Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

March 22

What happened to this house?

House in severe disrepair

Unfortunately, the historic house in this picture is in severe disrepair, despite its designation as a historic site by the US federal government. While I can understand what's caused most of its problems, I'm puzzled by the darkness around the chimney: what could have caused it? Fire was my first thought, but I can't imagine fire coming out of the brickwork just below the chimney without being severe enough to scorch the walls around the windows and doors. I also considered that it might have been burned but that the other damage was repaired; however, given the state in which the house sits, I doubt that anything has been repaired anywhere near recently. Finally, please note that I'm somewhat colorblind, so I might be unable to see something that would be obvious to most people. Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

One thing that is obvious is that the chimney is a later addition to the building; the brickwork of the chimney is distinctly pink, while the rest of the house is orange brick. My guess is that the staining is from an older, long gone chimney that the current one replaced. Probably, the first chimney stained the wall, was removed, and the newer unstained chimney put on in its place. --Jayron32 04:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. The staining on the wall below the chimney looks to me like damp penetration. Perhaps the original chimney had been so badly damaged it was replaced? There is a crack in the brickwork to the right of the chimney, but that looks more like settlement damage than anything related to the chimney. Actually, brick buildings have a surprising tolerance for settlement etc, if they stay reasonably watertight - I'm living in a 100+ year-old house with multiple cracks, and the roof held on solely by gravity, from what I can tell (and some dubious brickwork at the back of the house where it isn't so noticeable), but I don't think it is going to fall down any time soon - I'd be more worried about internal floors etc in the building shown. If the floors and/or roof trusses are rotten, that is likely to bring the building down more quickly than problems with brickwork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Andy, is it possible that we're sharing the same house and haven't noticed? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.155 (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's quite possible to have a fire inside a chimney -- soot can build up and eventually ignite, sending flames all the way up the shaft. If it lasts long enough, the bricks can get pretty hot. Looie496 (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about a fire - I recall seeing old British houses with similar markings near the chimney. 92.15.6.157 (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In my 1960s childhood in London, chimney fires were a common occurence. The fire brigade would put them out with a stirrup pump attached to a lomg tube (in sections I believe) which they would poke up the chimnety. Alansplodge (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Back in the 1980s, my chimney in Dublin would often catch fire due to my bad habit of burning coal and peat together. Rather than risk the Fire Brigade flooding my house, I'd put it out myself by stuffing wet newspapers up the chimney.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Why would a fire mark the chimney so far down from where the smoke comes from? It may be due to the volatile components of the smoke condensing on the comparatively cool inner surface of the chimmney and leaching through the brickwork. In other words, its tar. If it was damp or mildew from rainwater running down the side of the chimney, as speculated above, then wouldn't the lower part of the wall of the most exposed part of the house be like that?

The chimney bricks may be exactly the same as the other bricks, except they are much more weathered due to their exposed position, including being exposed on both sides of the brick. You can see some visible efflorescence on the chimney, and in addition the surface may have spalled off due to freezing while damp. There is likely to be mold or moss growing due to the unevenness of the surface, which needs repointing. You can see some partial repointing has been done. All of the preceeding things result in colour changes. 92.15.23.133 (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the chimney looks like it was rebuilt with different colored brick. It is very likely that the old chimney crumbled and there was water damage to the brickwork below it. What is obviously a big problem is the collapse at the left. The windows are broken, and the old copper roof might have leaked near the peak, allowing in rain, leading to collapse of rafters (causing roof collapse and allowing in more rain), leading to rot and collapse of floor joists and studwalls. The collapse of floor joists often brings down outer brick walls due to the joist end acting as a lever on the brickwork above it. Joist ends were sometimes tapered and set in pockets in the brick to allow them to collapse while sparing the wall. If cost were no object, it could probably be rebuilt. The White House, for instance, was gutted and rebuilt in 1949-1951, while preserving only the roof and outer walls. The walls in general look to need tuckpointing if the collapsed section were rebuilt. Once rain starts entering an old building due to bad windows or roof, ruin is only a few years away. Edison (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of an elaborate wedding

Why is the forthcoming marriage of William Windsor and his girlfriend being staged in such an elaborate manner? Wouldnt a quiet wedding at the Windsor chapel or registry office be better; and it could still be covered on tv? I am asking from a sociological point of view. Thanks 92.15.6.157 (talk) 11:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised you think it's elaborate! Certainly compared to his father's first wedding it's not. From personal experience, the first wedding tends to be the most elaborate (I refer to mine as my "meringue moment" because of the white lacy dress I wore), whereas subsequent weddings tend to be less elaborate. As this is the first wedding for either party, it's more elaborate than, say, his father's second wedding. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Because it's what we Brits call a royal wedding, which is a great opportunity for a PR exercise.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

All royal weddings (Charles and Camilla notwithstanding) tend to be extravagant; the public would be disappointed if they were simple affairs, without pomp and ceremony.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

For some of the UK public that's probably true - others just wish everyone would shut up about it. Although much of the pre-publicity is completely over the top and vomit-inducing, I'm still hopeful that attitudes have changed to the extent that there won't be quite as much obsequiousness and time wasted on this one as there was for his dad's first wedding, or for his granny's various "jubilees". Harrumph. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

How many anti-British monarchy posts do we get each week? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.114.190 (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Not enough. It's still there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And I can't imagine opinionated bores venting their spleen on the Wikipedia Reference Desk are likely to change the status quo anytime soon. But thanks for sharing. 87.114.246.141 (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Annoying thing is when it comes to these anti monarch posts it's nearly always the same OP who starts it Nil Einne (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The aame could be asked of any wedding, not just a royal one... 207.81.30.213 (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The more pomp and circumstance, the more souvenir videos they can sell. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I was about to post the same thing: pomp and circumstance. Also, decadence. A decadent society loves a decadent spectacle. Vranak (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What is its purpose from a sociological point of view please, compared with a normal wedding? 92.15.23.133 (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

How do you know it's sociologically different from a normal wedding? Weddings are often big extravaganzas. Just more so with a royal wedding. A wedding gala of any kind is supposed to be a celebration of a significant life event. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it is sociologically different all right. We don't get a day off work to celebrate most weddings. Is this question for your sociology homework? If so, you should mention the mass media, and popular culture, in particular celebrity culture. Why didn't Jordan and Peter Andre, or the Beckhams, have quiet weddings? But it seems that you are taking a functionalist viewpoint, assuming that the wedding must have one purpose. You might get further with an interpretivist perspective. Does the wedding have the same meaning for all social groups? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. I don't have the answer, but note that elaborate weddings seem to be far more important to women than to men. Perhaps it's a way of establishing a woman's social standing (while a man's comes primarily from his job) ? It might be interesting to compare with working women, to see if they choose less elaborate weddings. StuRat (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

People seem to go back to more conservative gender roles in their wedding plans, compared to the roles they adopt in everyday life. Just basic things like a woman who wears jeans to work will wear a long dress for her wedding. There's something about a rite of passage that makes us want "all the trimmings". And of course it is a family occasion, so the couple want to be sure that the ceremony meets the expectations of both sets of parents. Within traditional values, women are supposed to care about their weddings. If they don't care, then the easy solution is not to bother with a wedding. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Bread and circuses HiLo48 (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

True, except we give them the bread. 92.28.242.170 (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect this would be easier to understand in a more traditional society. When you read news about people caught up in bombings or riots in the Middle East it sounds like they're always on the way to a wedding somewhere. I suppose it was the same way elsewhere at some time. It seems to be the way for a family to be known, for people to form a sort of tribal identity, maybe even something akin to a potlatch economy. I may be far off the mark, but still, look at a palace. A royal can't sleep in 87 beds, no matter how fancy they are. Their whole business involves surrounding themselves with a circle of associates. Wnt (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Pomp vs. pompousness

The above is proof, if proof were ever needed, that many people absolutely love pomp. They can't get enough of it. They'll travel half way around the world to see some. But individuals who are pompous are at the extreme other end of the desirability scale. Why? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Pomp and pompousness are two entirely different things. Pomp is a kind of public performance in which some are the principal performers, the majority both take minor roles and/or enjoy the spectacle as an audience, and everybody understands that they are all taking part in a kind of game. Pompousness/pomposity/pompous behaviour is merely the display of out-of-place and unwarranted arrogance. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.155 (talk) 11:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, let me rephrase the question. If pomp is generally considered a positive thing in its place, why was it used as the core of a word denoting a decidely negative quality? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

To summarise extensive entries in the OED: "pomp" has nearly always been used both with reference to grand public spectacle and with implications of approval; "pompous" and other such derivatives have been used both in approving and in disapproving senses, going back to Chaucer, but the approving usages, now less common, generally also relate to public display, while the disapproving ones, now more common, more often relate to behaviour by an individual. Why this should be so is presumably down to the vagaries of language development, which emerge from mass usage rather than from being logically thought out. Behaviour performed en masse may have different overtones to the same behaviour performed by a single individual: a battalion of stormtroopers goose-stepping might in 1938 seemed grand and imposing, and now also sinister; John Cleese doing the same on his own just looks funny. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.155 (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks, 90. (I guess the word I probably should have used was "pomposity", but no mind.) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it, like similar spectacles, is mainly a PR stunt. We are being lead to think: "Wow, these must be really important people, so let's keep paying them lots of money". 92.15.14.45 (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, the UK doesn't have a 4th July or Bastille Day; we have Coronations, Jubilees and Royal Weddings. Those who wish can go "Up West" and cheer with the masses, or you can have a street party with your neighbours or patronise your local boozer which will have the flags out too. The vocal minority get to winge about the expense of it all. Everybody's happy. Alansplodge (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe one day the scales will fall from your eyes. 92.28.242.170 (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

In the meantime, "Here's a Health unto Her Majesty". What's yours? Alansplodge (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Foreign deaths in Japan earthquake/tsunami

The deaths of vacationers was a large story in the Indonesian earthquake/tsunami and deaths of foreigners made up 1% of the all deaths. So far I have heard of a single death in Japan of a foreigner (1% of 1%). Have there been more but the reporting buried in the other issues - or is this region of Japan too far off the tourist trail? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Deaths of foreigners have been reported, usually of those who have been working in Japan. Here in the UK there has been 2 British deaths reported, both ex-pat workers. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

One US citizen death was reported on the news last night. Corvus cornix_talk 17:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Australian government has declared that all Australians who they were aware of being in the danger area have been accounted for. HiLo48 (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I found a report of two Filipino deaths[1] but can't find a story on any UK ones. Rmhermen (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

My bad. I tried to find the BBC report I remembered seeing last weekend, but couldn't find it, only a reference to the number of UK casualties being unknown. Either the story's been pulled, or I misinterpreted a report. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Go back to ... (China, Africa, Whatever)?

What kind of people hear that most? People who look foreigner or those who speak with a foreign accent? Quest09 (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"Go back to Africa": certainly, you only hear that if you are black. "Go back to China": all that look oriental, including Korean and Japanese could hear that. No, also not accent related. In Germany, also not accent related, I also heard the "go live in Turkey if you don't like it here" applied to an Arab. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The "if you don't like it here" part is interesting. There is plain old xenophobia, where people just don't like foreigners, which seems rather irrational, then's there's the objection to foreigners who then want to change the new land to be the same as where they came from. This is certain to cause resentment from natives, for quite rational reasons, and does bring up the question: "Why did you leave your homeland, if you prefer everything the way it was there ?". StuRat (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes, that's a change for better. A Canadian living in the US could claim their health system is better, and that the US should catch up. An American living in Cuba could demand a right to free speech. (although it might not be very wise). Quest09 (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

But doesn't it seem rather stupid of an American to move to Cuba and then complain about lack of free speech ? Why not just stay where he had it ? StuRat (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This quickly got off topic, but there are good and bad things about every place, and people like to think the grass is always greener, so the above behavior isn't unheard of — Lee Harvey Oswald defected to the Soviet Union, which made front page news in some places, since he was an ex-Marine; but then moved back, unfortunately, when he decided he didn't like it there. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In Charleston, SC, there is a rather popular "Go back to Ohio" organization. The local minor league baseball team has even had "Go back to Ohio" nights. Mostly, you just see bumper stickers and an occasional ad in a local free paper. -- kainaw™ 19:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In Australia there is a low level debate about changing our flag. There is a class of people known as Bogans, who tend to drive overly large four wheel drive vehicles with lots of stickers, including one showing the current flag, and saying "If you don't love it, leave." On a more international level, I have to ask, has "Yankee go home" faded from popularity? HiLo48 (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Heh. I recently had a debate with a UK-based editor about British imperalism. His position was that if I had any objections, I should leave Australia. But I would not be welcome in his country. I'm still wondering where exactly it is I should be migrating to. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Not surprisingly, some of my Aboriginal friends are among those who would like to see a new flag. I'm really not sure where in the world they are expected to go if they leave. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You would be welcome here, Jack. Drop me an email if you're coming, and I will buy you a cup of tea. But I take your point and HiLo's. No-one ever said that xenophobia had to be logical. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Judith, I'll hold you to that cuppa. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

LA as a place with beautiful buildings

I hardly thought as LA as a place with beautiful buildings. However, some (Hollywood) films challenged this assumption - (500) days of Summer and In Search of a Midnight Kiss, namely. How prevalent is worth-seeing architecture in LA? Quest09 (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The interior of the Bradbury Building is used frequently in movies. The Griffith Park Observatory is often used. There are actually quite a few unusual buildings in the LA area. Corvus cornix_talk 17:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

For buildings older than 50 years, National Register of Historic Places listings in Los Angeles County, California and National Register of Historic Places listings in Los Angeles, California have a good selection. There's a good amount of Googie architecture in LA too, but it's fair to say that much of the LA area is an architectural wasteland. A big exception is Pasadena (National Register of Historic Places listings in Pasadena, California, with the Bungalow Heaven and the Gamble House. The hills contain a lot of California Modern architecture, a topic that WP apparently lacks. There's also some novelty architecture. Acroterion (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Venice, California has some interesting architecture, as well as canals!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Oldest historic human

Who is the oldest person who we know really existed, for which we have a historic record ? I mean to exclude both unknown human bones we've dug up and "historical people" who may well be simply legends. StuRat (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Walter Breuning is currently the world's oldest, at 114 or so, and Jeanne Calment was the oldest verified, at 122. In the "see also" there are lists of the oldest verified. Obviously, Biblical tales about guys like Methuselah can't be independently verified. One legend is that Methuselah was the reason Midas got out of the medical field. They had lifetime guarantees on their hip replacements, and he came back for his free replacement so often that they went bust. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I see a clarification is needed:

I mean the dead person born the most years ago, like Moses or Abraham, or whoever we are certain really existed. I don't care how about the age they lived to be. StuRat (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

We've had questions like this before, I'm sure there was one recently...all I can find is a question about the earliest recorded event, but there must be others... Adam Bishop (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Here's a thread from 2008 answering this. In it, Sluzzelin in turn invoked a 2006 thread. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Almost precisely the 3 year anniversary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)King Tut and his fam lived around 1300 BC, in their condo made of stone-a. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, if you'd read any of the previous threads, or even had a small amount of knowledge about ancient history, you would see how blatantly wrong your answer is. In ancient Egypt, kings are known are known by their name (or rather, inscription/heraldry) back to 3000 BCE (i.e. Hor-Aha) or so, about 1500 years before the start of the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt, during which Tutankhamen reigned. Sumarrien kings as early as Enmebaragesi have been verified to actuctually have existed, more than 1000 years before Tutankhamen. Please supply references for your assertians, as you are less likely to give such absurdly wrong answers. Buddy431 (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you channeling Comet Tuttle today??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If you restricted yourself to answering questions you actually know something about, you wouldn't get snapped at like this. 87.114.246.141 (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Buggs' answer was intended to be taken seriously. It was pretty clearly an SNL reference.

APL (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was just starting to fish for information on the oldest, and King Tut was the first old guy that came to mind. There was discussion on the ref desk talk page the other day, that editors shouldn't take drive-by shots at other editors in front of the OP's, but rather should take such matters to the ref desk talk page, for example. I'm guessing Buddy, and for sure the IP-with-4-total-edits, didn't get that memo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggesting King Tut as the oldest known person is a gross error, and needed to be responded to here, so that people don't actually think that you have something worthwhile to say about this topic and believe your answer. I have posted my concerns on your talk page (because it's your issue, not the reference desk's), and you've made it disappear. If you don't want to discuss this there, where would you like to discuss it? I don't think the reference desk talk page is the best place (more drama than I like), but if you'd prefer, we could hash it out there. My talk page would also be acceptable, if you'd like to drop me a note. This answering with answers-pulled-out-of-your-butt business needs to stop. Buddy431 (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've had quite enough of your personal attacks tonight. I expect it from certain others, but I had thought you were above that sort of thing. Until now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, you really haven't answered the OP's question. Since you're the freakin' expert, what is the oldest confirmed named person whose body or mummy has actually been located? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't care when I thought it was more of your trademarked deadpan humor, but I have to agree that just presenting some random name you thought of off the top of your head, without indicating that's what you're doing is very misleading.

It's clear that you didn't even glance at the article to confirm your guess. (The infobox clearly indicates predecessors.) APL (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It's clear that you enjoy making personal attacks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I had a feeling there was an even more recent discussion on this, and here it is: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2010_June_13#First_Notable_Person. It seems Sumerian kings are good candidates. Jørgen (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Alulim is recorded as ruling somewhere around 275,000BC, though chances are that date is entirely wrong, and even if he ruled only in 4700BC or whenever, there is no direct evidence he certainly existed. Archaeologists have tentatively identified certain graves in Egypt with the earliest known kings there, c3200BC, based on ancient inscriptions amongst the things buried with them. From there on, there is just no one point where it becomes clear that one person was exactly who they think he was, whilst the previous was possibly not. Then again, there is a theoretical possibility the entire universe was created at some impossible to determine point in the recent past, in such a way that it only seemed to have been around much longer. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The earliest ruler on the Sumerian king list whose name is attested directly from archaeology isEnmebaragesi.--Wetman (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Who is the earliest named human whose body has actually been found? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That could be tricky, because we don't necessarily know that an occupied tomb contains the body of the person named on the tomb. In the cases of saints, for example, there was a medieval industry at producing fake body parts and selling them to churches. Similar pressures could have led to providing fake bodies (real bodies, but not belonging to the person in question) for other historic characters, both real and fictional. StuRat (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Our articles on Djedkare Isesi and Neferefre say (with sources) that their remains have been found. The oldest article in Category:Ancient Egyptian mummies is Qar (doctor). The article on Sanakht, who is older than any of these, says human remains were found in a tomb bearing his name. Hut 8.5 16:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Supply of lawyers deliberately restricted

Lawyers are very expensive, but only a minority of people who hope to have careers as lawyers succeed. Particularly regarding barristers in the UK.

Is there any evidence that the supply of lawyers has been deliberately restricted by the profession so that their fees are kept high? The normal economic rules of supply and demand do not appear to be working. Thanks 92.15.23.133 (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes definitely. I can't speak directly to the situation in the U.K., but in the U.S. there's tremendous barriers to entry that keep the profession smaller than it otherwise would be. Prohibitions against unlicensed practice of law, law school cost and requirement, bar exams, bar fees, and conflict of interest ethical rules all work to increase the demand/reduce supply of legal services. I'm not saying those things aren't necessary to some degree, but they do increase prices.

Are you sure about this? I was amazed at the pages and pages of lawyers listed in the yellow pages of a major US city (maybe 60 or more pages!). Far more than I would expect in a similarly sized European city (perhaps 10-15 pages). Incidentally, I noticed the same thing with the doctors listings as well. Astronaut (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're interested, the ethical rules about conflicts of interest as barriers to entry are the subject of some scholarly debate.

On the flip side, it's expensive to be a lawyer (also for those things). Law school, malpractice insurance, time spent dealing with non-billable matters, long hours, lack of flexibility particularly for those in litigation practices... it's not a free lunch for anybody unfortunately. Shadowjams (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

US lawyers I have discussed this with say there is a vast oversupply of lawyers rather than a "deliberate shortage" of lawyers. Law firms have no work to support the flood of applicants, and a new lawyer is likely to starve if he just opens an office as a sole practitioner, even if his prices are way under those of established firms. The new sole practitioner can't keep cutting his rates without limit, since he typically has a huge student loan debt to pay each month, as well as fixed very high cost for malpractice insurance. In large law firms, new associates slave away for several years to achieve ridiculously high totals for hours billed, in hopes of being one of the few who make partner and can then profit from the labor of new associates, while most get turned out and have to scrabble for continued employment or start their own firms or partnerships. Being in-house counsel for a business, or corporate council for a government unit, or a prosecutor or public defender are other career routes. One thing that helps the new lawyer in a storefront office is that the old need for shelves full of all sorts of lawbooks is greatly decreased by the ability to do legal research online from a PC (even though the subscription costs are high for the databases). Law schools keep cranking out fresh crops of lawyers, with many graduates unable to find employment practicing law. Here are refs on the US oversupply of lawyers:[2], [3], [4]. As for the UK, here is a news item discussing the oversupply there, where graduates are likely to have to work as paralegals: [5]. All in all. new graduates in the US or the UK will have a hard time paying off the loans most took out to pay for their legal schooling. A very fortunate few got scholarships to pay for law school, or had rich parents who just wrote checks. Edison (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking Account

Is there any reason why a person can not get a checking account (i.e. bad credit)?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In the US, bad credit is the most common reason for banks denying someone a checking account; they think that a past history of poor money decisions makes it more likely the applicant will overdraw their account. A US bank or credit union would also turn down an application in which the person didn't have a government-issued photo ID or Social Security Number. (Here's a short article about the requirements to open an account at most places.) The services of credit unions, which are nonprofits, are cheaper than banks', and their requirements are possibly looser. PS: The applicant needs to be 18 years old or more in the US. Some banks have special "student" checking accounts for people aged 16 and up, but these accounts all need an adult co-signer who promises to be financially responsible in cases of overdrafts. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

To add some detail to what Comet said... a primary reporter for depository institution is Chex Systems, which works much like the credit bureaus but with depository accounts. And yes, they do deny people accounts, although that's a bank-by-bank decision. Shadowjams (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In the UK, there are current accounts for children that don't allow you to become overdrawn (they simply won't let you withdraw more than you have), and often come with a debit card. You generally need a parent or guardian to cosign, but there's no question of them becoming responsible for your overdraft, because you can't get one. Is there no equivalent in the US? 212.183.128.73 (talk) 10:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but they don't come with checks. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

OT: In Australia, fewer and fewer people have cheque (= checking) accounts because the numbers of businesses that accept cheques for payment have dwindled to the point that they're very much the exception rather than the rule now. It's so much easier to swipe a card; and even if that overdraws a credit account, that's a matter between you and your bank, not you and the vendor. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Same here in USA. The only thing I ever use my checkbook for is a particular monthly bill that has to be paid the old-fashioned way. Many people don't bother. APL (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Isn't a Checking Account what is known in the UK as a Current Account (typically the account into which your wages or benefits are paid and from which ATM withdrawals and Direct Debits are taken)? It probably doesn't matter whether you actually use a cheque/check book. --Frumpo (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Added missing "close small" code after Frumpo's sig to prevent effect on following posts. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.155 (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

german-monaechy related

what happened to Luise of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel 13 other brothers & sisters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Routson (talk • contribs) 23:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Both articles on her parents Antoinette and Ferdinand Albert list her (twelve) siblings, six of which have their own article: Charles I, Elisabeth Christine, Louis Ernest, Ferdinand, Sophie Antoinette, and Juliana Maria. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

March 23

political violence in middle east vs. geopolitics of oil

How does political violence in Middle East relate to the geopolitics of oil? Is there website where I can read how political violence in Middle East is related to the geopolitics of oil? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.103 (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Resource curse may be relevant. Ariel. (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a heavily biased and propagandistic article (by the left-wing Center for Research on Globalization) related to political violence and oil, but still worth looking at to know what different people think about the geopolitics of oil. Frankly speaking, most of the claims that political violence and oil are interrelated are inaccurate and pseudoscientific views. --Reference Desker (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You may well be right, Reference Desker, but since equally you may not be, such a sweeping claim could use some corroboration. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230 195} 90.201.110.155 (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

factors of Chechnya conflict

What are the central factors of the conflict of Chechnya? What are the causes of it? Is there a website where I can read about it? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.103 (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can read Chechen War, Chechnya, and so on, or if you'd like a more poetic account, s:The Captive in the Caucasus, etc. Wnt (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

More specifically Origins of the war in Chechnya, Historical basis of the Second Chechen War and Prelude to the Second Chechen War. --Reference Desker (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

And this. --Reference Desker (talk) 04:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Resentment by many Muslim Caucasus nationalities towards Russian rule goes back to the 19th-century Czarist wars (see Imam Shamil etc.). In the post-Soviet period, the Chechens really have not always been wise in the measures they have chosen to express or further their autonomist or independentist grievances or aspirations -- in the early 1990's, they seemed to take no care as to whether they were provoking a national government which (though less powerful than formerly) still had far more military might than they did, and was under a leadership that was determined to halt the decline and stave off any further territorial fragmentation; while by the end of the 1990s, they were fully embracing the international Wahhabi and/or Taliban and/or al-Qaeda jihad, and launched the aggressive Invasion of Dagestan for the purpose of bringing it under Islamic extremist rule... AnonMoos (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Profitability of early whaling? (Nantucket, sailing era)

I'm working my way through Moby Dick and have begun to wonder about the profitability of early whaling. According to Melville, ships hunting sperm whales were often gone for 2 to 3 years at a stretch, sometimes even four. Assuming a successful voyage with a full cargo of oil and spermaceti, what kind of profit would a ship like that make back in those times? Was this a lucrative business for all involved? for just the ship financiers? The Masked Booby (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

In the days before kerosene, whale oil was the only lighting oil acceptable in a great number of upper-class and middle-class households; whalebone was the greatly preferred "boning" for women's corsets, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Whale oil stood between beeswax candles (for the rich) and beef tallow candles (for the poor) in the early 19th century, and the advent of kerosene or "coal oil" in the mid 19th century. Whale oil was highly desired. Considerations were the cost per unit of illumination, and the amount of soot produced. In the later 19th century, gaslight superseded various oil lights, and in turn was superseded by electric light. Edison (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Isolating on one particular ship, it would certainly not seem very efficient. But is it reasonable to assume that overall there were whaling ships frequently heading to sea while other whaling ships were coming back into port with their cargo? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a whole chapter about profit in this book about American whaling 1816-1906. It's a bit too much for me to make sense of just skimming (and surprisingly complicated—trying to determine true profits in a meaningful way). There's a sort of conclusion on page 457. Apparently profits were "persistently high" from 1817 to the late 1830s, after which "the market moved toward equilibrium" and "a more fundamental downward adjustment...in the late 1850s", then an uptick during the Civil War, followed by a "contraction" of the industry, but "profit rates held up". And finally, "Overall, profit rates seem to have been somewhat higher than returns in other comparable industries..." Of course all of this is about profits for the investors, not the crews. There's another chapter called "Labor" about crew wages. Again, it's complicated. Try starting around page 175 if you want to see how complicated. The book compares wages of various crew positions between whaling and the merchant marine. Apparently whaling officers earned on average "roughly twice as much as those on merchantmen", and captains about three times as much. Wages for ordinary seamen seem to have been lower in whaling than in the merchant service—about a third or a quarter less on average. Then again, the comparison might not be fair. Whaling crews were much more "ethnically diverse", with people of many nationalities, especially Polynesians. Many of these people would not have been able to get work in the US merchant marine. There would be differences in the reason why one would join a whaling crew in the first place, and different expectations and desired outcomes of a voyage. The chapter goes on to explore these kind of issues in great detail. ...Anyway, this book is dense with information on this topic. Very dense! Seems very well researched though. Pfly (talk) 06:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Two Years Before the Mast concerns a ship trading hides rather than sperm oil, but is also of interest. The conditions on board ship, as with those of the tea clippers, were very bad. 92.15.14.45 (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

WP has a great number of articles on whaling: history of whaling and whaling in the United States are particularly extensive; reference is made to economics and large profits, but no figure. Whale oil and baleen ("whalebone") were important commodities. Gwinva (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This Windjammer#The_crews.2C_pay_and_discipline is about conditions on board other sailing ships. The Last Grain Race, a memoir by Eric Newby, shows that condition of the crew on sailing ships were still very bad even in the 1930s. Very bad conditions for the crew on sailing ships seems to have a long history: I recall that crews were delighted to join pirate ships because the conditions were so much better. 92.28.242.170 (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Privileges and Immunities Clause and Public Education

The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article Four of the United States Constitution states that "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

The Texas state government, along with many other U.S. states, operates a public post-secondary education system, in Texas' case the University of Texas System. Admission to University of Texas schools for United States citizens who are not residents of Texas is very difficult; I believe I have read elsewhere that only 10% of students at UT Austin are not Texas residents, and that is a deliberate decision on the part of Texas' legislature.

To me, post-secondary education is a "privilege" given to a citizen of the state of Texas, provided that the citizen can meet the normal entry requirements. Why is it that public universities can discriminate by state of residence in accepting students? NW (Talk) 06:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There's two closely related P-I clauses: The Privileges and immunities clause and the Privileges or Immunities Clause. If you find the text deviating from the Supreme Court's historic interpretation of it, welcome to Constitutional jurisprudence. I took a brief look at our P&I article and it references the Slaughter House Cases... and while I haven't looked into it beyond that brief glance, I worry that it may be confusing the 14th amendment clause and the article 4 one you're talking about.

Specific to your question, there are two cases you should look at: Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper and Vlandis v. Kline (1973) 412 U.S. 441 (neither of which we apparently have articles for. P&I has a very narrow scope for 2 primary reasons: it only applies to a narrow subset of "fundamental" citizenship rights... and it is also restricted to "citizens", which is a much narrower subset than individuals, and much narrower still than persons. Shadowjams (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at those two cases, thanks. NW (Talk) 17:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I realize that my answer's pretty bad... I don't think Kline ever addresses Article 4 directly. However I know there's a line of cases on this. I just don't have the resources to find it at the moment. Perhaps someone else can point you to the case I'm thinking of but can't find. Shadowjams (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Privileges and Immunities Clause notwithstanding, I think the reason for this is driven by basic finance rather than trying to extend a "privilege" to Texas residents. Most (if not all?) state universities in the US are funded in large part by taxes paid by the residents of that state. Residents therefore typically pay one rate of tuition, while non-residents pay a higher rate to account for the fact that the non-residents have not contributed via taxes. In this situation, you're going to naturally find a higher percentage of in-state residents, since it is cheaper for them to attend their own state's university than it would be to attend a public university in another state (or to attend a private university). Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that where article 4 would come in, would be if a state university barred other states' citizens altogether. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

@OSS: And that makes total sense to me. I was just wondering how that could be constitutionally justified.

@BB: Actually, some schools do that, the University of Massachusetts School of Medicine for example. NW (Talk) 17:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

See [6] for an intro to the topic. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC) As Shadowjams said, the Supreme Court's interpretation is that the Privliges or Immunities clause only applies to fundamental rights, so it probably wouldn't apply to higher education (It may be worth noting that the term privlige has a diferent sort of meaning in this context than its every day meaning.) It sounds to me like it would be better to look at the issue from the perspective of the Equal Protection clause, but under rational basis review, it seems like the policy would pass constitutional muster. Rabuve (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

help me to get information/contacts for my research based on old woollen trade of Kullu(H.P.)INDIA,especially in British period

Respected sir/mam
i am presently working as a asstt. prof.in government college Banjar distt. Kullu and doing work on the origin of Kullu Handloom shawls and old time woollen trade of Himachal Pradesh with other provincial states especialy during British period.In this topic i find many new findings like how the world famous Kullu shawls came in to being,its connection with Kinnauri Handloom,wich was connected with British trade and interest,opening of new trade roots etc.

Sir,here i want to mention this is the first work ever made on handloom of Kullu shawls and i have compeleted my M.Phil from H P Uiversity Shimla (INDIA).Now i want to do some more hard work but i have no knowledge how to contact any university in England for grant and authentic (contemprary) information/evidence for my reseach.

kindly suggest me. I shall be highly thankful to you for your this act of kindness.

Your's Faithfuly
J.C.Chauhan
e mail add (removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.239.0.2 (talk) 07:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Question reformatted for readability, and email removed for privacy AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

As you probably know, the records of the East India Company and the India Office (India's government under British rule) are housed at the British Library. Obtaining funding for a period of research in the UK will be difficult, but probably not impossible. Competition for funding is likely to be stiff. My recommendation (and some years ago, I obtained funding from a foreign foundation for doctoral research in another country) would be to establish a relationship with a low- level or mid-level academic in the United Kingdom, such as a reader, senior lecturer, or lecturer. (Academics of higher ranks will be too busy and/or important to be likely to take an interest in an unknown foreign student). You should contact several British historians working on 19th-century Indian history, and preferably economic history, so that they share intellectual interests with you. A good way to find such people would be to find British authors of recent publications on your area of history. Your university librarian should be able to help you with this. Once you have a "sponsor", that person can help you identify funding opportunities. One possible source of funding might be the Arts and Humanities Research Council. See, for example, this article. However, you will increase your chances of success by connecting with an insider. Marco polo (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That's useful advice, and I think you should definitely email the office of the UK Research Councils in India. You can find the address from their website. Explain that you have a project idea in economic history, relating to global links in textile production, and that the research will be much more effective if it is carried out from the Indian and the British directions, using archives in both countries. Ask them if they can help with partner search. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to add to the above, you may wish to contact universities in areas with historic links to Indian textiles: Paisley (shawls), Dundee (jute), Bradford and Manchester come to mind. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

British peerage

May I know what is the correct title for Charles Edward Stuart, Count Roehenstart?

Burke's Peerage says "...more commonly known as Charles Edward Stuart, Count de Roehenstart"; The Complete Peerage says "Charles Edward Stuart was styled as Count Roehenstart, self-styled" and then, there is a book entitled, "The pedigree of Charles Edward Stuart, Count of Roehenstart".

Please advise on what the correct way to write his name is. Thanks, Bejinhan talks 10:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, he doesn't appear to have had any titles in the peerages of England, Scotland or Great Britain, and there does not seem to be any reliable source for him actually being a count in anything other than his own estimation. As a bastard son of a bastard daughter it's unlikely he would have inherited any titles, and nobody seems to know who is meant to have created him a count. DuncanHill (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no such title as "count" in the British peerage. Marnanel (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Was he a musician or entertainer? Maybe his nobility was like that of King Oliver, Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Lady Day, and The Duke of Paducah i.e. a title bestowed by his admirers which he was proud to use for promotional purposes. Edison (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Merely clicking on the link that the OP helpfully provided, Edison, would have revealed to you exactly who he was and why he styled himself with a title. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.155 (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful tip, 90. (Or should I call you 87?). Edison (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You can call me what you like, as long as you don't call me late for dinner :-) . {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.155 (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the replies. I have amended the DYK hook about Charles Edward Stuart. Bejinhan talks 10:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Abused abuser?

Is there a general rule of abused persons turning into abusers? Popular wisdom do points to the direction that sexual abusers were sexually abused. Is there any study about this? And what about other types of abuse, like workplace mobber being a mobbing victim? Wikiweek (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

What's a "mobber" ? As for childhood abuse, this is just a special case of people growing up to treat people as they were treated as children. If children are treated well, they tend to to do the same to others later. There are, of course, many exceptions, in both directions. StuRat (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Mobbing is (essentially) another word for bullying. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought a mobber was a bully (like in Danish, see: [7]). Although, in English a mobber seems to be an uncommon word for someone engaged in mobbing. Wikiweek (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

In American English, "mobbing" has a very different connotation, apparently, than British English (?), or languages which use it as a loan word. In American English, anything relating to "mob" in any form is associated with crowds and rioting, whereas bullying is a much more one-on-one sort of affair. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Also see Psychological resilience. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

There is surely a large body of research on this topic. For starters, see the references for domestic violence here: Domestic_violence#Social_theories. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I went to a lecture about this at the Centre for Child Mental Health in London a few years ago. The lecture was primarily about sexually abused children going on to become sexual abusers. There had only been one significant study, and that only on boys. While boys who had been sexually abused were more likely than the general population to go on to become sexual abusers, the large majority did not go on to commit abuse. Unfortunatley I do not still have the notes I took at the time. DuncanHill (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Might it be a case of skewed or anecdotal perception (I forget the technical term) in the news; where an abuser's past is mentioned only when they were an abuse victim also? And that those who were abused and don't commit crimes, don't get into the news? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and it's very easy for an abuser to try to elicit some sympathy (or a lighter sentence) by claiming to be a victim themself. The study in the lecture had followed a cohort of abused boys through their lives over about twenty years, pulling together social services, medical, and police reports. DuncanHill (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent point. If I stop and think about it, I can recall a number of folks who had abusive childhoods, and some of them turned out well and some didn't. Is it the "nature vs. nurture" situation? Is it maybe more a matter of "the stuff you're made of", as to whether you can overcome childhood traumas of one kind or another? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's extremely complex. A person may have had a mainly positive childhood, with one or two incidents of abuse, or at the other end of the scale may have been raised in a profoundly negative environment, where abusive behaviours were normalised - and there's every combination in between. There's also the question of what support the person had once abuse was disclosed, did they have a network of friends and supportive positive adults, or were they ignored, disbelieved, or indeed had they been removed from one abusive setting and placed in another by those supposed to protect them? Was the sexual abuse combined with other forms of abuse and neglect? The environmental side of the question is infinitely complex. Nature and nurture are in an ever-changing, never-ending embrace, each playing off the other. DuncanHill (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've looked at this research, but if I remember right the whole 'cycle of violence' theory is very weak. There's some evidence that violent people are more likely to have suffered abuse as children, but there's no real evidence that people who suffer abuse as children are more likely to be violent as adults. It's also really a misapplication of the original theoretical position, which was that people exposed to violent social environments as children tended to adopt violent ways (e.g. someone who grew up in Gaza or the Sudan or Somalia is much more likely to have a worldview in which acts of violence against others are considered normal and acceptable than someone who grows up in a US suburb). --Ludwigs2 02:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

funding of professional sports facilities

Here in the US, whenever a professional sports team wants a new stadium, they get the city and state to pony up a significant portion of the funds (despite the fact that the team is privately owned). Is the same true in other nations? Googlemeister (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes in the UK - Ricoh Arena, Coventry is one such, but then there's the Emirates Stadium home of Arsenal Football Club which took no public money. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Matt Deres (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

In most European countries, the municipality also indirectly contributes large amounts of money by expanding the infrastructure and improving the area, as part of their duty to provide public services. And because they do profit from a successful sporting arena, of course. I don't know whether that's what you meant by "ponying up", but to give you one example, the City of Munich spent €210 million, almost as much as the entire construction costs, on improving the surroundings of the Allianz Arena. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems that Wembley Stadium is privately owned, but its funding appears to have come from a mixture of private and public funds. That seems to be the trend in American sports. Is Wembley a good example for Europe, or is it a poor example? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to quote Wembley as an example of anything other than public ineptitude! --TammyMoet (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently after a fair bit of research, the team itself does not often own their stadium. Googlemeister (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

In the US, at least, stadium construction seems to be a common scam. That is, they get the taxpayers to foot the bill and take the risk (of the sports team leaving, for example), while private owners get to keep all the profits (say from charging more for tickets to this shiny new stadium). So, essentially, those private owners just take the taxpayers' money and keep it. How can such a scam work ? Well, the owners often give contributions to the politicians, to get them on their side, and promise the public huge benefits in increased tourism, etc. However, those benefits rarely develop. People just switch from the now abandoned, old, nearby stadium to the new one, without there being much, if any, net increase in the tax base. If all else fails, the private owners can threaten to move the sports team away, if they don't get what they want (yet they rarely sign a legally binding contract to keep them there for long, if they do get their new stadium). So, is this scam also used elsewhere ? StuRat (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Also note that this scam applies to other major construction projects, too. In Detroit, they are trying to convince taxpayers to build a new bridge to Canada, despite a falling population and an existing bridge and tunnel. (The justification appears to be the delays in crossing the border, but these are due to insufficient customs workers and increased security, and a new bridge won't address those.) StuRat (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

A difference between American and Europe is that European sports are kind of set up differently. There are more than 90 pro soccer teams in England alone, so every English city of any size already has one. Franchise relocation is therefore very uncommon. When the soccer team in Wimbledon, London moved 50 miles away to Milton Keynes, it caused a huge uproar not only in London but throughout the country. That said, it seems strange that European sports teams can get any kind of government support at all for stadium projects, as they can't threaten to leave town if they don't get a new building. It's interesting to me that there are so many stadiums in Europe. London has 13 pro soccer teams, each with its own stadium. Plus it has Wembley, the rugby stadium in Twickenham and two major cricket stadiums. The New York area has only one football stadium of any size, two baseball stadiums (not including little minor league parks) and a new soccer stadium out in Jersey. If something happened to the Meadowlands like with the Metrodome last year, the Giants and Jets would have to play in another city or try to cram a football field into Yankee Stadium like they did for a couple of college games last year. When the Giants lost their stadium in the 70s, they had to play two years at the Yale Bowl 66 miles away in Connecticut. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I always come back to the same question: If a new stadium is as good of an investment as the proponents claim, then why can't they find private investors to foot the entire bill ? StuRat (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the perceived benifits to a local community are a greater incentive than actual cash return on investment. Just a guess though. Alansplodge (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

King's Speech Wave

In the final scene of The King's Speech where the royals are waving, is there a proper name for the type of wave they are doing, if any at all? - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 20:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Urban Dictionary calls it a "parade wave",[8] well known for use by the Royals, but used by anyone in a parade (such as a homecoming king or queen, or a grand marshall) who have to wave at the crowd for a long stretch of time. Presumably it's less tiring than the "standard" wave, which involves more of the arm. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Haven't seen the scene, but it's probably the "royal wave" [9], [10] Gwinva (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's the real King and Queen on VE Day. The Queen does the "royal wave" but the King does an altogether more elaborate affair. Is this how it is done in the film? It may be based on the Royal Navy's "three cheers" when caps are flourished in circles (the Canadians do it too!). Alansplodge (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

wedding cake impression

Resolved

I need help on something. I want to do a handmade stuffed wedding cake. Here are the dimensions; Tier #1 is 10 1/4" diameter, 42" circumference, 4" height. Tier #2 is 7 1/2" diameter, 34" circumference, 4" height. Tier #3 is 5 3/4" diameter, 19" circumference, 4" height. How many yards of fabric should be used?24.90.204.234 (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Eh? Fabric? Why would you need fabric? Looie496 (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It being handmade, he must be fabricating it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

OP, what do you mean by; "handmade stuffed wedding cake"? And the fabric? Does "impression" mean it is a prop for a stage? MacOfJesus (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If it is a prop, then go to a Jumble Sale and buy all the old clauth you can find and cut off what is not needed. If you make it too well you will have trouble with people trying to eat it! MacOfJesus (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't buy that! The "wedding cake" won't be real. Yes, it's an impression. It's bound to be a part of the permanent collection of a museum I'm trying to establish. I'm trying to figure out how many yards of fabric I should purchase. I already gave the dimensions.24.90.204.234 (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Your diameters and circumferii (sp?) don't seem to match. C = πD can be used, with π approximated as 3.14:

10.25 × 3.14 = 32.185 (not 42)
 7.5  × 3.14 = 23.55  (not 34)
 5.75 × 3.14 = 18.055 (not 19)

So, which is correct, the diameters or the circumferii? StuRat (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

We also need to know the construction details. I assume that fabric is needed on the top and sides of each tier, but not on the bottom. Where one tier sits on another, should there be fabric there? Also, do you want to know the actual amount of fabric used in the final product, or the amount you must buy, considering that some will be wasted. We also need to know the width of a bolt of fabric to do that last calculation. StuRat (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Math Desk would have been a better place for this Q. StuRat (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Circumferences? --ColinFine (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I see how StuRat got there. Radii is the plural of radius, circumferii is the plural of circumferius. 81.131.38.181 (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Now we know that this is meant as a high quality prop, then the thickness of the fabric you have in mind is also a necessary ingredient. You will get better responses on the Mathematical Reference Desk. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Why ? We only need the surface area, not the volume. StuRat (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Using StuRat's figures, by my rough calculations, you need around 21.25" of 44" cloth assuming you need only the top surface of each tier; you need roughly 28" of 44" cloth if you need top & bottom surfaces. (Assume you need a 0.5" extra border on all cloths to sew together. You can get your three circles of 11.25", 8.5" & 6.75" comfortably out of a 44" bolt using just 11.25" of it. Your sides are rectangles of about 32", 23" & 18" by 5" ... you need two 5" lengths to get this out of a 44" bolt. You have a reasonable amount of left-over cloth. Doubtless there's a configuration of shapes which needs slightly less than I've indicated. but we're looking at trivial amounts of cloth. -Tagishsimon (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I presume that the material/fabric will be used as a laired stuffing/filler for the "cake", not just to cover the outside of each cake? Hence, the volume of the inside of each cake is needed? MacOfJesus (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Surely easier to stuff with foam, possibly with cardboard top & bottom surfaces to prevent bulging. By my calcs that would be 610 cubic inches of stuffing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggested this earlier, but a high quality, permanent structure is envisaged. So the thickness of the material to be used is needed. Will a different material be used to cover the outside? MacOfJesus (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I just now realized I made some mistakes. The handmade stuffed wedding cake impression will have a dish. Here the correct dimensions; The dish is 13" diameter, 42" circumference, 3" height. Tier #1 is 10 1/4" diameter, 34" diameter, 4" height. Tier #2 is 7 1/2" diameter, 23" circumference, 4" height. Tier 3# is 5 3/4" diameter, 19" circumference, 4" height. I already know I'm going to purchase one yard of a different fabric for the dish. But I'm still trying to figure out how many yards I should purchase for all three tiers.24.90.204.234 (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, but we still need to know the construction details:

1) Do we only need fabric on the top and outside surfaces of each tier?

2) Do we need fabric on the portion of the top of a tier which is covered by the bottom of the next tier up? StuRat (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, only fabric is needed. I intend to do both the top, bottom, and outside surfaces of each tier.24.90.204.234 (talk) 05:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Are the tiers all resting on one another, or are they pillered from one another? Is each cake hollow? MacOfJesus (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

All of the tiers are resting on one another. Each cake will be stuffed.24.90.204.234 (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. One more thing; by yards of material, I presume you mean a square yard/s of material, or is the depth by meter? MacOfJesus (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The fabric I plan to purchase is 43" wide.24.90.204.234 (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Cake template: Not drawn to scale.

OK, now I have enough info to do some preliminary calcs:

Tier #1 is 10 1/4" diameter, 34" circumference, 4" height.

Tier #2 is 7 1/2" diameter, 23" circumference, 4" height.

Tier 3# is 5 3/4" diameter, 19" circumference, 4" height.

First, laying them out across the width of the bolt from the end, you can cut out both (large) tier 1 circles, both (medium) tier 2 circles, and one (small) tier 3 circle, for a width of 41.25 inches. Placing the other (small) tier 3 circle next to the first will give us a length, so far, of 11.5 inches. That covers the tops and bottoms.

Next we must address the sides. We can cut the (long) tier 1 side next to the largest circle, for a width of 34, stopping short of the second small circle. This gives us a width, so far, of 10.25 + 4 or 14.25 inches.

We can cut the (medium) tier 2 and (short) tier 3 sides, end to end, for a width of 42 inches. This adds 4 inches to 14.25 for a length of 18.25 inches. So, allowing a bit for margins, let's make that 20 inches. You might also want to allow extra for mistakes, though, that's up to you. And, how do you intend to make the seams? If you need overlapping fabric, then we need to account for that. (How much overlap do you need? 1/4 inch on both sides ?) StuRat (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Cake template #2: Not drawn to scale.

Here's an alternate template that allows greater margins (for seam overlap). It should be 22.25 inches long, without the seam allowance, or 24 inches (2 yards), with a fairly tight seam allowance of just under a quarter inch. StuRat (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to be using overlap fabric.24.90.204.234 (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

How do you plan to do the seams, then? Using a backing fabric? In either case, 2 yards should be enough. StuRat (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to make the cut circles face the diameter strip, turn the cakes right side out, then stuff them.24.90.204.234 (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, but how do you intend to attach the circles to the side strips? StuRat (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll sew them together.24.90.204.234 (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but how do you do that without overlapping fabric?

Seam with dual-overlapping fabric: 
  _________     
|\\                  
| \\                  
|
|
                
Seam with single overlapping fabric: 
  _________  
||          
||           
|           
|

They only other way I know of is by using a separate backing fabric. StuRat (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you not need a seam allowance (i.e. additional cloth) to enable the sewing? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll sew the tiers on top of one another. The "wedding cake" will then be sewn to the dish. Then I'll use sequin trim to hide the stitches.24.90.204.234 (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That still doesn't quite answer the question, unless you intend to sew the sides and circles from each tier to the sequin trim, instead of each other. StuRat (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Like I said before, I don't need overlapping fabric. The sequin trim won't be sewn to the sides or the circles.24.90.204.234 (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

So you intend to sew the edge of the circle directly to the edge of the side, with no overlapping fabric? You do realize that this will just lead to the fabric unraveling, don't you? StuRat (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I intend to sew the edge of the circle directly to the edge of the side, with no overlapping fabric. But don't worry, I have my sewing skills strategy to prevent unraveling.24.90.204.234 (talk) 05:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it a secret? Because I'd love to know how. StuRat (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I taught myself how to do it. When you put the needle in, make certain to go a tiny bit below a point where unraveling could happen. Now, let's get back to the fabric yardage. How many yards of fabric should I purchase?24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, 2 yards should do it. StuRat (talk) 07:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much.24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm going to mark this question resolved. You can unmark it, if you have follow-up questions. StuRat (talk) 07:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

March 24

When weight is paramount on airlines, why don't any of them sell tickets by body weight?

By the pound? (After all, every pound appears to matter nowadays.)

This would give more overweight passengers extra incentive to lose more weight.

As you'll see in this video, airlines are finding 6 ways from Sunday methods to save on fuel costs: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42220638#42109773

Why don't they consider selling tickets by passengers' individual weights the next step? --70.179.169.115 (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Obese people would accuse them of discrimination and they would face lawsuits all over the place. BurtAlert (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There are other products that are sold based on weight or girth. For example, XXL clothes often cost more. And airlines do charge extra if they determine that an extra seat is required. So, I don't think it would be illegal or they would lose lawsuits. However, many people would find being weighed by the airline to be humiliating, even those who aren't obese, and that's poor customer relations. Perhaps if they weighed you along with all your luggage, that would disguise your individual weight sufficiently to reduce embarrassment. And, of course, it's the total weight that the airline needs to know, anyway. It might spawn a market for lightweight luggage that looks incredibly heavy though (I've seen plastic luggage that looks like metal). StuRat (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As you're hinting, a few years ago Southwest Airlines drew some negative attention by compelling some passengers they considered excessively large to buy two tickets. I don't know if they still have that policy, or if other airlines do it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Googling [airlines obesity policy] turns up several airlines that do, in fact, have such policies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's take a rather standard plane like the Boeing 737. Let's say our plane carries 200 people. Let's say 50% of them are men, 50% are women. The average male weight in the US (according to Body weight) is around 190 lb, average female is around 160 lb. So our base average weight is 19,260 lbs — let's assume that is what the current price point of aircraft seats is optimized for. Now the questions seem to me to be: Is the deviation from the average going to be enough to be worth charging more (e.g. will it have a measurable effect on fuel consumption)? Will the deviations towards the lower end of the scale account for that (for there are people who are under the average as well)? If not, what is the difference, and what does that translate into in terms of real costs for fuel? My statistics juggling isn't up to these last tasks, but I suspect this could be done with some data in hand and some statistical knowledge. If the monetary loss is negligible, the customer dissatisfaction at being charged for being overweight is probably not worth it. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That's right, it would only result in more profit for the airline if either:

A) They use the change in pricing to hide a secret overall price increase.

B) They change consumer behavior, either by convincing people to lose weight or convincing lighter people fly more than heavy people.

And, of course, both of these would have to outweigh the profits lost by those people who would avoid flying on that airline due to the humiliation factor.StuRat (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, airlines use statistics to to make sure the plane will be safe up to a couple of standard errors above the average expected weight of the passengers. Since the number of passengers is reasonably big, it's extremely unlikely you'll get a sample that's enough of an outlier to make a difference. There are actually more problems with comfort than with weight - airline seats are optimized in the opposite direction, towards a minimum space allocation that an average sized adult can fit into with reasonable comfort, so large people cause discomfort both for themselves and the people they sit next to. Airlines would actually do better setting up separate sections of seats designed for particularly large and particularly small people, to balance out the comfort issues and maximize space allocation, but that would be an even worse public relations nightmare (I'm sorry ma'am, but we need to move you to the chubblet section, while your husband goes to that tiny persons' row; I'm sure you understand...) --Ludwigs2 01:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"This seat for compact models only." StuRat (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

How high is the humiliation factor compared to current arrangements whereby passengers regularly need to remove their shoes and belts, and empty out whatever's in their pockets, in order to get through security gates? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's different — that's equal for everyone. Depending on what's in your pockets, maybe, but that's under your control, and you know ahead of time. --Trovatore (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not an unheard-of notion; Bloomberg found one consultant who mentioned it as a possibility in this story, though it wasn't treated very seriously. Ludwigs2 above missed the point; this isn't about safety but because more weight means more fuel is needed to get the plane to the destination. As the consultant in that story states, all other freight is shipped with charges based on weight; the only reason humans aren't charged the same way is because of humiliation or distaste. I could see a crazy budget airline like RyanAir doing a test of weight-based pricing on a single route, and if they are able to eke out a sliver more profit than they do now, then other crazy budget airlines could maybe follow their lead. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Tuttle, statistically that makes no sense. The variance in weight of a single passenger is insignificant with respect to a 100,000lb aircraft, and the variability of the combined weight of 100-200 passengers is fairly small. Airlines might be bothered be the demonstrable increase in average weight of passengers (in the US, anyway), but no airline cuts its fuel margins that close to the wire. If this is anything at all, it is just a smokescreen for corporations angling for new avenues of profit. --Ludwigs2 07:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

But do we know this or are we just assuming it? I'm curious what the cost difference would be, in jet fuel, is for a long-haul flight if you have, say, a plane full of NBA players (Shaq clocks in at 325 lbs according to his page here), versus a plane full of schoolchildren. A Shaq plane (known as a Plane o' Shaqs in the trade) would be 65,000 lbs of passenger weight, compared to, I don't know, 16,000 lbs of schoolchildren? Does that 49,000 lbs make a significant difference in fuel efficiency in a flight from NYC to LAX? Obviously comparing polar opposites of the scale is not a way to make general policy, but if even that wouldn't matter much, then we know well enough to throw the general policy idea out the window. Knowing how much the most extreme case matters might give some benchmark into thinking about the more general case. All of this is separate, of course, from whether this is a good business idea or not. :-) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr.98: statistically speaking, getting a 'shaq plane' has a vanishingly small probability. total expected variation of a sample is the standard deviation times the square root of the sample size. 35lbs*sqrt(147) for a standard 727 gives an expected deviation of 425 pounds, meaning that the probability of getting more than a 1000 lb excess is less than 2% - getting the (roughly) 30000 lb excess you're implying above would be .00000000...%. even considering non-statistical factors - basketball and/or football teams all traveling together on a commercial flight, say - you'd still need maybe a dozen teams all flying together on the same airplane to make a noticeable impact (and for anything like that the teams would most likely charter a plane.) weight-safety statistics is a well-defined and frequently used tool - elevators, bridges, public buildings and skyscrapers are all designed to withstand the maximal expected weight of people and objects they are expected to hold - planes are no different, except that they have to add fuel considerations into the equations.

(a funny/scary story from san francisco: on the anniversary of the completion of the Golden Gate bridge, they closed the bridge to traffic and allowed people to walk across it. unfortunately, the politicians who did this were ignorant of engineering principles and sadly lacking in common sense; they did not realize that people en masse are far more dense than automobiles, or that allowing people to walk from both sides without traffic control would be likely to cause some confusion. and so they ended up with two solid walls of people from each end meeting in the middle of the bridge, unable to move further, while the bridge itself swayed and groaned under a load it was not designed to handle. They're just lucky it didn't collapse, plummeting thousands of people into the bay.) --Ludwigs2 15:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, that sounds a lot like an urban legend (actually, like the one where the local university library forgot to take into account the weight of the books). Our article says that 200,000 people walked across it during the opening festivities, with no mention of either a traffic jam or danger of collapse. I know you posted this mostly for humour, but can you provide a reference for your story? (And if it's a RS, maybe it should be added to the article). To be honest, I don't believe a word of it, but I've been wrong once or twice before... Matt Deres (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously it's not a likely thing — I didn't propose it as a likely thing! I proposed it as a thought experiment. I thought I was quite clear on that. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to point out that obesity is not the only factor that can make a person heavy. Some people are heavy not because they're obese but because they're tall. --Wrongfilter (talk) 08:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I recently took a couple of flights on Nature Air. They operate very small planes. They actually do have weight limits for passengers and their baggage, and they actually do weigh passengers and their baggage before issuing boarding passes and baggage claim checks. Their procedure is to weigh the baggage first, then ask the passenger to step onto the scale. That way, they are not weighing the passenger directly. However, I'm sure their computers can do the math. Marco polo (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Very small aircraft have load balancing concerns (sell large ones do too, it just takes a lot more to get there) so the weight of the person and of the luggage would need to be calculated separately if they are stored in separate parts of the aircraft if it is small. If would guess small here would mean 8 seats or so. Googlemeister (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I travelled a few times on a Loganair Britten-Norman Islander (8 passengers - 9 if you sit next to the pilot) and they weighed luggage and passengers separately and told everyone exactly where to sit on the plane, presumably for balance as you say. Mikenorton (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that all airlines have some passenger weight limit, as they can't just let a 500 lb person sit in a normal seat, it wouldn't work. StuRat (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

How about a reference on the Reference Desk? I am very disappointed that the last eight posts in this thread had no references, other than Matt Deres shooting down an urban legend; but instead consisted of just guesses and the application of logic, with no data, by non-pilots. Please, people, do not post if you don't have an answer or a significant advance toward one. A few minutes of googling yielded this thread, including references and actual math, in which it's calculated that on a Boeing 777, if jet fuel costs US$3 per gallon, it costs about 11 cents to fly 1 extra pound on a trip of 3300 nautical miles. (That's about the distance from Houston to Honolulu.) The extra cost for a passenger who is 10 pounds "overweight" over whatever number you choose is about a dollar. Another enterprising poster in the thread calculated that if all the passengers on their flights urinated before boarding the aircraft, the subtraction of a mere 4 ounces of weight from each passenger would save American Airlines some US$3.1 million annually (assuming 85% full planes, whereas the actual number these days is around 70%). Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking those up — very interesting. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

And what makes you think that none of those who responded are not pilots? Googlemeister (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Off topic question, but I'll answer: No pilot would have written any of the above answers. Pilots have a god complex and would have given a definitive answer immediately. Pilots would also be able to calculate this and would have just given a correct answer. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, most of your experience with pilots came from watching Top Gun. Googlemeister (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason is that the question of whether it would make economic sense for airlines to charge by the passenger pound simply doesn't come down to fuel calculations and standard deviations. That's rather missing the entire point (that people would refuse to fly on such a plane, on principal, and the airline would go under). I suppose, if there have been surveys about whether people would be willing to be weighed, then those links might be relevant. However, I doubt if this has been done, since common sense says that this idea "wouldn't fly". StuRat (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This was actually jokingly suggested by Air Asia X [11]. It caused comment some positive many (and usually more virulently) negative and eventually they just said they'd been misquoted [12] (as I said I think it was actually more of a joke that wasn't supposed to be reported seriously). As others have said a number of airlines will either deny boarding or require an extremely obese passenger to buy an extra seat as BB said a simple search will find them e.g. this North America oriented ref [13] or [14] [15] although you can also see from there that even that has caused controversy and legal issues. Having been on a plane where I was weighed (can't remember being required to sit anywhere but I think the weight ranges weren't that different) it's worth mentioning even in that case I still got a standard (reduced) luggage allowance and don't get charged extra due to your weight. (I'm not sure what happens if they find out they can't fly with all passengers and luggage, I expect it's rare. And possibly they have some unaccompanied luggage or other stuff they don't have to take anyway.) P.S. I suspect quite a number of people would be less annoyed by being weighed then being frisked or having to go thru a full body scan as happens in the US and seems to be expanding to the rest of the world. Nil Einne (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

They still allow unaccompanied luggage ? That's dangerous, as terrorists who don't want to blow themselves up are likely to send a bomb through that way, as in the Lockerbie bombing. StuRat (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean like with any cargo? But that reminds me of another point, if they really have nothing to leave behind I guess they may ask you to leave your luggage behind and bring it over on the next flight. Nil Einne (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That depends on what you mean by "other cargo". Largo cargo shipment usually go by cargo plane. Yes, there's a risk there, but at least a plane full of passengers isn't killed. StuRat (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK most large passenger planes usually do carry other cargo. According to [16] it's actually the majority of freight cargo to the US (that is carried by passenger airlines). This isn't really that surprising, when you consider many of the passengers airlines have got into trouble for colluding on the costs of air freight in a number of countries [17] [18]. No point colluding if people don't have a reason to use you. BTW, when I said unaccompanied luggage I actually meant to include all cargo but your answer doesn't seem to be thinking of this which is what confused me. Nil Einne (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

By "luggage" I meant suitcases and such, things normally carried by passengers. StuRat (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's why I'm still confused why you think this is of greater risk then any other cargo. Nil Einne (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's rather unusual behavior for somebody to choose to have their luggage fly on an airplane without them (with the exception of if the airport lost it and now needs to get it back to them). Therefore, in the US, at least, they don't allow unaccompanied luggage, since this raises a red flag (along with bombs having been planted in them in previous terrorist attacks). See the last paragraph here: [19]. StuRat (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to something else. You're referring to cases when someone doesn't board the plane. AFAIK in most countries and airlines the luggage will be taken off the plane in such cases since it is obviously an issue when someone was expected to board but didn't. In any case, I'm pretty sure this isn't what is normally meant when someone refers to unaccompanied luggage as it is quite different from someone sending the luggage via airfreight with a company possibly their airline offering to deliver it to the destination at some stage (but where there is no guarantee what plane it will end up on) which is what is usually meant by unaccompanied luggage. This often happens in cases where someone has excess luggage but wants to pay less and doesn't mind so much when it arrives. An as far as I know this is allowed in the US [20] [21] as with all cargo please provide a ref if you are going to continue to claim it isn't allowed. (It's perhaps less common with the US given their system of going by number of bags with the weight only limited by what's considered acceptable for a bag but I presume it's done nevertheless.) As I said earlier, there's no reason why unaccompanied luggage is more risky then the plenty of other cargo which I guess we all now agree is a lot that travels by passenger airplanes. Nil Einne (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

What I refer to is also called "unaccompanied luggage", as my link shows, and is considered more of a risk than accompanied luggage (since many terrorists aren't suicidal) and other cargo (since knowing just what plane it will be on and when to detonate it would be tricky). StuRat (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Your ref is referring to luggage left in airports so is somewhat of a moot point since we were never discussing luggage left in airports (or if we were then this discussion is even more confusing then I thought). Nil Einne (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That is not what I was talking about, no. As I said by the link, look at the LAST paragraph. StuRat (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry missed that part of both although I still wouldn't trust a ref that even refers to unattended luggage in airports (what everyone else calls it) as unaccompanied Nil Einne (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

As my final comment here, from my searches there doesn't seem to be any name for the luggage of a no-show perhaps because no one carries it any more. One of the concerns with such luggage appears to be unlike with real unaccompanied luggage i.e. that sent as unaccompanied luggage with airlines and destinations that allow it, it will have only received the security checks used for normal accompanied luggage which sometimes are less rigorous to those used for unaccompanied luggage (see for example [22] & [23] [24]). Or to put it a different way, it could be unaccompanied luggage but in most countries and airlines it isn't since it's taken off the plane before it can be considered such (calling it unaccompanied when the plane is still on the ground is a bit odd even if the passenger is MIA since you get into the issue of when it became unaccompanied) and part of the reason is because it may need to go thru more security checks before it's allowed as unaccompanied luggage. Of course as one of the refs note, accidents happen so some of it really does become unaccompanied luggage when the wrong bags are removed. Nil Einne (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

[25] suggests perhaps there is a ref on all unaccompanied luggage to the US although it is very recent 'From 9 November 2010' and the reasons and details are unclear from there. Note the ref suggests it's not a ban on unaccompanied luggage per se but simply 'restrictions on uplifting personal effects and household goods to and from the USA' which suggests to me these restrictions would apply for all cargo sent via passengers planes even those sent not as luggage. And perhaps if you were to say put a child's coffin in a suit case it would be allowed under TSA rules (whether an airline would allow it or not may be a different matter). Unless the TSA have a weird definition of 'personal effects' and 'household goods'... Nil Einne (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually while the coffin idea may work you need to meet other requirements [26]. (Note it's fairly obvious this relates to the recent Cargo planes bomb plot not the Pan Am Flight 103 even if the former appears to have involved new laser printers that weren't likely to have been considered 'household goods' or 'personal effects'.) However it does appear unaccompanied luggage will be fine provided you meet those requirements (including not transporting household good or personal effects). So if you are't from Yemen or Somalia and want to regularly transport say new laptops or new books or even new laser printers as unaccompanied to the luggage to the US you can do so provided you can convince an airline to do so for you (since you need to have a relationship anyway I guess it would be possible). Nil Einne (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Airlines are more concerned about the weight of a person's luggage than the weight of their bodies, which is why you get charged so much for heavy baggage and extra pieces. The uproar about fat people is more about volume and the comfort of passengers than safety on takeoff. If the pilot notices that every single person on board is the size of the incredible hulk, then they'll adjust their calculations for takeoff, but in a typical flight, the women cancel out the men and children cancel out the fatties and you get to your nice average weight range, I think it was something like 160lbs per occupied seat, though they may have adjusted it from when I worked at the airport, I remember my crew supervisors commenting about how the standards were from the 50s when people were slimmer whenever they saw a large person stressing the shocks.129.128.216.107 (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think airlines are more concerned about luggage weight, they just know they can weigh luggage without losing customers. StuRat (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see more than boycotts apply - an airline that discriminates against fat customers should be denied the opportunity to bid on slots at an airport, so as to ensure the availability of satisfactory flight options for all. Wnt (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Try saying that with a straight face when you are in the middle seat between 2 300 lb people. Googlemeister (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I recently saw one of those Air Crash Investigation or Seconds From Disaster shows on a documentary channel (sorry, can't remember exacly which episode of flight was the subject). In the crash featured in that episode, the aircraft failed to gain sufficient altitude and crashed into fields close to the airport. It stated the probable cause was the aircraft weight being higher than the maximum take-off weight. The investigation showed it was due to a number of factors including heavier than average passengers and a large amount of cargo. Apparently, airlines usually guess at something like 160lb per passenger, but the investigation showed the average passenger weight on that flight was somewhat higher. Added to that was the unusual seating pattern where almost everyone was seated in the last 20 rows to compensate for the heavy cargo load. Astronaut (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"Artificial countries"

Present-day Libya is composed of three very different regions which were only brought together by the Italian colonisation in the first half of the 20th century. As such, it is an "artificial" country, one created only by outside influence. Why then is there all of a sudden a clamour not to let Libya break up in two parts if Gaddafi doesn't fall?--Leptictidium (mt) 07:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Libya is actually quite a bit less artificial than a number of countries in sub-Saharan Africa, and allowing unlimited scope to irredentism and secessionism would lead to general chaos (which is why the Organization for African Unity / African Union is very insistent on Uti Possidetis). Anyway, a North African state without access to the Mediterranean (such as a Fezzan-only state) would be unviable and almost certain to fail. In my opinion, the world would be far better off if Saudi-Arabia were split into three parts (Hejaz-Haramein, Hasa-Dahna-Gulf, and Nejd-Wahhabistan), rather than Libya... AnonMoos (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

And then there's Iraq, where Kurdistan could break off in the North, and possibly also "Shiite-istan" (East) and "Sunni-istan" (West). I think the problem is that any such divisions are likely to involve border skirmishes, at the least, between these new countries and possibly with neighboring existing countries. Kurdistan, for example, has claims in Turkey and Iran. StuRat (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ethiopia seems to remain viable, despite its loss of access to the Red Sea due to the secession of Eritrea. Corvus cornix_talk 22:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The answer to the question is (as said above) that this is not a "sudden clamour" - it has been the policy for everyone to try to keep all African countries together, at any price, since at least the sixties. Presumably one thought that any adjustment of borders would lead to a chain reaction and civil wars in all the other "artificial" countries. Hence, we have seen some nasty wars to keep countries together like the Biafra War and Katanga war. Only in the last ten years or so has this been somewhat altered, with Eritrea and South Sudan. (Namibia is sort of different as it always was a "separate" entity from ZA). However, still note that while Somaliland and Puntland is somewhat stable (at least one of them, I think) and run as independent nations, nobody recognize them internationally, so there is still a clear preference for keeping "artificial" countries together. Jørgen (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Supposing that all the Kurdish portions of various countries were able to split off and form their own nation, Kurdistan or whatever, what would their economy be based on? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Oil. Jørgen (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a theme in Card's Hidden Empire where a plague in Africa allows political boundaries to be redrawn along tribal lines. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Agriculture has potential in its large pasture lands on the plateaus both in animal rearing (sheep) and cereals . It would have large oil and gas fields in the Iraqi and Iranian territories and mining (copper and chromium) in its Turkish area. Energy production from the dammed rivers would be a substantial export. Tourism could also be developed. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Computer discovery of two bishop checkmate?

I read this in the New Scientist mag about 2001. It had hitherto been thought impossible to checkmate in an endgame with a king and two bishops against a sole king. Then a computer found that a mate was possible with perfect play, indeed inevitable, but it took about 30 (or more) moves. I’m very vague on the details but I’m sure about a computer discovering a new mate. Can anyone throw light on this because there is nothing I can find in WP which tells this story? Myles325a (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Two bishop checkmate has been known for a long time - it didn't take a computer. See Pawnless chess endgame, Bishop and knight checkmate, and Two knights endgame for a couple of articles on this topic. I too have heard of a checkmate that was discovered by computer, so I did some searching and found http://www.gadycosteff.com/eg/eg96.pdf but I don't know if that's the one I (or you) heard about. Ariel. (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The article Tablebase surely is of interest regarding the question. Specifically, the section on Endgame Theory. Ariel has also pointed to the interesting article Pawnless chess endgame above. One case that could be what the OP was looking for is KBBKN (King and two Bishops against King and kNight, long thought to be a draw with perfect play, but has been shown to be a win for the stronger side most of the times).

For someone curious about this endgame, I just checked this site and the position White: Kb1,Ba4, Bg1; Black: Kf7, Nf8 (fen 5n2/5k2/8/8/B7/8/8/1K4B1), White to move, showed a checkmate exists in 66 moves (¡?). Pallida  Mors 20:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

interpretation of essays

is there any websites that interpret essays into simple sense in which I can understand? The essays are "The Geographical Pivot of History" by Halford Mackinder, "The Roosevelt Corollary" by Theodore Roosevelt, "Why Geopolitik?" by Karl Haushofer, "The Truman Doctrine" by Harry Truman, "The Sources of Soviet Conduct" by George F. Kennan, "Soviet Policy and World Politics" by Andrei Zhdanov, "The Brezhnev Doctrine" by Leonid Brezhnev, "The End of History" by Francis Fuyukuma, "The Clash of Civilizations?" by Samuel P. Huntington, "The Clash of Ignorance" by Edward W. Said, "The Pentagon's New Map" by Thomas P.M. Barnett, "The American Empire: The Burden" by Micheal Igntieff, "America, Right or Wrong" by Anatol Lieven, "The Coming Anarchy" by Robert D. Kaplan, "Reading Robert Kaplan's 'Coming Anarchy'" by Simon Dalby, "No Escape from Dependency: Looming Energy Crisis Overshadows Bush's Second Term" by Micheal T. Klare, "Oil and Blood: The Way to Take over the World" by Micheal Renner, "Canada in the 21st Century" by Jennifer M Welsh, "Letter to America" by Osama Bin Laden and "The clash of Barbarisms" by Gilbert Achar. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.107.196 (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

With essays like this, trying to find 'simple sense' interpretations is self-defeating. You will only find essays by people with strong opinions about the matters, and then you will have to read the essays and interpret them yourself anyway to figure out what those biases are.

more to the point - our information-lite world notwithstanding - you're doing yourself a disservice if you do stuff like this. The brain needs exercising just like muscles do. Yes, the first time few (or many) times you go into a gym it's painful and embarrassing how little you can lift, but over months you get stronger. Yes, interpreting essays like this is hard for someone who hasn't done a lot of it, and you're likely to be embarrassed by your efforts at it, but over time you get smarter about it. Trust me, by the time you're 30 (assuming you're a high-school kid with homework) you will be far, far happier with the results of the hours you'e spent thinking than with the results of the hours you might spend in the gym. --Ludwigs2 15:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are just learning English and find these essays very difficult, you can use them to improve your English. You will need some time, but read through each of them slowly. Identify words or phrases you don't understand. Look up the words in a dictionary. If you have trouble with phrases, you can type the phrases into Google, each surrounded with quotation marks, like this: "phrase you don't understand". See how the phrase has been used by others to learn what it means. When you have learned the words and phrases you didn't know, read the essay again. You should be able to understand the meaning this time. You might then read the essay a third time. Stop to take notes about the arguments in the essay or the point of view of the author. These notes will help you form your own interpretation of each essay. Learning to understand each essay will improve your knowledge of English, and the next essay will be a little easier to read. Marco polo (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

We have an article on the Truman Doctrine. We may have some other articles, too. Making sense of Osama might be tricky, though, if his thoughts are as random and crazy as Qaddafi. StuRat (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

At Trans Global Logistics UK - the leading International Vehicle Shipping Services in United Kingdom. Visit us at https://tglog.co.uk/ and reach out today to speak to one of our qualified team members who will walk you through every step of the shipping process

https://tglog.co.uk/

Why do you feel compelled to just say things you don't know anything about? Osama and Qaddafi have really essentially nothing in common in terms of their ideologies. Read the letter for yourself, it's not very long. You don't have to agree with him, of course, but the guy is fairly "rational" if you accept his axioms. Some of his axioms are loopy, to be sure, but they're not from Mars, like Qaddafi's. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"Loopy" is what I'm talking about. And I have heard his (translated) speeches, which tend to ramble and get off into weirdness, too. Same for Qaddafi. So what makes you assume I know nothing about it ? StuRat (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to get too far afield, but the craziness of Osama's writings seems to come from his love of Ibn Taymiyya, who wrote in enormously long ranting screeds of text that could bore a judge, complete with invectives towards everyone, especially sufis. Qaddafi is probably trying to sound somewhat crazy, like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad out in Iran- that's not all genuine. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

See "The Geographical Pivot of History", "The Sources of Soviet Conduct", "The End of History and the Last Man", "The Clash of Civilizations?", "The Pentagon's New Map", and "The Coming Anarchy". StuRat (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick question

House rental guarantor

I am soon to be paying the deposit on renting a house, well, sharing the rent with a few other people at the moment. Anyway, one of these future housemates keeps mentioning something about a garanteur or garuanteor or something, (they can't spell it so I have no chance) and I'm thinking I have no idea what that is, and I really don't want to disappoint them or invalidate the contract or whatever, so I'm wondering if someone could let me know what this is and why it's so important that I haven't got one. 148.197.120.206 (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The guarantor is someone who promises to pay up if you don't pay what you owe. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If the person taking out a loan or a lease is under a specified age, some contracts require there to be a signature from a guarantor, promising to come to the party if the principal person defaults. It's ageist, sure, but is also common sense. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That really was quick. I take it they mean if I decide to just not bother paying anything, for some reason? I couldn't imagine that ever happening, but then I guess that assertion wouldn't be enough for many people. 148.197.120.206 (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

When taking part in a group that is renting a place, the members of the group need a legal guarantee that everyone's part of the rent will be paid. Also, the owner of the place needs a legal guarantee that the total rent will be paid. If someone has poor credit (because of age, unemployment, poor credit history, etc...) it is normal to ask for a guarantor who has good credit. The guarantor is legally obligated to pay the rent if the person who is supposed to pay it doesn't make the payment for some reason. Usually, a guarantor is a person's parent. -- kainaw™ 19:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

All very interesting. I don't know what my credit rating is, but it should be quite reasonable. Chances are I'd have to lend my parents the money so they could pay it, that doesn't matter, does it? 148.197.120.206 (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It probably does matter, if the landlord is diligent at all. A landlord will normally try to find out whether the renters are really able to pay, and then find out whether any guarantors are able to pay. If nobody is able to pay then the landlord may decide it's too much of a risk and not rent to you, or tell you that you have to put down a larger deposit, or shrug and say it's fine. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Only indirectly, if it means that they are poor and have a lousy credit rating. One other concern the landlord may have is that renting to a group of people increases the chances that any one will fail to pay. A way around this is for him to rent only to one person, with a good credit rating, and the ability to pay the entire rent, and then allow that renter to sublet rooms. Another is to ask for guarantors from each individual renter. StuRat (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If local laws allow, landlords usually impose joint and several liability on all renters and co-signers/guarantors to a lease. (Effectively, joint and several liability means everyone signing the lease is a guarantor to everyone else.) In that case, rather than wanting to limit the number of people signing, there is an incentive to add everyone, as it increases the chances that at least one will be able to pay. Joint and several liability doesn't help the other renters, though, if one of them decides to skip out on the rent. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

However, legal requirements aside, if the one remaining tenant (let' s call him "flatulent Joe") is unable to pay, the landlord still loses out. StuRat (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Our article on co-signing explains the basic story, although it isn't very detailed. (By the way, please try to use meaningful titles when you post questions here.) Looie496 (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I added a useful subtitle. StuRat (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You wouldn't have to lend your parents any money. They don't have to pay anything unless you fail to pay your rent. As long as you pay your rent, they don't do anything. It's not just your credit rating a landlord would take into account. They are interested in your ability to pay, so they would usually want to see proof of income (a reference from your employer stating your salary or from your bank stating how much you pay into your account each month, that sort of thing). My mum is guarantor for my flat because I wanted to move in before I started my new job, so at that time I had no income. I knew I had enough saved up to pay the first month's rent and after that I would have plenty of money coming in, but I couldn't prove it so needed a guarantor. --Tango (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

March 25

modern satire

so nowadays you see people like matt stone and trey parker being compared to other satirists throughout history as a "contemporary swift" and whatnot.

my question is whether it's a unique phenomenon for a satirist to be compared to his predecessors, or if it's something that is always realized in retrospect. did people call swift the contemporary voltaire? voltaire the contemporary chaucer? chaucer the contemporary aristophanes? or is this a newer phenomenon? Jasonberger (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect comparisons of all forms go back as far as people do: "Grog not funny, Grog just rip-off Ugh". StuRat (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you meant "I suspect", StuRat. Yes, but I'm not sure that earlier ages had the sweep of history available to them for comparison the way we have today. They had "the classics", to be sure (whatever that meant in a given period) but apart from that very little writing, drama or music was available even from the previous generation, let alone a century before. (An example I'm thinking of is that Bach was all but forgotten until Mendelssohn "rediscovered" him less than a century after his death). --ColinFine (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, typo fixed. StuRat (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

First Crusade and the Jews of Bodrum, Turkey

I have a book on the Kaifeng Jews of China that recounts oral legends by their ancestors to a Chinese researcher during the 1980s. One legend claims the Jews were originally from Bodrum, Turkey and fled the Crusader armies to China in the 1060s (yes I know the Crusade kicked off in 1099). Researchers believe the Jews actually came from Persia to China as merchants, so the legend has no basis in history. I think the legend may have been influenced by a then newly translated book on the Crusades, but I am not sure which one it could possibly be. Are there any books on the First Crusade which mention Bodrum at all? If I can find one or two, I might be able to find out if any of them were translated into Chinese during the relevant time. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The First Crusade didn't go anywhere near Bodrum, but the Hospitallers built a castle there in the 14th century. I'm not sure what book would have been translated into Chinese, but in the 1980s the standard work on the First Crusade was the first volume of Steven Runciman's "History of the Crusades". (I've only glanced at it quickly just now, but I don't think Bodrum is mentioned in it.) Sorry, I will check further when I have some more time. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Halicarnassus was securely within the Byzantine empire in the 1060s, and was subsequently threatened by Seljuk Turks after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071... AnonMoos (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

French monarchy/titles......?

Hi! I am a French-Canadian, living in Japan. Following the devastating earthquake and tsunami on March 11, I want to help the people in northern Japan to the best of my ability. Therefore, my question: About 35 years ago, a woman connected to geneology in the French government, contacted my father and informed him that he was the inheritor, of a title of duke of a province (?) of France. My father did NOT want to have this (his)title recognized/registered, at that time. I have never considered using the title, myself, until now...... if I used the title to help get some kind of aid to the victims of the earthquake/tsunami in the north of Japan, I would like to get information about claiming/using the title. Any ideas as to where to begin? Thank you.Afrenchduke (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Title would be duc. See "extant" in incomplete List of French dukedoms.
Sleigh (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Be careful. It may be a scam. "Recognition" or "registration" might come with a big price tag. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

And how would having a title enable you to help Japan ? Maybe if you were a king, people might pay some attention to your appeal for charity, but for a duke, I'm skeptical. StuRat (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree; this sounds like a common scam. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no real French nobility anymore; there are still "titres de noblesse", but since 1835 they have no longer been connected to the ownership of land. It sounds like a scam to me as well, but if you have proof of a noble title, you could get in touch with the Ministry of Justice to make it "official."[27] All that would mean is that you would have the right to use it on official documents in France. See also the Association d'entraide de la noblesse française website and this article, which explains the history of the French nobility. Lesgles (talk) 05:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're a homeless man with newfound business savvy, how would you get back on your feet with no more than $10?

Let's assume that your company goes under and you lose your house, your good suits, and whatever else would easily help you re-land a career:

You either have $10 left in your fraying billfold, or you panhandle or visit a church and make a good enough friend with a congregation member or clergy to have them grant you a $10 bill.

With that $10, how would you turn that investment into a larger amount of money, and feed that return into more investments until it balloons into you getting a new place, vehicle, and suitable life for yourself?

If I ever get homeless in my soon-to-be post-college life, I would hope to know exactly how to get back on my feet.

(Let's assume that employers won't hire you just because you're homeless, or don't have good enough interview attire. Therefore, you'd be forced to somehow turn $10 into a growing pocketbook.)

Thank you,

--70.179.169.115 (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be asking where you can find magic beans. Anyone with 'business savvy' will understand that they don't exist. In order to make money, you need to be able to sell something: your labour, most likely. If I knew of a sure-fire way to turn $10 into more without effort, I'd either (a) do it myself, or (b) pay others to do it for me - the latter being the preferred method once you have the startup cash. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

(E.C.) Did I mention "without effort?" I hope not. I know it takes effort to buy apples at a discount grocery and sell them on the street for twice the price, but that's just a Great-Depression example; before people in most American places stopped trusting homeless-looking street vendors. (And my apples could rot before I managed to sell enough of them anyway. I'd need something that's robust and not as limited by time as perishable items though.)

Bus stop, so if the economy/conditions were bad enough not to be able to land employment, what would you do with the $10? --70.179.169.115 (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think apples would work, because nobody wants to buy food from somebody who looks diseased. Selling flowers at intersections might be a start. Many try that. Then there's "outsider art", where being a crazy old bum might help your "rep". StuRat (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Apple sales in the US Depression were a pyramid scam. The following are all tactics I have observed over the years. In the present day, "street people" (aggressive moochers) regularly enter my downtown church and ask for money. Many folks will give them $5 just to get them to leave quietly. Four churches, easily visited on a Sunday morning, would thus yield $20. Then a common scam is to request the fare for a ride on mass transit. The reason is "I have a job interview at the other end of the city, and I only need $2.25 for the transit fare to get there, and then I will become a productive member of society." Who could refuse such a plea? One can also sit outside a fast food restaurant shaking a cup and asking passersby for money to buy a sandwich. ("I haven't eaten for 3 days! Please have a heart!") A Big Mac costs about 3 or 4 dollars, a basic McD hamburger is a buck or so. If someone actually buys the sandwich and gives it to you, you could eat it (quite tasty) or if full, return it to the counter and demand a "refund" on the grounds that it "tastes terrible." An enterprising scammer should thus be able to accumulate $50 on a given day. Then take that to a thrift shop and buy a set of interview clothes, along with getting a haircut ($12 plus tip) and buying a razor and shaving cream and deodorant, as well as a $15 cell phone to receive callbacks from employers. A smelly, shaggy person with no phone contact number and no references is hard to place in a job. Big cities have facilities for a penniless person to take a shower and thus be presentable for interviewing. A public library will provide a computer and printer for preparing a resumė and researching companies who are hiring. A bit of "social engineering" should provide some good-hearted folks who will provide glowing fictitious or slightly prevaricating references, or an address of record to use on a job application. If you look and sound foreign, you could research suitable colleges which were destroyed in some civil war and "graduate" from there, with a created transcript, or buy a degree from one of the US diploma mills. Many jobs require no college degree. Even in this economy, there are part time jobs at stores paying $8 per hour for 30 hours work. The trick then is keeping low the expense for food and lodging while accumulating funds and networking. Contractors hire laborers as needed and pay pretty well for hard, sometimes dangerous work. Appearing sane, sober and washed as well as not having long shaggy hair and beard would help with many employers. Crashing with a friend and mooching for grub are promising tactics. Many immigrants to a country with poor language skills and no capital become cab drivers or deliver pizzas, but a deliverer needs a car, generally. Back in the day, I got a couple of "good" (at the time) entry level jobs just by showing up when thee person doing the hiring was in a bind because someone had just left or been fired, and the boss had to do the job until he hired a replacement. Timing is everything, and "No job openings" can change in an instant when someone leaves. There is a vast hidden job market, such that employers do not post vacancies because they do not want to receive 2,000 applications, but they are looking for someone with particular attributes. Being a clean and honest-seeming individual they wouldn't mind working with is a good start, and training and experience certainly help. Go get 'em, entrepreneur! Edison (talk) 04:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Faking a CV ("resume" I think in American english) by saying you worked somewhere which has now closed down and gone out of business (hence unverifiable) might be dishonest but ethically acceptable in some circumstances. 92.29.127.59 (talk) 10:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to my sense of ethics, it wouldn't. I would say the only time it would be ethical to lie on a CV would be if you know you'll be unjustifiably discriminated against if you tell the truth. Discriminating against someone that has no relevant work experience is entirely justified. --Tango (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You could sell a street newspaper. --Frumpo (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If you know how to bake and have access to a kitchen, you can invest your $10 in flour, sugar, eggs, milk, and flavorings, and bake and sell cakes. Or if you have access to a plot of land, you can invest it in seed and grow and sell flowers and vegetables. If you're not absolutely repulsive to look at and have low self esteem, you can invest your $10 in slutty clothes and become a prostitute. There's lots of ways to make money. Pais (talk) 11:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Though those three suggestions aren't exactly winners. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Only because you're looking at them individually... but consider a hooker who sold pies and flowers as a side business and there's no way you could lose. Guys would come over for the whoring, then pick up a pie to take home to the wife for dessert and a bouquet to apologize for being late. Everybody wins! Matt Deres (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

But is $10 enough to invest in pie ingredients, flower seeds, and slutty clothes? I suppose you could start with one of the three jobs and then expand to the others as you gain capital. Diversification is important in business, I think. Pais (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. - Hustler, not hooker. The OP's header does specify a homeless man. Pais (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Where I come from, "hustler" means a con-artist... --Tango (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this the basic premise of The Pursuit of Happyness (at least in part)? Astronaut (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Recall, though, that despite the presence of Horatio Alger and get-rich-quick stories (and how we Americans still love them!), they are exceedingly rare. They should not be seen as plausible models for success. The income disparity statistics alone show the falsehood of these kinds of myths. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

In Britain the local authority is required by law to give you accommodation (which could be b&b or if you are lucky a flat) if you were genuinely homeless. The state would give you money for rent on the flat, and give you money to live off, which includes being able to buy other things in addition to food. So you would have enough food, be clean, and able to afford a haircut.

My point is, you would have a physical address. So spent the $10 on a cheap mobile/cell phone from Tescos so that you have a phone number. Get an email address by using the free computers at your local library. As the state likes to help people to get a job, provided you were not fussy you could probably get a not very good minimum wage job quickly. You could get an interview suit very cheap from a charity shop, or the state would probably be willing to loan you the money to buy one. Then do evening classes to study to get qualifications that will earn you money such as accountancy, not arty-farty useless things like media-studies. You could take other qualifications, such as a degree as a mature stuident, full-time, which will give you something to do for three or more years and give you a fresh start. 92.28.242.170 (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you implying that the OP would not be wise to embark on a quest for an MA in History, Philosophy, Religion, or English?Edison (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, isnt that obvious? All of those subjects would have virtually no demand by employers. They would however give evidence of your ability, so they could be usefull for jobs that did not require any particular degree. Or they could be useful to teach those subjects. English might be useful in journalism, but I expect journalism qualifications would be preferred. 92.29.127.59 (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the most recent budget, I would be reluctant to say that 'the Government' is going to provide anything of the sort to people in exactly this situation over the coming years. I know of at least one, concrete example of a job-creation scheme which has had all its funding withdrawn, tipping the workers onto the dole. Given the tightening of the 'disability benefits' qualifications to exclude many people with serious, debilitating disabilities, I fully expect the papers next year to be full of stories of individuals and families who find the council has declared them 'intentionally' homeless, when of course they intended no such thing. All the qualifications processes are going to tighten, so as to give the impression of still providing the service at greatly reduced cost. Your local library is one of the first things on the block, unless you have a full staff of volunteers and somehow raise money for the bills, so no free internet and word processor! Have you not noticed what has been discussed in parliament and all the local newspapers for months? I mean, I know my area is going to be less badly hit than most (our CAB has funding to stay fully open about as far into the future as ever, unlike Birmingham's), but even we know it's going to hurt exactly this sort of thing.

Emergency loans and benefits from the state have a notorious waiting time, anyway, so it's not like you'd get the money for a suit when you needed it ;) Except now, you won't get it at all. 86.164.69.241 (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You're going to have to get a job, I'm afraid. If you have business savvy, you will impress your boss with your business acumen (unless of course he or she ends up firing you because you're telling him or her what to do all the time) and as you assume new responsibilities you will be granted responsibility for them until you are able to get promotions and raises, and get enough experience to get higher-level jobs in the same field, etc. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think in Britain you could go straight from being homeless to being a full-time student. That would give you the thinking time to think up some internet business that did not require any significant capital to start. 92.28.242.170 (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. Spend the money on a suit ($10 can go a long way in a charity shop - it won't be a good suit, but it will be a suit) and then get some job interviews. --Tango (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

In supermarkets in Britain you can buy a suit for a very cheap price, although more like $50 than $10. 92.28.242.170 (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say supermarket, I said charity shop. Supermarkets sell new suits, I'm talking about buying one second hand. That is much, much cheaper. --Tango (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do the Brits use $ and not £? Interestingly curious... --70.179.169.115 (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Because the OP used $, because we assume most people reading use $, and because $10 is only about £6. 2.97.210.137 (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I would start Begging in a good location, such as Canada: according to our article, the median income is $638 CAD. If that didn't work, I'd buy One_red_paperclip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.186.80.1 (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Is that per month? Anyway, it's not weather-friendly; wouldn't many homeless die every year from the winter colds? --70.179.169.115 (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

US Healthcare: Federal support of HMOs?

Hello.

I was wondering how much the federal state subsidises HMOs (and MCOs in general). I tried giving [HMO] and other pages a read, but mostly they speak of the "national healthcare dollar". When I know that eg. US Medicaid administrative expenses are ~2% of their budget, it confuses me to see some write 7%. At some point, budgets are conflated, and I don't know which.

Also, I've heard HMOs can attempt to increase their subsidies from the federal gov't by inflating certain costs, so that their on-the-paper costs meet a certain criteria. Their deductible towards the state, if you will - the same way that many insurees have deductibles. Is this the only area where the feds sponsor HMOs?

Thank you.

80.213.11.105 (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I edited out my "Purchasing Power?" at the end of the title. I forgot to remove it. 80.213.11.105 (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "subsidize." HMOs don't get subsidies from the government like Amtrak does. But they do get government funds when the government pays for patients' healthcare, such as in the Medicaid program. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Your question suggests a misunderstanding of the US healthcare system. The system is mainly funded privately, by insurance contributions from individuals and their employers. Private insurance firms then pay healthcare providers (though individuals receiving the care also typically pay a fee at the point of care). Some Americans, however—mainly the poor and elderly—are covered by government insurance programs. These government programs pay healthcare providers (hospitals, HMOs, physicians) for care, just as private insurers and individuals do. The main government program for the elderly, Medicare, is funded by the federal government. The program for the poor, Medicaid, is jointly funded by the federal and state governments. Neither program specifically promotes HMOs over other healthcare providers, nor do their payments for services constitute subsidies in the usual sense (any more than the government payments to electric utilities for the cost of lighting government buildings are subsidies to those utilities). Marco polo (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, some jurisdictions have forced Medicaid recipients to join HMOs. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Ulster Defence Regiment commanders

Resolved

Would anyone happen to have a list of or be able to point me to an online site that has a list of all the Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) commanders since its formation in 1970? Thank you very much.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The History section of this site names a couple of them with dates. It also seems to have an active guestbook. Perhaps worth asking the question there? The Google results for 'UDR commanders' throws up a few more names. It might be possible to piece it together. Dalliance (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your link. An editor has since located their names and added them to the UDR article. Cheers!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Wouldnt it be a security risk for them? 92.29.127.59 (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Epilepsy

I just lost my Brother yesterday 24th march 2011,Age 35years, Doctor in Nigeria said to my parent to be using this drugs for him

1. Leukeran Tablets 2mg (Chlorambucil)
2. Alkeran Tablets 2mg (Melphalan)
3. Docetaxel Tablets
4. Irinotecan Tablets
5. Oxalipatin Tablets.

He always used all this tablets together since then,because he has epilepsy since early 90s and they finally take him to one private hospital for treatment in Octorber & Novermber 2010. All the Tablets finished two weeks ago and they can only find this two(Leukeran tablets & Alkeran Tablets) last week as they couldn,t find the remain Three Tablets in Lagos,he was using the two tablets until last saturday & Sunday when he got Epilepsy Action again & Again and he lost his voice,he couldn't speak till he die on Thurday morning 24th March 2011,Please help me!!! what could have happen to him during this process please?

Many Thanks Joseph Omotoso — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jossydove77 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reformatted for better readability.) --Thomprod (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's very sad that you lost your brother, but the ref desk cannot answer medical questions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are links to all those drugs: Leukeran Alkeran Docetaxel Irinotecan Oxaliplatin. Looking at those pages, those are all very serious cancer drugs! Nothing to do with epilepsy. I have a hard time believing your brother took all those drugs at once, and an even harder time believing he took them outside of a hospital setting. Ariel. (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Salary requirements for a position

How exactly would I go about finding out the standard salary requirements asked for a position? I'm looking at a job right now on CareerLink, and to my utter dismay, it states Please include salary expectations. Unfortunately, I've been out of work for several months now, and while I've worked in the field, I haven't worked as much as I would like to. It is a computer "desktop technician" job. 68.232.119.30 (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

What country are you in? In Australia, for example, such things are codified by the Industrial awards. In the USA, in most non-unionized industries, there are no general legal rules, but the Department of Labor maintains the database of the so-called "prevailing wages": http://icert.doleta.gov/ You need to search by occupation name (e.g. "Computer Support Specialist" or whatever) and geographical area (state, and then metropolitan area or county). This is not mandatory for employers, in general, but has to be used in certain situation, such as federal contracting, or hiring foreign workers. This is extremely detailed, and has both current-year and prior years' data, but lots of numbers seem to come from the thin air ("interpolation" or "extrapolation" of some kind?) - on an occasion, I was amused to find the prevailing wage for streetcar drivers in a state that has not had any streetcars for 50+ years. Still will give you some idea, though.

As a practical matter, though, when responding to a job ad you don't really have to include "salary expectations". If they like you enough to invite you for an interview, they'll do it whether you have provided "salary expectations" or not... If the question comes up during the interview, you can always ask them to make their offer first. -- Vmenkov (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It depends where you are and how much experience the job requires. Look at similar posts in similar organisations in your part of your country and you'll get an idea. Or ring a few recruitment consultancies that specialise in your field, in your city. If you're really stuck, you could indicate that you are "flexible" regarding salary, as you are "very keen to work for your organisation". --Dweller (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

1) I live in the United States (you can see it on my geolocate data next to my IP.
2) They did say to include it, so it would show terribly upon me as a candidate if I ignored it.
3) Good idea Dweller. I'm going to do some further reading and see if that's standard. 68.232.119.30 (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I am in the same position of pursing a new career. I discussed the salary issue with a representative from the local employment commission yesterday— she advised to not give a hard number, but to state that salary is negotiable. Here are two sites that look pretty good: [28] [29] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a great set of resources. I will have to spend a while reading that (*sigh*, I will be turning the application in later than I wanted to now... that's what I get for waiting til the last minute!). But seriously thank you all. I will leave this thread open in case anybody has any specific requirements they would recommend for someone in central Pennsylvania (see my geolocation) with a computer science degree, several years out of the field (poor career choices, not lack of talent), in a "desktop support" role where I'd drive around the state fixing people's computers (e.g., making Windows work, getting the printer up, networking, and internal support). 68.232.119.30 (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Another good source is Salary.com, which will provide an average salary for a specific location such as yours. The standard advice is not to state a specific minimum salary, but instead provide a range (knowing that the employer will focus on the bottom of your range), or to state, perhaps that you are looking for something in a general range around $X, but that the salary is negotiable depending on the details of the job. When stating X, take into account 1) the average local salary and 2) your relative inexperience, which would suggest that X should be maybe 15-20% below the average local salary. Marco polo (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, you mention that you will be driving around the state. You don't need to bring this up in your cover letter, but during your interview you should find out how (or whether) they will reimburse you for your mileage, assuming that they expect you to use your own vehicle. According to this source, the standard mileage reimbursement rate this year is 51 cents per mile. During the interview you might say something like "I assume that you will reimburse me for mileage at the standard IRS rate. Can you confirm that?" If they do not reimburse, then you would have grounds to adjust your salary expectations accordingly. Marco polo (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Student loans for mature students, UK

I heard from the radio that under a proposed new system for student loans, you have any debt cancelled when you reach age 51. Is this age fixed regardless of how old you are when you take a degree? I'm wondering what would happen if you are a mature student in your forties, fifties or sixties - and when I was a student I did know other students of those ages. Thanks 92.28.242.170 (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The standard student loan isn't available to mature students. I think there are schemes to support mature students, but they are separate. --Tango (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you give a citation for that Tango? I've looked on the direct.gov website which doesn't mention this. It does mention other schemes but they don't seem to be aimed at higher education. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... it appears I'm mistaken. This page says you can be any age and get the tuition fee loan and the age limit for the maintainance loan is 60. I think that's changed since I started university in 2005. (That was just before top-up fees were introduced, though, so it's not surprising things have changed.) I'm sure there will be something to stop people aged over 48 getting everything for free, but I don't know what the rules will be. --Tango (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Eastern europe holiday home investments

When it became possible to buy property in eastern europe, it was said they would make very good investments.

Was this actually true? Have people who bought holiday homes in eastern europe made significantly more money than they would have investing in somewhere in the UK?

Also, what about purchases made in france or Spain etc? Have these appreciated more than those in the UK? Thanks 92.28.242.170 (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Origin of a middle name

Can anyone figure out where Madeleine Bordallo's middle name comes from or what the "Z" stands for? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Zeien, says it was her father's last name, etymology obscure. meltBanana

Awesome, thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

March 26

Holocaust

How did the SA and SS know who was Jewish and where to look for them. Surely if your only a Jew from an ethnic perspective it would make it very hard for them to track you down. And I'm sure that once the leaders of the synagogues realised the precariousness of the Jews' situation they destroyed all their records relating to their congregation. So my question is how did they know. Obviously a few people their neighbours but in the majority of the time this doesn't seem to be the case; also, unless you were a practising Jew they wouldn't have noticed would they? My guess is that people who looked "Jewish", that is to say, semitic, were arrested. Thanks, Hadseys 00:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You assumption is based on a non-centralist census. As far as I can see census information in pre-war Germany was carried out in a centralised way. So it was not based on local religous authourities but local governmental authorities. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yeh but obviously if you wanna find out whose a jew you see whose coming out the synagogue? So maybe the rabbis encouraged their congregations to steer clear because synagogues keep their own records dont they. --Thanks, Hadseys 00:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This answer to a similar question is unsourced but credible. Marco polo (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Did churches really provide fake baptism records for strangers? I hope they did. There was a similar question to this one here some time ago. 92.29.127.59 (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

In a police state, information is severely restricted, as is travel, so they might not have any idea what was happening, until it was too late. Bribing authorities might work for a while, but sooner or later the authorities' greed was likely to exceed the ability to pay. If they tried "passing" for non-Jews, they would need fake documents, as they had to present those periodically to the authorities. Another option was to hide, which required non-Jews who were willing to risk their lives to hide them and bring food and supplies. Escaping to a neutral or Allied nation was another possibility, but, since travel was difficult, this was normally only practical for those near a poorly guarded border. StuRat (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

At various points in the Nazi regime, Jews were allowed to emigrate, although after awhile they were essentially "taxed" so heavily that they would have to basically leave almost all of their assets behind if they were to be allowed out. Remember that the "Final Solution" was not fully implemented until 1942 — it wasn't necessarily the only way that the Nazis were going to deal with the Jews. We have a tendency to read the past backwards and say, heck, it's obvious from Mein Kampf that this was going to happen. But it's always a lot harder to figure out what's going on at the time, much less what will happen next. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Check out the book IBM and the Holocaust if you'd like a rather thorough account. It's really rather amazing. They had extremely adequate censuses in Germany, and had done a massive one in 1939 with the express point of identifying who was Jewish. They had the ability to put family records into computers, they could trace name changes, track genealogies, and, if I recall, in many instances they even had the cooperation with many in the Jewish community, which is rather awful in retrospect, but life is complicated like that (it is often the case that oppressed groups "cooperate" on the assumption that the results will be worse for all if they don't — in this case, that turned out not to be the case). It wasn't about "looking" Jewish or other such crudities — it was a very "modern" approach. One of the first really tragic uses of information technology. They could not have pulled off such an organized effort without it. (There are plenty of awful things you can do without IT, of course.) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Our article on the Vel' d'Hiv Roundup in France says "Until the German occupation of France in 1940, no roundup would have been possible because no census listing religions had been held in France since 1874. A German ordinance on 21 September 1940, however, forced Jewish people of the occupied zone to register at a police station or sub-prefectures. Nearly 150,000 registered in the department of the Seine, encompassing Paris and its immediate suburbs. Their names and addresses were kept by the French police."

Fear of the consequences of disobedience must have been a motivating factor. Jewish families would have been known in their local communities and possibly distinguished by distinctive surnames or occupations. For many people, suddenly pretending not to be Jewish was not an option. Alansplodge (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

My father, when the Nazis invaded his (Polish) village in 1939, was herded into the town square along with all the other males under 65, at which point they were all ordered to drop their pants. An acquaintance of his, who happened to be circumsized (but not Jewish) was led away with the other Jewish men - to God knows where. 121.44.248.32 (talk) 05:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed worth noting that the Nazi's approach in Poland was often much cruder than their approach in Germany and France. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in the East they didn't seem to bother with passing laws and keeping records, so, in D&D terms, they were "chaotic evil" in the East and "lawful evil" in the West. StuRat (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Although the circumcision check is depicted in at least two French films about the era - Au Revoir les Enfants and Un Sac de Billes. Alansplodge (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That's what people in India did when there were tensions between Hindus and Muslims as well; it's not just the Nazis who resorted to checking for foreskins to determine religion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ahnenpass has the answer regarding public servants. The Nazis do cared about lineage way before the final solution - on 1942. Anyone working as a public servant would have been labeled as Jewish/non-Jewish. It was simply too late for most for trying to pass as a non-Jew. Quest09 (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The cases of Jews passing as Aryans (e.g. Europa Europa) are usually those who are completely cut off from their families and traditional communities in some way. This should not surprise us — the entire means of identification (for this purpose or any other) are generally connected to one's embeddedness in society. It's certainly not realistic that entire communities could suddenly give themselves new identities without being recognized, to suddenly disconnect themselves from all of the paperwork that binds them to their history. We tend to think of the 1940s as being a much more "free form" time in terms of papers, records, etc., but it is really not true, especially not in Germany, where the modern bureaucracy was born. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware of the article page: Star of David, under the paragraph: "Holocaust"? Many did escape: "Scarlet Pimpernel", for example, a nick-name given to the one who organised their escape. MacOfJesus (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Season by Hemisphere

During the months around January in the Northern Hemisphere, e.g. around the US, the season is called Winter. In the southern hemisphere, e.g. Australia, during the same month--while they experience warm weather--do they call the season Winter as well, or do they call it summer? Lord Arador (talk) 09:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

We Australians call the warm months summer and the cool months winter, just like you. They just happen 6 months out of phase with the northern hemisphere. HiLo48 (talk) 09:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think about it, words like "wintery" and "summery" denote cold and warm weather respectively. We share (sort of) the same language, so it'd get terribly confusing if "summery" to us meant what "wintery" means to you, and vice-versa. So, as HiLo says, we very sensibly have our summer when it's hot, and our winter when it's cold. But despite this, much of our Christmas paraphernalia down here is about snowmen, fir trees, people all rugged up and cosy in woollen jumpers, chestnuts roasting on open fires, heavy Santa Claus suits and all the rest - which are utterly and completely inappropriate for our climate here at that time of year, which is decidedly hot. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

One important point - we don't use the name Fall for the season after Summer. We use the British name of Autumn. HiLo48 (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

In Britain the first day of spring is traditionally said to be the 21st of March - see Spring (season). However this makes the first day of summer far too late, on the 21st. June, although I understand that this is used in North America. In southern England, at least, May is definately part of summer. Which makes it difficult to split the seasons into four three-month periods, as August is summer too. The way I prefer to spilt the months up is: Spring - February, March, April. Summer - May, June, July, August, September. Autumn - October, November. Winter - December, January. For me, in mild south-eastern England, spring begins on St Valentines Day on the 14th. February, and September is late summer with many fine sunny warm days. In more northerly parts of England, at higher elevations, then these seasons do not hold. The natural markers are: trees leaves going brown - beginning of autumn; trees have lost all leaves - winter; flowers appearing - spring; trees all in leaf - summer. 92.29.127.59 (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry mate, May is Spring in southern England however you look at it. May Day is a traditional spring festival. Some trees are not even in leaf by then. Alansplodge (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

They are where I live. Most of them are in leaf in April. Its warm enough not to wear a coat on 1st. May. In fact I havnt been wearing a coat for the past two or three days, and its still March. Even earlier than that, there was a day warm enought to just wear a t-shirt. Yesterday I noticed that some trees were in bloom with white or pink blossoms - you could not say that that happens during winter. May I suggest going on country walks, to see things at first hand rather than via tv? 92.29.127.59 (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Blackthorn is - as always - the first to blossom. A warm spell in March that brings out the blackthorn is called a Blackthorn Winter. Some ornamental trees such as almonds are out early too. Hawthorn is already in leaf but won't flower until the end of April - hence "mayflower". "Oak is sensitive to temperature and will normally leaf in a warm spring from mid-April to the first week of May, whereas ash tends to leaf in May rather than April." says Dr Kate Lewthwaite of the Woodland Trust.

The climate where I live in northern England must be very different from that of Alan's southern UK because in recent years May has been the sunniest time here, so I tend to regard it as summer, whereas we have known hard frosts at the start of September, and winter definitely started in November last year. Dbfirs 11:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never understood the logic of the "first day of" a season being the equinox or solstice because, without temperature lag, these astronomical events should be the mid-points of the respective seasons. Americans apparently seem to think that these dates are "official" in some sense, as do some people in the UK, but the meteorological division of the year into groups of three warmest, coldest and "in-between" months is becoming more widespread (with summer in the northern hemisphere being the months of June, July & August). The Scandinavian "spring" is defined in terms of temperature, so its start varies from year to year, and the official start gradually creeps north with the sun. I suppose there are regions of the northern hemisphere (perhaps especially in America) where the temperature lag is around one eighth of a year, and in these areas it makes sense to use the "traditional first day". The Celtic tradition in the UK (and elsewhere) has the equinox (actually May March 20th not 21st) as the middle of spring. Dbfirs 11:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The half-season shift is somewhat arbitrary, but much less arbitrary than using months. Months are completely artificial.

Well actually the seasons are an arbitrary human construct because temperature does not vary consistently like sunlight, so the least arbitrary is the Celtic definition with the equinox as mid-spring. Dbfirs 18:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you meant March 20th, right? But you know, the equinox is not a day. It's a (reasonably) precise instant, definable at least to the minute, and varies from year to year. --Trovatore (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I did mean March (now corrected). The moment of the equinox is almost always on the 20th, not 21st, especially in America. Dbfirs 18:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

If you look at Hardiness_zone#Britain_and_Ireland_Hardiness_Zones then some places have better climates than others, and being north or south is not the only thing that matters. 92.29.127.59 (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

What about the Late Spring Holiday then? Alansplodge (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That applies to all of Britain, and summer is shorter and spring later in Northern England and Scotland (when I visited northern Scotland in August once, people were wearing overcoats and I shivered). Only a minority of UK people live in the south. 92.29.127.59 (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

In the US, the official start of summer is the Solstice, June 21... but most people think of summer as starting on Memorial Day (which falls on the last Monday in May). The same happens at the end of summer... most people think of summer as ending on Labor Day (first Monday in September) but the season officially continues until the equinox on the 21st. As for the other seasons... the official dates are also around the equinox/solstice, but the "perceived" start/end dates are a bit flexible. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

What makes it "official"? HiLo48 (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, "official" may be the wrong word... but since every US calendar I have looked at all agree on the date, certainly "approved and accepted" applies. As for who does the approving and accepting (sets the date)... The US Government? Astronomers? The calendar makers? A secret cabal of Freemasons? Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to find out how this "official" idea started, and I've failed. This pseudo-astronomical definition seems to go back several centuries. Dbfirs 18:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:JackofOz#Happy First Day of Spring! might shed some light on this question. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Do we have any article on Roman seasons? I still don't understand why an astronomical fixed point on March 20th (astronomically mid-season) should give rise to a "first day of spring" on March 21st. Dbfirs 07:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's more astrological than astronomical. 21 March or thereabouts (the exact starting point differs slightly every year) is when the Sun enters the sign of Aries, which is traditionally considered the beginning of the astrological year. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Although, early February is the coldest part of the year, so I have always thought of that as being part of winter. Meanwhile June 21st is also midsummer's day. Personally I use the lunar new year as the start of spring, the last new moon before the equinox, it seems to work. 148.197.120.206 (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean June 24th as midsummer? (The solstice is "midsummer" in Celtic and Chinese and some other old traditions). November and December were the coldest months last year where I live, and this February was comparatively warm, but weather patterns vary. The weather does seem to change with the moon, but I don't know why. Dbfirs 18:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The traditional seasons are based on equinoxes and solstices. There is another concept of the start-and-end of seasons, used by weatherman. See Meteorological winter, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

And at least in the American midwest, the midpoint of winter is Groundhog Day, February 2nd, which is one of the coldest times of year. Exactly 6 months later, early August, is one of the hottest times of year. So at least here, the traditional seasons make sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in parts of America (and some other parts of the world), where the temperature lag is half a season, this makes sense, but much of the world has a shorter lag, and the older traditions use insolation-based seasons where the equinoxes and solstices are the mid-points. There is no consistent logical definition, they are all culturally defined and reinforced by confirmation bias. Dbfirs 07:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

And for US school kids, "Summer" is defined by vacation time... starting whenever school lets out "for the summer" and ending whenever school resumes. The exact dates vary from State to State. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Bugs' explanation is good. The division of the year into 4 by the solstices and equinoxes is ancient, and still in use today. Rents may be payable on quarter day, for example, academic journals typically come out quarterly. How well the four quarters correspond to meteorological seasons depends where you are and if you actually have four well-defined meteorological seasons. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the division is ancient, and that the quarter days probably corresponded to the equinoxes and solstices at one time, but that doesn't mean that they were the start of the seasons, just the start of a payment or hiring quarter. In fact the Celts (who are at least as ancient as the Romans) regarded these days as mid-season. Dbfirs 16:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

In ancient times, at least in Europe, the spring equinox was March 25, and it was connected with rites of spring and fertility and such stuff as that. It was also the start of the "new year" (and also connects to why Annunciation Day and Christmas Day were assigned as they were). Starting the year on January 1 is a relatively recent decision. In the American midwest, at least, these four dates are nowhere close to "mid-season". They are just about perfect for start-and-end of seasons. But it's also a function of "how long" the seasons last. In the American south, for example, summer is longer and winter is shorter, from a weather standpoint. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I accept all that, but I still insist that these were the middle of the respective seasons, hence Shakespeare's "Midsummer Night's Dream" with the midsummer festival on June 24th. This is still celebrated in some areas of the UK. Dbfirs 22:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Where I live March 21 isn't anywhere near the beginning of spring - we still have snow on the ground and it was -16 last night. And I suspect that's the problem - where for you it seems ludicrous that a date as late as March 21 should be considered the beginning of spring, to me it's ludicrous to think that spring could ever begin so ridiculously early. March 21 seems a reasonable compromise. --NellieBly (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate that spring is variable (it begins in February in Florida), so why do we insist of the "first day" concept? Dbfirs 07:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

In London, for example, what maybe 2-week period is the hottest of the year, on average? And what 2-week period is the coldest? Whatever they are, those would be the peak of summer and the depth of winter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That was the basis of the old "mid-summer" (June 24th) and "mid-winter" (December 25th) festivals. The hottest and coldest period varies from year to year and from place to place, but we could take an average as you suggest. The answer will be different for each region. Dbfirs 07:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how relevant the change of calendars is. According to the internet, midsummer day used to be on the 5th. July. The calendar change may affect other traditional dates too. I recall hearing that Christmas day used to be celebrated in what we would think of as January. 92.15.14.99 (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where the claim of July 5th comes from, ( probably a mistaken calculation of 11 lost days from June 24th) but the Wikipedia article on Midsummer says that June 24th used to be the solstice in Roman times, so the Roman tradition seems to coincide with the older Celtic tradition of the solstice being the middle of summer. Dbfirs 18:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Number of Euromillions lottery tickets bought for Friday 25 March 11 draw

Does anyone know? I'd like to calculate if you ever get a positive expected value with UK tickets. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12867793 Thanks 92.29.127.59 (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

when do you get new options?

For a stock I've been following, the latest (most in the future) available options on the market have been the January 2013 options - this has been true for more than a year.

When will there be april/may 2013 or any 2014 or later options?

The stock is Apple, you can see what I'm talking about on this page. 89.132.119.207 (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Winston Churchill as an author

What books by Winston Churchill are good reading? I would either be interested in autobiography, or books about his involvement in or explaination of events after 1914, as earlier history means nothing to me. Thanks. 92.29.127.59 (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

He did not write an autobiography per se, but his history of World War I (The World Crisis) and his six-volume history of World War II (The Second World War) are both largely focused on his particular role. The World War II history is considered his masterpiece, and won him the Nobel Prize for Literature. But in general he was an excellent writer, and many of his works are good reading, including A History of the English-Speaking Peoples and his multi-volume biography of his illustrious ancestor the Duke of Marlborough (although the last of these is pretty biased). Looie496 (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) He wrote "The Second World War, vol 1" which would seem to fit your point about explaining later events, although I really enjoyed reading "My Early Life", which despite Looie's assertion is an autobiography! Regardless of what you know (or not) of late 19th century history, I'd recommend reading that. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article about Winston Churchill as writer. I assume the OP asks about the British prime minister and not his grandson nor the American novelist, both of whom share the name Winston Churchill. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

March 27

China in the US?

Just curious. Do the Chinese follow the Soviet model of funding anti-nuclear, anti-war and peace organizations in the US? Is there any study on this topic? I searched in google, but did not find reliable sources except some blog opinions. Given China's quest for global influence and the international relations in today's world, I think it is possible, just a guess though. --Reference Desker (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

They are basically the landlords of the US. Would they engage in covert operations which diminished the value of their property? Is the US more valuable without nukes, and with the resulting rolling blackouts? Just asking. Edison (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I've heard of a few things. At the very, very beginning the Black Panther Party got funding by selling boxes and boxes of copies of Mao's Little Red Book that it had gotten from somewhere or other. And it seems like Bob Avakian's Revolutionary Communist Party, USA at least puts on airs of association with the Chinese. But in terms of serious impact? It's hard to tell. There was a huge flap over John Huang in the Clinton White House, but was it Chinese influence or merely "track II diplomacy"? If there's one thing people give the Chinese credit for, it's being discreet. Wnt (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there was anything sinister about distributing the Little Red Book. That link tells us "By May 1967, bookstores in 117 countries and territories around the world...were distributing Mao's Quotations." I bought a copy myself at a public bookstore in Melbourne, Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems interesting that they came across a large number of copies of it very cheaply. Wnt (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the LRB I acquired some years back in a second-hand bookshop, though I recall that it was mass-produced, but well made (unlike the Soviet-printed Communist Manifesto I got at about the same time, which has since fallen apart... Oh, the irony ;-) ). I suspect that like Gideon Bibles they were given away free by the publishers. Whether they expected the Black Panthers to sell them, or hand them out for free, I don't know, but that wasn't the point. You don't charge for advertising/propaganda, you just pump it out. As it happens, as far as propaganda goes, it was an abysmal failure for anyone who could actually read, rather than merely recite passages. Banal excerpts from speeches, with no coherence, and less political analysis than I'd expect to see in an episode of Trumpton. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I see/hear "LRB" and I think Little River Band. The LRB meaning "Little Red Book" was not even listed among our LRB acronyms, so I've now added it. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin Van Ruin

Does Martin Van Buren's nickname "Ruin" mean the English word "ruin" or Dutch word "gelding"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henswick (talk • contribs) 09:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The English word. He was President during a time of economic hardship, when many businesses failed... hence "ruin". Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

A book / short story I recall from my youth

I've been trying to work out the identity of a book I recall from my youth. It's either a book or (less likely) a short story. In it someone wakes up to find that they're in a white featureless room, abducted by aliens. In due course the walls of the room disappear one by one, each time revealing someone else in a similar room, until I think there were four characters in total, two men and two women. In due course all the walls disappear to reveal that they're on a beach on a probably alien world.

Any thoughts as to the identity of the book concerned?

Thanks! Bobby P Chambers (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and given that "my youth" isn't very precise, I'm pretty certain the book would be over 15 or 20 years old by now. Bobby P Chambers (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

US Healthcare: HMOs tried for insufficient treatment?

Hello again! First of all thanks to Marco Polo and the rest that've answered my questions on healthcare as of late. Now, on another healthcare subject:

I'm looking for legal cases where a HMO has denied certain life-saving treatments, but ended up being sued. I'm sure I've hard of some, but after googling about a bit, and rummaging through our articles on healthcare here, I couldn't find a satisfactory reference. Would any of you know of one? 80.213.11.105 (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Oh hello. I guess I had already found what I was looking for, just had to find the right tab in my browser. 80.213.11.105 (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

That article is from 10 years ago. It would be interesting to know how those suits turned out. One thing to keep in mind is that HMO's don't make doctors' decisions for them. Those suits seem to be about denial of coverage, i.e. money. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Technically right, but many doctors and hospitals will change their decisions based on whether they will be paid, so effectively the HMOs do deny treatment. StuRat (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

In those cases, it's the doctors who should be sued. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

So they should be expected to take the loss when the HMO doesn't pay up ? Why ? StuRat (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It depends on whether the doctor's top priority is care for the patient, or care for his bank account. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

In poor areas hospitals can go bankrupt from this, resulting in less care for the poor in the long run. StuRat (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

So what's the solution? Cover a lot more, and raise the premiums a lot higher? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in my experience, whatever the HMO doesn't cover gets billed to the patient. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

They can try, but there are some bills that obviously can never be paid by some patients. StuRat (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"They" being the doctor, of course. It's the doctor who bills the patient for the balance no convered by the HMO. So the doctor has to decide what his priorities are. Another factor, though, is whether the procedure is, to be blunt, "worth the effort". For example, if a guy is 99 years old and needs a heart transplant, are they going to give him one? I wouldn't count on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the hospital does the billing, in most cases. StuRat (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, you'll get various bills, including typically a separate one from the anesthetist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Phrase for Napoleon tactic

I can't remember what it is, but I'm pretty sure there was a (French) phrase for Napoleon's battlefield practice of concentrating dispersed units or batteries on a single point, with the intention (I think) of eventually advancing on it and breaking through that point in an enemy's line. I think it starts with an "f". AlexiusHoratius 17:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Force concentration?Sjö (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the basic concept, but I'm looking particularly for the French phrase (I've heard it a couple times, I think in the movie Gettysburg for one.) The mangled/muddled anglicized pronunciation is something like "foot-on-far" or "foot-on-fire" or something like that. AlexiusHoratius 18:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the phrase you're looking for is feu d'enfer (literally "fire of hell"), the name given, as you say, to Napoleon's tactic of concentrating artillery fire on one weak point of the enemy's line, also used by Lee at Gettysburg. There's a short essay on it here. --Antiquary (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC) EDIT: IMDb confirms your memory of the movie Gettysburg: "We'll concentrate all our guns on that one small area. A feu d'enfer, as Napoleon would call it."

That must be it - thanks! AlexiusHoratius 20:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

POV of an immortal

If a person somehow became immortal when early modern humans were still living in nomadic groups, and he or she lived through to the modern era, what do you think their views on politics, religion, war etc. would be? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Since most such views develop during childhood and adolescence, they might retain some rather old beliefs, like animism. On the other hand, perhaps the exposure to many different views might allow them to pick-and-choose. StuRat (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you been reading The Boat of a Million Years? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No, but I was thinking about writing a story with an almost identical plot, minus the multiple immortals. I guess everything truly has been done before. I originally wanted some type of space travel as well, but decided to drop that in favor of a post-nuclear war type of future. I wanted to use it as a vehicle to showcase my love of history. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

His point of view can be anything that you'd like, really; 10000 years would give someone a lot of time to change his mind about things. The first thing you'd need to decide is how he feels about the fact that he continues living. that would give you a sense for his attitude, and help you figure out how he looks at the rest of the world. --Ludwigs2 22:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a good idea on how his outlook would be, I'm just trying to gauge if others have similar thoughts. He absolutely cannot die. It's not like on Highlander when they just revive after healing, or die because they have their head cut off. The prospect of living until the end of time would make me a pretty depressed guy, so that is the angle I am approaching it from. I would also like to focus on his thoughts on seeing civilzations rise, and the crazy amount of things that one could learn (and share with others) during an immortal life. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The depression angle has also been covered, in the character of Nathan Brazil in Jack Chalker's Well World series. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

There's also Lazarus Long and his desire to end it all in Time Enough for Love, and a short story by Jack Vance, "When Hesperus Falls", in which the protagonist attempts a very elaborate suicide when the rest of humanity refuses to let him die. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

For the almost unendurable tedium of immortality, see also Borges's "The Immortal". Deor (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a reference desk, not a debating forum, so I'm afraid we can't help you. --Tango (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Monarchist. 2.97.210.137 (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should explain for those who havnt twigged yet, the Immortal would be monarchist because they'd be the monarch. 92.15.14.4 (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ghostexorcist, You might want to take a look at The Gnarly Man by L. Sprague de Camp. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

There was a Star Trek episode on the subject. I think there was a Twilight Zone also. On the humorous side, there was Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner in their bit about the "2,000 Year Old Man". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

A reporter visits a 100-year-old farmer in New England. The reporter asks, "You've seen a lot of changes in your life, haven't you?" The farmer answers, "Yep. And I was against every one of them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

British Asian#Communities

In your article, Burton upon Trent, Milton Keynes, Newport, Oxford, Pendle, Rugby, Southampton, Sunderland and Wakefield have not mentioned whether the South Asians are Pakistani, Indian or Bangladeshi or all. Do all three south asians groups in these cities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.17 (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority will be British by nationality - probably second or even third generation. In terms of ethnicity (rather than nationality), the statistics can be found (as a downloadable spreadsheet) here: [30]. It gives numbers, rather than percentages, so you'll probably have to work these out for yourself. As an example, the figures for East Staffordshire (which includes Burton upon Trent) are as follows:

People in ethnic groups: Mixed: White and Asian: 265

People in ethnic groups: Asian or Asian British: Indian 426

People in ethnic groups: Asian or Asian British: Pakistani 3,862

People in ethnic groups: Asian or Asian British: Bangladeshi 86

People in ethnic groups: Asian or Asian British: Other Asian 112

No doubt the proportions will be very different in the other places you name. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure that "British Asian" even means all that much by itself anymore, since the typical experiences of Muslims and non-Muslims have often diverged in several respects, and nowadays a significant number of non-Muslims don't really want to be indiscriminately lumped together with Muslims in some supposedly homogeneous and undifferentiated "Asian" group. AnonMoos (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

NATO support for Libya efforts

I notice several countries within NATO are vocally supporting the 2011 military intervention in Libya, whereas several are against it. The lineup is a very odd one, and I'm trying to figure out why certain groups are supporting it, and why aren't. Here are my hypotheses:

• United States (easiest one, as I live here, and follow the news) - initially against, due to having a dovish leader (Obama) and being really sick of using its military in primarily Islamic nations; moved for, due to arguments by internal recommendations, notably Hillary Clinton (has always been more hawkish). Done also out of fear of losing any weak prestige it has among Islamic nations ("the US didn't support us against Gaddafi, but it had no problem invading Iraq and Afghanistan for oil"), and out of fear for losing its place as the "go-to" country for military issues, worldwide and especially in NATO.
• France - for; a bit of a surprise here; France is notoriously dovish, to the point of mockery. However, they have a more hawkish leader, who is interested in regaining the prestige of the French in the international field (especially in light of USA's ambivalance). Also, leader (Sarkozy) may be embarrassed by former support for Gaddafi. I cannot say whether the actions have much domestic support.
• United Kingdom - for; the British are the anti-French: they've traditionally been more hawkish, and have supported the US in the past. It currently has a conservative leader; is acting exactly as the US would, had it a more hawkish leadership.
• Germany - has come out against participation. With the conservative leadership of Germany, its strident stance is again a bit surprising. My only theory is that the German populace has traditionally been very dovish on military matters (post WWII, obviously); the country is already against participation in the Afghan war, despite its international nature.
• Turkey - has come out against participation. This is another confusing one, as even the Arab League initially spoke more strongly in favor. My only theories are a) Turkey doesn't like mass uprisings, in view of its own history of putting down such uprisings. However, this doesn't hold much water, as they recognized the independence of Kosovo just two years ago, b) the Turkish leader (Recep Tayyip Erdoğan) is known to be close to Gaddafi (e.g., Al-Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights), and c) A modern pro-Islamic Turkey (as opposed to its secular past) really dislikes the West putting its nose anywhere near an Islamic nation (c.f., its support of Iran against western hostility).
• Australia (not strictly speaking NATO, although closely aligned) - against because it has a dovish leader.
• Canada, Denmark, Belgium - for: all have hawkish leaders.
• Italy - for, a hawkish leader, perhaps embarrassed by former support for Gaddafi.
• Norway - for, but with a left-leaning leader. I have no idea why they support this.

Anyway, sorry about the textwall, but I wanted to get some of your impressions of this, as I can't figure out why certain countries are acting certain ways. Can anyone verify or debunk any of this? I'm especially interested in Turkey and Germany. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why you think Turkey would tend to follow the lead of the Arab League... AnonMoos (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

They are a country torn between the Middle East and Europe. Europe appears to be mostly for the action, the Middle East also for it. Thus the cultural considerations give no clue as to their non-support. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Look up the decline of the Ottoman empire for the sometimes-checkered history of Turkish-Arab relations. Anyway, many of the differences in alignment from 2003 are because this is not widely viewed as U.S. aggressive unilateralism... AnonMoos (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course the Turkish have terrible relations with the Arabs (I even mention this on my userpage). But lot of the traditional has been changing as of late (c.f., the Gaza flotilla raid). Also, I wasn't comparing this to just 2003 - I'm wondering why some leaders support it while others don't. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Also for Turkey, just because their leader was granted an award by Gaddafi, doesn't mean they are allies, whilst the recognition of new countries is a complex diplomatic area (for example, back in 1908 or whenever Russia offered to unrecognise Bosnia in exchange for Austrian support against Turkey, and more recently Turkey and Russia seemingly exchanged recognition of Northern Cyprus and South Ossetia.) Meanwhile, perhaps the Germans and others don't want to see lots of their people killed, or to get involved in a potentially expensive campaign in the midst of a recession, quite reasonable interests they seem to me. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It might be useful to compare with the US bombing of Libya (1986). There the reason was terrorist activities alleged to have been performed by Libya and Qaddafi's claim to the waters in the Gulf of Sidra. In that case the liberals argued "innocent until proven guilty" and that the bombing would just lead to a further spiral of violence (which it did, including the Lockerbie bombing), and that this would further antagonize the Arab world, whereas conservatives supported the action. However, the present situation doesn't lead to a clear-cut liberal/conservative divide like that, for several reasons:

1) The Arab League actually supports some action against Qaddafi. Thus some liberals may support action this time around.

2) In this case the benefit, in terms of saving civilian lives, isn't theoretical and eventual, it's clear and immediate. But, of course, some lives will also be lost in the process of protecting others, so this could lead to a divide between most liberals (who put protecting innocent civilians as the highest goal) and pacifists.

So, those are some reasons why liberals might be divided. Conservatives might be divided because, while they generally support the use of force to remove historic enemies, in this case it could lead to a reduction in the oil supply and possibly a victory for Islamic fundamentalists. Conservatives also like to act unilaterally rather than in a coalition. StuRat (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Germany, it is too simple to say that Germany has a conservative government; conservatives support military intervention; therefore we would expect Germany's government to support military intervention in Libya. Actually, no German party unambiguously supports military intervention anywhere. In fact, the German decision to take part in the war in Afghanistan was made by the government of Gerhard Schröder, a Social Democrat. The Angela Merkel, the current chancellor, is from the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the traditional opponents of the Social Democrats. The CDU are a conservative party in the sense that they tend to represent the interests of businesses and the better off; however, the CDU have never taken a position in support of the military projection of German power. Such a stance is practically taboo in Germany because of its Nazi history. In fact, Germany's Afghan engagement is quite unpopular among Germans, who tend toward pacifism and tend to abhor the non-defensive use of military power, again because of the Nazi past. Meanwhile, Merkel has faced widespread opposition at home to Germany's assumption of a large share of the financial burden for rescuing the euro and supporting the finances of peripheral European nations in the current European debt crisis. I think, in this context, the German government calculated that they could not afford politically to undertake yet another unpopular action in support of Western allies.

As for Turkey, it is important to remember that the Arab League and the UN Security Council called for only the creation of a no-fly zone to protect civilians in Libya, not for the more expansive intervention on behalf of the Libyan rebels that NATO has undertaken. My understanding is that Turkey supports only the limited action requested by the Arab League and the Security Council and that they object to the more expansive NATO intervention. This makes perfect sense in terms of the Turkish population's general suspicion of Western intervention in oil-rich Muslim countries and in terms of the efforts of the present Turkish government to build stronger relations with Arab governments, many of which have also voiced opposition to NATO's movement beyond mere imposition of a no-fly zone. Marco polo (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Canada has a "hawkish" leader; the troops in Afghanistan are supposed to come back this year, I think (and they were sent there by the previous Liberal governments, which I wouldn't describe as hawkish either - they sensibly stayed out of Iraq, at least). Canada has lost a relatively large number of soldiers in Afghanistan though, and Canadians are generally wary of sending more soldiers into combat zones, but I think in this case the chances of actual combat are very slim (aren't there only something like six Canadian planes involved in Libya?). For France, I get the impression that, even though Libya was never a French colony, France sees itself as the protector of Africa. They sent some troops to the Ivory Coast recently (though that was a former colony). Also, once Obama was on board, the French were much happier to join in - if Bush was still president, I don't think they would be involved. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure it is fair to call France 'notoriously dovish': have a look at List of French wars and battles#Modern period. Presumably the actions of Michèle Alliot-Marie, and Sarkozy's current unpopularity, have something to do with their position. In Britain, the action has cross-party support; the fact that a conservative(-led) government is in charge is irrelevant. More generally, I don't think you can explain governments' stances on this intervention simply by placing them on a left/right or hawkish/dovish scale. They will also be taking into account things like the level of popular support for intervention, the popularity of previous military interventions, and relations with other countries. 130.88.134.121 (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Dividing the world governments into hawkish and dovish is at best a misleading and inaccurate simplification of how international politics work. Decisions by head of states cannot be predicted by the mere facts of their labels (left, right, conservative...). Such big decisions are influenced by a complex array of factors distinct to each country: economics, treaties, internal politics, international credibility, leadership ambitions... If you really want to understand why each state behaved in the way it did, you should drop the labels and start studying the complex causes and conditions behind their politics. 89.82.190.163 (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

MPs expenses scandal, UK

How much per capita per year have dishonest MPs taken in false expenses claims from the British public, before it was stopped? Thanks 2.97.210.137 (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

See United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal for general background; there are some figures mentioned there. List of expenses claims in the United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal has a table showing how much was required to be paid back. Gwinva (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Less than 1p each - why all the fuss? Surely its worth paying 1p to have democraxcy? 92.15.14.99 (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, people react in terms of principles, rather than reason. 1p is nothing, and given the waste of time that this scandal has produced, it has cost the country much more than it tries to save. But there you go, that is politics for you. --Lgriot (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Democracy is surely worth more than 1p per person. But the 1p was expended on corruption and not on democracy. Let them steal 1p and next year they steal 2 and on and on and on... The price of leadership is to be held to higher standards. Flamarande (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yet our dear Windsor family pocket a great many times that, and as they are outrageously wealthy already may I suggest they don't need it, so why is it bad for MPs but luvvy-dovey gawd bless er me awld china for The Firm? 92.15.14.4 (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You miss the point entirely. It's not bad for MPs to be paid public money to cover legitimate expenses. But it is bad when they claim for "expenses" they never incurred at all. That is outright fraud, dishonesty, lying, you name it. If that's the sort of people you want representing you, that says as much about you as it does about them. Namely, not much. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not even that - in many cases they claimed for expenses they had incurred (a famous example being moat-cleaning), and were, at least arguably, staying within the rules, as witnessed by the fact that they were reimbursed; so (again arguably) there was (in most cases) no dishonesty and no "false expenses". The main problem was that MPs were taking advantage of a rotten system. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

But you can say exactly the same with the Windsors. 92.15.14.4 (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

March 28

Demanding an anorexia suffered to eat

In Skins, a character sends repeated messages to an anorexia suffered (Cassie_Ainsworth), demanding her to eat. Considering that anorexia is an anxiety disorder, and that this would not deal with the causes of it, isn't that a horrible idea? Quest09 (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is likely to be counter-effective. Compare the options listed under Anorexia nervosa#Treatment. In a hospital setting, a person might be made to ingest food (possibly though an IV), but that would be ideally be combined with other forms of treatment. (By the way, "anorexia suffered" doesn't work. I would say "an anorexic person" or "a person suffering from anorexia".) Lesgles (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Or the nearest viable: "anorexia sufferer ". 212.169.179.193 (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

What is common to "Ford Mustang" Porsche and Ferrari

Looking for something common among "Ford Mustang" Porsche and Ferrari. The commonality could be anything. People/companies associated with them or just anything

Would appreciate any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.252.236 (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

They are all cars with horses in their logos. Lesgles (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

They have 4 wheels and internal combustion engines. Googlemeister (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

US politics/office-holders campaigning

Hi - I was wondering if Americans could explain something to me, after watching The California 47th. In this episode, Bartlet and his staff fly on Air Force One to California, for no reason other than campaigning in a Federal special Congressional election. This isn't uncommon in the show, e.g. when campaigning for re-election as President, Bartlet and staff fly there on AF1. Does this actually happen in US politics? (Presumably so?) If so, given that federal funding of party political campaigns is illegal (a point often referenced in the show, such as having election posters in the white house being illegal, even during a political party's own administration, or indeed in this episode, when staffers stay behind to campaign longer, they have to come off the WH payroll), how is the free flight on AF1, and all concomitant governmental expenditure not a massive donation to the campaign coffers of the party in question? Or do they just get to use it because the President has to travel in style, but then they have to re-imburse the government? What about staff pay for all the time they're out endorsing the candidate, even if they're nominally not door-knocking/handing out leaflets? I'd love to understand this better :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.197.254 (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and it's a major advantage for an incumbent. In 2004 George W. Bush used AF1 to campaign, and Dick Cheney used AF2. They're at the disposal of the president, and the Secret Service wouldn't let the president fly with anything less than that kind of security. It makes campaigning much easier, although the advantage was somewhat neutralized in 2004 because John Kerry is and was a senator (in contrast to most presidential candidates; having current or former governors is far more typical) and could more than afford his own air transportation. As to the aides, that's handled through the respective parties; many people aren't paid (a lot of interns and volunteers do the work at a local/regional level), but those who are get their checks from whichever political organization they're working for. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

[ec] :This article addresses most of your questions. As for paying presidential staff who spend time on partisan projects, they don't punch a time clock when they start or stop working on government business, which is the basis for their salary. What they do in their spare time (even if that spare time adds up to 40 hours per week or more) is their own business, though if a presidential staffer were found to be working mainly on a campaign, it could be the basis of a scandal that could threaten the president's re-election. Marco polo (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It is an issue though if they use governmental resources, as I understand it. They may not punch the clock, but their use of offices, telephones, computers, etc., can fall under scrutiny. Much less if they use the implements of government more directly (e.g. firing judges for political reasons). --Mr.98 (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, don't forget that any (Air Force) plane the president is on is technically "Air Force One". Qrsdogg (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Karl Rove clearly worked on the 2004 re-election campaign for George W. Bush while he held the Federal office of "Senior Advisor to the President". I merely cite him as an example. Senior political aides for other presidents have also had roles in their campaigns. Marco polo (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a current discussion going on right now about Governor of Mississippi Haley Barbour flying around the country at state expense for campaign events (he is an unannounced candidate for President). He claims he is travelling on state business while at the same time attending these events. Corvus cornix_talk 20:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Rush und Bedeutung

In this text, is 'Milquetoast' a definite description and if so, what is its referent? Danke, Skomorokh 21:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are asking who Rush Limbaugh refers to in this quote: "The truth is, the sad reality is we may end up with Milquetoast as a nominee". Is this right ? StuRat (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Shapes in Chinese Calligraphy

I am learning Chinese calligraphy, and I need practice with a particular shape. I don't know how to refer to it other than by calling it what the author of the book I'm studying calls it. Rebecca Yue refers to it as the "horizontal form of the diagonal brushstroke to the right." It is the shape seens at the bottom of these characters: 之逞逗. I would rather prefer to write this shape as part of a word, rather than simply repeating the shape over and over. I need a way to locate words that contain this shape so I can practice them, but I can't find a way to do that. Can anyone help me with this? CalamusFortis 21:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)