Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

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.

October 21

Finance - Rights and Warrants

I am looking for a good verifiable source that discuses the difference between a 'right' and a 'warrant' (financial terms). I suspect that they are used interchangeably or with slight market- or country-specific connotations (like "rights" tend to be issued with equity, allowing equity holders (to maintain relative ownership) and "warrants" with debt (to add speculative features and reduce the nominal coupon rate and interest expense).

The definitions on Investorwords.com support the debt/equity distinction, but I think it may be something more...

I was surprised that we didn't have an article on financial rights (also called "subscription rights"). If the definitions were close, I was going to include a line on the "warrant (finance)" page.NByz (talk) 05:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a short article on rights issues. You may also like to read the Investopedia articles on warrants and rights. The terms are definitely not used interchangeably - although there are some similarities between them, there are also significant differences. In particular, warrants are long-term instruments - they typically have a lifetime of several years. Rights, on the other hand, have a much shorter lifetime. A company declares a rights issue in order to raise additional capital; shareholders may exercise their rights and purchase new shares, or (if the rights are transferable) they may sell them to a third party. Either way, the rights must be exercised within a fairly short timescale - usually a few weeks; if the rights are not exercised within that window then they lapse, and are worthless. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin initials

What do the initials "P.f." and "L.n." stand for in Latin names? For example:

(None of those articles say anything, by the way.) — The Man in Question (sprec) · (forðung) 08:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't listed at List of Latin abbreviations, but according to List of classical abbreviations, P.F. can stand for Pia Fidelis, Pius felix, Promissa fides, Publii filius. We only have articles for one of those (Pia fidelis), and that doesn't appear to be the one we're looking for. A google search shows both Pius felix and Publii filius used in conjunction with individual names. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 09:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman naming conventions might help more. The little f means filius and the n means nepos (grandson). The first name means "Publius Cornelius Lentulus, son of Publius, grandson of Lucius". These guys are all from the same family so certain names were used over and over again. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted music in non-commerical media

Plenty of people circumvent the law and simply use copyrighted music for various Internet art (e.g. Youtube videos, Adobe Flash films, YTMND pages) at will. It'd be nice to see a change in this, where people actually started asking for permission, but I've gotten completed confused on how that's supposed to be done. So, for example, if someone wanted to legally use "Never Gonna Give You Up" in yet another Rickroll parody, how would they go about it? (Question is completely hypothetical.)--SquareOuroboros (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Incase not known) Parody is sometimes dealt with seperately regarding copyright law as is providing a 'critique' of something.

I suspect the best place to start for obtaining permission would be to try to find out the 'owner' of the copyright you are wishing to use, and then emailing/talking with them directly (or if a large firm owns it their trademarks/patents department) who may be able to put you in contact with the appropriate department/provide documents to complete. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's pretty obvious. My question is more about how to go about figuring out who the owner is (the artist or the record company?) and how to contact them (finding email/snailmail addresses for popular bands seems next to impossible).--SquareOuroboros (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no simple answer to this, I'm afraid. There are actually lawyers whose sole job is to figure out who owns the copyright on various properties so it can be bought or licensed. It can be difficult, because there's no reliable and centralized source for this kind of information, and it gets even more challenging when it comes to the very obscure and/or old material. Personally, I would begin by contacting the record company. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are licensing agencies that take care of this for the products of big corporations. For your Rickroll "parody" (most Rickrolls are not parody in the legal definition—just because something is funny doesn't make it parody at all) you'd probably contact ASCAP or BMI. You don't contact the artists—they don't deal with things like that 99.9% of the time (rare exceptions come into play with bands who generally don't license their material for films, for example, but occasionally intervene for projects they really support—Led Zepplin falls into this category if I recall). But as for "getting permission"—unlikely. These organizations exist for the money. This media is in a giant system of copyright ownership that generally speaking lacks flexibility. And they consider internet publishing to be a major broadcast and charge accordingly. If you ever want to get really depressed, look at how Corbis handles the licensing of its photos regarding the internet: you can't just "buy a license for use on the internet", they only license things for short amounts of time, so you'd have to continually renew it if you were planning on keeping the page up for any amount of time. It's all a real pain. These organizations are not set up for small-time, fun use, they are set up to make millions from TV stations and advertising agencies and things like that. They see "making it easy" as a problem, not an answer, as it cedes control and gives people the impression that copyrighted material should be used liberally. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OP, you would really enjoy the work of Larry Lessig. Here's a great talk he gave once about exactly the legal issues you discuss. --Shaggorama (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Americans During WWI

Which of their constitutional rights were violated? Please include references. I can't quite understand the constitution's language, despite being a native speaker... 203.188.92.70 (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that Japan and the US were on the same side in WWI? (cf Asian and Pacific theatre of World War I). Perhaps you mean WW2; if so, Korematsu v. United States is the case to read. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But they did also suffer during WW1 -- see California Alien Land Law of 1913, Webb-Haney Act (are those duplicate articles?), and Oyama v. California... AnonMoos (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Second World War, I meant. 203.188.92.70 (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could try checking the Supreme Court's ruling in Korematsu v United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) (Wikipedia article here.) This was not a unanimous decision, and the Court seemed to tap-dance around the room-filling elephant of racism. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Habeas corpus. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Korematsu is a watershed case in American constitutional law. The Court upheld the forced interment of Japanese-American citisens relying on the extremes of war (which no one believes was necessary today). It set the pattern for the Court being highly deferential to military decisions. The language of Korematsu, stating the ordinary case, is soaring. It is the basis for equal protection cases since. A case denying rights is the lodestone for cases granting rights. 75Janice (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC) 75Janice[reply]

Okinawa Dugong v. Rumsfeld

What is the current state of the legal case Okinawa Dugong v. Rumsfeld (United States District Court, Northern District of California), also known as Dugong v. Rumsfeld. It doesn't appear on the court's decisions page or on its current business page, and news reports that Google finds date from 2007, when it appeared to be ongoing. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, never mind, I think I found the ruling here. Dugong v. Gates. Somewhat comically, as part of the ruling saying the Dugong has (kinda) standing, Judge Patel cites the wonderfully titled case "Cetacean Community v. Bush". Gosh, you know you're unpopular when the dolphins sue you :) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cemeteries

In the UK, are municipal cemeteries (ever) consecrated ground, or would that apply only to churchyards?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently yes. From [1]

6.1 The Market Harborough (Northampton Road) Cemetery is currently divided into consecrated, unconsecrated and Roman Catholic sections. Consecrated ground has been blessed by a Bishop of the Church of England. There is no restriction on who may be buried on consecrated ground, but it is generally used by Church of England parishioners. Unconsecrated ground has not previously been blessed and is available to anyone. Graves can be blessed at the time of interment by the deceased's chosen minister of religion.

I don't know how widespread this is, before searching the web I assumed that municipal cemeteries were unconsecrated. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Childrens Book Title

The book concerns a young boy who meets characters who turn out to be magical members of his family. Each family member controls a different aspect of the city. One for instance runs the police and the courts, another the schools (this one lives in the past) his eldest brother runs the dustbinmen. They cannot leave the city because they promised to look after him and are bound there by their oaths. It turns out he controls the future and technology and he tricks the bad ones onto his spaceship by writing them there.

Does this ring a bell with anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.106.253 (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are thinking of Archer's Goon, by Diana Wynne Jones. John M Baker (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire dates for voting since 1776

New Hampshire has never followed the "first Tuesday after the first Monday on November" rule. Can anyone refer me to an actual list of their election dates since 1776?71.129.57.40 (talk)jbdc+ —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

According to Image:Miltonballotpaper.jpg they voted on November 2 2004 with everybody else. Grsz ^Review! 17:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up in New Hampshire, and I never remember New Hampshire voting on any national election (president, senator, congress) on any date EXCEPT the national election day? Local elections, such as for boards of selectmen, are held on different days, but many states hold seperate local and national elections. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to one reference from the mid-1930s, the Constitution of 1784 was revised in 1793 requiring gubernatorial elections to be held every two years on the first Thursday in January. No end date was given. jbdc+FrJBDCorbett (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

ROBERT CLARK -NAME CHANGED IN 1958 IN N.Y.C.

A sculpture, versions of which have been installed at several high-profile sites around the world. The image was created for a MoMA Christmas card, and was later featured on a US postage stamp. Hint: The sculpture's creator was born Robert Clark but changed his name in 1958, 4 years after moving to New York City.WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE SCULPTURE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.48.229 (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't "stump the band": Please don't ask us questions you know the answer to. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOVE (sculpture). What do I win? —Tamfang (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates from former American states

Hypothetical question: Let's say one of the United States secedes and becomes an independent nation while someone born in that state is running for President? Is that candidate automatically disqualified or kept under a sort of grandfather clause? And would people who were born in that nation/state while it was still a state be allowed to run for President? (The same could apply to US territories which become independent or are acquired by other nations.) 137.151.174.128 (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No state has ever succeeded from the US, so the answer to your question is hypothetical. We don't know what citizenship people would have after such an imaginary succession. These are matters that would have to be decided in some future negotiation, treaty, constitutional amendment, or legal ruling. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you meant is no state has ever succeeded in an attempt to secede. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some state such as Alaska you mean? :) Well, of course some states did once try to secede, but the North didn’t recognize them as a separate state so presumably a presidential candidates from the south would have been regarded as still born in America. --S.dedalus (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Lincoln's second veep, Andrew Johnson, was born in North Carolina, which did secede from the union (though, as noted, the north did not recognize such secession), and was in a state of open rebellion at the time of the election. Lincoln, a Northern Republican, selected Johnson, a Southern (unionist) Democrat, as his running mate in 1864 specifically to mend the wounds caused by the Civil War. They officially ran as the National Union Party to emphasize its intent. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm presuming that as well as the requirement to be a natural born citizen you actually have to be a US citizen at the time you run for office (anyone confirm that?). So it would entirely depend on the agreements between the US and the seceding state. There are precedents for this, such as the citizenship arrangements between the UK and ROI on independence. Presumably someone born in the state before it secession, and retaining their US citizenship, would still be eligible. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that's the intent. Being a natural-born citizen means being such not just at some time in their life, but specifically at the time of the election and inauguration. I guess a person who was born in the USA, somehow lost their U.S. citizenship (perhaps as a child), but later regained it, could still run for president. Since we're dealing in absurd hypotheticals, is there anything to prevent an incumbent president from relinquishing his U.S. citizenship and still remain president? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington was considered eligible for the Presidency because he was born in what became a US state, even though it was before the formation of the country. But Alexander Hamilton was not eligible because he was born in a British colony that did not become part of the US. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton's biographer stated that Hamilton's supporters believed the constitutional requirements could be altered if he chose to run for president. The requirements were not so hallowed with age for his generation. I have no personal opinion. The Jeffersonians hated him with vigor. Hamilton never viewed the requirement as a hindrance.75Janice (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the case is like that of a certain Senator who was born in a US territory (the Canal Zone) which was later returned to the country that was created around it, and then ran for President. Since he qualified (?) at birth, the change in the status of the place he was born is not important . . . unless he also changed his citizenship. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

75Janice

Take John McCain for example. He was born in the Panama Canal Zone which today is simply Panama and no longer a part of the U.S. (Arguably, it never was.) He is still considered a "natural born" citizen. —D. Monack ^talk 02:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The economy will have to get a whole lot worse before I vote for an "unnatural born" citizen. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this is mentioned a fair amount in natural-born citizen#US presidential candidates born outside the US BTW Nil Einne (talk) 08:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, McCain is a bad example, because as the son of American Citizens, he is "natural born" regardless of where he was actually born. Natural born American citizens must either be born on American soil or be born to an American parent. Either condition is all that is needed, not both. What the constitution requires is that a candidate for president must be an American citizen since birth, and not have gained the citizenship later in life. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of interest, if someone was born as a US citizen, changed nationality to something else, then later became naturalised again would they be permitted to become president? I realise of course that the chances of anyone with such a history would be very unlikely to be electable, but in theory could they? -- Q Chris (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may not believe it, but someone is bringing a lawsuit - Berg v. Obama - claiming Obama falls afoul of just such a situation. Shimgray | talk | 19:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I raised this possibility up above, but I wasn't aware I was referring to an actual live candidate in 2008. However, that case is alleging he lost his US citizenship and never regained it. It's the never regaining it that's the issue, not the losing it per se. If he had regained it, I couldn't see a problem, because the Constitution says a candidate must be natural-born citizen, it doesn't say that they have to have been a US citizen for their entire life. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays it seems next to impossible to lose US citizenship. When I worked for an immigration lawyer, one client was an ex-citizen who had been naturalized in Canada and was seeking to re-immigrate to the US. Several years later I learned that a schoolmate of mine has been naturalized Australian without losing her US status. Serving a foreign government used to be grounds for denaturalization, but in John Walker Lindh's case I guess the State Department waived that because if he's not a citizen he can't be threatened with a treason charge. —Tamfang (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was apparently a big sea-change some years ago on this. This FAQ has some interesting comments on it; see pt. 10. Shimgray | talk | 18:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a vaguely related point, I've always wondered whether I – born abroad to US parents, and thus not covered by the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment – am a citizen of any State. Presumably a pre-1868 law would apply if it has not been expressly repealed or superseded. —Tamfang (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This clause in the Confederate States Constitution shows how a somewhat similar issue was handled:

(7) No person except a natural-born citizen of the Confederate States, or a citizen thereof at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, or a citizen thereof born in the United States prior to the 20th of December, 1860, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the limits of the Confederate States, as they may exist at the time of his election.

--Sean 14:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BET telethon

When Hurricane Katrina struck in 2005, BET put on it's own telethon, and called it SOS: Saving OurSelves. The purpose was to raise funds for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Fashion designer Tommy Hilfiger and his son were the only Caucasian Americans to appear. Hilfiger donated $250,000 in the form of a check, and $250,000 worth of clothes. How much money was raised through that telethon?72.229.139.171 (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Differing sources give differing amounts - $14 million ([2]), $11 million ([3]) and 'more than $10 million' ([4]). Nanonic (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read them, and got confused. Right now, I'm wishing someone would create an article on the BET hurricane relief telethon SOS: Saving OurSelves. That could give out more information.72.229.139.171 (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason why a fashion designer and his son are mentioned as "the only Caucasian Americans to appear" ? DOR (HK) (talk) 06:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. I watched the telethon. Hilfiger and his son appeared. Bill Clinton, another Caucasian American, appealed for contributions via telephone. But only a picture of him was shown, that's it.72.229.139.171 (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 22

"Joe the Plumber" airtime

Hi all,

Does anyone have any idea if there's a way to find out the number of minutes devoted to "Joe the Plumber" on the major news networks? Or if there's anything that suggests any one network devoted more time on it than another?

Thanks!

— Sam 00:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.120.108 (talk)

Have you looked at Joe the Plumber? Some of the cited articles might help. Gwinva (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Which historical Pharaoh would be a possible candidate for the one Yu-Gi-Oh! makes mention of.

I was wondering what historical Pharaoh could possibly be the one Kazuki Takahashi makes reference to in Yu-Gi-Oh! that lived or died about 3,000 years ago, or 5,000 years ago depending on which anime you are going off whether it is the Japanese version, or the english version, and it would help to know how many years back, and from what date, because with all the research I have been doing I have really not improved that much, or gotten much accomplished, and one link is that of "Howling: Atem vs. Atemu", and the guy that wrote it said that Takahashi basically disrespected the way Hieroglyphs are supposed to be interpreted, and I have found that a lot of possibilities arise with the pharaoh being Akhanaten, or Amenhotep IV, but also I don't know why, but I see a possibility that Tutankhamen could be that Pharaoh it is just that the dates seem to be what gets in the way, because, " Takahashi started working on his Manganka I believe about 19?2, meaning that I can't remember what decade, and Yu-Gi-Oh! was created 1996 I believe," and it is the year 2008 by now, and I am interested to find this out because I have a millennium puzzle necklace that was a trophy that someone had won, and they sold it to me, and I am trying to find proof that magic does exist, just like dragons exist, and aliens exist, and that the government has been covering it up just because of some dumb reason like they are afraid that if information got out that stuff like that existed that it would create mass hysteria, and mass panic, or in some peoples mind the fact that they would cover up something like aliens existing is for economic reasons, and also I want to see if I find proof that Yu-Gi-Oh! was not all 100% based off of fictional information it is not just that it might prove that magic exists like what the shadow games could do, or any proof that we might get from finding out if my millennium puzzle necklace is from the real Pharaoh.67.41.206.229 (talk) 07:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would the anime reference necessarily be an informed one to begin with, or are we to fit a historical pharaoh to the fantasy after the fact?--Wetman (talk) 07:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese article says he's a pharaoh in the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt but I have no idea who is the model of Atem. I think his name comes from Atum. Oda Mari (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to rain on everyone's parade here, but sometimes writers of fiction just make shit up cuz it sounds cool. There is no reason to believe that YuGiOH was basing this particular character on any one pharaoh, and not just a composite of pharaohs in general.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your entire idea is flawed anyway. Even in YuGiOh was basing some part of its story on some historical figure, it doesn't do anything towards proving the existence of magic. King Arthur was based loosely on a real historical figure but it doesn't mean magic exists (or dragons, for that matter). Works of fiction routinely take bits and pieces from historical sources as part of the deep context of their fiction—it doesn't make it any less fiction. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find any records of pharaohs with really tall, spiky, multi-colored hair, you're probably on the right track... but I don't think that was common in ancient Egypt. (More seriously: keep in mind that anime frequently makes references to mythology and religion which aren't terribly accurate, but just added for "flavor".) 137.151.174.176 (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dating Australian girls

How to get to date Ozzie females? Any singles networking sites ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garb wire (talk • contribs) 08:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could move to Australia (assuming you don't live there already). Failing that there are Aussie bars in many major cities. I would recommend going to some of those. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Australians actually go to Australian themed bars? --Tango (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly they do. These are not "themed" bars, they are bars specifically catering for homesick expat Australians and New Zealanders. I've been to pubs in London where practically everyone was Australian, both behind and in front of the bar – and, frequently, on the floor of it. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could ring Ozzy and ask him if he has any females he can spare. :) -- Jack the Ozzie talk

If you're not that fussy, you could go to Mount Isa and wait for babes from around the world to start arriving :-P Astronaut (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "Australian singles" will get you a *lot* of hits, but I'm not going to perform the search myself at work, nor have I been to them to check their usefulness. I can attest to the presence of good looking women in Australia. Even I've noticed them. Steewi (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Identification of national dress?

Hi all.

The image to the right was previously on Greek Canadians, until someone wrote to us to point out that they don't seem to be in Greek costumes at all; they suspect, based on costume, that they're Russian. This point seems to be borne out by the flag above their heads - it's a Russian tricolour. (A Russian tricolour in 1945 is itself quite interesting, of course - was it used by anti-communist emigres in that period? I have no idea.)

The metadata on the original archive image says it's Greek, but this seems to be inaccurate. I'm no expert on traditional costumes of either Russia or Greece, though, so any thoughts on what it shows would be appreciated. Shimgray | talk | 11:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I'd seen this image isolated from this question, the men's shirts and the women's costumes would have screamed "Russian" to me. They may relate to a specific region in Russia, but exactly where I couldn't say. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering there's a Russian flag, crossed with the old Canadian flag on the wall behind them, I would guess that the picture is mislabeled! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd take it up with the Library and Archives Canada who appear to be the holders pf the photo. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I've already dropped them an email about it. Shimgray | talk | 13:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're Bulgarians. 92.224.245.16 (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh. That could be it too. Bulgarians share strong Slavic cultural ties with Russians, and the Flag of Bulgaria would be indistinguishable from the Flag of Russia under black and white photography. Good catch. Either way, they are definately not Greeks... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Well, since Greece and Bulgaria have a common border, is it possible that they're from a Bulgarian community in Greece, or from a Greek-speaking community in Bulgaria? -- JackofOz (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the first pope to wear glasses?

My brother received this question as a home assignment on Physics and I've been searching the web to find an answer but couldn't. I read glasses were made usable around 1280 but apparently they were long considered as a 'work of the devil' so I suppose it took a while after that moment until the head of the Catholic church decided they were 'safe'. However, I don't even know what century to look into so I thought maybe you could help me out with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.123.162.68 (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page [5] indicates that Pope Leo X wore them, and he served as Pope from 1513-1521. I can't find any earlier references to popes using glasses, but the same page also notes that a monk in 1306 reports using glasses. The belief that glasses were the "work of the devil" is probably an old-wives-tale. While I don't doubt that there may have been some wacky superstitions among the lower classes, churchmen were some of the most educated (and most pragmatic) members of society. I doubt they would have shunned glasses as "works of the devil", rather they probably had the best understanding of optics in their society, and probably had no qualms in using them... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books has a copy of Renaissance Vision from Spectacles to Telescopes, which is quite informative. Pope John XXI (1276) was himself a physician who wrote on the eyes and may have known of them. Pope Sixtus IV (1471) was explicitly recorded by an ambassador as wearing spectacles; many earlier popes were known to have owned pairs of spectacles, or monocles, or magnifying glasses, but these may just have been as gifts, toys, or symbols of wealth. Pope Leo X (1513) certainly used magnifying glasses and monocles regularly - he was heavily myopic - and was painted with one. Shimgray | talk | 16:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did Dr. John XXI use anesthetics when he wrote on the eyes? Edison (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anaesthetising the eye requires some precision, but no doubt he became quite skilled at it if he regularly wrote on eyes: I can't imagine he'd succeed otherwise. Gwinva (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(In a more serious note, effective anesthesia for the eyes was only developed in the very late 19th century. One of the better uses of cocaine.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were precursors to glasses during the time of the pharaohs. I'm pretty sure it would just depend on your definition of what glasses are which of them first used them. Dmcq (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A pinhole in a sheet of paper would allow a nearsighted or farsighted person to read fine print in bright light, functioning like a pinhole camera. Edison (talk) 04:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Short story about man dying on the moon

I remember reading a long time ago a short story about an astronaut that breaks his leg (or something to that effect) while on the moon and becomes stuck there. He remains motionless on the ground, thinking about his life, until he dies. Does anyone know the name of this? Thanks! Evaunit♥666♥ 16:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me a little of the Snows of Kilimanjaro, although he's not on the moon (as I recall it's a gangrenous leg injury, and he thinks about his life as death approaches). In The Long Watch, by Robert A. Heinlein (great story -- read it if you don't know it -- as moving a meditation on heroism as I can recall anywhere in science fiction) a man lies on the moon, awaiting death by radiation poisoning, having just given his life to save the earth. I'm sure there's another one I'm not thinking of. Antandrus (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ack. I do know The Long Watch, and I also thought of Larry Niven's Wait It Out, a truly ghastly scenario of a man stranded suitless on Pluto, whose frozen brain becomes a superconductor in the extreme cold so he becomes conscious - but immobile - every time the distant sun rises, giving him time to reflect on his past life and the eternity that awaits him. But that didn't fit. Is it the ending of Robert Heinlein's Requiem, where D. D. Harriman has finally managed to get to the moon illegally in his old age, but is injured by the acceleration forces on landing and is propped up by his pilots on the surface of the moon, where he dies in a happy reverie before they can go for help? Ka renjc 21:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of nits: in "Wait It Out", the narrator takes off his suit to freeze himself rather than starve awaiting rescue; he becomes conscious whenever the sun sets, making him cold enough to superconduct. —Tamfang (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So he does - don't senior moments get to you! Still remember shivering at the idea though. Damn, it's cold. Ka renjc 11:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Robert A. Heinlein sci-fi story Requiem (short story), D. D. Harriman, a tycoon who made regular lunar travel possible, in his old age connives to go to the moon and dies there. Don't remember about his leg being broken. Edison (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went back and checked Requiem. No specific reference to a broken leg, but to ".. a couple of cracked ribs ... I don't know what else" and then the statement: "His left leg was practically useless, and they had to help him through the lock ..." So maybe it's the one. Ka renjc 11:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not science fiction, but speaking of "motionless on the ground, thinking about his life, until he dies" -- and with a broken leg, no less -- who can ever forget the ending of Hemingway's For Whom the Bell Tolls?. Anyone else notice a certain kinship between Heinlein and Hemingway? Antandrus (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scala cronicas

Does anyone know what this could refer to? Is it simply a misspelling of Scalacronica? Does scalacronica even have any altenative spellings? Thanks for any help! ;) --Cameron * 17:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you gave us the context in which you came across the words. --bodnotbod (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google books comes up with Scala Chronica's and Scala Cronica's in C19th books and journals, clearly referring to Gray's work, so clearly there was more room for variety at one time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 07:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insider trading & credit crisis

Would a broad legalisation of insider trading have prevented the current credit crisis? User:Krator (t c) 19:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, as insider trading serves only to concentrate wealth and control of companies in the hands of a smaller number of people. It is patently unfair, in that it gives some people, by accident of employment, the advantage to screw the other investors. Imagine if you know that your company management is embezzling huge sums of cash. What is to stop you from also short-selling your company stock, then exposing the scandal, and making a huge additional profit off of the situation. For an example of where this went horribly awry, see Enron and Tyco. If insider trading were legalized, it would only increase corporate raiding and intentional executive mismanagement as was displayed in those cases. Imagine if banks like J.P. Morgan-Chase and Citibank and the like started to fall for the same reason Enron and Tyco did. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to see how legal insider trading could have had a positive effect and, as Jayron32 suggests, it might have made the credit crisis worse. The credit crisis essentially arose because financial institutions held investments that turned out to be worse less than they had paid for them, the institutions had insufficient capital, and public lack of confidence in the institutions led to runs on them. (Each of these had underlying causes, but that's a one-sentence precis.) None of these problems would have been reduced by legal insider trading, and the bank runs might have been worse. John M Baker (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was Milton Friedman that argued that insider trading should be legalised. The logic being that if an insider knows something and trades on that knowledge that sends a 'signal' to the market (positive or negative). The current crisis may have been lessened if the insider trading had been such that it notified the markets of the possible negative news faster, thus preventing things from building up and building up and then crashing, and potentially that would lessen the impact of the current crisis. It's all theoretical but certainly there are examples of highly respected economists discussing the idea that legalising insider trading would be a positive thing to do. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, there are some law professors and economists who believe that insider trading should be legalized, though it should be understood that they are very much in the minority, but the question was whether legalization would have prevented the credit crisis, and there the answer is no. John M Baker (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When will the result of the 2008 Presidential Election come out?

You might argue it is readily available through search engines, but since there are several key dates, it is ambiguous to me which one is right. By right I am talking about at that time, people can be at least 90% sure who is the new president. Is that Nov.4? Or Dec.5, or Jan.6? Or is that the case before Jan.6, all we can do is look at exit polls? My appreciation goes to anyone answering the question. --Mm.3nn (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barring a 2000-style close election, by midnight Eastern Time on November 4 people will have a fairly good idea of who the next president will be, based on preliminary counts of the ballots. By the time the morning newspaper is delivered on November 5, the headlines will tell you who won (again, barring a 2000-style "Gore Wins"/"Bush Wins"/"Who won?" election). Final counts of the vote numbers will take several weeks longer (Washington State requires only that absentee ballots be postmarked by Election Day; they can arrive after that). The actual decision will be made on December 15, when the Electoral College meets. We'll know with absolute certainty who the president is only on Inauguration Day, since it's entirely possible for the president-elect to die before then. --Carnildo (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Carnido says, usually you know by the evening of November 4, even if it is pretty close. 2000 was a worst-case sort of scenario though where it took days and days to figure it out (and it was only really settled with the Supreme Court intervened). (I wonder what Sandra Day O'Connor thinks of her decision in that today...) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Obama or McCain got a total of 364 electoral votes (270 needed) in a landslide, as Electoral-vote.com says polls predicts at present for Obama [6] then the networks might "call" the election a bit after the west coast polls closed. As a courtesy, they have, in recent elections, refrained from calling the election while the western polls are still open, because this leads voters from the losing party to stay home and hurts the congressional and local candidates from the losing party. I'm not sure about the synchronicity of the polls closing in Hawaii or Alaska versus California and Oregon. The last 2 elections have been atypical in not having an election night concession speech. Edison (talk) 04:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edison: With how close 2000 and 2004 were, I'm not surprised the speeches weren't given on the night. I also think this also was a courtesy to the western states as well. In 1980 the networks predicted that Reagan won and Carter conceded. There are stories of voters in CA leaving their polling place after the news got around. See [7], [8], and [9]. - Thanks, Hoshie 10:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oath making and the need to speak

I've sworn a few oaths in my time, which requires me to speak them out loud. For example, a statutory oath before a lawyer requires the words to be said aloud; the oath-swearer and lawyer then sign to confirm the words were said. It is not enough merely to sign the written version. Likewise, signing a marriage certificate is not the actual act of marriage: it is signed to confirm that the marriage has taken place, and been witnessed. (The actual act of marriage is the spoken "I Joe Bloggs take you Jane Doe" bit. If Joe Bloggs fell down dead after swearing that but before signing, the marriage would still be legal.)
So, why does an oath have to be spoken? And if that is so essential, then what happens in the case of someone who cannot speak (through severe impediment, injury etc)? Gwinva (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty antiquated concept in my mind, but I think someday they'll say the same thing about written signatures. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit more secure than just signing a piece of paper. Spoken oaths survive to us from times when literacy was uncommon. If you just mark an "X" or something onto a piece of paper you couldn't even read, you can always claim you didn't know what you were doing (and even people who can read often don't—I for one certainly didn't really read the "terms of use" the last time I was required to do so before using some piece of software). But if you spoke the words and said, so help me "Bob", then you've most definitely given your word.

Also, and more importantly, it's that you have to actually say the words, whereas signed documents are just ink on paper and often written by someone else too. No matter that the words may be formulaic, so's the Lord's prayer. An oath is a sacred thing, and you have to do it yourself. Not just a formality but a ritual. Rather like prayer in that respect, or the sacrament of confession where the point is not just thinking about your sins but getting yourself to declare them out loud to someone else, which is quite a step further. There's magic in spoken words, and you don't have to be religious or superstitious to think so. Oh, and see speech act.

As to someone who cannot speak, a way would have to be found, but to my mind it would have to be more than just glancing at the legalese and then clicking on "I agree". Some kind of particular gesture, depending on just how incapacitated they are. The Catholic church is sure to have a lot on this that could be applied to secular purposes as well. (These are just my thoughts on the subject, I'm afraid I have no idea how they do it in actual legal proceedings.)--Rallette (talk) 08:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that more or less echoes what I'd assumed about the significance of speaking (nice to see my assumptions affirmed!), hence my musings on what happens if someone can't speak: a mere written pledge would not be enough to replicate that. Most deaf people would have sign language, which is in effect speech, but there are many other people for whom speech is difficult. Thanks for your thoughts! Gwinva (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 23

Double negative law terminology

Why is it that various news outlets as well as politicians use various double negative phrases? For instance, I often see things like Most California voters still oppose gay-marriage ban, poll finds. In that instance, why not just say "Most California voters still support gay-marriage, poll finds"? The words 'oppose' and 'ban' give the headline a double negative tone. Dismas|^(talk) 05:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~In this case isn't there an implication that gay marriages are currently allowed and some people are opposing it? That's the way it reads to me. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

I think it's saying that most people are opposing the ban, which is what's happening. If it said "Most Californian voters support gay marriage", it wouldn't bring attention to the ban. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are correct, the implication is that gay marriages are currently allowed, a ban has been proposed and some people are opposing this ban?-- Q Chris (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Schwarzenegger opposes Proposition 8, but is not a supporter of gay marriage... AnonMoos (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant to the question? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it points out an error in my thinking that the example I provided and my re-write could mean the same thing. Dismas|^(talk) 13:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I should have actually read what I replied to. Sorry! Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that in general such double negative forms are examples of a well-known old rhetoric device; it is named litotes and it's used to express an idea in a sort of mild form, and that's why it is typical of the politicians' speech. By the way, the sentence in the wikipedia article: In Latin, an example of litotes can be found in Ovid's Metamorphoses (...) sounds a bit odd (there are hundreds of examples in every latin author, as well as, of course, in any greek one, so that it's like saying: In English an example of demonstrative pronoun can be found in Dickens' David Copperfield ...) --PMajer (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a lot simpler than all that. On California's ballot next month there will be a proposition to ban gay marriage (Proposition 8). The headline is stating that most of those polled oppose this proposition, where "this proposition" is equivalent to "gay marriage ban." If there were a proposition on the ballot to allow gay marriage, then the headline could be written differently, "Most Californians Support Gay Marriage Proposal", for example, since headline writers do seem to enjoy wordplay. --LarryMac | Talk 16:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They do, but in many cases the only wordplay they seem to know is the pun. They'll often employ a pun in the headline of an article about a deadly serious subject, which I've always thought was rather insensitive and inappropriate. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George IV - date oddity on map

In London yesterday I was wandering past a shop selling antique maps when I noticed a map in the window dated 1809 that referred to "George IV" as "the king". I doubt they meant Elvis, so presume it must mean this bloke. I know he was the prince regent for some time, but even so the dates still don't seem to match up. How could a something dated 1809 possibly even refer to a "George IV"?--A bit iffy (talk) 06:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To start with, was the 1809 date on the map itself or could the store have gotten it wrong? --Anonymous, 07:25 UTC, October 23, 2008/

The date was on the map itself and did not look like it had been added later. I'm no expert on antiquities or maps, but the map sort of had a Victorian feel to it (but I can't put my finger on why).--A bit iffy (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George IV was the son of George III. He was regent between 1811 and 1820, so at this time, George III was still king in name as well. The date on the map must be wrong. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious explanation is that the map is a fake. Algebraist 07:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I concluded at the time (after repeatedly running through the dates of kings and queens of England in my head - old-fashioned rote learning at school does have its uses). I'll probably try to contact the shop (if I can find it again) and see whether it stays on display. Thanks all.--A bit iffy (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could try dating it internally - look for geographic features that changed post-1809 and see if they got them right. Who owns Finland? It went to Russia in 1809 and stayed. The Papal States were annexed by France 1809-1814; the Netherlands were a French puppet kingdom until 1810, when annexed directly, and then an independent republic from 1815. 1809-1816, France owned Illyria (essentially the Croatian coast). The Confederation of the Rhine was in Central Germany 1806-1813. There are no doubt more of these, but I can't offhand think of any other major changes... Shimgray | talk | 09:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a map of Britain, showing a hundred or so numbered places they considered worth visiting, along with a brief description of each place (all towns and cities, I think) and a suggested route snaking throughout the country. I didn't notice any obvious blunders like railways.--A bit iffy (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With antique maps, it's quite common for the publication date to be two or three years after the map date, i.e. a map of how Britain looked in 1809 might well not be published until 1812. It should bear a separate publication date somewhere.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American elections?

The USA is supposed to be a rich, advanced nation, but how come they couldn't even organize an efficient election? F (talk) 10:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long lines ≠ inefficient election. Lots of voters is desirable and the first word in that article is "unprecedented". Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lines are not the problem with the elections here. There are many problems. Lines, usually not. Unfortunately for all its riches, and the amount expended in election campaigns, the actual infrastructure of voting has been woefully neglected for decades, and when it has been "updated" it has been done so in the most ham-handed and unreliable fashions. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it an efficient use of public finances to invest in making a once every 4/5 years event more efficient? The electoral process, by and large, works. If the ballots of every voter can be cast over the course of the day, and the votes counted and a result annouced within a couple of days and the cost of hosting the election remains reasonably low (on a per voter cost basis) how could we consider that anything but efficient? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a considerable investment, at least from the republicans, in ensuring that as few of the electorate as possible have a say in the matter. See, for instance Block the Vote by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. & Greg Palast. It is difficult for us non USians to see your electoral process as anything other than corrupt and broken. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, it isn't being fixed because both parties make it a partisan issue instead of working together on it. Wrad (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the States are responsible for elections, not the Feds, so it has to be fixed locally, which I think is a good thing, except that people don't seem to pay any attention to state politics. If the people actually cared and SHOWED it, maybe their votes would actually be counted right. Wrad (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

States are responsible for overseeing the elections, but local municipalities and counties actually run the election. Here in California, a county can choose any method of voting that the state Secretary of State approves - paper ballot, approved voting machine, punch card, whatever they decide is best for them, so long as it's on the approved list. Then the counties count the votes and report the totals to the Secretary of State. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above, 194 says "The electoral process, by and large, works. If the ballots of every voter can be cast over the course of the day, and the votes counted and a result annouced within a couple of days...". In recent US elections there have been many disturbing signs of votes not being correctly counted. Dubious voting machines, hanging chads, Bush v. Gore, you name it. And there have also been allegations that in some places not "every voter" has a chance to vote. The Reference Desk is not the place to debate how much effect these issues may have had, but it needs to be mentioned that they exist. --Anonymous, 18:48 UTC, October 23, 2008.

To be fair, these problems are surely not limited to the United States? In Canada, elections are a federal concern and the voting process is the same for the whole country, but aside from that there are similar problems. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There may well be problems with Canadian elections, but they if so they will mostly be completely different ones, because the election procedures are so different. But I certainly don't see the same level of concern over whether Canadian elections are trustworthy as I do over American ones, and in any case the question was specifically about American elections. --Anonymous (Canadian), 22:54 UTC, October 24, 2008.

Oh, by the way, Adam's remarks about the voting process in Canada are correct for federal elections, but other levels are run separately -- which itself is a difference from common US practice, I understand. Municipal elections where I live use machine counting by optical mark-sensing, but federal and provincial ones use hand-counted paper ballots. --Anonymous, 17:40 UTC, October 26, 2008.

Because it's run by the government. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 09:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation in Britain

I work for a primary school, and we've organised a Black History Week this week, as part of Black History Month. One of my colleagues asked me if I knew what a British doctor would have earned at about the time the Empire Windrush arrived in Britain. I don't know (unsurprisingly), and I can't think how I could find out. Can anyone help? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 10:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could try this for a start (haven't looked through it to be honest). The NHS started in the same year as the Windrush arrived. --A bit iffy (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an easy question to answer. NHS payscales for GPs were complex - they got an annual basic salary and then a per-capita fee for people seen. I've found one site quoting £500, but I think this is basic salary, and they could earn a lot more on top from capitation fees. In a hospital post, where it was a basic salary only, a registrar would earn "from £600 to £1,300 a year" [10].

As for GPs, this is how the system was anticipated to work out just before it came into force [11]:

...the average general medical practitioner who now has a panel and who has on that panel anywhere near the normal maximum allowed, which is about 2,500 plus certain increases for juveniles, if one assumes that he gets the normal signatures of the rest of the family, will automatically be entitled to the following. He will have compensation for the value of his practice of a substantial figure; a basic salary of £300 a year; fees amounting to not less than £3,000 a year, on that basis—a total of £3,300 of income from his State patients

Hope that helps! Shimgray | talk | 13:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US President and Vice President not allowed on same plane

I have heard that the US President and Vice President are not "allowed" to be on the same plane, for fear that they might both perish simultaneously. Is there any truth to this, or is this just a myth? If true, who sets such a "rule"? I will have a follow-up question, but I just want to make sure that I clear up this initial point first. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You'll find this article useful. Credit to User:PeterSymonds from this October 10 question. Grsz ^Review! 13:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The article was interesting, but I would not say "useful". Did I miss something in the article, in terms of an answer to my original question? My take of that article was that Eisenhower's personal preference at the time was to be prudent. Thus, his personal preference precluded flying with his VP. No? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

From what I understand, it's not a rule. But such occasions are probably more rare than we might think. After all, how often is it that you hear of both men (up to this point they have been both men) going to the same meeting or conference or disaster area etc. Not very often. They each have their own tasks and schedules. That being said, the designated survivor article may be of interest to you. Dismas|^(talk) 13:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cynic in me suggests that Eisenhower didn't fly with his VP because he didn't want to spend several hours with Nixon for company... Shimgray | talk | 14:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not cynical, it's the truth. Ike disliked Nixon and wanted someone else (anyone else would have done) as VP for both his terms. Failing this, he completely ignored him as much as possible. -- JackofOz (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it would be a good Secret Service policy, but I doubt any law or regulation exists.NByz (talk) 07:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Service could make recommendations, but if a Secret Service official actually had the authority to direct or forbid the movements of the President and/or Vice President, the U.S. would be in the position of the Roman empire, where the Praetorian Guard ran things. Besides, there is a line of succession which means that there would still be a president. Edison (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. Much appreciated. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

What's the title of a newspaper called?

Does the title of a newspaper have a name in printing other than "title"? If, for example, an article appeared above the fold, which is a graphics term, what is it called when the headline appears above the title? Flag...something? And more importantly, why don't the articles for newspaper and broadsheet include the parts and layout of newspapers? --Moni3 (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Masthead (publishing). I always thought the word you were looking for was "masthead", but according to that article that is an incorrect usage. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 16:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at that, too. I think that is referencing the verso of a magazine, or the list of publishers on the inside page of a newspaper. I'm looking for the term that refers to where The New York Times is placed on the front page. --Moni3 (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec):The title of a newspaper (that is, including the logo and any other designs) is usually called the Masthead in BrEng but its correct name is a Banner (as Masthead (publishing) refers to the information relating to the newspaper's staff and ownership, or boilerplate in BrEng). The term flag is used for content hooks above the masthead pointing to stories inside (one assumes as flags fly on the mast..). You may find both [12] and [13] helpful. I would have expected to see the parts identified in our article on News design but alas that seems to be lacking too. Nanonic (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In pedanto-speak it may be the banner, but it's commonly referred to as the masthead. A couple of years ago I wrote to the editor of an Australian metropolitan newspaper arguing they should change their logo, which appears prominently in the centre of their masthead. They published my letter, as well as a couple of rather negative responses the next day. All the letters used the word masthead, and everyone know what was being referred to. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the top of the front page can also be called the "flag." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Buddha

Why do buddists care so much about the Buddha? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.209.76 (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reasons Christians honour Christ, Muslims honour Mohammed, Bahá'ís honour Bahá'u'lláh, and so on: as the founder of their religion. Check out Gautama Buddha for more information on the specifics.

While that's correct enough for Bhudda, it's worth noting that the Christian view of Jesus is not the same as the Muslim view of Muhammed, and "founder of the religion" is a difficult phrase to apply to either (it's probably closer for Jesus). — Lomn 17:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Gautama Buddha, the founder of the religion, is not identical to Buddha, the state of being. Pfly (talk) 08:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. When Buddhists venerate the Buddha, they are primarily worshipping an ideal to which they aspire. The stylized Buddha figure on a Buddhist shrine is intended to represent this ideal human being rather than the historical Buddha.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invention

In what year did William Baldwin invent the heater? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.211.17.247 (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a little bit of a search around and can't find anything that really answers that. Do you know any more about roughly when this would have been? Or which sort of heater it is? A search of 'heater' on wikipedia lists the different sorts so I think this would be a good start. Weazelcheese (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A History of the American Locomotive By John H. White at [14] says that in 1847 four eight-wheel locomotives were fitted with feed-water heaters from Baldwin. Patents by Trevithick and Vivian (1804), Winan (1837) and Perkins (1849) are mentioned, but nothing on Baldwin. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what had the greater total sum effect on human civilization?

in all earnestness, which of these, to date, has had the greater effect on human civilization:

The splitting of the atom (and subsequent use thereof).

The popping of corn (and subsequent use thereof).

Thanks.

If you're really earnest about it, why don't you explain why you think there's an argument for pop corn being at the same level of importance as nuclear fission. Otherwise you're just wasting our time. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AGF: As to the question: Consider, as an example, nuclear power in France. It produces some 430 TWh of electricity via nuclear power stations, this being 87.5% of the total power output of France´s power stations. You simply have to decide if electricity or popcorn is more important to the functioning of a society.

Of course, I forgot MAD and the cold war, nuclear medicine and other aspects, but I may be temporarily confused after colliding with a large hadron.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the end of the 2nd World War, that had quite an effect on human civilization (especially those parts of it in certain Japanese cities). --Tango (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would have ended without the bomb. The question is just when and how. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A better question might be "which has had the greater sum positive effect on human civilization? The French power example only provides a benefit equal to the net cost of the next best alternative minus the net cost of using nuclear power. MAD * the chance of it happening would be quite a downside to overcome, regardless of how slight you may have believed that possibility to be. But everybody likes popcorn.NByz (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MAD and the Cold War isn't necessarily a down-side. I see it more ambivalently. You had to balance the possibility of destruction with the fact that the weapons did reduce major conflicts between superpowers. They did bring some stability to things, it could be argued. All I'm saying is, it's not like the alternative history where they didn't exist was necessarily better in that regard. Personally, I don't go for popcorn much. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'd argue that beneficiality is impossible to measure. Take what is just about the maleficial thing I can think of, the Holocaust, after its existance became widely known anti-semitism, which had always been rife among the West, was whiped out and became politically incorrect (in the best sense of the phrase) within a few years. Alternatively, the Cold War, a period of huge tensions between nuclear powers, actually secured a period of peace for the world's developed nations. The fact is that it is impossible to know what a cause's effects might be just a few years down the line. Nuclear fission could be perfected soon and become a source of unlimited energy, and likewise, popcorn could be revealed to contain a deadly neurotoxin that has been gradually killing us for the past century... 218.48.66.96 (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe future alien archaeologists will take the view that we should have stuck to popcorn. Leaving WW2 aside, it's a virtual certainty that sooner or later nuclear weapons will again be used in anger, and losing just one city will wipe out all the good things that have come from fission (medicine, power, etc.) on the scale of total merit, in my opinion. --Sean 14:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why bother getting up in the morning, Sean? The scenario you paint is not "a virtual certainty". That may be your opinion, hypothesis, call it what you will. Mine is that it's a virtual certainty nuclear weapons will never be used again in anger. Unfortunately, my hypothesis will never be proven, but your's might. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, nuclear weapons have so far only been used in anger once and that was when only one country had them. Since multiple countries have had access to nuclear weapons they have never been used despite people being certain they would be for the past 59 years. --Tango (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 24

Size of US debt under Republican presidents vs. Democratic presidents

Is it true that since the Eisenhower administration, the US debt has shrunk during every Democratic administration, and increased during every Republican administration? If so, how can I verify this? 67.169.50.95 (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have any stats handy, but that's certainly been the prevailing tendency since around about the beginning of Reagan's second term. The W. Bush administration has actually followed a consciously cynical policy of intentionally "starving the beast" by deliberately increasing military expenditures while giving large tax-breaks to the ultra-wealthy Country-club Republican set in order to set up overall structural pressures for greatly reducing non-military spending (though the latter hasn't actually happened yet, resulting in mega-increases in public debt instead). In other words, the U.S. is required to mortgage its economy to foreigners (Sovereign wealth funds etc.) because Grover Norquist loathes and despises Medicare and Social Security... AnonMoos (talk) 07:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely! I think Clinton was the only one who actually reduced the national debt. However, this claims that every Democratic president since 1945 "has reduced the national debt as a percentage of GDP" (my bolding) - that is to say the debt grew at a slower rate than the economy. It also says that overall, Democratic administrations have increased it less than Republican ones. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a nice graph here. It's pretty clear from just casually looking at it that while the debt grows under Democratic administrations (Clinton the exception), it grows a lot slower than under most Republican administrations. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another interesting graph: [15]. In fairness, Congress holds the purse-strings, not the President, and in recent history there has often been a split in the control of Congress and the White House, so perhaps a good Republican might say instead that "since the Eisenhower administration, the US debt has shrunk during every GOP-held Congress, and increased during every Democratic-held Congress". --Sean 14:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good graph: [16]. I believe either Kennedy or Johnson had a surplus. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article in this month's Washington Monthly comparing various economic indicators under Republican and Democratic administrations. DAVID ŠENEK 19:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "good Republican" would be wrong to claim that the deficit increased under Democratic-majority Congresses and dropped under Republican majorities. One of the periods in which the deficit increased fastest was the period when Bush Jr's presidency coincided with a Republican majority in Congress: 2002-2006. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to National debt by U.S. presidential terms, the debt grew rapidly under Reagan and the two Bushes. With one exception, every other president from 1945 on, Republican or Democrat, lowered the debt with respect to the GDP (Nixon/Ford increased it very slightly). Clarityfiend (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to echo and expand the point made by Sean. Congress has the power of the purse, not the President. Crediting/blaming the President for debt isn't necessarily accurate. It takes two to tango. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of Japan and UN Security Council Reform

I am well aware that Japan has always desired a permanent seat on the UN security council. I am aware that they have in the past worked with the G4 group of nations to try and obtain seats, however information from their mission and foreign service leads me to believe that while they still intend to cooperate with the G4 nations, they are working on a plan of their own. What nations would this plan include or geographical regions? Also, what is the relation of the G4 in the UN today? 72.87.132.142 (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about future Japanese government initiatives, but it seems quite unlikely that any "reform" effort to elevate Japan alone to permanent Council status would have any chance to succeed. The G4 nations have been stymied by the fact that nearby countries with less chance of a permanent seat for themselves often oppose the efforts of the G-4, with Pakistan opposing a Security Council seat for India, South Korea opposing a seat for Japan, Argentina opposing a seat for Brazil, Italy opposing a seat for Germany, etc. (see Uniting for Consensus). Also, the G4 plan offers nothing for Africa while arguably increasing the existing overrepresentation of Europe, and there's the eternally contentious issue of whether new permanent Council members would have veto power. In any case, Japan's actions in WW2, and apparent lack of contrition and/or failure to take responsibility for those actions in some cases, still leaves a sour taste in the mouth of many Asians... AnonMoos (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indios visiting Pedro II of Brazil in 1898 photograph

Recently found online at ibamuseum a 1898 photo "Homagem ao Imperador D. Pedro II do Brasil pelos Indios do Alto Rio Xingú". Photographer: Sylvester A. Taylor. Indios looking at a picture in the Royal Palace. I have not been able to find anything on this Sylvester A. Taylor, has anybody any idea where anything on him might be?--Radh (talk) 09:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Village Cry Gysin photo

The 1970s Village Cry, a Swiss avant-garde photo journal, did a Brion Gysin number, publishing a photo of an old male Slave in chains, supposedly from a Slave Market in 1950s Atlas mountains, Maroc. It may be a hoax, but looked pretty real. Has anybody ever seen this mag or the photo? I have been looking at some books (old RE/Search stuff...) and the web, but never been able to find it--Radh (talk) 10:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

history of gurmukh singhwala

I wanted to know about history of village Gurmukh Singhwala in Punjab, Pakistan.Gurmukh Singh my great great grandfather, who lost his life in the battle of saragarhi is said to own it. I'll be obliged if you could send me some facts or pictures of him and the village. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.134.215.216 (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The English Language Wikipedia unfortunately does not have any information about that village. However, there are several Wikipedias in the various languages of India, any of which may include an article about that village. See List of Wikipedias for more information about the full list of Wikipedias. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biblioteca Reale

I came across Biblioteca Reale, which was listed by a bot at WP:SCV. Currently the article consists of a very short sentence followed by a long quote from [17] ... not really ideal. I looked for information on Google, but found very little. I am sure that there is information to be found in print, but I am not certain where to look. Any suggestions? I have access to a very large University library, so I could probably get any books mentioned. --Iamunknown 15:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

electronic publishing

hello 1) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I'm from a developed country, Egypt, and I know you're knowledgeable.

I want to help with Wikipedia but how can I?

I want to donate money to Wikipedia but less than $50 -- can I pay in a bank instead of by visa?

2) When did the phrase "electronic publishing" begin to be used? Of what materials can we say they are electronic pub? Do we call microfilms or microfish electronic publishing? Did electronic publishing begin with the Internet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.139.145.200 (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! For details of how to donate by bank transfer, see here, click "donate now" and select "Direct Deposit". If you take those details to your bank, they should be able to help you. As for your question, have you seen our article, Electronic publishing? It's not very long, but it might answer some of your questions. I don't see anything in there about the history of it, though. I think the internet has certainly played a massive role in the birth of electronic publishing. If it existed before the internet, then it would have been on an extremely small scale. --Tango (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of the term electronic publishing being attached to microfiche or microfilm. (It's hard for me to see what's electric about them, as well.) The closest thing to pre-internet "electronic publishing" I can think of is that some books relating to mathematics or computers had punch card supplements that could be purchased to accompany them (like A Million Random Digits with 100,000 Normal Deviates). But nobody called that electronic publishing, and it's quite different than the internet. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the earliest electronic publishing efforts would be Project Gutenburg which "published" its first text in 1971 when there were only 15 nodes on the Internet. Rmhermen (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I was going to say they were likely the first, but had no idea their first effort was that early.Somebody or his brother (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the difference between fencing and swordsmanship

what's the difference between fencing and swordsmanship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.142.164 (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at our articles Fencing and Swordsmanship? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, and it's not clear to me. could you summarize it in a sentence? Is fencing is like ballet whereas swordsmanship is like -- medieval dancing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.142.164 (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really the first sentence of each article covers it. Fencing is an activity; swordsmanship is the skill you need to do well at that activity. Or in your analogy, fencing is like dancing while swordsmanship is like being good at dancing. --Anonymous, 22:58 UTC, October 24, 2008.

Fencing is European swordsmanship/martial art. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jorg Haider

This article says he was a white nationalist, anti-Semitic, and above all homosexual. Why do people have to say that he's a Nazi just because he was gay? It seems unfair, and homophobic.--Holy Roman Empire (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that they are calling him a Nazi because he is an anti-semitic white nationalist? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a conspiracy theory that he was murdered for his views, and the story of drunk driving was a coverup.--Holy Roman Empire (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there are conspiracy theories about everything else imaginable too, so that doesn't say much. --Tango (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody knew he was gay! It was no "accident"? Of course not: he was completely pissed, he drove at 140 km/h or something in the middle of the night, so 1+1=2. And as far as I know, he was no Nazi,he was right wing and a bit nationalistic, but I don· t even know, if his policies were as right-wing as his talk--Radh (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know anything about the Guardian? If not, let me assure you that it is completely against their editorial policy to say that someone is a Nazi because they are homosexual. Jorg Haider is referred to as a Nazi because that, quite subjectively, was what he was: an unrepetent apologiser for the Third Reich. Bringing up his apparent homosexuality is important because it serves to point out the hypocrisy that is so deeply ingrained within Fascists. Haider consistantly had kind words to say about the Nazi party, while, under its own rules, he would have been sent to the Concentration Camps for being a sodomite. The Guardian makes it its duty to point out examples of such hypocritic cowardly scum-like behaviour from members of the far right. 218.48.66.96 (talk) 08:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could n·t care less and if it makes you feel better to call him Adolf go ahead, but there are real nazis around and they are still very different from Haider. Haider had nice stupid words to say about the old nazis, but he was no neonazi politician for god·s sake. How many communists and gypsies and foreigners had he murdered or even interned in prisons without trial? Here on w. it is unfair and verboten to call Weather communist, so it might be fair to say that not every "far- right person" is per se fascist scum. And Haider was not even that far to the right in his politics. --Radh (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ulster County Gazette

While working just now, I found a reproduction of the famous Ulster County Gazette, but don't know which reprint edition it is. Printed on a soft paper, this has italic "Ulster County Gazette", uses both ſ and s in the middle of words, has a publication notice of "Publiſhed at KINGSTON, (Ulster County,) etc.", and (as far as I can see) no copyright notice. Can anyone tell me when this was printed, or where I can find a site listing these editions? I found a New York Times article from 1904 discussing various reprints, but none of the varieties described by the author seem to fit this exactly. Aside from the statistical improbability of this being a third copy of the original, I know it's a reprint because of various textual variants noted by various websites. Nyttend (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vale, R. W. G. (1951). The Ulster County Gazette and its illegitimate offspring. OCLC 1047666 supposedly lists all known variants of the reprints.—eric 02:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 25

Swordfighting representations

Fairly often in movies/TV today you see swordfights (say: Pirates of the Caribbean, Kill Bill, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Firefly, Rome, Last Samurai, Mongol, Batman Begins, Gladiator, Zorro, Shakespeare adaptations, etc.) some of more and some of less attempts at being serious. What I'm wondering is how "accurate" these fights are -- for example, if a "real" swordfighter from some time in the past would laugh at how ridiculous they are, or if any of these fights are accurate representations of how a swordfight might actually look. zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of it is that in Europe, anyway, modern swordsmanship didn't really take off until the 15th century, linked in part to better developments in sword technology that made it more than something you'd just try to cleave your opponent with or something you'd use to quickly stab them with from behind your shield. It's certainly possible to say that the use of swords is often exaggerated in heroic European history; most armies did not use them as they are not very efficient weapons compared to pikes and arrows and other things that don't require you to get so close (and work better massed or against massed targets).

Of course, whatever one things, I am sure that anyone who really lived by their sword would find the swordfights in some of those movies fanciful. Pirates of the Caribbean, for example, where it is clear that nobody is really trying to hit anyone else and they are just playing around with them (endlessly). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert, but there's obviously been some effort to present semi-realistic Roman legionnary fighting in Rome. According to [this press piece], they had actors and extras on a two-week military training course to learn the basics. Whether the result is accurate, is anybody's guess - at least it is entertaining. 84.239.160.166 (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of those I've seen: Pirates of the Caribbean: totally silly (on purpose no doubt); Star Wars: ridiculous, blatantly choreographed; Lord of the Rings: laughable (all drama); Firefly: laughable (ditto drama); Zorro: silly. All fun to watch though, which is the point I reckon. Olympic fencing is not for real I know, but it is about winning instead of entertaining via choreography and drama. Epee, arguably the closest to true duel style, is usually rather slow and boring. Pfly (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an interesting list of movies with swordplay, rated by accuracy. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They don't seem to be rated by accuracy. The stars are "not an indicator of the quality or quantity of the film's fencing." -- BenRG (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Right. Never mind. Well, there SHOULD be such a list. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't attest to its accuracy, but the swordfight scene between Ronald Colman and Douglas Fairbanks in The Prisoner of Zenda (1937 film) is generally considered the absolute best in cinema history. Doubles were extensively used, but doubles who sure knew how to use swords. (The 1952 remake is virtually shot-for-shot, so it doesn't count. And Peter Sellers' 1970's spoof wasn't meant to to be taken seriously.) -- Prince Jack of Zenda

I've always understood that Basil Rathbone was considered the best swordsman among Hollywood actors (see The Adventures of Robin Hood, The Mark of Zorro, et al.). That, of course, doesn't contradict the statement about the swordfight in The Prisoner of Zenda, which I love. (If my miserable speaking voice could be changed to that of anyone I chose, I would choose the voice of Colman.) Deor (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to watch out for is big swooshing strokes that come nowhere near the opponent but end with a flashy clash over their heads. —Tamfang (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is only an "I've heard", so no cite, but I've heard that one big difference between Hollywood fighting whether with swords, knives, bare hands, or anything else is that Hollywood fights tend to go on for a while before you know who wins, whereas in real life the superior fighter tends to win with the first blow. See My Cousin Vinny for an example where this occurs for comic effect -- it doesn't work so well if suspense or action/excitement is what the filmmaker is after. --Anonymous, 18:00 UTC, October 26, 2008.

Indeed, a real sword fight would usually be over in a blink of an eye, often ending with a throw (because being droped hard while in plate mail could be more debilitating than a blow). The reason for this is that an attack is an opening for your opponent. The attack is either successful or, if not, your opponent has a perfect opening for a counter attack. Here is a VERY good source discrediting some of the major myths of medieval combat. --S.dedalus (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

China, India, Japan and Russia

My friend and I just finished the first year of our macroeconomics course in junior college. We were discussing the current American economic crisis. Both of us think that the crisis will cause the USA to lose its dominance of the world and the four Asian powers will surpass the USA and eventually dominate.

1. Is this likely to happen?

2. What factors contribute to the current rise (and possible future dominance) of the four Asian powers?

3. What problems will the Asian powers face in rising to dominate?

4. How would a future dominance of the Asian powers impact the world?

When answering, you can consider each power individually or the four powers as a whole. Also note that we are still in junior college and have only studied macroeconomics for one year, so don't give answers that only university graduates will understand.

Thanks a lot.

It is historically and geographically awkward to describe Russia as an 'Asian power', but anyway: I suggest you check The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Paul Kennedy. He looks at the issue of baton-passing between empires specifically from the economic point of view. As to the likelihood of such an event occurring, it is without doubt that U.S. influence will wain as history takes it course. IIRC, Kennedy's argument was that the business of empire-maintenance was just too costly and eventually bankrupts all those who attempt it. If you want an "A" on this assignment (wink) you may wish to also read The Long Emergency by James Kunstler (www.kunstler.com) who will make it all too clear that there will far more demand for oil than there will be a supply of it. Impact, who knows ? Probably a safe bet that English will no longer be the dominant language and that cultural interests will be more Asian (or whoever comes out on top) -oriented in the western world than they are now. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~China, Russia, and Japan. What's the fourth?~~ (D'oh! Didn't see the title.)Clarityfiend (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend, No. 4 is India. W.B. Wilson, why is it awkward to describe Russia as an Asian power? I thought Russia is part of north Asia? This is not an assignment, just something my friend and I are interested in knowing more about. The problem with books is not just that they are hard to get, but that they may be far too difficult for junior college students who have only studied macroeconomics for a year. For each question, a one paragraph answer would be enough. But still, thanks for your short answers to questions 1 and 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.13.2 (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it humourous how the same people who exaggerate China's problems and predict their immenant demise are the same people who overlook India's much more serious problems. India has been developing economically at a pretty much constant rate since independence, but very little of this wealth actually makes its way to the lower echelons of society, (sure, India has its positive discrimination programs, but they only apply to a tiny minority), Indian democracy, so applauded in the West, essentially consists of a number of party machines competed for economic controls. India is hopelessly corrupt - in contrast, China cannot point to the facade of democracy, and has to show its people real economic growth and since the Deng Reforms the wages in working class China have been growing at a much quicker rate than their Indian counterparts. China is succeeding in supporting class mobility, and has such has a growing number of success stories to boast about, stories of people working their way out of peasantry or slum housing into real economic success. These stories are simply not replicated in India, where class/caste is still strictly hierarchical and economic success is almost entirely determined by the economic success of one's parents. Furthermore, both India and China are facing a future that includes an uncertain climate, the difference is that the Chinese state has the power to implement the geo-engineering products to save its national climate, in China, farmland is owned by the government, and if the government says that people must move in order to make room for a reservoir that will save thousands of square kilometres of farmland, then those people move, but in India, where most land is owned by freeholding subsistence farmers, huge opposition is supplied to every attempt to impose authority, (indeed, there is much of India that is under a state of insurgency, the same can't really be said of China). Every year the Himalayan meltwaters decrease, one day, they'll grind to a halt and the mighty East Asian rivers will start to dry up. China, if it plans ahead, will be able to weather this change... maybe, but India doesn't have a chance in hell with its current system.

Anyway, my point: its wrong to include India and China in the same narrative. Because while they may seem similar, one is most definitely an ascendent power, and the other one in decline... 218.48.66.96 (talk) 09:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We’re going to need some definitions here, folks. The hypothesis is this:“The crisis will cause the USA to lose its dominance of the world and the four Asian powers will surpass the USA and eventually dominate.” So, we need to define what it is that makes the US dominant today, and what will define the four named economies “eventually dominating” the . . . world? Oh, and we’ll need a time frame for “eventually.” Pretty tall order.

Still, give it a try. Let’s look at shares of world GDP and the change over time. If we extrapolate from the relative change between the 1980s and the past decade, then the combined four nations will surpass the US in seven years. Not any one of them, which rather deflates the argument that the US has fallen from its position, but only the four combined. (Japan is the largest, but there is the awkward bit about its economy being a smaller share of world GDP these days than it was in the 1980s.)

Conclusion? It isn't likely that any one of the four will replace the US as the economy larger than the other four combined (current status: US larger than next four) in our lifetimes. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such Sweet Thunder

I recently added the following to the Romeo and Juliet article:

Duke Ellington's Such Sweet Thunder contains a piece entitled "The Star-Crossed Lovers"[125] in which the pair are represented by blended alto saxophones: critics noted that Juliet's sax dominates the piece, rather than offering an image of equality.[126]

Yet somehow, it doesn't ring true, to me, that both characters would be played by alto sax. Unless their themes were very different musically [are they??], how would the listener even know which sax was Juliet? Is my source correct about this? Does anyone here know this piece, and can comment on its instrumentation?

[Experience tells me I'm likely to get a better answer here than at Entertainment, but I'll cross-post there if anyone thinks it's a better bet.] AndyJones (talk) 09:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's not correct. The melody is first played by a tenor sax (Paul Gonsalves, according to the liner notes by Irving Townsend), then the alto sax (Johnny Hodges) takes over. DAVID ŠENEK 13:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, excellent answer, thank you. AndyJones (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi Buddhist and Christians vs. politics

Which community is pro-Indian? Which community is anti-Indian? Which community is pro-Pakistan? Which community is anti-Pakistan? Which community is pro-Bangladesh? Which community is anti-Bangladesh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.147 (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very few in Bangladesh are "pro-Pakistan" except the Biharis (and their patience has been sorely tried... AnonMoos (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern European human appearances

What are the common natural hair colours and eye colours among the Eastern European girls? When I mean Eastern European, I mean Russian, Ukrainian, Belarus, Moldavian, Romanian, Polish, Bulgarian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, Slovakian, Hungarian, Serbian, Albanian, Macedonian, Greek, Montenegro, Bosnian and Croatian. I am making a porn site where the girls are naked, involving no sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.147 (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That last sentence threw me somewhat. What sort of a porn site has no sex? It's like the breadless sandwich (or, indeed, the foodless sandwich). -- JackofOz (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of porn sites. --NorwegianBlue^talk 21:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this extraordinary artist's study of European body and face types. --Moni3 (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the future they'll use orgasmatrons, no nudity. Dmcq (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a small gallery of female models from the region I found on Commons. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia
Latvia
Russia
Russia
Russia
Poland
Poland
Ukraine
Czech Rep.
Czech Rep.
Hungary
Romania
Croatia
Serbia
Serbia
Albania

ex-USSR city name changes

Some cities in the former USSR changed their name back to their pre-revolutionary names. Some didn't. 1. Was the name change voted on in each city ? 2. Why didn't some cities change their names ? 3. Are there cities outside the USSR that changed their name after the dissolution of the Eastern block?217.132.20.78 (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Karl-Marx-Stadt comes to mind. Maybe there are others at List of city name changes. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflicted) Saint Petersburg certainly had a public referendum on its name change. (It carried by 54%.) I would imagine other cities did as well. Karl-Marx-Stadt in East Germany changed its name back to Chemnitz. There may have been others. Rmhermen (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a look at List of places named after Lenin and List of places named after Stalin, you will find a few examples, including the Township of Stalin and Mount Stalin in Communist Canada:) I have no idea why they fancied him, but maybe a Canadian can shed some light on this mystery... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also woth to note that the name changes have been sometimes very inconsistent. Leningrad may have changed its name back to Sankt-Peterburg, but the surrounding region is still called Leningradskaya oblast'. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean "inconsistent". On the previous point, remember that Stalin's USSR played a huge role in defeating Hitler's Germany. Which leader was the more cruel and tyrannical can be debated, but certainly there are a number of countries that are free today and to which Hitler was more of a threat. So it's not surprising that some places would want to leave commemorations of Stalin in place: for example, Stalingrad station on the Paris transit system, so named in 1946. --Anonymous, 18:11 UTC, October 26, 2008.

Inconsistent, of course. Corrected, thanks. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stalingrad station is named after the events that happened in the place that was called Stalingrad during WWII, not because of Stalin himself. If the place has been called Volgograd when it happened, it would be Volgograd Station. --Lgriot (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. This could be called an "eponymn twice removed" of Stalin, but certainly not an eponym of Stalin. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

kichener

was he a British general during the Boer war,or else. please reply to <email address removed> thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.144.22 (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed contact details. Ka renjc 18:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

needs a t?--Radh (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener... AnonMoos (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1911 Britannica says he became a full general in November 1900. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.11.134 (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, actually, it seems a bit more complicated. The above promotion was in the local army; he became a full general in the British army at the end of the war, June 1902. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.11.134 (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone here tell me anything about this photograph?

Can anyone here tell me anything about this photograph? ----Seans Potato Business 21:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this link. It appears to be from an uprising of the FALN in Carúpano, Venezuela, which was crushed by president Rómulo Betancourt in 1962. The picture was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Photography in 1963. --NorwegianBlue^talk 22:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics For Ministry Burnout after Bible College/Seminary

I'm looking for any data/statistics for the number of people who drop out of ministry 5-10 years after leaving Bible College or Seminary. Any data would be helpful. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.25.62 (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a quick search on the topic. Most of these articles are geared towards Protestant Christian churches:

Some of these are antadotes; the first link appears to report on an actual study. Hope this helps! - Thanks, Hoshie 10:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a president resigns, why does he submit his resignation to the Secretary of State?

I was reading the article on Watergate, and it contained an image of Nixon's letter of resignation. It's addressed to the Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger. Why is that? It seems like kind-of a random government official to send it to. Why not send it to the Vice-President, who's next in line of succession, or to the Speaker of the House, or Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, or something? I realize that the Secretary of State is one of the most important people in the cabinet, but I don't see how managing foreign policy would be a qualification for accepting a presidential resignation. Could you just send it to any cabinet member you like? If I was president and needed to resign, could I send my letter of resignation to the Secretary of Agriculture, or the Surgeon General, or the guy in charge of the White House mail-room? Belisarius (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the executive is appointed by (and so also resigns to) the legislature. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the Secretary of State isn't part of the legislature, it's part of the executive branch. If what you're saying is true, shouldn't he send his resignation to the Speaker of the House, or the Senate Pro Tempore? Belisarius (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Yes, cabinet secretaries are executive too. Well, the dumb answer would be... Nixon just followed the appropriate fed law. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the obvious next question is: why did "they" decide that the Sec of State was the appropriate person to give the resignation to? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to ask that very same question :) It seems strange for congress to designate specifically the Secretary of State Belisarius (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whist it may have been of no consequence in this case, it should be pointed out that Henry Kissinger is not a "natural born American citizen" but born in the Frankish part of Bavaria by non-American parentage. He could certainly not have part of the Presidential chain of sucession, even if Gerald Ford had not been qualified for some obsure reason. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to CNN, "The Congressional Act of 1789 placed the official seal of the United States in the custody of the Secretary of State. The seal is affixed to several types of documents, including proclamations of treaties, conventions, and agreements, and on envelopes carrying communications from the president to heads of other governments." So in that sense they would probably be the one who would be asked to officially add the seal to the document of resignation. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Archives.gov] states Nixon resigned to Kissinger "keeping with a law passed by Congress in 1792" (presumably the Presidential Succession Act of 1792). That's as close as I could come after almost two hours of digging. There was significant debate about order of succession in the year prior to the passing of 3USC19, and it could well be (but I'm guessing) that 3USC20 reflects the 1791 House's recommendations for 3USC19; had the 1792 act been passed as the House originally recommended it, the Secretary of State would have been #2 (immediately after the VP) in the line of succession (this is what the Presidential Succession Act of 1886 implemented, and the Act of 1947 undid). -- Fullstop (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pracitally speaking, it is undesirable for the successor to be the one to determine that the president has resigned the office, since a vice president of excessive ambition, like Aaron Burr , might make a premature determination that some communication constituted a resignation. This way, a third party (beside the president and vice president) can attest to the act of resignation. I recall in a moderate sized city where a a judge was a little nutty, and the mayor announced that the judge had submitted a resignation, via a telegram. The judge denied sending the telegram, but the mayor said the resignation was official and appointed a replacement. These days, the comparable event might be an ambitious VP announcing that the president had resigned orally, or by easily faked email, or by a signed resignation done on the autopen [18]. This was a machine used since the Kennedy administration which actually moved a pen on the paper for "hand singed' letters from the President. Making the Secretary of State the one to determine whether a resignation has been duly submitted makes the resignation a little more believable. Nixon's resignation was handsigned, and not done via the autopen as most letters were done. Earlier presidents had secretaries who could skillfully forge their signatures on routine documents like letters, landgrants or pardons of thousands of former Confederate soldiers.A Secretary of State could be expected to perrsonally communicate with a resigning president to make sure resignation is his actual and unswerving intent, and that a letter is not just a creation of a forger or autopen. Edison (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A strange and purely internal servicing function of the Secretary and Department of State was the recording of documents pertaining to the quadrennial elections of the President and Vice President. The Constitution, Article 2, section 1, stipulated that the votes of the State Electors were to be certified and transmitted "to the seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate." The Twelfth Amendment, adopted in 1804, changed the voting process, but neither stipulation prescribed the transmittal link between the Federal Government and the States. However, an Act of March 1, 1792, amended in January 1845, ascribed a number of contingency monitoring, transmission, and acknowledgment functions to the Secretary of State. Not until 1951 was this role transferred to the Administrator of General Services and in 1984 to the National Archivist.

The Act of 1792 also made the Secretary of State responsible for communicating with State Governments concerning an Electoral College special balloting in the event that the country would be without both a President and Vice President. Later, the Presidential Succession Act of January 19, 1886, provided for automatic succession without such a special election. In addition, the original Act of 1792 prescribed that, if the President or Vice President declined to serve or resigned from office, the only valid evidence certifying to this action was to be a signed, written instrument delivered to the Secretary of State. Such unusual action was first taken by Vice President John C. Calhoun, who resigned on December 28, 1832, to free him to serve in Congress as a Senator from South Carolina. Similar action was taken nearly a century and a half later by Vice President Spiro T. Agnew, on October 10, 1973. The only President to resign the office was Richard M. Nixon, who tendered his resignation on August 9, 1974. Plischke, E. (1999). U.S. Department of State: a reference history. p.134

—eric 01:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original cabinet had only the departments of War, Treasury, and State, plus the Attorney General (also the Postmaster General). In this relatively simple structure, the state department was given responsibilities in areas other than foreign policy. Also, the Secretary of State has higher precedence than the other cabinet members... AnonMoos (talk)

The reason it's called the Department of State rather than Foreign Affairs is because it's responsible for a few housekeeping functions of government, such as keeping the seal and certifying constitutional amendments. Accepting letters of resignation from presidents is along those lines. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting! Thanks, everyone! Belisarius (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did Cicero Really Say This?

A nice quote that several ghits attribute to him. I first heard it in the movie The Black Hole. So far all the sources I can find either don't name the source, or refer to the movie as if it is definitive. None of the Cicero Collections I can find include it though, so... is it a real quote?

Rashness is the characteristic of youth, prudence that of mellowed age, and discretion the better part of valor.

Arakunem^Talk 21:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the rest, but I recognized the discretion/valor part from Henry IV, Part 1, by Shakespeare. Falstaff says it in Act V, Scene IV Belisarius (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I should say, it's entirely possible that Shakespeare borrowed it from Cicero (he was fairly well-read, after all) or maybe it was just a common saying. I don't know, but it's in the play, anyhow. Belisarius (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Belisarius said, the last part is from Shakespeare; the rest is authentic Cicero, however, from De senectute: "Temeritas est videlicet florentis aetatis, prudentia senescentis." Deor (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 26

Now for something my friend and I disagree on...

1. Is Singapore a developed or developing country?

2. Is Singapore an Anglosphere country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.13.2 (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely a High income economy (see also Developed_country#Definition). The English language plays a prominent role, but it would seem to lack many of the requisite features of political culture to be a core member of the Anglosphere... AnonMoos (talk) 08:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes to both: developed and Anglosphere, in light of the legal and (formal) political system. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did Enoch Really Die ?

Was reading the article Entering heaven alive ...

What are the traditional Jewish/Christian views about Enoch's life and death ? Did they really teach that he ascended the firmament without reaching the end of his life ?

69.157.231.5 (talk) 08:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could start with the source given in the article, the Jewish Encyclopedia's article on Enoch. The Catholic Encyclopedia is less useful here but see Book of Henoch and Henoch. Wikipedia itself has lots of info, Enoch (ancestor of Noah) and, since he is also a prophet of Islam, Islamic view of Enoch. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The operative assumption here is expressed in "really".--Wetman (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Enoch Powell is actually dead, as you may see from the article.--ChokinBako (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but who the *** ever mentioned Enoch Powell? This is about the biblical character Enoch, after whom that late right honourable gentleman and all the other Enochs were named. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure mythological question

I recently read an article about a particular mythological being that I can not find again. Unfortunately the specifics of this particular myth elude my memory at this time. A description of the being is as follows:

An angel like being, body of silver and covered in razor sharp mouths from head to toe. Her voice causes insanity to all who hear it. She may be considered an embodiment of chaos and destruction.

Any information about this would be appreciated.209.82.167.78 (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That´s no way to talk about my mythological exwife, Number 209. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask, Cookatoo. Why did you marry her in the first place? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your honour, "her voice caused insanity in all who hear it" - and I quote here the evidence of witness Number 209 - must be deemed to be sufficient reason for my heinous marital crime Down Under. If my paranoid observations are correct, I am currently serving time in an institution for the criminally insane, anyway. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I'm pretty familiar with mythology, but I don't recognize that description at all. The two most similar (in terms of symbolism, not physical description) I can think of are Medusa (her voice didn't make you go insane, but her face petrified you, literally) and Kali. Kali is probably the closest you're gonna get. Belisarius (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sagacity

Hi What is the sagacity? Please, describe it for me completely and explain clearly. (Sageman84 (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

See sagacity. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English professors and felonies

can a person with more than one felony be an english professor?Demonphish (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But it very much depends in the university and the nature of the felonies. Each university has different hiring practices, so its difficult to give a general answer. Rockpocket 17:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by your terminology, I guess you are in the US, is that correct? I'm not familiar with US law, but in the UK we have the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act which prevents offences being held against you after a certain amount of time. There are certain professions that are exempt, but I don't think a university lecturer would be one (since you aren't working with children - a school teacher is certainly exempt, but uni students are generally over 18). --Tango (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

Which country's flag is this? Thanks in advance [19] 81.140.78.90 (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No country has this flag. It may belong to some organisation. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A google image search for orange flag failed to bring up anything similar, so Jack is clearly right. I tried to get the context in which the flag had appeared, but the site http://nations.jm-innovations.com did not allow viewing of anything but the flags (yes, plural). There were images with names starting at 1.png and continuing to 91.png. I didn't check out every one of them, many were well known national flags, while others, such as the one you linked, to seemed more fanciful. A whois search on the domain name will give you contact information of the owner, so if you're really interested, you might try emailing that person. Btw, how did you come across the image in the first place? --NorwegianBlue^talk 21:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the flag of the Nagano Prefecture, Japan. There's a version of it in Wikimedia Commons here, and it's in the "solid flags" list there too. Booglamay (talk) - 23:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As in a number of other Japanese flags, the design is based on the first kana in the name: ナ. —Tamfang (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Google site search [20] currently finds 184 pages at the domain. I haven't found where or whether the Nagano flag is used. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diwali and Durga Puja

Why Bengali Hindus in India and Bangladesh don't celebrate Diwali? Is it because of the some ethnic group issues or is it they think it's important to celebrate Durga Puja? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.56 (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bengali Hindu festival

Besides Durga Puja, what are other Hindu festivals do Hindus in West Bengal and Bangladesh consider as totally Bengali? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.56 (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 27

Michel Suleiman iftar party

Is this true that Lebanese President hosted an iftar party and how many politicians, both old and new, were there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.228 (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there were lots of iftar banquets in September; it's kind of confusing sorting out when they were. I Googled Michel Suleiman iftar banquet and came up with a bunch of news stories. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US Presidential elections

For US Presidential elections ... does anyone know the following information ... or where it can be found? What was the "closest" election in terms of electoral votes (for example, 269 to 269, or 270 to 268, or whatever)? That is, who won by the narrowest margin? Also, the widest margin? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

See List of United States presidential elections by Electoral College margin. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I would have thought that the deletionists would have gotten to a list such as that one. Dismas|^(talk) 08:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Longest lived minister

Who is the longest lived Minister in the UK - or Secretary in the USA? Paul Austin (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised if there were a ready-made list of the longest-lived UK ministers, but if you confine your search to Prime Ministers, this list tells us that Jim Callaghan was the longest-lived. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manny Shinwell holds the record in the UK. He lived to the grand old age of 101 and served, among other positions, as Ministry of Fuel and Power and Minister of Defence. Currently the only MP who lived to an older age was Theodore Cooke Taylor (102), but he was never a Minister. Assuming he survives the next couple of weeks, Bert Hazell will overtake Shinwell too, but he never served in Government either [21]). Rockpocket 06:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Data for the USA is a bit tricker to track down. If, by "Secretary", you include Vice Presidents, then it might be John Nance Garner, who lived for a few weeks shy of 99. I can't find anyone older. If you only include Secretaries of the United States Cabinet with a dept, it might be William B. Saxbe who was Attorney General under Nixon and Ford. He is 92 years, 125 days and counting. Can't confirm these though. Rockpocket 07:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper endorsement party switches in the United States presidential elections

I was looking at Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential election, 2008 and wondered where we can find historical data about the proportion of newspaper endorsements switching parties by circulation. Does anywhere archive that? 69.228.211.27 (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military Strategies in Feudal Japan

What were the military strategies in feudal Japan, especially with samurai armies in battle?