Hey gang, was Minsk ever within the borders of Russia? Was there ever a time when the sentence "Minsk is in Russia" would be accurate?24.62.62.228 (talk) 03:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Minsk Governorate. This was part of the Russian Empire from 1793 to 1917. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Minsk article says "Minsk was annexed by Russia in 1793 as a consequence of the Second Partition of Poland." Adam Bishop (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From 1793 (the Second Partition of Poland) until 1918 ,when Belarus first, briefly, became an independent nation, Minsk would have sort-of-officially been part of Russia. However, much of the areas annexed by Russia during the Polish/Lithuanian partitians were semi-autonomous, and had a relationship with Russia much like the later Soviet Republics did. Belarussia was even considered independent of the Soviet Union by the U.N. after World War II, and got a seat in the U.N. despite being no more independent that any of the other soviet republics. For much of the period from 1946-1989, the Soviet Union essentially had 3 votes in the UN (Itself, Belorussia, and Ukraine). So, to answer your question, the best we can come up with is its complicated. Nominally Minsk was part of Russia from 1793-1918, and thereafter was part of the Russian-dominated Soviet Union, though the UN considered them an independent state (oddly enough, no one else really did)... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Were the two extra seats a sign of confusion on the UN's part, or Stalin's price for supporting the UN? – Hm, have any UN-GA seats disappeared by annexation? —Tamfang (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember whether East Germany was a member of the UN. North and South Yemen both were, both are part now of Yemen, which has one seat. RolandR 18:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both Germanys became members in 1973. The seats were merged in 1990. Also, Tanganyika and Zanzibar merged to become Tanzania. Egypt and Syria were one seat for a while. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pic That's the slogan displayed on a highway in China. What are the unique circumstances in China that made it necessary to inform people of that fact? F (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Chinese mate says that sometimes people do it as an act of resentment for Police treatment, but it's by no means common.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, Chinese people were taking the idea of peoples' government too seriously and thought that the cars were theirs.

It is illiterate to rob police cars. It is illegal to steal them.--Wetman (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not in UK English. They can both be the same, except that 'rob' has an additional meaning of 'steal the contents' (EDIT) or 'steal the possessions'.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the case in some regional dialects, but not in formal British English. You could rob a policeman, but not a police car. Even if it were "stealing from" a police car, "rob" would be inappropriate. --Dweller (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, 'robbing' a bank would also be inappropriate, considering you are stealing the possessions/contents of the bank? Sorry, edited my last post for a slightly broader definition. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you steal money from a bank though, aren't you stealing the money of the people who made deposits? Thus robbing the bank of the property of individuals? That would make it appear that robbery is a correct term. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can also rob a bank vault, or a warehouse. "rob" means to take from something, which can include an inanimate object. So if you take something out of a police car you are robbing it. If you take the car itself you are indeed stealing it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Robbery" is theft (or "larceny") combined with violence. Breaking into an empty building or car and taking stuff isn't robbery, it is burglary. Attacking someone on the street and taking their mobile phone is robbery. Pointing a gun at a blank clerk and saying "give me all the money" is also robbery (the violence is threatened, rather than actual, but that's enough). --Tango (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Tango on the common law. However, while "qiangjie" is the Chinese equivalent to the English "robbery", they are not exact equivalents. It's misleading to analyse a Chinese sentence using English grammar. Robbing an object does not have the connotation in English of "Robbery from object". Rather, in Chinese, the object in such a sentence can be either the target (the thing being taken away) or the victim. That is, "Qiangjie [object]" can either mean "robbing someone of [object]" or "robbing from [object]", or "robbing the contents of [object]" depending on the context.

The compound word "qiangjie" is made up of two components: "qiang" - "to take with force", and "jie" - "to control and carry away". The object of each of those individual characters can be a thing, rather than a person.

Thus, one could say, in Chinese, (taking some examples from a simple google search): "搶劫電視台女主持人": "robbing from a female TV host"; or "搶劫中國商鋪": "robbing from Chinese-national shops"; (funnily enough): "搶劫民警": "robbing from a policeman"; "搶劫現金": "robbing [someone] of cash". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that. One must always be careful in these situations to make a distinction between mistakes that exist in the original and mistakes created through an imperfect translation (perfect translations often being extremely difficult if not impossible). Does anyone know precisely what the intended meaning of that pictured statement is? It would be better to discuss the meaning rather than the exact choice of words. The rough translation we have suggests it could be talking about carjacking, stealing unoccupied cars or stealing the contents of cars. Only the first of which would constitute robbery under UK law (which is the only law I'm sufficiently familiar with in this instance), but that word may not be quite the right translation in context. --Tango (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster gives 'rob' the extra definition of 'steal', as I said above, though it says it is archaic. We still use it like that up north (North of England), though. I admit that perhaps it could be confusing, though. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is used quite often to mean "steal" in my experience, but it is an incorrect usage, at least legally. --Tango (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original question for a moment: China is a big country (something a lot of people seem to forget quite frequently). I think we'll need to know where the photo was taken to be able to hazard a meaningful guess as to why there was such a sign.

The natural assumption is that security is so bad in that particular town that local criminals would attack police vehicles. But who knows? Maybe it's a joke banner put up by a mayor with a different sense of humour. Or it is one mob boss boasting to other mobsters... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

greetings from Serres Makedonia Greece. i would like to know why when some1 types in a fill the word fyrom,the results of that word is Macedonia while the national name of that country is FYROM.I think thats is illegal for the Wikipedia internet site and i hope you will fix that issue soon.We dont want that issue goes at the courts of records,dont we? thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.109.153 (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you type in FYROM, the website redirects you to the article called Macedonia. That is normal behaviour, since the idea of a redirect is to take you to the article you are most likely interested in. At the top of the Macedonia article, there's a notice stating that the title is disputed and is currently being debated. As the notice says, "the use of the current title does not imply an endorsement of that title." Feel free to add your voice to the debate on the article's talk page. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I understanding this correctly? Are you really saying that the article title is illegal and you would sue Wikipedia over it? TomorrowTime (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use the most easily recognized name. In English, "Macedonia" about the country is more common and recognizable than "FYROM" or "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". I don't know whether it is illegal to call the country Macedonia in Greece (as opposed to the Greek region Macedonia). Maybe it is but note that Wikipedia is run by the Wikimedia Foundation which is not Greek and has no servers in Greece. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you dispute some content on Wikipedia, you are supposed to bring it up on the discussion page about that article; and we have a rule called WP:No legal threats. If you're going to sue someone then just do it; but don't threaten to do it here. If you want a (probably) even more contentious argument about the name of a country, see the Discussion page (and its archives) for Myanmar. Tempshill (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try Makedonia, which is the spelling you just used for the region in Greece. You'll find that (although it mentions the independent nation) it also correctly leads, via Macedonia (disambiguation), to Macedonia, Greece. And yes, no legal threats, please. I'd be interested to know what your standing, and what jurisdiction you are in, that makes you think you could even make such a claim. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering if anyone knows the name of the tune that starts at about 8:40 of this clip: http://www.free-tv-video-online.info/player/youtube.php?id=cfo_1NkP2rE . PS you can click to the very end so you don't have to watch the whole section. Eiad77 (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's most likely just a piece of incidental music. It's certainly possible that it's a song that was actually on an album and they licensed for the show, but I'd be a little surprised if that was the case. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounded like a Steve Winwood homage, and the vintage is about right. --Sean 20:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, what is the etiquette when a cop stops a civilian (either for a traffic violation or when he stops him walking down the street) who is armed with a sidearm? What about when it's concealed? I imagine the civilian ought to inform the cop about this so the cop doesn't react suddenly when he notices the sidearm; at what point is the civilian supposed to inform the cop, and how is it done? ("I'm armed" could be taken as a threat to the cop, right?) Tempshill (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the cop is going to search the civilian then I would imagine the cop would ask if there was anything the civilian wanted to inform him of first. If there isn't going to be a search, then I'm not sure it is necessary to say anything as long as you don't act in a threatening manner. If you're unsure, just ask the cop - if you tell them you are carrying in the form of a question about whether you should tell them, that shouldn't be too threatening (as long as you don't use the wrong tone of voice). --Tango (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm armed" can be misinterpreted, sure, but if you're about to be searched by a cop and you're legally carrying a weapon, simply saying "Officer, just so you don't get the wrong idea, I have a gun [on my belt/under my arm/wherever the hell it is] and I have a license to for it" in a polite and neutral tone of voice will probably work. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is asking about "in the US", I have yet to see any US police training that does not include asking the person "Do you have any weapons, drugs, or anything else that I should know about on you?" It is not necessary to scream "I'm armed!" at every passing cop. Just do what you are told to do and answer questions as they are asked. -- kainaw™ 16:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have heard rumor of a law somewhere that could be used to lock you up if a cop asks you the time of day and you don't mention your weapon. —Tamfang (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds very unlikely. Rumours of laws should generally be ignored. --Tango (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

..."and there shall be laws, and rumours of laws. See that ye not be afraid." Matthew 24:6 --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's true in some places. In North Carolina, for example, a person must "disclose to any law enforcement officer that the person holds a valid permit and is carrying a concealed handgun when approached or addressed by the officer" (source). --Sean 20:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That source doesn't say what the penalty for not disclosing it would be. --Tango (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

During the Middle Ages the law (from The Church) was that no Bible could be written in common languages. What was the Church's official stated reason for this law ? StuRat (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that it is not that the Bible could not be translated into the vernacular but that all such translations had to be approved by the Church, ostensibly to avoid "corruption" (and undesired commentary). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Bible translations were not really uncommon in the Middle Ages. It was partly because vernacular languages were viewed with contempt in general, and they were not considered "real" languages. It would be impossible to translate the Bible into, say, French, if French was just a bastardized form of Latin with no real grammar or structure. But more importantly, the general public was considered ill-equipped to understand the Bible properly. Translations were explicitly forbidden in response to the heretical Cathar movement - once you start interpreting the Bible yourself, you might come up with all sorts of crazy beliefs, beyond the official church interpretation. (To be honest, this is a perfectly good idea. Illiterate medieval peasants certainly had no idea how to read the Bible, and educated literate people today still come up with bizarre interpretations.) Adam Bishop (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"(E)ducated literate people today still come up with bizarre interpretations". I trust you merely mean more bizarre than the "official" translation. // BL \\ (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supernatural comes to mind. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People sometimes let the points they want to make overcome their common sense. It would be bizarre in the extreme to interpret the Bible as not depicting the supernatural! If the phrase is to have any meaning, a "bizarre interpretation" would be one which a reasonable person would not find in the text, but rather one which has been "found" there with no reasonable textual justification, usually on the basis of the belief system, though disorder, or personality quirks of the person doing the "finding" rather than by intent of the authors. - Nunh-huh 22:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point - most people couldn't read, those that could would all be able to read Latin, so translating the Bible into anything else serves little purpose. However, having church services in Latin (which the Roman Catholic church did until fairly recently, I believe) is another matter - that prevented the uneducated from having any idea what was actually going on. --Tango (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the view then was that the priest would, during religious instruction and homilies, tell the believers all they needed to know to worship and serve God. The priest would preach about various Bible texts at appropriate times during the church year, telling the congregation what the reading for the day meant. If the common person could read the entire Bible in their every-day language, it would encourage "mistaken" interpretations or beliefs which were heretical, perhaps based on the plain language of the Bible, like Jesus having brothers and sisters, which was to the Catholic beliefs about Mary. Edison (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In explanation, John Brown's Self-Interpreting Bible was written by an ancestor, but long past the Middle Ages, though not past the days of Latin masses in the Catholic church. Personal views on the Bible are somewhat of a family passion for those members who still believe. As for my remark, it was unnecessarily flip in tone. // BL \\ (talk) 01:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not all religious instruction was in Latin. I may be wrong but the mass wasn't always in Latin either. Educated people and nobles celebrating mass in the cathedral with the bishop heard mass in Latin, of course, but the local parish priest wouldn't speak it to the peasants, not even during mass. (The priest himself might not know any, aside from the liturgy.) There were other ways of learning about religion too - Passion plays, paintings and other imagery, morality stories, all sorts of things that weren't in Latin. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more about this...it's sort of beyond my specialty, so I'm going by fuzzy memories, but here are some more reasons. The average medieval person lived in a world where Catholicism was simply part of life. It was pervasive, but in such a way that they may not have thought about it very much. They didn't go to church every day, or even every week, but maybe a few times a year on special occasions. There were births and deaths and marriages and feast days, but they didn't go to church every Sunday for an hour or so. The local priest usually wandered around attending to everyone's spiritual needs, if they had any, and correcting various moral errors, but he himself was not necessarily very well-educated, and the bishop or archbishop showed up once in awhile to make sure the priest wasn't leading his parishioners astray. Part of the reason that Bible translations were rare is because there wasn't any need for them. People didn't sit in church every week listening to long Latin homilies; they had more important things to do with their lives. If they needed to know about particular bits of theology they could ask the priest, and he could explain it to them; but they wouldn't be able to read the Bible itself, no matter what language it was in. Remnants of paganism survived in the Middle Ages, just as they do today, and that was sometimes what the priest had to wander around correcting, but it also shows that people were more concerned with the natural world and how it affected them personally than they were with whether Christ had one body or two, which is the type of argument you get when you start interpreting the Bible. Now, having said that, there were groups of people who did want to know what the Bible said, and they wanted to preach it in their own languages, like the Waldensians and the Cathars. The prohibition against vernacular translations was directed against them, so that they wouldn't preach their wacky interpretations to people who didn't know any better. There are prohibitions prior to that, but Pope Innocent III was really against it, and the Cathars were so widespread that they could only be stopped by crusade. (There is one papal letter where Innocent III mentions this specifically, I'll see if I can find it.) Eventually, due to different political and social environments, successfully translations of the Bible led to the Protestant Reformation, which was quite a disaster, if you look at it from the perspective of the medieval church. But the prohibition against translations was not, as it is often viewed, an attempt by the evil popes to oppress the masses; it just made good sense in an age when most people couldn't read anyway. Another reason is that vernacular languages weren't standardized like Latin, so there would have been no way to standardize a translation, and disseminating religious education through one educated priest was the best way to keep everyone faithful. Sorry if this seems like a random collection of info; there are probably even more reasons that I will remember later. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't think that I buy the argument that it was illegal to translate into local languages because people were illiterate. If they were all illiterate, then there would have been no need to hunt down and kill those who translated the Bible. Also, my original question was on why the Church CLAIMED they made such translations illegal, not on their actual motives. StuRat (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had the idea they did go to mass every week and that was a specific part of the Catholic churches teaching that they should try and do that, where did you find out they didn't thanks? Dmcq (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course they were encouraged to do so, but that is the same as today. How many Catholics actually go to mass every week now? I don't remember where I read that, unfortunately, but I'll see if I can find it. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will bet that those serfs who were owned by the Church attended many services. Also, there were quite a lot of saints days, many of which would have had special services. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but there are lots of saint's days, and not all of them are celebrated by everyone everywhere. Lots of serfs lived on church land, monastery land especially, but I don't think that means they went to church more often than anyone else. I forgot about monks until now, but of course they were often involved in preaching to the masses. Anyway, I'm still not sure what the best/most recent/most up-to-date literature is on the subject, but search your library for "medieval pastoral care" (or better yet search Google Books, which turns up some promising links). Adam Bishop (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I know that in England where there are about 4 million people who say they are catholics about one million of them attend mass every Sunday. And there aren't many less formal religious places Than Britain. So unless I see evidence otherwise I think I'll continue thinking most people went to mass in medieval times. Dmcq (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and another factor is that there would have been very little to do on days off, like Sundays and Holidays, so going to church and admiring the architecture and priests talking in magical languages wouldn't have seemed quite so boring, then. It's not like they had entertaining alternatives, like a football game to watch on a wide-screen TV. StuRat (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't say I know what people did for fun, but surely you are not suggesting that there was no other form of entertainment during the Middle Ages? What would you do if you didn't have TV? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go to church, of course. Isn't it the contention of the Amish, Mennonites, etc., that modern technology is a distraction away from contemplation of God ? Isn't that why they have banned such technology (to varying degrees) ? So, I'd expect church attendance in the Middle Ages to be more in line with church attendance in Amish communities, which I believe to be much higher than in general in the modern world. StuRat (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a valid comparison; those kinds of Anabaptist groups are descended from the Protestant Reformation, are not organized like the Catholic church, and exist in a modern technological world that can be rejected. That isn't really much like the Middle Ages. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is. It's my contention (and that of those groups I mentioned), that "modern distractions" draw people away from God. Thus, people lacking such distractions, whether by choice or otherwise, will be more drawn to church, regardless of whether they are Protestant or Catholic. If you can show me some figures that prove that church attendance was low in the Middle Ages, then I will be convinced you are right. StuRat (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well, I can try to find some info on that (but it will likely be after this question is archived). Of course, as usual I should say that no numbers or information will ever apply to everyone, everywhere, at all times during the Middle Ages; in the random info I gave previously, I was thinking mostly of France and England prior to, say, 1200. But anyway, the link below answers your actual original question. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, here is an English translation of Innocent III's letter concerning French translations of the Bible. I think the actual letter is longer, but this translation has all the basic reasons. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read through that, and the attitude of the writer is striking. It seems to show that he thought education for the masses was unnecessary and even detrimental, and education could only be justified for priests if they could demonstrate a practical need for it. Now I can see why so little progress was made during the Middle Ages, and even some of the knowledge of the ancient Greeks and Romans was lost. StuRat (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...well, it's not useful for either of us if you have already concluded that the Middle Ages were backwards and barbaric. The concept of "progress" was, of course, different from yours and mine, but that does not mean there was no "progress" at all. A culture that is not exactly like our own is not a backwards culture, although that seems to be the general opinion. I suppose the opposite is also true - a culture that is assumed to be more like our own is assumed to be a more advanced culture, but that's not a useful assumption either. The Greeks and Romans did not treat education any differently than medieval Europeans; medieval education even had the same structure as Roman education. There was certainly no such thing as mass education in the ancient world, any more than there was in the medieval period (or even in the modern world, really). There are many reasons why ancient knowledge was sometimes lost, but it's not because medieval people didn't care about it, or that they were lazy and stupid. Almost all ancient works survive only because they were copied in the Middle Ages. Anyway, I don't know anything about that book or that author, except that it contains a useful translation that answers your question (I started translating the letter myself, if you'd prefer that). Adam Bishop (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the question about church attendance, I haven't found anything useful yet, at least on Google and Google Books; some books say church attendance was high, even mandatory, and some say attendance was low. I know I read something about low church attendance for a class a few years ago, but I don't remember where it was, or even what class it was for. But I was thinking, what kind of sources would there be for information like this? Nobody counted who went to church each week, and even if we know that in a certain time and place church attendance was mandatory, that doesn't necessarily mean everyone went (the fact that something like that needed to be enshrined in law probably meant that people weren't going in the first place). Information of this sort would likely have to be gleaned from ecclesiastical writers, who were either complaining that the local populace didn't go to church enough, or praising them for their piety and their good attendance. But we would have to know who they were talking about - the nobility? People who lived in cities? Rural peasants? And (as always) when and where were they writing? So, it was incorrect of me to say that church attendance was low, but we also can't say it was regular. I have some ideas about where to look for this (Bernard Hamilton is a good church historian, for example), so I will have to make a trip to the library. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to find the name of a novel i read a few years ago. There's a women in it who likes old films and thinks that cary grant is god. I think she's also obsessed with scissors or something like that. Has anyone an idea what book this is? Thanks. 79.78.133.28 (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One suggestion offered by google is Love Walked In by Marisa de los Santos (2005). Neither the author nor the book have an article at Wikipedia, though there is an article on "Love Walked In", a song the book's main character seems to like as well, but from an old movie not starring Cary Grant. Here are links to specs, synopses, and reviews at Barnes & Noble and Amazon.com. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw on ABC World News Tonight two passengers who were aboard US Airways Flight 1549 got their laggage back. What about the others? Will there be any further updates?69.203.157.50 (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passengers would need to contact the US Airways baggage recovery department, but I imagine any identifiable luggage with (some of) the contacts intact would be returned. It was probably delayed to avoid interfering with the wreck any further during the NTSB investigation. As the article says, they have already been compensated $5000 each which would cover any damage. 86.174.136.167 (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently they'll all get their luggage back after it has dried out. The NTSB guys need to measure the dry weight of the luggage as part of their investigation. --Sean 13:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was an article in the New York Times yesterday that implies that most of them are getting their luggage back these days, except for their cash which is mysteriously gone. Jørgen (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shocking to think that maybe someone madoff with the cash. Edison (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, anyone carrying more than $5000 in their checked luggage needs to rethink their financial strategy. Coreycubed (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever put any cash in my checked-in luggage. Cash goes in my wallet or a money belt, either of which would still be on my person when I evacuated. What were all these people doing checking in cash? It is possible I'd have cash in my carry on, but never checked-in... --Tango (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it says that the money was necessarily in the checked-in luggage - it's more like these people were smart enough not to bother getting their carry-on with them when they suddenly found their plane in the middle of the river. Jørgen (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you're evacuating a plane in an emergency situation you are instructed to leave behind your cabin luggage. Steewi (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steewi: what I was trying to say... :-) Jørgen (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that's one reason why experienced travellers wear their money, passport and at least one credit card in a money belt under their clothes. Not only is it very effective insurance against pickpockets, though not necessarliy foolproof, but it goes wherever your body goes. Except for removing high-heeled shoes, no one is likely to ask you to strip before an evacuation. // BL \\ (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any dangerous animals in South Korea? Specifically I mean bears, snakes, spiders, etc., but if there are any others, I'd like to know.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 04:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are rampaging elephants, and a bunch of lions. Tempshill (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so it's not a good idea to go camping in the zoo unless you have a shotgun handy?--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 06:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Venomous snakes in South Korea, according to this: Gloydius blomhoffi, Gloydius saxatilis, Gloydius ussuriensis, Hydrophis cyanocinctus, Hydrophis ornatus, Mesobuthus martensii, Pelamis platurus, Rhabdophis tigrinus, Vipera berus. --Sean 13:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Korean Moon Bear. --Sean 13:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sharks inhabit the waters around Korea. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. So, a bunch of venomous snakes and a bear. Is that what I have to look forward to? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could also look forward to Kimchi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd rather face the snakes and the bear. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my! Steewi (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think animal-wise Korea's among the safer places in the world. If you want dangerous animals, come to Australia. Steewi (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? Cuddly koalas and bouncy kangaroos? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no. Try some of the world's most venomous snakes and spiders, the box jelly fish, sharks, and crocodiles in the Top End, which have been having a field day of recent years. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the spiders, you eat most of those, don't you? Anyway, back to Korea. I'm interested to know how many animal attacks have happened in recent years, and in what areas. I will very soon be moving to Korea. I'm not worried. I mean, I've been in some very hostile environments with very hostile animals before, but they've usually avoided me as much as I've avoided them. I'm just interested. It'd be a nice talking point with my new neighbours. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 07:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Open University the only British institution providing modular distance learning courses at undergraduate level? I know many others offer part-time and distance learning programs, but they all want me to commit to an entire degree from the start. Note that I have nothing against the OU, just would like to look around before I choose anything. Many thanks! 86.174.136.167 (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a similar search 2 years ago, with similar results. Most universities offer distance or part-time courses, but expect the student to register for a full course, with only limited flexibilty within the subject area, rather than picking and choosing modules. This is generally the same for full-time students, so it just how universities are set up.

In the end i went with the OU, and found it to be pretty much great, as it allows me to pick modules from any subject, so i can study the things i find interesting rather than fullfilling course requirments. If you are planning on getting a qualification for a career, you might find OU is just as limiting (eg. if you wanted a degree in Modern Languages, most of the modules have to be in languages). It still has the advantage of only choosing one module at a time, so it is easier to change your mind, but more advanced modules are generally much larger than bricks & mortar unis, so can be significant commitments. YobMod 13:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What percent of Europe's jews were killed in the Holocaust? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.92.2 (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Holocaust victims states that it was over 60%. The worldwide Jewish population still has not recovered to pre-1940s levels. 86.174.136.167 (talk) 12:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the start of the Holocaust, what percent of worldwide Jews were in Europe? 79.122.92.2 (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article says 16.6m Jews worldwide in 1939 and 60% of European Jews died. We know 6,000,000 died. So 10,000,000 were alive in 1939. So in 1939, 10m of 16.6m were in Europe. --Dweller (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't fully answer question... that means that about 64% (I think. I always was bad at working out percentages) of Jews alive in 1939 were in Europe. I'm surprised that figure's not higher, unless, perhaps, it's based on a chunk of Soviet Jewry living in Asia, rather than Europe. Martin Gilbert's Jewish History Atlas is good at this sort of stuff, if you're interested in demographics of world Jewry at different points in time. --Dweller (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I remember reading somewhere there were 1,000,000 Jews living in New York City before the Holocaust - that's 6% of the 16.6 million right there, and of course there would be many more in America outside of NYC. +Angr 14:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, Historical Jewish population comparisons#Population in 1900 says that in 1900, 80% (9.0 million) of all Jews (11.2 million) lived in Europe (apparently including the entire Russian and Ottoman Empires, not just the European parts). +Angr 14:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There was considerable emigration of European Jewry to the Americas during the early decades of the 20th century, but I'd be surprised if it was as much as a swing considerably in excess of 16% (which is what it'd have to be, considering the large numbers of Jews in Asiatic USSR and what would have been the vast majority of those in Ottoman lands.) Martin Gilbert's your man here. Perhaps it's wisest for now to take 64% as a minimum figure - unless my maths incorrect. Can someone check my working?!?! --Dweller (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10m as a % of 16.6m is just over 60%. 60.24% to be precise. -- role^player 14:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I confused myself and amended 10m to 10.6m in my answer. 10m was correct. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

c.60% is even more dubious a statistic and I would definitely take it as an absolutely lowest possible "correct answer". --Dweller (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert cites US Jewish population of 1924 as 2,000,000. It seems that figure will have been bumped by nett immigration of about 200-250,000 by WWII. Even if it were 2.5m in total, I struggle to understand where the remaining 4.1m non European Jews were, because the numbers in Asia, Africa, Oceania and the rest of the Americas would barely dent that figure - the Soviet Jews would have been mainly in European USSR. --Dweller (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the A-Z list of authors, where should "de Bono (1999)" go - under d or under b? I'm getting different responses depending on where I look. -- role^player 13:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends a lot on where de Bono comes from; "de" occurs in French, Dutch, Irish, Spanish, and Portuguese names at least, and each of those countries may have their own customs regarding what to do with that preposition in names. My best advice, if feasible, is to look in the references section of a paper by Mr de Bono where he cites himself, and see where he alphabetizes himself. (If de Bono is a woman, change the title and the pronouns of that last sentence accordingly!) +Angr 15:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's Edward de Bono. He's Maltese. I'm still none the wiser. -- role^player 08:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the university have a style guide for Harvard referencing? The two I've taught for in the UK, and the one where I currently study, all have and this question is covered. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The unversity online referencing guide does not answer this question, so I have emailed the course leader and asked him. -- role^player 14:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd have e-mailed Edward de Bono and asked him! At any rate, this page alphabetizes him under D. +Angr 14:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I go by a pragmatic rule of thumb: if in doubt ask the guy who's going to be marking my MA dissertation. -- role^player 17:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's high time you (a) get ahold of the style sheet for the institution of higher education (not necessarily a particular instructor unless s/he's your thesis advisor) to which you're submitting your MA dissertation and (b) verify with the department office: who's the arbiter of fine points (such as rules of alphabetization in the bibliography) that aren't adequately spelled out. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So Ascension Day is coming up day after tomorrow. And out of curiosity, I've been to the websites of about a dozen different Baptist churches in about ten different countries around the world and have discovered that not one of them is planning a service on Thursday. Which leads me to the conclusion that Baptists don't celebrate Ascension Day, which leads me to the question, Why not? The Ascension is described in Christian scripture (so it can't conflict with the notion of sola scriptura or Biblical inerrancy), and it certainly seems like an extremely important occasion in the history of Christianity, so why don't Baptists observe it? (In general, at least; I know that their congregationalist polity means that individual churches may well observe it, but so far I haven't found one that does.) +Angr 13:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Googling “Baptist, Ascension Day”, without the quotation marks, gave me a few pages of Baptist churches that have marked out Ascension Day for a specific service. Here is one in the UK, for example, at the Tabernacle English Baptist Church, Newbridge of the Caerphilly County Borough Counciland another in the US in Massassechussetts at the Calvary Baptist Church in Dedham, MA. I haven't tried looking for services in other countries. // BL \\ (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so some do. But it still seems that most don't, and I'm curious why. Even here in Germany, where Ascension Day is a national holiday and all the stores are closed, the (relatively few) Baptist churches don't seem to do anything to observe it. +Angr 15:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I was a Baptist, it wasn't that Ascension day wasn't celebrated, it was just that Easter Day was the bigger festival: after all, without the Resurrection there would have been no Ascension.

--TammyMoet (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, notice the difference between the Ascension of Jesus and the Assumption of Mary. Both are going to the heaven, but the former by self-propulsion (ascendo), the latter winched up (assumo). --pma (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Catholic Church, it's not only celebrated, it's a Holy Day of Obligation, which means you have to attend Mass on pain of sin. But it's not as simple as that. The Thursday is a HDO apparently only in Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, and certain U.S. states. In the other countries and U.S. states, the obligation to attend Mass has been transferred to the following Sunday, which is a HDO anyway. If anyone can explain to me how it can be a sin not to attend Mass on a certain prescribed day if you're in one country or U.S. state, but not if you're in another country or U.S. state, I'd be eternally grateful. This seems to fly completely in the face of the notion of a universal church. The 10 Commandments didn't have a Terms and Conditions clause, did they? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think TammyMoet is closest to the truth here. The biggest event in most Baptist churches is the Resurection/Easter. Beyond that and Christmas, the rest are "optional". I have been a member of two Baptist churches, and its not that they just don't celebrate Ascencion day; they just don't recognize holidays like that. You've pretty much got Holy Week and Christmas and that's it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a man who attended a Baptist church for years, I worry the above may have simply missed the obvious: Baptists don't like symbolism for the sake of symbolism. This includes both idolotry of images (my church had absolutely none of the symbolism popular in "higher" churches) and holidays. The atmosphere even for major and unavoidable holidays (e.g., Easter) was that it was a special day but there was nothing obligatory about attending church - in fact, this church and others I knew often emphasized that Christmas was originally a pagan holiday, and they only celebrate it for the symbolism as a means (not end) to worshiping God.

@JackofOz - My guess is the devolution of authority just may lead to confusion when it comes to eternal truth. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Baptists don't like symbolism for the sake of symbolism" - but I just read in Baptist disinctives that Baptists generally consider both the sacraments (excuse me, "ordinances") they recognize - Baptism and the Lord's supper - to be purely symbolic. Isn't that symbolism for its own sake? +Angr 10:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. You miss the important point. The ordinance of Baptism and of The Lords Supper were actually done by Jesus himself, and Jesus himself ordered of the Lords Supper "Do this in memory of me." Symbolism for its own sake is a bad idea; symbolism because Jesus did it or commanded it be done is a different thing entirely. Jesus never celebrated Ascension Day... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify baptism; Jesus himself was Baptised, not that he baptised others... That's the important bit. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can be their is any one help me pls i want to known that in deflation that how we will calculated deflation and my secound question is that how we calculate inflation if the last year inflation is under WPI is 5.28% and current inflation is 6.78% pls any one with logic ans help me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yatender singh (talk • contribs) 13:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation and Deflation are usually based on tracking baskets-of-goods. Things such as the Consumer Price Index and Retail Price Index look at the cost of a huge list of items and track the costs overtime. Items are added/removed over time but essentially as prices (by and large) increase you'll see inflation and as prices (by and large) decrease you'll see deflation. I'm sure the maths involved is a little more complex but that's the basic idea. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this painting:

Who was the painter and how is the artwork called?

My painter guess is Philip Richard Morris... (w/o proof)

Thanks in advance, --Scriberius (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The signature in the bottom left corner says Michael Philip. A Google of "Michael Philip" +squirrels shows this as the first result, with a link to the artist's homepage -

http://digitalart.org/art/52310/miscellaneous/autumn-serenity/

Dalliance (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a novice, I have been trying to understand the mathematics of parimutual betting. I can understand the (theorectical) situation where bettors are only allowed to bet on the winner. After deduction of the running costs, the total money bet by all punters is divided up among the winning bettors in proportion to how much they have bet.

But how is the money divided up when other types of bet are also allowed? The win, place, show, and more exotic bets? 78.149.232.7 (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You would likely have much better luck with this question on the Ref Desk for Mathematics than here in Humanities. If I knew how to move the question, and how to leave the proper trail, I would do it for you. // BL \\ (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this question required someone with betting experience to answer it rather than knowledge of abstract maths, but I will try also asking on the Mathematics desk as you suggest. 89.242.109.25 (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When one bets at a race track, for example, the odds are machine calculated, as are the payouts. I doubt very much, given the general range of people I have seen at the track, that any of them work out the payouts for themselves. However, trackside bookmakers doubtless do so, but I have only been to tracks where the betting was parimutual.

Can anybody help translate this? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pipino I ed Ingeltrude ebbero quattro figli:

• Pipino II (823-864), re d'Aquitania
• Carlo (825-863), arcivescovo di Mayence dall'856.
• Berta (?-874), sposò nell'839 Gerardo di Rossiglione (?-841), conte di Parigi.
• un'altra figlia che sposò il conte Rotari di Limoges (?-841).

I don' t read Italian all that well, but it looks like it's describing the children of Pipin I and his wife Ingeltrude. Pipin II would be King of Aquitaine (re d'Aquitania); Let me check InterTran... OK, best I can get from InterTran and a bit of rewording gives:

Pipin I and Ingeltrude had four children:

• Pipin II, king of Aquitaine
• Charles, Archbishop of Mayence (Mainz?!?)
• Bertha, Wife of Gerard di Rossiglione, count of Paris
• another child maried to count Rotari of Limoge

Hope that helps! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If not, try the Language desk. --Tango (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sons are mentioned in Pepin I of Aquitaine. Yes, Mayence is the French (and formerly English) name of Mainz. Why it's not Magonza here...? —Tamfang (talk) 06:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, after all, Roussillon is given an Italian name pre-translation (Rossiglione) as is Paris. Well, the Italian Wikipedia may just not be consistant on this one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hiiiiiiiiiii i know it is calculated on the basis of wpi and depent upon 435 comodities but i want the mathmatical term if any body klnow pls reply me as soon as possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yatender singh (talk • contribs) 02:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Moved misplaced question to its own section and reformatted it. Sifaka ^talk 02:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might try the mathematics desk. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP Is talking about the wholesale price index (="wpi") and commodity markets (="comodities"). So it's probably an economic not mathematical question.

Given that the wpi is not commonly used in most countries, I think the answer would be something regionally specific. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are asking a question specific to India. India calculates Wholesale Price Index (wpi) based on a list of 435 commodities. Take a look through the articles Price index and List of price index formulas, and see if anything there helps you. --Zerozal (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WPI is used to measure inflation, is that the word you are looking for? --Tango (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What English translation of the Bible, if any, is favored by the Eastern Orthodox Church? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.215.248 (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page has a pretty good explanation for why it doesn't really matter; but if one is to be preferred, apparently it is the KJV. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 1977 RSV edition was one of the first general English translations to include all the books that Eastern Orthodox consider to be canonical... AnonMoos (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am continuing this from my last question.

By "good" or "evil", I mainly mean a natural tendency towards good or evil.

Are there any atheists or evolutionists who disagree with the belief and idea that humans are born good by nature but corrupted by corrupt society?

I am asking you all this also because of another passage from The Battle For Truth:

This method of passing the buck-denying individual responsibility for individual actions-permeates virtually all non-Christian psychology.

IS THAT TRUE? I am also asking you all this because I've heard that Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who was an atheist and humanist, claimed and believed that humans were born good by nature but corrupted by corrupt society.

Bowei Huang (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As with your earlier version of the same question, the answer is obviously "yes", because you are asking "Are there any...", and as there are several hundreds of millions of atheists, we can safely say "Yes, there are some." There are plenty of atheists who think people are inherently selfish and evil. Also if you would trouble to read Jean-Jacques Rousseau, you'll see he was no atheist. The author is a troll. Tempshill (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This godless evilutionist, for example, is of the opinion that the question "Are people born good or evil?" is itself a sign of muddled concepts. —Tamfang (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the author is a troll. He does, however, use a set of talking and reasoning tools that are foreign to many users here at the refdesk. To the author: The question, as you put it, cannot be satisfactorily answered. People have asked you to elaborate, but you only offer a vague explanation ("a natural tendency towards good or evil" explains nothing - what is good? what is evil?) and a repost of the original question. I hardly believe you will get an answer. I would also like to disagree with the opinion you quoted from a book - namely, that non-Christians have no responsibility. If you saw the infamous Tom Cruise video, you would know that only a Scientologist will pull by when they see a car crash and help the people. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to catch something, I think you took Tempshill's reference to 'the author' to refer to Bowei Huang; I'm pretty sure Tempshill was talking to Bowei Huang and referring to 'the author of the book quoted'. 80.41.33.31 (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah. A bit poorly worded, yes. The first "author" is Huang, and the second is whoever wrote the book Huang quoted. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never get the question "non-Christians have no responsibility" similarly "If you don't believe in god, what's stopping you...", as if the fear of god is the only thing keeping Christians back from killing, raping, stealing and preforming abortions, because in reality they really want to do those things. chandler ··· 08:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or that we actually, as a society, rely on people to adhere to their stated morals. I mean, plenty of Christians commit crimes as well. We don't rely on religion to actually prevent things—that's what we have laws and civil order for. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bowei Huang you should take that book you are reading with a grain of salt. Or at least read some books with different viewpoints to balance it. From the two quotes you have provided it is clear that the author is making gross generalizations to further his own bias. His attempts at descriptions, of what he consider his opponents, does not really match any movements in real life (although they may by chance match a few individuals as Tempshill pointed out), but are tailored to suit his own system of beliefs. It is however commendable that you turn to the help desk to try and verify if reality fits with the claims in the book, it does show you have an independent mind and do not believe everything that you read. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that there is a nature versus nurture aspect influencing whether people turn out as mainly helpful or not to others. Probably an assortment of different life attitudes are favoured by evolution. Being a psycho nutter who just uses others can be a way of getting to the top of a company and having lots of children for instance. I'm quite happy to classify such a person as evil, would he be actually born good or evil by the OPs standards? Then again such people drive others and much of modern society is due to evil corporate bosses and politicians, and personally I think good religious politicians seem overall to have worse outcomes for everyone than the self seeking exploiters. (godless evilutionist - I like that spelling - thanks Tamfang) Dmcq (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it adds to your data set, I am a godless evolutionist who does not believe that people are inherently born good and then corrupted. I believe that humans are born as humans—creatures with tremendous capacity for malice as well as compassion and social organization. I certainly believe in a functional individual responsibility. (If a dog insists on biting people, do we worry if the dog is making the conscious choice? Not really—we take the steps necessary to protect ourselves, even if the dog "ultimately" lacks responsibility for its actions. The philosophical difference need not have any functional difference.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are people answering this question? It is identical to the last one, just with the addition of a definition for "good" and "evil" which uses the words "good" and "evil". We've answered this question already. --Tango (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that many athiests and evolutionists believe that humans are Social animal animals, and that our sense of right and wrong and our mostly "good" behavior is primarily a result of these instincts.

For instance, penguins live in reasonably civil tribes (colonies? Flocks?) and no one is suggesting that there are penguin cops enforcing the law, or a penguin Moses delivering the ten penguin commandments. APL (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colonies, I think. --Tango (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

There is a long history of opposing intuitions on this matter by non-theists. There's the Hobbesian concept of the state of nature being nasty, brutish and short then there's the idea exemplified by Rousseau where people by nature are good until society corrupts them (called the noble savage).

So yes, there are plenty of evolutionists who disagree with the idea that humans are born good. Plenty of modern psychologists (not to mention the anthropologists, sociologists, primatologists), who fully accept Darwinian evolution, would agree with the proposition that humans are neither good nor bad by virtue of their birth (which uses an antiquated idea of how nature vs. nurture works anyway). Read any number of books on violence in prehistory (notably, Lawrence Keeley's 'War before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage') to find people who may or may not be atheist and who disagree with the noble savage concept. Further reading may want to include Pinker's "The Blank Slate".--droptone (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An odd question for sure, but one I can't help but ask. As I watched Arnold Schwarzenegger, I couldn't stop thinking about the man's nude scene(s) and pictures. My question: is any of you familiar with a higher ranking official who has appeared fully or partially nude before the public, whether in the US or abroad? Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly what you had in mind, but there was an incident a few weeks ago in which a publicity-seeking artist hung nude paintings he had done of the Irish Prime Minister in a couple of art galleries. Of course, we have an article on it. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cicciolina, maybe. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Frevert. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jörn Donner. Our article doesn't mention it, but he did some pornographic movies, at least one of them under the name Björn Thunder. Most (but not all) of it was done with a pretty obvious artistic intent, and I don't think it has negatively affected his career, either as a member of the Finnish and European Parliament or as a nationally influential artist. Today, it's entirely a non-issue.

In general, finding Finnish politicians naked isn't that much of a feat, what with our sauna culture. This isn't universal, but in many circles making a big deal of someone being naked in the sauna would be extremely bad form. In fact, a very popular TV show called Hyvät herrat ("Respected Sirs", pretty much, but there's a double meaning, as "herra" not only means "sir" but also "master") featured them on a weekly basis at one point; the show was a political satire, in which a fictional influential captain of industry and his toadying son-in-law invited various real-life political figures to sauna with him so he could try his hand at manipulating them for his own benefit. This inevitably involved various degrees of nudity on part of the guests. And contrary to what you might think, there was no shortage of pretty high-level guests (it was not uncommon to see ministers on the show); it was a popular program, and even though it poked fun at the politicians in question, it also gave them a great chance to freely mouth off on whatever their agenda happened to be at the time to a guaranteed audience of voters that was actually interested in what they had to say -- surely a fairly irregular set of circumstances for most politicians. Parts of the show were shot on the same day it aired, so it was often extremely topical. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Rae, who used to be Premier of Ontario and was almost leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, went skinny dipping with Rick Mercer on the Rick Mercer Report. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous depictions of Jesus Christ, none of which show Him wearing a business suit. If He had been into product placement, Raphael (and a few more) would have made millions posthumously from the producers of desiger nappies and loin cloths. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would interpret "partially nude" to include wearing a bathing suit (obviously not a burqini, but the normal sort). Lots of politicians have beach or swimming pool photos in the public domain. Tony Blair got some flack for daring to bare his moobs, for example. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glenda Jackson, British actor and member of Parliament, in Women in Love and The Music Lovers. RolandR 23:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a politician directly, but Carla Bruni, the First Lady of France, has been photographed nude (NSFW) more times than one could count... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And not for want of trying either?--Radh (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Chu Mei-feng. Matt Deres (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering, are there any other monasteries in Asia like the Meteora in Greece? I went through the list of monasteries in China, but just a few of them had pictures, an there were too many to read all of them. A friend of mine said there is one in South China, near the coastline on rock pillars. (The pillars being in the water, so the monastery is practically being on islands.) Thanks. PAStheLoD (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you do a Google / image search on "Tibetan monasteries" [1] you will find some great photos. Greetings from Vienna, --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wudang Mountains in China is also one of those perched-in-an-impossible-part-of-a-mountain monasteries. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a surname which is one of the top ten most common in America. My mother had a possibly Jewish first name which she changed to a more WASP one during WWII, before I was born. Somewhere around the same time my grandmother became a Methodist - I do not know what she was before. Looking back at the families geneological records, my great-grandparents and before had very unusual old-testament first names, such as Ezekial, although as far as I recall they all had not-unusual surnames. Like so many other things, I never asked my mother about this before she died. My other relatives died when I was a child. Would Ezekial have been a distinctively Jewish name in the 19th. century? Is there anything in what I have described that is inconsistant or consistant of being of Jewish descent? 89.242.109.25 (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Names like Ezekial, Zebidiah, Caleb, Nehemiah, etc. were quite common among protestants in rural america during the 1800's. When reading novels from this era and from the early 1900's, we frequently see the names (and derived nicknames such as Zeke or Zeb) used for characters who are backward or rustic. -Arch dude (talk) 10:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Puritans insisted on using only names found in the Bible - and since there weren't so many names in the New Testament, they had to resort to Old Testament names too. As a result, Old Testament names that sound rather Jewish to modern ears (like Abraham) were popular in 18th- and 19th-century America among non-Jews as well (like Abraham Lincoln). Surnames are a better indicator of Jewishness than first names, but still not ideal since Jewishness is passed through the mother's line and surnames through the father's. +Angr 10:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(P. S.: Samuel Fuller, the film director is an example for this puritanism.)--Radh (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. See Unless-Jesus-Christ-Had-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hadst-Been-Damned Barebone, aka Praise-God Barebone, and Increase Mather. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some good comments above. Note also that surnames are a relatively recent innovation and Jews have been around a heck of a long time. Finally, many Jews in regimes were doled out surnames willy nilly by local officials; some were appropriate, commonly place names or professions, and in oppressive regimes, some were even jokes (one of my ancestors was a "Grossbard", ie "Big beard" - and that's quite tame, compared with some I've heard) --Dweller (talk) 11:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I am unhappy with the redirect at willy nilly. See Talk:Willy nilly. --Dweller (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day, the only way to know for sure, is to trace your genealogy. -- role^player 11:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Crypto-Judaism. There were Jews who passed in society as Christians, but secretly remained Jews.This was a survival technique which worked for hundreds of years. Someone changing a Jewish sounding first name to a more Anglo one during World War 2 sounds consistent with the practice. There was a story on National Public Radio (U.S.) about a young man who was serving in the Army, who noticed that the mess hall supplied Matzo at Passover. He commented that those were the kind of crackers his family ate around Easter. The Jews he was were intrugued and with asked some questions like, did they also have special rituals about lighting candles, and did the older family members have secret customes, and told him that his family were probably crypto Jews, which was confirmed when he asked them. A method of survival which dated back to the 1500's got a new lease on life during the Holocaust. Some of your mothers relatives might know. Edison (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are Jewish people with the surnames of Green, and I worked for a Jewish woman whose name was Robbins. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like in School Ties :) TastyCakes (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The third-most-common Jewish surname in the U.S. (behind Cohen and Levy) is Miller, which people wouldn't consider a particularly Jewish name. A look at a Jewish cemetery will reveal plenty of non-"ethnic" sounding names. Remember that a lot of people took new surnames when they came to the U.S. Both my grandparents' families Anglicized their names after immigrating. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many ways in which an American Jew could end up with an Anglo surname:

• many changed their names when they immigrated, either to better fit in, because they didn't much care for the country they came from, or simply because the immigration official couldn't pronounce it
• many Jews and non-Jews Anglicized their German surnames during World War I when anti-German sentiment was high. (eg. a large number of Millers in the U.S. are descended from German Muellers)
• there are some Jews with deep roots in Britain who got English surnames just like everyone else there
• other personal reasons (in the movie Avalon, Jewish cousins with the surname Kryczinski change their names to Kirk and Kaye because "it's just easier to say")

The crypto-Jew answer seems unlikely. Crypto-Jews were largely a phenomenon of the Inquisition which didn't extend to English-speaking countries. They usually have Spanish or Portuguese surnames, not English/American ones. —D. Monack ^talk 06:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful though: if you find an example of this it does not mean the person is of Jewish descent. In the UK last century it was very common for people with Germanic sounding names to change them - a prominent example being the Battenberg family who changed to Mountbatten, and later to Mountbatten-Windsor. OR I have a friend whose father settled here after the war, and changed his name to Gibson because it was similar to the first thing he saw when he got here (an advert for Gibbs toothpaste). Neither of these two examples were Jewish, simply Germanic.--TammyMoet (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could we associate the economical crisis with a crisis of the business school way of thinking (or lack thereof)? Capitalism could just be fine. The problem was that the wrong people were on the top. --Mr.K. (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the cause from the perspective of how people think was thinking far too short term, primarily because of bonuses based on short term results. Does that have anything to do with business schools? --Tango (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The economic crisis exposes the myth of business-school expertise. The training allegedly offered by biz schools has always been overblown. Mr.K. (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if the myth has been exposes recently. I always found them quite lame and expensive and nothing compared to a liberal education (art, science, language). --80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps this is just part of a continuous economic cycle and that currently we are over-stating the bad points, whereas previously we were guilty of under-stating the risk. People are panicking like the world is about to end because, shock-horror, we might have a few years where growth goes back/slows dramatically. Of course it's a serious situation but this occurance is not particuarly convincing evidence that the way our economies are setup is inherently bad (though, of course, improvements could be made). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But aren't most Business schools still in denial about natural economic cycles? The current crop of business leaders certainly didn't seem to understand why this bubble burst, just like every other economic bubble in history. Are these not taught in business schools:Template:US recessions? If business leaders only plan (and get rewarded) based on short term profit, then they are either learning that in business schools, or business schools are not teaching anything of use.YobMod 13:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Economic slowdown + CEO bonuses * Media hype = worst economic disaster in the history of mankind, panic, looting, riots... you get the idea. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your association between the financial crisis and business school crisis is right in different sense. Corporations have financed such business schools. They served as a training quarter of its employees and marketing tool for their "expertise" and ideology. Now that corporations have way much less money, biz schools will also get less.--88.6.117.202 (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I well remember my irritation at seeing all those Wired covers promising eternal spring for the stockmarket. Capitalists like communists tend to believe in hard rock candy mountains--Radh (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK the Bank Of England was a few years ago told to keep inflation at a target of 2%. In past decades inflation was much higher than this. I assume things were similar with other national banks. Has this pursuit of low inflation been one of the causes of the current problems? If the target rate for inflation had been set at say 5% or 10%, would we have avoided this recession? A healthy inflation rate of 5 or 10% would have reassured mortgagors (or is that mortgagees?) that their house debt was eventually going to be paid off, and make them feel better-off financially. 89.242.109.25 (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mortgage rates are always going to be above inflation (barring short term fluctuations). If you increase inflation, banks put their rates up. --Tango (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would inflation at 5% make anybody more comfortable that their house debt would eventually be paid off, than at 2%? Yes higher inflation would erode the 'worth' of what they borrowed, but unless wage and interest rate on savings increase inline with that inflation - it would just see their wages and savings reduce. Perhaps i'm missing something? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In past decades in the UK, wages and house prices would increase more or less with inflation or more. Inflation would decrease the real value of your mortgage debt, and thus increase the real value of your equity, making you wealthier. I understand that much or most of the capital for business start-ups came from house equity, so without the equity, far less new businesses created, and hence less new jobs created. In addition, with inflation it is easier to pay off debts, so people are more inclined to borrow, so they spend more, so the economy keeps wizzing around. Perhaps the current inflation target is too low to deal with economic crisis without dipping down into deflation, like a jet fighter that tries to fly only a few feet above the terrain and is at great risk of crashing. 89.242.109.25 (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider that if your mortgage payments are 33% of your gross pay. Then if the inflation is less then 33% higher then your wage increases, you are better off regardless of the rate of inflation, ignoring taxes anyway. Things do get a bit hairy at really high inflation since you probably don't get paid everyday at your job. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but wage increases are determined based on inflation, so increasing the target inflation rate wouldn't change anything. --Tango (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation does not target all sectors of society equally and simultaneously, unfortunately. Furthermore, wage rates should be based on increases in productivity, not increases in the general price level. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I make no judgement on what "should" be the case, but in reality wage increases are generally based on inflation (among other factors). --Tango (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am not a monetarist, Schwartz and Friedman gave very good empirical evidence towards the fact that there was economic growth during periods of deflation (specifically, a decrease in price levels). This is the outcome of sustainable growth through capital accumulation. As an Austrian economist I lay the blame for the current economic crisis at the feet of inflation (that is, an increase in the money supply, not just an increase in the general price level); in other words, I blame fractional-reserve banking. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm correct me if I'm wrong, but most developed economies are still not in a state of deflation, are they? So the argument that having low inflation helped trigger the current downturn because it allowed deflation easier seems incorrect, since deflation hasn't occurred. Whether having low inflation can be a bad thing for an economy in general is another question, and a much more complicated one, I think. I think it is true that high levels of inflation can be very damaging to national economies and is a much more common occurrence than deflation. So the Bank of England was probably well supported in its attempts to keep inflation in a small, narrow band, it seems to be the idea behind most central banks at least. TastyCakes (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the OP is making the argument based on the perils of deflation, but rather on the apparently benefits of 10% inflation, which I serious question the accuracy of. The OP seems to be neglecting the fact that if you have 10% inflation, interest rates would end up greater than 10% in order to keep the real rate positive (otherwise everyone would borrow as much money as they can and simple supply and demand would drive up interest rates - see arbitrage). As for the deflation arguments - as far as I can see, deflation would be a good thing because the cure is printing money which is exactly what you want to do in a recession. There is a danger that you won't be able to get the money supply back down enough quickly enough afterwards and you'll end up with massive inflation (probably not full blown hyperinflation in most developed economies, they are too careful for that), but quantitative easing is being used by several central banks that think they can do it safely. --Tango (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was an interesting article in the latest Economist about deflation here. According to the Economist, deflation is (in this case) not a good thing. It is not caused by increased productivity, it is caused by lower demand and lower wages. It means that while the nominal cost of debts remains the same, the real cost increases. Paying the debt therefore requires the debter to spend a larger portion of their money on it which removes that money from the economy, deepening the recession (ie if the economy is deflating at 2%, a 5% mortgage will be 7% in real terms, while if the economy is inflating at 2% a 5% mortgage will be 3% in real terms). It is worse than inflation because the government is limited as to how it can deal with the problem - central banks can only lower their rates to zero (which many have already done to diminish the threat of deflation), while to contain inflation they can raise the rates to anything they want. Getting stuck in a deflationary trap is therefore a serious problem, as was experienced by Japan in the 1990s. I think it is fairly widely thought by economists that deflation is a greater threat to modern economies than inflation, but a far less common one. TastyCakes (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deflation is bad, but you can avoid it by just printing money (which, if done correctly, also boosts the economy). You just have a weigh up the risk of high inflation once the economy recovers. I'm not entirely familiar with what happened in Japan. I know they tried quantitative easing, why didn't it work? --Tango (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am learning English and want to read some history books in English to improve my reading comprehension. I am interested in any period from ancient Egypt to 18TH century (about any country) - please recommend interesting books in relatively easy English. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.22.96.139 (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, a rather daunting proposition, and given your rather wide range of subject, I'd suggest finding some broad histories to familiarize yourself with a range of areas. The first thing that comes to mind is Norman Davies History of Europe, which is broad-ranging and can be quite difficult to get through, but covers a considerable period of European history in the English language. Hope that helps. Skinny87 (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, you could try children's books. Some good ones are in the public domain and can be obtained online - try International Children's Digital Library (also in Spanish) or the archives collected at the Online Books Page. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with most children's books on history is that the history itself is seldom scholarly. Think of what each of us learned about the "Indians" and the "Redcoats", for example when we were children. Often when the language is simplified, so is the history. I would think recommendations about well-written histories for adults would be the most useful. I have nothing to contribute, however. // BL \\ (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could try A History of the Modern World by Palmer and Colton, despite the title nearly half the book deals with 18th century and before (it's mostly about Europe). I remember it as fairly accessible though it is not written specifically for non-native English speakers. It has come in a lot of editions over the years so you might be able to get an old edition relatively cheaply from your favourite online bookstore. You can view the contents and perhaps some text pages at the Amazon link I gave. Jørgen (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think reading the short stories of Ernest Hemingway should be great because of his simple, direct prose. Tempshill (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend A Little History of the World by Ernst Gombrich. He wrote it for children in the 1930s. Perhaps more was expected of children then! The book certainly does not come across as childish, but as a lucid one-volume introduction to the subject. The language is clear and elegant. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've always enjoyed the writings of Barbara Tuchman, which are as scholarly as they come in terms of sources but are written for the general reader. The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam was a very good read. Practising History is an excellent introduction to the historian's craft, as well as providing some good general historical essays. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than 50,000 articles on the Simple English Wikipedia. They are supposed to be written using simple words but without making the content simple. Some of these articles are about history. -Arch dude (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend the Cartoon History of the Universe books by Larry Gonick. Don't let the title fool you; the books are very well researched, as well as being easy to read and extremely wide-ranging. The language is kept lively and straightforward and the pictures aid the comprehension. I would recommend them to anyone, but they seem very well tailored to you. Matt Deres (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are fantastic (and hugely influential on me), but remember that the first was written in the 1970's. The sections on early hominids I know to be outdated, and I suspect many other sections are too. This isn't a reason not to read them, just to keep your mind 'switched on'. 89.168.85.22 (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did the scene in Enemy at the Gates, where the troops were only given one rifle to every other man and were told to pick up the fallen weapons of killed comrades, actually happen in the historical battle of Stalingrad?--91.84.213.250 (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot be certain about this specific battle, but it is more then likely. The army russia has during the second world war was largely based upon having a mass of conscripts with no real training charge the enemy while trying to win trough their sheer amount of numbers (This was called the russian steamroller). This was one of the reasons russia fared so bad in the decond world war: Troop loyalty and skill were absymall, and the only reason there was no mass amount of deserters was due to the use of Commusairs (sp?) which were highly trained and disciplined troups mixed between the regular soldiers. Their task? Shoot every soldier that tried to retreat or that did not act brave enough. Just call it a movivation for the troops. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 15:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I'm sorry, but the above isn't really true. The whole 'Soviet mass conscript army' is a myth largely fostered on the world by bitter German officers trying to explain away the Third Reich's defeat, and taken up by the West as a convenient way to demonize the Soviet Union. The Soviet military, from about 1943/44 onwards, was actually a well-organized machine, particularly in terms of the use of armour and combined-arms tactics. To the ip and Excirial, I'd recommend a few books to read up on the subject. Anything by David Glantz is a goldmine and should be read on the subject, and I'd also suggest 'The Operation Employment of Soviet Armour in the Great Patriotic War' by C J Dick in Harris and Toase (eds.) Armoured Warfare.

As to the specific question, ip, I wouldn't be surprised if such comments were made during Stalingrad; for much of the time the Soviets were desperate to ensure their bank of the Volga didn't fall, and although much of the movie is sensationalized, the Soviets did at times just send in waves of conscripts as they had little other choice. However, please don't think this was the limit to Soviet tactics, as it wasn't; I'd suggest Glantz and Beevor's books on Stalingrad as a good starting place to read up on the subject. Commissars, the Soviet political officers, also had much of their power stripped away from mid-1943 onwards, as the movie rather fails to communicate, as it was found what positive impact they made to morale was often more than compensated for by the military difficulties they created. Skinny87 (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many years ago i actually wrote a long essay about operation barbarossa .; However, I think that thanks due to haste posting my responce I wrote the section about an army of conscripts in a way that made it seem as if the section about “The army of conscripts” would indicate that every single man in Russia willingly joined the army. What I was actually referring to what that the bulk of the Russian army was badly trained, equipped and demoralized. The Russian steamroller applied to the tactic that Stalin was following – Direct counterattacks with as many men as possible as often as possible, in turn trying to bulldoze over the german army like a steamroller would.

However, all this is from a report I wrote years ago and from which I foolishly did not source in any way. Hence, your comment just made me doubt the truthfulness of it. Is this rewording closer to the truth? Or is it still hubris? (In that case I should ask a refund from my history teacher that checked that essay! Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I'd demand a full refund :) That's an extreme oversimplification, and one as I said primarily derived from bitter Wehrmacht officers trying to explain how they lost. The Soviet military in the first few years might not have been the best, but it rapidly improved and by late 1943/early 1944 was a superb fighting force. Not brilliant, and it had its flaws - certain senior officers were more than happy to throw lives away at a prodigious rate at times - but it certainly didn't triumph because it was a 'steamroller'. It had superior numbers at times, especially towards the end of the conflict, there's no denying that, but numbers alone didn't win the Eastern Front for them - that took skills and tactics, combined with excellent weapons and equipment. Skinny87 (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will give the teacher the benefit of doubt since i was around 13 at the time i wrote it; My guess he was glad that it were 50 pages of research with some basic quality. Also it seems that i managed to skim (though very basic) the truth with that essay. I believe i remember writing that initially the soviet union army was mainly build using outdated T-37 tanks that were later in the war replaced with T-41 version that proved to be much more of an issue for the German army.

(Apologies to the IP user for hijacking this question) Actually if you don’t mind I have 1 more question myself: I remember stating that the soviet war effort was seriously hindered by the 5 year plans the soviet union made. These plans would have included such high quota’s that manufacturers seriously lower quality just to reach the demanded amount of items produced; Tanks were mass assembled and would break down in the field with no enemy near, and steel sheets used to produce them would become smaller and thinner over time as factories frantically managed to meet their quota. Is this also a myth or did I also over simplify this? Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was told in a high school history class that the Red army used to clear mine fields by sending lines of men with arms linked marching across the field, because the tanks were held as being more precious. In hindsight, this too seems somewhat suspect, I'm not even sure if troops would set off German antitank mines by just walking over them. The Barbarossa article is quite interesting on the subject, particularly Causes of initial Soviet defeats. It seems the Soviets, while painfully unprepared for the initial battle, were able to mobilize far more men than the Germans anticipated. Further, they knew the Japanese were not going to attack them in the east and were able to transfer troops to the western front as a consequence. TastyCakes (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the OP's question. Not sure if it specifically happened at Stalingrad, but such an desperation tactic was not unheard of. During the Paris Commune days at the end of the Franco-Prussian War, the Communards lacked enough weapons to defend the city against the Government forces. As a result, during several of the assaults on the city, the defenders were known to have to rely on picking up the guns of their fallen comrades. Strangely enough its not mentioned in our article specifically, but I do recall a professor in college driving the point home during the lecture on "Bloody Week". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in the battle of Stalingrad, I recommend you watch this. It's in German, but you should be able to understand what's happening, even if you don't speak German. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any theories that try to correlate genetic haplogroups to Stone Age peoples? The genes tell us a story of human migration, and the technologies and cultures like Aurignacian and Solutrean tell us another story. Has no one tried to connect the two?--Sonjaaa (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheddar man... AnonMoos (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How soon are we likely to make discoveries that will solve the Great Leap Forward vs Continuity Hypothesis? I'm curious how likely I am to learn the answer to this question in my lifetime, with at least 85% certainty of one hypothesis over the other. If I understand correctly, there is no clear winner between the two theories as of today, right?--Sonjaaa (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The riddle of Behavioral modernity is that early humans attained an anatomy which is basically indistinguishable from that of modern humans (as far as can be told from skeletal remains) many thousands of years before they started manifesting a range of cultural traits similar to those of modern hunter-gatherer peoples. So it's assumed that the transition happened in the brain, and was probably associated with the development of something approximating modern human language. Since fossils are not very directly helpful, determining the exact chronology of the change is rather difficult... AnonMoos (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The US made gold coins intended for actual use until 1933 I believe. What is the latest a country produced gold coins with the intent that they were spent? Not like the 1oz special coins that are still produced. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to our gold coin article, South Africa issued bullion coins in 1967, however they didn't have a fixed value. As for modern currency coins, I believe no later than World War 2 would be the most recent time a gold coin was issued. Livewireo (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, they're still being made. The Perth Mint in Australia has issued a series of 99.99% pure gold coins. They're legal tender and anyone is entitled to pay for their groceries with one, but nobody other than collectors have ever seen one because their legal tender value is only a fraction of their value as gold. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OP wanted to know about coins that had been intended to be spent. I think several other countries' current gold coins are also technically legal tender. Tempshill (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One question could be: when did the price of gold rise to such an extent that making one that's worth its value would make it too small to be practical? (--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

This issue could be dodged by creating a gold coin that's about an ounce in weight and whose face value is, say, US$2,000. Tempshill (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a table of yearly gold prices. Seems like it started taking off around 1972. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, perhaps an additional condition should be some upper limit on face value. We don't normally have $2000 bills in circulation... When did a, say, penny-sized gold coin become more than, say, US$100 in value? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to what Livewireo referred to, the Krugerrand is still a popular form of investment because they have no face value - thus they are, as legal tender, worth their weight. However, also because they have no face value, they are not regarded as currency. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are they legal tender at all? As you say, they aren't regarded as currency. --Tango (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gold had a fixed price of $35/toz until 1971 under the Bretton Woods system. Technically, the US also makes 1 oz gold coins with a face value of $50, but one would have to be insane to use it for a purchase at about 5% of its value. And while the question could be dodged by making a 1 toz coin with a face value of $2,000, are there any countries that actually did so? I am looking for a factual answer, not a hypothetical. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Bharatiya Janata Party an Anti-Sikh? If they are, why do they need candidates in Punjab and Haryana in order win some in the parliament? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.95.73 (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the second sentence in Bharatiya Janata Party reads "[BJP is d]esigned to represent ... the Sikh population in nature", but I'll leave the question to someone familiar with India.F (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the BJP see Sikhism as being related to Hinduism, and has traditionally aimed to promote co-operation between the two religions (in contrast to its views on Christianity and, in particular, Islam). The party opposed the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, and there are BJP politicians who are Sikhs. Warofdreams talk 14:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From this site, how many brother/sisters R.G. Mugabr have? How many sisters, how many brother. I hear two of them is decease. Total how many and what number is he in, is he 3d out of 6th sibling?--69.226.39.79 (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the site you have linked and to this one from the Biography Channel, Mugabe had three full brothers. The first two, Michael and Raphael, were older than he, and both died when he was quite young. The third brother, Donato, younger than Robert, lived at least until 2008. Robert Mugabe appears to have been the third child. There were sisters but I cannot find any substantive record of their number or their names, save for Sabina, who is MP for the Mugabe family's home area of Zvimba.

There is one site that says Mugabe was the second of five children at the time his father deserted his mother, but as three of the siblings' names are different from those given on two other sites and Donato, who lived long enough to be interviewed in your example, is not named at all, I have little confidence in its accuracy. It is the same site that claims Mugabe is actually a "foreigner" from Malawi, whose father's surname was really Matibili/Matabiri. This would be a very unhappy fact for Mugabe, if true, given Mugabe's attitude towards foreigners in Zimbabwe. // BL \\ (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medical questions deleted. What the heck is going on? Gothrokkprincess (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the Reference Desk cannot give medical advice. Go and see a doctor. Tempshill (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a philosophical difference, or is it just a different definition of "free will"? — DanielLC 05:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the trial today about the murder of Baby P [2], I don't understand why the mother and her boyfriend (the murderer) cannot be identified (It says, "The mother, her boyfriend, who cannot be identified, and Jason Owen, a lodger at the house") although the lodger can be identified. - Is this common practice in British law or in other countries for this type of crime and will they remain unidentified this way forever? --AlexSuricata (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly common (extremely common for child defendants, although that isn't relevant here). If they were identified they would probably become the victims of "mob justice", whether the court found them innocent or guilty. If they are found not guilty then I doubt they would even be identified. If they are found guilty, I'm not sure. They might be identified and then given new identities if they are ever paroled. Our article, Death of Baby P, says that the name "James Owen" is an alias, so presumably he can't be identified either but has, for some reason, been given an alias rather than just being referred to as "the lodger". --Tango (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are other children involved in the extended family, and it's for their protection. As the lodger was only involved because he was the lodger, and therefore not a member of the extended family, the press ban did not apply to him. This will not always be the case, and these details will be released at some point in the future, however as the closure has been put into place to protect children it is likely to be years rather than months before any identifying information becomes public. -- role^player 15:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS my understanding is that they have already been found guilty, and that today is sentencing. -- role^player 15:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also normal that there is often a ban on victims, especially child victims, being identified. Obviously this also prevents naming their relatives (since that would give the game away) and in the tragic case where the relatives are also the perpetrators has the unfortunate side-effect of meaning the perpetrators can't be named either. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This ban must be UK-specific. In the US, the only reason I know of that a person accused of a crime is not named is when the accused is a minor. (Or, I guess, more recently, when it's a super-secret terrorism case and the entire process is allowed by a judge to be sealed.) Open trials, and all that. On the other hand, victims are anonymized more often. Tempshill (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minors are only not named if they are tried as minors. If they're tried as adults, they are named. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it is so Baby P can't be identified. SGGH ^ping! 17:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the harm in identifying Baby P? He's dead. --Tango (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's so that Baby P's siblings can't be identified. They've done nothing wrong and have a right to lead as normal a life as is possible in the circumstances. -- role^player 18:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reporting restrictions are also intended to prevent prejudicing other trials; if the identities of the perpetrators were known, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for a jury to hear a case objectively. There has already been one (so-far) further trial of "the boyfriend", who has been convicted in a separate case of raping a two-year-old child. For all we know, there could be other cases proceeding. RolandR 23:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the most common Buddist sect in the West?--Mr.K. (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked Buddhism in the West, Buddhism by country and Buddhism by region, and their sub-pages? The first of these does not specifically talk about any school of Buddhism, but claims:

Western Buddhism is almost entirely modernist, not traditionalist, skipping over the tradition to what it believes to be "original" Buddhism[9] borrowing, and modifying, Asian practices such as the sangha and meditation but largely ignoring ritual, faith, devotion, doctrine etc. Western Buddhism has been heavily influenced by the concepts of freethought and secular humanism.

Tempshill (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already supposed that people in the West chose the most liberal variant. However, how liberal can you be and still be a Buddhist? Is simply meditating enough to be one?--80.58.205.37 (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should make a distinction between immigrant and convert Buddhist communities in the West, as there is often not very much interaction between the two. Among immigrant communities, popularity of different Buddhist groups depends on the country of origin; for example, for people of East Asian descent Pure Land Buddhism is often popular, while Buddhists of Southeast Asian descent are Theravadin with rare exceptions. As for Western people who convert to Buddhism, the most popular branches are Zen (particularly the Japanese variety, but also the Chinese, Koreann, and Vietnamese—e.g. Thich Nhat Hanh—forms); Tibetan Buddhism (the Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism seems to have a lot of followers in the West, but all of the four major schools are represented); and "vipassana" or "insight meditation", which is essentially an approach to Theravada Buddhism. Also, Sōka Gakkai, an organisation which promotes Japanese Nichiren Buddhism, has been by far the most successful Buddhist group at gaining followers in the West through active evangelism.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 01:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do believers in Modernisation/Westernisation (the whole teleological national evolution to Western-style endpoints) have a political allegiance? Are such ideas leftist or rightest or is there no particular trend? SGGH ^ping! 17:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sorts of believers in modernization and westernization; it depends on the nation and historical time period.

Lenin and Stalin were very into modernization and Industrialization of the Soviet Union while being communists. Often it is linked with the free market, and to that extent mirrors modern right-wing politics, and with free trade, which is more associated with the right than the left today (though there are some right-wing protectionists. China shows that modernization may or may not involve a respect for human rights (associated with liberalism and social democracy, though also to some extent with right-wing libertarianism). The debates over modernization/westernization don't line up along the traditional left/right divide (which is more about state ownership and control).

There's a lot of information on Wikipedia e.g. Economic reform in the People's Republic of China, Westernization, Cultural assimilation, Meiji Constitution (on Japan), History of the Republic of China (pre-communist), Economic history of India, and pages on many other countries, that may be useful. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if any of the smaller political parties in the UK, who are standing in the EU elections fulfil these criteria: (a) Socialist and (b) pro-Europe? The Socialist Labour party, who might otherwise get my vote, are standing on a platform of getting out of Europe. Any ideas? --TammyMoet (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search for "pro-EU socialist" comes up with a few hits. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Scottish Socialist Party fulfil these criteria - see [3]. The Socialist Party of Great Britain aren't pro-EU, but they don't seem to be in favour of leaving the EU, either (this kind of position is quite characteristic of the party). Beyond that, I believe that Plaid Cymru is broadly pro-EU, and the Green parties and Labour Party are all pro-European and have some socialist members. Warofdreams talk 09:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these - if I can't find a SPGB candidate it'll have to be Green! --TammyMoet (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In direct understanding, the word "Mosaic" would mean, "In the nature of Moses (the Hebrew Prophet)". It has been suggested, however, that the word "mosaic" in reference to Tile Art, is derived as a reference to the Greek "Muse" (Spirits of Inspiration to Artists). Is there any etomology relationship between the Tile Art "mosaic" and the Biblical Prophet, "Moses"? Just a curiosity. 19:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElleryPotash (talk • contribs)

According to Merriam-Webster, mosaic (n.), meaning small tiles, is from the word "museum", hence Latin and not Hebrew. --Dr Dima (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Greek and Hebrew words for a mosaic (Ψηφιδωτό and פסיפס, respectively; the latter reading "psifas") seem to be related to each-other but not to the English/Latin root. --Dr Dima (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are various opinions on the meaning of the name Moses. Our article indicates that it may be derived from the Egyptian root word "-mose" and was possibly linked with a proper name (as in Ra-mose = Ramses = son of Ra). When used as an adjective, as in Mosaic law or Mosaic authorship it does, of course, refer to Moses himself. I can find no reference giving any connection between the two, but a linguist may correct me.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this background?68.148.149.184 (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Vista used Flickr images as its selection for desktops (http://blog.flickr.net/en/2007/01/30/a-key-benefit-of-vista/) though I can't see the photo you link to. I was hoping that the Flickr photo might have tags with more info on location/etc. ny156uk (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? You can't see the photo I linked to? The link doesn't show a photo?68.148.149.184 (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry what I meant was "I can't see the photo you linked to in the list of photos from Flickr users." ny156uk (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a fiord. Perhaps its Scandinavia or Iceland. 78.146.162.232 (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing resembling a fiord in the picture, only small ponds. It looks a lot like the view from the road between Hol and Aurland in the central mountainous part of southern Norway. If that's the case it's certainly no fiord, were at about 1000 meters above sea level. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 19:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is one of just a few states with straight ticket voting in general elections. There is a button or lever to vote for a party, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, and not for the individual candidates. Consequently, many candidates are elected with very few votes for them in particular, just for their party in general.

My inquiry is what other states have this straight ticket voting choice. I think it is only a few others, but that is why I am asking. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Straight-ticket voting article, Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin allow straight ticket voting.Tobyc75 (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In North Carolina, you must vote separately for President and then the straight-party vote for the rest of the political offices.--droptone (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Counting NC, that means 16 states with straight party voting, and 34 states without it. In Pennsylvania, there is a button for a straight ticket vote, but the voter can ignore that and vote for each candidate separately, or the voter can push the straight party button, and change individual office votes. This means that most winning candidates for public office don't receive very many votes at all, they win by being on the party slate. In Philadelphia, that means that Democrats almost always win, but upstate, there are counties where Republicans almost always win.--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By area, as in square miles, of land covered only, which empire covered the most? Was it the British Empire or the Mongol Empire? I've had this conversation with a number of people and we've never come to an agreement. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See List of largest empires. Tempshill (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is mad. There is an article for everything! :) Thanks! --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And might I say, that is a bloody excellent article! Very informative! Thanks for linking to that! --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're preaching to the choir!--Tango (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this *could* have been humanities, but ths still seemed best. Anyway, a discussion about some teens our group has helps - including ones with absent parents - brought to my mind a question.

Is there a set way to list someone on a wedding program who has been "just like a mother/father" to the bride or groom? It's easy, I suppose, with a relative - if Aunt/Uncle X or older sibling Y raised you, they can easily be listed at the top and will probably be best man/maid of honor/giving away the bride. But, what about the best friend's parent who was always there to support the kid who hung out at her friend's house all the time, or someone like that?

I suppose perhaps a page saying, "We happily dedicate this wedding to 'x'" and why would work, but would it be considered too tacky or anything? Is there a special designation that is used? Can you really list, instead of "father of the bride," something like, "Emotional father" in their place? Thanks.Somebody or his brother (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If "father of the bride" is a role rather than a blood relationship, and the presence of a program seems to suggest this, you could name anyone at all beside the designation. Of course, if there is a blood father and he is both present in the bride's life and in the ceremony, it might cause some emotional upheaval to appoint someone else. The "virtual" father can always be effusively thanked as a part of the speechmaking. It is likely he is aware of his influence and also unlikely he would expect to upstage any blood relatives at such an event. Whatever is kind is usually the best way to go. // BL \\ (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is the father of the bride that is being replaced then you could describe the replacement in terms of their role in the wedding ("Giving the bride away: X" or "Walking the bride down the aisle: X" or words to that effect). Other parents are a little more difficult since they don't have well defined roles. --Tango (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Describing someone by their role is probably ideal. Most people will understand the nature of the relationship from their being in the role. If someone is giving the bride away, it shows that the relationship is fatherly. If the father of the bride is also present, but not in that role, it shows the change of responsibility. If the bio-father is not present, especially if he is not a feature in the bride's life, listing a person as "Father" of the bride would be easily permissible. This would be perhaps out of place in a particularly formal wedding, or if the biological father were present. Steewi (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem very weird to me for the biological father to be present but not give the bride away. --Tango (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The biological father may have only been recently revealed. I do know of one wedding where the bride had been adopted as a newborn. She located her birth parents about a year before she married. All four parents attended the wedding, but the biological parents were only guests, not active particiants. Any "family" combination we can imagine has likely been played out by someone, somewhere. // BL \\ (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, I should have said "legal father", not "biological". I forgot about adoption! --Tango (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, being an attorney, I can tell you you get some real messes when it comes to combinations of biological, natural, adoptive, and so on fathers. Anyway, thanks for all the help!Somebody or his brother (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C.C. How old was Paul Biya's first wife Jeanne-Irène Biya die. Few years late, Paul Biya marry Chantal Biya, a white women from France. Was Jeanne Biya, Paul's first black wife under 60 or over 60 when she die. What was marial date of both black and white wife?--69.226.39.79 (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Paul marry his first wife in 1960, then she is probably no younger than DOB in 1940, the most smart estimate is she is born in range of 1937-1939, then she is in her lower 50s when she die.--69.226.39.79 (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re the marital dates, our article Paul Biya says"Paul Biya married Chantal Biya on 23 April 1994". This news website says Paul Biya and Jeanne-Irene Atyam were married on September 2, 1961.

Re the ages, our article Chantal Biya says she was born in 1971. (NB: the article also says she was born in Cameroon, not France, and that only her father is French while her mother is Cameroonian.) This article says Jeanne-Irène Biya was born in 1935 and our article Jeanne-Irène Biya says she "died on 29 July 1992". So she was 56 or 57 when she died, depending on when her birthday was. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who was she? All I got was that it was some lady name Berta from the Italian wikipedia. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC) La discendenza di Arduino d'Ivrea e Berta degli Obertenghi originò i diversi rami dei conti del canavese; tra queste le antiche famiglie:[reply]

Google says she is "of the Obertenghi", "of Luni", "of Lorraine", "of Ivrea", etc. We do, at least, have an article on the Obertenghi. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read Italian, but the first hit here might say she was the daughter of Oberto II? (who was a younger son of Oberto I, we say, though Oberto II is still a red link). WikiJedits (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to utilitarianism, is human nature good or evil? What do utilitarians think about the belief and idea that humans are born good by nature but corrupted by corrupt society?

Bowei Huang (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that an individual's use of utilitarianism requires him to believe this, or disbelieve this. By the way, after reading your last three questions on this subject — have you read through the State of nature article? It (and Human nature) seem to lead to many related articles that I think you will find interesting. Tempshill (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read them before I asked all those questions. Can you please just give me an answer now?

Bowei Huang (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot of your questions share a certain common trend: you don't seem to have considered or accepted that beyond a certain point, you can't really make sweeping statements about specific religious beliefs or philosophies, such as "this is what utilitarians think about the human nature", because such concepts are extraneous to the tenets of that religious belief or philosophy. I think that's precisely the case here: you can have a multitude of opinions about human nature and how it is affected by corrupt society without it having any kind of impact at all on the basic tenets of that idea.

Also, you should understand that utilitarianism (just to pick it as an example) differs a great deal from organized religion. If you compare it to Catholic Church, it's certainly true that they both address questions of ethics and morals, but utilitarianism has no organization and no rules. It has no dogma. The Catholic Church, by comparison, has a pretty rigid set of beliefs and tenets, which are shared (at least in theory) by its members. Accordingly, in certain areas, you can make fairly sweeping statements about Catholics -- I mean, you can say that "all Catholics believe in transubstantation", although even that's inaccurate, because all Catholics don't believe in it. But at least they are expected to believe in it and probably pretend that they do, at least if they're active within the church, because the Catholic Church has a lot of rules, traditions, beliefs and tenets that the members try to follow. But that kind of thinking doesn't really apply to utilitarians, because beyond the basic concepts (such as "we should strive for the greatest good for the greatest number of people") there exists a vast field of different (but not necessarily incompatible) opinions and views which are all still recognizably utilitarian. I mean, there's no Grand Council of Utilitarianism that decides what's right and what's wrong: there are, at best, people who present reasoned arguments one way or the other (or get into drunken late night conversations) about the subject.

And finally, you're probably not a utilitarian to the exclusion of everything else. You could well be a utilitarian Catholic, for example; chances are that it's not going to cause a great deal of conflict. If that is the case, your Catholic beliefs will probably influence your view of humans being born good (since the Catholic view is, essentially, that humans are all born "bad", or at least sinful, and it takes constant work to get away from that initial state).

The point is, you're asking a question which has no real answer. The realities and rules of the philosophies and religious you are interested in are far more fluid than you seem to think. (Also, I believe this has been mentioned before, but when you say things like "can you please just give me an answer now", you should understand that nobody is withholding anything from you. He did give you an answer. Obviously, it's not what you wanted to hear, but it's pretty much the same answer I just gave you -- just much shorter.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, believe that human nature was good or evil? What did he think about the belief and idea that humans were born good by nature but corrupted by corrupt society?

Bowei Huang (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sinn Féin members don't take their seats in Parliament, so what kind of "parliamentary business" do they perform? F (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an excellent question. You'd have to ask them. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sinn Féin members have offices at Westminster and presumably they still perform all the duties and activities of an MP that don't actually require them to swear the Oath of Allegiance. As I understand it, they don't object to participating in the activities of the House of Commons, only to swearing allegiance to the Queen. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And a bit of oldfashioned stealing comes in handy anytime.--Radh (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any European hockey skate manufacturers?68.148.149.184 (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If so, what are they?68.148.149.184 (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graf are a Swiss skate manufacturer, founded in Kreuzlingen. ny156uk (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh also Reebok is, historically at least, from Bolton and I think RBK stuff is popular in hockey. ny156uk (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I had Jofa skates when I grew up. Jørgen (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know where I could find a list of the number of bills signed into law by each U.S. President during each of their terms? I'm curious to see the trend of legislation over the history of the country (would make a cool wiki table as well).TheFutureAwaits (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already know that Bharatiya Janata Party are Pro-Sikh due to fact that Sikhism is related to Hinduism and they (BJP) opposed to 1984 Anti-Sikh riots, but what about BJP being anti-Zoroastrian, anti-Buddhist and anti-Jain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.206 (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of curious as to why you so often ask questions which seek to fill in all the cells in some big abstract matrix? (I.e. the policies of each of the entities A, B, C, D, and E with respect to each of the groups #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5, or whatever.) Often, the state of the real world is such that many of the questions in the theoretical hypothetical matrix are in fact rather meaningless and irrelevant -- while if the questions in the matrix are all valid, then it would often take a huge research project (beyond the normal Wikipedia Ref. Desk efforts) to answer all of them adequately.

However, in this particular case I have the impression that BJP is suspicious and distrustful of those religions that lower-caste Hindus are converting to in significant numbers (i.e. Buddhism and Christianity) while probably not feeling too threatened by the numerically tiny and decreasing group of Parsis in India... AnonMoos (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I find a little disturbing about this series of questions is that they are not neutral. If you had asked "What position do the BJP take with regard to Sikhs, Christians etc?" the questions might or might not have clear answers, but they read as reasonable questions. But because you are asking whether they are "anti-Sikh" etc, I read the questions as suggesting that you are looking to support some strongly held view (though I don't know what that view might be). --ColinFine (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an honest question for the Reference Desk, and not a soapbox post. It is also not a legal advice question, as I am not contemplating a lawsuit. I will point to this RD question from the Computing desk as well, since it deals with the GFDL and GPL.

Background 1: When a Wikipedia editor makes any change to an article, he is told that he irrevocably agrees to license his contributions under the GFDL, which a footnote expands to, "GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation...."

Background 2: The text of the GFDL 1.2 says that if the license says or any later version, then "you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that specified version or any later version that has been published" by the FSF.

Background 3: The FSF created GFDL 1.3 in November 2008 with a new "Relicensing" section that says that any site like Wikipedia can, at any time before August 1, 2009, "republish" all its content under the CC-by-SA Creative Commons license. The Wikimedia Foundation board proposed that Wikipedia invoke this new rule.

Background 4 (which prompted the question): About 75% of the 17,462 votes cast on the matter voted to approve this change.

My question: Since the Wikipedia editor is the licensor, and since the licensor has the option of choosing either (a) GFDL 1.2 or (b) a later version of the GFDL, what is the legal theory that grants the Wikimedia Foundation the ability to decide for all Wikipedia editors that all their previous contributions fall under version 1.3? One item in the FAQ basically says "We believe this is legal because CC-by-SA is in the same spirit as the GFDL", but my question is about the legal theory and not a question of the practical consequences of this (probably benign) change.

The question is important to me because it seems to me that this is a change in licensing terms that was made unilaterally after the fact, and if this is legally sound, then it does not seem to me that it's dissimilar from Microsoft or Adobe changing their EULA after I start using their shrinkwrapped, offline software. All they would have to do is have the EULA state that I agree to use "version 1.2 of this EULA, or later", and under the same principle, Microsoft or Adobe would be able to make whatever arbitrary licensing change they would want to, without my having agreed to this license. If anyone can point to any real-world cases where a retroactive, unilateral licensing change like this has been held to be legal, I'd appreciate it. Tempshill (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the newer, later version of the license had some practical consequence, then a lengthy legal battle could either null it or the original license agreement's later version clause. There is a lot of legalese which is intentionally left open (think about every time a contract is between a party or its agent). In the event of a major change to the license, any reasonable legal expert would agree that a method exists to anull the original "or later" clause to invalidate new terms that were not originally agreed to. Nimur (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand - it's not the licensor that decides which version, but the licensee. The WMF is a licensee, so can choose to use the later version and, in doing so, relicense the content under CC-BY-SA. There have been some questions about whether such on "or later" clause is legal in all jurisdictions, but it doesn't appear to be legal in the US, which is the law the WMF worries about. --Tango (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect, actually. When I contribute to an article, I am releasing the contribution under the GFDL; in other words, licensing it; in other words, I am the licensor. Just as the authors of the Linux kernel are licensors of the kernel under GPL 2. Anyone who downloads and uses the Linux kernel is a licensee, meaning they have to abide by the licensing agreement. Under GFDL 1.2, the licensor is supposed to choose "1.2 only" or "1.2 or any later version" (as per "Background 2", above). The WMF, upon receipt of the contribution, is merely a licensee. Tempshill (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it incorrect when what you've said is entirely consistent with it? --Tango (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think essentially it comes down to whether the change renders the original agreement unconscionable. Wikipedia contributors have in fact agreed to release under any later version - it's not like there has been a change to their agreement after the fact, it's just that the later version (explicitly anticipated by the release) has come into being. In my mind, it's just a matter of whether the initial agreement (as seen through the lens of subsequent events) is so ridiculously one-sided and horrible that a court wouldn't honor it. In my mind, there doesn't seem to be any problem here. The essential point of the CC-by-sa license is to allow broad redistribution under a viral license, same with the GFDL. If the FSF released a version of the license saying something like "all copyrights are transferred exclusively to FSF/Microsoft/whatever" I think this would clearly make the "or later version" clause unconscionable. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that unconscionability would be an easy determining factor if the licensor (or the third party controlling the "or later" license) were to abuse the situation. I disagree with your second sentence because of my background point #2 above. Wikipedia editors have not explicitly agreed to release under any later version, as the text of GFDL 1.2 makes clear. They each have the option, with every single edit, of choosing "GFDL 1.2" or "GFDL 1.2 or later". Wikipedia has never included this choice in its user interface, of course, so the choice on every single edit is unknowable. Tempshill (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you three for your feedback. It confirms for me that the retroactive change to the license of all previous Wikipedia contributions is invalid, which to me shows the WMF and the FSF in a bad light; but, being pragmatic, I doubt that anyone could prove any damages; if there had been damages, then it sounds like unconscionability would unfortunately be the default way to challenge such a change. Tempshill (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that actual damages would not be necessary for a decent payoff. If Wikipedia is using your work without your permission (i.e. violating the license terms) it's copyright infringement. The US provides hefty statutory damages for copyright infringement, even in the absence of any actual damages. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "the licensor has the option of choosing either (a) GFDL 1.2 or (b) a later version of the GFDL", which is false, as Tango pointed out. The intent of the licensing agreement is and always has been that all contributors multilicense their work under GFDL 1.2 and all later versions. That is how the GPL and GFDL usually work; the suggested boilerplate at the end of the licenses themselves makes that clear. When they write "you have the option...", "you" refers to the licensee. One could argue that the wording chosen by Wikipedia was confusing—it seems to have confused you—but you can't seriously believe that Wikipedia would allow each editor to choose a different license and yet not even provide a way to indicate which license they chose. How the heck would anyone be able to use Wikipedia content? Under the intersection of version 1.2 and all possible later versions? No, everyone licenses under the same terms, and those terms are the union of version 1.2 and all later versions. That was in fact the intent, and it's also the only interpretation that makes any sense. -- BenRG (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct! BenRG, your message forced me to reread everything in a different light. Apologies for my confusion. I had somehow been reading the license agreement as instructions for the licensor. My revised conclusion is that the "republish" clause of GFDL 1.3 is valid and that we're all mildly crazy to agree to release our contributions under a license that can be changed at any time by another party without our consent; and that indeed the only defense we have against this or future FSF licensing revisions we disagree with is to gamble that a court might agree the revisions are unconscionable. Thank you all! Tempshill (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A new version wouldn't have to be unconscionable to be invalid, just "not in the same spirit". The license includes that restriction on the FSF. --Tango (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you there, that's another contractual restraint on their ability to release new licenses. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I heard the characteristic whipping sound is from the tip passing the sound barrier... is this true for anything you whip with a loud "crack", even a big towel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.76.231 (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. When you flick a towel the sound is from the towel hitting itself. The tip of a whip moves so quickly because it is tapered, the momentum of the part of the whip moving stays constant but the tapering means the mass reduces, that means the speed has to increase. --Tango (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS You probably wanted to post this to the Science desk, this is the Humanities desk. --Tango (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not entirely clear at all. See This Straight Dope article that links to This research project where a group of students at the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics prove that it's entirely possible to flip a towel-like piece of cloth super-sonic, and that it creates a satisfying "crack" noise when it happens. APL (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I question the accuracy of those results. There doesn't seem to be a realistic mechanism for achieving such high velocity since the towel isn't tapered. --Tango (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone who's tried it knows that to "crack" a towel, it's vital that you roll it so that the "popper" end of the makeshift whip is a corner. If you roll it up like that, there's significantly less mass at that end. (Properly rolled, the tip should be only one thickness of cloth)APL (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never really tried it, myself, certainly not enough to have learnt the technique! So the tip is narrowing to a corner and has a reducing number of layers? I suppose that might be enough tapering for it to work... We would need somewhat more reliable evidence than that high school project, though. --Tango (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! Scientists never answer the questions I want them to research. I suppose it's probably hard to get grants for towel-cracking research. Anyone here have access to some high speed cameras? And some towels? APL (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an article anywhere that lists all the surveillance and centralised record keeping that has been developing in Britain over the last few years? For example this, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/whos_watching_you/8064333.stm , identity cards, local goverment CCTV, the government monitoring of emails which was almost implemented, probably other things. It would be nice to keep tabs on them and see how Brtain compares with other countries, and with itself in the past. An aside - the identity cards iris scans can be used to monitor the movements of people in the same way that number plates will be monitored, since I read a few years ago that even motorist's irises can be scanned by laser at 50mph. 89.242.85.248 (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back in Margaret Thatcher's day, people used to be worried about big brother at GCHQ Cheltenham, but it was the numerous "little brothers" (in the form of automated surveillance by numerous local police agencies, city departments, and private corporations) which seem to have turned out to be most intrusive... AnonMoos (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you would call this mask. Seems like a lot of women in Oman wear them. This article makes it seem like it's a Bedouin thing ("Bedouin women in frightening, beak-like masks sell goats" - referring to this market). And this natl geographic photo of a woman from the same town wearing the same thing says she's a Bedouin. I've found references elsewhere to face masks that Bedouin women wear called al-battoulah and betula (presumably spelling variants) but I'm not having much luck with my searching (haven't come up with photos to confirm if that's what this is). The national geographic article calls it burqa but that seems just like a general term - is that really the most specific word out there? And if it is how is it different from betula? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Batūl بتول is the Arabic word for "virgin" (not sure if that's relevant). Otherwise I can't really find it in the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic (but of course there are a lot of colloquial dialect words not listed in that book)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burqa is the general term for any veil and batula/betula is the specific term used in Oman and the south of Iran, derived from the Arabic word for "virgin." --Omidinist (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My last post was removed, because someone took offence to me saying that the person in the picture did not look like a virgin. I was referring to the fact that black is not used for virgins. It is used for widows or married women. Stop being so sensitive, people! --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, the Western cultural association of white with female virginity didn't really take hold in a major consistent way in English-speaking societies until the year 1840, and it's been growing ever more archaic since the 1960's -- not to mention that other cultures have significantly different color associations (for example, in China white was traditionally the color of funeral mourning), so your comment was rather parochially ethnocentric at best. AnonMoos (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did I mention white? Of course I didn't. I merely said black was the colour for married women and widows. Check it out yourself. You'll see what I mean. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of black is often defined in polarized contrast to the meaning of white (as you seemed to be implying). In any case, such associations are often much more culturally-dependent and historically ephemeral than you seem to imagine... AnonMoos (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the stiffened blinder down the center to keep the woman from looking sidelong? Is she wearing a bridle beneath? --Wetman (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dunno if this is silly but if shes from Oman maybe shes wearing it to protect herself from the sun? --Thanks, Hadseys 21:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the eldest son of the British monarch is titled Prince (of Wales) whereas the other sons are merely given ducal titles, I assume that the title of (hereditary) Prince is higher than the title of Duke in Britain. In Germany the title "Fürst" (the equivalent to hereditary prince) is ranked behind the title of Duke. The Principalities of Liechtenstein and Monaco both list ducal titles as subsidiary titles whereas their main title is a princely one, seemingly indicating ducal titles to be inferior to the title of hereditary prince in their respective countries too. It seems the German language is superior to the language of the English insofar as they have separate words for the two different types of princes: "Prinz" for the title given to the sons of monarchs etc and "Fürst" for the hereditary prince. So really my question is, are my thoughts on this subject correct, and if not please relieve me of my ignorance! :) --217.84.184.38 (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Swedish language also have two different words: Prins and Furste; Prins (or prinsessa) is the son of a king, and Furste could be either a specific title, or a name for a royal person as a whole. A monarch is never called Prins, but Furste, and a principality is called furstendömme, so there is a difference between a prins, who is always the title of a son of a monarch, and furste, a title for a monarch. --85.226.42.9 (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I think the first misperception of which to be relieved, is that one language is superior to another. This is like saying the planet Venus is superior to Neptune.--Wetman (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's only superior in a very narrow context, but I think a language that can distinguish two ideas is superior (more useful for communicating ideas, which is the purpose of language) to one that can't. One could argue that showing the relationship between related ideas is more important that distinguishing them, but I would disagree. --Tango (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Britain doesn't have any hereditary princes. Any son of a monarch is a prince (as is the husband of a queen regnant, although I'm not sure if that is automatic or has to be granted), although they are often given duchies as well (which they use as their normal styles). The title Prince of Wales isn't inherited, it has to be granted by the monarch to each person that holds it. The current Prince of Wales is also Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay (as most recent Princes of Wales have been, although technically it is up to the monarch), but Prince of Wales takes precedence and is the style generally used (although Duke of Rothesay is commonly used in Scotland, since it is his Scottish title). Grandsons of a monarch, through the male-line, are also princes, although they are "HRH Prince So-and-so of X" rather than "HRH The Prince X" as sons of a monarch are. See British prince for more details. --Tango (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, husband of a queen regnant is not automatically a prince. The husband of Her Present Majesty was created Prince of the United Kingdom in 1957 (five years after she became queen). The eldest son of the British monarch always holds a dukedom and a duchy - Duchy of Cornwall and Dukedom of Rothesay, as well as an earldom. The other sons of the monarch can be given dukedoms of their own, but that's not automatic. Every son of the British monarch, as well as every son of the monarch's son, is a Prince of the United Kingdom. A prince of the United Kingdom ranks higher than a duke in the United Kingdom. However, a prince of the United Kingdom who is also Duke of Something ranks higher than a prince of the United Kingdom who holds no dukedom. Surtsicna (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Tango: How about when a language cannot avoid making a distinction which another language doesn't make? H B Casimir, wrote in "When does jam become marmalade" (in the wonderful book 'A Random Walk in Science', edited by Robert L Weber and E Mendoza) about his bemusement, as a Dutchman, when he heard a 'very English lady' in a hotel in Turkey reject a huge variety of different conserves because "they are jam, and we don't have jam for breakfast". His point in retailing this story is that the English distinction between jam and marmalade is strange and confusing to him; and similarly English in lacks a word corresponding to German 'Wissenschaft' (and similar terms in other languages), and insists on a division between science and other fields of study. --ColinFine (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your point. Marmalade is different from jam, so it is useful to have different words. What does "Wissenschaft" mean? Wiktionary translates it as "science", with an etymology which translates to knowledge-ship (would that be "philosophy" (the original meaning)?). --Tango (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always had thought that the only real difference between jam and marmalade was that the latter is made with citrus fruits. Orange jam or grapefruit preserves would be just a useful a terminology as orange marmalade or grapefruit marmalade. However, Marmalade says that it can also be made from strawberries. So, what then is the difference between strawberry jam and strawberry preserve and then between either or both of them and strawberry marmalade? (Perhaps this should be on the Languag Ref Desk, but, as it started here, I shall leave it here. If someone feels strongly enough to move it, s/he has my permission to do so.) // BL \\ (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that English (actually, some varieties of English) make a distinction which is hard to define objectively (as Bielle indicates) but has social consequences, as Casimir's anecdote illustrates. Does that mean that (those varieties of) English are superior? The point about Wissenschaft is that it doesn't mean 'science' (Naturwissenschaft), nor does it mean 'philosophy'. Probably the closest English word is 'scholarship', but that has the wrong connotations as well. The point is that it is a meaning of which 'science' is a limited part. So English makes a distinction (which makes it superior by your argument) but lacks a term which translates the superordinate term from German, Dutch, Swedish. --ColinFine (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm understanding the word correctly, Wissenschaft is the same as the old meaning of philosophy. In contemporary English, I might say "academic study" or "academia", it would depend a little on context. --Tango (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, marmalade has bits in, jam is pretty much homogeneous (it may have small bits in, but not the long strips of peel you would find in marmalade). --Tango (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know she is not queen. But I have heard, that they were discussions about giving her such a title. But if there is no such tradition, how could that title have been discussed, if it does not excist in this country? Or have there been a queen before? Does Morocco have this title?--85.226.42.9 (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not read my explanation of the basic traditional situation in a number of historical Muslim middle-eastern societies here: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2009_March_9#What_is_the_female_form_of_the_Kayser-i-R.C3.BBm.3F -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see your general point, (and your explanation of the matter is very good!) but these three questions, especially the two below, are rather more specific: the first question about Morrocoo, and the two following below are about these two people in particular: in the 1930s, muslim countries adopted more western ideas and allowed the queens a more active part, I believe. --85.226.42.9 (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was she confined to the palace, or did she have any official tasks in society? Her predecessor seem to have been isolated from public society to merely female company.--85.226.42.9 (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article of him names several wifes, but I think tjis is a little unclear: only one of them, Tadj ol-Molouk, has an article here, and in his article, she is said to have been divorced before he became a monarch, and in her article, (as well as out on the net), she is said to have been his queen... Who was he married to when he was king? Did he perhaps have several wifes at the same time? Who had the position of queen? I believe this queen would be the first to have an official role in Iran, and to show herself without a veil? Can anyone clearify this? --85.226.42.9 (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last night I read about Haakon VII of Norway, who was born Prince Carl of Denmark and assumed the Norwegian throne when he was 33 years old, shortly after the dissolution of the union between Norway and Sweden in 1905. Did he speak the Norwegian language before his accession to the throne? I am really using Haakon as a specific example—I assume that similar events have happened many times throughout European history (a royal member from one country becoming the monarch of a different country that speaks a different language), and I wonder how the language issue is usually worked out. Since Haakon enjoyed great popularity in Norway, I assume he learned to speak Norwegian at some point, right? —Bkell (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Norwegian language" is a very loaded term in this context, since there was "Dano-Norwegian" (later standardized in modified form as Bokmål) and dialect Norwegian (standardized as Nynorsk) -- that's why Norway has two official languages to this day. In the last half century, the tendency has been to try to bring the varieties closer together (where possible), but from what I understand, in 1905 they were still very different. Einar Haugen wrote some interesting works in English about the Norwegian language struggle... AnonMoos (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A native Norwegian has no trouble understanding Danish if spoken not too fast and with a mainstream dialect. I think he started out speaking Danish and put some effort into modifying this towards Norwegian over time. I think in later radio speeches (from the war, for example), he speaks Norwegian with a clearly notifyable Danish accent (though it would probably sound just like Norwegian to a Dane...) Though children often switch between closely related languages, most adult people I've met who moved from one Scandinavian country to the other after they grew up often maintain just "one" language, which they modify towards their "new" country over time (somewhat like a Brit moving to the US, I would assume, though Norwegian and Danish are more different than US/British English is) Jørgen (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely I'm not the first to notice this:

• 
  Ancient Roman mosaic with a striped cat attacking a bird on top and two ducks on the bottom. (In Rome's Palazzo Massimi alle Terme).
• 
  Ancient Roman mosaic with a striped cat attacking a chicken on top and two ducks on the bottom. (In the Vatican Museums).
• 
  Ancient Roman mosaic with a striped cat attacking a chicken on top and two ducks on the bottom. (In the Naples National Archaeological Museum).

Does this little pattern have a name? An origin? Or has no one noticed until just now? Wknight94 ^talk 20:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman mosaicists worked in groups called studios, they consisted of a master or foreman and several assistants. The master was generally the owner of a book of pre-defined sketches of various mosaics called models. A homeowner would then choose from this book and the master would start laying the important of difficult parts of the mosaic. His assistants would then finish the work. Looking at many different mosaics from the entire Roman empire, it can be seen that sometimes different studios worked on the pavement of a larger estate and exchanged or copied the sketches thus bringing famous motives to other parts of the country. You can find identical mosaics in Rome and in Northern Africa. Does this answer your question? --Gnom (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something else: Mosaics of household animals (cats or dogs) are common in the entrance areas of Roman houses and mosaics like the ones here are likely to be found on the floor or at the wall of a kitchen entrance. --Gnom (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating! Just like designers coming to your house today - 2,000 years later - with a book of designs to choose from. Thanks for the quick response! Wknight94 ^talk 22:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look in google images and the bird the cat is attacking is described as a quail. It is a bit strange, why isn't a single integrated picture shown? I get the feeling there may be some word play going on. 22:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The motives for the mosaics was most often taken from Hellenistic paintings, and thus are probably of a somewhat older origin than the mosaics themselves. The wealthy Romans were extremely aware of trends of fashion, and some motives were more popular at certain times than others (for example Alexandrian motives of the Nile with various animals like hippopotamuses were very popular in the 1st century AD). It seems it is the case with this particular example. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would you call a 3 dimensional picture that you would hang on a wall. For example a display of real butterflies in a picture frame behind glass that is then put up on a wall. It might be 6 inches wide by 12 inches long by 1 inch thick. Behind the glass in that 1 inch depth is the real butterflies (dead of course) on pins. This idea verses just a normal 2 dimensional picture illustration of a photograph of butterflies. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This site just calls them displays or frames. This one calls them displays. Tempshill (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know them as "box frames" [4], although the phrase can mean more than just the frames for mounting three-dimensional objects. // BL \\ (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard shadowboxes for things like these Library Seraph (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a nice 16th century Venetian landscape painting, other than The Tempest. Any ideas? 148.197.114.207 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting historical images on page Bucentaur... AnonMoos (talk) 01:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aditionally, does anyone know where I can find pictures of the different design proposals for rebuilding St Peter's Basilica. So far I have only been able to find Antonio da Sangallo's. 148.197.114.207 (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bramante's dome and Raphael's plan are mentioned in the St. Peter's Basilica article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say there is an entreprenuer for an idea for a bank. That banks appeals to the U.S. Treasury. In order to startup (before the Fed. funds come in), can the Treasury make a pledge to that bank, of, say, $25 million? Is that too much, or is a pledge out of the question? --Ractogon (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why the Treasury would give startup capital to a new bank. They need to get their capital from investors, lenders and depositors like any other bank. --Tango (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Excuse my English, I'm french speaking Belgian. What is, in the USA the current level of dietary meals in the canteens? What are the efforts of governments to improve it? Thank you already --Égoïté (talk) 04:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except for requirements meeting general standards of health and cleanliness applicable to all venues serving food to the public, there is no governing body which oversees canteens and cafeterias per se. If you are referring to food services provided within public institutions such as schools or prisons, you will need to identify the institution and then the jurisdiction. Some school boards, or perhaps even individual schools, for example, are banning sugared drinks, and offering low sugar, low fat, main courses. // BL \\ (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about low salt? When I've visited the US, it's the amount of salt in the food that really amazes me. --Tango (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So here's the deal. My father is from India and my mother is from Kenya. Can I list myself as African-American? A lawyer's viewpoint would be lovely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.106.183 (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see Wikipedia's: Not so funny and oblique O jokes.--Radh (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you live in the United States then yes, you can easily list yourself as African-American. If you don't live in America, then no. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is "African-American" a legal category? As far as I know, lawyers have nothing to do with it. --Tango (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would amend 98.217's assertion to "If you are an American citizen, then yes." If you are applying for a grant or scholarship only available to African-Americans, the granting body can likely tell you what the requirement means specifically. // BL \\ (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship is not strictly necessary. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to read our African-American article, especially the the section African-American#Who is African American?. According that article, the US government defines African-American as "A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa." Usually having a black ancestor and self-identifying with the African-American culture is sufficient to claim yourself as African-American. Note that "African-American" is usually reserved for people with black ancestry. If, for example, your mother were from Kenya but was a descendant of European colonialists (and thus was white), the majority of people would raise eyebrows (or worse) at claims of being African-American. -- 128.104.112.117 (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between a baron and a count? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.248 (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Baron and Count. If you then have specific questions, please feel free to ask them here. // BL \\ (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A baron is the lowest rank of peerage, a count is one step higher. A count is equivalent to an earl (Britain has earls, the rest of Europe has counts, if memory serves). --Tango (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked it up, I must correct myself - a count is two steps higher, viscount is inbetween. --Tango (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, in Australia, how many married couples are there where the bloke is called Bruce and his missus is called Sheila? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.8.231 (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any well-known sects other than the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses who reject the Nicene Creed? --Halcatalyst (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article Creed, "Some denominations, including Unitarians, Quakers, Baptists, Messianics, Restorationists, have rejected the authority of those creeds [that is, the Nicene and the Apostles']." There's a ^{[citation needed]} tag after it, though. Since the Quakers reject baptism, one can see that they would have some problems with the line about acknowledging one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Deor (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And some Christians reject the filioque clause, though not the entire creed. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]