Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

November 6

Musical taste and recreational drugs

If a song is composed under the influence of recreational drugs, is it likely to be best appreciated by listeners under the influence of the same drugs? NeonMerlin 02:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not? NeonMerlin 05:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Because people like songs for all sorts of reasons – they like the lyrics, the rhythm, the melody, it means something special to them... liking music is very subjective and can't be simplified like that. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Had I never inhaled, likely I'd never have noticed the herbal influence in It's A Beautiful Day; so, at least for an academic sense of 'appreciated', I wouldn't say no. —Tamfang (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Any increase in 'appreciation' probably won't be a result of using the same drugs, it will be a result of being in that sub-culture, being part of that movement. If the singer/band and yourself are aligned to a similar sub-culture then it seems likely that their songs will 'speak' to you perhaps more than someone who isn't part of that sub-culture. There'll be a lot more to the sub-culture than simply a recreational drug though, so whilst the drug may be part of that connection I doubt it is a significant part of it. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have heard it said that ecstacy accessorized techno so that both its fans and critics alike could endure it. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to be on opium to appreciate the works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It may be true that drugs give you the illusion that you can appreciate the art more. Drugs universally hinder neurological function in some fashion; they don't "heighten" your senses, or expose you to "alternate realities". They merely fuck your brain up in ways that make you think that that brain damage IS reality. If that sounds like a good time to you, well, via con dios... But in general, having full unfettered access to all of your senses is probably the best way to appreciate any music or art. I greatly enjoy works of art that were created under heavy drug use (the poetry of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, the music of the Greatful Dead, The Beatles, Pink Floyd, etc. etc.) and I have never used heavy drugs myself. A very wise man once said "Drugs doesn't make you more interesting, it just makes you content with being boring..." --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The concept of illusion doesn't always apply. Having music sound good is a subjective experience. If some music sounds better to you after (for example) smoking pot, it's meaningless to call that change of perception an illusion. Also, calling drug effects "brain damage" is not accurate. There are a great many drugs in common usage, whether medical or recreational. Most of them do not cause brain damage. Frankly, many of your comments sound like something straight out of some widely inaccurate 1930's anti-drug propaganda. Friday (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You are 100% correct. That is why I have always supported full legalization of all drugs. I have personally never used one, but it has never had anything to do with their "harm" or "benefit". It has never personally interested me. I was merely answering the OP showing that it is entirely possible to be 100% personally fulfilled with the exerience of life without using hard drugs. If the OP does not find his life personally fulfilled without hard drugs, he won't find any objection from me to using them. Thankfully, he won't be the first person to use hard drugs, so we have lots of data points on the effect of long-term, continued use of hard drugs in their lives, and thus he can at least make an informed decision over the issue. The question over whether any of his life is likely to be enhanced by the use of these hard drugs is entirely for him to make... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Friday. It's subjective. Plus the OP was asking "is it likely to be best appreciated" so you could easily argue yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.121.208 (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the most accurate statement would be that "a listener would be a lot more open to liking, and subsequently becoming a big fan of, a particular kind of music while having any positive drug experience". I do have some personal evidence to support what the OP is implying though. I remember realizing how "awesome" Led Zeppelin was while smoking weed. And I have a good friend who hated electronic music but subsequently became a DJ after hearing it on E. NByz (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

At a mundane level, the "beer goggles" principle seems to apply – the idea that drinking beer makes others around you look attractive... Julia Rossi (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Something interesting and vaguely related: the painting Unraveling Boléro by Canadian artist Anne Adams, which is a visual representation of Ravel's Boléro. After she painted this, it became clear that she, like Ravel, suffered from Primary progressive aphasia. New Scientist has an account here, and a paper on the subject can be found here.81.98.32.49 (talk) 12:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Friedrich Nietzsche on cocaine?

My friend told me about a movie he saw in which Friedrich Nietzsche was shown to have used a good deal of cocaine in his life. I had never heard anything like that before and was wondering if it's true. Evaunit♥666♥ 03:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not shocked. Before the 20th century, the concept of "illegal" drugs was pretty foreign. Samuel Taylor Coleridge, a contemporary of Nietzsche, was a famous druggie, for example. And don't forget that originally, Coca Cola really contained cocaine. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Jayron, I'm not quite sure how you define 'contemporary' but you might care to note that Coleridge died ten years before Nietzsche was born! :)) Emma Dashwood (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, they were both older than me ... ;) However, they were both born in an age with a pretty much "anything goes" attitude towards the ingesting of any old substance. The concept that the government could tell you what substances you could and could not take didn't really get going until the Temperance movements of the late 1800's... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Cocaine#Popularization has a nice history of its hey-day among intellectuals in the 19th century. Remember that cocaine was very new to Europeans in the mid-19th century, and that its negative sides weren't recognized until after quite some time. It was not made illegal until the 20th century. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Suing an abortionist for refusing to perform an abortion

Say hypothetically, an abortionist had a patient seeking an aborting. Upon recognizing her as the president of a "Pro-Life" group. He refuses to perform the abortion on her. Can the patient sue the doctor (in a court of law) for refusing to perform a legal abortion on her? Is it illegal to discriminate against "Pro-Life" people (by refusing abortions)? But surely such a doctor will get full support from the "Pro-Life" people to discriminate against the "Pro-Life" people! 122.107.234.42 (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but you'll almost certainly be interested in this article: "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion" - When the Anti-Choice Choose —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.214.224 (talk) 05:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If this it legal advice, it shouldn't be here. Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 08:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly not a request for legal advice. --Sean 13:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It is so boring and irritating to have the "legal advice" mafia show up every time someone mentions a legal concept. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

In general a doctor is not obligated to perform a procedure on a patient if they don't want to. I'm not sure if there are exceptions for life-threatening cases. This has come up in the past in the US for other "morality" issues—e.g. should a doctor help save the life of a baby that would die without intervention if it thinks that its life is "unfit to live", as in the case of the Chicago doctor/euthanasia/eugenics advocate Harry Haiselden. (Ooh, a provocative red link on Wikipedia for an interesting historical figure! Jump to it, lads...!) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

In the UK, doctors are certainly not obliged to perform abortions, however that's intended to protect doctors from having to do something they consider highly immoral. If they are actually a specialist abortionist, that doesn't really apply. You certainly couldn't choose not to perform the procedure based on a protected characteristic like race, but I don't think there are any laws against discriminating against people for their choice of moral values, so the doctor in this example would probably be ok. I would hope that doctors aren't general so petty as to refuse treatment in such a case - I think doctors generally subscribe to the idea that you treat anyone that comes looking for your help regardless of who they are outside of the hospital. And, for completeness, I'll say (although no-one has asked) that confidentiality rules would certainly prevent the doctor from revealing the patient's hypocrisy. --Tango (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

In the U.S. (pretty much) anyone can sue (pretty much) anyone else for (pretty much) any reason. How far it gets in the court system is another matter. ("pretty much" is a weird looking phrase is!) Saintrain (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

(As an aside, can a judge make an award – attorney fees, etc – for "nuisance suit" to the defendant without a trial? Saintrain (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC))

(IANAL or anyone else with expertise in court procedure.) There would probably need to be a hearing on the claim for costs (assuming the loser objects), but I see no need for there to have been a trial on the main claims of the case - if the judge dismisses them as no case to answer, then you can just skip that bit. --Tango (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

After a little research, it seems I have my terminology wrong - such a dismissal would actually happen part way through the trial rather than without a trial. --Tango (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the legal advice thing; I looked up the contributions of the asker after typing that, but didn't want to bother crossing my comment out or something like that (I was in a bit of a hurry.). Cheers! Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 20:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

In NZ, I suspect any doctor could refuse for that reason and not be subject to any civil penalty. There's a slight chance they may be sanctioned by the medical council or their employer but I doubt it. However the District Health Boards are required to provide abortions to those who meet the criteria, so they will need to find someone to perform the abortion. (see the end) If they can't find someone in NZ they may send you overseas, as I believe has happened before when there were insufficient staff willing to perform fairly late-term abortions for the demand Nil Einne (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Naval attire

While watching a swashbuckler, I noticed the main characters wearing armor at sea during a boarding. Was this accurate or were people more worried about falling into the water and being dragged down by the weight? And if they did wear armor, what kind (in say the Elizabethan era)? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I'd say the defining factor was cost: if you could afford it, you wore it. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall hearing somewhere that, surprisingly, most sailors "back in the day" couldn't swim. That is, if they fell overboard, they were pretty much out of luck, especially during a fight when it's unlikely others are going to stop to fish them out. Adding armor wouldn't change that much, and certainly saved them much pain against sword injuries, which were probably more likely to happen when boarding a ship than falling overboard would be. -- 128.104.112.72 (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Admirals typically had fancy armor; see the picture at Sebastiano Venier or admiral's armor from Battle of Gibraltar in 1607 [1]. In Loutherbourg's painting of the Spanish Armada [2] there appear to be some men with helmets and armour, but most of the men seem to be wearing nothing more than shirts; but an image of Battle of Lepanto (1571) [3] shows armored Venetians on the right storming unarmored Turks on the left. It probably depended on your rank and the wealth of the navy you served in.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall reading that boarding armor was rigged for easy removal if the boarder went overboard. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Military healthcare law change

My step son and his mother were having a discussion about his healthcare situation because he was in the military several years ago and had an injury during this time which ended any career posibilities in the military. Years after he left he realized that his healthcare benifits had been canceled for failure to reply to a letter explaining this. He has moved around to pursue his academic disipline.

His complaint was that there was legislation passed that required him to respond to contact atempts from the military in order for him to keep these benifits. I can find no such legislation that has been enacted that would change this unless it has always been this way.

Where can I go to look for this information or who knows anything about this? Dumboldtruckdriver (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

(turning off preformattext in your question) If this is in the United States, check with your local VA office. They provide benefits for veterans and know what the laws and rules are. -- kainaw™ 15:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

what do they mean?

Somebody wrote to me "if the Lord is your shepherd, what does that make you?" what did they mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.214.224 (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

From Shepherd: "A shepherd is a person who tends to, feeds, or guards sheep . . ." So if God is your shepherd, what are you? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"The Lord is my shepherd" is a famous Old Testament quote often said by Christians (and Jews?). The comment makes fun of it. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It makes you a sheep. For the non-Christian, this is an uncomfortable idea; that sheep are supposedly mindless and not in control of their own lives. For the Christian, it is about being intentionally obedient to God, to turning your problems over to Him and to agree to let Him manage your life. It's not about being "mindless" as we think of sheep are, but it is about being intentionally, and mindfully obedient. Its an easy concept for the non-believer to make fun of, but it is one of the central, core aspects of being a Christian. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's more specific than just being mindless, it's that they blindly follow each other. Calling someone a sheep means they just do what everyone else is doing. --Tango (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The only problem is that anyone who knows about sheep knows that they don't just follow their shepherd or each other blindly. They are very difficult to keep together and guide. They have a mind of their own. Shepherds in the Middle East in the time of Christ knew each of their sheep by name. Sheep followed their shepherd only, not just anybody who wanted to lead them. They knew who their shepherd was because they recognized his voice and knew that he would lead them to good things (water, grass). Nowadays sheep are guided by sheepdogs and men on horses or four-wheelers, but that is not how it was in Biblical times. Knowing the context, it is very clear that biblical sheep did not follow blindly, they weren't just part of a crowd. They knew their shepherd and he knew them, personally. They followed him based on past experience that he would lead them to good things. That is why, when people call me a sheep in a Christian sense, I feel like saying "Thank you!" Wrad (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, the quote also connotes the rather unpalatable idea (pointed out by Christoper Hitchens in a debate) that a sheperd does not keep sheep primarily as loving pets, but rather as commodities to be fleeced and ultimately slaughtered for meat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.132.11 (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Which, again, is more of a modern idea than a biblical one. Interpreting Psalm 23 in the context of its time brings no such connection. Wrad (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Some parts of the Middle East still hold to the older "Shepherd tradition". I heard a story about a western man who ran over one of these shepherd's sheep. The shepherd was obviously distraught about it, so the westerner offered through a translator to pay for the man's loss. The man refused. The translator explained that such Shepherd always refuse. The sheep means more to them than the money. They have small flocks and to lose one of them is to lose something that is personally known and deeply cared for. This is not the attitude of someone who merely keeps his sheep for the monetary rewards of slaughter and fleecing. Wrad (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? That seems curious. Do you mean that in ancient times it didn't occur to anyone to consider the purpose of a shepherd? Or that the term had a somewhat different meaning at the time? APL (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Nowadays companies own livestock, not people. The "processing" process is very impersonal. How many shepherds do you know that stay up all night throughout the year with their animals, protecting them from predators? Sure, sheep were sheared back then, but the relationship between shepherd and sheep was still much deeper than it is today. Wrad (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Another thing, there is no doubt that there were, even in biblical times, both good and bad shepherds. In the context of Psalm 23, though, when it says "The Lord is my shepherd" and then lists all the good things he does for the writer, it is clear that the Lord, to the poet, is a good shepherd, possibly better than even the best shepherd that ever lived. Such a shepherd would not lead his sheep to anything bad (slaughter, for example). The metaphor only serves so far. Wrad (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"All we like sheep have gone astray." Isaiah 53:6. So we sheep are definitely independently minded. When Handel set this text to music in the Messiah, he portrayed the will of the sheep with some wonderful melismatic semiquaver runs for the phrase that follows, "We have turned every one to his own way."GBViews (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. If sheep were so easy to persuade, there would be little need for a Shepherd, wouldn't there? Wrad (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless we, as sheep, ARE easy to lead astray into dangerous places, and the Shepherd is there to make sure we remain where it is safe... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Apropos nothing, I prefer the Pink Floyd take on it: Sheep (song) --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That confirms my observations, that sheep are stroppy. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha. That's a very different take! Wrad (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Heaven

Does the Jewish faith have a concept of going to Heaven after death, or was this started by Christians (and taken up later by Islam)? If it does, then how does it differ from or resemble the Christian idea of Heaven?

Have you read our articles on heaven and Jewish eschatology? They provide an excellent starting point. — Lomn 20:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Is that you, Givnan? Julia Rossi (talk) 09:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

what am I?

Hi.

This is more a question of terminology regarding philosophical opinions. I want to know what my opinion is called by describing it.

I do believe in the existence of the physical universe, and that we all are minds that have (real) bodies (existing within this world) with senses that can perceive this physical world and its phenomenons. Now, if I had stopped talking here, it would have been materialism...

BUT: I do not believe that anything in this physical universe (no kind of matter, energy, process, phenomenon, etc) can give rise to our consciousness; our ability to be self-aware; having a feeling of existence. So I DISREGARD from the theory that the workings and design of the human brain (and a limited number of other animals) is so complex that it can give rise to consciousness, and when it dies the feeling of self-awareness disappears.

As you can see, I'm not an idealist either.

That being said, I also completely disregard from religions based on scriptures and their "theories".

In my quest of learning a bit more about this, someone putting a word on this would make things easier.

Thanks, PureRumble (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC).

What you are is a person with a question. Where did the consciousness you believe in come from? If you believe that it could not have arisen naturally from the material universe, something outside the material universe must be the cause - i.e. something 'supernatural' (meaning outside the natural). I guess that makes you a "supernaturalist".

So your next question is, what does that supernatural thing look like? Did it create the material, or does it exist alongside the material? Is it intelligent?

Incidentally, why would you discard scipture based religions? You may not consider the existence of scripture sufficient evidence for the truth of a religion, but it would not be sensible to discard a theory just because someone wrote it down before you. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You're a dualist. See Dualism (philosophy of mind). —Kevin Myers 23:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Dualism is very hard to support philosophically. In modern times it is mostly associated with religion rather than serious academic philosophy. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The duality (pun definitely intended) of religion and philosophy is a recent phenomenon. Historically, they are considered the same field. Superm401 - Talk 04:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks to all of you! PureRumble (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

November 7

In our midst

Who is the highest-ranking United States Presidential cabinet member of an opposing political party to that cabinet's President in the last 100 years or so? For this question, I mean "highest-ranking" in its commonly understood sense (State near the top, Agriculture near the bottom). I've had a bit of ale, so if my meaning's not clear, I mean something like George Bush appointing Barney Frank as Secretary of the Treasury. --Sean 00:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

G.W. Bush would have been about as likely to appoint Barney the Dog as Barney Frank to be a member of his cabinet. Edison (talk) 00:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

See List of United States political appointments that crossed party lines. Clinton's appointment of William Cohen as Secretary of Defense is a recent high-ranking appointment of this type. —Kevin Myers 01:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In terms of say, highest crossing of party lines ever, I would say that it probably goes to republican Abraham Lincoln's choice of democrat Andrew Johnson as a running mate in 1864. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

They both ran for the newly formed and shortlived National Union Party (United States). PrimeHunter (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And once the Civil War ended and Lincoln was shot, it became painfully clear that Johnson was a Democrat in a government run by Republicans; it led to his impeachment, which he survived by a single vote... Well, officially it didn't lead to his impeachment, but realistically... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he didn't survive his impeachment (unless you're talking about the entire process). He was impeached by the House of Reps, but he survived the consequent vote in the Senate. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The most senior Cabinet departments are State, Treasury and War Defense, in that order. The list cited shows two transvestite such Secretaries of the Treasury: C. Douglas Dillon and John Connally. —Tamfang (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

South Caucasus = Middle East?

Is the South Caucasus generally considered to be part of the Middle East? I see the category in the article and it's relatively close by, but I'm not sure if it's simply just a separate region that's merely north of the Middle East. Note that the South Caucasus includes Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. At least I have never heard of it being considered part of the Middle East. I think the region must be known as the south-east corner of Europe. In soccer, they are regarded as European, not Asian. --Omidinist (talk) 05:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Usually the South Caucasus is considered to be part of Europe, whereas the Middle East is usually associated with Asia (with the exception of Egypt, which is partly in Asia and partly in Africa.) --Lgriot (talk) 05:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There's some political, cultural, and economic reasons to associate Muslim Azerbaijan with the Middle East, a region which is as much defined by religion as by geography (e.g. "Azerbaijan joins the middle east"[4]), but not Armenia or Georgia which are culturally European and Christian.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The simple answer to the original question is no. The South Caucasus, including Azerbaijan, is not considered part of the Middle East, as it is usually defined. Also, even if soccer teams from the South Caucasus play in a European league, this region is conventionally considered part of Asia, which is almost always defined as the part of the Eurasian landmass east or south of a line running off the Aegean coast of Asia Minor, through the Dardanelles, Sea of Marmara, and Bosporus, through the Black Sea, along the crest of the Caucasus Mountains, through the Caspian Sea, and along the crest of the Ural Mountains to the Arctic Ocean. According to this definition, the South Caucasus, lying south of the crest of the Caucasus Mountains, is part of Asia. Marco polo (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Prime Minister of Canada

What are the requirements for a Canadian individual to become a Prime Minister of Canada? Sonic99 (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The article Prime Minister of Canada says: Legally, any citizen of Canada of voting age (18 years) can undoubtedly be appointed to the office of Prime Minister, these being the requirements to gain election to the House of Commons. Since it is not legally necessary for the Prime Minister to be a sitting MP, there is some question as to whether there are technically even age or citizenship restrictions to the position.

The article is sadly lacking in citations and references, so I would not bet my job on its accuracy. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither would I. Practically speaking, in this day and age it would be virtually impossible for a non-Canadian to ever become PM of Canada. That's because under the Westminster system it's virtually impossible for a non-MP to become a Minister, let alone Prime Minister, and MPs must be citizens. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there a requirement for a Prime Minister of Canada to know how to speak English and French? Any educational and work experience requirements? Sonic99 (talk) 04:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not an official requirement that the PM be bilingual, but it's generally considered an unofficial requirement. An English-speaking politician who seeks to go places will spend many hours trying to better his/her French. Because the position of prime minister comes from the unwritten part of the Canadian constitution, there are no formal requirements so far as I know for the position, but generally the person must be able to command the confidence of the House of Commons, that is, get at least half of the house to at least tolerate your presence. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Prime Minister is appointed to form a government by the Governor-General and is almost always the head of the political party which has won the most seats in the House of Commons in the most recent election. To become the head of a political party, you must be the candidate that the party thinks has the best chance of leading the party to this position in the House, or of maintaining this position, in the next election. It is extremely unlikely that such a candidate would not be bilingual, would not be a Canadian citizen and would not be of sufficiient years to have had success in a career. However, as seems clear from all the preceding comments, there do not appear to be any written requirements. ៛ Bielle (talk) 06:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Canada takes a different approach to the US. While the US lays down constitutional restrictions on who can be President, the Canadian system assumes that if someone can command the confidence of a majority of MPs then that's all the eligibility they need. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Religion in Japan

What are the percentages of Japan's total population that is Shinto, Buddhist, or both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertEinstein1978 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

See Religion in Japan. Cheers! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Does that have numbers? I didn't see any on a casual looking-over. —Tamfang (talk) 06:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to work out, because Japanese religious traditions allow a large degree of synchretism - religious practices from Shinto, Buddhism and even Christianity and other religions are used on and off, but not necessarily regularly. There may be some data, though, as to regular participation in specific religious ceremonies. Steewi (talk) 11:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I once read in a book about Japan (about 20 years ago) that 127% of Japanese agree to having a religion. This is not a joke answer. This number was derived from the % that say they belong to each religion added up, suggesting that Japanese would agree to actually belonging to more than one. On a side note, I found generally that for happy occasions (such as the consecration of land for a new house) a Shinto ceremony is used, for sad occasions (such as a funeral or annual remembrance ceremony) a Buddhist ceremony is used, while for weddings people usually go to a Christian chapel and have a white wedding. This is the general trend, at least in the last eleven years I have been living in Japan.--ChokinBako (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

national bankruptcy - article in wikipedia missing

cant find an explanation on the topic national insolvency in wikipedia (en)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bankruptcy

word seems to exist: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_re_eu/eu_iceland_meltdown_1 quote: REYKJAVIK, Iceland – This volcanic island near the Arctic Circle is on the brink of becoming the first "national bankruptcy" of the global financial meltdown.

in german it exists: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staatsbankrott --Stefanbcn (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Seriously. Everything at Wikipedia exists only because people, like you, saw that it was missing and deserved to be here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it really makes sense to call a country bankrupt. When people talk about Iceland being bankrupt they are taking figuratively. --Tango (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire. See Habsburg Spain. Spain declared bankruptcy several times in the 16th and 17th centuries; their numerous wars and attempts at empire building meant that their heavy indebtedness made the government unable to operate locally. Banks just stopped lending to the Spanish gov't; they had to declare bankruptcy in order to function. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Were there actually bankruptcy proceedings or did the government just default on its debts? Bankruptcy is different from insolvency. --Tango (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There's some discussion in Sovereign bond.79.70.184.49 (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

We have a small stub about the Danish state bankruptcy of 1813. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think bankruptcy implies 1) the eventual dissolution of the organization 2) eventual cessation of operations and 3) and the liquidation of assets to - at least partially - return capital to creditors.

A country can certainly do the third thing by "renegotiating" it's debt (declaring that bonds are only worth 50 cents on the dollar or something like that), or reducing it's assets. And it's easy to see the sitting government being removed after that (hopefully in an orderly and democratic way in any of our great western democracies), but most of the same civil infrastructure and power structures would still exist. As long as the legal right, and practical ability, to tax citizens remains - it's hard to call a government debt default or renegotiation a bankruptcy.NByz (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, bankruptcy is simply the declared inability to pay one's creditors. NByz's description of bankruptcy appears to describe something like a corporate bankruptcy, though many corporate bankruptcies fail to result in the dissolution of the corporation or the cessation of operations. Instead, the corporation reorganizes, makes a deal for partial repayment of creditors, and then emerges from bankruptcy to resume business more or less as usual. Likewise, personal bankruptcy does not result in a person's dissolution and cessation of operations, but involves a forgiveness of at least a portion of the person's debt and a path back to a normal financial state. A nation such as Iceland could certainly go through a similar process. Marco polo (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree and stand corrected. 24.68.54.155 (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the idea behind bankruptcy, and what seperates it from mere insolvency, is the notion that a bankrupt entity organizes some sort of deal whereby the terms of its debt are restructured to remove the state of insolvency. From the point of view of the lender; its always better to recover some value from a bad loan than no value at all, a country which has become insolvent has NO means to pay back its creditors; once it enters a state of bankruptcy it just means that it has negotiated some means by which to repay its creditors under alternate terms, such as paying back only a portion or paying back over a longer term. This sort of deal is not tied to a legal proceeding in any way (though bankruptcy courts do exist to negotiate and enforce the terms of bankruptcy), and it is entirely possible for a government to declare bankruptcy and to renegotiate its debt in order to maintain some semblance of being able to operate. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say that bankruptcy is a legal state, you're not bankrupt until a judge says you are. It is possible to renegotiate debts without going into bankruptcy (in the UK, individuals usually do this via an Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA), which is distinct from a bankruptcy). Governments don't generally renegotiate debt, they just declare that they are going to only pay a certain portion of it and there's nothing anyone can do about it. The idea of bankruptcy is that the courts enforce an arrangement that protects the debtor and gives them a chance to rebuild their life and is fair to all the creditors, no part of that applies to a government defaulting on debt. --Tango (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

LaRouche Democrats

What are some books and website sources about LaRouche's attempts to influence the Democratic Party? Also what was the legal reasoning that allowed the Democrats to oppose his followers who managed to win delegates? --Gary123 (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Gary!

For the long answer, see this article: Lyndon LaRouche U.S. Presidential campaigns. Now the short answer: Since 1999, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has denied LaRouche delegates in primaries due to the fact he is a felon and as a result, not registered to vote. Before this the DNC ruled in 1996 that votes cast for LaRouche would not be counted when allotting delegates [5]. In the 2000 primaries LaRouche won delegates on paper in Arkansas [6], [7], [8], [9] but these weren't seated. There have been lawsuits between LaRouche and the DNC about this over the years. As for books, the main one I know on LaRouche is Lyndon Larouche and the New American Fascism by Dennis King. The book American Extremists: Militias, Supremacists, Klansmen, Communists & Others by John George and Laird M. Wilcox has a very good section on LaRouche.

I first came to know of this guy when I was doing research on who to vote for in a Virginia Senate race in 2002. LaRouche was mentioned in the bios of one of the candidates running and it peaked my interest. In short, this is a weird guy! - Thanks, Hoshie 09:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"Weird" is putting it lightly, but I'll refrain from further commentary... --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Good answer, Hos, and FYI one's interest gets piqued, not peaked. --Sean 14:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Though one's interest may well peak in this candidate after one has barely peeked at a book written about him. ៛ Bielle (talk)

Sean, Thanks for the comment and the correction in my grammar.

Bielle, the candidate in question was named Nancy Spannaus; she claimed during the 2002 campaign to the Democratic candidate, much to the annoyance of the real Virginia Democrats. See [10]. She ended up getting 9% of the vote. See [11].

Two more things I forgot earlier. In 2003 a Democratic consultant remarked about LaRouche: "We're a pretty big tent, but the tent doesn't include lunatics and criminals". See [12]. Also in 2003 he was repudiated by Don Fowler, a former DNC Chair during the Clinton presidency. He said: "Not only is he not a registered voter but he has an extensive written record of racist and anti-Semitic opinions". [13] As for this year LaRouche's group backed Hillary in the primary and decided no one was worth voting for in November. To me, LaRouche is to the Dems as David Duke is to the GOP - extremist losers who latch on to the major parties to further their agenda. - Thanks, Hoshie 23:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

On Proving Princess Diana's Importance to the World

I am currently working on a year-long history assignment. Our goal is to prove that our person was the most important person in the world. I am currently trying to prove that Diana, Princess of Whales was the most important person in the world. I need to find out what she did that it infected the world as a whole.. and not just the US or England. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

--Devol4 (talk) 11:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you mean "affected the whole world"; if infected was what you meant, perhaps Typhoid Mary would have been a better choice for subject... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It might help your (ludicrous) assignment if you got her title right. She was Diana, Princess of Wales, and had no dominion over whales at all. Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You've set yourself a tricky task, though. It would be easier if you chose someone actually important. Algebraist 11:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the OP was allocated Princess Diana rather than choosing her. Whichever, I agree this is a near-impossible task. Love those typos, though. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think her importance, such as it is, lies in the way people now relate to public figures, and specifically to their deaths. I was living in London in 1997, and I have never seen anything like the outpourings of public grief when she died. Her death led to a whole new way of grieving for people you have never known. The whole "book of condolence" thing, for example, was completely new (yes, I know there were books of condolence before, but how many were there for public figures, signed by hundreds of people?). Why did she kick off this reaction? I was no big fan of the woman, but you have to admit that she had something special, otherwise the public grief would not have happened to the extent that it did. She was beautiful and there was a sense that she had been wronged by the stuffy formality of Charles (his affair with Camilla) and the rest of the Royal Family. I always think of her as essentially being sacrificed to the needs of the British establishment. Charles needed a wife who could produce him an heir. He had dithered around various women for years but had never taken the plunge with any of them. Time was running out and along came the beautiful, photogenic (but far too young for him) Diana. Plus, of course, there was the tragic and entirely unnecessary manner of her death. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It's an entirely subjective topic, you're never going to be able to "prove" it (even to such an extent that's ever possible outside of mathematics). You can give all kinds of examples of important things she did (see Diana, Princess of Wales to get you started) but that's about it. That will show she's important. To show she's the most important person you need to compare her to everyone else, I don't see how that's really possible. You certainly can't do it one person at a time, you'll have to try and categorise everyone that has every lived and then show how she is more important that everyone in each category. How on earth you do that, I don't know. (It would be easier with a major world leader or something, but even then I don't think you would get very far.) You would be better off just telling your teacher to set a realistic assignment (they won't take it very well, but I found teachers usually just gave up when confronted with any real argument - if they try to punish you just appeal it and they won't be bothered to fight you on it). --Tango (talk) 12:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Another note to help... The term "most important" does not limit itself to positive importance. Negative importance can be "most important". For example, Hitler is still a very important influence in the world - just in a negative way. As for this assignment, you have to get around the vagueness. What do you mean by "important"? What makes one importance more important than some other importance? Use of "the world" is still vague. Do you mean important to every person in the world? Do you mean important to every government in the world? Do you mean important to every teenager in the world? Do you mean important to every sedimentary rock in the world? You can start by heavily limiting the scope of what is important and who it is important to, then go from there. -- kainaw™ 13:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the wrong approach. If the question were to work out who is/was the most important person in the world, then you would want to start by defining importance. However, the question is to prove some specific arbitrary person is most important - the only way to do that is to define importance in whatever way makes Diana most important. The difficultly comes in convincing people that that is a reasonable definition. So, the first step is to find out everything you can about Diana, and everyone else in the world (good luck!), and then come up with a definition of importance that gets you the answer you want. --Tango (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There are various surveys conducted periodically of the most well-known, most recognised, or most famous person in the world. The likes of Jesus, Mickey Mouse, and Michael Jordan often do well, but I suspect in her heyday Diana would be well up there (and not just among whales). You could probably prove she was more important than Michael Jordan or Mario, and more alive than Jesus. QED.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

From what I remember of various people arguing for Diana's importance was that she shook up people's view of the British Monarchy, causing them to become more "in touch" with the people, more involved with the underprivileged (such as AIDS victims and landmine victims). Having given you that hint you'll have to do the rest of the research yourself.

If you get a chance to choose a different person to argue for I would do that. There are plenty of people who have had a much bigger significance. But if the point of the assignment is to make a case for a proposition, rather than decide if you agree with it, then you'd better just do it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Age and cause of death is also significant. Remember that, although Diana was popular, she died at a young age in a tragic accident, attempting to escape the paparazzi. These factors lend themselves to the image of a victim, but can only be subjectively interpreted. She and her image image have become a heck of a lot more famous now that she is dead, so proving that she was "the most important person in the world" before she died is going to be extremely difficult (bordering on impossible, and I say this because in my subjective view, she was not the most important person in the world, however one can measure that importance). PeterSymonds (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

To my mind the answer lies somewhere amongst (a) don't drink and drive (b) keep to the speed limit and (c) wear a seat belt. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Devo14, by "most important person in the world" I take it you mean "a world-famous person"? I guess you'll include what effect she had on the royal family, the public's perception of them, how she radically exposed her own life and theirs, the way she used her celebrity to bring attention to previously unpopular causes (land-mines, aids victims f'rinstance), that she knew and was influenced by or influenced other celebrated people (like Mother Teresa) and her popularity with celebrity artists (Sir Elton John). As well as others here, Kittybrewster's point is worth including and it's an interesting article. For myself here in Australia, my uni lecturer took class time to remember her and what Diana meant to her as a role model (?!) etc etc. So, yeah, she got to people. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

And PS, you'd have a harder job proving charles was important after he picked a supermodel for a wife, with great media/PR skills who turned out to be more popular than him even after her death. JR09:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

us presidentcy

If before the president is sworn into office he and the vice president elect are killed who becomes president? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigdaddygiz2 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

See United States presidential line of succession. -- kainaw™ 16:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It's slightly different to the above if it happens before the electoral college has voted (December 15 this year), in which case the electoral college may be able to choose new candidates. There was a recent discussion here on deaths of presidential candidates, which could be extended to this case.[14] --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Missed the "before sworn in" part of the question. The 12th Amendment doesn't handle deaths of candidates - only how to handle ties in electoral elections. The 20th Amendment says that Congress will either choose new candidates or set up a system to choose new candidates if, for any reason, the elects cannot be sworn in. -- kainaw™ 18:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If Obama were killed after the electoral college votes, but before the swear-in, would the constitution demand that Biden take the presidency, or would it require that "Congress either choose new candidates or set up a system to choose new candidates".

I ask because, if the presidential candidates weren't of the party that controlled congress, it could result in a real power struggle. I suppose the Supreme Court would decide which course the constitution intended, eh?NByz (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Read the text of the 20th Amendment which was linked above. Rmhermen (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Happiness and motivation in Marxism

In Marxist theory, what are the sources of happiness, unhappiness and human motivation? NeonMerlin 17:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Marx's theory of alienation and Marx's theory of human nature will help answer this. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Or, you might try reading the class assignments. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

United States Presidents and visual/hearing impairments

A recent discussion of Franklin Roosevelt and his confinement to a wheelchair led to thoughts about others Presidents with handicaps. I know Wilson's stroke gave him problems, and Reagan had hearing aids later in life, thuogh I'm not sure about at the start of his presidency. What is the wrost hearing that any U.S. President had at the time they took office? What about the worst vision? (Without looking, I seem to recall Theodore Roosevelt was quite nearsighted without glasses, but am not sure how badly.) Thanks.Somebody or his brother (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Reagan was mostly deaf for his entire presidency. He lost his hearing in one ear on a movie set, when a prop gun was fired next to his head. The hearing in his good ear may have gotten worse over the course of the 8 years, but he was definately hearing impaired at the start of his presidency. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You could argue that Richard Nixon had a legal impairment - "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal". And JFK and Clinton had sexual impairments. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

lol, good one; Harding, too. Wow, I didn't know that about Reagan; that's amazing. Also, checking on Teddy Roosevelt, I read that he was quite sickly as a child; nothing about his vision but I suppose it's possible. Then again, he was in the military in Cuba, so...who knows.Somebody or his brother (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Our article doesn't mention it much, but this page: [15] notes that "It has been speculated that Reagan's hearing loss, and eventual use of hearing aids bilaterally, was caused by exposure to gunshot noise while filming numerous Western movies in Hollywood [8c]. At the time of his 1980 election, the hearing loss was described as "moderate" [16]. The hearing loss may have been asymmetric to some degree. Reagan's chief of staff, Donald Regan, once tried to deliver a message to Reagan during a press conference, "but Reagan could not hear since Regan was talking into Ronald's deaf ear" [8f]. Reagan was fitted with a $1000 custom-made hearing aid in 1983 [5]." Cheers... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap. That is a good site, I realized. Check it out: Medical History of the Presidents of the United States Its got TONS of stuff, and its ALL crossreferenced. AN excellent source for anyone wanting to answer the above question! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

November 8

NY Drug Case Law.

Hello. I remember reading a while ago about a NY State Law case, but I can't seem to find the case reference anymore. I hope someone can remind me. Here's the details I remember.

As a result of Rockefeller's draconian drug laws, an upwardly mobile high school girl faced 20 years for "transfering" drugs when she gave her boyfriend a joint. The judge decided to translate transfering as sale, and so the girl narrowly escaped facing pretty severe penalties for a small amount of drugs. As a result, a generation of judges were able to do the same. This would have been well more than 20 years ago.

It was in my case law book, which I've since sold, and now I'd like to use it in a paper. Anyone can help me? Thanks. Llamabr (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I took a look on Lexis using various searches and sorry I couldn't find it. However, though I'm not sure what you're going for exactly in your paper, you might find some of the following cases I found using a tarrgeted search on point: Carmona v. Ward, 576 F.2d 405 (2^nd cir. 1977); People v. Thompson, 83 N.Y.2d 477 (1994); People v. Broadie, 37 N.Y.2d 100 (1975).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I couldn't find it in lexis either, so I was just hoping this would jog someone's memory. Thanks for your help, so far. Llamabr (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I recall reading about this case, probably in the New York Times. I suggest a search of the NYT's archives. Also, if Lexis/Nexis and WestLaw don't show anything, perhaps a Google search of NY newspapers will retrieve some news articles. It is weird that Lexis/Nexis shows nothing.75Janice (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)75Janice

I suspect that I have some detail wrong, which is why I can't find it. That's why I was hoping to job a wiki reference desker's memory. You guys know everything. Llamabr (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Not asking for legal advice!

Over at another reference desk question, the FTC's methods came up. In short, if advertising fails to meet legal expectations, the FTC initially takes some sort of action. Is this a "warning letter" type action or is it a binding administrative authority? They obviously have the power to invoke civil prosecutions of some sort, but what do they do before it gets to that? SDY (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

And the FTC is what and where? ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

In the context of the original thread, the US Federal Trade Commission. --Anon, 07:22 UTC, November 8, 2008.

See False advertising#False advertising regulations in the United States. -- kainaw™ 19:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Madras Presidency

I am working to expand an article on the Madras Presidency. But I don't have enough statistical information. I need stats of different religious denominations, different languages and their speakers, number of buses, bus depots and operators, kilometres of roads and railways, the length of telegraph lines, the number of post offices and telephones in the Madras Presidency in the year 1947 when India became independent.

I also need districtwise census details for the Madras Presidency for the period 1911 to 1941. Could someone suggest an online or offline source for the same? Thanks-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 04:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Surname

Are there any real people with the surname Švejk? Does the surname mean anything? Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 07:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion here: [16] suggests it originates from the German surname, Schweik. Unfortunately there aren't any citations in this online discussion. Again, a search at a website called ancestry.com (here: [17]) returns a few results for people of that name (actually, not exactly, it returns svejk and not Švejk, if it makes any difference: I'm not too much of a czech speaker). I can't gurantee the credibility of the results, however.Leif edling (talk) 12:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This [18] (a dictionary of German names from 1914) says that the surname (and quite a few similar ones) is a derivative of the Gothic word swinÞs, having meant "strong and fast" (presumably related to "swift" in English). The current German word "geschwind" (fast, colloquial) is also based on it. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Love worth the pain? (a reading list)

Why should one love when love inevitably brings pain, either through death/separation or else fear of these? Obviously this is an age old question. Fellow Wikipedians, could you please recommend some works of literature, philosophy, film, or other art which deal directly with this issue and argues one side or another? Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 08:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Because... it's unavoidable? It's part of the human condition, that attachment and separation are part of the rhythm of life? If we approach it as stages of personal development, we might say (after) it makes us wiser, stronger, more experienced, braver. How we relate to it reveals who we are. For origins of the impulse to attach, there's always Freud, and anything with obsession/love and death themes (Love and Death: The Murder of Kurt Cobain; the Sid and Nancy film). I went to the article unrequited love for starters – suggested reading Love in the Time of Cholera, The Hunchback of Notre Dame – where there's a column of wikiproject Love topics, but nothing quite along the lines of "why should one love when [it] brings pain". It's such a big question, one could have a panic attack in the face of it. I'm off to think more about it now, Julia Rossi (talk) 09:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a Buddhist would disagree. Four Noble Truths :) --S.dedalus (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

For a painting there's Edvard Munch's Dance of Life. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Woody Allen's Annie Hall deals with exactly this question. Woody does a cameo introduction and outroduction in which he talks about the problem using cheesy jokes. His conclusion is that we keep on because we "need the eggs", you'll have to watch the film to see what that means. 163.1.148.158 (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Because it matters, and it doesn't matter. Try The Unbearable Lightness of Being. 24.30.29.24 (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's say you're stranded on the cold, cold desolate island that had been a military base. There is more food than you can eat in your lifetime, entertainment, etc, but unfortunately, only fifty years worth of firewood, and no way to extend the store. Should you not use the firewood, because it will run out eventually, and then you will have only the memory? Nonesense: you will eventually die anyway, why live fifty of those years chilled to the bone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.214.224 (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What's your problem with possibly having some pain? 'I spent the day avoiding pain' - is that really how you would like to describe even a single day of your life? Dmcq (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Except that Buddhism argues for exactly that as far as I understand it. --S.dedalus (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

How about using the 50 years-worth wood to build something to get off the fucking island and see your true love? Mac Davis (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be far more difficult (maybe even impossible) to mention any work of art which does not deal with love. I guess you could read / watch / listen to almost anything from classics to pulp. As a balance to the answers above I suggest King Lear and some of the bleaker insights of Samuel Becket. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Very true, but I’m looking for works that specifically address this problem. --S.dedalus (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Since you bring in the buddhist position (non-attachment and the problem of desire), then maybe Mark Rothko speaks volumes for you. However, the passive positioning of buddhism is met with a nice foil (eg the death drive) because possibly to define itself, it requires the contrast of samsara/maya which it may be argued, projects it's opposite (nirvana). Q: What is yin without yang? A: no eggs.  :) Julia Rossi (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey man, where did the buddhist bit come into it? – it wasn't in your question. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism seems to be one of the few proponents of avoidance of pain through non-attachment. Thanks for the excellent answers! --S.dedalus (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

On the side of the value of love, Amelie (Le Destin Fabuleuse de Amelie Poulain) is a lovely example. See also Simon and Garfunkel's I Am A Rock, this quote from Neil Gaiman's Sandman: The Kindly Ones. Steewi (talk) 11:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a huge and powerful question, and one can find interpretations and answers in the scriptures of many religious traditions. Personally, I like reading Dante's Divine Comedy as addressing this question: only by loving, and risking or experiencing the pain of loss, can one attain the Ultimate. Only by having loved Beatrice, and experiencing her death (in 1290, when he was 25), was Dante able to attain salvation, which is his case was his vision, while yet alive, of Paradiso. The heresy of including Beatrice in a work about God and Heaven and Hell has not escaped centuries of commentators, and is an example of what Harold Bloom called the essential canonical "strangeness" of all great masterpieces. (In Dante she is second only to Jesus Christ in the Christian hierarchy -- it's pretty amazing when you think about it. Bloom calls it "sublimely outrageous.") If you haven't read Dante, do. Antandrus (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Oldest Roman Arch

What is the oldest survivng roman arch?

According to one website I looked on, the first arch the romans built was in around 200BC, which has since been destroyed. It looks like the survivng arch of the Pons Aemilius is the oldest, having been built in 142BC, but the article on this says that it was restored in 12BC, so is it really the same arch? In the list of Roman aquaducts the earliest listed to be supported on arches is the Aqua Appia, which was built in 312BC, significantly before the supposedly first ever roman arch. And I might even be missing others that I haven't found out about yet.

So, does anyone out there know the answer to this?

148.197.114.207 (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This [19] site claims that the Arch of Augustus - Rimini, Italy is the oldest, having been built in 27 BCE. This [20] has a photo of the Gate of Jupiter in Falerii Novi (same picture in colour) dated after 241 BCE. Further back, there is the Porta Rosa in Velia / Elea from around 350 BCE.

As to the Aqua Appia: Most of it is underground and only a short stretch in the vicinity of the Porta Capena (the gate to the Appian Way) is raised on arches. It was also extensively repaired around 145 BCE. The original substructure may have long disappeared.

As the Romans pinched the idea of the arch from the Etruscans, it may be impossible to determine what is the oldest "original" Roman arch. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

According to Banister Fletcher, the oldest "true arch" remaining in Rome dates from the 4th century BCE and is over drain in front of the Temple of Saturn. A similar one known as the Cloaca Maxima has been altered and filled in. They might be considered as Etruscan rather than Roman. It can be hard to draw a clear line, as some architecture of the early Roman period has Etruscan details, for example the Arch of Augustus in Perugia, 2nd century BCE. Amandajm (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There may be a particular arch in the Cloaca Maxima you were thinking of but the thing itsef is a sewer system and still in use (not filled in). Rmhermen (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Leap years and bachelors

I found the image of a post card on the right on Commons. Could someone please explain to me why leap years would be "unsafe" for bachelors? --Kr-val (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

As the article points out, ... it is a tradition that women may propose marriage only on leap years. My Swedish is too minimal to know if the reason for the image´s title is given in the text. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would seem to be the reason. The article shows these two rather misogynist postcards, which would confirm the theory. Belisarius (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The appropriate way for the "poor batchelor" to decline form marrying a woman who proposed to him was to buy her a pair of white gloves. I know, because my Grandmother told me, and she was born in the 19th century. Amandajm (talk) 11:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

When religions 'borrow' ideas from earlier religions

Is there a word for this? Like how Christianity seems to have assimilated some themes/motifs/dates from Egyptian and Greco-Roman mythology. Probably transomethingorother. I swear there is a word, but can't remember or find it through copious amounts of googling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.45.40 (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism  ??--Digrpat (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Historical congressional district maps

Is there anywhere online where you can see historical congressional district maps for US states? I've only been able to find examples quite sporadically. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

famous soldiers before Napoleon

Hello. I am wondering who would be well-known as a famous soldier (in a pop culture sort of sense) in England about 1800. I don't mean a contemporary, but someone from the past. In the same sense that say 50-100 years after Napoleon, he'd be famous enough that people would say things like "a modern Napoleon" or "the Napoleon of crime". Was there a towering popular figure from a war a generation or two earlier? Thank you very much. 64.228.90.86 (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington is the most important one I can think of. In terms of War in general, Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson would be another. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth? George Monck? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyone would have had their opinion of Oliver Cromwell (the Irish would say "the curse of Cromwell upon you", such was he hated there). The Duke of Marlborough would have been famous for defeating the French at Blenheim in the early eighteenth century (the closest I can think of to two generations earlier). 1800 was in the middle of "The Great Terror" of 1797-1805, during which France threatened invasion: the popular literature of the time often invoked meadieval soldiers such as Edward III, Edward, the Black Prince, and Henry V in their battles against the French. But I think Cromwell is the closest you can get to a Napoleon-like figure.--Johnbull (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that was very helpful. It didn't need to be two generations particularly - the medieval kings in the popular literature sound like the closest to what I was getting at. Thank you everyone. 64.228.90.86 (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget Clive of India. Rmhermen (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

November 9

Child labor laws in Ohio?

Would anyone be able to tell me the maximum number of hours a sixteen-year-old can work in Ohio during the school term? --Brasswatchman (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Researching and telling you the law would be legal advice which is wisely forbidden. I will explain how you may find the answer for yourself. If you go to Findlaw.com and choose the professional version, select Ohio under Statutes. Once you are there search for "Child labor laws." This will tell you the statute. There may be court cases (I'm certain that there are) interpreting the statute. Check for Ohio cases. Also, google for local law libraries, usually law schools or county court houses, and see if there is public access for pro se (self represented)clients. If there is, a law library can help you find the information. The law librarian cannot give legal advice. I've beem impressed with how willing the librarians are to assist the public. Other laws may impact the relevant statute so a lawyer is the best way to get a comprehensive, correct answer. I'd telephone the local school board, too.75Janice (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)75Janice

Actually, researching and telling him the law would not constitute legal advice anymore than discussions of anatomy constitute medical advice. Legal advice would mean that you are, um, advising him on a course of action. Merely pointing out the text of a law doesn't really constitute legal advice... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary, identifying and picking specific law out of the often complex, convoluted, and large universe of laws within a jurisdiction is a primary function of legal advice. Trickrick1985 (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Just look it up. Title 41 of the Ohio Revised Code, Chapter 4109: employment of minors. Took me 90 seconds to find it. And I don't live in Ohio. --- OtherDave (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(restored) Just to be clear, I'm not asking for the purpose of seeking legal advice. I'm asking because I'm writing a story with a sixteen-year-old protagonist, and I'm trying to figure out whether or not he'd be allowed to work 40 hours or not during the school year. And - according to OtherDave's link - it looks like he'd be limited to eighteen hours a week. Thank you all very much. I really appreciate the help. --Brasswatchman (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, no one else decides whether or not I believe something is legal advice. In my prelaw days, I believed everything on its face was clear only to cringe throughout law school as I found out that it is rarely as simple as I thought. I will always err on the side of caution. Sometimes it not worth trying to help me when other members are nasty. I'm not referring to you, Brasswatchman.68.81.42.66 (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC) 75Janice

U.S. Federal Personal Income Tax Revenue

I'm trying to find a table(s) that shows the total amount of Federal Personal Income Tax Revenue paid by taxpayers in various income brackets. The information in "income tax" shows rates, history, legal authority, etc. but nothing about the revenue raised.

I'd appreciate it if you would point me in the right direction.

Thanks.

John J. Landers Bethesda, MD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.166.177 (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the first one on this page might be what you're looking for. I didn't look too closely, but I'll bet you can get what you're looking for from one of these NByz (talk) 06:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html

Independence of Cambodia and Vietnam

Why did France just allow Cambodia to remove itself from the Empire? I understand they fought for Algeria because it was so extensively populated by French but that's the same case with Vietnam. So why was there such a long struggle?

Lotsofissues (talk) 06:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're interested in the Cambodia question, there's Colonial Cambodia; for Vietnam there's First Indochina War and more. Historians please, Julia Rossi (talk) 10:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

1969 Moon Landing

How was it possible to film Neil Armstrong's first step off the spacecraft onto the moon from a camera positioned several metres away from the spacecraft? Did the spacecraft have a robotic arm to put it out there? Also, when the spacecraft takes off again shortly after, why does the camera follow it from the 'land' and part of the way up into space? Did it have a motion sensor? I am not talking about conspiracies here, I am wondering if there may be a rational explanation assuming the landing was true.--ChokinBako (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but I expect the camera was on one of the landing struts, they probably extended a fair distance from the hatch. As for the takeoff, they would have been able to calculate what speed the craft would move, so it wouldn't have been difficult to set up the camera to pan up at the right speed. --Tango (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

just so you know, the real conspiracy is that although mankind went to the moon, it wasn't when the world was told it was: at that time it was just staged. you can look into it if you don't believe me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.214.224 (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations - Kittybrewster ☎ 14:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That article is about as good as International_law_and_the_Arab-Israeli_conflict. Take it with a grain of salt the size of your head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.214.224 (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to improve it with reliable sources. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Or you know I could just write in a lake with a stick. If you want to know what I mean, just fix the obvious problems with either article. You'll be reverted within the day.

At the risk of answering the question... see Apollo TV camera - it specifically states, "For each lunar landing mission, a camera was also placed inside the Modularized Equipment Stowage Assembly (MESA) in Quad 4 of the Lunar Module (LM) Descent Stage, so it was capable of broadcasting the first steps of the astronauts as they climbed down the ladder of the LM at the start of the first moonwalk/EVA." -- kainaw™ 16:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

On another point, there was no broadcast of the Apollo 11 lander taking off; this was done for one or more of the later missions. I don't remember the camera rotating upward but it would have been easy enough to arrange if they wanted to go to the trouble. --Anonymous, 20:27 UTC, November 9, 2008.

The famous video of the LM lifting off comes from the Apollo 17 mission. The camera used was the one on the Lunar Rover, which was left parked several meters away from the LM for the specific purpose of seeing the liftoff. The camera was controlled by a technician at Mission Control in Houston. (See the video here.) — Michael J 19:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Collective Unconscious

Could anyone recommend some good books on Collective Unconscious, please? --BorgQueen (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, we all could. Unfortunately, the Collective of WP referential deskopedians has succumbed to sudden unconsciousness. Medical advice is required urgently! Aaaaaarghhhhh...

As to your question: I suggest The Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious (Collected Works of Carl Jung Vol.9 Part 1) as a starting point. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

As well as the "Definitions" chapter of Jung's Psychological Types, the article gives this reading list:

Jung, Carl. (1970). "Psychic conflicts in a child.", Collected Works of C. G. Jung, 17, Princeton University Press, (p. 1-35).

Whitmont, Edward C. (1969). The Symbolic Quest, Princeton University Press.

Gallo, Ernest. "Synchronicity and the Archetypes," Skeptical Inquirer, 18 (4). Summer 1994.

Come to think of it, the article could be better and seems skewed to ADHD in children but not clear why...

Details for Cookatoo's ref is The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. (1981 2nd ed. Collected Works Vol.9 Part 1), Princeton, N.J.: Bollingen. ISBN 0-691-01833-2 Julia Rossi (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Anything by Edward Edinger, from The Ego and the Archetype to Alchemy and Psychotherapy.MelancholyDanish (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

Goering's Desk

In H. R. Trevor-Roper's book, The Last Days of Hitler, he describes Goering's desk as "twenty-six feet long, of mahogany inlaid with bronze swastika, furnished with two big golden baroque candelabra, and an inkstand all of onyx, and a long ruler of green ivory studded with jewels" (p. 23)

Does anyone know what happened to this desk? Does it still exist? Jacobsen's Ladder (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

According to this page, it is in a fancy New Orleans house. I imagine some modifications were made. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Help thinking of an original name for a website about the british monarchy...

Any creative, modern ideas are welcome. Preferrably domains that aren't already taken! :) Thank yooouuuu! --217.227.102.7 (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not really what the ref desk is for. However, my advice would be to think about what makes your site unique (if there isn't anything, then there's no point making the site!) and choose a name based on that. --Tango (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The Casket Letters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The Trial

In Kafka's The Trial, why does K refuse to leave the village even though the end result of such an action would clearly save him a great deal of trouble? Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 20:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It would also have saved Kafka the trouble of writing his novel! With Kafka there is little point in looking for rational explanations. Just go with the flow of absurdity. Emma Dashwood (talk) 07:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Vltava 68 should have written The Castle instead of The Trial; the plot doesn't match with the trial. 203.188.92.71 (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Vltava, do you mean The Castle? Antandrus (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I typed The Trial by accident as I read it very recently. Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 08:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it depends on how you interpret the book. Since you just finished The Trial you will remember the metaphor of Before the Law, where the man from the country petitions for admission to the edifice guarded by the Gatekeeper, who will not let him in. (It's in the section "The Cathedral", spoken by the priest.) I think The Castle picks up at this point: K is the Man from the Country, petitioning for entry: he will not leave since "this door was meant only for you", and now he knows it. In The Myth of Sisyphus, if I remember correctly, Albert Camus suggests that The Castle is about the longing for Divine Grace. He can't leave -- staying in the village, attempting to contact the Castle, even though it is a mystifying, remote bureaucracy uninterested in him, is what he must do. Antandrus (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, it is mentioned in the same chapter (by the priest, I think) that the man from the country actually has a choice whether he waits for the door to be opened. Same situation for K the Land Surveyor, I think. Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 09:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Update - Census and the Oregon Trail

This is an update of a question asked a few months ago. It was asked about how they counted people in the West. Actually, according to an e-mail I got from the Census Bureau after a couple months, they didn't really bother with that; their concerns were more for established places, even if they were just territories, and established people. A good point was made that people on the trail might settle anywhere, bound for one spot and then deciding to put down elsewhere. So, there were no people who just wandered the Westward trails just counting people.

There were people in the territories, though, that counted established people. You can read a few interesting remarks if you scan the census pages at a library somewhere; like for instance in Montana in 1870, where the official remarks about how he'd been told of how many had come and gone, and whether anyone died in the last year, and would even write there were "very few here but Indians in this whole area," or words to that effect.

Just thought I'd post for future reference. If the original was in Miscellaneousinstead of here, feel free to move it. I forget where it was.Somebody or his brother (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

rewriting request

Can someone who speaks good English read International_law_and_the_Arab-Israeli_conflict fast and rewrite the intro paragraph to conform with this guidline Wikipedia:Lead_section. Thank you very kindly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.214.224 (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference desk is not the place for asking this question. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Go on the article's talk page to make that request. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Absurdism

Besides, Absurdism...what other (if any) Philosophical Concept(s) are/is relative to both Existentialism & Nihilism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by L3tt3rz (talk • contribs) 23:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Doing your own homework, for one! Belisarius (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely not doing your own homework is more appropriate to the topics. Atheism, anti-foundationalism, fictionalism, relativism, empiricism, instrumentalism, skepticism, or anti-realism may be relevant. However, existentialism takes many forms, so not all topics will be relevant to all existentialists. Nihilism is an even vaguer concept, so you should probably decide what exactly you mean by nihilism (moral? epistemic? other?) and go read the relevant entries. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Corruption

Hi, I have some questions regarding government and administrative corruption. I have always heard liberal-democracies have more administrative corruption than single-party states. Is it true? China is a single-party state, but corruption in China is growing in an alarming rate.

• Can anyone please provide some information regarding the situation of government corruption in North Korea? I have heard the North Korean administration and its people work like robot and any deviation from state policy can result in death, and if this is the case, administrative corruption will be very low in North Korea.
• Were there administrative corruption in Germany during Hitler and in U.S.S.R. during Stalin? If yes, then were those level similar to present day liberal democracies like Venezuela or Unites States? If there were corruption in Hitlerite Germany and Stalinist U.S.S.R. with strict law enforcement, what may be the reason behind it? The article Political corruption states lack of government transparency is a cause behind corruption, but it does not cite any reference for this and does not explain it in detail. If lack of government transparency is the reason, then why there is corruption in liberal democracies? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What are we defining as "corruption"? --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The use of governmental powers by government officials (mainly low and middle ranking government officials) for illegitimate private gain, primarily in the form of bribery. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This has been a major topic in development economics. The World Bank, especially, has become actively involved, recently denying or limiting loans to countries with high rates of bribery and cronyism. This [[21]] study seems to try to address your question using modern data. It uses correlation analysis between "corruption" and "government size" or "liberty." It's $30 through that site though. Maybe you can find it through a university's "academic paper" account (if you know someone who has one.)NByz (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Be careful not to confuse a rapid rise in corruption reported by the media with a large amount of corruption. Sometimes, releasing controls over media outlets permits a lot more reporting of the same amount of corruption. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised by and question the "always heard liberal-democracies have more administrative corruption" premise. Transparency International's 2008 Corruption Perceptions Index shows just the opposite for bureaucratic corruption. Interestingly, Swedish, Australian and Canadian businesses were more likely to pay bribes in developing countries than Taiwanese, South Korean or Chinese!? Saintrain (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

November 10

Rights to works in the public domain?

According to Number Seventeen, this Hitchcock film was in the public domain, but its rights have been obtained by a French company. How is this possible? (Can I get the rights to Shakespeare's plays, or is this perchance a dream?) Clarityfiend (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

same way it's possible that you can't take a picture of the Eifel tower at night and print a book with that on the cover (without paying royalties) -- you see, the pattern of lights is copyrighted in France. Yes, they're that gay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.214.224 (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, yes. Straight from the horse's mouth (official Eiffel Tour site): "Q. Are we allowed to publish photos of the Eiffel Tower? A : There are no restrictions on publishing a picture of the Tower by day. Photos taken at night when the lights are aglow are subjected to copyright laws, and fees for the right to publish must be paid to the SETE."

Listen, I know it's hard to believe, but I know the French personally, and believe me, they really are that gay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.214.224 (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop using the word "gay" as a pejorative. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If it is in the public domain then it is in the public domain. The reference in that article gives no information about copyright status. I suspect is just the case that the French company is distributing it (for a profit). I suspect whomever made that edit was incorrect. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It does happen occasionally that a work is believed to be public-domain but then it is realized that this was erroneous. In some countries (not the US, I understand) it may also be possible for a change in copyright law to make a previously public-domain work copyrighted. Finally, a work may be copyright in one country but public-domain in another. I do not assert that any of these cases applies to the movie in question; I have no idea of its status. --Anonymous, 05:55 UTC, November 10, 2008.

The source does indeed mention copyright status. It said that there were only public domain prints available and then the company licensed it an made a decent copy. Public domain and licenses don't usually go together. The remastered copy could well be independently copyrightable, but I don't see where licensing comes into it. --Tango (talk) 11:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is pretty unclear; I suspect the author of it really did not know or did not care about the copyright question. Media companies, of course, try to find every way to try and claim they have generated a new copyright. If the company is claiming that their remastering was creative (and generated a new copyright), then only the remastered aspects would be copyrighted (not the acting, not much of the cinematography, not the script, etc.). The article is confused on this, making it sound like they "found" better clips and so somehow the copyrights were "recovered", which shows little legal understanding of the basic issues. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to something that seems more likely to be true. -- BenRG (talk) 12:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of adding personal opinion, it's not surprising to me that some group would claim copyright on the image of the Eiffel Tower at night. The lighting, which I assume has been added within the period of copyright protection, is a particular visual effect, a kind of performance -- what U.S. copyright refers to as a fixed expression. You could make the argument that it's similar to the copyright that a major league baseball team claims on the broadcast of its games. These take place in public, but the copying and distribution of copies is an infringement of the rights of those who created the performance. (I'm not saying this is how things should be, just explaining what seems to be the principle behind the French claim.) --- OtherDave (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's about the light display. What's irritating about it is that it is unclear whether or not one has a right to pictorial representation of the Paris skyline—which is a huge thing to claim copyright over. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The copyright status of a work is governed by local laws in every country - even if a work lapses to public domain in the US it can still be governed by copyright in the rest of the world. The US copyright situation is quite unique due to the fact that numerous mid-20th century works remain in the public domain after 1) the copyright holder failed to properly claim copyright or to renew their copyright, and 2) the copyright of these works was not restored to creators when the US moved on to Berne convention style copyright law in 1976. As far as I know, there are no grandfather clauses in European copyright law, and thus most 20th century works remain copyright for a long time to come. In particular the movie Number Seventeen stays copyright in the EU until at least 2050 (70 years from the death of the director), and thus it is not implausible that a French company would acquire the rights to the movie. The acquired rights might cover France, the EU or all parts of the world where the movie remains copyright. 84.239.160.166 (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

My guess (only a guess) would be that almost any well-known work that first appeared in the U.S. after 1923 is still under copyright. If the thing had been making any money at all, the copyright would have been renewed under the old system, and thanks to the Sonny Bono law, nothing from 1923 on enters the public domain without the express action of the copyright holder (see this handy chart for details. The film It's a Wonderful Life lost its copyright protection, but as the article says, fancy legal footwork got it some protection. --- OtherDave (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Polish Prisons Conditional Release

An acquaitance of mine who is in prison in Poland says that he is going to be released on "licence". What does this mean and or actually entail? He has also applied for parole as a separate application so it is not parole as we would know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.116.223 (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about Polish law, but English law has a similar sounding concept. If you read Polish, there is this category over at the Polish Wikipedia. Astronaut (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Is you acquitance arrested and awaiting trial or already covicted? If he is already covicted he probably is talking about "Warunkowe przedterminowe zwolnienie"[22] (literally "conditional preterm release") which is a conditional parole of a convicted person. He is released from prison under the conditions that he will follow the rules of the parole. Since Polish prisons are overcrowded conditional paroles are very common. Read articles from 78 to 84 from one of the unofficial English translations of the Polish Penal code for details [23] Mieciu K (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

God's fate

Did God quit, or did he get fired? 38.117.71.221 (talk) 06:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you have not heard the news: God is dead. Emma Dashwood (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I hear that the other guy is shacking up in Perth Belisarius (talk) 11:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

He is still on the throne; He simply chooses to give us people free will to choose to do what's right, follow Him, etc.; that way, we're not a bunch of mindless robots doing things because we have to, instead we follow Him because we want to.209.244.187.155 (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Or because we're not too keen on fire and brimstone... --Tango (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What would you do in his place? He decided to help people by answering their questions anonymously on the internet. :) Dmcq (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The question presupposes that there is / was a god. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a GOD (talk) until a few years ago but he was then forced to go incognito as His Name was found to be provocative. Wikipedians are responsible for his fate. Dmcq (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that answers the original question: God is neither dead nor fired, but merely incognito ! DOR (HK) (talk) 09:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hang on,I thought God was that stranger on the bus trying to make his way home Lemon martini (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

conflict..help

can anyone help me find the definition of 'literature of resistance ' or 'literature of conflict' and any information/link to its history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.128.4.231 (talk) 08:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The best I can imagine, a great book about resistance literature: [24]. --Omidinist (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir, i have already tried that one. I want something specific about the definition and History —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.128.4.231 (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Queen dowager - exist anymore?

Hello! I wonder about something. Is the title Queen Dowager used anymore about a king's widow in Europe? It seems, that nowadays, you ave replaced it with the title Queen Mother. Is that true, or is the title still used in some countries? If it is abolished, then why? And when was the title abolished in the different monarchies? When did each country have its last Queen dowager? When did England? It seems, that in history, the title Queen dowager was much more normal than Queen mother. Perhaps England is an exeption, but in regards to other countries; is this a new title? I hope someone want to answer! --85.226.43.6 (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the term still exists. See Queen mother. It looks like a Queen mother is a special case of a Queen Dowager. If, for example, the King died without issue, his wife would be Queen Dowager, but not Queen Mother (she might be Queen Aunt, if such a title existed, which I don't think it does). --Tango (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Tango beat me by about a minute. Countries could drop the title, but there'll always been a need for a term to indicate "queen consort, now a widow." --- OtherDave (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Is there someone with the title "Dowager queen" in Europe at present? Are there any queens now who will recieve this title when they are widows? I just have the impression, that this title is now considered unfashionable. --85.226.43.6 (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about current dowager Queens, but the following will become them in the event their husband predeceases them: Queen Paola of Belgium, Queen Sonja of Norway, Queen Sofía of Spain and Queen Silvia of Sweden (I just went through the list of current European monarchs, selected those that were Kings and found out who their consorts were). Whether any of them will use the style "Her Majesty The Queen Dowager" (or similar), I don't know. They all have issue (that is, children) so unless something happens to them the Queen will be Queen Mother and is probably more likely to use that style (or the equivalent). The reason the style Queen Dowager isn't seen much is probably because Queen Mother is preferred, so Queen Dowager will only be used if she didn't have any (surviving) children which is probably quite rare (Monarchs generally choose to have children to continue the line, rather than having a sibling inherit). --Tango (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand... I have noticed, that in the 19th century and before, widowed queen consorts were always called Queen Dowagers, wether they were mothers of monarchs or not. But in the 20th century, no one have been called dowager Queen; In Denmark, for example, all queen dowagers have been called "queen" as widows as well. I suppose no one have to deal with the question at present, as they could all be called queen mothers if they wish. That title seem not usual in other European countries, but perhaps it will be. In Sweden, no one have had the queen dowager title since 1913, and I very much doubt it will ever be used again. My guess is that it is considered old-fashined nowadays and will never be used again, even by a childless king's widow. No European country seem to have used it since World War II at least. I wonder when it was used last. Anyway, its an interesting question! --85.226.43.6 (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Not just old fashioned, but positively pejorative. Calling a woman a dowager these days is akin to calling her a harridan, curmudgeon or battle axe. I think of people like Lady Bracknell in The Importance of Being Earnest as played to peerless perfection by Dame Edith Evans in the 1952 film. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Where do you get that from, Jack? I'm sure our local widowed duchess is known locally - including by the present duke's office - as the dowager duchess. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I think the term is still in use generally, it's just with Queens that it seems to have gone out of fashion. There isn't really an alternative for other members of the aristocracy. "Duchess Mother" doesn't exist as a style to the best of my knowledge, and you very rarely see people referred to as "Duke/Duchess [First Name]", it's always "Duke/Duchess of [Place]" so you can't use a different first name to distinguish between the two Duchesses. --Tango (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, you're right, Tagishsimon. I was thinking of the word "dowager" in reference to a cantakerous and domineering elderly female (not necessarily either a widow or a member of the aristocracy/royalty). -- JackofOz (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Longest court-action in british history?

For inscrutable, six-degrees-of-wikipedia reasons, I wound up at the article McDonald's Restaurants v Morris & Steel. In the opening paragraph, it states that the case "lasted seven years, making it the longest-running court action in English history". Surely that's not true. I mean, hello, Jarndyce v. Jarndyce? Yes, I realize that was fictional, but it was based on real cases that dragged on for decades in the court of Chancery, was it not? Doesn't the article really mean that it was the longest criminal case in the UK? And is it? Because seven years doesn't seem to be that long? I mean, hasn't there been like some corporate case where some building company poisoned thousands of people with asbestos or something? Those cases drag on forever! It seems strange to me that 7 years would be the longest criminal trial in all of English history. I mean, that's a LONG history, after all. Belisarius (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The McDonald's Restaurants v Morris & Steel wikipedia article's statement is justified by this: [25] and this:[26]. But again, there is this: [27]: a case that ran for 43 years, it says. But most related searches do return only the McDonald's case as results. I guess we need a legal history expert on this one (which, unfortunately, I'm not; excuse me if I muddled matters up further).Leif edling (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, you may take a look at this :[28].

It's stated that : "But the so-called "McLibel Two" refused to pay at the end of the 314-day libel trial - the longest civil or criminal action in English legal history. " Leif edling (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Another example of a long-running court case involved the Metropolitan and Metropolitan District Railways (the "Met" and the MDR or "District"), the private companies that built the train route then called the Inner Circle and now the Circle Line of the London Underground system, in 1863-1884. The existence of two separate companies was intended as a short-term tactic (hence the deliberately similar names), but it didn't work out that way and they became bitter rivals although they had to operate the Circle jointly. Or as H.P. White put it in A Regional History of the Railways of Great Britain, Volume 3, Greater London (1987 edition, ISBN 0-946537-39-9): "though respectively controlled by two personal enemies, the two London companies were locked in indissoluble wedlock sealed by the ring of the Inner Circle."

The District owned the south side of the Circle from Gloucester Road in the west to I think Tower Hill in the east, the Met owned the rest, some trains were operated by each company, and they had agreements on how to split the revenues and expenses. But in 1884, without Parliamentary authorization, the District built their own tracks (the "Cromwell Curve") alongside the Met's tracks from Gloucester Road to the next station, High Street Kensington. They then routed their own trains over these tracks (originally in both directions of travel, even though this meant crossing over the Met's track twice) and claimed a corresponding adjustment in the revenue from the joint operations. And according to White, "the dispute dragged on until 1903, when the courts ruled that the Cromwell Curve was not part of the Inner Circle and thus that the District could not claim mileage for using it."

--Anonymous, 17:57 UTC (copyedited later), November 10, 2008.

I think the confusion here is between a case (.i.e.: the whole action) and a trial. the case, to me, includes appeals, retrials, etc.; I can see that as the longest trial, but I would replace "action" with "trial." However, that's just how I'd do it; Wikipedia may have its own way to use such terms, including the possibility that the "trial," in UK language, is the "action." And, anything after could be some other term.209.244.187.155 (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, a trial is a particular part of a case. The case also includes all the discovery, etc., that goes on before the trial, in addition to the various things after the trial that you mention. --Tango (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The Tichborne Case used to be cited as the longest trial in UK history, although it may have been surpassed now. There were 2 trials: one to establish the claimant's identity, which lasted 10 months and resulted in him being exposed as an imposter; and his consequent perjury trial, which lasted 6 months, the judge taking 18 days just to sum up. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Browsing Microsoft's digitized books?

Is there a website anywhere, where it is possible to browse the list of Microsoft's digitized books (I mean the ones available for free), in the same way that one can browse Project Gutenberg? Thanks 78.146.19.86 (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

[29] says that Microsoft stopped digitizing books in May or June 2006, and also took down the book site., after digitizing 750,000 books and 80,000,000 journal articles. See also Live Search Books . The Wikipedia article still says Live Search Books offers content from a number of sources. But if you click the link to "Live search books" at the bottonm of the article, you get a "The page requested was not found." Is the Wikipedia article in need of updating to the events of 2 years ago, or are the Microsoft digitized works still available somewhere? Edison (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, the Internet Archive has copied of public domain texts scanned by MS, and anything else is not available. The article almost certainly needs an update. Done --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Mergers & Acquisitions

What is the common goal of all mergers and acquisitions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poppazoid (talk • contribs) 16:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The common goal is to answer the homework questions that your teacher has given you yourself by doing your own research on the topic. Perhaps Wikipedia's article on Mergers and acquisitions would be a good place to start, though I would also recommend reading the class notes that you wrote down the day your teacher discussed this, and also to read through your text book; those sources given directly by your teacher are likely more focused on answering this specific homework question than anything else... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

To make the merger/acquirer look good. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Follow on question from Queen Mother/Dowager

Hello I notice from the article referred to in the earlier answer, GB seems to have had 3 queens alive at the same time in 1952 - 3: Queen Elizabeth II, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, widow of the late king George VI, and Queen Mary, widow of the late king George V. Indeed, I remember seeing a picture of both old Queens (so to speak!) at the Coronation of Elizabeth II.

What title did Queen Mary adopt on the death of her son George VI? She was now no longer the Queen Mother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.144.235 (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

According to our article, she never was "the Queen Mother" but was Her Majesty Queen Mary after her husband died until her own death. (Mary_of_Teck#Queen_Mother) Rmhermen (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Our Queen Mother page says the same. Here's a contemporary source: BBC transcript of newcast of George VI's funeral on Feb 15, 1952. "Dressed in black, the Queen, the Queen Mother, Princess Margaret and the Princess Royal were in the first carriage….George VI's mother, Queen Mary, watched from Marlborough House." WikiJedits (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

And that was the photo you remember. She did not attend Queen Elizabeth II's Coronation because she had died 10 weeks earlier. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Queen Mary would have been Queen Dowager (and even Queen Mother at one point), but as long as she was referred to as Her Majesty Queen Mary, rather than just Her Majesty The Queen then there was no need to disambiguate it with "Dowager" (or "Mother"). --Tango (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The reason for the common use of the title 'Queen Mother' was that calling her simply 'Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth' would have been too confusing. Algebraist 23:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The last time Queen Dowager was formally used was between 1837 and 1849, when Queen Adelaide adopted the title "Her Majesty the Queen Dowager". Queen Alexandra - who had a bit of a problem letting go of her status in the first place - decided to be known as "Her Majesty Queen Alexandra", and Queen Mary followed suit. Queen Elizabeth adopted Queen Mother because her daughter was also an Elizabeth (as referred to above). Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I remember a bit of dialogue from Laurence Housman's play Victoria Regina where, when Victoria becomes queen, Queen Adelaide announces "I shall be the Queen Mother", only to be told by one of her courtiers that she wasn't even the Queen's Mother, let alone the Queen Mother. Or something like that (it's been a long time). her mother announces "I shall be the the Queen Mother", only to be told by one her courtiers that she could not be the Queen Mother because she had never been a queen. Instead, she would have to be satisfied with being the Queen's mother. Whether this has any relationship to what (if anything) was actually spoken, I could not say. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(<--) Yes indeed. Queen Victoria's mother was a rather ambitious lady, especially in the first few years of Victoria's reign. She did indeed want to be known as Queen Mother. This was not uncommon; mothers of Sovereigns have done this in the past. Lady Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII, referred to herself as QM, and often signed "Margaret R[egina]", despite not being a Queen herself. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

November 11

Quotation marks in the Bible

Most translations of the Bible don't use quotation marks; it isn't just the King James Version. Even modern translations of the last 50 years don't use quotation marks. Why?--Psuit (talk) 03:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

See [30]. Wrad (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why the Bible in Basic English [31] doesn't use quotation marks whereas the NIV does.--Psuit (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's because there are no quotation marks in the original languages in which the Bible was written. This is only occasionally confusing, as in John 3, when no one is able to discern where Jesus finishes talking and John picks up. MelancholyDanish (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

Why, you just look at a Red letter edition and all is made clear, as to which words were, in the opinion of the scholars advising the publisher, spoken by Jesus. The first of these was published in 1900. Edison (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Orwellian Rhetorical Devices

I've just written an article for my campus newspaper on the contentious issue of freedom of speech, suggesting that as we can trust President Obama not to misuse his authority as president, his second act (after the passage of the delightfully named Freedom of Choice Act) needs to be jailing political extremists. I explained that he needs to frame the matter as one of protecting our First Amendment rights. "Obama needs to go before the nation and explain that radical extremists threaten the integrity of our First Amendment rights by corrupting the purity of our freedom of speech... In any society where subversion and radicalism are tolerated for any great length of time, the end result is a loss of civil liberties, as the ruling authority swoops in like an eagle to crush the radicals. This simply cannot happen in America, and we will not let it happen, not while we are free. Ring the alarum-bells throughout our mighty land, and let the people know this for a fact: if freedom of speech does not remain pure, it cannot remain free. Remember that. You remember that."

So in the process of writing the article I realized that I'm really fond of these Orwellian rhetorical devices. President Bush (or President Bush's friends) were really fond of using them as well, I've noted, and Sarah Palin had a fun time during the election trying to convince her audiences that the media was violating her "first amendment rights" by asking her questions. See the brilliance of it? My question is, can you tell me the writers who have used these devices the most? George Orwell of course is the first who comes to mind, but Jonathan Swift is his accomplice in crime in this respect.

Oddly, the place where I've seen them employed the most, if you can ignore the political distortions of the last eight years, is Christian end-times fiction. There's a series of books called the Christ Clone Trilogy, which was never as popular as Left Behind, alas, whose Antichrist is such a clever rhetorician that all of my friends who have read the novels have complained to me that Christopher Goodman almost made them want to follow him. He manages the massacre of 14,000,000 religious extremists, and while this would be a wildly implausible circumstance in almost any other novel, and while I probably number among the people who would be killed if this ever actually happened, in the course of the third novel I found myself half-cheering for their swift demise. The author is a political science professor (who ran against Al Gore for the Senate in 1980 and lost), and who's worked with the CIA, so he understands propaganda and knows how people can be manipulated into doing things.

Lastly, I remember a little movie we had to watch in elementary school, that was based on a short story by [[James Clavell]. It was called The Children's Story and, along with The Wave, it demonstrates the power inherent in the manipulation of language better than almost anything else I've seen or read.

So, any others? All recommendations are appreciated! MelancholyDanish (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

This is not a question. It is political soapboxing, and as such should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.52 (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright. What political point, exactly, am I trying to make? That political dissidents should be rounded up and jailed? That all Christians should be executed? You've done a very fine job of missing the point.MelancholyDanish (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

There is no real soapboxing going on here; one should assume good faith. :) Even easier when there is a real question apparent, although the question (or call for examples) is difficult. 80.202.246.253 (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. In the words of T. S. Eliot, "It is impossible to say just what I mean." I'm sorry if my examples only obfuscate the question.

Oh, and incidentally, if it's really that hard to see the sarcasm in my "opinions," then I may be in more trouble than I know. MelancholyDanish (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)MelancholyDanishMelancholyDanish (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

Your entire first paragraph is just an excuse to reproduce the polemic from your high-school magazine. Similarly, the section about the Christ Clone Trilogy seems to be rather more about sharing your various opinions with us than it is about asking a question. In fact, I'm at a loss to see how you can deny that you are using the Ref Desk as a soapbox. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Although I can't answer the question, nice writing and tip on the Christ Clone Trilogy. Do you have a blog? :D You should get one if you don't. Leave a message on my talk page if you do. Also, read The Library of Babel and you do not have to sign your comment more than once. Just put a space and then four tildes (~~~~). Any successive edits do not require extra signings. Mac Davis (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Youth violence

Duplicate thread deleted—see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Deleted "Ways to Reduce Youth Violence" -- BenRG (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

prominent leader for Sunni and Shi'a community in Lebanon

Who are the prominent leaders for Sunni and Shi'a Muslims community in Lebanon, like Druze prominent leader is Walid Jumblatt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.110 (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sheikh Muhammad Hussein Fazlullah is the prominent leader of Lebanese Shiites; and Saad Hariri is the Sunnis' prominent leader -- though there are some others too who claim these titles. --Omidinist (talk) 04:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Royal British Legion - inappropriate photo?

I do not want to make a political comment. However, I'm sure that a vast majority would be astonished to find a photo of former Prime Minister Tony Blair wearing a red poppy the least appropriate person to appear on the Royal British Legion page.

Comments please.

My suggestion is one of the elderly WWI veterans or a Chelsea Pensioner wearing a poppy. I don't yet know how to go about this and if anyone would like to take it over, please do so, otherwise I will attempt a change - if this permitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Segilla (talk • contribs) 16:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The correct place to ask questions about the The Royal British Legion article is that article's talk page : talk:The Royal British Legion. The use of Tony Blair's photograph was probably to illustrate the success and high profile of the 'poppy appeal' fund drive. It is not intended to illustrate the Royal British Legion as a whole. Feel free to change it if you feel some other picture illustrates the "Poppy Appeal" better. APL (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What does the captain of a carrier get paid?

I have been trying to find out what captains of aircraft carriers are paid, but have had little luck. I know that the American Nimitz class is (or sometimes) commandeered by Rear Admirals. I found out that these made $660 a month in 1943, but I do not know if I can simply turn those dollars into present dollars, and retain some sense of validity. Any help is greatly appreciated! 80.202.246.253 (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft carriers may be commanded by Rear Admirals, however if he commandeered one, he would likely stand trial for mutiny!!! However, the info you are looking for can be found here: U.S. uniformed services pay grades, which states that a Rear Admiral, who is pay grade O7 or O8 (depending on which "half" of the rank he is), gets paid anywhere from $7234.50/month (for an O7 Rear Admiral with less than 2 years service) to $12,551.40 per month (for an O8 Rear Admiral with over 38 years of experience). Cheers. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The battle group is commanded by a Rear Admiral. The captain (CO) of the carrier is a separate position. Captain on the USS Ronald Reagan (an actual O-6 Captain), and separately the commander of Carrier Strike Group Seven which includes the Reagan (a Rear Admiral as above). SDY (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

How Much things cost in 1943:

• Average Cost of new house $3,600.00
• Average wages per year $2,000.00
• Cost of a gallon of Gas 15 cents
• Average Cost for house rent $40.00 per month
• Bottle Coca Cola 5 cents
• Average Price for a new car $900.00 [32] Mieciu K (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
• Hunting down nazis: priceless Belisarius (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

post-election campaign funds

Hello, now that the US presidential election is over, I wonder what generally happens to whatever money each campaign has left. Surely there must be some money left over. Is it generally turned over to the political party, or donated to charity, or what? Thank you. LovesMacs (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This says you can donate it to a charity or a political party. Just no personal use (this means you, Sarah). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Obama team has a huge job ahead of them before he takes office. He's got something like 2,500 positions to fill in government, and he has to find the right people for them, and for the senate-confirmable ones, he has to vet them. I hear he's got something like 450 people on staff doing this, and other things he needs to do to prepare (like, you know, come up with actual policy and stuff). Congress kicks in a few bucks for this, but a lot of the money comes from donations and the campaign(which is why people still get email begging them for cash). Belisarius (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the Latin tag?

A friend recalls, on a university bookstore t-shirt, a Latin tag to the effect "In all the world [there is] nothing like a book". Does anyone recognize the tag? Does is sound like Erasmus?--Wetman 19:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

in toto orbe nihil simile libro, maybe? never heard :( --PMajer (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know it either but while searching for Erasmus quotes I found one page that claimed he said "women: can't live with them, can't live without them." Stupid Internet! Adam Bishop (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't it Isaac Newton who said, "Women: can live without them"? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

November 12

74.14.117.196 questions

These all look like home work questions, and we don't tend to answer such things, though we may provide some pointers. I've pushed your questions down a heading level and inserted my own first level heading. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, encourage the answering of all homework questions (I wont be the one to do so though). I believe it can only lead to my children having a competitive advantage in the job market in the future. 38.112.225.84 (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Having other people do your work for you does not give you a competitive advantage over the long term. Having one's own skills is far more beneficial. Teach your children that and they'll be better off. Give a man to fish, he eats for a day; teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime... --98.217.8.46 (talk) 05:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It is as important to know how to obtain information from others as it is to be able to find out the knowledge for yourself.194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You missed the joke: answering the homework questions of others will harm them, leaving 32's more virtuous children ahead. —Tamfang (talk) 07:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Haha! I'm using that joke.

But also, I don't think we should have a problem with linking them to the proper articles and remind them to use the search feature. Mac Davis (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Athenian

How was the Delian League transformed into the Athenian Empire during the fifth century B.C.E.? Did the empire offer any advantage to its subjects? Why was there such resistance to Athenian efforts to unify the Greek world in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.196 (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Deltan League became the Athenian Empire when they bought out their rivals with large stock options. Another advantage they offered was frequent flyer miles. There was lots of resistance because people at Dalta thought the Athenians had really dumb looking uniforms.

Yes, please copy all my answers, you will learn a valuable lesson if you do :-) (insert corny, evil laugh)Somebody or his brother (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Peloponnesian War

Why did Athens and Sparta come to blows in the Great Peloponnesian War? What was each side's strategy for victory? Why did Sparta win the war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.196 (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thucydides has quite a detailed answer to your first question, and will help with the second. Algebraist 01:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sparta won because that's what it says happened in the history books. They came to blows over who had the coolest looking official seal. Athens lost breecause they adopted Harold Stassen as their role model, while Sparta countered with the 1972 Miami Dolphins.

I should add, if this is really the creator of Zits looking for ideas by seeing how poeple would answer, Hi, I love your comic strip.Somebody or his brother (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hellenistic and Classical Age

How does Hellenistic art differ from that of the Classical Age? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.196 (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hellenistic art could only be painted by women named Halen. yes, please copy this answer. You will learn an important lesson if you do. :-)Somebody or his brother (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hellenistic art has hell in it; classical art has ass in it. Matt Deres (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Athens, Sparta and Thebes

Between 431 and 362 B.C.E., why did Athens, Sparta and Thebes each fail to impose hegemony over the city-states of Greece? What does your analysis tell you about the components of successful rule? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.196 (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Urinalysis tells me that good rulers do not test positive for drugs. (A mondegreen if you didn't know. :-) They each failed to gain hegemony because the BCS system was so bad it couldnt' even find a true number one back then.Somebody or his brother (talk) 12:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Alexander the Great

How and why did Philip II conquer Greece between 359 and 338 B.C.E.? How was he able to turn Macedon into a formidable military and political power? Why was Athens unable to defend itself against Macedon? Where does more of the credit for Philip's success lie-in Macedon's strength or in the weakness of the Greek city-states? What were the major consequences of Alexander's death? What did he achieve? Was he a conscious promoter of Greek civilization or just an egomaniac drunk with the lust of conquest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.196 (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

For your last question, see false dilemma. Algebraist 01:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course we have articles about all of these that might be a good place to start. Delian League, Peloponnesian War, Hellenistic Greece, Classical Greece, Alexander the Great, Philip II of Macedon...I don't know if we have one about the Athens/Sparta/Thebes question though. However, the better answer would be to read your text book... Adam Bishop (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The answers your teacher wants are in your textbook. If you crib answers from the internet, it will be pretty obvious. I say this as a teacher who has gotten kids kicked out of school for copying history homework answers off the internet. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll give you answers :-)

He did it because it was there. he actually wanted to conquer San Marino but it wouldn't be there for centuries, and he'd have to go through Italy to get to it. As for how, he hired a bunch of knights. There were so many knights it was always dark there, so the people couldn't see to fight him. This should help answer your other questions, too, about how it became a formidable power and why Athens couldn't defend itself; it was too dark.

The credit lies in his ability to smash boards with his head. (Why do you want a lie for an answer? :-)

The major cons4equences of Alexander's death: 1. He was pushing up daisies. 2. He never got learn who won Super Bowl III (he wouldn't have lived long enough anywa.) 3. A bunch of other stuff happened.

He achieved world renown as a conqueror, and really bad smelling armpits because they didn't have deoderant. No, he was not drunk with lust of conquest - the drunk one was his cousin, who loved to dress in purple and went by the name Alexander the grape.

I hope your teacher reads these in class; it will be a very valuable lesson. :-)Somebody or his brother (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What is this, Mad Libs? If you're going to give intentionally incorrect information, you first need to be funny. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

oops, I found some of it funny... Julia Rossi (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

How does he look like

How does a Moor man in Mauritania look like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.196 (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Take a look through Category:Mauritanian people and it's various sub-categories. However very few of the individual people articles have photographs. Astronaut (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This set of photos includes several photos of Moors in Mauritania. Marco polo (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Afro-Arab

Which Arab countries have black population? in your article Category:Afro-Arab says so but I need to know which country has the most and which one has the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.196 (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

My guess would be that Sudan would have the largest black Arab population. Wrad (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

homosexual African-American & homosexual White American

How many homosexual African-Americans and homosexual white Americans are there in the U.S.? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

More than elsewhere. {rimshot} —Tamfang (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that the incidence of homosexuality varies from "race" to "race". People of certain cultures may be more open about it than those of other cultures. The numbers would be proportionate to the relative numbers of African-Americans and "white" Americans. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the article on African American, in the 2000 US Census there were 36.6 million African Americans living in the US. Estimates to the number of gay people in a population vary, but usually stated as 2%-7%, which would mean that there are something like 700,000-2,000,000 gay African Americans in the US. Note though that this is an imprecise calculation, it doesn't take into account homosexuals living as heterosexuals, and completely disregards the Kinsey scale. There are probably many, many more that are bisexual or have homosexual leanings, the 2-5 part of the scale. Belisarius (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Kinsey Scale doesn't imply normal distribution. However, you're right in that there're probably a lot more people living homosexually than will admit so openly, especially given common biases in African American culture. You might be able to find some data on openly homosexual people (1-2% of men, 2-3% of women, if I recall the number correctly). Steewi (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that the Kinsey Scale is normally distributed, I just meant that that 2%-7% refered to the more extreme ends of the scale, and that more people in the middle, that might not be 100% homosexual, but could easily fall in love with someone of their own sex. Belisarius (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

US one-party state

I just read that the US is now effectively a one-party state, because the same party has the president plus a majority in both the house of representatives and the senate. How uncommon is this? I am surprised at the lack of info on past US elections on Wikipedia. We love lists, don't we? So why can't I find a list showing all the elections? (Even the Dutch elections are covered a whole lot better on the English Wikipedia.) Amrad (talk) 10:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh..... that's an extremely misleading usage of the term one-party state. A one party state is usually used to describe a state where only one party is allowed to form the government which is definitely not the US. The US isn't even close to a Dominant-party system yet (a country where realisticly only one party can form the government) IMHO. I'm not sure why you think we're lacking info on US elections. We have an article on every Presidential election from 1789 to now Template:U.S. presidential elections, the same for the Senate Template:U.S. Senate elections from 1908 (I think this is the beginning, the Senate members used to be elected by the state government rather then directly by the people of the state IIRC), and the House from 1789 Template:U.S. House elections. If you want lists, we have a bunch of stuff like List of United States presidential elections by Electoral College margin, List of United States presidential election results by state (and while not strictly election related List of United States congressional lists) and Category:Lists relating to the United States presidency may interest you). Our Template:U.S. gubernatorial elections is somewhat incomplete but wasn't what you were discussing. We also have an article on each Congress from the first Template:USCongresses. So really, I personally strongly suspect our coverage is far better then that of Dutch elections, although I've never looked at Dutch election articles extensively. As for your specific question, according to History of the United States Democratic Party, the Democrats has the same control from 1992-1994 (and actually for the 40 years preceding 1994 except 1981-1987 they had both houses so any Democrats presidents during those 40 years would be the same thing). According to History of the United States Republican Party, the Republicans had control of both houses from 1994 to 2001 then 2002 to 2006 and since Bush took control in 2000, they had all 3 in 2000, losing the Senate in 2001 to 2002 (I can't recall exactly but I think one Senator abandoned the Republican party, I'm sure many articles mention it somewhere) and then regaining it until 2006. It does note that their gains in 2002 were somewhat of an oddity since "This marked the first time since 1934 that the party in control of the White House gained seats in a midterm election in both houses of Congress" Nil Einne (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There's also a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth among Republicans and conservatives -- the ones who keep chanting that the U.S. is really a center-right nation -- because Karl Rove's dream of a permanent Republican majority has turned out to be...premature, at the least. One effect has been a great deal more fretting about "one-party rule" than you heard when the GOP was in control of the presidency and Congress. I recall Speaker Dennis Hastert's notion that legislation could come to the House floor only if supported by "the majority of the majority." In other words, a bill supported mostly by Democrats, with enough Republicans to give it a chance of passing, would be stalled the leadership because it wasn't supported by at least half the Republicans.

Party discipline among the two major U.S. parties is also more a theory than a practice -- e.g., Joe Lieberman, who was the Democratic nominee for vice-president four years ago, actively campaigned for McCain/Palin. (Yeah, yeah, he's an "independent.") Committee chairmen in the House and the Senate have a great deal of power, and the president doesn't always have many ways to sway them. A challenge for Obama will be managing the conflicting agendas of longtime liberal Democrats and newer more conservative ones like Senator Jim Webb of Virginia. --- OtherDave (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The complaining is not just among Republicans. Historically, whenever the same party has controlled the White House and the Congress (regardless of which party it is), economic growth has slowed, unemployment has risen, and real wages have fallen. Wikiant (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with Rove that most people in the US are of a center-right persuasion, but I think the question is more where the center is. The US is farther right than Europe, at least as I understand it, but why are they the center? As a follow-up-esque question to the OP, there's a bit of a perception that in recent years that politics is moving away from the middle and that some increase of Political radicalism is happening? SDY (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Some data. Algebraist 14:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I love articles like that: "If we ignore anything that doesn't fit with the conclusion that I want to push, the data backs my conclusion completely!" -- kainaw™ 15:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Just looking at the conclusions of the first few paragraphs, I have substantial doubts about the article. That people don't know what party is more conservative may indicate that they simply don't care about politics, not that they know the "other side." To be more formal with the questions, though:

• 1. Is there any evidence of increasing radicalization of US politics?
• 2. Is there evidence that McCain intentionally abandoned the moderate vote? (i.e. leaked memos, emails, and other documents, not the conclusions of pundits).
• 3. What, if any, rigorous definitions are there for a "center" in US politics?

In all cases, I'm looking for political science answers and neutral data: Declarations against interest, numbers from at least nominally neutral organizations (i.e. at least somewhere between Fox and MSNBC) and "big picture" academic speculation, not blogs and pundits. If there are no answers along those lines, so be it. SDY (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The lastest exit polls, all over the news and interweb, say that 22% of US voters identify themselves as "liberal," 44% call themseleves "moderate", and 34% say they are "conservative." For conservatives, this indicates a center-right nation. For liberals, this indicates that the average American is too stupid to know that he's a liberal. ;-) 71.72.148.80 (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

To me it indicates that whoever did the survey was too stupid to ask a question that actually results in meaningful answers. Self-identification works well for things like race which experts agree is a pretty meaningless concept (so if you really want statistics on it, self-identification is your best option), it doesn't work for political opinions. --Tango (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious you don't like the results, which has resulted in you saying some silly things. :-) The poll did produce a meaningful result -- how people identify themselves on a simple political spectrum -- but of course a more detailed survey would produce more useful data. And experts do not agree that race is a "pretty meaningless concept"; the biological validity of race is now doubted, but as a social construct, it's anything but meaningless. 71.72.148.80 (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a very meaningful question. Though it seems useful to politicians decided whether or not to use the word liberal, which I'm sure is very important. It's a bit better in context. 71.72... here is obviously going on about the results from the "Edison Media Research" exit polls as reported by the AP and CNN.

There are some surprising (to me) results. 76% of voters attended college, but only 44% of voters graduated college. That seems like a pretty wide split. It also amuses me that among this year's voters there are more conservatives than liberals, but more democrats than republicans. APL (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Moses's Egypt?

Where can I find a good definition of the term Egypt when used in Exodus? It's certainly not the modern country Egypt. It was the name of a rule or civilization or country back then. Do we know which specific date or pharaoh Moses interacted with?

I'm trying to figure out what the name these Egyptians themselves would have given to themselves as a people or to their nation.--206.248.172.247 (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Exodus#Dating the Exodus has some information on when the Exodus might have happened, if indeed it happened at all. Algebraist 12:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

So I'm looking at Egypt between 1500 and 1200 BCE. New_Kingdom_of_Egypt--206.248.172.247 (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Tradition generally holds that the unnamed Pharaoh in Exodus is Ramesses II, though documentary evidence is sketchy. That the Exodus is undocumented by non-Hebrew sources is unsuprising. The Hebrews were a relatively small group of people; and were likely not recognized by non-Hebrew peoples as distinct from any of a number of other Canaanite tribes, such as the Philistines. Slave revolts were not uncommon in Ancient Egypt; and The Exodus, while a defining moment in Hebrew history, probably doesn't rate as much more than a blip on Egyptian history. The basic theme of the book (member of enslaved class rises to high government official and has a positive impact on his own people) occurs multiple times in the old Testament, cf. Joseph, Daniel, etc. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

According to our article Ptah, the likely name used by New Kingdom Egyptians for their country was Hat-ka-Ptah (pronounced haht-kah-ptah)—"the house (or estate) of Ptah." This name was the basis for the Greek place name Aigyptos, which later morphed into our name Egypt. Marco polo (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Fastest growing sorority?

I'm trying to find the fastest growing sorority in the U.S. I did a quick search on google and there are a few that mention it but I don't exactly trust the sources. Help would be very much appreciated. 71.244.5.124 (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

descendants of ancient famous figures

Do they know the lineage of any ancient kings, emperors or other famous or important people? I know this Italian guy who swears up and down that he's a direct descendant of Julius Caesar and I can't convince him that no one knows that for sure. 63.245.144.68 (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There are no well-established descents from antiquity. That doesn't stop people from believing in them. There are some reasonably well-proved descents from persons living as early as 400 if you accept Irish chronicles as sources, but none dating back to Caesar. I suspect you'll never convince your friend, though: if you lower your standards of evidence you can claim descent from almost anyone, including fictional figures like Wotan, Adam, and Eve. - Nunh-huh 20:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that Wotan or Adam and Eve are mythological figures rather than fictional ones. Malcolm XIV (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Descent of Elizabeth II from the Franks is an interesting read. --Cameron* 21:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Many Jews claim descent from Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah. Wrad (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There is apparently a pretty good line of descent from Confucius, but descent from Caesar would be very difficult to prove conclusively. Steewi (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Part of the reason he says he's descended from Caesar is because Roman Mythology says that Caesars family were descendants of the goddess Venus, so he thinks he can say he's descended form the Gods. Not that he actually believes this, he says it sort of tongue-in-cheek, but it would be cool if he could prove that. 63.245.144.68 (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If someone from 1000s of years ago has descendants alive today, chances are most of the world population is descended from them (bar a few isolated tribes somewhere possibly). At the very least, if Julius Caesar still has living descenents then anyone native to western Europe is probably descendent from him. Assume his lineage has doubled every generation and generations average 25 years that means he should have about 2^2000/25=2⁸⁰~=10²⁴ descendants by now. Seeing as the world population is about 6.5x10⁹, you can see that there has clearly been such an enormous amount of inbreeding to the extent that almost everyone will descended from him by now. --Tango (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I claim direct descent from Mitochondrial Eve, so there. 38.112.225.84 (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Kohanim claim direct descent from Aaron. Queen Elizabeth II is supposedly descended from Mohammed. ([33]) Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

OH WOW!! Does this mean I can trace my lineage back to Caesar and therefore the gods too?! :D BAD ASS!!! I'm gonna tell everyone I know that I'm a demigod. (Of course, I won't bother to tell them that they are too...) 63.245.144.68 (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you think about it, every one of us is descended from people who are utterly lost to history because they only started keeping records relatively recently. But some of them might have been kings in their own time. No matter how far back you can trace your most distant known ancestor, they had parents, and they had parents ... and so on, back at least 80,000 generations. Whatever we know of our genealogies is just the tiniest tip of the iceberg of our actual history. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I have the same family name as a notable writer from over 1,000 years ago. Since the name is somewhat uncommon, I've often wondered how I could find out if we are distantly related? Astronaut (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to trace genealogies precisely that far back, but the general principles Tango alludes to above mean it's very likely you're descended from whichever of his relatives have surviving descendants at all. Algebraist 16:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Often, people use a book named something like "Famous Descendents of Charlemagne" to trace lineage to notable people. The problem is that the book was created, not for accurately defining family lines, but for allowing those who paid nicely to have a book that shows they are descendent from royalty. I've looked at it and it claims I'm descendent from British, French, Norwegian, and Turkish royalty. So, you can see that it is important to take lineages of long ago as best guesses, not facts. -- kainaw™ 16:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no way of verifying a descent from Julius Caesar - he only had two children mentioned in ancient sources - his daughter Julia, whose onnly child was stillborn (she died in childbirth), and his (probable) son by Cleopatra, Caesarion, who was murdered on the orders of Augustus while still a child. Caesar is supposed have had numerous affairs, but any other illegitimate children he may have had have gone reported. Brutus, the son of Caesar's mistress Servilia Caepionis, is likely too old to be Caesar's son, but Servilia had other children who could conceivably have been his - but even if you could trace your descent to any of them, you couldn't definitively claim to have been descended from Caesar. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently one of my late great-grandmothers was an exiled Nepalese princess. Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 00:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

what is the period of time the supreme court hears cases

is the period of time an hour?

is it something else?----

What do you mean, the time between when one case stops and the next starts? I doubt there is a set period. --Tango (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If you mean how much time is allotted for oral arguments, the Supreme Court web site states that hearings are scheduled for one hour,(I assume the time is split between the parties) and two cases are scheduled daily when the Court is in session. There is no set time for reaching a final opinion. I assume that when all the opinions (majority, plurality, concurring, dissenting) are prepared, the decision is announced and explained by one of the justices. The Clerk's Office releases the opinion the same day. 75Janice (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)75Janice

Yes, the time for oral arguments is split evenly between the two parties (and believe the time the judges spend asking them questions from the bench counts as part of their time; does anyone know for sure?). - Jmabel | Talk 00:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hard to tell what's being asked here, but the Supreme Court of the U.S. is prescribed to start a term on the first Monday of October. So the 2008-2009 term began on October 6th and it sounds like that when a term ends, so the Justices can take off on other gigs or vacation or whatever, is not prescribed and varies somewhat but is usually mid summer, sometime around July or August. 38.112.225.84 (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It may help the OP's understanding to mention that the Supreme Court, like other appellate courts, does not hear cases. It considers appeals from lower courts. No new evidence is presented. Instead, advocates for the two sides present briefs and other documents either in support of the ruling of the lower court, or in an effort to have that ruling overturned. Most of the real work goes into these documents. As Jmabel points out, the oral argument time is brief, and talkative justices (some of them making points to one another in the form of questions to the attorneys) can gobble up a lot of that. The justices (and their clerks) spend a great deal of time going over documents presented on both sides, and more time drafting the court's eventual decision. Even a straightforward case like Feist v Rural Telephone Company 499 US 340 (1991), which dealt with copyright, resulted in a thirteen-page decision. Virtually every paragraph contains references to two or three other cases. --- OtherDave (talk) 03:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Run on a currency?

The last line of Invergordon Mutiny says

"The Invergordon Mutiny caused a panic on the London Stock Exchange and a run on the pound"

I know what a run on a bank is, but what does a "run on the pound" mean? --Carnildo (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Much the same: the value of the pound against other currencies falls. I'm assuming currency exchange rates were not fixed in that period. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

People rush to exchange their pounds for foreign currency which appears less threatened. Wrad (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

In that period, would they have been exchanging their pounds for foreign currency, or for gold? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Foreign currency, mainly, there isn't enough gold to buy gold with it all. When people trade foreign exchange they don't generally own the currency they're trading, they borrow in one currency and use that to buy another currency, the amount of money you actually need to have in your account (called the margin) is pretty small (10% is common [ie. if you have $10,000 in your account you can buy $100,000 worth of foreign currency], sometimes less, probably much less for big institutional investors [since they're low risk - at least they were a year ago...]). --Tango (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I should say, you don't necessarily have to buy and sell currency in order for it to be a run on the pound, selling things valued in pounds (UK based assets, mainly) and buying things valued in some foreign currency has the same effect. --Tango (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Babylon as a symbol of "orgiastic decadence"

What does orgiastic decadence mean? Elchananheller (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Orgiastic means "pertaining to an orgy". And also decadence. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Any relation...?

Hi all - does anyone here know whether rock musician Eddie Vedder is related to 19th century symbolist artist Elihu Vedder? I haven't been able to find a source which mentions a possible connection, but thought someone here might have some idea. Thanks in advance, Grutness...wha? 01:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd infer yes from this but in exactly what way, I don't know. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This geneology: [34] confirms that Eddie Vedder, through his mother Karen Lee Vedder, is related to Elihu Vedder the painter. Following BOTH of their lines back, the closest common ancestor for both of them was one Harmen Albertse Vedder, one of the original settlers of New Amsterdam, who migrated to what is now Schenectady, New York from Amsterdam, Netherlands. H.A. Vedder was Eddie's 10th generation ancestor, and was Elihu's 5th generation ancestor, making them 4th cousins, 5-times removed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This book title

I remember reading the wikipedia article for this book a long time ago and I want to buy it. I remember some guy murdered his friend with a shovel or something. He goes to hang out in a police station or something and finds a city inside a giant cave. I remember that the constable had all sorts of witty wordplay. Then in the second half of the book he dies and repeats all his adventures as a ghost with the murdered friend. Anyone have an idea? .froth. (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a punt on The Third Policeman. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Two hours of googling couldn't turn that article up.. I was searching "shovel" instead of spade, "constable" instead of policeman, "cave" or "cavern" instead of underground chamber.. THANK you ! .froth. (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel that Flann O'Brien would appreciate that sort of google-fu :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Back from the dead

Someone goes missing, is declared dead, their will is executed, and then they turn up alive. What happens? --Carnildo (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of instances of this, and it much depends where it happens. In undeveloped countries, there are cases of these people being treated like zombies and stoned. In developed countries there is a lot of red tape to go through and it's sometimes impossible to be officially recognised again. I don't have immediate access to sources, but this sort of thing is often reported in Fortean Times. If they have commited pseudocide they usually end up in jail.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There's also List of premature obituaries and the John Darwin disappearance case in the U.K. Darwin was arrested for fraud along with his wife after turning up in 2007. Both received prison sentences in 2008. Idaho-an Jeremy Bass has to prove he's alive here[35] after a mixup. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

See also Association of the Dead. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What a terrible article! (pseudocide). You've written more than the article says. Actually let me copy what you've written into the article -- i hope you don't mind! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.126.76 (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you help me find the original projections of social networking sites such as Facebook and Myspace

duplicate question removed --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Role of the Israeli prime minister

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am currently doing a school project on Israel, more specifically its political system, and I was wondering: what is the role of the prime minister in Israel ? I have found information on the role of the Knesset (declare laws, dismiss the prime minister, etc.) and the President of Israel (ratify laws approved by the Knesset, meet foreign dignitaries, etc.); but my search for information about the PM's duties remains unfruitful. Most of the information that I find is related to the history of the position. Rachmaninov Khan (talk) 03:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The PM leads the government meetings and is in charge of the work of government in general, he takes over the role of resigning ministers, he decides the government agenda, and has final word in foreign policy decisions. (My translation of the Hebrew entry)Elchananheller (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

While Prime Minister of Israel isn't very helpful, most of the information at Prime Minister is relevant. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Calling Joe de Maistre

Yo, I'm intending to expand the Joseph de Maistre and have a question about how to refer to the cantankerous old git when omitting his first name. Is it "de Maistre" or simply "Maistre"? I have seen both conventions used in the literature, and am wondering which would be more proper for our purposes. Any informed response appreciated, the skomorokh 05:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

To me, "de Maistre" sounds more formal and is therefore preferred here. The one time it's abbreviated in the 1911 Britannica article, it uses "de". (But de Sade truth is, there doesn't appear to be a strong consensus.) Clarityfiend (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than inspecting our gut-feelings for the answer, as the US President does, let's note clearly that the comte de Maistre is referred to as "Maistre", just as the marquis de Lafayette is called "Lafayette": Try saying, "De Lafayette, we are here!" See?. --Wetman 06:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Je ne parle pas 18th century mannerisms, desolee. Is "de Maistre"/"Maistre" not then a surname but rather a title of sorts, "head-dude of Placename", where Placename thereafter serves as a metonym? the skomorokh 06:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Nor me, but conventionally the Australian artist Roy De Maistre is referred to as "de Maistre", fwiw. Maybe it's just Australian-style. Why the capital D in the article title, I've no idea. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Even stranger still that he is the son of a chap called "Etienne L. de Mestre". Immigrant populations have a tendency to disregard the mannerisms of their ancestral homelands, so I'm not sure how much of an indication Roy's example is to us...unless that is he styles himself as "Roy, comte de Maistre...'just call me de Maistre'"! the skomorokh 09:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Portia de Rossi is referred to as "de Rossi". You would expect to find people like Herbert von Karajan (who's referred to as "Karajan") and Hans von Bülow (who's referred to as "von Bülow") under K and B respectively. Dutch people whose names start with "van", who are referred to as "van ___", are categorised under the final name (e.g. Eduard van Beinum is found under B), except for Vincent van Gogh, who appears under V rather than G. Why we make an exception in his case I've never quite worked out. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Whose system are you discussing, Jack? Because in American alphabetization, they would all be under "v". In Dutch ordering, the tussenvoegsel would always be ignored. Rmhermen (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The de may become an integral part, particularly of a non-aristocratic name, as Dupont. To appear to be knowledgable if one really isn't might be pretentious. If one actually is an Ochs von Lerchenau, then to insist upon correctness might make one a figure of comedy. But it is "the luck of the Lerchenaus" not "the luck of the von Lerchenaus", and even an American will hunt in vain under D for Lorenzo de' Medici. --Wetman 21:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Really, Rmhermen? Are Herbert von Karajan and Ludwig van Beethoven really listed in the V section of an American encyclopedia? I wonder. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

In Britannica Online, Ludwig's listed under the Bs. Ernst van de Wetering, a Dutch art historian, is in the Vs, as are Belgian priest and academic H.L. Van Breda and Dutch inventor Cornelius van Drebel. So it goes. --- OtherDave (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I find it quite odd that Britannica (a formerly British publication now headquartered in Chicago) follows neither the Oxford Guide to Style nor the Chicago Manual of Style's guidelines [36] but its own mismash. (Diemen, Anthony van for one Dutch explorer; van Neck, Jacob for another near contemporary) Rmhermen (talk) 06:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Charles Dickens Quiz Question

I've got a very vague quiz question I can't find an answer to elsewhere on-line & I don't have time to read the complete works of Dickens so I wanted to ask if anyone can answer the question: "According to Charles Dickens 'who was willing'?" Thanks

See "Mr. Barkis" in David Copperfield (novel)#Characters in David Copperfield. Deor (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks AllanHainey (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

first world war and Vatican

Did Vatican join the first world war? Was there any war that this country join? If yes, please explain a little about that. Thank you. 114.58.129.58 (talk) 12:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Holy See (which at that point was of unclear status, having lost almost all its territory to Italy but not yet acknowledging this fact; see Prisoner in the Vatican) took no part in the first world war. The Vatican has not taken part in any wars since, and indeed has almost no military. Before the loss of the Papal States, the Papacy took part in lots of wars over more than a thousand years of history. Algebraist 13:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Vatican is not a country. It is a city-state. There is a big difference there when discussing foreign relations (such as going to war). As far as joining a war, a military is required. It is not reasonable to claim that a country with absolutely no military involved in a war has "joined" the war. The Vatican has a ceremonial unit of the Swiss guard. It is not for combat. It has a police force that is not used for combat. All true military defence is provided by Italy. Basically, if your intention is to claim that the Vatican is the only country never to go to war, you will have redefine "country". -- kainaw™ 13:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The article cited above by Algebraist is a good place to start; as noted between 1861 (when the modern nation of Italy was born) and the 1929 Lateran Treaty, the status of the Holy See was in question. Between those years, there really wasn't a Papal States as we come to understand it; the Roman Question was left unresolved however, for all intents and purposes there was no secular state between those years. Also, it should be noted that the "Vatican City" is really just a small complex of buildings in Rome. It covers just over 100 acres, or 44 hectares. By comparison, London's Hyde Park is 390 acres, and New York's Central Park is 843 acres. The entire population of Vatican City consists of ordained clergy who handle the daily administration of the Catolic Church. There are a handful of non-clergy employees: accountants and other minor clerks, a few police officers, and the ceremonial Swiss Guard, which while an official "armed force" really just wear goofy outfits and stand around. The Vatican has no military force, and could not actually be involved in any war in any meaningful way. If we answer the question literally; the territory of the Vatican during WWI was a de facto part of Italy (even though it was "officially" an unresolved issue), and so it "fought" on the side of the Allied Powers during WWI. However, if we consider that the Catholic Church did not officially endorse either side during WWI, and essentially The Vatican = The Catholic Church, then one could also claim that it was neutral during WWI. In any event, it isn't really an answerable question, because, as kainaw notes, the Vatican is not really a "country" in the classical sense... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Swiss Guard: "really just wear goofy outfits and stand around"? Then what are there "SIG P225 pistols and SIG SG 550 assault rifles" and head of state protection training for? Rmhermen (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, fine, "really just wear goofy outfits, carry big guns, and stand around". As the Swiss Guard are all first active-duty military of the Swiss, they do have extensive military training, but they are really just an honor guard, and they are trained and prepared to defend the pope. But they aren't a "military force", and are not organized or prepared to undergo military operations of any sort! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Offensive operations, no. (They are not commandos, and there are not enough to do much) Defensive operations, sort of. (In an emergency, I think that they would be able to shed the "goofy" uniforms for bullet-proof vests etc. and put up a pretty effective last-ditch defense...those guys train a lot.) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, declarations of war is a fairly offensive act; no one declares war and then sits back and waits to be invaded. Yes, the Swiss Guard do have the training to handle themselves in a gunfight, and could probably be expected to defend the territory of the Vatican in an organized manner should it come to that. However, to consider them a military force on par with that of any other sovereign nation is stretching it a bit. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Standing around is what being a bodyguard is all about, most of the time. They are of course ready to defend the pope if it becomes necessary. Algebraist 15:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

They wear Goofy outfits? Like this [37] ? That's one dangerous group of men. Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Being a city-state with almost on military is no guarantee against declaring war. San Marino declared war on the UK in WWII. - Jmabel | Talk 17:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

San Marino, at 23.5 square miles, or 15,000 acres or 6000 hectares, making it 150 times the size in area of Vatican City. Its population of 30,800 is about 36 times the size of the Vatican's. Plus, since San Marino's military defense is, by treaty, handled by Italy, it's declaration of war on the UK was merely a formallity; Italy had declared war itself, and San Marino was powerless not to declare war. It really should be noted that the Vatican City really is a sui generis creation. There is no other "sovereign state" like it in the world. Even really tiny countries like San Marino or Liechtenstein, or true "city-states" like Singapore don't compare in any meaningful way. Remember, the entire "state" is a dozen or so buildings, a few gardens, and a big plaza tucked away on a hill in Rome. To attempt to fit it into the standard model of what a "country" is expected to do is simply silly. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The closest parallel to the Vatican's status I'm aware of is the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Algebraist 03:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The Vatican also has thousands of missals they might find useful if war broke out. Edison (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thousands of missals!!!! ROFLMAO.... That's fucking brilliant... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And that fool Stalin only asked about the divisions. --- OtherDave (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Bengali Christians and Buddhists

Is there any Christians and Buddhist presence in West Bengal and Tripura like Bangladesh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.30 (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the 2001 census, Tripura at that point had a population 3.2% Christian and 3.1% Buddhist, while West Bengal was 0.6% Christian and 0.3% Buddhist. This compares with Bangladesh census data of 0.6% Buddhist and 0.3% Christian. Algebraist 14:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

there are factions of buddhists that they call them as "Baruah's" or "Mog's" and seem to have lineage towards bangladesh and are sparsely scattered accross assam and have a very little presence in states like delhi as well and their language sounds like an extract ob bangla itself.but with the recent influx from bangladesh the muslims have superceeeded them by leap and bounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikram79 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Educational background of Sara Palin

I can not find information on Palin's education. Did she graduate high school, college or have and advanced degree? How did she rank in her class? If she went to college, what was her majors and minors? Can she use a computer, cell phone, fly an airplane, etc? What is her IQ? Dawgrg (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC) Rick

→ Sarah Palin#Early life and education. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 17:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

She attended a number of colleges, each for a fairly short time, before finally graduating. No explanation has been printed for her moving from school to school. Edison (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Jim Jones Massacre

When all those people died, how were the remains handled? I cannot believe the mammoth job to organize and dispose of the bodies somehow. I'm sure it took days to clear up. Does anyone have any information on this? --12.170.106.12 (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Our article on Jonestown does contain some information about what became of some of the bodies. About 70 were examined by a medical examiner, so one assumes these were removed to a morgue somewhere, and 7 were returned to the U.S. for a more formal autopsy. As far as the other 800+, it doesn't say, but they must have been disposed of somehow... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking for Fairytale or other stories..

I am looking for a fairy tale or any other story (don't remember) in which there is some mystical world/land in which only comes to life whenever the main character shows up and then freezes or ceases to exist once the main character leaves.... thanks in advance.--12.170.106.12 (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats a tough one, but I think the dragon in Puff,_the_Magic_Dragon kinda counts.

A dragon lives forever but not so little boys
Painted wings and giant rings make way for other toys.
One grey night it happened, jackie paper came no more
And puff that mighty dragon, he ceased his fearless roar.

His head was bent in sorrow, green scales fell like rain,
Puff no longer went to play along the cherry lane.
Without his life-long friend, puff could not be brave,
So puff that mighty dragon sadly slipped into his cave. oh!

--Jabberwalkee (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Bagpuss --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Joe Biden endorses...

Before he became the pick for VP, did Biden endorse Obama only, or did he first endorse Clinton, and then later changed his endorsement to Obama? Also, if he only endorsed Obama, did he do this before or after Clinton lost? ScienceApe (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

May 27 2008 [38] said: "Biden, who has not endorsed a candidate after dropping his own bid earlier this year." Clinton conceded on June 7 [39] so I guess Biden made no endorsement before that. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

June 7 2008 [40] said: "Biden, who has not endorsed a candidate after dropping his own bid earlier this year." Clinton conceded on May 27 [41] so Biden made no endorsement of her. would have made more sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.126.76 (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(Newspaper) layout: why this?

This is probably a trivial question, but still one I couldn't find an easy answer to. Why are newspapers layed out the way they are, with columns tastefully arranged on the page? Why not just have everything top-to-bottom, left-to-right, sorted by descending importance, pictures on the sides? Wouldn't this actually be easier to read while still properly directing attention? In general, how much of layout is objective? Is there active research to what's easier to read and does this influence design, or is it mostly tradition and instinct and what people are used to?

Again, it sounds like there should be some beginner's book on something that explains this, but I wouldn't know where to start. Pointers are welcome. 82.95.254.249 (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The (somewhat trivial but correct) answer is that newspapers are arranged as they are because that is what appeals to the readers. If, for example, readers found that having articles ordered by importance was useful, then newspapers that were so arranged would garner a larger market share (on average) those that weren't and would eventually replace the non-arranged newspapers. Then we'd be asking why are all newspaper articles ordered by importance. Wikiant (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that, often (but not always) in the U.S., where there are two competing daily newspapers, the layout is often quite different between them, perhaps as a sort of branding. Consider the Boston Globe vs. the Boston Herald or the New York Times vs. New York Post vs. New York Daily News, or the Philadelphia Inquirer vs. the Philadelphia Daily News. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Historically, newspapers were laid out in columns because the manual method of selecting type and building up the article was easier with narrow with blocks. Headlines - using larger type - could be wider. The same thing applied when pre-cast type changed to hot metal type. It is only since the advent of computers that freely chosen layout has been possible. Also there have been many studies into how people read and it turns out that llong line lengths are less readable than medium length ones (you have to move your head or eyeball excessively) whilst very short ones also have a problem in that words don't comfortably fit and the flow gets broken up. -- SGBailey (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Another reason is marketing: if every front-page story starts at the top of the page and continues down past the halfway point, then when the paper is folded in half and stacked or placed in a vending machine, people will need to buy it if they want to finish reading the stories. --Carnildo (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, the way they're laid out allows multiple stories to appear on the prominent page-one-above-the-fold spot, so even if the the #1 story doesn't grab you, one of the lesser ones might. --Sean 00:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, they need to fit articles around advertising space, which is usually more of a priority than whatever news they pull of the wire. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

To answer your last question, tradition and expectations (not instinct) influence newspaper design (as well as other periodicals) in an extreme way. They do push the boundaries on occasion but generally it is a pretty conservative field. Part of what drives the tradition (and expectations) are the practicalities listed above. It is certainly not the case that people want to read wide pages of small text, which is what a newspaper would be if it were the way you described. It's incredibly hard to keep your place in such things—it's easy to get lost in the middle of a paragraph or to jump from the end of a line to the wrong beginning of a line. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Factors that Affect Air Fuel Price in India

Is the air fuel price increasing in India now? If so, are the insurgent separatist groups that operating in the Northeast(Assam), affecting the price of air fuel in India or is there not enough oil to supply the demands in India? Sonic99 (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

According to this recent article air fuel prices are falling in India, as one would expect, since air fuel is made from crude oil, whose price has been falling for several months. It is unlikely that insurgent groups in Assam would affect the price for air fuel, except perhaps locally within Assam. India's main refineries, which produce its jet fuel, are located along its coasts, far from Assam. Marco polo (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Anthropocentric viewpoint and animals

I have three questions:

• why there are so limited number of political parties for animals?
• why these parties have so limited public support?
• I want to know the names of some persons who have philosophical works from non-anthropocentric viewpoint. The only person I know is Pentti Linkola who supported the Holocaust with the logic it helped to maintain the ecological balance by reducing overpopulation. Are there past or contemporary philosophers like him? I did not find any more name in wikipedia. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't harangue the Reference Desk volunteers. The Reference Desk is not a soap box.--Wetman 22:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What you are talking about? I was reading the article Pentti Linkola and found it to be interesting. His viewpoint is out of mainstream, and my question is if there are others like him. If you do not know anything on this topic, do not engage in this thread. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Otolemur asked legitimate questions, he was not delivering a speech. Please be civil to other users Wetman. ScienceApe (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(a) There are a lot of charities and other organisations that work for the welfare of animals. Few are political parties. Most have some elemnt of political lobbying. (b) They have limited support because, generally, humans are more interested in things relating to humans, animals are secondary. Many political parties have a view on animal welfare, but they aren't animal welfare parties. (c) Can't help. -- SGBailey (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

When animal rights and philosophy appear in the same sentence, Peter Singer springs to mind. Algebraist 00:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Does Peter Singer's views strike you as non-anthropocentric?--droptone (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in the article on specieism. 38.112.225.84 (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the answer to the first two questions in the original post is this: there are still far too many human beings in need of help, and so parties and individuals prefer to put their scarce resources into more productive endeavors.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

UK Gold state coach

How are the paintings and the gold leaf on the state coach protected from the elements. For example if it was raining and the state coach was going to open parliament or something, what would stop the watercolors from being damaged? --Thanks, Hadseys 22:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Queen usually uses the Irish State Coach for the opening of Parliament. The Gold State Coach has only been used three times during her reign: for the Coronation, and during the Silver and Golden Jubilees. I would assume that the paintings on the side (which are not watercolours) are varnished. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Did whites participate in the Biafra war?

I wonder if any white soldiers/fighters participated in the Biafra war? Perez del Toro (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Our article Biafra War mentions that foreign mercenaries were involved, including Count Carl Gustaf von Rosen. Algebraist 00:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

US State Legislature Control

I was looking for updated information on which parties control which legislatures. Most of the information on Wikipedia does not seem to have been updated since the election, and it's been difficult to find a concise summary of the results on Google. Maybe I'm missing an obvious source, but any help would be appreciated. NoIdeaNick (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you try the National Council of State Legislatures? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a ton, that's exactly what I was looking for. 24.136.14.105 (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

famous schools for the gifted

first of all, we don't seem to have an article school for the gifted. secondly, are there any famous ones, with like famous alumni. did any really famous people in the world originally go to a school for the gifted. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.126.76 (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

See Talented and Gifted, a disambiguation page that will likely lead you to where you want to go! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you had to tell me how to get to the article seriously reminds me of http://www.uttyler.edu/faculty/amendoza/Pictures%20and%20Stuff/Far%20Side--gifted%20school.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.126.76 (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

what's the wrongest anyone's been?

What's the wrongest anyone's been. I don't mean like understandings that are so off they're "not even wrong". Instead I mean, like Columbus thinking he was in India. That type of wrong. I'm thinking of candidate answers that killed 3,000,000 people. Any takers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.126.76 (talk) 03:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Like a single person, or perhaps an entire societal attitude? Cuz leeching and blood letting were accepted medical practices for hundreds of years, and likely killed more people than the disseases they were supposed to cure. Famously, George Washington died after an intesive combination treatment that involved leeching, bloodletting, and highly toxic levels of mercury treatment. There is some speculation that poor people in the 18th century may have had longer lifespans because they could not afford such "medical treatments." --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

World War I was supposed to be "over by Christmas", they were pretty wrong about that. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

List of incidents famously considered great blunders may be of interest. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Last words of General John Sedgwick at the Battle of Spotsylvania (1864): "They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..." Antandrus (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, Terry Kath, original guitarist for the famed band Chicago, noted to his friends "Don't worry, it's not loaded". He pointed the supposed empty gun at his own head and, well, he was wrong... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Some general, I've forgotten sent his supply train across a big river where the enemy was, so that they enjoyed all his supplies. A military plan devoid of any hint of correctness. Edison (talk) 06:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

November 14

Capital Adequacy Ratio

Am searching for the differences of Bank of International Settlement (BIS) ratio/Capital Adequacy Ratio(CAR)/Risk based capital (RBC) ratio. No clear answer to this question tru Google or en.wiki, anyone here can help me out? Tks. --Loihsin (talk) 08:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)