Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

March 30

A question about Irish-British conflict

Hi, I am from Argentina and I don't understand very well this conflict. My question is if the Irish people and government from the Republic of Ireland support the acts of the IRA in Northern Ireland against Unionists. Thanks all. --FromSouthAmerica (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering that the IRA renounced armed conflict in 2005 and pledged to pursue peaceful political means to achieve its goals, your question really asks whether the people or government of the Republic support the political position of the Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland. The answer is that some people in the Republic, though probably not a majority, may be sympathetic to Sinn Fein, while others may be indifferent to politics in the North or sympathetic to other parties, such as the Social Democratic and Labour Party. The Republic's government takes a neutral position with regard to party politics in the North. If your question refers to the Troubles, which seem to have ended with the IRA's change of strategy in 2005, the government of the Republic certainly did not support, and in fact stated its opposition to the violent tactics of the IRA during that period. I can't cite any sources, but having spent some time in the Republic during the 1980s, I think that most people in the Republic were opposed to those violent tactics as well, though certainly many agreed with the IRA's stated goals of redressing discrimination against Catholics in the North and bringing about eventual reunification of the North with the rest of Ireland. Marco polo (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You can also track the performance of Sinn Fein in the Irish general election, 2007, where they got under 7% of first votes, and earlier elections. I don't think they have ever got over 10% in the last 80 years. Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that although the IRA have supposedly renounced the ways of violence, they have not been entirely peaceful recently. There's the 2009 Massereene Barracks shooting and also the policeman shot dead by a sniper in Craigavon, which for some reason does not have a Wiki article. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither of those were carried out by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (the group which is normally called the IRA, which is affilliated to Sinn Fein, and which has renounced violence). They were carried out respectively by the Real Irish Republican Army and the Continuity Irish Republican Army, small splinter organizations formed from splits in the IRA. Neither of these groups have renounced the armed struggle. The IRA proper has completely disarmed, and there is no evidence that it has in any way broken its commitment to stop fighting, or that it intends to do so. Algebraist 23:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, they're completely different. Malcolm XIV (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Algebraist 00:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, your sarcasm is highly misplaced and misleading. The account given in this reply was entirely accurate until you muddied the waters. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's quite possible that the OP was motivated to ask his question by these recent events. So to ignore their existence in the reply is not providing the full picture.

Another way of putting it is that the Peace Process was entirely successful until the "Real" IRA muddied the waters. Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, that characterisation, I would definitely agree with. Provisional Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA differ from their 'Continuity' and 'Real' counterparts in two important respects: PSF/PIRA have renounced the armed struggle, and they're influential enough for this to make a substantial (though admittedly not complete) difference. There's also some complicated political stuff about whether or not they recognise the Republic of Ireland, but that's fine detail. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is The Troubles in Craigavon. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Voting support for Sinn Fein has increased in recent years, however that seems to be more dependent on the fact that SF is finding its role as a left-of-centre opposition party within the Republic (and lifting issues such as campaign against Lisbon Treaty) rather than a boost in support for republicanism in the North. --Soman (talk) 07:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Name the novel: (young adult) juvenile delinquents, prison, psychology experiment

I'm trying to remember the title and author of a book I read years ago. Here's what I remember:

It was published some time between 1973 and 1980, but probably around 1977.

I seem to recall it was set in the UK, but I'm not positive about that.

The story was about a group of teenage boys who find themselves in a "prison without keepers", with no memory of how they got there. It ultimately develops that the boys are juvenile delinquents in an experimental rehabilitation program, and that one of the boys is a "mole" working for the unseen keepers. Think "House of Stairs" meets "A Clockwork Orange".

Thanks in advance! Skyraider (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As it may have been written and published in the UK, try searching the British Library online catalogue for novels published in 1977, to start off with. Any ideas you have about any words in the title etc may help you find it. If it was a popular paperback it may have been published by New English Library or Corgi or so on, helping you to narrow it down. It sounds like it may have been addressed to a youth audience, so try Puffin or other youth labels of the time. 78.145.24.168 (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ten stages of Jesus' public life and teachings

What are the ten stages of Jesus' public life and teachings? - Vikramkr (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You would have to ask the person who insists there were exactly ten distinct stages. StuRat (talk) 05:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What a helpful comment. Thanks for that. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is helpful. I'll explain in more detail, just in case you were being sarcastic. How many stages there were in Jesus' life (or anyone's life, for that matter), and the exact names of each is an utterly subjective matter of opinion. Therefore, if you want to get the same answer as some authority, then you'd best ask them, as any other authority (including Wikipedia) is likely to come up with a different answer. We get many such questions here, and, alas, the answer must always be the same. StuRat (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In medieval iconography, the life of Christ was often divided into a number of short episodes (not necessarliy ten, though). Have a look at Life of Christ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Though this does appear to be a homework question, here's my best shot at helping out. Jesus's life could be divided any number of ways. If you read the gospels, distinct phases are described in detail or implied, such as Pre-Birth (John 1 makes it clear that Jesus has existed since Creation, thus before his birth), Infancy, Childhood (the episode where Mary and Joseph left Jesus behind in the Temple comes to mind), Young Adulthood, pre-baptism (implied, since the next time we see Jesus is at age 30 going to visit John the Baptist), Wandering in the Desert, and his ministry. Generally, his Ministry can also be divided into periods: One system of dividing it up I have seen divides it roughly into 3 years: The gathering phase, where he built up his following of disciples; the teaching phase, including most of his parables and the Sermon on the Mount; and the opposition phase, where he is hounded by the Pharisees, Saducees, etc. After this, one could count his trial and crucifixion as a seperate phase, and finally the Risen Christ as the final phase. If I count my accounting, that's 10 phases, but that's just my own personal analysis; depending on which doctrine or dogma you are following, different strains of Christianity may choose to divide up Jesus's life differently. My suggestion, since this is your homework question, and I am mostly making this up as I go along, is to read the textbook that you got in whatever class this question came from. The question is worded to basically be a reading comprehension class. I would bet better than even money that your textbook contains the phrase "The life of Jesus can be divided into 10 phases, and they are..." or something similar. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the 10 in Jayron's analysis:

1) Pre-Birth

2) Infancy

3) Childhood

4) Young Adulthood

5) Wandering in the Desert

6) Ministry: Gathering phase

7) Ministry: Teaching phase

8) Ministry: Opposition phase

9) Trial and Cruxifixion

10) Risen Christ

But, of course, bear in mind that these may not be the same 10 your teacher has in mind. StuRat (talk) 05:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

An interesting division, but I note the questioner says the ten divisions of Jesus' public life. The first four wouldn't count under that. I guessing he's looking for a more detailed division of the subjects of Jesus' teaching. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

See also, Stations of the cross for a related concept. Matt Deres (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help! - Vikramkr (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Soviet medal

Here are the obverse and reverse sides of a recently acquired Soviet medal. Can anyone tell me more about the medal's age, what it was awarded for and what the inscription reads? Many thanks. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 05:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The inscription is Вооружённые Силы СССР (around the edge): За 20 лет безупречной службы , which translates as "Armed Forces of the USSR: For 20 years of irreproachable/exemplary service". Not quite what you'd hoped for, perhaps? -- JackofOz (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jack, but I don't quite get where you're coming from with your last bit. I wasn't hoping for/expecting anything, really. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Jack was implying that if you had hoped for a rarity worth a mint, you'd be disappointed. Steewi (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

We have an entry for it on Awards_and_decorations_of_the_Soviet_Union (it is one of many "long service medals" created in 1958). That doesn't really pin down when your specific medal was made, though. --140.247.11.14 (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the Medal for Immaculate Service established on 25 January 1958 by the joint decree of the Interior Minister, Minister of Defense and the KGB chief. See ru:Медаль «За безупречную службу» for more information. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Apart from a certain lady's conception, we don't usually refer to abstract things like service as being "immaculate"; that's usually reserved for tangible objects, the presentation of a room/house, a person's dress/coiffure, etc. I think "exemplary", "outstanding" or "irreproachable" would be more appropriate translations. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

richest US president

Who was the richest US president? I understand that this might be difficult because an 1820 dollar will have a different value the a 1960 dollar, but what is the best guess? Also, who was the richest Vice President? If they are the same person, who is the richest VP who was never president? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Forbes magazine, George Washington was the richest U.S. President.[1] Rmhermen (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

How about Nelson Rockefeller as the richest VP ? StuRat (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I would have guessed Kennedy for President - which is wrong. So, I assume my guess at Nelson Rockefeller for Vice President is also wrong. It is hard to mentally convert 1800's fortunes into 1900's fortunes. -- kainaw™ 17:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Forbes seems way off base claiming Washington was richer than modern presidents. When his estate was valued in 1800, it came to $500,000, per Forbes. Per [http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi an inflation adjustment calculator, that would be just over $6 million in 2007 dollars, leaving him far down on the list compared to 20th century presidents. Edison (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

12x inflation over the last 200 years seems way too low. I wonder what they are using to calculate inflation? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The author of that web site says "If you liked the Inflation Calculator, you might enjoy my new web site, Smugopedia: Pretend you know better. I'd love to hear what you think of it! " So prove that you know better and document a figure higher than 12 x. Edison (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I accept the challenge. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GROWTH1850.JPG, per capita income in 1800 was about $190. I do not know if this number includes slaves or not, but this is a very crude approximation anyways. Therefore, GW had 2630 man years of wealth. In 2005, the per capita income is $23,484 found here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_per_capita_personal_income Therefore, GW's $500,000 would now be worth $62,000,000, not $6,000,000. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I also noticed that they completely omitted the Forbes fortune that John Kerry received. It appears to claim that all of Kerry's money came from his wife and not his own family. So, I wouldn't be surprised if it flubbed other items to achieve the results the editor wanted to achieve. -- kainaw™ 19:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(1800) $500,000 is a great deal more than (2007) $6,000,000. Was that intended as $60,000,000 2007 dollars, which would be more like it?--Wetman (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I think prices have gone up more than 12 times just in my lifetime. StuRat (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, George Washington couldn't have bought a pocket calculator for double his net worth, and you can buy one for less than $10. - Nunh-huh 05:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but he could legally buy a slave and you can't ... so there. B00P (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow. According to this site, the 2008 value of Washington's $500,000 could be $8,800,000 (using the CPI) or $15,000,000,000 (using the relative share of the GDP) or various values in between (by other measuring sticks). Clarityfiend (talk) 08:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if I remember previous Forbes lists correctly, the rankings are not just a simple inflation conversion, but also take into account how wealthy a person was relative to his era. In other words, someone who was worth a million when there were few millionaires would rank higher than someone worth a million at a time when millionaires were plentiful. George Washington had the economic stature of someone worth 15 billion today. Keep a look out for those rich widows, guys! —Kevin Myers 12:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How you measure inflation makes all the difference. The best-guess CPI from 1800 to 2008 was about 1.3% p.a., which works out to almost 1,500% over 208 years. So, $500,000 becomes $7.95 million. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Claiming GW was far richer than modern presidents because he was far richer than the average person of his era is misleading. The leader of a present-day third world country might live 100 times better than the average person in his country, but that does not make him richer than politicians or Wall Street tycoons in developed countries. In colonial times most people lived in tiny cabins and grew their own food. They were literally "dirt poor." I prefer comparing the valus of his holdings and applying the 1.3 CPI adjustment, or whatever figure has support from economists who have indexed the changing value of the dollar or pound over the years. Edison (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to compare the price of a ton of tobacco then with a ton of tobacco now and use that for an accurate measurement? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That could be done, but why should tobacco be taken as the standard, rather than anything else? Inflation is usually measured using much more complex methods. Algebraist 18:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I was thinking GW owned a tobacco plantation, so it might be an appropriate measure. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What does it take for a country to be recognised as independent?

I mean why does Kosovo's recognition present such a problem whilst East Timor and Montenegro were no problem in terms of recognition in the international community? Does a country have to be recognised by every individual nation or just the United Nations?--WhettRhett (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

See Sovereignty and Self-determination for history and examples. Kosovo status process is specific to Kosovo's current situation. Unfortunately no country will agree to a simple, straightforward list of conditions for soveriegnty; as you can see from Political Status of Taiwan, every case is completely tangled up in the politics of the day. Tempshill (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

One difference between Kosovo and the countries you mention is recognition by the states of which they were previously a part: despite allegations (true or false, I've not a clue) of Indonesian military involvement in the post-vote chaos in East Timor, Jakarta officially recognised independence; meanwhile, Serbia and Montenegro had for some time been in a situation where either one could leave, and Montenegro followed that process carefully, so Serbia recognised. Nyttend (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The modern (post World War II) international consensus on independence focuses on the principle of self determination. The principle of self determination was originally envisaged to apply only to colonies of the European powers - i.e. countries that should or were independent, but for one reason or another no longer govern themselves.

As a result, contrary to popular misconceptions, the right of self determination does not mean that any province, town, or religious group could just declare themselves independent. Rather, the right of self determination is available only to a "people", and a "people" is pretty much the whole of a state (present or former), or colony, or other non-self-governing territory. However, it does not cover integral parts of a state that does not fit into one of the above categories.

In the examples you stated, Montenegro was always its own Republic - it had been part of the federal Yugoslavia, which from the start was a federation of previously or theoretically autonomous states. After the dissolution of Yugoslavia, though Montenegro for a time stuck with Serbia, they were still each a participant state in a federation, not part of the same unitary state. East Timor, though never really independent itself, was always separate from the rest of what became Indonesia because it was a Portuguese, not Dutch, colony. Upon de-colonisation, self determination kicks in to say that East Timor could decide to be independent, to become part of Portugal, or to join Indonesia if so the East Timorese so chose.

The other examples raised in this discussion are different. Kosovo, the case you referred to, is different from Montenegro because Kosovo was always (well, in modern times anyway) a province of Serbia. That is to say, Kosovo was not a state participating in the federation of Yugoslavia. It was an integral part of Serbia. As a result, strictly speaking they would have no clear right of self-determination. It is by no means straight forward to expect other countries' recognition of its independence in such a case. Of course, just because a province (like Kosovo) has no automatic right to become independent, that does not mean that other countries will not recognise the fact of its independence if they so choose. That, however, is largely a matter of diplomacy.

Taiwan is an even more complicated murky kettle of fish. To sum it up, the government that rules Taiwan still officially claims to be the government of all China; the government that rules mainland China makes the same claim. A significant faction in Taiwan advocate that Taiwan should become independent. However, they are cowed by military threats from mainland China. Internationally, they do not have any support from other governments because, like Kosovo, Taiwan has always been a province (or part of a province)in recent centuries - usually of China, but for 50 years part of Japan. There is no automatic right of self-determination for Taiwan, so if or when it does declare independence, it would not be able to count straight forward recognition of its independence, somewhat similar to the case for Kosovo.

All of the above is discussion about the question of being recognised as independent. There is a preceding question: whether the country is independent. Generally there are two views on this. One, the more objective view, is to take the criteria of the Montevideo Convention; a state that satisfies these criteria is, without more, a state. The other, the constitutive theory of statehood, says that a putative state only becomes a sovereign state when it is recognised by the international community. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I heard once that the Republic of Minerva complained to the World Court about the forcible annexation to Tonga, and was rejected on the grounds that sovereignty cannot be created from nothing but must be derived from a pre-existing state; which invites the question, what was the first sovereign state? —Tamfang (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, sovereignty cannot be created from nothing? Do you have the name of the case? I'm not sure that the Republic of Minerva has standing (law) to be a party to a case in the International Court of Justice. Was the case brought on its behalf by a state? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sovereignty and independence are not the same thing. Take Australia. On 1 January 1901, the 6 British colonies federated as the Commonwealth of Australia. Was this now a sovereign nation? Arguably not. There is a view that the 6 colonies merely united to become a single colony, a "super-colony" if you like, and we were represented internationally not by Australians but by Britons; the first Australian Ambassador was not appointed for decades. Were we independent? Definitely not. The British government still had effective veto over any laws passed by the Australian Parliament, and the appointment of Governors-General was subject to the advice of the British Prime Minister, not the Australian Prime Minister. James Scullin put a stop to that in 1930. The Statute of Westminster 1931 gave the Dominions some real sovereignty but the precise date of Australia's sovereignty has been argued for years, some saying it occurred in 1920 (?) when we were accepted by the League of Nations as a sovereign state, others favouring other dates. The Australia Act 1986 brought us closer to independence than ever before. This has usually been characterised as "cutting the remaining constitutional links" between Australia and the UK - but some would argue that while ever we continue to have a monarch who is not an Australian and does not live here, and while ever her representative the Governor-General can theoretically be anyone at all (Bill Clinton, Alberto Fujimori, Penelope Cruz, Boris Yeltsin before he died ...), then we're still not truly, truly independent. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Bank robberies in the USA

If someone steals a bicycle from the lobby of a bank while its rider is inside, would federal law consider that a bank robbery? Don't take this as a request for legal advice: I'm the bicyclist, not the would-be robber. Nyttend (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This link has the US Code definition. Tempshill (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link; I didn't know where to look. I'm the owner of the bicycle, so it's not in the bank's care; and as I paid somewhat over $100 for the bicycle several years ago (thus wear-and-tear depreciation), it's surely not over $1000. I guess it's only simple theft or whatever the local law calls it here. Hopefully I'll never need to see the results happen in an actual case :-) Nyttend (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome; and I'm sorry to hear about the theft. It's possible, by the way, that the law in your state has a broader definition of bank robbery, though I don't really know if individual states ever bother to enact laws specifically about bank robbery, since it's already covered by the federal government. Tempshill (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you'd think it was bank robbery... the key aspect of bank robbery is that you are robbing the bank. Robbing individuals inside a bank, while theft, is certainly not bank robbery. A judge would laugh it out of the courtroom as such; if you tell a cop about it in that way, he'll just not take you seriously. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the definition in a particular jurisdiction. If a jurisdiction firstly makes a distinction between robbery and bank robbery, it's not hard to see that in some places, robbery + location in a bank = bank robbery. If you marched into a bank, pointed a gun at everyone and told all the customers to hand over the cash they are about to deposit, then substantively it's not too dissimilar to taking money from the counter.

And no - robbing a customer inside a bank is not just "theft". It's still robbery. In general, larceny + assault = robbery. Because of the special status of financial institutions, many jurisdictions create a special count of robbery + financial institution = bank robbery to give them extra protection. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Come on, use common sense. Claiming that someone had robbed a bank because they took your bike out of a bank lobby is just absurd. There are limited situations where the context changes the severity of the crime (e.g. speeding in a school zone) but there's no sensible reason that the fact that the bike as removed from the bank lobby makes it equivalent to holding up a bank (which, as crimes go, affects far more people than, say, just robbing most other random private establishments—hence it often gets its own special category). In the lack of any evidence that there is a law that would provide for stealing private customer property from a bank lobby as being "bank robbery" I see absolutely no reason to assume it ought to be. It does not follow any sensible legal logic. (And no, I don't think holding up customers in a bank is "bank robbery," anymore than holding up customers in a supermarket would be "supermarket robbery." The key point about bank robbery is that you are robbing the bank—a collective good of pooled wealth.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry, common sense isn't how law works, though I gather you're new to Law. To give you just examples off the top of my head: look up "mail fraud" to see all kinds of things people have been prosecuted for just because it incidentally involved mailing an envelope across state lines. Abortion is legal (roe v. wade) because of a woman's right to privacy. Look up RICO, which is laws passed against racketeering: have been used for all kinds of things. When The Simpsons has Ned Flanders serving jury duty on a real chestnut of a case, where a pedestrial was run over on a traffic island (or something like that) and Ned says "they want to try it as a maritime offense" (maritime = at sea; traffic island, get it?) it's 'funny because it's true' -- not for that PARTICULAR case, but all the time. Just all the time. If you study law at all, even for a week, you will see that law does not work they way you think it does -- not by a long shot. 94.27.194.165 (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(Using USA terminology) Larceny would be the better term. If it is an event defined as taking away personal property without the intent of returning it, then it is larceny. Robbery implies a confrontation. If the criminal took the bike without confronting the owner, it is not robbery. Therefore, claiming bank robbery is not correct since the term "robbery" is not correct. I am, of course, assuming that the criminal did not assault the bike owner when taking the bike. If that happened, I assume it would have been noted in the question. This brings up another note on larceny. It is difficult to prove in court when the person keeps the stolen item. If the criminal has the item in his or her possession, the criminal can claim that it was being borrowed, not stolen. Only when it is sold/given away is larceny easy to prove. -- kainaw™ 03:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

For the benefit of those not familiar with the details of legal terminology, I'll clarify that assault doesn't require an actual attack, threatening an attack is sufficient. The issue with claiming to be just "borrowing" the stolen goods is why the UK introduced a new offence, "taking without ownser's consent", TWOC (primarily to deal with joy riding, I think). --Tango (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In Australia we also have a raft of lesser property offences that sidestep the "intention to permanently deprive/taking & carrying away" parts of larceny, things like fraudulent misappropration. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

March 31

The global spread of Islam

Given that much of what is written, discussed and broadcast these days predicts the eventual inevitability of Islam displacing and replacing all current and future global democracies, governments and faiths, I an curious to know which country would (in all probability) be the last to resist and succomb to such a takeover if or when it should happen. My college discussion group has suggested either Ireland, Italy, or China. 92.8.12.135 (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's at all inevitable. What makes you say that? How many countries have switched to Sharia law recently? The proportion of the world population that are Muslims may be increasing (I'm not sure), but I don't think many (any?) countries are switching to Islamic governance. --Tango (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's best that you keep it to your college discussion group, or go and find an internet chatroom. The Reference Desk is NOT a suitable place for speculative discussions. Malcolm XIV (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There are plenty of forums where you can discuss this hypothetical situation. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This really is quite speculative and subjective. You state that "given that much of what is written...", yet there is little independent evidence to corroborate your story. It can also be argued that Islam will suffer from postmodernity. Again, this is completely hypothetical.Smallman12q (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Instrument played like harmonica (slide side to side) but sounds like flute

Is there such instrument? It would be a good instrument to play with a guitar, like people do with harmonicas. 128.163.80.152 (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A pan flute should work. 87.115.166.150 (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

is this ("fate of an honest intellectual") discredited?

Reading this article is shocking. Has it been discredited? It says shocking things about American scholarship, I wonder if it has been discredited. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.106.218 (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky is a prominent linguist, but also a prominent political activist. He has a very strong agenda which he pursues relentlessly. The article you have linked to is an example of the latter. If you are looking for a view that is more scientific and less biased by a political agenda, our article on Palestinian people#Ancestral origins is quite good and has references to literature. As for the Joan Peters book that Noam Chomsky refers to - I haven't read it so I cannot comment, but I would not at all be surprised if it turns out to be as politically biased as Chomsky's reply, only in the opposite direction. None of this has anything to do with science. --Dr Dima (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

See Norman Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, Joan Peters and From Time Immemorial for further details. // BL \\ (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people really aren't going to feel too sorry for Norman Finkelstein, someone who consistently seems to have gone out of his way to make a large number of enemies for himself. AnonMoos (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

April 1

Cultures that don't bow (kneel/ prostrate)

In many cultures and religions (all across Asia and some Native American tribes), kneeling is a gesture that represent great submission or obeisance. My questions are: 1. Is there any counter-examples to this phenomenon? (i.e. some cultures/religion that don't recognize kneeling as a symbol of differentiated status) 2. Is there any scholarly work attempting to explain this "universal gesture"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alien132 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that a submissive animal often lowers itself in the presence of a dominant animal of it's species, so this isn't unique to human culture. StuRat (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

According to bowing, "Bowing to other human beings is frowned upon in Muslim cultures as all human beings are considered equal and bowing is only supposed to be done to God in Islam. Similarly, in Judaism the second of the Ten Commandments is generally interpreted to forbid bowing before anyone but God." Clarityfiend (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a direct answer, but here is a recent journalistic article on the implications of the word "kowtow", a Chinese symbol of obeisance, and how it was resisted by the first British ambassador. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I remember there was a great to-do when Ronald Reagan visited Britain and there was controversy about whether he and Nancy would bow to the Queen, or not. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Really? They're not subjects of the Queen; why would they conceivably bow? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was their attitude too, and a quite defensible one imo, but some protocol-obsessed geezer in a British high place made a fuss about it, the media got wind of it, it was reported, and Reagan had to make a statement prior to the trip, saying that as much as he and Nancy greatly respected the British monarchy and the Queen personally, the U.S. President does not owe any allegiance to her or any other foreign head of state and they would not be bowing (or, in Nancy's case, curtseying). Their mere taking the trouble to be in the Queen's presence would be more than sufficient indication of their respect for her and her office. I'm sure the Queen didn't lose a wink of sleep over it. In fact, she even gave him an honorary knighthood (not sure if that was the same occasion or not, though). -- JackofOz (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that this is true, since I've never seen or heard of anyone bowing to the Queen, except perhaps when being knighted - we're not Japanese. I'd like to see some evidence of this please. If there's not evidence, then its just an urban myth. 89.243.213.58 (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

He'd be forbidden to accept a knighthood (without express consent of Congress) while in office, so no. —Tamfang (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Company revenue, net income, and GDP

I have often seen charts comparing the revenue of a large corporation with the GDP of individual country. The intended implication often is to show the power of the large corporations, for instance that Walmart is the size of Denmark (just as an example).

Most recently, I ran into this in the article for Chaebols, which directly compares the revenues of the largest Korean conglomerates to the national economies of Malaysia et al.

The problem with this is that GDP should be compared to net income, not revenue. This is because GDP and net income measure the value-added of the economic activities, whereas revenue measures only the outputs, while ignoring the value of the inputs used.

I'm hesitant to go on a one-man crusade in this matter and correct the offending information in the Chaebol article, especially because I had this argument with an economics professor in my graduate school, and basically had the whole classroom turn on me for not "getting it".

Am I wrong in this matter, or are people just confused about the meaning of revenue, net income and GDP? Baeksu (talk) 07:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Revenue is probably more comparable. GDP measures the total value of all final goods (i.e. excluding goods that are used to produce other goods) in an economy. Remember, the value of a final good is the sum of all the value added in the value chain. "Value added" has different definitions in economics and business. Check out the other definitions at GDP and note that they correspond with sales better than profits. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. Wikipedia is not the place to start a "one-man crusade". Clarityfiend (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Depends if he is asking about starting a large dificult project (a "crusade") which goal would be to edit wikipedia article which contain invalid information. --Lgriot (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Revenue is not the appropriate measure. If I buy a building for $1.1 billion and sell it (revenue) for $1 billion, I haven’t added $1 billion of value, just $1 billion in gross revenue. The proper phrasing would be “Chaebol X’s revenues are comparable to Nation Z’s entire GDP.”DOR (HK) (talk) 07:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

But GDP is the value of all final goods traded in a given time. So the initial purchase wouldn't count. And the cost of any maintenance wouldn't count either. Just the final sale. To compare the size of a corporate to the size of a country using GDP, revenue compares better than profits. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(Un)employment in the Netherlands

It just said on the news that the lowest unemployment rate in the Eurozone at the moment is the Netherlands with just 3 %. That seems great in times of crisis here, how do those clever Dutch guys do it? Thanks for info. --AlexSuricata (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Fudge the figures? Exclude people on benefits from official figures. It could be that the Netherlands just have a robust occupational base but usually any headline unemployment % figures have their flaws (or at least they aren't as simple as the high level figures suggest). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much any statistics of this type have their flaws. Is there any evidence that figures from the Netherlands are less reliable than those elsewhere in the Eurozone? What's interesting is that unemployment rates have risen considerably almost everywhere, in the Netherlands they have barely increased from the lowest point, and are well down on 2006 or 2007 (see [2]). So, is the country doing something right, is it just luck, or is some feature of the social security system delaying a rise in unemployment? Warofdreams talk 15:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There have been some articles about this in the Dutch press as unemployment was expected to rise faster; one possible explanation is that many companies have used the option to let their employees work part time during the crisis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

TREATMENT

Hi Are there any documents that I can look at that explains the content of a Treatment?I.E. Concept,Theme,master scenes,camera angles.I am looking for an outline to follow and create my own Treatment. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.86.15.15 (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at film treatment and it's links? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Frank Hodges

I have been researching my great great uncle's history for both myself and my grandfather. His name is Frank Hodges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Hodges_(trade_unionist)) and he lived in Wales. Among his works was "My adventures as a labour leader (1924) pub. G Newnes." I am looking to obtain a copy of this book from the publisher or even an online copy. Does anyone know how to get a hold of a copy or how to contact the publisher? Any information will help. Thanks. 142.179.154.95 (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The correct link is: Frank_Hodges_(trade_unionist). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Was his middle name Jonah? - Eron^Talk 18:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a couple of copies for sale through this excellent rare books website. Also copies of his other book, should you be after a copy of that as well. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 18:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Nationalisation of the Mines is online. 75.62.6.87 (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Armenia

The article Armenia states that the country is "located at the juncture of Eastern Europe and Western Asia". So which continent should it be considered part of, Europe or Asia? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 17:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Eurasia --Digrpat (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned that is not a continent. Is Armenia in Europe or Asia? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 17:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The geographical border between Europe and Asia in this area are the Ural mountains and the Caucasus. As Armenia is located to the south of the latter mountain range, it would be located in Asia (minor). On the other hand, Armenia had a multitude of cultural influences (from Hellenism and ancient Persia via the Ottoman Empire to Soviet Russia), which place it at the above quoted "juncture". --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The apparent "problem" is a mirage; it is simply a product of the statement "As far as I'm concerned Eurasia is not a continent."--Wetman (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, when I was taught about the continents at school there was no mention of an entity called Eurasia, and from my point of view nothing has changed in the world since then. As usual, Cooky has given the best answer. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 21:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

See also Borders of the continents#Europe and Asia. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, since Richardj has his own definitions of the continents in mind, perhaps he could just assign it to one himself. Other problematic countries for you to tackle: Columbia (where does North America end and South America begin?), Turkey, Russia, Egypt... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The distinction between Europe and Asia is a well-established one, and remarks suggesting that Richardrj is making up his own definitions are quite unnecessary. But then that would involve answering the question rather than heckling the OP, wouldn't it? Malcolm XIV (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh those are easy. Colombia is entirely in South America - the dividing line is the isthmus of Panama. (There might have been some ambiguity back before Panama's independence - but happily that problem has already been solved for us.)

Turkey is all in Asia except for the small section west of the Bosporus and the Dardanelles.

Russia is in Asia (east of the Ural mountains) and in Europe (west of the Ural mountains).

Egypt is all in Africa except the Sinai, which is in Asia.

They're not problematic, they're just complicated. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't even call it complicated. There's no law that says a political entity must belong to only one continent or one division of the world. France, for example, belongs to both Europe and Oceania (as was made clear when they refused to stop nuclear testing at Moruroa Atoll; they were asked by the world community to please confine their tests to their own borders if they absolutely had to have them, and they replied that the Polynesian parts of France are not just colonies but as fully part of France as Paris is); then there's Spain (Europe and two outposts in northern Africa, Ceuta and Melilla). The complication is that continents are sometimes defined by being surrounded by water (but too big to be classified as "islands") and sometimes not.

Eurasia (and maybe even Eurasiafrica) would have been considered a single continent if the people who decided these things came from somewhere else. And the UK would not have regarded the land across the Channel as "the continent", but as "the mainland". But the people of the UK, France, Germany, Italy etc could never think of themselves as being part of the same continent as the people of China, Japan, India, Arabia, or Egypt, so they created artificial boundaries. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

France is also in South America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the only sensible way to answer this question, particularly on the Refernce Desk, is to look at different reference sources and see what they say.

• As started in the question, Armenia's Wikipedia article says "at the juncture of Eastern Europe and Western Asia". Georgia and Azerbaijan are each in both Europe and Asia according to Wikipedia.
• The CIA World Factbook says all three countries are in Asia except for a small part of Azerbaijan that is north of the Caucasus Range.
• My copy of the Random House Unabridged Dictionary (1979) says all three SSRs (as they then were) are in Caucasia, and says that the Transcaucasus Mountains are the boundary between Europe and Asia in Caucasia. I believe this works out to be the same as the CIA World Factbook answer.
• My copy of Webster's New World Encyclopdia (1993) says Armenia and Azerbaijan are in Asia but does not specify any continent for Georgia.
• The current World Almanac says all three countries are in Asia.
• My copy of the Columbia Concise Encyclopedia (1983) says all three SSRs are in Europe.

In short, there is no general agreement on this. You would think that the best answer would be whatever the people of the three countries say, and I'd be interested to see if that's reported somewhere. I would not necessarily go by what their governments say; they might choose one or the other answer for political reasons. --Anonymous, 02:15 UTC, April 2, 2009.

Another approach is to not just assume there is one universally accepted definition of "continent" - because there's not* - but to say "According to Definition A, Armenia is in Asia; according to Definition B, it's in Europe; and according to Definition C, it's in both. Which definition would you like to use today?"

(* Continent#Number of continents tells us there are 7, 6, 6, 5, or 4 continents depending on which definition you choose) -- JackofOz (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If I have my clicks in order, this is the Armenia article in the Wikipedia (which only has 2210 articles). Anyone able to read it and see how they self-define? BrainyBabe (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You linked to Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia. The Armenian article about Armenia is hy:Հայաստան. I can't read Armenian, but at the bottom of the article there are two navigation templates which, looking at what they link to, seem to be "Countries in Europe" and "Countries in Asia". Which, predictably, would indicate that Armenians consider themselves Europeans and Asians at the same time. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily; it could be that they consider part of the country European and the other part Asian, like with Russia and Turkey. --Anonymous, 00:15 UTC, April 3, 2009.

Slavery in ancient times

Back in ancient times, in the time of the Roman Empire or even earlier, when slavery was still legal, how common was it for slave owners to form romantic and/or sexual relationships with their slaves? Did it happen that people bought slaves specifically for this purpose? Was it more common among male owners and female slaves, or female owners and male slaves? JIP | Talk 18:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Some examples may be: Hagar, (the second wife of Abraham), Al-Khayzuran bint Atta, the mother of Harun al Rashid. There is also Traguilla and Amalasuntha (daughter of Theodoric) from the reverse aspect. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Potiphar's wife certainly wanted Joseph. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You might want to look at sexual slavery. Would it really have been possible to form a consensual relationship of any sort betwen an owner and a piece of property, in an age where slavery was accepted as one of the natural states of humanity? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

From the Roman Empire, there are numerous cases both of non-consensual (or highly questionable) sexual use of slaves, and of personal and romantic relationships developing between slaves and owners. In Roman law, the paterfamilias had absolute control over his entire household, so he could do pretty much anything to his slaves. Killing them was (I believe) a crime, but a crime of destruction of property, rather than murder. Anything else was fair game. Male and female slaves were often purchased for sexual purposes; Juvenal includes references to sexually attractive slave-boys in his poems. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hagar The Horrible didn't have slaves.--KageTora (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

From the Sexual_slavery#Bride_kidnapping_and_raptio:

The practice is surmised to have been common since anthropological antiquity. In Neolithic Europe, excavation of the Linear Pottery culture site at Asparn-Schletz, Austria, the remains of numerous slain victims were found. Among them, young adult females and children were clearly under-represented, suggesting that the attackers had killed the men but abducted the nubile females.(reference:Eisenhauer, U., Kulturwandel und Innovationsprozess: Die fünf grossen 'W' und die Verbreitung des Mittelneolithikums in Südwestdeutschland. Archäologische Informationen 22, 1999,

215-239; an alternative interpretation is the focus of abduction of children rather than women, a suggestion also made for the mass grave excavated at Thalheim. See E Biermann, Überlegungen zur Bevölkerungsgrösse in Siedlungen der Bandkeramik (2001) [3])

I don't know how wide your geographic scope is, but slavery existed all over the world, from China to the Americas. It is likely that sexual slavery formed a component of this in at least some places. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's still happening. It's been happening ever since people were invented.--KageTora (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2

Cost of a gondola ride in C16 Venice

Hi, all - about how much would I have had to pay for a gondola ride of say an hour in Venice in 1580?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

One ride was $1.50 but you could purchase a rechargeable metrocard which brought the price down to as low as $1.25 per ride. I missed it by a few minutes, didn't I. Oh well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not been there in several years, but I would say probably 50-100 Euros. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The questioner said "in 1580" guys. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Spicciolini, a couple of small coins. A couple of sisini perhaps? Two soldini? A couple of gazette, perhaps, when one gazetta would buy you a news broadsheet to read on the way; but this may be a C17 coin: Words, facts and phrases.--Wetman (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, was looking this up at the same time as Wetman. Well, one other thing to note: the "official Venetian gondola website" confirms that gondolas were in use in 1580, but also says that when used for an excursion (what I'm guessing a one-hour trip would be) rather than a get-from-A-to-B taxi trip, the gondola may well have been owned privately by a rich person rather than being hired. So a person who could take a one-hour trip might already own their own boat (and servant to row it, etc). That same site also has a searchable reference database if you can read Italian – there might be some historical references in there. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much - wonderfully helpful answers! Adambrowne666 (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A Story....Is It True? If so, where can I find the article here on wikipedia??

Ok...this is the story... "High Beams" There was a girl who went to a bonefire pep rally for her school. She ended up staying longer that expected and went home late. On her way home, she noticed a semitruck following her. The truck had it's high beams on and it was really annoying her. She drove down a lonley country road, but the semi would not stop following her. She decided that if it followed her down the dirt road off of the main road, she would speed home and call the police. It did. Every once in awhile, it would turn it's high beams on. She finally got home and screamed and ran into the house, as the truck parked in her driveway. Her father came out with his hunting rifle and pointed it at the semi driver. The driver got out and said, " No, do not shoot! I was just... LOOK!" They all looked at the backseat of her car and saw that there was a man in the back. With a machete. They promply called the police and he was taken away. The girl asked the semi driver "How did you know he was back there?" He told her "I had my high beams on. He was standing with the machete just over your head. Every time he stood up, I turned them back on" the author said this was based on a true story --- is it? if so, what is it called??? ~ Thanks, Cheers --- Jubilee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.20.243 (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an urban legend. You may want to go to http://www.snopes.com , which is a VERY well researched site. They have an article on this exact story: here. If you run across any more of these stories, check out Snopes. They are an awesome website. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's also pretty silly. I mean, who "stands with a machete above your head" in the back seat? And heck, if you're some sort of crazy machete serial killer, you'd have to be pretty stupid to chop up the person driving the car you are in. At least wait until they stop or something. And hey—if I was going to hide in someone's car with a machete, I'd probably run out of the car after it had stopped and everyone was standing around talking about whether or not I was hiding in the back of the car. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Who would use a machete in a confined space like a car anyway... No space to swing it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, have you ever heard a news story with that level of detail? You can usually spot urban legends like this a mile away. It gets annoying, as you end up losing some level of respect for loved ones who (as in my case) credulously tell you that a co-worker's friend was found burned to death, at the top of a tall tree, dressed in SCUBA gear. --Sean 13:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And tis guy was standing in the car? What? Did it have a sunroof or something?--KageTora (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And she noticed the high beams of the following truck but not a person moving about directly behind her in a vehicle. What was she driving: a cop car with the sound proof division between her and the back seat? A bus where the intruder was 20 feet away? And with the trucker behind flashing his high beams, she didn't notice a shadow on the dash? What a silly story! // BL \\ (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Plus, this guy is in the back of the car with a machete, watching some girl and her dad with his hunting rifle call the police, and he never got out and ran away? It really is an unrealistic situation. --KageTora (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Many years ago,when the story was told, the "man in the back seat" was of a different race than the girl driving the car. And he did not have a machete. The pursuing high-beam driver had just seen the man climb into the back seat. Edison (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The eyes of a Buddha statue

During a recent trip to Sri Lanka, I visited the Dambulla cave temple with a group of friends. There were more than 100 painted statues of the Buddha inside the caves, of varying sizes. We were informed that the eyes on a Buddha statue are considered sacred, and that they were always painted last. Once the eyes were painted (or had begun to be painted), the Buddha was considered "alive" in that statue and could see. I think my memory is correct on those points so far. However, I think we were also told that, in order to honour the Buddha during his "awakening" in that statue, the eyes were always painted via a mirror, so as not to look directly at them. And there was some sort of punishment if the painter were to look at the eyes directly before they were finished? Death? Lost his job? A fine? I don't know, and I can't seem to find any information on that custom. I did a google search but got lots of irrelevant hits, and I might have the whole thing mixed up. So I thought I would ask here and see if someone can help! Thank you very much, :-) Maedin\^talk 07:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Dunno bout Buddhas, but in depictions of the Chinese dragon in Chinese culture - whether painted, sculpted, or a costume for use in dragon dances and suchlike - the eyes are always painted last, and painting the eye makes the dragon "alive". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The custom is aparently called netra pinkama (eye festival) and is described here and here and a few other google hits. As to the punishments or ill-fortune which you might expect from not doing it correctly, they are most likely to be kept vague in order to not be disproved. meltBanana 12:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I know several Buddhist artists, and yes they all follow the tradition of painting the eyes last, but I've never heard of anyone using a mirror to do this, which I think would necessitate considerable practice and skill. Out of the hundreds of strands of Buddhist tradition, there are quite possibly some who do this, but despite all the ritual and tradition, Buddhist artists are on the whole a pragmatic bunch, and most would find the idea of using a mirror rather extreme.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Japanese politicians have a custom of painting the eyes (or the last eye?) of a kind of roly-poly thing on election night, but I don't know the details... AnonMoos (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As for the custom, see this article. And there is a related idiom 画竜点睛 in Japan. Oda Mari (talk) 04:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all very much for your responses! It may have been some natural "exaggeration" creeping into the local's retelling, but also likely that the practice has relaxed a little, perhaps because we aren't quite as superstitious as we used to be? I appreciate your help, :-) Maedin\^talk 13:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Patriotic retirement"

I read the following in a newspaper as an idea of how to fix the US economy:

There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force; pay them $1 million apiece severance with stipulations:

• They leave their jobs. Forty million job openings - Unemployment fixed.
• They buy new American cars. Forty million cars ordered - Auto industry fixed.
• They either buy a house or pay off their mortgage- Housing Crisis fixed.

Sound idea? Over to you... --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

$40,000,000,000,000 added to the money supply. Sound idea? --Anonymous, 08:22, April 2, 2009.

Is this a factual question, or an attempt to start a debate? Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a factual question, insofar as economics is an exact science. I would have thought the question was obvious – what effect would such a measure, if taken, have on the state of the economy? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, hyperinflation sounds about right. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ummm...how is unemployment solved if 40 million people are forced from their jobs? There's also the issue of constitutionality. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The idea is to remove them from the labor pool. Retired people are not considered unemployed. No, I am not saying it is a sensible idea, just answering the question. --Anonymous, 22:22 UTC, April 3, 2009.

Out of curiousity, which newspaper proposed this idea? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably the American version of The Sunday Sport.--KageTora (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Besides the massive inflation and the temporary labour shortage, there would also be the question of how many of those 40 million jobs would be filled by people who are qualified [and well-located] to do them. No point in sacking people who have proved they can do the job, only to get some high school drop out. Most of the unemployed are either straight from high school or on social security.--KageTora (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Plus, a rational economic actor would not buy American cars... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Besides, $1 million dollars wouldn't last more than 20 years if they have paid their mortgage off with it, plus bought cars, so you are saying every American should be broke by the age of 70?--KageTora (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Best not to trust what you read in the newspapers. If these guys were such economic geniuses, they'd be working for the banks, not playing around writing for a newspaper.--KageTora (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because the people who work for the banks have proved that they're really good with money, haven't they? Malcolm XIV (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

They seemed to do quite well for their own pocket books anyway... 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

OP, where did you get the 40 million unemployed figure? The actual number is 11.7 mn, or 7.6% 40 mn would be an unemployment rate of 33.6%. As for the $40 mn added to the money supply, let’s assume it is all cash, which means it is added to the smallest measure of the money supply (i.e., it has a bigger kick). Adding $40 mn to a $841.3 billion pile is, wow, almost 0.5%. Considering M-1 (Currency) is growing at better than 10%, I doubt anyone would notice. Hyperinflation is a non-issue.

However, driving 28.3 mn people out of their jobs (assuming the 11.7 mn are a perfect fit – and perfectly mobile – for some of the 40 mn jobs) would cause an enormous disruption to services and to what little manufacturing production employment still exists in the US economy (8.7 mn or 6.6% of total employment). And, paying off all those mortgages wouldn’t do anything to solve the financial crisis, since only about 7% of sub-prime – not total, just the sub-primes – are in trouble.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not $40 million added to the money supply in the OP's scenario, it's $40 trillion (40 million workers times $1,000,000 each). That's approximately 3x GDP. -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The OP also didn't specify 40 million unemployed people - the specification was 40 million employed people over the age of 50. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we're all missing the obvious (by questioning what newspaper proposed the scheme, etc, etc,): The obvious reason for the question is that Richardrj is over 50, but not over 60, but sick and tired of working already! 79.122.13.83 (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Comparative Wealth of North America versus South America

I've been wondering about this lately. Why is it that most of North America (the United States and Canada) are relatively prosperous while most of the nations south of these two countries (beginning with Mexico and continuing with Central America and South America) tend to be less prosperous? By 'prosperous' I am referring to wealth and standard of living. My understanding is that prior to European colonization, there wasn't a great disparity of wealth between the northern and southern parts of the Americas. Was there something specific about European colonization that resulted in this disparity? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The difference between England and Spain.--KageTora (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, modern-day Mexico and Peru were among the wealthiest and most urbanised regions of the Americas prior to serious European settlement. The Spanish, arriving in Mexico, started exporting its extensive gold and silver supplies back to Spain. This led to the collapse of the Spanish economy - the first ever national bankruptcies in history. The English, on the other hand, settling in modern-day New England, mostly exploited renewable resources. The persecution of various religious groups in northern Europe (England included) during the 16th and 17th centuries led to extensive emigration to north America, meaning that the rate of import of European skills and technology was very high. There's more to it than that, or than an entire library could explain, but those are my first thoughts. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Comparative levels of acceptable corruption.--Wetman (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Lazy Catholics! Adam Bishop (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is right to look to history for the answer to this question. I think that a lot of the answer has to do with the differences between the cultures of early modern England, on the one hand, and Spain and Portugal on the other. By the 17th century, England was one of the most successful mercantile powers in the world. The English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution cemented the dominance of the merchant class (in modern terms, the business elite or capital) in English society, and they structured England's legal system and political economy to enhance their success. The English colonies acquired this mercantile legal system and an influx of merchants who brought with them the skills and outlooks needed for commercial success. As a result, England's American colonies—and particularly commercial centers such as Charleston, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, Boston, and Montreal—grew in wealth during the late 18th century. At the same time, the Industrial Revolution had begun in England. English migrants brought industrial techniques to the American colonies around the turn of the 19th century. American commercial elites embraced these new technologies and invested their capital in them. As a result, an industrial revolution was soon underway in New England, followed by other parts of the United States and Canada by the mid-19th century. Industrial and commercial development continued at a rapid pace in the United States and Canada well into the 20th century. As a result, these regions have inherited great wealth.

By contrast, merchants had little status and little chance of success in Spain and Portugal or their colonies. The state monopolized much of the trade within the Spanish and Portuguese empires, and the proceeds of trade were used as collateral for loans mainly from Italian and Dutch and later English bankers, which Spanish (and to a lesser extent Portuguese) monarchs used to finance unproductive empire building through warfare, mainly within Europe. Thus, the profits from the Spanish and Portuguese colonial trade tended to end up in Northern European hands. Little capital accumulated in Spain, Portugal, or their colonies. Because merchants in the Iberian empires had little chance of success, they tended to have low social status. Commerce therefore failed to attract the most talented Portuguese and Spaniards. Instead, status in these cultures came mainly from large-scale land ownership, which provided a source of income not through capital investment but mainly from the exploitation of a servile agrarian class. Status could also come from military success, which often led to land grants. Consequently, Spain, Portugal, and their colonies never developed a successful merchant class and accumulated little capital. The Latin American colonies inherited this lack of capital and the low status connected with commercial pursuits when they gained independence in the early 19th century. Consequently, they were disinclined and not really able to embrace industrialization at that time. In fact, these regions retained agrarian economies right into the 20th century, and most of the profit to be gained from the trade in Latin American mineral and agricultural commodities was claimed by American and Northern European trading firms. There were a few small exceptions to this pattern, such as the financial sector that developed in São Paulo to finance and profit from Brazil's coffee trade. Industrialization did not come to most of Latin America until the mid-20th century. In many cases, even this industrialization did not lead to profit or capital accumulation, since the industrialization was undertaken by the state without much heed to the dictates of the market. It was really only in the late 20th century, with the move toward globalization and the removal of government regulations that restrained trade and investment, that Latin America began to industrialize on a profitable basis. At first, and to a large extent still, it was mainly foreign (largely U.S. and European) firms that profited from an investment in industrial plant in Latin America. However, the spread of a global entrepreneurial culture led to the spread of local entrepreneurial efforts within Latin America. They were able to draw on an increasingly skilled labor force as a result of foreign industrial investment in those countries. As a result, during the last two decades of the 20th century, capital accumulation really began to take off in much of Latin America. Of course, the Latin American countries started out far behind the United States and Canada, and they still have a long way to go to catch up. Marco polo (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hark! Do I hear the echo of Clio, laughing in the forest? (Bravo! Well answered!) BrainyBabe (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that Argentina was the 10th richest country in the world in 1913 (source: [4], GDP per capita). Though something structural was probably "wrong" already then, one should note that a lot of the downhill path for Argentina (and perhaps Chile and some other countries) has really been since then. My bet is that high inequality has played an important role, as well as political instability (for which inequality might have played a role again) Jørgen (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations" by David S. Landes. He addresses this very question in a very readable and interesting history. Many things are suggested, but I'll let you read and find out yourself!NByz (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Mace of the House of Delegates (Virginia)

WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration This question inspired an article to be created or enhanced: Mace of the Virginia House of Delegates Please consider contributing

Is it true that the original mace was sold to raise money and the current one is just a cheap replacement? If so where is the original? Privately owned? Given back to the Queen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.227.89.137 (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This article states:

"The original mace was presented to the House of Burgesses by the Royal Governor of the Colony and Dominion of Virginia in 1700. That mace, alas, has since been lost. The current mace dates only from the Edwardian period, and is constructed of silver covered in 24-karat gold. It was purchased by the Jamestown Foundation and presented to the House of Delegates in 1974."

So, it's not original but as it is gold-plated silver, I'd hardly call it a cheap replacement either. I have no idea if "lost" is a euphemism for "sold off for cash." - Eron^Talk 16:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Where was it prior to 1974? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the Virginia State Capitol Visitor's Guide, the current mace was made in England in 1938, which contradicts the earlier reference's statement that it dates from the Edwardian period. The first author may have confused the Edwardian style of the mace with its being from the Edwardian era. - Eron^Talk 19:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If it were made in 1936 rather than 1938 I could suggest yet another answer. —Tamfang (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

According to this, the original was sold in 1794 for $101. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

that also gives a different date for the current mace's purchase and presentation to the legislature. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I do believe we have a Mystery! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Every reference I've found - five or six - except Bedini's book gives the date of the new mace's acquisition as 1974. Bedini's work is the most scholarly of the bunch and is very well referenced. However, the sentence in which he says the mace was acquired in 1962 has a footnote that only seems to refer to the disposal of the original mace - no reference he cites is later than 1911 so they can't support the date of 1962. (He also says the mace was presented by the Jamestown Foundation when it seems to have been presented by the Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation.) I think on balance we have to go with the 1974 date.

So, to answer the OP completely: The original mace was indeed sold, in 1794, to raise money. The plan was to use the money to buy new, non-royalist maces for the Virginia House and Senate, but they got bogged down in cost and design issues so that never actually happened. The original mace was sold to a silversmith and was probably melted down for spoons or teapots or something. The current mace, while a replacement, is hardly cheap: it is silver with a 24K gold plating. (This information and much more, including intimations of Jeffersonian fascism, can be found at our shiny new Mace of the Virginia House of Delegates article. - Eron^Talk 18:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

atheism

Is atheism a religion in and of itself?

A related question, is anarchy a form of government? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Atheism: no, not really. A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality. Spirituality is a concept closely tied to religious belief and faith, a transcendent reality, or one or more deities. One could make an argument that an atheist has a concept of spirituality, but only in the same way that one can imagine fish-eating vegetarians.

No, not "not really", not at all. Atheism is an aspect of philosophy. Philosophical materialism denies the useful existence of metaphysics. --Wetman (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Anarchy could indeed be a form of government. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

How can anarchy be a form of government? Other than maybe each anarchist declaring that they are their own government. To have a government would need to have some sort of authority, thereby diminishing the 'anarchiness' of someone else that is being governed, unless you say each person had equal authority, but wouldn't that just be nice, pure democracy.MedicRoo (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We are governed by custom and contract, as well as by the State, so in my humble opinion government properly understood is broader than the State. Anarchy (≠lawlessness) is certainly a form of social order. —Tamfang (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Atheism is not a religion in and of itself, but there may be atheistic religions, that is religions which do not assume the existence of God or gods. See Atheism in Hinduism for an example. Anarchy, on the other hand, is a lack of government, not a form of it. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

One may argue that, in the Soviet or North Korean model of communism, atheism has become a religion, manifesting at least some of the typical attributes of the religion (such as iconography, traditions, observances, veneration of the "saints", and following the "spiritual leaders" without question). That does not apply to Western atheism, or applies to a lesser extent. It is interesting to note also that Confucianism is often described as a religion, although, to the best of my knowledge, present-day Confucianism is a form of atheism (however, see Tian). In general, we have several good articles on the definitions of religion; a good place to start is Religion#Definitions of religion. Hope this helps. --Dr Dima (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday on the BBC I heard someone who called himself an anarchist describing how government works under anarchy: it sounded remarkably like concensus politics to me.--TammyMoet (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"One may argue that, in the Soviet or North Korean model of communism, atheism has become a religion, manifesting at least some of the typical attributes of the religion (such as iconography, traditions, observances, veneration of the "saints", and following the "spiritual leaders" without question)". Can you provide some specific examples? Or did you mean 'communism has become a religion'? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

they're just saying that a cult of personality is like a religion. which I would dispute... socialist cults of personality are far more centralized and powerful than any religion ever has been, even during the worst of the Inquisition (which was more arbitrary than it was effective)... --98.217.14.211 (talk) 03:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not atheism that has become a religion. Atheism is simply the position that no gods exist. All North Korea shows (if it shows anything) is that it is possible to have religions incorporating a belief in atheism, but we knew that already (Buddhism is another example). Algebraist 18:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this is what you're after, but try Anarchism. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Atheism clearly is a form of religion, because it makes a strong statement about supernatural beings: they do not exist. Agnosticism would be a better candidate for implying much the same thing without claiming knowledge of every sort of thing that exists. Edison (talk) 05:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

How does the belief that gods don't exist claim any knowledge? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

We have no certain knowledge that God(s) exist. To believe they do falls under the category of faith, a key component of religion. To believe they do not is the basis of atheism. Both, you will note, depend on a belief in the unprovable. Hence, I would agree that atheism is a (God[s]less) religion. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The burden of proof is not equal in those cases. Have a look at the article on Russell's teapot. Faith is not a component of atheism; Occam's razor is its guiding principle, not belief. Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd also venture that, if the existence of God(s) was actually proven (and gods are physically present on earth in much religious literature; there's nothing to suggest their existence is unprovable), the average atheist could cease to be an atheist without compromising any of his or her principles. The gist of atheism is "I see no objective evidence of God, therefore I have no reason to believe in God," not "I refuse to believe in God, no matter what." This distinction is sometimes lost on people of faith, to whom all of creation is essentially evidence of God. It's also lost on some atheists, for that matter. But if objective evidence of God's existence were to surface, somehow, and atheists persisted in denying his (or her) existence, they would then be acting on faith regardless of evidence, and would be practicing a religion. Given that such evidence does not currently exist, atheism is not a religion, but an observation. --Fullobeans (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What proof do we have that Occam's razor is a valid tool? How do you go about demonstrating, rigorously, that the burden of proof lies with theists rather than atheists? AlexTiefling (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

See Occam's_razor#Justifications. The theists are the ones with extraordinary claims. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Those justifications are interesting, but they don't demonstrate the necessity of Occam's Razor, nor do they in any way lead logically to your conclusions. What rigorous method can be used to partition claims into 'ordinary' and 'extraordinary'? Many of the arguments for Occam's Razor which suggest that 'simple explanations are more probable' remind me of the old Ptolemaic model of the universe in which things were assumed to move in circles because circles are more simple, and thus more ideal. And if simple explanations are more probable, how does one explain something like General Relativity, which is not at all simple. In what sense is it improbable? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Occam's Razor, but my understanding is that about the simplest explanation that fits the observational evidence. General Relativity is the simplest explantion that fits the observational evidence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note, Alex Tiefling, that this is a reference desk, not a debate forum.

The reference given above, Occam's_razor#Justifications, states that "parsimony was an important heuristic in the formulation of special relativity by Albert Einstein", ie that the theory of general relativity is the simplest explanation. Malcolm XIV (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(after ec)@Alex: Okay, let's pick a phenomenon. Say, the origin of life. Now we have several theories that try to explain this: one theory says that God created life but there are other theories too and Occam's razor says we should choose the one that requires the least assumptions. The "origin of God" renders the God hypothesis problematic with respect to Occam's razor. So that's the logic behind my conclusion. Regarding the necessity of Occam's razor: this is just a convenient way to live our lives - you use it everyday for everything except your religious beliefs.

General relativity is not a phenomenon that needs a theory - rather it is a theory that explains a phenomenon. And it has been empirically tested - the God hypothesis has not. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to have a debate - it was a genuine question about the basis for Occam's Razor. I agree that creationism (both physical and biological) has much more substantial problems than more materialist approaches, and it wasn't my intent to challenge that. I'm just curious about the epistemology of assertions like 'simple explanations are more probable' or 'extraordinary claims {are distinct and} require extraordinary evidence'. They don't seem to me to have any formal basis - they are axioms, but I'm not sure why they are so strongly preferable to other ones. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If Occam's Razor is dependent on observable evidence, it doesn't apply here. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Does Robert De Nero play the violin?

Question moved to Entertainment Reference Desk. - Eron^Talk 17:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Accounting General Ledger

Hello. Why is the Particulars column for temporary accounts not underlined when temporary accounts close? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps because when they are closed they are not particularly important anymore?--KageTora (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely that's a mere formatting issue and the rationale would be clarity or ease of use...? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to this question, but I understand that "formatting issues" are quite significant in accounting. The underline might mean something. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't recall that the GAAP/IFRS says anything about underlining. There are conventions - single line for subtotals, doublt underline for grand totals, but the rest would surely be up to the individual accounting entity... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

capital punishment

Is capital punishment permissible in the US territories and P.R.? I did not see them mentioned in the US capital punishment article 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

One of the infoboxes on the Capital punishment in the United States article states that American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have no current death penalty statute. So I believe the answer is "No." - Eron^Talk 20:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that several federal crimes carry the death penalty, and one could be convicted of such a crime and sentenced to death even if the crime took place in any of those territories, or in any State that has no death penalty. Tempshill (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

April 3

Magnuson Moss Act New Zealand equivalent

G'day from New Zealand. I was wondering if my country had a law equivalent to the US "Magnuson-Moss Act". I'm specifically interested in knowing if there is a law which means that a warranty cannot be voided on a product if the consumer has used another product which enhances the performance of the original product. An example I suppose would be a special kind of ink which makes your printer more efficient than the ink sold by your printer manufacturer (at which point the printer manufacturer freaks out and voids your warranty). I've tried looking at the Consumer Guarantees Act and Fair Trading Act on the NZ Legislation website, but haven't had much luck. Appreciate any help.

Turn of the Century French Ultra Conservatism

Where can I find details of caused the rise of strong right wing conservatism in France under theird republic in the period between the Franco-Prussian War and WW1. Thank you

Our article French Third Republic is probably a good place to start. - Eron^Talk 03:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Georges Ernest Boulanger, a former general and reactionary right-wing politician who almost succeeded in toppling the Third Republic, is relevant to the question. Charles Maurras and Maurice Barrès were leading intellectual figures associated with this position. And of course, the movement found some of its strongest voices during the Dreyfus Affair. All of the linked articles contain relevant information. --Xuxl (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Boulanger did indeed capitalise on the rise in right wing conservatism, but where was this shift coming from? The dreysus afffair too made the shift very evident, but fails to explains it's origins. Can the rising doctrine of ethnic nationlism account (compounded the dreysus affair) really account for the shift?

Usually, the rise is blamed on the humiliating defeat which France suffered at the hands of Germany in the 1870 War. The movement was often called "revanchisme", i.e. getting revenge. The common rallying cry was the reconquest of Alsace and Lorraine, the two provinces lost to Germany in that war. The right was also looking for scapegoats for the defeat: foreigners, Jews (Alfred Dreyfus was great for this purpose) and other common bugaboos of the far right (e.g. weakening of the national character, loss of traditional values, etc). --Xuxl (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

How to get into the US?

We have a situation that requires urgent travel to the United States. We have the opportunity to travel to Reno, Nevada for an international science fair. One of the boys traveling is Romanian and the Romanian passport has expired, and there is no chance to renew it (150 days).

One of the boys traveling is a Romanian citizen, and he is living in Canada without Canadian citizenship, but with permanent residence. He does not have a passport to fly to Reno, so he has applied for a Certificate of Identity, shown on this page.

http://www.ppt.gc.ca/non-cdn/index.aspx?lang=eng

Do we need a VISA to travel with this document? and if so, will they base a VISA on this document?

Can a VISA and this certificate of identity be used to fly from Ontario to the United States.

Mile92 (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Anybody who isn't a Canadian or Mexican citizen must have a passport to enter the United States. With the situation you've discribed, there is no way you will be permitted to enter. I'm sorry to other editors if this can be construed as legal advice, and if so, feel free to remove it. Grsz¹¹ 00:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I would

1. Call the US embassy in Canada and ask them this (or take your text and paste it into an e-mail). They will know if it's OK. Do this no matter what the people here tell you
2. Call the Romanian embassy in Canada and ask can they please please get him a regular or emergency passport, and then ask the US embassy if it's OK for him to apply for a visa from Canada (if the answer to #1 is "no")

Jørgen (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about Romania, but UK citizens can get emergency travel documents in less than 24 hours, although it isn't cheap. If you need a visa, that might take longer, though. --Tango (talk) 06:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This may not be an emergency, but with 150 days to go I would see if the process of getting a travel document can be hurried. There's almost always a way to do that. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

150 days is the time it would normally take; the science fair is in May, so they have about 40 days. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if someone gave €100 to the right Romanian official as a gift of thanks (in advance) for accelerating things ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.234.246.206 (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I know the guidelines only refer to legal advice, but I'm pretty sure we should avoid giving illegal advice as well. - Eron^Talk 20:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The advice is not necessarily illegal. In the UK, at least, we have an official system along those lines. If you pay a hefty enough surcharge, you can get a new passport on the day you ask for it. Algebraist 20:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I already have a Certificate of Identity, which is(as far as the people at the passport place tell me) similar to a passport. But that's the dillema now, i'm only getting the certificate as an Romanian citizen(so.. it acts like a romanian passport), but we don't know if the US will put a VISA on it. Also, yes.. i know about the little gifts that I need to give Romanian office people, but.. that's the reason I left Romania; so I will not do it. Mile92 (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

e-commerce

why are e-commerce goes increase and familiar all over the world, here we seen so many frauds and illegal techniques used to access the interests? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.51.67 (talk) 05:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand. There are too many grammatical errors in there for me to make sense of what you are trying to say. If English isn't your first language, I suggest you see if the Wikipedia in your language has its own reference desk and ask there. --Tango (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think what he's asking is why e-commerce is increasingly popular, even though internet fraud is common (presumably that's particularly true where he's from). I guess he wants to know what gives people the courage to make purchases on the internet and trust they're not going to get scammed.

Personally, I've bought a lot of things on the net, both actual physical objects and services and digital products, and I've never had a bad experience, at least not in terms of someone cheating me. I rarely actively think about whether it's safe, unless I'm considering a purchase from a site that's not established enough to be trusted right off the bat. I mean, if I buy a book from Amazon, I really don't expect to get ripped off. I _might_, sure, but then anyone at a local restaurant could just as easily copy my credit card number and make me pay for their horse tranquilizer habit or something -- there has to be _some_ kind of basic trust there for commerce to be viable. And I do run into scams all the time, but most of them are very, very easy to spot. (To put it simply, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the beautiful Nigerian princess who offers you ten million bucks doesn't really exist.) I'm not very worried, and I think most people who make purchases online are operating under the same general principles. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 06:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I live near a major shopping mall, and I've sometimes spent hours traipsing around it unable to find what I want, only to find it within a few minutes online. That is the big attraction. The key thing is only to use reputable websites, and avoid random marketplaces such as eBay.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Why would you want to avoid eBay? If the seller has a good feedback rating, it's pretty low risk. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The amount of risk on ebay will vary depending on what is being sold. There is more motive to scam you for a high value item then a low one. For example, if you want to buy something that is pretty inexpensive, like a $10 cookbook, you are far less likely to have a problem then if you bought a "genuine" Ming dynasty vase. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Troops Attacked By Cavalry

Why is it that when you have a company of infantry, putting them in squares defeats a cavalry attack with close to zero casualties, but when you do it on 'Cossacks' (the game) they all just get massacred?--KageTora (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if putting infantry in squares really offers them a great advantage over cavalry in real life, but if it does, then it probably has a lot to do with Cossacks not being a particularly realistic game, at least in that respect. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, apparently, from what I have read in military history textbooks, horses have a natural urge to avoid charging straight at a line of men, 3 deep, with guns and bayonets, so the obvious strategy for the cavalry would be to attack from the side or the rear, hence the square formation, as there are no real sides or rears. Cossacks is a brilliant game, but my men just keep getting massacred unless I make them all run away and form smaller squares or get in a building or something.--KageTora (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've not seen the game, but AFAIK, cavalry would destroy unassisted infantry unless the following were true: there were sufficient numbers of well-trained troops, using sufficiently modern firearms that they could keep up sustained volleys of fire and the footsoldiers had bayonets and were proficient in their use. Do your troops fulfil these criteria? --Dweller (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The use of squares to defeat cavalry is very much taken from real life, as any book on Napoleonic era tactics will tell. The truth is that it is actually very hard for a man on a horse to run down and injure even a single man on foot armed with a pole. If the 'pole' is a rifle with a bayonet on the end then it is pretty much impossible for cavalry to hurt a line of infanty standing facing them with bayonets.

So why, you wonder, are cavalry so devastating against infantry. The first reason is that the situation is completely different if the cavalry are able to come at the infantry from the side or the rear. Then the infantry can't defend themselves and the cavalry just run over them. The second reason is that it's a question of nerve. A mass of fast moving animals coming towards you unnerves even the bravest, and if the line of infantry turns and runs then the cavalry takes them from the back, which results in a massacre.

That's why squares are the tactic of choice for infantry against cavalry. The horsemen can't attack from the side or rear, and having your colleagues at your back makes it easier to stand and fight with confidence. If you read accounts of Napoleonic battles there are plenty of examples where infantry attacked by cavalry successfully resist by forming into square. One author I've read claimed that there was no example of well-trained infantry having a square 'broken' by cavalry unless they hit it while the square was still forming, or the square was broken first by artillery fire.

As for why the Cossack game doesn't simulate this, I don't know. Other games about the era do simulate it. Maybe they wanted to make the cavalry more powerful than they really were, seeing as how the name is 'Cossack'. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Our article infantry square gives more information. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was the British in the Battle Of Waterloo scenario, and I keep losing. Mind you, I was the French in the Battle Of Hastings scenario for Medieval Total War II and I kept getting massacred. D-Day in Sudden Strike also resulted in Nazi domination of Europe. Something is seriously wrong. Maybe I should stop putting all my troops into squares and just get them to attack.--KageTora (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're not a military genius (probably). If Napoleon were playing those games maybe the result would be different (I can't get the crusades battles in MTW to turn out historically correct either). Adam Bishop (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding D-Day in Sudden Strike, I don't think forming squares with your infantry will provide a meaningful benefit from armored "vehicle" cavalry. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If cavalry were riding at a spread out line of infantry, in musket days, with the very limited rate of fire,and limited effective range, the infantry would get off one volley and have no time to reload before the cavalry rode through them. The cavalry could get off pistol shots and could then kill with sabres as the passed the infantry line. The cavalry could also ride or leap over breastworks and trenches. Attacking infantry would have to endure repeated volleys from the defenders, with higher losses. If the infantry is in a square, each rank can fire and reload, and bayonet the cavalry trying to ride through them, as well as attacking from the sides and rear as the bog down in the mass of men. The square could also have a rank of pikemen in the front. Granted, the cavalry could then attack the pike-less rear, but would still endure ongoing volleys of musketry. Edison (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

All my comments above apply after the invention of the bayonet. Before that it was necessary to have pikemen with the musketeers in order to fend off cavalry. I don't know as much about pre-bayonet warfare, but I think the square was a common tactic against cavalry then too. Note that the square is rarely a good tactic against infantry attack, because there the defenders need to maximize the firepower they can bring to bear against the attackers.

The usual way of dealing with a square was to pound it with artillery; the close ranks would cause high casualties and the breaks caused by the artillery might disrupt it enough to allow cavalry to penetrate it. You can keep an infantry unit in square by having cavalry hang about nearby, and then bring up infantry to defeat it in a firefight - the defenders having only 1/4 of their firepower because of the square formation. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to guess that in the pike-and-musket era a square would be composed of mixed pike and musket on all sides.

Incidentally the limitations on square use are not so much about technology as they are about men. To effectively use the square tactic your infantry must be capable of changing formation quickly and accurately, under enemy fire and in the face of charging cavalry. That's far from easy. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, what a different world we would be living in if I was in charge. I won the Agincourt scenario twice (I was the English first, then the French and won both times). Got massacred every time I even went near the middle East for the Crusades, and for some reason the Scots are in Norway now. Oh and the artillery support for one of the Russian Campaigns in the Crimea in WW2 (Sudden Strike) only has artillery that can reach the beach, so I just end up blowing up all of my men who have just got onto the beach, which results in a very short game. I guess it would be pointless getting them to form a square, then?--KageTora (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, what a different world it would be. I have witnessed a Japanese tank attack on Russia in Axis and Allies, following a route which appeared to sweep over the Himalayas. Which just goes to show these games are not always accurate. But on infantry squares: wonderful things, but certainly require well-trained troops, hence all the parade ground manoeuvrings while shouted at by the RSMs. Prior to bayonets, we see the pike square and the schiltron. DJ Clayworth is almost right: correctly formed infantry squares were almost impossible to break without artillery, but the Battle of Garcia Hernandez saw two French squares broken by the Germans. Gwinva (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Talking of those who have successfully broken a square, let's not forget the finest of the lot. DuncanHill (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Simulation hypothesis and Gnosticism

What branches of Gnosticism, if any, are compatible with the simulation hypothesis? Do any specifically affirm it? NeonMerlin 10:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Michelle Obama and First Ladies Generally

Hello Wikipedia,

We Londoners have been blessed in recent days by the arrival of Mr and Mrs Obama, and a few other world leaders. Obviously as "the leader of the free world", President O gets a certain amount of special treatment which is not afforded to the others (closing stanstead airport, that slightly diva-esque motorcade etc) but i'm just curious about the role of Michelle, who, whilst her husband was busy saving the world, gave a talk to a girls school in London and visited a hopstial with Sarah Brown.

Clearly, with the possibe exception of Carla Bruni, had any other First Ladies done anything like this the media attention would have been almost nil so i'm curiuos, does michelle do those things becuase she's amazing and everyone loves her or does she do them becuase she's the first lady? Did other first ladies do similar things when their husbands were 'on business'? P.s. I'm not attacking michelle for doing what she did- as one of the Obamas many fans, she can do no wrong in my eyes81.140.37.58 (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Laura Bush has visited places on her own e.g. in Jerusalem[5], Haiti[6], and a Marie Antoinette exhibition in Paris while George was doing other business (to which I cannot link because WP is run by idiots). She visited London with George in 2003[7] and 2008[8], both of which saw vast amounts of security and disruption. In 2003 she watched children performing scenes from Shakespeare with Cherie Blair[9]. Some spouses will be keener than others on making visits, but there's more media interest on the Obamas than on most leaders. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Events like the G8 summits commonly include events for spouses, e.g. [10][11][12]. But unless there's someone super-glamorous like Michelle or Carla, nobody really wants to look at middle-aged women. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a new phenomenon. Jackie Kennedy was a glamorous first lady and drew crowds in the 1960s whenever she went, at home and abroad.. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What short memories we have. Didn't Raisa Gorbachev get similar attention? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the modern First Spouse will typically do photo op, PR things when on an official visit with the spouse. Works on both sides of the pond, of course: when Queen Elizabeth was in the US in 2007, Prince Philip sometimes went off for events on his own, though I imagine there were fewer cameras pointing at him than is the case with Michelle Obama. —Kevin Myers 15:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The first First Lady with a genuinely independent career was Eleanor Roosevelt. First Ladies have received media attention since Dolly Madison. --Wetman (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

British unparliamentary language list

I understand that in past (~10 years?) editions of Erskine May, there was a comprehensive list of what was considered unparliamentary language. Does anyone know where I could track down an online copy of such a thing?Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(not an answer to your question, really) No, but I did find the one for New Zealand; it's delicious. 87.115.166.150 (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, yes, that is good! I particularly like, "His brains could revolve inside a peanut shell for a thousand years without touching the sides" - anyone any idea how to trace who said it? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Try asking the staff at the Parliamentary Bookshop. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

May I refer the Hon. Gentleman to a previous discussion on the subject. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Economics question on CDs

In the US, most CDs (Certificates of deposit) that are FDIC backed seem to have 2-3% interest. If UK banks have the same kind of governmental guarantees as the FDIC for US banks, would such insurance cover assets belonging to foreigners money? Hypothetically, say the equivalent CD in the UK or Australia gives 6% interest, wouldn't that be the better investment (assuming the currencies are stable relative to each other? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If the numbers you mention are correct and if US investors qualify for deposit insurance from the Australian government when they invest in Australian CDs and if transaction costs are low, then the market believes that Australian deposit insurance is riskier than the FDIC so investors require a higher return on their investment. I've ignored currency risk. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Or, to find the simple answer: the market believes there is ~3% worth of currency risk. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Not quite - the differential includes a "spread" for currency risk as well as default risk of the Australian government. Assuming, as above, that US investors can easily invest in Australian NCDs. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

What are some Structuralist books that elaborate on binary oppositions?

What are some Structuralist books that elaborate on binary oppositions? --Gary123 (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The question is rather vague, but you could look at some of the works of Claude Lévi-Strauss in anthropology, or N.S. Troubetzkoy in linguistics... AnonMoos (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Muslims celebrate Christmas

Is this true that Alawite Muslims of Syria and Lebanon celebrate Christmas like the Christians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.166 (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Our article Christmas worldwide states, "Most Lebanese Muslims celebrate Christmas with Christian friends, a poll showed that around two thirds of the population celebrate Christmas, while only 45% of the population is Christian." It does not mention Muslims in Syria. Tomdobb (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've never met a Syrian Muslim, but where I live many Muslims celebrate Christmas along with the Christians, Hindus, atheists and agnostics. Plus everybody gets invited to their Eid celebrations. And there's Diwali of course - a party's a party. pablo_hablo. 22:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

So... where do you live? LANTZY^TALK 22:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Britain - e-mail me if you want to come to the next do. pablo_hablo. 22:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Christmas worldwide should certainly not have said "Most Lebanese Muslims celebrate Christmas with Christian friends, a poll showed that around ...", and I've now fixed it by removing the comma splice. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Congress

An early map is dated as "37th Congress, 3rd Session." What year would this have been?Cenore (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere between December 1, 1862 and March 3, 1863 pablo_hablo. 22:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Old leaders, young leaders

It seems like some countries usually have very elderly leaders while others have younger ones. China, India, and Japan, in particular, have struck me as contries whose political leaders tend to be very old (though lately this tendency hasn't been as marked), while U.S. presidents tend to be fairly young. I calculated (quickly, and may be slightly off) that the average age of an Indian prime minister on ascension to office is 65 (not excluding Rajiv Gandhi, an outlier at age forty), whereas the average age of a U.S. president upon inauguration is around 55. Why the discrepency? Is it cultural or related to the electoral system? For example, does a parliamentary system favor older leaders while a presidential system favors younger ones? (I can think of some reasons why this might be the case.) I don't expect conclusive answers, just thoughts. LANTZY^TALK 22:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it has anything to do with the political system. The UK, which has a parliamentary system, has been electing guys in their 40s for decades (Tony Blair & John Major). It would be a cultural thing. People think more of elders in some places, China, India and Japan in particular, as you said. Not so much in Europe, where experience and abilities count more. (Not saying that the guys in China, India and Japan are not qualified, so no disrespect intended here).--KageTora (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, correction: Neither John Major nor Tony Blair were actually elected. They just took over from people before them. Nor was Gordon Brown. So this means we haven't actually legally elected anyone since the days of John Smith, the inventor of beer.--KageTora (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? John Major was re-elected in the 1992 general election. Tony Blair won three general elections. John Smith, on the other hand, was never prime minister at all. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

John Major was re-given a job already had. I don't call that an election. Tony Blair (according to the Wiki article) succeeded John Smith as leader of the Labour Party, and therefore walked into a job that was waiting for this country to happen. I don't call that an election, especially how he didn't show what Labour used to stand for. Then we have Gordon Brown, an ex-chancellor of the exchecker (sorry, can't spell it), and under him we are in the biggest global financial mess since Julius Caesar died.--KageTora (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I see now that you are a troll. Thanks for the clarification. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if KageTora is a troll, but he does seem to be implying that Tony Blair is not a true Scotsman. Seriously - an election is an election, even if (with hindsight) it looked easy for the winner. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Me? A troll? I answered the OP's question, as requested. I do see, however, that you have been slated very often on various RDs for being sarcastic. I think you should give it a rest for a while. Being nice would be, well, nice.--KageTora (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, this discussion is over. In future, please do not mislead the OP by posting deliberate misinformation. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, Kagetora. I don't consider you a troll, and I understand the point you were making. LANTZY^TALK 21:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right, message received and understood, lar. No need to discuss anything with me, lar, as far as I am concerned. Just be a bit nicer with people, eh? --KageTora (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, hope the OP got the info requested.--KageTora (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

KageTora, one is entitled to have a low opinion of Gordon Brown, but blaming him for the global economic mess is a bit much, I think. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, Jack, I wasn't actually blaming Gordon Brown. I was just trying to say that it's shocking that we have the last PM's top financial advisor as the new PM, and suddenly, now we are in a financial crisis, he acts like he can't punch his way through a wet Echo.--KageTora (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Back to the question. Since 1972, the average age of Australian Prime Ministers at first appointment has been 51, but they tended to be a bit older than that previously. Bob Menzies was only 44 when he first became PM in 1939, but was 71 when he finally left the job in 1966. We've only ever had 2 PMs appointed in their 60s, and one of those (John McEwen) was only an interim appointment for 3 weeks. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe there is a perception in the West that a political leader must be physically vigorous, and clearly in good health. In theory, the leader should also have experience and wisdom, though I can't say I have seen a lot of that in my lifetime. We do not associate the desired physical characterstics with old age, but old age is where wisdom and experience reside. So, in the West, we look to optimize and that seems to settle out somewhere between 45 and 55 for men anyway. This is all personal opinion. I have only a rapidly declining memory for evidence. // BL \\ (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There is the common term "aging strongman." If a country's leader has no maximum 8 years in power as in the U.S., he might seek to rule with an increasingly harsh and repressive regime until he draws his last breath. His toadies and internal security staff are likely to seek to maintain the regime even if he is semi comatose. Consider Stalin, Mao, Mugabe, Franco,Pinochet, the or the present North Korean leader in the Kim dynasty. If I were a member of a ruling party at such a country charged with selecting a new leader with such potential to abuse the power of an absolute state, I might favor an older leader because he will not be in power as long as a forty year old. J. Edgar Hoover became more suspicious over the course of decades he ran the FBI. In a less drastic environment, I have heard that the Cardinals selecting a new Pope are not thrilled about the prospect of a young man staying in power for many decades. The out-of-power party in the U.S. hates to see the party in power place young men of the ruling party's ideology on the Supreme Court, where they serve until they resign, die or are impeached. Which rulers or other men with extreme power became more kindly, less paranoid, and more gracious as they grew very old? Edison (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. In the absence of direct democracy, China uses a combination of constitutional term limits (10 years) and Presidents of a certain age to control abuses of power a la Mao and Deng. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Li Peng was 49 when he became Premier; Jiang Zemin became CCP General Secretary at the age of 53. Wen Jiabao was 60 and Hu Jintao 59. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

In the UK at least there now seems to be a political bias against older leaders with strong criticism of certain politicians (Menzies Campbell, Michael Howard, etc) as being too old to lead a political party or the country. Similarly though we've moved away from giving political authority at a young age (William Pitt the younger & others of that era. This is possibly due to the decline in automatic belief in & support for the hereditery principle in monarchies as in the past we've accepted people in political and social positions of power regardless of age because they've inherited it - this is seen as less justifiable now though. AllanHainey (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

April 4

Dnepropetrovsk maniacs

Why was the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs case not reported in Western media at all? I find it a bit suspicious, strange, that it hasn't been reported at all in Western media.

If anything, the fact that it hasn't been reported in Western media leads me to even greater suspicion (which is already very high - for example everything that the BBC says has to be taken with a massive pinch of salt) of Western media.--Hassan Mohammed (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It will be because people these days are more interested in Jade Goody's death than anything else. Sad, I know. Seriously. It makes my eyes stream because everything people watch or read about it just celebrities.--KageTora (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, I agree. Why wasn't the North Sea helicopter crash, killing 16 people, about the same as today's shooting, on the main page? That killed 16 people. Is it because it's in Scotland? And the Anglo-Americans don't care? Yeah, that'll be what it is. 500 people could die today in Pakistan or Nigeria and if it wasn't reported in Western media, they wouldn't give a shit.--Hassan Mohammed (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Proximity is a large factor in importance. If one person dies in your house, it will be more important to you than 500 deaths on the other side of the planet. Assuming that everyone should base their concern on the number of people killed is a bit ridiculous. Another factor is self-protection. If you drive a 94 Ford Taurus and you just heard of three incidents where a 94 Ford Taurus exploded for no apparent reason, it will be a lot more important to you than hearing about 100 incidents in which a Toyota Prius exploded. Assuming that everyone should base their concern on the number of cars exploded is a bit ridiculous. If, your entire point is to find a reason to hate a race or nationality of people, you can make all the ridiculous assumptions you like to justify your position. -- kainaw™ 01:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"500 people could die today in Pakistan or Nigeria and if it wasn't reported in Western media, they wouldn't give a shit." Well, that makes sense, doesn't it? It is rather difficult to care about something you haven't been informed about?

Surely you're not suggesting that people should spend all day reading local newspapers from across the globe in hundreds of different languages, so that we can feel bad if a few hundred of our six billion humans die tragically? APL (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you imagine Western media, and Westerners in general, attempting to pronounce Dnepropetrovsk? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

To paraphrase Matthew 6:34 of the right version, "Sufficient unto the country is the evil thereof", which is essentially what everyone above is saying. (@ Adam Bishop: I had to do a "cut and paste" just to Google it.) // BL \\ (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

As an example of yesterday's front page news, The Daily Mirror reported that Obama gave the Queen an iPod, and The Sun was saying that Jade Goody's funeral was fake. This is front page news, folks! Inside there were a few short references to certain killings and shootings. As said above, people don't care unless it directly affects them (not that the Queen's new iPod or Jade Goody's supposed fake funeral affects them, but anyway, it's something to read when they've got nothing else to do). Emotion and immotion are the two things that sell news, these days.--KageTora (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The helicopter crash was hugely reported in many newspapers, but I suppose a lot depends on your definition of "western media" - you probably wouldn't find it in USA Today for instance. I find it bizarre that the d. maniacs weren't - would have thought that that story would have been picked up. pablo_hablo. 10:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It might be interesting to compare the coverage of the two recent helicopter crashes (Newfoundland and North Sea). The basic similarities and closeness in time could make them a good test case regarding media coverage. Matt Deres (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Guys, Hassan is just trolling us. The Maniacs happened two years ago, and I remember reading about them in Canada. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Most Western journos didn't give too much coverage to the murders, but Caitlin Moran went one better and managed to turn it into a story about herself. Talk about self absorbed. Rockpocket 02:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There isn't much point in knowing about tragedies that you can't do anything about. Since nothing we can do will have much effect on serial killers in the Ukraine, spending time hearing about it just depresses us with no benefit. Knowing about such a situation close to home is important, though, as we can then vote to put more cops on the street, etc. StuRat (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Napoleon I on his Imperial Throne

Does anyone know where I could find a hi-res version of this painting? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 06:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

[13] --217.227.104.1 (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Online questionnaire that tells me who to vote for

I heard that there is a website which helps one decide, on the basis of a questionnaire, which party best represents one's views in the EU Parliamentary election (or whatever it is that's going on right now). Anyone have an URL? ----Seans Potato Business 13:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

euprofiler.eu? ---Sluzzelin talk 13:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Seem it wont be ready until the end of the month though. ----Seans Potato Business 15:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd be rather suspicious that any such tool would be used to push voters in one direction or another. StuRat (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that the EU parliament doesn't do a lot, for some reason. 99.227.94.24 (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Shakespeare Biography

Hi, life is short, so I'm probably not going to read more than one Shakespeare biography, but which is THE ONE? Is there one accepted, canonical, non-speculative, not too "original", no gender-bushwa etc. work that would give me the plain facts? Also, I tend to mistrust anything too recent, especially when heavily hyped (I mean, looks like there's at least two new biographies every year, but just what new can they teach without being speculative, if you catch my drift). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare#Bibliography is long, but not exactly helpful. Thanks, --84.191.207.101 (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

you know, it's just not as easy as you think. First of all there will be a MASSIVE divide into two kinds of books:

1. ones that ignore the possibility that the William Shakespeare whose biographical facts are generally propagated (you know the one: Stratford-upon-Avon, married Anne Hathaway at 18, died a rich landowner where he was born etc etc.) is NOT whoever wrote those famous 16th c. plays and poems, Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, etc, etc
2. ones that entertain this possibility.

There is a famous case of a man setting up the court of Chicago into ruling on whether Shakespeare wrote the works above, by means of a lawsuit. The court ruled that the Stratford guy did not write the famous things. He never made mention in his will of ANY writing, etc. etc.

Now if the city of Chicago rules that the stratford guy did not write the famous stuff, you are gonna get a heckuva time finding a "non-speculative, accepted, canonical" biogragphy on the writer of the famous stuff... 79.122.13.83 (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the city of Chicago is particularly empowered, qualified or situated to rule on this subject. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The state of Illinois also recently declared that Pluto is still a planet. Anyway, as for Shakespeare, a biography that simply claims someone else wrote the plays is a biography to be avoided. The "best", however, in an academic sense, would probably still deal with the controversy. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the last sentence. Those biographies that claim he did write the plays should also be avoided if they simply make that assertion without acknowledging that many people disagree, or without acknowledging that most of the "facts" about Shakespeare are not supported by evidence but are based on historical tradition. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I suppose so, but the idea that he didn't write them is a fringy conspiracy theory and should be avoided more :) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not quite what I meant. I've seen biographies of Shakespeare that claim hundreds of things he "did/wrote" (as if there were incontrovertible proof of them all). What they need to state in many cases is: "I believe he did/wrote X, even though I can't prove it". True, there are alternative theories about who really wrote the plays etc, but even if there weren't, there's still little or no actual evidence about many of the things he is generally said to have done/written. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No there is no great canonical biographical work for Shakespeare as there are so many books with so many slants and none will be free from bias and speculation. Saying that I would recommend the very recent Peter Ackroyd's biography for a good non-academic readable work about Shakespeare and his era from a great literary biographer. For a some what older and more scholarly work the best might be Samuel Schoenbaum's works particularly Shakespeare: A Documentary Life which focuses more upon the actual written evidence of his life.

Despite how much we think we know about Shakespeare there are still large gaps in his story and his life is not meticulously well documented as he really wasn't all that important at the time. Any biography of his will have to include a lot of speculation and "scene setting" based on what was going on around him at the time, this is why authorship doubts can creep in. Even if true that he did not write the plays, raking over the same biographical details everyone has for centuries is not going to prove it conclusively. If a biography of Shakespeare sets out to say he is not the author then it is hardly the biography of the same man as one that starts with the premise that he is the author. I entirely disagree that the authorship question should be discussed in a good biography. If you want a biography of Marlowe, or Bacon, or Oxford that focus upon one them being the author of Shakespeare you can get a biography like that, if you want a book that discusses the entire question and possible authors you can get one of those books. It is important to know these questions exist and I am perfectly willing to acknowledge one of the other contenders might be the actual author, but if you want to read the biography of the Stratfordian claimant then you shouldn't have to put up with all the other speculations unless you are really reading the biography of the plays themselves. If you cannot read a book without realising at the beginning that it starts from a particular premise that not everyone might agree with then perhaps you should read about someone less complex than Shakespeare. meltBanana 01:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

so you are basically telling me that i am too dumb to read Shakespeare because I happen to get the impression that Anti-Stratfordianism is a fringe theory and seems to attract, for the most part, freelancing crackpots. That is, um, strong. --77.188.124.189 (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Such a biography would need to contain a large number of caveats, acknowledging that there is no source material for many of the claimed parts of his life, only tradition. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I liked Bill Bryson's short book Shakespeare: The World as Stage. A good summary of what's known, not known, and debated about Shakespeare's life. And at just 200 pages long, should fit easily into the reading schedule of even the busiest person! Pleasant, very readable and non-idiosyncratic prose to boot. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I enjoyed that one too. Bryson is frank about how little we really know about Shakespeare's life, and mostly avoids filling the gaps with speculation, as many Bard biographies tend to do. He does discuss, and debunk, the various authorship theories, since the "evidence" for that is all speculation. I also like Will In The World by Stephen Greenblatt, which attempts to fill some gaps with literary analysis. These are popular biographies; I have no idea which biographies are highly valued by experts. —Kevin Myers 13:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Powers of US President to influence the Senate

One thing I've never understood about the American system of government is the extent to which the President is able to influence the decisions of the Senate (and, I guess, the House as well, although I'm not so interested in that for the purposes of this question). I'm thinking in particular about the prospects for US ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. That article quotes Obama as saying "As president, I will reach out to the Senate to secure the ratification of the CTBT at the earliest practical date." But in practical terms, what power and/or influence does he have to do that? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, technically, none at all; if the Senate doesn't want to do what the President wants, too bad for the President. Good luck getting your pet bill signed if you buck the President on a major issue, though. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Precisely so. the President certainly doesn't have any constitutional powers to force the Senate to do one thing or another, but these people are running the country and they have to be able to work together. And lest we forget, the Senate is currently ruled by Democrats, meaning that they are essentially "on the same team" as the President. What's the point of having political parties if you're never ever going to cooperate on stuff? Belisarius (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The "balance" of power is a bit lopsided though. From Congress' view, the President is nothing more than a small annoyance. If he wants to use his veto power, just override the veto and get on with whatever you want to do. From the President's view, if you want to get a law passed, Congress has to agree with you. If you want to go to war, Congress has to pay for it. If you want to subsidise medications to some other country, Congress has to pay for it. If you want to put in a miniature golf course on the White House lawn, Congress has to pay for it. The media bashes the phrase "leader of the free world" into our heads every day, but Congress holds the ability to override the President and the power of the checkbook. I see it more as a leader on a leash. If he obeys, he can do anything he likes. If he misbehaves, he will quickly become a puppet. -- kainaw™ 22:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And that's pretty much as it should be, imo (apart from the puppet thing). No one person should have the power to execute decisions that do not have the support of the other elected representatives of the people. But neither should the Congress go down its own path in total disregard for the views of the person that the same people who elected them also elected their national leader. Neither the president nor the Congress should ever be a puppet of the other, but should find ways of working together harmoniously for the good of the people (exactly how Wikipedia has worked at all times since its inception - **straight face, tongue in cheek**. In fact, why don't they hand over the running of all the countries of the world to us? We'd soon find ways of coming to consensuses about things instead of permanently bickering on ideological grounds, and only those people who are interested in effecting or opposing a change would bother to be involved, but everyone, bar none, would be able to express their views, which would be on the permanent record. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough Jack, that's exactly how the world is run, at least that small part of it which is governed by UN decisions. That's a pretty good description of how the UN works. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 23:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, except for decisions of the Security Council, for example, which excludes rather a large number - about 95% - of the world's countries. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, assuming you mean the permanent members. StuRat (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A "small annoyance"? "Just override the veto" Ye Gods! If the Senate had a filibuster-proof supermajority and the House had the equivalent then you'd be right, but they don't. The Senate is, currently, most certainly susceptible to executive pressure for this reason. Tempshill (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if the Congress was of uniform opinion on everything, they could roll right over the President (they could even remove him from office via impeachment on some trumped-up charges). But, the nature of elected bodies is such that they are almost never of uniform opinion. StuRat (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Can Fed or State Government seize insurance benefits from inmates?

If a Texas inmate becomes a beneficiary of an insurance benefit can the state of Texas or the Federal Government attach a portion of or seize all of the benefit for state or federal costs attributed to the person’s incarceration? How? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Browneyedgrl1965 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't give legal advice but this seems unlikely. I don't think the USA or any other modern country attempts to recover costs of incarceration from prisoners. At $88 dollars a day even a short sentence could saddle an inmate with a huge bill. Since it would probably violate the "all equal before the law" doctrine to make some inmates liable (those who receive a benefit, or an inheritance, or are wealthy before incarceration) I'd expect rapid legal challenges to an attempt to seize an insurance payout to pay for an inmate's incarceration. Exxolon (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's see.

1. Connecticut Code 18-85a(b): The state shall have a claim against each inmate for the costs of such inmate's incarceration under this section... There are various exemptions.[14]
2. The Missouri Incarceration Reimbursement Act, passed in 1988, entitles the state to recover costs from inmates after any obligations to spouse or children are met. [15]
3. (Florida Code) Section 960.293 provides that a defendant who is incarcerated for an offense that is neither a capital offense nor a life felony offense is liable to the state in the amount of $50 per day for the costs of incarceration[16]
4. California Code 1203.1c(a): In any case in which a defendant is convicted of an offense and is ordered to serve a period of confinement in a county jail, city jail, or other local detention facility as a term of probation or a conditional sentence, the court may, after a hearing, make a determination of the ability of the defendant to pay all or a portion of the reasonable costs of such incarceration.

That's just from a quick search; I imagine it's pretty common. The ones I've seen so far seem to be means-tested in general. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Industrial Relations and Labour Laws

Meaning of (i) Layoff (ii)Retrenchment (iii) Conciliation and (iv) Adujdication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkls230776 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here to not do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems. Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Thank you. Rockpocket 02:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Some useful links might be Layoff, Retrnchment and redundancy, Conciliation, Arbitration. In my country, there was also the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

ella fillmore lillie

I would like to know the biography of ella fillmore lillie lithographer 1887 to 1987 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cajpa (talk • contribs) 18:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Since no one else has answered this, I'll throw in my meager findings. Other than her birth and death dates (about both of which there seems to be some disagreement) and her residence in Vermont, then Florida, there doesn't seem to be any significant biographical information about Lillie online. There is, however, an article about her in Mantle Fielding's Dictionary of American Painters, Sculptors, and Engravers (note the inclusion of Mantle Fielding's in the title, indicating an edition expanded after Fielding's death), which is available in many university libraries and which might provide a bit more information. Deor (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and here's a list of other books containing information about her. Deor (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Should the whole population of the earth go and settle in the US and Canada, what would be the density there?

My idea in order to solve the major problems of the world is to move the whole human population of the earth in north america. It is the richest and more advanced place, and I think there should be room enough for everybody; but what would be the density of population then? I understand that we need to convince somebody to renounce to his barbecue corner in the garden to create more room, of course; also, we need to explain in detail the project to the immigration office of the US. Advantages: no more wars; the rest of the word is devoted to national park, wilderness, agriculture, and few touristic villages.--84.221.68.82 (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well, the raw density would be about 343 people per square km; that's comparable to Japan or Belgium. And both the US and Canada have large areas which cannot support anywhere near that density or are otherwise unlivable; for example, without vast energy expenditures, the deserts of the Southwest US are close to uninhabitable, as are the northern reaches of Canada and Alaska. Oh, and there's this small detail that food needs land to grow. So maybe a density of 500 would be my wild-ass guess -- that's about the density of South Korea. That's pretty crowded, especially since we're mushing together as neighbors a lot of people who historically don't like each other very much... --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep in mind that how rich and advanced they are could be easily affected by things like extreme population density, or suddenly having their populations grow to 6 billion people. --140.247.250.235 (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

As well as the wise points made by the previous posters, consider this: if all the population is on one continent, and all the agriculture is on other continents, how is the food to be produced, shipped, and distributed? What will the environmental impact of this be? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, the idea that shoving 6.77 billion people into one continent will solve that world's problems is preposterous. First, your assertion that there would be no more wars because everybody's on the same continent is quite wrong; see civil war. The possibility of such a war happening would be increased ten-fold, because there many countries that have some never-ending conflicts with each other (e.g. Israeli–Palestinian conflict, North Korea–United States relations, I could go on and on) and forcing them to live side-by-side would only exacerbate their issues. Second, the idea of dispersing the entire human race to one location just so "the rest of the world is devoted to national park, wilderness, agriculture, and few touristic villages." really makes no sense. As Alex pointed out, the environmental impact of constantly transporting food would be extremely worthless, when you could just have people remain in their native countries and save energy by eating locally grown foods. See overpopulation to understand how many flaws your plan would have. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 23:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds cozy. In the early 20th century, it was asserted that the Earth's population could stand on the Isle of Wight, which has an area of 381 km². John Brunner in 1968 guesstimated that the world's population in 2010 would be able to Stand on Zanzibar(area 1554 km²) (Now part of Tanzania). Edison (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If everyone in the world stood evenly spaced on Jamaica, we would get slightly less than 2 m² per person. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that measured at high tide or low tide? // BL \\ (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

My place is on the beach!--pma (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

After the first Hurricane, everybody left would be able to spread out a bit. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if the continent you chose was Antarctica, it actually would solve all the world's problems. :) --Sean 13:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

People bring their problems with them. A suicide bomber doesn't become peaceful just because you move him. It's better to leave him where he is to blow up his own people. StuRat (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, on the line above! you drop somepidng 84.221.69.114 (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Why? Are his own people cheaper to replace? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Previously on the ref desk we've had them all living in Texas or, alternatively, in Loch Ness. The latter would be fairly peaceful if we don't drain it first. Gwinva (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

April 5

Muslim nations ruled by Christians

I know there had been similar questions about Muslim nations of Africa being the member of OIC and their rulers are a non-Muslim but the main question is why Guinea-Bissau, Burkina Faso, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast are ruled by non-Muslims? Isn't the majority people of the nation suppose to rule the nation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.78 (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Depends on how you see "people". Why do people have to be defined by their religion? Is a British Prime Minister not supposed to be a Jew (Benjamin Disraeli) or a Scot (Gordon Brown, Tony Blair) just because Jews and Scots do not make up the majority of the country's population? Is an American president not supposed to be Catholic (John F. Kennedy) just because Catholics do not make up the majority of the country's population?

The nation's leader, ideally, should win the approval of the majority of the nation's population. In my experience, people are generally capable of approving of another person even if that person believes in a religion different to theirs. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Or, for that matter, race. The answer is that the will of the majority is generally what "rules" a nation (though there are some important exceptions for minority wills as well in this). Whether the will of the majority chooses someone of one religion or race or what have you does not make their will any less clear. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Significance of blue in Pashtun culture

I notice that, during the period of Taliban rule over the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, most if not all of the chadris worn in public were a rather brilliant blue. Why this colour? Rockpocket 01:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about chadris particularly but Afghanistan was the chief source of the color blue in medieval times as that is where lapis lazuli is mined. Its rarity in the west meant that it was saved as a pigment for special purposes particularly The Madonna's clothing in painting. meltBanana 03:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Could be related, though I can't find any sources for it. I did find that "Young married women wear light blue burqas; older women and widows wear a darker blue. White burqas signify new brides." [17]. Still doesn't explain why blue specifically, though. Rockpocket 03:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there not a blue bead worn in some of the "burqa cultures" to protect against some evil? I can find no connection between the two that wouid raise this possibility from WP:OR to WP:RS, or, indeed, any source at all. // BL \\ (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps relevant: in the beginning of the most recent Afghan war, the US dropped yellow cluster bombs all over the place, and also packages of food aid, unhelpfully also yellow. After some amount of foot dragging, the Pentagon agreed to change the color of the food packets, choosing blue. Then they quickly backtracked saying blue was a problem due to "cultural sensitivies". Story. --Sean 13:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Blue may have a spiritual symbolism in Islam, according to this article ("blue (al-azraq) often signifies the impenetrable depths of the universe, and turquoise blue is thought to have mystical qualities"). Don't know if this is a factor in the choice fabric for the chadris though. Brown and black are also used. WikiJedits (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Jungdemokraten interwiki?

I started the article National League of German Democratic Youth Clubs after coming across a mention in a book yesterday. However, when googling for more info i came across that on de.wiki it is said that this is the same org as the present-day de:JungdemokratInnen/Junge Linke (see also de:http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschichte_der_Jungdemokraten). I'm familiar with the more recent history of JD/JL, but is it uncontroversial to state that the present JD/JL is the exact same organization as the one founded in 1919? After all, there must have been a break in continuity during the Nazi period? --Soman (talk) 07:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

list of genocides

do we have a list of genocides in a table, the kind you can sort on a column such as the number of deaths? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.93.248 (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

hmm... the entry list of genocides redirect to Genocides in history but the data there are not in a table form.--Lenticel ^(talk) 14:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

will someone start such a page for me (the original poster)? I'll gladly work on it from the other sources -- it would be nice to have in one place in table form! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.93.248 (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

nevermind I found it! 79.122.93.248 (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I occasionally look up that article, read it fascinatingly for about half an hour, and then I'm bummed out for like a week. Humans suck. Belisarius (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

South Asia

I notice that in Afghanistan, there are people who are Baloch, Uzbek and Turkmen. In Iran, there are Azeri, Turkmen, Baloch, and Arab. When people say the word "Desi", they mean a person who is Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Indian, Sri Lankan and recently some people have added Afghani people as "Desi". So, does this mean that Baloch people of Iran and Afghanistan, Turkmen and Uzbek people of Afghanistan, Azeri, Arab, Turkmen and Kurdish of Iran are considered as "Desi"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.212 (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The term Desi does not have a clear definition. It seems to be used mainly by some people from South Asia now living outside that region. Unfortunately, South Asia also lacks a clear definition. Afghanistan is sometimes included, sometimes not. Because the term "Desi" is a term indicating a person's self-identity rather than a term that others can use clearly or objectively to identify others, the best guide whether a person is "Desi" or not is whether that person identifies as "Desi". The term seems to be adopted by peoples whose original languages were derived from or influenced by Sanskrit, from which the term Desi itself is derived. This may be the best "objective" test for whether a given cultural background might lead a person to accept a "Desi" identity. Using this criterion, peoples of Azeri, Turkmen, Baloch, Arab, Uzbek, and Kurdish backgrounds would probably not identify as "Desi". Furthermore, their cultures developed outside of the South Asian cultural heartland. As such, most people with a background within the South Asia cultural heartland (which doesn't extend far west of the Indus valley) might not see these ethnic and cultural outsiders as truly "Desi". Marco polo (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Different lingusitic roots for most of the languages in the countries you mention; if your local language is based on Arabic, (for instance) rather than Sanskrit, the word for "homeland" would be different (-stan?) so you would not naturally use 'desi' to self-describe. pablo_hablo. 21:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The suffix -stan is a Persian form (which actually has an Indic cognate "sthan", as in Rajasthan). The closest Arabic word for "homeland" is probably watan وطن, but the adjective watani is not used to mean Arabs abroad... AnonMoos (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Pyne's royal residences

Does anybody know where I can find a full online gallery of the images contained in the above mentioned book. Wikipedia only seems to have a few. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.84.185.189 (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Jonestown

Why didn't Congressman Ryan bring any armed guards with him when he went to Jonestown? 69.69.73.116 (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Most likely simply because he didn't think he would be in any actual danger. If so, he was wrong, but not stupidly so: the idea that someone would actually murder someone in his position, accompanied by a news crew, was kind of preposterous, because there'd be no way they could ever get away with it, simply because Ryan was so important. If he'd known beforehand what kind of fanatics he was dealing with, he would've undoubtedly taken a different approach, but if he'd known what kind of fanatics he was dealing with, he wouldn't have had to go on a fact-finding mission down there. Of course, for Jim Jones and his flock getting away with it just wasn't a major concern. When you've got a plan in place for a mass suicide, you just don't have to worry about the consequences of your actions all that much.

Anyway, I can also think of other reasons to not bring armed guards -- perhaps he didn't want to give a hostile impression to the Jonestown residents. Or perhaps he couldn't get any; I'm not sure what kind of gun control laws Guyana has in place now (or thirty years ago), but in plenty of countries, you can't bring armed guards with you just like that -- or at all. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I wonder if Ryan and the US government knew that Jones had armed guards in Jonestown. If they did, they probably should have given him a military escort. If Jones can have armed guards in Guyana, I don't see why the US Military would be barred from having them. 98.221.85.188 (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The US military is barred from operating in many places - in fact pretty much all places not in the US. Violating this bar constitutes an act of war. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure how legally Jones had armed his guards. In any case, even if Ryan knew that he had armed guards there, that doesn't mean he took the idea that they could be any danger to him seriously -- or that he had particular reason to. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, with regards to the "legality" of the armed guards in Guyana, it is my understanding that the reason Jones took his flock there was to get away from government influence in general. Jonestown was in a pretty remote part of Guyana, out in the jungle, which was away from effective Guyanese government control. In the U.S. there is really no where which is outside of government control, but in many other parts of the world there ARE places where the official government has no ability to enforce the laws. I don't think Jones really cared much either way what the laws of the Guyanese government were, he was just looking for a remote place where his cult could be outside of scrutiny. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I imagine there are places in the interior of Alaska which are just as inaccessible, where you'd be more likely to be molested by polar bears than cops. StuRat (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What was Jesus' last name

I know we commonly know him as Jesus Christ, but I doubt "Christ" is his last name. Did they even use last names back then.--Pgecaj (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

they did, it's "ben joseph". or "of nazareth". either or really... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.93.248 (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Those are not really last names, they are a patronym and a toponym. They didn't use last names like we do today. That is, if your last name was Josephson, your father does not necessarily have to be called Joseph. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Since he was born a Jew, his "Jewish/Hebrew name" would have been Yeshu ben Yosef (=Jesus, son of Joseph). That's all Jews had back then. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur. I've read about this convention around that time too. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't know his last name but his middle initial was H. 75.62.6.87 (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There's an online encyclopedia that has an excellent page on this topic. See Christ. --Dweller (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

While he would have been Yeshua bar Joseph/Yeshua of Nazareth I think the two 'surnames' would have been used differently. At home in Nazareth people would have used 'bar Joseph' because people there would know which 'Joseph' this referred to. However, when he was away from home (e.g. in Jerusalem) they would have used 'of Nazareth' because people wouldn't have known which Joseph 'bar Joseph' referred to but people would understand a lot better a name which implied 'that man called Jesus who has come from Nazareth'. --Joe^Talk_Work 00:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

National character studies

Can we prove that this or that country has a specific national character? Somehow, people that I meet that are easy-going, anal-retentive, phlegmatic or liberal are from specific countries. --88.6.158.100 (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I refer you to the work of Geert Hofstede, who has looked into the question of national character extensively. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The philosophical position is called essentialism. Essentialist assessment of "national characters" are downplayed nowadays. You'd be interested in Simon Schama's discussion of the invention of Dutch ideas of "Dutchness", based on imagined links with Batavians, in The Embarrassment of Riches (1987).

Motion of no confidence

In the commonwealth realms, who serves as Prime Minister after a motion of no confidence in the government is passed and before a new parliament is elected?

Is the incumbent PM not disqualified given the house has just expressed its lack of confidence in him and his ministers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs) 21:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Governor(-General) should appoint whoever can command the confidence of the house - or, if no such person is available - appoint a caretaker prime minister who would immediately call an election.

Don't have a historical example off the top of my head, though. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Who gets to be the PM, and whose party commands a majority in Parliament, are connected, but a loss of confidence does not mean the PM instantly stops being PM. The PM would tender his resignation to the Queen/Governor-General the same day or the next day, and it would be accepted. (I suppose if the PM refused to resign, a constitutional crisis would develop.) Then someone else would be commissioned as PM. They might call an election more or less straight away, or they might not. The last such case in the Australian parliament was in 1941. Robert Menzies was the PM and leader of the United Australia Party (in coalition with the Country Party) but lost the support of his party (partly because he spent over 6 months in Britain and was even campaigning to get himself onto Churchill's wartime cabinet). There was also the matter of the two independents, Coles and Wilson, whose support the government depended on to make up their slim majority. Shortly after Menzies finally deigned to return to Australia to oversee the defence of his own country, his party made it clear that he'd be dumped if he didn't resign. So he resigned, first as PM, then as party leader. The Country Party leader Arthur Fadden was sworn in as PM, even though it was the smaller of the 2 governing coalition parties. But now the two independents decided to take a stand. They were not happy at the way Menzies had been treated, so they withdrew their support for Fadden's budget, and Fadden had no option but to resign. He was replaced by the Labor leader, John Curtin, but only after the Governor-General obtained assurances from Coles and Wilson that they would support Curtin and end the instability in government (at a time when the nation had matters of life and death to think about). This was in October 1941. But the next election was not called until August 1943. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The incumbent PM is not disqualified from continuing as PM by reason of losing a vote of confidence. The GG will meet with the PM and either ask for the PM's immediate resignation or choose to call an election. If there is an election, the PM can stay in office until it's over (and beyond, of course, if his party happens to win). The most recent example in Canada is our previous PM, Paul Martin Jr.. His Liberal government lost a vote of confidence on November 28, 2005; the election was held on January 23, and the Liberals lost; and Martin was succeeded by Stephen Harper on February 6. --Anonymous, 03:57 UTC, April 6, 2009.

That's odd. I wasn't aware the GG can call an election on his/her own volition, in the Westminster system (and I'm still not aware of that, actually). The GG is advised on electoral matters by the Prime Minister. In the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, the GG (Sir John Kerr) dismissed PM Gough Whitlam (even though his party never came close to losing a no confidence vote in the House of Representatives) and appointed the Opposition Leader, Malcolm Fraser (who did immediately lose a no-confidence vote). But by then, Kerr had already acted on Fraser's advice to dissolve the Parliament in readiness for an election. That advice had been a condition of Fraser's appointment. So, in a way, this GG got his own way about there being an election - but those were extremely unusual, unprecedented, and never repeated, circumstances. And theoretically, Fraser could have declined to advise an election, and Kerr would have been powerless to do anything about it. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thinking further about this, governors-general may require further justification or documentation before being prepared to approve a proposed election, and may even disapprove the election, and there have been precedents for both of these in Australia. But being the initiator of an election is strictly the preserve of the Prime Minister. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Once the Prime Minister has lost a vote of confidence, one of two things must happen: new elections, or a new Prime Minister. The outcome will depend on a number of factors, such as when the last elections were held and whether there is another party, coalition or individual that is immediately ready to obtain the confidence of Parliament. It is a case where the Governor General will be called to exercice some of his/her powers.

Usually, the defeated PM will request that the Gov-Gen dissolve Parliament and call new elections. The GG can accept, in which case the PM continues in his position until the result of the elections are known (see the Paul Martin example above). The Gov-Gen may refuse to dissolve Parliament if he/she thinks an alternative government is possible, in which case he/she will designate another individual to form a government. This is what happended in Ontario in 1985 when David Peterson succeeded Frank Miller. If the defeated PM were to refuse to either submit his resignation or ask for new elections, then the Governor General has the power to dismiss him, but things would never come to that unless the system has totally broken down. --Xuxl (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Automobile

Are there any noteworthy accidents stemming from a car's steering wheel being a bit off? As in, the veers slightly off to one side when the steering wheel is let go off. I realize that not many people would let go of the steering wheel though. So, any examples? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.94.24 (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is that one scene in Fight Club... sorry, I realize that was unhelpful, but I couldn't resist Belisarius (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What you describe is usually the result of faulty wheel alignment. The most common consequence will be felt in uneven tire wear and poor handling (always having to fight against the steering wheel). In some cases the problem might cause an accident if, as the result of misalignment, a car has a tendency to veer to the side and then hits a kerb, a slippery patch, a shoulder that is lower than the road surface, or runs in the path of oncoming traffic. Many things could go wrong as a result of such a problem. --Xuxl (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

To test wheel alignment, put the car on cruise control on a straight highway, pointed straight down the lane. Then take a nap. If, when you wake up, the car is still on the highway, you know your alignment is good. :-) StuRat (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC) (PS: Just in case anybody doesn't already know it, this was a joke, and doing this would be highly dangerous.)

And people say the Reference desk is boring. Thanks for the help! 99.227.94.24 (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and has been proven so by that comedian who decided that it was a good idea to take a nap while driving. At least he got a few good comedy bits out of it. -- kainaw™ 01:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

April 6

How wide were the sandy beaches when Columbus, etc. came?

A recent vacation and walk along the beach prompted the question in my mind. How wide (that is, distance from sea to vegetation/dirt roads/etc.) were the beaches in the New World when Columbus, Ponce De Leon, and other explorers landed in the Carolinas, Georgia, Florida, etc., and the islands like Cuba, Hispaniola, etc.?

The widest beach I have seen has been about 550 feet in parts of Florida on the Gulf Coast, but I'm sure there are longer beaches than that now. Indeed, as I think about it, the beaches during the invasion of Normandy during D Day may have been wider. But, I'm sure they weren't a mile, like I'm thinkking some of these beaches could have been before development.

Thanks in advance.

Edit: Strange, i see now I clicked on the wrong one. I think I wanted Miscellaneous...well, someone can move it, I suspect deleting it might cause more confusion. Sorry.209.244.187.155 (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The beach at Blackpool in the UK can be miles 'deep' at high-tide. The beaches at Southport similarly are very deep. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Beaches shift so much even within a few short years and are affected by such local factors (waves, rivers, wind and weather, relative sea level changes) that it may be very difficult if not impossible to make a statement about beaches generally then as opposed to now. (Besides those articles, see also Beach evolution, Coastal erosion and Coastal geography). However, it could be possible to get an idea of what the explorers saw by reading their diaries or maps. Try this page for diaries and this page for some maps as well as the Wikipedia pages List of cartographers and Category:Old_maps_of_the_world. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Beaches, on average, are probably about the same now as then, although specific beaches may be wider or narrower. We don't know exactly where Columbus first landed, so we can't say much about that beach. Also note that I wouldn't expect any dirt roads back then. The Humanities Desk is a reasonable place for this Q, as historical records from Columbus' day would be relevant. StuRat (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Tengu

I've been interested in the Tengu for some time now. The Tengu article has some dated and or non-English sources. Are there any good current research papers on the subject? Something that covers their origins as the tiangou up to their perceptions in modern Japanese culture? Perhaps one appears in a book with other research papers? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 05:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm out of time for a detailed search, but as a quick first response, have you tried Google Book search and Google Scholar search? If you click on "advanced", both let you specify a date range (for example, this book search specified the last ten years and so did this scholar search). If you see an article that looks good but don't have access to a particular journal, you can request what you need from the fab folks at the Wikipedia Resource Request page. Hope this helps for now WikiJedits (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sheikh Hasina and Benazir Bhutto

By any chance did Sheikh Hasina meet Benazir Bhutto in the 1980s or 1990s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.16.10 (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

why do religious groups have the right to associate etc etc but we don't have the right to ostracize them.

I don't get how come religious groups are allowed to associate with each other, meet on the appropriate day of the week at the appropriate place of religious worship where they can make deals with each other, meet important contacts, and in other ways build networks that outsiders can't get into BUT the outsiders are not allowed to turn around and "punish" them for keeping them out of these private networks by keeping them out of theirs? It seems very asymmetric! I don't understand why religion, which is a choice, is lumped in a group with race, ethnicity, gender, etc, which no one can help or abuse to a wrongful gain.

Or is there something wrong with my logic?

Note: I am not talking about any religious group in particular (though I am vaguely inspired by something I heard in a small town) but am just asking for the philosophical arguments! 94.27.194.165 (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what is this mystery religion that refuses to allow anyone who is not currently a member to become a member. Every religion that I know of eagerly allows new members to join. -- kainaw™ 16:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

And it is not exclusive to religions. Lots of other non-religious groups, like fraternities, the Lions Club, country clubs, Daughters of the American Revolution, the Jaycees, etc. etc. have all of the characteristics you describe. The reason people join those groups is for social networking, and there are advantages to members of those groups, in terms of contacts, preferences for business relationships, etc. etc., which are not availible to non-members. Certainly, belonging to a religious congregation is somewhat like this; you become more familiar with people you see on a regular basis. If someone I see at my church or synagogue every week, and whom I have known for years, is looking for a job, well, I am likely to work a little harder to get my friend a job where I work than perhaps a total stranger. But it is no different than a fraternity or civic club or softball team or any other voluntary association.

Indeed, religious groups are almost universally MORE inclusive than any of these; with the exception of some really out there cults, which are statstically insignificant, all variations of ALL of the major religions allow non-members to attend and participate in worship services. There may be certain restrictions for people who are not members of a congregation, such as not being allowed to vote on church business or not having access to certain aspects of the worship experience (Catholics, for example, do not allow non-catholics to participate in Communion). But no religion is like the OP describes. It sounds like he has gotten some serious misinformation on how religions work. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Religions are crucially different than the groups you cite, in that a person can really have only one religion, but can belong to multiple clubs. You can be an Elk, an Oddfellow, a Jaycee, a Lion, and a country-club doyenne if you have the time, money, and inclination, but you can't really be a Catholic and a Protestant and a Jew and a Muslim.

That said, the reason that religion is included in some places and some systems of law as a protected category is that such places place a high value on freedom of conscience. - Nunh-huh 16:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, and there is also the issue (based on the OPs other part of the question) that the notion of ostracizing anyone for any reason is generally kind of a dickish attitude to have. In general, in a free society, the ideal standard of behavior is to only disallow behaviors which prevent other people from free exercise of their own lives. Insofar as what I do does not stop you from doing what you want to do, and visa versa, we should provide no impedance to each other... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You can usually discriminate against Lion's Club members if you want. Discrimination on grounds of religion is illegal in many countries. I think that is the point the OP is making. --Tango (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

In its founding "charter" document, Hamas has declared eternal jihad on the Lion's Club and Rotary (no joke!). AnonMoos (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

In most Western jurisdictions the 'discrimination' you claim is going on would be just as illegal as the reverse kind. It is as illegal to hire an employee because of their religion as it is to not hire them because of their religion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

But it's not illegal to hire someone because you know them, even if the reason you know them is that you go to the same church. --Tango (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that private clubs, like the Boy Scouts or the Freemasons or are free to discriminate against anyone they want, because they are allowed to determine their makeup without any government interference. Businesses and other public organizations do not have the same leeway. So if you want to make the Anonymous Wikipedia Editors He-Man Woman Haters Club and wish to exclude anyone of any particular religion, it is well within your rights. Livewireo (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not actually true, at least for the Boy Scouts, as recent lawsuits have shown. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What lawsuits did you have in mind? Has something overturned Boy Scouts v. Dale? - Nunh-huh 19:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A suit in which a muslim scout wanted equal rights to be part of the troop with his Christian neighbours. Upheld. Don't have time to hunt for the reference right now. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If you do get the time, I'd love to have further information. Since there are Cub Scout packs and Boy Scout troops operated by Islamic organizations in major cities throughout the United States - indeed, since it is possible for Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts to earn Islamic religious badges to wear on their uniforms [18] - I imagine there's something more involved here than the "right" of private organizations to discriminate. - Nunh-huh 21:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand that this "our religion is right, there is only one true religion and it's ours" thought pattern is purely Western (or more precisely, Abrahamic). In Japan and China, it is perfectly possible to think yourself to be a Buddhist, Confucian and Christian all at the same time. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

True, but utterly irrelevant to the discussion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe this is unique to religion. Most of the anti-discrimination laws, at least as applied, are one-sided. So, while we have laws against discrimination based on race, age, gender, and sometimes sexual orientation, the result is that those protections don't apply if you happen to be a white, young, straight, male. So, if The Alliance of Elderly Lesbians of Color decides not to hire you as their receptionist, they don't have to. StuRat (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That depends very much on where you live. Here in the UK, the only anti-discrimination law which is one-sided is the one relating marriage - you can legally be discriminated against for being unmarried, but not for being married. The rest are framed in an even-handed way, and are generally applied as such. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Then that means you can't have any minority companies, such as one with an all black work-force ? StuRat (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that is the case, and I have seen lawsuits addressing exactly this issue. In the US the constitutionality of "affirmative action" was tested and kept, but in other places the law says conclusively that discriminating against you because you are white, or male, is just as illegal as because you are black or female. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any evidence to the contrary, but, since I believe you, I don't really need any evidence, do I ? I'm glad to see that other countries have a more uniform application of anti-discrimination laws. StuRat (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That's basically it, yes. I recall that it's allowable in UK law to offer training specifically for disadvantaged groups, but not employment opportunities. There are also specific provisions for jobs in fields such as community health work, where being from a particular group (and of a particular sex/gender) may be essential to working effectively with the target audience, but those exceptions are very narrowly defined. UK authorities speak in general about six strands - race, sex, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation and disability. In all of these cases, all examples are equally protected, including majority positions such as 'not disabled' or 'cisgendered'. There are a few special cases such as those mentioned about, and the right of disabled individuals to a guaranteed interview for any job for which they meet the basic qualifications. The law on this subject is currently spread over a good dozen or more acts of parliament, but is shortly to be brought together in what is described as a Single Equality Bill, which will make all the provisions strictly equivalent, except in highly specific cases. The usual areas where equality law particularly applies are employment, and the provision of goods and services, and extensive secondary legislation exists to set out exactly what this means. There's obviously nothing to stop you running a service which will primarily appeal to only one group, of course - traditional Indian matchmaking, transgender club nights, Jewish bakeries, etc. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And in answer to the original question - nothing gives any group the right to punish any other group. If you think a job has been recruited to in an unfair fashion, if you believe you have been the victim of discrimination, your recourse is to the civil authorities. I'm mildly appalled that you think 'outsiders' should be able to 'punish' members of religious groups just because they suspect them of talking privately. Please specify what you're really talking about. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

guys the poster way above gets it right -- my question is what the essential difference is between Lion's Club members and ____ religion's members, both have a choice about it, both are a kind of membership in a club, etc, but one is PROTECTED in a very special way in the eyes of the law (and I guess philosophy) like only gender and race and so forth are, and the other isn't. When I see during a job interview membership in a totally shitty country club I can decide that I don't want this guy on my team, we're with another country club. But you CAN"T do the same thing for religion. So there is a special distinction, even though for me I don't see the big difference.

The reason I'm interested is because as someone else pointed out you can only belong to ONE religious club, and if another club discriminates against non-members (outsiders) in various ways then why cant you do the same with them, just because they are a "religion"?

I just don't get the philosophical basis for a very special protected status for religions (but not other club memberships) in the same way as non-choosable stuff like race, gender, etc etc etc.

to recap: the basis for my question is the DIFFERENCE in the eyes of the law and philsophically speaking between The Lions Club and a religious club. Thanks! 94.27.194.165 (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you will find you can't get away with not hiring someone solely because of the country club they belong to. If you try that, and let them know that's the reason, they would have every reason to sue you. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry, sue you for what? I think you don't understand how protected statuses work. Here's another great example, personal handicap. No one would argue that someone in a wheelchair is HANDICAPPED, ie starting with a bit of a disadvantage, let's say a couple of percentage points of productivity. Too bad, you can't use that to choose the identically qualified candidate who is not in a wheelchair. It is a PROTECTED STATUS. But now look what happens if you have a candidate who would cost you a few percentage points of productivity because he's totally not in your club, it's not who you hang out with OUTSIDE of work, and so the team is that much less likely to stay a bit later (for free) a few times a month. Then you CAN choose this one, the club someone belongs to is not proected, you can use it to "guess" what the productivity will be that results.

The following point is a very hard one to understand so try not to strain your mind: let's say you are in construction, you're a new foreman, you need to hire someone with supervising experience and you get just two candidates with the SAME qualifications, but one is a man and one is a woman. For this example, assume that you KNOW that there a certain number of groups of men who just WILL NOT WORK HARD for a woman, let's say they work just 66% as much as for a man, and that EXACTLY 3% OF THE GROUPS IN YOUR AREA ARE LIKE THAT, but you're very very new as a foreman, you can't read the team you're the foreman over. You can't decide if they're that 3% who will just work 66% as hard!! (For the purposes of this example you are assuming this is the TRUTH, that there is really an area where a rotten apple 3% of teams would do only two thirds the work under a woman). So as a rational actor you could do this: multiply the expected loss in productivity (33%) * the percent chance that this will happen (3%) and arrive at 00.99%, ie almost a 1% expected (ie average) loss of productivity if you hire te woman. You say, you like diversity, you'll run that chance. You hire the woman to add some diversity to the workforce. There's no problem with this. THe problem happens with this OTHER rational actor who in your shoes, as a very new foreman, is a bit antsy about fuckign up. They're very risk averse. They don't want to risk that 33% loss, even if it has just a 1 in 33 chance of happening. Maybe the group is way way behind deadline and they will miss a million dollar contract if they don't give 100% for the next few weeks. Suddenly 3% of a million dollar contract (which they will lose completely) is a $30,000 loss. You're not going to run it. You go with the man, just because you know of the bad apple groups in your state. NOW is where the illegal discrimination happens, since gender is a protected status, and you aren't allowed to make these kinds of calculations. You aren't allowed to say "these two people are equal, but the fact that this candidate is a woman is one that I'm going to use to make my conclusions". You must be gender-blind. But if the calculation were about country club, then you COULD, it would be fine. You can't sue someone for making their team more productive by these means. Do you understand now how protected statuses work? Not EVERYTHING is a protected status, just a limited number of things like gender, race, handicap status, etc. What I don't understand is why religion, which is a voluntary choice of membership in a club, should be among these... (unlike country club membership or whether a candidate went to the same ivy league school as most of your team as opposed to the other one with which this one has a long-standing rivalry...) 94.27.194.165 (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The reference desk isn't really meant for debates. It seems pretty clear from your posts that debate is what you're after. Friday (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

See Freedom of association. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 01:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No there is a very important distinction between asking for the arguments/philosophical basis for something (which NO ONE has done! no one is answering my question) and debating about it. The problem is people think I'm asking about why you shouldn't discriminate based on a person's membership in groups -- but this isn't my question. My question is: why are you ALLOWED, legally, to do this, what is the philosophical basis (or the arguments toward this) for certain voluntary associations (country clubs) but not religion, which is in my eyes the exact same kind of association. You see, I'm not trying to argue with any of the people above -- I want them to realize WHAT my question is so they can direct their attention to answering it. Actually there is one person above who gets my question ("You can usually discriminate against Lion's Club members if you want. Discrimination on grounds of religion is illegal in many countries. I think that is the point the OP is making.") but thinks I'm making a point, instead of asking a question. (He doesn't offer an answer).

So seriously guys -- what is the philosophical distinctino? I just don't understand it. 94.27.153.209 (talk) 08:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that you are asserting that such a distinction clearly exists, and most of us are denying it. That's why this is taking on the appearance of a debate - we don't accept your premises, so we're unwilling to answer a question directly that's based on them. You give the appearance of pursuing an agenda against a particular (as yet unnamed) religious group, and we're unwilling to help you do so. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm open to the possibility of what you're saying, but could you clarify exactly what you mean -- when you say "most of us are denying [...] that such a distinction clearly exists" do you mean most of the above respondents don't believe that it is legal to choose among two equal candidates based on their country club membership (ie the one that brings more synergy to the team) but that it is illegal to choose the right candidate based on their religion (ie the one that brings more synergy to the team)? Or, do you mean that the people above accept that one is legal and one is illegal, but believe it to be a "distinction without a difference" -- it doesn't make sense for me to ask what the philosophical distinction is, because there is none. Which do you mean? Thanks. 94.27.153.209 (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think its that your scenario makes no sense. It is perfectly legal to hire someone because you know them personally, or because they carry recommendations by people you know and trust. This is true regardless of whether the reason for knowing that person (or having those recommendations) is because the person belongs to a religious congregation, club, or civic group. If you have friends who attend the same mosque/temple/church, you are not forbidden from taking those relationships into account any more than having friends from any other social organization. So your premise, that somehow friendships from religious organizations "don't count", seems flawed, which is why no one is able to answer it to your satisfaction. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Jayron32 has basically hit the nail on the head. In short, if I hire someone because they say they follow the same faith as me, that's illegal discrimination (against the unsuccessful candidates) on the basis of religion, at least in UK law, and would be actionable. On the other hand, if I happen to know someone because we're members of the same congregation, and use knowledge of them gained in this way to make my decision, that's no different from the country-club example. It might be somewhat unfair, but it's a world away from the former version. Religious congregations are not legally privileged institutions in the way you're implying. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Further to this, the OP seems to be suggesting that members of religious organizations have some protection againt positive discrimination in favour of their co-religionists that members of other organizations do not have. This is backwards. Employment and hiring protections for members of designated groups are put in place to protect them from discrimination, not to allow them to discriminate. There are elements of positive discrimination in affirmative action programs, but these are typically based on redressing an imbalance arising from historic discrimination.

That history of discrimination is important. Identifiable groups are designated for protection because they have a history of being discriminated against. Historically, in the Western world at least, people have been discriminated against for reasons of gender, ethnicity, religion, disability, etc. This discrimination endures in some forms and in some areas to this day - the OP himself demonstrated this with the erroneous claim that a person with a disability is less productive in the workplace than a person who is not. In contrast, I don't know of any cases where the members of a certain country club have faced or continue to face persistent and systemic discrimination because of that affiliation. - Eron^Talk 16:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Another Venetian question - the canals

Hi - having some trouble finding a list of the names of the Venetian canals - can anyone help? Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's got a map here, also see right in which those in the historic district are named. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry - don't know how I missed that. Adambrowne666 (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - one more question - I imagine 'R.' stands for 'rio' in the map, but what does 'E.' stand for, as in 'E. dei Barcarolle'?Adambrowne666 (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Italian for river is fiume, not rio. --Nricardo (talk) 03:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_(Venezia) --Nricardo (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but what about the E? Adambrowne666 (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Spelling mistake? I'm pretty sure that's the Rio dei Barcaroli. E and R are next to each other on the keyboard. pablo_hablo. 11:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's "Rio dei Barcaroli".--pma (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought E was next to E♭ and F on the keyboard.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Even the world famous seafaring and and mapmaking Venetians fail when making a map of their own city!--KageTora (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, that map was created recently, on a computer. And the Venetians have been less keen on going to sea recently, they are worried because the sea is coming to them! pablo_hablo. 19:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Port Arthur

How exactly did Port Aurthur, Soviet Union become Lüshunkou, China ? From our article I get that the Russia and Japan fought over it and it changed hands a few times, but that the Soviet Union had control of it after WW2 until 1953, when China took control. Why did the Soviet Union give it up ? (It seems to be a warm-water port, which are in short supply for the Russians, so I'd have expected them to fight tooth-and-nail to keep it.) StuRat (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Port Arthur was an occupied territory. Lushun was the principal base of the Imperial North Sea Fleet until its annihilation during the First Sino-Japanese War. Japan then occupied the port and massacred its populace after the war. After the war, the port and the Liaodong Peninsula on which it is situated were ceded to Japan under the Treaty of Shimonoseki. The intervention of Russia, along with other states, forced Japan to return the peninsula to China in return for monetary reparations.

Using this intervention as leverage, Russia obtained a lease over the territory in 1898, for 25 years. However, after the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905, Japan occupied the territory, and used it as a base to control Korea and later, invade China.

The Soviet Union's occupation of Lushun (Port Arthur) came about as a result of the Yalta Conference, which promised the port to Russia as part of the package under which the Allies agreed on their strategy, and in particular Soviet action against Japan, near the end of World War II.

The parts relating to China (including the independence of Outer Mongolia and the control of Lushun and Dalian) became effective upon the consent of Chiang Kai-shek.

Notice that, under the Yalta agreement, Soviet control of Lushun was phrased as a restoration of Russian privileges before the Russo-Japanese war - that is to say, it was a lease territory, not ceded to Russian sovereignty. Secondly, the same agreement also pledged the maintenance of the Republic of China's sovereignty over all Manchuria.

Chinese consent to those terms of the Yalta agreement were obtained in 1945 upon the signing of the Sino-Russian Treaty of 1945, which prescribed a 30-year term to the lease of the port.

As to the mechanisms of the early hand-over of the port to the People's Republic of China, I confess that that I've had to rely on internet sources, such as this.

According to that article, Mao Zedong raised the issue of Lushun in 1949 while visiting the Soviet Union. AFter numerous rounds of negotiations, it was agreed that the terms of the 1945 treaty would be revisited, and that the Soviet Union would withdraw from Lushun by the end of 1952; during the interim, the Soviet Union would maintain military authority in Lushun in consultation with the Chinese, but civilian administration would be handed over to the Chinese from 1950. However, if war were to break out with Japan or any other third nation, then both the Chinese and the Soviet navies could use Lushun as a base.

Of course, the 1950 agreements, including the handover of Lushun, came at a price to China: these "debts" were to be repaid over the next few decades in both cash payments and in kind, with mineral and food shipments to the Soviet Union. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Here [19] is the text of the original treaty between USSR and China on the transfer of Port Arthur, Dailan (Dairen) and the railway to China. --Dr Dima (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

So, it seems that the Soviet Union essentially sold off their interests in Port Arthur. Was the Soviet Union particularly desperate for cash, food, and minerals, at the time ? StuRat (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A combination of things. Post-WWII, the USSR was in terrible shape (as was China) in terms of food, raw materials and working factories and transport systems. In addition, Stalin was a bit short of friends, and although he saw himself as the leader of the Communist movement worldwide (and Mao as a near ‘subject’), it wouldn’t be comradely to continue occupying a fraternal socialist brother’s territory on the basis of pre-liberation treaties. Nevermind that the ‘State’ should be withering away . . . DOR (HK) (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

April 7

Joke or anecdote about tiger-repelling stone

What is the origin of the following joke/anecdote sometimes used to demonstrate belief in pseudoscience or fallacious logic? A man claims he has a stone that can repel tigers. When a friend reprimands him by saying "There are no tigers anywhere around here!", he replies with "Then the stone must be working!". 69.224.37.48 (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I originally heard it as an elephant joke. So, attempting to find an origin with "tigers" may be very difficult as it has obviously changed over time. -- kainaw™ 01:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Lisa Simpson uses this logic anecdote on Homer Simpson in an episode of The Simpsons, with the OP's wording. It's followed by Homer offering to buy Lisa's tiger-repelling rock. It has the ring of a Chinese tale to it, but that's just a hunch. Steewi (talk) 05:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A number of online "sources" relate this (in the tiger version) as a Nasreddin story, though it's not one of the examples presented in our article. Make of that what you will; it's certainly a hoary gag in any event. Deor (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The fallacy is confirmation bias, incidentally. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Our article McGuffin refers to a 1966 interview where it's quoted, so at least as old as that. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Japanese & Chinese's thoughts of the Pacific Ocean

Did the ancient Japanese and the ancient Chinese think the edge of the world was in the Pacific Ocean? In ancient times, did the Japanese and the Chinese attempt to travel far in the Pacific Ocean to see what was there? 72.136.108.97 (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese did have their notion of Mount Penglai, a mystical place in the Bohai Sea, and the first emperor Qin Shihuang did send some people over there to find it. bibliomaniac15 03:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

One ancient Chinese "land" that lay beyond the seas was Fusang. Many modern (and often fanciful) theory have variously identified this as Japan or even North America. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

We have an article on Chinese exploration which talks about their travels through the oceans. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You guys didn't answer my second question. What was the farest eastern point did the ancient Chinese/Japanese travel in the Pacific Ocean? Did any ancient Chinese/Japanese fisherman sail far to the east? 72.136.108.97 (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If you subscribe to vacuous hypotheses, some say that the ancient Chinese reached as far south as Australia or as far east as North America. I wouldn't be inclined to agree with them. I would say about as far as the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia, because we do have evidence that they traded. bibliomaniac15 02:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

OP: we did, you know. Take a look at the pages linked here. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

i am smashed with a baby in a room

hi i need help with something...

i share a room with my brother who is thirteen years younger than me. i wish i could have my own room but we dont have room in my house. i am fine sharing a room with him its just that i dont have any place thats just my own. ive looked online and found nothing about this subject.i need to find a way to either seperate my room, or find some space to myself —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smashedwithbaby (talk • contribs) 04:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hang a bedsheet across one corner? —Tamfang (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Use gyprock boards? Look up a such a tradesperson in your local phone directory? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A Room of One's Own? Wrad (talk) 06:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ask your parents to be allowed to furnish a small corner of the attic, basement, garage, garden shed, or similar (if you have any of those things) with things you buy cheaply or get for free, and have that place as your own when you need some time alone during the day, while continiuing to sleep in your "real" room at night? Jørgen (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If none of those are available, and if you have a yard, you could also build a tree house or club house outside, either from a prefab kit or from scratch (lumber, etc.). Another approach might be to continue to share the same room but to make a schedule of times when the room is all yours (and times when it's all his, if he wishes). The person kicked out can hang out in the kitchen or other rooms for those periods. StuRat (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Where did I read that there are only N types of joke?

I read in the Metro (our free daily) recently that some researcher had done a study and found that there were only 8? 7? types of jokes. There was a list of types, and I think one was juxtaposition? Can anyone else put their finger on this? I'm trying to find the list. -- Beland (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There are N types of people, whose who think that there are only M types of jokes and those who do not. :-) --Anonymous, 05:03 UTC, April 7, 2009.

Scott Adams, the author of Dilbert writes about 6 bases of humour, and any good joke must juxtapose two of them. If I recall correctly, they were cuteness, timing, animals, slapstick, ... and ... Dang. Steewi (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a math genius, and do not understand the question if '8? 7?' actually means something, but won't there always be at least n+1 (where n=i) jokes? 96.227.82.128 (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It just means I don't remember whether the "study" found there were 7 types or 8 types, but it was around there. The result was not about the number of tellable jokes, but the basic patterns that allegedly underlie them. -- Beland (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Got it! Researcher discovers eight jokes -- Beland (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

binary?

In terms of binary-based humor there are exactly 10 kinds of jokes...but neither of them is funny :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.153.209 (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The White House and Art

I'd asked this before, not realizing that the original question was archived, so I ask again: An episode of the tv show The West Wing mentioned that the president can have anything from The Smithsonian to decorate the White House. President Bartlet jokes that he wants Apollo 11. Is there any truth to this, that the Prez can have any piece of art he wants? Taggart.BBS (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no direct knowledge of this, and I think your best bet is to contact the Smithsonian, cite the West Wing banter, and ask them. They probably already joke about this. Since the Smithsonian, according to our article, essentially belongs to and is run by the US government, that means it's overseen and run by the executive branch, which is headed by the President, so there's a case that he could order a piece brought to the White House, particularly if the piece were placed in a publicly accessible area, in order to comport with the Smithsonian's mandate to increase & diffuse knowledge. Tempshill (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Smithsonian Institution#Administration section suggests that the institution isn't part of the executive branch, but is a special trust, self-administered and overseen by representatives from all three branches of the US Government. That, on the face of it, would suggest the President is in no position to give it direct instructions (and I rather suspect the whole thing is a West Wing setup for the joke, and nothing more). Anyway, the President can just get artworks from the BPRD, and they'll have better stuff to boot. 87.115.166.150 (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Another Köchel question

I just listened to the music from this Mozart CD, which includes a symphony labelled as K.196 — the opera La finta giardiniera. I then turned to the opera; its first few minutes sound like the first and second movements of the "symphony", but I can't find the third anywhere in the opera. Any idea where it could be? Moreover, was this a common thing to do, to write a symphony for an operatic overture? I mean for composers of the period, not necessarily Mozart. Nyttend (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a confusion here. Overtures to operas (and sometimes purely instrumental sections found at the start or even in the middle of oratorios etc) were often called sinfonias. Sinfonia and symphony have the same etymology, but the meanings have diverged since Mozart's time. A symphony is now a piece designed for concert performance, usually in 4 movements. The start of La finta giardiniera is best described as a "sinfonia", or even "overture". The music is part of the opera, and is not one of Mozart's symphonies. The record company or whoever designed that website didn't do their homework, methinks. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Google Street View

Hi,

I wasn't sure whether this should go in computing but i reckon, as its a cultural phenomenon, it should go here. Anyhoo, I live in Rangelagh Road in North London which is a one way street. Annoying, Google street view doesn't cover my house - because, I think, the stupid car just didn't go there. (you can travel on all the streets connecting to mine, but just not mine). Can i complain to Google in someway? 82.40.246.228 (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe get as close to it as possible, in "Street View," and then click on "Report A Problem," which is on the bottom of Street View. But I don't think they cover every street in Street view. Bus stop (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I think that in the UK, Google's usually concerned about the opposite reaction to yours. Tempshill (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Just because it isn't in Street View now doesn't mean it won't be soon. I saw the car in our office estate in Leeds (in July last year); while Google StreetView shows quite a lot of Leeds, they've not added that area (the nearest covered area is about half a mile away). So I guess they're compiling what they have and will be adding more as they go on. The office estate in question isn't properly covered in either Google Maps or by the satellite photo (the sat photo shows a field with cows), so clearly the car guys are working with a later map. 87.115.166.150 (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Accounting in Europe

I am doing a research in the corporate reporting obligations for non-listed companies in three European countries (Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Switzerland). Can anyone help me with these questions referred to anyone of the countries researched: 1. With which accounting standards should the financial statements be drawn?. 2. Are consolidated financial statements mandatory?. 3. Should the financial statements (of the parent company and consolidated) be audited?. 4. Which is the publicity of the financial statements?. 5. The constitution of a legal reserve is mandatory?.

If anyone knows of webpages I can consult I will be very grateful.

Thanks a lot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.117.158.108 (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong and the Boxers

So the other day I was idly wondering just why the PROC seems to have it in so much for Falun gong, which seems pretty harmless. The article cites a number of reasons, none of which seem plausible. But then I happened to see one of my notes on the Boxer Rebellion, which of course raised other memories of things like the Yellow Turban Rebellion. Is that the real reason, that the party fears Falun Gong is going to become another religion-based insurrection? --Gwern (contribs) 20:17 7 April 2009 (GMT)

"Insurrection" may be going further than the PRC's government fears, but the CPPRC shares the preoccupation of earlier Chinese governments with stability at all costs, and FG may well upset that applecart. The government is clearly concerned that FG could be a competing centre of political power; indeed it's concerned about all religions (and philosophical movements) adopting that role. Consequently there is much state intervention in religion in China. I guess FG scares them more because a) it's grown so very quickly, and b) because it doesn't really have a hierarchy, so that makes it more difficult to understand (or control). I don't think FG is particularly anti-communist, oppositional, or revolutionary, but clearly it hasn't knuckled under, which makes the threat it poses (or may, to the government, seem to pose) all the more marked. The last sentence in the intro to the Falun Gong article says "Yuezhi Zhao, professor of Communications at the University of California, contends that Falun Gong's massive spread, and sustained activism against its persecution, have unwittingly become the greatest challenge to Chinese state power in recent history, and "the most dramatic episode in the contestation over media power in the Chinese language symbolic universe". 87.115.166.150 (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, seems harmless. Without making any judgment on their actual beliefs, their level of organisation and influence scare me a little, and the cynical way they dress themselves up as "cultural" or social organisations - often without a mention of the word "Falun" at all - also concerns me a little. For example, the whole New Tang Dynasty TV enterprise and those mish-mash "Chinese culture" song-and-dance shows they put on (curiously attended only by non-Chinese people), which are all funded by - and go to fund - Falun Gong activities - but you would never guess just looking at their advertising material until you look carefully at the list of associated organisations. I get the feeling that they are a lot better organised than even the Communist government's propaganda makes them out to be.

Apart from these observations, one tangible reason why the Chinese government is extremely wary of the movement is that it has become entangled with anti-Chinese government forces such as the Taiwanese government (documented provider of funds). For example, there was the satellite-hacking episode from quite a few years back now, for which Falun Gong personalities claimed responsibility but which, investigations showed, was conducted from Taiwan.

The Falun Gong media also tries to align itself with the global anti-Communist pro-Chinese democracy discourse, though whether those efforts are reciprocated is unclear. In any case, however, they have aligned themselves as part of what the Communist government fears to be the "global anti-China [read anti-Chinese government] forces".

Funnily enough, Falun Gong is a big issue outside China, but among Chinese people there does not seem to be much sympathy for them. The government's hardline policies are, if not applauded, at least not opposed on that front - as you might suspect, very few people have sympathies for an idiosyncratic sect that preaches, among other things, about the power of UFOs other than the cultists themselves. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

April 8

Pakistani reserved seats

In Pakistani government, both provincial and federal; they reserved seats for women and minorties. What do they mean "minorities" and who are these "minorities" do they speak of? Hindu? Sikh? Christian? Shi'a Ismaili Nizari? Shi'a Ithna Ash'ari? Shi'a Ismaili Mustali? Shi'a Zaydi? Zoroastrian?

What are the ROI or ROCE for various business sectors?

What are the different average returns on investment or returns on capital employed for the various sectors that companies listed on US or UK stock markets are usually grouped into? 78.151.150.47 (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

IPRED effects

On April 1st 2009 Sweden got a law to reduce filesharing. Total internet traffic went down by about 50%. Has anyone seen any reference to any other measured(!) effects of any law that reduces filesharing? Media sales? Internet development? Any other effects? DanielDemaret (talk) 06:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

what are some of the worst things the united states has ever done?

what are some of the worst things the united states has ever done? (could be something drawn out like the vietnam war) 79.122.72.101 (talk) 08:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

1. The Reference Desk is not a discussion forum or chatroom. This is NOT an appropriate place to start such a debate.

2. If you look on your computer keyboard, at either side of the bottom row of letters is a little thing called a "shift key". If you use it, you'll be able to type capital letters. Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Just about to say what Malcolm XIV said - the ref-desk isn't a good place for something like this, the answer would be different depending on the responder, their awareness of US history or their own cultural/national views on the US. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

i dont see why malcolm needed to be so rude to me, i think it is a straightforward question, and i doubt anyone can say in good faith that i'm trying to start a debate. can malcolm seriously imagine "no my answer is the worst! no mine! no mine is the worst!". i just can't imagine people arguing about whose answer is the worst... 79.122.72.101 (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You did not ask a factual question to which you required an answer, you asked an open question in the hope of engendering a discussion. This is not the place for that. Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Whilst the question (or, rather, the answers) MAY be leading to a discussion, it must be valid to question the political ethos of a nation (or any other entity) in a historical context. It is not the duty of the querent to worry about the neutrality of the respondents on the reference desk, it is their right to assume that unbiased (unbiassed) answers are supplied. The above comments reek of censorship. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

i dont think it's appropriate to call the responses censorship. i (the original poster) just changed the question from 'what is the worst things' to 'what are some of the worst things' . this removes the element the respondents above might have thought is my way of starting debate. this way people can list some of the worst things and there shouldnt be any debate about it. 79.122.72.101 (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)