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

December 9

When did privacy become sacrosanct?

It used to be that there were phone books that printed names, addresses, phone numbers and in some cases, even jobs. Why was it okay then but now people freak out about cameras in public (which is PUBLIC). Aaronite (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That's an unusual question that's really asking us to compare apples with oranges, or in this case, phone books that listed a home address, with cameras that display where we are at any time of day or night. A very different level of information on a person. I'm not quite sure what the point is. HiLo48 (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're getting at, but public cameras can't exactly follow me home. I know there are many cameras. But seriously, even the authorities don't really care what you're doing. Aaronite (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

And you could opt out of said phone books, as well (see unlisted number). A lot of privacy is about who gets to control the information and what they allow others to do with it. But anyway, I don't see an actual Reference Desk question here. Public attitudes towards privacy have certainly changed over time, and since the 1970s at least people have gotten more concerned with the possible misuses of personal information. The explosion of "public" information since the 1990s, due to information technology, has certainly caused a lot of new issues to pop up in the public mindset regarding privacy, and the combination of internet information being easy to add and essentially impossible to remove has created an information environment pretty different than in times past. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Often in this context I hear the fear expressed that society will become like Nineteen Eighty-Four, a book which was written in 1948. 213.122.59.245 (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the desire for privacy has not changed very much over the last 50 years, but the topic comes to the forefront due to new threats to privacy. In 1970, calling people on the phone was expensive enough that cold calls were unattractive. Today, a computer will dial automatically, the call is nearly free, and human effort is minimized. In 1970, a camera would produce a paper picture that could be either published or filed away. Today, automatic face recognition can be used to generate movement profiles automatically and on a large scale. And the "not really care what you are doing" is a canard. If nobody cares, we don't need cameras and can save the expense. Data that has once been collected can be used and can be misused. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

We have an article section, Privacy#History of privacy. I assume you're being sarcastic when you use the word "sacrosanct", because obviously privacy is not valued as much as things like property rights, free speech, etc. In the US, the most important privacy-related provision in the Constitution is the Fourth, which bars most searches and seizures without a warrant; as that article states, the roots of the Fourth are in English common law, where in 1604 one judge wrote that a man's home is his castle. In the 200 years since the Fourth, the US Supreme Court has repeatedly had to decide how far to extend this concept. Cars: Currently not a man's castle, mostly. His person: Counted as part of the castle. You can't search him without a warrant. Mostly. Privacy became a big social concern in the cities of the US when the 1900 Kodak Brownie camera became popular. Our article shamefully does not discuss this at all, but after millions of the cameras were sold, many citizens were outraged that street kids could take their picture in public, and the taking of photographs of private citizens in public places was apparently banned in a few small towns. This was a pitiful move against the tide, though. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You might also be interested in reading The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere by German philosopher and sociologist Jürgen Habermas. He chronicles the transformation of the public and private sphere from the Greek Polis and Oikos, until the creation and decline of the Bourgeoisie public sphere in eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. P. S. Burton (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

What a silly comparison. A security camera might show you doing all manner of embarrassing, illegal, or employment threatening things, a phone book tells where you live. (Also, what's this "used to" business? I've got this year's phone book right here.)

Sure "The Authorities" might not care about what you're doing, but a reporter might, the corrupt boss you're blowing the whistle on might, the minimum wage security guard who's collecting funny clips for YouTube might. APL (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand what Aaronite's getting at. I'd be more concerned about everybody and anybody being able to look up where I live (after all, isn't that why we're not supposed to post things like our phone numbers and addresses on the internet?) than some random security guard catching me picking my nose. After all, if you decide to pick your nose in public, there is a reasonable expectation that somebody might see you. If you don't want to be seen doing something, don't do it in public. Public is, by definition, not private. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 08:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Aaronite might be confusing phone directories with city directories. The latter are/were typically arranged in two sections, one kind of like the phone book, the other organized by streets and addresses; and they often had occupations, if known. Phone directories were published by the phone company and contained name, address and phone, UNLESS you were willing to pay extra (effectively "payola") to be unpublished. This ramped up a bit with caller ID becoming available, and now you have to pay extra to either have caller ID or to block your own number from being ID'd. Either way, the phone company makes money, and that's what it's really about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Since we didn't have a City directory article, I created a stub. Thanks for pointing out a (rabbit?) hole, Bugs.John Z (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

planning frameworks in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland

what is the difference between the Irish National Spatial Strategy and the Regional Development Strategy for Northern Ireland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queensuni89 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Here? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Planning framework in Ireland

Does anyone know what the difference is between the National Spatial Strategy for Ireland and that of Northern Ireland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feathercropper (talk • contribs) 16:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If you read the document linked to above - or even a small part of it - it should give you the answer. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Death of King Henry VI of England

An editor posed the question on the talk page of Henry VI of England as to how exactly did Henry die? I have never seen the precise cause of his death written anywhere. Would other editors be able to shed any light on this matter. It has me curious as well; besides if the cause is known, the article needs to state this fact.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Lady Antonia Fraser (who is generally regarded as quite a good, if remote, source on these matters), he was "quietly done to death in the Tower of London". "The chronicler Henry Warkworth recorded that he 'was put to death... between eleven and twelve of the clock' " (The Lives of the Kings and Queens of England, p 138). I think this is about the closest you'll get to exactly how. Unless someone else has access to Warkworth, of course. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I have read before. I suppose nothing was noted at the time how he was quietly done to death. That line of course implies strangling but this is purely OR on my part!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

For many of this time period, there may not actually be any reliable contemporary accounts of their death. If he had been killed by his opponents, that's regicide, and said opponents probably have very good reasons for not being too public about the manner of his death. There's lots of people from the late middle ages for whom there is no accurate record of their death; sometimes modern historians can infer in general whether they died of natural causes or at someone elses hands, but beyond that, we often don't have specific, detailed analysis of how someone may have died. They didn't have autopsies and forensic science back then. Other regal deaths from this time period, for which the details are at best an educated guess, include Edward II of England, Richard II of England, the Princes in the Tower, etc. Usually, when a king was deposed, they were stuffed into the Tower of London for some time, and killed eventually, but those who killed him generally didn't widely publicize it, likely to prevent questions from being raised regarding how the current king came to the throne. --Jayron32 13:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

A. L. Rowse says of the death of Henry VI that he "died in the Tower on the night when Edward's younger brother, Richard of Gloucester, was there (21 May 1471)... Next day his corpse was exposed in St Paul's, where the body bled, telling its own tale." DuncanHill (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You had to be there.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I was there, but cannot recall a thing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Aren't many of them buried under the floor stones of churches in London? Dig'em up and let the forensic pathologists have their way with the skeletons, to reveal the manner of death, even if the killers are beyond the reach of the law. Edison (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Henry VI is buried at St George's Chapel, which I think you'd have a hard job getting permission to dig. Anyway, there's something a bit off about disturbing royal bones. DuncanHill (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Or any bones, really. But if there was sufficient justification for doing so, the royalness of the bones should not be a particular or additional deterrent. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 17:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Bones may not reveal much about the manner of death. Perhaps, if someone was stabbed or bludgeoned to death, but it is quite possible that many causes of death, natural or unnatural, leave no such permanent marks. Regardless of what CSI has taught us, forensic science is not magic, and even it is limited in what sorts of things it can prove. --Jayron32 17:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The skeletons of the alleged Princes in the Tower were examined upon their discovery, and the remains of Anne Boleyn were also analysed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Myth of Venice born whole from the Aegean or Adriatic?

I read this myth a while ago, and can't find the specifics - someone claimed it was born in a particular year - can anyone help me?

Thanks all - thanks to the ref desks in general - I've been hassling you a lot recently, and I get useful answers every time Adambrowne666 (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The birth of Venus (mythology).

I don't think this fits with the city of Venice, which while on the coast of the Adriatic seems unlikely to be born whole or in a mythological manner. I suspect you might mean the goddess Venus? Googlemeister (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere at home I have an old book on Venice, which I'll check. That said, I suspect Googlemeister may be correct (mis-hearing Venus as Venice). PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Our article on Venice describes a gradual development into a powerful city-state in the 9th to 12th centuries, and no indication that it was named after the goddess-of-a-similar-name. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The similarity of name is an artifact of the Anglicized form and its pronunciation. "Venice" is "Venezia" ("Venetsia") in Italian, and "Venedig" in German. The name is derived from the Veneti tribe, and has, as far as I know, nothing to do with Venus the planet or Venus the goddess, both of which are known to rise from the waves on occasion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I started out in agreement with Googlemeister, but I'm beginning to think there may have been such a Venetian foundation legend after all. This extract from Dana Facaros & Michael Pauls Venice, Venetia and the Dolomites (London: Cadogan Guides, 2007), p. 110, refers to something not a million miles from the OP's myth:

Venice has always been so different, so improbable, that one can easily believe the legend that the original inhabitants sprang up from the dew and mists on the mud banks of the Lagoon...According to Venetians' own legends, the city was founded at exactly noon, 25 March 413, when the refugees laid the first stone on the Rialto.

--Antiquary (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, Antiquary - I missed your post - that's a nice quote.

There was always a tradition where the Doge would go down to the sea and ceremonially marry the sea. Corvus cornix_talk 19:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if it was the author of the half-remembered text being mischeivous, conflating Venice and Venus - not impossible - but I'd love it if the research could continue - it just feels to me like the sort of thing the renaissance Venetians would have claimed about their beloved city. Adambrowne666 (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Venice was not named after Venus, but medieval and Renaissance authors sometimes did make the link. A good place to check on this is "Myths of Venice: The Figuration of a State" by David Rosand, who gives some examples of literature that make the connection. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam - great help - the book is on the shelves of the library where I work! Adambrowne666 (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

African-American names

is there a website where i can find african-american names for girls and boys like letisha, latanya or something like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.98 (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Typing the words "African American names" into Google returns a bunch of sites that do exactly that. --Jayron32 16:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Or you can watch football and basketball (WNBA for the latter); that'll give you some ideas. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

See [1] for several lists of such names, as Jayron suggested. There are also random name generators which create names generally sounding like these. Edison (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

POW Camps in WW2 Germany - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalag_Luft_III#The_.22Great_Escape.22

I have a number of questions concerning this article:

Whilst I am sure everything has been accurately researched, some of the behaviour of the Germans & POWs seems highly unlikely

1. "Luft III issued "Non-working" German civilian rations which allowed 1,928 Calories per day, with the balance made up from British Red Cross parcels and items sent to the POWs by their families"

Why wouldn't these parcels be confiscated? The German war machine is bombing British cities by night, murdering thousands of Jews and other minorities in concentration camps, but for some reason food parcels are deemed "un-touchable" - I don't deny this happened, I just dont understand Germany's logic behind it?

2."The Germans paid captured officers the equivalent of their pay in internal camp currency (lagergeld) which was used to buy what goods were made available by the German administration"......"As British government policy was to deduct camp pay from the prisoners military pay, the communal pool avoided the practice in other camps whereby American officers contributed to British canteen purchases"

A camp currency seems reasonable, but somehow these "wages" are reconciled against the officers' salary - This implies some sort of dialogue between the camp's administrators and the payroll of the RAF - This seems highley unlikely in the middle of a war? - Also the British government's policy doesn't surprise.....they are still treating their soldiers badly (I am British BTW)

3. "Hitler eventually relented and instead ordered Himmler to execute more than half of the escapees. Himmler passed the selection on to General Artur Nebe. Fifty were executed singly or in pairs"......"The British government learned of the deaths from a routine visit to the camp by the Swiss authorities as the Protecting power in May; the Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden announced the news to the House of Commons on 19 May 1944"

This makes no sense whatsover.

Hitler decides to murder 50 POWs but then permits inspectors to sniff around the camp? Again I'm sure it's all correct - but if you don't care about mass murder, why would you allow an official visit.....What exactly is going to happen if he refuses?

I have the deepest respect for the POWs and I'm sure this article has been meticulously researched - I just find some of behaviour at odds to what would happen in the middle of a war? Jaseywasey (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

See Red Cross parcel for the first one. With these parcels, British POWs had a better diet than the Germans, and could use luxuries like chocolate to bribe, and I assume later blackmail, the guards into getting them things like cameras for forged documents. For thje 'logic' behind it, see the Third Geneva Convention. 92.15.30.71 (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand about Red Cross parcels. However, the Germans looted their way across Europe.....why would they not steal these items? Also, if you are a guard a the camp - why allow yourself to be bribed.....simply confiscate the items? Again I'm not denying the historical records - I just don't understand why the Germans behaved the way they did?Jaseywasey (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, this wasnt Chicago. 92.15.30.71 (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an historian but I think the Nazis considered British and North American POWs as 'Aryans', and so treated them much better than the Russians or Poles, who were treated brutally and mostly starved to death. I understand that Russia had not signed the Geneva Convention was one of the reasons given. They may have been thinking that nice treatment would encourage Britain at least to capitulate. There were German POWs in Britain, so there was a lot of tit-for-tat. They may have thought that news of a soft life in POW camps would encourage soldiers to surrender more readily. You could read some of the many memoirs of POW camp life. "World War II The Autobiography" edited by Jon. E. Lewis is an anthology of excerpts from memoirs and first-hand accounts of WW2 and would be a good starting point. A few of the German command had been POWs in Britain during WW1. 92.15.30.71 (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that many of the POW camps were run by the Wehrmacht or the Luftwaffe, that is the "regular" German military, which was largely outside of the politics of Germany at the time. The "regular" military tended to be much less ideological vis-a-vis Nazi dogma. Other groups like the Sturmabteilung and the Schutzstaffel were part of the Nazi party and so had different views and likely behaved differently towards prisoners. This attitude difference is evident in the fictionalize account of the event, the film The Great Escape. The interactions Commandant of the prison camp towards the plainclothes agent who brings in prisoners is telling, and likely roughly on par with the actual relationship, in many cases, between the "regular" German military and the Nazi party. --Jayron32 21:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The US and Japan treated POWs mutually badly, or murdered defeated soldiers rather than taking them prisoner. The US treated German POWs very well in general, sending them to the US, where they worked on farms in many cases. Many returned to the US after the war. While in the US, they got packages from Germany, and some took correspondence courses from US colleges, with credits transferred to German universities, all while a war was going on. While there were certainly atrocities and war crimes, there was relatively good reciprocity between the US and Germany. Jewish US prisoners in some cases were separated and sent to slave labor camps where they were brutalized and worked to death. Gentile US prisoners, especially aviators were treated very well, considering how the Germans treated most prisoners. Edison (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This has made me think that all the accounts or films of POWs I've seen were based in officers camps. I wonder how camps for privates were - the privates were required to work, the officers were not. 92.15.0.115 (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

http://kiuchi.jpn.org/en/nobindex.htm has a fascinating account of POW camp life for Japanese POWs in Soviet Union after the war. --Soman (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

With regard to question #2: military pay is sometimes highly structured and non-negotiable, unlike private employment. For example, see this chart for a description of United States military pay grades. If the same conditions existed in WWII, then the Germans would be able to determine a captured officer's base pay without having to consult an enemy government. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

did people used to think the moon changes shape?

Did people used to think the moon waxed and waned changing shapes? (When I look at it, all I see -- probably due to my knowledge of it -- is a circle, partially dark). If they used to think it changed shapes, when did they realize it was actually a circular shape as visible all the time, just sometimes partly dark. Thanks. 82.234.207.120 (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You can see the "darkened" part of the moon paritally even when it is a crescent shape. That would have been plainly obvious even to the ancients. What significance they assigned to it probably depends on which culture you are discussing. --Jayron32 19:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

it's not "plainly obvious" because in the ryme of the ancient mariner, there's a star inside the crescent! Next answer, if you please... 82.234.207.120 (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Re "the ryme of the ancient mariner": SO WHAT? This tells you nothing about anyone but Coleridge, in the 19th century. It's like saying, "Indians greet you by saying 'How!'" -- because that's what old Hollywood writers tell us.63.17.66.60 (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you see when you look at a crecent moon. The fact that some people will draw pictures of a star inside a crecent is irrelevent to the fact that, when you look at the night sky with a crecent moon in it, you still see the rest of the moon, albeit darker. Again, what the ancients used to explain the darkening of the moon is a different concept, but any person can go out at night, look at the crecent moon, and see the rest of it. --Jayron32 21:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

See Earthshine, or the stubby Earthlight (astronomy) for why this is. Buddy431 (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit: I also think that a lot of those pictures exaggerate how prominent the Earthlight is. If you look at how bright the lit portion of the moon appears in those photos, it's clear that in many cases, the earthlight would be hard to see. I'm not denying that the Earthshine isn't visible under some circumstances, but it's certainly not obvious most of the time, especially in cities with a fair amount of light pollution. Buddy431 (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever looked up under a really dark sky? The dark segment is very visible. Of course, we all grow used to living under conditions of very bad light pollution nowadays, but that would not apply to people even 300 years ago. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the "star inside the moon" thing is referred to as a "star-dogged moon" and there are a number of sites out there that talk about Coleridge's particular use of it (example1, example2). Matt Deres (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Our page on the moon says "The ancient Greek philosopher Anaxagoras (d. 428 BC) reasoned that the Sun and Moon were both giant spherical rocks, and that the latter reflected the light of the former." Libration of the moon allows an earth-bound observer to conclude that the moon must be roughly spherical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SemanticMantis (talk • contribs) 21:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Shortly after publication, Anaxagoras was executed as a heretic by the followers of Apollo and Helios. Googlemeister (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, Anaximander of Miletus definitely believed the moon actually changed shape - he thought it was a hole in one of the tubes or wheels filled with fire that surrounded the cylindrical Earth, that its waxing and waning were due to the hole itself constantly changing shape, and that stars were just smaller holes of the same kind. See Anaximander#Cosmology. Other myths and legends, such as the ancient Egyptian idea that the waning moon was being gradually consumed by Set in his pig form, would suggest a belief at some point that the moon itself really did change shape. It's true that sometimes earthshine does illuminate the dark face of the moon quite well, but at other times it is completely invisible. If you didn't know that the moon is three-dimensional, or that it shines by reflected sunlight, you might not necessarily make the connection that the ghostly apparition in between the horns of the crescent moon is just the rest of it, still there but gone darker for some unexplained and probably quite scary reason. Karenjc 22:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I could be mistaken, as I haven't read my Egyptian mythology in a very long time, but I thought that they believed that Ra wouldn't allow one of the gods to have children during one of the days of the year, so one of the other gods started gambling with Khonsu, the moon god. After toying with him for a while, this god eventually got Khonsu to wager hours of his light, ultimately getting him to bet away 5 days of it (one for each god, since they weren't days of the year). Khonsu was so weakened by this that he could only shine at full strength for a few times a month, and during the rest of that time he was either collapsing or building up his strength. Of course, I could be totally wrong, so do correct me if I am. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

In Egyptian mythology contradictory ideas could easily coexist; it can get very strange and confusing. I believe I've seen the bit about Set as a pig somewhere before, but I don't know if it was at all a reliable source. The story about the moon god and the days of the year is mostly correct, but as far as I know it's only found in the writings of Plutarch, who claimed to be relating genuine Egyptian stories but referred to most of the gods by Greek names (see here, section 12). A. Parrot (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I kinda got that sense; similar things happen in Greek mythology, where Hephaestus was either thrown off the mountain by his mother for disagreeing with her or by his father for siding with his mother. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't totally losing my mind. I'll have to read up on it after I finish reading Faust; listening to a metal band grunt about Egyptian mythology only gives one a tiny sliver of it, after all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

So is it fair to say that for many thousands of years only really stupid people thought the Moon actually changed shape every day rather than being something circular in aspect which was differently illuminated through the lunar cycle? In earlier times, with less pollution, persons with good vision would have been able to see the "dark" portion of the moon easier than in urban areas today, thus allowing them to assert that it was a partially bright circular body. (Added) Oh well, I suppose that official religious views or opinions of great thinkers that the Moon was some creature changing its posture, or a hole in the sky with light shining through, could exist in the minds of ancient persons who could every night see (if they had 20/20 or better vision) that it was a partially bright circle with some surface detail visible which stayed in the same relative place as the supposed creature moved around or was eaten or the hole got smaller. It could be like the story "The Emperor's New Clothes." Similarly, today we have bloviators on US TV and radio and politicians who deny folks the evidence of their own senses and still have have large followings. Edison (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll agree with you're first statement, but it's perhaps a bit kinder to replace `stupid' with `unobservant and/or uncritical'. Seems to me that earth-shine and libration, coupled with a relative lack of particulate matter and light pollution in the atmosphere should make the spherical nature of the moon apparent to any serious enquirer, however ignorant s/he may be. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is obviously circular, but it probably wasn't obvious to everyone that it was a sphere. But most people probably did not need to know anything about the moon aside from its phases. A few philosophers and scientists may have thought about it every once in awhile, but why would most people care? And are we much different today? Maybe we today know more about the moon than any ancient person, but can an average person today talk about the moon in great detail? I don't think I can even explain how an eclipse works, for example. (Remember when Mars was relatively close to Earth a few years ago? How many people thought we would be able to see it up close, as if it would be as close as the moon? People don't know anything about space...) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

December 10

Who was Edith Macy? I can only find info on a conference center that bears her name.

My daughter's Girl Scout project is to find out who Edith Macy was. I cannot find anything about her on the internet. The only thing that comes up is the Edith Macy Conference Center in Briarcliff, NY. How do I search for historical figures that (apparently) aren't that well known? Even the Girl Scout site I was on had very little information about her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.25.75 (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

A search through Google Books: [2] turns up some promising results. She appears to have been the wife of an industrialist named V. Everit Macy. Wikipedia has an article about the conference center here: Edith Macy Conference Center and about their upstate New York estate, Hathaway (Tannersville, New York), but does not have any articles about either of them (perhaps it should, given the book references). You can probably piece together details from the Google Books search I linked above. --Jayron32 00:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

(EC) You start by searching for Edith Macy, and that leads you to a pertinent page on the Girl Scout's site. From the information gleaned there you search for Edith Carpenter Macy, which leads you to what looks like a biography, or at least an extended text on the woman, within the context of her girl scout work. Those are the only two links from the searches that I looked at in any depth. I suspect the second search will yield more gems. As Jayron says, google books is always a good place to look for this sort of stuff, as is the internet archive (although not in this case, it turns out).--Tagishsimon (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

About half way down this page there's an article, in yellow, on V. Everit Macy and Edith, including a photo of the woman. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, I have started a stub article about V. Everit Macy. I will probably start one on his wife tomorrow. --Jayron32 04:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

British Monarch Coronation

When the Queen was crowned all those years ago in Westminster Abbey she signed a document which I'm guessing is some form of legal document that officially makes her a monarch. Does anybody know what the text of this document is? --Thanks, Hadseys 02:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There may well have been a document, but whatever it was, it did not "officially make her a monarch". The document that did that was the Act of Succession Settlement, which provides that the new monarch accedes on the instant of the demise of the old monarch. Everything else is just window dressing. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) She appears to be[3] signing a copy of the coronation oath, which ran as follows:

"Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?"

"I solemnly promise so to do."

"Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?"

"I will."

"Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolable the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?"

"All this I promise to do. The things which I have here before promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God."

Note that the oath, and the coronation itself, don't make her the monarch. The law makes her a monarch. The coronation, and the oath, are just ceremonial. Marnanel (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm — so if she had refused the oath, what would have happened, exactly? --Trovatore (talk) 09:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll let an expert handle that. A sort-of parallel arises in the US presidency. The new president becomes president at noon on 20 January, because the law says so, but he cannot execute the duties of his office until he is sworn in. If he refused to swear he would not cease to be president, but he couldn't legally do anything in the capacity of president. Whether such a situation would apply in the UK, I couldn't say. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced - for starters, a new king or queen does everything a king or queen is meant to do from the moment they succeed, and coronations take a long time to organise, (Edward VIII of course never was crowned). I'm also not sure that there is any legal requirement for a coronation. DuncanHill (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

What is it you're not convinced about (not that I was trying to convince you of anything): the detail of what I wrote? or that it was an appropriate parallel? (I did say it was a "sort-of parallel") -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 17:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The Queen could do all the things involved in "the office of Queen" before she was crowned. If Westminster Abbey had collapsed in early 1953, and the coronation put on hold indefinitely, she would have carried on giving the royal assent, dissolving and summoning parliament, receiving ambassadors, and all the rest, without being crowned. So, I'm not convinced about the parallel with the swearing in of an American President. DuncanHill (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair call. But see my later post 3 posts below. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I broadly agree, but I believe that the Queen holds the Coronation Oath to be a binding one and not just a ceremonial nicety. She has referred to her oath in several speeches. Alansplodge (talk) 09:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think "just ceremonial" was the wrong phrasing for me to use. It was a serious oath, but it was not what made her the monarch. Marnanel (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

In other words, UK monarchs have traditionally taken the position that it's not enough to just become the monarch and then spend their lives in splendid idleness. No, they have work to do, and lots of it, and this is their formal and solemn promise to adhere to the terms and conditions of their "employment". Plus, the Act of Settlement requires the monarch to "join in communion with the Church of England". Apart from the fact that all monarchs since the early Georges have already been members of the Church, how does a new monarch demonstrate they are satisfying this requirement? The Oath at the Coronation would seem to fit that bill, so it may not be as entirely superfluous to their monarchy as we generally seem to think. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The obvious way to be in communion with the church is to take communion (ie. the Eucharist), the oath isn't necessary. --Tango (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Tango, welcome back. So, that's all that's necessary? Nothing formal, just turning up at Church on one occasion? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've finally got internet access in my new flat (after nearly 4 months) - two ISPs each failed multiple times to get it set up. The church has its own definitions about who counts as a member, but I think being baptised (and maybe confirmed later) and taking communion occasionally is all they really look for. --Tango (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The depends on what you mean by "binding". It isn't legally binding, since the Queen is the "fount of justice" and can't be taken to court anyway. Monarchs generally consider it to be morally binding. The legal position should the monarch not abide by their obligations under law and oaths is very unclear - it would be a constitutional crisis. --Tango (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

To elaborate more, she became monarch the instant her predecessor died. While the law establishes legal succession in the UK, the actual passing of the monarchy from one monarch to their successor is considered automatic; there is no regular interregnum in the UK (in other monarchies, historically, there would be pending election of a monarch or official coronation of the same). See The King is dead. Long live the King. for a related article on the topic. --Jayron32 03:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that page has deteriorated since I wrote it a couple of years ago. Now it restates the same idea over and over again using identical examples from several countries for no reason. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 12:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Somali names

Is there a website where I can find Somali names commonly used by male and female? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.42.226 (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

If you type the words "Somali names" into google, you get many such websites. --Jayron32 03:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Somalis has a few. --Sean 16:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

All of the Somalis that I meet in London have Islamic names; Muhammad is very popular. Alansplodge (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Why can't I find street gangs in Compton, CA on Google StreetView?

I tried looking around Compton through that utility, but never found any group of young men in similar colors (not even red and blue) congregating at street corners. I never found any two guys appearing to make a drug transaction either. (I have found graffiti in various places, though, but not a single drawing of body chalking anywhere in my streetviewing travels.)

How come Compton looks a whole lot cleaner than it has been portrayed in media? Does Google have a policy of Photoshopping out serious criminal elements from their images, or what's the deal here? --70.179.178.5 (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

"How come Compton looks a whole lot cleaner than it has been portrayed in media"? Maybe it is... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There exists an extensive community of people looking for odd or unusual things on Google Earth, which has, at times, included crimes in the process of being committed. I'm not aware of any specifically for Compton, but you can find all sorts of strange shit if you hang around the right forums. To get you started, I recommend the Strangest Sights on Google Earth slideshow. You can, for example, see a house on fire, or a capsized boat. In Chicago, there even is a kid about to shoot someone. Buddy431 (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit: Drug Deal, in Chicago, street fight in San Fransisco, Public Urination all over the place, etc. A good site for this type of thing is Street View Gallery. Searching "Crime" gets a number of scenes. Buddy431 (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

And in Bergen, Norway, you can find two guys chasing the camera in scuba gear [someone insert link here]. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Here you go - couldn't bring myself to edit your comment, even with an invitation! DuncanHill (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the more unlikely scenarios from Streetview features Wayne Coyne of The Flaming Lips taking a bath outside his house. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 15:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the article you linked to, "Compton had 75 murders in 2005" which is just under 1 every 5 days on average. Considering many of the bodies probably aren't even found in places that you can see on Google Street View (and perhaps a few are murders despite the absence of bodies), the chance you're going to see a bodychalking is going to be slim. Of course there would be some chalkings which aren't classified as murders but it doesn't really change the point. (Note unreported murders are mostly irrelevant since if the police don't even know someone is missing they wouldn't be body chalking.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I doubt they even do that chalk outline of bodies for murders since you might end up disturbing forensic evidence. It is also not needed since you can just take some photos to record the body position. Googlemeister (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Identify a 18th-century painting of three sisters

Resolved

I wonder if there are anywhone who can help me identify a painting of the following description : it is made in the 1770s or 1780s and depicts three young adult sisters. They sit together writing, sewing or doing something similar; one is visible from the front, the two others in profile. The sisters are dressed in frilly white dresses and they have large, powdered but still brown hair in the hair style typical of the period. I do know that this is a painting made by one of the most famous English 18th-century painters, but I have forgotten the name of the artist as well as of the painting. Are there anyone who could assist me in identifying this painting? As I understand it, it is a famous painting, so some one whith knowledge of 18th-century painting may very well know it. Thank you in advance. --Aciram (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it on the internet? Kittybrewster ☎ 14:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe The Ladies Waldegrave (1780-81) by Joshua Reynolds? ---Sluzzelin talk 14:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, Sluzzelin, that is the one! Kittybrewster, I actually saw it on an old piece of paper with no text, and it was hard to find it on the net just because I had no names, but now I have both. Thank you very much! --Aciram (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

'Free' education that's too expensive

It's possible there's some term for this that would make a search easier. I'm looking for a few examples of countries that offer 'free' education to all children (at least primary education), but the children or their families have to provide uniforms and all equipment such as pencils and paper. I'm trying to introduce children to the idea that there are other factors beyond just going to school in whether children have fair access to education (many many more), but I want something fairly simple to point at to start them thinking. 86.161.208.185 (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a standard complaint in parts of society about the Australian public education system. However, my observation is that many such students carry the latest tech gadgets and their families holiday in Bali every year. In genuine cases of hardship, support is usually available to cover costs of uniform and material. My point is that, while the education is technically not totally free, the complainers are really often trying to justify a different set of priorities where education is not high on the list. HiLo48 (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

In my school district, at least at the high school level, education is "free" but still subject to fees (for participation in some classes, activities, etc, in addition to enrollment fees), school lunch cost, and all supplies must be bought by the family. However, it also works to where low-income families can have fees waived or reduced, get school lunches for free or a reduced price, and either receive vouchers for school supplies or receive school supplies from various charities (I can't remember which system we currently have regarding people unable to afford school supplies, but I know it is one of those two). The only fees I can think of that cannot be waived or reduced are optional, with the exception of a cap, gown, and class stole for graduation senior year, which costs about $60 USD (~ £38) and can be paid up to three months after ordering, so the families have some time to collect the money. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

While interesting, I'm really looking for a few countries whose education system I can investigate in a bit more detail where this is actually a barrier to education, without extra funding to help the poorest. I know I've read cases from such countries (but cannot remember which), where usually there are other barriers too (the economic value of the work the children could be doing, cultural resistance to formal education, lack of perceived value of education for women, etc), and I'd like to be able to start simply and build. I recall specifically reading of countries which are trying to get all children a primary education, by providing schools, but many children do not attend, or attend rarely, or drop out, for these reason. I'd also ideally like to start with a country very different from the UK, to get them started, then bring it back to problems in the UK and similar countries: I'm hoping this will give a sense of scale and a feeling for similarities and differences, it being easier to see this stuff in a culture that isn't your own. But to do this, I need a few countries to start me off. Do you know of such countries? 86.161.208.185 (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

From a quick search for 'free education can't afford uniform pen paper' [4] mentions Colombia, [5] mentions Nicaragua and [6] mentions Kenya but I suspect this isn't uncommon in many developing countries (obviously only those with theoretical free education). Note that one complicating issue is that even if subsidies exist, things like corruption, lack of awareness etc (combined with what you've already said and including in some cases racism or similar problems) means that they may not always reach those in need. Subsidies may also be general for the parents rather then specifically targetting school supplies for children. And the subsidies may only cover those in extreme poverty (when they actually reach them) but not those where it's still a barrier. Nil Einne (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Are mobbing victims sometimes at fault?

Normally, if you read the literature (in psychology or similar fields) it is considered common wisdom that anyone could be a mobbing victim and that they are indeed victims, not contributing to the process. However, following my personal experience and hearsay (not very reliable, I know) it seems that almost always the victim was at least partially at fault. The victim normally engaged in a certain dynamic, being victim (perhaps at the beginning) and hitting back (being also nasty or passive aggressive). Is there any psychologist who developed a theory in this direction? Are there any other reliable sources of this phenomenon (mobbing victim engaging in the process of being mobbed). 80.58.205.34 (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Note for confused Americans: Mobbing in this context seems to be what we would call "bullying," not in reference to crowds or the mafia. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I meant actually workplace bullying, nothing related to the mob.80.58.205.34 (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you are referencing a complex social phenomena. I don't think there could be a simple answer to the question you ask, but I don't really mean to discourage others from trying to respond more substantively. Bus stop (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I also do believe that really anyone could be a victim, similarly to any crime. However, if you consider passivity to be a contribution to the dynamic, then I'll say that some victims do contributed to it sometimes. "Don't be a victim" is also a common phrase in the counseling of bullying/mobbing (potential) victims. However, I wouldn't, by any means, say that the victim are at fault somehow. They simply didn't know how to react in such a situation. Quest09 (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

What kind of bullshit is this? Because someone doesn't react to an uninvited act of aggression in the way you want them to, they are somehow at fault? That the situation is predictable to outside observers doesn't place any responsibility on the act of the victim of an act of aggression or violence. That the victim could have behaved differently doesn't somehow make them "at fault" in any way. If I go walking, at night, in a dangerous neighborhood and start flashing money around, that may mean I am stupid, but such stupidity does not remove some fraction of responsibility from the person who mugs me. The responsibility for violence lies 100% with the perpetrator of that violence, and no fraction belongs to the victim. Decent people don't commit acts of aggression and violence, period. It doesn't make a bully more decent because his victim was "asking for it". --Jayron32 20:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

People who claim that violence solves nothing are apparently not well educated about violence. Googlemeister (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Now, come on. We are discussing this in the context of bullying. I'm not sure that bullying has a positive effect on society in any conceivable way. I'm sure some case could be made for some situations where a person is injured or killed by the deliberate act of another which is a net benefit to society. But this is not the context of the question asked here. Your comment, while true, is apropos of nothing and unrelated to the question being asked. --Jayron32 20:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to second Jayrons rejection and surprise at such a theory. Even if there are certain psychological "victim" behavioral mechanisms, and as far as I know there have been studies in behavioral patterns of victims of both bullying as well as assault and torture, it would never ever be the fault of the victim, but entirely the fault of the aggressor. And this would apply both in law and psychology. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to third that too. 92.24.190.135 (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Conflict is a great teacher for humanity. Individuals who are not exposed to conflict as a child are less able to cope with it as an adult. Overprotecting people from bullying as a whole may not be beneficial in the long run. Googlemeister (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the macho view. That's what bullies say. If someone is bullied at work, are you saying the victim should thump their boss, and that then the problem will be solved? 92.24.190.135 (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Googlemeister. Conflict is a useful thing, as is learning how to deal with conflict. At some point, however, there is a distinction between legitimate conflict, whereby people have a legitimate mutual disagreement, and someone just being an asshole. Assholery isn't excusable. People do need to learn how to deal with an asshole on a personal level, but when assholery rises to the level of causing real harm to other people, the assholes need to be removed from society. One can learn how to properly manage conflict and still not need to tolerate obnoxious acts of violence. At what level does bullying need to be tolerated? Do we allow bullies to gang up on people and isolate them socially? Do we allow bullies to hit other people, uninvited? Do we allow them to rape others? At what level is the line drawn when it crosses over from acceptable to unacceptable? You must be able to draw that line somewhere, and once you have drawn that line, it isn't the victims fault in any way once the bully has crossed it. --Jayron32 20:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your general position, Jayron. Now, what about situations where the victim had been deliberately and persistently provocative? When they finally get what they "were asking for", are they still zero percent at fault? "I was provoked" is not a defence the perpetrator can use; but the victim might nevertheless come in for some criticism for making the violence more likely than it might otherwise have been. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think what I am trying to say has been a bit misunderstood. I am not claiming that it is the fault of the victim that they are being bullied, just that some of the draconian attempts to completely eradicate bullying, while well meaning, may in fact be doing more harm then good. Children who have never been put under strain will develop into adults that do not know how to manage situation that involve strain, and any adult who tells you that they do not encounter stress in their life is either the luckiest person on earth, or untruthful. Googlemeister (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

(UNDENT)(edit conflict) @JackofOz: You have to define provocation carefully. It depends on the context whether an act should reasonably be perceived as prococative, that is whether a "reasonable person" would judge the act to elicit a certain response. A quiet, nerdy kid on a playground isn't being "provocative" if a bully shows up to kick his ass every day just because he's bored. That's not provocation. The victim is not responsible. If a woman wears revealing clothing to a bar because she intends to have sex with a man that night, but a man who she doesn't specifically ask to have sex with her roughs her up and forces himself upon her, that's not provocation. The victim is not responsible. If a drunk man in a bar starts to threaten and make sexual advances against my wife, he's not a "victim" of the asskicking I am going to attempt to deliver to him. What he did is provocation. @Googlemeister: Expecting children to get bullied at some level, and preparing them for that fact, and teaching them how to deal with that situation is good. Teaching children how to avoid being bullied is good. Allowing the bullies to go unpunished because it teaches other children to "deal with conflict" is just stupid. There is zero evidence that allowing bullies somehow makes children better adults, while there are lots of studies that show that allowing bullies has a detrimental effect on children. Seriously Googlemeister: Show me studies which show that children who are protected from bullying grow up to be lesser adults. Seriously, put your money where your mouth is. You keep claiming this to be "true". Prove it. --Jayron32 21:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Our article on Helicopter parenting has some relevant references I suspect. Googlemeister (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

An entirely unrelated issue. The issue of individual parents who take such an interest in their children as to prevent the child from making, and learning from, their own mistakes is completely different than saying we should let kids get beat up so they can learn a lesson. Completely different. Protecting people from violence is not the same as allowing children to learn independence, to say that it is seems rediculous. Again, show me a study that shows that bullying benefits the kids that are bullied. You keep saying that it does, but then you refer to unrelated issues. --Jayron32 22:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

@Jayron32: just imagine a situation when a child gets bullied, reacts correctly - informing the teacher, or by whatever other socially accepted means he has learned - and is able to get the bully punished. Would the bullied child feel empowered? Would the bully re-think how he interacts with others?

Obviously, this is not the question asked. Expanding my answer above: see also the official UK campaign of "Don't be a victim" here: Indy_Sagu#Charity_supporter. Again, victims, although they can and should learn how to protect themselves. are not at fault, even if as victims of some crime sometimes they might feel guilty. Quest09 (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Violence is conflict, but it is not the only kind of conflict. Bully is conflict, but it is not the only kind of conflict. Bullying is harmful and affects a child's view of themselves and others, often leading to 'victim-like behaviour' that makes them the target for more bullying, even into adulthood: it doesn't make them stronger. This is the same deal as abused children ending up with abusive partners in adulthood. A life free of bullying is not a life free of conflict, a life free lof violence is not a life free of conflict: conflict presents in many more healthy ways, and can be resolved by children. Finally, "just imagine a situation when a child gets bullied, reacts correctly - informing the teacher, or by whatever other socially accepted means he has learned - and is able to get the bully punished. Would the bullied child feel empowered? Would the bully re-think how he interacts with others?", well, that's the dream. Many schools are working on a way to make that happen, and a few think they've cracked it. But, at a lot of schools, that wouldn't at all be the 'right thing to do', and would just make it worse. If the child is in an unhealthy social environment that allows or encourages bullying as 'part of being a child' or 'something you have to learn to cope with' or 'teaching the victim to fit in', there is almost nothing that child can do to avoid it: they can move, or they can kick up enough fuss that the system has to change. The second option relies on their being a broader system or society that disapproves of bullying, and risks retribution from the bullies either inside or outside school. If most people think dealing with bullies is an essential life skill children have to learn, there is nowhere a child can reliably turn for help. 86.161.208.185 (talk) 11:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"Making them stronger" means making them more aggressive. This is not any solution but is like a situation where a superficial peace is kept in a possible Middle East where every country has nuclear weapons and lives in fear of other's responce. People live in this fear in for example UK sink council estates, and its not a pleasant experience. Might is not right. 92.15.28.181 (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Bullies will often play the "look what you made me do" game, trying to assign the fault for their bad behavior from themselves to the victim. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The bullies aside, one could argue that the parents themselves should actively abuse their children physically and mentally in order to prepare them for the abuse that they are probably going to suffer from other people in their adult lives. (In general, this world is terrible, and therefore we must prevent our fellow humans from getting dangerous illusions and forgetting that fact; and the way to prevent such illusions is to personally do all we can to make sure the world remains as terrible as possible). However, both letting children be bullied and abusing them personally is wrong, precisely because it's so good and correct. This approach is so wise and useful to the children that it will give them a false sense of over-confidence that adults will always make such wise and useful decisions. Instead, we should strive to make stupid decisions, so that children get used to the fact that in this world, people inevitably sometimes make stupid decisions. Specifically, children should get used to the fact that adults will ruthlessly seek to deprive them of all the valuable bullying experience they need. In this world, you'll have to learn to be tough and stand up to the overprotective adults and actively fight for your right to be bullied. We live in a world that is so harsh and mean that you can't even count on adults to bother to let you realize how harsh and mean it is. The children had better learn to deal with this evil, and we shouldn't prevent them from doing that by trying to fix it.

P.S. Ehem. <Sarcasm>. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Mobbing question section break

This has been an interesting discussion, but again the original question was about work-place "mobbing", which is very clearly defined at Mobbing#Checklist of mobbing indicators, and does not generally involve physical violence. I think the OP is asking about "targets" of that particular kind of collective adult behavior, and I haven't seen anything yet about any studies on how or why a particular target is selected to direct that behavior at, or to what extent, if any, some of those targets do "bring it on themselves" due to their own workplace behavior. It seems at least certainly not always the case that such behavior is "provoked" by anything actually about the victim him-or-herself (and such behavior is of course never really "justifiable" – one must be civil, for example, even to trolls at the RD!;). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not think it is helpful to draw a line between violent and non-violent behaviour. Non-violent behaviour such as verbal abuse and shunning are more harmful and long-lasting in their effects than having a fight. 92.28.246.75 (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

taiwan, singapore, education

1) the curriculum of Chinese literature (what does it cover)in high school (Taiwan), & time spent per week in that subject

2) the curriculum of Chinese literature (What does it cover) in high school (Singapore) & time spent per week in that subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.153.2.2 (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Who was the first actress in Germany?

It seems that most nations in Europe did not allow proffesional female actors until the second half of the 17th-century. I wonder: when was this allowed in Germany - and could anyone give me the name of the first German actress? I am most interested in theatre history, and I would be gratefull. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

We had a similar question over two years ago: "Woman on the stage in Germany", where references pointed to Catharina Elisabeth Velthen as a possible candidate, in the second half of the 17th century as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I see, thank you for linking it. It says that the first actresses appeared in 1654, and that Velthen was active from the 1680s. Is she the first actress whos name is known? Are there information about her somehwere on the net, and if not, could you given me the year of her birth, death and first known appearence? --Aciram (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. I was only able to read Christel Weiler's review of Claudia Puschmann's Fahrende Frauenzimmer. I can't read the book itself full text. The only hit I got for "1654" (in that book) gave me a snippet mentioning a request submitted by George Jolly's troupe for permission to play in Basel; the request clearly includes women in its staff description.

The article doesn't say whether the troupe would have performed in German language. If we count performances in other languages: the German article on Ariana Nozeman states that she performed at Frederick III, Duke of Holstein-Gottorp's court, as well as in the German cities Flensburg, Rensdorf, and Neumünster during a Northern European tour lasting from 1649 to 1654. Susanna van Lee appears to have been another female member of the same troupe. The performances were held in Dutch (which, at the time, was better understood in Northern Germany than it would be nowadays). I found no references for the absolute first woman to perform on stage in German. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way; you seem to have knowledge about the subject. Do you known the name and years of the first actress in France, Portugal and Russia? Or perhaps someone else here knows? If anyone knows, answer any one of those above you now off; I would be gratefull, as I have a great interest in women- and theatre history.--Aciram (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

My knowledge on European (or any) theatre history is wafer-thin. I did a little bit of research, and scanned several books on the history of theatre, and the history of women in theatre, but found no clear (or even vague) answers to your questions. I hope others will know or find more. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

December 11

Horses in Michael Clayton

I just watched Michael Clayton (film) and I am confused about the part with the horses. One minute Michael is talking to some rich guy who had just hit a person with a car and the next he is racing his own car down a country road only to see some horses. He just stands there staring at the three horses. Was that supposed to be symbolic of him apologizing to all of the farm people that the company U-North had hurt? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

My hazy memory is that he just happened to see the horses, not that he was specifically going to go look at them. He saw some horses, he was feeling low and irritated with the rich guy (and maybe guilty), and he got out to look at them. And coincidentally that weird choice by him happened to save his life. That's how I remember it, anyhow. Not that the horses were meant to be deeply symbolic of his work with the farm people — more that he was in awe of them and feeling adrift. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no significance. It is simply good Videography. schyler (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Military Hardware in Use by the Guomindang in late 1930s

I'm looking for details of any military hardware that the Guomindang used when fighting the Japanese specifically in the period shortly before WW2, and more specifically field guns and anti-tank guns. Can anyone help out? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Just checking that I've got the right people the National Revolutionary Army? - they were called the Koumingtang when I went to school. Our article on the NRA says "Some divisions were equipped with 37 mm PaK 35/36 anti-tank guns, and/or mortars from Oerlikon, Madsen, and Solothurn. Each infantry division had 6 French Brandt 81 mm mortars and 6 Solothurn 20 mm autocannons. Some independent brigades and artillery regiments were equipped with Bofors 72 mm L/14, or Krupp 72 mm L/29 mountain guns and there were 24 Rheinmetall 150 mm L/32 sFH 18 howitzers (bought in 1934) and 24 Krupp 150 mm L/30 sFH 18 howitzers (bought in 1936)". The Rheinmetall and Krupp sFH 18 howitzers seem to be the same gun from a different factory. Does this help? Alansplodge (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It does indeed help, thanks. I am especially curious about the German guns in their armoury. Thanks a lot. I didn't check the article, because, in all honesty I did not expect this information to even be there. Cheers. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

See also Sino-German cooperation (1911–1941), and the wikilinks from that article. User:Miborovsky is (was) our resident expert on the topic, but you may need to reach him by email these days. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

That's incredibly fascinating. I knew Germany had played a role in the modernisation of China in many respects, but I never knew it extended as late as that. Thanks! Fascinating read! --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still trying to track down the weapons listed. I'm fairly sure that the Solothurn Autocannon must be the Solothurn S-18/100. I'm a bit suspicious of the 72mm mountain guns (the only mentions on Google link to this article); I think it's actually this[7] weapon. We have an article on the Japanese copy - Type 41 75 mm Mountain Gun. Have you seen the WP article German-trained divisions in the National Revolutionary Army? Alansplodge (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Another snippet - this forum[8] says that "Bofors 75 mm Mountain Guns. This was a Krupp design taken over by Bofors in 1919 and later improved.... In 1928 Turkey bought 184 pcs of the 75 mm L/20 followed in 1932 by an order for 48 more. Turkey could however not pay for all and at least 72 of these guns were sold to China where som were captured by the Japanese." Alansplodge (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks! All of this is really useful for the little project I am working on. Thanks a lot! --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Kumari Fulbright details?

I'm having trouble finding details. It says the former beauty pageant winner "kidnapped, bound and tortured" her ex-boyfriend. Why?? Who tortures someone? And, like, how? She's only getting like 2 years and 6 years of probation or something, so it must not have been some heinous, eviscerating torture. What happened? Thanks. 82.234.207.120 (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Google is your friend (not that I think much of the Daily Mail):http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1337474/Kumari-Fulbright-jailed-having-ex-boyfriend-kidnapped-tortured.html.

It looks like plea-bargaining to me. And before anyone asks, not worth a Wikipedia article IMO. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

East Polynesian contact with mainland Australia

I'm thinking about writing an article on the initial settlement of New Zealand from East Polynesia about 1280 CE. The settlers spread from NZ to Raoul Island and from there to Norfolk Island. I'm trying to track down a reference for a brief mention in the 2009 The New Oxford History of New Zealand, p 27, which says "Norfolk Island settlers may have continued westward. Lord Howe Island was not discovered, despite its high visibility, but adzes of East Polynesian type have been recovered from the coast of New South Wales". The ref given by the New Oxford covers the lack of Polynesian artefacts on Lord Howe but not the adzes from NSW.

I've found Evidence of Polynesian Culture in Australia and Norfolk Island, but the age of the article and its lack of any scientific dating of the finds makes it unsuitable for a Wikipedia ref.

Can anyone point me to a more authoritative and up to date account of such adze finds? This will only be one line in the article I write, and can be left out if no such account is available.-gadfium 19:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

http://pacificarchaeology.org/index.php/journal may have something useful, or at least someone there may be able to provide a more useful link. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have searched SCOPUS without success. Perhaps I am not using the right keywords.-gadfium 18:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Columbus

Map similar to what Columbus would have relied on. (With a modern map of America super-imposed.) He was aiming for Cipangu, now known as Japan.

Why did the Spanish monarchs believe Columbus when he said that Earth was round? Didn't just about everyone during the Middle Ages think that Earth was flat? --J4\/4 <talk> 20:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The belief that people in the Middle ages thought the Earth was flat is largely a myth, described at Myth of the Flat Earth. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 20:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) No. See the very first entry in our List of common misconceptions. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If you read that article, you will see that it is a misconception that Columbus argued the Earth was its present shape and diameter. Instead, he was making an argument that he will "wrap around" to the right edge when he sails past the left edge, which he thought due to an analysis of the world's source code: the bible. He also played a lot of games where that happens. 82.234.207.120 (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

only people who live where you can't see the horizon (forests, hills) ever think the earth is flat. People living where the earth is "flattish", like the ocean or a desert, can clearly see objects rise up into view as they come over the horizon, which can only mean the earth is curved. Gzuckier (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. If I didn't know the earth was round and was looking out to sea as the sun rises over the horizon, just from looking at that I wouldn't know for sure the earth wasn't flat. In what way would the horizon look different if the earth was in fact flat? 82.44.55.25 (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If as you were looking out to sea a tall sailing ship were to approach you from beyond the horizon, the first thing you would see would be the tops of its sails, then the rest of the sails, then the deck, and finally its bottom hull and wake. And the reverse if it were going away from you. Ancients mariners may have observed that no matter where they were in the sea, the surface of the sea fell away from them toward the horizon, which would happen if the Earth were a globe and not a flat plane. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks :) 82.44.55.25 (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Everyone knew the earth was round. In fact scientists had correctly calculated the size of the Earth. What Columbus was arguing was that the earth was much smaller than most scientists believed it was, and therefore it was possible to sail from Europe to what we would now call Japan. (Back then Europeans lumped to all kinds of different people together as "Indians") APL (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

To address a related legend, His crew was threatening to mutiny, but not because they were scared of falling off the edge of the world. They were afraid that columbus was wrong about how small the world was, and that they would not have nearlly enough food to make it to Japan.

The crew was right, of course. If America didn't exist they would have all starved to death in the middle of nowhere.

It seems to me that Columbus was wrong about everything important. He just got really lucky.APL (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

N.B.: As a Christian, Columbus may have been familiar with Isaiah 40:22 where The Earth is described with the Hebrew word chug which means "inscribed in a circle." schyler (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

N.B.: A circle is not a sphere. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

To expand on what APL said, it wasn't that Columbus was right and everyone else was wrong. The opposite was true. The prevailing scientific wisdom was that there was the world was about as big as it actually is, and that therefore it would take a very long time to get from Europe to Asia by sailing west. Columbus mistakenly believed that East Asia was a lot closer to Europe than it was. The right question to ask is how Columbus managed to convince Ferdinand and Isabella to back his voyage when all of the leading minds of his day knew Columbus's premise -- that he could get to Asia in a reasonable time by sailing west -- was wrong. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Columbus wasn't even the first European to reach the Americas - (see Leif Ericson). History gives him far too much credit. --Tango (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Europeans weren't even the first people to reach the Americas - History gives them too much credit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't dismiss the importance of the Age of Discovery. The Europeans travelled to Asia, North and South America, Australia and Antarctica and returned to tell the tale and not the other way around (Discovery de facto means more than to be the first to go somewhere, it also means to go there, return and spread the news). For good and ill the European explorers discovered and connected the whole world leading to the first true Globalization (as in connecting the whole globe). Unless you truly want to believe the writings of Gavin Menzies. Flamarande (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I can believe that learned Europeans of the time knew the size of the Earth pretty accurately. But what basis did they have for estimating how large the Eurasian landmass is? Did they have access to (reliably translated) longitude measurements made in Japan or China? 84.239.160.59 (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

They didn't have longitude measurements (in fact, given the technology at the time, measuring longitude was totally impossible). What they had was rough distance-and-bearing measurements of the caravan routes between China and Europe, which could be used to compute the distance to China. Columbus had a specific interpretation of those measurements that made China about 30% further away than the consensus distance, which combined with his smaller-than-consensus value for the circumference of the Earth to give a reasonable sailing voyage between Europe and China. --Carnildo (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

@mwalcoff I wouldn't be surprised if there were political reasons for supporting the voyage. Or, it could be as simple as using Columbus for a temporary "look, we support exploration/trade" point among some noble group, expecting he'd be forgotten in due time. Actually discovering new lands was a pleasant bonus. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Not all leading minds thought that the voyage was impossible. Paolo_dal_Pozzo_Toscanelli, whom Columbus knew, was of the opinion that such enterprise was not only possible but that it would also yield a high profit to its discoverer. But that was not the only motivating information Columbus had access to. If you calculate distances, as Columbus did, using the Italian mile (1,238 meters) instead of the Arabic mile (1,830 m) you get a much shorter West route to Asia. Adding to this the fact that Spain was eager to achieve a competitive advantage against other European countries after the tour-de-force of the Reconquista, believing the logic of Columbus sounds unsurprising. Trustinchaos (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, no. If you calculate the distances, the units of measurement are irrelevant. If you use the result of someone else's calculation and misinterpret the units, then you get different (and in this case wrong) distances. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

yes, you are absolutely right here. We cannot call that calculating. Columbus didn't calculate the distances himself, just read the maps using the Italian miles. Trustinchaos (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There are unsubstantiated but (in some cases) plausible suggestions that Columbus may have heard mariners' stories of lands far to the west, which he interpreted as being China and Japan. See Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, and also Brazil (mythical island). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the opportunity cost may have been an important part of their decision to allow the voyage, the potential loss of a couple of boats and an annoying man that kept begging for them to send him off into the unknown comapred to the potential huge benefits if he was right. Or, I think there were already suspicions going around that there was another whole continent in between, so even greater chance of a huge success for the same small cost. Also it is said that around the same time Giovanni Caboto (or however you want to spell it) heard the tales of Bristolian fishermen that had apparently been to this 'New World', where there were so many cod it was possible to walk across the sea on their backs and scoop them up in baskets. But that is, I think, off the original point of the question. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Royals may have been familar with manuscripts describing the Voyage Of Saint Brendan which took place in the 6th. century. See Brendan#Possible_link_to_Columbus I understand that British fishermen sometimes reached Newfoundland, although I'm not sure when that was. There were myths of Atlantic islands such as Hy-Brazil. To the Royals, the venture must have been seen as a good gamble, with an expected high return if it succeeeded. I don't know how much money they invested compared to other investments or as a proportion of their income. 92.28.246.75 (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There have been speculations that Columbus visited Iceland in 1477... AnonMoos (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely Iceland was a known territory at that time though since it had been under continuous population (and even their own bishop) for the previous 500 years. Googlemeister (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If only he knew how close he came to the New World, I think is the point. Iceland is a lot closer to Greenland (technically part of the New World) than it is to continental Europe. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Did Icelanders really have no knowledge of the existence of Greenland at that time? The tales of the adventures of Gunnbjörn Ulfsson, Bjarni Herjólfsson, Leif Ericson and others must have existed in Columbus's day, otherwise they would not have survived to our own age. The Viking_expansion#Greenland was mentioned in the Icelandic Annals and sagas which must have been available in the 15th. century, and see Vinland#Medieval_geographers and Norse_colonization_of_the_Americas#Greenland. 92.28.245.105 (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that they knew about Greenland, but didn't think much of it, being just a vast glacier-covered wasteland, from their POV. People searching for gold don't care about places covered in glaciers, as that makes any gold underneath rather inaccessible. StuRat (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There had been Scandinavian settlers in Greenland from ca. 1000 A.D. to as late as the early 1400s (see History_of_Greenland#Norse_settlement). Also, you seem to be confusing vikings with conquistadores; vikings were certainly not averse to gold, but gold was not their main motivation for western explorations... AnonMoos (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

December 12

Font sizes

I've been struggling with a bit of font design, and I think it might be useful to add the following to Point (typography):

The em size (and hence the point size of a font) does not include any leading (the space between the lines).

It seems to be a great discovery I have just made which will clear up a lot of my confusion. Is it actually true? (Maybe I don't mean leading, since leading seems to include the whole body of the type as well as the space between the lines. Not sure what the word is for space-which-isn't-body.) 81.131.4.151 (talk) 04:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Leading is extra space added between lines. For example, a 10-point font might be designed (for example) so that the capitals and ascenders (bdfh...) extend 6.2 points above the baseline, while the descenders (jpqy...) extend 3.2 points below the baseline. Then when the baselines are played 10 points apart, the descenders are always clear of the following line by 0.6 points. This amount was chosen by the designer of the font as the closest spacing that, in his/her judgement, would not crowd the lines together. It is space between the lines, but it is not leading, and it does count in the 10-point size of the font. Sometimes, especially when setting wide lines of text, you might choose to space the baselines farther apart, say 12 points. That is leading, in this case 2 points of leading.

You have to imagine the old days of hot metal typesetting (or cold metal before that), when the letter would actually be formed into a piece of metal 10 points high, but would not quite reach to the top or bottom of that piece of metal. To do leading, an actual strip of lead would be inserted between the lines of letters; in this case, a strip 2 points in size.

--Anonymous, 04:47 UTC, December 12, 2010.

Leading says that it is the distance between the baselines, so the leading in that last example (10 points of sort (typesetting), 2 points extra) is 12 points. It doesn't say what the extra strips are called. Photoshop backs this up, where a block of text with point size 12 and leading set to 12 will be "solid". On the other hand, right there in the Leading article is a contradictory example: CSS seems to use leading to mean "space between ascenders and descenders" - the example with no leading does not have all the lines printed on top of one another (as is the case in Photoshop with leading set to zero). So I don't know. 81.131.4.151 (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Captain Alatriste

Did the fictional character Captain Diego Alatriste ever exist or was he based on an actual person in 17th century Spanish history? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

¡Buenos días! According to the article on Spanish Wikipedia here, he is a fictional character. There is further discussion (in Spanish) here which seems to come to the same conclusion, though I only have un poco de Spanish. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh what a pity. I saw the film the other night and I was hoping he had truly existed. Thanks, Ghmyrtle.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Your fantasies can be just as intense with a fictional character. Really, there's no rule against it, and it wouldn't make you any weirder. Have fun! 82.234.207.120 (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, but my interest stems from purely historical curiosity, nothing else.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The following is a joke. Please don't remove it. Um, I wasn't expecting a response. I was just trolling you. Uh, mission accomplished? 82.234.207.120 (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoever removed this "admission" of trolling (made by me from a previous address): it was a JOKE. A real troll would NOT admit it. So, please don't remove my contributions in the future. If Jeanne feels offended by them, I suppose she could remove it, this being her thread... Otherwise don't edit other editors' contributions please... Thanks! 80.14.250.12 (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

According to our Captain Alatriste article:

"His name comes from Sealtiel Alatriste, Pérez-Reverte's Mexican publisher and friend, and from the legendary Don Juan Tenorio, who is indeed his grand-uncle"

and our Don Juan Tenorio article says:

"Don Juan Tenorio: Drama religioso-fantástico en dos partes, is a play written in 1844 by José Zorrilla. It is the more romantic of the two principal Spanish-language literary interpretations of the myth of Don Juan."

Which suggests (inconclusively): he is a character based on a character based on a myth, if that makes any sense in-universe (I haven't read the book or seen the movie, are they good?). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have not read any of the books, but the film is excelent. Viggo Mortensen is convincing in the role. The historical personages were portrayed realistically unlike the mess Hollywood made with The Tudors and Braveheart.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought Polanski's film version (The Ninth Gate, 1999) of Pérez-Reverte's The Club Dumas (1993) was better than the book. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Alatriste didn't exist. Perez-Reverte explains how his friend believes in Alatriste as a real man. From a Patente de Corso text in El Semanal magazine in Spanish:

[...]Mi amigo no es muy de leer libros, pero el capitán le suena bastante. Hasta el punto de que, descubro sorprendido, cree en la existencia del veterano soldado de los tercios. «Qué bueno –termina diciendo– que te inspires en personajes reales, como hiciste con la Reina del Sur.» Me lo quedo mirando, para comprobar si habla en broma. Pero no. Lo dice en serio aunque es mejicano, como digo, y oyó decir más de una vez que Teresa Mendoza es personaje de ficción. Entonces comprendo que el tiempo y el extraño azar de la literatura, incluso para los no lectores –o especialmente entre ellos–, han hecho su trabajo. Y sonrío feliz, de medio lado, enseñando el colmillo como un lobo satisfecho.[...]

— Arturo Perez-Reverte, Las fronteras (difusas) de la ficción [9][10]

Regards. emijrp (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas gifts

What is the most popular type of Christmas gifts? Adult lady to gentleman? Gentleman to lady?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It's touching that you asked for the most popular types of Christmas gifts just to avoid being cliche, knowing that by yourself you would probably have picked one of them! Everyone should be as original and creative... 80.14.250.12 (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have lived in four different countries, and I'd have to say the most popular (and cliched) gift from a gentleman to a lady is probably perfume or jewelry; women tend to give their men cologne or shirts/sweaters.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Which century were beds used?

Birth of Louis VIII of France in 1187

In which century did the European (in particular western) nobility switch from sleeping on straw pallets to beds?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're defining as a "bed" here. Do you mean when did mattresses become used, as opposed to raw straw? They are very old indeed, dating back in Europe to at least the Romans. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I knew the Romans, Egyptians and Greeks used them, but I was talking about the four-postered, curtained beds with mattresses that were used in the late medieval period. In fact, one of the French nobles taken as a prisoner by the English after the Battle of Agincourt paid part of his ransom with his bed!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Our article on four poster beds is not very informative in this respect, but it does say that a number of extant beds date from the 16th Century. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

They pre-date the 16th century.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

My Usborne Time Traveller Book of Knights and Castles (seriously) has the lord and lady sleeping in a four poster. This is set in 1240. I seem to remember there is a manuscript illumination of similar events, not sure when that dates to. It must be in Wikimedia somewhere... 81.131.0.97 (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Commons category Beds in art has many examples of medieval depictions of beds. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder to what extent the usage of 4-poster beds increased as the Little Ice Age progressed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded an image of a bed used in 1187 in France.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I was just looking at the very same picture. Nice accurate date and location. However there is Commons:File:Saxon_State_Bed.jpg, which links to a history of furniture (available on Gutenberg) which talks about Saxon beds. 81.131.0.97 (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Lovely drawing but no date is given, not even the century.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"A drawing in the Harleian MSS. in the British Museum is shewn on page 25, illustrating a Saxon mansion in the ninth or tenth century." (Blah blah blah, still apparently talking about the same MSS) "Other woodcuts represent Anglo-Saxon bedsteads, which were little better than raised wooden boxes, with sacks of straw placed therein ..." 81.131.0.97 (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Why the Christian population isn't growing in India?

Apostle Thomas went to India and preached the gospel there. 19th century missionaries went to India and established Indian churches. After many centuries of evangelism, why the Indian Christian population still remain small? Indian Christians make up 2.3% of India population. I know that many Northeast Indians have accepted Christianity, but not the Indo-Aryan Indians who are the majority. Is it difficult to convert brown people? 17:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.73.51 (talk)

"...is it difficult to convert brown people"? Yes, if you use ridiculous stereotypes. And in answer to the general question, why do you think the people of India would wish to convert to Christianity? They have well-established religions of their own. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a better question is why Christianity was more successful in Europe, the Americas and sub-Saharan Africa than it was in Asia. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, because they didn't use violence to convert people in India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.191.230 (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

See Goa Inquisition. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's an answer to "Why would they want to convert": I've known some Christian Indians, and the reason they converted was because of the lack of a caste system in Christianity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that rather depends. In some Christian churches, most notably the Catholic Church, women are virtually second-class citizens. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You get Catholic guilt instead. Bargain! 81.131.0.97 (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm just telling you what they told me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Err, you might want to have a look at Caste system among Indian Christians... --BishkekRocks (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

And anyway, the Indians had themselves come up with a casteless religion - Buddhism. But as it turns out, in the long run an atheistic philosophy of peace and forebearance is no match in the popular imagination for old fashioned fire-and-brimstones with lots of colourful gods. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Birthdate of Isabelle of Hainault

There are two different dates of birth (and places of birth) for Isabelle of Hainaut, Queen consort of Philip II of France and mother of Louis VIII. Some give her birthdate and birthplace as 5 April 1170 and Valenciennes, while others say she was born in Lille on 23 April 1170. Would anyone happen to know the correct DOB and corresponding birthplace? Thank you in advance.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this likely to be a Julian/Gregorian calendar thing? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Not with an 18 day discrepancy in the 1100s, more likely these are dates conjectured from her father's movements or the usual time for confinement of the mother in that era. In other words pretty close to being entirely made up, I would be dubious of any accurate date from that era especially women, but then even the DOB of the previous king Louis VII of France is not stated with any accuracy. meltBanana 21:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, so perhaps the discrepancy arises from the chronicles that are the sources for this stuff? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and other sources. For example, while I don't know specifically about the French kings, there are some published itineraries of English kings, like Henry II. (In fact you can read Eyton's The court, itinerary, and household of Henry II on Google Books.) By examining chronicles, charters, and whatever other dated documents are available, it is sometimes possible to determine exactly where the king was on any given day (or approximately, if there is a gap in the dates). If his wife is known to be pregnant on a certain date, and a child is mentioned on some other date, then all that can usually be said with certainty is that the kid was born between those two dates. If a specific birth date is recorded in a chronicle, the chronicler himself may have been there to witness it. Otherwise, where would he get such information? There was no birth registry, and a medieval person, even a royal one, may not have even known his/her own birth date. They could have been born in "spring", and if the day was a feast day or some other important day, it may have been remembered later, but probably not. Death dates were more important, and they are more often recorded (just like Easter is a more important holiday than Christmas). Adam Bishop (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Pipe Rolls records royal - and a few noble - children's DOBs, so did many chroniclers. Also when an heir came of age his or her DOB would need to have been known. Elizabeth I's birth has been recorded almost down to the exact hour.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's true, but Elizabeth is almost as far away from Isabella as we are from Elizabeth. Things were a lot more organized then. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The earliest sunset

Is there any name for the day of the earliest sunset? Such as there is for beltane for example. According to www.timeanddate.com the earliest sunset in the northern hemisphere is tonight, or perhaps tommorrow, at 15.51 in London. Being an aethiest, and being a late riser, today is the turning point of the year for me. Thanks 92.28.249.229 (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Midsummer would be the (neo)pagan term for the Summer solstice, when the day is longest in the Northern Hemisphere (whereas Beltane "is considered a cross-quarter day, marking the midpoint in the Sun's progress between the spring equinox and summer solstice.").

Winter solstice, the shortest day in the Northern hemisphere, occurs on December 21 this year. You may also be interested in our article on Day length. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

But what you seem to be talking about is timeanddate.com, which does show the earliest sunset ("3:51 PM") to be occurring around now (+/- a few days). But notice that length of day does reach a minimum at 7h 49m 43s around Dec. 21/22, which is the winter solstice. Solar noon is shown to vary there, too. Interesting question. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Like the OP, I have celebrated this day of earliest sunset for the last fifty years, and also the day of latest sunrise in early January. The effect seems to be seldom recognised by others, and it is just a consequence of the drifting of noon from its clock time. See Equation of time for details. The dates change slowly over the centuries, so they will probably never become an established festival. Dbfirs 22:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The pagan name for the Winter Solstice is Yule. Corvus cornix_talk 22:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note the question is about celebrating the earliest sunset. I'm already well aware of the shortest day etc which is not the same thing. 92.15.5.93 (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that (depending on how you measure it) that "time" will depend on your longitude, time zone, and your time measurement criteria. It's a lot more straightforward to state which is the shortest day.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that - I would imagine that the earliest sunset is on the same day for everyone in the northern hemisphere. 92.29.117.8 (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There appearer to be a confusion of terms here. Even though water clocks were surprisingly accurate, the time difference we're talking about would hardly register on them and would not register at all on the minds of the pagans. What they would have noticed: is the 'least' westward point that the sun set, before heading west again. Although henges seem to be a phenomenon of the British Isles it is quite possible that early man used stakes as sight line to the horizon to act as date markers right into Christen time (just as some chapels were built to point to the rising of the sun on their saints day). What's more, this method could still drive a calendar which is more accurate that the one we use today. So the answer is no; as the earliest sunset is just an artefact made more discernible by our regular clocks set to display mean solar time. Even if you were born before the development of clocks, it would still be a turning point for you as this is more to do with the characteristics of your own particular body clock. Your clocks are probably synchronised more strongly by the onset of darkness. If festivals were based on individual body clocks it would be very confusing for all concerned--Aspro (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC).

I'm simply asking if the day of the earliest sunset has a name. Nothing to do with water clocks or 'circadian rythmns' etc. 92.28.245.105 (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem. Your "simple" question is based on a misunderstanding: there is no "earliest sunset" every year. Sunset depends on many factors. For instance, sunset at my current location is much earlier than 100 miles away from me, simply because I live in a very mountainous region, while 100 miles away is relatively flat. The sun sets earlier here because the mountains form a higher horizon than in the flatter regions.

Your longitude also has a major impact on sunset. I've lived in Anchorage, Alaska, where the sun sometimes is only up for a few hours each day, making the sunset as early as 3 pm local time. Much further north, the sun never even rises for a portion of the winter.

If what you're looking for is a specific day of the year that the sun sets earliest in general, that would be the same as the day with the shortest available sunlight in general (ie. Winter solstice). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean "your latitude also has a major impact on sunset" (latitude being the North-South measurement). The truth is, both latitude and longitude determine the time of local sunrise and sunset. With respect to latitude, due to the tilt of the earth along its axis, time of sunrise and sunset varies as you go north and south. With respect to longitude, time of sunset and sunrise depends upon how far east or west you are in a particular time zone. --Quartermaster (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The important thing is not the absolute local time, but the comparative time ie the date of the earliest sunset out of all the sunsets of the year at any particular location. So time zone is irrelevant. (And its unlikely you'd get any quirk caused by changing daylight saving times). Only an unsual local mountainous topography would make any difference - eg where you have a deep valley that the sun sets through on one particular day. I was considering places where there is a sunset every day. Anyway, we seem to have established that there is no name or festival of any sort for the earliest sunset, so end of question. 92.28.245.105 (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have an answer but I just wanted to say that I understand your question. I don't know why everyone else seems to be making it more complicated that it is 82.44.55.25 (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Checking Time and Date shows that the date of the earliest sunset changes based on your location. In Minneapolis, for example, the earliest sunset is somewhere between December 8 and December 11. In Miami, it's somewhere between November 26 and December 3.

The reason why is explained here: (http://www.sciquill.com/analemma/page2.html). It relates to both the tilt of the earth's axis and the earth's ellipical orbit. 128.111.130.159 (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I cannot imagine longitude having an effect, only latitude. It appears from 128s comments that the day of the earliest suunset is earlier in the year the further south you go. Yet the shortest days is apparantly exactly the same day all over the northern hemisphere. 2.97.210.25 (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Valdemar III of Denmark

Does Danish history recognize this man as King Valdemar III? I've seen many other sites call Valdemar the Young, the son and co-king of Valdemar II of Denmark, Valdemar III instead.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Danish Wikipedia article on him calls him Valdemar 3.. Corvus cornix_talk 22:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but how reliable can Wikipedia be.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

This photo has him listed as "Waldemarus Tertis". Corvus cornix_talk 23:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There's plenty of results from Google Books[11]. Alansplodge (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The photo provided by Corvus cornix lists Valdemar II of Denmark's son as Valdemar III. The text above it is about the person Wikipedia calls Valdemar III of Denmark but the image is related to another person, the son of Valdemar II who lived a century earlier. Surtsicna (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Then the Danish Wikipedia article is wrong, since it uses that image. Corvus cornix_talk 17:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The Danish Wikipedia article does not use that image. It sources its information about the birth and death dates of the person in that article from the text above, not the image itself. It is the site gravsted.dk that has made an error and paired a the image with a wrong text. The Danish first edition of the Biographical Dictionary from the late 1800s just calls him Valdemar . The Royal Lineage list on the official homepage of the Danish Monarchy does not mention him, I guess they prefer a slightly glossy version of history. The list on the homepage of the Joint Council of Danish History (an association of Danish local history associations, museums and what not) calls him Valdemar 3.. The Danish history page kept by Aarhus University calls him Valdemar 3. Eriksen. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Somali dance niiko

What is this dance in somalia called Niiko? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.111 (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

We don't have an article on it (yet), but it can be seen on youtube here[12][13] and apparently more authentically from East Africa here[14]. Thanks for asking; someone may be along soon with more information! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

December 13

The Big Bang Theory

Hi all. Pausing the video in the starting of The Big Bang Theory I have discovered this image. What is the story behind it? I guess the photo is in public domain. Thanks. emijrp (talk) 02:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

According to this (fairly interesting) website, the picture is apparently of a routine amputation during the American Civil War. The soldier in the picture, oddly, is looking at the camera; the operations were also usually performed while the soldier was conscious because medical science had not progressed to the point while anesthesia was in common use. Xenon54 (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, by the 1860s chloroform and ether were quite common on the battlefield and were used in the majority of surgeries and amputations. Some soldiers requested not to use them, out of fear that the anesthesia would kill them (and a lingering "moral" argument that one should "face" surgery directly), but that was comparatively rare. This photo was clearly staged in one way or another — remember that photos at that time were not quick affairs, but required everyone to pose for a few minutes, and in any case, this is not exactly a "natural" pose for anyone involved. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely they were aware that you could use heavy doses of whiskey or other forms of ethanol as an anesthetic... Googlemeister (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The doses required would have too many complications (vomiting, uncontrollable behavior, alchohol poisoning, etc.). Just giving someone a little bit would only make them tipsy, and possibly less compliant when the physician starts cutting. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course booze was used in this fashion for quite a long time. But true anesthesia — which did exist by the late 19th century — was really quite a step up. It's one of the truly horrifying aspects of medical history that there really wasn't any until the 1840s or so. For a while surgeons resisted it because they had built up a "moral" culture around the idea of surgical pain (you still see some of that today, I might add, in some of the "natural birth" advocates), but thank goodness that didn't last for too long. Surgery is one of those cases where unambiguously the modern condition is better than the pre-modern one, in my opinion! --Mr.98 (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if that image [15] is in the public domain, if so we should maybe get it. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It should be PD considering its age. Why not ask over at the Ref desk on copyright just to be sure. I agree it would be good to use in a relevant article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Definitely PD in the United States if it is truly from the Civil War period. PD-because-of-age can be complicated, but there is really no doubt that anything before 1890 is in the PD in the United States. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Obviously a staged photo as this is simply not how amputation was done. First a tourniquet was applied. Then an assistant pulled back on the flesh. Then the surgeon used scalpels to cut the flesh so that enough remained to cover the stump after surgery! Then cut through the muscles, ligaments, etc. Then a linen "retractor" to protect the flesh, all before employing the saw.[16] The old sawbones weren't all hacks. Rmhermen (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Getty Images has it here with the title "Vintage image of Civil War Reenactment". --Sean 22:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Anesthesia was known by the American Civil War, but not always available or used in frontline improvised hospitals. Amputations were often done as a lifesaving operation, without anesthesia, and in therefore with maximum swiftness, while assistants held down the agonized patient. Alcohol is not an anesthetic. Edison (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll just chime in with my usual reminder that a lot of what is said above assumes a context of Western medicine as practised in Europe and European colonies. Anaesthetics were known to and used in Chinese medicine for at least the last 1500 years. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Issue with research project and annonymity....

Hello, I am doing a project in my college level antrhropology course. The topic of this research is interaction between domestic (American) students and international students. Since the interviews i do with students obviously will have different points of view, related to their nationality, should i create a Chinese fakename to keep a Chinese student anonymous? I want their identity safe but i wonder if it is important to say that they are Chinese. It seems odd to call said person "Jason".

Additionally: if i SHOULD create a Chinese "cover name", how would i go about this and make it sound reasonable? I imagine that since I am American it is difficult for me to understand Chinese naming conventions, and I don't want to tell my readers that I interviewed Jay Chou .....

Thanks for your response in advance! 137.81.118.126 (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you anonymize your students by, for example, using Latin letters for the non-American students and Greek letters for the American students or maybe letters and numbers? It would be truly anonymizing, and it would allow you to use two distinct systems to keep the groups seperate. --Jayron32 02:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this somewhat alluding to the idea that a "fake name" is not truly anonymizing? To my knowledge it is done in quite a few legitimate, world-known anthropological writings.... 137.81.118.126 (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't allude to anything. I was just throwing some ideas around. You'll find I never allude. I state. --Jayron32 03:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that you haven't interviewed Jay Chou, I can see the rationale behind giving fake names, but I think you'd have to make it clear in your writeup that you were using pseudonyms, and on that basis, you could just call them 'student A', 'student B' etc, as already suggested. I'd think that otherwise you might be seen to be applying stereotypes, and you risk accidentally using a name of a real student. Perhaps you should ask the college teaching staff about this though? ...and try not to misspell anthropology if you are studying it ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope its pretty clear that that "spelling" is more a typo than anything else, but 2 points for actually seeing it, i didnt :P

Anyway, I am considering discussing this with the professor, but seeing as it is Sunday night, i thought id get a head start on the situation. Your mention of avoiding stereotypical names is well noted, because even if i do this with american names, there are many which are so stereotypical that we automatically choose. Tim, Sam, Sally, John, Jim, Ben, Sarah, etc..... Having student A,B,C, and Student α, β, γ seems to make sense. If i take this method, i have two questions.

1) Should i refer to them as Student D, Student β, etc, or simply D or β in place of the name?

2) Should I discuss the issue of pseudo names within my paper itself?

137.81.118.126 (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

1) Either system seems fine 2) Probably not, since you are using letters rather than names like "Billy" or "Chang" its is plainly obvious you didn't happen to find some bizare part of the world where everyone has a letter as a name. However, the advice to contact your professor seems best. These kind of questions can be answered quickly by him, and as he is likely working in the field right now, he may have ideas about established practices. --Jayron32 04:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd start with 'student D', and maybe just use 'D' later, where you needed to refer to him/her again: "Student D is a female Science student from mainland china, in her early twenties. When I asked D about how she got on with other students, she replied..." (assuming this is the style of interview you are using - you probably get the idea). And yes, you should discuss why you haven't used real names in the paper: anthropological research often involves such issues, and showing an understanding of them will look good. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That is precisely what i was getting at, the discussion of the issue, not just the mention of its implimentation. Thanks alot everyone, your reflection on this is very helpful.

137.81.118.126 (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

..... I'm thinking about being frank and open about the situation and actually mentioning the Jay Chou thing, just as a proof of how easy stereotyping can become.....

137.81.118.126 (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes. Except you then run the risk of overdoing the 'anthropologist' stereotype, who stumbles blindly into his/her fieldwork without a clue what is going on, and after a heroic struggle involving strange beasts, mysterious diseases, and frequent misunderstandings, emerges clutching the Golden Fleece an exemplary exposition of the complexities of human cultural experience. (see Clifford Geertz for the archetype). Try not to overdo the reflexivity... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

An extremely valid point.... Im just trying to relate this to the anthropological texts we've read as well. So i want to show my knowledge of the situation, but if i over extend it it can look bad, almost like i'm explaining something to a small child.... i vaguely get the golden fleece thing though, haha.... ill try to illustrate my points concisely then without listing the actual stereotypes in question etc etc

137.81.118.126 (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's always difficult to know where to pitch your writing at. You don't really want to write for your professor, as he/she probably (hopefully?) knows more about the subject than you, so you think you don't need to explain anything. But as you say, you aren't writing for a small child either. I was told that the best person to bear in mind is 'an educated outsider': maybe in your case a fellow student who's studying Ancient Greece rather than anthropology (and knows about the golden fleece ;) ). Explain why you're identifying people the way you are, but remember this isn't the topic of your paper, so you don't want to get side-tracked. Mostly though, with a topic like this, you need to let the people you are studying speak for themselves, so if they seem concerned about anonymity, it will show through anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

What i really love about this project is it really does make us think like anthropologists, after reading a few books and some criticisms of their authors. So far i have 1.5 pages, 3 paragraphs for my paper (double spaced) The first para explains what i am looking at, with second para talking about viewpoints causing complexities, and third para explaining the anonymity issue. I am now at the "meat" part of the paper and i think it is intended to be a 5 to 8 page paper...... I think i covered the details surrounding the issues "enough" but not too much.... or at least i hope ^_^; Thanks again!

137.81.118.126 (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds about right. Good luck with the paper... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I consider this topic now closed. Thanks again to all who have given input, you make this place great! :)

137.81.118.126 (talk) 05:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

3D in China?

Hey, I noticed the 3D TVs have started appearing here in the 'States, but you still need to wear those awful goggles to make out the 3D, and the company claims it's "working on" a way to ditch the goggles. However, I was in China about 3 years ago and in a certain airport (Beijing or Hong Kong, I think) I saw a display screen showing various advisories (don't leave luggage unattended, be ready to get searched, check in at the appropriate time, etc.). One of these involved a cascade a falling coins (why, I do not remember). I vividly remember that the cascade was in pretty good 3D, my mother even remarked on it; we were not wearing the glasses, obviously. What was this? How was it done, and why does it not exist here? Thanks. 24.92.70.160 (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a personal suggestion.... this seems to be a technology based question. Maybe youll get a faster response if you post it in Computers and IT?

137.81.118.126 (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Displays with lenticular lenses can be Autostereoscopic. They're suitable for were you can be reasonably sure the subject will be standing within its narrow viewing angle. The idea has been around for a long time and been demostraited a number of times.--Aspro (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"Lenticular screens" is a very old technology which can provide 3d without glasses. but moving slightly closer or farther nullifies or reverses the 3d effect. Russians showed such movies in demonstrations in the 1940's. I would rate them at several time the headache and neckstrain potential of 3d with glasses to isolate the images to the correct eyes. Edison (talk) 01:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Donaghcloney, County Down

Would anyone know exactly how far the Northern Ireland village of Donaghcloney, County Down is from the town of Lurgan? I did a Google and some say it's 2 miles away, while others give it a distance of 4 or 5 miles. I need the info for an article I'm currently working on. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Google Maps driving directions says it is 5 miles. 212.123.243.220 (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Bing Maps[17] says 5.5 miles and that it should take 13 minutes to drive or 1 hr 46 mins to walk. Alansplodge (talk) 11:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everybody. Now I'll add it to the relevant article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that some sources give the distance from the nearest points in those two places, while others go from the center of each town. I suppose you could also measure from the most distant points in each location, but I don't know if anyone would actually do that. StuRat (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If you follow my link to Bing Maps above, you'll see a little flag on the main junction in the centre of Lurgan. Donaghcloney is a bit too small to have much else except a centre! Alansplodge (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It also contained this guy here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The hand in the coat

Why is the hand there?

I have noticed a common detail at many portraits of XIX century people: in many of them, the subject of the portrait placed his hand inside his coat while posing for the artist. Is there some reason for this? MBelgrano (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This distillation of an academic article about the subject seems to imply that it was just a visual custom at the time, quite old, and associated with being "manly boldness tempered with modesty." I see it as somewhat like smiling wildly is in modern photography — something everyone is encouraged to do just because everyone does it, and whose contrived nature becomes clear when you juxtapose it against other time periods when it was not the custom. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, in modern pop culture, it is by far most often associated with Napoleon. There's a Wikimedia Commons category commons:Category:Hand-in-waistcoat with a lot of pics... AnonMoos (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, it gives the subject something to do with their hand rather than just have it hanging limply by their side. Dismas|^(talk) 16:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

But why would that be the only other option? His other hand is hooked into his belt. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't the only option. It was one of many, which is why you won't see it in every male portrait from the 18th and early 19th centuries. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That's what I mean. Dismas seemed to be suggesting that if it wasn't tucked into his jacket, he'd have no other choice than to have it hanging limply, which we agree is not the case. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I thought you were posing the question to the ref desk in general, instead of to Dismas in particular. Sorry about that. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that it was the only thing that they could do with their hand. I just meant that it was something to do with it. Dismas|^(talk) 04:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It's really not much more contrived than the modern Grip & Grin photograph. 72.10.110.109 (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that. People shake hands and smile all the time, whether they're posing for a photograph or not. Presumably, 18th & 19th century soldiers didn't commonly stand at attention while gazing in the distance with one hand in their partially unbuttoned jacket. Well, maybe Napoleon did. —Kevin Myers 02:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

And don't forget the Al Bundy "hand down pants" pose: [18]. StuRat (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Federal Reserve Banks private or public

Are the twelve Federal Reserve Banks private or public entities?Smallman12q (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Public, and chartered by Congress, but with considerable independence.

"The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.

"As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government."

"The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year."

http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm#5

-- Paulscrawl (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the faq link. What does it mean that they are self-financed?Smallman12q (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Sort of. They make revenue on interest on the loans they make to other banks. But they can also literally make money out of whole cloth. In older times this was called "firing up the presses" or Debasement (which is different, but has the same effect). The modern term is Quantitative easing. The Fed controls the money supply, which is basically the main job of central banks all over the world. Thay are very different from a commercial bank. --Jayron32 20:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Could they accurately be described as an unregulated monopoly with immense power over the US economy? Edison (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's somewhat regulated now by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It is absolutely regulated by Congress and the Federal Reserve Act. They are private in the sense that they pay private sector salaries though, which allows them to attract considerable talent at all levels, not just the top. Shadowjams (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

How does paying a competitive salary make them "private" in any way? Many government departments around the world benchmark their remuneration against equivalent private sector salaries to attract and retain the best (or at least, as good) talent. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not a simple question. There is a sense in which it is public and a sense in which it is private. In all of the significant ways it is private. Imagine a corporation (like Walmart, for instance). Now imagine that the Chairman of Walmart is appointed by the United States President. The truth is that the appointment of a chairman or members of the board is not really enough to say that it is a "public" entity. They still act in the interest of its member banks, rather than the public interest. Greg Bard (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

lifestyle forum for living better?

Flame me if you want, but if I buy a $500 coffee machine that runs like a champ for the next seven years, and the control version of me just keeps buying instant like a chump, I both save money and have a higher quality of life. Is there a forum devoted to all the things this is true for? (shoes that don't deteriorate, etc etc etc). Thanks. 82.234.207.120 (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sure there are thousands, but Lifehacker springs immediately to mind, although it's not strictly a forum. Skomorokh 15:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

In Britain there is Which?, which publishes many reports comparing the merits of groups of consumers goods, and moneysavingexpert.com Apparantly Consumer Reports is the American equivalent of Which? 92.28.245.105 (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I would expect that Consumer Reports has compared coffee-makers to each other, but not to instant coffee. They tend to start with the assumption that you already know you want a given type of product, so they only do comparisons within that category. StuRat (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Neal Stephenson blurb

The "Biographical Info" section on this page about the speculative fiction author Neal Stephenson reads as follows:

Neal Town Stephenson issues from a clan of rootless, itinerant hard-science and engineering professors. Born on Halloween 1959 in Fort Meade, Maryland – home of the National Security Agency – he grew up in Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, and Ames, Iowa, before attending college in Boston.

He began his higher education as a physics major, then switched to geography when it appeared that this would enable him to scam more free time on his university’s mainframe computer. When he graduated and discovered, to his perplexity, that there were no jobs for inexperienced physicist-geographers, he began to look into alternative pursuits such as working on cars, agricultural labour and writing novels.

His first novel, The Big U, was published in 1984 and vanished without trace. Zodiac: The Eco-thriller is his second novel. On first coming out in 1988 it quickly developed a cult following among water-pollution-control engineers and was enjoyed, though rarely bought, by many radical environmentalists. The highly successful Snow Crash was written between 1988 and 1991, as the author listened to a great deal of loud, relentless, depressing music. …

Neal Stephenson now resides in a comfortable home in the western hemisphere where he spends his time – when not sidetracked by his computer, rollerblading or parenting – attempting to make a living out of writing novels and the occasional magazine article.

This material is credited as an "[e]xcerpt of the biographical blurb from a book jacket". Does anyone know which one? If you could include an ISBN and page number in your response that would be ideal, as I intend to cite it in an article. Any help appreciated, Skomorokh 15:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Snow Crash. Here is the page courtesy of Google Books. Note that the text you quoted isn't complete. It's a little mangled. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

List of dances in India

Why assam floc k dances are not included in " list of dances in india" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.12.34 (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Many questions of the form "Why is xxx not included in Wikipedia?" may be completely answered by "Because nobody has yet had the interest or time to put it in". Many other questions of that form may be answered by "Because there are no reliable sources for this information, so it may not be included in Wikipedia".

If you have reliable sources for Assam folk dances (which is what I am guessing you meant), please write about them in Wikipedia! --ColinFine (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Party affiliation statistics for career federal civil servants in US.

Are any statistics available that relate to the party affiliation of US federal employees? I am really only interested in career employees, not political appointees. If that is not available, I would be interested in party affiliation of public sector employees in general. ike9898 (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Not likely. Only statistics would be of subset of complaints against unauthorized political activity of Federal civil servants covered by the Hatch Act of 1939 that are also covered by the Freedom of Information Act -- see the enforcing Office of Special Counsel's Policy Statement on Disclosure of Information from OSC Files -- Paulscrawl (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Jesus in a manger

Where in the bible does it talk about Jesus, the baby child, being in a manger?--LordGorval (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that in Luke? Googlemeister (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

See http://www.multilingualbible.com/luke/2-7.htm. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

O.K., I see it. According to the Wycliff version it says:
And sche bare hir first borun sone, and wlappide hym in clothis, and leide hym in a cratche, for ther was no place to hym in no chaumbir.
I realize this is old English, however I am still interested in the modern words for "wlappide" and "cratche". Apparently "cratche" is manger. Is that correct?--LordGorval (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding wlappide, here is a quote from this etymology site: LAP (3), to wrap, involve, fold. (E.) Doubtless frequently confused with the word above, but originally quite distinct from it. M.E. lappen, to wrap, fold, Will. of Palerne, 1712; 'lapped in cloutes' = wrapped up in rags, P. Plowman's Crede, ed. Skeat, l. 438. β. This word has lost an initial w; an older form was wlappen; thus in Wyclif, Matt. xxvii. 59, the Lat. inuoluit is translated in the later version by 'lappide it,' but in the earlier one by 'wlappide it.' γ. Lastly, the M.E. wlappen is a later form of wrappen, to wrap, by the frequent change of r to l; so that lap is a mere corruption or later form of wrap. See Wrap. Looie496 (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

EO doesn't agree that "lap" and "wrap" have the same origins,[19][20] but they are certainly used in in an "overlapping" way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

And "cratche" is probably a transliteration of "crèche", which nowadays is used specifically to mean "nativity scene" or "manger scene", and which means "crib", "manger" or "stall".[21] The word crèche derives from the Germanic word from which we also get "crib". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard crèche used for a nativity scene. In British English a crèche is a place to leave small children while they are not needed by their parents. DuncanHill (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have; and the usage you're suggesting would be more like a basket, i.e. for leaving the child on the doorstep of an orphanage with a note asking them to take care of junior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No, the thing you leave babies on church doorsteps in is called a basket (orange boxes are also traditional, but hard to get hold of nowadays). A crèche in British English, is called day care on Wikipedia (day care centres in Britain are places to put old people while you don't need them). DuncanHill (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There's that expression again about not needing them. It sounds like a process of abandonment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Come on Bugs, you know my way with words by now! I'm English:- irony, sarcasm, and black humour are all to be expected. DuncanHill (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I'm just confused about whether you're abandoning junior/senior for a few hours, or forever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

While they are not needed = temporary. When they are not needed = permanent. A crèche (which I feel is still foreign enough to be italicised) is what we also call a nursery - you drop the baby off while you go to work; a day care centre is a place where old people go in the day time. DuncanHill (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I dig. Just don't drop it off too hard. And in reference to abandonment, for a moment there I had a flashback to an old cartoon panel that postulated the origin of Baby Oil. Eek. OK, I've only ever heard "creche" used in reference to the nativity scene, and not very often at that. In effect, the nursery that we call day care and you call a creche is symbolically a crib, which is also used in American English by an adult in reference to his own apartment, or flat as you would say. Meanwhile, "the house" is where I live, and "the home" is where my parents live while/when I don't need them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

See here[22] and here{http://www.sussex.ac.uk/childcare/1-2-2.html] Bugs. Alansplodge (talk) 09:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Now, where I grew up, crib is a light meal between breakfast and mid-day! DuncanHill (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Since this[23] is a Corn Crib, something like it that holds something else could be a Corn-ish Crib. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

They do grow sweetcorn in Cornwall, to feed it to the cows. They used to grow corn to make wheaten bread :) DuncanHill (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You have Wheaten Bread, we have Wheaton Illinois. :) So, just how is the term "corn" used in the UK nowadays? And what does it have to do, if anything, with Cornwall? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

He's just trying to confuse - and succeeding! Corn in the UK is any food grain; wheat barley etc. Corn (US) is "sweetcorn" if humans are eating it - a fairly recent innovation - and "maize" if livestock are. The "corn" in Cornwall comes from the name of the ancient Cornovii (Cornish) tribe. See Cornwall#Etymology. Alansplodge (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Not trying to confuse - just playing with words! The root corn, as in Cornovii and Cornubia (an old name for Cornwall) means a horn, and probably is a reference to the Cornish peninsula (which looks a bit like a horn). See Philip Payton's Cornwall: A History, Chapter 4. DuncanHill (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

And although "cratche" suggests "cradle", that word has a different origin.[24] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of my Jewish friends in college thought that the term "Dog in a manger" was anti-semitic, because they had only heard the term "manger" in relation to the birth of Jesus. I explained that the phrase referred to a "spoiler," in the sense that the dog could not eat the hay, and his presence was preventing the hungry cattle from eating the hay. One then questioned whether the animals were gathered around Christ at the Nativity not because they were worshipping Him, but because they wanted to eat the hay He was lying on. I had no ready answer. Edison (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's EO's info about "manger".[25] Basically a manger was a food container for the livestock. Given your colleagues' misunderstanding of what a manger is, how much stock would you put in their further analysis of the situation? In fact, there's nothing in the Bible about any animals being near Jesus, beyond the mention of shepherds tending their flocks. Manger scenes typically combine various elements with a considerable degree of artistic license, including the fact that the number of wise men is not known (the gifts were three), and that the wise men came not to a stable as the shepherds did, but to a house. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

And to summarize: Matthew talks about the wise men, Luke talks about the sheep men, and Mark and John jump straight to Jesus' adulthood, skipping all the boring stuff about the Virgin Birth, carpentry lessons, and sparking with Mary Magdalene. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"Manger" was and is the common and typical term for a box hay, corn or other dry feed is placed in for horses or other animals to consume. Here are refs where it is discussed simply as an agricultural fixture:from 1805, from 1899, from 2000. Mainstream Christianity has had nativity scenes since Francis of Assisi in December 24, 1223, which included hay and "ox and ass," presumably along with Joseph and Mary, sheep and shepherds gathered around a statue Jesus in the manger. There is no reason to assume the stable and its manger at the inn were there just for travelers to use for birthing purposes. They would have been there for the shelter and feeding of animals. It is not any great leap or synthesis to posit animals in a facility operated for the keeping of animals. The "cave stable" was discussed early on by Justin Martyr(103-165) and other early church fathers, besides the mentions in the canonical books of the Bible.Edison (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait, wait. "The stable"? Nobody mentioned a stable yet. Stables are part of the window-dressing caused by seeing the story through European eyes, just as when the Heliand tells the story it has the angels appearing to the more familiar stable-hands instead of shepherds. Marnanel (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

So, can someone also tell me what chaumbir means as a modern definition?--LordGorval (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Punishment for sexual traitors in 1944-45 after WWII ?

I have seen and read so much about a certain phenomena in the closing days of World War two; in the nations occupied by Germany, local women who hade sexual relationships with German soldiers where treated very badly by their own country-men when the war ended; they were beaten, had their hair cut and where terrorised in many different ways. They where considered to be traitors for no other reason than for having had sex with German soldiers. I am not here to discuss that matter in particular, but it made me wonder about a question I haven't been able to answer. In the occupied nations, there where also female personel from Germany, where there not? In that case, there would also have been sexual relationship between German women and local men? My question is: was local men, who hade sex with German women, harassed and treated badly and judged to be traitors, in the same way as local women who had sex with German men were? I have not been able to find anything about this issue. Thank you. --85.226.41.42 (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Without wanting to sound like I am doubting whether that happened or not (sexual relations between German women and local men), have you found any evidence that it did indeed happen? That would be your starting point. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm unable at present to cite any references, I can confirm the OP's initial premise that there was some such victimisation of women who had (voluntarily) slept with occupying German soldiers; I recall (from reading relevant books and/or articles some time during the last four decades) seeing photographs of such women with shaven heads tied to, for example, French lampposts.

As far as the OP's speculative question goes, my estimation would be that:

a) there would have been relatively few women among the German occupying forces because the general ethos of the time was not to send women into combat zones, which occupied countries potentially were);

b) any such occupying forces women would be far less likely to sleep with the local men than the converse because they had plenty of their own compatriots to sleep with, and because that's not how the power relationships work - the "collaborating" local women were likely usually motivated by what they could get (money, food, immediate protection from rape by other occupiers, etc) from the liaisons; and

c) local men who did succeed in sleeping with occupying women woud have probably been regarded with some respect, as having "got one over" on the enemy. Like it or not, attitudes about sexual activities by men and women are not even-handed now and were far less so sixty years ago. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Histories of various countries' military occupations would be the place to search first. Double standard most likely applies: it certainly did in the case of US-occupied Germany. See discussion of US GIs in Germany and policies towards their German women lovers: from Ike's widely ignored no-fraternization order of 44 (fraternization is a good search term to use for KageTora's suggestion, BTW) to full acceptance with the War Brides Act of Dec 45. World War II Occupation of Germany: American Fathered Children -- Paulscrawl (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Many young men in the occupied territories were either prisoners-of-war or had been deported under forced labour schemes. "They're either too young or too old"! Alansplodge (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

See Dutch (nl) wikipedia bijltjesdag for image: nl:bijltjesdag. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Martin.

Local women who had relations with German soldiers were badly treated in Norway. 3000 Norwegian women married German occupants during the war. Many of these lost their citizenship and were expelled because they were regarded as Germans after the war. They have an article in both the Norwegian and German wikipedia, no:Tyskertøs, de:Tyskertøs. No instances of female occupants marrying Norwegian men during the war come to mind. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 21:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

French Military in First and Second World Wars

When people refer to the French military being somewhat lacking in battle, I believe they are referring to their conduct in the First and Second World Wars, but what events are specifically intimated? What retreats, losses etc are being referenced? Thanks. 92.11.32.186 (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Their shocking defeat in the Battle of France in the Second World War and maybe the French Army Mutinies (1917) for the First? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The event most people cite as the nadir of French military reputation is the Evacuation at Dunkirk. The very fact that France fell so fast in the face of the advancing German military makes people think, because of the recency effect, that the French military has historically been poor. That's far from the truth. For most of the history of Europe, France was the preeminent power militarily and socially and economically. I have read some books (read them in college, since sold, forget the titles) that the downfall of French hegemony was the French Revolution; though it produced Napoleon, it sowed the seeds of its own defeat by causing a major demographic shift. The arguements goes like this: Since the French Revolution destroyed all social order, it also elminated the Catholic church as a major social force. Without the catholic church's proscriptions against birth control, during the 19th century, French population figures did not keep pace with the rest of Europe; basically there was a lower overall population growth in France during the 1800's than in other countries. In the era of the Mega-war, where millions of conscripted soldiers were needed to fight gigantic battles on huge fronts, France loses out simply because of this sort of trend. Take it with a grain of salt; but it is one argument. Just remember that prior to the late-19th and early 20th century mega-wars, if someone claimed that the French were "surrender monkeys" or somehow militarily weak, they'd sound quite uninformed. Nowadays, the reputation for France being weak stems from the fact that France quit NATO because it didn't enjoy being the puppet of the U.S. Now, whenever France doesn't acede to US demands for support in its various wars, propaganda is used to make the French seem less "manly" or something like that. --Jayron32 20:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The correct term is Cheese-eating surrender monkeys. As for "manliness," US history textbooks contained the iconic image from a newsreel of 1940 of a "Frenchman weeping" after the military defeat. Edison (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I know the footage you're talking about. It's in a British documentary about WW2 that is currently showing on cable channels in the U.S. right now. Shadowjams (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me of something that was said during the 6-day Israeli/Arab war in 1967: "As soon as France heard there was a war, they surrendered." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The two main wars that France waged after World War II, the First Indochina War and the Algerian War, also ended in defeats for the French. France's last war with another major power before World War I, the Franco-Prussian War, also was a humiliating defeat. France successfully prevailed over poorly armed African and Asian tribes and minor polities during the late 19th century. However, not since the time of Napoleon have the French been able to prevail on the battlefield against major powers unassisted by Britain or the United States. Jayron's demographic theory is an interesting one. Another explanation might be that the Revolution and the Napoleonic defeats left France with an elite less committed to military dominance than the elites of its main rivals, Britain and Prussia. Marco polo (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I used to hear that the Napoleanic wars so decimated the population that "the average Frenchman was a foot shorter than before". It might be that they just got tired of warfare. Unfortunately, they were stuck where they were and couldn't move the entire nation to, for example, the Caribbean region. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Not disagreeing with anything above, but basically it was only in World War II that the French put up a poor fight. The most important reason, in Winston Churchill's view, is that the French suffered worse losses than anybody else in World War I -- the proportion of French men in the relevant age cohorts killed was considerably higher than even for Germany. A second cause was the pathetic political system of the Third Republic, which in the years prior to World War II cycled through changes of government at a rate of about one per year, making decisive leadership impossible. Looie496 (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that in 1914, the French Army spoiled the German Schlieffen Plan almost unassisted. The small British Expeditionary Force may - or may not - have prevented the flank of the French line being turned, but the First Battle of the Marne stalled the German advance until 1918. "Our hats we doff / To General Joffre" was a British popular song of the day. Alansplodge (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Even before World War I, there was the debacle of the Franco-Prussian War. Corvus cornix_talk 23:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The main fault of the French in WW2 was "old-thinking". That is, they were still thinking in terms of massive forts anchoring a static front, which was largely how WW1 was fought. However, due to the new mobility of armies as a result of airplanes, tanks, and supply vehicles, the forts of the Maginot Line could be largely bypassed, rather than attacked directly, as the French had expected. If they had instead put their efforts into creating their own highly mobile forces, and then used them (with Britain) in an attack on Germany, when Hitler defied the Versailles and Locarno treaties by re-militarizing the Rhineland (in March, 1936), the French would have had a quick victory. StuRat (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

---

92.11.32.186 -- I don't think that WW1 plays a large role in the stereotype. Rather, it's that France suffered two large scale ignominious fairly sudden military collapses affecting its core national territory in the last 150 years -- the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, and WW2 in 1940 -- even though it was not obviously overwhelmingly inferior to its opponent (in broad strategic terms) in either case. AnonMoos (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of the above. The WW2 experience is the most salient, but it neglects not only a fierce and vengeful French resistance, but also that future leaders of France (Degaulle, was central, for example) were critical in many of the resistance efforts. Churchill seems to have been supremely disappointed that French leadership gave in as quickly as it did, but that says nothing about the French people of the time. Shadowjams (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

One thing generally forgotten on WWII (on top of the poor leadership of the French) is that after the Anschluss and the taking of the Czech lands + Memel, the German total industrial capacity was 3 times as large as the French total industrial capacity. It was already twice as large as the French I.C. before the Anschluss...

And my main point is that you have won the war in advance if you have 3 times as many tanks (which depends on your capacity to produce them). The real question is why didn't France move towards an industrical economy, rather than an mostly agrarian economy , in the 19th and the first half of the 20th century like Britain and Germany did? If they had, they would have been able to build a force capable of resisting the German panzers. With only 1/3 of the number of German tanks, they were very quickly flanked. --Lgriot (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Germans did not have more tanks than the allied forces during the invasion of France in 1940. The allied had more tanks and more artillery (the Battle of France article says 2439 German tanks, and most of those fairly light, and 7378 artillery guns vs 3254 allied tanks, with a considerable number of them being heavy tanks, and 14000 artillery guns), but the Germans had concentrated its tanks in panzer divisions, while they were spread out as support in infantry divisions on the allied side. And thus they lost their mobility and ability to counter the German spearhead attacks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

December 14

1960 U-2 Incident

The 1960 U-2 Incident article is confusing. First it says a SAM shot down the plane. Then it says an intercepting fighter's slipstream caused the crash. It also says the US never believed the pilot's account, but doesn't say what the pilot's account was! Can someone please explain to me what FGP said happened, and what is accepted to have happened? The Masked Booby (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sergei Khrushchev is a reliable (secondary) source. He seems to cast doubt on Mentyukov's account. The precise truth in this matter is perhaps difficult to know for sure, and any one version is probably just a little off from that truth in various ways. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear after reading the article that because of the conflicting reports without verification, we'll probably never know the actual truth. Comet Tuttle (talk) 07:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless the article could handle the discrepancies better than it does. I've added a new fragment which, at least, provides insight into the supposed NSA report. There are further inconsistencies in the Francis Gary Powers, notably whether 3 or 14 SAM missiles were hoisted, and whether or not the unfortunate Sergey Safronov bailed or died in his plane on impact. The FGP article teases with the NSA story but does not provide any useful information beyond FGP being under suspicion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Term for fifty-US-states-and-DC-and-nothing-more?

Since I first found it, I've always thought that "List of United States National Historic Landmarks in United States commonwealths and territories, associated states, and foreign states" was an awkward name, so I'd like to propose a name change. My ideal would be "List of...outside ____", with the blank being a phrase that conveys exactly the fifty states and the District of Columbia. Although I'm an American, I can't think of a term with this meaning: "fifty states" excludes DC, "United States" might include the Virgin Islands or Guam, and no other phrases come to mind. Any ideas? Nyttend (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You could say "the United States proper," but a lot of people won't know what you mean by that -- which may be the result of any attempt to abbreviate. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Metropolitan USA? (Inspired by Metropolitan France). DuncanHill (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard this usage before, and I suspect that a lot of Americans, upon seeing such a title, would think that the list included a lot of rural landmarks. Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, that sounds like it should have the opposite meaning, because of the use of the word with cities. ("Metropolitan New York City", or similar expressions, means an area including New York proper, Yonkers, Jersey City, Newark, White Plains, etc. etc. etc.) I like "United States proper", with explanatory text somewhere. A Google search on the phrase turns up some examples of it being used with what seems to be the intended meaning, although there are many false hits too, suggesting that it isn't a very common expression. --Anon, 13:48 UTC, December 14, 2010.

Contiguous USA? --superioridad ^(discusión) 06:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait, that is clearly incorrect. Disregard. --superioridad ^(discusión) 06:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

'Real America' was a phrase often used in the 2008 election campaign, which also excludes NYC, several other places in New England, LA and San Francisco. --Soman (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not simply List of U.S. National Historic Landmarks outside the United States? When I hear "the United States", I think New York, LA, Chicago, Punxsatawney, Anchorage, Waikiki, Washington, Hollywood .... I do not think Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Northern Marianas, or Wake Island. Or Morocco. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Global Warming

Is global warming caused by solar flares from the sun?184.77.224.230 (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Only 20 minutes ago this same IP user used the Science reference page to ask "Isn't crude oil a layer around the earths core. Crude oil,a part of the earths design? Isn't coal, old plant source deposits absorbed by crude?" I strongly suspect troll. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyway - the answer is no - see[26] and[27] and[28]. Alansplodge (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Or if you interpret the question in a way it probably wasn't meant, the answer is yes. Sunspots heat the earth up. At least, the article rather cagily says they "increase the sun's solar constant or brightness" and "were rarely observed during the Maunder Minimum". 213.122.35.203 (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, solar flares are caused by oil deposits on the Sun. It's obvious when you think about it. Fzzt! Gzuckier (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Extradition (cont.)

I am continuing from my last question.

So South American countries do extradite people. They do extradite people in their own countries who are not their own citizens. They do have extradition treaties with other countries. Is that right?

If South American countries do extradite people, then how come I have heard that the reason why many Nazis who were wanted for trial after the end of World War II fled to South America and stored their money in South American banks was because its countries did not extradite people?

Why don't South American countries extradite their own citizens abroad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.63.234 (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This OAS site doesn't exactly answer your question, but it verifies the premise:[29] My guess is that South American countries plain and simple don't want other countries doing stuff to their citizens. Note, however, that the citizen can be tried in Argentina (for example) for a crime committed elsewhere, if the other country agrees. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It indicates for the USA that US citizens are also not necessarily automatically sent to another country, except as provided by treaty arrangement. I note that for both Argentina and the US, and I would guess for others, that they are more than willing to send a foreigner back to their home nation. I expect the reason they don't want to extradite citizens to other countries is due to concerns that they might not get a fair trial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Most South American countries do extradite people (see the article "List of United States extradition treaties", for example). The reason that many Nazis fled there following World War II was that several Latin American regimes were rather Nazi-friendly at the time. See http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2491/whats-the-true-story-on-south-american-nazis for more info. Gabbe (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting that several of these regimes were not only Nazi-friendly; there were no extradition treaties between the USA (or Israel, UK, etc) and most of Latin America at the time (after 1945). Check the dates of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, etc: these treaties were signed much later. Flamarande (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"Extension" of unemployment benefit as part of "Bush tax cuts" extension deal

In the US House of Representatives deal on extending tax cuts last week, part of the deal was an "extension of unemployment benefits". I haven't been able to figure out from the news articles what this means. Were newly unemployed American citizens previously entitled to x months of support and they'll now get x+13? Or is it that the payment of unemployment benefits at all required renewed approval? Or something else? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The former. Under current law, an unemployed person can receive unemployment benefits for a period of up to 26 weeks. The extension increases that period (though to what, I don't know). Wikiant (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

In between the former and the latter. Unemployment benefits had already been extended to 99 weeks, in light of the fact that there are very few jobs to be had. If this extension weren't passed, it would drop back suddenly to 26, leaving everyone after their 26th week without benefits. Paul (Stansifer) 16:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

More and more US workers are offered only part-time employment. Is there a US government or other credible source online stating whether such workers eligible for unemployment when laid off, and how much unemployment compensation they could receive? Edison (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Unemployment insurance in the U.S. is one of those deals which is funded by the federal government but administerred on the state level. I am pretty sure, however, that all that matters is that a) you don't have a job and b) you can prove you are actively looking for a job. One's state unemployment office is where the money is dispersed, and where such proof of seeking employment is presented. Most of this is now done electronicly, so I believe that many states allow you to file "proof" of job seeking online, and payments are often made via EFT or direct deposit into the beneficiaries bank account. At least, that's how it worked for my dad. For people who don't have internet access, I think you can still go stand in line and present information in person somewhere. --Jayron32 16:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is not enough just to be out of work and looking for work to receive unemployment benefits in the United States. Unemployment benefits are not available to part-time, temporary, or self-employed workers who are out of work. Essentially, if people in those categories don't have savings, they have to rely on family members or face homelessness. Also, to qualify, a person has to have lost work by layoff rather than firing. If your employer claims that you were let go for some reason (other than a decision to cut the workforce), then you cannot receive unemployment benefits and facing savings exhaustion, dependency, and/or homelessness. Marco polo (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"Unemployment insurance in the U.S. is one of those deals which is funded by the federal government but administerred on the state level." is not quite correct. Employers pay into the unemployment insurance pot. If you are self-employed, you pay both employee taxes and employer taxes (including unemployment insurance, the employer contribution to social security, etc.). I expect the bill is to fund the shortfall between the 26 and 99 weeks. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

@Marco polo, there are specific circumstances under which the self-employed are eligible for unemployment benefits. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia article that seems to have the most info on this is 99ers, so named because the main debate has been over whether, to extend benefits past the 99th week for people living in high-unemployment states (people in low-unemployment states cap out around 50 weeks, but it varies). Also, unemployment benefits cap at roughly one-third of the former salary and are subject to taxes, which as far as I know is much less generous than the going rate in most of Europe. --M@rēino 21:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Why so little proselytizing in airports?

I've made repeated visits to the JFK Airport in NYC recently, and I've not seen one street preacher there. Is it because richer people are less likely to convert than the average Joe on the subway? 66.108.223.179 (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

1) Transport to airports and parking at airports is often somewhat costly. Travelling to airports on a daily basis would would mean some economic impact. 2) i think that security is another issue. Quite sure that airports like JFK has some sort of policy on unregistered vendors inside the airport facilities and airport security could possibly escort such a person out of the building. --Soman (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I imagine it is because the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey discourages sole traders such as street preachers. JFK is unlikely to be a public space but rather a facility controlled by its owners, a so-called 'Semi-public' space in which stricter rules apply. Are street preachers a feature at any airport? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Plus: many of the people on the airport don't live in the US, so there's no reason to invite them to your church.Quest09 (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The contrast is between subways and airports. In a subway, you can "preach" to people who are standing/sitting in one place while they wait for the subway. In an airport, you cannot get to those people who are waiting on an airplane without a ticket because you have to pass through security to get to the waiting area. So, you'd be "preaching" to people who are quickly moving past you. If your goal is, as expected, to turn a monetary profit in handouts from people, you make a lot more off people who will pay you to go away while you wait instead of trying to make people stop as they rush through the airport. -- kainaw™ 14:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't LAX famous for this some years ago? Googlemeister (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Years ago major airports in various parts of the US were infested with various cultists wearing robes and asking for money, while offering religious insights. I haven's seen such in recent years. Edison (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it an infestation. It was just hard to miss the hairy fishnuts. -- kainaw™ 15:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

At LAX in early 2009, I saw a fair number of people soliciting donations for 'charitable' causes just outside the international terminal. Not quite street preaching, but similar in my mind. I was impressed by the particular crew I saw, they were well-dressed, wearing name tags, and got people to stop by offering to give assistance at navigating LAX. They seemed to be making good money. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The 1980 comedy movie Airplane! (known in some paces as Flying High) began with a huge emphasis on just such activity. As someone who didn't get to US airports until some years later I can't vouch for its accuracy, but I suggest that they were parodying something that really went on in US aorports in those days. HiLo48 (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Or something that went on at LAX, as mentioned above -- the one airport most familiar to people in Hollywood. --Anon, 19:45 UTC, December 14, 2010.

As for the OP's question about rich people: It's probably true that homeless paupers don't fly, but plenty of struggling middle class people do, and they certainly are not "rich" by anyone's definition. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It is because this (youtube clip from the movie Airplane!) is how Americans have been brought up to deal with airport-proselytizers of any variety that they may encounter. ;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

How about a reference? This NY Times article refers to a 2010 court ruling that finally allowed the city to bar people from soliciting donations at LAX. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've always just attacked them, per the movie, but I'm glad to know that will no longer be necessary at LAX. ;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking from experience, it is nice to get into a friendly conversation with a person sitting next to you. Surprisingly, more often than not, it is they bring up the subject of politics or religion. It is a t this point I can share with that person what I believe about reality. schyler (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. FWIW, in the UK (I don't know about other places) it's not at all uncommon for airports to have full-time ministers. Heathrow has three. They're there to talk and help people, and I'm sure they'll explain the gospel if anyone asks, but that doesn't mean you see them walking up to people and asking whether they're saved. (Air travel is stressful enough without unwanted theological debate.) Marnanel (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The courts have ruled that airports can ban groups from soliciting donations in airports. See [30]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

In many different airports in the US, I have seen solicitations being performed by people in all-white, most of them African-Americans. The males wear clothing similar to Catholic priests, the females wear long skirts and white hats reminiscent of old-time nurses. I have no idea what group they are collecting money for, as I have never stopped to investigate. Corvus cornix_talk 23:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Those activities definitely went on in the old days, though whether it qualified as an "infestation" might be a matter of opinion and which airport. What I don't recall is whether they went beyond the security gates. Nowadays no one except authorized personnel and boarding-pass holders can go past security, and folks just entering the airport are probably most concerned with getting through security rather than being accosted by "Hare Krishnas" and the like, so they probably got tired of being ignored and/or told to take a hike (in varying degrees of intensity). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Baby pictures of Jesus Christ

Is Jesus Christ the only famous person whose birthday (or supposed birthday) is celebrated by the sharing and viewing of his or her baby pictures (or supposed baby pictures)? (The expression his or her agrees in grammatical gender with the word whose, which refers to its antecedent person.)
—Wavelength (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that Christmas wasn't really intended as a celebration of Christ's birthday per se, it is a celebration of the events and story surrounding his birth. Its a subtle difference, but I'm not sure there was ever serious belief among theologians that his actual birthdate was Christmas or that it was even possible to know his exact birthdate. Rather, Christmas is a feast/celebration of the birth story of Christ. --Jayron32 16:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Also, the birth of Christ was a miracle, utterly separate from what He ended up doing with his human life. The Apotheosis of George Washington not withstanding, I can't think of any secular leaders whose very birth is considered a miracle. I wouldn't rule out other religions, though -- in particular, I'd want an expert on Hinduism to weigh in before we say that "baby pictures of Jesus" is a unique feature. --M@rēino 17:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • EDIT: Aha! I was thinking of Krishna Janmashtami. Hindu experts, is it fair to say that this is a birthday celebration featuring Baby Krishna? It looks like Krish-Mas to me, but I'm out of my element. --M@rēino 17:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how this fits in here, but since you mention secular leaders: we don't have too much detailed info in the article, but from what I hear there's quite some myth being weaved around Kim Il Sung's birth. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Not quite pictures, but Vesākha is sometimes celebrated by cleaning a baby Buddha statue in a basin by pouring water over it. See here, for illustration.. See also Buddha's_Birthday#Japan_2, for example. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• The birth of Jesus is held to be miraculous? His conception, I'll grant you. (Although the De Occursu Domini of Gregory of Nyssa, quoted approvingly by Aquinas, contains the rather startling passage "For He alone, whose conception was ineffable, and whose birth was incomprehensible, opened the virginal womb which had been closed to sexual union, in such a way that after birth the seal of chastity remained inviolate." So I suppose there are those who consider his birth miraculous, too...) Marnanel (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Mary was imperfect and maculate (http://www.multilingualbible.com/romans/5-12.htm), and after the birth of Jesus she presented a sin offering on her own behalf (http://www.multilingualbible.com/luke/2-22.htm; http://www.multilingualbible.com/luke/2-23.htm; http://www.multilingualbible.com/luke/2-24.htm), in obedience to the Mosaic Law (http://www.multilingualbible.com/leviticus/12-1.htm to verse 8).

—Wavelength (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you replying to me, or to Aquinas? Either is fairly pointless, since I don't believe that Mary was sinless, and Aquinas was well aware of your points and included rebuttals to them in the Summa. Marnanel (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I was replying to you. What did he say in rebuttal in the Summa Theologica?

—Wavelength (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

@Pictures; Leo Steinberg wrote a whole brilliant book on the sexuality of Christ as shown/demonstrated in Renissance pictures of him as an infant.--Radh (talk) 08:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I've seen pictures of baby Moses in the Nile. Incidentally, his birth, too, is regarded in many sources as being marked by various (fairly minor IMHO!) miracles. --Dweller (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you know, I was wrong. Sorry. This is the relevant chapter of the Summa, and he doesn't address your point as I thought he did. That should teach me to check sources before I open my mouth. Marnanel (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Wavelength and others -- what exactly was Mary's sin that she required a sin offering? It seems as though you are ascribing some transgression to her that is specific, when Judaism maintains that post-partum females brought sin and elevation offerings as a standard (Leviticus 12:6). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It is the official position of the Roman church that she was free both from particular transgressions and also from original sin. Before anyone starts arguing the point with me, I must point out that I am not a member of that communion and do not subscribe to that particular belief. FWIW, I don't find the argument very convincing that she brought a sin offering, therefore she was a sinner. You might as well make the same argument about the baptism of Our Lord. Marnanel (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

DRosenbach, Mary had the general sin known as inherited sin. (http://www.multilingualbible.com/1_kings/8-46.htm; http://www.multilingualbible.com/psalms/51-5.htm)

—Wavelength (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "original sin", which is like starting life with a strike against you already. Hence the story (non-biblical, I think) that Mary herself had her original sin "taken away" by God (aka the Heavenly Official Scorer), so that Jesus would also be born without original sin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking for new authors: What do I read next?

I read a lot of novels; my favorite genre is adventure / action. I have exhausted my favorite authors, Clive Cussler and Michael Crichton, as well as more recent favorites James Rollins and Anthony Horowitz. I am currently searching for other authors who write in a similar style. Which other authors have extensive character development over a series of novels? Any suggestions would be appreciated. Hemoroid Agastordoff (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom Clancy writes some good action stuff, though it is more of a political/military style of action then a single individual (and his girlfriend) saving the world, finding the Holy Grail or what have you. Googlemeister (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Try one of the Aubrey–Maturin series.--Wetman (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, Clancy bogs down in the gee-whiz tech he likes to describe, and the Aubrey-Maturin series go into too much loving details of the inner workings of British warships. Corvus cornix_talk 23:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

If you are willing to branch into Sci-Fi, two post-2000 authors I have enjoyed reading are John Scalzi and Julie E. Czerneda. Czerneda, especially in her "Trade Pact Universe" series does an excellent job of character development of the key characters. Her works are very character driven. --Jayron32 20:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ian Fleming perhaps - although I read one or two when I was about 13, I expect I would find them too lightweight now. 92.29.123.139 (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

While some individual Wikipedians, at least, those who might frequent the Wikipedia Humanities Desk from time to time, may be one source of recommendations for books similar to ones by authors whom you like, alternative queries will likely increase both the precision and recall of such recommendations.

The professional query phrase, well known by librarians, booksellers, and publishers, online and offline alike, is: "what do I read next?" Since 1991, Gale has published "What Do I Read Next?: A Reader's Guide to Current Genre Fiction" and most public and academic libraries of any size have a hard copy, well thumbed by reference librarians, and many public libraries have online access to similar resources, such as FictionConnect. A phone call away for personalized, professional help with no commercial interest, provided by a human voice. Highly recommended. (As is the Aubrey–Maturin series, let me add!)

Algorithmic authorial recommendation engines, incrementally improved by the economic interests of online booksellers, social media Web sites, and search engines include, for a start:

Amazon.com -- provides generic recommendations ("Customers Also Bought Items By") on individual titles and "personalized recommendations" with either only your recent search history or your expressed book likes and dislikes (upon optional, free, registration)

Library Thing allows one to enter up to 200 books for free ($10/year; $25/lifetime for unlimited) and so find similar bookshelves of other readers. Uncanny; "eerily good" matches due, no doubt, to extra selection effort taken by bibliophile catalogers, unlike Amazon's catch-as-catch-can browsing/buying history

Google Sets suggests additional members of any three- to five-item set you might list, e.g. Clive Cussler, Michael Critton, James Rollins, Anthony Horowitz. Not quite there yet for books, but worth keeping an eye on in light of recent commercialization of Google Books. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

If you like Clive Cussler, may I suggest Brad Thor and Raymond Khoury? Corvus cornix_talk 23:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

governance of france

Where did the French government meet in the late 16th century, particularly that of the city of Paris? The estates general, the governor of Paris, the people responsible for the day to day running of the city, and anyone else. Especially when either there was no king, or none were in the city for a long time. Was there a particular building set aside for such things?

148.197.121.205 (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

In the late 1500's the Estates General weren't held in one location; they were called more like the Reichstags in the HRE; they were called in various cities around the realm. Estates-General_of_France#The_revival_of_the_States-General_1560-1614 lists Estates-General held in such cities as Orleans, Blois, and sometimes Paris. Most cities had a large civic hall of some sort in which to meet; I am sure each Estates used whatever building was most convenient in the city where it met. During the 1500's French Wars of Religion, things were pretty anarchical on a national level; however France seemed to be able to operate because most of its administrative structure was highly decentralized. Each of the various duchies and counties dealt with their own business, with their own courts and the like. Whatever was going on in Paris had minor influence on local administration. The reforms which centralized France's administration, and removed local control over it, really didn't get started until people like Cardinal Richelieu and Cardinal Mazarin reorganized the French state. The actual administration of the City of Paris during the 1500's was the responsibility of the office of the provost of Paris, a rough equivalent of "Mayor" in the modern parlance, and had jurisdiction over the Paris gendemerie and over local civil courts.--Jayron32 18:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Other important things to read are Généralité, which were basically taxation districts of France, and Ancien_Régime_in_France#Administration which covers in general terms how France was administerred. There were national-level administrative offices, but these, like Generalites, had limited application and were largely insigificant compared to local custom and privilege. --Jayron32 18:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Day-to-day governance of Paris emanated from the Hôtel de Ville.--Wetman (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Cosmonaut Dmitry Kondratyev

Is there any picture anywhere on the Internet where that guy can be seen smiling? 20.137.18.50 (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken here's one [31]. 129.234.53.175 (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's his article: Dmitri_Kondratyev. The two photos there do make him appear to be a rather dour individual, and a Google search returns similar expressions. The source of 129's picture, [32], has many pictures of the man, with only one appearing to show a smile. Buddy431 (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

To me, he doesn't look "dour", he looks businesslike. Take a look at tintypes from the 1800s. Those are seriously dour. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Writing with sources from multiple languages

When writing a piece (not WP) with sources from multiple languages to an expected bilingual audience, it is appropriate to leave direct quotations in their original language, no matter the language of the piece. My question is are these quotes that differ in language from that of the work left inline, or broken out as separate paragraphs, or if both, when is the difference made? Some links to guides would be appreciated. Thanks, Grsz 11 19:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

In academical texts I have seen both used. I guess it depends on the length of the quotation. If it is one or two sentences (or less) then it seems to be left inline, but the use of separate paragraphs for quotes seems to increase with the length of the quotation, although I have also seen examples of very long quotes placed inline. This is just from my own reading experience, unfortunately I don't know of any guide. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It's always good to use footnotes to give either the original text or a translation, depending on your expectations of your audience.--Wetman (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The MLA has a specific rule in section 3.7.8[33]. The MLA is a good source to follow. Gx872op (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

What is the MLA? --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe Gx872op is referring to the stylebook of the Modern Language Association. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Dutch arrest of WikiLeaks supporters

I read in the news that Dutch police recently arrested two teens for supporting WikiLeaks. Doesn't this violate the Dutch constitution and the ECHR's guarantees of freedom of speech? --70.134.49.69 (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Were they arrested for voicing their opinion, or were they arrested for suspicion of participating in a DDoS attack? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) It sounds like their "support" was illegal is being made example of (independent of its being "support for Wikileaks"?): "Following the arrest in the Netherlands of two teenagers involved in last week's distributed denial of service attacks against MasterCard, lawyers tell young hackers to be aware of the law." – Deutche Welle WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't say or imply that their behaviour was illegal - we do have a BLP policy! It's OK to say they were arrested on suspicion of something, but absolutely not OK to say that they were acting illegally. DuncanHill (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I did give a source which makes pointed reference to the "illegality" of their alleged actions, though. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

And it should be noted that the line between "freedom of speech" and "unprotected helping of hostile nations" is blurry in most countries. Nowhere is the freedom of speech absolute, much less on security issues. Different countries have different histories that let them draw that line in different places, for better or worse. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought the concept of "unprotected helping of hostile nations" is a peculiarly American concept. The Netherlands is not at war with whatever imagined enemy of the US suc a concept refers to.

I think I understand what you are alluding to when you talk about "different histories" - I believe I saw that concept of an American paranoia due to its history of invading other countries well illustrated in an animated sequence in a film by your renowned filmmaker, Michael Moore. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd think that "sounds like" is as good a legal shield as "allegedly". —Tamfang (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

December 15

Luger pistol

How many rounds can a Luger pistol fire before having to be re-loaded? I need this info for an article. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The article you've linked to says 8 rounds in the 'feed system' section of the infobox. Dalliance (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a source which says a man was shot nine times in the back with a Luger. How would this have come about if only 8 rounds could be fired without reloading? Possibly, the gunman emptied the pistol into the victim, re-loaded, then fired the ninth round into him.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

8 rounds in the magazine and 1 in the chamber? This source says "it is not safe to carry an extra one 'up the spout' with a Luger" but not that it is not possible. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Could the Luger pistol have used instead a 32-round drum box magazine for the shooting in question?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A 32 round magazine for a semi-auto pistol seems a little excessive. I wonder why the firearm designer thought they needed that much ammo all at once? Googlemeister (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think such a magazine would have made Scorpio and Callahan's dyscalculia all that more believable if the script had read: I know what you’re thinking: “Did he fire 32 shots, or only 31?” Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I’ve kinda lost track myself. But being this is a 9mm Luger, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: “Do I feel lucky?” Well do ya, punk?--Aspro (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

When I took a pistol-handling course some years ago, one point emphasized was: at any pause in a firefight, swap magazines so that the most-full one is in your gun. Because, in all the excitement, you will lose count. Of course Callahan had a revolver. —Tamfang (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Once five or six rounds have gone in, Jeanne, I think the firer would probably (usually) have time to stop and reload without the victim escaping. Or perhaps there were two (or more) assailants? --Dweller (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There were likely at least five, maybe eight gunmen. I am referring to the Miami Showband killings.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are the poor dirty? It's not because it's expensive...

I know for a fact that it's not because it's more expensive not to be filthy, since if you have someone with the EXACT same income, let's say a college student whose family isn't sending them any money for whatever reason, nor do they have any valuable possessions, this person will not be dirty like a homeless person who would attend the same institution with the same income. So, what is it? Is it because the "rich poor" kid had a family who instilled not to be filthy into them, whereas the homeless person just doesn't give a shit? Or, is it capability? Or, is it optimism, because the homeless person doesn't have the same prospects for the future as the "richer" poor person with the exact same income and (assume) possessions?

Also, the rich poor take much better care of their stuff, I noticed. If you give a poor poor person an iPhone and a rich poor person an iPhone, even if they have the exact same environment, the exact same income, the exact same possessions, and the exact same routines, the rich poor person's iPhone will look almost new a year later, whereas the poor poor person's will look as if they've been homeless with it for a year. Please explain this difference, thanks.

Note: right now I'm sitting in an absolutely filthy netcafe in a very poor part of Paris. I guarantee you if this same netcafe were in a rich suburb of an American city for whatever reason, it would be sparkling clean even if it had the EXACT same people coming into it, and the EXACT same income and access to labor. Why is this??? Thanks. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 10:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you thought about how difficult it would be for a homeless person to (a) get a bath or shower, (b) buy spare clothes, (c) store them when not needed, and (d) regularly launder them, if they have no money? What would your priority be if you were homeless with no income? Would it be to spend money on food or buying new shirts?

It is a false assumption that a given homeless person would have the same level of income as a given college student. A college student "whose family is sending them no money" obviously has an income in order to maintain themselves while studying. If they didn't have a sufficient income, they would either be dropping out to seek employment, moving back home, or indeed becoming homeless.

And if, by some strange conjunction of circumstances, a person was homeless but had enough income (for example in the form of welfare payments) to satisfy their needs of a higher priority, there is no reason why they would not be "clean". Judging by the clues in your message, you appear to be a reasonably well-travelled American. If your travels ever take you to Japan, you may well discover the "tribe" of (formerly) white collar homeless people who, despite sleeping around subway stations, nevertheless dress neatly in shirt and suit, and polish their leather shoes. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A college student can technically be receiving no money, and still be clean and fed, provided that someone is paying for room and board. It may be easy for the student to forget about that, but the money's coming from somewhere (and it's probably significantly more money than they'd have to spend to rent an apartment and buy groceries on their own).

Sometimes the social services do exist for the homeless to get showers and new clothes. There are groups in Boston that do this, because it can help people get jobs and get on their feet again. But I remember reading news from back where I lived in Florida about a social service organization that was fighting the zoning board in order to expand its operations with shower facilities. And even in Boston, which is pretty good, as far as these things go, there's still not enough to go around, so the organizations focus on the cases that they can help the most. Paul (Stansifer) 15:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the concept you are trying to express with 'rich poor' and 'poor poor' is social class. I also think you do not understand the costs involved in keeping things neat, clean and tidy, both in terms of time and resources. A cafe in a rich suburb will spend more on cleaning because they have a higher income (can afford it), and the (rich) customers in the area can afford higher standards, making it necessary to be cleaner if you want to stay in business. This cafe in a richer suburb will charge more for a cup of coffee than a cafe in a poorer area, and/or will be selling more high-markup pastries. 86.161.208.185 (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

See Maslow's hierarchy of needs for a decent explanation. Taking a bath is a higher order need than being fed. Psychologically, people's lower-order needs must be met before they are prepared to deal with higher order needs. --Jayron32 14:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

People with mental disorders, drug addictions etc... are over-represented in homeless groups, and their hygiene priorities might not be following the standard culturally accepted levels. Googlemeister (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You might be making also a sampling mistake here. You certainly meet enough clean poor people along the day, you just don't notice them, because they don't look like your stereotypical dirty poor. 80.58.205.105 (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The sampling bias goes in both directions. How do you know that unshaven dude in tattered clothes isn't an eccentric dot-com millionaire? I think your direction is a lot more common, though, since most wealthy people have to dress nicely in order to keep getting wealthier. Paul (Stansifer) 15:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I question the assumption at the root of this question. Certainly homeless people tend to be dirty, for the obvious reason that they lack access to baths or showers. However, poor people who are not homeless, in my experience, are no dirtier than anyone else. Moreover, I have certainly met quite affluent people who did not prioritize personal hygiene. Marco polo (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I also question the assumption. As best as I can tell, 86.161.208.185 is located in France. I'll just lay out my own "original research" on the subject: (1) In the USA, maybe with an exception for children, cleanliness is universal across classes. I know some guys who do manual labor, and even they are pretty clean. (2) I didn't notice anything different when I was in France, but I wasn't on the lookout. (3) Ironically, in the USA, one of our jokes about the French is that rich French people have foul body odor. --M@rēino 18:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hygiene is not only in the obvious. "Clean" is not clean enough for the space in which surgery takes place for instance. (Unfortunately the word "disinfection" is spelled incorrectly in this JPEG.) Bus stop (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand being in a perpetual state of disinfection would most likely not be very healthy. A lot of the microbes on the skin are there for a reason.

Also a combination Marco Polos and IP 86.161.208.185s answers seems to me to be the correct. The OP is comparing apples and oranges in their question. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Conscientiousness is the key. Caring less about things in general, including hygiene. 2.97.210.25 (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

?? Doesn't that mean caring more? (Or is this some weird retro-function of the weird US phrase "I could care less", which actually means "I could not care less"?) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I should have preceded the above with "The degree of...". 92.28.247.44 (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Which doesn't make it more true in this case anyway. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed. 92.28.247.44 (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

gender socialisation.

what is the role of the family

masculinity and feminity are socially produced.assess the role of the family in these two identities.

masculinity and feminity are social and culturally produced roles.structuralists in general maintain that gender roles are taught while biologists argue that masculinity and feminity come naturally by to an individual.41.190.32.115 (talk) 13:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)kundai chaka Reformated. 86.161.208.185 (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sociology of the family is an obvious place to start. Searching for terms associated with your question can yield results! Warofdreams talk 16:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting documentary. Read about it here too. Bus stop (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend Engels for some interesting reading on this topic (links to fulltext in 'External links' section). --superioridad ^(discusión) 21:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

University by GRE or other standardized test

Is there a reliable list of universities ordered by their undergraduates' results on standardized tests? Quest09 (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

probably not on wikipedia but outside sources like us news collate such data for american universities (and i believe a select few foreign ones, namely canada)(Lihaas (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC));

Well, the problem is that I find several similar lists, mainly of entry requirement/university. That makes it difficult to find this concrete list. Quest09 (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if these statistics are collected in the first place. You don't have to declare an affiliation with a particular institution when registering for the GRE, so it's not clear if such a list can even be reliably constructed. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I didnt read GRE, though you asked undergrad. but while im not familar with the GRE, the LSAT data is certainly collated. Schools are ranked in 3-4 tiers (been awhile now so i dont remember) with columns indicating a the LSAT range generally accepted (although of couse standardises scored are not the be all and end all of admissions). Did i atleast partly answer your question?Lihaas (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that would be a different scenario. I want to know how the undergraduates of each university perform after completing their studies, not how they were admitted. For me it is clear that more prestigious universities will attract higher grades/scores.Quest09 (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

SEVERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THINGS WORKED IN A MEDIEVAL BARONY

In medieval europe, a baron would obviously rule his own barony, and farmers and peasants would work on his land in trade for his protection and such.

1) Would a baron let his subjects (can I use this word here? or did only kings have subjects?) keep much of what they produced, whether it be food, things of metal, leather, stone, wood etc. in addition to pay them wages? Or would he more likely take everything they produced for himself, gaining more for himself through trade and such, leaving his subjects to fend for themselves with the little wages they got?

2) A baron could not protect his own barony on his own, so he needed men-at-arms. Unless I'm mistaken men-at-arms were almost always professional soldiers but not necessarily of noble origins, so where did they live? Did they live in the walled mansion or near the mansion of the baron himself, or did they simply live anywhere across the barony, much like the other peasants?

3) Let's say this barony was very close to the nearest city, would many of the workers who worked on his land still live on his land or would they be more likely to live in the city?

4) 1000 acres. A patch of land of this size, how useful could it be for a medieval baron? It depends a lot of course on the structure and fertility etc. of the land, but lets say it's a fairly fertile land and thus good for agriculture. Then could 1000 acres be big enough to grow several types of grain, as well as vegetables and to raise livestock? Or would this land simply be TOO small? I figure that livestock also would need a lot of space for grazing, which means meadows and/or pasture. Perhaps space would not necessarily be an issue at all, and perhaps there would also be room for other things, such as mining or a quarry? or perhaps I have to increase the land-size to 2000 acres to make all this work? As i said, I understand that the structure of the land is very important, but I'm wondering if all of this would be possible or likely on 1000 acres in medieval europe, or perhaps 2000 if the former is to small. I know 1000 acres wasn't all that big, but could this lord make great profit and live well on this land?

Although I usually consider myself reasonably intelligent, I'm far from great with numbers and I have been finding it hard to grasp the whole acre and land-size thing when reading about it. But if I have finally gotten it right then 4000,000 (four million) square metres ROUGHLY equals 1000 acres. That means that a land of 2000 x 2000 metres or 2 km x 2 km is 1000 acres, ROUGHLY, not too far away anyway.

Krikkert7 (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The primary unit of the manorial system was the manor. The Lord of the Manor was the primary owner of a manor, but he was likely not a baron. The actual baron likely controlled a territory of hundreds of manors, either directly or via mesne lords granted administration of parts of the baron's realm via subinfeudation. The barons had little contact with, and little control over, the management of individual manors. The system that tied workers to the land was Serfdom. One of the rights of a serf was the right to work a portion of the land for their own sustenance. This may have meant (and I am making this number up, just to get an idea) that one acre in ten that a serf was expected to work was considered his, so he would get the produce of that one acre, and the other nine would be granted to the Lord of the Manor. The Lord of the Manor was not the tenant-in-chief, so he had to pay a large amount of grain up the heirarchy until it reached the baron; the baron himself would use the produce to feed his men-at-arms OR to sell and pay the King for his service (see bastard feudalism). The actual Lord of the Manor may have paid one or two guards to watch over his land, but this came out of his personal cut. Back to serfs: Serfs lived on the land itself; even if they lived close to a city (there weren't more than like 2-3 cities in England at the time. After London and York, most were miniscule) there wasn't much for them to do, nearly all of the work in a city was carefully controlled by guilds, such that people couldn't just show up and find a job. --Jayron32 17:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There were far more than "2-3 cities in England". See the list of cities in the United Kingdom for ones created during this era, or existing since "time immemorial". Of course, they were far smaller than cities today (St David's excepted), but much more important than their population might suggest. List of towns and cities in England by historical population gives an idea of historical populations. York wasn't even the second-largest city in England for much of the Medieval period. Warofdreams talk 16:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(EC)

1. Would be usually yes for peasants, but not so much for serfs. This could of course vary from barony to barony. Since barons had a lot of leeway in the amount of fees and taxes they could levy, they would recoup varying amounts.

2. I really don't know the answer to that, but I would guess that they would mostly be in the vicinity of the baron himself.

3. Serfs would probably have been forced to live on his land. Peasants had much more in the way of choice on where to live, and could have moved to the city if they wanted.

4. 1000 acres of fertile land would probably have been enough to support a village (two if they were not too big), but probably not an entire barony, even a poor one. Googlemeister (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

[ec] To answer your questions in order:

1. See Serfdom and Feudalism. Jayron is right to distinguish between lesser lords and barons, who were lords who typically (though not always) controlled several lesser lords. A lord's subjects could include both free yeomen and serfs. Yeomen were generally free to buy and sell the products of their labor as they pleased, though they owed an annual tribute or rent to their lord. Serfs, on the other hand, had to deliver a substantial percentage (20% or more) of their produce to their lords and generally also had to perform obligatory labor on the lord's own lands, from which the lord kept all income. Serfs spent most of their time working on the land and generally did not have time to produce goods for sale (during the medieval period). How the proceeds from any craft production were divided could vary from manor to manor, as could the terms of yeomen's and serf's obligations.

2. Barons did not necessarily have men at arms, particularly small landholders. They were themselves supposed to be militarily able, as were their sons and so on. The more powerful barons would have a cohort of knights and might be able to draft peasants for military service in an emergency.

3. City dwellers were typically exempt from obligations to local barons, except for the payment of taxes if the baron controlled the city. Peasants and other farm workers typically lived in villages set apart from cities.

4. One thousand acres is not a great deal of land, and hardly enough to support a powerful baron. This would be enough to support a minor lord rather modestly. You are right that 1000 acres is about 4 square kilometers. A typical estate would include both cropland and forest (for timber, fuel, and other uses), and 1000 acres could support a modest village of peasants and a minor lord's manor.

Marco polo (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that it is very difficult to make general claims about a period of time that spanned 1000 years over a very varied continent. But as a rule of thumb, 90% of the population had to work as farmers to feed medieval society. Even assuming everybody else ate 10 times better than the average peasant, that would leave nearly half the food amongst the farmers. I have a dim collection that overall taxation for serfs was about 40% (10% for the church, 30% for the feudal hierarchy), but don't remotely recall the specifics of time and place. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey tnx ! All of your answers I found extremely helpful, and your answers all came so quickly too - maybe because the middle ages is so interesting to many of us..? And you not only answer but you explain why and how, as well as giving me some useful links I sure will read. Thanks alot. I'm very grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krikkert7 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't caught this the first time, but in question 4, livestock was not a major part of the agricultural economy in England (it was a part of it, but not as significant as, say, grains) until the enclosure movement which all but ended the manorial system as a viable economic system. --Jayron32 20:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to echo Stephan Schulz and remind everyone that over many centuries and in a place as big as Europe, there is no general answer. And one barony did not always work the same way as the neighbouring barony, even in a very small area in one specific time period. And what is a baron, anyway? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What distinguishes two identical objects?

Consider two identical, uniform spheres placed on a table in separate, identical holders. If I were to remove the spheres and switch their positions, so that holder "A" now contains sphere "B" and vice-versa, can it be said that the spheres have "moved" and that the sphere in holder "A" is a different sphere? Does it make any difference whether the replacement of the spheres occurs in the presence of an observer? --68.40.57.1 (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

An ill-posed question, flawed in so far as the notion that two balls could be made so as to be identical or indistinguishable is unlikely (if enough measuring equipment is thrown at the problem). Can it be said? Certainly, if we're told that it has happened and we believe the teller. Not with any reliability if we lack the instruments to detect the differences between the two spheres. If in the presence of an observer (if we may interrogate her and get honest replies), the difference is that we can say with certainty that the move happened or did not, even were we to lack the instruments. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, for elementary particles, this identity holds, at least in our current models. It does not make sense to speak of "this" and "that" electron, or even hydrogen atom (assuming both are ¹H). They are truly indistinguishable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

68.40.57.1 -- This question actually is very significant in quantum theory, where there's a difference between "bosons" and "fermions"; see article Identical particles. However, it's hard to see how this could meaningfully apply at the macro level with the degree of exactness that would be needed... AnonMoos (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The actual problem posed involves large objects comprising billions of atomic components. And it is stated that the two objects are identical. Bus stop (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

And there's doubt as to whether that's at all realistically possible... AnonMoos (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This is completely a question of perception. Ignoring the quantum problems of identifying identical bosons and stuff like that, there is the question of what it means to be "identical". Literally, for any macroscopic object, there cannot be two objects which are identical down to their atomic structure. There is always some means, given an arbitrarily precise ability to examine the details of two objects, to be able to distinguish between them. This is merely a question of, psychologically, how close do two objects need to be for a person to reasonably judge them to be identical, that is without special equipment, what sorts of differences are likely to go unnoticed or ignored by a typical person when judging "identicalness". --Jayron32 18:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Why can there not be two such objects? Granted, it's very improbable. But I don't see why it's impossible. Note that even a probability of exactly zero doesn't necessarily make an event impossible. --Trovatore (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Because you can't copy the original without changing it (the act of measuring changes the state of the measured item). The No-cloning theorem deals with states that contain superpositions, and the Uncertainty principle prevents complete measurements. Ariel. (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Who said anything about copying? Jayron's claim was not that there was no reliable way to manufacture the objects; it was that they couldn't exist, which is another matter altogether. --Trovatore (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

If no known process can create them, then they cannot exist. Ipso facto. --Jayron32 23:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That's complete nonsense. --Trovatore (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't, but a switch has happened somewhere from the idea of accurately copying one object onto the other, and nature happening to make two perfectly identical objects without any copying process. 81.131.2.192 (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Trovatore: Where would you get identical objects from? You claim they exist, but provide no means by which they can exist. --Jayron32 23:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Trovatore here: Just because humankind does not have the capacity to create a certain object, in no way means said object cannot exist. There are all manner of things that science has not yet explained and cannot replicate, but they sure as hell exist, which is why scientists scratch their heads about them in the first place. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That;s not the point. I am not asking for methods of human creation. I am asking for mechanisms of any sort. A state of being which cannot happen, cannot happen. It is not more complicated than that. If there is no means to have, in existence, two identical macroscopic objects, then there is no means to have them in existence. To say "They cannot exist, but they can exist" is a nonsensical tautology. I've never said that two identical objects could not be manufactured by humans. I have always maintained that the problem is that two identical objects cannot exist. --Jayron32 01:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You haven't said yet why you think they can't exist. Ariel introduced the idea that an exact copying process could be impossible, and Trovatore said "who said anything about copying?", and six posts later here we still are. Who said anything about copying? 213.122.43.105 (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

They cannot exist because there is no means by which to have two objects, each made of many gajillion atoms, exist in such a way that every single atom and subatomic particle within it is in the same set of conditions, and to maintain identical conditions for a non-trivial amount of time. Even if we could cause two such objects to wink into existance by, like, praying really hard for them, if they exist in different points in space, like say one in my right hand and another in my left, then they are exposed to different sets of conditions which will, pretty much instantly, make them unique from each other. There's no means to have identical objects which exist for any amount of measurable time. --Jayron32 01:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What if, just by chance, they come together in an identical way, and then, just by chance, their histories proceed identically? --Trovatore (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Jayron, you really need to be more precise with your statements. If no known process can create them, then they cannot exist. Ipso facto: if you didn't actually mean anything remotely like that - and it's now clear you didn't - then better not to have said that in the first place. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why anybody here is making pointless remarks about whether or not two identical spheres could actually be manufactured. That's entirely irrelevant to the question, which is namely: if two objects are indistinguishable except in one parameter (position, above), and that parameter is then exchanged between the two, have the objects been transformed? And does it matter if the exchange is continuous (observed, in the original example) or discrete? --68.40.57.1 (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

If someone asked a question about the comparative biological properties of unicorns and mermaids, would skepticism about the premises of the question also be "pointless"...? AnonMoos (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

To me, this is not a question of physics (although it has a manifestation in physics) so much as it is a question of philosophy. And with such questions, it is frequently necessary to look beyond the immediately observable. See e.g. Theory of Forms. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

To the OP's second statement. Actually, someone already answered the question, but let me relink it. Describing what happens to your spheres depends on whether they are fermions or bosons, see Identical_particles#Fermions_and_bosons. Fermions obey the pauli exclusion principle while bosons do not. --Jayron32 19:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There is also that the two spheres are not identical in not being in the same place at the same time, and in general have different histories in spacetime. Depending on your purposes, this might not matter, in which case both configurations of the system look identical to me. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

One definition of "identical" is that two objects are identical if they share all of the same properties. In your example, you are talking about two objects that do not share ALL the same properties (i.e. location in space, relationship to the table, relationship to the holders, etcetera.) The observer is irrelevant in this view. Greg Bard (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand why they're doing that, it's because the question is difficult and they want it to go away. :) 81.131.2.192 (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This is similar to the Ship of Theseus problem, and the issue of whether objects are qualificationally identical (two iPod Touch 16GB units for instance) and numerically identical (actually the same physical item). ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 23:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This reminded me of an amusing comic which I think touches on the different ways in which people will fail to see eye to eye on this problem. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue that comes up in a book I'm currently working on. The argument I make in the book is that for macroscopic objects, an identity is basically a label that people attach to a portion of the world. Our ability to attach these labels in a consistent way depends on certain types of continuity that hold up pretty well for many objects that we deal with, such as people and animals. When continuity breaks down, though, our ability to assign identities breaks down along with it. Looie496 (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this has gone a bit far afield from the OP's question, though not in an uneducational way. But identical spheres can certainly exist in the realm of mathematics, so maybe keep the discussion there rather than in the physical world. The OP stated that he was going to take these objects and switch them. So the OP knows that they've been switched, hence there will always be at least one "observer" to this hypothetical switching. And if there are other eyewitnesses, or better yet, video recordings, then it could be demonstrated that they've been switched. However, if the two objects were truly identical, as mathematical spheres with identical radii and no form of labeling would be, then there would be no obvious way, beyond witness and video testimony, to "prove" that they had been switched. One of Steven Wright's jokes is coming to mind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has extensive articles on [the problem of identity] - whether two things are the same or not. Links to related entries can be found at the very end of the article. From a quick perusal, it is clear that philosophers have no clear answer to the question (do they ever?). Whether the two spheres are identical depends on which identity predicate you are using. However, there are many identity predicates that do distinguish them, and in particular they can be distinguished by their different histories. 84.239.160.59 (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Angels

Once, James Madison said:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither internal nor external checks or controls on government would be necessary.

What did he mean by that statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.63.234 (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You need more of the quote to start making sense of it. It goes on:

In framing a government that is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

I think the meaning then becomes evident ... internal and external checks are unnecessary since the angels govern (and presumably are omniscient and hence hard to fool and impossible to evade). --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think he's more refering to angels, as agents of God, are incapable of wrongdoing. Thus, according to Madison, if man were incapable of wrongdoing, government would be unnecessary. If angels governed, we could trust them to govern perfectly. However, since men, who are known to commit wrongdoing, are both the governed and the governing, both need to be watched. Its an elaborate statement on Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? --Jayron32 23:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Angels incapable of wrongdoing? What about Lucifer? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Judaism there is no such being. Angels have no free will, and can only do what God says. There is Satan, but he is more like a prosecutor - he's not evil, he's just doing the job God assigned him. Ariel. (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Lucifer story is extrabiblical for Christians too. --Jayron32 23:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bible mentions disobedient angels. (http://www.multilingualbible.com/genesis/6-4.htm; http://www.multilingualbible.com/jude/1-6.htm)

—Wavelength (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

All maybe true. But the literal truth of disobedient angels is irrelevent to the discussion. When one says "He's an angel", what does one mean about the subject's behavior? --Jayron32 23:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can reject Newtonian physics so completely on the science desk (so as to say that the question about the possibility is meaningless, when we have articles on the subject) and then entertain hypotheticals about beings for which there is no evidence beyond mythology here to such an extent that you are willing to generalize over the details of the mythology in question. I'm not complaining, because your answers on both desks are tremendously helpful. But from my point of view you can prove anything with a contradiction, so anything is consistent once a contradiction is accepted. However, I would just like to point out that the government theorists who tried to found their principles on fewer contradictions may have been substantially more consistent. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Its a completely different sort of question. One is asking about Madison's quote and its context. Given that Madison has left a COPIOUS record regarding his opinions and attitudes vis-a-vis the formation of the U.S. state (see Federalist Papers for one), one needn't run through an exhaustive theological discussion over the nature of angels in various religions to understand what Madison meant. What Madison meant is that people are imperfect beings, and so are their governments, which is why there is needed a series of checks and balances upon the government. Whether or not Angels are perfect, or whether Lucifer was an angel, is completely irrelevent to understanding Madison's quote above. The Newtonian universe question on the science desk is like asking "What if the sun really revolves around the Earth". Making that assumption requires us to ignore a whole shitload of observations we know to be verifiable. It's as good as saying "It's all magic". Completely different sorts of questions --Jayron32 03:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is one viewpoint which is relevant to the question.

Who Really Rules the World? - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site

—Wavelength (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What? That's hardly relevant. You and schyler need to stop sticking this junk on the reference desk. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It seemed sort of relevant, especially given the direction things took above it: the argument seems to be that this world is ruled by a disgruntled Angel = the Devil (along with a host of like-minded angels/devils), and gives Biblical references to support that notion. Madison, it appears, was therefore sloppy in his choice of words – we are ruled by "angels", but they're of the kind that require checks-and-balances! ;) BTW, I thought that JW material was much better written and coherent than what I have previously been handed on the street, which is good, it was interesting, but I agree it shouldn't be handed out here unless it is at least as relevant as it was in this case.) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Whether Madison literally believed in the existence of angels and/or whether angels literally exist, is not really the point. He was metaphorically saying that if people were perfect beings, government would not be needed. They aren't, so it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I point out that Madison's arguments don't actually prove that people have to be perfect beings to do without government? They prove (if you accept his premisses) that if men were angels they could do without, but don't actually demonstrate that being angels is necessary, merely that it might make it easier... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't read it that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Madison proves (if you accept his arguments) that (a) angels can do without government, and (b) if men have government, they need checks and balances. He doesn't actually prove that men need government, he merely takes it as self-evident. Or if he doesn't, where does he show this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." Since men are not angels, government is necessary. Seems pretty clear to me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The preceding sentences are no less relevant to understanding:

It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels ....

Madison takes it as given that the state is necessary; else he (and the intended reader) wouldn't bother debating how to design it. That necessity is the minor premise of the syllogism, not the conclusion. The conclusion is "men, even governors, are not angels" (and a constitution must take that into account). Madison probably knew what's wrong with denying the antecedent even if Bugs doesn't.

The rhetorical question can also be read as saying that the state is a product, rather than a remedy, of men's sinful nature. Anyone who wants to debate that possibility with me is welcome to post a comment on my blog; it would be inappropriate here. —Tamfang (talk) 06:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Where is there evidence that perfect beings do not need to be governed?

—Wavelength (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You have to take Madison's statement in the context of the hot political theory of his day, that of the social contract, especially as envisioned by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Madison, and his collegues, saw the role of government in shaping the sort of society which was living under it. Witness his contemporary Thomas Jefferson's view of man's perfect state being the agrarian society, and his desire to establish a state to foster it. The two-sided recognition that a) the source of America's problems was the poor governance of Britain and thus b) The source of America's glory would be good governance was a driving factor in establishing the right government during the founding years of the Republic. His statement is meant to be allegorical or aphoristic. Again, it's not whether or not real perfect beings could exist, or whether they really would not need to be governed. The statement would have been understood under the context of the time to mean exactly that. Whether such statements hold up to modern thinking, or scrupulous logic, or anything else is still irrelevent. His audience would have been familiar with social contact thinking, would have understood and accepted the arguement on the role of government as a valid arguement in that millieu, and it was effective for that reason. You cannot subject the statement to such a level of overanalysis and expect it to be understood the way it should be understood. This isn't about arguing with Madison; that's not really what the OPs question was about. This is about explaining what Madison meant, not testing the veracity of his statements, merely explaining them. --Jayron32 19:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

December 16

When did Germaine de Staël begin?

When did salonist Germaine de Staël open her salon? I have not found the exact year. Was it 1786, as she married that year? --85.226.41.42 (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no bright line between a formal salon and having people over for discussion on a semi-regular basis. At that time in France it wouldn't be unheard of for an unmarried literary woman to entertain acquaintances, but if the criteria is advertising to strangers, your suspicion is probably well-founded. Being married to an ambassador is a difficult job with heavy social responsibilities, many of which can be taken care of more easily by scheduling periodic parties in the living room. It was no later than 1791 when she moved back to Paris from Switzerland per the chronology in the external links, as I'm sure you saw. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Obama + the GOP

How can the GOP be certain the bill they passed will continue to advance through the system in the same form they passed it -- can't Obama do a line item veto? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The President is not allowed to do a line item veto. It's all or nothing. And if the House passes similar legislation, a conference committee will be formed to get the bill into a shape that both houses can agree upon. If the House votes it down, it's done. And if the House + Senate pass a bill Obama doesn't like... then it's all or nothing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Congress had passed the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 under, and of course with the approval of, Bill Clinton in 1996). That allowed the president to line item veto certain limited text within bills, mostly pork barrel type things (I don't remember all of the qualifications, but one was any part of a bill that "benefited fewer than 100 people"; our article doesn't have them, so I'll have to do some digging). But it got shot down by the Supreme Court in 1998, because they said that giving the president that sort of power would require a constitutional amendment. That's why you get some of this crazy shit with bills being used to pass entirely unrelated items. My favorite example is still that one senator from Nebraska who refused to approve of the healthcare bill until his state got special treatment under it. But back to the question; as of right now, the president can't, and it would take a constitutional amendment to give that power. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason, presumably, has to do with separation of powers. Some (or perhaps many) of the individual states allow some form of line-item veto by their Governors. At the federal level, it would theoretically give the President too much legislative power. I expect the founding fathers did not anticipate these mammoth bills or they might have addressed it. But there's always the Amendment option - which sounds like a good idea until your own state's "pork barrel" funding gets cut. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm from Connecticut, so it's not like we get much help; instead, we get a guy who chairs the Senate Finance Committee and evades his taxes while watching the economy get run into the ground. You should have seen the ad campaigns for the Senate seat in Connecticut this year; it was really quite amusing to see a guy who lied about his military service and a woman who pays pituitary freaks to dress in spandex duke it out. I do have to give credit to the Alaskans; they know how to get their people in position. I daresay that if such an amdendment got to the states by either means, Alaska would not be passing it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This is somewhat related to the failure to get anything done on a term-limits amendment. The Presidential limit was passed by Republicans in the wake of the FDR 4-termer... and which they discussed repealing once their buddy Ronnie got into office. The problem with term limits is that everyone would be quite happy to have other states have term limits, but "you better not mess with my representatives!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The Line item veto is one of those core constitutional questions that came up in a mildly political context, and the opinion that struck it down (Clinton v. City of New York) is a textbook Constitutional law case. Without revealing my personal opinion on the issue, I find some of the opinions in the case surprising coming from their particular sources. That said, there are powerful arguments on both sides... this is a fundamental structural constitutional issue about how laws are passed... little else is so fundamental to how a government operates. As for the OP's broader question... it's just politics. Getting indignant about this sort of thing is 99% of the time either posturing or extreme naivete. I'm not sure which is worse. Shadowjams (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Is the Maid of the Mist exclusive?

Is the Maid of the Mist exclusive, or can any boat tour that area? Ariel. (talk) 07:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the answer is that the company or companies that run those tours have licensing agreements, but I'll look into that. Of course, there are practical considerations: How would you get the boat there in the first place? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Presumably the same way the existing boats were gotten there. After some googling I found that the Maid of the Mist VII was brought in in 14 sections and assembled on-site. I don't know if different procedures were used for the older boats. --Anonymous, 14:10 UTC, December 16, 2010.

I googled [maid of the mist licence], and this interesting article came up.[34] It seems that there is indeed an exclusive license, and also there is controversy about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Japan - The Emperor's Birthday

1) What do people do on this day? 2) What do kids do? 3) What clothing do people wear? 4) What kind of food does people eat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.126.19.174 (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Start with The Emperor's Birthday and see where it takes you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Almost all people do nothing special. Oda Mari (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep. As far as I remember, it's a day like any other, except for the (relatively) few who decide to visit the Imperial palace - it's one of the two days in the year when it's (still in a limited capacity) open to the general public. There they can crowd, hear the Emperor address them, and if they are lucky maybe even get a blurry snapshot of him waving. But that's really it, for the general public at large it's just a day like any other. To me personally it's the day the Embassy here in Slovenia throws a reception to which I am for some reason every year invited, and I can hobnob with the elites of the country for an evening :) TomorrowTime (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What countries keep the exact number of their executions a state secret and why?

I know I have asked this before, but the results were inconclusive, so months later, I ask it again: What countries keep the exact number of their executions a state secret and why? As in "yes we execute, but we can't tell you how many we execute per year"? A good example would be China, who executes up to around 1000 to 4000 people a year, but the actual number is a state secret. In a search I did a long time ago, all I found were China, Iran and Mongolia. Apparently, Belarus, the last European country to still have capital punishment, has not released a number of executions for some time, but I have been wondering for a long time now: How many countries (and which ones) keep the exact number of their executions a secret and (if applicable), why?. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Much as has been answered before, the question is inherently unanswerable. "Not correctly reporting the number of executions" (which we cannot determine with any reasonable degree of fidelity) is effectively equivalent to "We're just not going to report anything". The answer lies somewhere between 0 and the number of countries in the world, as even those which have foresworn capital punishment could be conducting it in secret. That's the nature of a secret, after all. — Lomn 14:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No my question was of all the countries that are known to conduct executions keep the number of executions a secret. i'm not talking about secret executions... Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You twice asked "[what|how many] countries keep the exact number of their executions a state secret?" Asking which countries acknowledge keeping an execution count secret is a different question. In principle, this one is answerable, though I'm not sure it holds in practice. For instance, your Belarus example: our article notes that the government has not released official documentation since 2006. Is that a formal acknowledgment that they're keeping it a secret, or is it an implicit claim of zero executions? A quick survey of our article on the use of capital punishment by nation suggests that the People's Republic of China is the only nation that specifically claims its execution statistics to be a state secret. — Lomn 14:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

what he means is "Yes, we perform executions. As to the number and which cases, the official position is: it's a secret"

The guy means, which countries perform executions (we know it, they admit it, and maybe even we know at least 1 of the cases specifically). As to which people, when, and how many in total, that is an official, admitted state secret, i.e. "there's a number, it's more than 1 this year, but we won't tell you how many or which ones".... 82.234.207.120 (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, their admission only implies that there were more than none. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Legal question

Wouldn't Assange be more secure in Sweden than in the UK? Sweden is by all means a democracy, with a working legal system, and, although the UK is also one, it is still a junior partner of the US in many cases, and thus, perhaps more prone to cooperation. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The UK dont have a reason as yet to punish, so he cant even be put up for trial to be prosecuted over anything. God knows why he doesnt stay celibate when doing such dangerous work, or at the very least stick to wikipeda  ;) instead of Giving the police state room for hocus-pocus.(Lihaas (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC));

Either one probably has a good chance to extradite to the US, so I'm not sure it matters too much. They are both democracies and have "working" legal systems; that isn't really the issue here. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

things to do with the right roommate to increase my quality of living?

Here are two things I could do with a cool roommate to increase my quality of living:
- Subscribe to a daily like the New York Times, splitting the cost
- Cook each other breakfast while the other showers (on alternative days).
What is an exhaustive list of such things you could do with a roommate? (Note: I live in a major, major urban center, and both myself and the roommate/housemate would be working full-time). Finally, what do you reckon my chances are of finding the right/cool roommate? 88.182.221.18 (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You could shower together. That's cool and saves energy.80.58.205.34 (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Dude, that is NOT cool! NOT COOL!! I am looking for real answers, actual things real well-adjusted people would do for each other as roommates, expressly getting together partly to be able to do just this. For example, I think I would not be someone's roommate who wanted, before they have even met me, to find someone to give back rubs to each other with... whether they're a guy or girl, and I'm a guy or girl, looking for that from a roommate (that you're still looking for) is just too much!! I am looking for real answers, please. Thank you. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is cool. Choose a person of the gender(s) that you like. And it can get better. Just see here: [35] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.34 (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

All right, I'll add an extra condition below, just to rule out shenanigans like this... 88.182.221.18 (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You are blurring the line between being roommates and being friends. Then, blurring the line between being friends who live together and being married (as in having joint responsibility for one another). So, all you are asking is, "What are the benefits of getting married?" It won't be hard to search for many lists that do not limit themselves to the legal benefits. -- kainaw™ 17:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Really, think about an ad for a roommate from someone who ALSO wanted to find someone to split the price of a daily with, and to cook breakfast jointly with, and the difference between an ad looking for a romantic partner or spouse... You don't put up an ad for a "friend"... It just doesn't make sense. Surely you can see that difference. You know, people know the negatives inside and out: you have to do the dishes sometimes (and sometimes the other person). You have to take the trash out sometimes (ditto). You have to clean up the common areas sometimes. etc etc etc. Surely, we are totally missing something if we internalize these chores and negative tasks, without so much as allowing the possibility of increasing the quality of living by the same means. Honestly, do you think that sharing taking down the trash makes you just like a married couple? Seriously, if you don't know what I'm asking about, can't imagine it, or, just can't think about it in social terms, you had better leave this question to someone else... Thanks fro your contribution all the same. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No thanks needed. I like to help. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The new condition is, it has to be just as applicable to a roommate of a gender you're not attracted to. (e.g. you're a straight guy, another straight guy, etc.) I think both of my examples are perfect, and I would like more. Thanks. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, you could film him/her on the shower and upload it to some youtube-like site. THAT would be insanely cool. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the reference desk is a place where volunteers help to answer factual questions. The question you're asking is more of a brainstorming exercise. I suggest that you find a real person who might be interested in becoming your roommate, and conduct your brainstorming with him or her, to find things to do together that will make you both happier. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No, based on the comment you're immediately replying to, it appears the problem is that the reference desk is where everyone lives in their parents basement and films their cousins in the shower when they come over for the holidays! Ugh. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

wait a minute, i just realized i'm totally being seriously trolled by 80. You win, 80! Well played, my man, well played. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As always: don't feed the trolls! Quest09 (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't care. I've been on the other side many a time in my erroneous youth, and that man had me livid. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on personal experiences with roommates, the following is my advice:

• Roommates are not friends, and are not spouses. Do not have the same expectations of them as you do other relationships. It is a business arrangement, and keep that it mind. That doesn't mean you cannot be cordial, even friendly with a roommate, but don't expect the same sort of relationship you would with a friend. Think of him more along the lines of a coworker. Be freindly when you are around them, maybe even have a beer once in a while, but also don't have any expectation for a relationship outside of the confines of the partnership.
• Establish clear boundaries regarding issues such as bills (have a plan in place; either split each bill 50/50, or alternate months, or something), personal space, maintenance of common items, cleaning, guest policy, etc. Be very straightforward with each other, and make and agree on clear expectations on how to handle these things before they become problems.

That's probably my best advice. --Jayron32 18:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say—stay out of each other's way as much as possible. That means physically. But that also means linguistically. Don't ask questions. Don't explore their feelings. Don't inquire of their opinions. Don't share your innermost thoughts with them. Don't even share your outermost thoughts with them. If something doesn't have to be said—don't say it. Silence is golden. Put every physical item back where it belongs. If your roommate doesn't put everything back where it belongs—don't complain about it. Forbearance is an ideal in such a situation. Bear in mind that the situation is beneficial to you—it would be more expensive to live alone. Keep in mind your more distant goals. Be mindful that the present living arrangement is temporarily worthwhile as a furtherance of your goals, and try not to get bogged down in the petty details of whether he leaves your box of favorite breakfast cereal in the bathroom or not. Bus stop (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Do strangers really have to share rooms in the US of A to make ends meet? Or is this an Americanism for sharing a flat or apartment? 92.28.247.44 (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"Roommate" does mean "flatmate" in the US. (In Canada, I'm not so sure, because of Scott Pilgrim...) Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the comments above. The chances that you will find someone who happens to want to share a newspaper subscription and/or breakfasts is pretty remote. When I had roommates, I found that it worked best to keep things as separate as possible, right up to separate shelves in the fridge, and a rule that each person cleans his or her dishes as soon as their meal is finished. However, some people are open to sharing meals and food shopping and such. If that sort of thing interests you, you might include a line in your roommate ad like "Looking to share meals, shopping, and household amenities." Of course, then you will have to agree on what foods the two of you are going to buy, cook, and eat, you will have to coordinate your schedules, and you will have to agree on which household amenities you want to share. People are so different in their tastes that you may not find a person with tastes compatible to yours. Your roommate's schedule may also be very different. Even if he or she wanted to cook breakfast while you shower, he or she may need to be out the door by 7:00 to get to work, when you don't have to leave until 9:00. He or she may want oatmeal (porridge) while you want eggs and bacon. Or vice versa. And so on, and so on. So it might be best to just accept that you will share little more than the space. (To user 92.28..., roommate in American English is synonymous with housemate. Is it flatmate in UK English? It is not entirely unheard of to share a room, but usually people have their own bedroom and share the rest of the apartment.) Marco polo (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

From the way you phrase the question, you are looking for mutually beneficial and pleasant ways to interact with potential roommates. You may have luck researching housing cooperatives. Many such organizations will post rules/chore schemes that you may find useful.SemanticMantis (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

From my Google search for roommate quality living, I found http://offcampus.osu.edu/roommatesearch_safety_tips.asp.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Questions about prohibitions in Sikhism

I was reading the article on prohibitions in Sikhism and I was somewhat confused... I'm not sure if I should be asking this on the talk page, but that seemed more given over to debate on what exactly Sikhism prohibited and I'm more interested in the justificiations. At any rate, two questions are: 1) One of the prohibitions is basically no priestly class, and the article suggests that there is very little formal hierarchy at all. But later on it talks about a certain Sikh being "excommunicated" by "high clergy" -- is there some sort of hierarchy or synod that pronounces on theological questions? Wouldn't that sort be a priestly class? 2) Sikhs are forbidden from eating meat that is ritualistically slaughtered. Easy enough (unless you're in a kosher deli :P). But the article on Jhatka meat states that (at least some) Sikhs only eat meat from animals killed in a specific way -- isn't that ritualistically slaughtered meat too? I understand no prayers/benedictions/anointments/whatever are involved, but if you only kill livestock in one specific way that seems like a ritual to me. I'm not trying to be a smartass, it just seems like sort of a contradiction to me. Thanks for your time. 96.246.68.89 (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You are simply taking "ritual" in one sentence that clearly indicates a religious practice, and then using the word "ritual" in another area where it would mean a repetitious action. Then, you claim the first definition to be the definition of the second term. It is a poor argument of semantics that, when you remove the word "ritual" makes no sense. Sikhs are prohibited from eating meat slaughtered in religious practices. Sikhs can only eat meat slaughtered in a specific manner. There is no contradiction. -- kainaw™ 20:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Icelandic sagas at the time of Christopher Columbus

Would educated people in Spain and Portugal have had access to copies, at the time of Christopher Columbus, of the Icelandic sagas? And hence been aware of the existance of Greenland and perhaps even Vinland. 92.28.247.44 (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Can't say anything about the sagas, but the Catholic Church's reach included Greenland; see, for example, Gardar, Greenland. So somebody in Rome knew about Greenland, but this (as I am sure you know) does not mean it was known in Iberia. But it could have been. The sagas, someone else will come by to discuss, I'm sure. (You might also be interested in the Vinland map.) Jørgen (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly doubt that the sagas themselves were translated into Latin etc. at that time, but it's plausible that certain third-hand nuggets ultimately from the sagas could have been circulating along with information about Greenland, legends of St. Brendan's voyages, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, Columbus's connection to Iberia was mainly as a source of funding. He was a Genoese merchant by trade and birth. He would have been more likely to have been inspired by the story had it come to him in Genoa rather than Iberia. --Jayron32 21:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What would happen if the United States Congress all died?

What would happen if the entire United States Congress all died at the same time? (For example, as the result of an asteroid strike, or terrorist attack on the Capitol building, while both Senate and House are in session.) 97.125.81.59 (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)