Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

September 1

Is Athens monarchy still around in current times?

Hi,I'm researching for my world history class and I'm wondering if the ancient Athenian monarchy still existent in modern America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NekotoShimisu (talk • contribs) 00:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This one? That hasn't been around for 2500 years...or this one? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

????? How would an Athenian monarchy be existent in any country outside Greece? How could it get all the way to America? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't mean Athenian democracy, at all, do you? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 07:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The current "Crown Prince of Greece", Pavlos, attended Georgetown University, and the list of his business interests suggests that he may well have a residence in the US. However, the modern Greek Royal Family only descends from this man, who was Danish and took the throne in 1863, so it's not really relevant to the question as set. :) Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There was also the Duchy of Athens, but it is only about 1000 years old; there are probably extant families which could claim some connection back to the Duke of Athens. --Jayron32 03:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

20 July plot

How would history have changed if the 20 July plot had succeeded? --75.33.216.97 (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The usual response is that we can't answer speculative questions like this on the Reference Desk. But really, by that point, in 1944, things probably wouldn't be much different. Maybe if the Second World War stopped immediately...but why would it have? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It would have been more difficult for the ussr to have taken control of eastern europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.5.135 (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It is unlikely that the entire Nazi war machine would have ground to a halt. Hitler was not singlehandedly making every decision regarding the running of Germany or of the War. It is likely that succession had been worked out in advance. Indeed, when Hitler did commit suicide a year later, Joseph Goebbels was his designated successor, though Goebbels himself committed suicide only a few days later, leaving Karl Donitz to try to scrap together a government. It wasn't Hitler's suicide in 1945 that brought an end to the war, though, it was the other way around: The imminent collapse of Germany and the advancing armies from the east and the west caused Hitler to "give up" as it were. In 1944, with the War going differently, an assassination would have brought a clear successor (likely Goebbels) into power; the war would have likely ended on roughly the same timeframe with Goebbels at the helm. --Jayron32 05:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If the plot had succeeded completely, there would have been a non-Nazi government installed (see 20_July_plot#Planned_government). AFAIK they would have tried to stop the war as soon as possible, since they knew it was lost, in order to prevent Germany from being totally defeated and occupied. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

university book store chains in the English speaking world.

I have a product that I wish to sell through university and technical school book stores. Can anyone tell me what chains of university book stores their are that operate in the English speaking world? — —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.5.135 (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

List of bookstore chains or Category:Bookstores may be a place to start your search. --Jayron32 05:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's a book you're selling, the best way to get it into university bookstores is for someone to use it as a textbook for their course. Make all their students buy it in order to pass the course. Steewi (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

To this end, you should literally bribe the professors who might use your book with cash payments. 84.153.216.210 (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnes and Noble manages the Harvard/MIT Cooperative Society, which seems like as good a place as any to try and get your product accepted for a first time. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnes & Noble operates lots of U.S. college bookstores these days, don't they? Deor (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, indeed. I would not be surprised if they were the primary overarching chain for most of the US college bookstores. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Most UK university bookshops are run by Blackwell's. Warofdreams talk 16:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, most Australian universities use the Co-op Bookshop to supply textbooks. Steewi (talk) 10:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ending world hunger

This may be stating the obvious, but it seems pretty inexcusable that people are still dying of starvation in parts of the world when elsewhere in the world people are throwing food away. I recall Henry Kissinger's famous 1974 pledge that within a decade no child would go to bed hungry. What concrete, practical initiatives are national governments, UN agencies and other international organizations currently taking to end world hunger? And what can individuals do to help? --Viennese Waltz ^talk 11:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Malnutrition covers the difficulties and complexities quite well. As for what you can do as an individual, donating to charitable organizations with good reputations, like Oxfam, is probably the most cost-effective way to use your extra resources to benefit those who need them. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed Viennese Waltz, I share your feelings about food wastage. This [report] says the world already produces enough food to support the world's population — 6 billion people — and could support double — 12 billion people. Stopping war would seem to be a good step, at the very least the resources could be redirected to getting the food to where it was needed before it spoiled. Government policy is also at fault in some cases. Zimbabwe used to be a major food exporter, but the goverment policy of 'land redistribution' is apparently responsible for major reductions in agricultural output, see Zimbabwe#Economy. Meanwhile from Famine#Famine_prevention "..in the case of Malawi, almost five million of its 13 million people used to need emergency food aid. However, after the government changed policy and subsidies for fertilizer and seed were introduced, farmers produced record-breaking corn harvests in 2006 and 2007 as production leaped to 3.4 million in 2007 from 1.2 million in 2005. ... Malawi became a major food exporter".[1]

• See Famine relief, Malnutrition (as Mr.98 mentions), particularly Malnutrition#Management, Starvation and related links, World Food Programme, World Hunger Relief. Food security also seems very relevant. Hope this helps. 220.101 talk^\Contribs 13:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: Going Vegetarian may help, from Vegetarianism#Environmental "Ecology professor David Pimentel has claimed, "If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million". [2] - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 14:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're being a bit naive. The EU currently procudes so much food it pays farmers to stop orducing. There's a lot of food, it's just in the wrong place. It's mainly bad land management. Sudan, Darfur, Ethipian droughts were mostly caused by vast herds of cattle destroying the grasslands. I remember a picture of a lush green triangular farm in the middle of the desert. If the land was well managed it could produce food without being destroyed. Marginal lands could become lush farmland rather than turning into desert.--178.167.247.73 (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There is probably plenty of food now to feed a world population of 4 billion, which was the population in 1974 when Kissinger supposedly made the ill-thought-out remark. But the population expands geometrically. The tillable acres of land does not, nor does the water needed for irrigation in much of the world. Edison (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• '178' I did mention government policies, which to me basically equates to management. In Zimbabwe circa 2000 about 4,000 farmers (who happened to be white) were forcibly thrown off productive farms and the land re-distributed to supposed veterans of their war for independence. (see Zimbabwe#Economy) The result was a massive 'crash' in productivity and food importation rather than export as before. I also mentioned diverting 'ex-military' resources "to getting the food to where it was needed". 220.101 talk^\Contribs 21:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is plenty of land that could be reclaimed with a large enough investment. And most irrigation is a completely unsustainable practise that is like salting the land. Exceptions are using fog and desalinized water.--178.167.247.73 (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Family planning, Contraception, Zero growth. All part of the hunger picture--Wetman (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As pointed "the population expands geometrically. The tillable acres of land does not, nor does the water needed for irrigation in much of the world". A population that keeps growing, and resources that do not, lead to an unavoidable end. The only way to fix it would be by removing either of both factors from the equation. The first one is unlikely: we would need both some disaster to dramatically reduce worldwide population, and a system to prevent it from growing back again. The other is unlikely now, but may be fixed with proper technological advance. We need a source of food capable to grow in levels to match the population. This will never be done while we still depend on farming and cattle for making food. We need a way to produce (not just process) food completely inside a factory. We need to harness the power of photosynthesis, which allows plant to create organic material (=food) out of inorganic ones, and repeat it in industrial levels. MBelgrano (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there is alot of alarmism surrounding world hunger. neo-malthusian ideas that we have reached our capacity for food production are fairly silly. According to the gross world product article world per capita income is US$10,500 which is considerably more than subsistance. The problem at present is the distribution of that income. The poorest countries lack the basic infrastructure and law-enforcement needed to allow them to produce their own food or produce something they could trade for food. See new growth theory (although our article is pretty bad) There is alot of land that could be producing food that is not. There is alot of land that is producing food very inefficiently. There is alot of food that is just discarded. Also, food production in poorer countries is considerably hampered by the overly protectionist policies of wealthier countries, particularly the US and UE (perhaps japan too) See: Agricultural policy of the United States. Common Agricultural Policy. 124.171.201.251 (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Mexican Biofuel Statistics

I am looking for some reliable biofuel production statistics (any unit of measure) for 2008 and 2009 for Mexico. Preferably disaggregated by fuel type (e.g. ethanol and biodiesel). FO Licht has this data from what I know, but their online database is by paid subscription only... Any help immensely appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.225.112 (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Works by Pieter de Hooch

Hello great Reference Desk people. I have added a list of 84 works by Pieter de Hooch back in 2005, which I had found on a website which I now doubt was a very solid reference. At that time, references tended to be less common than they are now. Little changes have been made to this list ever since. I now seriously doubt that this list is accurate/ up-to-date. One reason being that over time, paintings attributed to a painter are discovered to have been painted by someone else. On top of that, different sources give different titles and years to the paintings, so that it is in fact quite hard to figure out what is what. I would like to clean up this list, and maybe make it in a table format with pictures. But before that I would need to have a reliable list to work on. Could you tell me where I can find something like an authoritative list of works by this painter, or how I could assemble such a list? Thanks a lot in advance! olivier (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Wolfgang M. Freitag, Art books: a basic bibliography of monographs on artists gives several monographs, Arthur de Rudder, Pieter de Hooch et son oeuvre 1914 and others are utterly superceeded by Peter C. Sutton, Pieter de Hooch. Complete Edition. Valentiner listed 176 paintings, Sutton drops 34 of them and adds 25. Half a dozen paintings remain controversial. New pictures turn up from time to time. Wikipedia needs a real article on Pieter de Hooch, not a list, which is best done elsewhere.--Wetman (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

List are perfectly acceptable material on Wikipedia. In fact we even have Featured Lists. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Online resources would be more useful for me at this point. I agree that the current article needs a lot of improvement. This being said, yes, Wikipedia has lists, and some of them are even very good ones. Well, I am quite sure that User:Wetman knows that very well already. There are 1861 featured lists as of today. Some examples of lists that I find interesting: List of paintings by Johannes Vermeer (which needs improvement) and Christopher Walken filmography (this one is featured). And no, list of paintings by de Hooch do not seem to be well done anywhere online, therefore my question, and therefore my willingness to add one to Wikipedia. olivier (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That thing behind you...

I want to know what is the exact term for the piece of cloth that flows behind Mandrake the Magician, it's attached by sort of studs to his coat shoulder. Was this really ever used as a part of dress in real life ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd call it a cape. See, for example Inverness cape. (Maybe there's a more specific name for Mandrake's type of cape). ---Sluzzelin talk 17:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it only in comicbook author's imagination or some real life personality did actually use it (on stage even) ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, a number of stage magicians wore capes pre-Mandrake. Why, even Vincent Price wore one (top right), mad though he was. If you get a cape, you can be a magician too. Deor (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

From a magical perspective, it's useful for a stage performer as both a distraction and a useful item with secret pockets. I don't think there's a specific name for the off-the-shoulder version. Steewi (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

More to the point, however, capes were standard, functional items of clothing for certain classes - military officers and aristocrats, mainly - only dying out in the early 20th century (with the widespread use of the trench coat, I think). Basically a cape was a shawl or wrap made out of high-quality material and designed to protect against cold and rain. It was adopted by stage magicians (and foisted upon innumerable superheroes) because it gave an air of authority and mystique. --Ludwigs2 17:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Capes were also used by circus performers, and Superman's cape and costume were inspired by such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

His cousin Batman was known as the "caped crusader". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Zorro also wore a cape, presumably for practical use, but it certainly had dramatic effect, flowing and rippling as he would ride away. Similarly with Superman, whose cape would ripple as he flew (provided the off-screen wind machines were working right). Zorro might have had a good reason to wear a cape, on those chilly desert nights; but for Superman it appears to have no practical use whatsoever. Superman is pretty much impervious to the extremes of weather, so at best it's merely a decoration. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Zorro was likely familiar with the cape and sword style of swordplay. See Italian school of swordsmanship - he was such a swordsman he couldn't restrict himself to only the Spanish school. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

you say that now, but you try running around all day in spandex. being impervious doesn't mean he doesn't get cold, it just means he's not going to die from it. --Ludwigs2 01:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Capes are probably a bad idea on superheroes, if you're planning on flying anywhere. Vimescarrot (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly P. S. Burton (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Flying Cow

What is meaning of this the term "Flying Cow" ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

In what context? There is a "24-bit D/A and A/D converter" (whatever that may be) of that name here, and a web design agency here, for example. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No, not that context, it has got to do something with supernatural  Jon Ascton  (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It's the traditional symbol of Luke the Evangelist, if that helps. (I don't know why our article doesn't mention it.) Marnanel (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Mentioned here under its more usual description of "winged ox". Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Was he flying or just jumping over the moon? The moon-jumping cow has been seen in other literary contexts as well. --Jayron32 03:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it a Malapropism Catachresis of Flying pigs? --Dweller (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Workers who unload boats

What do we call the workers who unloaded ships or boats before mechanisation? Race-related or nationality-related terms such as "coolies" aren't what I want; I'm writing something related to the Ohio and Erie Canal in the early nineteenth century, when statistics tell us that there was no realistic chance of the canal workers not being white Europeans. It's a common term, and I've heard it before, but I can't quite remember it; I can't find anything in dock or wharf, and the "teamsters" mentioned in Transloading doesn't quite seem to be the right term. Nyttend (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

What about Stevedores? --Sussexonian (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link; either this or "longshoreman", mentioned in that article's intro, is what I wanted. Nyttend (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

In the US, we'd generally use 'dockhand' or 'longshoreman', though the latter (nowadays) is mostly reserved for unionized workers. --Ludwigs2 17:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in a question asked at this desk on 25 July, no. 9: "weighing job title". Some of your questions have been answered there. In the UK and Ire. they are referred to as: "dockers". As far as I know, Cooley, Collier, referred to one working on smelting iron, and amalgams. MacOfJesus (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

See Coolie, Mac. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Navvy?--Wetman (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No: Navvies are builders (originally of canals), not loaders and handlers. --ColinFine (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

My understanding - from my grandfather who was a Merchant Navy officer - is that a Stevedor was a skilled worker who LOADED a ship. If you got it wrong, the ship capsized and sank, which was not a good outcome. Ships were UNLOADED by semi-skilled dockers who were hired on a daily basis. Alansplodge (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You can see how I've used this term in the first paragraph of Canal Warehouse. Nyttend (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

In the UK the sirname: Collier, Cooley seems to have this origin, Mining/Smelting. MacOfJesus (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sonnets to Sundry Notes of Music

Wikisource has a document called Sonnets to Sundry Notes of Music, which is filed under Shakespeare's works. It goes on to say that nobody actually knows who wrote them. So, my three questions:

1. What's the history of this document?
2. Why does Wikipedia appear not to mention it?
3. Why is it called "Sonnets" when no part of it is a sonnet? Marnanel (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

They were the last six works printed in The Passionate Pilgrim given that subtitle for no clear reason when published by William Jaggard. Jaggard like many publishers now and then was mainly a businessman out to make money and he might not have known or cared what the formal definition of the sonnet was, he certainly didn't care that not all of the works were by Shakespeare. As to why wikipedia doesn't mention it, less careful than an elizabethan publisher? meltBanana 21:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hamlet's tonal issues

I read in a fashion magazine a few weeks ago about why Hamlet is still performed so much. In the article, the author calls the play tonally erratic. Although I could guess at a few, what are some specifics that make Hamlet tonally erratic? Thanks : ] 129.3.179.76 (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're reading fashion magazines for drama criticism, its probably the first sign of a problem. My guess is it's puffery on the part of the author; they are self-aggrandizing by using words like "tonally erratic" without going into details about why they think so. It's pseudointellectualism; using language over the heads of ones audience and hoping they will be too dumb to check up on it, and instead just think that the writer is really smart... --Jayron32 03:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That's too cynical and anti-intellectual. In fact, a standard view of Shakespeare is that his plays can change tone in unexpected ways, veering quickly from comedy to tragedy and back again, leaving modern folks a bit bewildered about how to react. This is not often called "tonally erratic", but the meaning of the term should be clear to those familiar with the plays.

As for the original question, the fashion magazine article (found via Google) actually said that Shakespeare's plays in general, and not Hamlet in particular, were "tonally erratic". It's easy to see how something like The Merchant of Venice could be called "tonally erratic"; it's a comedy and a romance, for the most part, but Shylock's fate is tragic, and this makes us uncomfortable. As for Hamlet, it has often been criticized as being "confusing or inconsistent", due in large part to Hamlet's wild mood swings, which a good performance can render intelligible. See Critical approaches to Hamlet. —Kevin Myers 07:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Not cynical or anti-intellectual. Part of being an effective writer is to know your audience, and to taylor what you write to whom you are writing for. That doesn't mean you can't discuss the erratic nature of Shakespears plays in a fashion magazine; rather what it might mean is that you explain it rather than use a phrase that your audience may not readily understand. Writing for a journal of literary criticism is very different than writing for a fashion magazine. It doesn't mean you cannot discuss the same issues, it just means you have to discuss them in a different manner. It's like writing for the Journal of the American Chemical Society vs. writing for a popular science magazine like Discover. Both publications may discuss the same subject, but the manner in which one would write for JACS is very different than one would write for Discover. Using a phrase like "tonally erratic" is to jargony for those unfamiliar with literary criticim. To be sure, I thought it was talking about the language of Hamlet; i.e. some sort of criticism of the poetry and prose and meter of the play, not about its themes and general style of writing. --Jayron32 04:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

People can distinguish neighbour's origins?

I cannot tell an Egyptian from a Pakisani, depite them being thousands of miles apart. I cannot tell a Pole from a Ukrainian. I can't tell a Nigerian from an Ethiopian. Yet I can tell an English or German person apart fairly easily. Why is this?--178.167.247.73 (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Your IP places you in Ireland. Assuming you live there, you would know the mannerisms, habits and even facial features of the English better than you would those of Egyptians or Nigerians. This gives you an advantage in recognition. Can you tell a Japanese from a Chinese? I studied Japanese and lived there for a while, and one of the things I get asked a lot is "But how do you tell them apart? They all look the same to me." I can, to an extent, simply because I am more familiar with Asians than the regular European. And it works the other way around - I can pretty easily mark someone from Europe as probably being from the South (like say, Italy or Greece) or from the Scandinavian North (as I suppose you can as well), while the Japanese I talk to haven't the slightest inkling about this. They aren't familiar with the subtle differences between us and so they think we all look alike. TomorrowTime (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

OP, if you are Irish and familiar with the Gaelic Language, you may find quite a similarity between it and the Language and customs and culture of Pakistan! To this day we do not know the connection. MacOfJesus (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, having lived most of my life in big US cities, I guess I get more exposure to these different ethnicities. I think I can tell an Egyptian from a Pakistani by looking at them, likewise a Nigerian from an Ethiopian. On the other hand, I couldn't tell a Ukrainian from a Pole, and I don't think I could necessarily tell an Englishman from a German, just by looking. (I will agree that there are some German types that would look out of place in England and vice versa.) Of course, if Germans or Englishmen started speaking, I could tell the difference! But surely there are Englishmen who by appearance alone could pass as Germans and vice versa? Personally, I have passed for an Englishman in England and a German in Germany, or at least it seems to me that I have, since I've been asked directions by locals in the local language in both places, though I am neither English nor German. So I find it a little hard to believe that you can tell for sure, just by looking, whether a person is English or German. Marco polo (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You also can't tell by an editors 'name' what they are like as 'Marco Polo' would seem more appropriate for one who has travelled the world, esp Asia, quite extensively! A person's speech can be misleading. Met a young lady, I was 100% certain she was English, but she was a Bavarian. She had been sharing a house in Australia with some Pommys English Gentlemen for several months and sounded rather upper crust! 220.101 talk^\Contribs 02:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} on the Irish language being comparable to some language or other from Pakistan. Marnanel (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a banal answer but you know what you are familiar with. I can tell Hmong from Vietnamese from Chinese from Japanese, but that has to do with going to high school with all four groups. After living in Boston for awhile I can generally tell Haitian from Nigerian from East Indian from your general "African American", something I never would have been able to do in California, where I had sustained access only to the latter group. Conversely, I don't think I could tell English from German from French at a glance (assuming neither group was wearing stereotypical "national dress" like Lederhosen or berets with striped shirts) — my "white people" is just a big, homogenous blob (and I say this as a "white person"). (Which I don't think is different from most Americans, and why most Americans have historically been baffled at the European racial theories of the early 20th century, which purport to find huge differences between groups that really look identical to us, while generally glossing over the racial differences that historically have been important to us.) --Mr.98 (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Marnanel, An Oxford Professor of Celtic Languages was preparing to do this study, but unfortunatly died before he could begin. He took his holidays yearly in The Blasket Islands off Kerry each year, where Gaelic is the spoken Language. There are many names similar and musical parallels. MacOfJesus (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have also heard that to a casual listener, Irish Gaelic can sound deceptively like some dialects of the coastal areas of Tuscany, such that some people cannot tell their Erse from their Elban. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

MacOfJesus, that is not a citation. Even if it is true that "An Oxford professor of Celtic Languages" was preparing to do this study, that would tell us nothing whatsoever. Had he done the study he might have concluded there was no significant relationship. Or he might have been totally barmy. --ColinFine (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The citation I gave was / is: Blasket Islands. Some of the names are given, and their study. Their names come up with respective article pages. MacOfJesus (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Most Novels with same Hero

Which author holds the record for having written maximum numbers of novels (any language) with the same leading character ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably not the record holder, but Frédéric Dard wrote 173 adventures of Detective Superintendent San-Antonio. olivier (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That looks like quite a score. What's holding him back from holding a record ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Maigret only had 103 novels or stories written about him, but lots of derivative works. 92.29.124.214 (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, the film record, at least in the English record is likely Honolulu detective Charlie Chan, who besides the dozen or so novels is also featured in almost 50 movies. --Jayron32 03:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

For non-English filmography, Torasan of Otoko wa tsurai yo merits mention - 49 movies. In that article, I found a link to Wong Fei Hung, who, as the article says, had a "series of 99 films on (him) produced between the 1940s and 1960s in Hong Kong." That's pretty impressive. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Perry Rhodan has to be a contender... AnonMoos (talk) 06:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be true for the OP's titular stipulation of 'most novels with the same hero', but not his subsequent 'which author holds the record . . .', since the long-running Perry Rhodan series (even excluding its spinoffs) has had a number of different authors. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

:I'd put money on Sherlock Holmes, if you allow all the stuff written by people other than Arthur Conan Doyle. Matt Deres (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Never mind; misunderstood the question. Matt Deres (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There seem to have been around 200 Babysitters Club books credited to Ann M. Martin, and they appear to have all featured the same four lead characters. Warofdreams talk 15:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I count 456 books on List_of_Hardy_Boys_books. But I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't a record. APL (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Roman dates

What reference point did the Romans use for year numbering? --75.33.216.97 (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ab urbe condita. From the founding of the city of Rome. But they dated individual years by who was consul at the time. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

See Roman calendar. olivier (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

In Biblical days, the practise was to indicate a year from who was in power at the time. In the Latin Gallic Wars the date was set by Caeser's/Governor's year in power. MacOfJesus (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ab urbe condita dating was used by historians and annalists, and in certain ceremonial contexts, but not so often by ordinary people in their day to day lives... AnonMoos (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

what literal "mistakes" of Jesus does the bible imply

for example: Jesus says "I'll take 3 x" but the shop owner says: "sorry, we don't have x": thus Jesus's statement would have shown a mistaken belief on his part that there are x to take. (this is just implicit mistake). This is a hypothetical example: do you know a real one? 92.230.69.122 (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm no theologian, but I gather that Jesus was allowed to not be omniscient. See Matthew 11:25 (here, King James Version): "At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes." - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"My God my god why has thou forsaken me?" or words to that effect were said on the cross, implying that he expected to be taken up to heaven by a group of angels or some such, but was disapointed. And the second coming - never happened. 92.29.124.214 (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Never happened yet. He didn't exactly give a concrete date for the second coming. Googlemeister (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The guy is 2000 years late. He's not going to show. 92.29.120.223 (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It took him 4,000+ years to show up the first time. Googlemeister (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The closest "thing" to this, from the Gospels is the raising of Lazarus from the dead. Jn 11. Verse 37:"some remarked, He opened the eyes of the blind man, could he not have prevented this man's death?". Also: 35/36: "Jesus wept". Some have commented, from the past, that this shows Jesus did'nt know these things about to happen. The reason why Jesus wept has been the source of many Commentators "spilling ink". MacOfJesus (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The words of Jesus: "My God, my God....", we all accept that He was quoting Psalm 22/21, the truly Messianic Psalm, that was about Himself, describing the Messiah's death to a "t". MacOfJesus (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

In Mark 13:32, Jesus states that he doesn't know when things are going to end, but God the Father does. I don't believe he ever claims to be omniscient on his own, though, so it's not a mistake.

In Mark 7:24-30, it appears as though Jesus changes his mind, which sounds more like what you're looking for. There are a number of weird things in the Bible that occur as a consequence of mortals being able to usefully petition God; consider Abraham's bargaining with God to defend Sodom, and Jesus' advice to wear God out with prayer until he answers it. While we're on weird human-God interaction, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention Jacob beating God in a wrestling match. I have my own unformed WP:OR ideas about this, but I think I can say for sure that the subject is fascinating. Paul (Stansifer) 02:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Jacob beat God? In the Bible story I remember, Jacob wrestled with an angel, who (because he was losing) gave Jacob a dose of sciatica! --TammyMoet (talk) 09:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that a) physically wrestling with an incorporeal being is an incoherent notion; b) "Jacob wrestled with an angel", i.e. a messenger of God, and "Jacob wrestled with God" may essentially mean the same thing (just as "The king asked the dairymaid for some butter" is still true if in fact the king asked the queen and the queen asked the dairymaid); c) the story in Genesis 32 doesn't identify the being as an angel; d) during this incident, Jacob was given the name Israel, which means "he struggles with God", which is not insignificant. Marnanel (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your logic on point b. Does that mean that if hypothetically it was the 1960s, and Mohammed Ali sent some little wimp to beat up on me, and I kicked him into the next county, I would have been able to say that I beat up Mohammed Ali??? Googlemeister (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Biblical Scholars have studied this subject at length and there are answers on all those points. You may be intrested in the Article page: Messianic Secret. If you are truly wanting to seek an answer to: Did Jesus make mistakes, did he know the future? then I can point you in the right direction. The most significant is the one I mentioned to you already: "Jesus wept." MacOfJesus (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

In cursing the fig tree he tries to get figs out of season, and then smites the tree for not having them. --Sean 17:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Good point. Reference is: Mat 21 v.18-22, & Mk 11 v.12-14. Gospel of Matthew, Mark 11, Gospel Harmony. MacOfJesus (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The American Flag

Is it true that it is illegal in the US of A to have a Stars And Stripes design on knickers (="shorts" or "briefs" I think in American english)? 92.15.30.251 (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's legal if you burn a US flag !  Jon Ascton  (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

According to United States Flag Code, it's technically illegal, though the article states that "there is no penalty for failure to comply with [the code] and it is not widely enforced." 24.91.31.112 (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Forty-five rules concerning the flag! 92.15.30.251 (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

In other words, it's illegal. Whether penalties exist or are enforced has nothing to do with the illegality of something. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The First Amendment means that they can't ban you from mistreating the flag. That's why flag burning is legal. --75.33.216.97 (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The US Flag Code is not law. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur with JackofOz. Also if you disrespect a countries flag in front of the wrong people and you may find their ire being 'enforced' on you irrespective of the legal status of your act. 220.101 talk^\Contribs 21:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article is, I think, wrong. If you follow the links to the actual text of the law, you will see that it uses word "should": for example, "The flag should never be used as wearing apparel" (emphasis added). Therefore using it as wearing apparel is not illegal; the law merely asks you not to. (As 220 said, it may be offensive to some people, but that's a separate issue.) At least, this should be correct unless there is a rule to the effect that saying "should" in a law makes something "illegal". --Anonymous, 22:18 UTC, September 1, 2010.

The flag of Ireland, has far more restrictions in force. First part of the Constitution is about this. And it is enforced by the Gardi and Army. MacOfJesus (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Whereas in the UK Union Jack undies are a perennial kitsch fashion item. 92.29.124.214 (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Long may it continue...[3] Alansplodge (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the American English term is underpants. Marco polo (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There was a famous incident in 1970 in which Abbie Hoffman went onto Merv Griffin's talk show wearing a shirt made from a flag. The networks visually censored it. Although the U.S. flag code discourages wearing flags as clothing, there is much more likely to be a stir if it's done as a protest. But a "stir" is the result, not an arrest. You can be arrested for burning the flag in protest, but not directly. Instead, you would be charged with public endangerment or disturbing the peace or something like that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, you can sell anything that people will give you money for. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot more of that kind of thing than there once was. Given the sorry state of patriotism in America, this is better than nothing. Here's a dilemma, though: How do you dispose of an article of clothing that looks like a flag? In theory, you're supposed to reverently burn it. But open burning is forbidden in most places anymore, and tossing it into your fireplace doesn't quite cut it. So you would likely have to take your worn-out-flag jacket or knickers or whatever to your local American Legion and have them ritually burn it... and be prepared for a raised eyebrow or two. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That other American flag, the Confederate Flag, is the one most commonly used for knickers, kitsch, and so on. Pfly (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Which seems fitting. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

How would Libyan authorities handle such dilemma? --Soman (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Easy. They'd just ban green underwear. (For some reason the idea of green underwear makes me semi-nauseous, so I'd never need a ban, but that's just me.) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Even pretty pastel shades? Or lime green tight lycra? Where's your sense of chlorofun? 86.161.108.172 (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Accomplices, accessories and complicity

Mainly for the purpose of improving and reorganising the articles accomplices, accessories and complicity, it would be helpful if we could clear up what needs to be done. What is the relationship between these terms? We have, from their various articles:

• "An accomplice is a person who actively participates in the commission of a crime, even though they take no part in the actual criminal offense"
• "An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal."
• "An individual is complicit in a crime if he/she is aware of its occurrence and has the ability to report the crime, but fails to do so. As such, the individual effectively allows criminals to carry out a crime despite possibly being able to stop them, either directly or by contacting the authorities, thus making the individual a de-facto accessory to the crime rather than an innocent bystander."

The articles are all written from at least an English-speaking bias. I am therefore asking for some references to back this up (I'm aware us RefDeskers will just give their views as they want, but some sources would be helpful!). There is a summary here of the US system of principals and accessories, but it fails to clarify the relationship between accessories and this accomplice/complicity thing. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

At common law accomplice liability had four types: principals in the first degree and principles in the second degree, and accessories before the fact and accessories after the fact. The key distinction then was whether they were present at the time of the crime or not. Presence at the crime was divided into principles in the first degree and principals in the second degree (those who aided but did not "by their hand" commit the crime). Today the principal in the second degree and accessory before the fact are just "accomplices". Accessories after the fact are not guilty of the crime; they're possibly guilty of separate crimes, like aiding and abetting or harboring.

These distinctions could vary depending on jurisdiction, and I don't know how non-U.S. jurisdictions use it, but that's my understanding of the basic structure. Accomplice is umbrella term for accessories. I don't know much about complicity, except that it's rare, and possibly on unclear constitutional ground. If you want sources to improve the article I would suggest a few law-treatises or hornbooks. ISBN 0735562431 would be a good choice, ISBN 0159007674, which you could probably read the relevant part off of Google Books. More in-depth treatises probably aren't necessary. Shadowjams (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

How is gorget pronounced?

Exactly as the title says. I thought this desk would be more likely to know than the Language desk.

I'd like IPA, ideally, so I can add it to the article. 86.161.108.172 (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh wait, I see Wiktionary says /ˈɡɔːdʒɪt/. Does that seem right? 86.161.108.172 (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup. The general rule is like Italian: hard ('k') before a, o, u; soft ('s') before e, i.--Wetman (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

We folk with rhotic accents pronounce the r, though. At least I do, and so does my Merriam-Webster's Collegiate. Deor (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't pronounce the t so just "gore-zhay" Any source besides us? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That pronunciation would be appropriate if the word were a recent borrowing from modern French -- which it isn't... (In modern French, the word seems to be a semi-obscure architectural term.) -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The OED Online says 'gɔːdʒɪt Pfly (talk) 07:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in the UK I've only heard it with a pronounced "t" on the end (like "fillet"). Not that it comes up in conversation that often, you understand. Alansplodge (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"Fillet" is an odd example to pick, because the Americans don't pronounce the T and the Brits do. Marnanel (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes; silly me. I was trying to find an example of a French word that has acquired an English pronunciation over the centuries. Alansplodge (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in American, the word which does not pronounce the final t is filet. Fillet does pronounce the t, but then, it's a different word altogether, having to do with ribbons, architecture and bookbinding. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. For the rhotic pronunciation, do I just need to add the upside-down r symbol thing in the right place? 86.161.108.172 (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I added it to the article, both in non-rhotic version and with a right-side-up 'r'. I hope that was right: I swear I've seen the upside-down 'r' more in English, and I thought I read something about English not really using the right-side-up 'r', but our Wikipedia:IPA for English article uses it. 86.161.108.172 (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2

Engstrom quote source?

The Last Messiah by Peter Wessel Zapffe contains the following quote, which Zapffe attributes to a certain "Engstrom":

"One should not think, it is just confusing."

Which Engstrom does Zapffe refer to? And what is the source of the quote? -- noosphere 00:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, as you've no doubt seen, the exact quote doesn't pull up much, Google-wise. My suspicion is that it is Zapffe's translation from either Swedish or Norwegian. My wild guess in looking for Swedish quotes that seem similar (using Google Translate), and in which Engstrom's people seem to cite as a source of art and culture, would lead me to suspect that Albert Engström is the likely culprit. But this is just a very wild guess based on a lot of fairly fruitless Googling. You might try on the language desk, to see if anyone over there can search for similar phrases in Swedish or Norwegian. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What would Thomas Jefferson have said about Somalia?

If he came back as some kind of interactable ghost, of course.

Would he retract this? --Let Us Update Wikipedia: Dusty Articles 03:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, the time honored tradition of taking quotations out of context. Jefferson was not arguing for anarchy, which is basically what Somalia is today. See Jeffersonian democracy for Jefferson's actual political theories, which are far more complex and nuanced than can be explained by a simple, one-sentance quote. --Jayron32 04:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Somalia's an extremely interesting case, and I don't think the term "anarchy" fully captures the nuances of what is going on there. Yes, the legitimate (that is, internationally recognized) government only controls a small part of Mogidishu and a bit of the rest of the country. On the other hand, it's not like it's just riots and random acts of violence happening in the rest of the country. There are of course the "autonomous" regions of Somaliland and Puntland, which, as I understand, do a reasonable job governing themselves (especially Somaliland. Puntland seems to have more trouble controlling it's coast and such). Formerly, the Islamic Courts Union controlled much of the country, and while their control would not be considered fair or open by any standards, it was certainly not anarchy. Now, of course, Al-Shabaab is controlling much of the region formerly held by the ICU, and which our article describes as imposing a "harsh form of Sharia law". I'm not as familiar with the current situation, so I guess I can't really assess how firmly they actually "control" this region. Somalia's a fascinating study in nation building, and I urge anyone interested in the topic to look at some of the myriad of links that can be found in the main article.

As for what Thomas Jefferson would say, I have no idea. Buddy431 (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Mr Jefferson, what do you think about the situation in Somalia?

Where? I’m not familiar with the place.

DOR (HK) (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

In Somalia, Jefferson might have seen some parallels to the Barbary states of his day -- African Muslim countries that were sources of pirates that preyed on international shipping. During Jefferson's term in office, the U.S. fought the First Barbary War against the Barbary states rather than pay the tribute the Africans demanded for protection of American ships. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 08:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, piracy in the Barbary states was more or less state sanctioned, as I understand, and the U.S. was paying tribute to a centralized state to not have pirates attack their ships. It was thus possible to put a stop to the tribute payments by attacking the government. In Somalia's case, it's not our government paying tribute, but rather individual merchants, to pirates who are not state sanctioned (it's basically an organized crime operation, as I understand). Considering that Jefferson largely tried to stay out of foreign affairs, I'm not sure that he would have wanted to (much less have had the power to) done anything about Somali based pirates. Buddy431 (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Jefferson would have altered his views on government particularily in response to the current Somali situation. Somalia is in a state of war, and it is hardly that scenario he wished for in the linked quote. Moreover, Jefferson's views on Somalia would probably have been tainted by the racist worldview that engulfed his surroundings. Thomas_Jefferson#On_slavery gives some detail on the debate about Jefferson's (himself a slave owner) ambiguities towards slavery and Black people in general. --Soman (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Jews and automatic citizenship in Israel

Can a non-religious or atheist jew be granted automatic citizenship in Israel? ScienceApe (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you read Israeli nationality law? --Jayron32 04:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Can a non-Jew become a Jew if he wants to ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it happens often. See Conversion to Judaism. —D. Monack ^talk 02:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If you read the article Jayron points to, you'll find that not only do you not need to believe or practise Judaism, you don't even need to be Jewish to qualify under the Law of Return, for example, non-Jewish spouses. --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

But according to the Jews for Jesus article, they are not granted automatic citizenship. Is this correct? ScienceApe (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes: "Those who believe in Jesus are, in fact, Christians."[4] --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Democracy

What are the ideals of democracy. What are the elements of demorcracy that help support the ideals of democracy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christiedickens (talk • contribs) 06:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you read Democracy? The article at Wikipedia is useful for a general overview, however your teacher is likely looking for you to use a combination of reading comprehension and critical thinking skills to combine things they taught you in class with things you read from your textbook, so that you can formulate the answer yourself. It can be useful to read additional information, like the Wikipedia article on Democracy, however it should be entirely possible to answer a homework question like this using only the materials your teacher gave you. Indeed, it should be easier to do it that way, since textbooks and class lectures are likely to be focused in such a way as to provide a more direct answer to your teacher's question than a general overview like the Wikipedia article on Democracy. --Jayron32 06:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a homework question. It's that time of year. Shadowjams (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You can start by "Democracy is a government of the People, by the people and for the people....". Your teachers will love you for it !  Jon Ascton  (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

What is this story?

This has been driving me out of my mind. In elementary school (circa 1995) my class read an extract of a story, written by an African American author, set (I presume) in the 1950s or early 60s, about a young black boy living in a city in the northern United States. It was set during the winter. Apart from that, I remember only two concrete details: (1) the protagonist discovers a transistor radio, sitting unguarded in a convertible or an unlocked car, and it becomes his most treasured possession; (2) the protagonist wears a pair of corduroy trousers, and I recall much discussion about the merits and drawbacks of corduroy. LANTZY^TALK 06:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

But not the merits and drawbacks of theft??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Does everything have to be a morality play? LANTZY^TALK 17:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Lantzy—you say, "Does everything have to be a morality play?" You were speaking about theft, were you not, when you referred to "a transistor radio, sitting unguarded in a convertible or an unlocked car"? If that is the case, then I think it is understandable that considerations of morality would come to mind. Bus stop (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Lantzy meant that interesting literature often involves heroes and protagonists who do unlawful things. Literature, even children's literature, has moved on quite a bit since the days when taies or morality plays tended to need a clear-cut moral in the end (such as "Thou shalt not steal"). ---Sluzzelin talk 18:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's possible the author was being satirical, in making a big thing of corduroy pants while saying nothing about theft. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It's vaguely the same approach as the antagonist in No Country for Old Men, who had no qualms about killing as long as he didn't get blood on his nifty shoes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

In the recollections of the story as related to us above, we find out that we need to determine the merits and drawbacks of corduroy, but it doesn't occur to us to examine the rightness or wrongness of stealing. Bus stop (talk) 11:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of prolonging this unnecessarily: Lantzy, who regularly posts here and knows what helps us googleurs and what doesn't, gave two rather specific recollections. The corduroy reference actually didn't happen to help my search, the words "transistor radio" and "convertible" did. Had I read the story, I might have remembered the corduroy reference (because these are the kind of asides I love in literature). Had Lantzy said something like: "the book was about the morals of stealing" (I have no idea whether that's what the book is about, I suspect it's more complex than that, but even if ...), that wouldn't have helped my search a lot, as those keywords are too generic. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what is wrong with this picture? Bus stop (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That it was done in watercolors, and after the theft, it ran? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the picture painted is a little bizarre. But I guess memory is like that. One simply remembers what one remembers. Bus stop (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's the from the book version of J.T. [5] (originally a TV drama from 1969 [6]) by Jane Wagner (granted, she's not African American, but J.T. Gamble is). ---Sluzzelin talk 13:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. Thanks! LANTZY^TALK 17:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Religion vs. Science

Are religion and science enemies of each other ? Does one's religion affect one's progress in science ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 06:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Go to the library today, find Rocks of Ages by Stephen Jay Gould, and read it. Seriously. When you have read it, come back and we'll discuss. --Jayron32 06:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins would probably tell you yes, although he did name Arthur Peacocke, Russell Stannard, John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins as examples of good scientists who were sincerely religious. You may find Templeton Prize interesting. Karenjc 07:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Even as an atheist, I would generally say no. The theory of evolution does not necessarily disprove the existence of God(s). However, the two do clash when someone challenges another to disprove the existence of God via science. Ethereal beings are not something that can be tested. If it can't be falsified through testing, then it is not based in the scientific world. Despite this, as others have point out above, there are numerous religious scientists. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

But all religions cannot be put in same bracket. We have Freud, Einstein, Karl Marx and numerous other Jews as great scientists which are difficult to count, perhaps we'd no science without Jews, but with an exception or two no muslims are scientists. why ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"no muslims are scientists" . Pfly (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Islam and science may be useful, if that's the OP's perception. Karenjc 08:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"In recent years, the lagging of the Muslim world in science is manifest in the disproportionately small amount of scientific output..." it appears to support the OP's perception, if we remember that he mentioned there are one or two exceptions, and make allowances for rhetoric. 213.122.14.112 (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Abdus Salam could be a prominent modern example, but Muslim rigorists are quick to deny that he's a "real" Muslim... AnonMoos (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure ? I can understand rigorists denying Salman Rushdie or Taslima Nasreen but why on earth would they deny a man like Abdus Salam ? He, I think, is Pakistan's(?) only hope  Jon Ascton  (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Because Abdus Salam was a Ahmadi or "Qadiani", a group which denies the finality of prophethood of Muhammad, so that a large number of Muslims consider them to be non-Muslim. There are many Wikipedia articles about this, starting with Persecution of Ahmadis... AnonMoos (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit all encompassing to say no muslim..., in fact many are. There are schools of thought within Islam that tend to be hostile to progress, but that's not a hostility to science per se

ALR (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? No Muslims are scientists? Take a look at this. A heap of modern sciences is based on stuff Muslims in the middle ages researched. Heck, you can even tell from the terminology - as a rule, stuff beginning with "al-" was first named by Muslims scientists. You know, like algebra, alchemy, alcohol, algorithm... TomorrowTime (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Semantic quibble, but none of those Muslims are scientists. They were scientists. 213.122.14.112 (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Jim Al-Khalili did a series for the BBC called "Science and Islam". Tell him there are no Muslim scientists!--TammyMoet (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Though he is an atheist. 213.122.14.112 (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You've listed two atheists and one agnostic or something. (Although the agnostic far outclasses the atheists as scientists, since they were only a sociologist and a psychologist, and were responsible for the unpleasantness of various socialist republics and Emma Eckstein's nose.) 213.122.14.112 (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It is worth noting that if Muslims lacked the ability or inclination to do any science, it would be pretty difficult for, say, Pakistan and Iran to pose the technological-based threats they currently seem to pose. Both countries, in any case, have voluminous scientific output, as does Turkey. What people are really disputing here is whether or not there are any "first rate" Muslim scientists as defined by the kinds of standards that relate to historical (20th century) Western science. It should be cautioned that this calculus might also make one believe that there are basically no scientists other than white males, a few white females, and a few Asian males. It is an approach that does not reflect the scientific discipline as a whole, but rather the way scientific accomplishments have been historically represented. It may represent the level of "innovation" among various groups at different points in our recent past — which have certainly changed quite a lot (for example, note the major shift in "important" scientific work from Europe to the United States following WWII) — but it hardly represents whether there are "scientists" in these groups. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with population genetics, and very little to do with religion directly, but many people notice things such as that it took Japan only around 80 years to go from its isolation being broken by Commodore Perry in 1853 to the work which won Hideki Yukawa his physics Nobel prize, while other societies which have had easier and more continuous access to the work of international scientists (if they were interested in it) have produced less impressive results over a rather longer period of time -- and when they finally did produce a world-class scientist (Abdus Salam), they spurned and scorned him in significant degree because his religious beliefs were "incorrect". It wouldn't be too far off to say that the last world-class Arab intellectual whose efforts were not confined solely to the literary and religious realms was Ibn Khaldun -- and the excuse of blaming all problems on those eeeevil Western colonialists and imperialists is starting to wear a little thin around about now... AnonMoos (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, Western colonialism did have massive implications for the region, and Western imperialism was a major problem. We still lend support to fairly backwards monarchies and autocrats so long as they practice policies that are conducive to our financial and political interests in the region. We fed guns and explosives and guerilla training into some of the most volatile regions, for some of the most volatile groups. These are not exactly the most positive conditions for first rate "basic science", which is generally what we are talking about when we point out they don't have Nobel Prizes and things like that. Obviously a view that puts all of the Middle East's troubles at the hands of the West is too simplistic, but saying, "well, they've had a few decades of freedom, why can't they shape up already?" goes far too far the other direction (and is not even true). We're not talking about historical wrongs that go back to the Crusades as being the problem; we're talking about things that happened in the last two generations. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I've quoted this before - possibly at you - but Dawkins' opinion of it is: "Gould carried the art of bending over backwards to positively supine lengths in one of his less admired books, Rocks of Ages." 213.122.14.112 (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins said something negative about religion, or someone who doesn't despise religion? He smarmily disparaged a book that didn't insist that all religion is stupid, cannot exist in a mind that also does science, and directly causes killing? Stop the presses! Take notes! This is the evidence we've all be waiting for: guess we'll just have to give up this 'God' thing! All those people who claim to have religious faith while also carrying out science? They must just be lying, or don't realise they don't really believe in God, or have been fooled into thinking they are doing science. Dawkins has spoken! Seriously, that's like quoting Jack Chick's opinion of Harry Potter. 86.161.108.172 (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you're defensively hating an imaginary version of Dawkins. It's a popular hobby. Mr. 98's summation, below, of the controversy over "non-overlapping magesteria", is reasonable. I quoted Dawkins, a noted critic of Gould, to illustrate that Gould is not necessarily deeply insightful but may in fact just be an equivocating tit. Of course, it doesn't behove me to take a position on the matter myself. 213.122.41.114 (talk) 06:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It depends on your definitions of "religion" and "science." Plenty of learned and pretty intelligent people have come to different conclusions. Some people (Gould being a principle example on the scientist side) argue that they are non-overlapping magisteria — that they don't conflict, because they describe different things. A lot of people (Dawkins on the atheist side, plenty of others on the religious side) say that they do conflict, because they do both present incompatible accounts of the world.

There's no one right answer on this, and the question has been asked pretty explicitly for a very long time now. I think we can safely say, though, that some formulations of science do conflict with some formulations of religion. Some scientists have found their work to be incompatible with some religious beliefs. And the converse is true as well — some scientists have found their work to be supportive of, or at least not in conflict with, religion.

There are strong political motivations for all sides in saying that there is or isn't a conflict, obviously. One should be suspicious of any answers that seem to present it as an easy question. It's not. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

We have a whole article on the conflict thesis and nobody's mentioned it yet? Marnanel (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Nor has anyone mentioned the previous discussion, a few months back, on exactly the same question - buried somewhere within the archives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

One factor is that many major religions require assent to an ancient book or body of writings considered authoritative. This is surely in direct conflict with the scientific principle of subjecting all assertions to objective tests. --rossb (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If only such holy books contained instructions to test everything and only hold on to the good! Marnanel (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Though it has its limits, the Catholic Church to a certain extent has been a supporter of science, and has even apologized for the whole Galileo affair. See Evolution and the Catholic Church. So, no, I think not. Also, Islam was pretty into math and astronomy for a while, too. Aaronite (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's great - it's critical rationalism in a nutshell, or even evolution - but does it mean I can test and throw out the preceding instructions which are no good, such as "do not treat prophecies with contempt" and "pray continually"? If only this book came with a handy appendix explaining the order of operations. 213.122.3.229 (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Or to make my point in a less smartarsed way: you seem to have it backwards. Let's assume that if a person believes certain things in an ancient document (let's say the Nicene Creed), then it's reasonable to call them a Christian. That doesn't mean they decided to become a Christian and are believing in the statements in the Nicene Creed against their better judgement. Rather, after considering the statements in the Creed, they believe them to be true, and necessarily in so doing have joined the category of Christians. There is nothing stopping themselves asking whether the statements in the Creed are true, and they may decide that they are, or that they are not, in which case they may also stop calling themselves a Christian. (Of course, this has nothing to do with the scientific method, since none of the statements in the Creed are experimentally falsifiable anyway. But there are other reasons to believe things than the scientific method.) Marnanel (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Marnanel makes a good point. Hebrews 11:1 defines faith rather succinctly:

Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld

— Hebrews 11:1

The key is "the evident demonstration of realities..." In other words it is very clear that this is the actual reality to the believer. schyler (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

In plainer English, "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (New International Version, Letter to the Hebrews 11:1. Or, in the Contemporary English Version, "Faith makes us sure of what we hope for and gives us proof of what we cannot see." Or, hey, Young's Literal Translation, "And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction," I think these are easier for most English-speakers to understand. What translation is yours? I'd usually assume King James when an English-speaker doesn't specify, and when the language is unnecessarily obscure, but that has "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.", so it isn't that. I'm especially curious given that your version introduces the idea of 'realities', and even 'demonstration of realities', absent from other translations. 86.161.108.172 (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Or as Cesare Baronio said, rather succinctly "The Bible tells us how to go to Heavan, not how the Heavans go". --Jayron32 04:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Physical Exercises on Sabbath Day

Did the ancient Jews do physical exercises on Sabbath Day? What does the bible say about physical exercises on Sabbath Day? 99.245.73.51 (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• • The Gospels refer to this, in a number of ways. MacOfJesus (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"Maybe you should read your Bible."
"Any particular passage?"
"Oh, it's all good." LANTZY^TALK 17:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The Old Testament is a poor source for information regarding what can and cannot be done on The Sabbath Day. This is because details of all laws are absent and Jews follow the Shulchan Aruch, which is based on rabbinic commentary of Talmudic law that relates to the particular biblical verses one is interested in. In case you're interested in physical exercise in particular, you can check out The Shabbos Home by Simcha Bunim Cohen. Unless you assert that rabbinic Judaism is a distortion of reality, in which case you wouldn't be too interested in Cohen's work. You can check Maimonides, but he pretty much is in agreement with the later view of someone like Cohen, despite the modern Conservative Jew's claims that Maimonides practiced what now takes the form of Conservative Judaism. I don't believe that Christian theology dictates that ancient Jews did what Orthodox Jews do today, but I'm not sure. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• • I can indeed go through the Gospels finding the references outlining the context, but is anyone interested enough to care? Or is someone asking in order to rubbish my effort, with a preconceived notion. Sorry, if this does not apply here. Then you must be an exeption! MacOfJesus (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• • The references, on this, from the Gospels, come in two different catagories: 1/ Travelling Preacher and his Disciples were hungry and ate corn on the Sabbath. 2/ Jesus curing/healing on the Sabbath, involving effort. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Over the Bible, there seems to be a very different approach to law before the Temple was destroyed as to after. (The Book of Ezra), Ezra. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I question if the ancient Jews would have done much exercise for exercise's sake. Sports were considered a pagan Greek thing to do; one of the complaints of the Maccabees was that the Jews had begun engaging in games such as discus throwing (according to II Maccabees, which Catholics consider part of the Bible). According to Saul Berman, the Mishnah specifically condemns mud wrestling on the sabbath. ([7]). On the other hand, Yisroel Chait, a prominent American Orthodox rabbi, writes (in making a point), "A person could exercise vigorously all Sabbath, lifting weights for hours on end, without violating the Biblical injunction regarding the Sabbath, while throwing a splinter of wood into a fire would involve a major violation." ([8]). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Mwalcoff's evidence from the time of the Maccabees is persuasive. The ancient Israelites would have spent their sabbaths much as their modern day equivalents do - praying too much, eating too much, studying too much and trying to sleep too much. No doubt, they'd have been chatting round their dinner tables about the shortcomings of their local priest and how much better the one in the next town was. --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Vagrancy Act 1824 (5 Geo. 4. c. 83)

I am developing the draft of an article on the Littleport riots of 1816 here. I have a statement summarised from a none WP:RS: "General unrest and riots such as that at Littleport may have been a factor in the government passing the Vagrancy Act 1824". Can anyone help find a RS for that statement or help derive a similar statement along the same theme? --Senra (Talk) 13:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You forgot the wikilink prefix Ely and Littleport riots 1816--Aspro (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yups. Sorry. Fixed --Senra (Talk) 14:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say that that website is just padding their text out on pure flight of fancy. Eight years is a long time to-update exiting acts and vagrancy acts pre-date by over a century. Also, the update appears to be concerning the behaviours of individual vagrants. See in blue: behaving in a riotous or indecent manner. I would have thought, that had legislation been written up in response to the Littleport riots, then an Act like the Riotous Assemblies (Scotland) Act 1822 was more appropriate. Therefore, should anyone fail to find a lack of a RS, I will not be surprised. This comment should really go on the articles talk page but of course it does not exist yet.--Aspro (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have no problem with you creating the comment on the article talk page. All comments welcome. The article will go to main space when it is in better shape :) --Senra (Talk) 15:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There are some records at the National Archives: TS 11/1120 seems to be the main file for the prosecutions at the Special Assizes while TS/11/1027 records the prosecution of Henry Benson. HO 33/1/96 may also be relevant. Unfortunately the records of the Assizes in ASSI 31 are incomplete. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Am I a character in a novel?

Am I a character in a novel? I ask because I have been reading a novel by Muriel Spark, in which a character discovers that she is a character in it. So I am wondering: if I were a character in a novel, how would I know? Wikiscient (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

See Cogito ergo sum. -- kainaw™ 17:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

To put it semi-scientifically... Since we can't ever know anything with absolute certainly, what does your best evidence indicate? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If the nature of being a character in a novel is in every way identical to being a character in real life, this has two consequences: firstly, there is no way to know whether the assertion is true or not, and secondly, there is no meaning to the assertion, so it doesn't matter. If, on the other hand, you are affected in some way by being a character in a novel - well, it's your idea (or Muriel's) so you'd know the precise details of how you are affected, and how to test for it; we wouldn't be able to tell you how. Solipsism is countered by this same argument. 213.122.3.229 (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Even the most omniscient narrator usually doesn't know every single detail of a character's life. How often do you just sit around doing nothing? Why would a novel include that information? Life is boring and full of pointless details. (Actually, in that case you could be a Stieg Larsson character...) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

We know no more about being a character in a novel than we know about other things that we know nothing about. A character in a novel is not a person at all. A character in a novel is a composite of cliches that one person—a writer—uses in communication with another person—a reader. Bus stop (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Go see Stranger than Fiction, which is about this. Staecker (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No. You are a life form in a physical universe. But you should still see Stranger than Fiction (2006 film) because it's spectacular. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I defy anyone to prove that you are anything other than a character in a novel. What difference does it make, in the long run? Edison (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Go with the best evidence you have. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If I am in fact only a character in a novel, then the novelist must be simultaneously both a genius and a moron. A genius because I would be one of the most well-developed characters ever created in a book, and a moron because the novelist would have bored the reader to death long before I turned 2 years old. Googlemeister (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the responses, folks! And please also see my follow-up question, below. (I was expecting perhaps more of a postmodernist critique to this one, though, actually, this being the Humanities desk and all. Eg. didn't someone mention the fourth wall somewhere here recently...? I'm sure we would have gotten around to it eventually. Anyway, thanks again, question answered! :) Wikiscient (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, if one was to become conscious that they are a character in a narrative, then certain notions/emotions would be rather difficult to express such as alienation.Smallman12q (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

MLitt/MSc (Scotland)

In Scotland, how does the MLitt degree compare to the MSc? The article on the MLitt says that it's the equivalent of the English MA; what is the MSc equivalent to in the English system? The Jade Knight (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The MSc is the same as in the rest of the UK, so it is of roughly equivalent academic standard to the MLitt or English MA. Warofdreams talk 22:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

So what's the difference between the MLitt and MSc in Scotland? The Jade Knight (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As stated in the article, the MLitt is the equivalent of an English MA - it is awarded in arts, humanities and social science subjects. The MSc is awarded in science and engineering subjects. Warofdreams talk 09:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be true. For example, the University of Glasgow offers a great many taught degrees as either MLitt or MSc degrees (one example: You can get an MLitt in History, or an MSc in History). The Jade Knight (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It's broadly true. Universities don't always stick strictly to these definitions, and some have particular traditions of awarding certain titles for otherwise unlikely topics - for example, the London School of Economics awards little other than BSc and MSc degrees, even for subjects which would be likely to receive a BA, MA or MLitt elsewhere. Warofdreams talk 23:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Crest on UK royal proclamation

Does anybody know what the crest used here is? Thanks, ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 13:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a combination of the Edward crown, Tudor rose (England) and thistle (Scotland). It's a selection of symbolic elements, but I don't know that that particular combination has any distinctive name or special status... AnonMoos (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I can also see a leek (Wales) in there. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the crest; the Crown in the centre. To the right of the Crown is the Rose of England surrounded by young buds still to flower. To the left of the Crown is the Leek of Wales and the Thistle of Scotland. I've just spotted the Shamrock below the Rose of England, to the Right of the Crown, representing Ireland. MacOfJesus (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"Are you living in a computer simulation?"

Here is the abstract from the paper "Are you living in a computer simulation?" by Nick Bostrom in Philosophical Quarterly (2003), Vol. 53, No. 211:

This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.

I haven't read it since it came out, but plan to have a look at it again soon as I think it may have some bearing on a question I asked earlier today. Specifically I believe it argues that if I were living in a computer simulation, I wouldn't know it. Does the paper make a sound and convincing argument for that case?

Although it is the protocol here to not give medical advice, I can speak from personal experience that delving into these kind of theories is not good for the psyche. I myself was (and it sometimes still happens) that I am on a TV show. Try to focus on what really matters in life. schyler (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

[Meta-question (from the OP): is it really good policy at a Reference desk to discourage the question-asker from asking the sort of question asked...? Wikiscient (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)]

Schyler, what do you mean ? Are you saying that you are under illusion that you are on a TV show while in reality you are not ? Or did you mean something else ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

While this is meant to be humorous (I think?), is it really good policy at a Reference desk to discourage the question-asker from asking the sort of question asked...? Wikiscient (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Who do you mean when you say "question-asker", Schyler, OP or me ? If you mean me - no, I am not at all being humorous. I am confused by what schyler has said... Jon Ascton  (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The entire point of such a question is to try and get at "what really matters in life." If you don't know whether reality is real or not, then what matters is not necessarily clear either. What you really mean is, "stop thinking about it, because it'll make your head hurt," which, while potentially true, is not philosophically satisifying. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the OP raising that aspect of the question, but it certainly seems to be the next step. I'll observe that "is reality real?" is not often a meaningful question. Anything which is functionally identical to reality (as we think of it), is reality. (And therefore, intriguingly, any crisis over the purpose of life, which we would experience if we knew we were living in a simulation, also applies to life as we know it, and needs to be met with arguments.) There is some meaning to the question in this context, because if we are in a computer simulation, it might not be completely functionally identical to our conception of reality - in other words, there's a threat hanging over our heads that one day our simulation might be switched off by the operators. However, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I hope they would do the morally right thing, whatever that is. 213.122.41.114 (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Derealization is relevant and interesting, I think. 213.122.41.114 (talk) 06:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe the appropriate answer to this question is mu. --Ludwigs2 23:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the interesting follow-up question is, if we are living in a computer simulation that exactly simulates real life, and we are simply programmes in the machine, does that change anything? Does that actually mean you should do anything different, or treat anything as less real? That doesn't mean "stop wondering", because it can be interesting to wonder, and enlightening to investigate. But it does mean, don't worry about the implications, because if the simulation is so good that you can't find unambiguous evidence for it, you are in exactly the same situation as if it were real. After all, the reality you experience is a creation of your mind out of the electrical signals your sense organs send: a decent simulation is exactly as real as 'real' can be. (And I see GC below me has some very strange reasoning) 86.161.108.172 (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No. If the universe were simulated, there would be evidence that the forces we experience were not as evenly distributed as we observe them. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, or perhaps not, but in either case we would accept that as a truth about out universe, not as evidence of a simulation. As Wittgenstein pointed out, the one thing you can never determine is whether a standard is accurate. The standard is what we measure everything else by; there is no way to measure a standard against itself. to determine whether the universe was simulated we would need some standard outside of the universe against which to measure it; merely having such a standard would demonstrate that the universe was a simulation, and without such we can't say anything at all. --Ludwigs2 02:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, there's a mathematical eqiuvalent of Wittgenstein's philosophy here, see Gödel's incompleteness theorems, the first states that all systems must contain statements which are taken as axiomatic, but which are unprovable by the system itself, and the second states that no system contains the tools to prove its own consistancy. We have to operate as though we can trust our interpretation of the world. We could all be living in the Matrix, but to assume so doesn't allow us to operate effectively within the world. In other words, we have to act as though the world is real; if it isn't, acting as though it isn't doesn't allow us to interact effectively with it anyways. --Jayron32 04:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It is highly plausible and intuitive that our experiences and perceptions could as easily occur in a "computer simulation" as in "reality," If it were "all fake," what could we do about it? Many years before Bostrom wrote about this one of my professors agreed this scenario of us existing in a computer simulation was plausible, but said "If I stop pretending that I work as a professor, then the pretend university will stop issuing pretend checks, and soon thereafter I will feel hungry due to the lack of pretend food." Edison (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the paper either, so cannot comment on it. But I'd say the phrase "computer simulation" is potentially misleading, as it implies something possible with today's computers, or future computers not that different from today's. A reality involving billions, at least, of "AIs", in a vast and complex environment, is so far beyond today's computers that to use the term "computer simulation" is to invite readers to consider this feat less significant than it would be. I have no problem with the notion that we live in a reality created by superior beings. But you might as well call such a belief "religious" as much as "simultation". Pfly (talk) 06:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

you might like to read Chaotic system 200.144.37.3 (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not ask Nick Bostrom to clarify? MacOfJesus (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest reading the paper first. Really! It's hilarious. And sound. :)
Now that I have re-read it myself, I see what it was I wanted to use in response to the initial respondents to my first question. But as I am the one asking that question, and have now found a sufficient answer to it, it no longer seems too necessary to actually use it there.
Thanks for all the responses to both questions! :) Cheers,Wikiscient (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

In the TV series Star Trek: The Next Generation the holodeck had fictional characters who learned they were only characters in a detective story adventure of Captain Pickard, The Big Goodbye. One had the existential crisis of asking Pickard what would happen to him, his friends and his family when Pickard left the simulation; would they just suddenly not exist? Pickard told him he "did not know." In a college newspaper there was a comic strip which was set to end (in reality) at the end of the schoolyear. Various characters in the strip "started a protest" against the end of the strip, stating that they simply "refused to stop existing," and that they would just "go on as if nothing had happened." One character said "What do you mean 'comic strip?' Aren't we REAL?" and the other said "Sorry. I thought you knew." "Real world" fictional characters getting into a "work of fiction" or "fictional characters" coming into the "real world" have been common themes in fiction, especially of the science fiction/fantasy genre. Tron is one example, in which a "real person" gets stuck into a computer game. My favorite is "The Island of Doctor Death and other stories and other stories" (yes, that is the title of the book) by Gene Wolfe. In one story "The Island of Dr. Death," there a boy who reads lurid fiction to escape from a bleak and boring life and a character from a story comes into his world and tells him "If a story is written well enough, the characters can become real to the readers- like YOU." This gives the reader a certain jolt. Some fiction has dealt with a character becoming aware that he is in a simulation, as in by noticing some flaw in the rendering of some part of the "world." In such works there may be ways the character can affect the simulation that would not apply in a "real world" akin to the secret codes used by players of computer war games to gain some advantage (like unlimited ammunition in their weapon. I suppose that such hacking would seem like "magic" or "miracles" in a "real world." I see computer simulations like The Sims and am convinced that it should be possible in the future to have characters in a computer simulation "believe they are real" as surely as we do. "Are You Really Alive? A Sims 3 Existential Crisis" (you can google the title to find the essay) suggests that we all might be "meat sims." Edison (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Another story of this type is "Non Serviam" from A Perfect Vacuum by Stanisław Lem (well, it's not really a story, but a review of a nonexistant book, but all the same ...) ---Sluzzelin talk 14:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't know how well known this is in the Anglophone world (i.e., not sure if it was ever translated), but the sequels Koji Suzuki wrote to his bestselling Ring novel (yes, the one the movie was made after, with Sadako coming from the TV set and all) all had a different twist - while the first book was essentially a revenge-of-the-pissed-off-ghost story, the third novel goes on to discover that we are all living in a computer simulation, and Sadako is basically a glitch in the system, a virus. Also, regarding what Edison wrote higher up about stories, there's always the wonderful The Neverending Story TomorrowTime (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Town and country parks from urban sprawl?

At http://youtube.com/watch?v=1Xhdy9zBEws what is the label of the middle two segments of land utilization? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Could be "transporte". 92.15.11.118 (talk) 09:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

September 3

The Question Above...

There is a question above about "What would have Thomas Jefferson said about Somalia ?". If that's a legitimate question for RD, I would like to know what would have Mahatma Gandhi said about 9-11 ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it's a legitimate question for the RD but nevertheless it seems obvious that GhandiGandhi, as a pacifist, would abhor all terrorist violence including the 9/11 attacks. —D. Monack ^talk 02:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC) (Typo now fixed. Please relax. —D. Monack ^talk 22:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC))

You are not aware of the fact that more that Pacifism, Gandhi was more concerned with his policy of never blaming Muslims for anything. One of his most famous quotes was :

it is wrong to say that Islam has employed force. No religion in this world has spread through the use of force. No Musalman, to my knowledge, has ever approved of compulsion.

This is what he said after some of the most atrocious anti-Hindu holocausts in India. There are numerous historical sources about Gandhi's strange attitude, you can start with this
No man, he would have blamed Wright Brothers for inventing the airplane instead !  Jon Ascton  (talk) 05:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

One could interpret that statement to mean that Ghandi carefully controlled what he said as to intentionally diffuse violence and avoid antagonizing or provoking people. He was well aware that mere speech could be an incitement to violence, so it does seem to fit within his philosophy to carefully choose one's statements so as to encourage nonviolence. --Jayron32 06:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That was the problem. This kind of attitude, you'd know if you read India's history, would anger muslims more ! They were working so hard to produce a gulf between Hindus and Muslims, so that they could have a Pakistan, and Gandhi was promoting Hindu-Muslim unity by "intentionally diffus(ing) violence and avoid antagonizing or provoking people" as you have pointed out. You are right, it should work in theory, but real life is a different deal  Jon Ascton  (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

First, kindly note it's Gandhi, not Ghandi. Secondly what question are you pointing at when you say "I doubt it's a legitimate question for the RD". The Thomas Jefferson-Somalia or Gandhi-9/11? Kindly make clear  Jon Ascton  (talk) 04:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Both, obviously. And don't correct others' spelling mistakes. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 04:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is that ? When you spell someone's proper name it is expected that spelling should be correct. Won't the reader feel irritated if I spell Washington as Bashington or Kennedy as Cannedy or something like that. Besides I am not touching the text D.Monack has entered, inspite of intense temptation to do so, though I implore him to reedit it. Thanks  Jon Ascton  (talk) 04:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither is appropriate. If you want to know more about Gandhi's philosophy, see Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi#Gandhi.27s_principles or Gandhism. The reference desk is not the place to ask about what dead political figures would think about modern events. --Jayron32 04:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, how did we do that without having an edit conflict? --Viennese Waltz ^talk 04:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I just say how curious it was that Jon Ascton mentioned the Wright brothers in connection with Gandhi. Why? Because Orville Wright and Mahatma Gandhi both died on 30 January 1948. Smart cookie, Jon. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Gandhi was a bitter opponent of technology and saw it as root of all evil. He also didn't think much of skyscrapers ( preferred people to live in shabby huts like the poor do in India ). By Wright Brothers I mean all guys who were more or less responsible for building things like airplanes. I hope that helps  Jon Ascton  (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No doubt smart, but he probably reads the current day's calendar page everyday....like I do. :) (edit) I guess it is not January 30th today. I've had a long week.10draftsdeep (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

A story from Sunday school, when I was a Christian

One night, a wife goes to see her lover across the river. She discovered on her way home that she had forgotten her wallet. She begged the boatman to let her go home, but he refused. She had to take a more dangerous route home, across the bridge, on which she encountered a robber, who killed her. We were asked to rank the characters by guilt. (Everyone but me thought that the wife was the most guilty, and that was when I began to question my religion, but anyway...)

I heard the same story in another setting (with the same polling result, btw), so it seems to be a popular teaching device, but does anyone know where it comes from? Has anyone else heard the story? 67.243.7.245 (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't heard the exact story (but then I am not writing from US or Europe like you {I think} are), but I have heard several stories like this from religious mouths, sometimes even made to look like real-life incidents  Jon Ascton  (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I am curious as to the reasoning behind the people choosing the wife, was it because she was having an affair? I understand that adultery is a sin but I am 100% certain murder is one too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.167.165.2 (talk) 04:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The bare bones of this story are not dissimilar to the bare bones of the movie Psycho: Woman having a nooner, then steals a client's wad of money, goes to a motel, gets murdered in the shower. That taught her a lesson for sure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the story comes from Bible, you are right it was a preacher's technique to start debate and filter out true believers so that he can make clear how to go about planning next lesson. I think religion and morality should be separated. If Christianity is on decline in West it is this reason - people can be no longer subjected to guilt by sexual repression.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 04:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow. What does this have to do with the question? Aaronite (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The story is made up to teach people a lesson - adultery is bad. I hope that helps Jon Ascton  (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I have heard nothing remotely like this in any sunday school. It does not sound like it came from any Christian source. What is your point? Edison (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I heard something fairly similar in a seminar I was made to attend when I was jobless. The premise was similar and the question was essentially the same (it was, IIRC rank the people by true friendship to protagonist). I refused to answer, because it felt dumb being probed by such obvious psychological devices... In any way, I don't think it's from the Bible. TomorrowTime (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not remotely biblical. It's been used as a discussion tool in a lot of places, not just Christian. From a Christian context we were always encouraged to go with the answer that none was worse than the other, for traditional Christian doctrine is supposed to suggest that all sin is equally bad. Steewi (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

. I don't think that's in any "traditional Christian doctrine" at all. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like an approximation to the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity, in which all actions, even morally good actions, are wicked in God's sight unless done to the glory of God. I don't know whether you'd call Calvinism "traditional". Marnanel (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This kind of puzzle is sometimes called exercise in pragmatic ethics, or thought experiment in ethics, or moral dilemma, or, on Wikipedia, ethical dilemma. We have a category thought experiments in ethics, but your example doesn't have its own article. Though I found several versions online, I found nothing on the origin of this particular exercise. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I was also told a very similar story, though it involved more characters; again, ranking the characters from bad to good was to reveal the listerner's personal ethics. But it seemed more of a parlour game than a sermon; the friends who told it to me were Japanese and not Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Y'all are right, the purpose of the story is not to push a particular ethic; it's to allow the class to discuss their own individual ethics. It's a good premise for that. It reminds me a little bit of this hypothesis: "Suppose you go back in time to 1938 and have a foolproof opportunity to kill Hitler. Do you do it?" One answer is, "No, because murder is a sin." Another answer is that, instead of worrying selfishly about your own personal "salvation", you assassinate Hitler and take your chances with God, on the grounds that you've prevented a "greater sin". The catch there is that you don't know what happens in the 1940s if you take Hitler out of the picture. It might even turn out worse than it did. But it's an interesting ethical question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't do it because you might create a grandfather paradox and destroy the entire space-time continuum! Googlemeister (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Point of order: this discussion belongs in the Europe: Twentieth Century forum. Paul (Stansifer) 16:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I remember reading that riddle in the novel The Pigman by Paul Zindel There is a river with a bridge over it, and a WIFE and her HUSBAND live in a house on one side. The WIFE has a LOVER who lives on the other side of the river, and the only way to get from one side of the river to the other is to walk across the bridge or to ask the BOATMAN to take you.

One day the HUSBAND tells his WIFE that he has to be gone all night to handle some business in a faraway town. The WIFE pleads with him to take her with him because she knows if she doesn't, she will be unfaithful to him. The HUSBAND absolutely refuses to take her because she will only be in the way of his important business.

So the HUSBAND goes alone. When he is gone, the WIFE goes over to the bridge and stays with her LOVER. The night passes, and dawn is almost up when the WIFE leaves because she must get back to her own home before her HUSBAND returns. She starts to cross the bridge but sees an ASSASSIN waiting for her on the other side, and she knows if she tries to cross, he will murder her. In terror, she runs up the side of the river and asks the BOATMAN to take her across the river, but he wants fifty cents. She has no money, so he refuses to take her.

The WIFE runs back to the LOVER's house and explains to him what the predicament is and asks him for fifty cents to pay the BOATMAN. The LOVER refuses, telling her it's her own fault for getting into the situation. As dawn comes up, the WIFE is nearly out of her mind and dashes across the bridge. When she comes face to face with the ASSASSIN, he takes a large knife and stabs her until she is dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.68.135 (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Absent from that story is who hired the assassin. The husband? In any case sounds like whoever it was should have hired a better one if said asssassin just waits on the other side of the bridge and the wife is able to recognise them as an assassin. And it's not like the wife even seems particularly smart if she still tried to cross the bridge (screw the husband, if an assassin is waiting on me on the other side of a bridge I ain't crossing and of course if it was the husband who hired the assassin, I wouldn't want to return to him). Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I love the reaction of the lover: "Hrmph, what do I care, go get your stupid ass killed, I ain't giving you no 50 cents." I'm betting this story was written solely for the purpose of inciting clandestine feminists into a revealing rage. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Assigning guilt. How Christian.--Wetman (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Was Paul Zindel a Christian? How do you know? Marnanel (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I think that is the story I heard as well. And yes, most people blame the wife because they find adultery the most repugnant. A recent poll of Americans by Time or Newsweek found something similar, I think, when they asked people to rank bad deeds. 67.243.7.245 (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't blame you for questioning your association with people who in this story would find most guilt with the wife. It seems almost like her entire fault is refusing to be treated like chattel. Kinder, Küche, Kirche and all that. TomorrowTime (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Capital punishment

What was the first modern country to abolish capital punishment? --75.33.216.97 (talk) 12:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Take your pick of "modern" from here. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that "modern" means countries that are still around. ----J4\/4 <talk> 12:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

For those who don't have time to read the linked article, it looks like Venezuela in 1863 and San Marino in 1865 although there hadn't been an execution there since 1468. Alansplodge (talk) 13:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

distraction
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There's no obvious cutoff for "modern," but the article gives a lot of nice dates from the late 19th through the 20th century, so hopefully the original poster can find whatever he or she had in mind in that list. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Far more interestingly . . . I wonder which will be the last. 194.223.35.225 (talk) (Gurumaister not logged in) —Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC). Depends on when people stop murdering each other. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC) No, it depends on when states decide to behave in a humanitarian fashion by not killing their own citizens. --Viennese Waltz talk 05:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC) The citizens have the right to protect themselves permanently from murderers. Nonetheless, the death penalty is slowly disappearing in the U.S., which is the country that I assume the IP is hinting at. However, there are many other countries around the world where it will remain alive and well for the foreseeable future. Perhaps the IP also considers those countries to be inhumane. Or is he singling out the U.S. for some reason? P.S. With the death penalty non-existent in Europe, your humanitarianism has totally put an end to murder there, right? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Bugs, the OP didn't mention any country, you have imagined that he meant the USA. On your last "point" - abolition of the death penalty isn't about putting an end to murder, it's more about believing that it's wrong to kill, and the impossibility of compensating someone who was wrongfully executed. DuncanHill (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC) I really don't care whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent against murder or not, that is not the point. The point is that it is a bloodthirsty violation of human rights for the state to take a human life. And by the way Bugs, your regulation tiresome sideswipe against IP editors was off beam in this case since the editor took the trouble to note that he has an account but was not logged in when he posted. --Viennese Waltz talk 08:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC) The society in which he lives has decided that the murderer forfeits his so-called "human rights" through having deprived another of their own "human rights". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC) squabble The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Bugs, your soapbox-to-content ratio is kind of off the charts lately. Please see if you can do anything to improve it a bit. You've been responding with "party lines" to a good percentage of the questions on here. Don't confuse the Reference Desk for a debating society! Your nationalist paranoia is getting a little buggy (the OP names no country, so you then say you assume they are singling out the US, then you criticize them for singling out the US? Surely you can see how crazy this looks). --Mr.98 (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Bugs has always been like that and, as you can see, no matter how much we complain, it looks like that we'll have to endure his nonsense here forever. --Belchman (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC) I am citing the usual arguments that are made in favor of capital punishment, so any "nonsense" is theirs, not mine. I don't even necessarily agree with those arguments. As for your self-righteous personal attacks, well, I'm used to that nonsense by now. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Bugs, why did you ask "is he singling out the US for some reason?" when the OP made no reference to the USA at all? Were you deliberately trying to start an argument, or is it just your natural inability to read the question before attacking it? DuncanHill (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC) As compared to your natural inability to assume good faith by registered users? The USA frequently gets bashed here for retaining the death penalty while Europeans have abolished it since they apparently enjoy keeping murderers alive. And in re-reading the flow of that segment, it's obvious you didn't read it yourself. So keep your trap shut unless you have something actually useful to say to me. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Bugs, no-one can ever say anything useful to you because you never listen. When you stop lying and misrepresenting the posts of others, I'll stop commenting on your lies and misrepresentations. The OP never mentioned the USA, you did, so if anyone is bashing the USA and making it look bad it's you. Fortunately, most of us realise that most Americans are not the unthinking reactionary stereotypes that you present yourself to be. DuncanHill (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Accusations of various things against registered users, while kissing up to drive-by IP's, is just one of the many issues wikipedia editors face on a routine basis. I asked you to tell me something useful. I'm still waiting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC) When the IP asks a reasonable, if ultimately unanswerable, question, and the registered user is mendaciously trolling, guess which one I'll prefer? You deliberately invented a slight to the USA when none had been made, and now object to people calling you out for it. This isn't the only thread you've done this in lately, and it's getting beyond the usual "it's only Bugs, he adds a bit of much-needed colour" stage, it just looks now like you are deliberately trolling. If you hate IP editors so much, just ignore them instead of making up things they haven't said as a reason to have a go at them. DuncanHill (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Yet more lack of AGF on your part, yet here you are lecturing others about their behavior. I sometimes raise questions others may not want to hear, and I don't apologize for it (unless I'm wrong, which is seldom). And I take the side of IP editors against registered editors, when they're right. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Why did you accuse the OP of singling out the USA? Was that a "good faith" lie on your part? Or were you assuming an ulterior motive based n your own assumption of good faith? Why did you lyingly claim that another questioner had said that people voted Lenin in, was that another "good faith" lie? Why should I assume good faith when to do so would require a lobotomy? You've stopped being funny and become both a bore and a boor. DuncanHill (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Any question that starts "What will be the last nation to..." depends more on when will human civilization end than on what any current nations are doing. It is either extreme pessimism or extreme arrogance to assume that any of our current nations will still be around when our species goes extinct. APL (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC) The nations might still be around, but their buildings would be empty. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Well I don't think Baseball Bugs can be right as I strongly suspect that every country that has stopped using capital punishment still has murders. So it can't, logically be the absence of murder that drives the abolishion of capital punishment. He is also incorrect in thinking that I was hinting at the disappearance of the death penalty in the US either (or was that a reference to Viennese and I am mistaken?). I am British so the US doesn't hold any particular relevance for me. However, I like your logical and rational approach, Baseball Bugs. Viennese Waltz's response was spoiled for me by the inclusion of his/her own emotional opinion - tends to make you wonder about the validity of the rest of their argument. Gurumaister (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Actually, Gurumaister, my response was only to give my emotional opinion, I didn't make any attempt to answer the question. --Viennese Waltz talk 08:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Viennese, I believe your sarcasm detector might be malfunctioning. TomorrowTime (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Star Trek Voyager

In ST Voyager, what novel is the holosuite program that Captain Janeway partakes in based on please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.145 (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's Jane Eyre. See "Persistence of Vision". ---Sluzzelin talk 15:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The corresponding article at MemoryAlpha doesn't say anything, though, so I suppose no official source ever confirmed this. TomorrowTime (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That article does say "The holonovel seems based on elements from Charlotte Brontë's Jane Eyre, Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca, and Henry James' The Turn of the Screw". ---Sluzzelin talk 16:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh, I completely missed that. In an article that short. I have no idea how that happened. TomorrowTime (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

OP might be talking about the Fair Haven (Star Trek: Voyager) episode. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That episode was centred on the holodeck, but Captain Janeway's fantasy novel referred to by the OP spanned several episodes and was featured in the Persistence of Vision episode mentioned above. Dbfirs 23:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Monarchy of the UK using pwoers unilaterally

Has the monarch of the UK ever used his/her powers unilaterally since the act of union? The monarch can do stuff like appoint hte prime minister, disoolve parliament, call elections etc. Has this ever been done without the consent of parliament since 1707?--92.251.193.180 (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Not all that much in overt formal terms since the Scottish Militia Bill 1708. However, monarchs had a certain degree of influence on which politicians would receive the support of Parliament and so become Prime Ministers well into the 19th century -- and even today, if there was a Commons election with no clear victorious party, the Queen might possibly have a certain discretion as to which party leader to give the first opportunity to try to find a parliamentary majority... AnonMoos (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

See Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom. This says: "The last time the monarch unilaterally dissolved Parliament was in 1835, when Earl Grey resigned as prime minister; although he had a fully functioning cabinet capable of carrying on without him, William IV chose to force it out of office." Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright thanks a lot, OP--92.251.193.180 (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Name of that amazing 'head dancing' seen in India

Does anyone know the term for it? Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

In Bharatanatyam it is called shiro bheda (head movements). I'm not that familiar with Indian dance. I do know that head gestures play an important part in other Indian classical dances as well, such as Odissi. Still, I think you're looking for something like this. (Gotta keep that atlas in motion) ---Sluzzelin talk 00:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out in that link, what makes the dance so effectful is the combination of head movements, neck movements (greeva bheda), and eye movements (drishti bheda). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey...isn't the term you are using "Head Dancing" a bit scary ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well there's hand dancing and belly dancing, why not head dancing? In all three cases other body parts are in motion too, the name merely emphasizes the most striking element. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You are right. But it seems if someone's talking about a severed head dancing on its own somewhere...

Thanks, Sluzzelin - just what I was looking for - nice to see you again. Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

September 4

Absolute pitch

Hi again all. My music teacher last semester said that it's very likely that I have or could develop with some training the absolute pitch. (This is probably based on I have played piano for almost all my life, I speak a tonal language natively, and both my grandparents have it). I know what it is, but my question is how do I know if I have it, and how can I train or develop it? 99.13.222.181 (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, absolute pitch is genetic, not learned. If you have it, you can develop it; if you don't, you can't. All absolute pitch means, effectively, is that you can recall and reproduce pitch accurately from memory: in other words, if I say "Sing a C", you can produce the correct pitch on cue. easiest way to test if you have absolute pitch is to pick a note on the keyboard, hit it a few times and try to memorize it, and then come back to the keyboard the next day and try to sing the note again, testing it by hitting the same key afterward. If you get it right (or very close) then you likely have it. --Ludwigs2 00:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

As always Wikipedia has an article or two about this... Absolute_pitch#Nature_vs._nurture, Ear training--Aspro (talk) 07:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This is often known as perfect pitch, which relates to the same article page. However, there is another "gift" which I only met one person with it; that is the ability of "seeing music". MacOfJesus (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a form of synesthesia, which isn't all that uncommon among musicians. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; I did not know it's name. Beethoven, apparently had it, explained why his deafness did not hinder him. MacOfJesus (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need to adduce synaesthesia in Beethoven's case, just because he was deaf. Close your eyes, turn off all external music, and silently imagine someone singing your country's national anthem. Or, imagine them singing it deliberately off key. You've got it, haven't you. But does that mean you're experiencing synaesthesia? No. If, whenever you hear music with your eyes open, you see letters, numbers, colours, shapes; you get certain tastes in your mouth; you experience certain smells - or vice-versa - that's synaesthesia. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, This one person, who reached dizzy heights in Music, convinced me that he had something that was different. His ability to "balance" music was extrardinary. I take your point that a learning process can bring this about, but to what level? MacOfJesus (talk) 07:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The question is, why would you want perfect pitch? It would presumably be fixed to the pitches of whatever instrument you used to learn it, making other pitches and tunings sound 'off'. Would you learn concert pitch? What will you do if you have to play an instrument that is tuned to a different pitch? How much recorded music will sound distractingly 'off' to you? Far better to learn relative pitch and (possibly) a reference sound for a given note, so you can recall it if needed. Although even relative pitch can be distracting: I wish someone had told me about just intonation and equal temperament when I was tuning and retuning my violin, not understanding why the strings could seem to be tuned to perfect fifths and yet a perfectly in-tune scale (based on scales I played on the piano) could sound a little off. Nowadays I hear a range of acceptable tunings as I play two strings together, choosing how 'perfect' I want it to be. 86.164.78.91 (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

ʃ

last question, I promise! In older English you see the long s. What are the rules about where ot use the long s? I need to use them in a project —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.222.181 (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It was used most places except after another long "s" or at the end of a word. By the way, I don't think you have a real long s character above; our article has "ſ"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The long s looks different in different fonts. While the glyph used above is Unicode U+0283 (Voiceless postalveolar fricative - not to be confused with U+01A9, Esh (letter), or U+222B, Integral symbol), it does have the same look (on my computer) as some of the more script style long s's - like the first one in the long s article, whereas the actual long s glyph (U+017F) looks more like the one in the Paradiſe Loſt example on that page. (Personally, I prefer it with the descender, but realize that would be more appropriately handled by changing the font.) -- 174.21.233.249 (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The "ʃ" that you use in the title is or is very similar to what we use in my Phonetics class for the French sound "ch", which is like the English sound "sh". The "ſ" proposed above looks more correct to me. Falconus^{p t c} 04:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The long s stops at the line and has no descender. It is generally used as the first of a pair of s's in a word, or as a single s. The small s started out as the form used at the end of a word. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to use long s, just recognize it, and enjoy the Flanders and Swann rendition of the old fong "Greenfleeves".--Wetman (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Or Shakespeare's "Where the bee fucks there fuck I". (Sorry.) AndyJones (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Family Fable

There is a story of my family that I was always told and was wondering how I can do some (academic) research on the subject. It goes like this: Brigget Von Schyler was to be married in the morning. Alas, her fiance died in an unforeseen carriage wreck in which he drowned. Brigget was consoled by the [insert noble title] and taken into his castle to help with chores. Unbeknownst to Brigget the duke had actually had her fiance killed to take her as his mistress! Buisness being done, Fritz Carl Schyler Raadt is born. Being an illegitimate child, he soon immigrates to Montreal and then to Buffalo, New York in the late 19th century. Fritz's son's son's son's son is me.

Some facts are known, like Fritz was indeed raised at Orebygaard estate and did immigrate to Montreal. His mother was named Brigget. No one, however, knows who his father is.

The story takes yet another mysterious twist when Fritz's grandneice visited Lolland in the 1930's. Upon inspection of the castle she found that the "hall of portraits" was sealed off, unable to compare fritz's photograph with that of the noble-in-question.

Even more interesting, I have recently discovered from a comrade of mine who knows Danish that my last name (Raadt) can be translated 'Advisory Committee,' which seemingly comes from a committee which was convened to name this recently born illegitimate child, and naming him after the committee which was formed to name him.

Altogether quite interesting. I want to know how to get some more facts. Any help would be greatly appreciated! schyler (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

PS. I am posting a related question to translate a letter into Danish to mail to the Bed and Breakfast that now occupies the estate.

Your best bet is to consult genealogy resources in the area where this is proposed to have happened (See Genealogy#Genealogical_research_process if you haven't already). Frequently the village churches recorded births, deaths, marriages and the like. As you have names of people, you can look them up, to confirm they existed and lived in the appropriate time period. Occasionally, the record will also indicate what people's jobs were, and where they were employed. As the events have to do with a nobleman, there may also be some indication of them in the local paper. Looking up church records and newspaper records may require you visiting the locality in person, though (although a few places have put records online). On this side of the Atlantic, you can double check ship manifests to ensure that Fritz actually immigrated when and from where he said he did, as opposed to making the story up to impress his wife/grandchildren. (Which happens surprisingly often.) (Also, while I wouldn't necessarily recommend pursuing it, I will note that as a direct male-line descendant of Fritz, it would be possible to confirm/disprove the identity of Fritz's father if you could locate a (legitimate) male-line descendant of the nobleman, and apply Genetic genealogy.) -- 174.21.233.249 (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"Even more interesting, I have recently discovered from a comrade of mine who knows Danish that my last name (Raadt) can be translated 'Advisory Committee,' which seemingly comes from a committee which was convened to name this recently born illegitimate child, and naming him after the committee which was formed to name him." This sounds highly unlikely. In Danish it would be "Raad" or "Raadet", and I have never heard of a committee being formed to name illegimate children nor that such a committee would name the child after itself. Such a name would sound odd to Danes. I suspect "Raadt" is of Dutch origin, at least there seems to be a lot of people on Google from the Netherlands and South Africa of that name. You may also consider that the name of the ancestor may have been "Birgit" or "Birgitte" or something similar. "Brigget" is not a Danish or German name, in fact I am not sure it is a name at all. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You may also want to check out the Danish Wikipedia article on Orebygaard. It has a list of owners, showing the noble family in question would have to be Rosenørn-Lehn, of which the progenitor was Otto Ditlev Rosenørn-Lehn (1821-29) who was the foreign minister of Denmark for 21 years. Christian IX of Denmark, George I of Greece and Alexander III of Russia was present at his funeral. It is a nice story, but I must say that it often turns out that the truth is a lot more prosaic than the family legends. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Greatest disparity in standard of living between neighboring countries

This map may help as well. schyler (talk)

I was just thinking about differences between San Diego and Tijuana. This made me wonder, which two neighboring countries have the greatest difference in standard of living? My hunch is to say North and South Korea have the greatest difference. Other than these two, what are some other prominent examples? Where would the difference between the US and Mexico rank? Do they have the greatest difference in the Western Hemisphere? (not a homework question, curious) Thanks, 24.62.245.13 (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The Gini coefficient measures this. schyler (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. The Gini coefficient measures the income disparity within a country, it's not terribly useful in measuring differences in overall or average standard of living between two different countries. For example, by Gini coefficient, China and the U.S. have comparible values; that doesn't mean that China and the U.S. have the same standard of living, it means that they have a similar "spread" of standard of living within their borders. That is, the difference between the richest and poorest Americans is similar to the difference between the richest and poorest Chinese. What the OP would want to compare is something like GDP per capita or GDP (PPP) per capita. Perusing List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita and the map below will give better results. Using the CIA World Fact Book numbers from the List article, it looks like something like Zimbabwe ($100 per capita) vs. South Africa ($10,100) is a pretty stark difference; it represents a difference of over 100 fold, or 10,000% difference. Using the same set of data, the U.S. ($46,400) vs. Mexico ($13,500), or about a 3.5 fold (about 350%) difference isn't nearly as great. South Korea ($28,000) vs. North Korea ($1,900) is also pretty big at about 15 fold (1,500%).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayron32 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 4 September 2010

This map is better for the comparison the OP wants to do.

Botswana ($13,100) > Zimbabwe actually gives a higher differential than South Africa > Zimbabwe - at least 130 times, using those figures. Some other interesting differences:

Libya $15,200 > Niger $700 (21.7 times)

Equatorial Guinea $36,600 > Cameroun $2,300 (15.9 times)

Kuwait $54,100 > Iraq $3,600 (15.0 times)

Israel $28,400 > West Bank / Gaza $2,900 (9.8 times)

Oman $23,900 > Yemen $2,500 (9.6 times)

Argentina $13,800 > Paraguay $4,100 (3.4 times)

Instructive ! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Spain 29k > Morocco 4.6k (~7 times) Steewi (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Selective service system

Will Barrack Obama remove the selective service system for good in the near future and if not, when will the selective service system be completely be removed and abolished? Is it close to being abolished at the moment? I heard that troops in Iraq were withdrawn so I think that's an indication that selective service system will be abolished. Am I right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.226.126 (talk)

I don't think the connection you're making between the Iraq withdrawal and the Selective Service System is necessarily valid - the USA has concluded many conflicts and undertaken many troop withdrawals since the inception of the system and hasn't removed it. I haven't seen anything to suggest there are any concrete plans to remove the system entirely - the general idea being that it's much easier to keep such a system ticking over without actually conscripting anyone, rather than having to create it again from scratch should conscription become urgently necessary in the future. ~ mazca ^talk 11:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

President Ford ended the selective service in 1975 (largely as a backlash to the Vietnam war), but it was reinstated in 1980 by President Carver (and retroactively applied to most of the people who had been exempt). See Selective Service System#History. So it's not unprecedented for it to be discontinued after a long, unpopular war. However, if I were a betting man (and I don't have a crystal ball, mind you), I wouldn't put money on it. The war in Iraq (unlike Vietnam) was fought by a volunteer army, and there hasn't been any backlash against a draft, because there hasn't been one. Buddy431 (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

But haven't people finally realized conscription is a bad thing and should be completely abolished? I mean Australia and the UK have abolished it. And Australia is a small country no where near the military power of the US and yet they've still abolished it. I don't get why tthe US having one of the strongest military in the world want to keep the selective service. Is there a valid reason for this? Could someone eexplain? And anyways I though US was a modern country that has moved on from conscription where as countries like singapore aren't modern so cconsciprtion hasn't been removed. How come it's been removed in Australia a small country but not in the US? Thanks guys ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.242.18 (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a big difference between actually conscripting people and simply keeping the system active in case of a possible need to conscript people in the future. I'm not sure I take your point that conscription is unambiguously "a bad thing and should be completely abolished" - the reason it's generally been abandoned in recent decades is because there hasn't been a particularly manpower-intensive, wide-ranging war being fought. In World War II, for example, the outcome may have been very different if the USA, Britain, etc had not chosen to implement it. I suspect the US government keeps the Selective Service System around so that, should a massive military problem occur and conscription become necessary again, it could be implemented with minimal difficulty. ~ mazca ^talk 13:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. But Britain has completely abolished it. So if Britain had any plans to bring it back or implement it wouldn't they have done something similar to the US with the selective service and all? They didn't. That's kind of what I'm asking. Britain has abolished it. That suggests people at least in Britain (and don't forget Australia) have moved on from the idea of a draft. Even if a war were to break out the draft wouldn't be reinstalled in Britain would it? So the US keeping it means a lot different. And my other question is more on this "moving on" business. I mean in the middle ages people were so religious they used to prosecute people who dared speak against the church. That's considered ridiculous nowadays. THat will never happen again. And as people become more educated other things like that are changing as well. Like rascism has stopped whereas it was common a few decades ago. Women are now considered equal to men. That kind of thing. WHat I'm asking is does this trend have any likely impact on the idea of conscription? It seems so. Slowly countries are removing the idea of national service and abolishing it by law. Like Spain. SO this means that even if a huge war started, since conscription is abolished by LAW, no one can be conscripted. Will this likely happen in the US? doesn't also the recent revolutions mean that a world war is impossible since people now think more before they act? And my other question was that the US has the biggest military in the world. THey'll be stronger than any other military in the world. So what's the need for having conscription. I can't think of an emergency that would require more than 20 million professional highly trained soldiers.

What makes you think Singapore isn't modern? It's one of the most developed countries in Asia Moreover both China and India have bigger militaries. :/ 76.230.146.8 (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Your approach is one of Teleology. It's not uncommon, all humans like to use it - whatever our views, we say we're making progress, going forward, as if there is some ideal endpoint that we will eventually reach if we keep going where everything's perfect. It's easy, comforting, but completely wrong. Examine, for example, the thousand years of regression Europe took after the fall of the Roman Empire - technologically we overtook Rome a few centuries ago, socially, in terms of minority rights and attitudes, there's a good argument to be made that we're barely their equals (I'm aware I'm describing this in a teleological manner. As I said, not uncommon). Your assertions that religious extremism, and minority oppression, and military conscription will never return are optimistic, but baseless. We can but hope --Saalstin (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

From a UK perspective conscription was ceased a long time ago. It keeps being raised as worthwhile, predominantly from a right wing political perspective as a panacea. There are a number of reasons why the military wouldn't want to implement it in our current situation. In fact it's not been abolished, it's just not implemented. Manning figures do account for a need for a massive increase in manpower, but the circumstances that would lead to that are quite extreme.

From a practical perspective there is neither the training infrastructure to accommodate the sudden increase in numbers, nor really the time available to integrate the new personnel into the system. Training for modern warfare takes a long time, even infanteer training takes over six months.

ALR (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any link between being "modern" and not have selective service. Plenty of industrially and culturally "modern" (by Western standards) states have conscription laws on the books, even if they haven't been used for a long time. And the idea that "people think more before they act" these days is pretty much unsupportable. The idea that we won't have any "world wars" of any major sort in the future is also pretty much just speculation and not tied to any actual recent events. (In fact, one could argue that the possibility of major conflicts has been greater in the last 10 years than it was in the 10 years before that). --Mr.98 (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Countries that drop selective service will reinstate it if they need a larger number of soldiers than volunteers will supply. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as the UK is concerned, I don't think anyone is advocating conscription to meet any military need - and the sort of military operations that the UK has been involved in recently require highly trained professional personnel - conscripts would probably be quite unsuitable. You do hear of people (typically right-wing as someone mentioned above) saying that "National Service" (as it used to be called here) should be reintroduced in some form, but this would be for the purpose of instilling discipline etc in young people, or just getting them off the streets, and possibly achieving some (non-military) purpose as a by-product, --rossb (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Last I heard, the Swiss still do just that: Every able-bodied adult male is expected to have the skills to defend the country if necessary. Rest assured that if the need arises, the U.S., the U.K. and anyone else who currently lacks a draft, will be quick to reinstate it... or to try to, anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The Swiss system is a key part of their political neutrality position, every able bodied male is a member of the military reserve and is required to fulfil a reserve training commitment accordingly.

From a command perspective I don't see any realistic circumstance where it would happen. Even when we were waiting for the third shock army in the Fulda Gap there was no expectation of requiring a conscription system. We've moved quite far beyond a situation where we need a low skill, massive force. From a UK perspective it would also lead to a massive change in how we conduct warfare. The whole concept of Mission Command, that is fundamental to how we in the UK conduct warfare, is predicated on a motivated, educated and well trained individual who has made the choice to be in the force.

ALR (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Enemies have a way of screwing up your plans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

From a British Military perspective our main enemies are in Whitehall and the White House.

ALR (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

So most of your Heathrow Airport bombings originate in the USA??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The Heathrow farce wasn't a threat to the British Military.

ALR (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure Neville Chamberlain thought the same way in 1938. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm unsurprised that the subtlety is lost on you, but the biggest threat to those of us who are in the military are the political decisions of those who direct our actions, make decisions on the funding that we receive, and legitimise our actions.

From a personal perspective as a former Squadron Commander that means that politicians are responsible for those decisions that constrained my actions in command, defined what I was expected to achieve, and what I was expected to achieve it with.

If we restrict our attentions purely to the Counter-Insurgency and Counter-Terrorism domains then political decision making has a direct influence on the threats that we face. The two are very different beasts, with different drivers, and different mitigations and actions required. You may be aware that Chamberlain was dealing with a state actor in 1938, not a terrorist threat. The dynamics in dealing with each of those are mildly different, as I'm sure you appreciate.

ALR (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

General James Mattoon Scott had similar thoughts, but he went just a little too far. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Public opinion of conscription

If conscription was introduced suddenly because of a world war III or something like that what would be the public opinion of it? (based on current or recent polls) Would people start revolting so the government won't conscript anyone anyway? (based on current or recent polls) And would it be possible to dodge a draft like that by just going to another country or is it harder to do that nowadays because of technology? (based on federal laws) I hear the current US senate is 402 - 2 majority do not want conscription. HOw would this number change in a world war? (based on recent wars such as Vietnam war) Last question, why do the US having the biggest military in the world want to have sa conscription called selective service? (this is a kind of a continuation from a question above but it's a different question so I ask here). Notice the things in brackets are the information I'd like my answers in (like the public opinion question can be answered based on recent polls) so I'm not asking opinions or anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.208.57 (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Volunteers are reminded that we deal in factual information on the Reference Desk, rather than speculation, and that parts of the above question may not be answerable. Please confine your responses to public opinion survey data, references to scholarly works, and other reliable sources. The Reference Desk is not a debating forum. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

wysiwyg vs. wysiwym

Having read the articles, I still don't get why someone will nowadays use the second one. A modern graphical tool for layout could, theoretically, have all options that a non-graphical tool has, and indeed even export the result in Latex. What is wrong about seeing what the output will be?--Quest09 (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with WYSIWYG, of course. Some people feel they get better control, better precision, and better understanding of the underlying structure of a thing if they can see a representation of the markup.

This is especially true for non-print formats like web-pages where there is no single "what you get". (A web page looks different depending on browser type and version, browser font settings, size of browser window, zoom levels, etc, etc.) APL (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The distinction between the two is that you tell a traditional WYSIWYG editor "this is italicized text in 24 pt sans-serif font", whereas you tell a WYSIWYM editor "this is a chapter heading" and "chapter headings should be italicized in 24 pt sans-serif font". There are several benefits to this. For one, it ensures consistency between all of similar elements, and it makes it easy to change things (For example, if you wanted book titles to be bold, 20 pt serif font instead, a traditional WYSIWYG editor would make you track down and change all 20 chapter headings individually, whereas a WYSIWYM editor has a single location you change.) Another thing frequently cited as an advantage is separating producing content from formatting issues. It's not uncommon in a WYSIWYG editor to be typing along, and then come across a differently formatted section, and then waste 5-10 minutes getting it to look right. A WYSIWYM editor encourages you to produce all the content first, and only after you have completed that do you spend time tweaking the document to make it look right. It's this last point which is probably the reason for any conscious decision not to let you see the final formatted document while you're editing it. The creator of the WYSIWYM tool doesn't want you to get "distracted" by formatting while in the content-production phase. (There are also technical reasons - most WYSIWYM systems like latex rely on batch-process toolchains, where it's computationally intensive to reformat a document, so you're not going to get the instant feedback like in a WYSIWYG editor. But, of course, the reason for that batch design is the "separation of presentation and content" philosophy of the WYSIWYM tool creators.) But you're correct in that you could have a semantic markup editor with instant formatting feedback, though "purists" may not think of it as WYSIWYM, as that term is specifically a counter-reaction to WYSIWYG. -- 174.21.233.249 (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Mathematical notation is easier to read in its rendered form ($\Gamma \vdash s_{0,i}\in r\quad f(i,s)\Rightarrow \Gamma \vdash f\cdot s\in \mathbb {X}$), but it's way easier to write and edit the LaTeX \Gamma \vdash s_{0,i} \in r \quad f(i,s) \Rightarrow Gamma \vdash f \cdot s \in \mathbb{X} than to muck around with a symbol map and click around in an equation editor. You can even write macros to simplify your textual notation, which makes life easier when you decide to adjust your notation. Paul (Stansifer) 03:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

national anthem

I noticed that most national anthems are happy (duh) Are there any sad ones? By sad I don't mean violent because violent can well be jubilant (ie, in La Marseillaise, they sing happily about how their enemies blood will water their fields) Thanks. 76.230.146.8 (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

How about India's, it's actually in Bengali, written by Tagore. It's not sad but it's boring. That's worse than being sad. No ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 07:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to hear of one. Hatikvah isn't really a candidate, because as our article says: The harmony of Hatikvah is arranged modally and mostly follows a minor scale, which is often perceived as mournful in tone and is rarely encountered in national anthems. However, as the title "The Hope" and the words suggest, the import of the song is optimistic and the overall spirit uplifting. Marnanel (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The Japanese Kimi ga yo is pretty slow and with prolonged vocals. I'm not sure if that counts as "sad", but there you have it. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, in that case, the UK's God Save The Queen would be a candidate - it's not sad, just very boring (my opinion). I personally find Kimi Ga Yo to be a bit more interesting. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

National anthems are (as a rule) a pro-nation celebration of the nation's existence. You might find some different emotional tones (for instance the American national anthem is a bit whiny, IMO), but you're not going to find one that's sad - who'd choose a mournful anthem to celebrate their nation? Club music is danceable, rock music is loud, folk music is acoustic, and anthems are uplifting - that's the genre. --Ludwigs2 16:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"Whiny"? Have you read the verse where they mock the fleeing British military? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"Shhh! Be vewy, vewy quiet. We're fishing for wabbits!" 87.81.230.195 (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Rabbits are primarily land-dwellers. You might be thinking of beaver. Better head to your local singles bar and check them out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

(Tell it to President Carter!)APL (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hungary's anthem, "Himnusz", isn't too cheerful. And the lyrics get more miserable as it goes on - the last verse starts "Pity, God, the Magyar, then...". Warofdreams talk 19:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've always wondered about the Moroccan anthem, the "Hymne Chérifien". The lyrics are very optimistic, but the song is in minor and, though perhaps not sad, the music does sound grim. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd imagine that to be rare at best, for reasons cited above. I suppose you could generate this with a historical perspective - the English translation of the Soviet anthem began 'Unbreakable Union of freeborn Republics/Great Russia has welded forever to stand!'. Bright, self-confident, optimistic, arguably every single claim in those two lines proven false. For those who believed in it, and witnessed its destruction, the benefit of hindsight must make that at least slightly bitter. --Saalstin (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If Google is owned by two Jews, why does it include links to antisemitic and racist websites?

It seems a puzzle. Can anyone explain it?--SuperFeminineState (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it doesn't censor its results, more or less. Because believing in freedom of speech means tolerating opinions you don't agree with. See their explanation that comes up when you search for things like "Jew", as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Google's great claim is its credibility: that it uses complicated distortion-suppressing heuristics to pick search results and doesn't stack its answers (as do almost all other search engines) to favor paid advertisers or a particular government. Once it started doing that, apart from the principles involved (allowing users to conduct their own research and reach their own conclusions, as well fighting censorship), it would in fact feed and give a spurious credibility to the conspiracy theories of such sites. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This may not be an appropriate answer for RD, but is nevertheless a humorous anecdote pointing to Jewish creativity. Those with antisemitic bent of mind may even find it offensive ! Read at your own risk.

Google is here to tell you about everything. OK ? Historically Jews had the God-given responsibility to tell us everything. Believe me, we'd be lost without them. First came Moses, a Jew. There was no Google then, so when we questioned him "where is everything ?" He pointed to the sky. Then came Jesus, a Jew. When we asked him where is everything, he pointed to a little lower,i.e. to his heart. Then came Karl Marx, a Jew. We asked him the same question, he pointed towards to his stomach. Then comes another Jew, Sigmund Freud. When questioned where was his everything, he pointed even lower than Marx did, that is to his you-know-what. Then comes the greatest, the most intelligent Jew ever, Einstein. He didn't point anywhere but answered "Everything's Relative !. You see, now we have their Google to tell us where everything is, and it works.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC) And where did Groucho Marx point? APL (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Peter Ustinov put it simply: "The Jews are a wonderful people. They produced Jesus Christ and Karl Marx, two of the most influential men in history. And they had the sense to believe neither of them." (unsourced) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Cuddylable3, you of all people would appreciate knowing the correct Ustinov quote is: "I believe that the Jews have made a contribution to the human condition out of all proportion to their numbers: I believe them to be an immense people. Not only have they supplied the world with two leaders of the stature of Jesus Christ and Karl Marx, but they have even indulged in the luxury of following neither one nor the other." [9]. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Mr 98 calls my response "most nonsensical and useless answer of the day." Isn't that a bit wicked ?

OK, you win the prize for "most nonsensical and useless answer of the day." Congrats. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Theory of knowledge

G'day all! I'm taking a TOK class as a graduation requirement. Some of the stuff we're examining (the professor stresses that we not say "learning about" because that suggests rote memorization) implies that you should know it before doing any other kind of learning so you can look at it critically and not just take everything at face value. Then why don't schools teach TOK in elementary school instead of all the way up at the end of high school? It doesn't really require any prerequisites other than an open mind, which elementary schoolers have better than high-schoolers, I would magine. 99.13.223.146 (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a long response that isn't entirely specific to your question, which has a lot of different dimensions, but perhaps will raise some of the "theoretical"/non-practical (e.g., not related to how curriculum choice actually works) issues.

In my experience there are generally two major approaches to what to do about things like this. One is to say, "teach them a bunch of facts and basic stuff first, then when they have gotten all that more or less down, teach them how the whole edifice that said facts are built up on is somewhat more pliable than they've been lead to believe." The other says, "teach them that facts and theories are pliable first, and they'll learn things more deeply from that point forward." There are legitimate arguments on each side.

Just as an example, when I was in high school, "conceptual math" was all the rage. "Teach them the basic concepts, don't make them do rote memorization!" Well, it sounds nice on paper, but for myself and most of my classmates, from what I gather, now know some basic concepts in an OK way, but have really hard times actually trying to apply them, because a lot of those "rote memorization" steps are really just about training your mind to do certain types of common problems. I vaguely remember how matrices are supposed to operate, for example, from a fundamental level, but could I do matrix multiplication without looking up how to do it again? Not really. Can I quickly divide and multiply numbers in my head? No. This is anecdotal, of course, and perhaps on the whole people who do these kinds of programs do better than those who do the "traditional" approach, but I remain a bit skeptical. I don't think it served me well, in any case. I think if I had done something a little more "disciplined," I'd have developed more of the patterns that would keep me from getting hung up on the really basic math stuff, and would have let me branch off more intelligently later on. As it is, I'm basically not numerate, and find even calculating a 15% tip in my head very frustrating. Obviously the school doesn't take all of the blame for this, but I'm not sure a focus on "concepts" was the right path for me (I'm the kind of student that finds "concepts" ridiculously easy, and "implementation" quite hard, so I skirted through high school math, and then hit a total brick wall when I got to college).

Another anecdote. At one university I was at, they teach history by basically throwing facts and memorization at you for the first couple of years, and then gradually making the classes more specific and heady as you go through the program, and finally you end up learning methodology in your very last class. That is, you start by learning "just historical facts," you end by learning "how historical facts are made." At another university I was at, they try to start with "how historical facts are made" before you actually have any "historical facts" given to you. Then presumably once you know how they are made, you go out and learn a bunch of new facts. My experience is that the history undergraduates at the first university do better, because learning "the facts" is more about getting the baseline information in place that you'll later be able to add to, modify, and poke holes in, as you accumulate more information and experience. (Having a basic feeling for what happened in World War II, for example, makes assimilating new facts, details, and arguments about World War II easier.) At the second university, the students often forget the theory/methodology stuff pretty quickly, because there isn't anything for it to "adhere" to, or they decide, "well, all facts are arbitrary and all historians are biased, so who is to say which is true?" Which is kind of a flip, 19-year-old response that doesn't really encourage taking the "learning the facts" stuff seriously. I'm sure there are exceptional students who really benefit from the latter case, but my general inclination is to think that the great whole benefit from the former. Again, just anecdotal. Not data.

All of which is to say... I think there could be two very different philosophies at play here. One is, "teach the theory of knowledge first, and the knowledge second," and the other is the exact opposite. My personal experience leads me to think that teaching the facts first, and the theory second, works better (and is more fun, anyway — who doesn't like to find out, when they get to college, that everything they've learned is somewhat false?). But there are good arguments on the other side of it as well, and plenty of room for honest disagreement.

I've always thought basic psychological biases should be taught earlier on than they are. A book like How We Know What Isn't So should probably be required high school reading for all students, I think, because it's about the limits of human knowledge in a very practical, "how not to get suckered and duped" kind of way, without tying it up with too much abstract philosophy, and roots everything in common human experiences and familiar human cognitive biases (e.g. belief in lucky numbers, "hot streaks" of sports players, etc.). --Mr.98 (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)TOK = Theory of Knowledge, yes? and I'm interested - you say you're in high school, but high schools do not normally get into theory of knowledge stuff, not do high schools generally call teachers 'professor' - color me a bit confused.

at any rate, part of the problem you're dealing with is the education model that's been in place in the US (and most English speaking countries) since the 1950s - it's a corrupted Dewey model. Basically what's happened is that high schools and grammar schools have adopted the idea that they are preparing students for entry into practical life, rather than training students in the rudiments of higher thought: this means that the schools focus on cramming both technical information and certain rules of self-discipline and obedience into students - the kind of material that will prepare students for work-a-day blue-collar or low-level white-collar employment. Critical thinking skills are not generally considered necessary for such jobs, and are sometimes viewed as an impediment. Private schools (which I assume you are attending) are usually more attentive to critical thinking skills because they are aiming to place their students in upper-level professional or academic positions, but private schools generally don't extend below 8th (or sometimes 6th) grade, and are obligated to meet standards imposed by government bodies (which standards are usually based on the corrupted Dewey model).

really, we should be teaching children independent critical thought down as low as 4th/5th grade (that's when you first start getting students capable of formal operational thought), but... --Ludwigs2 18:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Passport types

Machine-readable passport says that the second character of the machine-readable zone is used, by certain countries, to indicate the document "type (for countries that distinguish between different types of passports)". Is there a uniform list of such codes, or are these codes defined by each issuing countries? Can the codes used for passports (or other travel documents) be found online (I am especially interested in Austrian documents) or elsewhere? Apokrif (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In the passports I've seen in UK all have a "more-than sign" as second letter, is this helpful? MacOfJesus (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The less-than sign (<) is used as a filler character in machine-readable passports. (It's used in place of a blank, because the symbols are readily countable for manual entry and automatic character recognition.) It appears that a filler character is widely used to mean 'regular passport', based on Bernard's experience with UK passports, the image of a U.S. passport page in our article, plus the output from Google Image search for a handful of other countries: Israel, Kazakhstan, Australia, Slovenia. The same appears to be true for Austria. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to locate images of (or data regarding) the codes used to indicate diplomatic, government, military, emergency, or other passport classes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Disease in the age of exploration

When European explorers began to colonize the Americas, they introduced many diseases that wiped out countless native Americans. How come this didn't happen the other way around as well? I mean, there must have been loads of diseases that the Spanish, British and French had never come into contact with and thus weren't immune to. Why didn't they perish like the native Americans did? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.213.233 (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

For a good article on this topic, check out The Straight Dope : Why did so many Native Americans die of European diseases but not vice versa?

Short version : Europeans had been living with close contact with both farm animals, and a wider assortment of foreigners, which gave them better immunity and deadlier diseases. (They did, of course, bring some diseases back with them, but they didn't have nearly as devastating effects.) APL (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read Guns, Germs, and Steel. In general, it was because Europe was so full of packed-together people that they had gone through just about every disease nature could impose on them, whereas the peoples of the Americas lived in small, generally isolated groups that didn't pass diseases on to each other. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

However, see Syphillis#Origins. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies 1997, will give you some perspective. An analogous question: when the Isthmus of Panama joined the island continent of South America to the world-continent, in the shape of North America, why did North American mammals overrun South America, triggering a wave of extinctions, whereas only armadillos and possums made the reverse trip? You may also be interested in Alfred Crosby's Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900-1900 (1986) and its concept of portmanteau fauna from the world-continent, introduced all over the formerly isolated parts of the planet.--Wetman (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Well, it's likely there were diseases passed the other way. Syphillis is the classic case of a disease that is thought to have likely originated in the Americas, for example. (It's hard to know for sure; historical records are not so great on this point, and distinguishing a "new disease" from existing ones is a tricky matter, even today, certainly historically.) A broader question is why a Native American version of the common cold, though, never had the same effect. A few speculations of mine: 1. It's different when you're traveling to someplace versus traveling from. If there was a disease that killed Europeans with the same virulence that smallpox or the cold had on the Native Americans, it'd probably have killed them on the boat ride back. 2. Europeans may have had boosted immune systems anyway, from their practice of living in cities and their already increased means of travel. They likely would have been pre-exposed to diseases from Asia, Africa, other parts of Europe, and so on, by the time they were exploring the Americas. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

September 5

Addressing a noblewoman

I'm reading a book set during the British Regency period. One of the characters is "the Marquis of X". The book refers to his wife, the murder victim, as "Lady X". Is this correct? I know that she would probbly be referred to as the "Marchioness of X", but I don't recall that ever being used in the book. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Forms of address in the United_Kingdom#Peers and peeresses should answer the question, given the weight of history behind these titles I doubt it's changed between the Regency and the present. Going by that table, it appears that "Marchioness of X" would be the technically correct term, with Lady X being an alternative that's probably not quite correct but would doubtless be used informally. ~ mazca ^talk 00:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on that, it looks like "Lady X" is acceptable. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

All peers except for Dukes can be referres to as Lord X, where X is the designation (as in "Viscount X", "Baron of X", etc). Thus, their wives are Lady X. The Marquess of X would normally be addressed as Lord X and his wife, the Marchioness of X, would be referred to as Lady X. Surtsicna (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

For an example of Surtsicna's first sentence, read our article on the last noble Prime Minister of the UK. He was a marquess, but he's typically referred to as "Lord Salisbury". Nyttend (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Just one point: There are no "Barons of X". They're all "Baron X" (long form "Baron X of Y"); except for a small number of "Baron X of Z" (long form "Baron X of Z, of Y"). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have articles on a few, such as the Baron of Renfrew, Baron of Dunsany and the Baron of Kells. Warofdreams talk 20:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, but they're peerages in either the Peerage of Scotland or the Peerage of Ireland. My comment was about the Peerage of the United Kingdom since we're talking about British affairs. -- (Jack of Oz=) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Marriage

What is the Chinese practice in which a male marries into his wife's family and their children take the wife's surname instead of the husband's?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Also if anybody know if it's exist anymore because I know it still exist in Shantou where my both my female cousins does this but I'm not sure if it exist elsewhere in China or the world.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Have no idea about China, but the Japanese term is mukoyoshi... AnonMoos (talk) 03:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, from my readings in Heraldry and related matters I have come across this occasionally happening in Britain in order to maintain a peerage title that would otherwise have become extinct, though I can't recall any specific instances at the moment. I suspect it has been an occasional practice in many cultures. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Every double-barreled name in Britain, like Bowes-Lyon, records an example where the man is marrying an heiress, and applies her family name, which he now represents to his own. -- 18:02, 5 September 2010 User:Wetman

Be careful of universal statements. There are cases where a person has a double-barrelled surname because both of that person's parents wanted their surname propagated to their offspring. Such cases have nothing to do with heiresses. Marnanel (talk)

However, when referring to the 19th century upper crust (as opposed to those influenced by feminist sentiments since the 1970's), Wetman's comments have a certain validity. Even among those who didn't change or add to their surnames in any way, there was the phenomenon of "heraldic heiresses"... AnonMoos (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The term (in simplified Chinese) in which a male marries into his wife's family is 上门女婿(common term, more polite), 倒插门(common term, derogatory), or 入赘 (technical term). Please note all the baidu links above may not be very reliable, but they are the best sources I could find describing this practice. 70.68.138.196 (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to mention all the above links are in simplified Chinese; and yes this practice still exist in China today. 70.68.138.196 (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sad classical piece

What is the saddest, or if that's too subjective, what are some especially sad or melancholy pieces of classical music for piano? I mean sad as in depressing, not creepy like Bach's T/F in Dm. FOr my purposes these should be ca. Classical-period classical (i.e., Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc.) not neoclassical. 76.199.167.204 (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Moonlight Sonata —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vxskud (talk • contribs) 01:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the saddest classical piano pieces I know is the 2nd movement (Adagio) from Mozart's Piano Sonata in F, K. 280. This movement is in F minor, so it's already right in the sad zone. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

How about "The Minstrel Boy", a traditional Irish song about a very young man sent off to war. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps too modern, and "melancholy" might be an oversimplification, but personal favorites (I like to play) include Scriabin's Op. 2 No. 1 and Grieg's Elegie (there's more than one) Op. 38. No. 6. There's also Grieg's Elegie Op. 47 No. 7. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 05:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Beethoven himself would perhaps have chosen the cavatina from string quartet op.130; Carl Holz reported that "it cost the composer tears in the writing and brought out the confession that nothing he had written had so moved him; in fact merely to revive it afterwards in his thoughts and feelings brought forth renewed tributes of tears." [10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the OP asked for piano pieces. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

True. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Katisha's lament "Alone and yet alive" is sad even if played without the words. With the words (video). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a piano arrangement for it, but the second movement of Symphony No. 3 (Beethoven) ("Heroic") has sometimes been used as a funeral dirge. It kind of picks up the pace toward the end, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No need to make a piano arrangement of an orchestral work to fit this particular bill. There's a number of funeral marches written for piano, the most famous probably being the 3rd movement of Chopin's 2nd Piano Sonata. In fact, the sonata is nicknamed "Funeral March Sonata" because of this movement. It's extremely famous and rightly so; though, whether it's all that sad per se is a moot point. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The minor-key variations from Bach's Goldberg Variations might fit the bill. Gould, #15 [11], #21 [12], #25 [13]. Riggr Mortis (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur on the Goldberg Variations. I also find some of The Art of Fugue quite sad, like Contrapunctus III. But I'm putting my money on Chopin's Preludes, opus 28, #4, "Suffocation". Pfly (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on the Chopin #4! PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No changes

How do you call a legal outcome of a trial that orders to keep things at their current state? (or the state before the dispute began). In Spanish it's known as "No Innovar", but a quick search at google suggest that "no innovate" (the direct translation) is not the term used for this. MBelgrano (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Something to do with status quo? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

In US law you're probably talking about a dismissal (in which the case is simply dropped by the court, with or without the consent of the claimant). There are cases in which a judgement in favor of the defendant is tantamount to restoration of the status quo (particularly in criminal cases, when a defendant is released as not guilty). is that what you're looking for? --Ludwigs2 05:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Cannibalism

Of course there are laws against killing but is there any law in US specifically targeted against cannibalism ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I googled [cannibalism laws] and this[14] is one of the first things that came up. The answer seems to be that it varies from state to state. That stands to reason. The cannibalism article is nearly all about murder and cannibalism. There are a few examples of historical cases of cannibalism "by necessity". However, the wikipedia article doesn't seem to address legality. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If cannibals invite you to supper don't arrive late because you will be told that everybody's eaten. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It's early yet, but I feel confident in giving you this award now.
The pun is mightier than the sword. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As the cannibal chief's widow said, thank you for your condiments. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You're way ahead of me. I'm just trying to ketchup. Here's an oldie: Do you know what Dahmer said to Ms. Bobbitt? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm dying to hear this one. Turns out JWB is a distant cousin.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"You gonna eat that?" (So old it's new again.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Watch it please; We're strolling into BLP territory here Buddy431 (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This is phenomenon in itself, conversations about cannibalism often turn into unwanted humour. Perhaps we unconsciously strive to get away from the topic. I remember some people bending backwards to prove that cannibalism is pure fiction.

Does everyone eventually fall in love with someone?

Is it possible to reach say 40 and never have falled in love or experienced Limerence? Or does everyone eventually fall in love with someone? Do people who have never fallen in love by a mature age have any distinctive psychological traits? Thanks 92.15.30.74 (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

While this may verge on medical advice, the answer is no. There are plenty of people who have gone through life without meeting 'the one' (I cannot, however, cite any specific examples). Love is part inexplicable ideal, part discerned choice. "Falling in love" is the ideal; "happily ever after" is the choice. schyler (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Your second sentance suggests you meant "Yes" rather than "No", if you were refering to the first question. 92.15.30.74 (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if this passes RS muster, but Dean Martin says "Yes." :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean "Yes, is it possible to reach say 40 and never have falled in love or experienced Limerence" or do you mean "Yes, everyone eventually falls in love with someone"? 92.15.30.74 (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course there are people who never "fall in love" with anyone.--Wetman (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

But, is there a person who is in love all the time? MacOfJesus (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean the love of God, father...? Jon Ascton  (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The first two replies are ambiguous and tell me nothing. So still mostly an unanswered question, apart from Wetman's reply. 92.15.7.161 (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

And that's likely. Actually this word "love" is the most mysterious word we have ! And to top things, everyone's got his own history that somehow comes up and gets in way of communication.

What is a special commission

In connection with Ely and Littleport riots 1816 and the associated to-do list, what is a special commission?

By the special commission issued to try the Ely rioters the judicial authority vested by charter in the Lord Chief Justice of that Isle will be superseded. Mr. Justice ABBOTT and Mr. Justice BURROW [sic], it is said, will be the presiding judges on this occasion.

— The Times, Tuesday, Jun 04, 1816; pg. 3; Issue 9852; col B

Ignore the mis-spelling; Sir James Burrough, judge of the common pleas.

Who sets a special commission up? Why (in this case)? What are its terms of reference? What is the wording? See also Warren (1997) p. 1 "... meet the Judges appointed by the Special Commission ..." and Johnson (1893) p. 25 "A Special Commission was appointed for the trial ...". Further background: according to Sir James Burroughs entry in the ODNB, In May 1816 Burrough was appointed a judge of the common pleas, when Charles Abbott was removed into the king's bench — the Ely riot trials were held in June 1816 --Senra (Talk) 16:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

See Royal Commission. Such commissions are (nominally) set up by the Crown, which means (in practice) by the appropriate branch of the executive - probably the Home Office in this case, but I'm not familiar with it specifically. The Scarman Report into the 1981 Brixton riots was produced by such a commission, set up by William Whitelaw, Home Secretary at the time. The terms of reference will be established in detail when the commission is set up. I assume they're publically available somewhere for the commission in question; the Public Record Office might be a good place to start. Tevildo (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disagree with Tevildo, but I think the special commission referred to in the Ely and Littleport riots was not a Royal Commission of Inquiry (which would not have the power to bring prosecutions), but a special commission of Oyer and terminer. Such special commissions were instituted in the name of the Crown, but I believe on the advice of Ministers. There is a blank example of a Special Commission in this book. The procedure is not used any more. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Information on participation in Class Action lawsuits?

Hi, so I've posted my question to reddit, but would like to post it here too. Note: I'm not asking for legal advice, just a simple point in the direction of the information that I would need, a starting point.

Thanks in advance. 70.18.129.59 (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

My non-legal understanding: In most class actions you're included by default along with all other affected parties. The court will require notification to be made when the class is certified. Presumably Google could do this pretty easily. If you are left out, you can get in touch with the plaintiff's legal representation.

But I will note that I think your idea that you'll get $2500 is pretty laughable. Class actions of this sort — where the class is extremely huge, and proving direct harm is hard — always end up funneling most of the "award money" into legal fees. The few class actions I've been part of have gotten me whopping checks of $5 or so. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I got about $12 in the big CD lawsuit. Just to make the point, I spent it on a book. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

War

Is it true to say there was no single cause (or catalyst) to World War Two, and that it was a combination of things in a certain order that caused it? This is what my history professor said, but I find it hard to believe that the worst war is history had no cause. Flyinaweb (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It is true that there was no single cause, but that doesn't mean there was no cause at all, it means that there were many causes. See causes of World War II - it's massive. Vimescarrot (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Almost everything complicated in history — that has many groups of people involved for different reasons — has multiple causes. Rarely are international relations monocausal. The superficial observer of history, of course, can find something that they've decided was the "true cause" (Germany invaded Poland, 1938), but this is a poor way to do history, and does not stand up under any thoughtful scrutiny. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) War is a complex event that rarely (if ever) has a single cause. Some wars have a trigger event (e.g., the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was the immediate trigger of World War I), but those are not causes, merely triggers that set off a conflict stemming from multiple other factors. --Ludwigs2 21:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it be nice to point out that history of WW2 looks a bit biased.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Monarchies

Why are so many "democratic" countries still monarchies? (England, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, etc.) --75.33.216.97 (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably a couple of main reasons: power tends to lie with a more or less democratic parliament or assembly rather than with the monarch; and because during revolutionary times, such as the late C18 and early C19, the governments of those countries avoided revolution. There is a plethora of ancillary factors. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Why should a democratic (no scare quotes please) country not retain a constitutional monarchy? England isn't a nation state but the United Kingdom remains a monarchy because the people wish to remain subjects of Her Majesty. Some other countries have considered the issue directly - referendums in Italy in 1946, Greece in 1973 went against their monarchies, but Australia in 1999 voted to retain the monarchy. Spain restored its monarchy by referendum in 1978 and was by all accounts very grateful for it in February 1981. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

At the 1999 referendum, Australians were asked to say Yes or No to: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament. That is, they were given exactly one model of how a republic might work (of many such models), and asked to choose between that specific model and the status quo. They chose the status quo. However, there’s plenty of evidence that, had they been asked the threshold question "Would you prefer Australia to be a republic or a monarchy?", they would have gone for the republic option. Or, had they been given a range of republican models along with the status quo, they would have chosen a different republican model. So, it’s not safe to say Australians "voted to retain the monarchy", as that was just the surface appearance of what was being asked of them. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

But why do those countries claim to have a democratic form of government when they're ruled by a monarch instead? --75.33.216.97 (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for the others, but England is not in any real sense "ruled" by a monarch. She just sits on her throne, waving (or whatever it is monarchs do) while England is ruled by its government. Vimescarrot (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

As QEII would undoubtedly be happy to confirm, she reigns but does not rule. This is not just a semantic game; she really does NOT: sit on her throne (except on special ceremonial occasions); make up laws on whim; issue commands to have people's heads chopped off or to have their taxes doubled; or anything else the King in the Wizard of Id does. She is for the most part told what to do, and she does it. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

For more on the "for the most part.." bit in the above contribution, see Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

See Monarchism in Canada for an example of the arguments used in favor of keeping a monarchy in one democratic country. In reality, the biggest hurdle to a republic in a place like Canada is simply that it would be so much work politically, constitutionally and bureaucratically to bring about, and there are seemingly far more pressing issues to address. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The word "monarch" in the modern day need not necessarily mean "the person with the ultimate power" - the monarchies you mention have monarchs that are primarily symbolic figureheads with no real power in affairs of state. The situation is similar with the Emperor of Japan - he gets to stay in his palace, speak to high guests and twice a year to his countrymen, but other than that has no real power. Or see this example: President of Germany - the president in the German model of governance has almost no real powers, he's merely a symbolic figure. I live in a similar country - our president is, while elected directly, almost completely without real power: he gets to confirm ambassadors, he is the (symbolic) CIC of the army and that's about it. His power lies mainly in being a moral influence to the people - he sometimes chimes in with current events and gives his opinion, but nobody in power is legally bound to listen to those opinions. Incidentally, this question chimes in with a question that was posted a couple of days ago: obviously the OP was taught that democracy=good, monarchy=bad and is now having difficulties trying to come to terms with the fact that the world is far from quite as simple and black-and-white. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Most republics have non-executive presidents (the US and France are exceptions) which do pretty much the same thing as a constitutional monarch and cost their country about the same amount of money. In most monarchies, having a king or queen is part of a long standing tradition that carries great cultural significance and adds pageantry, colour and national identity. Alansplodge (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The monarchy is also (rightly or wrongly) regarded as being "above politics" - so avoiding the issues that arise when a parliament (or its equivalents) and a national head of state are each elected, often at different elections and with different political outcomes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

September 6

Alone on a quest narrative

Hi, I'm looking for references of stories from classical and modern literature where the hero undergoes a lonely journey, going ever deeper in enemy territory. I guess it is a classic narrative but I can't think of any off the top of my head. The protagonist travels alone and face various difficulties before confronting the main opponent at the end. Any suggestions? Thank you. 190.244.191.109 (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

See: Monomyth. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

ACT/SAT

OK, I'm taking the ACT and SAT later this year. After doing some practice tests with the Reading sections of both I have got all the concepts tested. I get the majority of the problem right, but there are usually a few where I eliminate all but two answers, which are usually the most ambiguous of all the questions, one of which is correct, and my main loss of points results from my picking the wrong one. In a situation like this (broad unfotunately because this occurs in a variety of contexts) how can I reduce these mistakes? I realize that practice is an answer but I'm already doing that, so are there any others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.209.53 (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

ACT and SAT questions are generally structured to have two answers that are fairly obviously wrong if you have a basic grasp on the material, and two answers that are hard to distinguish between unless you have a strong grasp on the material. If you only have a basic grasp, then you will maximize your score by (quite literally) flipping a coin. trying to pick randomly using your head is problematic - humans don't randomize well (they are always influenced by some factor or another, and that may very well work against you). best bet of course is to make a list of the questions you get wrong, and do some focused studying to improve your grasp on those topics.

this will not work on the LSATs, GREs, MCATs, or other high level exams. sorry, but for those test reasoning skills more than knowledge, and that's a very different ball of wax. --Ludwigs2 01:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Even the SAT and ACT are, to some extent, Aptitude tests (that's pretty surprising that we don't have an article on that topic). They claim they're not, and the SAT certainly doesn't correlate with IQ as much as it used to, but at some point some people are going to be able to do better than others no matter how much preparation is put in. Not everyone is capable of pulling a 36 on the ACT, no matter how much tutoring they get and practice tests they've taken. Buddy431 (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm sure you know this, but the SAT penalizes ¼ point for each incorrect answer, so if you aren't really leaning at least moderately towards one of the two answers it would be probably best to leave that question blank (they do not penalize for unanswered questions). On the ACT this isn't a problem, as there is no penalty for incorrect answers. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. If you can narrow a question down to at most three answers, then it's statistically favorable to guess. If you randomly choose between two answers, you have a 50% chance of getting 1 pt (and a 50% chance of loosing a quarter point), for an expected score of 0.375, well above the zero you're going to get if you leave it blank. Buddy431 (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair point...I've always been rather conservative when taking tests, and the result was usually less ¼ point deductions (at least on the PSAT; I've never taken the SAT itself) compared to friends who were more liberal with their guesses, and it actually made the difference to where I ended up with the higher score...purely OR, but that was my experience with it. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 04:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

as I mentioned before, though, you ned to keep in mind that guessing is far, far from random. I remember seeing something in Scientific American (I think) ages ago: a guessing game which someone had constructed (using psychological research) so that the average player would score very very low, even though every question was a simple binary guess. (wish I had a reference for that, but I'm too darned lazy to thumb through 20-40 years of SA to find it). you can be pretty sure that the SAT people have detailed statistics on what kinds of wrong answers appeal to people. --Ludwigs2 04:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Prostitution

Which countries have really legalized prostitution ? I mean where it goes like smooth, guilt-free business, and authorities really do not interfere ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article on Prostitution and the law has a list of them: Côte d'Ivoire, Senegal, Lebanon, Austria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Netherlands, Switzerland, Turkey, Mexico, Panama, United States (Nevada), Australia (in most eastern states), New Zealand, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Or better yet, Prostitution by country, where is looks like pretty much every nation has their own article on the subject. Buddy431 (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Please reread the question - the word "really" stressed...

I'm not sure what answer you're looking for. I'm in the US, and I've never heard that the authorities prevent the brothels in Nevada from their business, or their clients from patronizing them. If they did, they could certainly be held accountable through the court. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It is really nice to know that. But what about moralists, ain't there any lobbies protesting ?

I googled "Nevada brothel protests" and didn't turn up anything very significant-sounding. I think if you're just looking to hire a prostitute, you should be able to go to a legal brothel in Nevada and not experience any legal difficulties. You might get a better answer by looking up brothel web sites and contacting the managers directly to ask how likely it is that you'll encounter protesters or unfriendly police. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are getting too personal. I am talking about the politics of the legal prostitution. My question is about the fact that self appointed moralists (in India the right-wing) are fiercely opposed to legalization of prostitution. What I'd like to know is how active the church etc. are in west in getting things back to what-they-think-is-normal.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that any place where "the authorities don't interfere" will have a "smooth" prostitution business; prostitution, and indeed any business, has a tendency to become shady and corrupt if it is not tightly regulated. I would say that the places where prostitution acts the most as business like any other: Switzerland and The Netherlands, for example, are where it is very tightly regulated. Workers are required to pass health checks, for example, and revenues are taxed. Buddy431 (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Here in New Zealand it is "smooth" if you mean that the authorities don't harass them at all (though the community may protest should you put your brothel by a school); however, as Buddy says, the business is rather shady still and workers' health and wellbeing is neglected a bit. sonia♫ 09:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Sonia. I am very pleased and relieved to hear that.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Family of William of Gellone

What was the name of the family of William of Gellone? It seems many Frankish noble family had names ie. the Agilolfings, the Bosonids and the Etichonids. So what was William's family's name, it seem they should have one since they were quite powerful controlling much of southern France and being married to the relatives of the Carolingians.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, most families, even noble ones, didn't have surnames. The three you mention were all taken from an illustrious ancestor (Agilulf, Boso the Elder and Adalrich Eticho), and used to identify their descendants or their houses. I'm not even sure if that was done contemporaneously or if it was applied by historians at a later date. Lacking that, they would have been known by nickname ("Court nez" == Shortnose) or by the house they already belonged to (d'Orange). I don't know where "Fierabrace" comes from. Rojomoke (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

See Family name#History: "The practice of using family names spread through the Eastern Roman Empire and gradually into Western Europe although it was not until the modern era that family names came to be explicitly inherited in the way that they are today." Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Winston Churchill - had to earn a living?

Did he have to earn a living, or did he work as a soldier, journalist and later as a politician by choice? I understand that although he was born in Blenheim Palace he did not live there in later life. 92.15.7.161 (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)