Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

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.

March 17

Peace treaty between Italy and Japan?

Italy declared war on Japan back in 1945[1]. Was there ever a peace treaty between the two countries? Anonymous.translator (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. See Military history of Italy during World War II#Italy's declaration of war on Japan. Oda Mari (talk) 09:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Should this be in the Italy–Japan_relations article? That was the first place I looked.Anonymous.translator (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my possible ignorance here, but what's the practical difference between "negotiat(ing) the resumption of their respective diplomatic ties", and a "formal peace treaty"? 58.111.224.202 (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just the level of formality. A formal peace treaty must be approved by the full governments of each nation, and would have a formal signing ceremony, typically. Resumption of diplomatic ties can happen at a much lower level, with little or no ceremony. StuRat (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The work involved in resuming diplomatic ties would be handled by government employees, mainly out of the limelight as you say, but approval to do it in the first place could only come from the individual governments. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this somewhat depends on the government. If some nation declared war on the US, but never actually attacked and the US never bothered to declare war back, and only severed diplomatic relations by executive order, they could just be restored in the same way, without Congress needing to vote. StuRat (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For example, France wouldn't have any real need to sign a peace treaty to end its war with Elbonia if it happened in real life; nobody would mind the French diplomats going back to Elbonia despite the official state of war. Alternately, you can look at List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity and add Italy-Japan if you have the sources. Nyttend (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both Italy and Japan were conquered by the Allies; and there's no special need for the installed governments to declare peace with each other, is there? It might be fairer to say that Italy declared war with one Japan and found itself at peace with another. I mean, by analogy, if Italy had declared war on the Confederate States of America I doubt they would have had to make peace with Georgia and Texas and so forth as reorganized under Union control. Wnt (talk) 05:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English-speaking class in Western Europe?

Has anyone ever considered the possibility of the emergence of an educated English-speaking —actually bilingual in their country's main language and English— class in Western Europe? A lot of people there already speak good English and some of them are pretty much bilingual because of TV and the Internet. Probably most of those with an excellent command of English will teach their children the language. --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No and no. They learn English at school and their children will learn English at school.
Sleigh (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a distinct class. They all learn English at school. --Tango (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there can even be a somewhat opposite feature. In some countries, usage of English terms and Anglicanized grammar in everyday speech might be a sign of lower education, as people with higher education will be more strict in speaking their mother tongue 'correctly'. --Soman (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I think it's a good question, as in the Imperial Russian aristocrats who spoke French en famille. I understand that many families of Chinese and Malay ancestry in Southeast Asia (e.g. Singapore, Malaysia) speak English at home, although of course they can also speak, write and understand Chinese and/or Malay. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broadside_Perceptor -- A somewhat interesting and accessible book which discusses similar issues in a historical perspective is Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World by Nicholas Ostler... -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all. --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's more the case that higher classes will speak English, but speaking English doesn't make you a member of a higher class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.106.190.177 (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking English may be a sign of being educated to a high level, but lots of people in low-level jobs dealing with tourists or foreigners will also learn English (e.g. shop assistants, hotel staff, transport workers). So maybe reading/writing English would be more distinguished. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE;Helmer Hanssen (South Pole)

Hi, I read some of your information on Helmer Hanssen (South Pole) I am Helmer Hanssen great grandaughter Philomena Price I noticed the dates you have on his death are wrong he died in 1957 can send you a photo of his headstone if you wish and have many photo,s of Helmer Hanssen and his wife Kristina also if you wish to have them for the artical. Please feel free to contact me. Philomena Price — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.251.62 (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has to rely on published sources like newspapers, books etc. Depressingly the Helmer Hanssen cites no sources at all. What reliable sources I can find are the Fram Museum in Oslo, which on this page which gives 1956 (citing, I think, this article). You should probably discuss the matter, and the photos you have, at the article's talk page talk:Helmer Hanssen 87.113.82.247 (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of a puzzle: This genealogy page gives a "Died 2 Aug 1956" and then "Cemetery Record: Helmer Hanssen Polarfarar B.year: 1870 D.year: 1957". This stone at Bjørnskinn kirke gives a date of 1956. This 2010 newspaper article says "Han døde 1956" ("He died in 1956"?). The Fram Museum's page on Hanssen says "He died in Tromsø in 1956 and the state paid for his funeral from Tromsø cathedral. A monument to ‘Polar Explorer Helmer Hanssen 1870-1956’ stands behind the Bjørnskinn church in Andøy." Alansplodge (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's defenitely something strange going on here: there seem to be two almost identical stones at Bjørnskinn: 1870 - 1957 (source [2]) and 1870 - 1956 (source [3]). Perhaps they are the same one and it has been altered? Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there could be two people called Helmer Hanssen (and sources have muddled them) - but Helmer isn't a very common name. Surely the death of Hanssen will have been reported in the death notices of Norwegian newspapers. 87.113.82.247 (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka: here's his actual gravestone (source [4]). The inscription says: "24 - 9 - 1870 + ? - 8 - 1956". Google translate says: "Helmer Hanssen is buried in Tromsø cemetery along with his wife Augusta. An anonymous Tromsø woman has for years paid the ground rent for the grave, that has been in danger of being deleted... Now is the time that he gets his own monument, says Gidsken Halland, polar enthusiast and information officer at Visit Tromsø." She seems to be the nice lady in the photograph. Alansplodge (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. I've just realised that he seems to be buried with a different woman than the one you thought was your great grandmother. You'll have to solve that one! Alansplodge (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No necessarily. The Fram Museum website says his wife was called "Kristine Augusta Josefine Berg" - so while the gravestone you've found calls her "Augusta", the OP calling her "Kristina" isn't inconsistent with that. 87.113.82.247 (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd uncovered a dreadful family secret ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His obituary in the London Times published on Saturday 4 August 1956 says he died on Thursday at Tromsoe, Norway (which would be 2 August 1956). MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The tombstone indicates August 1, but it could have been overnight the 1st and 2nd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The death year was given at article creation, and the specific dates were added early last year,[5] by an editor who might still be active, so he might respond to questions about the source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Muslim surnames used

Which surnames of India are commonly used by Muslims of different ethnic groups? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.150.48 (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try Indian name (although the article is admittedly in poor shape). Khan (surname) appears to be a common one. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 19:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfly Lovers

Throughout human history, there have been countless of legend stories ranging from mythical figures to ordinary people who did extraordinary things. I wonder why are those legend stories come from? Someone must have made them up at some point in time. Are they real stories or totally made up just for entertainment? Or what is any other reasons for ancient people to make up fake stories? And i also want to know specific about the butterfly lovers case. Was it real? I meant was it actually happened in real life.Pendragon5 (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stories, Myths, and legends, usually owe their longevity, in the main, because the original events that lead to the story being repeated (and sometimes embellished beyond recognition) reflected aspects of human nature, and thus they held a moral/educational thyme that the tellers thought that their young ~~brats~~ children would learn something of value from them. Also, it was a an outlet for peoples that had a sense of history and wanted to pass it on to the next generation.--Aspro (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you have already read the article Legend, but if not, it addresses some of your concerns. Some legends may derive from actual people and events that are not (or not reliably) historically recorded, likely with various distortions, embellishments, and/or omissions. Others might originally have been pure inventions for entertainment, or religious or moral instruction, not originally intended to be taken literally (at least by adults). Some legends may combine two or more such elements, or be fusions of originally separate stories. These do not exhaust all the possible origins of legends, and one cannot lay down a general rule about them.

If a story contains obviously supernatural or otherwise unlikely elements which were intended to be believed for religious reasons, they might be better defined as Myths. One definition of a myth, which I myself find useful although others might differ, is a story (or legend) with cultural and/or religious significance whose importance was/is independent of its actual historical truth or untruth (or degrees of such).

Regarding the Butterfly Lovers story, the fact that it's described as a legend means, pretty well by definition, that nobody knows if real historical events definitely lie behind it, and I think we can be fairly sure that no people turned into butterflies, but some of the details in the article suggest to me that, leaving aside the fantasy elements, it might be partly based on some real events. Only an expert in Chinese history and legend might be able to say much more about it than that (in which case they ought to add their information to the article).

The subject of myths and legends is a very wide and diverse one. Some of the further links in the two articles I linked may lead you to material of further interest to you. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.22 (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Some legends may derive from actual people and events that are not (or not reliably) historically recorded". Why those people or events were not being recorded if they were real people and events? Why did people try to embellish and distort the real stories? Could it be something unexplainable, supernatural, miracles... did indeed happen and people were actually telling the truths.Pendragon5 (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have access to everything that was ever written, plus we don't have access at all to stories that folks made up and never wrote down until many generations later after they had been embellished. Some modern-day legends are easier to pin down because they are better recorded, but even now there can be unsolved and unsolvable mysteries about the origins of legends. As to "why" to embellish stories, it's because they're more interesting that way. There was a Robert of Locksley, a thief who was hanged many centuries ago, who may well be the inspiration for Robin Hood, an otherwise-mythological hero. Maybe he was known for generosity, maybe for robbing the rich and giving to the poor. Maybe he was good with bow-and-arrow. That's enough basic facts to give someone with imagination the inspiration to tell tales. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many stories are exaggerated for reasons of propaganda or entertainment, as well as being accidentally changed. If you want to tell a good story, you may combine legends about different people to refer to the same hero, exaggerate to better fit the accepted format of legend, or you may be confused by people with similar names. This probably happened with e.g. King Arthur, Roland, and Saint Patrick. Stories of Jesus were probably manipulated to fit Old Testament prophecy[6] and to match other myth systems (Mithras in comparison with other belief systems). For propaganda you may exaggerate the deeds of your people's heroes, or make up stories about the evil things your enemies do: there were lies told in the Western media about German atrocities in World War I (e.g. The Crucified Soldier myth) and even about Saddam Hussein (Rationale for the Iraq War), so it's likely that similar lies were told before then. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 18

Im trying to figure out what this is

I am trying to figure out what this is all i know is that it is from the late 1800's http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/Krazy006/IMAG0129.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.252.191 (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can assume the white zip tie isn't an original part. BTW, I removed your double posting of this Q on the Misc Desk. StuRat (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Is that the only photo you have? Dismas|^(talk) 02:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like some sort of squeezing device, possibly to extract liquids, with a part missing. The set screw on the left locks in some sort of 'die' and the part with the holes filters out the larger bits after the die. Having a removeable die could be for cleaning it, or different squeezing aplications.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Aloysius' queen

From Aloysius Gonzaga:

Purity was his notable virtue; he never looked even upon his mother's face and never looked at his queen so that he could only recognize the queen by her voice.

He appears to have lived most of his life in the Papal States, and of the other states mentioned in his biography, I get the impression that he didn't spend any time (aside from travelling) in countries with queens, other than a couple of years in Spain. Is this perhaps a reference to Mary, Queen of Heaven? The section in question (along with most of the rest of the article) is completely unsourced. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would take it to be a loose reference to Maria of Austria, Holy Roman Empress, in whose household he is described, earlier in the article, as being a page: its context and phrasing doesn't seem consistent with visions of a divine entity, and refusal to look at the face of The Blessed Virgin (for fear of feeling sexual attraction) doesn't sound like a conventional Christian attitude (though refusing to look at one's own mother's face for the same reason also sounds pretty weird). I suspect from the prose style that much of this article has been copied or paraphrased from (out-of-copyright?) Catholic reference works, but the edit history is too long and complicated for me to want to work out just where this sentence was introduced. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.22 (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was added in May of 2008,[7] by an editor who worked on various Catholic articles for a couple of months around then, and then disappeared. Perhaps his other edits should be scrutinized for similar types of comments, as that one is not only an unsourced editorial, it also sounds like it was lifted directly from somewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great Lakes battlefleets

What are the names of the U.S. Navy and Canadian Navy fleets operating in the Great Lakes? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 02:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure there are any? The Great Lakes would seem to be more in the realm of the U.S. Coast Guard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Now if you mean way back, there were fleets around the time of the American Revolution and War of 1812. StuRat (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Canada–United States relations — between the fact that no other countries have access to the Great Lakes and the fact that there have been excellent relations between the two countries for the last century, there's no real need for either country to maintain military fleets in the Great Lakes. I suppose that Canada might have some sort of naval facilities along the lakes, but I know nothing about them. As far as I know, the only American naval facilities along the lakes are (1) the Naval Station Great Lakes, where new sailors are trained, and (2) Niagara, a museum ship that was part of American fleet during the War of 1812; it's definitely not a warship anymore, and its governing agency (which isn't naval at all) doesn't even have the money to maintain it. Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian Coast Guard also operates on the Great Lakes. There are Royal Canadian Navy stations there too (HMCS York in Toronto for example) but I don't think navy ships actually patrol the lakes or anything. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. doesn't currently have navy ships in the Great Lakes (Naval Station Great Lakes had an aircraft carrier in WWII, though). In fact, there was a "healthly debate" when the U.S. Coast Guard wanted to start live fire training exercises on the Lakes after 9/11.[8] 75.41.109.190 (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The USS Wolverine (IX-64) was the training aircraft carrier. It was a high speed steam powered sidewheeler ship which trained 10,000 naval aviators a year while leaving the real aircraft carriers available for war operations. It was not quite a real aircraft carrier (lacked an airplane elevator), used for WW2 pilot training on Lake Michigan. Videos of her in operation: [9], [10]. I could not find my favorite video of the Wolverine, in which a biplane is landing as the big paddlewheels churn, while a waterspout is seen in the background. See also [11]. Edison (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Flight of the Bumblebee bravura?

I was surprised to not see that word in its article. I'm not a classical geek though so it's more than possible it shouldn't be there. I'm just wondering. Flight is one of those pieces everyone plays to show off, so... no? Equazcion ^(talk) 05:39, 18 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Despite what Bravura says, I must say that in half a century of serious involvement in classical music, I have never, ever heard a piece of music described as "a bravura". I've only heard that word used as an attributive adjective (never as a predicate, as in your header), and then only to describe sections of works, such as "The finale of Rachmaninoff's 2nd Piano Concerto opens with a magnificent bravura cadenza". It's often found where "virtuosic" is also found.

The Flight of the Bumblebee could validly be described as "a bravura showpiece", or something like that, but not just "a bravura". Even "The piece is bravura" would sound quite odd. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just one problem, Jack: you're the first editor to put an article in front of bravura. The question was "Is Flight of the Bumblebee bravura?" as in "Are apples green?" [or "is my face red?" ;-) ] —— Shakescene (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC) Let me soften that by saying that I think that I, too, saw a non-existent "a" in front of bravura perhaps because we're used to seeing "Is The X a Y?", but then I looked again and like the man who wasn't there, it wasn't there. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to quote from Bravura: In classical music, a bravura is a virtuosic passage intended to show off the skill of a performer .... That's what I was commenting on. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did mean it as Jack describes, despite my wording that could go either way; so that was a valid answer, as it turns out :) I'm basing this on what I learned in my college Music 101 class, which seemed to put bravura in the list of piece classifications, like cantata, chorus, etc. If it's not used in practice that way I understand though. Thanks for the answers :) Equazcion ^(talk) 14:55, 18 Mar 2012 (UTC)

I have never encountered "bravura" used in that way (sc. like cantata, chorus, etc). The OED does however list as meaning 2 "A passage or piece of music requiring great skill and spirit in its execution, written to task the artist's powers.", with examples using "a/the bravura", though the most recent quotation of this use is 1846, while it has more recent examples of the attributive (i.e. adjectival) use. --ColinFine (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon King temple in Oregon

Where is there a Dragon King temple in Oregon as stated in that article? Also is there any other non-Judeo-Christian-Islamic places of worship in Oregon?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rajneeshpuram (infamous but defunct)... AnonMoos (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baha'i in Oregon, for intance. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 19:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper "LA Times"

Hi! Can anyone say me please, how many pages the LA Times issues have? I need this information for a library order. I have to know only the average number of pages, not exactly. Thanks a lot, -- Doc Taxon (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you didn't get an answer last time you asked, it is likely no one here knows the answer. Try calling the LA Times office and asking them. RudolfRed (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or just buy a copy and count them... --Tango (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't live in (northern) California any more, so I don't regularly see copies of the printed Los Angeles Times, but my memory is that like many newspapers, but perhaps more than most, its page count is highly variable, both within a week and from week to week. This is especially true of the Sunday L.A. Times. When advertising for holidays, travel, grocery stores (Wednesday), entertainment (Thursday through Sunday) or cars (usually Saturday & Sunday) goes up, so does the available "newshole" for editorial matter. When advertising and readership are low (Saturday), then there's scant space for news, even if three or four very major, complex stories break out at the same time. You also have to take into account different editions for Orange County, San Diego and other markets. There might be a statistic somewhere for the total annual number of pages printed, which you can then divide by 52 or 365 for a rather arbitrary and somewhat artificial mean average number of pages (when a median or mode might be closer to what you're seeking). Have you tried searching on Google or another engine for such a number? —— Shakescene (talk) 08:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I used to deliver papers, the first thing we looked at was the number of pages, because of the weight we had to pack. Monday were thinest, and friday were heaviest. Friday could have twice the pages of monday some weeks.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PNG geographic name

What's the name of the large peninsula in PNG informally known as the "bird's tail"? — kwami (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to have any more offical name, it just seems to be refered to as the southeastern peninsula or Bird's Tail peninsula, at least in English. If it has a different name in the Dagan languages, I can't find it. Smurrayinchester 09:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess PNG stands for Papua-New Guinea? Dismas|^(talk) 13:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Side issue.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
He's asking for the name of the peninsula, not what PNG means. PNG obviously means Papua New Guinea. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] It wasn't so obvious to me. That's why I asked. I'm sorry that I'm too dumb for you. :\ Dismas\|^(talk) 13:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you supply some geographical coordinates, so we know which one you mean? Sample coordinate-providing page; it's my favorite. Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:New guinea named.PNG shows the island New Guinea. Papua New Guinea is a country consisting of the Eastern half of the island and many smaller islands. The shape of New Guinea is compared to a bird. The southeastern peninsula is called the "bird's tail", or simply referred to as "the southeastern peninsula". I haven't found other names used in English. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous sources call it the Papuan Peninsula. Looie496 (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks! Funny that's not normally on maps. — kwami (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegates?

Correct me if I am wrong, but if I can recall correctly, until sometime ago, Newt Gingrich had more delegates than Rick Santorum, despite having won only two states. Why was this the case? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand rightly, the primaries aren't winner-take-all like the presidential election; I think the delegates are divvied up proportionally. If so, it's like points-based sporting leagues: if you come in second just about every time while some people either win or do rather badly, you can still come out first overall. Nyttend (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked into the rules for those two states but it's often the case that if the winner of the primary doesn't get at least a certain percentage of the votes, then each candidate gets a portion of the delegates. In Vermont, for instance, if candidate A doesn't get at least 50% of the votes, then the delegates will be split up amongst the candidates. Also, not every state has the same number of delegates. See Proportional representation. Dismas|^(talk) 13:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

States have different systems for assigning delegates. See Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries and South Carolina Republican primary, 2012. The South Carolina primary was early. Gingrich got 40.4% of the votes but 23 of 25 delegates. Santorum got 17.0% and 0 delegates. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The presidential election isn't entirely winner take-all either. See United_States_electoral_college#Congressional_District_Method. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maine and Nebraska's approach is of shady constitutionality, and if the approach tips the scales of the election sometime, there is liable to be a political firestorm. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though this has nothing to do with convention delegates, Baseball Bugs' constitutional understanding is a bit under the shade itself. Nothing requires all of a state's electors to vote the same way. New Jersey's electors were split 4-3 in the historic United States presidential election, 1860 and I'm pretty sure that the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly upheld Michigan's former practice of dividing her Electoral College delegation between the Congressional Districts on the Upper Peninsula and those on the Lower. In 1892, the new state of North Dakota split her three electors three ways: one each for ex-President Grover Cleveland (D), sitting President Benjamin Harrison (R) and Gen. James B. Weaver (People's Party). A glance at any historical table or map of presidential elections will show dozens of other examples, often selected by Congressional District or else (as in New Jersey's case in 1860) running as individuals statewide on a "general ticket". See Electoral College (United States). —— Shakescene (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC) ¶ The relevant U.S. Supreme Court case upholding the State of Michigan's power to determine how to choose Electors — consonant with the 12th, 14th and 15th Amendments — is McPherson v. Blacker 146 U.S. 1 (1892), text available here. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine monthly dating scheme

I've been trying to remember why uk magazines that are released in March are dated as April, does anyone know? I saw something on tv about it a few years ago but can't remember the reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Podge Papin (talk • contribs) 15:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cover date suggests it is to A) to allow magazines to appear 'current' to consumers even after having been on sale for some time and B) to inform newsstands when an unsold magazine is ready to be removed from the shelf and returned to the publisher/destroyed. ny156uk (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just UK magazines, either. It's pretty standard. It's also not limited to the magazine industry. 2013 model cars are being released now, in March 2012, presumably for the same reason. Mingmingla (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the off sale date rather than the on sale date. If it were "on sale" it would be the month it was released: as it's "off sale", it's the month it's due to be removed from the bookstands. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good way to explain it. Some magazines that are to be left on the newsstand for more than one month will explicitly say on the cover, "Remove from newsstand on such-and-such date", or words to that effect. Weeklies and monthlies have that assumption built in. There does seem to be a "creeping earliness" to this, though. For example, Leonard Maltin's annual film book dated the next year seems to come out earlier every year. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Shelf life and Model year.—Wavelength (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Gaines worked out a schedule for the release of Mad Magazine eight times a year, according to which no issue was supposed to be for sale on newsstand magazine racks during the month listed on the cover... AnonMoos (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep in mind the dates on which periodicals go to press, are mailed out, and actually arrive on someone's doorstep. My next column for a local free monthly needs to be submitted by the end of March so that the issue can be edited, sent to press before the middle of April and then mailed out in mid-April to ensure that most households in the area get it by bulk mail by the beginning of May. Some issues will appear in local shops in late April, and many (but not all) postal customers will see it then; however the date and the content both refer to May 2012. Similarly with the April issue of Popular Mechanics that I've already received by mail; the publishers and readers would both far prefer that issues arrive a few weeks "early" and generate no doubts or complaints than leave the readers wondering whether or when "this month's issue" will arrive. ¶ But with a newsweekly like TIME, Newsweek, Bloomberg Businessweek or The Economist, the reasons are closer to those given above; the date on the cover is the last day the issue is meant to be on sale, which seems to hold generally true in New York, London and Washington, but much less so in other cities where an issue printed to appear on Monday (with a cover date of the following Monday) may not show up until Tuesday or Wednesday. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some publications have a 13-issues-per-year system (which divides neatly into 4 week periods), named January-December and the extra issue Christmas or similar. This means as you go through the year, issues become earlier and earlier. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, if only I were a publication. Then I'd have only 12 or maybe 13 issues a year. As it is, I'm lucky if I have only that many issues to grapple with every day. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Better than dying without issue, Jack. On the other hand I wonder how many mothers would welcome the prospect of 12 or 13 issue a year? ;-) —— Shakescene (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Argentina and Brazil in Bengali culture

when being a fan of Argentina and Brazil became a value or part of the Bengali culture? Why? is it because Maradona and Pele were considered the best soccer players by the Bengali people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.168 (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that soccer is a sensation in Bangladesh, where roughly half of the Bengali people live, as evidenced by this article bringing French soccer player Zinedine Zidane to rural Bangladesh (Grameen Danone). However, I'm not sure about your question directly, but culturally it is possible that Argentina and Brazil are considered great teams. This article mentions Pele in addition to Bengali people (i.e. Kishore). ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 18:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's traditional in the world of football to pick between Argentina and Brazil (rarely will anyone be considered a fan of both rival squads). In other words, this is not unique to Bengali people. However, I am not sure when exactly this started. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial police force

Would a policeman in west Africa have reached the rank of Major? Kittybrewster ☎ 20:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific? What policeman? Where in west Africa? When? --Tango (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I.F.G.Coles born c.1912 Country unknown.Kittybrewster ☎ 23:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds unlikely to me that the British Colonial Police would have used military ranks, like Major. This article, Law Enforcement in British Colonial Africa, says that the Colonial Police in Africa followed the Royal Irish Constabulary model, which was more para-military than the mainland British police forces. Our article says that the RIC rank of District Inspector 1st Class carried the "insignia of a Major" (ie a crown). This article, Khaki and Blue: Military and Police in British Colonial Africa, says; "Personnel of colonial police forces were divided into three main groups: gazetted officers, nongazetted officers, and constables. Gazetted officer titles were standardized in 1937 to include superintendents, commissioners, and inspector generals. Nongazetted officers included inspectors, while constable levels included rank and file police corporals and sergeants." Alansplodge (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, bear in mind that a substantial number of officers in colonial police forces would have been ex-military, especially in the immediate aftermath of major wars - after 1945, there were a lot of youngish unemployed majors born c.1910! Shimgray | talk | 20:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. In the British forces, retired officers with a rank above Captain (or equivelent in the RN or RAF) are allowed to use their rank as a courtesy title instead of "Mr". But an active police officer wouldn't use an ex-military rank in preference to his police title. Alansplodge (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Crown as used in the Colonial Police forces to indicate the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police. To differentiate the badge from the army, it was Silver in colour.

Procrastination and politics

Hi. My first question is related to observations of my own behaviour: why is it that I often procrastinate more on tasks and long-term goals that I actually want to accomplish, and projects started in my free time that may be enjoyable, as opposed to short-term educational assignments? What implications does this have for goal-setting? Are there any articles on this form of procrastination?

The second part of this question is related to observations concerning politics in the modern Western world: politics often becomes very ad-hominem. Is this a basic tendency of human nature, or is there some other reason why humans tend to comment on the contributor, rather than the content–that is, attacking the policy-maker, rather than the policy itself? How can human nature be addressed?

Finally, I'd like to know more about how these above topics are related. No, I am not requesting medical, legal, homework, horticultural, opinionated or diatribical advice, but more about information regarding the amplification of procrastination in political decisions, human perceptions of risk and value, and moreover the contribution of compassion fatigue into the aforementioned issues and crises in "First World" attention span. Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 18:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why in the world do you think that procrastination has anything to do with political attacks? Looie496 (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts on the first question ((original research, I'm afraid). A few months ago I noticed that my own procrastination is often purposeful: it makes sure that there is always something hanging over me to keep me from doing anything risky like trying something new. --ColinFine (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Compassion fatigue in charitable giving" often has little to do with attention span as such, and more with the fact that people are often most inclined to give when there's a natural disaster or other simple-to-understand catastrophe, and people can feel that their donations will help in restoring the situation to some kind of relative normality. When there's no such simple comprehensible narrative, but instead a complex political situation with many contending groups with opposing interests and convoluted twists and turns (as in the Congo war and its aftermath) and/or people feel that their aid will be used for long-term subsistence maintenance of those displaced or impoverished by ongoing politics, then that's when the "fatigue" really sets in. People considering donating to Somalia relief, for example, might naturally wonder how the current situation is really different from that of 20 years ago, and if it will still be much the same 20 years from now, or whether their donations might perhaps help the conflict to continue by relieving warlords or extremist groups from the need to consider the well-being of the populations in territories they control, etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's related to how much you want to achieve it - the key difference is that some of the goals are long-term and some short-term. You can't procrastinate much on short-term goals - if it needs to be done by the end of the day then you have to get on and do it. If you have several months to do it, then it's easy to convince yourself that starting it tomorrow rather than today won't do much harm (you can then make the same argument tomorrow, until, in my experience, you finally realise a week before the deadline that you haven't even started...). This is a very topical subject for me - I have some exams next week and my kitchen is now spotless! --Tango (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that people choose to do tasks first which are:

1) Quicker.

2) More enjoyable.

3) More important, in terms or reward for completion and punishment for failure to finish.

However, which of these 3 factors is more important may vary by the individual. Also, true procrastinators may intentionally put off the more important tasks, being afraid they will mess them up. StuRat (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White African Americans and black non-African Americans and the one drop rule

In the application papers for most jobs, colleges, dating sites, etc. there is always a section that asks you to describe your race. One of the options, of course, is “African American” and one of the options is, of course, “White or Caucasian.” This seems to assume that all African Americans are black and that all blacks are descendants from Africa, but that is not always the case and so it just appears to be discriminatory. There are some African countries with a significant portion of the population being white like in South Africa. Two famous white Africans include Richard Dawkins and Orlando Bloom. The Australian Aborigines, for example, are black, or would be considered black under the one drop rule. The same thing applies with the Southeast Asian Negrito people. If I were to be an American whose parents were whites born in Africa and who practices and observes the customs and cultures from whatever part of Africa they would have originated from, would I put “White or Caucasian” or “African American” in an application paper; and if I were to be an American whose parents where Australian Aborigines or “Negritos” from Southeast Asia, would I put “African American,” “Native American,” or what if was filling out an application paper, especially if there was no "Other" option (many application papers lack that option I noticed)? Where would the one drop rule fit and apply in all this? What would I say to either of the 2 cases I described above if I were to be asked personally about what race would I be or something along that line? Willminator (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast to the "1 drop rule" there has always been "passing as white" when it is convenient, or claiming "Cherokee" ancestry if in the US South. Some colleges or employers with US government contracts give preference in admissions or hiring for "disadvantaged minority" status, so checking the "African American " box when someone has 1/32 African ancestry might be beneficial,even if they could easily pass as white or perhaps "Southern European." Any African ancestry less than a Quadroon , like an "Octaroon" (one of eight grandparents African) was hard to discern. In the pre-Civil War US South, writers discussed the existence of red or blond haired and blue eyed slaves, who were slaves because of the condition of servitude of their parents, rather than because of their features and skin color, and considered the difficulties in the distant future of a large proportion of the slaves being indistinguishable from free persons, due to racial admixture. Edison (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

African American is a particular cultural identity based on the particular experiences and context of slaves and descendants of slaves in America: it doesn't mean someone of recent African ancestry who is an American citizen. If someone came from South Africa or some other specific country and became an American citizen, they would generally be termed (or term themselves) a South African - American or Ugandan-American or such like. "African Americans" typically do not know where in the continent of Africa their black ancestors came from, because records of such things were not kept. They might be lucky enough to be able to trace some of their white ancestors.

It is not to do with physical appearance, or genetics, or anything so measurable: it is the creation of a positive identity for people whose family history has generally been erased. The American construct of race does not generally include Aboriginal Australians: you'd have to put whatever category you felt best, or add your own 'other'. It is an unwise form that does not include 'other' for something as open as ethnicity or race (although, I guess you could just put anything other than "white or caucasian", and it would usually give the main data point they really want). If you're white, mark down white because you will be treated as someone who is white, and the form is generally checking for prejudice in the system. 86.164.69.49 (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two key problems here. One is that race and ethnicity are extremely poorly defined. Yes, Africans and Australian Aborigines have fairly similar coloured skin, but there is really no reason to group them together. Conversely, there are people from Africa with all kinds of difficult skin colours, and it would probably make sense to group them together for certain purposes. The second problem is the euphemism "African American". As with many euphemisms, it doesn't really carry the same meaning as the word it is used in place of ("black"). I remember hearing somewhere that when the US media were reporting on the riots in France a few years ago involving a lot of black French people, they referred to the rioters as African Americans despite them not being American in the slightest, simply because the US media couldn't bring themselves to say the word "black". --Tango (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate a link to the supposed instance of US mainstream news media calling black French people "African Americans." It might have happened if a reporter did not have his brain in gear, but is smacks of an urban legend. "I remember hearing somewhere" is an inadequate reference when you cast aspersions on the journalists of a nation. Edison (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reference is probably to CNN's Carol Lin, who when asked for comment during a live slot, replied "it’s been 11 days since two African-American [by which she means Tunisian] teenagers were killed, electrocuted during a police chase, which prompted all of this". - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 10:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have this sort of thing in the UK too. There's usually a box marked "Other" with a space where you could write "Australian Aborogine" or "White South African" or "Inuit" or however you like to identify yourself. Folks with a certain political agenda sometimes ignore the usual "White British" box, tick "Other" and then write-in "English" (the thought being that you can aquire British citizenship, but, in their worldview, you have to be "born English"0. Alansplodge (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what would happen if someone ticked the wrong box, a white South African ticking the African-American box for example, or if someone deliberately lied when answering that question? Would it matter? Astronaut (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't these questions usually ask which race you self-identify as? I don't see how anyone could demonstrate that you are lying about that. Maybe some countries have legal definitions of race, though? 81.98.43.107 (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that there are basically two ways in which this data is used in the United States:

1. To comply with equal opportunity statistics keeping. If you run a business where 95% of the people applying are a minority (or female, or whatever) but 100% of the people you hire are white (or male, or whatever), you are probably going to run into discrimination issues. If the percentages don't show systematic bias then it's not an issue. So a handful of falsified entries are unlikely to make any difference there. I suspect that in most cases these statistics are just kept for reference and are not trotted out unless there are serious accusations being leveled. And in all cases I'm pretty sure these are voluntary — you can decline to state anything, if you want.

2. In some areas they relate to affirmative action policies. I'm not familiar enough with these to know what happens if you deliberately falsify data, but I doubt anyone is going to get too mad about honest differences of opinion, given the self-identified nature of them. In any case, giving knowingly false data on an application is usually grounds for rejection.

As for the categories not matching up with the "real world" — the thing is, racial categories are variable and arbitrary by definition. These particular ones have been crafted for specific social purposes. There is always an "other" box for people who feel too hemmed in by them. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of mentions here of Australia, so let's add some information. Very few forms in Australia ask for "racial" information. The word "race" is hardly ever used anywhere in Australia. Many forms for government and education institutions ask a question like "Are you an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander?" (no mention of "race".) Note that it's asking the individual to make their own judgement and declaration, so it's about self-identification. The reason for the question is that additional federal funding is frequently available to the relevant institutions, and there are special government programs in place to address disadvantage for such people. Other "races" hardly ever crack a mention. Our five-yearly national census asks people to tick a box or boxes to identify their "ancestry". Again, it doesn't use the word "race". And because of the massive amount of mixed parenting that has occurred in Australia since non-Aboriginal people arrived, and the massively diverse backgrounds from which they have come, (and, some might argue, the impact of suntan on some outdoor workers) skin colour is an almost useless indicator of anything to do with race, ancestry or what one might self identify as. I would also point out that it isn't much of a problem, because most Australians don't really care. HiLo48 (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a news story in the last 2 years of a white South African-born US high school student who ran for and won some election as "African American Student of the Year" or some such, then was suspended by the school. Edison (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They could drop the "African-American" schtick and go back to "Negroid", provided the whites and Asians are likewise labeled "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there was much point in that one really should distinguish between lots of different Africans as they are more varied than the rest of the world put together. Dmcq (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP began "In the application papers for most jobs, colleges, dating sites, etc. there is always a section that asks you to describe your race. One of the options, of course, is “African American” ..." and my first thought was, I haven't seen that option on the forms I am confronted with. Anyway. One resource: Black people. And, without wishing to cast aspersions on a whole nation of journalists, I can confirm that I too have heard a white, well-educated, well-intentioned American make the classic slip-up of referring to black people who have nothing to do with the United States as "African-American". I'd be interested to know to what extent that was the case in the American media with regard to the 2005 civil unrest in France and indeed the 2011 England riots. BrainyBabe (talk)

In America, asking that kind of info on a typical job app would be illegal. Dating sites, sure. Or Hollywood casting calls, where they're looking for specific types of all kinds. But not on standard job apps. If the OP has actually seen one on a job app, maybe he could point us to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I lived in the US virtually every black person I knew referred to themselves as black. I am curious as to whether blacks actually consider themselves African-American or is the term used solely by the US Government? I am reminded of when my white Cuban friend enrolled at a college in Los Angeles and was informed that she was a member of the Hispanic race. Completely baffled, my friend had to ask what the word meant having never heard it before!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I regard "African-American" as patronizing to black people; trying to tell them how to define themselves, rather than letting them do it. As with "Negro" or "Colored" in generations past. Same with "Native American" rather than "American Indian", never mind that many (though not all) actually like the term "Indian". I was born here, so I'm a "native American", but my ethnic ancestry is English. Maybe the best comment I've heard on this was by Whoopi Goldberg, who said something like, "I've been to Africa. I'm not African-American, I'm American." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Letting people describe their own ancestry is surely the safest and nicest thing to do. (We all have plenty of ancestors to choose from, after all.) Other labelling would hopefully be unnecessary. HiLo48 (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the ideal world, yes. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 19

Share devalue to cover losses

http://www.duro-dakovic.com/company_profile/ownership_structure/default.aspx

To cover losses coming from previous time periods and to give real value to the company simple decrease of nominal capital was carried out, by decrease of the nominal value of one share from 200,00 kuna to 100,00 kuna.

Is there an article on this, or can someone explain the part about the share price devalue to cover previous operating losses - I assume this is a unilateral action by the board of the company - I sort of understand that this could make sense, but I don't really understand how losses are moved off the balance sheet etc. Can someone explain this simply. If they want they can modify Đuro_Đaković_(company)#Đuro Đaković Holding too ! Oranjblud (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The effect on the company's balance sheet of reducing the nominal value of issued shares is to transfer funds from shareholders' capital into reserves. If the company had negative reserves as a result of previous losses, this transfer will reduce those negative reserves, and may even leave the company with a positive reserve figure. In effect, shareholders are recognising that the company will not produce sufficient profits in the forseeable future to cover its previous losses, and so part of their capital has been lost. In UK company law, this transfer creates a non-distributable reserve known as a redeonimation reserve - see here. I know nothing about Croatian company law, but I doubt this type of action can be taken unilaterally by the board - a UK company would need to pass a special resolution, which must be agreed by at least 75% of shareholders. However, since the company in question is over 70% state owned, this agreement may have been a formality. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - what you described is the sort of thing I was slowly grasping at as the rational .. "redenominantion reserve" [12] is something I had not heard of and would have never guessed. I guess the croatian case will be differenct but the basic principle the same.

If anyone does have a relevant explanatory link that could be inserted into the article please do so.Oranjblud (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bermondsey Palace

Apropos of a question on last week's Mastermind, I'm curious about Bermondsey Palace. When Eleanor of Aquitaine first came to England with Henry II Westminster Palace was unavailable, so they set up their court at Bermondsey Palace. Apparently Henry the Young King was born there in 1155. But it seems that the palace is THE ONLY THING IN THE WHOLE DAMN WORLD which we don't have an article about.^{[citation needed]} Google searching brings very little information. So, what can you tell me about the palace? Where was it, when was it, what is there left of it? All information gladly received. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The British History website has this section on Bermondsey palace and abbey. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article on Bermondsey Abbey; the building later described as "King John's Palace" appears to have been given to the Abbey by William Rufus. Only older sources seem to mention it as a Royal Palace, like this BERMONDSEY: Description and History from 1868 Gazetteer. Alansplodge (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TammyMoet's link above says; "The quotation inserted in Aubrey's Antiquities of Surrey, as the only conjectural proof that the kings of England had a residence at this place after the grant above-mentioned (ie that of William Rufus), has been totally misunderstood, and proves nothing.". Alansplodge (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about Henry II and Eleanor "holding court" at Bermondsey. This book, Lives of the Queens of England from the Norman Conquest By Agnes Strickland, Elizabeth Strickland, admittedly written in 1841, says: "...but directly the coronation was over, ther king conducted his queen to the palace of Bermondsey, where after remaining some weeks in retirement, she gave birth to her second son, the last day of February 1155." (p. 256) This is not inconsistent with here being packed off to a nearby abbey rather than a palace to give birth. So it looks as though Bermondsey Palace is more legend than fact, but we need to find a modern, reliable source. Alansplodge (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the lack of corroboration on that was what got me wondering. But I heard it on Mastermind, and they're usually quite scrupulous with their facts, so it must be out there somewhere. For completeness, the question was: "When Eleanor and Henry first arrived in London, Westminster Palace was uninhabitable, in which palace did they set up their court?" (A:) "Bermondsey". It's available on iPlayer (UK only) until the end of the week. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They do say that don't they. As you say, they're usually reliable. Alansplodge (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found The natural history and antiquities of the county of Surrey: Begun in the year 1673 by John Aubrey Esq. F.R.S. and continued to the present time, Volume V (1719). It says: "Mr Aubrey tells us, that he was assured by one Mr Hawkins, that this Abbey of Bermondsey was King John's Palace, and converted into an abbey; but upon what Authority this information was grounded I cannot find." (p. 35). The author then goes on to quote some Latin texts that might support there having been a palace in the vicinity. This seems to have been written by Richard Rawlinson who is credited along with Aubrey on this page - but hardly a ringing endorsement. Alansplodge (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article says that the questions for Mastermind are set by a company called 21st Century Quiz. You could drop them an email and see what they've got to say for themselves! Alansplodge (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a job for an antiquary. If we're looking for a modern, reliable source I'll put forward the third volume of the Oxford History of England, Austin Lane Poole's From Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 1087-1216, 2nd edition (1955), p. 321: "The work [of putting the barons down] was begun immediately after the coronation [of Henry II] at the Christmas court at Bermondsey priory". That does seem to show that he owned something substantial at Bermondsey, so we might just as well call it a palace. --Antiquary (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe they had the use of part of the abbey as a temporary measure? The plot thickens. Alansplodge (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth remembering that this was a period when the king and his court traveled around the country, more or less at will, spending a period as one vassal's guest, then moving on to another. A priory is a convent or monastery, so the 1955 citation indicates that the king was holding court at the Abbey of Bermondsey. No doubt the abbot had a nice residence. If the king and his new bride showed up and wanted to stay there, the abbot was probably not in a position to refuse. I don't see anything to suggest that the king owned a palace at the abbey. Marco polo (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should also bear in mind that 'palace' doesn't necessarily mean 'royal residence': see for example Fulham Palace - the former residence of the Bishop of London. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Winchester Palace is just down the road, but I'm certain that's not what was meant. Alansplodge (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information so far everyone. And thanks Alan for the contact details for the question setters. I have emailed them and I hope that they'll be able to help out. I'll keep you posted. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a reply from the very lovely question-master Ray, who says:

"The setter's source books for this subject were :

Marion Meade : Eleanor of Aquitaine Phoenix press 1977 reissued 2002 (p203-4) and

Alison Weir: Eleanor of Aquitaine by the Wrath of God Queen of England Vintage 2007 (p107)."

So, does anyone have access to either of these books, with the possibility to see what's mentioned on the subject of Bermondsey Palace? I'd love to know anything about it - I'm getting quite curious now! - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books has a snippet view of Weir's book, where she calls it "the old Saxon palace" on p. 107. There is a footnote but I can't see that part of the page. On p. 147, Bermondsey is mentioned as the location of the royal court during Christmas. On p. 150, Eleanor gives birth to Henry the Young King there in 1155. Unfortunately I can't view Meade's book at all. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a para to the Royal Connections section of our Bermondsey Abbey article about the Christmas court and the birth of Henry. I have also added a sub-section about the supposed "King John's Palace". Can someone check it for me please? Alansplodge (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a book/story

I am looking for a book or story, but I don't know the title or author, and only remember it vaguely. It is about an author who is so utterly convincing in his roles because he goes and lives them for real before filming. Like if he has to play a bum, he lives on the street for a few months. In the end he has to play a cult leader that sacrifices a little girl, so... well, you can guess what happens. He ends up in an asylum, and I believe he starts shouting "Someone give me some light!" there. It's not that much information, but does anyone know what story this could be? Thanks 94.226.123.243 (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked around a bit more, and it's probably "All the Sounds of Fear" by Harlan Ellison. 94.226.123.243 (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's definitely the short story 'All the Sounds of Fear' (published in a collection of that title), which I've just reread to check. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.131 (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

is tim cook innovative

is tim cook (or is he considered / woujld he be considered) an innovative individual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.21.225 (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which Tim Cook in particular? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thinks he might mean – he of Apple - but yes, we need clarification--Aspro (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think clarification in other areas is perhaps even more important. Is/would he be considered innovative by whom? (Hopefully not us.) And do you mean people who have specifically called him innovative or else what do you mean by 'considered innovative'? Nil Einne (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the OP means the new CEO of Apple Inc, then he seems to be pursuing a different cash strategy, at least, although it might not be on as a huge scale as it appears. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And for all we know, it could have been Jobs' idea, and maybe they are just now carrying out that plan. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OP here 1) obviously I mean Tim Cook of Apple 2) why did you guys switch to starting to talk about Apple's cash strategy? I mean, is the man, Tim Cook, current CEO of Apple, considered by anyone innovative or vice versa? (the other way around: i.e. not). 188.156.228.96 (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People are worried that he may not be, as he doesn't seem to have much of a track record of innovation; Bloomberg Businessweek writes, "Cook is a talented engineer with a gift for optimizing operations", which hardly indicates confidence in his Job-like inventiveness. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the problem with any organization which is focused on a "cult of personality". With Jobs now gone for good, whether anyone there is truly innovative, remains to be seen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's really far too early to make any assessments of Tim Cook's innovativity (sic), either personal or as the leader of Apple. It takes years for a product to go from conception to release, and Apple is notoriously tight-lipped about future products. Anything that Apple puts out in the next year or two would have been designed primarily during Steve Jobs's tenure at Apple. (Which means in practice Jobs will get most of the credit and Cook will end up with any blame.) Even after we start seeing Cook-only products coming out, it won't lead to a fair assessment, as Cook will always be compared to Jobs, so even if Cook is above average in innovation, he'll come up short against Jobs. That said, everything I've read indicates Cook is satisfied with a caretaker-type CEO-ship. That is, he probably won't be the personal innovator and driver that Jobs was, but rather will curate the innovative talent of others at Apple. -- 71.217.13.130 (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you can find at least one person in the world who consider him innovative and at least one person who does not. Even if you restrict your answers to notable opinions publish in RS, I'm still sure you can find one of either. So I think further clarification is still needed. Nil Einne (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not answering the question directly. I don't think that there is any objective way to assess an individual's innovativeness. So we aren't going to be able to provide a well-sourced and authoritative answer. However, I would point out that Steve Jobs's penchant for innovation is relatively unusual in a CEO and that Apple's future does not necessarily depend on the CEO's ability to innovate. Typically, CEOs manage a company and hire others to innovate. Marco polo (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 20

Engaging in prostitution? Is it possible?

This question was removed and then restored. See the talk page for the relevant discussion. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:23, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)

How does one dabble in prostitution? Say one wanted to engage in it for a short period, have only a few partners, for a short term monetary goal, without generally being part of that network/culture, how would one go about it? Assuming that it's both illegal and stigmatised in the society/country. Howie26 (talk) 08:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot provide advice of this nature. You state that prostitution is illegal in the country in which you are imagining engaging in it. Please don't ask us to assist you in breaking the law. However, if you wish to educate yourself, I would suggest contacting the English Collective of Prostitutes or a similar organisation in your country, which the ECP may well be able to direct you towards. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly offensive for you to assume that I am asking because I wish to begin a career, short-term or otherwise, in prostitution. The query is in regards to several highly influential rumours about the raised tuition fees in the UK leading university students into moonlighting in sex work. It is purely for research and, hopefully, a better picture of that economy. Howie26 (talk) 09:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it's more than "fairly" offensive for you to be asking for advice on how to evade the law and to expect a "go ahead" kind of answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP may be interested in reading about Belle de Jour (writer). Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) See also COYOTE (a self-advocacy group in the U.S.) For a purely literary treatment not involving any practical current business or legal issues, watch the classic French New Wave film Belle de Jour (1967), directed by Luis Buñuel and starring Cathérine Deneuve, or read Belle de Jour, the 1928 novel by Joseph Kessel upon which the film is based. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you move to Nevada, you could work at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch. That way it's legal. Dismas|^(talk) 09:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(to OP) Not every society stigmatizes prostitution. There are some societies where it is normal to engage in prostitution. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 11:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, a great deal of sex work is legal. I suggest reading up on what the trade union says about sex working. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In New Zealand also, prostitution is legal and political parties like ACT New Zealand vocally support prostitution. It does have a sex workers' union New Zealand Prostitutes' Collective. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 12:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another good profession is to work as a sexual surrogate. A sexual surrogate provide sexual services to a client for medical reasons in return for money. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 12:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why be a ho when you can be a Courtesan? Brief quote from the article courtesan: a well-educated and independent woman of loose morals, eventually a trained artisan of dance and singing, especially one associated with wealthy, powerful, or upper-class men who provided luxuries and status in exchange for companionship. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

Working as an escort could easily lead to being asked to perform sexual services for money. It would also provide a degree of screening of customers, so it might be safer. At least in the UK there are also establishments such as saunas which act as fronts for prostitution and advertise for staff. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only a few weeks ago I watched a documentary about lap/pole dancing in the UK (sorry can't remember the title or channel it was on). One of the women featured was an undergraduate student and claimed she was doing it for the money so she could pay her tuition. While she said she wouldn't go further, I can easily imagine there are those who will. In the US, you can advertise online (much to the dismay of protestors). Astronaut (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in a career as a sexual surrogate, you can consult International Professional Surrogates Association. It is a legal and respectable healthcare profession, with chances of being highly successful and famous. After earning a good reputation as a sexual surrogate, you can work as a sexologist or sex educator. But you must have in-depth knowledge of psychosexual development. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP specifically asked about how to evade the law. That's a request for legal advice, which is supposedly against the rules here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that they asked how "one" does so, not how they should. StuRat (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. It's a request for legal advice, and it's against the rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a request for legal advice. If you ask "How did the Great Train Robbers do it?" or "How do confidence tricksters gain the trust of their victims?" that would not be a request for legal advice. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I am sick and tired of the blatant violations of WP:AGF that repeatedly occur on the Reference Desk, as well as the quick removal of every question related to sex. The reference desk is increasingly becoming dominated by censors who arbitrarily judge the motivations of every OP before deciding whether to allow his question, even when such OPs have no history of being disruptive in any way. --140.180.5.239 (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question... how would one go about it? Simple... tell people that you that you are willing to engage in sex for money, and then do so if/when someone takes you up on the offer. (It's kind of like saying how does one become a thief... steal something!) Blueboar (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather simplistic answer. Obviously they don't want to be caught, and may not want all their friends and relatives to know about it, either. So, some subtlety is required. I believe working at an "escort service" is one method. Those who own the escort service may either not be aware that the employee is exchanging sex for money or may not care. The "escort" then would wait for the customer to make the offer, so they can claim entrapment if the customer is really a police officer. StuRat (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the OP's later post makes it clear that he is referring primarily to the UK, the first thing to point out would be that his working assumption that prostitution itself is illegal is incorrect with regard to the UK. We might also helpfully point him to Prostitution in the United Kingdom which sets out the legal situation fairly comprehensively. Valiantis (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking only thinkable thoughts

Template:Formerly

is it meaningful and true and meaningful to say we are constrained to thinking only thoughts that can be thought? Or is that not sensible (first 'meaningful') or in some sense false or at any rate not meaningful (second 'meaningful') i.e. a truism or simple vacuous tautology to say such a thing?

I think it is a valid constraint, an actual constraint. Much like the laws of physics constrains us, surely the space of possible thoughts constrains us to only thinking a thought that can be thought.

so do I have it right, or am I being meaningless or, worse, vacuous? 188.157.169.36 (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's nothing you can do that can't be done, and there's nothing you can sing that can't be sung. --Trovatore (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added link to Trovatore's post, for the benefit of those who might not otherwise realise... Mitch Ames (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the normal sense thoughts involve subjective consciousness. However, meaningful acts can be performed without this. So how are we defining thought.--Aspro (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that Wittgenstein´s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is the relevant reference to start pondering the question. --Incognito.ergo.possum (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tautologically speaking, you can only think what can be thought. You can only sing what can be sung. You can only build what can be built. And so on. It's true but not profound in any way, because it gives you no indication of what an unthinkable thought might be, or even if such a thing even exists. What would be interesting is if you could speak meaningfully about a class of unthinkable thoughts. It's not a totally absurd idea for a hardcore logician. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And keep in mind that you can dream The Impossible Dream. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can a dog think about Goldbach's conjecture? Can he even grasp in some way the concept of such thoughts? I doubt it. Why would we be different? There's an unknown universe of thoughts the human brain can't handle. 84.197.178.75 (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike a dog, we can store thoughts outside our brains, in writings. Thus, we can build theories, devices, etc., too complex for any one person to understand, so long as each of us can understand the little part we work on. Thus, we have a collective brain, which dogs lack. Some other animals may effectively have a collective brain, too, like bees. However, since each of the individuals is so much less intelligent, and the number of individuals which cooperate (one hive) is so much less, their hive mind is far exceeded by ours. This allows us to come up with concepts like string theory, which doesn't match any of our experiences in real life. StuRat (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some people can. But the average person with an IQ of 100 will not come up with string theory. If the average IQ was 70 and the maximum 100, how far would we get? Why should we assume that we have crossed the line where such limitations no longer apply? Will we ever understand consciousness? Who's to say we don't all suffer from anosognosia for these limitations of our reasoning?84.197.178.75 (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's rather my point, we don't all need to be capable of coming up with the most advanced concepts on our own, when, due to our "hive mind", we can all understand it (or at least a simplified version of it), anyway (with the exception of some mentally retarded individuals, perhaps). StuRat (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am revising the heading of this section from "is it meaningful and true and meaningful to say we are constrained to thinking only thoughts that can be thought?" to "Thinking only thinkable thoughts", in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 12 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox).

—Wavelength (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silly question. Of course no one can think about anything that's not notable. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:11, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the question of what it feels like to be a bat, or to think like a bat--a question that I think comes from Thomas Nagel. We humans can think visually but not "echolocationally". More simplistically, if you don't speak Hungarian you are not able to think in Hungarian, right? Pfly (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true, then deeper thoughts ought to come from people fluent in more robust languages. I wonder if anyone has studied this. StuRat (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does one measure the 'robustness' of a language? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just the total number of words would be a rough indication of how "complete" a language is. StuRat (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...what? Why? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you expect a language with only a few hundred words to be "complete" ? Conversely, a language with over a million words would have to be more complete than that, unless they had tens of thousands of synonyms for each of the same few hundred words. StuRat (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that language effects the way one is able to conceptualize things is called the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis or linguistic relativity. I haven't heard of robustness or "deeper thoughts" being part of it though. Pfly (talk) 07:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's poorly stated, at least.

Isn't it in the definition of a "thought" that you can think it?

I think I understand what you're getting at, but, as stated, it seems like it's just a redundant tautology. APL (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese "political intelligence" network abroad

I have long been fascinated by how much of the Chinese overseas intelligence apparatus is devoted to spying on (actual or perceived) "enemies of the state" (political opponents, dissidents, Falun Gong practitioners, etc), as opposed to government, military or industrial espionage. Though China no doubt does plenty of the latter as well.

If Chen Yonglin was indeed saying the truth in his claims, this appears to be a MASSIVE intel effort against individuals who pose no "military" threat whatsoever.

Of course, given the shadowy nature of such activities, I well understand that the answers to my questions here will be, by neccesity, somewhat speculative / estimations (albeit bases on reliable sources).

1. Which branch of the Chinese intel apparatus is responsible for such activities as monitoring Falun Gong practitioners and Pro-Chinese-Democracy activists outside China?

2. How much money and foreign-based personnel are devoted to these activities? How many people are stationed around the globe to keep tabs on such activists? (Chen Yonglin claimed "I am aware there are over 1,000 Chinese secret agents and informants in Australia, and the number in the United States should not be less." He also testified that "The United States and Australia are considered by the CPC as the base of the Falun Gong overseas". This would be befuddling indeed to the western mind, if true.

3. Training spies properly is expensive, and the number you can train to a high standard is limited. Does China consider itself to be getting "value-for-money" or "value-for-personnel" for all this (absurd-seeming) effort?

4. After China, which country would be the one devoting the most effort to such activities? Would Russia be a distant second? 58.111.224.202 (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read, China is very heavy into industrial espionage, not so much into the other forms. This supports their goal of becoming the dominant power through economics, rather than military means. StuRat (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do the OP assume the ref desk volunteers will have answer to all these questions? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 12:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the OP, and no, I have no chinese background whatsoever, to my knowledge. Are there no academics who have tried to assess this shadowy world, it's structure, size, and activities? 58.111.224.202 (talk) 05:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

President and privacy

Suppose President Obama got bored and wanted to watch a movie at the local theater, buy groceries at Food Basic, play paintball with his friends, attend a hackathon, and then go skiing with his family at the local ski resort. Is he allowed to do any of these things without being followed around by Secret Service agents? How much privacy does he have when he's out in public with the rest of us? --140.180.5.239 (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Service's job is to protect The President in general, not Obama in particular. So, no. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Service is part of the Executive Branch; the President is head of the Executive Branch. Barring the terms of some law, which I don't believe pertains, he can order them to get lost and they'll have to do it (with, as you can imagine, strenuous objection, and much lollygagging about how precisely lost they were ordered to get). But obviously Presidents are realists, and don't dish out such orders, because the threats to them are very real. For others under USSS protection, the USSS give them as much latitude as is practical - I once shared a cinema with Energy and her agent sat at the end of the row behind her (in a very early evening showing, when the theatre was nearly empty), I imagine to tell anyone who wanted to sit in those two rows to sit elsewhere. That seemed to me to be about as far away from Energy and her buddies that the agent could reasonably be, and still do her job (I guess that somewhere else in the theatre was said agent's buddy - I didn't see them). And remember when Twinkle was ticketed by police for underage drinking (ref) and Turquoise had her fake-id confiscated (ref) - in both cases their respective USSS details would be in pretty close proximity and darn sure what was going on - clearly the agents felt that personal protection was their only job, and not enforcing Texas' or Connecticut's drinking laws. That certainly doesn't amount to privacy from Uncle Sam, but that's evidence of a determined effort not to intrude more than is necessary. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 01:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just me, but from your description, being related to the President in any way condemns one to a sad and lonely life. I know a movie theater is not usually a place for socializing, but what if Chelsea wanted to sit with other people, instead of having no one around her for 2 rows? What if she wanted to go to a night club and hit on a boy or two? Does she have to accept the fact that Secret Service agents will be pointing and laughing at her poor tactics while she tries to talk sexy? I don't think sexual interests, or the desire for privacy while engaging such interests, magically disappear when someone's dad becomes president. --140.180.5.239 (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, that's just another facet of their job. They have to balance their core job (protecting their charges) with providing the amount of privacy that A) the situation calls for and B) the privacy that they've had requested of them. In the case of teenage charges, the President has likely had a conversation with both their children and their children's protectors to come to an agreement as to how much privacy that the kids should have. (How's that for an average American family conversation over the dinner table?!) Dismas|^(talk) 02:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was at least one West Wing episode which involved the president's daughter getting into trouble in a bar. I am sure someone can tell us precisely which episode:) I imagine the creators of that show had a better notion about how such things go than us. --99.113.32.198 (talk) 05:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't have to accept 'the fact that Secret Service agents will be pointing and laughing at her poor tactics while she tries to talk sexy' because any SS agent with such a poor level of discretion will likely be fired or at least reprimanded and reassigned to somewhere they are unlikely to cause problems. Nil Einne (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that if something horrible happens to a member of the President's family, it's not likely to result in significant changes to American history, unless the President is so distraught that he resigns or can't handle it emotionally. The President himself has to be protected. There is probably an endless list of would-be assassins of any President, and we don't need another 1963. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a law entrusting the President's protection to the Secret Service. They can be discreet about it—the Obamas like dining out at local restaurants—but that involves a considerable security operation and much inconvenience locally. By the time anyone becomes president, he's got to be used to having security. I personally would find it intolerable as I like my privacy, but I only write about politics, I do not engage in it. Bluntly, the security around a president is as airtight as they can make it, and if he objected, they would stall and send people in to see him and insist on written orders (leaked to the press, of course), etc. Read my current PR, Assassination of William McKinley if you want to see what happens when a president disregards security concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 21

Libertarian figures in science

I'm trying find some names associated with science who hold libertarian political views. This may include medical doctors, scientists, science writers etc. The prominent names I know are of course Ron Paul (medical doctor), John Locke (medical doctor). I'm not sure if all the poeple listed in Scientists opposing mainstream view on global warming are really libertarians or not. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 08:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "libertarian" do you mean the broad philosophical concepts of libertarianism or the narrower, more specific platform of a political party such as the US Libertarian Party (United States) ? In either case, I am sure that you cannot put everyone mentioned in List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming under a single philosophical or political umbrella. The people on this list have reached different (and probably mistaken) conclusions about the scientific evidence for global warming, but their views do not seem to have any common political motivation. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, there's nothing in the definition of being a "libertarian" (any definition) which makes one more or less predisposed to be a climate change skeptic. There are libertarians who accept the conclusions of climate change science, and there are those that are skeptical of it, and there are those at any stage in between. --Jayron32 11:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If you believe in global warming, caused by humans, then you would tend to favor big government solutions (regulations, etc.) to fight it, and this is anathema to Libertarians. StuRat (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing the descriptive and normative aspects of the question. The existence of anthropogenic global warming is a descriptive question and completely neutral politically. What to do about it, if you think it exists, is a normative question.

There are lots of possibilities for how a (big-or-small-l) libertarian might answer the second question, having come to an affirmative answer on the first. But whatever answer is arrived at on the normative question does not affect the descriptive one. --Trovatore (talk) 07:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you seem to be missing is that people who believe in a world without big government must believe that big government is not needed. And this means they tend not to believe that major problems, like global warming, occur due to lack of government regulation. The could, however, believe that global warming occurs due to nature. StuRat (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, again, you're mixing up description and prescription. A libertarian wants as little government regulation as possible (possibly none); that doesn't mean he necessarily has any different description of its effects. If a libertarian finds that the evidence supports anthropogenic global warming, he has various choices. He could say, of course in general I don't like government regulation, but it's a necessity in this case. He could say, I dislike government regulation so much that I'm willing to let the icecaps melt. He could say, the evidence shows that CO2 emissions constitute aggression, and therefore in this case regulation of them is a proper function of government. Or he could say, I'm going to look for a market solution.

I suppose it's also possible that he could say, because of this one case, I withdraw my objection to government regulation in general, and am no longer a libertarian. But of all the options, that's probably the least likely. --Trovatore (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't understand; a person's world-view colors their perception of every problem. Ever heard the expression "If all you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail" ? This applies here. A person with a philosophy which supports government interventions will tend to see many problems which demand government intervention, and a person who opposes government interventions will tend not to see any problems which require it. This could either be a result of "putting blinders on" to ignore "inconvenient truths" which point out deficiencies in their philosophy, or could be the reverse, where they chose a libertarian philosophy precisely because they don't see any problems which require government intervention. Yes, there may be exceptions, but I am describing the tendency. Libertarians perceiving the global warming problem the same as everyone else is as likely as whites in South Africa having perceived Apartheid the same way as blacks did. I suggest you read this essay, particularly the 2nd to last paragraph: [13]. StuRat (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, lets forget the climate change thingy, I just need to know some names of science-related people who professes libertarian views, just like Ron Paul. By libertarian I mean what is meant in the US, socially liberal, fiscally conservative. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 11:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Andre Marrou went to MIT. That doesn't make him automatically a scientist, or science related, but a large number of MIT graduates go on to science-related careers. Michael Badnarik was a computer scientist. That's just a quick perusal of Libertarian presidential candidates. --Jayron32 11:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But on the other hand, a "libertarian" in the US is often just a particular brand of social conservative, so I'm not sure that distinction is going to be helpful here. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, that's a rather unusual statement. How many social conservatives want to legalize drugs and prostitution? --Trovatore (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. US Republicans, generally, hold that the US should use the military to maintain control of the world and support US interests abroad, while US Libertarians are totally isolationist. Thus, regarding military intervention, they are more liberal than the liberals. Therefore, it does seem odd that Ron Paul's running as a Republican, but you'll note he isn't doing very well in the Republican primaries, being at odds with Republican philosophy. StuRat (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarians are not whatsoever "isolationist". That's a complete misrepresentation. Most (not all) Libertarians are non-interventionist, meaning opposed to military adventures in other countries other than in defense of the homeland. But this is not out of nationalism; rather, they don't like Americans being compelled to support these adventures (financially or via conscription), are suspicious of the effect on the liberties of persons in the other countries, and fear that liberties will be lost at home on the excuse that we are at war. --Trovatore (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like "isolationism" to me, as the US was after WW1. StuRat (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you don't know what the word means. See isolationism and non-interventionism; there's a decent treatment of the difference. It's a flat error to use isolationist when you mean non-interventionist. --Trovatore (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said "Libertarians are not whatsoever 'isolationist'." That's wrong, as isolationism includes non-interventionism. You should have said "Libertarians are only isolationist with regards to foreign intervention, and not in regards to immigration and trade", if that's what you meant. StuRat (talk) 04:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I utterly reject that. Libertarians are not isolationist, period. They may have some positions in common with isolationists, but that's a different thing entirely. --Trovatore (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They have some positions in common with isolationists but are not whatsoever isolationist. OK, with that little bit of double-think I think we are done. StuRat (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, you're getting frankly offensive here, starting with using the offensive label isolationist for non-interventionists. It's like saying that Communists wanted economic development in Russia, so if you want economic development in Russia, you must be Communist at least in that. --Trovatore (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing offensive about the term "isolationist". If there was, then all the US history books, written in the US, which stated that the US was isolationist following WW1, were offensive towards the US. StuRat (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's offensive if you disagree with isolationism. Isolationists want to isolate. Non-interventionists have no such goal; they just want to avoid certain sorts of state action. --Trovatore (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding your false analogy with communism, "wanting economic development in Russia" is not an inherent part of communism (the Khmer Rouge for example, didn't much care about that), while "wanting to avoid all foreign intervention" is an inherent part of isolationism. StuRat (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, it's just flat the wrong word. Period. Isolationists want minimal interaction between their country and the outside world. Non-interventionists don't want that. There is no part of non-interventionism that is isolationist, at all, period. --Trovatore (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...except the non-interventionism. StuRat (talk) 06:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-interventionism has no isolationist aspect whatsoever. Isolationism may have a non-interventionist aspect. But that's not non-interventionism's fault. You can't control who decides to agree with you, in the context of a larger abhorrent philosophy. --Trovatore (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, I suggest you read these references [14][15]. Isolationism, with protectionism as its central pillar, is a nationalist position. On the other hand, non-interventionism is based on the non-aggression axiom. Country A has no moral right to attack country B unless B attacks A. Since isolationism emphasizes forced separation of nations, isolationism is a variant of interventionism. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 06:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Thus, regarding military intervention, they are more liberal than the liberals." This is a silly statement. American liberalism has never been isolationist. Ideologically it is not isolationist — it is often quite interventionist when it comes to defense and humanitarian intervention. Isolationism/interventionism doesn't map along the traditional conservative/liberal ideological bounds very well in the United States, but it has traditionally been more prominent amongst conservatives than it has liberals. The real distinguishing point isn't whether or not you ever intervene, but what you supposedly intervene for. Historically speaking, of course, this is all a big mash in the 20th century, where whether people start or avoid wars has little obvious to do with what their economic and social ideology supposedly is. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did say Republicans favor interventions which "support US interests abroad" (unlike Democrats, which might support interventions for humanitarian reasons). I don't believe Libertarians are likely to support any intervention. The drug and prostitution legalization examples are other cases where they are more liberal than the average Democrat. StuRat (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Ridley, the British writer on genetics, winner of the 2011 Friedrich Hayek prize, and erstwhile opponent of state intervention in the banking industry, is a libertarian in economic policy, though I'm not sure about social thinking. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Libertarians should be called "conservative economically (low taxes and minimal government) and liberal socially (drug and prostitution legalization)". StuRat (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the wrong way around. Broadly speaking, contemporary American conservatism is libertarian economically and anti-libertarian socially, and contemporary American "liberalism" is anti-libertarian economically and libertarian socially. Libertarianism is more philosophically fundamental and consistent than either of those philosophies, so that's the more useful description. --Trovatore (talk) 07:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems more useful to me to describe how the fringe party fits into the dominant parties, since, in the case of Ron Paul, he is trying to do precisely that. StuRat (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That means you're letting yourself be overly influenced by what other people think.

Paul, though, is not a libertarian. He's a conservative with some libertarian instincts. --Trovatore (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I formed my own opinions of him by watching him in the debates. His anti-interventionist statements were not at all in line with the majority of Republicans. StuRat (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is certainly not a standard-issue Republican. That doesn't make him not a conservative. My biggest reason for saying that is his "We The People Act", which appears to be an attempt to roll back certain Supreme Court decisions (e.g. Lawrence v. Texas) that were solidly based in individual liberty concerns. --Trovatore (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul is largely libertarian. But he espouses some non-libertarian views. For example, Paul once supported prohibition of flag desecration. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 07:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article for that (Libertarianism), which cites:

Vallentyne, Peter. "Libertarianism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University. Retrieved November 20, 2011.
Woodcock, George. Anarchism: a history of libertarian ideas and movements. Petersborough, Ontario: Broadview press. pp. 11–31 especially 18. ISBN 1-55111-629-4.
Roderick T. Long (1998). "Towards a Libertarian Theory of Class" (PDF). Social Philosophy and Policy. 15 (2): 303–349: at p. 304. doi:10.1017/S0265052500002028.
And specifically on the USLP, Watts, Duncan (2002). Understanding American government and politics: a guide for A2 politics students. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. p. 246.

These supply a high level definition of "libertarianism," and may help to explain why a US political party with a particular ideology uses the term (though I'd suggest a history of US anarcho-capitalism and pro-market philosophical libertarianism in particular for the US meanings). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the money in securities arbitrage and high frequency automated trading come from?

Am I correct in assuming that stock market arbitrage and high frequency automated trading make money from the more predictable large blocks of trades such as those which large institutional investors like mutual funds engage in? If not, assuming that the profits don't materialize out of thin air, who is on the losing end of arbitrage and automatic trading profits? 70.59.28.93 (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think your assumption is basically correct. Automated trading (including, typically, arbitrage) involves the use of high-power computing and proprietary algorithms as a basis for speculative trades. Those algorithms are designed to profit at the expense of market participants (institutional and individual retail investors) pursuing slower, more traditional investment strategies. By moving faster than market participants without the benefit of those algorithms, automated traders can buy lower and sell higher (or the opposite in a shorting scenario) than other market participants. Incidentally, the best institutional investors may have their own algorithms to minimize their exposure to this kind of loss of spread. However (and relevant to your next question), ordinary retail investors are completely exposed. For this reason, a well-managed index fund will almost always outperform a nonprofessional individual investor picking stocks. I know index funds are not supposed to be managed per se, but I am referring to the use of algorithms to carefully time index fund trades and not to more active management. Marco polo (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do all 401(k) accounts lock participants into a small set of mutual funds?

What proportion of 401(k) retirement savings plans give the employee the ability to select specific stock and bond securities instead of forcing them to select from a small set of mutual funds? 70.59.28.93 (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's employer specific. Some lock you into a few choices, and others let you invest in almost anything. I don't think it's possible to determine how many plans fall into each category. RudolfRed (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Effective date of UK Budget changes

We have another Budget due out today in Britain, and I have a really dumb question about it. When do the changes being announced actually take effect? Is it immediate, as of 6th April, or some other date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.80.209 (talk) 09:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. Changes to duties on fuel, alocohol and tobacco generally come into effect immediately. Some tax changes may come into effect at the beginning of the next tax year, in April. Others may be deferred until April 2013. There is no single "effective date". Gandalf61 (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Gandalf's answer, tax on fuel, alcohol and tobacco often comes into effect as soon as practical (usually midnight), in order to prevent panic buying.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page (towards the bottom) gives some good detail on the legislative process. The budget (strictly, the Finance Bill) does not become law until given royal assent (when it becomes the Finance Act). By law this must happen within 30 days of the budget speech. In the intervening period, any changes which have been announced that require an immediate adjustment to regulations (like the aforementioned fuel, alcohol and tobacco duties) can be enacted through a resolution taken immediately after the Chancellor finishes speaking. The changes can be in place for 6pm on the day of the budget speech if required, or come in later as necessary. If for any reason the Finance Bill is not passed within 30 days, those changes lapse. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although lots of packets of cigarettes and tobacco have the old price printed on them, so you can actually still buy them at the old price until the new stock is delivered to the shop. Anthony J Pintglass (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul

Is there any information available on exactly when Ron Paul ended practicing medicine? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly scaled down during campaigns, stopped while holding office, then taken up again after any defeats he may have had, until the scaling down for the next campaign. I don't know if he had to renew a medical licence or business permit every year, so an actual 'stopping' point may be hard to nail down.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The use of WEDGE - FORMATION on horse (in the Middle Ages)

Medieval knights, along with their men-at-arms or cavalry in general would often tend to use a wedge-formation when charging on the horseback, but was this ALWAYS the prefered formation ?

Or would they only use it against infantry ?

If, say 20 men on horseback clashed with 20 other men on horseback would they likely adopt a wedge-formation? Or would both sides more likely adopt a flat sideways line (provided the terrain allowed them to) ? How could chosen formation be of any benefit when facing such a similar foe with similar numbers ? ...Of course, if both sides used the same formation they would hugely cancel each other out and it would likely be a closely fought battle, but that's a whole different matter...

Krikkert7 (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your question doesn't specify time very well ("medieval" is a huge slice of time - when I was at Uni, in English history it covered about a millennium, from the departure of the Romans to the Wars of the Roses) or location (charging in a wedge at Swiss pikemen in a narrow Alpine mountain pass wasn't recommended). Military tactics evolved in different ways at different places at different times. That's the same now as it was then. It also depended on how many cavalry you had (something the Crusader armies were very conscious of) how lightly or heavily they were armoured (something the Saracen armies were very conscious of) the terrain (something the English failed to take account of at Bannockburn etc

So I think the answer is no, it definitely wasn't "ALWAYS" the preferred formation. --Dweller (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HIGH middle ages is the most relevant to me. 1100-1250 to be as precise as I can... Krikkert7 (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a military historian, but I seem to recall that cavalry would rarely charge another cavalry formation. Cavalry would normally charge the other side's infantry, attempting to break that formation and rout them. This is usually how it worked during the crusades, for example, which fall within the time period you're looking for. Whenever the two armies had more cavalry than infantry, they tended to avoid battle; simply showing up with all your knights was usually a sufficient show of force, and the two sides might shadow each other for awhile. This tactic was also used to draw the armies into a specific location to engage in a larger battle, but with infantry, so the two cavalries were still unlikely to attack each other directly. (We have an article on this - chevauchée.) Among the Turkic armies, they normally used mounted archers, so they would never engage the other side's cavalry directly, but instead harrassed them from afar with arrows, and ideally to provoked them into charging into an ambush (it's amazing how often the crusader armies fell for that). Our articles on medieval warfare and heavy cavalry don't seem to answer your question, and as I say, this isn't really my specialty, but there are definitely some excellent books on the subject. I would suggest "Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades, 1100-1300", by John France. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalry tactics says that the wedge was adopted to counter "formations of spearmen or pikemen combined with crossbowmen or longbow archers", with the most heavily armoured at the tip (Tactics of heavy cavalry using ranged weapons), while lancers charged in line and many medieval knights dismounted and fought on foot (Tactics of heavy cavalry using lances). This article (How did medieval "knights" charge? ) gives some historical examples of where wedges were used. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is definitely no. Lightly armoured cavaly in that period was predominantly used for skirmishing and scouting, with some skilled mounted troops able to use bows to inflict damage before retreating faster than the mass of enemy infantry could move. It may have often or even usually been true of heavy cavalry, but again, the "always" strikes me as unlikely. On a wide, hard-surfaced plain, a force with a large cavalry disposition facing an enemy that is not behind stakes, pikes, trenches or palisades, would be daft not to at least consider a broader attack, or using at least some of the cavalry to outflank the enemy, in the classic Pincer movement manoeuvre, well known to Western, educated soldiers since at least the shocking Battle of Cannae in 216 BCE. --Dweller (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thnx for answers guys. I'll also take a look at the links you've provided 88.91.236.247 (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the Battle of Grandson, one of the French Burgundian wedges accidently hit a Swiss Keil to the detriment of the gendarmes, however, this is not mentioned in our article. Before knights could form a wedge in battle, they needed to be trained. So, not all knights could form a wedge. Medieval knights preferred to fight knights before fighting infantry.
Sleigh (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I heard that either the long bow or crossbow ended the use of body armour, the same as the gatling gun ended the use of cavalry. I am not sure on these but you may want to look into it. Advancements in bow technology and tactics, may have affected formations.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

US federal court cases skipping the circuit courts of appeals

Under what circumstances can a decision by a US federal district court be appealed directly to the Supreme Court? Alexander v. Fioto, 430 U.S. 634 (1977), appears to be an example of this, and an article in the ABA Journal doesn't explain why. 129.79.38.107 (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only time a district court decision can be appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court is when there is an order granting or denying, after notice and hearing, an interlocutory or permanent injunction in any civil action, suit or proceeding required by any Act of Congress to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges, pursuant to 28 USC § 1253. For example, a district court of three judges shall be convened when an action is filed challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts or the apportionment of any statewide legislative body, pursuant to 28 USC § 2284(a). There probably are some other examples when three-judge district courts are used, but they're quite rare. John M Baker (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Fioto was suing to try to get veterans' benefits that he thought he was entitled to get, so I guess that's one of the "some other examples." Thanks! 129.79.38.107 (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Always look at the text of the decision. The Court almost always has a boring recitation near the start of the opinion about its jurisdiction and the case's prior history, which likely includes the info you want.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, the court cited 28 USC 2282, which then said that an interlocutory or permanent injunction restraining the enforcement, operation or execution of any Act of Congress on grounds of unconstitutionality should not be granted unless the application therefor has been heard and determined by a three-judge district court. That provision has since been repealed. John M Baker (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

District court panels are not the only place where there are direct appeals to the Supreme Court. Certain appeals from the Sherman Act for instance, may lie with the Supreme Court. See 15 U.S.C. 29(b). I'm not sure if there are other examples but there may be. Shadowjams (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I think 28 USC § 3904 similarly allows such an appeal. 28 USC § 2101(b) is the part of the Court's procedures that specify the time limit on "any other direct appeal." Shadowjams (talk) 11:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmph. The U.S. Code should put its Supreme Court jurisdictional provisions in one place, instead of scattering them over multiple titles. John M Baker (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English Parliament

Would the English Parliament of medieval times have been referred to as a "she" or "it" or both? -- 20:22, 21 March 2012‎ User:Doug Coldwell

'Medieval' is a little vague, but the OED has citations from c1300 and c1400 referring to Parliament as þe parlement (i.e. the Parliament). You can see for yourself here, although you need a login. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And for much of that time they would have been speaking French in Parliament, which is itself a French word. It's a masculine word in French, for what that's worth. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the 14th century, regular grammatical gender in English (i.e. arbitrary assignment of specific nouns to be masculine, feminine, and neuter, much as in modern German) had already disappeared, and was replaced by so-called "natural gender" (that is, there were no longer morphological gender distinctions in adjective and determiner forms, and whether a masculine, feminine, or neuter pronoun was used to refer back to a noun generally depended on whether the noun denoted male, female, or sexless entities, with certain exceptions and complications). Therefore Parliament would have been referred to as "it" at that time and afterwards, unless it was metaphorically personified (as ships and nations traditionally were) -- but I don't remember encountering any such personification... AnonMoos (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Mother of Parliaments" (no relation to Mother of Parliament, ~~to which it unfortunately redirects~~) is sometimes loosely bandied about as a reference to the English Parliament, which might lead one to suppose it's a she. But that expression was coined by John Bright in reference not to the Parliament, but to England herself. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a new short article, The mother of Parliaments (expression), and fixed that redirect. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for all the great answers from y'all.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British budget process

So, I'm reading about the new British budget announced today. The Chancellor has announced that duty on cigarettes will rise from 6pm tonight, and stamp duty will rise to 7% at midnight. My question is how can these taxes be raised before the budget is passed? Surely the House of Commons need to approve new taxes. User:SamUK 21:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After George Osborne gives the budget speech, the house then votes on the budget. As the Coalition govt has a majority, then unless a significant number of MPs rebel, the budget will be passed into law by the vote. The chancellor is just announcing his intentions, which then have to be approved by the house before they become law. Anthony J Pintglass (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It is worth noting that the increase in cigarette duty and changes to stamp duty will be done under Henry VIII clauses (i.e. via secondary legislation). The timetable suggests that both will be (were) instigated as negative statutory instruments, meaning that MPs would have had to pass an explicit motion of they wanted either to not come into effect whenever the government wants it to (rather than expressly vote for it as in the case of primary legislation), hence the speedy turnaround. Other more major measures will have to be included in the formal Finance Bill (later Finance Act, of course), which is primary legislation and will face a lengthier legislative process, although one that will (unless there is rebellion from the government side) result in the measures being passed. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 22:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jarry1250 is right to refer to the Henry VIII clauses. They are contained in the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968. When the Chancellor sits down, a long list of resolutions are tabled to change the various tax rates and arrangements; only a few of them are voted on immediately, and the Opposition is highly unlikely to vote against them because it would mean the Leader of the Opposition would not get on the television to reply to the budget. So the cigarette duties etc go through on the nod. Then there is a five day debate on the budget in general, on a motion known as the 'Amendment of the Law' motion because it states that it is "expedient to amend the law" in line with the changes announced in the budget. These are last year's budget resolutions. At the end of the debate, some of the budget resolutions will be opposed and voted on, while others will go through unopposed; MPs end up in a series of votes. Last year there were four - see Commons Hansard cols 280-309. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Were there any historical socialist movements that the Nazis approved of?

So the debate over what exactly socialism, national socialism and capitalism really mean is a heated and contentious topic. But irregardless of what the term socialism "really" means, it seems strange and rather unprecedented for a political movement to adapt an ideological label, when they disagree strongly with every previous moment or thinker to apply that label. So it just seems odd that the Nazis would hate and despise everyone who called themselves socialist up till 1923, but then adapt the name socialist for themselves. They hated both the Leninist, Social Democatic and Anarchist branches of socialism. It seems analagous to a far-left group in 2012 USA calling themselves Internationalist Capitalist, but also claiming that every capitalist from Adam Smith onward was a bloodsucking exploiter. So I was just wondering if maybe during the 19th or 20th century there were perhaps any movements or leaders that used the term socialist, that the Nazis were approving of. --Gary123 (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This always seemed odd to me, too. Perhaps it was a way to convince the large number of followers of socialism in Germany in those days into joining the Nazi Party, similar to how most nations with "Democratic" in their official title aren't democratic at all, like North Korea. If the Nazi's had titled their party "The Jew-hating, Aryan supremacy Party for Global Warfare", they might not have attracted as many followers. StuRat (talk) 06:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

German research into the class composition of the NSDAP resolved the myth of the petits-bourgeois composition of the NSDAP, at least at the gross membership level; but, did find that working class NSDAP members were recently off the farm. Much like Bismark's nationalist "socialism" (as in state intervention) appealed to the German imaginary national community, so too did the NSDAP appeal to a corporatist national community. Of course, along side murdering trade unionists and socialists; they shut down the works councils in the factories when they lost the elections. Before they lost the elections they were indifferent to the works councils. The limit of corporatist socialism in fascist Germany was the independence of the working class. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we're going to define political parties' ideologies based on who they killed, it should be noted that the Communist regime of the USSR was also heavily opposed to the labor movement, once in power, and oppressed people in that political area quite a bit. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 08:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And this is where you're wrong. The Soviet elite were fundamentally codependent on the industrial (but not the agricultural) proletariat, and the wage, productivity and promotion structure in soviet industry was formed on this latent basis of working class power. See Sheila Fitzpatrick; Miklos Haraszti; or Simon Pirani. The Soviets murdered trade unionists, and disorganised political workers; but, simultaneously, they didn't manage to erode latent forms of proletarian power, such as the go slow, norm busting or the centrality of proletarian knowledge to actual production processes. Our article Wage reform in the Soviet Union, 1956–1962 goes into the continued survival of these forms of latent power. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The term "socialist" was added to the name of the party in the context of the turbulent fringe politics of Bavaria in 1920 (a year after the failed attempt to establish a Bavarian Soviet Republic). Probably it was meant to appeal to those with socialist leanings, but it was more specifically intended to imply that German nationalists (not Marxists) were the true guardians of the interests of German workers. There were those in the Nazi party who took the socialist thing very seriously, but they repeatedly lost out in internal party policy debates or power struggles... AnonMoos (talk) 06:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly no expert (and I speak almost no German), but social-nationalist, national-syndicalist and similar terms were not uncommon in racially-tinged European nationalist and imperialist movements at the turn of the 19th/20th century. Specifically, part of Hitler's youth was spent in the Vienna of Mayor Karl Lueger of the Christian Social Party. Apart from purely demagogic or opportunistic motives, many nationalists and imperialists of the era (whether liberal-democratic, conservative-authoritarian, or proto-fascist), such as Otto von Bismarck, Theodore Roosevelt, Joseph Chamberlain and the British Social Imperialists with their Fabian Socialist allies, believed that a strong unified nation with a robustly-growing population needed social cohesion, physical health and popular enthusiasm, which in turn required improving the health, education, welfare, working conditions, living conditions and family life of the working classes. They also saw some need to decrease existing inequality and increase realistic opportunities for future advancement if the working and lower-middle classes were to identify with a single nation and empire (rather than with an international and anti-nationalist revolutionary movement). See One nation conservatism. ¶ I think that some Nazis sometimes favorably (though in limited terms) contrasted the patriotic socialism of Ferdinand Lassalle to that of the rival "scientific socialism" of Marx and Engels. For the more socialistically-oriented elements in the NSDAP, see, for example, Gregor Strasser, Otto Strasser and even Josef Goebbels. But as AnonMoos said above, as the Nazis approached and achieved power, Hitler's decisions almost always leaned towards non-socialist or anti-socialist policies and against socialistic ones. (Gregor Strasser was assassinated by the SS during the Night of the Long Knives in 1934.) See Charisma and Factionalism in the Nazi Party by Joseph Nyomarkay (U. Minnesota Press, 1967, ISBN 978-0-816-60429-6), Hitler's Social Revolution: class and status in Nazi Germany, 1933-1939 by David Schoenbaum (Doubleday 1966, Anchor paperback 1967, reissued by W.W.Norton in 1980 & 1997, ISBN 0-393-31554-1) and The German Workers and the Nazis by F.L. Carsten (Scolar Press, Aldershot, 1995, ISBN 0-859-67998-5). See also "Hitler's Welfare State" a highly sceptical review of Schoenbaum's book by Heinz Lubasz in The New York Review of Books, December 19, 1968 (payment or subscription required for full review). A short simple book with documents by Eugen Weber, Varieties of Fascism: doctrines of revolution in the twentieth century (Van Nostrand Anvil Original, 1964, reprinted 1982, ISBN 978-0-898-74444-6), is based on the thesis that fascism is a fusion of nationalism and socialism, a thesis widely challenged by other historians. For Social Imperialism, see Imperialism and Social Reform: English social-imperial thought, 1895-1914 by Bernard Semmel (Harvard/Cambridge 1960, Doubleday Anchor Books, 1968, OCLC 213856001); its conclusion sees Social Imperialist roots in the thinking of Sir Oswald Mosley, who moved from Conservatism to Labour to Fascism. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the influential works on the thinking of the various radical nationalists in the Weimar Republic was Oswald Spengler's Preussentum und Sozialismus, which proposed a link between the German character and "socialism", which he defined in corporatist terms. Valiantis (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did they really disagree so fundamentally with, say, the Leninists? On what to me is perhaps the most fundamental question — namely, to what extent should individual choice be constrained to fit collective goals — it seems to me that they were in complete agreement. The name of the favored collective was different ("proletariat" vs "Volk"), so I suppose that is a disagreement, in the same sense that I might disagree with you as to which of the two of us deserves a bigger raise, but it doesn't seem like a very fundamental one. --Trovatore (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trovatore, I think that the view that that's 'the most fundamental question' is a very modern one. I also think you're conflating Lenin with Stalin in a misleading way. The Nazis were not interested in international brotherhood (which at the time was a key issue); they were much more focussed on the strength of the state and of their chosen ethnic group. The early Soviets, on the other hand, were extremely keen on the international dimension: "Working people of all nations, unite!". Obviously this changed with Stalin's ascendancy and his focus on 'socialism in one country'. This was much more compatible with fascism, and arguably paved the way for the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin may have been internationalist, but that doesn't make him not statist. Maybe he wanted a really really big state, covering the whole world. Or maybe not; I don't know. Either way he wasn't big on individual choice. --Trovatore (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 22

Ripping up Kim Jong-un's portrait at Panmunjom's JSA - can it start a war?

Hello, when someone wonders when's a good time to die, I would tell them that they could only for the best cause one can find.

In this case, the cause would be Korean Reunification and the dissolution of the North's regime. However, a war would have to start and I wonder of a possible way to start it without harming anyone first:

Could going to the DMZ's JSA, unfolding the North Korean leader's portrait in full view of North Korean soldiers, and ripping it in half provoke them to shoot the ripper of said portrait?

If someone plans this but they have a little hesitancy to dying, what's a good escape plan? Where's the best path to escape through? Is the building behind the JSA huts (specifically the Home of Freedom) bulletproof? Therefore, would it be feasible to stand right in front of the door, rip up the poster, and run inside to avoid the hail of bullets?

After the gunfire starts and the poster-ripper survives and escapes, what would happen to said ripper of the poster? Moreover, how likely is it that the incident would cause us to move North to help stop the repressive regime from being repressive any longer?

I would tell them that it could be a good suicide plan, but as long as they escape alive, I am rather curious about how their life will turn out afterwards. --NayNayNayNay (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead." RudolfRed (talk) 04:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the detail and speculation in your question seems to be rather extraneous, but we already had the Axe murder incident at Panmunjom, and it didn't start a war... AnonMoos (talk) 06:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as similar to a request for legal advice. 70.59.28.93 (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I wouldn't recommend it. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 07:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am doubtful that any intended goals would be accomplished through this sacrifice, but that's all I'm going to say. Falconus^{p t c} 08:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ripping up a poster may have once turned an election (last paragraph in section).--Wehwalt (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Eternal Jew

Did the Nazi propaganda film The Eternal Jew link (supposed) Jewish domination of the world with the austerity measures of the Bruning Government? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.35 (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I recall. (Though I am sure someone here has more thorough knowledge of The Eternal Jew.) Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not specifically I think. It can be watched on youtube. Not sure where the misleading subtitles or comic effect in the Rothschild scenes are that the article talks about... 84.197.178.75 (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Preists

Did the Catholic Church’s top leaders in medieval society (eg. bishops), have faimly histories of holding church leadership positions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.35 (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nepotism#Types of nepotism and its associated link Cardinal-nephew shed some light on the subject. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Papal family members and Category:Illegitimate children of popes, where I discover that Pope John XI may have the distinction of being the only pope who was an illegitimate son of an earlier pope (Pope Sergius III).

See also List of sexually active popes for some further juicy details of their lubricious doings. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

national anthem

is it true that the british national anthem lasts for four minutes and twenty five seconds? I had heard it was, but looking it up on youtube gives a range of different times. This would be the time taken for a full orchestra to play the full official version.

148.197.81.179 (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a lot of verses - according to the BBC [16], a single verse (as played at the F1 grand prix at Germany) lasted less than forty-four seconds and the version that will be used at this summer's Olympics (two verses) will be one minute and twenty-five seconds. Mikenorton (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast to many nations, Britain doesn't have laws specifying an official version of the national anthem. Our article God Save the Queen has more info: typically only 1-3 verses are performed, though verses have been added and removed at various points. That article says the 3-verse version is most standard, but it also notes numerous variations: in lyrics, in verses, in the introduction, and the tempo. George V attempted to standardize the tempo, but since then there's been a tendency to speed it up from his recommendation; however for royal deaths a slower version is used. So really there's no answer. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above, but it is very rare to hear more than one verse. If a further verse IS played, it is generally the third verse: "Thy choicest gifts in store...". The second "official" verse ("Oh Lord our God arise, / Scatter our enemies...") is subtitled "in time of war" and I have never heard it sung in my lifetime, even though we've been to war a few times. The supposed verse about crushing rebellious Scots, is known only to Scotsmen. Alansplodge (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the Sunday School I went to in the 1970s we had to sing all 5 verses if the Sunday fell on a Royal occasion. I remember being slightly perturbed by the verse about the Scots. This was in the Black Country, a good 300 miles south of Scotland. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute what you say, but I've never seen the Scots verse in print as part of the National Anthem. Both Hymns Ancient and Modern and The English Hymnal used by the Church of England only have the three verses. Alansplodge (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The version in the Guiding Handbook, when I was a Girl Guide, was also the first and third verses. I mainly knew the second verse because my parents delighted in singing a version of it that had 'Popish tricks' in place of 'knavish tricks', which they claimed was the version they were taught. I suspect this was a fabrication on their part, as our article says this was a suggestion by George V which didn't catch on. 86.171.37.99 (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A roving Lollard preacher

Would a roving Lollard preacher have a copy of the Wycliffe Bible with him? How big (physically) would it have been? Did it contain just the New Testament or both Testaments? Who probably would have made that copy and how?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It most likely varied a lot. According to this book, it is probable that a number of Lollards possessed either bibles or parts of the bible, sometimes individual bible books. It also seems to imply that the Lollards produces these books themselves. As bibles were expensive (and time-consuming) to produce, many probably could not afford an entire bible. It seems they also learned passages by heart. The New Testament shown at the Lollards page, is taken from this website, where it states that they often used pocket size bibles. At this page, you can find that that particular (incomplete) New Testament is 4 3/8 x 2 3/4 inches (i.e. 11.1 x 7.0 cm), and includes 182 folios. -- Lindert (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A complete copy of the Bible would have been prohibitively expensive, and very big...I don't remember exactly how large, but way too big to carry around a complete copy. The idea that all the Bible books should be bound in the same volume is a relatively modern invention. If medieval preachers carried any Bible books at all, it would likely be a copy of the Gospels, maybe some Psalms, maybe some of the more exciting bits of the Old Testament. But they wouldn't necessarily lug actual books around with them. They would have memorized the most important stories, and if the audience couldn't read, there wouldn't be much use for written copies. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they would be likely to carry it with them, as doing so could put both themselves and their Bibles in danger. They would be more likely to keep their Bibles well hidden. StuRat (talk) 07:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily...the translation was unauthorized, but it wasn't explicitly forbidden until after Wycliff's death. There are hundreds of surviving copies of at least parts of it, which suggests it was very popular and widespread. But Lollard preachers working after it was banned would probably not want to be caught with one, as you say. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting answers. It puts a good light on this. On the part of carrying a copy of the Gospels, maybe some Psalms - would (your best guess is alright) Acts be a book that they might carry with them or put to memory, like the Gospels?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. I probably shouldn't guess about this because I don't really know, but I have the impression that medieval preachers (and not just fringe or reformer ones, like the Lollards, but regular Catholic ones too) focused on the Gospels more than any other parts of the Bible. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While it's always dangerous to extrapolate from current practice, I'd note that during the season of Easter (so, from Easter Sunday to Pentecost) the emphasis in the Liturgy of the Word in Catholic churches is the book of Acts. Nonetheless, the readings from Acts do not go in the 'Gospel' slot, but in the 'first reading' slot which is usually from the Old Testament. I'd think it's fair to classify the 'importance' of Acts in usual practice as roughly below the Psalms, but above most other books. So, (barring some information that their group placed unusual weight on it) I'd expect a preacher to carry a copy of Acts only if they already had all four Gospels and the Psalms, but it seems more likely that they'd carry Acts than any of the Epistles. 86.171.37.99 (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 23

Bail bonds

I recently posted a bond on or for an/a individual, on a certain charge Before he made it out of jail, they dropped the charge and put a higher Charge the case. Since he did not make bail for the first charge. Will or should I be reimbursed for the bond? How does that usually work? Is thier a law stating any thing about that sort of situation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valleybound101 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not give legal advice. Ever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but two of the three parts of this question are asking for legal information, not legal advice. Gandalf61 (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The answers are dependent on where you are. You really need the help of a lawyer who can give you sound, reliable advice based on a combination of practical experience, statute law and relevant court decisions or precedents that Wikipedia editors are unable to know. It gets even more complicated in the U.S. if you didn't post the whole amount of the bail with the court, but instead paid a percentage to a bail bondsman; that percentage might very well not be refundable, but again you should ask a lawyer. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could try asking at the courthouse. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, any answer here is likely going to be inferior to the clerk's office's answer. Give them a call, and have the case number available.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Così fan tutte

In what language is this opera (Così fan tutte)? I am assuming it is in Italian, but I want to be sure. Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the very bottom of the article, it is listed as being in the category "Italian-language operas," but I do think that should be explicitly mentioned in the intro. --LarryMac | Talk 15:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

population...What if?

A chance remark about population started me wondering about something quite scary. If all the wars in the past 500 years or so (or some other significant time period) had not happened,and therefor those millions of people had not been killed in war, would that have had a significant effect on the human population of this planet. Naturally the number of offspring that would have ensued must be calculated. I couldn't find the right place to look. Has anybody done any calculation on that?190.148.134.191 (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to answer this... All we can say is if no wars had ever occurred, the millions who died due to war would not have died in that way... but we have no way of determining how many might have died due to other causes.

To give an example: Let us assume that the Hundred years war between England and France never occurs... OK, all the people who died in that war... don't die. However, it was during this period that the Bubonic Plague (The "Black Death") swept over Europe, killing millions... if we assume this pandemic still takes place, perhaps it kills all of the people that were "saved" by not having a war. Or perhaps it kills more people than it did in reality. Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How long are detentions allowed to be in England High Schools?

How long are detentions allowed to be in England High Schools? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WOLfan112 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia entry for Timothy Township, Crow Wing County, Minnesota

In the first paragraph on the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Township,_Crow_Wing_County,_Minnesota What is the significance of the name 'Noonan'? We understand the significance of 'Timothy' as the common grass used for hay for livestock. But the name Noonan is a mystery we are trying to learn the answer to for purpose of an historical interpretive presentation.