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.
this is not a question that permits a sensible answer. can you please rephrase, using complete sentences, possibly even a small paragraph? --Ludwigs205:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested in a philosophical idea that when bad things happen to you, you do not have to follow the traditional (learnt?) responce of becoming depressed including losing self-esteem. Instead, you can jettison that emotional baggage yet still be rationally and responsibly engaged with the situation.
I know little about philosophy and am only aware of a few scraps of things that touch apon this, such as Nietzsche's views, Stoicism, and the poem Invictus. It may be like the alertness that I vaguely seem to remember is favoured during eastern combat such as judo or the Samuari. On the other hand Buddism or Fatalism would mean passively ignoring the situation, which is not what I mean. Schizoid psychology worries me.
Yes I agree with Epictetus, and Stoic philosophy may be what you're looking for. "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" - Shakespeare sums it up. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I had already mentioned Stoicism in the question, and I'm not too happy with it as it tends to imply just putting up with things passively, rather than being more active. Anything else please? 92.28.252.46 (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure philosophy would make much difference though training in something like Neuro-linguistic programming might without recourse to drugs. It seems people are naturally happy or a bit down and it has very little to do with the reality of their situation. It might be they deviate for a while for some special event but that will normally be temporary. Personally I'm against the business of trying to artificially boost peoples self-esteem without them having a good reason for such boosted self esteem even if it is just because they can now do something like tap out three four time. Dmcq (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it was the "scraps" you mentioned above which led me to think you'd not investigated stoicism completely. What has come to mind is the Book of Job, which I know isn't a philosophy but you may find its themes relevant. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look at Cognitive behavioural therapy, but it doesn't give a philosophical reference that I can tell. However, it does come close to the sort of approach you're looking for. The technique I'm most familiar with is "untwisting your thinking", which goes something like this. Original train of thought: "My girlfriend hasn't called me today. That must mean she doesn't love me any more. I'm going to kill myself." Replace this with "My girlfriend hasn't called me today. Maybe she's ill, or perhaps her phone's broken? I'll give her a ring myself to see if everything's OK." --TammyMoet (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question reminds me of this article from Inc. Magazine, in which a "psychoanalyst and ethnographer" discusses how successful salespeople are able to remain happy, or at least motivated, in the face of a hundred rejections in a row. The article is about succeeding as a salesperson, but it takes only a little imagination to twist this attitude into a philosophy of living. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are a striver, a tryer, pushing everything to the limit, being at the edge, then you will have far more failure (and mistakes) to deal with than the unambitious or apathetic. Film stars, for example, are being constantly considered but rejected for roles that other stars get. 92.15.14.150 (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You will find a lot more material on this in pop psychology and spiritual texts than in philosophy (at least, western philosophy). western philosophy has largely built itself around discourses on rationality: there are few western philosophers prior to the age of psychology who have considered that the mind could possibly be trapped by 'learned responses' (at worst, they would think that people might suffer from weakness of character or poor habituation). There were a few social theorists from the Frankfurt school who worked in some of the elements of Freudian psychological theory (Lacan, and to a lesser extent Althusser), and psychological themes have worked themselves into a lot of postmodern social theory (though usually as a form of domination). You might check out Erich Fromm (escape from freedom). Also, don't discount buddhism, taoism, and advaita hinduism (or some of the 'new-age' incarnations of eastern philosophy - Eckhard Tolle is a decent current example. the core teaching in most of these approaches is to disentangle the pure experience of a situation from the mediated experience (mediated experience means that you view what's happening through the lens of past results and future desires and fears, thus restricting yourself to the same results that you have always gotten). --Ludwigs223:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone mentioned The Book of Job. Did you study "Answer to Job", by C.G.Jung? I think, however, there is no way around conscience. MacOfJesus (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not exactly what you are looking for, although it seems that one could relate them. The concept of reciprocal determinism dictates that you can only get out of something what you put into it. Kind of going along the lines of what you are thinking, it seems if you only put depression and mopiness into a situation, one will not yield desirable results. Instead, you could ignore those thoughts and put effort into remedying the situation. Something of a tangent, I know, but I figured I could add this to fuel thought, if nothing else. 99.53.113.16 (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone ever seen a bizarre question asked (and answered) on these reference boards that appeared a year or two later in a novel? In other words, do novelists sometimes swing by these boards for help on strange and technical problems? Or would this be somewhat illegal; do authors have to give credit to the people who help them with their research? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies14:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frequently the reason "I am writing a book, and I need this answered as part of the research" is given by questioners for the questions they pose in here. I have no idea how many of those questioners who claim to be writing a book are actually writing one though. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All text on Wikipedia including questions asked and answers given at reference desk is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. So the author may use text from the ref desk provided that it is properly attributed and the derived work is released in a similar license. The conditions however may be lesser if the contributor of the questions and answers declare that they are licensing the text under a less restrictive license or into the public domain.--Nilotpal4215:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the licensing issue only applies to them taking our responses verbatim. It does not matter if they use the ideas and do not credit us. The ideas we give are not copyrighted in any way (only specific expressions are). There is nothing illegal whatsoever about not crediting your library reference desk when they give you an answer, nor is there anything unethical about it, especially for a fictional work (where being credited for anything is pretty rare anyway). --Mr.98 (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not the ref desk specifically, and not an "author" as such, but I certainly know of my words in articles being used by people I've never met and am unlikely to. Case in point: last week I was listening to a radio announcer introduce a symphony by Antonín Dvořák, and he was talking about how the numbering of Dvorak's 9 symphonies got terribly confused. It's a story I was very familiar with, since I wrote the section of our Dvořák article that goes into it in some detail (it's been slightly edited by others since, but it's essentially my work). As I listened, I realised I was on particularly familiar ground, since the announcer was reading that section of our article word for word. He's welcome to it, and I did take a certain pride in knowing I was the real "author". :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On a similar note, a dental professor from NYU was guest lecturing at Columbia and used a photo of mine in his lecture. When I went over to him afterward and told him that I had taken that photo, he at first didn't understand. Then I explained that I had uploaded it to Wikipedia, and subsequent to that, numerous websites had taken it from there and he had gotten it through a google search. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)03:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the replies! The last two are neat stories! I have to admit, I get a little smirk on my face when I see articles quoting something I'd written, but nothing that prestigious. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies06:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been accused of plagiarising a web source for a Wikipedia article - and turns out the web source was identical to said Wikipedia article because it had copied (sans attribution) the Wikipedia article. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most played national anthem in the world
Last night during the England-United States World Cup match just before the US national anthem was played, the RAI Uno sportscaster said that the US national anthem is the most played anthem in the world. Is there any truth in this statement?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how one would measure that, but the US anthem is played before the vast majority of spectator sporting events in the US, all the way down to the high school level. I don't know if that's common in other countries. I don't remember any national anthem being played before domestic ice hockey games in Europe I attended. In addition, before TV stations began airing infomercials all night, they used to play the national anthem at the beginning and end of their broadcast day. Because of government policies favoring local broadcasting, the U.S. has a lot more TV stations than do most other countries. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are countries where the national anthem is sung every morning in every school. They would probably out-number all the sporting events in the US. --Tango (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Malaysia is one but is probably too small for it to work (although AFAIK it's still played during the closing down of at least the government TV channels). However India may be another [1]. China may be another [2]. In some ways, it's easy to imagine these easily dwarfing the US which doesn't apparently have this. However in truth I would say this is the sort of unanswerable or meaningless claim since there's no definition of what you mean by 'most played'. Are you counting all time or per year or what? The US anthem's age helps if you count all time here somewhat although considering population growth maybe not much. Also how do you define 'played'? Per the TV stations thing do only seperate stations count? Most TV stations will have multiple transmitters do each of these count? Some TV stations will actually have regional ads, do these count as seperare? Or are you only counting TVs which are actually on and playing it? And do you actually mean played as opposed to people singing it? If you aren't counting singing how about whistling? If multiple bands are playing it for one event does this count as one or multiple? What about when they aren't at the same time? If it can be multiple how far away do they have to be to count? Could you say each person playing the song in one band is one count? For recordings played back over speakers, does each speaker count? Do you count per playback device (e.g. the radio, computer or whatever). If I decide I want this record and get 1000000 of my fellow citizens to help and we play it back on our computers or whatever for 20 weeks non stop but actually outputting to a dummy audio device does this count? Does it actually have to be proper timing or can I play it back 1000x real time? Can I play back multiple copies at the one time, each one 1 second apart perhaps? If I set up a feedback loop by accident or purpose does this count as infinite plays? Nil Einne (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The national anthem is played in theaters on US military bases before every movie. My brother, who was in the military, often refers to this as "going to hear the national anthem and staying for a film". Dismas|(talk)01:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Italian sportscaster said that due to it's being played at virtually every sporting event in the US, it was the most played anthem in the world; he also said it was "one of the most recognised anthems". He stated these as facts, not personal opinions.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article[3] says that School No 6, in Bengbu, China, plays their national anthem every Monday morning. If that is replicated in every school in China every week, it's got to put it near the top of the table. Alansplodge (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR here, but yes the national anthem is sung in the morning in every class room in every primary and secondary school in China - except at whole-of-school assemblies, when the nathem is sung by the whole school (the latter part of which I believe is the same as practice in most western schools).
I think the answer also depends on what you define as "played". If the anthem is broadcast on TV, is it played once (by the TV station) or played millions of times (by each television set tuned to that station? In the Chinese schools context, is the anthem played once by each school (by the central PA system) or a hundred times by the speakers in each class room?--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She had several grandchildren. That makes it extremely likely that she still has descendants alive today (and, if she does, she'll have a lot - millions, potentially). Tracing clear lines of descent from that long ago is very difficult, though, so I don't know if we'll be able to confirm that any particular individual is a descendant. --Tango (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that on their article, but I seem unable to pin them as ancestor to any later Kings of England. And the names get really confusing. Can someone give me a line of descent from Bertha to a more recognizable historical figure like William the Conqueor or one of the later Kings of England.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but it looks like Eadbald's descendant eventually died out at Eadric of Kent and Æthelburg's descendants I'm not sure of. Can someone give me a line of descent from Bertha to a more recognizable historical figure like William the Conqueor or one of the later Kings of England. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be easier just to go back from let's say Matilda of Flanders or Matilda of Scotland to see if their lines connect to Bertha. It's too hard tracing descent only to discover the line fades into obscurity after a few generations.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having followed the lines of descent in Mike Ashley's genealogies in British Monarchs, we discover (as noted above) Bertha had two children: Athelburh and Eadbald. Eadbald had two children, Eormenred and Eorcenbert. Eorchenbert's line (by male descent...girls weren't always recorded) died out with Eardwulf of Kent in 765, which ended the Kentish royal family line descended from Oisc of Kent. Eormenred's line disappears early 8th C. (ie. there was no one with enough significance after that to be recorded). Athelburh's only child of note (ie. with descendants noted) was Eanflæd, who married Oswiu of Northumbria. Oswiu had children by other wives, but her children were: Ecgfrith of Northumbria - no issue - Ælfwine of Deira - no issue - Ælfflæd of Whitby - no issue - and Osthryth, whose son Ceolred of Mercia appears to have died without issue. (He possibly had a brother, who also had no recorded issue.) So, in answer to the OP's question, while it's entirely possible that some people have descended through unrecorded female lines, no one alive today can trace a line of descent from Bertha of Kent without the discovery of new records. Gwinva (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vitamin eh?
I was comparison shopping for multivitamins and found a generic house brand that exactly copied a more expensive brand: every vitamin and mineral down to the identical dose. Even the packaging was similar. How can this be legal? (This is in Canada.) Clarityfiend (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More info: this was a formulation targeting eye health, so it had an unusually large amount of lutein, so this isn't a case of copying the minimum recommended daily dose. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As to the contents, the 'house brand' might actually be made by the 'name brand' manufacturer to similar specifications, for sale to a slightly different niche in the market; I believe this is not uncommon in other products such as confectionery and dry goods.
With respect to the packaging, again such similarities of 'house brands' to more prestigious (and better advertised) 'name brands' is common, as can be seen on the shelves of any large supermarket: the aim must be to make the former somewhat suggestive of the latter but not so close an imitation as to actually violate trademark specifications (which will often include colours and layouts) and without making the resemblance so close as to deceive a 'reasonable person' (who is probably presumed capable of reading the actual brand names, etc). It seems likely that the imitating company will usually have obtained a prior agreement to such packaging from the imitated company to avoid possible costly legal proceedings. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More than "might have": the formula was surely sold to the house brand, and probably even the factory time! Almost all brands do this, Listerine makes a big point of the fact that it doesn't: you can't buy the same thing from the generic. 82.113.106.112 (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If in fact multivitamins were ever patented, that patent has long expired -- no country has patents of such duration as the length of time the multivitamin industry has existed. As long as the packaging doesn't deceive the public, anyone can copy anyone else's multivitamin composition. It's not copyrightable, after all. As mentioned above, the only possible issue is packaging, i.e., trademark. No one has to buy or license the "formula" -- it can be easily reverse-engineered if for some reason it isn't made from scratch, and only patents prevent reverse-engineering. (To be rigorous, trade secrets would come into play if someone stole the formula rather than developed it or reverse-engineered it.) Legally, multivitamins are no different from fish oil or ginseng or garlic extract or anything else in that line, regardless of their relative complexity. Conceivably, a "targeted" vitamin ("for diabetic men over 50," or whatever) could be sufficiently novel and non-obvious to be patented, but trademark protection in that field is far more likely. (Note that this reduces the profit motive for major pharmaceutical companies to research, e.g., the health benefits of fish oil, or ginseng, or whatever -- it can't be patented rigorously enough to create a patent monopoly, so it isn't worth it even in the case of some unknown miracle cure. Ah, capitalist science!) 63.17.67.213 (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Under English common law, there might be an action under passing off. This is when one trader 'passes off' their goods as those of another trader, hoping to ride on their reputation and goodwill by confusing the customer. There is no need to register the get-up of the packaging or literature in order for the aggrieved party to take action in court. I don't know if this remedy or something similar is applicable in Canada. Where the offender is a very large supermarket chain, they often seem to get away with it because the copied supplier doesn't want to lose that outlet for their own goods by getting into a dispute with the supermarket. Adding link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off And also, here's one to Canada trademark law that mentions passing off http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_trademark_law
True, but an action for passing off may go to the High Court and will often be very expensive. Thus, a decent IP lawyer may advise against such an action unless there is a good chance of winning. Registration of the patent/design/trademark/whatever to start off with is always the safer option. --JoeTalkWork03:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but to enforce any of these rights - registerable or unregisterable - you may need to go to the High Court and that would be expensive. The different rights you mention protect different aspects of a product. They won't all always be available for a particular product.
I do agree but going to court with a registered [whatever] is more likely to be successful because you don't have to prove the 'trinity' of passing off, just infringement. And I know those won't all be available for registration for every product - that's why I gave three registrable 'things'. --JoeTalkWork11:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doré's methods
I'd like some authoritative information on which of Gustave Doré's prints are lithographs, which are engravings, and which are etchings. (Or woodcuts, for that matter.) I'd particularly like to know about the Orlando Furioso prints, but reliable information on any of his works would be good. I'm also curious to know whether the plates were made by his own hand or by an assistant (in which case I think the etcher/engraver possibly deserves more praise than the artist), and what the letter T which appears in the corner opposite his signature means. 81.131.62.123 (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to find some useful info online for you, but I've come to the conclusion that your best bet would be to refer to the Catalogue de l'oeuvre complet de Gustave Doré by Henri Leblanc, first published in 1931 but recently reprinted and still apparently the authoritative work of its type. Provided you can decipher French, that would probably distinguish the different types of illustration from each other and may offer some help with your other queries. The reprinted volume is $110 to buy [4], but a WorldCat search turned up the fact that there are copies in a number of libraries. Your IP address appears to geolocate to northern England - if this is correct, the British Library store at Wetherby has a copy of it, as do libraries in Manchester, Glasgow and London. [5][6]. Not too immediately helpful I'm afraid, but perhaps a start. Karenjc20:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(OP again) in the unlikely event that somebody comes after me seeking the same information: I think the answer to my question is that many of Doré's prints, such as the ones in London and by the look of it also Orlando Furioso, were wood engravings reproduced via electrotyping to preserve the blocks from damage. (Actually, not sure about that last - the wood engraving article says the blocks are good for thousands of prints, which surprises me.) He did oil (?) paintings directly onto the blocks, which were then engraved by one of his many assistants, one of whom is presumably "T". 81.131.9.214 (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First Notable Person
Who is the first notable person that is known to have surely existed and was documented in records? I would assume it would have to be a Sumerian king or something. 65.31.80.94 (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alulim of Sumer is often considered to be the earliest known king, though whether he really existed and exactly when is still a little uncertain, given that there are no contemporary records, only those written some time after.80.47.172.225 (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any public studies ranking burnout by country among students
My gut tells me that countries like China and Japan should have higher levels of burnout because of the longer school days and school years than is found in the Western countries. I would love to see some real data though. Unfortunately, anything that looks like it would hold that information is subscription-blocked. Thanks. 71.161.46.37 (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's the Maslach Burnout Inventory, which, though intended for people working jobs, seems like it could apply to students whose "job" is schoolwork. 71.161.62.201 (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might get university drop-out (non-completion) figures from the OECD. It doesn't really equate to burn-out at all, but that's probably the nearest that you are going to get. There might also be comparative figures for suicides by age group. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some reading, and on average, burnout is higher in China and Japan than most Western countries, but oddly enough, the US has higher burnout rates (almost half the American population) than either China or Japan. The average American has a 54 hour work week, 10 days of vacation a year (what they supposedly give you and what you get are two very different things, especially at lower levels) and American kids, while school is not nearly as long, have so many extracirricular activities that they get strained to their limits. As someone who lives not far from New York City, which is probably the worst part of the country for burnout, it's readily visible all around. People age faster than I thought was possible. Also, in China a lot of people in lower-level academia die young, whereas in the US, they have shorter and fewer, but for many more years. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for painting
What I remember is that it's an old (non-"modern") painting depicting two mythological figures: one is depicted as vapor or smoke, and "he" is "embracing" a woman (depicted as a woman, probably nude [Venus?]). I remember it as being in the possession of a museum in Austria, or thereabouts. This is what I remember, but either it is very obscure and hard to find via image searches, or I'm remembering some thing/s wrong. TIA. :)
¦ Reisio (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do Pinkerton and McClernand have their right hands stuck into the tops of their jackets in this photo? It almost looks as if they are reaching for a concealed weapon! And why doesn't President Lincoln have his right hand stuck into his jacket? Thanks everyone!!! 121.44.83.127 (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[7] "The hand was placed in the jacket or a pocket or resting on a fixed object so that the subject wouldn't move it [or his other hand] and cause a blurred image. Try holding your hands at your sides motionless for fifteen minutes or so-it's not easy." Shii(tock)05:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "hand in jacket" predated photography, and was more a style than a motion control technique. This is not a photo of Napoleon.
Indeed, I worked as a museum docent one summer, and learned that a photo of a person with one hand in his jacket from the early 1850s or late 1840s was because it was a common practice to imitate famous poses; in that one, imitating a famous painting of Napoleon, as shown at right (great caption :-)
Although, regarding the hands, how did they keep their eyes open long enough to be able to hav ethem shown? Or, are blinks so quick it didn't matter?209.244.187.155 (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blinks are indeed to quick to matter. The amount of time that your eyes are open far outweighs the amount of time they are closing/closed. Dismas|(talk)09:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that wording was an abbreviated version of something like, "In the same vein of thinking by which we are regarding the hands, how did they keep their eyes open long enough to be able to have them shown?"Bus stop (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, Napoleon had a very practical reason for his hand there. Apparently he had a sickness and that area needed support. This was revealed in a post mortem. So, as was already stated this pose became popular. This question was asked before in 2007, on this same page. Nelson had, too, a very practical reason for his hand there, as he had a war injury that needed support. MacOfJesus (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How many Jews didn't they kill?
We all know that Hitler and the Nazis killed (or caused to be killed) six million Jews in WWII. But how many Jews didn't they kill? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.236.34 (talk) 06:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the six million Jews came from Poland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Holland, Hungary, Romania, Russia, Italy, France, so finding the number of Jews in Germany in 1933 wouldn't give an accurate figure. It might be better to look up the number of Jews in countries that the Nazis later conquered or were allied with.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has an article on the Holocaust. In two places it says that there were 7,300,000 Jews in occupied Europe at the time and about 78% or 5,700,000 were killed. The numbers are to some extent estimates and the article mentions various other numbers, as well as other criteria for which victims to count. But if those numbers are correct, then that would leave about 22% or 1,600,000 survivors. --Anonymous, 09:00 UTC, June 14, 2010.
More than 90% of the Jews in Scandinavia were killed, for starters. But as Mel Gibson would say, "It was WAR, Dianne!" What a dick. 63.17.67.213 (talk) 10:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That number can't be correct. The number of Swedish Jews killed would have been very low (Sweden was a neutral country), and the article Rescue of the Danish Jews states that 99% of Danish Jews survived the Holocaust. The article Holocaust in Norway states that "In the middle of the occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany, there were at least 2,173 Jews in Norway. At least 775 of these were arrested, detained, and/or deported." If you estimate that there was around 8,000 Jews in Denmark, 10,000 Jews in Sweden (estimate based on History of the Jews in Sweden) and around 2,200 in Norway, then it would seem that around 4% of Scandinavian Jews perished in the Holocaust. --Soman (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Now I realize: In the mid-90s I saw the numbers for Latvia and Lithuania (about 85% combined), and somehow 15 years later my mind played a trick on me and those two "northern" names got conflated into "Scandinavia" (the figure in Norway was 45%). But Mel "Don't go there Dianne" Gibson is still a dick. 63.17.59.215 (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 1938 Yearbook gives an estimated population of 15,525,000 in the world, more than half of whom lived in areas the Nazis would conquer. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question would seem to be aimed at being offensive. Whether it succeeds or not is anyone's guess. It is a question that can be answered on a factual basis. But it also may be a comment. That would depend on interpretation. Bus stop (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Akhmetchetka camp in WWII Transnistria
I need to confirm or correct the spelling of the name Akhmetchetka, an internment camp to which thousands of Jews were sent to die in WWII Transnistria. (It appears on that page as a red link with this spelling.) An approximation (lacking possible diacritics) of the Romanian spelling is Acmecetca. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Further from the OP: the Anglicized spelling is as above in the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (1990, vol. 4, p. 1475), so I suppose I do need the Romanian spelling after all. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian spelling is Ахметчетка, found at the Yad Vashem site here. Akhmetchetka would be a suitable transliteration of that. As Warofdreams says above, the Romanian spelling Acmecetca shows up in Google Book Search. There are no diacritics in what is visible of the original books.--Cam (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correction! Despite the Yad Vashem spelling, it seems a much more common Russian spelling is Акмечетка which would be transliterated Akmechetka.--Cam (talk) 02:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OP, expanding the query: Can we determine what was the source language of this name, and was it a local place name as well as that of the camp? -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This Ukrainian page refers to Акмечетка, as well as Богданівка, and Доманівка (Akmechetka, Bogdanivka and Domanivka) as villages (села). -Ka seems to be a common ending of village names. From more Googling, Ak-Mechet (White Mosque) appears to be a common Turkic place name.--Cam (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Wiki page for the 1941 Odessa massacre states: " A further 10,000 Jews were taken on a death march to three concentration camps near Golta: Bogdanovka, Domanovka and Acmecetca." Further more there is a survivor account of the Acmecetca Death Camp on the Nizkor Project site here: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/c/carmelly-felicia/cervinski-david.html
"The name of the Acmecetca death camp came from a nearby large Ukrainian village, in the Domanovca area, the district of Golta, which was along the western bank of the River Bug"
This page also gives detailed historic background to this testimony was provided by Professor Samuel Aroni explaining place names that have since been modernised or Russofied.
I would also humbly ask that the pages for Transnistria and Moldova are updated to contain this very important information on these Nazi concentration camps, which are also missing from that list too. 03:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Pauliepauln (talk)
indian nationality law
A friend of mine was born in India in 1984, then after two years his parents letf india and returned home to their native country b/cos they are non indians. According to the 1955 citizenship act which was ammended in 1986 and then commenced on the 1st of july 1987, i want to know if he is elligible to obtain an Indian citizenship or if he is elligible to be an Indian citizen by birth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.184.81.144 (talk) 11:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Going purely by the existing information in our article Indian nationality law, the answer is "it depends". It says: "Any person born in India on or after 26 January 1950 but prior to the commencement of the 1986 Act on 1 July 1987 was a citizen of India by birth". If your friend's birth information is accurate, then he would appear to have been born a citizen of India even though his parents were not Indian citizens.
The article also says: "Indian children ... automatically lose their claim to Indian citizenship if at any time after birth they acquire a citizenship of another country by, for example, naturalisation or registration — even if the acquisition of another citizenship was done as a result of actions by the child's parents". In other words, if your friend has another nationality now, and another passport, he has probably lost his claim to citizenship by birth in this way.
If you read the sections on Overseas citizenship of India and the Persons of Indian Origin card, either might apply to your friend's situation (with certain exclusions), but they do not involve a change of citizenship or nationality and may not be what he wants. Someone in his position would be left with the options of seeking citizenship by registration or by naturalization, if he meets the criteria for them. For example, our article says that "a person of full age and capacity who ... was earlier citizen of independent India, and has been residing in India for one year immediately before making an application for registration" is eligible to apply.
Please note that this is not any kind of legal or official advice - I have just looked at our article and picked out a few clauses for you to think about in relation to your friend. If he wants to apply for Indian citizenship, he will have to contact the authorities or a legal expert, and make a formal application. Karenjc12:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
War between the states of the United States of America
I have a question. Can the individual states that make up the United States of America theorically go to war with each other? Could Texas declare war on Arizona, North Dakota vs Montana, etc? I know that it would never be permitted by the US federal government but I have someone at work who takes an interest in US law that claims that each state has the right to do just that. Thank you. 208.38.1.178 (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the American civil war suggests that it's possible for the states to go to war. On the other hand, Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution reserves to Congress the power to declare war, raise armies, establish a navy, and so forth. --- OtherDave (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Interesting question. I don't know legally if a state could declare a war on another state without first seceding from the Union, as happened in the United States Civil War. Also, if North Carolina (I live there) declared war on South Carolina, it would be mighty hard to fight, as individual states are not permitted to have armies. Falconusptc22:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They can't legally secede, can they? They certainly couldn't declare war - any soldier killing someone would be guilty of murder, since there is no recognised defence of your state being at war. While they aren't allowed armies, they do have national guard units, and a right to bear arms. --Tango (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, secession is illegal, or more precisely unconstitutional, thanks to Texas v. White. States are supposed to resolve important disputes through the United States Supreme Court, which has the exclusive right to hear "controversies between two or more states", although I don't think any such cases have actually happened. Xenon54 (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Supreme Court frequently adjudicates interstate disputes. One of the more interesting relatively recent cases was New Jersey v. New York which decided once and for all which state Ellis Island is in. Can't believe we don't have an article for this. —D. Monacktalk16:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One minor reason they have their own military forces is so that in the extremely unlikely situation that the federal government ever starts behaving like the Nazis or the USSR they can resist. That's war I guess.--178.167.218.19 (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was the reason the public are allowed to bear arms, not the reason for the existence of the national guard. --Tango (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit of a grey area. Technically speaking, if Texas decided to go to war with Arizona (god willing - I'll sell tickets), it wouldn't be illegal so much as an act of revolution or rebellion (If Texas did not declare itself an independent state first, it would be a rebellion, if it did, it would be a revolution or secession). The constitution has a power similar to a treaty, except stronger - it binds the states together of their own free will. If a state wanted to secede all they really need to do is to stop paying attention to constitution and the the Federal government (if necessary, arresting or deporting federal agents, citizens not of that state, judiciary above the level of the state supreme court...). I'm uncertain where the loyalties of the national guard lie - if they respond to the governor they would stay with the state; if they respond to the president they would be compelled to stand with federal troops, unless whoever the leader for the guard from that state decided otherwise. --Ludwigs223:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Violent revolutions and rebellions are illegal, as is a peaceful unilateral secession. A state could try would you describe, but they wouldn't succeed unless the rest of the union decided to let them. The national guard are under the control of the governor, I believe, but if it came down to it the individual members of the guard would decide for themselves who to side with. --Tango (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, but my point was that 'legality' is a function of 'legitimacy', and the notion of governmental legitimacy disappears at the moment that true revolution breaks out. Otherwise we'd be forced to say (for instance) that the current government of Iraq is illegal because it is in violation of the legitimate rules that Saddam Hussein instituted as leader. It's a "he said/she said" situation - the US government would be saying "no you're not separate, you're still a state", and Texas would be saying "F%ck that, we're not a state, we're separate", and the situation could only be resolved by military or diplomatic means, because Texas would reject the legitimacy of the various branches of the federal government to decide the issue.
Of course, this would never happen - there's no incentive for a state to secede that would make it worth its while. the last time this kind of issue got raised, mind you, was with Martha's Vineyard, which did a little sabre-rattling about seceding from the Union over - I think - property taxes. That was a bit of silliness; the navy could have re-conquered MV with 3 overweight marines and a surplus vietnam era patrol boat. but it was at least ostensibly serious. --Ludwigs201:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, there are no rules in war, so nothing prevents one U.S. state from going to war against another. OtherDave is incorrect when he writes, "Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution reserves to Congress the power to declare war, raise armies, establish a navy, and so forth" (emphasis mine). It grants the federal government these powers, but they are not exclusive. (See enumerated powers.) Nothing in the Constitution prohibits states from forming their own armies and they do of course have their individual National Guard units. The federal government does have the power to take over command of National Guard troops so it is unlikely the President would allow them to be used in an interstate war, but in theory nothing prevents a state from raising troops separate from the National Guard or from using state police in an belligerent way against another state. —D. Monacktalk00:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The states do not have the right to do that, no, as Xenon54 noted with a reference. If a state were to claim it was seceding today, it would not have help from anybody in the National Guard who decided to follow their oath. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be great if we could prevent war (and all other undesirable happenings) by simply declaring "You do not have the right to do that". If only. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several points to consider — (1) If Texas and Arizona went to war, we'd presumably see New Mexico get into action on one side or the other; it would be rather difficult for the two to fight otherwise. (2) States can legitimately have militaries: that's what the militias are. And no, the National Guard isn't equal to the militia; at least Ohio declares that all adult males are part of its militia. (3) Read Toledo War for what just almost was a military action between Ohio and the Michigan Territory [which would soon become Michigan]; both sides mustered their militias, and shots were fired, although only into the air. If Congress hadn't acted by declaring the disputed land to be part of Ohio — which was possible because Michigan was only a territory; Congress can't subtract land from states without their permission — violence might have happened. Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the National Guard is not a militia. The closest modern equivalent of the old militias are known as State Defense Forces. These are the units, mostly now trained for disaster relief, that cannot be federalized. —KevinMyers01:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem! The answer is right there in the last sentence of Article I of the Constitution. States are prohibited from engaging in war unless they are "actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay", or have the consent of Congress. So it would be unconstitutional for one state to just declare war on, or to just attack, another. --Anonymous (Canadian), 03:54 UTC, June 15, 2010.
Aside from the legality, there have been near-conflicts between the states. Arizona sent National Guard and militia units to the California border in 1935, in an attempt to intimidate workers building a water diversion project. See [10.] DOR (HK) (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, though, if a state did seccede from the union, it would no longer have to comply with federal laws, not being part of the country that created them, and therefore could do whatever it wanted. However, the USA did agree back in I think 1929 to an international agreement not to conquer any territory belonging to another country, so whether they would be allowed to recapture the secceded state, should they win the war, might be up for debate. Presumably if one state did seccede and invade another, the rest of the country would fight to defend it. Unless it was over an issue which divided the whole country, leading to another civil war. 80.47.172.225 (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the oddness in this question - seceding legally is nearly impossible. Congress is never going to say "Sure thing, see ya!" if a state asks it for permission to secede. A much more likely scenario is that a state would declare secession, and then Congress and the President would mull over whether it was worthwhile to drag the state back into the union, kicking and screaming. For instance, there was a distinct possibility in the Civil War that Lincoln and congress might simply have accepted the south's secession, in which case we would now have two republics instead of one. nobody really wanted that war. --Ludwigs215:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's extremely politically unlikely, especially in any short-term scenario, but it's certainly not impossible that certain states might want to secede, or that Congress might actually let them do so, depending on the circumstances. It's not going to happen anytime soon, obviously, but that's a far cry from "never." Who knows what the politics of the year 2300 will be? --Mr.98 (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Supposing north and south had either stayed separate in the 1780s, or had split without immediate conflict in the 1860s - what would have happened in the western territories? Who would have controlled them? Would the south have found itself hemmed in? Would there have been a war anyway, over the western territories? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the pressing problems that led to the formation of the U.S. Constitution was that small scale border wars were occurring. The states had divergent interests. No one had legitimacy to rule on such disputes. Nullification was a popular movement in the South during the Jacksonian era. It was argued that any state could judge whether a federal law was constitutional. Jackson argued that the union was eternal. The states did not form the union; he argued that the people did. Hence the preamble, "We the people" rather than "we the states." As an abstract notion, I've always found credible arguments both ways. The Civil War settled the issue by the superior firepower and resources of the North. The resolution was political more than legal. Jackson also taunted the U.S. Supreme Court to enforce its orders recognizing Indian rights with the federal army, which he controlled. Time has settled the legitimacy of the eternal union. Whatever may have existed at ratification, practice has made the union inviolable
All my readings on the Civil War era certainly reveal that no principal actors wanted a dispute, save for the abolitionists. My view (and this is subjective) is that the North and South were intertwined that one side could not dismiss the either.75Janice (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)75Janice.[reply]
This discussion could use references. I became an armchair scholar, too. My views are impressions from reading heavily in this area. True scholarship would be nice.75Janice (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)75Janice[reply]
Quick armchair summary: The failure of the founding fathers to abolish slavery up front, coupled with the inevitable expansion of the nation and the debate over slave vs. free in the new territories, ensured that a conflict would inevitably arise. Basically it was a time bomb set by the founding fathers, albeit one that was needed at the time, or there would have been two nations - and conflict would have arisen anyway, for the same reason. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball Bugs is right, but there were a lot of border wars at the time, especially in Illinois and in the new territories south of it. The per-Civil war time wasn't the least bit settled for states like Missouri and Tennessee and Kentucky. Shadowjams (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My grandfather told me about a sci-fi book he read when he was younger entitled The Flying Wing. Unfortunately, I have been unable to track it down. He said the story had to do with a large V-shaped plane that flew around the world. When it was running low on fuel, it would fly through a storm and store captured lightning strikes in a battery cell.
I didn't really know what else to do, so I went to Amazon.com, typed in The Flying Wing and sorted by publication date. I then found the page that contained books from the forties and fifties. I found a book called "The Flying Wing. A Lucky Terrell Flying Story" from 1946. Is this it? The ASIN number (which seems to be in place of the ISBN number, I can only guess as to why) is "B000P8DWHU" or "B000FIITGY" (there seem to be two different versions on Amazon). Also is the "Flying Wing Mystery," ASIN "B001NPMNBA". You can find these books on Amazon by typing in the ASIN number in the search field. I hope this is what you are looking for! Falconusptc02:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: the ASIN is assigned by Amazon to identify each book they have. Usually it's the same as the ISBN number, but I guess that for some reason the books that turned up don't have ISBN numbers (either that, or there's a glitch with their system).Falconusptc02:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ISBNs became standard in 1970, following the development of the SBN in the 60s. Books published before that date don't have ISBNs, hence Amazon's move to assign them with their own identifying number. Gwinva (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also found the Lucky Terrell book by Canfield Cook; here's a picture of it. I can't find anything to confirm any lightning-power and round-the-world elements in it, though. What's visible at Google Books of this discussion of the book (unfortunately, Google's view omits what are probably the most relevant pages) seems to indicate a jet-powered craft rather than anything involving lightning. Deor (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the pages say, but if it's jet powered, the engines on the cover are drawn in error - they have propellers. Falconusptc02:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The book I linked to in my second link says that the fictional plane "adds jet propulsion to supplement the counter-rotating propellers". Deor (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just by the way, airplanes with both jet engines and propellers have existed in real life. See Convair B-36 for the model I know about. --Anonymous, 03:45 UTC, June 15, 2010.
As an aside, if the booked linked above features an "intrepid Texas flying ace returned from the war and working for a prominent American plane manufacturer," why is an RAF roundel featured on the spine? Gwinva (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Answering my own question, I discover Robert "Lucky" Terrell is an American flying in the Royal Canadian Air Force, who transfers to the RAF, flies Spitfires, then transfers again to Bomber Command... Gwinva (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the effort everyone! I'll have to ask my grandpa if that is the one he was talking about. He might have confused the lightning thing with something else he read. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently editing this article: May Overthrow. In Wikipedia's article on the Black Hand secret society it claims the group was formed in 1911; however, Foreign Affairs correspondent and historian C. L. Sulzberger in his book The Fall of Eagles says they were behind the assassination of King Alexander I of Serbia and Queen Draga in 1903. Sulzberger was persoanlly acquainted with members of the assassination squad, so I would say his word carries weight. What do other editors know about this? If they didn't form until 1911, I'll have to change the wording on the May Overthrow article ASAP. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you have a WP:RS in Fall of Eagles, and so I'd go with its dates. To the extent there are competing dates, and if possible, I'd suggest a structure such as "X says the Bh were formed in 1911, where as Y assets they were active as early as 1903". That presupposes we have a name for X. --Tagishsimon(talk)14:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'd have to agree that Sulzberger's work is more reliable than the sources which give a May 1911 date; howver, I have added both to the May Overthrow article, while I've included Sulzberger's assertion in the Black Hand article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was a meeting 3 March, 1911 in the apartments of Major Velimir Vemic in Belgrade where oaths and a constitution were adopted. Five officers and two civilians were present including Apis and Jovanovic-Cupa. Other sources state: most of the founders were survivors of the 1903 coup.—eric20:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's quite typical. Such organizations don't usually just spring into existence, they evolve from earlier stages. But, I suppose the oaths and constitution are the best "official date" to use. StuRat (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ralph Klein, Paul Martin and private healthcare
What was the issue between Alberta Premier Ralph Klein and Canadian PM Paul Martin when it came to private healthcare? What was the political significance about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.242 (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dalton McGuinty, Stephen Harper, Senate Seats
What was the issue between Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and PM Stephen Harper when it came to Senate Seats? What was the political significance about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.242 (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These look a lot like homework questions, and we usually don't like to help answer questions like this unless you've done some research yourself. Have you tried Health care in Canada, the "Controversies" section of the Ralph Klein article, the "Senators" section of Senate of Canada, and Quebec Pension Plan?
On February 26th 2010, I submitted all information as requested on www.mesothelioma.com,per page No1 and todate, I have not received a reply. Please advise as to reason for delay. Thank you. Sincerely Norman James. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.163.74 (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Today the term lap dog is used for just about any small dog. But originally it referred to the dog's metabolism as well as size: the Chinese court bred dogs that didn't need any more exercise than hopping off your lap, walking to their food, coming back & hopping back up. That is, they weren't called lap dogs because they fit in your lap, but because they hardly needed to leave it. Perfect for the bedridden, elderly, or paraplegics who want a dog but can't walk it daily. Does anyone here know which breeds are "lap dogs" in this sense? — kwami (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The classic Chinese lap dog is of course the Pekingese. They need less exercise than most other breeds but even Pekingese dogs need some exercise, especially when they're young. They suffer if they are confined to a small space and/or are not allowed to run or jump around, especially when they are young. Marco polo (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, their purpose was to keep Chinese royalty warm. All animals need exercise to maintain health; that they did not receive exercise was simply a reflection of their use. It's probably fair to say the historical Chinese view of dogs (hand warmers/food) is more utilitarian than ours (pets/companions). PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK14:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saw a documentary years ago (PBS?) which described how these dogs would get tuckered out with more exercise than crossing the room and hopping in your lap. They weren't Pekingese, I would've recognized those. — kwami (talk) 04:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to improve the succession boxes of the Kings of Aragon by including all their recognized titles. So far I have included all their titles as King of Aragon, Valencia, Majorca, Sardinian and Corsica, Sicily and Naples and Count of Barcelona, but I can't seem to see find when they stop (if they did at all) using their titles as Count of Roussillon, Count of Cerdanya, Count of Girona, Count of Osona, Count of Besalú and Count of Empúries. I assume that Girona, Osona, Besalu, and Empúries were no longer used after the title Duchy of Girona was created from these four counties for the son of the King of Aragon, but Count of Empúries was later given to others princes and nobles as a title. It is the titles Count of Roussillon and Count of Cerdanya. If you look at the list of these counts on other language wikipedias, fr:Comté de Roussillon and es:Condado de Cerdaña, you see that the Kings of Aragon continued being Counts of Roussillon and Cerdanya after it became a part of the Kingdom of Aragon. But what happen in John II of Aragon's reign that caused him to stop being Count of Roussillon in 1461 and Count of Cerdanya on some unspecified date. I'm not sure about Cerdanya but Roussillon passed to Louis XI of France and then Charles VIII of France before returning to Aragon in Ferdinand II of Aragon's reign. I tried looking up the Treaty of Bayonne mentioned on es:Condado de Cerdaña but only found a later Treaty of the Pyrenees which has nothing to do with this 15th century treaty. Expert help would be appreciated. Thanks.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although i realize i am probably just making things worse - it is worth noting that the Kings of Naples were not always of the same branch of the House of Aragon that ruled Spain. For example, King Ferdinand I of Aragon of Naples is NOT the same person as King Ferdinand I of Aragon of Spain, known as Ferdinand the Catholic. This branch of the house of Aragon (which i believe is related through a paternal grandfather) plays an important role in the Italian War of 1494-1498. I've had a lot of difficulty pulling these two family trees apart and have yet to fix the wiki articles on the different historical characters.
Heather Stein, M.A.; Dra. 03:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
charge nurses
The position of supervisor is sometimes very necessary. Even very easy going and mild mannered people find this to be true when raising a pet or offspring. Sometimes the authority over life and death decisions can sometimes go to people's heads and in the case of charge nurses stray outside of the facility in which they work and into the community, which can have the undesirable consequence of thinning out their work or adding too much water to the soup. Is it better for charge nurses who can not resist exercising their authority outside there work domain to exchange their current work domain for a work domain which represents the area in which they have otherwise chosen to exercise authority so that they do not end up spreading themselves too thin? 71.100.13.202 (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is entirely a matter of opinion and therefore not appropriate for the reference desk. I don't see why this issue is in any way particular to charge nurses, though - it can happen with anyone in a position of authority. --Tango (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have the sneaking suspicion that this is an essay question on some sort of nursing or hospital admin. And this is the first time I've heard "work domain" which sounds rather corporate jargon-y to me. Dismas|(talk)02:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let me put it this way... Suppose Nurse Ratchet lived on your block and tried to shut down your lawn party and when the police arrived had half your friends carted off to jail for being intoxicated or smoking pot instead of paying attention to what was going on back at the facility where she was employed? The question is whether Nurse Ratchet should be banned from supervision of community activity that does not include patients back in her work domain? 71.100.13.202 (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying the heck with patient care and nursing staff being spread too thin? That's just your opinion. I'm looking for references and not what you think. 71.100.13.202 (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I withdraw my apology and ask if you went to Princeton? That's where lame excuse was officially renamed plausible deniability. 71.100.0.224 (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit Conflict) If this hypothetical 'Nurse Ratchet' was supposed to be at work when she complained about the party, etc, then she would have been absenting herself from duty, and her employer might well wish to take appropriate action, but it would be nobody else's business but theirs. Anyone in employment has a duty to their employer to attend and to perform adequately in their appointed working hours, which implicitly includes being sufficiently rested, fed, etc, to be able to do so, but provided that they do, and are, it's not in any way an employer's business what that employee does (legally) in their own time, unless it involves something directly contrary to that employer's interests.
If 'Nurse Ratchet' was not on duty, then she would have been exercising her entitlement as a private citizen to complain to the proper authorities about perceived and/or alleged unsociable and/or illegal activities; the former might be considered a social duty and the latter arguably a legal one, even ignoring any possible quasi-official standing she might have as a Neighborhood watch volunteer or similar. Those authorities would have acted on any actual offenses they discovered on investigation - police do not generally arrest people purely on a private citizen's say-so, regardless of whether that citizen happens to have a supervisory position in their job.
People often achieve supervisory roles in their professional lives because they have appropriately authoritative characters: it would be natural for such people to also take the lead in community affairs and disputes, such as dealing with disruptive and unsociable behaviour by, for example, thoughtless youths.
I am at a loss to understand who might be thought to have the authority to ban someone from engaging in legal and community-supportive activities in their own time. Perhaps "your friends" in this supposed situation need to learn how to behave with due respect for the rights of their neighbors and the laws of their community. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't be at a loss so I'll explain it better. First the people the police carted off to jail were neither drunk, smoking pot or rowdy. This was not sorted out until after they got to jail and were tested. The police acted on Nurse Ratchet's authority alone. Although she was on her own time such extracurricular involvement in the neighborhood did not stop there. People were afraid to walk past her property because her dogs had escaped many times and when paired were a threat to anyone, especially children, they happened upon. Her entire life presence in the neighborhood was devoted to ruling it as if it where her charge when instead her charge stopped at the door of the floor she was assigned at her work domain.
Bottom line is that because she had spread herself too thin she was not able to fulfill all of her duties at work and blamed this instead on her employer not hiring sufficient help. It was not until she was replaced by a nurse who devoted herself only to her job and family that the work domain became a normal and not a neglected place without need for additional employees to make up for the work she left undone. 71.100.0.224 (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find that very unlikely. The police don't arrest people just because a nurse tells them too. It doesn't work like that. --Tango (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps in England where constables have to politely show their authority and ask the offending party if they can arrest them. In small town America it is different. Especially if nurse Ratchet is holding the school marm's son who was caught masturbating while looking a pictures of the police chief's wife. I digress. 71.100.0.224 (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, since you seem already to have a complete grasp of the situation, what was your question again? And what was the point of soliciting answers from people with no possible knowledge of the 'case' while withholding much of the relevant information? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Is it better for charge nurses who can not resist exercising their authority outside there work domain to exchange their current work domain for a work domain which represents the area in which they have otherwise chosen to exercise authority so that they do not end up spreading themselves too thin?" In other words should Nurse Ratchet run for elected office, become a police officer, start her own neighborhood free clinic, etc. instead of obtaining employment at an institution that requires all of her attention? 71.100.0.224 (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nurses, as with anyone else, are allowed to do whatever they like (within the law) in their spare time. Being a nurse is not a 24 hours job. --Tango (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No but when you can not handle your job because you have spread yourself too thin on extracurricular activities then you have no right to start complaining that its your employers fault for not hiring more people to do the job you were supposed to do and that others without spreading themselves too then have no problem doing. 71.100.0.224 (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Which is the capital and the largest of a nation
2. About 75% national population reside in the city
3. the city is commercial center of the nation
4. it's been occupied over the centuries by a handful of factions.
Or it could be Kuwait City for that matter. Its most recent occupation was quite a big deal. It's the problem with these quizzes: they're poorly worded and often there is a lot more than one correct answer. --Xuxl (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, obviously just about any city with 75% of the population is going to be the commercial center, and has a pretty good chance of being the capital as well. Googlemeister (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like many others before him/her, the OP is trying to win this online quiz which offers a cash prize. To cut out the middle man, why not test your answers on the Worldatlas site before posting them here? Wikipedia can always use a handy $100. Karenjc07:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the answer they wanted was Nassau - what may have thrown editors here is that the population is around 80% that of the nation, so only "about 75%" in the loosest sense. Warofdreamstalk11:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"it's been occupied over the centuries by a handful of factions." It was occupied by the Spanish for 11 months and the Americans for two weeks. Unless you count being ruled by pirates as a faction that doesn't seem much of a "handful of factions." Rmhermen (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should create a template to add to these questions: "This question seems to come from worldatlas.com. Their quiz questions are almost always to ambiguous for us to be able to answer, sometimes even right out incorrect. Please don't learn geography from worldatlas.com, they're doing it wrong" /Coffeeshivers (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Help me figure out what this song was....
This request is probably impossible, but it's worth a shot.... Wikipedians are pretty impressive sometimes. :) I went to a taping of the Colbert Report yesterday and during short break between segments they were playing a bouncy hip-hop song in a foreign language in the studio. It sounded kind of like French, but I couldn't identify any of the words and didn't sound like typical French hip hop. So probably not French - maybe a French-based creole? Or maybe it could have been Portuguese or an African language and I was totally wrong? Really happy sounding and danceable. I imagine it must be a song with at least some popularity among Western listeners or it wouldn't have made it onto their playlist. Any thoughts about what it could be? Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When will the episode you watched air? Did it air last night? If so, which night is last night? June 15th? Often, bits of the break songs are heard as it goes to commercial and returns. -- kainaw™19:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been last night - not sure if this would be audible on the online version or not... I can check.... I'm not sure if it was ever the song right as the camera came on or went off... Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC) And last night was the 15th. I can check the online version later, when I'm not at work! Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also I should note that I would have shazaamed the song, except cell phones were banned and I was sitting right next to a security guy. :( Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I realize this will be a very controversial question that some may seek to delete because it challenges their dearly held views and biases or their sense of political correctness.
On the scale of deviations from the norm of human sexual activity, how do homosexuality and pedophilia compare? ie is one more outlandish than the other? If so, why do we think that? --MasterOfTools (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In most of the open-minded west today homosexuality is not a big deal and while some people may disagree or be disconfited very few would speak out against it or protest it. Pedophilia in the other hand is a big deal, and illegal, and is far more "outlandish" as you say 68.76.146.159 (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the west, that is correct. There are, however, countries were homosexuality is punishable by death and marriage (with consummation) of girls aged 12 is legal. In other words, moral norms vary from society to society, so this question is unanswerable. --Tango (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for why we consider one more "outlandish" than the other, one involves consenting adults (generally speaking), while the other involves an adult and a minor, the latter of which our societies today generally consider to be unable to give sexual consent, and thus exploited. This is not a transhistorical attitude—as Ancient Greece makes clear—but one that is held pretty strongly today in Western countries. In that sense they are apples and oranges; one is, at worst, an immoral personal choice (if one believes that), the other is a predatory offense on an innocent.
As for trying to place these on a scale of "normal" activity, under a strict sense of the term, it is not possible, because we do not have numbers on the prevalence of pedophiles (see Pedophile#Prevalence_and_child_molestation). Approximately 10% or so of the population identifies as homosexual, maybe as high as 20% (or even 40%!) if you have a "spectrum" model of sexuality (see the article on Homosexuality#Demographics). That would put it pretty squarely in a quantitative definition of "normal," I would expect—that's roughly the same number of African-Americans in the United States, for example. It's considerably more than the number of Jews in the United States. (Or, put another way, picking Americans at random, the odds of them being a homosexual is pretty high—probably higher than them being African-American or Jewish, but probably not as high as them being Catholics.) Whether this kind of definition of "normal" is a good one is highly subjective, of course, but in terms of numbers, it is pretty common.
Both of these categories (homosexual and pedophile) are somewhat "fuzzy"—who falls into them and out of them depends on social definitions, not strict biology (like many categories), so there is always going to be difficulty in the numbers. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if pedophilia is defined as anyone over 18 who is attracted to anyone under 18, that would include just about everyone at some point in their life. StuRat (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As hesitant as I am to point this out, you may be interested to know that nambla used to be a member of the International Lesbian and Gay Association. The argument against gays is, normal sex involves the opposite gender, therefore gay isn't normal. One way to put the argument against pedophilia is; normal sex involves adults, therefore pedophilia isn't normal. Gay rights activists often point to the normalisation of gay relationships in various cultures historically and that the massive anti-gay movement is a fairly modern phenomenon. Similarly, there are quite a few cultures in which pederasty was accepted and even considerd a positive part of development. The point is, there are many ways to construct the LGB rights argument as applying equally to pedophillia. Of course in modern society consent is a very big part of our understanding of acceptable sexuality and I think this is why pedophilia is currently considered completely abnormal. Modern western ideas of acceptable sexual behaviour have consent as the starting point. Of course this hasn't always been the case. It is only in the last 100 years that marital rape has become part of this area of thought. We also think that children cannot really consent to a relationship in which the power is so different is the modern answer (and I think it is a very good answer, none of this should be taken to mean that i think pedophilia is ok or at all like being queer). Just my 2c of somewhat referenced spew203.217.37.99 (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for Biblical times, I'm aware of Biblical prohibitions on homosexuality, such as "thous shall not lay with a man as thy would lay with a woman", but I'm not aware of any prohibitions on pedophilia. Are there any ? (Note that I don't use the Bible as a moral guide anyway, as it seems to condone animal sacrifice, slavery, genocide, marital beating and rape, etc., all of which I find repulsive.) StuRat (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
June 17
Who was the abroad friend?
Nicolas Appert's book Le Livre de tous les ménages ou l’art de conserver pendant plusieurs années toutes les substances animales et végétales appears in June 1810.
The following August 25, Peter Durand file a patent where he says use a method communicated to him by a person residing abroad : « When I received from a friend abroad, more than a year ago, a communication of the discovery above described ». More than a year ago = therefore in 1809.
Who was this friend?
According to the letter Appert (ref F12 2384 French National Archives), Philippe Girard went to England in 1810 after acquiring the book.So it's not him.
According to the edition of Le Livre de tous les ménages in 1831, a Gérard went to England with the book. So post in June 1810. So it's not him.
Who is he?
Gordon L. Robertson, in his bookFood packaging: principles and practice,2d ed., CRC Press, Taylor & Francis, 2006, wrote at page 123: « The latest account, based on extensive research of early nineteenth century archives, has thrown additional light on those involved in the genesis of the canning industry » with a note No. 3.
I have no access to this book. And you ? Can you read it at the library? What does the note 3? What are this extensive research ?
Thank you already, sorry for my bad English, --Égoïté (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could read (and saved on disk) page 123 (with the cited text) but not the note 3 (which must be on pp. 156 or 157). "Philippe de Girard got Durand (a broker in London) to patent the process in 1810, the patent referring to the substitution of glass jars and bottles with tin cases. A successful trial with the Royal Navy was undertaken at Durand's request in 1811, and the patent was acquired by Bryan Donkin in 1812 for which Girard received £1000...." ping me if it helps or I may better put this info into tin can over the weekend. East of Borschov (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone know who was actually the first woman to be assassinated in Serbia since its independence from Turkey? I believe it was Princess Anka Obrenovic, who was shot to death on 10 June 1868 alongside her cousin, the ruler Mihailo Obrenovic III, Prince of Serbia. Could other editors possibly confirm this so I can add this pertinent fact to her article? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, were there any women assassinated before independence, although this makes it harder to ascertain as we would have to go back through the centuries to the Middle Ages when assassinations were common?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's say after it achieved indepedence from Turkey which was the 19th century. Were there any women prior to the assassination of Anka Obrenovic which occcurred in 1868? This should narrow it down more, making it easier to ascertain whether or not she was th first.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that a "statement by exclusion" is still OR ... unless you redefine "assassination" to "political assasination of a member of Serbian ruling house" where there's a small, finite number of people. However, may I point out that the princess was not the target of the killers - she just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. East of Borschov (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you're right. We don't know whether or not the assassins only wished to hit Mihailo or wipe out any member of the Obrenovic family they could get their hands on. Thanks anyway. I would need a ref to say that she was the first female to be assassinated in Serbia, otherwise it would be OR.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to this article, "Anyone involved in the pursuit of a mammal with a dog without the consent of the landowner is guilty of an offence". Is there an exception granted for police chasing humans? Reading this sentence literally, I could see police being charged because they used dogs to track a fugitive onto private property. Nyttend (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is wrong. (I'll fix it.) If you follow the link to the actual text of the act, you will see that it only talks about "a wild mammal", not "a mammal". --Anonymous, 18:45 UTC, June 17, 2010.
Hmm, okay; I saw that the statement wasn't referenced by the text of the law, so I didn't think to look elsewhere. Curious, by the way; do British law enforcement ever use dogs to track fugitives? Or is that strictly a thing of the past? Nyttend (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some people often have a need to vocalise their thoughts. It has nothing to do with other people being around to hear them. In fact, if anyone else is around, we'll tend to mutter close to inaudibly - not always successfully, hence a certain reputation for being 'eccentric'. There you have it: God is an eccentric mumbler. But a fairly successful one so far. Nobody else has created a universe quite like his yet. Let there be try-hards. (The foregoing is provided in the confident belief that a reliable source for the name of God's interlocutor at the creation of light is a challenge that will defy even the Wikipedia Reference Desk.) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, one common interpretation is that God made the universe by speaking it into existance. That is, the word of God itself is what brought the universe into being. There's a philosophical/theological concept called Logos (from the greek for "Word") which deals with this exact concept. The concept of Logos entered Jewish thought via Philo of Alexandria, and thus into Christianity a short time later via the Gospel of John. The idea behind Logos as it applies to Biblical creation, according to this interpretation, is that when Genesis says "God said let there be light", he wasn't telling someone what he was going to do, the very act of speaking is what created the light. When God names it, it comes into being as the thing. --Jayron3202:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
what is science minded peoples' obsession with the truth, even if it means believing in very complicated things, such as quantum mechanics and relativistic physics that, as a point of fact, they do not personally understand. I mean, why is it so important to believe something you can't understand, just because it's true, rather than believe something you do understand, that is not true? wouldn't you rather believe something you understand? 85.181.147.170 (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there's any philosophical reason to say that believing in the truth is better than believing in falsehoods, though accepting such a statement would seem rather necessary to pursue philosophy in the first place (because if it doesn't matter what truth is, why bother?). I do think we can say that people who strive for truth and understanding even when the latter is often elusive get better results—measured in any tangible form other than individual human happiness—than those who don't care about the distinction. I leave out human happiness, because as we all know, many believe that ignorance is bliss, at least on certain topics. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Science is useful. Theologians don't help invent, for example, computers that people can use to ask questions on the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Scientists do. It's not about what we do and don't like to believe - belief doesn't come into it. It's about what works. --Tango (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that scientifically minded people believe in ideas like quantum physics. In my experience they are more likely to say that they find those ideas useful. Nor are they usually obsessed by truth. They are trying to put various theories together to build up a picture of the world. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that that's always true yuk yuk. The Philosophy of science article, and all it's sub-articles, make interesting reads. Certainly, there are some people, including scientists, who see scientific theories "just" as a way to catagorize observations. On the other hand, there is a great deal, um, disagreement over such things as the correct Interpretation of quantum mechanics. Does a wave function "collapse" into a single observed state, as in the Copenhagen interpretation, or is there only a single wave function that does not collapse, but rather is observed differently from different universes, as in the Many-worlds interpretation? These are not strictly scientific questions; there is no way to find find evidence that supports or refutes any of these interpretations. They are rather questions of philosophy, and some scientists take these questions very seriously. Buddy431 (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simple. We do not know what is true. All that we really know is what is not true. That which remains are things we know that are yet to be proven false. 139.130.1.226 (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our lie-to-children article is relevant; the original poster is asking whether it's better to believe in a lie-to-children that's thoroughly understandable, rather than claiming to believe a complicated explanation that's not. Comet Tuttle (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. Might it be better to "believe" in classical Newtonian physics because it is intuitively reasonable, rather than relativity, a slightly better model of reality that's much more complicated? But frankly, it would be even sillier for a science minded folk to claim to not believe in relativity or quantum mechanics, merely because they can't understand it. That would be implicitly rejecting the work of lots of big name scientists from the past 100 years, something not to be done lightly. I certainly don't understand everything that I believe (Quantum mechanics being a good example, though I like to think that I'm better than most non-physicists). Likewise, I don't believe everything that I understand either. I recognize that simple Valence bond theory is only an approximation of how molecules bond "in reality", but for many molecules under many circumstances, it does a pretty good job. While belief and understanding are certainly related, they don't have to go strictly hand in hand. At some point, I trust that the scientists who formulated relativity and quantum mechanics understood what they were doing, even if I don't. Buddy431 (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your question can't be answered generally because people think different from one another. I for one, strive to understand the world for it's hack value, later someone might find a use for it, but that's not why I seek the "truth". 200.144.37.3 (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Physics is essentially a way of trying to describe the universe using models, in which mathematics is the language used. You build up a model, say, of the atom, in which each part of the description is tested against experimental results to see if it is a good model. If the evidence is what would be expected from the model, it suggests that the model is still good under the tested conditions. If the evidence goes aginst the model, then the model is flawed and needs refining or starting again, or perhaps there was a problem with how the experiment was carried out and that need to be determined. Physics is very logical. Each step is derived from an earlier one, so you can derive everything from first principals, if you so wish. Thus 'belief' doesn't really come into it, unless you don't want to work it all out for yourself from first principals but are prepared to take a short cut by deciding to trust others who have done the earlier work and jump in part way through (or to the end) of the chain of reasoning. (I think 'trust' is a more relevant concept than 'belief' if you don't want to follow a particular derivation of a model through from the beginning to satisfy yourself that each step is correct.)
Pragmatically speaking, everything is a belief. we do not have access to ontos (the actual 'is-ness' of things), and so we can only imagine what things are really like. every belief (religious of scientific or personal or whatever) is a way of understanding the world designed to help us in some way - we make assertions about the onto of some object or event so that we can determine how to use or or cope with that object or event in future cases. The point of science of every kind is to try to construct beliefs about the world that are rigorously consistent with how we actually experience the world, according to well-defined rules of method and observation. That makes it very good for physical beliefs, but not so good for other things.
In other words, scientists are not really obsessed with truth (as ontos) but rather are obsessed with episteme - how we know things. a physicist can tell you in great detail why he knows that the theory of gravity works; what that really means is that he believes the theory of gravity is true, because he has knowledge of many cases in which it works and knowledge of theories and equations which functionally describe the behavior of actual events. --Ludwigs215:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To decipher the difference between truth and that which is not true we have to use judgement. That involves our intelligence to a unique level. Maybe we should be looking for an article page on this subject/s. MacOfJesus (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should not a victim of defamation be actively interested in the truth about his or her own character? Should not a friend of a victim of defamation be actively interested in the truth about the character of that victim? Forensic science can be crucial.—Wavelength (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a publicly traded firm (more precisely, a PLC). Here is a list of the largest institutional owners (according to the BP website, 79% of the stock is held by institutions). Antandrus (talk)22:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some reporter on BBC Radio 4 said (I think last week) that 38% of BP's stock is owned by US investors, and that it employs more people in the US than in the UK (or indeed than anywhere else). 87.115.146.181 (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth recognising that it's BP, that's not an abbreviation. The name changed some time ago, the British Government divested itself of the last of the stock in 1987.
Same as KFC; ironic since they both kill birds and pollute with oil (KFC polluting our bodies and BP polluting our environment). I suspect both changed their names to hide something: KFC hiding that they fry things, and BP hiding that they are still an oil company, not the progressive alternative energy company they would like us to believe in their advertising. StuRat (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of John Lennon's murder, I was living in England, and I don't remember the British media calling his killing an assassination. I always believed that term belonged to political figures. For instance when actress Sharon Tate was murdered by Manson's gang, the papers referred to the incident as the Manson Murders. Assassination was never used for William Desmond Taylor, Sal Mineo, Bob Crane, and other celebrities who were murdered.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Assassination used to be a term used for politically-motivated murder. Over time, it has been misused. Now, the distinction between assassinate and murder is pretty much whatever you want it to be. You can even claim that your cat assassinated a mouse in your kitchen and nobody will think you are misusing the term. -- kainaw™13:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. A useful distinction I've heard (and used) is that assassins are targeting the office while murderers are targeting the person. More specifically, the assailant is either trying to remove a political obstacle (and killing the person as an expedience) or is deriving personal satisfaction from the killing itself. Lincoln was assassinated; Lennon was murdered. Grey areas are always possible, though. Matt Deres (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically, a distinction also exists because once upon a time, assassination referred to unsuccessful attempts as well as successful. I read this in a book that I cannot reference to at the moment, however, so take this comment with a grain of salt. Aaronite (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SLight clarification (from article): "flag designed...to represent all of Christianity...but it has been adopted mainly by Protestant churches". It isn't a flag just for Protestants, its just that nobody else is using it yet! 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read that BP is setting up a >=$20bn fund for various people / businesses. Was a similar fund created for the Bhopal victims? And what other major disasters created by American companies have had a fund set up? Kittybrewster ☎07:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's no surprise: the government of Nigeria is weak, incompetent, and, most of all, corrupt. No company likes to pay and most companies won't pay if no one (public pressure and/or courts of law) forces them to pay. The international media has no interest in showing us Nigeria's ecological problems because most of us (in the "civilized world") simply don't care. Flamarande (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article, UCC reached almost $500 million victims settlement with the court some 5 years after the disaster (including being required to to fund a hospital, donate to the Red Cross, etc.) 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, so it does. From the stories I've read of Bhopal I only recalled UCC's claims that they were not responsible for UCIL's actions. I'm amazed such newspaper stories don't mention the settlement more prominently. There were a lot of victims, but $500 million is a huge chunk of change. 58.147.53.173 (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Halliburton was supposed to make a fund for asbestos damage, and the tobacco industry was supposed to pay into a fund for cancer victims (because the industry had covered up evidence that smoking causes cancer). Both of those ended up wriggling out of some or all of those obligations, I think. FWIW, the financial community seems to be looking at the BP agreement quite favorably, since it gives reason to expect BP to stay around and pay the money. BP shares are up about 7% in the past few days after taking a huge beating in the days before. There were real concerns that BP might be wiped out like Arthur Anderson was. 75.57.243.88 (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any truth in or support for my pet theory that the troubles in Northern Ireland largly came to an end because the Oklahoma bombings made Americans realise that terrorism was a bad thing, and as a consequence they stopped funding the IRA. The IRA, with its income drying up, had to re-evaluate its policy and activity. 92.15.14.87 (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article in The New York Sun discussing the evolution of Peter T. King's views on the (P)IRA places the Rubicon at 9/11. In practice, as in many cases, the progression of peace in Northern Ireland, and the US understanding of the situation, was moved over time by an accumulation of events. If any single event is responsible for eroding the perception of PIRA as a legitimate freedom fighter group, it's probably the Remembrance Day bombing. I'm sure Oklahoma City and 9/11 clarified the realities of terrorism in the mind of many Americans, but the peace process was slouching toward Stormont before Oklahoma. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk17:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From this side of the pond, the turning point seemed to be the Warrington bomb attacks. It was difficult for the IRA to justify blowing-up children shopping for Mothers Day cards[11]. It also gave a nudge to the UK politicians that something needed to be done. Overtures had I believe been made beforehand, but the bombings may have just focussed everybody's minds. The 2nd Warrington attack was in March 1993 and the Downing Street Declaration was in December 1993. The Wikipedia page Northern Ireland peace process doesn't quote any one event as a catalyst - there may have been many. Alansplodge (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, the much larger 9-11 attack and follow-ups may indeed have had an effect of discouraging terrorism from unrelated organizations, as they would now be associated with terrorists rather than being thought of as a "liberation organization". Stricter anti-terrorism laws and enforcement also dealt a blow. The ETA (a Basque independence movement) may be one such case. StuRat (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The support and any money from the US was of little importance. Basically Britain saying it was up to them to solve their own problems rather than treating it as a colony was the road to peace, and I believe its compliance with the Human Rights court in the treatment of prisoners greatly helped to defuse the situation. Dmcq (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When did it say this? I've never heard of that before. And do you have any evidence that it was treated as a "colony" in the late 20th. century please? 92.15.14.87 (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Winston Churchill wartime speeches BBC broadcasts
On several occasions, Winston Churchill rebroadcast speeches he had delivered to Parliament over the BBC the same day. I had heard, but can find no reference, that because of the press of war business, some of these speeches were delivered by an actor imitating him.
I saw a lot of people on the internet criticizing the IMMI because they claim it would be ineffective. These people said that publication occurs every time a person downloads a page, rather than when you actually publish the page, citing Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick. But wouldn't that case only apply to Australia? Have there been similar cases in the United States or other countries? --76.77.139.243 (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-- AnonMoos (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
