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

May 8

English Democrats in Wales

Can anyone in Britain inform me why the English Democrats Party has run for the Welsh Assembly? 03:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Member (talk • contribs)

Probably, but the very first article you linked to unsurprisingly also can... (see the '#Welsh Assembly elections' section for starters) Nil Einne (talk) 06:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Monmouthshire was included within Wales for all administrative purposes after the 1970s, but this was contested by some - see Monmouthshire (historic)#Ambiguity over Welsh status for more information. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Short Story Collection

I am looking for a short story collection, possibly edited by Isaac Asimov, or featuring one of his stories. The first story is about a man who awakens without any memory and is given a series of physical and mental tests. It turns out that scientists have been putting different personalities into his body in an effort to find the perfect one for interstellar travel. Any idea of the title/author? dlempa (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like Larry Niven's A World Out of Time, though that's a novel, not a short story collection. It's possible that an excerpt was published in one of Niven's collections. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The story "Rammer", which is the basis for the novel, is in A Hole in Space and Playgrounds of the Mind. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Although dlempa's memory of the story may be imperfect, it does not quite match "Rammer", in which (Spoiler Warning) the protagonist wakes up in another body (of a mindwiped criminal), but well remembers his past life prior to his having been cryogenically preserved. However, it's true that several other personalities/minds had previously been retrieved from "corpsicles" and had failed to measure up. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"Rammer" was the one I was thinking of. I guess it wasn't connected with Isaac Asimov. Thanks all for the help! dlempa (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Classical buildings with asymmetric pediment

Resolved

The picture at the top of [1] shows a fictional building from the Pokémon franchise. What I like about it is the asymmetric pediment. Now, my question is not so much where the animators drew their inspiration from. (That would be one for the E desk.) What I want to know is if there are any (neo-)classical buildings, from before about 1800 AD, that have a similar asymmetry. I have never seen anything like this, and something tells me the Greeks would have abhorred this. Thank you in advance. 83.81.60.11 (talk) 07:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Is not the "asymmetrical pediment" a factory-style one sided clerestory? Such things are more a feature of modern gymnasiums than ancient temples-for one thing, you'd need very light and strong roofing materials. FiggyBee (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that appears more like a Clerestory then an asymetrical pediment. The whole fictional building smacks of Postmodernism with its clash of architectural styles. There is a strong Mannerist influence, and the roof line is very much in keeping with the Constructvist movement. In total though, this clash of styles makes this building, if it was real, post modern ( the corinthian colums in front not supporting anything also helps!).--Found5dollar (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Not that they would abhor it ... rather, these will simply not survive the time - vernacular oddities come and go unnoticed. As FiggyBee said, asymmetric roofing is quite a challenge structurally, so its use had to be limited to smaller buildings. East of Borschov (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I hadn't thought of that. Indeed you might be able to build this today, but not two millennia ago, not on this scale. Well, I would have loved for someone to say: "Oh yeah, there's this 2nd century building a lot like this in Rome!", but that is not going to happen then. I agree with the other comments as well. I am going to mark this resolved, but if anyone has anything to add, please do so anyway. Thank you all. 83.81.60.233 (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC) (Yes, my IP address has changed, apparently.)

First French national anthem

While it's a known fact that La Marseillaise was composed in 1792, was there a prior national anthem sung in France during the Bourbon régime or was this the first?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Talking entirely off the top of my head - national anthems are quite a modern idea - God Save the King is often quoted as the first one. Its origins are disputed but it wasn't widely known before the 1745 Rebellion and I believe it was some years afterwards that began to be used in any official capacity. Therefore, I'd be surprised if the Kings of France had any music that would fit the modern idea of a national anthem.

Thanks. If La Marseillaise is indeed the first French national anthem the article should state this.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I have since added to the La Marseillaise article that it was France's first ever anthem. Thank you again for your help.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone had added an uncited claim that the previous anthem was "Land of the Free". I very much doubt a monarchy would have such a theme song, plus I couldn't find anything about it in google. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This page[2] gives more details about national anthems in France; La Marseillaise only being used from 1795-99 and from 1870 onwards. Napoleon apparently had no use for a national anthem (sorry Tchaikovsky - you got that bit wrong) and the restored French monarchy (1815-30) used "Le retour des Princes Français à Paris" and "Où peut-on être mieux qu'au sein de sa famille". Louis-Philippe (1830-1848) used "La Parisienne" and Napoleon III went for "Partant pour la Syrie" perhaps because it may have been written by his mum. I think the "Land of the Free" thing needs to go. I couldn't find anything on Google either, even when I tried to translate it into Franglais. Alansplodge (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That was actually in the National anthem article. It was posted by a one-shot who was just messing around with things. It be gone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

.Going by the link Alansplodge provided, La Marseillaise was the first anthem in France, as well as the first European march style of anthem. I have added it to the article as well as the part about it having been adopted by the international revolutionary movement, including the Paris Commune in 1871.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

[outdent] Tangentially, Jacques Barzun noted that Rouget de Lille wrote the verses at the request of a mayor of a city that was not Marseilles, and had that city stuck, the song could have become known as the Strasbourgeoisie.

The Destruction of Bruchsal in 1945

I have a question regarding the Allied destruction of the city of Bruchsal in 1945.

It stems from information from Perry Biddiscombe in his book on the German partisan movement (Werwolf). According to Biddiscombe, in his section on Allied reprisals; U.S. combat troops destroyed the town of Bruchsal in retaliation for unclear SS activities.

The problem here is that apparently information on what happened to Bruchsal is confusing.

• 1. The troops that occupied Bruchsal were French, as Biddiscombe himself notes in a separate paper on non-fraternisation where he notes that the French troops that moved in on April 2 1945 committed 600 rapes in the town.

• 2. The wikipedia article itself on the town states that the town was destroyed and 1000 killed by Allied bombing on March 1, 1945, with the front-line only 20 km away. Apparently the bombing had no purpose, it was simply a retaliation for some peasants lynching an Allied aviator.[3]

• 3. Another source states that Buchenau (a city "suburb" of Bruchsal) was destroyed by American artillery fire on February 2, 1945.[4]

Does anyone have info that could clear up exactly what Biddiscombe is referring to? Is it the U.S. artillery shelling that destroyed 80% of one part of the city on February 2, 1945. And what was the real reason behind the shelling in that case?

--Stor stark7 ^Speak 12:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I found the 1 March bombing mentioned in a number of different bomber group histories (example); they all say it was aimed at the marshalling yards and do not mention a reprisal motive.

According to the German wikipedia article on Büchenau, the 2/3 February destruction of Büchenau was from the air, the result of a failed RAF mission to bomb Karlsruhe. I found a mention of that mission here. --Cam (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The idea of Mankind waging war against God

I'm aware that this is a touchy subject. I'd like to make clear that I'm not making a point, or looking for a religious debate, or anything like that -- I'd just like to learn about the historical background of this idea.

The idea summed up is: If a vengeful God (such as described in the Old Testament) existed, the only rational choice for humankind would be to wage war against such a being.

I've bumped into this kind of reasoning in a couple of fictional narratives, the latest one being Dan Simmons' sci-fi novel 'Hyperion'. I'm kind of sure though, that this line of thought can be traced further back than a sci-fi novel. Is there a philosopher that this can be attributed to? Perhaps there's even an exact quote?

Thank you for your time :) 85.23.16.84 (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You can find answers here and here. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

[The website http://www.watchtower.org/ is obsolete, but Wayback Machine has archives of Armageddon—A Catastrophic End? indexed at https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.watchtower.org/e/20051201/article_01.htm, and archives of Armageddon—A Happy Beginning indexed at https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.watchtower.org/e/20051201/article_02.htm. Today the official website is http://www.jw.org, and those articles are at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2005880 and http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2005881 respectively.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)]

One could argue that Satanists wage war against God.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

What I'm really looking for is the source people like mr. Simmons used while writing his novel. While I admire Simmons as a writer, I doubt he personally came up with this idea. Nietzsche's writings did critique religion, and have influenced popular culture a bunch, perhaps that's as far as we can get? I don't know my philosophers very well, which is why I'm here. 85.23.16.84 (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The idea of waging war on God sounds like the plot line from Clash of the Titans. And since the God of Abraham is supposed to be all-powerful, it would be a little bit like a colony of ants trying to wage war on a lightning storm. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Or mortals waging war against Zeus.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

All things considered, the mortals' odds would be a lot better against Zeus than against "YHWH". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Good points, yet I still see this as more of a monotheistic religion thing. The whole idea is pretty much the ultimate expression of blasmephy: instead of speaking or rebelling against God, people unite with the purpose of utterly destroying him. This isn't nearly as radical an idea in a polytheistic religion -- there was no end to mortals pulling tricks on Zeus and the other gods of the Greek pantheon. Zigorney (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel strongly compelled to apologise to the OP for the responses, most of which haven't even tried to be helpful. Don't worry - there are people who will try to help you find an answer - it just seems that they're not one of them (neither am I - because I know nothing about the subject). Vimescarrot (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

God is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. He cannot be defeated by any force in the universe. That's what I was trying to get at. Hope that clears things up for you. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

But that's completely and utterly irrelevant to the original question. Vimescarrot (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

carrots→ 22:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC) I have to say that God is not depicted as vengeful in the Old Testament. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 22:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you corroborate that assertion with specific references, TT? It seems contrary to the impression I, and most people I have discussed the matter with over the last 4 decades, have formed from reading the OT. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

What sort of references do you want?! I linked to the page Judaism, which is a large religion of people who worship God solely based on the Old Testament. God is regarded as "One and indivisible, transcendent and immanent, Creator and Sustainer of the universe, Source of the Moral Law, a God of justice and mercy who demands that human beings shall practise justice and mercy in their dealings with one another." ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 08:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd hardly say that Judaism worships God solely based on the OT -- that would be Karaism. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

(I am the IP who posted this question) All right, I did kind of promise that I don't want a religious debate, but I can't resist responding to this. Sorry.

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me" Exodus 20:5

This seems rather vengeful, and is attributed to Lord Himself, no less. Zigorney (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The "children suffer for their parents' sins" passage is revoked by God in Ezekiel 18:2-4 – "What do you mean by quoting this proverb, The fathers eat sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge? As sure as I live, declares the Sovereign God, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel." I assume you forgot that bit!

There are also countless instances of God exercising mercy: Sodom and Gomorrah, the entire Book of Jonah, the final parts of the Book of Job... to name a few.

And I do hope you are not suggesting that Jews worship a vengeful and vicious God, because that is simply not the case. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 09:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point. I don't want to press this any further, this really isn't the appropriate forum for this kind of debate. Zigorney (talk) 09:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Any book of religion is ultimately scribed by mortals. Vengeful would ultimately be a human perception, no?  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  22:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The concept of humanity warring against God can be traced all the way back to the Bible, for example in Psalms 78:56 "But they put God to the test and rebelled against the Most High" and Psalms 107:11 "for they had rebelled against the words of God and despised the counsel of the Most High." Beyond that, I am not aware of any philosophers who advocated waging war against God; Nietsche's "God is dead, and we have killed him, you and I!" refers more to humanity having rejected the concept of a God, either to plunge into nihilism or to become an Übermensch. Like you, however, I am not that well versed in my philosophy so maybe someone else can give us some more info.

If we go to literature, you can look at Milton's Paradise Lost, and the Romantic movement was pretty heavily into the idea of Satan as a hero; you can read more about that here. Particularly relevant is the quote, "in "Cain", Lucifer teaches mankind to rebel against a tyranny that blocks happiness, just as he himself rebelled against God." Jean Boleyn is correct that there is a lot of warfare against God in Satanist thought as well. In more modern times, The Sandman features Lucifer heavily, and I think I read something a while back, perhaps in an Orson Scott Card novel, a passage about how God is a tyrant and it is perfectly logical to rebel against him.

So basically, there are vague hints of the thought process you are referring to scattered all throughout Western thought, and somewhere there is probably even an exact source, but I don't know where it is. Cheers, --Cerebellum (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I think some of the posters here are confusing rebellion with warfare. Refusing to obey God's law is not warfare, it's rebellion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

(I am the IP who posted this question) Thanks for the answers so far! While it seems like there isn't a single person or an exact quote available, at least I have a bunch of new stuff to read :) Zigorney (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The Japanese manga Neon Genesis Evangelion comes to mind after reading this discussion. --Belchman (talk) 10:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Evangelion (mecha). Hah, i'm glad we have japan. They know that including FIGHTING ROBOTS makes everything better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zigorney (talk • contribs) 10:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe an author seldom reveals the reason(s) for his or her idea(s), but you might wish to see the article Hyperion (Simmons novel).

-- Wavelength (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Zigorney, if you are genuinly interested in this subject as an academic study then; C.G. Jung's book, "Answer to Job", would be a must to read. However, do understand that the understanding of God in the Old Testament is very different to the understanding of God in the New. Jung explores the notion of God in this context to understand better the relationship with God, from the standpoint of someone with a Christian background. From Jung's further words and writings he took God and Jesus seriously. The exact quotes would be legion, but you would need to read the whole book to get a clear understanding of Jung on this subject, and not to take him out of context. Do understand that Jung is not a Scripture scholar and says so at the beginning of the book. At the time of his writing of the book he got an immediate feed-back and made a life-long friend. MacOfJesus (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this pointer, I think you're on to something. In Simmons' novel, a character (the Scholar) has written a book called "The Abraham Problem". In the book he ponders the precieved injustice of God ordering Abraham to sacrifice his son, and how this affects the relationship between humankind and God. I think there are clear parallels to be drawn between this, and the Book of Job, and "Answer to Job" might very well be what Simmons is referencing here. Zigorney (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have written on the Article page: "Answer to Job" on the talk page placing in an "appraisal" and on his life-long-friend: Father Victor White, the article page; "the letters". The Book of Job is unique here. If you are serious in persuing this study, give me pointers here or on my talk page. MacOfJesus (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

C.G.Jung has a good article page. If you find the paragraph on Alcholocism and his treatment of Addicts you will find how deeply thinking and caring he was. MacOfJesus (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Karaite attitude towards adoption

The Letter of the Karaite elders of Ascalon (c. 1100) mentions a Jew named Abu S'ad, 'Son of the Wife of the Tustari' as being held ransom by the Crusaders. S.D. Goitein believes the reason he is called this is because the wife of the Karaite religious commentator Sahl b. Fadl (Yashar b. Hesed) al-Tustari had been married prior to him and the son was the product of that union. The Tustari's were ungodly rich and had personal ties to the caliphs of Egypt, so the Crusaders were no doubt aware of this. My question is would Abu S'ad have been treated as a blood relative of the family? Could he have laid claim to the family wealth and prestige? All of this ties in with the ransom. Abu S'ad does not appear in any other letter from the Cairo Geniza, so his fate is unclear. This doesn't necessarily mean he died in that situation. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Karaites deny the validity of any Jewish oral tradition accompanying the written law of the Five Books of Moses. As such, there's no validity to the bloodline relationship of an adoptee. In fact, you could probably figure out their laws yourself, as all they do is read the words literally and apply that as religious practice. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Size of the Forbidden City

It is the biggest palace in China that still stands today. But I was wondering how come the Ming Dynasty built the palace to be so small in comparison to the palaces Han Dynasty and Tang Dynasty. Weiyang Palace and Daming Palace was more than twice its size. How come, with the ambition that Yongle Emperor had, he didn't try to outdo his predecessors.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The Yongle Emperor article says the palace was moved (necessitating the construction of the Forbidden City) for military reasons. Perhaps a smaller compound was considered more easily defended? Best, WikiJedits (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Helping poor students

What educational programs are available to help undernourished children of poor parents who are too busy to spend enough time helping them with their life skills and schoolwork and too poor to afford tutoring? -- Wavelength (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Boys and Girls Club? Their web site is here. Dismas|^(talk) 19:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of programs for such children, but you will need to specify the location you are interested in if we're going to be able to name the relevant ones. I'm guessing you are talking about somewhere in the developing world, since undernourishment isn't really part of poverty in the modern developed world. --Tango (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I am interested in all locations, including those in developed countries such as the US. Please see Poverty in the United States#Food security and the outline Hunger, malnutrition, and poverty in the contemporary United States: Some observations on their social and cultural context. (By the way, I found the article School Breakfast Program.) -- Wavelength (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Over Half of Teachers Report Buying Hungry Students Food With Their Own Money. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Other general articles you might read: After-school activity, No Child Left Behind Act (U.S.), Bursary, Scholarship, Child Nutrition Act (U.S.), Student financial aid, School meal, Community centre. I believe in practice the programs available differ widely by country and even by city. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for those links. I just found the article Share Our Strength. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I found Share Our Strength Latest News - Nat'l Teacher Survey Shows Many Children Too Hungry to Learn.

-- Wavelength (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Was Tiberius a vegetarian?

Was Tiberius a vegetarian? Did he drink wine or hard alcoholic type drinks? --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

He certainly drank wine and was actually considered a heavy drinker. According to Suetonius,

Even at the outset of his military career his excessive love of wine gave him the name of Biberius, instead of Tiberius, Caldius for Claudius, and Mero for Nero [Biberius Caldius Mero meaning roughly "mulled wine drinker"]. Later, when emperor and at the very time that he was busy correcting the public morals, he spent a night and two whole days feasting and drinking with Pomponius Flaccus and Lucius Piso, immediately afterwards making the one governor of the province of Syria and the other prefect of the city, and even declaring in their commissions that they were the most agreeable of friends, who could always be counted on. (...) He gave a very obscure candidate for the quaestorship preference over men of the noblest families, because at the emperor's challenge he had drained an amphora of wine at a banquet.

— Kpalion^(talk) 19:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If by "hard alcoholic type drinks" you mean distilled spirits, they didn't exist in Roman times. The standard Roman drink was (watered-down) wine. I've never heard of Tiberius being a vegetarian; perhaps you'd get better answers if you told us the reason for the question. FiggyBee (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Although watered-down wine was the standard drink, Tiberius seems to have prefered undiluted wine, which may have reinforced his reputation as a wino. Here's another quote from Suetonius: "now 'tis for blood he is thirsting; this he as greedily quaffs as before wine without water [Latin: merum]." — Kpalion^(talk) 22:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Mostly just curious. Also in all the bust images of him it appears he shaved and did not grow a beard. Looks like he had good hygiene. Would that be good assumptions? --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, let me put it another way; what makes you think Tiberius may have been a vegetarian? As for being clean-shaven, it was the fashion of the time. You'll find very few if any Roman busts, statues or portraits of the early Empire with beards or long hair. FiggyBee (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see Beard#Ancient_Rome. That fact tells you nothing about his personal hygiene. You can find out about hygiene in Roman civilization in general at Hygiene#History_of_hygienic_practices. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Tiberius as a vegetarian was 50-50 guess. Thanks gentlemen for your answers. --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's unlikely that Tiberius was a vegetarian. This source discusses how Seneca, a contemporary of Tiberius, was a vegetarian, but had to stop out of worries of falling out with the emporer. It says that during Tiberius's persecution of Christians, one of the criteria the emporer began to use to "prove" someone was a Christian was vegetarianism. So it doesn't seem likely Tiberius was one himself. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You really want to get "Diet on Capri" by Ronald Syme. I think the point he makes is that Tiberius was so paranoid about poisoning he became practically self-sufficient on Capri and therefore pretty much vegetarian. As Pliny the Elder, relates he really liked Cucumber#Roman Empire. meltBanana 03:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiJedits, Tiberius never even HEARD of the Christians, much less persecuted them. In fact, generally, the biggest Roman-Empire-era persecutors of Christians were OTHER CHRISTIANS. Same or similar substance, etc. ... kill kill kill! What a loving bunch. 63.17.58.144 (talk) 10:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

May 9

Al-Qaeda / bin Laden Manifesto

I've heard repeated mention of an Al-Qaeda / bin Laden Manifesto which lists as its third charge against the West the independence of East Timor. What is this manifesto and where can it be read? 58.147.52.162 (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, when I hear "Bin Laden manifesto" my first thought is his 1998 "War Against Jews and Crusaders" fatwa. However, that document doesn't say anything about East Timor. This message does, but not as the third in a list of charges against the West. Are either one of those what you are looking for? --Cerebellum (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. The first time I heard of it was in Christopher Hitchens' answer to a question at the Freedom from Religion Foundation here at 0:30 (full presentation starts [here]):

What are some of the items in the Bin Laden / Al-Qaeda manifesto? Well, oddly enough -- and this was to my surprise; I thought it would be lower down -- item three in the charge against the West is that it reversed course on East Timor, tried to undo the genocide, brought East Timor to a referendum on independence, sent Sérgio Vieira de Mello, one of the greatest UN civil servants, to East Timor to supervise the transition to independence and the election and made East Timor the newest member of the UN. Bin Laden says, "for this we will never forgive the Christian Crusaders and their imperialist friends. They took away a republic from a Muslim land."

I was hoping to read the full source he was paraphrasing. 58.147.52.162 (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I Saw that video and searched for the manifesto myself. I believe I have found it, although East Timor is actually the fifth point that Bin Laden mentions. You can find it here.

Communist founders in London

Did Stalin really visit London, as this article suggests? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8658408.stm Could Marx and Lenin both speak english, as their using of the British Museum would imply? Engels ran a factory in Manchester I think and probably visited London - is there any founder of communism who had not lived in or at least visited London? What was the attraction of London to them? Thanks 92.24.17.70 (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

[I am pretty sure, that Engels' family owned textile factories works (in Wuppertal) and Engels did work "nine to five" in those until retirement, and also for a time in Manchester. He did, as far as I know, not run them. Both E and M, regardless of what one may think about their philosophy, were not "challenged" linguistically - M. wrote and spoke? a German/English mishmash (lots of code-switching), but both read books in tons of languages and wrote in some.--Radh (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)]

Stalin, along with Lenin, Trotsky, Gorky and others, visited London in 1907 (not 1905) for the 5th Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. I think this was Stalin's only trip to Britain although Lenin traveled there a number of times. Stalin first met Lenin in Tampere in December 1905.--Cam (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

As for other "founders of Communism", I don't think Mao Zedong probably ever visited London. Ho Chi Minh, however, did spend some time working in a London pub, which is a pretty amusing coincidence. I don't see any obvious evidence of Fidel Castro having visited London but I wouldn't rule it out (he did travel a bit before the Cuban Revolution). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

To answer the "attractiveness of London", remember that pre-WWI, London was likely the most affluent city in Europe, maybe even the world, having largely dodged most of the major continental wars that ran across Europe in the 19th century (Revolutions of 1848, Franco-Prussian War, etc) and Britain was, without a doubt, the pre-eminent world power prior to WWI (see Pax Britannica). Britain was a western liberal society, which valued freedom of expression and intellectualism. Also remember that prior to the 1920's, Comminism was a harmless pursuit of ivory-tower academics and intellectuals, not an oppressive totaliarian regime. Londoners, even if they knew that the major players in Russia's communist movement were hanging out among them, probably wouldn't have seen it as a big deal. --Jayron32 03:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Err, it's not true it was just for ivory tower academics pre-1920s. It was also something pursued by working class agitators, labor unions, and etc. Of which there were many in London. It would have been a pretty natural place for a budding communist to go for awhile. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

London was very much one of the epicentres of revolutionary activity in the latter-half of the 19th century and in the beginning of the 20th. Many organizations from the continent established their presence in the city, to conduct meetings and publish press outlets there. See for example the article on the Hebrew Socialist Union in London, seemingly the first Jewish socialist organization in the world. --Soman (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought Paris to have been the epicentre of revolutionary ativity considering it had given birth to the Communards, who had allegedly inspired anarchists everywhere, especially Russia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Paris in the late-19th century would have been a more turbulent environment for the visiting communist than would have been London. (See French Third Republic.) It certainly was a hub of socialist/radical/anarchist activity. I'm not clear how much of a hub it would have been for international rallying—it seems like most of what was going on was specifically related to change in France. But I don't really know too much about France in this period, so I am admittedly out of my depth. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

@London, as a paradise for revolutionaries ca. 1848: see Alexander Herzen, perhaps via E. H. Carr's famous book on him.--Radh (talk) 06:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

William Robson translation of The Three Musketeers

William Robson's translation is not mentioned in the Editions section of The Three Musketeers. Though I don't think it was available since the 60s/70s, Borders Bookstores now sells their self-published edition using Robson's translation, which is both ornate and flowery and beautiful to read. But the Wikipedia article brings up a good point: omissions of language to comply with standards of the time. I've never been able to figure out when Robson's translation was written and if, in fact, it is abridged in parts. I may be forced to read Richard Pevear's translation, but I'm worried about its use of modern phrases. Does anyone here have any information on Robson's translation? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

According to this, William Robson's translation was published in 1853. According to this guy, Robson's translation is not "absurdly bowdlerized." Hope that helps. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely wonderful. Translation based on Dumas's own revised version, and spot-checked against Pevear, though I may have to double-check a few passages of my own. It never occurred to me that Google Books could be used in such a fashion. You've therefore answered my question and taught me something new. Thank you so much! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Glad I could help. : ) --Cerebellum (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Service of process

Removed. We cannot give legal advice here. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Homelessness resources in London

My 2nd favorite blogger in London, Penny Red, has just announced her impending homelessness. She's an early-20s smoker on this year's Orwell Prize short list. What resources are available for homeless women in London?

http://www.homelesslondon.org/details.asp?id=LP381

Are there any Londoners here with social networks capable of taking on a brilliant starving artist type as a couch surfer? 208.54.5.60 (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason why she cannot rent a flat please? Even if she has no income, then she should get Housing Benefit (and other benefit money also) which should be enough to rent a cheap and/or small flat or at least a room. Many landlords are acustomed to having tenants on benefits. See http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/On_a_low_income/DG_10018926 You can find out how much rent she would get paid here https://lha-direct.voa.gov.uk/Secure/Default.aspx For central London she should get paid at least £141 a week for the rent alone, plus other money to live off also. Some tenants of mine who live entirely off benefits just rung me up from Spain, where they are on holiday! 78.146.175.181 (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, people with no money in the UK are not forced to be homeless? It's been more than 10 years since I've visited, but I guess living in the US is actually more different than I ever imagined. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No they are not. They do not starve or need medical treatment or go around in rags either. In my youth I spent some time living off benefits - due to enjoying the leisure time and freedom I have to admit - and my standard of living was like that of being a student. I did have enough money left over to spend on other things apart from the necessities. But if you spend your benefits on alcohol, drugs, smoking, or owning a car, then you will be short of money. 84.13.53.169 (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Would your youth have been in the '80s, by any chance? 86.180.48.37 (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Shelter are your go-to for housing advice: try here. She should phone their helpline on 0808 800 4444 straight away: they aim to help people avoid becoming homeless, as well as helping with access to emergency housing and more long-term solutions. If she hasn't actually left her home yet, they may be able to help her avoid that. For more detailed, general advice that might help deal with the underlying problems, she should contact her local Citizens Advice Bureau: here's the site that should help her find her nearest. This is something that you can't do for her: she has to speak to these people herself. 86.180.48.37 (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you direct the person to The Manna Centre, one in South London near London Bridge and one in North London, they are drop-in-day Centres. From there advice is readily available and direction to suitable accommodation. Clothes and other necessities, clinics provided by local Councils, etc. Send me a note on my talk page if you need phone nos. etc. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Bernard Werber - 『Paradis sur Mesure』

Could anybody please tell me the names of the 17 chapters of Bernard Werber's novel 『Paradis sur Mesure』? both in French and in English? i've tried looking everywhere but couldn't find anything. thanks!!Johnnyboi7 (talk) 07:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The best I could do was this page from the Korean wikipedia, which has a list of the chapter titles in Korean. Google Translate gives this list of English titles, which unfortunately is pretty garbled. I'm not even going to attempt a French version.

"environmental destruction offender hanged," (a likely future) "Truth in the fingers" (short story interlude) "respecting the issue" (likely the past) "Flowers Sex" (a likely future) "lost civilization" (a likely future) "Murder in the Mist" (likely the past) "Tomorrow the girls" (a likely future) "Movie Masters" (a likely future) "Alignment of Paradise" (a likely future) "Sparrow ruin others" (likely the memories) "where jokes are born" (a likely future) "the teeth of the earth" (likely the past) "You're going to like" (a likely future) "brand war" (a likely future) "Scarecrow strategy" (likely the past) "Anti - Proverbs" (short story interlude) "Love in Atlantis" (likely the past)

Cheers, --Cerebellum (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

In French:

1. Et l'on pendra tous les pollueurs
2. Intermède : la vérité est dans le doigt
3. Question de respect
4. Le sexe des fleurs
5. Civilisation disparue
6. Meurtre dans la brume
7. Demain les femmes
8. Paradis sur mesure
9. Le maître du cinéma
10. Le moineau destructeur
11. Là où naissent les blagues
12. Les dents de la terre
13. Ça va vous plaire
14. La guerre des marques
15. La stratégie de l'épouvantail
16. Anti-proverbe
17. Un amour en Atlantide

AldoSyrt (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sousa marches during religious ceremonies

I'm curious as to why John Philip Sousa military marches are played by bands during Catholic religious processions here in Italy? Stars and Stripes Forever is a particular favourite. When I queried my parish priest, he just looked blank. Jesus is supposedly a man of peace, yet the marches glorify warfare and make one eager to rush off to the nearest US Marines recruiting office than meditate upon God.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Marches glorify warfare ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 09:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that my personal opinion, but its lyrics are martial (see article: Stars and Stripes Forever), and while patriotic also militant. Anyway, the marches are certainly not what anybody could possibly describe as dirges or hymns.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It's possible that someone just liked the tune and decided to claim it for another use. Consider What Child is This?, which is set to the tune of Greensleeves. I want to say that using any kind of march for that purpose is strange, but it occurs to me that some of the hymns Martin Luther wrote have a martial tone, as does Onward, Christian Soldiers. Paul (Stansifer) 12:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Then there's the Battle Hymn of the Republic which is surely an oxymoron if there ever was!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

March tunes in general, by matching the rhythm of (usually brisk) walking (obviously), both encourage and usefully co-ordinate the walking of a collection of people, which may be as desirable for a religious procession as for a body of military persons, though the two categories may overlap: the Christian Church has had quasi-military overtones for most of its existence right up to the present day; think of concepts and organisations such as "the Church Militant", the Salvation Army, etc. The Battle Hymn of the Republic, for example, was in my (English) Methodist hymnal at school and had no particular US or literal military associations for us.

Those who choose the musical programme for a particular religious event may well be interested in using works most musically various and interesting for the players, and uplifting or otherwise emotionally appropriate for the other participants and audience (and with scores for the band readily available), without worrying so much about the possible associations of lyrics which will not be sung and which, as in Jeanne Boleyn's example, are in a language foreign to most of those present. In the converse case of actual military marching displays (several of which I have attended, being an Army brat) non-military march-time pieces are often used - the theme tune of Thunderbirds has long been popular, for example. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The month March derives its name from Mars, the Roman god of war. I imagine the word march, for the music genre, also gets its name from the same source.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I would have guessed a similar association, but according to the Oxford English Dictionary the musical form's name derives, as one would expect, from the verb describing a manner of walking (often but by no means always done in a military context), but the verb itself derived in the 12-century from the French verb marcher which meant to tread or trample, and

"the etymology of French marcher is obscure; the prevailing view is that the oldest recorded sense 'to trample' was developed from a sense 'to hammer', and that the word represents a Gaulish Latin marcare, from Latin marcus hammer."

Thus, although (as the OED says elsewhere) various European cognates of 'march' (verb) came quite early to be associated with an often military style of walking, the word's origin is non-military and unconnected with Mars (whose name derives from archaic Latin Mavors, probably cognate with Oscan Mamers). Isn't etymology fascinating? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree! Jeanne, go and tell him. For if I were there listening I would. Your phrase comes to mind: "Jesus, wept", a quote from Saint John's Gospel, over the dead Lazurus. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

To me, there is nothing spiritual about Sousa marches. I cannot imagine Stars and Stripes Forever inspiring a person to do anything but march in time under the Old Glory dreaming of battles fought and won in foreign lands. Oh BTW, Jesus wept is an old Irish expression used to express disbelief, disgust, outrage or surprise. I use it all the time.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I have heard the expression before, but it does come from Saint John. Jesus also wept over Jerusalem (Saint John again). As you say Military Marches have no place in a Church setting! We agree! MacOfJesus (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not complaining about the use of Sousa marches in processions; in point of fact, they jazz them up and get the faithful to walk at a quicker pace. I was just curious-and amused. Alas, my former parish priest had not an ounce of humour, or knowledge of American history, I daresay.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

When I was in Lourdes last, we had a trip up to Gavannie a little village up in the mountains, where they still have snow in May/June. As we were going up near Pont Napoleon a shop of Alpine gear was meant to be playing Alpine Folk Music, instead they were playing Irish Ceili Music; The Fureys & Davie Arthur! How out of place is that? Maybe it is just me? When we said something they changed it to pure Ceili Band Music! MacOfJesus (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have a Davy Arthur story to tell but this isn't the place for it. It hard to accociate him with Lourdes.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This was 20miles into the mountains on Pont Napoleon many miles from Dublin among all the Alpine knitware. The natives say that if you were to throw youself off Pont Napoleon you would have time to say the full Confiteor before you hit the ground! But nobody can be sure for certain. I was priveleged in being at Davy A. & The Fureys last concert! But to get back to the original point; I would react strongly to bad Liturgy and untimely music. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"Know Thyself" by Dr John Arbuthnot

Resolved

I have been asked by a freemason if I know about this poem which he says is supposed to be written by Dr. John Arbuthnot (1667-1735). It rings a bell but not in connection with the polymath. Can anybody help please? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Alexander Pope. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The Twelve Caesars

Petrarch researched and wrote "bios" on Julius Caesar and other famous ancient Romans in his Illustrious Men. Is it quite likely he would have reseached and studied all of The Twelve Caesars? Would he have likely obtained the information on the 12 Caesars from Livy or Suetonius or both or other sources?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 10:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

He got it directly from Suetonius. See this book, for example, or this one. Basically Petrarch knew Suetonius very well and intentionally copied him. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Great answers Adam Bishop. Very helpful. Thank you very much.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 10:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Forbidden artifacts

I was reading the article regarding the Imperial Regalia of Japan, which is about three ancient mythical objects (a sword, a mirror and a jewel) that can be seen, more or less, only by the Emperor of Japan and few other very selected people. Are there any other example of important historical artifacts known to exist, officially stated as real, but forbidden to almost every person in the world (no allowed scientific/archaelogical studies, no photos, no pictures...)?--151.51.60.165 (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The one that springs instantly to my mind is the Ark of the Covenant which is claimed to be held in Ethiopia. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it Ethiopia? I always thought stuff like that was in the Vatican, and only Robert Langdon is allowed in there. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church claims to have the original ark at the Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion. Only a single monk is allowed to see it. Naturally, most historians doubt that if there's any relic at all, it's truly the original Ark. See this article. Replicas of the Ark, known as tabots, are used widely by the Ethiopian's. Buddy431 (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The Museum of Anthropology at UBC holds at least one artefact which can only be viewed by the holy men of the First Nations tribe which created it - even in the reference collection, its presence is signified by an explanatory note, rather than the artefact itself, which is in a sealed box in the store. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me of a picture I saw about 25 years ago at the National Gallery of Victoria - or, rather, didn't see. I was just browsing away, when I came across an object that seemed to be a small canvas covered by a sheet of white material. The description said something about the artist not wanting the world to see his work, so he displays it covered up. The NGV was wanting its patrons to accept that there was something of artistic merit beneath the cover, but in keeping with the artist's wishes, was not allowing them to actually see it. We just had to take the NGV's word for it. I still wonder what the point of that exercise was. A much better idea would have been to say to the artist "Of course we respect your wish not to display your work. When and if you ever change your mind, give us a call and we'll see if we're interested in showing any of them - but that will mean showing them and not taking up valuable wall space with covered works that nobody can see". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the DPRK have a whole host of niknacks that they keep under lock and key for only Kim Jong-Il to see? Or that citizens are only allowed to see once in their life? I recall seeing something like that on the Vice Guide to North Korea... flagitious 06:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flagitious (talk • contribs)

John Wilkes Booth's fiancée

Resolved

Does anyone have an exact birthdate and death date for Lucy Lambert Hale, the secret fiancée of John Wilkes Booth? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

shhh! it's supposed to be a secret. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.124.197 (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's out now!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

She died October 15, 1915.[5] I haven't found a birthdate more precise than the year 1842.--Cam (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha! Her gravestone gives her birth as Jan. 1. 1841.--Cam (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This is great. Thanks a million for your help.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The information you provided came in handy for Lucy Lambert Hale's article which I created this morning. Thanks again. The reference desk has come through yet again!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Notable Virginia Politicians

Does anyone know of any notable Virginia politicians from before the civil war? The politicians must of have been born in Virginia ex. James Madison. 72.94.161.188 (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Why must Virginian politicians be born in Virginia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.124.197 (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Henry, Nathaniel Bacon, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, John Tyler, John Johns Trigg, etc. Oh, there are so many. Why not look up the category: Politicians from Virginia? I'm sure there's a list somewhere!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Here it is:List of people from Virginia--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! That should be enough!72.94.161.188 (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Does abject poverty exist in Western Europe and/or the USA?

For the purpose of this question, "abject poverty" is loosely defined as "malnutrition owing to poverty". If not, when (abouts) would it have ended?--Leon (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the majority of homeless people should fit into a category as such, and many of these people exhibit malnutrition. You can find them living on the New York City Transit Authority trains and in places like Central Park. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I did say Western Europe and the USA, and thus am not disagreeing with you immediately, in Southern England more specifically that is not my observation. I do no observe them suffering malnutrition, or even anything very close.

If "owing to poverty" is preface by "directly" (meaning they have neither the capital nor the social support to feed themselves healthily), does the picture change? If "malnutrition" is replaced with "starvation", does it change again?--Leon (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I have seen reports that there are places in the UK where some people are unable to afford decent food and exhibit a degree of malnutrition as a result. Unfortunately my Google-fu has deserted me and I can't find the article on the BBC website regarding this. Most UK cases of malnutrition appear to occur among those who have health problems [6]. This report also claims that British teenagers are at risk of malnutrition, but mainly because of poor food choices. [7] --TammyMoet (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Malnutrition is certainly present in the United States. Depending on how you draw the line, the number of malnourished people in the US is between 17 million and 49 million, according to the Food Research and Action Center. See also Malnutrition#United States. Note also that the US has the problem that the cheapest foods tend to be unhealthy, so just because someone has enough money to buy the calories they need doesn't mean that they're able to get properly nourished. Paul (Stansifer) 18:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You make a good point. A recent question asked about undernourishment, which I don't think does really exist in the modern world (there will be people that don't get enough food, but they could if they claimed the various benefits they are entitled to), but that doesn't mean there isn't malnourishment. I think a large part of the problem is lack of education rather than lack of money, though - you can eat a healthy balanced diet on a very low budget if you know how (try rice, for example, as a very cheap healthy carbohydrate and protein source). --Tango (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The will be a small number of people who aren't entitled to any benefits, such as people who have made themselves intentionally unemployed, or illegal immigrants, but the numbers are small enough that they can be served by charitable facilties such as soup kitchens and so are unlikely to be undernourished. Warofdreams talk 19:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

There are a large number of legal immigrants who cannot get benefits - people from the EU A8 countries who are not working, for example. --Phil Holmes (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

While it is over 100 years old, I would strongly suggest anyone thinking a large part of the problem is lack of education read Round about a pound a week. Among other things, it details the well-meaning attempts at educating the poor in cheap nutrition, which sadly ignore the practical realities of their lives. While I could feed myself very cheaply and nutritiously, the very cheapest options are quite time-consuming and likely to get boring very quickly. They would be difficult to sustain a child on. 86.180.48.37 (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Round About a Pound a Week. The People of the Abyss by Jack London gives another picture of the poverty in the east end of London around 1900, but things have changed a lot since then, including the NHS which started in 1948. 78.146.176.116 (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Things have changed a lot, some of it thanks to exactly these books, but they are still important to make people think. "Educating" people on how to feed themselves nutritiously without taking the details of their lives into account is an easy trap to fall in to, and I've seen it repeatedly in modern times. From "Round About a Pound a Week":

"[A doctor] ended his course by telling his audience that, if they wished to do good to the children of the poor, they would do more towards effecting their purpose if they were to walk through East End streets with placards bearing the legend "MILK is the proper food for infants" than by taking any other action he could think of. (...) He was, however, wrong in his idea that poor women do not realise that milk is the proper food for infants. The reason why the infants do not get milk is the reason why they do not get good housing or comfortable clothing - it is too expensive."

Especially still pertinent is this section below, on the well-meaning nutritional advice given to mothers. Porridge oats are cheap, and porridge seems a nutritious thing to suggest for children's breakfasts...

"The visitors in this investigation hoped to carry with them a gospel of porridge to the hardworking mothers of families in Lambeth. The women of Lambeth listened patiently, according to their way, agreed to all that was said, and did not begin to feed their families on porridge. Being there to watch and note rather than to teach and preach, the visitors waited to hear, when and how they could, what the objection was. It was not one reason, but many. Porridge needs long cooking; if on the gas, that means expense; if on an open fire, constant stirring and watching just when the mother is most busy getting the children up. Moreover, the fire is often not lit before breakfast. It was pointed out that porridge is a food which will keep when made. It could be cooked when the children are at school and merely warmed up in the morning. The women agreed again, but still no porridge. It seemed, after further patient waiting on the part of the visitors, that the husbands and children could not abide porridge - to use the expressive language of the district, "they 'eaved at it."

"Why? Well, cooked the day before, and eaten with milk and sugar, all children liked porridge. But the mothers held up their hands. Milk! Who could give milk - or sugar either, for that matter? Of course, if you could give them milk and sugar, no wonder! They might eat it then, even if it was a bit burnt. Porridge was an awful thing to burn in old pots if you left it a minute; and if you set the pot flat on its bottom instead of holding it all to one side to keep the burnt place away from the flames, it would "ketch" at once. An' then, if you'd happened to cook fish or "stoo" in the pot for dinner, there was a kind of taste come out in the porridge. It was more than they could bear to see children who was 'ungry, mind you, pushin' their food away or 'eavin at it. So it usually ended in a slice of "bread and marge" all round, and a drink of tea, which was the breakfast they were accustomed to."

A family living on benefits or minimum wage in the UK still faces many of these same problems in eating nutritiously and cheaply. As a century ago, they do not have the money to buy in bulk, driving up prices. They have limited space and equipment for cooking: families housed in B&Bs or equivalent often have no access to cooking equipment or refrigerated storage. Even in proper council housing, decent cooking equipment can be scarce. Systems are in place to help, but the processes are long and convoluted, taking a long time and requiring you to know which hoops to jump through. They cannot afford to make the 'nice' versions of healthy food, making it more likely that the children will refuse it. Living on a tight budget, they cannot afford to buy and prepare food which is not eaten. Think of how much it improves cheap cooking to have access to herbs and spices: that is an initial outlay that can't always be budgeted for. Bread is cheap, and children eat it. Utility costs for cooking are also a factor.

Seriously, we've come a long way, but living on benefits under the current system is not easy or pleasant. Is it made easier by advice like this? Supposedly, this is a low-cost option. Have a look at the proposed menus for the parent living on a budget: notice how many packets of things you would have to buy to provide the variety they say is "required to ensure that they are nutritionally balanced". How much would that cost, as an initial outlay? How much food would go off before you went round the cycle and needed another fruit fromage frais, or another pitta? Look at the investment of time, and the high risk of the child not liking the food that you bought a whole packet of. This is advice issued in 2010. Faced with experts saying this was required, and a hungry child, wouldn't you just feed the child anything they'd eat? 86.180.48.37 (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The sandwich recipies seem designed for middle-class families buying things at supermarkets, not those on the dole. I think you are exaggerating the problem - if people refuse to help themselves or put any effort in, such as not looking for a job or living hedonistically, then they are going to doom themselves to a bad situation. Smokers, drinkers, and drivers are going to be short of money. The benefits and health system in the UK works well and means people never have the same fears or worries that they do on the other side of the altlantic. Its foolish to use a set of up-market recipes, material from 1913, or imagining passively hedonistic families as evidence to to condem it. People on the dole are not really entitled to epicure food served by a butler, and by the way you can buy a large cannister of dried mixed herbs in Tescos for 15p. The key need may be that of teaching people how to do simple cookery, such as rice or pasta or cooking vegetables. Many less-well off people have no idea how to cook, in my experience, so have no choice but to eat bad and/or expensive food. I would make cookery and nutrition lessons in schools compulsory for both genders. I understand that "home economics" is rarely taught in schools nowerdays, and that may be a root cause of the problem. 78.146.87.143 (talk) 09:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

As I made very clear, the point of the 1913 text is in raising the issues. The advice from 2010 is advice given out in state primary schools to all parents, not just the middle-class ones. It is not upmarket. And it is very similar to the advice that was on a government website about 5 years ago, aimed at parents in general. It is 'middle-class' food, but that is because the people who write this sort of thing 'educating' parents on how to feed their children are themselves middle-class. I have never claimed that the poorest should receive "epicure food served by a butler", simply that education is not the main reason poorer families (who are at least as likely to be buying things in supermarkets, given they are cheap and accessible. I don't know where you were coming from there) are likely to be eating less-than-ideal food. As someone who lived for a good few months with cheap vegetable stock cubes for my main seasoning, I feel able to say that a large cannister of dried mixed herbs is not the way to variety of flavour, nor will it allow you to cook much: you need 4 or 5 separate herbs and spices, which will cost more.

The whole "it's just lack of education" argument is tied up in a very ugly way with class, in the UK: notice how you said "middle-class families" as a contrast for those living on the dole. In reality, particularly in this economic climate, many middle-class families find themselves having to claim benefits and are shocked to find how difficult and time-consuming it is to start receiving money (because the system assumes they are trying to defraud it), how little they get (most people assume benefits are twice as high as reality), how hard it is to make ends meet, harder because they will not have received any money in the time they were working through the system. I'm not talking about passive hedonists (the hell?), I'm talking about the practicalities of living on very little. The assumption that the working class (and that is what is meant, when they are contrasted with 'middle-class families') are too stupid and ignorant to know that they should eat less fat and sugar and more fruit and vegetables, often tied to the idea that if only the working classes could be more middle class everything would be fine, is all-pervasive. Look at the outcry when the government suggested middle-class people drinking a bottle of wine an evening should cut down: compare it to the reaction when the government cracks down on cheap cider or pubs that allow people to get very drunk. It's an irregular verb: I like a drink to relax, you are an alcoholic, they are binge-drinkers. I like good food, you occasionally pig-out, they don't understand nutrition. I'm sometimes tired and make something quick, you know a few short-cuts in the kitchen, they can't cook properly.

A higher proportion of the middle-class people I've known have shown a shocking lack of food knowledge than working-class people: wasteful stuff like roasting a chicken and only using the breast. But one of the things that makes roast chicken an affordable thing for me is that I use the carcass in the week for chicken sandwiches, chicken curry, and chicken soup. That requires me to have: enough refrigerator space and equipment to put chicken carcass in (a large tupperware box); curry paste or suitable mix of spices; a saucepan or pressure cooker large enough to fit a chicken carcass in; time to supervise the boiling; a working hob; the ability to afford gas to continuously heat the pan with for long enough; a blender or masher. Roasting the chicken requires me to have: a roasting pan of the right size; a working oven; tin foil. This isn't to make it especially nice, this is just to make it possible. Given access to all these things, I can make a roast chicken give 2 or 3 main meals plus sandwiches for 2 to 4 people: this is very cheap. Without access to those things, I cannot provide these cheap, nutritious meals. There have been many times over the years when I have lacked some of these, and then I have been unable to cook these things. I know quite a lot about cooking and food, but there have been times when I have been faced with the same cheap, relatively healthy mush for the fourth day in a row, and I have bought a happy meal instead, in the full knowledge that it was bad for me. Because I couldn't even afford edible cheese. 86.180.48.37 (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to what points you are trying to make - would they be a) that living on the dole does not give you enough money to buy fresh herbs or booze? and b) that middle-class people patronise people on the dole who are not in fact ignorant or uneducated regarding nutrition as the middle-classes suppose? and c) that a lot of middle-class people are on the dole? 92.29.62.136 (talk) 12:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Simple lack of food is more of a problem than that in industrialized nations. For one thing, if food stamps can't cover the whole cost of food, someone might chose to just not eat as much in order to have money for, say, the medication they need. Also, the soup kitchens are often mainly providing food to people who would otherwise be forced to eat junk, so they're well-utilized already.

Nutritional education is certainly very important, but note that there are other difficulties in eating healthily on the cheap. If you don't have a stove, for example, you just can't eat rice. I seem to remember that Nickel and Dimed had quite a few times in which the author discovered, to her surprise, that many ways to live cheaply are only available to people who have some money in the first place. Paul (Stansifer) 21:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

These five links may be helpful.

• Living on Less - food poverty and malnutrition
• More than 3m Britons at risk of malnutrition, reports says | Society | guardian.co.uk
• Now we've got to save the children living in poverty in Britain | Mail Online
• 30. Malnutrition and Income: Are We Being Misled? (A Dissenting View with a Confusing Literature)
• List of countries by percentage of population suffering from undernourishment

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The situation in the United States is certainly different from the situation in most of western Europe. There are millions of people here who are not entitled to "benefits" or whose "benefits" are insufficient for adequate nutrition. Many of them go through periods of hunger, interspersed with periods with a stomach full of junk food. Others who get benefits or wages that could provide adequate nutrition nonetheless subsist on junk food (including most fast food) mainly because a lack of education. That said, even in the United States, you hardly ever see children with distended bellies or hear of deaths from starvation. Marco polo (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If some people "hardly ever see" those things, that could be because they hardly ever visit underprivileged ghettos, and because they usually obtain news from the corporate media, which hardly ever report on those things. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I am frankly a bit offended by this comment, as I do pass through some very poor neighborhoods and have in the past worked as a tenant organizer in very poor communities in the United States. Moreover, I actively seek out alternative news sources. According to this organization devoted to fighting hunger in the United States, "starvation seldom occurs in this country". And they would have every reason to highlight if it occurred more often. Distended bellies are a symptom of kwashiorkor. This source states that kwashiorkor is "rare in the United States". This hospital likewise reports that it is "very rare". None of these sources can be called corporate media. If you visited "underprivileged ghettos" in the United States as I have, you'd know as well as I do that you generally do not see distended bellies. Before subjecting comments by others to ignorant criticism, I suggest you consult reputable sources. Marco polo (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Will Rogers said, "America has its poor people, but they're the richest poor in the world." There's no excuse for anyone to starve in America. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Are the richest poor rich enough to get free health care? 78.146.176.116 (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The usual question in the US is whether they are poor enough to get government benefits. FYI, there is no such thing as "free" health care. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a "no" then. 78.146.176.116 (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. The premise of your question is false. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Marco polo, I meant no offense. The basis for my comment is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I found three more links.

• Overweight and Undernourished in America | Newsdesk.org (08 July 2009)
• YouTube - American Poverty-Homless and Starvation On the RIse [sic] (3:05) (I found this by searching on YouTube for "starvation america".)
• Google labs - public data "Malnutrition prevalence, weight for age (% of children under 5)"

-- Wavelength (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

In the UK the poorest people are usually the fattest, making a sweeping generalisation. They get enough calories, but due to ignorance or sometimes possibly not being able to buy fresh fruit and veg in a few of the most deprived areas, eat junk food. The second link in the group above refers to the elderly, and this often overlooked group may not be feeding themselves very well. Edit: a root cause may be that in my experience many people have no idea how to cook, so they can only eat pricey junk food. Showing people how to do simple cookery of pasta rice and vegetables would help greatly. 78.146.176.116 (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I did a Google search for school cafeteria junk food site:.edu, and the second result was Junk Food, Marketing, and Behavior - WikEd.

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

See World Hunger Notes -- 2008 United States Hunger Facts and Poverty Facts by World Hunger Education Service.

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Notable Virginia Attractions

Does anyone know of attractions to Virginia before the Civil War? Why would people settle or visit there? What was there to see? 72.94.161.188 (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but the Reference Desk will not do your homework for you. Xenon54 (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not homework, i would just like to know before the civil war were there any notable attractions in Virginia?72.94.161.188 (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Surely Mount Vernon qualifies. Then take a look at the categories at the bottom of the page and you'll see there are several Virginia historical categories there. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This does not sound like a homework question to me. If it were a homework question, I think it would probably be asking about before the Revolutionary War. In any case, the soils in Virginia are much less rocky than is typical in New England, but the climate is still temperate enough to grow crops familiar to European colonists which would not fare as well in the Carolinas or Georgia. And it's coastal geography is rich with harbors and bays, allowing for easy sea and river transport. The forests are still thick with useful lumber trees, and of course there are several coal seams near the surface, and exposed in places making their evidence clear and easy for prospectors. Between the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, Coastal Virginia was rich with agriculture, industry, commerce, and education. Tourists would have been attracted to the celebrities of the the D.C. area, as well. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

History of Virginia will be a starting point - there are two hundred years of (European colonial) history prior to the Civil War. Surely you're heard of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson??? Acroterion _(talk) 20:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Question for the OP: Do you mean placed that people who lived in Virginia would have visited before the civil war OR do you mean places that you can visit today that existed before the civil war did? Because the answer to the first question is likely nowhere since the modern tourism/vacation industry didn't really get cracking until the 20th century. As far as the answer to the second question, there's Monticello and Mount Vernon, there's natural sites like lots of stuff in the Shenandoah Valley, which has been there millions of years. Lots of pre-Civil war historical sites are in the Hampton Roads area, like Colonial Williamsburg, Jamestown, stuff like that. --Jayron32 03:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that there was no such thing as tourism in North America before about 1800, but during the early 1800s, it began to be fashionable to visit spas. The main example in Virginia would have been Hot Springs, Virginia. Other than that, people traveled mainly for economic reasons. The main reasons people came to Virginia, mainly during the 1700s, in addition to the reasons listed above (ability to grow European crops, but better soils than the New England colonies, easy access to trade with England and the West Indies via the Chesapeake Bay and its many arms, a good supply of lumber), I would add that there was a large supply of land in the interior available to farmers who were willing to clear it for little or no cost. Also, like other American colonies, Virginia, particularly along its interior frontier offered relative freedom from the religious and class constraints of Europe. In addition, Virginia was well suited to growing tobacco, a lucrative crop. Finally, don't forget that many of those who came to Virginia before the Civil War came unwillingly as victims of the transatlantic slave trade. Marco polo (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Searching for a short story title and author

I read a story a number of years ago about a writer in a European country who wrote a short story which was read by the "wrong" people in his country & misinterpreted as to its political content. He was forced to move to another country with his wife. This process repeated itself in the new country when he published his story and so on, so on until he finally came to the US where thought he would have complete freedom of expression. But, it happened again. I think it was an American author and am fairly sure it was written after (maybe during) the McCarthy era. Can anyone direct me to the story and its author? Thanks in advance. ProfePerson (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain if its the same person at all, but could you be thinking of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn? He was basically thrown out of the Soviet Union for his writings critical of the Communist regime there. He live in Germany, Switzerland, and the U.S. for some time, and was also critical of the excesses of the western lifestyle, though AFAIK there was no effort to actually kick him out of any of THOSE countries. --Jayron32 03:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

For Whom the Bell Tolls

Hello all. I am doing a report on the book For Whom the Bell tolls, of which a plot summary is a part. I have most of the summary done, but I can't quite figure out which is the climax: the blowing of the bridge or the very end, when Jordan sights down the Lieutenant as his final act. It seems both build tension, and I would probably pick the first, but I'm told that tension shouldn't build anytime agter the climax. Can someone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.248.227.1 (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Consider that Hemingway's plot might not correspond exactly to a theoretically ideal structure. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

See the Dénouement article; and consider that there are other possibilities rather than just these two. A single paragraph in the book doesn't have to constitute the entire climax. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The climax has got to be: ... "The Bell Tolls for Thee"... and the full quotation. MacOfJesus (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

May 10

dedicatee's last name

I recently read, "Sadako and the Thousand Paper Cranes," by Eleanor Coerr. When I did a little more research I learned she was aided by a missionary who was living in Japan. In the opening pages, the dedicatee's name is Laura. Apparently, that was the missionary's name. But I'd like to find out Laura's last name. If more information is available, please let me know. Thank you so very much.24.90.204.234 (talk) 01:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The only information I could find was on this bio page of the author herself. It doesn't mention the missionary's name. Maybe you could contact the publishing company and ask them to relay this question on to the author. On a side note, I am very surprised to hear that there were missionaries living in Hiroshima during WW2, so I too would be interested in finding out more about this person. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Identifying flags - The Hippodrome Theater, 1905

I direct you to this picture put up on Shorpy today: http://www.shorpy.com/files/images/4a12613a.jpg. Obviously it being black and white confounds identifying every single one, but there are a couple I'm not sure about:

1) What is the one two to the right of the Turkish flag, directly adjacent to what appears to be the Argentinian flag? Sri Lanka wasn't a country.

2) 2 to the right of 1)

3) 2 to the left of the Turkish flag. Looks like the present-day Andorran flag, but they were of course not a formal entity back in 1905 so that can't be it.

4) On the far right, left of what is presumably the American flag. Unless I'm seeing this wrong it's the Portuguese flag (only adopted in 1911 after the young King Manuel II was deposed) except with three vertical bands instead?

5) 9th flag from the left.

The rest seem a bit too blurry to make out, but if anyone could do the rest as well that'd be interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlmostCrimes (talk • contribs) 03:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

http://i.ebayimg.com/06/!Br1sNmQ!mk~$%28KGrHqQOKjoEvO0ucsKfBL1bORUPTw~~_3.JPG I've found a postcard that is LIKELY from the same time that's in color! AlmostCrimes (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, two comments: 1) the first link doesn't work, at least for me, and 2) you should bear in mind the possibility that whoever hand-colored (?) the postcard might not have actually seen the flags, and just filled in whichever colors he/she found appropriate. Jørgen (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh, that's curious. http://www.shorpy.com/node/8145 should definitely work. AlmostCrimes (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

And there we go, I seem to have neglected to notice the comment already there. Italian flag's a curious one. Thanks anyway.AlmostCrimes (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Great-great-great grandparents of Charles II of Spain

How many Great-great-great grandparents did Charles II of Spain have out of 32 possible Great-great-great grandparents? Can someone do the genealogy for me? It doesn't matter that some of his Great-great-great grandparents were also the fathers or mothers of his other Great-great-great grandparents, I just the number of his Great-great-great grandparents without repeats? I trying to compare European inbreeding and Hawaiian inbreeding. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Does this image help? (On the Charles II of Spain article it says "note the large amount of inbreeding", heh). Adam Bishop (talk) 05:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No, really the whole different line thing is really messing with my head. Can anybody give me a specific number? I found Keopuolani had only 13 out of 32 possible Great-great-great grandparents by adding an extra genetration on the ancestry box and then crossing out the same people in that generation. Can someone do the same for Charles II of Spain? I would do it but it took me a really long time to just do this one and I'm really tired.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This image here: File:Carlos segundo80.png implies that most of the thirty-two slots are filled by two people: Philip I of Castile and his wife Joanna the Mad. It is complicated by generational jumps (for example, his father and mother were uncle-neice). It appears that all but 6 of the 32 possible Great-great-great grandparents "slots" were Philip and Joanna, or direct decendents thereof (that is, depending on the path taken, one could make the same person either a great-great-great grandparent or a great-great-grandparent). The only exceptions I can find is Francis I, Duke of Lorraine, Albert V, Duke of Bavaria, Manuel I of Portugal, his wife Maria of Aragon and Castile (who was actually a sister of Joanna the Mad), Vladislas II of Hungary, and Anna of Foix-Candale. Numerous decendents of Philip and Joanna also could count as "5 generations back" from Charles II, depending on how you count, for example Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor appears to count as one of the 32 slots, as does Charles II of Austria, while Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor seems to count for at least 2. You'll have to play around with that chart to get an exact number, but at MY count, I get all of the following as possible "5 generations back" ancestors:

1. Philip I of Castile
2. Joanna the Mad
3. Francis I, Duke of Lorraine
4. Albert V, Duke of Bavaria
5. Manuel I of Portugal
6. Maria of Aragon and Castile
7. Vladislas II of Hungary
8. Anna of Foix-Candale
9. Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor*
10. Charles II of Austria*
11. Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor*
12. Archduchess Anna of Austria*
13. Christina of Denmark*
14. Isabella of Portugal$

Several of these (marked with * or $) are decendents of other great-great-great grandparents, * = decendent of Philip and Joanna, while $ = decendent of Manuel I and Maria of Aragon & Castile. Also, as noted, Maria of A&C was a sister of Joanna the Mad, so there's some complications there as well. I hope that helps. At my count, then, that gives 14 different individuals would could be counted as 5 generational steps back from Charles II, though as noted, all but 8 of these were themselves sons or daughters of other people already on the list.--Jayron32 05:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. It's amazing that sibling marriages were almost equal to the inbreeding within the House of Habsburg.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on pedigree collapse. The German version has more on examples of European royals. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh my god! [[Keopuolani had a maximum of only 18 out fo 64 great-great-great-great grandparents compared to Charles II's 32 out of 64. By the way thanks!--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

UK Election

Is Quentin Davies who is now not an MP still Minister of state for Defence Equipment and Support? Kittybrewster ☎ 06:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that, until such a time as a new Prime Minister is invited to form a new Government by the Queen, both the Prime Minister and all department heads maintain their positions indefinately. There is also no requirement that either the PM or any of the other ministers are actually MPs. For practical reasons, the PM is always a member of the House of Commons, but that is a pragmatic concern, and not a constitutional requirement. So, AFAIK, constitutionally speaking, there is no requirement for ANY member of the government or the cabinet, including the Prime Minister, to also be a member of the House of Commons, though most (possibly nearly all) usually are. --Jayron32 06:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

See [8] and [9] for example. Gabbe (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

In practice we're still in Purdah so not having a minister isn't really an issue. No major procurement contracts are likely to be agreed until such time as the new government is appointed.

It does raise an interesting issue of clearances, as MPs aren't formally vetted, they have a right of access by virtue of their position. So essentially members of the public are part of government and have access to some potentially very sensitive material yet don't have the clearances to allow them to.

ALR (talk) 08:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hm I'm not sure they're "not formally vetted": I believe (this is OR due to my involvement with the political system over the years) that security clearance is informally sought for each candidate in each election as soon as their nomination papers are received by the officials. I'm not sure whether this extends to their nominees though. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

MI5 give the PM advice of whether prospective ministers can be trusted. I don't think regular MPs are vetted in any way. --Tango (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Security Service advise the PM on any risks to the compromise of an MP that he or she is considering appointing to certain posts. The PM may or may not appoint. They don't have any vetting status, as such. Essentially one can't call up FCO Services, Defence Vetting Agency or the Met and ask for the question as one would for Civil Serpents, military or external advisors.

MPs don't have any vetting as a matter of routine and don't have any right of access to government information. They ask questions either through PQs or FOIA requests.

ALR (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ironically enough, once Jim Knight is replaced as Employment minister, he'll be unemployed... ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 20:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Soviet dissidents - quoting and denouncing

I once heard a story about Soviet dissidents, it goes something like this: In order to get criticism of the Soviet Union into print they would quote a critic (Western or otherwise), ostensibly to denounce him. So you quote the critic for a page, then denounce him for a paragraph, then quote him again at length and then briefly denounce him again and so on.

Is there any truth to this story? If there is, does anyone have a decent source which mentions this? Haukur (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything about that, but it does remind me of a certain style of 19th-century supposedly "outraged" journalism, which apparently went something like this: "How long will Mademoiselle Fifi be permitted to continue to perpetrate her debauched exhibitions of terpsichorean lasciviousness which are corrupting the very moral fabric of this community, every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday evening at 7 o'clock in the second-story rooms at 123 State Street, admission price fifty cents? How long?" -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Haha, good one :D Haukur (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The real dissidents were excommunicated. The practice did in fact exist, but those were men and women of the establishment, not dedicated opponents of the regime. And their topics were usually limited to something specific and manageble rather than wholesome critic of the system. East of Borschov (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the correction - this would indeed not be something a full-blown samizdat-publishing dissident would do. Nevertheless, I would be interested in any specific example or source you could think of. Haukur (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure excommunication is the word you're looking for? Marnanel (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

He made a funny. Check out what he linked to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I used to hear that the comedians in Russia could venture into political topics if they kept it to impersonal subjects like bureaucratic red tape, which was probably a frustration even for the country's leaders. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Excommunication in a clerical state was a very serious matter. East of Borschov (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

So was what the editor linked to, which was Punitive psychiatry in the Soviet Union. In the old days, getting excommunicated could cause you a lot of trouble. Nowadays excommunication only matters if you think the Catholic Church matters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It's still administered when believed necessary by many Protestant denominations as well. Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

And the same principle applies. A church can no longer send you to Siberia or burn you at the stake. All they can do is tell you to get out and stay out. "Excommunication" in the USSR was not at all a good thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

UK election results

Hi, do anyone know of a place to download full UK parliament election results, by constituency? The official page surprisingly says they won't put the results up for some time, and most other places I can find (such as BBC) has only fancy color graphs for the constituencies and a summary table for the country as a whole. I'd like a text file such as CSV or some sort of easily copy-and-paste-able HTML table. Any help appreciated. Thanks! Jørgen (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

MPs_elected_in_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010 Kittybrewster ☎ 10:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Apparently, I was not specific enough. I am looking for a full list of the votes cast for each party, by constituency. Again, thanks to anyone who might know... Jørgen (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The BBC has a whole country summary here, but it also has a link from the same page to each constituency's own page, which contains a full breakdown of its results ("constituency results list" button on the left side of the page). This is not the easy table you're looking for, but at least the information is there if you don't find a better source. Karenjc 12:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Spreadsheet here. Dalliance (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Just what I was looking for! Thank you! Jørgen (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Parallels of the Prime Ministerial situation

The current UK situation of the scramble to form a majority - and to find a PM who all of that majority can support - has got me thinking of parallels in the past. I know there have been situations where the King/Queen has invited X to form a government but X hasn't been able to garner the necessary support & so has deferred to another individual. I can't remember the individuals involved so I thought I'd ask here. I was thinking it was possibly Rockingham/Fox & that timeframe or Asquith & some others. Any ideas, or just other, UK, historical parallels? AllanHainey (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

They wouldn't usually defer to another individual in that circumstance, there would be another general election. The current PM doesn't need to be asked to form a government, they get to do so anyway. If they fail, the monarch will ask someone else. There will generally only be one other person worth asking, so if they aren't able to manage it there is no choice but to have another election. --Tango (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The closest I can find on the Number 10 website is the resignation of A J Balfour in 1905, and Campbell-Bannerman being asked to form a government as the leader of the next largest party, to govern before the next election could be called. Is this what you were thinking of? Balfour didn't resign because he couldn't form a government, though: he resigned because he couldn't get any legislation through the Commons. [10] --TammyMoet (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Tango, I'm not talking about the current political system but rather that of 90+ (likely more) years ago when the parties were less rigid, when there wasn't a clear party leader who'd become PM. I can't remember much but I think I may be thinking of the 19th century.

What I was thinking of was when after an election one person - the 'leader' of a block or someone holding significant support would was asked to form a government but found he couldn't muster sufficient support (possibly he alienated another block he'd need to depend on) so allowed someone else to become PM and served in a more junior position. I'm fairly certain I'm thinking of late 18thC or mid 19th C but I can't remember the names of those involved. It wasn't Balfour & Campbell-Bannerman. AllanHainey (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it came up last week, but the closest parallel to the current situation was the situation in 1974, see United Kingdom general election, February 1974 and United Kingdom general election, October 1974. In the February election, the breakdown of votes was almost exactly what it was in the 2010 election; Harold Wilson's Labour party won enough votes for a plurality of seats in Commons, but not enough for a majority. Rather than immediately form a new government, the leader of the Conservatives, Prime Minister Edward Heath refused to resign, believing he could establish a majority coalition. Things went from bad to worse, Heath resigned, and Wilson was invited to form a government. Wilson immediately called for new elections, got a BARE majority in the October elections, and went on to establish majority rule. No telling where the current situation will lead, but in terms of what happened in the election, this is a very close parallel to February, 1974. --Jayron32 19:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I wasn't thinking of 1974. I wasn't looking for a parallel with the recent election but rather with the process of forming a government or ministry. Nowadays the formal party structure (& dominance of the 2 parties) provides a ready made government but formerly it was more a process of horsetrading & balancing of competing power blocks - more like we're seeing now. I've done a bit of searching & I'm thinking of a situation like the Fox-North Coalition where Fox & North couldn't lead on their own but got the Duke of Portland to serve as a unifying PM for their 2 blocks. I don't think that was exactly the situation I was thinking of but its much the same principle. AllanHainey (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

We've had an organised two-party system for a while now, I believe. The parties have changed over the years, but there have been two main parties for as long as we've had a parliament like we do now (when parliament really did just advise the monarch it was different, of course), as far as I know (this article says the parties formalised in 1784). --Tango (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose on the face of it thats accurate, but while there were 2 parties from the late 18th C they weren't as rigidly structured as today. They were labels of convenience with distinct and changing component blocks voting different ways on different issues. A lot like the U.S.A. parties of today but probably looser than that. AllanHainey (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

how is it possible to GET a patent (directly or indirectly) without being associated with it in any way?

Let's say you have a fantastic idea that does not fit your personality, who you are, how people know you, etc etc in any way.

You can consider the following examples: - You are a politician and your invention will make the cigarette industry obsolete. You don't want them to know it's you, as you fear political retaliation.

That's just an example. Another example would be that you are a fashion icon and make all of your public moves extremely carefully, and your pr agents told you that getting this patent will be negative for your public image, they don't want you to be associated with being an inventer.

These are just two examples, you can think of others. Anyway you're resourceful, I don't need to give examples. Onto my question:

How is it possible, in this case, to gain control over the patent of your idea, without it being made in your name. 1) can you file a patent under a pseudonym or through a "publisher" who will keep your real identity anonymous? 2) in case this isn't possible, would there be a way to have someone else file the patent but contractually be obligated to assign it to you, and if so, can this assignment be made anonymously? Maybe it should be assigned to a corporation in which you happen to have a controlling stake?

Any other thoughts you have are much appreciated.

Thank you. Best regards, 92.230.66.49 (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You have to have named inventors and its difficult to patent an idea anyway. It has to be something tangible. The US is more open to patenting methods, but even there evidence is needed of a formal process or similar. You can register a patent to a company if the inventors sigh their rights (most employment contracts would provide for this as standard), but again you need inventors. --Snowded ^TALK 19:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sure you could hire attorneys to apply for the patent on your behalf, and presumably they would be happy to take the credit, for just a small fee no doubt. Googlemeister (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you don't want to do that. See the "United States" section of Inventor (patent). Incorrectly identifying or falsifying the name(s) of the inventor(s) could invalidate the patent. Even if a company registers a patent, the inventor(s) must be identified. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Technically yes, but the next sentence says, "Ordinarily, the courts presume the named inventors are the inventors so long as there is no disagreement". This would mean that for all intents and purposes, you could be an anonymous inventor as long as you do not want the credit for your invention. Now the tricky part would be if either you try to screw your attorney (patent holder) or v.v. because if the contract you would want in order for your agreement to be binding was ever used as evidence, then the patent might get ruled invalid and you both would no longer have anything to fight over. Kind of a MAD situation there. Googlemeister (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

So, as I said, you don't want to do that? Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Traditional patent law requires inventors to be named, even if they were incorrectly named in the application, or even the issued patent. Corrections can be made in District Courts in the U.S. You could pay someone to act as your agent, with an agreement in advance that they will eventually reveal you as the inventor, using a nondisclosure agreement with cash consideration. 208.54.5.60 (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

And as of now this is legal advice, which we are not allowed to give. We are not qualified to give legal advice, and you should trust nothing that has been said above. Please consult a patent attorney. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Trade secrets. Coca-Cola is not patented, as it would have to reveal the recipe. Aaronite (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

But not everything is appropriate for a trade secret. It works OK for complicated chemical mixtures, but not so well for mechanical devices that you would be selling directly to anyone (which could then be taken apart and reverse engineered). --Mr.98 (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Coca cola can be reverse engineered. There's lots of really good chemical seperation, identification, and quantization methods. GC-MS, for one. --Jayron32 04:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

But figuring out the recipe used to produce it is still not-trivial, even if you know all the chemical constituents in the final product. That doesn't tell you how it was made, it just tells you what was made. (Cases in which the how and the what are linked in an obvious way are not good candidates for trade secrets.) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

What's interesting is that you can use pseudonyms for copyrights, but apparently not patents. I wonder if you couldn't 1. change your name, 2. file the application, 3. wait for it to issue, then 4. change it back again. Pretty cumbersome and in some ways self-defeating (you could trace the names, if one wanted to, and if someone challenged the patent, you'd have to reveal), but I don't think it breaks any rules. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's an interesting wrinkle. In the People's Republic of China, it is apparently possible to have anonymous patents of some sort. "Inventor must use his/her true name and not a pseudonym ... Inventor may request the Patent Office not to disclose his/her name."[11] I'm not sure how that works out in practice. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ways to go as allegory

I am looking for metaphors of the form: cancer is to hell as stroke and/or heart attacks are to heaven, in English and other languages. In particular, I'm looking for the use of that metaphor to bridge the scientific and religious communities. Thank you for your help. 208.54.5.60 (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone understands what you are asking -- I certainly don't. Anyone can make up a metaphor and your attempt above is an example. If you'd like your metaphor to have meaning, well, that's another issue. Why is cancer to hell as stroke is to heaven? For a metaphor to be meaningful, it has to elucidate a not-already clarified concept. But your metaphor is lacking because there's no real connection between the compared items. Are you suggesting that, next to cancer, a stroke or a heart attack are wonderful? That's definitely not universal, because multiple forms of cancer are easily treatable while some strokes and heart attacks take the life of the victim. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to elucidate what you would like to know. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"The Judas Tree"

I have heard a story about the Judas Tree (Red Bud). Is there any information available? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.88.138 (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article about Cercis siliquastrum, aka the Judas Tree, which is a European member of the Cercis or "Redbud" genus of trees. Without knowing what story you are talking about, I'm not sure how to confirm it. --Jayron32 20:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

We also have an article on the novel The Judas Tree or there is a ballet of the same name by Kenneth MacMillan, which is is an allegory of Christ's betrayal.--TrogWoolley (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Using an Alias for your Surname?

I know that this question might be tiptoeing by the "no legal advice" boundary, but bear with me. I've recently started a new career in a field and with a company that has little to no contact to my life before now (beyond, you know, giving information for tax forms). For a variety of reasons, mostly personal, I've started using an alias for my surname (as in "Peter Jones" rather than "Peter Smith"). What I'm doing, more precisely, is using my middle name as a last name (and going without a middle name).

I've known plenty of people who use a middle name as a first name, but I don't know of anyone who has a different last name on their tax forms than what they go by in day-to-day life. Is this common anywhere (other than for some married women)? Is it likely that prospective employers will be put off by my having one name on resumes and another on my legal documentation? And, without asking for specific legal advice, how do varying legal systems deal with this (by which I mean people who have a "legal" name and then an "everyday" name)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.5.181 (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You didn't say where you were located, but according to U.S. law, so long as no attempt is made to defraud anyone (especially the gubmint), you have the legal right to call yourself anything you want. --Jayron32 21:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The same is true in the UK. Your employer will be confused by you using two names. You can either explain to them that you are using two names, or you can inform the taxman of your new name. As long as your reasons for using a different name don't involve anything fraudulent, you shouldn't have any problem with either option. --Tango (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

And don't forget that many performers use a stage name in exactly this way. --Phil Holmes (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

As Jayron says, in the U.S. you can call yourself anything you like as long as there's no intent to defraud. (I can't quote a source, but I'm pretty sure this is not necessarily the case in certain European nations.) Not only performers but various authors have used an assortment of aliases. HOWEVER: I believe you'll find that in the U.S., your dealings with the IRS, the State Department (in applying for a passport), and certain other agencies will require you to divulge your full "legal" name -- the name attached to your social security number. I can promise you, Cher's tax return doesn't just say "Cher" at the top. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Legal status of part of Kashmir

Our article on Azad Kashmir, based on something from Britannica, says that Pakistan sees the region as not being part of Pakistan proper. From the point of view of Islamabad, why is it a good idea to recognise the region as independent or semi-independent? It seems to me that declaring it to be part of Pakistan would be a logical part of Islamabad's claim to all of Jammu and Kashmir. Nyttend (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

By not directly claiming it they can deny responsibility for terrorist attacks on India carried out by state-funded groups from Pakistani-Kashmir. DuncanHill (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It can also help to get support from the local independantists (if any), who would see that position as positive and help keeping order. --Lgriot (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

May 11

late 1950's embossed images on paper

I am helping organize a new collection at my local historical society, and i have come across a group of things so strange i need help identifying them. I have roughly ten green cards, made out of heavy paper, about the size of baseball cards, but they all vary in size slightly. They were most likely made at the end of the 1950's. Each card is embossed with an image of a baseball player from a traveling team called the Indianapolis Clowns, but the embossing is kind of in the style of Ben-Day dots or halftone. From other papers attached to these and in the same file, it seems like these cards were sent to newspapers to go along with press releases for the baseball game, but i can not find anything resembling them online. Can anyone help me figure out what these are? --Found5dollar (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, incase it helps, it says "Please return mat" on the reverse of some.--Found5dollar (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

A stereotype mat is what that is. See "The Papier Mache Matrix" section on this page, for example. Such mats were easy to send through the mail, so advertisers, news services, and such would have them made up for distribution to local newspapers. The newspapers would then have already-composed text (or, in your case, already-halftoned images) that they could drop into their pages. Deor (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow! thanks! i have never heard of this type of printing. thank you for informing me of what it is!--Found5dollar (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Electoral reform in UK

The 2010 election is thought by many to have produced a result which has been unfair to the Conservatives. Indeed Michael Heseltine has been saying for a long time that the Conservatives had a collossal mountain to climb. Is this a consequence of the figures in the 2001 census being used? Or of the decisions made by the Boundary Commission? Or of the "first past the post" system? And what should be changed to make it as fair as possible, consistent with strong and stable government? This last question includes the question as to which posible other system would be fairest. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to maintain that the general election result is unfair to the Conservatives - with 36.1% of the vote, they took 47.0% of the seats, almost securing a majority. This is a consequence, principally, of the first-past-the-post system, which greatly benefits the two largest parties (and, to a lesser extent, small parties with highly concentrated support). That said, in 2005, Labour took only 35.3% of the vote and secured a majority, suggesting the system is even more beneficial to them. This is a result of two main factors: Labour's more concentrated support, mainly in larger cities, and the tendency of supporters of several smaller parties to vote tactically against the Conservatives. The more concentrated support means fewer votes for Labour which don't help to elect someone. The tactical voting has a similar effect, although it seems to have been less of a factor in 2010. The concentration of much of Labour's vote in large cities, which typically have declining populations, versus the Conservative's tendency to do better in areas with growing populations, combines with the use of 2001 census figures to ensure that Labour-held seats tend to have smaller electorates than Conservative ones, again disadvantaging the Conservatives. Given that the Boundary Commission are compelled by law to only consider population figures from the last census and not any later changes, I haven't heard any serious accusations that their decisions disadvantaged the Conservatives. Overall, the differences are not vast, the Conservatives have often secured large majorities, and had they come close to taking a majority of votes, they would have a large majority in the Commons. Warofdreams talk 12:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The fairest system is certainly some form of proportional representation, probably the single transferable vote. Because it is fairer, it will almost certainly give more representation to smaller parties. It can be consistent with strong and stable government, but it is more likely to be reliant on coalitions (not necessarily weak and unstable, although they have that reputation in the UK). Warofdreams talk 12:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If the election results were "unfair" to anyone, it was surely the Lib Dems - 23% of the votes, under 9% of the seats. Their support is quite widely spread, so that they more often come second to either Conservative or Labour, rather than winning seats themselves. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

STV (or Preferential Voting as we call it here in Australia) isn't a proportional system, and it doesn't typically give more representation to smaller parties - only 3 of 150 seats in the Australian House of Representatives are not held by the two-and-a-half major parties. However, it is rather fairer than FPTP, as it means no-one's vote is wasted. FiggyBee (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

STV certainly is a system of proportional representation, as listed in our article on the subject. The House of Representative system (sometimes described as single-member STV) is known as the Alternative Vote in the UK, and is less proportional, but generally still classed as PR. Warofdreams talk 13:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that STV. Yep yep. Personally I fail to see how proportional voting gels with having "local" MPs; I think sacrificing one for the other would be a poor trade. FiggyBee (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The two don't gel. The system the Lib Dems and others want for the UK is "STV-in-multi-member-constituencies". The UK will have to decide whether it wants to keep the local MP-constituency link or go for a closer reflection of the popular vote. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it would mean much larger constituencies, with each one having several representatives. Three members is probably the minimum workable number for multiple-member STV, and perhaps ten the maximum - so, in Westminster terms, one constituency might be a small county or a fairly large city. Incidentally, the Conservatives are proposing keeping FPTP and having fewer MPs, which would also mean larger constituencies - although not so large as STV. Warofdreams talk 14:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Spoke with someone who had been in the Boundary Commission recently. Essentially you could merge two adjacent constituencies, so not increase the number of MPs and inject some more interesting results in parliamet.

ALR (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be the obvious approach (although, if it was thought beneficial to reduce the overall number of MPs, it would be a good chance to do it, while still increasing the range of views represented in Parliament). The problem with two-member constituencies is that they are rather likely to be safe seats - where only two parties have a realistic chance of winning a seat in most years. Better to have four- or five-member constituencies, which would make the final results more proportional. Warofdreams talk 15:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It does depend how it's implemented, personally speaking for a long period I've felt unable to consult my MP because we are diametrically opposed on a number of issues; civil liberties and state intervention so nothing significant ;)

If we had multi-member STV with two members per constituency then at least I'd have choice. I'd be uncomfortable about any more than two members for the commons although potentially for an elected upper house I would see less of an issue.

ALR (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

And you don't see the problem here? Instead of having a local MP whose job it is to represent the community, You have a Conservative MP who represents conservatives, a Liberal MP who represents liberals, and, I don't know, maybe a BNP MP who represents honest hard-working Englishmen. Politicians don't get the reality check of having to work for people who don't agree with them, and politics just becomes more and more polarised and off the wall. FiggyBee (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You end up with two local MPs who between them represent their electorate in a way that actually reflects their voting opinions more than it does now. So in a two member constituency there may be two from one party, or one from one and a second from another. No system is perfect but in recent elections there has been extremely low turnout, a growing number of ostensibly safe seats and a professionalisation of politics. Again reflecting back to my own constituencies, in three of four I've been represented by someone with no real world working experience. My current MP has been a party apparatchik since he left University and has done nothing credible.

There are very clear risks with any political reform, as you point out there is an increased likelihood of small, single issue parties being involved in parliament, but if that's a reflection of what the electorate want then that indicates that the system is improved. As you point out, many parliamentarians are detached from reality, FPTP is a significant cause of that.

ALR (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

We could have a long, loooong discussion about whether parliament reflecting what the electorate wants would be an improvement to the system. :) We have 95% turnout in elections here (because you get fined $20 if you don't vote). I've worked at a polling station and met the electorate, and I'm afraid that if we got the politicians we wanted, we'd end up with the politicians we deserve. FiggyBee (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Under AV or STV, politicians need to attract transfers from constituents for whom they are not the first choice. They actually have an increased incentive to work for the whole community, or at least most of it, rather than under FPTP where many seats are safe and some MPs get away with do very little in the way of representation. Warofdreams talk 15:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'm a fan of the benevolent dictatorship :) Democracy stinks.

ALR (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Define strong and stable there are significant risks with having large majorities, as we saw from the Blair regime where parliament was effectively marginalised and there was insufficient scrutiny in the house.

What we're seeing is a consequence of FPFT in a multi-party environment. I'm not a big fan of arguments around fairness in politics, what we need is a system that means that the representation in parliament is representative of the people. As an example my own MP managed to win somewhat less than 50% support in this constituency. What we have seen this time has been an increase in turnout and that may have had a significant effect. There was discussion of engaging younger voters and increasing turnout even in safe seats where it's always been a problem getting people to vote against an incumbent.

A different system would change the dynamics in the house, personally I feel that some form of proportional system would help increase turnout. From what I understand from electoral geeks the most representative system is multi-member constituencies using STV. Delivering that would involve a significant boundary review.

ALR (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw Colin Hay speak about this; his view was that introducing PR would have little effect on political engagement or turnout, but would generally be of benefit in that Parliament would be more representative. Warofdreams talk 15:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

True. I've seen arguments in both directions and my own view is that wider reform is really needed to assure engagement. I have a passing interest in this, not as passionate about it as some I know, so I'm not an expert.

ALR (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

tourism statistics

Hello everyone. I'm searching for statistics on the number of tourist visitors per country (or attraction) - I'm not looking for the big/top places, but for places that get between 400,000 to 500,000 visitors per year. Can anyone help by pointing to an attraction/country in that range? Thank you very much, WikiJedits (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, I just noticed the other day that the US Space & Rocket Center gets right in that range (470,000 visitors per year). — Lomn 13:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Lomn, that's exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for. Much appreciated. (More are welcome, everyone!). I found one myself here [12] – the entire country of Paraguay had 428,000 visitors in 2008. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Searching for "500000 visitors per year" turns up quite a few: Tombstone, the Minh Mang Tomb and the Mercedes-Benz Museum are just three examples. Related searches will doubtless find many more. Warofdreams talk 15:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks also. I needed something really fast and you guys were great, many thanks. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Genocide

Where did the first genocide take place? Who were the victims and who were the culprits? B-Machine (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

We have an article: Genocides in history. FiggyBee (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above) The term was coined in 1943 by Raphael Lemkin in his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe largely to address the actions of the leaders of Nazi Germany before and during World War Two, specifically what is now known as "the Holocaust", and was used in prosecuting some Nazi leaders at the Nuremburg Trials. It was first defined as an international crime by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was passed in 1948. The first time this law was enforced was in 1998, in relation to the killings in Rwanda in 1994. People have retroactively applied the definition to past conflicts, sometimes with considerable controversy. See Genocides in history. For example, Ben Kiernan has evidently called the destruction of Carthage during the Third Punic War "The first genocide". Buddy431 (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If your question is when the first recorded genocide took place, the answer might be the destruction of Carthage, or the extermination of the Amalekites. However, if your question is when the very first genocide took place, the answer is that it almost certainly occurred in prehistoric times, so we don't know when or where it happened. In fact, genocide probably predates Homo sapiens, according to this article, among others. Marco polo (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

According to a TV show I saw a few months back, Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal Man may have co-existed in Europe. And you know which of those two is not around anymore. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Neither chimpanzee wars nor the disappearance of Neanderthal man fit the description of Genocide. FiggyBee (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Having read the description you linked, Figgy, I think that those two situations do fit the description. Can you say why you think they don't? Marco polo (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I also saw something recently saying that scientists think there was some interbreeding between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals. If so, then they were close enough genetically that they could be considered humans. However, we don't know why the Neanderthals disappeared. Genocide is only one of the possibilities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Apes aren't killing other apes because of their "national, ethnical, racial or religious group". Nor do we have any evidence that Neanderthals were so targeted. Genocide is a 20th century political concept and what constitutes genocide (or doesn't constitute genocide, in the case of suppressing dissidents) should be seen through that filter. FiggyBee (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how narrowly you want to define national, ethnic, and racial. If you want to say that genocide can only exist when those categories take their modern form in the context of nation-states, then by definition, there could not have been a premodern genocide. However, at its root, ethnicity is really about "us" versus "them", with the distinction being made on cultural grounds. As such, the distinction almost certainly predates Homo sapiens. Chimpanzees have a sense of "our band" and "that alien band". Chimpanzee bands have distinct cultures and traditions, and individuals identify strongly with their bands. When one band annihilates another, it can be seen as a kind of genocide. I don't see how this is qualitatively different from one prehistoric tribe trying to annihilate another or the Nazis trying to annihilate the Jews. Of course the latter was at a vastly larger scale than either of the former, and it made use of a more sophisticated range of technology, but I don't see why these are necessary for genocide. Marco polo (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Kechemeche

What does KECHEMECHE mean in the algonquin/lenape language? they were the indiginous people of cape may county along with the tuckahoe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.212.189.187 (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You probably should ask this at the Language Ref Desk. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

He or she has already asked there, and I have responded there. Marco polo (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Roman empire vs Chinese three kingdoms

Lets pretendthat in the 1st century AD, The Roman Empire and Three Kingdoms China went to war for some reason in Afghanistan/Iran. Who would be likely to win, and why?--92.251.166.171 (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Given the impossible logistics of the situation, I'd say the Afghans would kick both "superpowers" out of there like they have done ever since... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the Parthian Empire might have had something to say about it... Adam Bishop (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

What is "Three Kingdoms China"? By it's very name they were three separate regimes, fighting each other. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Portuguese economy

Why is Portugal in seeming never-ending economic stagnation whereas neighboring Spain (until 2008 or so) has experienced continuous and rapid growth during the second half of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st? --Belchman (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Portugal is relatively small and isolated in comparison to its neighbor Spain. Vranak (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think your perception is accurate. Like Spain, Portugal experienced solid economic growth during the 1980s and 1990s. This growth occurred in both countries after they joined the European Community as firms from other parts of the EC set up operations in the two Iberian countries to take advantage of their relatively low labor costs. Both countries experienced the global recession of 2001. In the years that followed, both countries' manufacturing sectors suffered from the effects of expanded European trade with China, whose labor costs were much lower than Spain's or Portugal's. However, a real-estate bubble in Spain helped to compensate for weakness in manufacturing as thousands of Spaniards took jobs in construction and real estate. As we have seen, Spain's real-estate bubble was not sustainable, and it is arguable whether Spain improved its position relative to Portugal over the full course of the last decade. Spain's unemployment rate is now twice as large as Portugal's. See Economy of Portugal. Marco polo (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't Portugal been rather poorer than Spain for generations? Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Constitution law

Is there a law in the US Constitution that mandates people take part in the 2010 Census? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.94.214 (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Constitution merely requires that a census take place. The actual law that requires participation is in the United States Code, specifically 13 USC §221. That particular law assigns a maximum fine of $100 for point-blank refusal to answer, and $500 for deliberately providing false answers. There is a specific exemption for questions dealing with religion. Xenon54 (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

According to Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution, Laurence Tribe says:

"there are two ways, and only two ways, in which an ordinary private citizen ... can violate the United States Constitution. One is to enslave someone, a suitably hellish act. The other is to bring a bottle of beer, wine, or bourbon into a State in violation of its beverage control laws—an act that might have been thought juvenile, and perhaps even lawless, but unconstitutional?"

So almost nothing is unconstitutional for a private citizen. Paul (Stansifer) 20:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Treason is also specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point. This may be splitting hairs (and not being a lawyer, I don't have a hair-splitting license in this area), but I think that the Constitution doesn't forbid citizens from committing treason, it defines treason and permits congress to forbid that. I seem to remember hearing that the reason for this was that the authors were worried about a despotic administration using the charge of treason to silence opposition. Paul (Stansifer) 02:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, treason is defined in the Constitution [13] and Congress is authorized to determine the punishment, except they are forbidden from "attainder" or "corruption of blood", i.e. making the descendants of the treasonous person also somehow guilty ("tainted"), which I assume was to address things that might have happened under British rule. In theory, Congress could make treason punishable anywhere from, say, a 50 dollar fine, all the way up to hanging. As a practical matter, very few Americans have been convicted of treason, as such. John Brown was one of them, except it was treason against the state of Virginia rather than the US, as indicated in the article. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted and executed for espionage, which is pretty much the same thing as treason. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Xenon54 has a very good point, although I wouldn't advise anyone to follow any advice on here without consulting a lawyer first. As for the constitutional question, that sounds exactly right. The American constitution's discussion of treason has been practically irrelevant as far as I know, largely because there are plenty of capital crimes an individual may be convicted of regardless constitutional limitations. Shadowjams (talk) 06:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is the law:[14] Besides there really no reason NOT to answer the questions. For most people the questions are very benign, but the info gathered is very important. It started by effecting the count of our House of Representatives. Plenty of others use this data, so it is very much in your best interest to be counted and counted accurately. There is a small percentage that is asked more detailed personal questions by mail. However these questions are only handled by a select group of Census employees and NOT by your local area. If you are randomly selected to receive the more detailed questionnaire. There is no way this personal information could be liked back to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonderley (talk • contribs) 08:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought they had abandoned the "long form" this time around. In any case, everyone should participate in the census. It's a civic duty, and it's harmless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The more people in a town/county/state, etc., the more grants they get from higher levels of government and the more representation they have in legislatures. So answering the census form makes sense unless you hate your city. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Heaven

About what percent of Jews today believe in an afterlife for the good (excluding reincarnation)? —C Teng^(talk) 19:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Who is a Jew? If you mean people that believe in the tenets of the Jewish religion, then by definition it is 100%, since an afterlife is one the Jewish principles of faith. --Tango (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

With the current wording, the answer to your question would be a very small percentage. As it happens, it is only the minority of Jews who observe the laws of Judaism, and as such, either choose to disagree with religious teachings or are completely oblivious to them. As such, although all observant Jews by definition (as in Tango's post above) believe in an afterlife, observant Jews are but a tiny minority of Jews alive today. And it's not entirely clear what you mean by "for the good" and "excluding reincarnation." Do you mean, by the former, to exclude those who believe only in a Hell, and by the latter, to exclude those who believe only in a physical afterlife (in the sense that the dead will return to life on planet Earth) but not to exclude those who believe in some sort of metaphysical existence? Perhaps you could clarify. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You do have a few ethnic Jews who practice other religions; most of my relatives and I are conservative Christians from a historically Jewish family that converted a few generations ago. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Question on Henry VIII

Resolved

(Copied over from Wikipedia:Helpdesk#Question on Henry VIII  Chzz  ►  22:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC))

To whom it may concern,

Hello my name is Angela.. I have been catching up on some history of KingHenry VIII. I was just reading some footnotes from your on-line wikimedia. I don't study this, but what I have found on the site for King Henry VIII,, and the actual death of Catherine Of Aragon to the election of Pope Paul III has got me confused. I'm sure I may be able to go to the nearest library to find out more, but thought you would like to know.. As follows

Catherine of Aragon was Queen of England from: 11 June 1509 – 23 May 1533

It also says she died 7 January 1536

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Aragon

Next to be known as Queen after Catherine of Aragons' anullment to King HenryVIII, Is Anne Boleyn.

From 28 May 1533 – 17 May 1536 (Beheaded 19 May 1536)

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Boleyn

Now what I am confused about are: Of the actual year of Catherine of Aragonsdeath and Pope Paul III election to time.

Paul III (*)13 October 1534 10 November 1549 Henry VIII between ages of 42 and death. Final break from pope

It is said on the Bio of King Henry VIII, that Catherine of Aragon died 15 months after Pope Paul III was elected. But according to the bio of King Henry VIII (at bottom of page) This is what it says: Catherine of Aragon died 15 months after his election. On (*)17-Dec-1538, four years into his pontificate, Paul III excommunicated Henry VIII http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England

Too, I am confused about the actual time of the Popes election and excommunication to Henry VIII

I am sorry if I have it wrong. I have never looked any of these history facts up in my time of school, only now.. Cause I am more aware about the importance of history. Also that it is, in those times, I have always had a very deep inner-connection too. Maybe it's just facination or mere intuition. Either way, please, If I am wrong, fill me in if you'd like. Otherwise I hope I may havehelped the next reader.

Sincere thanks,

Angela Gabriel —Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyPlavwell (talk • contribs) 20:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The dates seem to be correct...Paul III became pope 13 October 1534 and Catherine died 7 January 1536. The problem is that no one (at least according to our article) is really sure when Henry was excommunicated. It may have been by Paul III on 17 December 1538, or it may have been in 1533 by Clement VII. I don't like the sources in the Henry VIII article though...footnote 35 is extremely vague. Churchill's very broad history is not a very good source for this. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I just did a Google search. Spartucus and others say 17 DEcember 1538, one says 11 July 1533. I will go through some books I have on Henry later to see if we can pin down a definite date, although I'd put my money on 1538.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here's what J. J. Scarisbrick says on pp.317-18 in his bio Henry VIII: In Consistory on 11 July 1533, Pope Clement solemnly condemned Henry's separation from Catherine of Aragon and marriage to Anne Boleyn and gave him until September to return to Catherine-under pain of Excommunication; however, it was suspended for another two months and was never promulgated. On 30 August 1535, a second excommunication was drawn up (page 334) after Henry's execution of Bishop Fisher. On 17 December 1538 Pope Paul finally prepared to promulgate the Bull of Excommunication against Henry. This comes from page 361.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have since added this as footnote number 36 to the Henry VIII article, which I must say is poorly written in parts, and would greatly benefit from some heavy-duty editing to bring it up to par with the excellent Anne Boleyn article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Since it's been established that Henry was excommunicated on 17 December 1538, can we mark this as resolved?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Air ambulance costs

How can I find out how much air ambulances can charge for a flight? Anyone know of any cases in which the price was lowered? References will be greatly appreciated!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.156.1.178 (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about can charge, but they do charge anything from $0 upwards. You'll have to give us more specifics. I removed "legal question" from your subject line because we're not allowed to answer those, so I hope it isn't one! :) BTW, do you think our article on air ambulances has quite enough photos? Sheesh. FiggyBee (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

We can answer legal questions. What we can't do is give legal advice. They are different things. --Tango (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Your IP address seems to come from the US, so are you asking about air ambulances in the US? Like any emergency care, they won't ask about money until afterwards, so I'm sure there have been many times when they haven't charged since the person carried has no insurance or money of their own. --Tango (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

They charge, definitely. They occasionally sue too. They collect at a lesser degree though. Shadowjams (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

A quick look on Google produced this article, which quotes a price of $17,000. One of the commenters says that this was the price quoted to the insurance company, but that air ambulance providers may also quote a lower "non-insurance cash price". I leave it to you to google >air ambulance cost< and >air ambulance "cash price"< to see what else turns up. Marco polo (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hitler

If someone went back in time and killed Hitler, history wouldn't change dramatically, because another Nazi leader would take his place. But how would history change if someone went back in time and prevented Hitler from being born? That way, the Nazi party wouldn't have risen to power at all. --75.33.219.230 (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Not only is your premise almost certainly incorrect (that history wouldn't change dramatically) but your questions is, although perhaps unintentionally, completely ridiculous. Just as a very vivid example, have you ever seen Back to the Future? Obviously the purpose of the film is to embellish on minor changes in the past for the sake of the plot, but as you can probably extrapolate in a more real manner, even minor changes can have tremendous effects on the sequence of history. So let's end this now. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If someone killed Hitler after the Nazis had already risen to power, his second-in-command would have taken his place. However, if Hitler had never been born, the Nazis would never have risen to power, preventing the Holocaust. What effects would this have? --75.33.219.230 (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hitler filled a "need" felt by the populace after they had been crushed by Britain and France. Here's something to consider: What if someone actually went back in time and killed someone who was ten times worse than Hitler, leaving Hitler as the much lesser of two evils? Forgetting that, someone else likely would have come along to capitalize on the anguish of the German people. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Try Making History (novel) for one imagining. FiggyBee (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If Hitler had never been born, then some other loser named, say, Schicklgruber, would have likely emerged to espouse the complaints of suffering Germans after WW1, to tell them they were a great people, that they were not really defeated in WW1, and that they should step forward and take charge of the world. Maybe the next Fearless Leader would not have blamed the Jews for Germany's ills, would have formed an alliance with Britain or the U.S. instead of Russia, or would have delayed WW2 until 1952, with vastly different results. Edison (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Why couldn't the Nazi Party have risen? It was created without Hitler, they could have found another Fuhrer. There is a book, I can't remember the title. about a woman going back in time and killing Hitler's mother, therefore preventing him from being born. But she takes a copy of the Time-Life History of World War II with her, it's discovered in the 1970s, and Germany, still led by unreconstructed Prussians, decides that they can do a better job than Hitler did and start a World War. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What if someone went even further back in time and prevented the birth of Jesus? Now that's something we can ponder upon!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The title of the book came to me this morning. It's Elleander Morning by Jerry Yulsman. The plot is slightly different from how I remembered it, too. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see this talk page on a sister project for examples of why killing Hitler (or preventing him being born) is a bad idea. --Daduzi ^talk 08:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Not quite following that story, but I can see various problems with it. There were great technological advancements connected with WWII, which helped spur technological growth in the 1950s. WWII and its aftermath also ended the Great Depression. The war may have been bad for many individuals, but from the materialistic standpoint, it worked out well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

. This is the most ignorant thing that has been posted on the Humanities desk in my memory. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. War does result in accelerated technological development and it does help end recessions (it gives the government an excuse to spend lots of money, which kick starts the economy - without that excuse you risk rebellion at the tax rises necessary to pay for it). That said, the Great Depression was showing signs of ending before the outbreak of war, so it probably was only shortened by a little. --Tango (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no quibble with those two theoretical points; my problem is with the spectacularly stupid claim that "from the materialistic standpoint, [World War II] worked out well", for which Bugs has to provide a citation. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It ended the Great Depression, spurred technology, and the USA emerged from it a superpower. Those items are material gains. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to be contentious Bugs, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the USA emerge as a superpower following World War I? After all, it was the USA who was largely responsible for the Roaring Twenties.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Almost. But we didn't have the mojo to prevent Britain and France from crushing Germany and setting the stage for WWII. After that one ended, we said, "OK, Europe, this time we're going to do it our way." As a result, Germany is a strong and peaceful nation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

These are common idiotic American tropes you are repeating, and you have still not provided a citation. For starters, every single person of the 70 million dead had been both a producer and a consumer. The economic toll on the world was staggering. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Remember NATO was set up after the Second World War, so that pretty much put the brakes on Europe and its overlong history of strife.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you're looking for Great Man Theory. Vranak (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Betting to lose

I've heard over and over again lately about big finance betting on certain investments to lose. How is this supposed to work? It seems odd that one would buy an investment in order for it to lose.198.161.203.6 (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Goldman Sachs incident, they didn't buy the investments, they sold the investments, allegedly without telling investors that the creators of the portfolio stood to make a lot of money if it failed and, indeed, were going to short it to death. FiggyBee (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

More generally, see Short (finance). The basic economics of shorting is simple to understand (you sell what you have with the intention of buying it back later when it is cheaper), but I admit to not totally getting how it applies to derivatives, which is what the recent news is? about, I believe. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Markets generally are people "betting" that their predictions about the world (crops are good, crops are bad; oil production is good, oil production is bad; IBM does well, IBM doesn't do well... etc.) are right. For everyone that thinks company XYZ will do well, another group of people will think that XYZ won't do well. An efficient market allows people to place their money both on the upside and the downside. Shorting allows people to place their bets on the downside. Shadowjams (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, you sell short what your broker has access to, not what you own (the latter would just be market timing). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. Short selling, as our article indicates, involves borrowing the security and then returning it as collateral at the appropriate date. Shadowjams (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Spread betting is a related topic that may be of interest. Spread bettors can make large gains by gambling on price changes - up or down - in all manner of commodities, and financial spread betting is a large and growing market because (in the UK at least) winnings from gambling receive more favourable treatment for tax purposes than gains made by dealing in financial assets. Karenjc 09:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Also in some markets you can sell shares that you don't have, as long as you buy them back on the same day, since the settlement is done based on the end of day situation, no one looks if you have bought them in the morning and sold them in the afternoon, or if you have done the reverse. --Lgriot (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Borrowing = you don't own it, but Lqriot has an interesting point. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is the Magnetar podcast from This American Life that talks all about it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

May 12

Maastricht Pact

This article in The Baltimore Sun makes a reference to the "Maastricht Pact". Since there is no article by that title, I have concluded that it either refers to the Maastricht Treaty or the Stability and Growth Pact (or both). I know nothing about EU politics so I don't really know exactly what that term means and was hoping for clarification. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sure the reviewer means the Maastricht Treaty: the article is from 1993, while the Stupidity Pact was adopted in 1997. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 09:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Greek word for doorstep poem

This word is on the tip of my tongue, but I can't seem to find the right combination of keywords to get it to turn up in a search. It starts with "peri-" or "para-", and it means a particular genre of poem in which the speaker is waiting interminably outside his love's door and trying to win her over with his persistence or serenading (but hasn't been allowed to enter yet). —Keenan Pepper 02:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Paraklausithyron. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Question about the concept of the "soul"

Basically I'm confused about this thing called the "soul". It seems to be a pretty common idea people have that there is this theoretical object called a soul that has a number of properties. What I'm confused about is why there are such differing interpretations of what properties this "soul" thing is supposed to have, and specifically what the reasoning (if any) is behind some of these interpretations.

Just to make clear: I don't believe in souls, in any form. I am, however, curious about the concept.

As I understand it there are three main ways of describing this object:

1) It is the thing that makes living things living, rather than dead or not alive. A single-celled organism, plant, and animal all have souls. A rock does not, and a dead single-celled organism, plant or animal does not.

This definition makes the most sense to me, and is something I find very easy to understand even if I don't personally believe it. The difference between non-life and life is monumental, so it makes sense to invoke a hypothetical object to explain it.

2) It is the thing that creates consciousness. A conscious human being is the only thing that has a soul. All other things do not have a soul. An animal does not have a soul. A human fetus does not (yet) have a soul. A human corpse does not have a soul. A human with certain kinds of brain injuries or other disorders does not have a soul (e.g., Terri Schiavo).

This definition is much more problematic. Why would someone be content with a mechanistic explanation for the vast difference between non-life and life, but not be content with a mechanistic explanation for the still significant but much smaller gap between consciousness and non-consciousness? The difference between me and a rock seems huge. The difference between a bacterium and a rock seems just as large. But the only real difference between me and, say, a chimpanzee is that I have a different way of thinking. Why do we need to invent a theoretical object to explain that, but not one to explain life itself?

3) It is the thing that makes humans human. All humans have it, including fetuses and victims of brain injuries and other disorders that are not conscious. All other living and non-living things do not have it.

This definition is completely nonsensical to me. If we ignore consciousness, then there is nothing significant at all that separates us from other living things. This idea of the soul doesn't explain anything meaningful or interesting.

What is odd to me is how widespread the second two ideas of the soul are, especially the third one. Why is this? What are the justifications people come up with for believing in them?

I know that the third definition is probably so popular because it's a belief of widespread religions such as Christianity and Islam, but how did these religions arrive at these definitions in the first place? If part of what religions do is explaining the questions people have about the world around them, why did they care so much about answering the irrelevant human vs. non-human question while ignoring the much bigger question of life vs. non-life that earlier religious systems (Animism) explained very well? Did this obvious gap in their philosophy not trouble Christian and Muslim thinkers in the past? How did they explain the difference between life and non-life, especially in the pre-modern period before understanding of how biological systems function?

Hope this makes sense, and that someone here can answer these questions satisfactorily. --Laryaghat (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The Soul article has a lot of information. And let me give it to you as I understand it: The soul, or more accurately the immortal soul, is a central feature of most religions. It's the concept, or belief, or faith, or hope, that there's something more than just this life. If there's no belief in an afterlife, religion pretty much has no meaning. As far as whether non-humans have immortal souls (assuming humans do), that's subject to conjecture, as for example the Bible doesn't have much to say about it, perhaps considered to be unimportant. I know people who think everything has a soul, ranging to those who think the concept is hogwash. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

From a Jewish perspective, Bugs is right on target by equating the concept of a soul with the premise of a religion. Because non-humans don't practice or observe religion, in what sense would they have a soul? The soul, as proposed by Judaism and copied by Christianity and Islam, is the essence within the vessel known as the body, and it both predates and outlives the body, so your references to fetuses and corpses is somewhat off from a religious perspective, and since it would be largely agreed upon that religion has a monopoly on souls, that's really the only perspective there is, other than a negative or apathetic one. Because souls are spiritual, they cannot be fathomed completely by the physical mind, and so much of religious literature that discusses the concept speak in allegories and metaphors, much like they do about God himself, any proposed afterlife, etc. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Athiests have no souls? Rebele | Talk ^{The only way to win the game is to not play the game.} 10:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that. It's just that atheists in general don't believe in the concept of an immortal soul, while religionists generally do. An atheist would consider the "soul" to exist only while the person is alive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

To address just the first question, "why there are such differing interpretations of what properties this "soul" thing is supposed to have," the simple answer is a comprehensive lack of data. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There's some actual data? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that there are several kinds of souls. That thing that resides behind your eyes that goes away when you die may be another kind of soul. That thing that makes certain artists great may be another kind. Rebele | Talk ^{The only way to win the game is to not play the game.} 10:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the intangible spark that inspires geniuses such as Michaelangelo and Bach, and spiritual giants of the human race such as Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Helen Keller.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There is also the concept of Astral projection, in which the soul leaves the physical body and travels to the astral plane--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC).

"He lay relaxed, eyes still closed, for a few mments and let his soul snuggle back into his body." quoted from By His Bootstraps ny R. A. Heinlein.

The difference between life and non-life is not so "monumental." Life distinguishes itself from non-life in the simplest organisms in unimpressive ways. Bus stop (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

When a persson or thing dies, the physical body ceases to exist; that in itself is a monumental difference. Energy, however, does not die, it is tranformed. That in itself means that death is not final, whether we believe in a soul or not.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The body does not cease to exist. It is transformed into worm food. Rebele | Talk ^{The only way to win the game is to not play the game.} 17:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not if it's embalmed or cremated.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it the soul, the life principal, of all human beings is unique. This is something I found myself explaining to a Doctor/Consultant who wished his son to follow him into Medicine and not go down the road of being a Journalist. Even though his son may have an aptitude for Medicine he is unique and has an independant spirit to his father. This unique spirit is what is often referred to as the soul. Saint Thomas Aquinas referred to it as such. Most Philosophers agree and took great steps to guard the free-thinking spirit from all inteference. C.G. Jung I would identify here. I cannot think of a Philosopher who denied the existance of the human spirit. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

question about "Ford T model" being an essential item in US citizen life

Hello ! I have been recently so kindly listened to , & profusely answered to, that I dare "put a new question on the rug" . A question keeps "trotting around my head" (as we say here in France) : where did I read that "most US babies were" (at that time) "conceived in a Ford T model", a car which had become such a symbol of community that "anybody could use & carry away a pair of pliers if it were found in a Ford T" (sorry for the approximate quote) . At night I wake up & think that it might be in Babbit : ?? .

Thanks a lot beforehand ( & once more I hope to be able to find my way back to your learned areop...). BTW : If the kind colleague who answered here some days ago my question "what is a snake fence ? " (& displayed somewhere a photo of a bleached "snake fence") falls upon those lines, may he know that I was unable to locate the image (I wanted to use it in Arthur Fremantle, § "Gettisburg" : Gal Longstreet was sitting on a snake fence)...Sorry I'm such a "broken-arm"... T.y. Arapaima (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The Model T Ford was certainly a liberating product, as most anyone with a decent job could afford one. As to whether "most US babies were conceived in Model T Ford", I don't see how anyone would be in a position to know that with any reasonable degree of certainty. It sounds kind of facetious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

John Steinbeck, Cannery Row (page 65). East of Borschov (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha. OK, the OP needs to know that's a fictional work, and I would guess Steinbeck was just being funny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course he was funny, he himself could afford something better (16 cylinders?! perhaps it was his employer's roundabout?). East of Borschov (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean "runabout"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes. Freudian slip. East of Borschov (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

In a roundabout way. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The OP may be interested in E. B. White's classic essay, Farewell, My Lovely. Appearing in The New Yorker in 1936, this piece is White's love letter to the Model T, for which "the great days have faded, and the end is in sight." --- OtherDave (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Drusus Julius Caesar, son of Tiberius

It says in the Tiberius article that Drusus Julius Caesar was the only child of Tiberius and Vipsania Agrippina. However in the information box for Tiberius it says that Drusus Julius Caesar as a miscarriage. Perhaps someone can fix this as this can not be correct. Could it be said that Drusus Julius Caesar was the bitter step-brother of Germanicus because the latter was forced by Augustus to be adopted by Tiberius?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Drusus Julius Caesar was the only child to survive. The miscarried child was a different pregnancy. Note that the two are separated by a semi-colon in the infobox. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 13:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

does every voice type sing the same?

If someone is of one voice type, say Tenor, and can easily "hear" (i.e. in his 'mind's ear') a Soprano, say, transposed into his own register as she sings, is it as well for this person to listen to this transposed production for technique, as opposed to the production of a genuine Tenor singing a genuine Tenor part, in consequence of the fact that the vocal production of each ought to be exactly the same, with the only difference being in frequency; or, on the contrary, should one voice type under no circumstances attempt to sing the transposed voice part of another in imitation of the other's technique, the means of vocal production in the two being entirely incomparable? Thank you kindly. 84.153.231.138 (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I question whether your premise

"the vocal production of each ought to be exactly the same, with the only difference being in frequency"

is correct. For a start, tenors are usually male and sopranos female, and the two sexes surely have somewhat differently configured and proportioned vocal tracts, suggesting that neither their vocal spectra nor the physical techniques they need to use are necessarily congruent. I would also expect there to be different fashions in male and female voice production. However, I Am Not A Singer (let alone a vocal coach), so we must both await more informed input. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

87.81 is correct. Male and female vocal tracts are sufficiently different that there will be a difference in tonality, such that someone who is used to hearing tonality difference would easily know the difference. But this is also true just between individual voices, even within the same voice type. That said, I see no reason why this should exclude a tenor from singing a transposed soprano tune, and vice versa. The result will be quite different; that is certain. However, a well-trained tenor will be able to put an equally viable interpretation to the music. Steewi (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The OP may also want to read up on timbre, which is the quality of musical sound which is distinct from the note itself. Pure sine-wave notes are very harsh on the ear, all music is produced by placing perterbations into the basic frequency. Its these perterbations that are called "timbre" which is what makes every instrument unique; which is why you can distinguish the exact same note as played on a flute from a violin from an electric guitar. Two different singers, even two sopranos, singing the exact same note, will likely sound distinguishable from each other. --Jayron32 02:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

monarchy form of government

Is there a political jurisdiction within the United States, such as a town or county, whose government is based on a monarchy form of government either officially or unofficially? 71.100.0.29 (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If there were, then it would be in violation of the U.S. constitution. According to Article IV, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

clever sideways answer: Machias Seal Island -- according to the US, it's American, but in reality it's controlled by the Canadians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.32.83 (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What does "a monarchy form of government" mean to you?

Does it mean that a single person is effectively in charge much of the time? There are places with very strong executive branches and very limited legislative branches (sometimes called citizen legislatures).

Does it mean that you are appointed for life? There are places (usually very small towns) in which re-election is effectively guaranteed (because nobody else in town is ever willing to run for the office, or because the vast majority of voters like the incumbent). However, unlike a monarch, they still have to run for office periodically, and it is possible for them to lose future elections.

Does it mean that you inherit the office from a parent? Voters might freely choose to elect a child to an office that his or her parent previously held. However, there are no hereditary offices: Merely being born to an elected official never entitles anyone to hold any office. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"Inherited" office". That is, an office where have the knowledge of how one got there is 95% of the battle. I know campaign managers who were completely forgotten at the moment the wife or son or other family member decided to seize the opportunity presented by an upcoming mandatory vacancy for themselves, even though policy wise everyone would have been better off had the campaign manager been supported. 71.100.0.29 (talk) 05:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There are certainly cities and probably counties in the U.S. where in a political dynasty some powerful person exercised strong rule, and whose son and grandson had every expectation of ruling after them. They were considered economic and political bosses rather than Kings as such. In Chicago, Boss Richard Daley I ruled as Mayor and Political Boss from 1955-1976, considered a "kingmaker" regarding the 1960 election of John Kennedy(see also for another old political dynasty), and the most powerful machine politician in the U.S. followed by an interregnum (Bilandic, Sawyer,Washington, Byrne), then his son Richard Daley II rules (1989-present). That is 41 years out of the last 55. Richard II has a fine son, Patrick, who enlisted in the U.S. Army in 2004, and who has not announced any political aspirations to date. Richard I has 20 living grandchildren, many involved in public service or businesses related to the city. Edison (talk) 03:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've heard it said the "Daley Dynasty" is a front for the Catholic church rather than being a true dynasty unto itself and that it was only through the Catholic Church by way of the Chicago Catholic Church Mafia that either Kennedy or Obama got elected. What I'm looking for, however, is a town or county that has stayed in the same family for more than three generations or 50 years. 71.100.0.29 (talk) 05:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

List of United States political families and its 25 subarticles might help.John Z (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think people are confusing monarchy with dynasty. The Daleys, Kennedys, Rockefellers, Roosevelts were political dynasties, not royal dynasties.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

How do you characterize the difference other than perhaps by the number of generations? 71.100.0.29 (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Monarchs are not elected. Richie Daley first ran in 1983 and was defeated. Monarchies are taken out by the sword, not by the voting public. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

As described in dictionaries, a monarchy is characterised by the single rule of a king, queen or emperor. This precludes any of the above families from being classified as monarchs.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That is the etymology of the word, but the key characteristic is that it is hereditary. Plenty of people have been considered monarchs while not having even de jure absolute power. However, all the dynasties mentioned are certainly not monarchies since the child inheriting is far from guaranteed, they just have a big advantage. Some fairly big businesses could be considered monarchies - it is common for the founder to be president for life and then pass that on to their children for several generations. --Tango (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

While the control of big corporations usually remain in the same family for generations, one couldn't for example say members of the Agnelli family have replaced the House of Savoy as monarchs in Italy!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

As I posted the Daley comment above, this crossed my mind: Is it possible, or even legal, for some future king (say King Charles or King William of the UK) to decide to end the monarchy and/or to convert it to an elective office? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the monarch can only abdicate but he or she does not have the power to turn the United Kingdom into a republic. Remember the UK is not an absolute monarchy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The UK monarch cannot abdicate, not in the sense of "I'm sick of all this crap. I'm outta here" and just leave without notice. The monarch can, through the Prime Minister, ask the parliament to pass a law that deems them to have abdicated, and all 15 other Commonwealth realms have to concur; it's only happened once, and they all agreed, but theoretically the parliaments could decline, in which case the monarch stays put. In a very real sense, constitutionally speaking, the monarch is born into the role and is a prisoner of it from the moment of their accession, for the rest of their life. They have less say about their lives than any of their subjects have about theirs. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

By "say about" you obviously mean in terms of career choice but certainly not in terms of vacation or travel or other advantages of wealth. 71.100.0.29 (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too sure about some of those. The monarch couldn't, for example, decide to go on a private tour around continental Europe, the way you or I could, because the diplomatic and security ramifications would be enormous. They cannot decide to just not be available for official duties for whole months or weeks at a time while they write their memoirs or just chill out, because the machinery of government would grind to a halt. They get a few small blocs of time for private holidays, that's all. Sure, they have access to colossal wealth, but the chances of spending it are limited, and they can't pop down to their favourite gift shop or library or museum and browse unmolested the way you or I would take for granted. They can't say "Oh, that new Cate Blanchett movie looks good; I think I'll go to the cinema this arvo, then have a cappuccino in the coffee shop next door while I do my sudoku and cryptic crossword before catching the bus back home". They can never go to the pub and just have a few quiet cold ales. No, in many ways they have no life at all, poor things. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

All very true; Diana Spencer and Sarah Ferguson didn't realise the score until they were already part of the Firm.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

What about Emperor Norton? :) Gabbe (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

He was Emperor of the United States in the same sense that Garfield Goose was King of the United States. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Cyril of Alexandria image

Want to upload this medieval-like image of Cyril of Alexandria, but am uncertain of its origin. Maybe somebody knows? Brandmeister[t] 18:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked TinEye, which said the only other copy of this image on the Web is this web page, which doesn't point to a source. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It is one of the paintings from the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe as can be seen at the photographer's website here, you will have to get his permission to use it here, possibly easier to get a local to photograph it instead. Oh and the wider image shows that it is Cyril of Jerusalem. meltBanana 22:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I was going to ask about that - he's got the coat of arms of the Kingdom of Jerusalem on his hat, that's kind of weird. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not quite, Adam, as the charges appear to be Azure rather than Or as for Jerusalem. Could be an artistic error, or a change of pigment colour over time (unlikely, as the painting looks otherwise well preserved), or maybe Alexandria's arms (which I've not been able to corroborate elsewhere yet) were modelled on and differenced by tincture from Jerusalem's. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That's true, but I thought the specific arrangement of the crosses was a crusader invention...maybe not though. Maybe they are the arms for the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Alexandria, which was founded during the crusades. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Capital gains tax, UK

What is the coalition government intending to do regarding CGT? Higher CGT tax rates will put people off from investing in buy-to-let, and result in a shortage of rented accommodation and increased homelessness. 89.242.232.220 (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think they are planning on increasing CGT rates. We'll have to wait and see what happens in the housing market - there are a lot of different factors to consider. --Tango (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If you just wait and see, then it will be too late. 89.242.232.220 (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It's already too late - we've had the election now. --Tango (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

See the full text of the coalition deal, CGT gets two mentions but there isn't much substance yet. Nanonic (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"We further agree to seek a detailed agreement on taxing non-business capital gains at rates similar or close to those applied to income, with generous exemptions for entrepreneurial business activities. " - Isn't buy to let a business activity? Kittybrewster ☎ 22:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really, it's more of an investment activity. --Tango (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Depends. It's a business activity for the property services company that does the letting. Or the property investment company that does buying and letting for its investors. And buy-to-let isn't the only business activity subject to CGT. Also, are you sure they're going to increase the CGT rates? My understanding is that CGT rates are typically higher than income tax rates so according to Kittybrewster's quote, one would expect the CGT rates to decline. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have read and heard that the CGT rate for non-business activities (ie on second homes, share deals and the like) will rise from the current year's 18% flat rate to 40% (some are even guessing 50%). I can't find a reference to give you yet, but it appears to be a LibDem policy that the Conservatives have accepted as part of the coalition deal. If true, this will have an interesting effect on private investors in the UK, who are currently encouraged to take income from activities like share trading and property development by the relatively generous CGT regime. It could have an effect on future purchases of buy-to-let properties, but only if the buyer is planning to sell the property again and realise gains in the not-too-distant future; it won't have an effect in terms of any rental income, which is unaffected by CGT. Before 2008 CGT rates were variable, with bands of 10, 20 and 40% depending on the individual's other income and gains. Should the CGT rate rise above the lower income tax rate of 20%, some investors may concentrate on maximising dividends, which are taxed as income, rather than capital gains. It may also make it more attractive to concentrate exclusively on property development and share dealing. At present, someone who supports themselves through capital gains with little or no other income may be deemed a trader by HMRC, and their gains reclassified as income and taxed accordingly, so it pays to have a "regular job" too. If CGT concessions are to be given to entrepreneurs, it may be in their interests to declare themselves as full-time traders, property developers or whatever. We'll have to wait and see what they come up with, and trust that it will not be retrospective. Karenjc 12:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Bylaws

When a bylaw is consolidated what does this mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.13.106 (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Depends on the context. Could you tell us the complete sentence, and where you read it? "Bylaw" might mean a local ordinance, or a regulation of a homeowner's association, or a rule that a corporation uses to run itself. "Consolidated" normally means "joined together into a single whole". Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Laws and by-laws are made, then amendments are made, then more amendments etc etc. Prior to consolidation, those interested in the particular law have to work with the original version and apply all the relevant amendments separately, to work out what the law is currently saying. At some point in time, it becomes desirable for the government to publish the most up-to-date version of the law, with all the amendments incorporated and the law annotated to show what parts of it were amended when. Then more amendments are made and the consolidation process is repeated when necessary. If only laws worked on a Wiki principle: they'd all be online, ordinary people could just edit them at will, and they'd stay that way till anyone objected and changed them again. That would truly be the people's justice. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you apply a three revert rule? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct Usage of a title

What is the correct usage for a persons title.

We would like it to read - President & Chief Executive Officer. Is this correct usage of a person's title —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.233.24 (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Giving us a little more context would be nice — what is the situation? If you're starting a company and deciding what to call the person in charge, yes, you could do this, and it would be understood. "President" and "Chief Executive Officer" are two separate positions in large corporations, and if it matters, small companies normally wouldn't do this. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

In simple terms, the President would often be someone who is (either nominally, or in reality) responsible for the overall functioning of an organisation, such as chairing ("presiding" over) a governing board - whereas the Chief Executive would be the person in charge of how its day-to-day operations are carried out ("executed"), including such things as staffing, and in many cases would report to the President. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That may be one usage, but it does not seem to agree with Wikipedia's article on CEOs. Ghmyrtle's description of the CEO sounds to me more like the COO: Chief Operating Officer. The combined title "President and CEO", as mentioned by the original poster, is quite common in North America, even though Wikipedia neither mentions it in the CEO article nor gives it an article of its own. --Anonymous, 04:16 UTC, May 13, 2010.

Fair point. I'm in the UK, so there may be slightly differnt usages. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think your usage was correct for most countries that use those terms. President is chair of the board and CEO is the day-to-day head of the company's management. In large companies, they will be different people. In smaller companies, they are sometimes merged, although you might use a title like "managing director" rather than "president and CEO". --Tango (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So the President is really the chairman, and the CEO is really the managing director, they've just decided to give themselves grand-sounding titles. DuncanHill (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The chairman is the chairman of the board of directors, which theoretically is in charge of the company but in reality only meets every month or two, or even less. The CEO is the top boss. "President" in most U.S. corporations seems to be a title given either to the CEO or another high-ranking executive, perhaps the second-in-command. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "president" and CEO may be the same but "chairman (of the board)" is different. --Anon, 05:02 UTC, May 14, 2010.

safety mirrors

I would like to install a convex safety mirror outside a property in order that those exiting the property vehicularly are able to avoid, by means of viewing other traffic in said mirror, any attempt at occupation the same part of the space-time continuum by those two vehicles.

This mirror would be on the opposite side of a public road from the property, in front of a hedgerow and farmer's field. It would be an extremely minor infringement on the general countryside but would be seen within the context of the road and its furniture.

This is in England, and so in doing this, do I need planning permission to establish such an erection?

ta very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.32.83 (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't overlink: most of the links in the question were not necessary. -ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Going on information from the Suffolk council website, most probably. See the last section on that page. Nanonic (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Same result from Bucks and Somerset county councils. Nanonic (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

And yet such mirrors do exist and stay put for years. There's been one across the road from the shop in my sister's village for as long as she's lived there. Talk to the highways department at your local council.Astronaut (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If they were in place before the regulations came into force, they would not necessarily be removed. I agree that the questioner should speak to their council officers, but it's likely that it would only be approved if there were clear road safety benefits, and no risk of causing a distraction. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Stationary safety mirrors (as opposed to those mounted on the car, like your rear-view) are typically not suited for use with vehicles - they exist for the safety of pedestrians. Trying to interpret a curved reflection while moving is a losing proposition - the driver will have to stop to see it properly and if he's doing that, he might as well check the roadway manually - the way he's supposed to. Matt Deres (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

For coming out of a drive (which is done at very low speed) they are extremely useful, you can see cars coming from both directions at once. The mirror isn't for the cars on the road, it's for cars coming onto the road. DuncanHill (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes; DuncanH is correct. The exit is blind; one simply cannot see around a corner when exiting, and it's a 60mph limit, but the road is fast enough that some will be doing 80. The vehicle using the mirror would be stationery, waiting to exit the drive. If the driver sees anything in the mirror he shouldn't pull out until it passes and there is further traffic, so judging the distance of traffic is irrelevant; you don't want to be trying to judge pulling out in front of fast moving traffic. that would defeat the object. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.11.151 (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Musica notturna delle strade di Madrid, movements

Hello, dear Wikipedians. I am an avid fan of this fantastic piece by Boccherini. Please consult http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RjKmTVFJSo for a quick listen to this delightful music; note, if you will, that this is the youtube link provided in the article.

My question is as follows: How are the movements separated? According to the article, the piece is approximately 13 minutes long, whereas this youtube link is 9:24. I will refer to it when I say where I assume the movements are divided: Le campane starts at 0:00; il Tamburo dei Soldati 0:30; Minuetto 1:41; Il Rosario ?:?? - Passa Calle 4:40, Il Tamburo 6:39, La Ritirata: 6:50-end. Am I right in this so far? The drums blended in very well, and I didn't know if honestly they were just a few seconds long, and if that qualified as a movement at all... Obviously I am having problems finding Il Rosari's beginning. Any help would be greatly appreciated! 88.90.16.185 (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I found a track listing, with samples, from an approximately 13-minute-long version here. It sounds like Le campane is not part of the Youtube clip. Thus Il tamburo dei soldati starts at 0:00, the Minuetto at 0:30, Il Rosario at 1:41, and the rest as you have it. It seems that the Youtube version abridges the Rosario to half of the length of the 13-minute version. --Cam (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

After poking around some more I think Passa calle starts earlier, around 4:14.--Cam (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Cam! This was most helpful =) 88.90.16.114 (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Choice of musical genre

Which companies offer a telephone keypad choice of music genre to callers who are put on hold? -- Wavelength (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

May 13

real or fake newspaper?

During the latter half of the 1980s, on buses in San Francisco, California, I used to see these pictures. They looked like advertisements. But they were for a newspaper called the "Street Fare Journal". Does such a newspaper really exist?24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a newspaper but an organization that published those bus cards to provide brief snippets of literature and art for riders; the cards were the "journal". (You can get a complete set of them for the low, low price of $11,500, apparently.) Deor (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

...now, see Streetfare Journal.--Wetman (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Shia rituals

Do you know any thing about the ritual called "Shama Gul" in shia's.i would like to know what is shama Gul.Please let me know urgently —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumaiyajawad (talk • contribs) 10:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

buildings

Does anyone know what this roof is made of and how it is held up? The big white one in the background of this picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Butlins_Bognor_2.JPG

148.197.114.158 (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's the Butlins Skyline Pavilion. Guy ropes and the big metal towers sticking through it hold it up, and it's made of some sort of cloth presumably similar to the "PTFE-coated glass fibre fabric" of the Millennium Dome. It is an example of a tensile structure. FiggyBee (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Daguerreotype Union Cases

How many Littlefield, Parsons & Co. Union cases were made with the Constitution and the Laws Design? I have researched and found that there were over 350 case designs made, but I cannot determine how may patriotic designs there were and approximately how many of each design were made.Tooelusv4u (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The number of "union cases", as the hinged tintype cases were called, that were produced in any particular design could never be determined unless a fairly complete business archive has survived for Littlefield, Parsons & Co. of Florence, Massachusetts, near Northampton. "From 1856 to 1865, the business of Littlefield, Parson & Co. gave employment to from 75 to 199 hands. Very great success attended the business after the first two or three years, particularly the manufacture of the union cases. The demand for these goods was so great that during a considerable part of the time the factory was run to its utmost capacity, night and day, producing daily 89 to 150 dozen cases", reported the writer of a history of Florence published in The Hampshire Gazette 2 April 1867. The successors to Littlefield, Parsons & Co. in 1866 were the Florence Manufacturing Company; any Littlefield, Parsons archives will have passed to them. --Wetman (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

UK constituencies

I was looking at File:2010UKElectionMap.svg which I got to from United Kingdom general election, 2010.

I saw a light blue constituency in the vicinity of Oxford and was curious as to which one it was. There is nothing on the map to track it down. I guessed it was Oxford and went to List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2010 which is great for getting from a constituency name to a map of where it is. I tried Oxford East (UK Parliament constituency) which shows the one of interest to be just to the east of oxfordshire. But then I got stuck.

How do I look up a constituency name from a (the above) map? My question is NOT 'what is the constituency', although I'd like to know that. My question is HOW do I find out the name? -- SGBailey (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is a very easy way to do this. The constituency names are present in the sourcecode of the image, so code for extracting them could be written, but I don't know if this has actually been done. What you want is a more interactive map, such as the one the BBC news website seems to have just taken down hidden behind a terrible search engine. The constituency in question is Buckingham, by the by. Algebraist 16:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This interactive map should be the one. Click each time to narrow down of area, then you can pull all the important information. On Buckingham, it won't help: the BBC, wrongly, colours Buckingham as a Conservative seat (click on it, and it becomes "Speaker hold". It's the speaker's (though on a further technicality, he's not speaker until parliament sits); he is impartial (although John Bercow was a Conservative MP). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

OK and thanks. I presume it is far too much effort to go through 650 articles and add "neighbouring constituencies are ...". -- SGBailey (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

is there any more leveraged "long selling" (betting stock will rise) than options?

I thought I was clever in realizing that a certain middling stock ought to about more than double in 2 years' time, but I checked out call options for that time, and lo and behold - the market agreed with me! Instead of having to pay something cheap for the option to sell buy at double price two years from now, I would have had to pay about half of what I would gain!! Too expensive, that's very low leverage. Moreover, at that price, I can just buy the stock! In fact, why should I even buy the option in this case? If I buy the stock itself, then at least it can't become WORTHLESS, even if it goes down to half its value, unlike the stock option! That's half my question: the other half is: okay, so the stock option wasn't leveraged enough for me. Is there anything thhat is MORE LEVERAGED than a stock option, ie something I would gain more from by than with a stock option? Thanks. 84.153.186.157 (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Two comments. 1) You talk about "the option to sell at double price..." yet you think that the price will go up - this doesn't make sense because you would go for a call in this case: if the price doubles, you buy at the strike which is presumably lower than double and you've made a profit equal to the difference minus the premium you paid at the start (ignoring time-value). 2) You said you "would have had to pay about half of what [you] would gain" in 2 years - that's a pretty decent return. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! When I said "sell at double price" what I really meant was buy at my strike price and sell at double price, ie I was thinking of the actual process of exercising the option, and I was thinking in terms of the actual selling when the option is in the money. But you are right, the option itself consists of a right to buy, not a right to sell, and in fact most options don't actually get exercised. As for your second comment: What I don't understand is why anyone would buy an option in my position, if they were banking on the stock about doubling, and the PREMIUM on the stock options they are looking at makes it equivalent to buy $5000 of options, which due to massive premium will only mean being $5,000 in the money when the stock doubles, or buy $5000 of the stock outright, which would also go to $10,000. But in the second scenario, if it goes down from $5000 to $4500, you've lost $500 and opportunity costs, whereas in the first scenario you lose 100% of your investment. When the market prices options (for a strike price close to double the current trading value!!!) with such an insane premium, why would anyone in my position buy that option?

Are you absolutely sure you have calculated the premium correctly ? Stock options are typically sold in lots of 1000 underlying shares, and the premium is quoted per lot, not per underlying share. So an option selling at a premium of $1 per lot is equivalent to a premium of 0.1c per underlying share. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Further to Gandalf, in your last sentence you mention that the strike price is close to double the current price but from your comments further up, it sounds like the strike is close to the current price. I think you need to tell us the current price of the stock and the option strike price and the current premium. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks! Perhaps you're right and I am mistaken. Further, I was trying to simplify the numbers. Without simplification here is my actual original analysis with annotation:

• here is my actual analysis made a couple of days ago (on the twelfth).
• Note: all of the listed options are for options expiring the same date, January of 2012 (20 months from now), therefore the rows are just different strike prices. However, note that my position is to sell these options after holding them for one year, when, in my estimation, the underlying stock will trade close to $400. (It trades at $260 now).

Here are the column headings:

• Column 1: the strike price.
• Column 2: premium - The price of that option if I buy it at this moment (aka the premium). Gandalf: did I make a mistake here?
• Columns 3-7: more trading information (volume etc) of the given option
• Column 8: intrinsic value. My estimation of the intrinsic value of the given option on May 12, 2011. (ie one year out, well before the option expires). My position would involve selling the options on this day, and my estimation is that the underlying stock will trade at close to $400 on this date.
• Column 9: profit - the intrinsic value (how much it is in the money) minus the cost (what it took to get it).
• Column 10: ROI - the profit column divided by the premium column (column 2).

• Note: my analysis is that the stock will trade near 400 on May 12, 2011.

Now, here's the thing. When this analysis was made, the underlying stock was trading at $260, and the position is that it will trade at $400 one year from now. Now let's look at my analysis of buying options, then we can compare it with buying the stock outright:

• If you skim the ROI column, you can see that the biggest one is for a strike price of $280 -- and this option commands a huge premium (cost) of $48.24!
• At this point my analysis says that $400 - $280 = $120 in the money, minus the cost of the premium is - $48.24 = $71.76 in profit.
• $71.76 of profit from $48.24 investment means the return is a factor 71.76 / 48.24 = 1.48. ie if I invest $1000, then it becomes $1480.
• But here's my problem: We said that the stock currently trades at $260.
• Which means that if instead of buying the option for my 1.48 factor return, I buy the stock at $260, then I will get a return of 400 / 280 = 1.42 factor. which is nearly as high!.
• This means two things:

1. the options route includes almost NO leveraging, despite the fact that I am predicting a rise from $260 to $400 - a bold prediction!
2. The option gives almost exactly the same return as buying the underlying the stock - but if I buy the option, I risk losing it all, whereas that simply will not happen for the stock itself!

So what gives? Why is the option being priced so high, and why would anyone in my position buy the option instead of the underlying stock? Further is there any other, better leveraged way for me to make my bold position, betting the underlying stock will go from $280 to $400 in a year? Thank you.

Note: the reason I am looking at options for 20-months out despite having a position in a price one year out is because there are no options for one year out, only 8 months out, which may not be enough time for the stock to make its move. Therefore my position is to buy the 20 months out option and trade it after a year when it is well in the money. I don't care what happens to the option between when I sell it and it expires. 84.153.189.240 (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Return = profit / investment. A profit of $71.76 on an investment of $48.24 is, as you say, a return of 148%. But a profit of $140 on an investment of $260 is a return of only 54%. You are not comparing like with like. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! You're right. In this case I see that the leverage is much higher than I had thought as compared with buying the stock, however it is still much lower than I expected. In looking at my chart, can you see whether, as you suggested, I could have made a mistake and not divided out the "lot" of options? Or is my chart right as-is? Thanks. 84.153.189.240 (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Also one more question, Gandalf and others: why is the $400, which still has respectable bids and asks of $15 the HIGHEST one not only in my chart, but in the sources I looked at for the chart? Shouldn't there be more options, if not 500, 600, 800, 1000, strike price, then at least continuing on to $410, $420, $430, etc - whatever it takes for there not to be any buyers for that market, as the price of that options peters out from $15, to $5, to $1, to $0.50. I don't see why $400 is the cutoff point, when it still has strong demand. Why aren't there these higher strike price options? Thank you. 84.153.189.240 (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

May 14

Sport Spectation

Why do people like to watch sports so much, in some cases watch them more than play them?

Take NHL for example. There are people who list the schedule of the whole season, take down every game, list the teams playing in those games, then they mark who won and who lost. And then for these people, it is such a focal conversation topic, for example: "Oh, Carolina's going to win.". And the sports commentators comment on people who have injuries, and newspapers have a whole REGULAR devoted section to sports, and statistics, which I don't understand.

Football is the same way.

Does this help explain this phenomenon?174.3.123.220 (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It's entertainment. It's watching highly skilled athletes doing things that you and I couldn't possibly do at that kind of level. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Short story, poem, picture, etc. about teamwork

I'm looking for some great short story, poem, picture, etc. about teamwork. I've googled it but I couldn't find a good one. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.120.162 (talk) 05:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

English and British Duchesses of Normandy in the Channel Islands

Were all English queens and British queens technically titular Duchesses of Normandy in the Channel Islands? Is there any reference in their time to that title after the year 1204?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the "Duke of Normandy" article? Gabbe (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

United States geography

My question is why are some of the states that make up the USA absolutely massive in central to western areas whereas the ones on the east coast in particular are tiny, for example Rhode Island. It just seems a bit disproportionate that you have huge and tiny sections of a country like that. Thanks, Hadseys 11:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

History of the United States would be a good read, especially the "westward expansion" section. The USA started as relatively densely populated areas on the east coast, and the states were all small and manageable by 18th century standards. The western areas, generally more sparsely populated, needed to encompass a much larger area in order to have the minimum needed for becoming states. And by then, we had a network of railroads, so managing much larger entities became feasible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes and a lot of vast territory in the west was acquired by treaty or purchase, such as Louisiana Purchase and Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hence the need to manage on a much larger scale. Even now, much of the great plains remains sparsely populated, particularly areas like Wyoming and the Dakotas. Some of those western states have counties that are considerably larger than some of the smaller eastern states. But they are also much less densely populated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Another factor would be disproportionate representation. No matter how few citizens a state has, it's entitled to at least 1 representative and 2 senators, thus giving them a proportional edge already, as we see at Presidential election time sometimes. If you cut Wyoming into pieces the size of, say, Connecticut, not only would that area have a disproportionate voice in Congress, you might have some "states" with virtually no residents. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

British India - Army and Navy chiefs

This is a photo taken in 1948 in the Dominion of India. From the left are C. Rajagopalachari (Governor General), Baldev Singh (Defense Minister) along with the three service chiefs of the Indian Armed Forces. Of the three service chiefs, i can identify the one in centre as Air Marshall Thomas Elmhirst from his shoulder tabs (striped ones used for both Royal and Indian Air Forces). But i cannot identify the other two - which one is the Navy Admiral and which one is the Army General. Can someone id them from the uniforms? (their peaked caps are distinct and should help) --Sodabottle (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Asha Rose Migiro

Hallow,

May you please assist me with the full address of Asha Rose Migiro,

It will be highly appreciated,

Thanks and best regards,

Tracy

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggrecious2010 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

United Nations Headquarters‎, New York, NY 10017, USA.

--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Cases of Judgment notwithstanding verdict

I just recently stumbled upon the Judgment notwithstanding verdict article. How rare or common is this judgment? Does anyone know of any actual cases where a judge had to apply this? Because to me it seems very unlikely that this kind of situation would ever happen: a "judge determines that no reasonable jury could have reached the given verdict" and so "the judge enters a verdict notwithstanding the jury findings"; one would think that only if they were bribed or under duress that a jury would give such an unreasonable verdict as to invoke this judgment; otherwise everyone on the jury could, by some freak chance, really be that mentally incompetent. So any actual precedent cases of this happening would definitely be interesting to read about... I'm probably not making any sense. -- œ^™ 13:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)