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.
What is the earliest film of the oldest person? By that I mean, is there any moving images of, say, War of 1812 veterans? Or Mexican War veterans? Or perhaps any of the General staff of the American Civil War? I have seen film of Civil War veterans taken in 1938 (75th anniversay of Gettysburg) but are there any older films of even older people?75.174.112.209 (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight, you're asking if all the people who have ever been filmed were still alive today, who would be the oldest? Dismas|(talk)07:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question is referring to the oldest person caught on film after filming became technically available (obviously no 1812 veterans would be alive today). I think that's it, but I could be wrong. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)07:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Roundhay Garden Scene, filmed on October 14, 1888, the featured actress Sarah Robinson Whitley was 72 years old, meaning she was born around 1816. I would suggest there may not be too many people born before her recorded on film. Rockpocket08:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 1912 film "1812" by Vasili Goncharov was made to commemorate the centennial of the War of 1812 (not the Andrew Jackson version, the War and Peace version). It features two elderly survivors, a man and a woman (picture: http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/2994/003233.jpg) for whom the ages of 118 and 115 are given respectively. Barring some geriatric anatomy study by a Muybridge or a Marey (if that would even count), these might be the oldest people ever filmed. These two were walking the earth in the 18th century! To put it in U.S. terms, they were born during the George Washington administration.
How many months in the year were there originally?
Could someone please settle an arguement for me, someone told me that a long time ago that there used to be 13 months in the year. Was that for the calender system we use today or was it in some other calender system that's no longer used ?
The ancient Roman calendar supposedly originally had ten months because its purpose at that time was keeping track of the yearly agricultural cycle and certain religious rituals, and nothing much much happened on either front around January-February in very early Roman times, so why bother keeping up a calendar? Lunisolar calendars (Jewish, Chinese, etc.) will alternate between twelve-month years and thirteen-month years in order to keep the lunar months synchronized with the solar year. In the Roman calendar before Julius Caesar, months had lost any connection with lunar phases, but there was still a 13th month inserted every few years (between February and March), called "Mercedonius" (during years when Mercedonius was inserted, February was only 23 days long!). Julius Caesar's big reform was to abolish Mercedonius, and replace it by a single leap day (originally considered to be inserted after February 23rd). So, since around 45BC, the Julian and Gregorian calendars have always had twelve months... AnonMoos (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(After edit conflict) The development and variety of different calendars is quite complex. Most calendars seem to have originated with months based on the synodic lunar month of 29.53 days, implemented via a cycle of 29 and 30 day months. Unfortunately, this does not fit at all well into an annual cycle - a year is 12 lunar months plus a bit less than 11 days. Various different solutions to this problem have been adopted:
Create a fixed "short year" cycle of 12 lunar months and do not attempt to synchronise the lunar and annual cycles - this is what the Islamic calendar does.
Abandon the link between months and the lunar cycle, and create an annual cycle of 365 days divided into 12 months of 30 or 31 days each - this is what the Bengali calendar does.
Create a "short year" cycle of 12 lunar months but add a 13th intercalary month every two or three years to roughly synchronise the lunar months with the annual cycle again. Adding 7 extra months in 19 years gives a total of 235 lunar months in a 19 year cycle - this is what the Hebrew calendar does.
To further complicate matters, some calendars have "months" that seem to be unrelated to the lunar cycle. For example, the Bahá'í calendar has an annual cycle of 19 months of 19 days each plus an extra 4 days (5 in leap years) to make a 365 day cycle. And the Aztec calendar had an annual cycle of 18 months with 20 days each plus 5 days running in parallel with a religous calendar of 13 months with 20 days each - these two calendars only synchronised every 52 years. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Pax Calendar reform proposes an annual cycle of 13 months of 28 days each, giving a 364 day year. The extra month, called "Columbus", is inserted between November and December. This creates a perpetual calendar in which a given date falls on the same day of the week every year, and a given day number falls on the same day of the week in every month. To realign the 364 day cycle with the Gregorian calendar, an extra "leap week", outside of the monthly cycle, is added on 71 years in a 400 year cycle. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Hebrew (Jewish) calendar has 13 months ONLY in a Jewish leap year. Otherwise it has 12 months. There are 7 leap years in a cycle of 19 years. In this way 19 Jewish years will be virtually equivalent to 19 solar years. This fact is important since the Festivals in the Jewish year must fall in a particular season and seasons depend on the solar year. For example, Pesach (Passover) must occur in the spring. Simonschaim (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this were the Science page, someone would surely have pointed out before now that the lunar month is getting longer and there was a time when it was 1/13 year or less. —Tamfang (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons for the Spanish Armada
For h/w I had to write a report on why the armada occured. I know about the religious side but my teacher mentioned something about piracy between the English (namely Francis Drake) stealing silver from Spanish ships returning from South America. I can't find much on it- any help 81.137.219.188 (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was also the rather complicated matter of the legitimacy of Elizabeth's rise to power, vis a vis the fact that Philip II had been married to Elizabeth's older half-sister, who herself was Queen of England. Philip, as a former "King consort" of England himself, supported his Catholic cousin Mary, Queen of Scots as the only legitimate successor to his wife; when Elizabeth had her executed it was a "Last Straw" of sorts. Our article on Philip II (linked above) gives an overview of this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs13:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
do women prefer reading porn to watching porn?
so romance novels get quite racy, and it is almost only women who read them. porn movies are probably less one-sided (more women watch them I think than men read romance novels), but even so are stereotypically (and probably more than in the simple majority of cases) watched by men.
so, does this reflect something about men's and women's preferences. I'm specifically asking about women (since I'm a man): do they TEND to prefer reading porn to watching porn, and if so, why?
I believe men do seem to be more sexually excited by visual stimuli, while women are more effected by certain combinations of words. This is why you don't find many women working on the perfect pick-up line or men putting on make-up. StuRat (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the main difference isn't necessarily a simplistic verbal-vs.-visual distinction, but rather that men tend to be more easily excited by isolated depictions or descriptions free from any meaningful overall context (or placed within a perfunctory and stylized pro forma context which makes little attempt at realism), while women tend to be more excited by whole specific meaningful situations located within a particular realistic background context. The same things that some women would find exciting as part of a whole elaborate "scene" or scenario, they might find to be off-putting or disturbing if presented in the form of isolated out-of-context fragments... AnonMoos (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
what...combination of words? So, there are words I could combine, right here, at the Humanities reference desk, and the women wikipidians reading it would get wet just by reading that??? What would some examples be, please, I find this very hard to believe! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
could you give me an example? I am very skeptical that a mere combination of words (as opposed to images, etc) would have the effect you propose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing you're male, as males find it difficult to believe that females can fall in love with a man based solely on a combination of words. Females, incidentally, find it equally inconceivable that a male can fall in love with a woman based solely on her appearance.
It's going to be a slightly different word combo for each woman, but it will usually include assurances that the man will love and be loyal to the woman, and her children, forever, and can't live without her, ...yada, yada, yada. (You might want to omit the "yada, yada, yada" part when trying to get into a woman's pants.) StuRat (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're not answering your question, since no one reading this will be sexually excited when they get to your word steam "assurances that the man will love and be loyal". I'm asking for an example of a stream of words that, right here, WOULD have the effect we're talking about -- not getting INTO a woman's pants, but acting like a pornographic image. I just find it hard to believe that you can give a set of words that have the effect you're proposing. I am asking for a counterexample, if it exists (although it doesn't). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Song of Songs is a good early example of the sort of stuff required. Or some stuff from Romeo and Juliet. I don't suppose too many people can complain about them and block WIkipedia for referring to them! Dmcq (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try reading some Women's erotica, there is plenty available online. It generally involves explicit descriptions of sexual acts with emphasis on the participants' feelings and thoughts. --Tango (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm still having a lot of difficulty believing that -- could you give me an example?
btw I tried clicking through to the Anais Nin article, it has this quote:
“
I do not want to be the leader. I refuse to be the leader. I want to live darkly and richly in my femaleness. I want a man lying over me, always over me. His will, his pleasure, his desire, his life, his work, his sexuality the touchstone, the command, my pivot. I don’t mind working, holding my ground intellectually, artistically; but as a woman, oh, God, as a woman I want to be dominated. I don’t mind being told to stand on my own feet, not to cling, be all that I am capable of doing, but I am going to be pursued, fucked, possessed by the will of a male at his time, his bidding.
”
would that be an example? if not that then what?
Maybe, although I think the context is important. A single paragraph isn't likely to have the emotional depth required. (Of course, being male, I don't pretend to understand the female mind!) --Tango (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
how about women reading this? Does the above paragraph turn you on? If not, is there ANY sequence of mere words (as opposed to an image) that you could reproduce here as an example of what does? I remain skeptical! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can remain sceptical all you like, but Mills and Boon continue to make money and pornographic fanfic continues to be popular. If you really want to know and understand, rather than disrupt, you might want to look up some fanfic using additional search terms such as 'slash', 'hurt/comfort', 'hot', etc. There are different levels of graphic-ness, catering to different audiences. Part of the secret is using the imagination; it's about fantasy. However, if you wander into a community for this sort of thing and start asking questions in the manner you are doing here, no matter how you intend it, you are liable to find yourself banned. Just a heads up. 79.66.92.148 (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking about average women, like the ones who would be reading this, not once who gravitate toward an erotic site. You still haven't been able produce an example paragraph that actually affects average women in the way you propose. Is such an example too much to ask for? You're actually mentioning banning me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mention that if you act in this way on sites where you can find people actually sharing such experiences, you will be banned. I mention this because you need to know that if you are going to investigate this; you are acting in a way that would be considered offensive and aggressive in those places.
I am not talking about erotic sites; I am talking about average women. Mills and Boon sell in huge numbers, fanfic is massively popular and found in places that would never be described as 'erotic sites'. I strongly suggest you read the article on Mills and Boon. At the more literary end, it is common to find women describing crushes on and fantasies about literary characters.
I'm not going to provide you with an example, because that misses the point. Some women have fantasies about Mr Darcy from reading Pride and Prejudice; some of them share these fantasies online, in written text. Some women find these fantasies, in turn, good reading. Other women have and share fantasies about real or imagined characters from all areas. The point is, no example is going to convince you. If you do not wish to believe, you won't believe. Fine. 79.66.92.148 (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you say "i'm not going to provide you with an example, because that misses the point". Then you go on to mention NICHE fantasies. I'm asking: is there something at affects the GENERAL woman. You ask me to go to specific authors or communities but that tells me nothing about the AVERAGE woman. Either there is an example that would turn MOST women here reading it on, or there isn't. I guarantee you that there are examples of images that would give MOST men looking at it, if I were to insert it here and not have it removed, an erection. Is there such a thing for (MOST) women only it's not an image but just a mere group of words?? I find that incredibly hard to believe, and your refusal to give me an example that works for MOST women leaves me incredibly skeptical. Especially, I already reproduced a paragraph above and nobody has said "yeah that is an example in my case", presumably because the women reading this DONT find it a good example. So, that one isn't an example; are there any? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sentences like "He plunged his manhood into her rich generosity" (an actual quote from Mills & Boon) might make some women wet in their own rich generosities. But most? No idea. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear readers: I maintain 'not one of you' is sexually excited by the verbiage "he plunged his manhood into her rich generosity". Please reply if this is not the case. If I get no replies, I must assume I am correct: and also, I must remain skeptical that there are streams of verbiage that would excite most women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally I'm a non-woman who is – speaking broadly (har har) – more reliably aroused by text than by images. Backstory helps. —Tamfang (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one will be able to provide a satisfactory example, 82.120, because you are still thinking with the male mind. You are thinking that the mere sight of a "combination of words" is what is exciting. Alas, no. For instance, simply looking at the words "Then his arms went around her waist and shoulders and she felt the hard muscles of his thighs against her body and the buttons of his coat pressing into her breast" might not be the least bit interesting. But if you have read the 258 pages of Gone With the Wind up until this sentence and you know that Rhett is holding Scarlett while Atlanta burns behind them, and her world is falling apart and she's got a whole group of scared people to take care of, and even though she doesn't like him very much, Rhett is the one solid, dependable thing in her world right now (and really, everybody knows they're supposed to be together)... THEN that sentence, that "combination of words," might set you all aflutter.
Besides which, women are all very different and what turns one woman on might not do the same for another. I know a lot of chicks who get all gooey over The Notebook, but I have never been able to find myself emotionally invested in it. So the words "It's not over. It was never over" or whatever that sappy quote is when they're kissing in the rain might not mean a darn thing to me but that "combination of words" might send another woman's heart racing. I hope I've made this make a little more sense to you. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you, it is much clearer... IF swooning overlaps with getting hot and wet. Because if so, then I didn't know that -- I thought "set their heart racing" or "set you all aflutter" = makes them swoon. But I didn't suspect it is the same as making someone wet (hot and bothered; ie the KIND of feeling that is the same kind as moves someone to masturbate right then then and there). If the answer to these questions is yes then you have addressed my questions.82.120.227.136 (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be assuming that there is a single magical "combination of words" that will produce a sexual response in every, or even almost every, woman. Since you seem to have no problem with the idea that visual stimuli have the same effect on men, do you think that there is a single picture that will generate such a response in all men, regardless of context? No, the claim is that *in general*, when a woman wants to get in the mood, she will prefer to use text to do so, while a man will prefer something more like a photograph. The specifics of which text, or which photograph, will depend not only on the individual but also the situation. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 05:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree. I go more for the voice and a smile is good. And a picture doesn't have movement. The looks are more of a cut off point. And I hope I'm not being too female in saying a good sense of humour is pretty essential too. Which is all a bit difficult as I believe women actually make most of the first advances which is one reason men tend to be a bit undiscriminating. Dmcq (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there are, then the advertising industry hasn't found them. Most of the "sexually-charged advertising" I've seen has women that vary from uninteresting to repulsive. --Carnildo (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a generalisation, a truism of a generalisation that is being made here about the men visual/female verbal sexual stimuli distinction, but nonetheless a generalisation. It's ridiculous to think that men are attracted to women on looks alone. I know I'm not. That implies that I'd be content with a woman who was mute or mentally handicapped as long as she was good looking, which is completely false. Whilst the looks of a woman are important to me, her personality and what we talk about is vitally and critically important. Whilst women don't need to use "pick-up lines" (a somewhat archaic concept anyway) as some men will do, some of the things that girlfriends and partners of mine have said to me have been long-lasting and resonated with me. It is important. Likewise, whilst women certainly do take more from the verbal cues and what their partner can provide, I don't think that the looks of their male partner are of no importance whatsoever to them - reduced in comparison with men's preferences, yes, but not non-existent.--Lawless Railtrack (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, I'm still essentially male-brained. I can get turned on by a woman without having to know anything about her. But sex is obviously and critically distinct from love. The idea of 'no-strings-sex' does seem kinda boring to me though. Seriously, I'd want to get to know a girl at least a bit before having sex with her! Not that I would say no if a girl that I found reasonably attractive on first physical appearance impressions threw herself at me and wanted to have sex almost immediately (which has happened to me in the past at least once, possibly several times depending on how you read the context), but it'd be a very lonely and sad existence having a relationship with a girl without appreciating her personality, and just having her for sex alone. I think that many men, or reasonable men, would agree and empathise with my position here.--Lawless Railtrack (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woody Allen is living proof that patter has an effect (note: on his women, not this one). His epilogues may disprove it just as well, but not going there for now. In the Simpsons, Bart's letters to Mrs Krabappel seem to work, and then there's Life on the Fast Lane for more tips for the pickupline-challenged. (Btw, how is any femme on the refdesk "average"?) Julia Rossi (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To answer that question--I wasn't particularly talking about being sexually turned on. I guess my examples were leaning more toward, as you say, "swooning," but I think the points I made still apply: it's the not the visual sight of the words but rather the meaning, and not everyone will be turned on by the same things.Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All EU member states aren't allowed to extradite to countries where the suspect would face the death penalty so it would depend on the nature of the crime. (Obviously there's extraordinary rendition but that all a bit hush hush..)86.6.101.208 (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Extradition, "No country in the world has an extradition treaty with all other countries; for example, the United States lacks extradition treaties with over fifty nations, including the People's Republic of China, Namibia, and North Korea." --Tango (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
of course none of the above is legal advice of any kind, and is only for entertainment purposes. Please consult with an attorney if your question is serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of countries without the death penalty extradite people to countries that have it, even when the person is charged with a capital offence. As I said, they receive assurances that the death penalty will not be used. If a country used the death penalty in spite of assurances otherwise, the diplomatic fallout would be enormous. --Tango (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which is why European countries require assurances that it won't be used before extraditing anyone. Itsmejudith linked to the relevant act a few comments up. --Tango (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More bank bailouts
Hello Wikipedia,
Today (or was it yesterday) the UK government announced another few hundred billion to bail out the banks and underwrite still more of their toxic debt. RBS has recently lost something like £25 BN(the highest loss in UK corportate history) so why can't it just be allowed to 'do an icesave' whereby the savers are compensated by the government but the bank goes bust? Why do we keep writing blank cheques -aren't we supposed to cut-throat capitalists these days?86.6.101.208 (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because banks going bust is a very bad thing. It's not just savers you need to worry about, there are all the other financial dealings that banks have. Also, it would probably end up costing more - all these bailout plans aren't donations, they're loans and guarantees. The actual cost to governments making them will end up being much smaller than the enormous numbers being quoted in the media, in fact, they may even make a profit (eg. the UK government now owns large portions of various banks, when the recession is over those banks will recover and their shareprices will rise and the government will probably be able to sell them at a profit). --Tango (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There does seem to be a disconnect between the capitalist ideal and recent actions. If businesses are so large they can't ever be allowed to fail, then it can also be argued that they should be government owned, or at least heavily regulated, to prevent the need for such catastrophic bailouts. If not, and if the owners of those businesses know the government will pay for any mistakes they make, they have little incentive left to behave in a cautious manner. Why not just pay the CEO as much as the taxpayers can cover ? (One billion a year ? Ten billion ? A hundred billion ?). StuRat (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many have blamed the current problems on lack of regulations and then is something that is likely to improve in the aftermath. A lot of the bailouts have included restrictions of executive compensation - the money is going towards keeping the banks afloat, not paying the managers (although one could argue that they should lose their jobs entirely, not just their bonuses). --Tango (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"There does seem to be a disconnect between the capitalist ideal and recent actions." Not at all. There is a disconnect between the free market ideal and recent actions, but they are perfectly aligned with capitalism. - Jmabel | Talk02:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking bringing banks under state ownership/control is not aligned with capitalism. I know that the UK government is avoiding getting involved with the management of these banks, but in theory they could do. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So would you say that mercantilism was not a type of capitalism? And that the Bank of England is not a capitalist institution? - Jmabel | Talk06:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regulation increases and decreases much the same as anything. During times of major trouble in an industry/sector we see calls for regulation - then after a while and confidence builds in stability the firms seek de-regulation or self-regulation. Then eventually (it seems) inevitably we end up with a tipping-point, regulation becomes too weak and problems bubble up under the surface, a big event occurs it all comes out and we start again. The struggle for optimum regulation goes on. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately no amount of control can prevent all bad events, and when a bad thing happens the enemies of private autonomy can always accurately say "this wouldn't have happened if we controlled X" (though other bad things, perhaps unknown, would). It's not by regulatory neglect that banking, for example, is dominated by a few huge firms. —Tamfang (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Regulation can only deal with problems we've foreseen. However many problems we foresee, there will still be plenty we don't. You can easily argue that we should have been able to foresee this one, but it's always easy to say that with hindsight (I don't know how we missed it, personally, but clearly we did and that seems to be the way life is). --Tango (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think regulation can deal with some unforseen problems. Let's say there is some fancy new "financial instrument" that banks want to sell. If they first must convince regulators that the current disclosure rules are adequate before they can sell it, and if those regulators are actually intelligent and alert, they shouldn't approve any questionable practices. If, however, there's a prevailing attitude of "banks know best, who are we to question them ?", the results are predictable. StuRat (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unitary state or federation or neither
Which Caribbean nations are unitary state and which are federation and which are neither?
I notice that you guys didn't put Bahrain and Palestine in neither both of your articles "Unitary State" and "Federation"? What type government do they have that is so unique? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.80 (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are one of you guys. It is people like you who edit the articles. You have managed to write something on this page, you can manage anywhere else. If you are interested in those countries you probably already have a very good idea of what they are in this respect. Dmcq (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chomsky's father, William Chomsky was from the Ukraine (then a part of the Russian Empire), so it is likely that his father was also from the Ukraine. I do not know where Chomsky's mother's family came from. DuncanHill (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the history of Eastern Europe, you'll see why vague terms like that are used: the land in question has changed hands frequently and often. --Carnildo (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which chinese provinces/regions have the most christan protestants?
It can be hard to judge, in some ways, because there are official churches and unofficial churches. The official churches will be easy to count, but counting the unofficial ones is difficult because they have to maintain their anonymity. Steewi (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
China allows its people to worship Christianity now. Watchman Nee died long time ago. He doesn't discourage the chinese people from worshipping Jesus today.
I'm not sure of the technically correct answer to this question, but I have some thoughts on it. I suspect Albert's children were entitled, so far as his own family's protocol was concerned, to the titles of princes and princesses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. I've seen (for instance) Eudoxia and Nadezhda, daughters of Ferdinand I of Bulgaria, called princesses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and Ferdinand of Bulgaria, although a Coburg, was only a great-grandson of a ruling Duke, whereas Albert was the son of one. I think your question is complicated by the fact that in the UK a British subject needs a royal licence to use any foreign title, and it seems to me rather unlikely that Victoria would have granted such a licence to any of her children unless there were a need for one. Nowadays, this rule no longer seems to be observed (or, at least, not enforced) but the courts of the Hanoverians were stuffy on such matters. Xn4 (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also speaking of Ferdinand I of Bulgaria, were his daughters, granddaughter, and ect., the current Bulgarian royal family, Princess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha? The same question with the descendants of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha princes, who became reigning monarchs in another land, Leopold I of Belgium and Ferdinand II of Portugal. One other think I think all male line descendants of Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha were Princes/ princessses. The male line descenandts of Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfield became Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha after Duke Ernest I change the name from Saxe-Coburg-Saalfield. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Killer Andrei Chikatilo: Russian, Soviet or Ukranian?
Andrei Chikatilo. Why is on the article "Ukranian native who was arrested as a Russian serial killer" ?????? what's that????. He was born in Soviet Union, when it fell he already was in Russia as a Russian citizen. What do you think? In my opinion he never was Ukranian.--190.49.101.204 (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems entirely reasonable to say that someone born in the Ukraine is Ukrainian, regardless of any political super-entity which may have contained the Ukraine at the time. Similarly, I'd call anyone born in Ireland "Irish", before or after independence from England. StuRat (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He was born in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, he lived there through the great famine and everything. He's a "Ukrainian native" as the article says. If you mean "Ukrainian" as "a citizen of the modern-state state of Ukraine", then yes, he wasn't that. But culturally and by birth he was Ukrainian. When people say someone is "Ukrainian" (or anything else for that matter" they are usually referring to their nationality, not necessarily their citizenship (ambiguous as that is). In the case where the governmental regime changes one rarely decides that somehow invalidates a nationality. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the names of her parents and four older sisters, though our article says Sarah Ellen, whereas the other source says just Ellen. The sixth child, according to Wikipedia, was named Phoebe Ann. The last child had a different father. This mentions a brother, while this refers to a "brother John". Bear in mind that there is a hidden comment in our article that says "Wrong names are especially frequent" in Oakley biographies.Clarityfiend (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly we are forbidden by good sense to do people's homework for them, and you need to check the Annie Oakley article, Clarityfield's answer, sign your posts with four of these: ~, not shout with all capitals (they act like flyspray on our goodwill) and google search too. Best, Julia R. 11:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Saint Praxed
Who was Saint Praxed? I'm studying Robert Browning's poem "The Bishop Orders His Tomb at Saint Praxed's Church", and I've been able to ascertain that the church actually exists, but I can't figure out who it was named for. Neelix (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elatanatari, at their FAQ page[3] there's a link to apply for scholarships. The best thing is to contact them[4] to ask if they are recognised by the system. They'd know. Course accreditation is probably no indication that they are government-accredited as an educational institution. Does this site[5] help at all? Julia Rossi (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they already gave me a scholarship to go to West Africa this past semester. Incredible generosity. This time, I'm hoping to travel to China and I'm completely independent from my parents, and while they are offering me another scholarship, its not quite enough. I guess they aren't since it stands to reason that they would direct me toward those resources like you said. Thanks!--Elatanatari (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for concepts and terms naming those parts of world population whose native language is English; or maybe narrower, who feel themselves as part of an English-based culture. --KnightMove (talk) 10:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Anglophone and/or anglo-saxon are what you are looking for. (Anglophone for any English speaking countries, anglo-saxon for essentially white-majority English speaking countries..).86.6.101.208 (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What President left office the night before inauguration of his successor?
I heard on the radio that one United States president didn't take the traditional ride with the incoming President, and left the night before, but a quick Google searchw ith those terms isn't helping. (Too many articles about the current inauguration for "outgoing President," I guess.) Anyone know who it was? The fellow said it was even mentioned on the History Channel a few nights ago. (Hmmm, I ugess I could look there. :-)Thanks.172.129.144.3 (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how the 1868 impeachment and acquittal of Johnson would impact his ability to attend an inauguration the following year. — Lomn21:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and there was no "ride" with Jefferson to take. No horse-drawn carriage for a republican presidential inauguration, thank you very much—too much like royalty. —KevinMyers16:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The streets of Washington could be knee-deep mud in the early days, but one source I found said Jefferson at his first inauguration "disregarded the precedents of the two Federalist President, who at their inauguration had been accompanied to the capitol in state, and walked with a few friends to the simple ceremony." (Of course the Jefferson inauguration was the first in DC; the earlier inaugurations were, iirc in New York and Philadelphia). "The Road to Monticello" by Hayes says Jefferson was staying at a boarding house at New Jersey Avenue and C street, on the south side of Capitol Hill, so the trip was a short one.(2 blocks or so per MapQuest). Washington and Adams had ridden in carriages to the ceremony at their inaugurations. [6] says Jefferson rode up Pennsylvania Avenue to the capitol for his second inauguration in 1805, and [7] says he rode a horse down Pennsylvania Avenue accompanied by a crowd, with a band playing music on the trip back. "'I Do Solemnly Swear' - Presidential Inaugurations From George Washington to George W. Bush" by Morledge (2008) [8] looks like a nice history of inaugurations, with details beyond the texts of the addresses. Edison (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where was Nixon when Ford was inaugurated? It seems unlikely that Ford would have wanted him there - but since he was about to become a completely innocent man maybe Ford didn't mind. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Presidency of Gerald Ford, Ford took the oath of office in the East Room of the White House -- so it wasn't the usual elaborate ceremony. Watergate scandal is conflicted; the text says Nixon left the White House shortly after his resignation became effective; the photo caption says he left shortly before, going by helicopter to Andrews AFB. In either case, he wasn't a witness. --- OtherDave (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Help with settling an arguement
Can someone help me settle an arguement for me which is whether or not Abraham Lincoln was the first black president. From what I was told it's on mothers side the person that adament about it says it's his grandmother or something. I really don't know if its true or not, so can anyone help ?
While Lincoln may have had distant black-African and Native American ancestors, it is not clear how far back it may have gone. The main evidence is that Nacny Hanks, Lincoln's mother, was born in an area of Virginia known for racial mixing between Blacks, Indians, and Whites. The matter is complicated by the fact that the genalogical record is confused by two different Nancy Hanks from Virginia born at around the time Lincoln's mother should have been born, and it is unclear which is her. The deal is, Nancy Hanks's ancestors are not well known, so it is entirely speculative that Lincoln MAY have had black African ancestry. However, it would be incorrect to say that he was Black, which in America is entirely about ones relationship with the culture. There is no evidence that Lincoln self-identified as anything but White, and there is also no evidence that anyone in the culture related to him as anything but White, so it is not accurate to claim in any way that he may have been Black. Obama, on the other hand, clearly meets the definition of Black as commonly understood, especially as he is likely to be treated by the culture he is in; based on his appearence. --Jayron32.talk.contribs16:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that, if there was any evidence that Lincoln was black, or even if any of his relatives even appeared black, this certainly would have been used against him at the time, as there's no way, at that time, that the majority of Americans would have voted for even a partially black President. So, if he was partially black, that was something nobody at the time seemed to know, which makes this theory unlikely to be true. StuRat (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was one of the political rumors that was used against Lincoln by his opponents in his day. In any case, the question of whether anyone in their time "seemed to know" is rather spurious—people have been "passing" for hundreds of years without people knowing it. When people say Lincoln was "Black" they mean, as Jayron explains, that he might have had distant Black ancestors, not that he had coal-black skin. (As a slightly later analog of the same sort of reasoning, see the one-drop rule.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An example of a claim that Lincoln had African ancestry is found in "The Old Guard," in the column "Omnium," Sept 1, 1863 says (p 239), which noted a pamphlet (the 1860's equivalent of today's blogs in being self published and not generally unreliable) saying Abe was "part negro." The publication I link to, "The Old Guard," in the "Omnium" column says that they have "always known" that V.P. Hannibal Hamlin was part negro based on opposition publications when he was running for office (the 19th century version of today's mudslinging and Swift Boating, and again not even then generally accepted as reliable). Hamlin was claimed to be 1/16 negro. Senator Sumner was claimed to have a great-great-grandmother who was a negro. The writer claimed he could see negro ancestry in Hamlin and Sumner, but not in Lincoln. Other Civil War papes in the South claimed he was part negro [9]. Northern Democrats and their papers were given to speculate that Lincoln had "negro blood." [10] Claims that he had Melungeon ancestry appear to be very recent, dating back only to 1997, per [11] which attributes the claim to Brent Kennedy and Robin Kennedy, "The Melungeons" (1997) pages 28-31. Some want Lincoln to be of Semitic background, specifically Sephardic Melungeons. Edison (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be no more correct to say that Abraham Lincoln was African-American, than it would be to say that Tom Hanks, a descendant of Nancy Hanks's brother, is African-American. AnyPerson (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Problem there is that, as evidence suggests that the earliest humans arose in Africa, *everyone* is of black descent. Thus, saying "of black descent" is synonymous with saying "human". Wikiant (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peaceful?
Rev. Rick Warren delivered the invocation at Obama's inauguration a few minutes ago. He said today's event is the 44th peaceful transfer of power in the U.S.
It does not seem to be correct to me as George Washington's rise to power was, well, not very peaceful.
God, I hate the ridiculous Wiki policy on naming monarchs - it goes completely against common usage. No-one ever calls him "George III of the United Kingdom". Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The airwaves were quite full of self-congratulatory opinions claiming that "only in the United States" are there such "peaceful transfers of power". You had to wonder if the newscasters had any concept of say, France, the UK, Denmark, etc. When was the last coup in Andorra? Switzerland? - Nunh-huh03:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps they intend to ignore monarchies? Still, that leaves France...and dozens of other republics...but have any of them had 44 peaceful transfers in a row, or for 230 years in a row? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
France?!? You have got to be kidding! France has hardly been a stable state over the past 230 years, having in that timeframe changed forms of government quite frequently and rather violently (anyone remember French Revolution, Napoleonic Wars, July Revolution, the 1848 Revolution, Paris Commune, etc. etc.) Heck, even as recently as 1958 (The Algieria Crisis) France had a rather tenuous collapse and reorganization. Actually, given that France pretty much changes its form of government in a rather dramatic way every 30-40 years or so, its quite overdue. The French Fifth Republic is by far the longest acting French government (at only 50 years old) since the Revolution. Of course, the U.S. did fight a war over the election of a President so I guess we lose that one too... Yeah, its a clear case of American Exceptionalism. But its not all that inaccurate when you try to dig through the history of the several-hundred-odd other countries to exist in the past 230 years and compare their history to the U.S., the U.S. certainly comes out in the top half in terms of "relatively peaceful transfers of power". --Jayron32.talk.contribs04:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Charles De Gaulle wasn't overthrown by a violent revolution, any more than Lyndon Johnson was overthrown by the protest movement in the 1960s, Edward Heath by the striking miners, or George W Bush was overthrown by the Iraq War. The Gaullists did well in the June 1968 elections, and De Gaulle resigned a year later over opposition to his plans for reforming the French senate and disputes with Pompidou (see Gaullist Party). That's hardly a modern equivalent of the French Revolution.
It's completely inaccurate. The commentators weren't discussing 230 years of uninterrupted changes in power, but simply the fact that a change in power was happening without gunfire. It's not merely exceptionalism, it's incredibly parochial. They actually apparently thought peaceful transfer of power was a rare thing. And they certainly provided no limitations on their claims ("other than monarchies...", "not counting our Civil War...", "we're in the top 50%....", etc. - Nunh-huh05:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes: the successors of assassinated Presidents didn't have to fight for the job, and there's little evidence that promoting the veep was part of the assassins' motive. (And to pick a nit, only two of those were head shots.) —Tamfang (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of peaceful transitions of power, the inauguration seemed more like a change of monarch or some such then a simple change in government (yes yes I know he's the head of state too). Is there really need for all that nonsense? Do other republics have the same thing or is it related to the fact the Americans were inspired by the British system except for the actual unelected head of state bit? Nil Einne (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I get the impression that heads of state in Latin America have rather more pomp than this. The POTUS doesn't have a special sash or an admiral's hat, for example. Judges are another story. —Tamfang (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oath of office botched by Chief Justice Roberts
Chief Justice botched the administration of the oath of office to Barack Obama. Was this the worst botch in the history of the administration of it, and if the words as uttered by Obama are switched around a bit from what is specified in the Constitution does it still count, or is a do-over (perhaps with less ceremony) required? The official oath says "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Roberts, with several stutter steps and restatements led the oath taking by saying "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear that I will execute the office of President to the United States faithfully, the off-, faithfully the pres-, the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Despite this, Obama managed to recite the correct oath except for saying "execute the office of President of the United States faithfully" rather than "faithfully execute the office of President of the United States." Has any previous taker of the Presidential oath switched the words around a bit? Edison (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure of two things.
It absolutely and completely doesn't matter at all, and no one who matters will care one bit.
The nutjobs will seize upon that little bit and declare that everything Obama does from this day forward is invalid. Of course, they are entirely wrong, but it will just give them something to seize on.
If someone wants to be really picky about it, Obama, a judge (or other qualified official), and some witnesses could just get together sometime tonight and go through it correctly. And being the tech savvy person he is, Obama could put that up on YouTube. Dismas|(talk)22:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone that picky should notice that the constitution does not require the presence of a qualified official or any witnesses. It simply requires that the oath/affirmation be taken. Algebraist22:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A witness would be generally considered necessary to substantiate the reciting of the Constitutionally required words. It does not say "or words to that effect." Edison (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ABC News says [12] Chief Justice Taft flubbed the oath giving to President Hoover in 1929, substituting "maintain" for "protect." The Great Depression ensued later that year (not implying any causality). NY Times [13] says Coolidge did a "do-over" oath by a Supreme Court justice "when questions were raised" about the adequacy of his swearing-in by his father. Edison (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was widely noted that Princess Diana botched her marital oath. She took "Charles Arthur Phillip George" to be her husband, not "Charles Phillip Arthur George". But nobody ever suggested she married the wrong man (well, not for that reason alone, anyway), or that the marriage was invalid. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about radical conservative bloggers here though. I don't mean to say that we corner the market on political quackery though... :-) Dismas|(talk)03:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean neither commited adultery because they weren't married to each other? You might say it only applied to her but I don't think a one sided marriage is legal. Maybe they actually did a do-over and didn't tell anyone? Perhaps Prince Andrew is waiting to his brother dies and then he can challenge for the crown based on the illegitimacy of William and Henry? Nil Einne (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought she said Philip Charles Arthur George. (As long as we're splitting hairs, she never was Princess Diana, and she wasn't Princess anything until shortly after she spoke those words.) —Tamfang (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First does anyone really think Roberts is going to allow any challenge given that it's (mostly) his mistake? Secondly as people have pointed out elsewhere, it definitely isn't the first of known mistake, there are probably more that we don't know about. Were these president's invalid? Third, I read this somewhere else and I'm pretty sure it's right. In most legal situations if someone says the wrong thing but it doesn't change the meaning it is unlikely to be invalid. P.S. No where in the wording does it say 'I (person's name)' so it seems to me that if the oath really, must be word for exact word, most people have taken a an invalid oath. Heck you could intrepret it to mean you have to say "I do solemnly swear (or affirm)" if you wanted to. Nil Einne (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. They made it clear they didn't believe the first oath was invalid, but they were acting under "an abundance of caution". -- JackofOz (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ted Kennedy, who has had chemotherapy and radiation therapy to treat brain cancer, was said by Senator Orrin Hatch to have had an "Irish smile" on his face as he was hauled away after having a seizure at the post-inaugural luncheon. Hatch took the "Irish smile" to mean that "things are going to be all right." Did Hatch coin the phrase because Kennedy was Irish-American and was smiling? Or does it have an understood meaning? Edison (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most web-based comments I've found related to Irish smiles seem to indicate a Duchenne smile - a "genuine" smile resulting from true happiness that involves not only the mouth muscles but the eyes as well. 152.16.59.190 (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
US Cabinet members
When does the term for the outgoing secretaries end, with their president, or upon confirmation of their successor? Grsz1121:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That much I knew, but what about the Bush cabinet, when are they done? I know that the Senate is currently in session reviewing some nominees. Grsz1122:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edited)The Wikipedia article on Condoleezza Rice says she is still Secretary of State. Similarly, the Department of State website at the present time does not show that her term is over and does not list her as a former Secretary of State. The Wikipedia article on United States Secretary of State, in contrast, says she is "the former Secretary of State". Did her job end the minute Obama became President, must she submit a resignation, does Obama have to fire her, or does it end when her successor is confirmed? If she is still Secretary of State, she would still be 4th in succession to replace Obama. The U.S. Treasury Department website says that Henry Paulson, Bush's Treasury Secretary, is still the secretary, making him still fifth in succession to the Presidency. The Senate appears to be in no great hurry to confirm Hillary Clinton as the new Secretary of State or Geithner as Treasury Secretary, although they are expected by most to be confirmed. Secretary of Defense Gates is a holdover from the Bush administration, chosen to continue by Obama, and apparently does not need to be reconfirmed by the Senate, so he should presently be 4th in succession to the Presidency, if the terms of the outgoing Secretaries of State and the Treasury are ended, and the new ones have not been confirmed. Apparently the cabinet secretaries of outgoing administrations in the past have continued in office until the were replaced in some cases. See Talk:United States Secretary of State#Secretaries of State holding on in inaugural transition. Edison (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This certainly is an unprecedented event - having to change so many articles, adding boxes and successions to some and removing them from others. I'm content with letting these things hammer themselves out over the coming days. Grsz1122:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are not all that many cabinet secretaries in the U.S. government. I suggest that when reliable sources like CNN or the New York Times report the predecessors are out and/or the new cabinet secretaries are in, or when the official websites of the departments or the White House report the departures from office of the Bush officials/confirmation and swearing in of the new appointments, then the articles should be revised and harmonized. Edison (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule, they hold office until their successors are confirmed. But also, they normally resign effective noon on January 20, so they don't actually continue--if they didn't resign, they would, but they always resign. So in between, their deputy generally stays on to keep things going until the new person is in place. Tb (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cabinet officers serve "at the pleasure" of the President. Upon taking office the all sign undated resignation letters which the President holds. If they really want to resign, they merely date the letter. If the President was them out, he dates the letter.
Gates is already Secretary of Defence, needs no further confirmation, and will stay as long as both he and Obama want him there.
The newbies take office after the Senate confirms them, at which time their predecessors' letters are accepted. Rice remains at State until Clinton replaces her, probably in about a week.
Thanks for the answers to a puzzling question. Presumably the outgoing President leaves the undated resignation letters, an exception to the usual practice of taking all official papers with them. Edison (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Church and State
As one of the "non believers" President Obama kindly acknowledged in his inaugural speech today (albeit as a bit of an afterthought), I was rather surprised at the amount of - for want of a better phrase - needless God-invoking there was at today's inauguration.
The USA has a separation of church and state, why therefore was there a Christian invocation including the Lord's Prayer as part of the official ceremony? Is this just another example of civil religion? Is the elements of the ceremony included at the discretion of the incoming President, so if he were not a Christian, would there be a different (or no) invocation? Historical examples or published opinions from Constitutional scholars would be welcome, thanks. Rockpocket23:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The state does not recognize nor enforce any religion. However, the people holding offices are real people with real religious views, and are free to hold and profess any views they wish. Indeed, if Obama were prevented from expressing his religious views by the apparatus of the government, the government would be in violation of the "free exercise" clause. Remember, the constitution forbids Congress from enacting laws (and by extension, the executive from enacting regulations) which either establish a state religion OR prevent individuals from participating in their own religion. This refers to the government, and not to any individuals who hold jobs in the government. In America there is always a conceptual distinction between the Office of the President and the man who holds that office. --Jayron32.talk.contribs23:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The incoming president controls just about everything about the ceremony, and (at least within recent memory) personally chooses the person he wants to deliver the invocation - Obama's choice was controversial (and, in the result, rather disappointing). It's the president's choice about most of the religious elements of the inauguration: which (if any) book of scripture is used, whether or not to include the non-Constitutional "so help me God" at the end of the oath, etc. For some
history you may be interested in [a blacklisted site] (which in turn uses Wikipedia as a source) and [15]. Political reality pretty much dictates that there will be an invocation - no president has been bold enough to scrap it. - Nunh-huh00:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I study American constitutional law and have practiced in the area. My belief was that we need separation of church and state in the United States. When I recently researched faith-based organizations receiving government funds, I was surprised to learn that the First Amendment does not say separation of church and state. The Constitution forbids an estabished religion.
"Establishment" was not defined. Several states had existing established religions. During the Warren years, the Court focused on Jefferson's statement to Baptists in Danbury that he preferred separation of church and state. Madison and Jefferson are often quoted. They were not the only framers. It is clear religious content for religious purposes was banned not to leave religion separate from the state but because everyone wanted their own particular denomination to flourish. Strangely, there was little discussion or debate concerning the wording.
The present Court has almost demolished the understanding of the Warren Court. Religion is accomodated as much as possible. Thus, the Court has upheld the Congressional chaplin's prayers and many displays of the Ten Commandments. The majority argues that much usage is traditional and historical. The area is very heated. The Court has acknowledged its failure to set proper standards that can be identified. The dissenters disagree. It is difficult to discern reasoned application in lower court decisions. The political party of the judge is a good identifier of how the court will rule. Once President Obama has a chance to appoint some justices, the present trend may be reversed.75Janice (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)75Janice[reply]
Thank you. I would note, in response to Jayron32, that there is a difference between preventing one expressing one's religious views, and not formally including religious elements in a legal ceremony related to one's (federal) job. There is no constitutional issue with Obama mentioning his God in his inaugural speech. Restricting him from doing so would obviously be in violation of the "free exercise" clause. My question was not about that right, but about references to a God in legal procedures. I note, for example, that some oaths of office (though not the Presidential one) legally require the person taking it to finish with "...I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."[16] I struggle to see how that is reconciled with "the state does not recognize nor enforce any religion". Rockpocket00:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that source is either incorrect or whoever drafted the phrase is an idiot. It appears to permit one to affirm rather than take an oath (presumably to permit one to avoid the religious implication), but then requires that the person making the affirmation appeal to God anyway. Rockpocket00:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a .gov source for the theistic wording of the judge's oath. Rather than embracing Rockpocket's use of the word "idiot", I'll merely opine that it was composed in a time when the issue was less charged. I'm reminded of an anecdote of my ex-wife when she worked for a Jewish charity. One day a CETA worker, a Hispanic girl, was assigned to buy and send birthday cards for some donors, who in due course asked why they had received cards with shiny gold crosses. To the girl, apparently, that's simply what birthday cards look like. —Tamfang (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So it would appear it is correct after all. I'm rather amazed, in todays litigious climate, that oath has not been changed as unconstitutional. I've been thinking about this further after watching the inauguration again. I think Michael Newdow does have a point. At the end of the oath Chief Justice Roberts - apparently in his constitutional role - clearly says "So help you God?" to which Obama repeats, "So help me God." [17] If Obama had chosen to finish off with that unprompted, then good luck to him - thats his business. But the fact that the Justice prompted him as part of an oath of office (official or otherwise) does indeed seem questionable with regards to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Though a district court disagreed, of course, on the basis of Marsh v. Chambers. [18][19]
Our country was founded by our founding fathers, who were christian, and upheld strong christian beliefs, and for that, may we all be thankful! "may god help obama and give him wisdom guiding our country!!!:) ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 03:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they were. George Christina Washington, John Christina Adams. You don't think those were men wearing wigs and high heeled shoes, do you? AnyPerson (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Eagles
According to our own List of best-selling albums worldwide article, Their Greatest Hits (1971–1975) by The Eagles is the third-best selling album of all time. Quite frankly, I don't understand how this came to pass. I'm not asking for opinions on the quality (or lack thereof) of The Eagles music, but perhaps someone could shed some light onto quite how this happened. Enduring popularity leading to steady sales over a number of years? A spectacular advertising campaign? Led Zeppelin hadn't released a good album in a while? Hammer Raccoon (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to remember that at one point this album was close to being the one to remain on the Billboard top 500 the longest. The deal with greatest hits albums like these is that they tend to have staying power, and so sustain sales for a long time. Original material albums tend to have swift sales when they are new, and then the sales drop off rapidly once the new album comes out. Greatest hits albums tend to maintain steady sales for many years. The Eagles album was certainly on the charts when I was in college (mid 1990's) despite being over 20 years old at that point. --Jayron32.talk.contribs00:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The appeal for Greatest Hits albums is that people buy because it has all (or most) of the songs that they already know and love. There is no need to buy all the various albums that they came from individually. Have I owned a copy, yes. Do I have any interest in other material by The Eagles, not really. And if you're interested in album chart records, check out Dark Side of the Moon. Dismas|(talk)03:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but lots of artists release Greatest Hits albums. Why is this one so successful and not the others? This is purely speculation on my part (and I was too young to remember it myself) but one possible explanation is that the Eagles were a singles band. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another point to realize is that The Eagles songs are a great example of Crossover (music). Their sound has found many fans of rock, pop and country styles. They have received airplay on many different themed radio stations throughout the years, resulting in more exposure and record sales. Several of the bands members: Don Henley,Glenn Frey and Joe Walsh have also had quite successful solo careers, resulting again in more potential attention to the group's previous works. cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of things I've just thought of myself. Some bands seem to have tons of compilation albums, whereas others (I'm thinking "Bob Marley and the Wailers'" Legend here) seem to have one pretty definitive release. Also perhaps this is just a perfect mix of "not bothered enough about their music to buy an album" and "like their music enough to get the greatest hits". These reasons might explain why there aren't any other bands with higher selling compilations (and if anything I'd have thought the Beatles would be ahead of the Eagles in the sales stakes). Thanks for the great answers so far everyone. (And cheers Dismas for pointing me to Dark Side of the Moon. I mean, I knew it was popular, but wow.) Hammer Raccoon (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
January 21
Equality before the law
Where did the earliest concept of equality before the law originate? Where was it first implemented? (By this I mean only in places with actual set laws, of course-not including in places like tribes) Thanks! 99.226.138.202 (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to start at legal history, History of democracy and maybe take a look at rule of law. The definition you use for of "legal egalitarianism" matters too. Classic Greece and Rome had concepts of citizenship which excluded women, slaves, and certain conquered peoples but ensured a certain rights for said citizen. Around the same rough time frame legalist philosophy developed in China. I'm not sure when or how it was put into practice but Islamic law had a premise for a least some laws being applicable to everyone. John Locke's political theory in 1689 argued for every man deserving equal application of justice. The article for equality before the law says that legal egalitarianism as a political development arose in the 18th century Enlightenment in both the United States and France after their revolutionary periods. I hope this helps. 152.16.15.23 (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What this guy said. Ancient Greece was the birthplace of Western civilisation, furthered by Ancient Rome. Such concepts must have been first formulated during this period. Then later in the medieval age and afterwards, other thinkers from Britain, France, Germany, Italy etc. furthered the concepts developed during this period and modernised them, a process that has continued to this day.--Lawless Railtrack (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another take on it would be Early Irish law where the kings didn't have the power to enact laws. It is interesting that women had rights taken away with the coming of Christianity because of its saying women were subject to their husbands. Dmcq (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean "equality of some" or "equality of all" ?
If the first case is what you meant, I would think that would apply anywhere that laws existed. That is, whatever group of people those laws applied to, they applied to them all equally. The Code of Hammurabi is perhaps the earliest written law we know of. While there were certainly different laws for slaves and peasants, this was true for most of history.
If the second case is what you meant, we don't seem to believe that today. Children and aboriginal people may have different rights, non-citizens, homosexuals, and convicted felons may be denied certain rights, etc. StuRat (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you guys very much! You were very helpful! I was just wondering whether anyone would bring up Chinese Legalist philosophy. And also looking to see whether it was the first case of Equality before the law. Question now answered. =] 99.226.138.202 (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merriam-Webster says 1851, Dictionary(dot)com says 1860-1865, and the Online Etymology Dictionary says it was first recorded in 1865 in a reference to Austria. Hope this helps. 152.16.15.23 (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you look closer, you'll find that that use of the term is in Leon Trotsky's The Bolsheviki and World Peace (1918). I have no idea why that book and the 1832 volume are included in the same Google Books file. Deor (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Yes. The dating of that book is clearly incorrect; the section refers in detail to the Franco-Prussian War and the previous page includes a sentence starting "As Marx had already foreseen in 1870..." This is why Google Books should be regarded with very great suspicion as a research tool: many of the dates are entirely wrong and texts must be carefully studied and referenced against catalogues (e.g. linguist Mark Liberman attempting a similar analysis: "Google Books' dates (and other metadata) are very unreliable"[20]) --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. I wasn't relying on the metadata, but on the title page - and failed to notice that was from a different book! Still, this looks a good bet from 1847. Warofdreamstalk14:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've seen the Metadata wrong too...For Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906–1921 and The American Battleship, it added an extra author...which I then used to cite articles here on Wikipedia. -_- —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs)14:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for confirming my suspicion! That the quasi-police state in the Chinese Qin Dynasty was before the term police state even came in to usage. =] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.138.202 (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
Aretha Franklin's song
Why was Aretha Franklin singing the melody of the British national anthem "God Save the Queen" at Obama's inauguration ceremony? - Is there some hidden message there? --AlexSuricata (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what's wrong with that? At the time many of these songs popped up, most of the writers were former Brits. It's easier to transfer patriotism than to completely remake it. Wrad (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tamfang. I've never liked the Star-Spangled Banner for exactly that reason. Sorry to get all nationalistic on everyone but the national anthem should be an American song. Just my 2 cents. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is an American song. The words are certainly American. The tune is not, but the person who chose to put American words to an English tune was an American. Maybe the USA should stop appropriating the English language and make up one of their own (ok, I know, they already did that; just making my point). -- JackofOz (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, when Francis Scott Key wrote it, was he actively thinking of it, anyway? Even if he was, it was done in the same tone as when Americans took Yankee Doodle during the Revolutionary War, and turned it from a song mocking them to a song championing their cause. Sort of thumbing their noses at the British. Americans will always use their own words; the worst you can accuse them of is being good at parody of British songs.
Funny how folks don't wax nearly so wroth about the national anthem of Liechtenstein. Maybe they don't feel nearly so inferior about the principality. --- OtherDave (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard that Uzbekistan is still problematic with regard to human rights etcetera. Apparently, it's the most populous country in Central Asia of the five former CIS states in the region, even more population than Kazakhstan despite being considerably smaller, which surprised me when I first heard it. Also, it would probably depend on where you're immigrating from. I hear that Central Asia (i.e. these five states in particular) are growth regions with regard to oil etc. Look on Wikitravel for info - it can be useful.--Lawless Railtrack (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If an Indian family from India, wanted to immigrate to Uzbekistan, would it be difficult or easy for them? Is there an immigration policy in Uzbekistan? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Obamas were more enthusiastic, splitting up to dance with Marine Sgt. Elidio Guillen of Madera, Calif. — who was shorter than dance partner Michelle — and Army Sgt. Margaret H. Herrera, who cried in the president's arms.
My questions about this are, is this some sort of tradition that I'm unaware of? And who are these two people? What makes them special enough to dance with the first couple? Dismas|(talk)05:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Ann Curry's interview with Army Sgt. Margaret H. Herrera this evening (oozing empathy from every pore, as usual), the Obamas requested this especially and it is not traditional. Herrera said she was nominated by her commanding officer, perhaps because of her politeness and good manners, ably demonstrated in her politically correct answers to all of Ms Curry's questions. Rockpocket07:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mobius loops in operas?
Hi - this is a strange question - I'm working on a story set on Saturn's rings, and part of the conceit is that they're solid (it's steampunk, set in a time when people might have still thought them solid), their shapes determined by the strange forms that spacetime took in the very early universe. Our heroine, an opera singer, is riding a ringwhale over the surface, and for reasons we don't need to go into, has to travel over a prominence in the landscape that is like a mobius strip. It'd be nice if she was able to make sense of this by relating it to some similar looping-back movement in an opera, especially something from Wagner (the story's called Ringcycle). I know nothing about music, and less than that about opera, so forgive me the ridiculous hand-waving I'm doing, but if anyone can at least make suggestions of something that might approximate what I'm talking about, I'd be very appreciative.
What the question made me think of is a counter-fugue or something of that sort. (I don't really know about these things, I've only read what Hofstadter says about them in Gödel, Escher, Bach.) --Anonymous, 02:43 UTC, January 21, 2009.
There are oddly circular, mirrored, etc pieces in Bach's The Musical Offering. The one called "Canon perpetuus" repeats infinitely, each time one step higher in pitch. It was written as a puzzle, with no ending given. Actual performances have to invent some way to make it end. Operas don't usually have odd music of this type--they are more about the singing and the story. Pfly (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Nicolas Slonimsky composed something called Moebius Strip-Tease, "a perpetual vocal canon notated on a Moebius band to be revolved around the singer's head; it had its first and last performance at the Arriére-Garde Coffee Concert at UCLA on May 5 1965, with the composer officiating at the piano non-obbligato." [21] ---Sluzzelintalk15:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still no opera, but you might be interested in Robert Wechsler and his Palindrome Intermedia Performance Group. I saw them about 15 years ago, and they attempted to translate several conundrums and form-play from mathematics and biochemistry into dance. One of their pieces was titled Möbius Band (Möbius strip). Both music (live performance) and choreography emulated the Möbius structure, if I remember correctly. I found it a bit contrived, personally, but it was certainly interesting. ---Sluzzelintalk16:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see you, Sluzzelin. I love the idea of the Slonimsky one - synchronistically, the day I decided to pose this query to you guys, I stumbled on this: [22]Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't heard of Philip Reeve, will look him up. I must admit, this is a story I co-wrote about 3 years ago, but it's being republished, and I wanted to fix some stuff I didn't like. Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Usually attempts to "emulate" or create an analogy to a Möbius strip fail because they in fact emulate a simple loop. No idea if that one passes or fails the test, but something to look for. - Nunh-huh23:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Portions of Alban Berg's Lulu play in retrograde. It happens both on a large and a small scale, if I remember correctly: the entire opera is a giant palindrome, and it contains circular structures on the microscopic scale as well. In a staggering Möbius-like moment near the end of this opera based on odd cycles and returns, the actors playing the lovers Lulu has done to death early in the opera return -- only now that she is a prostitute they are her customers. Oh, then she is murdered in a harrowing scene by Jack the Ripper along with her lesbian lover. It's great stuff, music you are unlikely ever to hear in an elevator. Antandrus (talk)03:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just don't expect to find yourself whistling any of the "tunes". I may be expressing a teensy personal bias here (shock, horror!), but I think there's a very, very good reason why you'd never hear the music from Lulu in an elevator: very few people who've heard it (myself included) actually like it. Sorry if that offends Lulu-lovers, but it's a fact. (I seem to have temporarily misplaced the actual statistics that would support my claim.) You, on the other hand, may think it's the best thing since sliced bread. I hope you do. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wagner's Das Rheingold opens with an endless loop of non-modulating orchestral arpeggios (in F?), the endless, seamless, timeless shimmer of the Rhine's water and the gold hidden in its sands. Nothing would have ever happened if Alberich hadn't come along... --Wetman (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does Frank Zappa do the majority of singing on his albums?
I have heard a whole bunch of Frank Zappa's stuff and I'm not ever sure who's doing the vocals. Can someone explain? I understand that on the Hot Rats album there is a song where Captain Beefheart does vocals and they later worked together on the Bongo Fury album but did Zappa do the majority of the vocals himself? Because I'm listening to the Apostrophe (') album just now and I honestly cannot tell who's doing what.--Lawless Railtrack (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Zappa sings the lead vocals on most of his songs. Some songs have a lot of backup vocals, and sometimes someone else takes the lead during particular parts of songs. On some songs someone other than Zappa sings the lead vocals, such as "Why Does It Hurt When I Pee?" on Joe's Garage, sung by Ike Willis I believe. I think Zappa sings lead vocals on all the songs on Apostrophe ('), although with quite a lot of backing vocals and harmonizations. Pfly (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are other examples where FZ doesn't sing the lead on all the songs. For example, on Sheik Yerbouti, Adrian Belew sings lead on "City of Tiny Lites" and a couple others, and Terry Bozzio sings the lead on "Broken Hearts Are for Assholes". On Joe's Garage, Ike Willis sings the parts by the eponymous "Joe". In the 1980s, Ike Willis, Ray White, and Bobby Martin sing a lot of the lead vocals, but FZ is still singing as well. I'm not really an expert in his earlier work, though. --Elkman(Elkspeak)19:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it depends on the jurisdiction. But it's an interesting question. Personally, I would say that if Wikipedia vandalism can be construed to be a computer crime, it would fall towards the very lowest end of the scale of what is considered important in law enforcement. More likely it would constitute at the most a violation of the ISP's terms and conditions. But the way that a lot of laws are written (i.e. Computer Misuse Act 1990) a critical part of them is that the access must be unauthorised. Wikipedia provides the means for vandalism to take place - it is against Wikipedia's policies, but it is not unauthorised access in the same way that password cracking and hacking would be. To someone who knows more than the layman about computers, the distinction between Wikipedia vandalism and true hacking would be very clear. Also, this is not asking for legal advice just wanting some opinions.
Also, even if Wikipedia vandalism is de facto legal, there could be other ways in which it could be illegal (i.e. if it involved harrassment, stalking, etcetera).--Lawless Railtrack (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia vandalism" is NOT a crime and NOT an illegal activity of any kind because members of the public are invited to make the Wikipedia Article better. Since "better" is in the eye of the beholder, any changes is better than the previous version of the article in the mind of the "vandal". Signed - The Vandal. 122.107.203.230 (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to disagree with that. The truth is we have no real way to deal with persistent vandals or trolls at the moment which doesn't involve a lot of wasted time. We can and do try to get their ISP involved but that's not always effective. Nil Einne (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's clear policies on what constitutes vandalism and people are directed to the guidelines for editing. Whether it is a crime, a misdemeanour or a civil offence I don't know. Nothing is going to happen to anybody in the real world, but you're free to virtually punish them. How about setting up a virtual hell prison in second life complete with devils to poke avatars with sashes carrying the ip numbers of vandals on them? Or they could sit around recanting their sins to one another and be shown good edits? Dmcq (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it depends on the level of vandalism. Just as a kid writing hop-scotch squares on a public sidewalk with chalk isn't going to be charged with vandalism, someone writing "chicken butt" in a Wikipedia article won't rise to the legal threshold for a crime. But, if the same kid smashes a window or breaks into the Wikipedia servers and deletes all the files, then it does become a crime. StuRat (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"One mother said that she was also advised that one child was not dressed warmly enough." And I thought law enforcers in the U.S. overexerted their powers for small offenses. The Brits appear to be more uptight about it. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chalk one up for police over-reaction. Did they draw a square on the pavement and make the children stand inside as punishment ? :-) StuRat (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's unclear precisely what happened, the officers claim they simply spoken to the children after a report and that it wasn't a crime, the newspaper claims they warned the children/parents. Newspapers like to make a big fuss over nothing so it's easily possible that the police story is far closer to the truth. When the police receive a report of vandalism in progress it is surely intrinsic on them to act on them if they have the resources, graffiti is I believe a big problem in the UK as it is in NZ. They obviously can't magically know what's really going on. Nil Einne (talk) 09:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the police also tend to minimize the disruption they caused, when they talk to the press. If both the press and police have an interest in lying, how do we know which ones to believe ? StuRat (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Not sure why we're all whispering in this subthread...) I agree with Nil Einne that these "political correctness gone mad" stories often turn out to have little substance to them when the facts are known (and usually aren't anything to do with Political correctness anyway); it's just that StuRat's mention of hopscotch triggered a memory of the story in my mind and I thought it would raise a fleeting smile. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. (But then, nobody does.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My gut feeling is persistent vandalism particularly by people who have already been blocked would be a crime in numerous jurisdictions. However I don't see it being prosecuted any time soon. Even though wikipedia is open access, it's questionable whether someone who has been repeatedly blocked could be construed as having authority to access IMHO. The fact that there is no login doesn't necessarily change that. Indeed the login bit is mostly irrelevant IMHO. What's more important is that there is defacto authority by policy for anyone to edit (but that authority is revokable). To use an example, if someone doesn't secure their network, it remains unclear whether access would be construed as authorised. I personally suspect that it won't be particularly if it's unresonable to expect that you do have authority (for example accessing a directory named private). Of course I doubt you'd actually be prosecuted unless you do it repeatedly. This is the case in real life too. If you enter a shop during opening hours, no one is going to say you are trespassing (unless you've been banned). But if you enter a person's home or even an office without reason, even if there aren't signs saying private property or no trespass and the doors are unlocked, I wish you luck trying to convince a judge you weren't trespassing. More so if it was quite late at the time. Nil Einne (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But this has nothing to do with whether it's revertable. In fact, I didn't compare it to real life vandalism in any way. And persistent vandalism can take more time and money to deal with then simply writing your name on the fence anyway Nil Einne (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A tribe called the "Sunderlanders" that was like 8000 years old?
I dunno, maybe he was talking about the Sumerians, but he said that they had agriculture and used plastics and everything, this guy I was talking to... he also said that Atlantis was a civilisation that actually existed... was this guy just talking nonsense? I said that people thought that Crete was Atlantis but he said that this was just brainwashing used by the history books. Was this guy just talking utter nonsense?--Lawless Railtrack (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm...probably, IMO. The earliest thing that could be called "civilization" was a village that was built somewhere in Turkey (I forgot the name of the village). Then came Mesopotamia's time with the Akkadians and the Sumerians; this was followed by Egypt, the Minoans, Assyria and Greece, I think (something like that). —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs)14:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That village goes back some 9500 years, so the 8000 year figure isn't unreasonable. If we go closer to where Sumerians lived, ancient Samarra goes back some 7500 years, which your friend could easily have rounded to 8000. There are also many who believe that the myth of Atlantis is based on some small grain of truth, similar to how the Iliad does seem to be based on a real war (the Trojan War). There were some small Greek islands destroyed by volcanoes that could be candidates, for example. The Biblical Philistines may have come from there. StuRat (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Synthetic plastics only go back about 150 years. If you include rubber, that's further but that was only present in the Americas until Columbus Nil Einne (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds to me like a garbled version of the Black Sea deluge theory (which is a somewhat respectable scientific hypothesis, though still rather speculative, and by no means proven), together with a pseudo-Tolkienesque phrase "the Sundered Lands" (which sounds like it might refer to the Atlantis-esque aspects of Tolkien's cosmology -- Numenor, Aman, etc. -- but actually comes from D&D, as far as I can tell from Google). 8,000 years ago, agriculture was pretty much confined to the Fertile Crescent, the Nile Valley, Anatolia, and maybe the Aegean. AnonMoos (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're worried about the swearing in, then you can relax. The bible is strictly optional, and "So help me god" is not part of the official oath. It's just something that presidents decide to add on.
The court system has procedures for swearing in witnesses and such that aren't christian. Presumably they'd probably go with that. APL (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are two different questions here, whether it's legal (which it is) and whether they would be a politically viable candidate. Unfortunately, I'd have to say no to the second part (with the possible exception of Jews). I'm not aware of any athiest or Muslim (or believer in a non-Abrahamic religion) ever being the candidate for either major party, much less winning. A Jewish President might be possible, though, as we almost had a Jewish VP 8 years ago (Joe Lieberman). A Buddhist might do well with California voters, but I'm not sure if they could carry any other states. Of course, I'm assuming they are honest about their religion, but, these being politicians, perhaps that's a bad assumption. A candidate could always "find Jesus" a few years before the election and listen to "Praise Je-ah-sus" for the prerequisite number of times at the local church, and thus fool everyone into voting for them. Also note that religious attitudes of American voters tend to become more liberal as time passes. At one point, a Catholic President seemed impossible, but, since JFK, that's no longer the case. StuRat (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are a couple of Buddhists in Congress and neither of them is from California. Polls seem to show that being Jewish is probably not a big disadvantage when running for office but atheism would be a heavy cross to carry.[23] It's not all about worshiping Christ - a hypothetical Mormon does a lot worse than a hypothetical Jew. Haukur (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I rather suspect that there have been several agnostic presidents, and probably one or two atheist presidents, but that they had the political nous to pretend otherwise. DuncanHill (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is when one argues against a position not by advancing an argument, but by attacking the proponent of the position. Since StuRat is not arguing for or against anything, his comment is simply an insult. Algebraist16:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't anyone here take a joke? That was a common joke on many blogs. You people need to lighten up. Besides, wouldn't a liberal not post something insulting Obama? BufferedInputOutput17:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. I don't take the statement by Algebraist to be negative, either, just a clarification on the meaning of ad hominem. Incidentally, I don't consider myself liberal, at least not fiscally, as I believe in fiscal responsibility, not in a rapidly ballooning national debt. StuRat (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I remember when Bill Maher was on the Daily Show before the election. Jon Stewart was talking about political figures and religion, and Maher replied: "First of all, I don’t know if Barack Obama is a very religous person. Of course, he has to say he is, because he’s running for president in United Stupid of America. So he’s got to say this. But I hope he’s lying." Regardless of whether he's right about Obama's religious convictions -- or lack thereof -- I think he's right; I don't think anyone should draw too many conclusions from what an American high-level politician says in public, particularly in a purely ceremonial context: to get to those position, you're either you're (or pretend to be) a Christian, or you can pretty much kiss those chances of getting elected goodbye. Political statements and reasons given in support or opposition of specific policies are probably going to be a lot more telling than generic rhetoric. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just on JFK, I've always wondered why it was widely considered virtually impossible for a Catholic to become president, given that Catholics make up the largest single bloc of Christian voters. True, the non-Catholic Christians are happy to be lumped together as Protestants in some contexts, and together they trump Catholicism. But they still maintain their separate identities and theologies, generally speaking, and the presidential election isn't even about religion anyway - or shouldn't be - because there's a constitutional separation of church and state. Anyone? -- JackofOz (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case and for the record: a type of fabric would be constitutionally ineligible for the U.S. Presidency, no matter what it was mixed with [24]. Also note, the "so help me god" heard at the end of the most recent oath of office was added on to the end (by Roberts? Obama?) and is not constitutionally required. - Azi Like a Fox (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, Catholic make up about 25% of the electorate, and are by far the single largest religious denomination, though they're not robots. The theoretically monolithic structure of parish/diocese/Vatican troubled some (and might have made some Protestant figures envious). The 1960 election was very close, but like that of Obama dispelled the myth that the voters would never do what they did. But prior to that, there was a tendency (and I emphasize tendency) for Catholics, especially earlier in the 20th century, to have separate and parallel structures. In the 50s and 60s, roughly one-third of Detroit (Michigan) school children went to Catholic school; similar figures were true for many cities: New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles -- places where large numbers of Catholic immigrants had landed or settled earlier. That's gone, along with the tens of thousands of nuns who largely made that possible. --- OtherDave (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Actually, I'd forgotten about the Australian experience of Cardinal Mannix, who was a force to be reckoned with for over 50 years, and who virtually told Catholics how to vote (or strongly suggested that if they didn't vote for the DLP, a nasty surprise would await them later. At least, that's how his words were interpreted by many.) (PS. Not that that had anything to do with whether a Catholic would have difficulties becoming Prime Minister, which happened as far back as James Scullin in 1929.)-- JackofOz (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure I've read about a openly atheist congressman in the US congress... I think the house. And the oath reads "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." This "so help me god" I presume is the same deal as with "under god" in the pledge of allegiance and on the money. Added later — CHANDLER#10 — 14:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I presume if you were denied public office for failure to say "so help" you could challenge it under the "no religious test" clause of the Constitution and very likely win. You'd make a big stink and lose a lot of friends in the process, though, and neither elected nor appointed officials really want to do that, so they mumble through it. The invocations and such in public life are often regarded as meaningless ceremony for the sake of tradition without any religious implications anyway. SDY (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any doubt that the so help bit is not part of the oath. Indeed someone challenged because he/she argued that the moderator (or whatever you call him/her) is supposed to say the oath exactly. It failed but some people have argued that Roberts may have been influenced to say "so help you god?" as a question, to make it clear it was not compulsary. Of course if someone really doesn't want to say that bit, they're liable to arrange it first so the question isn't even asked. Nil Einne (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would look pretty fun though... Just answer "No" if it indeed is more of a question. Oh what sweet outrage there would be, if s/he had campaigned, at least not openly irreligious... The atheist parts of these internets would go crazy (as they did when it was found out that Obama didn't use a bible on the second swearing in) — CHANDLER#10 — 04:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo. I remember watching a program on the History Channel a few years ago that claimed that Ivan IV isn't called "the Terrible" for his atrocities, rather his victories in battle (at one point I believe the "Russian" border advanced several miles per day, eventually culminating with the defeat of the Tartars at Kazan). However, I can't find any sources to back this up, only my memory... anyone know anything about this? · AndonicOEngage.20:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where can I find a list of "wrongly rejected absentee ballots" in the Minnesota US Senate election by precinct and also a list of the ballots the two sides agreed to open and count? Thanks 63.231.164.232 (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discrimination and abuse of Native Hawiians
I have read through the various wiki articles on Hawaii but can not seem to find anything specifically about how Native Hawiians were treated by European and Continential Americans. More specifically, did the Native Hawiian peoples experience the same levels of discrimination and (systemic) abuse as did their North American and Austrialian counterparts? What influenced how Natives were treated? My "Wikipedia Widow" wife will confirm that this is not a homework question! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.77.185.91 (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you look at our articles on Native Hawaiians and on History of Hawaii you find that the Native Hawaiians suffered from the same sorts of lack of immunity to Western disseases that killed much of the Native American populations. However, Hawaii was an independant for much of its history, it was never really a "colony" of the U.S. or any other western nation, which probably greatly influenced how its people were treated. I am certain that there was probably bigotry and prejudice present in the non-Native population of the islands. It wasn't all peace and freedom, however. In 1887, a group of (mostly white) cabinent ministers forced the Hawaiian King to sign into law a new Constitution which was friendly to their interests. From then until the 1898 annexxation by the U.S., the white business interests essentially ruled Hawaii and the King was reduced to mere firgurehead status. Hawaiians were not exactly treated as equals to the whites, but in comparison to how other natives were treated around the world by white peoples, they came out somewhat better. So the Hawaiians were treated like shit, but less shitty than other native peoples... --Jayron32.talk.contribs01:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it is possible to compare the historical experiences of any set of peoples with any precision. Certainly the experience of Native Hawaiians (decimation by disease, dispossession of land, conquest, political and economic discrimination, the large-scale destruction of indigenous culture) was similar in many ways to that of other colonized peoples. It isn't clear to me that it differed much from that of many indigenous North Americans or Australians, though the Hawaiians did not face the same kind of genocidal war of conquest that virtually wiped out some North American and Australian peoples. Marco polo (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which governorate of Lebanon do the Druze people predominantly live?
Which governorate of Lebanon do the Alawite people predominantly live?
Which governorate of Lebanon do the Maronite people predominantly live?
Which governorate of Lebanon do the Sunni Muslims predominantly live?
Which governorate of Lebanon do the Shi'ite Muslims predominantly live?
Which governorate of Syria do the Druze people predominantly live?
Which governorate of Syria do the Alawite people predominantly live?
Which governorate of Syria do the Maronite people predominantly live?
Which governorate of Syria do the Sunni Muslims predominantly live?
Which governorate of Syria do the Shi'ite Muslims predominantly live? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.55.194 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The area in Syria where the majority of Druze live is known as the Jabal Druze. Historically the majority of Alawites lived in the northwest of Syria.
The areas in Lebanon where the majority of Maronites and Druze originally lived were sometimes collectively known as "Mount Lebanon", especially in the 19th century, when they were under partial French protection while still within the Ottoman empire. It's been claimed that most of the political difficulties in Lebanon from 1958 onwards can be traced back pretty directly to the French decision in the 1920's to expand the territory of Lebanon from the core Mount Lebanon area to include outlying predominantly Muslim areas... AnonMoos (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The German WP states that it was patented in 1924, presumably by Axel Erikson, who developed the process. Unfortunately, there is no reference. The Swedish WP has an article on him[25] which does not (according to my minimal Swedish) seem to mention a patent. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why all the awards? Like this by the BBC? Sure, it's local business but if you ate their food regularly it would be really bad for you.
After all, fish and chip shops serve very fattening, oily food. The fish in itself is good for you, but the batter sure isn't and same goes for the chips because they're deep fried, although they might be OK if oven grilled instead. Seriously, does no one consider trans fat issues here?
LOL, no wonder the UK is the third most obese country in the world after America and Mexico. There should definitely be an Obesity in the United Kingdom article. The only saving grace of Britain is the lack of high-fructose corn syrup.
I mean, seriously, look at these news reports. Fat. Fat.
I'm not aware the BBC has a healthy eating initiative or that the government has annouced they are not allowed to broadcast anything that is not in line with the government's initiative. I'm not British though, so I may be wrong. Besides that, most initiatives don't ban unhealthy food completely, they just call for it to be heavily restriced. If you are going to eat fish and chips once a year, you'd probably prefer to eat high quality fish and chips, which also tends to be healthier then some of the junk you get from the lower end places anyway (actually indirectly healthier likely places a part in selection since a lot of people don't find extremely oily fish and chips nice) and also likely more expenvie so probably not the sort of stuff you'd want to eat every day anyway. Ultimately though, the reason why they do it is because it's something that interests their viewers (at least in their opinion). If you feel they should consider other factors, I'm pretty sure there is complaints process you can go through. Nil Einne (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth considering that a lot of these awards, including the one in the article, are industry awards - corporate backscratching if you will. Nanonic (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simple: Unhealthy diet is what makes people fat or obese, not an individual meal. An award for quality is not an award for healthiness, it is an award for taste, or experience or whatever. The world of food doesn't revolve around healthiness, so unsurprisingly many awards are given to places that serve food that, if eaten for every meal and depending on exercise, might make you fat. People are a bit lazy, they seek to blame an individual item for their obesity rather than accepting that it is their overall consumption (and their physical activities, and some genetics) that decide whether they will be obese. A meal of greasy chips, fried fish and chocolate for dessert won't make you fat of itself. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thats enough Fish and Chip-bashing! Ok so its (really) bad for you but is that really so bad? As a scot, I'm proud that fish and chips followed by a deep-fried mars bars is part of my national cuisine. Its called personal responsibility people! Do we really all have to be so horrified that not every one eats Tofu burgers and skinny Soy lattes? (ok rant over..)86.6.101.208 (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a seasoned old Brit I can tell you that fish and chips have been around much, much longer than the national obesity problem. Too much money, too little exercise, poor parenting and unscrupulous marketing have all contributed to the problem. Richard Avery (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume there's a missing comma between Shiite and Sufi. The lack of capitalization in the question is a clue that the poster probably doesn't bother with things like commas, either. StuRat (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any dialect of English that doesn't use commas in lists (some do and some don't use commas before the "or" or "and", but that's all). --Tango (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many users of English as a first language find our usage of punctuation difficult. Not that it's conceptually difficult, but it's something that needs to be taught, or at least read about. If you've never been taught it ... well, the results our language education systems speak for themselves. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He was a Sunni but it would be a mistake to characterize him as such. His mystic ideas place him in an altogether different genre then Sunni/Shiite altogether. Anyway the differences between Shiite and Sunnis were not sharp in his period.--Shahab (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have thought it would be very difficult to contact individuals, but to "send questions, comments, concerns, or well-wishes to the President or his staff" go here. Cycle~ (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prosecuting hate crimes against women
This cleric in Australia [28] apparently said that a) women should be forced to have sex - ie. raped by their husbands if the man wishes and b) women should be beaten (for "disobedience"). I'm sure that there have been prosecutions (eg: in the EU) for hate crimes due to racism, that is - instigating violence against groups due to their ethnic/racial background (please correct me if I'm wrong there). My question is: Would it be possible to prosecute this man for hate crimes against women (in Australia/NZ, or also EU or USA/Canada), as surely he is publically calling for physical violence against a group? (PS: This is not legal advise, just curious as to the extent of legal possibilities in cases of misogyny, esp. in above-mentioned areas of the world). Thanks --AlexSuricata (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States, abstract theoretical statements, which are not a direct incitement to commit a crime in a specific concrete situation, cannot be prosecuted under prevailing interpretations of the first amendment to the U.S. constitution. Some other countries have hate speech laws, and it would depend on the specifics of the laws in each country... AnonMoos (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the UK has new laws against such hate speech, as do several other EU nations. In the UK case, these laws were a response to Muslim radicals demonstrating with placards calling for the murder of "infidels". StuRat (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rape is not necessarily a hate crime. There are laws in the UK against rape and violence. A rape charge is very difficult to prove though if they are not separated from the husband and domestic violence has to be quite grave for police to bother about it. Dmcq (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The substance of the OP's question seems to boil down to whether misogynistic encouragment to rape is hate speech (more than whether rape is a hate crime as such)... See also Spousal rape. -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The man appears to be an utter shit, and preaching something quite unlike any form of Islam I have personally encountered. Why give him any more publicity? DuncanHill (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you asked, even though it's probably a rhetorical question -- personally, I like to be aware of utter shits, and I prefer to point out their utter shittiness on the principle that we should speak out against things we find to be evil. I don't think it does any good to just ignore people like him, because that is so often taken as silent acceptance. One reason why bigots always do so well is that people often don't call them on their crap, and that makes people who listen to them think that since no one is objecting, these guys must be on to something. Which is stupid, of course, but then again, it's not like reasonable people are the group most susceptible to this sort of thinking... -- Captain Disdain (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Consensus (and lack of it) has to be expressed to send a message. Negative attention can be a form of education, a reality check for someone like that. It also gives courage to those around him who might silently disagree. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is this double standard bullshit. In Great Britain, it is impossible for a Husband to rape his Wife because "But the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract." And this is TRUE until 1991. Just because some stupid head of some stupid mosque of some stupid religion is behind the times is no reason NOT to cut him some slack. Read Spousal rape. And how far behind the times is he? 100 years? 200 years? NO! He is only 18 years behind the times. Slack man! Cut him some slack! 202.147.44.84 (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And? 18 years is too late. Chop. He's making these pronouncements against a background of social change. Those laws pioneered that change so that it's too bad about history because they're in effect now due to some kind of prevailing concensus. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, this whole thread reads rather more like a load of soapboxing than it does any legitimate question. I don't accept "how is he able to get away with this?" as anything more than rhetoric to garnish a rant. Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whom you're quoting with "how is he able to get away with this?", but Alex's question was "Would it be possible to prosecute this man for hate crimes against women (in Australia/NZ, or also EU or USA/Canada), as surely he is publically calling for physical violence against a group?" I see it as a legitimate question, though difficult to answer without specific legal knowledge. What we can always try to do in these cases is refer to similar cases, motions, precedence, legal discussions etc. It might not answer the question in an absolute and binary way, but it certainly helps him understand this legal question and its ramifications.
Once again, the question should not be blamed for subsequent personal opinions, expressions of moral judgment and meta-discussions (such as my post now). Initially, a couple of people distinguished hate crime from hate speech, and tried to address the substance of the actual question, maybe someone else will add some more relevant info. ---Sluzzelintalk12:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source I followed in expanding the article says it was Nicholas Harp(e)sfield (1519-1575). (In agreement with: [29][30][31][32][33][34][35]) But several sources repeat that it was his elder brother John.[36][37][38][39][40][41] Can anyone trace, assess, or dismiss the claim that it was John? Also, is the spelling Harpesfeild more correct or authoritatively attested? Wareh (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have anything specific on this person, but it should be noted that standardized spelling is a relatively new addition to the English Langauge. While doing some research on the article on Plymouth Colony, 17th century writings, even by the same author showed wide variations in spelling. Most people just spelled things fonetikalee. Even with personal names, (for example Myles vs. Miles Standish) and even with the person using it themselves in their own writings there was variation. So your best option is to pick a spelling that seems well represented and stick to it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs21:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is generally reliable, and should have a fair idea of who held positions at Oxford. They state that John Harpsfield (standardising to this spelling, in line with most of the works they cite) was the first Regius Professor of Greek. During the same period, according to the ODNB, Nicholas was the principal of White Hall in the city. Warofdreamstalk12:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sources for Nicholas are learned or internal works on Oxford, too, which one would expect to be able to rely upon. Thanks for the pointer to ODNB; I now realize I have online access to it (John, Nicholas). Unfortunately, the crucial sentence ("Harpsfield became Oxford's first regius professor of Greek, and lectured there from 1541 to about 1545.") is fishy: the Regius Professorship by all accounts was established in 1546. A glance at ODNB's sources shows that this could well be an error inherited from R.W. Chambers' 1929 biographical essay (in my list above[42] and widely available in libraries). I may look up Chambers and see what source, if any, he cites, but I'm skeptical. Could Nicholas' greater notoriety as a Catholic controversialist have aided the confusion? (Yes, I agree we can pretty much set aside the spelling issue.) Wareh (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A word of caution: the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is usually reliable, but I shouldn't call it generally reliable, as it has a well-deserved reputation for being much less meticulously sourced (and proof-read by authors) than the old DNB. Frankly, the ODNB has a lot of mistakes in it, including some 'schoolboy howlers', and I am cautious of relying on it alone. Later, I'll check the standard history of the University for you, which is more reliable, but I have a meeting now. Xn4 (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tracked down the EETS edition (#186, 1932, repr. 1963) of Chambers' life of Nicholas. He points out that Anthony Wood's brief account in Athenae Oxonienses (1691) was the basis for "various other biographies, which for the most part merely repeat Wood's facts." Wood states that Nicholas was appointed Regius Prof. of Greek in 1546, but Chambers considers this a mistake (pp. clxxviii-clxxx). His reasoning seems pretty sound:
"Unless his scribes have done him very great wrong, it does not seem as if Nicholas had any very exhaustive knowledge of Greek." But John's translation of Simplicius' commentary on Arist. Phys. I was dedicated to Henry VIII, and when imprisoned (as ODNB mentions) it was he who appealed to humanists with letters in Greek.
T.F. Kirby's roll of Winchester Scholars is the one source Chambers found for John as Reg.Prof. This information independent of Wood "was probably depending upon one of the MS. books preserved at Winchester College." And indeed Chambers reports information from the archivist, who confirms the MS. has Joh.s Harpisfield as Graecae Linguae Profess. Regius. And confrimation "beyond doubt" comes from further information in the archives of Westminster Abbey, which not only has John as "reder of Greke" for 1542-43 and 1543-44 in an account of the ten Regius Professors (Divinity, Law, Medicine, Greek, and Hebrew, in both universities) whose payment was in the charge of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, but even proves that all the Regius Professorships date back to 1541 (not 1546 as commonly supposed).
I'll make the necessary corrections and citations at Regius Professor of Greek (Oxford), but I'm sure the corrections need to go in the other articles on the original ten Regius Professorships. Obviously, I was very hasty to speak of Chamber as a source of "inherited error" above. Wareh (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. In fact, it seemed eight of the articles on the original Regius professorships had accurate information about the chairs' existence prior to 1546. I corrected the Oxford Greek article and Regius Professor of Medicine (Oxford), so as far as I know the basic job I referred to is complete. Wareh (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There clearly has been confusion on this point for a very long time, and perhaps we should say so in the article. To add to the confusion, the accounts of the newly reconstituted Christ Church for 1546 show payments to George Etheridge as Regius Professor of Greek. Xn4 (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's discussed in Chambers (p. clxxx) and is taken into account in my latest revisions at Regius Professor of Greek (Oxford). Despite my evident great confusion above, I think if you look at Chambers' essay you'll see that it would be misleading to advise the reader that the basic facts are suspect. Of course, I won't be surprised if someone comes along and tries to reinsert the bogus factoid, but I'll watch out for that. As it turns out, ODNB was right in this case, on who and on when (the years 1541-1545 that I supposed "fishy" above). Chambers is really cogent on this, and OBNB relied on him. Wareh (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see I wrote (with some footnotes, which you might like to look at) in Regius Professor of Civil Law (Oxford) "The exact date of the chair's foundation is uncertain. Some sources say that John Story, the first professor, was appointed in about 1541, while others say the chair was founded in 1546. No foundation document survives, but in 1544 Robert Weston was recorded as acting as Story's deputy." And later "Payments to Story as professor of Civil Law are found in the accounts of the Treasurer of the Court of Augmentations for the periods Michaelmas 1546 to Michaelmas 1550", so it may be that those accounts might be able to throw some light on this matter. Xn4 (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Others say"--but the only reference there is to the same 2005 Oxford news release that was cited in the two articles I've corrected. I put no stock in it at all, and, quite frankly, I'd be plenty comfortable deleting while others say the chair was founded in 1546.<ref name=news/> at Regius Professor of Civil Law (Oxford) (the news office doesn't deserve to be mentioned alongside real historical sources and scholarship), but I'll leave that up to you. Wareh (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt you're right. It would be good if formal statements by a great university could be given some credibility, but of course there's no contest between a press office and The History of the University of Oxford. I'll revise what's said there. I think I may have included it because I thought there were other sources quoting the later date, but I couldn't find them at the time. I'll look again. Xn4 (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If your experience is like mine, you'll find no shortage of repetitions of the date in scholarly publications and university registers. But if you raise the bar to writers who show some awareness & consideration of the contrary evidence (which you've provided and cited in the article), the number of sources may suddenly shrink to zero. Thanks for your interest & good work on that article. Wareh (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair Use of Education Resources
There is a website[43] that hosted informative/speculative articles on counseling transgender people but the articles have been taken offline. I duplicated them on my own site[44] saying I would remove them if the copyright holder objected (a la Internet Archive). She did and I am in the process of removing them or making them fair use. However, I cannot find even a ballpark estimate of how much I can post. As I understand it, there are 4 factors of fair use:
Purpose (Commercial vs education) The purpose of my site and hers is entirely educational. Her materials were/are not for sale. I am not selling anything at all, although her client offers therapy services. My own purpose is to let others see what her client has to say, the same as hers.
Nature of the original Everything is factual, not creative at all.
Amount Of the original website, I was duplicating ~25%. But the duplication was in chunks of either an entire article or nothing.
Effect The material was presumably a catalyst to paying for the therapy. By hosting it again, I am, if anything, getting him more clients because the resources are not available elsewhere online. On the other hand, my website contains rebuttals to his therapy in general and a few articles in particular. Does the law refer exclusively to the marketability of the content itself? Or does it also include markets that are directly related?
I know the law is purposefully vague. There must be many precedents that I can use to gauge myself. Also, is the legal burden of proof on myself or the copyright holder? Thanks! --Ephilei (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC) PS, Yes, I realize all comments are unofficial advice, not legal counsel.[reply]
We really can't give you specific legal answers here, which is what analyzing your own situation and application of the factors would be. However if you are looking for precedents by which to make your own reasoning, check out the Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center. It has lots of brief descriptions of case law online (esp. here) and is probably the best overall site to consult when making determinations like this. As for burden of proof, it varies for each of the factors, but on the whole it is on the plaintiff (copyright holder). See Fair_use#Fair_use_as_a_defense. Lastly: if you are planning on making a fair use defense against someone you think has a more-than-zero chance of filing a lawsuit against you, get the advice of a qualified lawyer first. Lastly lastly: note that "educational" in a legal sense can be very strict—it can even preclude a lot of uses at educational institutions! Just a warning that legally even that phrase is problematic... --98.217.14.211 (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
January 23
Name of the company that holds all stocks traded in the United States?
I remember reading this article linking to a company that happens to hold all stocks exchanged in the United States. It's not a .gov I don't think, but it did indeed exist. The purpose seems to be to just change 'ownership' of the stocks, without actually moving them anywhere. I can't find the name of this company, or anything referencing it, anymore. --TIB (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are clearinghouses and exchanges that coordinate the sale and purchase of stocks; but I am not sure that there is a single entity which "owns" all stocks in the U.S. What you are describing is essentially how a stock exchange works, but there is not now (nor has there ever been) a single monolithic exchange that has controlled every single public stock trade in America. --Jayron32.talk.contribs02:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this is what you mean (and a quick search proved useless unfortnuately) but I seem to recall there being a person/group/firm that specifically bought 1 unit of stock in every firm traded in the main stock-exchanges. I can't recall any more details, but perhaps that is what the OP means? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The people that run index funds probably do something much like that. (There are ways of approximating an index with fewer trades and fewer stocks [so reducing transaction costs], but I imagine some do it the old fashioned way.) --Tango (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question undoubtedly refers to Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, aka The Depository Trust Company. DTCC is the owner of record of most publicly traded securities in the U.S. As the OP suggests, the purpose is to ease changes of ownership. DTCC records on its books that shares are beneficially owned by broker-dealers and banks, which in turn maintain books showing beneficial ownership of shares by their customers. As NByz mentions, you can get a physical certificate if you prefer (or, for uncertificated securities, have yourself recorded as the owner of record), but banks and broker-dealers usually charge a fee for this service (typically $25 - $35, the last time I checked). In any case, it is usually advisable to maintain ownership through DTCC. John M Baker (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you serve in the army or any other war services during WWII?
If the answer to the above is yes, than please share your expeirence with me! I am wanting to know first person if possible.... I am very interested in history, ecepcially WWII and want to know as much as i can about it.
What was its intended purpose, was the force used disproportionate to its intended purpose, and were reasonable precautions taken to minimize unnecessary civilian casualties and "collateral damage"? The article you link to answers none of those questions... AnonMoos (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I just feel that they go to extremes to find injustice. This is a case where you need to start with "why was the station bombed"? Instead, our article and Amnesty's article start from "civilians were killed." -- kainaw™16:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they seem to ignore the "end justifies the means" argument of killing a few civilians to prevents the deaths of many more. If that radio station was broadcasting calls for genocide against minorities, then bombing it could save thousands of lives. In Rwanda, such broadcasts led to the genocide of perhaps a million civilians. It's a shame we didn't bomb that radio station. StuRat (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if they were pushing for genocide. That is my complaint. Our article should explain why it was bombed - surely because of something they were broadcasting - and then go on to explain why it is considered controversial. -- kainaw™17:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rightly, the Rome Statute has nothing to say about "the end justifies the means". A crime is a crime, although no doubt a balance of harm argument could be submitted in mitigation. Xn4 (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't allow for "the end justifies the means", then all parties in all wars are guilty of war crimes. I suppose a pacifist can take such a position, but it seems quite absurd to bring people up on charges when they are trying to save lives by their actions. StuRat (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That really doesn't follow. Killing people in war isn't unlawful, it's only particular kinds of killing (and some other activities) which can amount to war crimes. There are valid philosophical and moral arguments for every kind of armed aggression being morally wrong, but the European systems of law are much more about order than about morality. The criminal law, depending for its application on evidence and facts, is much less interested in motivations (what goes on inside people's heads) than it is in actions. Once you concede that laws won't apply if people believe "the end justifies the means", the whole rule of law breaks down. Xn4 (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not always, and (when it does) only for a time. Laws go on existing during a war, unless they are specifically suspended (which international laws can't be). And when the war is over, criminal prosecutions may need to follow. Xn4 (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect that the individuals responsible (the generals in charge) would be charged if an actual war crime had been committed, like if NATO had decided to bomb occupied schools until Serbia gave up. StuRat (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting development, as the ways you can punish corporations are by imposing fines on them, withdrawing their licences, limiting their activities, or (ultimately) by winding them up, all of which in most cases will penalize employees and/or shareholders who have no part in any criminal activity. But whether you can prosecute a corporation or not, aren't crimes committed by people? Xn4 (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If General Ripper instructs Battery "C" of the 2nd Brigade to bombard map coordinates (76.2, 113.8) with high explosive, and there's a refugee camp at that location, has a crime been committed, and if so, by who? --Carnildo (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
General Ripper would be asked, during a trial, why he chose that target, and documentation of what was believed to be at that location would be brought in as evidence. If he did know it was a refuge camp, and had no valid military reason for bombing it, I suspect he would be found guilty. StuRat (talk) 07:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Corporations are juridical persons,not natural persons,so those crimes are commited by them as a whole,by legal persons. While NATO leaders are actual,natural persons,so its hardly the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.154.181 (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is the same thing. It's the difference between prosecuting Corporation X and prosecuting the actual, natural persons on the board. You could try NATO, or try the individual persons representing the NATO council. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite07:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
William Anders quote
A quote by astronaut William Anders regarding the photograph Earthrise, can be found in many places. However, I am unable to find the exact quote, as there appear to be many variations. I'm wondering if there is an "official" quote released by NASA that can be confirmed. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the quote there. It looks like you found a NASA page that uses the image in question to illustrate a different quote. For comparison, the quote that I am looking for can be found in the links I provided above and on my user page as a caption. The problem is, I am looking for a definitive version of the quote, and I can't find it. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, now I have four versions! Collect them all! :) Actually, that YouTube link helps, because it makes me think he must have talked about this a lot, which explains all the different quotes. Thanks, I suppose you can close this because it should be obvious now that there probably isn't a definitive version. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well... he probably wasn't the easiest guy to get along with, at least. Clearly, he had some notions of intellectual and moral superiority, which rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. On the other hand, he was a really smart guy, and he demolished certain preconceived and wrong-headed notions a lot of people had, which was probably a benefit to society... but that doesn't mean he couldn't be a jerk as well. I guess it comes down to what you think of as a jerk, which I admit is kind of dodging the question, but from what I can tell, he didn't go around trying to hurt people or intimidate them, or doing what he wanted at the expense of others, which strike me as the kind of qualities jerks generally have. But on the other hand, he clearly wasn't afraid to offend. Personally, I wouldn't call him a jerk, but I wouldn't argue with anyone who did. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He was an apologist for some of the most violent and tyrannical regimes of the 20th century. I happen to like reading him, though. A line from Swift comes to me: "Sometimes I read a book with pleasure, and detest the author." Antandrus (talk)21:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say he had tremendous personal qualities, including physical courage, a willingness to help the underdog, disdain for material wealth, and a wicked sense of humor! Rhinoracer (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Walworth Road Baptists: still active?
Religion: Walworth Road Baptist Church in London, and Walworth Road Baptist Road Missionary Society. Church apparently closed in 1971. Perhaps reopened later?? Walworth Road Baptist Road Missionary Society apparently still continued until at least 2003??Japansking (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My girlfriend is currently doing a statistical essay on casualty rates in the British Army during WWI in theatres other than the Western Front - specifically the Dardenelles, Egypt, Messoptamia and the like. I'm struggling to find any academic books (Terraine and the like) which explore the activities of the British Army on those fronts, and was wondering if anyone could help me hunt some down. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin has a great deal of information about the British activities in those regions during WWI. --Omidinist (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of ages of popes doesn't answer directly, but does say the average age upon election has crawled up from 63 to 65. It notes one guy was 54 when he was elected. I am going to bet you think 54 is old, so the answer to your question is probably "yes". Tempshill (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yeah - resolved, thanks for the quick answer!
(ec)Pope John Paul II was 58 when he was elected, which is (comparatively) very young. He was very energetic, too - in addition to visiting a huge number of countries, he reportedly ran shirtless on the roof of the Vatican every morning. 87.113.74.22 (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would the resistance be "stiffer" if the Pope were female, shirtless, young, and attractive? The legendary Pope Joan probably kept her shirt on, at least in public. Edison (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite always. The youngest pope whose age we know was John XII, who was eighteen when he was elected. However, there's uncertainty about Benedict IX, who was probably in his late teens but may have been as young as eleven or twelve. Xn4 (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The heads of most large organisations are middle-aged or older. It takes a long time to work your way up through the ranks. Also, since being pope is usually a job for life, you don't want to risk giving it to someone with too much life left to live! --Tango (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read once that an Italian proverb, equivalent to "once in a blue moon," says "every death of a pope." From Gregory XVI in 1831 through Pius XII, who died in 1958, the average was over 16 years.` John XXIII helped reduce that with his four years, as did John Paul I in his one-month reign. --- OtherDave (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16 years isn't too bad - if you appoint at 18 year old, there's a good chance they'll be pope for 60 years! Remember, the pope is elected by cardinals, who are usually pretty old themselves - given that they probably wouldn't mind a chance to be pope, they probably don't want to elect someone that's almost certain to outlive them. --Tango (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
107 commuted death sentences
Capital punishment in California notes that California v. Anderson, the decision that invalidated the death penalty in California in 1972, commuted the death sentences of 107 inmates who were on Death Row. Can anyone point me to a list of the names of the people whose sentences were commuted? I'm trying to find out what happened to the Griffin from Griffin v. California in order to update the article, and have not succeeded. If his sentence was commuted, at least that's one piece of data I can use. Thanks in advance - Tempshill (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, his sentence must have been commuted. Aaron Mitchell was the last person executed in Californa, in 1967, until the barbarism was resumed in 1992. (Unless Griffin died before 1972.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆05:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do you write a speech outline in First person on the person who you have to be?
So you want to write a speech where you are Annie Oakley talking about you (who is Annie Oakley?)? Write it as if you are the character. So instead of "Annie was born in a cabin..." say "I was born in a cabin..." - or am I misunderstanding the question? ny156uk (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about Oakley in particular, but read up about her, know your facts; also, if you can, find some of her quirks of speech / mannerisms, and imitate them. Also think about how well your audience know the character: are they going to know when you're just making facts up as you go along? If they're not, feel free to dramatise her life (if it needs to be!). - Jarry1250(t, c)13:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This Google book search produced a biography with many direct quotes attributed to Annie. They may help you get that voice you're looking for. You might also pick a point in her life (the height of her career, say, or a time late in life) and frame the talk as if given at that time. --- OtherDave (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
82.120's statement is far too general to be even remotely valid. It is, however, true (see the abstract here) that a pleasure derived from music shows up as activity in the same brain areas as a pleasure induced by any other "euphoria-inducing stimuli, such as food, sex, and drugs of abuse". Caveat emptor. --Dr Dima (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could try Daniel Levitin's book This is Your Brain on Music. The New York Times called it "a layperson's guide to the emerging neuroscience of music." Levitin heads the Laboratory for Music Perception, Cognition and Expertise at McGill University in Montreal. --- OtherDave (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
why does my economics book put the price as a Y axis when the quantity is a function of it?
all the text talks about quantity supplied, demanded, tickets sold, etc etc all as a function of the price. Then they turn around and make price the y axis! This point is brought home in a graph that's a bit like a parabola, because the quantity goes up with price, then after a certain price back down -- but because price is on the Y-axis, what would be a normal parabola isn't even a function! (It has two Y's for the same X-point).
so then is this NOT the usual practice? here as an example I sketched. seriously! the accompanying text is : "Figure 13-6 The INDIVUDUAL'S SUPLY OF LABOR. The diagrams [I reproduced only the second - the first just goes up and up] show two possible types of labor supply curves. In Figure 13-6a the labor supply curve slopes upward. The indivudal works more the higehr the real wage. The labor supply curve in Figure 13-6b is called a backward-bending supply curve. As the wage rises, a stage is reached where the individual decides to work less; he decides to use some of the higher income made possible by the higer real wage to consume leisure rather than work. [the lowest point, at the bottom-left of the curve] in each diagram is the wage at which the individual will begin to participate in the labor force. If the wage is below that level, the individual is out of the labor force; for any higher wage, the person is participating".
As you can see, the way they talk makes it crystal clear that the number of hours supplied is a function of the price. In fact, if you cock your head to the right and flip it, it looks like a real parabola -- it looks like this. That would actually be a function, and it's how they TALK about the graph. So why don't they PRINT it that way? Thank you!
and today? Would that chart be printed like this or like this today? Thank you!
In economics prices are always on the y-axis and quantities on the x. I think it's partly down to history, and partly down to economists thinking of price and quantity as being codependent. See this for example. 79.70.236.172 (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I could just take a moment to say that a parabola on its side is still a parabola, and still a function. Instead of y=x2 it is x=y2 or, if you prefer, y=x½
Maths is nice like that. 79.66.105.133 (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is from An Introduction to Postitive Economics, Seventh ed. by Richard G. Lipsey:
"Readers trained in other disciplines often wonder why economists plot demand curves with price on the vertical axis. The normal convention is to put the independent variable on the X axis and the dependent variable on the Y axis. This convention calls for price to be plotted on the horizontal axis and quantity on the vertical axis.
"The axis reversal - now enshrined by nearly a century of usage - arose as follows. The analysis of the competitive market that we use today stems from Leon Walras, in whose theory quantity was the dependent variable. Graphical analysis in economics, however, was popularized by Alfred Marshall, in whose theory price was the dependent variable. Economists continue to use Walras' theory and Marshall's graphical representation and thus draw the diagram with the independent and dependent variables reversed - to the everlasting confusion of readers trained in other disciplines. In virtually every other graph in economics the axes are labelled conventionally, with the dependent variable on the vertical axis."
Note that you could technically see it either way: price is a function of quantity in the sense that a storm might wipe out your crop of bananas (which happened a few years back in Australia) and that would affect the quantity produced, which would inevitably cause prices to rise (they quadrupled in that example). Growers not affected by the storms simply cashed in on the higher prices, understandably, so the price was a function of quantity in that case, and had little to do with the specific decisions of farmers. It's been emotional (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the banks keep their money as entries in a ledger. Just like you keep your checkbook at home so that you know how much money you have in the bank, the bank does the same, except on a computer, and in a REALLY big checkbook. But otherwise, most (probably 90% or higher) transactions involve moving a number from the "our money" column to the "your money" column in some really huge computer spreadsheet. The actual use of real currency is pretty small in terms of overall financial dealings. --Jayron32.talk.contribs12:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they can if they want, but that would be fraud. I suppose it all comes under the term of "creative accountancy", but it is illegal and would no doubt be found out at some point, either by accountants, officials or your average Joe trying to withdraw money that doesn't exist. With the larger banks, it would be a phenomenally large conspiracy to hide. - Jarry1250(t, c)13:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the same thing that stops a company from making up earnings to pump up their stock price, so they can sell some off, say, oops, those weren't our earnings, and be left with free money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The corporations are audited. Are the banks audited in the same way? No. Because of Bank Secrecy laws, that state transactions less than $10,000 is protected with privacy laws. And what about the banks that don't trade in Stock Exchanges? They don't need to be audited? Whats to stop this "Private Bank" to wire to other banks using Swift? --33rogers (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, banks do make up new money. It's called fractional-reserve banking, and I believe that most if not all countries do it nowadays. Each country's central bank monitors the commercial banks to make sure that they don't make more money than the rules allow. This system works fine as long as everybody doesn't try to take out their deposits at the same time, causing a bank run. --Heron (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the bank could add extra money to their ledger, they couldn't actually do anything with it - whoever they were transferring it to (presumably another bank) would want something more than just their word that they had reduced the ledger by the right amount. I think the central bank handles such transactions (well, at the end of each day, anyway, the banks just keep track of who owes who what until then) - banks have deposits at the central bank and those deposits are what get moved around. --Tango (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UK Royal Coats of Arms
I'm not looking for legal advice, but I'm interested a to whether the coats of arms of former monarchs are still in copyright, and whether this depends on use. Normally, I'd assume that they weren't due to the time scales involved, but where the government's involved there may be an exemption? - Jarry1250(t, c)12:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In traditional European-style heraldry, a coat of arms is actually specified by the textual blazon, and many alternative artistic depictions based on the same blazon may be acceptable as a rendering of a single coat of arms -- and if you create from scratch a new artistic rendition of the blazon, then you generally will hold the copyright on your personal rendition. However, non-copyright restrictions on the use of such emblems may still apply (see Commons:Template:Insignia). AnonMoos (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. Normally, I would expect that most depictions of blazons are not copyright of the arms-bearer, I was wondering if there were any exceptions for the Royal Coat of Arms - not bringing it into disrepute, that sort of thing. - Jarry1250(t, c)13:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There may be strong restrictions on the use of Coats of Arms, Royal and other. These would have nothing to do with copyright, but various other laws regarding titles, peerages etc. It would also vary between countries, since the rules may in many cases be quite ancient and based on tradition rather than reason. I don't know anything about these laws, and can't really point to any source that might help, but I believe it to be noteworthy that including "copyright" in searches could throw you well off track. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was using copyright in a figurative sense meaning the restriction placed on it based on the author or otherwise. You're quite right in suggesting that the term probably doesn't cover it, because copyright terms are usually fixed based on subject matter etc. - Jarry1250(t, c)19:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trademark is a better analogy: you must not display someone else's coat of arms (even if you created the image yourself) in such a way as to suggest that it is yours. —Tamfang (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone other than the Royal Family themselves would go as far as suggesting the Royal Coats of Arms were their own, what I'm interested in are the special restrictions that are placed on the royal coat of arms over and above normal protection. I've emailed the government (direct.gov anyway) on this. - Jarry1250(t, c)19:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing to do with copyright, which (as we know) runs out. A coat of arms is heritable and can last for ever, and all are protected by law. It's a very arcane area of law, and very few owners of arms any more go to the expense of defending their ownership, so in effect the protection has broken down. No doubt proceedings can still be threatened. See Court of Chivalry, a court which is still in existence but which (according to our article) was last convened in 1954.
The Royal Arms are specifically protected in the UK (and in some other realms of the crown) by various acts of parliament. I think one of them may have a title like "Unauthorized Documents Act". The effect is that you need the permission of the monarch, or the government, to make any use of the Royal Arms, and I rather think all versions, past and present, are protected. See also Royal warrant. Xn4 (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A related issue (in the UK) is the Royal Warrant - only manufacturers and suppliers who have been specifically authorised to do so can display a royal coat of arms on their products with the words "by appointment" - it is reserved for those companies who supply the royal family and have been granted permission. Exxolon (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that using the Coat of arms on a commercial product in order to suggest that it somehow endorsed by the monarch is illegal (UKIP were prosecuted for the passport covers they sold), but I was more wondering about books on heraldry, that sort of thing, in which the Royal coats of arms regularly make an appearance, and the copyright permission of the artist / photographer are the only ones given. - Jarry1250(t, c)10:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Books are very different. The first purpose of the protection of arms (viz., of coats of arms), is simply to stop people from bearing arms, that is, from carrying them in person, especially when they are someone else's arms. From this developed the need to prevent the display of arms, for instance, on a building or a carriage, which unless stopped would suggest a connexion between the building (or the business in it), or the carriage, or whatever, and the owner of the arms. And of course, that is just the purpose the holders of royal warrants use the Royal Arms for today.
A book is merely a book. It gives information and in itself asserts no right to bear arms. A use of that kind is nothing to do with copyright law, which is essentially about preventing people from copying intellectual property. It's hard to see any reason why a coat of arms could not also have the protection of copyright law, but I've never seen any assertion of that kind, and (in any event) copyright law is a rather temporary protection. Armigerous people, and corporations who own arms, are usually modestly or immodestly proud of them and like people to know about them. What is objectionable is not the copying of arms but the misuse of them. Xn4 (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recent specific artistic renderings of a coat of arms would of course be under copyright protection in each case, but this wouldn't block other people from coming up with their own new renderings of the same arms, and renderings which were made a long time ago would have expired copyrights. If a symbol is defined such that only one particular specific artistic renedering of it is acceptable, then such a symbol is more like a corporate logo than a coat of arms in the traditional sense... AnonMoos (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Walpole's Castle of Otranto
I am having a hard time understanding the prophecy in the book. Who has grown too large? And what was the purpose of the giant hands and limbs, were those Alphonso's? 169.229.75.140 (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may depend on where you are, but a few years ago they were traded on all major financial markets. Call your usual broker. Iraq does at least have oil, but if I were you I should get advice before plunging too deeply. Xn4 (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now can anyone tell me... when was this map made, who made it, and is there a place I can get a proper translation into English of the text at the bottom of the map? Is it notable enough for a Wikipedia article, or are its creator(s) notable enough for one?--Emerald Continent (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are a series of similar maps as well, possibly by the same artists, that you can find by searching the text at the top of this map in Google. I have got the high-resolution versions of all of them if people need them for reference.--Emerald Continent (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The information is there on the map. Humoristische Karte von Europa im Jahre 1914, that's "Humorous map of Europe in the Year 1914". The publishers are "Leutert & Schneidewind Kunstanstalt, Dresden", and it's by K. Lehmann-Dumont. It's a First World War map dating from (you guessed it) 1914. The curious presence of Japan in the North Atlantic is explained in the legend: "Japan was drawn into the European theatre of war by England and snarls furiously in the direction of Germany, baring carnivorous teeth". Xn4 (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know what the top part translates to, word-for-word. I can't fluently speak French or German, but these two languages I can definitely understand some entire sentences of without too much work. Also, I realise that it's a map portraying Europe in 1914, but does that guarantee that it was actually drawn in 1914? The 'propaganda' factor may serve as evidence towards it being made at that date, but there isn't a date given of when it was made, just a date of what it depicts.--Emerald Continent (talk) 09:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only hit at Google books for K. Lehmann-Dumont seems to be this, which is about this very map and confirms the date as 1914. Lehmann-Dumont has seven hits, two of them for "Lehmann-Dumont, K." (Anfang 20. Jh.), which means early 20th century, which suggests that very little is known about Lehmann-Dumont, so he or she doesn't seem to be terribly notable, unless of course it's a nom-de-plume. Xn4 (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Stadtarchiv Hildesheim displayed the poster in an exhibition on war proclamations/announcements titled "Helft uns siegen!" (Roemer-und-Pelizaeus-Museum Hildesheim). The specifications in this pdf-file are: "Political poster, 36 x 49.4 cm, design: K. Lehmann-Dumont (1914), print: color lithography or offset printing, printer: Sächsiche Verlagsanstalt GmbH, Dresden." I found a partial translation here, but haven't checked it. For some more propaganda, how about: "Belgium, whose people shows itself to be a poisonous toad, has already been skewered on the German fixing pin in order to be incorporated into the German collection.". ---Sluzzelintalk08:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm reluctant to call it propaganda, it has at least some wit and charm. See Sardinia depicted as a tin of sardines, the Indian snake wrapped around the British bulldog, and the Irishman with a bottle of beer in one hand and a pair of shears in the other as he prepares to cut the chain binding him to Great Britain. It clearly does belong to the early part of the Great War, before it turned so nasty. It's a relic of the ancien régime. Xn4 (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well done in finding that online translation. It's more or less all right, but slightly off-beam on a few points. For instance, grimmig isn't "grimly", it's "furiously". Xn4 (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That's the Grand Duchess Feodora, the second wife he married in 1910, the daughter of Prince Frederick John of Saxe-Meiningen, not to be confused with Feodora of Saxe-Meiningen (1879-1945), a grand-daughter of Queen Victoria, or with Feodora of Saxe-Meiningen (1839-1872). Xn4 (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
there are of course Children, who still believe in Santa Clause and stuff like that. Also, there are some people who have a willful suspension of disbelief; in the same way that some people become invested emotionally in their favorite TV show characters, there are others for whom wrestling serves the same purpose. No one really believes that Lost is real, but people still earnestly "believe" in the internal consistancy and "realness" of the "Lost universe". Likewise with wrestling. An it should be noted that, while scripted in terms of the outcomes of the matches, the endeavor still requires the wrestlers to be in peak physical condition. It may not be "real" but its still not something "I" could do with any skill. --Jayron32.talk.contribs12:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Lisa Simpson compared it to ballet: whilst it's scripted, no-one doubts that a great deal of work still goes into it. (Your point entirely!) - Jarry1250(t, c)14:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i used to believe it was real till i was about 15. i watched it on TV on a Sat afternoon. No one said it was fixed. How would i know?--GreenSpigot (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm from a country without professional "wrestling" and my first encounter was zapping into a TV match from USA as a grown up. For about a minute I was amazed what was happening in this apparent sporting event. It took a couple of minutes before I became convinced it had to be staged. Now I'm amazed this type of show is being produced like that and is so popular. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I watched loads of wrestling up until my early teens (I was also one of those kids who tried what they'd seen on TV at home/in the schoolyard, FWIW - back then, I wanted to be a pro wrestler when I grew up). At the time, I believed that whilst the storylines were just (over)acting, the fights themselves were real. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call professional wrestling "match fixing". You'll never find a bookie who will give you a line on a WWE match! It's "fake" in the sense that it is scripted, but its not like they are trying to make you believe that it is real in the same way that "real sports" like actual competitive wrestling is! --Jayron32.talk.contribs05:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This question was asked a few days ago, maybe at Misc. The general consensus was that while there's nothing legally holding an atheist back from running, he or she would be unlikely to be nominated by a major party, at least in today's cultural climate. So no, they would not be considered viable. T-T-Teeth(t-t-talk)14:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make the point that "could" looks to the future rather than the past or the immediate present, and we can't really be sure what the future holds on such questions.
An interesting comparison: more electors in the US believe in God (and think religious belief matters from a political point of view) than in the UK, where we've had atheists in leading positions without people here much noticing or caring. Michael Foot, for instance, led the British Labour Party into the general election of 1983, and the reason Labour lost seems to have had nothing to do with his being an atheist. Ken Livingstone had some big victories as Mayor of London, and it was the upsurge in support for the Conservative party and its charismatic candidate which brought him down, not religion. There are quite a few basic similarities between the UK and the US, and it must be at least possible that the future will see more convergence between them on this point. So I should say that even if an atheist couldn't be a viable presidential candidate in the US now (which I don't know enough to be sure about), it's probably better to answer the question "perhaps", rather than "no". Xn4 (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does require very little to "sway" public perception of characteristic X (where X may stand for atheism / homosexuality / and, needless to say, skin pigmentation). It simply requires a respected and integer public figure to state (without much ado), "...and as to certain rumours, fellow Americans, ´No, I do not believe in God´", Period.
Up until last year nobody thought an African-American would ever have a serious shot at the Presidency, much less a better one than a white woman, who didn't have much of a shot either. And look where we are. It's easy to come up with polls that say, "we're not ready," but a lot of it depends on the spirit of the moment and the nature of the candidate in question. Most Americans two years ago almost certainly wouldn't have been inclined to vote for a Black man, but in the personage of Obama they see something more complicated than just that. One can scarcely imagine a vehement, anti-religion style of atheist getting a major nomination, but one who knew how to make alliances and draw attention to other issues, especially in times of perceived national crisis, probably could make it work (in the same way that Obama did—it really is inconceivable that he would have won if the US was feeling comfortable with the status quo). The issue with relying on historical statistics regarding politics is that the sample size is too low—for as long as I've been aware of politics we have been continuously told how "unprecedented" certain things are (gaining of seats in a mid-term election by an incumbent president's party, for example), but in the end this sort of fact-mongering has the same quality of sports score-keeping, and very little to do with the dynamics of actual political change, if that makes any sense. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me, 98.217.14.211, but if Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM feels an atheist presidential candidate in the US would need to say something frank about not believing in God, then for me that underlines the different way the British and Americans approach such matters. Here in the UK (I'm thinking, perhaps, of the mainland), people don't expect politicians to talk about their religion or lack of it, and it seems odd when they do. Of course, our head of government is effectively chosen by whatever majority can be put together in the House of Commons, after general elections in which the perception of the political parties' leaders is only one of the issues, and hardly ever the biggest one. Here, indeed, most Green Party voters have not the slightest idea who the leader of the Green Party is, despite the recent election. Xn4 (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When discussing politics and religion with Americans -- yeah, I like to stick body parts into wood chippers, too! -- I often say this right off the bat to kind of illustrate our cultural differences so they have a point of reference: here in Finland, no serious politician really talks about God except in the most abstract or personal sense, and even then, pretty much only if they're asked about it. We actually have a political party that's Christian by definition, and even they don't do it. Nobody with even the tiniest hope of an actual political career would ever present an argument against or for anything based on God's will, unless the matter at hand was strictly religious -- and even then it would be done very carefully, because that's easily considered crackpot talk over here. I mean, you can talk about traditional family values, for example, or even traditional Christian values, and that's one thing. And you can say that you have faith, and that's completely cool. But if you can't back up your argument with facts, or at least convincing rhetoric, and resort to "because God says so", you're a joke. Even when we passed the law on registered partnership, which is essentially gay marriage except by name, the Christian political opposition to it was based on traditions and what marriage means and all that crap. It wasn't about whether homosexuality is a sin -- sure, that was pretty much the underlying message, but if you say it, you come across like a crazy person... and an asshole to boot, really. It would take a really exceptional individual to be able to succeed with that kind of talk.
So, the American political rhetoric often seems bizarre and disturbing to a lot of people over here, because religion plays such a big part of it. And it's not like most Finns aren't Christian -- according to the CIA World Factbook, that's about 85% of the population, which is actually a higher percentage than in the United States. But religious fervor doesn't go over well with most people over here, and it certainly wouldn't be something the political parties here would want their members to express. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble pinning down the identity of one of the divine characters from Neil Gaiman's novel American Gods. He's described as clean cut and generally nondescript, and every mundane character in the novel forgets him/his features/the content of their conversations with him immediately after turning away from him (other divine characters don't seem to have this problem). He seems to be a god of commerce, or chance/gambling. A question about his identity has already been posted on the novel's talk page, with replies stating that Gaiman has not and is unlikely to answer the question himself. I'm hoping my dear, sweet refdesk editors can shine some light on this subject, as to whether the god is grounded in some actual mythology or wholly fabricated. Thanks, T-T-Teeth(t-t-talk)14:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's been ages since I read American Gods, and I don't remember that character at all. But lets give it a shot: when you say "God of commerce" and/or "God of chance/gambling", the knee-jerk reaction is always going to be Hermes or Mercury (it should be noted that theres a bunch of other religions that have similar figures, but they're essentially just variations of the same character). He'd generally fit your physical description (young, clean cut, attractive man), but I don't really know what to make of the strange "curse" you describe. Hermes was something of a trickster though, and that seems to be a useful trick to be able to do if you're a trickster (not being remembered, that is). And we all know how much Gaiman loves the tricksters! The entire damn book is brimming with Anansi and Loki and their ilk! He even makes Odin into a trickster, which, you know, he wasn't!
Also, the way you describe it, he reminds me slightly of Cassandra and her curse, but I think that's just me making strange connections in my head.
Can you give us any more information on him? Perhaps even a small excerpt? And are you sure he's one of the "old gods" and not one of those new-fangled gods that pops up throughout the novel? Belisarius (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no knowledge of the novel in question, but jumping on Belisarius's explanation, I might imagine that the "forgetting after turning away from him" might be an allusion to Hermes as psychopomp and bringer of dreams, which are usually forgotten afterwards. - Nunh-huh17:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the American Gods there are several instances at which Shadow instantly forgets, or thinks he has forgotten, whatever he just saw or heard. I can't quite figure out which instance you are talking about, though. Where in the book does it happen? I have a paperback edition of AG at home, so I'll look it up. By the way, showing Shadow forgetting things is probably just Neil Gaiman's way to emphasize Shadow's humanity. I vaguely remember Roger Zelazny using the same method to emphasize Sam's humanity in the Lord of Light; or maybe I'm just conflating the two novels :( .... Anyway, please give us (RefDesk) the context and we'll figure it out. All the best, --Dr Dima (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of my housemates is borrowing the book, so until he comes home I won't have an excerpt for you, but from memory, there are three separate passages that emphasize the "curse" so to speak. First, Shadow drives several divine characters: Kali, the king of the elves from Norse mythology and our mystery man from the House of the Rock to a restaurant for a interfaith summit and finds that after turning away from the man after speaking with him, he can't remember what the man looks like, or what had been said, only that the man was there and that there had been a conversation. Later in the book, Gaiman describes the mystery man wandering Las Vegas, first in the counting room of a major casino (this is where I picked up the god of gambling idea), then at a bar...in both instances his presence barely registers with the mundane humans there. Further, he gives a waitress at the bar specific instructions on how she can quickly, effortlessly come into a small mountain of cash, and later she has only the vague idea that after her shift she should go to this certain location as a lark. In that passage he's described IIRC as nudging probability towards this desired reality (more weight in the chance/gambling pile). Doctor, in this instance, it's likely that Shadow's ability to remember the man at all is Gaiman's subtle hint that he's actually Baldur, or some other Norse god/demigod. But that's an interesting note about Zelany...I'll check it out. Thanks s'more, T-T-Teeth(t-t-talk)01:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rats and double rats, he was described in the novel as the king of the dwarfs, I just couldn't remember how to spell Alviss, because Shadow kept calling him Elvis...T-T-Teeth(t-t-talk)01:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, T-T-Teeth, I have good news and bad news. Good news is that I have found the passage you are talking about. The bad news is that I couldn't figure out who it was with Shadow, Kali, and "Elvis" in the car... Now, seriously, I really like Belisarius' idea that it was Hermes (not Mercury, but specifically Hermes). What worries me is that he carried none of the standard attributes of Hermes. Another possibility is that he is simply a deity Neil Gaiman has come up with, as a sort of "invisible pink unicorn" construct. Here is what I mean: in the American Gods universe, the deities that are forgotten cease to exist. If no-one can remember the-deity-sitting-next-to-Alviss, how come the-deity-sitting-next-to-Alviss still exists?! So he must be both memorable and forgotten; both pink and invisible. Hope this helps. --Dr Dima (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and BTW I really don't think Shadow is Baldr. I think he is one of the more human sons of Odin. Baldr could not have possibly done what Shadow did. Loki metaphorically pictures Shadow as Baldr in the "sharpened mistletoe twig" speech, but that is more a confession of a persistent hatred and lack of remorse on Loki's part than a hint to Shadow's identity. If Neil Gaiman wanted to give us a hint, I'd rather he gave us a more subtle one. --Dr Dima (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just by a hair, Algebraist, just by a hair. Doctor, during the scene with the carousel in the House of the Rock (just before the car ride) I think Gaiman includes a description of the mystery god in his divine form, along with Anansi and Odin, etc. If you have a moment to dig that up I'd appreciate it. Hermes is a great suggestion, him being mercurial and all, but there's so much iconography associated with him...anyway, Thanks. T-T-Teeth(t-t-talk)13:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'[In the back were Alviss] and another man, in a dark suit, who Shadow could not remember. He had stood beside the man as he got into the car, had opened and closed the door for him, and was unable to remember anything about him. He turned around in the driver's seat and looked at him, carefully noting his face, his hair, his clothes, making certain he would know him if he met him again, and turned back to start the car, to find that the man had slipped from his mind. An impression of wealth was left behind, but nothing more.'
By the way, it's not just the man himself who has this effect. Shadow is also unable to recall Wednesday's explanations of who and what the man is. Algebraist17:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'm rather baffled by this. Hermes/Mercury still to me seems to be the most likely suspect because of the "impression of wealth" part. If one interprets this strange effect not so much as a "curse" but more as a "trick" (he doesn't want people to remember him), that could also fit the profile. But I can't think of any deity that is mentioned having this particular attribute, either as a curse or as a trick.
There is one other possibility though. What if the passage is a reference to Herostratus? Herostratus was a young man who burnt down the Temple of Artemis in order to become famous. Seeing as this was his goal, the Greeks realized that using traditional punishments would be useless, as he wanted them, he desired the infamy. Instead, they tried to erase his name from history, make him a nonperson (the exact opposite of what he wanted). Obviously, they failed miserably, since it's now 2350 years later and there's a Wikipedia article about him (this is still a topic of some controversy, lots of people do horrible crimes to become famous and there's often a debate on the suitability of the media reporting the name of the perpetrator in those cases. The Virginia Tech shootings is a good example).
It's seems feasible that this is what Gaiman is referring to, a man who is cursed to be forgotten from history (although one should note that Herostratus is in no way a god, which would sort-of run counter to the idea of the book). But if that is the case, he's missing the point of the story. The point isn't that some people get their names wiped out of history, the point is that it is virtually impossible to do so. Herostratus wasn't forgotten. Internet users might know this as the Streisand effect.
Another thing I thought about was that maybe Gaiman is playing with our minds. The whole point of this character is that he is instantly forgotten, so if this was a real god, obviously we wouldn't know who it is, because we (as humans) wouldn't be able to remember him! A sort-of "Men in Black"-thing, you know? Sneaky bastard! Belisarius (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Law of Property Act 1925
Hi
Many buy to let and commercial mortgages are written under Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA) legislation.
As a debt adviser I have encountered situations where people can lose their homes without a court process as a result of the mortgage on the property they occupy being LPA rather than Administration of Justice Act 1970(AJA)where repossession can only take place after a court hearing.
The position seems anomalous. In the case of a commercial lease, I understand that repossession of the premises that are used by the lessee as a residence as well for business (e.g. a pub) must include a court hearing.
My own view is that legislation is required to ensure that repossession of owner occupied premises must include a court hearing, even where the mortgage is LPA.
Firstly, you may not get responses here since you seem to be asking for opinions rather than facts, and ref-deskers aren't keen to offer those.
The question doesn't ring true to me. I'm certainly not aware of any repossessions without a hearing. Also the question seems to imagine two types of mortgage: one under LPA and one under AJA: but that surely can't be right. AJA isn't even a property-law statute. AndyJones (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
January 26
crosses and crucifixes use in religion
How do I find out which religions use crosses and or crucifixes? I sell wholesale fashion jewelry and would like to approch churches and such organizations to offer crucifix jewelry as fundraisers etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.207.83 (talk) 08:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the only ones that would count for commercial purposes in most areas would be Christianity and the various subdivisions, spin-offs, and significant direct influences of Christianity. The only completely non-Christian religion which currently makes prominent public symbolic use of a cross symbol is Scientology, as far as I'm aware -- though of course, if you tried to sell jewelry of Scientology symbols, you might find yourself being sued for copyright or trademark infringement... AnonMoos (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would count that among the "spin-offs and significant direct influences of Christianity"... In any case, a plain inverted Latin Cross is also a perfectly legitimate traditional Christian symbol in some contexts (as seen in the linked article).AnonMoos (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Anglican/Protestant sects of Christianity use crosses, whereas Roman Catholics and Orthodox sects use crucifixes (ie. a cross with a body on it). I may be wrong, however! --TammyMoet (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I started out looking for information about Champroux as a locale in France or other francophone country in Europe. This led me to Stade Robert Champroux in Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire, but nothing about any individual with that surname, or even an eponymous "Robert Champroux" (though I realize the stadium might be named after two individuals with surnames Robert and Champroux.) Any ideas? -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only relevant link I could find is here: it states that Robert Champroux was a French expatriate in Côte d'Ivoire in the 1950s and helped to establish the first boxing club in Abidjan. He was likely active in promoting other sports, hence his name given to one of the city's larger stadiums. There is no information as to what he was doing in the (future) country at the time. --Xuxl (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I just cant see why this site is allowed to exist. To me it just seems to be a place that glorifies, encourages and promotes malicious, cheap, slanderous and anti-social behaviour. The site very much presents itself as a site where if you have discovered that someone has slandered you on there, your apparently just suppose to accept it, deal with it and not cry about it like a butt-hurt baby (that’s the automated message I got from them when I tried to delete such a biography about me). This just speaks very large volumes about their mentality level in my opinion. Don’t they realise that they are promoting both a playground and den for slanderers to do their worst?, is there a line that gets drawn on there?, wheres it gonna end?, is it acceptable on their to make a biography about somebody where you can accuse them of being a paedophile ect with no substantiated proof?.
How do they know that the persons relatives, friends and work colleagues wont get to see such profiles? (especially if they appear as a search result on google), because shock horror!!!!, people from the real world do in actual fact use the internet world. We know full well that damaging slander like that can get you up before a judge in court in real life, so why is the internet being allowed to grant a loophole for this?. And for those that just say “oh its all just humour”, or “its meant to be a satirical site, don’t take it so seriously”, sorry, but I don’t call malicious, cheap and slanderous cyber bullying as humour. And whats funny is, neither do they, when they are the ones that are the ones actually on the receiving end of it. Why is this site not outlawed???. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bokken12345 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For every liberty we are afforded there are some downsides. Freedom of Speech is an important liberty and if we start drawing lines then where do we stop? E.D is all about satire and parody as well as being shocking. You also have to remember that your opinion, although you may share it with others, is simply that, your opinion. I guess you will have to either broaden your shoulders or check if you have any actual legal recourse. Or, two wrongs don't make a right, but they often make you feel a lot better, go be bold on U.D. Lanfear's Bane | t12:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd never looked at that before. It's a little bit funny, I'm afraid, however jejune it is. "Obama", for instance, redirects to the article "Black Jesus". I guess if there was an article about a non-celebrity living person that was obviously maliciously libellous, that person could win a suit against them, but here in the Good Ole U Ess of A we don't muzzle the bigmouth jerks, we let them expose themselves for what they are and laugh at them in our turn. That's better than the alternative, which starts to look pretty distopian real quick. Those Founding Fathers didn't do too bad, considering. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the theory that people have to "blow off steam" occasionally, as the writers of such stuff do, to prevent them from doing real damage, say by vandalizing Wikipedia in force. Since it's obvious to everyone that that site isn't about truth, nobody takes it very seriously and thus no harm is done. StuRat (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, putting aside the sarcasm, i did state in my OP that my concern in it was, what if relatives friends or loved ones get to see it? (which believe it or not are part of our real lives). If i was the only person (other than them) who got to see it, i wouldent give a monkeys uncle about it then. I can make myself not read such things on the internet, but i cant make other people not read it Bokken12345 (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully your loved ones understand the satirical content of the site and can shouldn't hold the content of a humor website against you. If they do, maybe you need new loved ones Livewireo (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Haneke: does anyone know the case on which The Seventh Continent/Die Siebente Kontinent is based?
Haneke has suggested several times in interview that he based this film on the case of a family discovered dead in their home on 17.1.1989. He refers to reading about the case in the magazine, 'Stern', and carries a reference to the case at the end of the film. Does anyone know anything about this case? It may have happened in Linz, Austria (where Haneke says the film is set, but not shot), but google searches have so proved fruitless. I don't have access to 'Stern' at present. Haneke also says that what was unusual about the case was the family's destruction of their home and belongings, rather than the act of collective suicide. Can anyone comment on how accurate a description of Austrian suicide rates this is? Many thanks for any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vleb (talk • contribs) 14:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your German source seems to be somewhat muddled. First of all, it's Der siebente Kontinent. German does not only assign gender to things, the article also changes following certain grammatical rules: der Kontinent, die Kontinente, auf dem Kontinent, den Kontinent betreffend, das Kontinentalgefuege. (One of my bugaboos with the German language.) For googling also try "Der 7. Kontinent". According to these source the film was released in 1989 [48], [49] It's rather unlikely the film was published in the same year the incident was reported. The "Stern" archive is unfortunately "pay per view" for older issues. The incident predates proliferation of the internet in Austria, so no promising ghits came up. It was also Haneke's first movie for cinema, so information on it is rather scant. Although we also have Austrian refdeskers here you might have better luck finding someone who remembers that news item at the German ref desk [50] Good luck. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah Palin's husband was referred to as the "First Dude" and he is not alone. Since it's not an official title, it's really a question of what people choose to use. "First Gentleman" is the common sobriquet, but it's by no means formal. SDY (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to that: since there hasn't been any female presidents, we can't be 100% of what we would call the husband (it's not like it's written into the constitution or anything), but there has been a number of female governors, and their husbands are almost always called the First Gentleman (of the state). Todd Palin being the exception, but you know... that's Alaska :) Belisarius (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer.
Also, why is the time between the President being elected and being inaugurated over 2 months, whereas in Britain usually when the results of the General Election are announced the new PM moves in to No. 10 the day after the election? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.127.189 (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is mostly because elections are a fixed term of four years in the US, and having the inauguration somewhat later is easier and ensures the period is always 4 years exactly, whereas in the UK, a general election can be called anywhere from about six months to 5 years and a month, and so you'd be far closer to having no effective government for the period - there isn't any need for the extra time. In the UK, shadow cabinet members take a more active role with their ruling counterparts in the run up to the general election, particularly if they think they're going to win it, and I'd imagine that's what the two or so months are used for in the US. - Jarry1250(t, c)16:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC with below, answering the second question). The U.S. is a big country, and was even at its founding. The presidential election process is actually quite convoluted and confusing, especially compared to the relatively simply Westminster system at work in the UK. In the U.S., what really happens is that each state must select a group of electors, who then go and convocate in Wahington D.C. and THEY elect the President (not the people directly). So what has to happen is a) The people in the states vote for their choice of President (actually, they vote for electors who are themselves committed to a presidential candidate, though in most states the electors names do not appear on the ballot itself). Thene, the state government must certify the results of the popular vote and appoint the slate of electors who will go to Washington to make the actual vote. Then, the Electoral College Vote must be certified before Congress. In the 21st century, all these steps are a trivial process; we could probably back the innauguration up to before Chirstmas and still have time to get it all done; it probably doesn't take a month. However, back in the day, when people had to get around on horseback, every step took weeks to complete. Also note that the current January 20th deadline is 6 weeks EARLIER than it was originally. Until the 1930's, the innauguration date was March 4th; which is FOUR full months after election day. --Jayron32.talk.contribs18:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify - I don't believe the electors have ever been required to actually travel to the capital, it would just require a messenger to be sent. --Tango (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it "First Lady" doesn't actually mean "Wife of the President", it means "Hostess of the White House". Those two usually go together, but there have been unmarried presidents before and someone else served as First Lady. If Hillary Clinton had become president, I doubt Bill would have served as host, so "First Gentleman" might not have been strictly accurate. I would expect the press to use a term like that ("First Husband" is the other option I've heard mentioned). --Tango (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was a common instrument at the time of those paintings, is light enough for one person (or angel) to carry, and has an "uplifting" sound. StuRat (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it was a clever case of commodity placement. Harps don't look so light to me, but it has a wing-themed appearance, so maybe there's something in that (until a keen researcher comes by). Julia Rossi (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read our main article Inuit, and some of its internal links and external references? One thing to bear in mind is when and where. If you are talking about the time before the Inuit were absorbed into modern nation states, that is rather a different matter than now. Likewise, be specific about place: in subsistence times, the ecosystem very much affected the livelihood (i.e. hunting), and now, the country of which they are citizens (e.g. Canada or Denmark) has a similar over-arching impact on people's lives. Good luck!
What's the odds of creating a million dollar painting in my lifetime?
Resolved
![[24]](http://wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/obama-half-breed-muslin.jpg){kind=link}
