're looking for? --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 20:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Watershed moment" would certainly describe such events, but it would also describe many events that people don't particularly remember (well, they might remember the event per se, but they don't remember now exactly where they were or what they were doing), so it's too broad. For example, does everyone remember exactly where they were and what they were doing when they first heard about Czechoslovakia's decision to break into 2 countries? I certainly don't. But it was indisputably a watershed moment, at least as far as those countries were concerned, and as far as the history of peaceful resolutions goes. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it will always depend on your frame of reference. I had no idea who Lord Mountbatten was until I looked at the article, for example, but that's no huge surprise—I'm betting that most Americans of my age have no idea who he is. And our degree of understanding of said events can be pretty miniscule; all I really understood about the fall of the Berlin wall was that everyone thought it was a big deal and now I had to re-learn my European geography because East Germany and West Germany would now just be Germany and I found that very irritating at that age, the apparent arbitrariness of it all. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Could (would) one consider Yugoslavians and Australians born about the same time the same generation? What Berliners (O) remember about 1961 are probably much different than Burmese.

My first political/historical memory is seeing the headline "Ike Wins in Landslide". (I knew what Ike, wins and landslide all meant but was very confused and worried by that juxtaposition!) That event is certainly minor to my "generation". I think a "generation's memories" are formed way after the fact. Saintrain (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Then there's the day Princess Diana died. One term that comes up over and again is adding "-gate" for any scandal. In her famous interview launching Martin Bashir, PD might have embodied both for some people. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The death of Princess Diana is certainly my first such memory. 9/11 is probably the only other such memory I have. I can tell you exactly where I was when I heard about those two events. --Tango (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there are certainly "collective moments": those events which everyone (above a certain age) can remember, along with the associated details (where they were, how they reacted). JFK, Challenger, Berlin Wall, Diana, 9/11 and so on. These will vary slightly from country to country and, of course, everyone will have a different first event. Mine was the Erebus crash, 1979. I could tell you exactly when and how I heard. The 1981 Springbok Tour was, I think, my first realisation that there was a Big Bad World out there, but that was an event, rather than a moment. (And now you know how old I am, and where I live.) Gwinva (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

While we're reminiscing, my earliest good memory of a historical event is the United Kingdom general election, 1997. The only earlier such events I recall are the death of John Smith (and my outrage that my daytime TV had been cancelled as a result) and a sense of bemusement that anyone thought golf important enough to fight a war over. Algebraist 01:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I remember going into school the day after the 1997 election and talking with friends about how it was the first day of our lives under a non-conservative government. I don't remember when I heard the result, though, so I don't think that one counts for me (I was only 10 at the time). --Tango (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Count yourself lucky, Tango. Until age 22, I had lived my entire life under conservative federal governments. I'm sure I was irretrievably ruined by then. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I know a girl who said she would always remember where she was when she heard that Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese, and that President Kennedy had been shot. She was sitting in American History class in 1996. Edison (talk) 04:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I was 11, and I'd been up till 4 watching it. Algebraist 10:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Up til 4 watching what? Pearl Harbour, President Kennedy, or Edison's friend's history class? Gwinva (talk) 08:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

September 11

Midrash Ecclesiastes Rabbah

I was wondering if anyone knows where I can find a free online English translation of Midrash Ecclesiastes Rabbah. I am looking for a translation in its entirety, not just excerpts, specifically on Ecclesiastes 1. Thanks! Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Nastia Liukin's Religion

I have heard a few things that say Nastia is Catholic, but aside from one or two tidbits, I have not seen a single report on her religion. Does anyone know what religion she is? It is something I have been wondering about for a while, and I figured if anyone would know, it would be the Wikipedians.

Thanks! Ken Kenneth971 (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

According to this, she attended an Easter mass with her family at a Russian Orthodox church. The fact that it suggests this was a one off or unusual event, would lead me to think she is Orthodox by birth, but perhaps not practising. Fribbler (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Korea's Major Accomplishments

I'm trying to find some of Korea's Accomplishments, but ones that aren't as well known. Anyone know of a site that lists all accomplishments?

--204.218.240.25 (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you're asking. In medieval times, the Koreans invented an alphabet which has been considered the most linguistic alphabet ever regularly used to write a language. The Koreans also defeated a late 16th-century Japanese attempt to conquer Korea (despite having a bureaucratic governmental system which was not greatly conducive to organized military valor), something which probably was a very significant influence on the shogunate's ultimate 17th-century decision to adopt an isolation policy, instead of trying to conquer an overseas empire.

In modern times, the South Koreans built up their economy from basically zero in 1951 to almost being one of the top 10 economies in the world in the early 1990's.

You can also see National Treasures of Korea... AnonMoos (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Korea perfected the fermented cabbage relish known as Kimchi. Saukkomies 22:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is the global authority on undergraduate research?

I'm undertaking a project with the aim of creating and implementing a system for delivering undergraduate research within a university. Contacting those with relevant experience is fundamental to overcoming the inevitable pit-falls, and I was wondering if there were any recognised figures in the area.

Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lottie G (talk • contribs) 13:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In what field? --Tango (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) is an NSF program in the United States for students studying the sciences. The NSF has an REU Points of Contact list. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Walter Ralegh's middle name

In our article Killua Castle, a monument to "Walter G. Ralegh" planting the first potatoes in Ireland is mentioned. Our article Walter Ralegh does not mention a middle initial or name. Does anyone know if he did have one, and if so, what it was? DuncanHill (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No middle name in either Britannica or Chambers biographical dictionary. Algebraist 13:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The ODNB has nothing either. DuncanHill (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It was very uncommon in those days for English people to have middle names. Even the English monarchs around then had just one name. If Raleigh had a middle name, which I very much doubt, he would have been one of the few exceptions. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone here actually been to Killua, or are we relying on internet sources as to the monument's text? Algebraist 22:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No-one has been to Killua, but there is a picture in the article, and a link to the registration of the monument with Ireland's National Inventory of Architectural Heritage. DuncanHill (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the monument's text, without the "G." the lines are centred, then there's the G, crammed up against the R with a subscripted stop between/below them taking that line to the left. Has it been tampered with since first engraving? Is it an early mayor making himself important through stonemasonry graffiti? Julia Rossi (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it sure looks like vandalism to me (and we're all experts on spotting vandalism around here). The G towards the end is in a very different style to the leading G, and it looks much more like a C. Even if he really did have a middle name starting with G, it's not usual to refer to people who are normally only known as eg. John Smith, as John G. Smith. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not as weathered as the other letters, either. Perhaps a real Walter G. Ralegh added it in? Gwinva (talk) 04:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly some larrikin from the era when people believed what they saw in print/stone. Someone could email the find to Killua council while I get the beers, : )) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

XXXX, naturally. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Plume etiquette

Further to this thread Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Queen Victoria's funeral cortège: Edward and Wilhelm?, a question was asked at the end which I think is worthy of our attention - who was allowed plumes in that era? DuncanHill (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Permanent link to question: [10]. Gwinva (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The middle-class in US elections

Hello There,

I notice that the Democrats talk about helping the middle classes rather than the poor (working class). In the Uk, we rarely talk about the middle class in terms of needing help (because, well, they don't) so any sort of benefit is designed with the working class in mind. (in fact, i'd go further and say that the middle class in the UK is rarely mentioned at all, unless to convey busiboddyness or homogenity) So I'm wondering why this is? Is it a symptom of American positivity (like how problems are never problems, they're always 'challenges' or 'opportunities')? Or is it something nastier in that no one wants to stick up for the loser-ish poor? Anyway, i'd be interested to hear what the consensus is....217.169.40.194 (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have heard it said that this is because most American people consider themselves middle class, even if they in fact quite poor relative to the national average. Can anyone confirm this? Algebraist 14:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The article on American middle class points to some of this. As Algebraist gets at, it is a very nebulous term that by some counts 75% of the country self-identifies by. We don't say "working class" so much in the US though we do use the alternate term "blue collar" in political discourse (esp. when campaigning in Pennsylvania). And helping "the poor" does not have much of a ring to it in US political discourse, in part because a good deal of the American mythology is that everyone can succeed if they really want to, and thus people are poor because they are lazy or because they want to be or etc. My impression (garnered only from British documentaries like the Up series, I am sad to admit) is that in the UK the attitudes towards the poor are much more sympathetic, in part because the difficulties of true social mobility are more clearly recognized as a result of having a long-entrenched class system, whereas in the US most people (and esp. politicians) believe the social mobility is practically limitless (the old Horatio Alger story), even if actual economic and sociological data make it clear that it is not. I should note this is my own pop-analysis. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Middle class" certainly means something different in the United States than in the UK. In the UK, I think that "middle class" implies professional employment or small- to mid-size business ownership. As others have suggested, in the United States only the poor and the very rich do not identify as middle class. That includes anyone who owns a house (nearly 75% of Americans) or who owns even a decent-looking car but who does not employ a staff of domestic servants. Given the broad definition of the middle class, many Americans (not including myself) feel that those who have failed to qualify for membership in it have failed due to laziness or irresponsibility and do not deserve any "hand-outs" from the state, particularly not at their own expense as taxpayers. Meanwhile, many who define themselves as middle-class face low pay, rising prices, and a lack of health insurance. Many Americans feel that members of the broadly defined middle class, who are doing their best but struggling to get by, might deserve a helping hand, particularly if they see themselves as possible beneficiaries. Marco polo (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, as an American with little experience in British interpretations of words, I've always considered working class and middle class to be about the same thing. There's the rich, there's the middle class that works and so on, there's welfare cases. Pretty much how American attitudes have seemed to me. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 20:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In the UK, middle class and working class are definitely different things. Working class are often in council houses (cheap houses rented from local government) and on benefits. Working class are usually paid by the hour, middle class are usually salaried. I don't think there's a firm line between the two, but most of the time it's clear what a household falls under. --Tango (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

American politicians never speak of the "working class," but Democrats often talk about "working families," by which they mean working-class families. As previously stated, Americans generally see society as divided into three classes -- the poor, the middle class (i.e., "us") and the rich. The middle class is divided into an upper middle class and a lower middle class, which may correspond to the "middle class" and "working class" of the UK. But any politicians who talked specifically about helping the lower middle class or the working class would be accused of "class warfare." Those who live in public housing and collect welfare would be considered "the poor," and, since many middle-class Americans resent any of their tax money going to such supposedly undeserving people, any politicians who talks about helping the poor does so at his peril. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I found an interesting graph ([11]) that seems to show that about 60% of British households receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes. That rather surprised me (although I suspect it's due to child benefit which is paid to any family with children and child tax credit which is paid to most). --Tango (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The figures for final income in that graph include an amount for benefits in kind, such as education and health services. DuncanHill (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And that is why one should always read the words accompanying a graph properly and not just give it a quick glance! Thank you. I wonder if that includes benefit from things like defence spending... I guess not, since the "all households" bars show a net loss, so some money must be going on something else (and that's not including corporation tax or public borrowing). I wonder what other things aren't included... --Tango (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Moral question: Discriminate or avoiding conflict

Imagine that you have two openings in your company and you can choose people from group A or group B. You know that group A and B don't come along well due to some historical problems between their communities in the past. If you take a candidate from group A and group B, you know that they will not come along well, maybe they will even fight each other.

Would it be morally wrong taking two candidates from the same group?--Mr.K. (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"If you take a candidate from group A and group B, you know that they will not come along well". Are you sure that is true of the particular people you are intending to hire? Just because groups A and B are fighting somewhere in the world doesn't mean people A and B will not be able to get along. I have personal experience of this working with people from different parts of former Yugoslavia. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that it is morally wrong to assume that because many members of group A are at odds with many members of group B, a given individual from group A will not be able to get along with an individual from group B. Furthermore, I think that it is morally wrong to reject an otherwise qualified person because of his or her group membership. However, it sounds as though a legitimate job qualification could be the ability to get along with members of both group A and group B. I don't see a problem with an interview question for a member of group A along the lines of "In this organization, we employ people from a wide range of backgrounds. Can you give examples of how you have worked in the past with people from groups C or B?" I think I would include people from more than one group in this question so that the interviewee does not feel that he or she is being singled out as coming from a group that has problems with people from group B. If the person then gave an example from group C, I might follow up with "And what about people from group B?" Marco polo (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree. You cannot assume that a person will act a certain way because of what group they're from. If the candidates have agreeable personalities then they should be able to work around any problems that the situation poses. They could even become friends and help diffuse the broader situation in their own localized way. I think the morality of taking people from one group or another varies depending on the situation. In some fields you're obligated to take the most highly qualified people nomatter what. Sometimes the job requires people with good interpersonal skills over qualifications. The historically persecuted group may have more candidates who can do the job (depending on what the job is, in some fields the qualification process is more rigorous and necessary) just as well as the other group but may not have as many qualifications to back themselves up. This is actually a layered and complex question. In general, morality aside, there are many benefits to companies in most industries in increasing diversity. - Lambajan 18:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Morality is a very personal thing. What's morally wrong for me may not be morally wrong for you. But, depending on the definition of groups A and B, choosing people based on their membership of such a group, rather than on their merits as defined by the selection criteria, may well be discriminatory in a way that's legally unacceptable (again, depending on the law where you live). -- JackofOz (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The largest discrimination is in assuming that any and all members of Groups A and B are the same as others of their same groups. Once you get past that prejudice, it become easier to understand. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetical Questions Only - How to Address the US President

If Hillary Clinton had become presdient of USA, will she be addressed as "Mrs. President"? And if her and her husband where in public together, would they be addressed as "Mr and Mrs. President"? --Anilmanohar (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hilary would have set the precedent, so any answer would also be hypothetical. I'd go with Mrs. President. Bill would probably be The First Husband. Paragon¹²³²¹ 19:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Bill will always be Mr. President because that's the standard greeting for ex-presidents (in the US), so they probably would say 'Mr and Mrs. President'. There would probably be a bit of a different precedent set if Palin becomes president. - Lambajan 19:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I would guess "Madam President", just as Nancy Pelosi is addressed as "Madam Speaker". -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds better. (Mrs President might be the wife of Mr President, in the sense of a married couple named Mervin and Gertrude President.) Women functionaries in their own right tend to get Madam <title of office>. We had a female President of the Senate, and she was always called Madam President. This sort of inquiry from journalists as to how to address a newly-appointed female ambassador was what lay behind the title of Irving Berlin's Call Me Madam. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I would go with "Madam President and Mr. President" when they're addressed together (2nd person) and President Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton in the 3rd. Saintrain (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd ditch the "and", it sounds weird that way, but otherwise I agree. --Tango (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean like the "Doctor. Doctor. Doctor. Doctor. ........" scene in Spies Like Us? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that anything like Major Major Major Major? — Michael J 04:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

At a formal presentation, such as at a European Royal Court, would they be introduced as "Madam and Mr. President Clinton?" Or perhaps "Mr. and Mrs. President Clinton?" I would expect that incumbency would give the distaff side presidential precedence. Or precedential Presidents. When Dwight Eisenhower was replaced as U.S. President by John Kennedy, Ike was immediately called "General Eisenhower," so perhaps the terminology would be "President and Governor Clinton." Edison (talk) 04:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In this context, he'd be appearing as Hillary's husband, not as a former president (even though he is), so I suspect it would be "President and Mr Clinton". Also, she would be addressed personally as Madam President, but when referring to her it'd be President Clinton or Mrs Clinton - or even Hillary Clinton in some circumstances - but never Madam President. That's a confusion between a form of address and a title. Have no doubt, the protocol boffins would be working very hard to get these details just exactly right, so whatever we come up with here may not be what they agree on in the real world. But I saw Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark interviewed in a news grab recently, and the young upstart Aussie journo addressed him as "Frederik". So who the hell knows anymore? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't there a time when US presidents were commonly addressed as Mr. even when in office? I've never quite liked the way former presidents continue to be called president, as in, for example, "With us tonight is President Carter!" I have wondered when this kind of "eternal title" took root in the US. It wasn't always that way, was it? Pfly (talk) 05:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one suggested the obvious: Presidents Clinton (or, President Rodham and President Clinton). DOR (HK) (talk) 08:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Curiously the Office of the Chief of Protocol is silent on this!? But the ultimate source states "American protocol dictates that only one person at a time can hold the title of president of the United States. Former presidents should never be so addressed, although they have even taken to calling one another that." Saintrain (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's common for those who formerly held high office in the U.S. to be referred to and in particular be addressed by their titles -- maybe because we don't have a House of Lords. "President Clinton endorsed Obama...," "We don't care what church Governor Romney goes to..." I suppose we should be happy that John Adams didn't get much support for his suggestion, "His Highness, the President of the United States and Protector of the Rights of Same." George Washington, thank heaven, declined the term "His Excellency" in favor of "the President." --- OtherDave (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As the great Iron Lady was addressed as Madam Prime Minister, I would say it would be Madam and Mr President, or Madam President and Mr President. SGGH ^speak! 16:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, I really doubt that. US ex-presidents get called "President Clinton", "President Carter" etc, but are they addressed as "Mr President"? I'd have thought that form of address was reserved for the incumbent. I could be wrong. (Otherwise, someone making a speech to a forum attended by both Bushes, Clinton and Carter would have to start out with "Mr President, Mr President, Mr President, Mr President, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen".) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm also wondering whether Thatcher was addressed as 'Madam Prime Minister', and if so, who by. UK Prime Ministers are generally addressed as 'Prime Minister' not 'Mr Prime Minister', though I dare say that style has been gaining ground. --ColinFine (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"There is a crack on the structure of the universe"

Who said: "There is a crack on the structure of the universe" and what did he/she meant? It has something to do with science or philosophy. I have some times used this phrase, and before using it again, I want to know its original context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.65.112.51 (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard that one, but here's some free association that might accidentally hit on the right answer:

• Cosmic egg (there's a book called "The Crack in the Cosmic Egg")
• People sometimes talk about "the fabric of spacetime" being "torn"—meaning, I guess, curved spacetime with a singularity in it
• Topological defects are almost literally cracks in the structure of the universe
• Eddy's in the space-time continuum

-- BenRG (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, might it have something to do with the Large Hadron Collider and the associated paranoia about it opening dimensional rifts or destructive black holes? (That would depend on how recently the quote came about, though.) 68.123.238.140 (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a Wayne Kramer song called "Crack in the Universe". — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If they kept the receipt, they should just return it for a refund or a replacement... Clarityfiend (talk) 05:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

...but who keeps receipts for 13.7 billion years ? Gandalf61 (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Chuck Norris? Though he probably caused the crack with a roundhouse kick. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

But I heard he never keeps receipts (he uses his stare to get his money back). :) Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

September 12

T. W. Wood

I would like to know whether Thomas Waterman Wood is a different T. W. Wood from the T. W. Wood that illustrated books for Darwin and Wallace - Commons:T. W. Wood. That they have the same initials, surname, occupation (artist) and apparently first name, it seems to me unlikely that they were different people. But I don't see anything about such work in the biography here, and Waterman Wood seems to have lived in America pretty much exclusively - is it likely that he would have done so much art for British books when he was that far away? Richard001 (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest they are different people. The artwork is quite different in style and nature. Also, the Thomas Waterman Wood article is detailed, yet does not mention any involvement with Darwin. A quick search suggests that T.W.Wood was a zoologist, not a portrait painter. [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], and so on. Gwinva (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you must be right - it sounds like the British T. W. Wood got up to a fair bit of zoologizing as well as his art, and that would hardly go unmentioned in the article. Since we don't have an article on this T. W. Wood, I'll just add a note that it's not the same one. Richard001 (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

DVDs about British society

Some time next year, I (outside the anglosphere) have to teach a short course about recent British politics or social history or mores or something. (Blairism to binge drinking: I have a lot of leeway.) The students will be 19 or so and I can expect them to study, though they have little experience of real study (as opposed to rote learning) and also little appetite for extended reading. Still, their English comprehension is pretty good. Various books are available, but I fear that the course would easily become boring if based on any one book, however good: this is instead a course that cries out for video (probably with supplementary short readings).

I thought of basing it around a small number of carefully selected (feature) films, but have decided not to do this, as in any worthwhile fiction film the "content" (however scrupulous and perceptive) is likely to be sidelined -- indeed, should be sidelined -- by character, plot, etc. And of course films do last rather long, which makes scheduling difficult. (Plus I think a lot of "relevant" films are terrible: for example, while Brick Lane (which I sat through to kill time during a long flight) has a few good ingredients, it has scenes directed like shampoo commercials, and some ham acting that would be at home in a third-rate TV series.)

Even if there are no copyright issues, unfortunately I do not have the time to start building up a collection of recordings of programs that may happen to pop up on satellite TV. Are there good documentary DVD series? I really haven't a clue about this kind of thing, but f I know the titles of one or two possibilities of predigested series, I can then of course use them to google for more. Thanks. Tama1988 (talk) 05:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The comedy quiz Have I Got News for You Would give a good idea of events, culture and the British sense of humour. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Additionally if you contact the Open University they may be able to help. As an OU student doing social-science courses I am innudated with dvds with documentaries on, these also show late night on the BBC. I suspect they may have reservations about providing you with them for free but it might be worth contacting them, or trying to find ebay-listings with old social-science DVDs and literature (I have all my old dvds for my courses and within there are plenty of 'modern Britian' like documentaries). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure they would enjoy the Seven Up! series. You could use it to introduce the changes that have occurred in British society since the 1960s, and ideas about class and social mobility. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Happy-Go-Lucky and The Royle Family? — Gareth Hughes (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, all. I'd never heard of Happy-Go-Lucky (though I had heard of Mike Leigh), and while I had heard of the other titles mentioned above, I haven't seen any of them.

Have I got news for you sounds to me as if enjoyment would need some degree of pre-marination in British news culture, even if just ten minutes' worth of infotainment from the telly plus a vague awareness of what are the latest obsessions of the Sun. That pre-marination won't be there. Still, if I can pick up a best-of DVD cheaply, I'll give it a look.

The Royle Family sounds as if it would need more time. If this were, say, a week-long, all-day seminar, I could show an episode every day. But it isn't. Still, if a DVD box is going cheap.....

I'l try to get hold of Happy-Go-Lucky. I think I'd enjoy it. If it also turns out to be usable in some way for my pedagogic purpose, well, that's a pleasing bonus.

Seven Up! -- yes! (It had slipped my mind.) But damn, the package (a very reasonable $90US from a certain evil online monopolist) runs 710 minutes. That's about the entire classroom time. Students do not watch videos outside class, unless perhaps they happen to star whoever's the latest heartthrob. Hmmm ... Seven Up! and thereupon fast-forward to 49 Up, perhaps? (Thinking of this makes me glad I asked this question seven months before the course starts.)

If a student at the Open University could tip me off to a few of the DVD titles that were more interesting (and that don't assume too much background knowledge or much appetite for socio-econo-political theory), I'd be very grateful. I could then google for these. Tama1988 (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I did think with 7Up that the individual programmes are not too long and showing clips from them makes sense. If they like cinema heart-throbs, then perhaps an excerpt from Bend it like Beckham with Keira Knightley. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Each entry in the Seven Up series shows clips from the earlier episodes, to show how the people have changed, so you don't need to pick clips on your own. If I were going to show just two episodes to 19 year-old students, I'd show them the second and third episodes (14 & 21). Those have plenty of clips from 7Up, and some rather dramatic developments that 19 year-olds will find particularly interesting. Maybe then I'd finish up with clips from the latest entry (I haven't yet seen 49 Up) to show the subjects in mid-life. Just an idea. —Kevin Myers 14:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

For politics, the later episodes of Andrew Marr's History of Modern Britain might provide a good overview. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the Up Series a lot but yeah, it's a big time investment. I don't think the effect would be quite as strong if you just skipped from the first to the last. I'd second the notion though that the ones of them as teens might work out the best for them, even though they aren't very contemporary any more. 49 Up would not be interesting (IMO) to someone who had not seen the others (a lot depends on knowing how the people were doing in the previous episodes—some who are up are now down, and vice versa). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

How about newspapers? Many English newspapers are available in capital cities (and other large cities) worldwide, though often a day or two old and at a cost of about $4. Something like The Times would have coverage of world events from a british viewpoint, plus more domestic issues such as the current level of knife crime in the cities. Whilst a lot of the news is also covered in the newspaper's online editions, the physical newspaper also gives hints about the relative importance of the news stories to the majority of the readers, and more subtle hints to the society through the paper's layout, TV listings, advertising, etc. Astronaut (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

1 dollar a day

Often it's said that a huge part of humankind has to live with less than $1/day.

Is that the purchase power or the nominal value after an exchange? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.K. (talk • contribs) 10:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is the nominal value rather than an equivilent purchasing power value. This article (http://www.divinecaroline.com/article/22357/34117) for instance shows an individual living on a dollar a day and they were getting an egg for '7 cents' - which would suggest that living on $1 a day is not the same in country X as it would be in America itself (where $1 would purchase you very little and 7 cents is not likely to get you an egg). Though I must admit my knowledge of purchasing power and nominal value is limited to a very basic understanding based on seeing the words in context numerous times. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a substantial portion of the earth's people live on less than $1 per day calculated according to purchasing power parity (PPP), according to this source. That said, PPP is calculated using a basket of goods, and goods purchased by the very poor may be relatively cheaper than the basket as a whole. That is, while an egg may cost 7c in nominal US-dollar terms in Indonesia, it might cost 16c in PPP terms, still cheaper than the same egg in the United States. Other things to consider are that people living on less than $1 per day tend to be subsistence farmers who grow much of their own food, or town dwellers who subsist on the very cheapest foods (e.g., the cheapest legumes and grains), to make their own clothing from the cheapest cloth or fibers, and generally to substitute their own labor to make homemade products rather than buying goods that carry a substantial labor cost. Of course, they generally do without things like computers, cars, cell phones, and even bicycles. They get around mainly on foot. This helps to explain how it is possible to live on so little money, but of course these people live in profound poverty and sometimes face hunger or an inability to meet other basic needs. Marco polo (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, remember the eggs in your supermarket are probably better quality than the eggs they are buying for 7 cents (at the very least they are probably bigger). --Tango (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to take away from your larger point but I get excellent eggs for 12.5c an egg (well, a dozen for $1.50) in my local farmers market (New York City). --Regents Park (count the magpies) 18:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, which led to me accidentally removing the above comment--sorry) The $0.07 egg story was published in August 2007. $0.07/egg is $0.84/dozen. Later in the article, she buys 12 eggs for $1.00. As recently as 2007 Q2, wholesale egg prices in New York were only $0.92/doz. As recently as 2006 Q3, the wholesale price was $0.64/doz. Even with high food inflation, I can still buy eggs from a local farmer for $1.50/doz. $0.07/egg does not strike me as ridiculously cheap in 2007 for a market with (presumably) less regulatory burden. -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to agree with Marco polo that many of those "living on less than $1 per day" are subsistence farmers, plus their families, of course. Huge numbers of the world's rural people actually have a negligible income in actual currency, and the "less than $1 per day" figure is surely per head and not per worker. Strawless (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I can often get good quality size 6 eggs for here in NZ for 30 for NZ$4.99 from one of my local vege shops, which amounts to ~US$3.31 or 0.11 US cents and egg. And thats includes GST of 12.5%. Without GST it would be ~NZ$4.44 or ~US$2.94 i.e. ~9.8 cents an egg. So while stuff can be quite cheap in poor countries, this doesn't seem like a great example Nil Einne (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The actual answer to the question of PPP vs. nominal is "both." When the World Bank and other institutions began calculating $1/day numbers, PPP was not widely used. Later, it was adopted as the convention. So, if one is looking at say, data published in 1970, the $1/day would be nominal. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

These ([19] [20]) show you don't have to be in a poor country to live on one dollar (ok here one pound) a day. 190.244.186.234 (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Early Christianity

This article states, in relation to various early Christian movements:

"Many disciples didn't associate the earthly Jesus of Nazareth with a spiritual Christ. Some simply followed the Gnostic teachings of the earthly Jesus Movement while others believed in a Jesus that never actually lived in the flesh. Many Christians did not regard any writings as inspired by God."

Assuming these statements are true, which movement(s) never believed Jesus lived in the flesh, and which did not regard the scriptures as God's word? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I recommend the "Historical controversies" section of Christology, and also Docetism, Adoptionism, Apollinaris of Laodicea, Nestorius and others. The scriptures question is more complex, and the article is probably over-simplifying. Many early Christians were also Jews and regarded Jewish scripture as 'inspired by God'. Agreement over which post-Jesus writings were 'inspired by God' was arrived at over time. See Biblical canon. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have studied this issue extensively. The Gnostics were much more likely not to believe in the earthly Jesus - there were varying degrees of this (e.g., Jesus didn't actually come to Earth but was a "projection" in the Platonian sense). As for the Old Testament scriptures, I don't believe the Gnostics held they were from God, although I'm not sure. There was one Gnostic sect that believed there was a true highest God (the God of Jesus), but that his wife (or was it daughter?) accidentally created a vengeful evil God, but was embarrassed so she put a sheet over him - this is Yahweh of the Old Testament. The OT scriptures were universally accepted by Jewish and mainstream Gentile Christians. The New Testament scriptures, obviously, were a lot more controversial, because it wasn't established at the time - the Judaizers wanted nothing to do with Paul, and certain books were or were not included (Epistle of Barnabas almost made the canon); to this day, there are books only accepted by certain sects (e.g., 3 Corinthians).

If you need any clarification on these issues, please feel free to ask further. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Overruling the Ecumenical Councils

Thank you both. Your replies summarize it neatly. The article also described that the issues of the First Council of Nicaea were agreed upon by a vote! If I am not mistaken, the Roman Catholic Church has accepted the decision of this council. Does a reigning Roman Catholic pope have the authority to change this by holding a similar (albeit, much larger) vote? Today's Roman Catholic leaders are just as capable of making such decisions as the 4th century bishops. Obviously such a drastic change will never occur in the Roman Catholic church, nor would such a change go without a major schism, but I am only interested in whether such a vote is possible, or whether the rule is "What's done is done". — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

They always vote at councils. Apparently several dozen bishops tiptoed out early when the First Vatican Council was taking up the issue of papal infallibility to avoid having to vote on a topic they disagreed with. And some of the documents of the Second Vatican Council passed by relatively close votes.

Not to be glib, but the Catholic church has centuries of practice in re-examining and reinterpreting its past. Apologists will offer arguments that the church never officially held that the sun revolves around the earth, for example, but I'm pretty confident that in centuries past you could get in a lot of trouble for disputing geocentrism, and not only if your name was Galileo.

But there are various ways that the church finds its way through the world. I believe, for example, that a future council could find a way to decide to ordain women (despite attempts by recent popes to prevent that); I don't think they'll suddenly decide the Trinity doesn't exist or that transubstantiation was a misunderstanding. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

ADVERTISING SMALL SCALE BUSINESSES

WHAT ARE THE MERITS AND DEMERITS OF ADVERTISING TO SMALL SCALE BUSINESSES? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thug ngel (talk • contribs) 15:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a response, but more of a suggestion: nobody will respond to messages typed in all caps. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I know that text in "all caps" annoys many editors. I think this question is from a new editor, who is probably not used to Wikipedia.

Much has been written about the value of advertising to small business. If you have a library handy, there are books on the subject. Here are a few points to consider.

Advertising can bring new customers and increase business.

Advertising can be very expensive.

It is important (and sometimes difficult) to find out if the advertising is bringing you enough business to cover the cost of the advertising. If you know this, it is easier to decide whether to do more advertising.

Many business include discount coupons in ads. This is partly to increase interest and partly as a way of learning whether people respond to your ads.

The article Guerrilla marketing is very relevant to this question. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we can't do your homework for you. Have you done any preparation work we can help you with?78.144.107.126 (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Marriage Locations

I havent yet decided weither I want to marry inside of a church or outside and enjoy nature. The reason is this. My fiance is pagan/Satanist and i guess i just dont have a relgion at this point in time. Well the question is that we have looked from church to church and found some gorgeous catherdrals, the only problem is that these churches and cathedrals obviously dont support our religion. I understand that if you are having a satanist paganistic wedding that you just dont have a catholic or lutheran priest perform the ceremony. So does it depend from church to church or is it a big flat out no when i ask if you can get like a judge or justic of the peace or whatever they are and have them perform the ceremony in the church. I understand if it would be a no because what kind of catholic wants to marry a satanist in the house of the lord. But are some churches open minded? I mean there isnt anything huge that makes it a satanic ceremony just the fact that we are handfasting and having our own gothic vows rather than the lighting of the candles and so on. So is this a possibility or am i better off getting married outside?

--Chaela <3 (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

sorry to ask but i cant look up for myself. this is the only site i have access to at work and so this is how we work... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaela89 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you really like the venue there's no harm in asking. You'll certainly have more luck with Unitarian Universalists than with Catholics or Evangelicals, but if the answer is no then it's as simple as that, clergy generally aren't into making scenes. You could also look into renting a party hall or a ballroom in a hotel, or enjoying nature :-) Good luck. - Lambajan 16:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems quite odd that a pagan/satanist would want to celebrate one of the most joyous moments of their life in a building specifically built by and for people and ideas that are at stark contrast with their own core beliefs. There are plenty of great locations everywhere that do not specifically exist for the celebration of Christianuty, and that would be great for a wedding. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if you were Christian, you may well not be able to get married in any church you feel like, particularly not the biggest, nicest cathedrals. They often require at least one of the couple to have actively worshipped at that cathedral for a time - otherwise they would too many requests (I know Durham Cathedral is like that - there is an urban legend that any graduate from the University of Durham can get married there, but it's nonsense). --Tango (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

One thing you can look around for is buildings that used to be churches but aren't any longer. My city has at least one deconsecrated church that is now rented out as an event hall, and several more disused churches that are for sale and might be rentable by an enterprising person who approached the owner. You could also try large cemeteries- the one in my city rents out wedding space in its funeral chapels. There are some Christian churches that will let non-Christians use their sanctuaries, but I don't think many pastors will let the church be used for a pagan/satanic ceremony. Except, as mentioned above, the Unitatarian Universalists. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Vice-Presidential election in the U.S. Senate

If no vice-presidential candidate receives a majority in the electoral college, the U.S. Senate decides who shall be Vice President. But if there is a tie, can the current Vice-President cast the tie breaking vote?

Judging by this passage from the Twelth Amendment, I would say no:

"and a majority of the whole number [of senators] shall be necessary to a choice."

But does anyone think the current V.P. can, and why?

92.233.14.195 (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

According to this, that clause "essentially prohibits the sitting Vice President from casting a tie-breaking vote in the case of an evenly divided chamber." --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is a tie, wouldn't the Senate just continue voting until someone has a majority? Sounds like a prime opportunity for behind the scenes deal making to sway a vote: "campaign contributions," jobs for friends/relatives, porkbarrel projects for the Senator's state, or good old fashioned blackmail. There is often a wishy-washy fence sitter who will change parties. Edison (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That "wishy-washy fence sitter" becomes converted to a "kingmaker" (or, in this case, "vice-king maker"). (Which is not to suggest that your VPs are kings of vice - well, not necessarily.) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a princemaker? :-) --Anon, 22:24 UTC, September 12, 2008.

Presidential/Vice-Presidential Elections decided in the U.S. Senate

I'm sorry but part of the process of presidential elections being decided in the Senate doesn't seem clear to me. If no presidential candidate gains a majority in the electoral college, the election is decided in the House of Representatives. But is it the outgoing House that decides or the newly-elected House?

I can't quite figure out when it would take place in the electoral cycle. 92.233.14.195 (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this should clarify both of your questions? It has to be the still-sitting (outgoing) House, I believe, since the new House members wouldn't have started their term yet. The House (not the Senate) is in charge of determining the President. The Senate is in charge of the Vice President. Not to be mixed up. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The incoming house decides the new president in the case that nobody gets more than 50% of the electoral college vote. This is not a problem because the electoral college votes relatively late, and the outgoing president simply sits in office until the new one is chosen (see United States presidential election, 1800). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, OK. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The missing fact from these answers is that the incoming Congress comes in on Jan 3 (see Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution), leaving 17 days of overlap between the new Congress and the old Presidency. During those 17 days the official electoral-vote-counting session is held. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 00:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up question

For the record, an item titled "Follow-up question" was deleted. Reasons follow. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not a soapbox question but a more concise follow-up question for the original question posted here (Original post)

Despite the above statement, IMO this is a "soapbox question". In fact, no real question is asked.

Also, if this table was published in some reliable source, the source should be stated. If not so published, the table ought not to be here. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Furthermore, the IP address 71.100.xxxx has a long history of soapboxing and trolling on this page. This question should be deleted. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you guys were not so trigger happy maybe you would have clicked on the link to the source.

Hey if you do not want people to pin down the truth about the candidates so they can be an informed voter then why should I care. But then I keep forgetting how many of you are from England and have no need of information which might help you decide which candidate represents your own point of view best. Had you not deleted the link to the source then it may have helped others to learn more about the candidates by how they compare. But then I realize you do not care about others either. --- (above unsigned post was by 71.100.3.239 )

Regardless of your intentions, this reference desk is not the right place to serve as host for your project. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Antireligion and atheism

I want to know what is the difference between Antireligion and atheism? Does this indicate that it is possible for a person that he believes in the existence of god, but does not support organized religion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable distinction to me. — Lomn 20:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There is also the opposite unusual combination, not believing in the existence of gods but thinking that the fact that others do is a good thing. Believing in gods and thinking that organised religion is a positive thing are or two different axis, and all four combinations are possible. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Living in the UK, I wouldn't say that was an unusual combination. On the contrary, here it seems to be pretty much the default position. - 88.111.70.235 (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you consider reading our articles Antireligion and atheism, which you linked to twice? DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the both articles. But none of them explicitly mention the difference except the article Antireligion which mentions "Antireligion is distinct from atheism, although many antireligionists are also atheists." My confusion is in this statement. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Antireligion is ... distinct from antitheism, which is opposition to belief in deities rather than opposition to religion itself." DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The William Blake example is a good way to see the difference. Blake was obsessed with god and spirituality but despised organized religion. He was antireligion but definitely no atheist. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 21:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you RegentsPark. This clarification makes sense. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You could also imagine an antireligious agnostic pretty easily. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Agnostic could go with all four combinations. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson sometimes had violently anticlerical moods, but was not an atheist in any meaningful sense... AnonMoos (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln was also someone who believed in God, but did not like religion. Saukkomies 22:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

damaged steel from the Pentagon

I saw this small article on CNN. It was about damaged steel that was removed from the Pentagon following the attack on September 11, 2001. The source said the steel is going to be used in building the USS Arlington as part of a memorial to the victims who perished in the Pentagon attack. Is that true? What materials may be used in building the USS Somerset as a memorial to the victims who perished aboard United Airlines Flight 93?72.229.139.13 (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

USS Somerset: Metal from a crane that stood near Shanksville - http://www.tribune-democrat.com/local/local_story_219233528.html -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

USS New York: Steel from the Twin Towers - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article723328.ece -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

USS Arlington: Hmm, this says fragments of the Pentagon will be displayed on Arlington, not (unlike the above two) that they'll actually be used in her construction. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

CNN's story (circa yesterday) is here. They first say the steel "will be used to build", but later says "The metal eventually will be encased in plastic and built into the USS Arlington as a memorial", which is rather different from the other two (where significant amounts of metal seem to be used) and rather stretches "used to build" a bit. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm also interested in buying some mementoes that would commemorate the above three vessels. Where would I be able to find the mementoes?72.229.139.13 (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You can buy clothing and other memorabilia from the USS New York website. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 10:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Will any recycled steel be used in the building of the USS Arlington?72.229.139.13 (talk) 05:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sir Charles Russell QC MP

MP for where please? Drawn by Spy. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Amazon finds "Banquet to Sir Charles Russell, Q.C., M.P. on Tuesday, November 23rd, 1886: Speech by Sir Charles Russell and list of those present. Sir Horace Davey, Q.C. in the chair "(here). Perhaps it's Charles Russell, Baron Russell of Killowen (who was both a QC and an MP). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

But maybe not. I guess the picture you're referring to is this one, which says of its subject "Sir Charles Russell, 1st Bt (1863-1928), Solicitor. Sitter in 2 portraits." (and was made in 1907, after that bloke died). It's not his son, who was called Frank nor his grandson (Charles), not yet born. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, there's hunners of Russell Baronets; is our man is Sir Charles Russell, solicitor, 1st Baronet (1863-1928) [of Littleworth Corner]? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

::::He's the solicitor who briefed Carson in the Oscar Wilde libel case, refused to act for Casement, subsequently an unsuccessful parliamentary candidate, sat on the London County Council, and has an entry in the ODNB. DuncanHill (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And is the son of Russell of Killowen. DuncanHill (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• If it's a QC, MP, then its surely Russell of Killowen, who was twice caricatured by Spy.

  But then he was a GCMG, not a baronet. The 1863-1928 chap is the solicitor I struck above, Kitty - do you have a link to the Spy pic? DuncanHill (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Only List of Vanity Fair caricatures which seems inaccurate. I didnt manage to confirm 1st baronet was a QC; He was a KCVO because he solicitored for the monarch and started the firm of his name. He dspm. Kittybrewster ☎ 02:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, the first baronet (1863-1928) was a QC, but not an MP - his father was a QC and an MP (and later a law lord), but not doesn't seem to have been a baronet! DuncanHill (talk) 04:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason why a baronet couldn't also be a GCMG. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

True but the 1st baronet was KCVO not GCMG and was a solicitor not a QC. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

September 13

What is this type of illustration called?

Hi. Does anyone know what simple background illustrations are called? In other words, if there is text in the foreground, and behind it are faint vine silhouttes or something. They don't have to be repeated patterns.--Welcome Home Cover 56 (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It could be a watermark. --Tango (talk) 08:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks!--Welcome Home Cover 56 (talk) 08:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, a watermark is possible, but in the context of a book it's not likely to be that. More likely it's just what you said -- a background. --Anonymous, 21:25 UTC, September 13, 2008.

How can I find a list of winners of this award?

Cause I met a guy last night who said he won it a few times but I think he was just drunk.--Plastic Lament (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest looking for his name on List of NASCAR drivers? DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

A ship's "stemhold"

In improving our USS Somerset (LPD-25) article (following the question #damaged steel from the Pentagon, above), the source talks about the ship's "stemhold" (ref). While the bow article mentions, in passing, the "stem" it doesn't talk about the stemhold, and I can't find anything worthwhile in Google about "stemhold" or "stemhold" (likewise for "sternhold"). Is this an error on the part of the newspaper, or are we (and the rest of the web) deficient in its mention? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

According to this [21] the stemhold is the bit at the front that cuts through the water. DuncanHill (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that I've only found mentions of "stemhold" (as a ship part) in media that relates directly to this specific story. Surely if this is a term that is, or has really ever been, in use by ship guys then it would be mentioned elsewhere. I'm concerned that one or two journalists at one press conference might have misheard or misunderstood something said by a navy bloke, and I don't want Wikipedia (well, me) to be inadvertently responsible for promulgating that little error any further. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Not in the big OED, although "stem" is, in the context of Stem (ship), with associated words stem-end, stem-head, stem-piece, stem-post. Perhaps they meant one of those? Or is it a local term? Gwinva (talk) 09:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Eckhart Tolle and Scientology

Has there every been any suggestion or evidence that Eckhart Tolle (author of A New Earth) was influenced by, or has studied, Scientology? Or, perhaps any similarities between A New Earth and Scientology are coincidental or merely due to L. Ron Hubbard's having studied Buddhism (does anyone know if Hubbard studied Buddhism)? Thank you. --24.211.242.80 (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the Wiki article on Eckhart Tolle, he was influenced by many different people and teachings, including Buddhism. However, the list of Tolle's influences does not include L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology, or Dianetics. Likewise, in the Wiki article on Scientology, Hubbard is credited with being influenced at least in part by Buddhism, as well. There were other crossovers between Tolle's and Hubbard's influences, not just Buddhism, so there should be no huge surprise that their teachings would have possible similarities. However, from my cursory investigation, I do not find that Tolle was inspired by Hubbard. Not that he wasn't, but just that if he was I couldn't find it from my short search. Saukkomies 13:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Listening to Piano Music - Where to Begin?

Hello everyone,

Recently I have discovered that I actually enjoy classical music, and since August I have not been able to get enough. I started with George Lloyd's Symphony No. 5, and from there I went on to Bach's Brandenburg Concertos, Mozart's last symphonies, Mendelssohn's Italian/Scottish, and Shostakovich's 5 and 9. I am looking to start with some piano music, but I am not sure where to begin. The only names I've really ever heard of are Isaac Albeniz,William Bolcom, and John Ireland, but I really don't know anything about them, and I don't want to just blindly buy any old piece by a random composer. There are so many choices and so many sub-genres. I know this isn't a lot of information to go on, but what would you recommend from your own experience? Besides traditional piano music, I am also looking for some lighter piano music to listen to more as an ambiance than a listening experience, maybe like some minimalist stuff? In this area I've heard of Michael Jones. I really am not sure. I am also looking for some more great traditional classical music. I guess it's a very open question. Thanks, in advance, for all the help!!!

Mike MAP91 (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy, what a challenge. Well, starting with the composers whose orchestral music you already like, Mendelssohn wrote lots of piano music. His "Songs without Words" are well known and might be a good intro to him. They vary from slowish tender "flowery" things to virile fast-paced pieces. All quite short (5 minutes max.) From that same era is the supreme writer of piano music - Frédéric Chopin. Virtually anything at all that he wrote is as excellent as anything else - scherzos, ballades, mazurkas, etudes (studies), waltzes, preludes, the Barcarolle, the 2nd and 3rd sonatas (the 2nd contains the well-known Funeral March, but don't let that put you off, it's magical stuff). His compatriot Franz Liszt wrote an enormous amount of stuff, and for a beginner I'd suggest the Consolations, the 2nd book of Years of Pilgrimage, the Hungarian Rhapsodies, and some of the piano transcriptions of Schubert lieder (songs). Speaking of Franz Schubert, have a listen to the 8 Impromptus (in 2 sets), and the 6 Moments Musicaux. Also the Fantasy in F minor for 2 pianists (at one piano). Then there's the 3 B's - J. S. Bach, Beethoven and Brahms. If you like Bach, try some of his 48 Preludes and Fugues played on a piano. They can be a bit dry, but for more fun from the same era listen to Vladimir Horowitz (or anyone) playing Domenico Scarlatti's short sonatas on piano. He lived in Spain for a long time and they have a noticeable Spanish quality about them. That gets us into Albeniz - lots of great piano music ("Iberia" is probably his best known suite) - and Enrique Granados ("Goyescas" is fantastic, and the last movement "The Maiden and the Nightingale" is better known by itself). Across the border to France, and Claude Debussy (Children's Corner, which contains his single best known work "Clair de lune"; Suite bergamasque; 2 sets of preludes), Maurice Ravel (Sonatine; Jeux d'eau; Valses nobles et sentimentales) and Gabriel Faure are the big 3. Beethoven and Brahms - wonderful stuff, but for a beginner I'd start with Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata, and Brahms rhapsodies, intermezzi and assorted pieces (not his sonatas at this stage). Robert Schumann - Scenes from Childhood, Carnaval, Papillons, the Humoresques. Over to Russia and there's Rachmaninoff (where to start? - the Preludes, I'd say), Tchaikovsky (The Seasons), Stravinsky (3 movements from Petrushka), and Shostakovich (24 preludes; 24 preludes and fugues; Dances of the Dolls). I've probably forgotten some huge names, but that's a start. This is just solo piano pieces, and I haven't even started on 4-handed music (apart from the Schubert), and music for piano and orchestra (concertos, mainly). I'll leave the minimalist and other more recent stuff to people who know what they're talking about. Enjoy. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations Mike! I’m interested in how you got into classical music since the composers you name as being familiar to you are actually relatively obscure modern composers. The usual way people discover classical music is through Mozart, Beethoven, etc., or else the other way, jumping the gap between experimental rock and experimental classical. In any case welcome. . .

The Symphonic literature you’re listening to is good, and might be complimented by some Beethoven (Bernstein is a good conductor for Beethoven btw). For “light” piano music you can do no better than the impressionist composer Erik Satie. Another impressionist, Claude Debussy, is similar, but unlike Satie his music can be enjoyed both superficially and profoundly with equal legitimacy. The only minimalist piano music that I really find interesting is John Adams’ piano music. You might find his music interesting in general too. Here is a list of the top piano music literature.

• Frédéric Chopin, often called the “poet of the piano” he wrote almost exclusively for the instrument. You might start with his Nocturnes or his Waltzes.
• Franz Liszt, a staple in the piano literature (which does not necessarily mean he was a great composer by the way), Franz Liszt was the first virtuosic pianist and composer. His music is very flashy, but is often a bit superficial. The Transcendental Etudes are a good place to start with Liszt.
• Ludwig van Beethoven, perhaps the first composer to write music specifically idiomatic to the modern piano. His piano sonatas are considered extremely important in the piano repertoire. The Pathétique, Moonlight, Tempest, Waldstein, and Appassionata sonatas are played most frequently and probably considered most highly.
• Johann Sebastian Bach, the pieces in the Well-Tempered Clavier, books 1 and 2 are basic piano literature everywhere.
• Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, personally I’m not a big Mozart aficionado, but someone will come along here and recommend some good Mozart for you. :)
• Sergei Rachmaninoff, another important name in the piano literature. The Prelude in C-sharp minor is well known.
• Béla Bartók, not a composer most people associate with piano music, but his Allegro barbaro has suddenly become a standard performance piece.
• Claude Debussy, I already mentioned him above, but he is really a master of the piano so he bares mentioning twice. Check out his two books of Préludes.
• György Ligeti, a more modern master of the piano. His Musica ricercata and three books of “Études pour piano” are masterpieces!
• Olivier Messiaen, a 20th century French composer. His music is highly unique and very beautiful. He specialized in writing music on religious themes and incorporated bird songs and complex rhythmic schemes into his music. The “Vingt Regards sur l'Enfant-Jésus” pieces might be a good place to start.

In terms of performers you can’t go wrong with the wonderful Murray Perahia. Maurizio Pollini is quite good too. Vladimir Horowitz is highly regarded as well, although his interpretations can a bit unusual. Glenn Gould is quite good for Bach, but his recording of Mozart in particular should never be used as your primary recording of a piece. His extreme interpretations of some pieces are interesting, but completely non-standard. For all modern piano music Pierre-Laurent Aimard is the best there is.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask if you have more questions. Best, --S.dedalus (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Józef Hofmann is one of my favorite pianists, as is Rachmaninoff, as both a composer and a performer. bibliomaniac15 22:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

For present day composers, try Yann Tiersen (e.g. the first "Mouvement introductif" from La Valse des monstres, the "Comptine d'été" series from Rue des cascades, "Comptine d'un autre été: L'après-midi" or the piano version of "La Valse d'Amélie" from Amélie, or the "Childhood" series from Good Bye Lenin!) or Max Richter (e.g. memoryhouse). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi MAP91 -- you've already received some excellent answers, that cover most of what I'd mention myself. Here's one suggestion for the modern, minimalist or ambient kind of thing you might be looking for: have a listen to Terry Riley. Try The Padova Concert -- I'm listening to the CD as I type this -- while Riley is often called the "founder" of minimalism, this series of improvisations (Riley is a master at improvisation, something cultivated all-too-rarely in the "classical" realm) is slightly more developmental than, say, Philip Glass. You may enjoy the music of Frederic Rzewski as well. Happy listening! Antandrus (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Mike, what a great question! And you've received some fantastic responses from people who really know what they're talking about, it seems. However, I also wanted to put in my two bits' of suggestion by plugging what I believe to be one of the finest places to discover classical music - namely, Minnesota Public Radio, which does a very fine job of providing information on the classical music they play. Here is the web site for Minnesota Public Radio's Classical Music Department, which includes links to hear their broadcasts via Internet. If you spend enough time listening to their programming, you'll end up gaining a 'pretty good' education in classical music. Saukkomies 12:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. A radio station devoted to the genre you're interested in is the best single way - short of a university music degree (which even then focusses on technical aspects of music and less on the grand scope) - to learn about that genre and its sub-genres. Most decent radio stations are now online to the world. I'm listening to ABC Classic FM as I type this, and I learned probably 85% of what little I know about music from this station and its AM predecessors. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

American Painter: Ray Musselwhite

Does anyone have any biographical or other information on the American painter and artist Ray Musselwhite?

Facts: Ray Musselwhite painted an oil abstract painting dated 1956 by the artist. The painting was obtained from an auction in Atlanta, Georgia circa late 1950's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.204.243 (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

His estate has a web site for him [22]. ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Some time ago I visited the estate web site that you mentioned. The “Contact” icon is not directly for the estate itself, rather the link is to some media company. Two e-mail inquiries to this company produced no response from them. So, the web site appears to be fluff and just a nonproductive dead end. RM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.204.243 (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

September 14

constitution

how well does the constitution address many of today's contemporary political issues? -sophia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.33.110 (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Which country's constitution and which particular 'contemporary political issues'?--Regents Park (count the magpies) 01:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

the united states and any/all of today's political issues —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.33.110 (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

For whatever constitution, it's very much a matter of opinion, and this is not the place to debate it. Particularly since my opinion on the question is likely to be inflammatory, and I'm tired of defending it. —Tamfang (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The answer to the original question could fill volumes. Without more context, it would be very hard indeed to give you anywhere near a succinct answer. Dismas|^(talk) 10:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I always thought that if the so-called "strict constructionists" truly had the courage of their convictions, then they should rule the U.S. Air Force to be unconstitutional, since Article One of the United States Constitution clearly refers only to an "army" and a "navy" and "the land and naval forces"... AnonMoos (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

One advantage of the U.S. Constitution is that the framers did not attempt to regulate every aspect of life, nor did they try to anticipate every possible development in the future. Compare with the recent European constitution boat-anchor. (This is just a comparison; Europe faces a much more daunting task in attempting to closely link sovereign nations.) Of course, the U.S. Constitution has given rise to endless legal wrangling and judicial interpretation. And maybe a dynamic equilibrium is the best that can be hoped for in a constitution. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

impending economic depresion of the US

how true is it that there will be a second depression soon and how bad do economists think it will be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.11.185 (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean, "second depression"? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I imagine you can find copies of Ravi Batra's Great Depression of 1990 pretty cheap in used bookstores nowadays -- just look for it in the marked-down-to-almost-nothing pile, next to the Reader's Digest Condensed Books... AnonMoos (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the United States has not had a major economic depression since the 1930s is actually an anomaly, not the norm. In other words, if one looks at the historical record, major economic depressions were regularly occurring phenomena under a capitalist economic system throughout the 18th and 19th Centuries in Europe and North America. See the Wiki article on List of recessions in the United States. Due to several factors, though, the United States has been spared this misfortune for the past 60 years. Some of these mitigating factors have to do with the fact that the United States was the only industrialized country to emerge out of World War II unscathed with its manufacturing sector intact and very healthy. There were other such things at play as well, that involve the basic nuts and bolts of how an economy works, as well as the fact that there were also policies that were undertaken by people who were in positions of influence in the US that have helped avert depressions and economic troubles over the years. However, this still does not negate the fact that, according to classic economics, any given country's economy will undergo periods of "readjustment", during which recessions or depressions will occur. Perhaps the most significant driving factor in the financial crisis that the United States is experiencing right now has to do with the over-inflated price of real estate, and what is happening now is that these over-inflated prices are now "readjusting" to a more realistic value, which means that many people are taking a beating by having payed more for their homes than they are now worth. See: United States housing bubble and United States housing market correction. Just one example of many to illustrate that there are certain trends in the economics of a capitalist economy that seemingly cannot be avoided. So, to address your question, there has not been just "one" economic depression in the past - there have been many. And is the US heading (or already in) another depression is a question that is answered either "yes" or "no", depending at least in part on the political motives of the person who is supplying the answer. Bush supporters would of course be inclined to deny that there is a depression, and anti-Bush people will insist there is. So, read up on what people have to say about it and come to your own conclusion, is my advice. For more information, refer to Economic crisis of 2008. Saukkomies 10:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

religion

I need information on an event that happened in 1668 called La Purga in Italy concerning the Vatican and the Illuminati —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.196.46 (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the only references I've found come from Dan Brown's Angels and Demons. Supposedly la purga was when the Vatican branded four scientists with crosses to cleanse them of their sins. I have not been able to find any evidence that this event actually happened. Judging from other allegations made by Dan Brown in The DaVinci Code that are unsubstantiated or inaccurate or flat out fabrications, I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of those. Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, especially since the group normally called the Illuminati were founded in 1776. Algebraist 09:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

a curious hypothetical side-effect of Edward VIII's abdication

His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 links to the text of the Act, which includes:

His Majesty, His issue, if any, and the descendants of that issue, shall not after His Majesty’s abdication have any right, title or interest in or to the succession to the Throne, and section one of the Act of Settlement shall be construed accordingly.

This seems to imply that, should a future monarch (or other Protestant descendant of Electress Sophia) marry a descendant of the Duke of Windsor, the issue of that marriage would be excluded. Ironically, such a marriage would in effect be morganatic (a scheme that had been suggested for Edward but rejected because it had no precedent in British law)! (Footnote: this is purely hypothetical, as the Duke of Windsor had no issue.)

I'm wondering whether anyone knows of any parallel, intentional or otherwise, to this effect: that descent from a specified person can negate some benefit that the descendant might otherwise have. (Not counting any rules about miscegenation, i.e. descent from any member of a large indefinite group.) —Tamfang (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This is just a typically poorly-drafted bit of British royal legislation: the intent was not to deprive all descendants of the Duke of Windsor of their rights, but rather to prevent the transmission of such rights through the Duke of Windsor. As you note, since he had no descendants, there will never be a situation in which the law applies; but if he had, the law would likely have been interpreted according to its intent, rather than its letter. As to your actual question: can't think of one, though laws of attainder come close. - Nunh-huh 03:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, though, while he had no legitimate children, he almost certainly had children. There have been various claimaints over the years, and it's unlikely they're all impostors. Even if the paternity had been proven and formally acknowledged by the royal family, they still could never have succeeded him had he remained on the throne, because they were illegitimate. But it's possible that their descendants could marry into the royal family, and their descendants could find themselves in the line of succession. If the law were interpreted according to its spirit and not its letter, one of Edward's descendants could indeed one day inherit the throne. Hypothetically speaking. Assuming the UK monarchy is around that long. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

A specific instance of any person who claimed in public to be the illegitimate child of the Duke of Windsor would be interesting to hear about.--Wetman (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Medieval Europe Demographics

What was the life expectancy and mortality rates in Medieval Europe? Thanks in advance, 220.244.72.108 (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that over a long enough period of time, the mortality rate hits 100%. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

They're all dead. Goshdarn, if only they hadn't been born so early! - 88.111.70.235 (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Start with Medieval demography. Saukkomies 12:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

But keep in mind that there isn't really an answer, since that sort of info was not recorded for the vast majority of people. And it would differ vastly in different places for different people at different times. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

J.J. Horak, Netherlands ambassador to Israel in 1993?

I have some archival references dated April 1993, to a "J.J. Horak, Netherlands ambassador to Israel." My WP & web searches have turned up nothing for this surname in that capacity. The name might be written with diacritics that weren't used in the source text. Info or further search advice welcome. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I found one search result using this Google query using the Dutch word for ambassador. It's about the tenth result on the page, beginning "J. Horak, Nederlands ambassadeur in Tel Aviv...". I don't know Dutch, but it looks to me like the link is to some sort of archive search page. Using their search functions I ended up with "Mr. dr. J. Horak, Nederlands ambassadeur in Tel Aviv, wordt binnenkort ambassadeur in de Turkse hoofdstad Ankara. Hij volgt daar mr. J. Warmenhoven op." on this page. It gives a date of "vrijdag 4 juni 1993". It seems you have to pay to read the article, but it's only €1.15. Hope this helps.--92.41.69.168 (talk) 10:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it does help! Apparently searching _Dutch ambassador "Jan Horak"_ places him in Ankara in 1995, but nothing before or since. Pending other results turning up, I think a "Jan Horak" being posted to Turkey after Israel is a likely option. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

According to this article, on August 1, 1996 Dr. N van Dam became the new Dutch ambassador in Turkey, "succeeding Mr. dr. J. Horak, who took early retirement". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

Why aren't the Irwins getting a new father? February 15, 2009 (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not sure I understand your question. Do you mean the children of Steve Irwin? That would be up to his widow as to whether she wants to remarry and also whether she and her potential new husband would want them to be adopted by the new man. Dismas|^(talk) 10:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you proposing marriage to Steve Irwin's widow and have been rejected or something? (I *doubt* there's ever been a marriage proposal on the reference desk - but stranger thigns have happened.) Because why would it matter whether his widow was going to marry someone else or not? That would be the only way they would actually get another father. And, plenty of widows have raised perfectly good children.

Now, they could get a male nanny or have someone else int heir lives who would be a male role model for them, but if they did, that would be more in the realm of their private lives and it wouldn't necessarily be mentioned in the press if they did.Somebody or his brother (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone proposed to Clio the Muse here once. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Putin's ancestors and Stalin

According to our article Vladimir Putin, his grandfather was Stalin's personal cook. In Roy Jenkins' biography of Winston Churchill, on page 701, we find Stalin having an interpreter called Putin. Same person? Relative? Anyone know? DuncanHill (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Putin's grandfather may have turned into a "personal cook", but according to Peter Truscott in Putin's Progress he was a "cook at the country houses used by Lenin and Stalin". It doesn't seem to me that a country cook would be likely to have the high level language skills needed by an interpreter, but I suppose it's possible. More likely to be another member of the Putin family, though. Strawless (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This [23] in the St Petersburg Times, has the grandfather as a cook in the Astoria Hotel before becoming Lenin's & then Stalin's personal cook. DuncanHill (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

philosophy

Relation between emotion and knowledge.... "there can be no knowledge without emotion...until we have felt the forcce of the knowledge of it is not ours" .... Discuss this vision of the relation ship between knowledge and emotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.181.109.135 (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't use the word "discuss" in a reference desk question, people will think you are asking them to do your homework... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you know that, or is it simply a feeling you have? --- OtherDave (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

heh heh. Saintrain (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well clearly 'discuss' is a word used in question setting. The above question is phrased in such a way as to make it obvious that 59.181.109 isn't asking the question themselves, but merely repeating a question that they have been asked. It may not be homework, but there's little doubt the request is not a question by the person posting, but a question from someone else that they have been tasked with answering/want to know the answer for. By way of helping you I would consider starting at Emotion, knowledge and experience (hopefully there'll be a segment within that shows experiences and emotional reactions/emotions combining). 21:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler and helicopter travel

Are there any known occassions when Hitler travelled by helicopter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arri66 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

We have an article on Anton Flettner, a German engineer involved (amongst other stuff) in helicopter design. The linked German article implies that only one of his designs was built in some numbers after 1942. The associated picture shows a rather tiny helicopter which was manned by a single pilot and conducted surveillance. It would seem that technology had not progressed sufficiently to build anything heavier with a cabin for VIP passengers. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Germany actually had a couple of helicopter models that were produced during WWI that would have had the capability to carry a pilot and a passenger:
•In the Wiki article on the Flettner Fl 282 German WWII era helicopter, it describes how the B-2 model was able to hold a pilot and an observer/passenger. BMW managed to produce a couple of dozen of these helicopters before the factory was destroyed by Allied bombers. These Flettner Fl 282 B-2 helicopters were stationed in Ramsdorf until the end of the war.
•Likewise, the Focke Achgelis Fa 223 helicopter was also produced in limited numbers - about 20 - before the factory that produced them was destroyed by Allied bombing. The Focke Achgelis Fa 223 actually had a cabin that sort of resembles the more modern-day military helicopters, and was used to transport wounded soldiers, among other things.
•There were several other helicopter models that were only developed as prototypes (not put into production) by Germany during WWII, including the Focke Achgelis Fa 226, that were capable of carrying at least one passenger.
~ Theoretically, therefore, it would have been possible for Adolph Hitler to have been a passenger in one of these helicopters, however, I couldn't find a reference to such an event. Saukkomies 19:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

We also have an article on the Focke-Wulf Fw 61 of 1936. In theory, it was possible, as Saukkomies says, but my guess is that these early helicopters were looked on as too dangerous for important people like Hitler to fly in. It's just as hard to imagine King George VI or F. D. Roosevelt going up in one. Strawless (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Toll free numbers and postage-paid envelopes

Is it illegal to call a toll free number with no interest in whatever they do, or return a postage-paid envelope without whatever they expect? Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer and this may depend on jurisdiction, but I can't see why it would be. Unless you're calling the emergency services or somesuch, of course. Algebraist 21:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, this is strictly a business-type affair (without my finance at stake). I'd be too chicken to ever try prank calling emergency even if I wanted to. Imagine Reason (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

How they would ever establish that you did it maliciously, I don't know, but even then, I doubt it would violate any law. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

They might discover that I've called similar businesses a few times, and establish that I don't have interest in their products. Imagine Reason (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hell, in the US its encouraged ! -hydnjo talk 23:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There are several web sites and I know of several people who encourage/take part in/etc sending back junk mail in the included postage-paid return envelope just to prove a point to the company. From what I've read, credit card companies alot a certain amount of their budget to paying for the postage on these types of things. There also used to be a web site or two that asked people to send to the web site, the free AOL discs that the people would receive in the mail. They, the web site owners, wanted to send them back to AOL in bulk. See the "Controversy" section of AOL disk collecting. Dismas|^(talk) 04:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It can be illegal to call the free lines in the US. Someone set up a phone machine to call a religious organisation's 1800 number continuously. They were convicted.Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That might come under some form of nuisance call. But just phoning once for no particular reason - that wouldn't be illegal, would it? The analogy is the religious groups that come knocking on your door. If they're told they're unwelcome, they'd be foolish to keep on coming back. But they don't know this till they knock the first time and discover what the resident's attitude is. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, if you installed Skype and then rang the numbers I doubt they could ever track you. Richard Avery (talk) 08:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

September 15

Cloak

Are cloaks completely dead as serious garments? I imagine that a strong waterproof cloak would be a quite versatile piece of clothing. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is all OR. A cape requires a lot of material, much of which is flapping around your legs. It weighs a ton because of all that extra material. It gets caught up between your legs, unless you can afford silk or cotton clothes and a silk or cotton lining on the cape, just with noraml walking. Forget trying to run unless you can bundle it up in your arms before you take off. You certainly can't ride a bicycle in one. Even sitting in a car, it is bulky and interferes with the operation of seat belts and gear levers. It is too big for the overhead rack on an airplane. If it is waterproof, the rain drips down onto your legs or footwear (including inside your boots). If it isn't waterproof, it gets soggier and soggier the whole length and then weighs two tons. The hem is always covered in muck if you wear it full length, and if you don't, everything drips and splashes right at the place where the cape ends. It is a lovely elegant garment when made of velvet or silk or satin and can be whirled about with great style and panache. It does, however, require a wardrobe mistress, a servant and a very leisurely lifestyle in order to show it off. You can hide things -and perhaps another person-under it and use it for a blanket or a pillow. For most practical purposes, it is a complete bust for modern life. That means, however, it is likely prime for a new fashion trend. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The last man who rocked the cloak the way it was meant to be was FDR. If he were here today, he could still rock the cloak. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually there was a man who 'rocked the cloak' at least as effectively since FDR: Pierre Trudeau. this is the only picture I can find but I'm sure there are others. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In the developed western world, cloaks seem to survive mostly in uniforms, formal evening wear, and fancy dress outfits (wizards, Hallowe'en, etc.) but in some other parts of the world, such as Africa, you do still see them in everyday use - for instance, see burnous and bernos. Strawless (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would a Georgian minister say this?

I'm always hearing about the "Israeli-Georgian" connection in the 2008 South Ossetia War, but I don't believe it. But how do I explain the following?

From http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1010187.html

' Jewish Georgian Minister Temur Yakobshvili on Sunday praised the Israel Defense Forces for its role in training Georgian troops and said Israel should be proud of its military might, in an interview with Army Radio.

"Israel should be proud of its military which trained Georgian soldiers," Yakobashvili told Army Radio in Hebrew, referring to a private Israeli group Georgia had hired.

Yakobashvili, Georgia's minister of reintegration, added that this training provided Georgia with the know-how needed to defend itself against Russian forces in the clashes which erupted last last week in the separatist region of South Ossetia.

Yakobashvili said that a small group of Georgian soldiers had able to wipe out an entire Russian military division due to this training.' Haaretz.com, 11 August 2008

I'm trying to understand the political motivations behind these statements. Who are these statements directed to? Was he trying to rally Georgians? Or was he trying to encourage more military support from Israel? Was he trying to say to the Russians that Georgia is well trained and equipped? 203.217.36.198 (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If the Western press, the Georgian press, the Russian press and the Israeli press all report that the Georgian army received support from Israel, perhaps it is time to stop being skeptical and accept that this is probably true. And why did Yakobashvili say these things? Well, he was interviewed by the radio station of the IDF, what else is he going to say, "your support didn't help us one bit"? DAVID ŠENEK 16:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Stadium music

In the US, if a stadium for an NFL, NBA, MLB, or NHL team plays a popular song over the PA, do they have to pay royalties to a record company, like radio stations do?97.118.170.250 (talk) 05:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I’m sure they do, and the royalties are almost certainly paid to ASCAP or BMI, not to “a record companie." Radio stations don’t pay the record companies directly either incidentally. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, these things depend on how long they play the song for. I think under a certain number of seconds doesn't require payment, but once it gets beyond a point they have to pay. I remember this featuring in a Charlie Brooker Screenwipe episode where he explained loads of stuff about how much it costs to make even a basic tv show. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Recession and Depression

Are recessions and depressions absolutely necessary (to clean up after the market tested some options) or just residual risk (thing that get wrong even if we do our best)? Mr.K. (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

See Business cycle. Some people argue that recessions serve the purpose of "cleaning the fat" out of the economy to "make way" for the following exansion. They put weak companies out of business thus ensuring that only the stronger ones survive. The employees (and other resources) from the bankrupt companies are put to use more efficiently in the stronger companies. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

History of science question

Not sure if this belongs here or in the Science Desk, but it feels more arty/historical than scientific, so will give it a go. Somewhere, maybe in a Borges story, I read that natural philosophers used to believe that where there was a disease, there would also be the plant that cured it - a kind of sympathy between the two causing one to grow in proximity to the other (I suppose like quinine easing the symptoms of malaria, both deriving from the tropics). Can anyone tell me the term for this school of thought and point me to an article about it?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 09:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sympathetic magic doesn't sound quite like what you're after, but it turns up in Traditional Chinese medicine. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Does Doctrine of signatures fit your requirements?--droptone (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Erm, what was that British battle?

Hello all. Came across an interesting question at WT:MILHIST, which has failed to get an answer there, and so I advertised the wonderful ref desk. So it's now up to you all to prove your worth! Gwinva (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I read a quote once, moons ago, about a British battle, probably WWI, with appalling losses for the British. It was so appalling that... if I remember the quote correctly.. some politician or general or other was trying to rebuild the British army, and someone remarked, "Can't you see, you're fighting against X?" where X is the name of the battle... sorry so vague. Thanks in advance. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There's the Battle of Fromelles fought North of the Battle of the Somme, with appalling losses for the Allies including the British. Could that be it? Julia Rossi (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There are stats for battles here[24] which outrank this unless it's for a single charge, including the Battle of Passchendaele (80K British) in a summary here[25]. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the actual casualty figures Battle of Passchendaele is the one deeply enough embedded in the British psyche that someone is likely to have made the above remark. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ovo vegetarians

Do ethical ovo vegetarians actually exist? I have a sneaking suspicion that ovo vegetarianism is, in practice, nothing more than a logical possibility. I have never met or heard of anyone who considers eating eggs ethical but drinking milk and eating cheese, yogurt, etc. unethical. At best, ovo vegetarianism may exist among people who in principle would be lacto-ovo vegetarians, but are lactose-intolerant, allergic to milk, etc. Has anyone else ever encountered someone who rejects meat, fish, and dairy products on ethical grounds, but accepts eggs? —Angr 12:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sure there is someone, perhaps someone who keeps hens in ideal conditions in their back-yard, but I have never heard of any organisation or religion that advocates this diet. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone else ever encountered someone who rejects meat, fish, and dairy products on ethical grounds, but accepts eggs? See our article on this very creature! --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Consequences to acceptance of risky or bad debt by Federal Reserve

In recent months the U.S. Federal Reserve System (or the Fed) has agreed to accept billions of dollars worth of risky or bad debt from investment banks and other financial institutions, including the failed investment bank Bear Stearns. After the failure today (or yesterday) of Lehman Brothers, there is discussion of possible Fed intervention (further extension of credit). With the news today that AIG, a huge insurer in serious danger of bankruptcy is asking the Fed for a bailout, and with other major corporations likely to follow, I am wondering whether there are limits to the Fed's ability to prop up or resuscitate failing megacorporations. What are the possible consequences of the Fed accepting perhaps more than a trillion dollars of supposed collateral that may in fact be worthless? What are the consequences of lending hundreds of billions of dollars to corporations that may never be able to repay? And if there are no consequences, why doesn't the Fed just send a check for $1 million to every U.S. citizen? I have some understanding of finance but am a little baffled by the role of central banks. Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The possible consequences would be losing the money... --Tango (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, they don't have an unlimited purse. Expect the foreign debt to balloon in the coming years. Also, sending a million dollars to every US citizen would be a bad idea even if they could. Inflation would skyrocket. 90.235.8.202 (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

True. Even sending $300 to every American was a stupid idea. —Angr 14:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Try looking at pages such as inflation, national debt. There will be a limit to the number of firms a government can 'realistically' bail-out. The consequences of lending money that may never return could be positive (if it helps prevents a longer/harder depression) or negative (if it ends up that the depression happens anyway and taxpayers end up with a big loss with no notable upside). The value of money is not in the number itself, but in its purchasing power. If everybody was given $1m it would ruin the value of the dollar, having a horrific impact on the local and international economy, would hugely affect imports and exports and would make problems much worse. It's important to remember the value of a dollar (or any money) is in its perceived worth not in the amount written on the bill itself. (see Fiat currency, and gold backed currency - if that article is titled that) 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, forget my question about $1 million to every U.S. citizen. Obviously the purchasing power of each dollar would then be much smaller than at present. But nobody has answered my main question, namely, what are the limits on action by the Federal Reserve and the government? Can they bail out every failing corporation and then everything will be hunky-dory? Or do they face any constraints? Marco polo (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The fed would be limited by its own balance sheet. Note that in some cases (like Bear Stearns), other banks also provide some of the capital to protect depositors. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It's not as much about the money itself as it is about Moral hazard. Mainly, if the feds starts bailing out some corporations, other corporations will, at the least, raise the probability of their being bailed out as well and will take more risks. With the Lehman call, the feds may be saying, we're not going to do this again. (IMHO, they should have kept their fingers out of Bear Stearns as well!) The money is an issue but, in the worst case, they can just go ahead and print more of it (devaluing the dollar of course) or go out and acquire more debt or some such not so good thing. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 16:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ba in finance, and good question. First of all, your thinking is slightly a Loaded question. The limits? I do not agree that there are limits. Its a hugely complicated issue. You could look at this from a legislative angle. What if congress passes a bill, and the president signs it, that says the limit of government bailout shall not exceed 10 billion dollars per year. Now that you have a limit, do you really think exceptional circumstances won't necessitate emergency bailouts? So if the limit on paper is $10B, and the de facto limit is undefined, what am I supposed to tell you?

The most logical way to look at this, is that government spending for these types of financial doomsday prevention, are best resolved on a case-by-case basis. In business school, we had to do a case study on Long-Term Capital Management. read that article, and it has some great links under the See Also section. The government should handle everything on a case by case basis, and only give out bailout funds when it is "worth it". They should not give bailouts when they're not worth-it. But you're question is way to advanced for me to properly answer it. Maybe you have an interest in politics? Sentriclecub (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sentriclecub is obviously much more knowledgable on this subject than me, so listen to him :) Just to add a little bit to his answer: the federal reserve can't wave a magic wand and make money out of nothing (well, they could, but inflation would reduce the value of the US dollar so they would not be adding actual capital value), it has to come from somewhere, whether it is from taxes or from foreign lenders. But realize that the US government first of all has a pretty darn huge income stream, much higher than any single coorporation. And they can lend huge amounts money without any problem at all. So to answer you question, what's the limit, well, the federal reserve can borrow as much money as it needs to. It doesn't have the kind unpassable limit you're thinking of.

However, as I said, they can't wave a magic wand and get cash. They have to pay interest on the loans it gives, which will come from tax-payer money in the future. So they can't go completely crazy. But the bigger issue is (as someone already said), moral hazard. Companies need to be able to sustain themselves, and if they think that the government will just bail you out anytime you run into trouble, companies will not make responsible choices. The actions the fed are taking right now are emergency tools. If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were allowed to go under, it would seriously destabilize the world economy and very possibly lead to a new depression. Together, they hold a debt of around 5 trillion dollars. If you sum up what the entire world spends in a day on stuff, it's about 50 trillion. So the fed had to bail them out. They really had no other choice. 195.58.125.39 (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't Charles Ponzi's operation illegal even without the Ponzi scheme?

In light of the recent financial troubles Wall Street is suffering through, I started to meander through Wikipedia articles (as you do), and I came upon the fascinating article on Charles Ponzi (I was reading the article on Goldman Sachs, and in the history section there was a link to Ponzi scheme). I knew about his Ponzi scheme and how it worked, but I hadn't heard about where the income stream from his company was supposedly coming from. The article states that he had built his business on the idea that in Italy (which had a very weak currency compared to the dollar), someone would buy lots and lots of international reply coupons cheaply, and send them to the US where they would be exchanged for postage stamps, which would then be sold at a profit. The article states that "[t]his was a form of arbitrage, or buying low and selling high, which is not illegal".

My question is this: how can this possibly be legal? Setting aside the fact that his business was failing and that he was using his eponymous scheme to make it seem that it wasn't, how can this fundamental business model be allowed to exist? I mean, he's basically taking huge sums of cash from the United States Postal Service, and not giving anything back. I mean, all money is paid to the Italian post-service. Why would the USPS allow that? It's basically stealing money from the government! And this part of his business wasn't kept from the public, it was well-known that this was what he based his business on (well, it wasn't, but supposedly it was).

In the article on international postal reply coupons, it says that "in practice the overhead on buying and selling the very low-value IRCs precluded profitability", and that since then, prices for the coupons have been adjusted so as to make this type of thing impossible. But my point is this: it's not completely infeasible that he could have built a business on this practice in the 1910s and 1920s, and in fact most people were convinced that this was actually what he was doing. And nobody was stopping him, not until his wider criminal actions were revealed. So why didn't the US government shut him down sooner, and saved all those poor people from losing their life-savings? 90.235.8.202 (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Without truly understanding the workings of this system, from what you state where is the illegal activity? If the US government is foolish enough to offer a product that can be redeemed for something that has a higher value than the purchase-price of the original product then anyone taking advantage is simply operating within the boundaries of the system. I don't see where in your details it amounts to stealing? They offered these coupons for sale at price X, they can validly be redeemed for stamps at price Y, if someone can find a way to make X cost less than Y then they can turn a profit. examples of arbitrage occur all over the place - the bookmakers who accidently set odds that make it possible to bet on all outcomes and still turn a profit, the company offering free air-miles that work out being worth more than the cost of the product itself (see the film Punch drunk love), the company offering vouchers that are worth more than the minimum-contract period required to obtain them. It sounds to me like this is much the same thing, an oversight that few people would A) notice and even fewer would go to the effort to exploit. Though i'm bound to be misunderstanding something. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

But this is different. The coupons purpose was to allow people to send a letter from overseas and provide postage so that the recipient can respond. The purpose was never to allow large-scale trading of these coupons, Ponzi was clearly abusing the system for his own profits, to the detriment of the government of the United States. Certainly, one can argue that what he did wasn't technically illegal since he had found a loop-hole in the system, but it would take congress (or indeed, the post office) all of ten minutes to close this loop-hole (by, for instance, making it illegal to change the coupons in above a certain value).

And remember, this wasn't a private enterprise he was scamming, this was the US government. Different rules apply. If a bookie makes the boneheaded error where someone can bet on everything and make money, that's certainly unfortunate for the bookie, but it doesn't go much further than that. If a company offers frequent flyer miles with their products that exceed the value of the products, then they are only responsible to their stockholders.

But the profits that Ponzi generated (well, supposedly generated) came straight from the pockets of the taxpayers! His whole business model was to cleverly exploit a flaw in the system to steal money directly from the taxpayers! What sane government allows this to happen?

As for anyone not noticing, he had thousands of customers, and was personally made a millionare within six months, which he very publicly claimed came straight from the exchange of these coupons (it didn't, as it turned out). You'd think maybe someone at USPS or the Department of Justice would perk up and say "Hey, this dude has apparently stole millions of dollars from us! Maybe we should do something about it?" 90.235.8.202 (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Or even "Hey, this dude says he's stolen million of dollars from the postal service, yet we don't see any loss of money on our balance sheets. Maybe we should investigate were he got the money". But they didn't, it was the media (thank god for the free press, huh) that exposed him. 90.235.8.202 (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether it was the intended use of the system is irrelevant, the system they produced evidently had a hole in it and some people exploited it. Different rules don't apply to taking advantage of a poorly considered product/policy. Certainly it 'feels' worse because innocent tax-payers are made to pay for government inability, but similarly innocent share-holders would pay for inept management/price-setting in the bookies example. A government is just a liable to stand by its fine-print as other firms. As unintended a consequence as this may be, until the loop-hole was closed 'exploitation' will continue. The government doesn't so much "allow" it, they simply don't disallow it. Obviously once enough attention has been raised it will eventually be stopped, but the problem with people exploiting weaknesses in systems is that they will always find new ways to do it. Benefit fraud is a huge problem for governments, though in many cases that includes breaking the law, but from the sounds of it was Ponzi did (in the coupon department) didn't go against the rules that were laid out - that it was against a government (and that taxpayers felt the pain) is a mute point, they are just as responsible as business for the ineptness of their decisions. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If coupon resale is not explicitly illegal (under the jurisdiction where it is being sold) then there is nothing illegal in buying it at the low asking price and selling it at the higher price. Arbitrage traders explicitly exploit these price inefficiencies and often, if the market is imbalanced but the low initial price has to be maintained, legal prohibitions against resale are necessary. Ticket scalpers are a good example of arbitrage traders and ticket scalping is prohibited by law in many areas (not that the prohibition works very well!). --Regents Park (count the magpies) 17:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Voting in Indiana

Hello, I am a student at Indiana University, and I am from Missouri. I registered to vote in Indiana, and I voted in the Democratic primary last spring. I plan to vote again come November, but I do not have any documentation of my voter registration with me in Indiana. What can I do, or what do I need to get, to ensure that I can vote in the coming elections? Thanks, 156.56.171.157 (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to mail off for a absentee ballot from your local Missouri clerk. You wouldn't be allowed to vote in Indiana even if you had your registration as you are not a Indiana voter. If you qualify to vote in Indiana (I'm not sure) the deadline to register is Oct. 6 [26] - this link also recommends visiting the canivote.org website. Rmhermen (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If he's registered to vote in Indiana, why not? He should call the County Clerk of the county in which the campus he attends lies; if he's at Bloomington, this would be Monroe County, Indiana, and the County offices are in the local phone book - and linked to from our article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally, full-time students are eligible to vote where they attend school... AnonMoos (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You do not need documentation of your registration to vote. If you registered and voted, then you are still registered at whatever address you used when you registered. The precinct workers often do not check people's identification at polling places, but that's the most they generally will do. So, if you haven't moved, just go back to the same polling place where you voted last time (unless you've received a notice that the polling place has changed). You might want to bring identification and some proof of residence, like a recent utility bill, if you're concerned that you might be challenged. You should be able to vote there. If you have moved since last spring, then you need to register again using your new address. You should do it immediately, as the deadline for registration for voting in November is probably very close. You can register with your town or county clerk or board of elections and perhaps at some other government office. Do some research in Google using the terms "voter registration Indiana" to find out your options for registration. Once you register at a new address, they will typically send you a postcard with your new polling place. Marco polo (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's state-dependent, which is why you should talk to the county clerk; in some states, moving from one dorm room to another would not require reregistration. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Why does it say North Korea is a socialist republic?

When they are obviously communist? Also their official name is, Democratic People's Republic of Korea. But they aren't democratic, nor a republic. 98.221.85.188 (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Their view is that their society has reached the level of socialism and is now heading for the ideal state of communism. Obviously, neither applies. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And the natural extension of my colleagues answer is that they get to pick their own name ;) SGGH ^speak! 16:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a republic. North Korea doesn't have a monarchy. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

So any government that doesn't have a monarchy is a republic by default? That's not correct. 98.221.85.188 (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No, there can be oligarchies and pure democracies, for example, but as the common people don't all make governmental decisions (it's not like ancient Athens or traditional New England town government), it's not a pure democracy, and as the government is officially all elected, it's not officially an oligarchy. "Republic" doesn't necessarily mean that the people get to choose who is in charge: even in the Roman Republic, most people didn't have a say. Nyttend (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a hereditary republic ;-) Itsmejudith (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As was Florence.... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Gandhi's hair

Was Gandhi bald later in life, or did he shave his head? The pictures I've seen of him in early years show hair, but never does he have any in later photos; and our article on him says nothing that I could find on the subject. Nyttend (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Returning to a Room from Childhood, How Small it Seems...

I feel like it was Proust, but I cannot find the source -- an author who wrote about the phenomenon - many people have experienced this - that when you return to your old home after many years it looks so much smaller than you remember.

Is there an author who wrote of this? Or is there a name for this psychological / phenomenological experience? Thanks Saudade7 18:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I need to write a geography essay on Rio de Janerio. There are no specific things that I have to write about. Just Rio. What should I write about? Can anyone leave their, e-mail, msn or skype to help me further with this?