During the latter half of the 1980s, on buses in San Francisco, California, I used to see these pictures. They looked like advertisements. But they were for a newspaper called the "Street Fare Journal". Does such a newspaper really exist?24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a newspaper but an organization that published those bus cards to provide brief snippets of literature and art for riders; the cards were the "journal". (You can get a complete set of them for the low, low price of $11,500, apparently.) Deor (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...now, see Streetfare Journal.--Wetman (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know any thing about the ritual called "Shama Gul" in shia's.i would like to know what is shama Gul.Please let me know urgently —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumaiyajawad (talk • contribs) 10:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

during sham e gul they all fuck each other in a dark room, if you were to get pregnant via this orgy you would be considered blessed.

Does anyone know what this roof is made of and how it is held up? The big white one in the background of this picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Butlins_Bognor_2.JPG

148.197.114.158 (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Butlins Skyline Pavilion. Guy ropes and the big metal towers sticking through it hold it up, and it's made of some sort of cloth presumably similar to the "PTFE-coated glass fibre fabric" of the Millennium Dome. It is an example of a tensile structure. FiggyBee (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many Littlefield, Parsons & Co. Union cases were made with the Constitution and the Laws Design? I have researched and found that there were over 350 case designs made, but I cannot determine how may patriotic designs there were and approximately how many of each design were made.Tooelusv4u (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The number of "union cases", as the hinged tintype cases were called, that were produced in any particular design could never be determined unless a fairly complete business archive has survived for Littlefield, Parsons & Co. of Florence, Massachusetts, near Northampton. "From 1856 to 1865, the business of Littlefield, Parson & Co. gave employment to from 75 to 199 hands. Very great success attended the business after the first two or three years, particularly the manufacture of the union cases. The demand for these goods was so great that during a considerable part of the time the factory was run to its utmost capacity, night and day, producing daily 89 to 150 dozen cases", reported the writer of a history of Florence published in The Hampshire Gazette 2 April 1867. The successors to Littlefield, Parsons & Co. in 1866 were the Florence Manufacturing Company; any Littlefield, Parsons archives will have passed to them. --Wetman (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at File:2010UKElectionMap.svg which I got to from United Kingdom general election, 2010.

I saw a light blue constituency in the vicinity of Oxford and was curious as to which one it was. There is nothing on the map to track it down. I guessed it was Oxford and went to List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2010 which is great for getting from a constituency name to a map of where it is. I tried Oxford East (UK Parliament constituency) which shows the one of interest to be just to the east of oxfordshire. But then I got stuck.

How do I look up a constituency name from a (the above) map? My question is NOT 'what is the constituency', although I'd like to know that. My question is HOW do I find out the name? -- SGBailey (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a very easy way to do this. The constituency names are present in the sourcecode of the image, so code for extracting them could be written, but I don't know if this has actually been done. What you want is a more interactive map, such as the one the BBC news website seems to have just taken down hidden behind a terrible search engine. The constituency in question is Buckingham, by the by. Algebraist 16:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This interactive map should be the one. Click each time to narrow down of area, then you can pull all the important information. On Buckingham, it won't help: the BBC, wrongly, colours Buckingham as a Conservative seat (click on it, and it becomes "Speaker hold". It's the speaker's (though on a further technicality, he's not speaker until parliament sits); he is impartial (although John Bercow was a Conservative MP). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK and thanks. I presume it is far too much effort to go through 650 articles and add "neighbouring constituencies are ...". -- SGBailey (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few of the seats do name the neighbouring constituencies; for the remainder, the link at the bottom to the list of Parliamentary constituencies in that county should help identify most of the neighbouring seats. Warofdreams talk 14:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was clever in realizing that a certain middling stock ought to about more than double in 2 years' time, but I checked out call options for that time, and lo and behold - the market agreed with me! Instead of having to pay something cheap for the option to sell buy at double price two years from now, I would have had to pay about half of what I would gain!! Too expensive, that's very low leverage. Moreover, at that price, I can just buy the stock! In fact, why should I even buy the option in this case? If I buy the stock itself, then at least it can't become WORTHLESS, even if it goes down to half its value, unlike the stock option! That's half my question: the other half is: okay, so the stock option wasn't leveraged enough for me. Is there anything thhat is MORE LEVERAGED than a stock option, ie something I would gain more from by than with a stock option? Thanks. 84.153.186.157 (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments. 1) You talk about "the option to sell at double price..." yet you think that the price will go up - this doesn't make sense because you would go for a call in this case: if the price doubles, you buy at the strike which is presumably lower than double and you've made a profit equal to the difference minus the premium you paid at the start (ignoring time-value). 2) You said you "would have had to pay about half of what [you] would gain" in 2 years - that's a pretty decent return. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments! When I said "sell at double price" what I really meant was buy at my strike price and sell at double price, ie I was thinking of the actual process of exercising the option, and I was thinking in terms of the actual selling when the option is in the money. But you are right, the option itself consists of a right to buy, not a right to sell, and in fact most options don't actually get exercised. As for your second comment: What I don't understand is why anyone would buy an option in my position, if they were banking on the stock about doubling, and the PREMIUM on the stock options they are looking at makes it equivalent to buy $5000 of options, which due to massive premium will only mean being $5,000 in the money when the stock doubles, or buy $5000 of the stock outright, which would also go to $10,000. But in the second scenario, if it goes down from $5000 to $4500, you've lost $500 and opportunity costs, whereas in the first scenario you lose 100% of your investment. When the market prices options (for a strike price close to double the current trading value!!!) with such an insane premium, why would anyone in my position buy that option?

Are you absolutely sure you have calculated the premium correctly ? Stock options are typically sold in lots of 1000 underlying shares, and the premium is quoted per lot, not per underlying share. So an option selling at a premium of $1 per lot is equivalent to a premium of 0.1c per underlying share. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Gandalf, in your last sentence you mention that the strike price is close to double the current price but from your comments further up, it sounds like the strike is close to the current price. I think you need to tell us the current price of the stock and the option strike price and the current premium. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks! Perhaps you're right and I am mistaken. Further, I was trying to simplify the numbers. Without simplification here is my actual original analysis with annotation:

• here is my actual analysis made a couple of days ago (on the twelfth).
• Note: all of the listed options are for options expiring the same date, January of 2012 (20 months from now), therefore the rows are just different strike prices. However, note that my position is to sell these options after holding them for one year, when, in my estimation, the underlying stock will trade close to $400. (It trades at $260 now).

Here are the column headings:

• Column 1: the strike price.
• Column 2: premium - The price of that option if I buy it at this moment (aka the premium). Gandalf: did I make a mistake here?
• Columns 3-7: more trading information (volume etc) of the given option
• Column 8: intrinsic value. My estimation of the intrinsic value of the given option on May 12, 2011. (ie one year out, well before the option expires). My position would involve selling the options on this day, and my estimation is that the underlying stock will trade at close to $400 on this date.
• Column 9: profit - the intrinsic value (how much it is in the money) minus the cost (what it took to get it).
• Column 10: ROI - the profit column divided by the premium column (column 2).

• Note: my analysis is that the stock will trade near 400 on May 12, 2011.

Now, here's the thing. When this analysis was made, the underlying stock was trading at $260, and the position is that it will trade at $400 one year from now. Now let's look at my analysis of buying options, then we can compare it with buying the stock outright:

• If you skim the ROI column, you can see that the biggest one is for a strike price of $280 -- and this option commands a huge premium (cost) of $48.24!
• At this point my analysis says that $400 - $280 = $120 in the money, minus the cost of the premium is - $48.24 = $71.76 in profit.
• $71.76 of profit from $48.24 investment means the return is a factor 71.76 / 48.24 = 1.48. ie if I invest $1000, then it becomes $1480.
• But here's my problem: We said that the stock currently trades at $260.
• Which means that if instead of buying the option for my 1.48 factor return, I buy the stock at $260, then I will get a return of 400 / 280 = 1.42 factor. which is nearly as high!.
• This means two things:

1. the options route includes almost NO leveraging, despite the fact that I am predicting a rise from $260 to $400 - a bold prediction!
2. The option gives almost exactly the same return as buying the underlying the stock - but if I buy the option, I risk losing it all, whereas that simply will not happen for the stock itself!

So what gives? Why is the option being priced so high, and why would anyone in my position buy the option instead of the underlying stock? Further is there any other, better leveraged way for me to make my bold position, betting the underlying stock will go from $280 to $400 in a year? Thank you.

Note: the reason I am looking at options for 20-months out despite having a position in a price one year out is because there are no options for one year out, only 8 months out, which may not be enough time for the stock to make its move. Therefore my position is to buy the 20 months out option and trade it after a year when it is well in the money. I don't care what happens to the option between when I sell it and it expires. 84.153.189.240 (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Return = profit / investment. A profit of $71.76 on an investment of $48.24 is, as you say, a return of 148%. But a profit of $140 on an investment of $260 is a return of only 54%. You are not comparing like with like. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You're right. In this case I see that the leverage is much higher than I had thought as compared with buying the stock, however it is still much lower than I expected. In looking at my chart, can you see whether, as you suggested, I could have made a mistake and not divided out the "lot" of options? Or is my chart right as-is? Thanks. 84.153.189.240 (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also one more question, Gandalf and others: why is the $400, which still has respectable bids and asks of $15 the HIGHEST one not only in my chart, but in the sources I looked at for the chart? Shouldn't there be more options, if not 500, 600, 800, 1000, strike price, then at least continuing on to $410, $420, $430, etc - whatever it takes for there not to be any buyers for that market, as the price of that options peters out from $15, to $5, to $1, to $0.50. I don't see why $400 is the cutoff point, when it still has strong demand and supply. Why aren't there these higher strike price options? Thank you. 84.153.189.240 (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people like to watch sports so much, in some cases watch them more than play them?

Take NHL for example. There are people who list the schedule of the whole season, take down every game, list the teams playing in those games, then they mark who won and who lost. And then for these people, it is such a focal conversation topic, for example: "Oh, Carolina's going to win.". And the sports commentators comment on people who have injuries, and newspapers have a whole REGULAR devoted section to sports, and statistics, which I don't understand.

Football is the same way.

Does this help explain this phenomenon?174.3.123.220 ([[User t--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)alk:174.3.123.220|talk]]) 04:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's entertainment. It's watching highly skilled athletes doing things that you and I couldn't possibly do at that kind of level. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a film Woody Allen was in (I can't for the life of me remember which one) where his character was explaining why he, being more brainy than brawny, could possibly be interested in watching sports. He quipped something that whereas academics, philosophers and other intellectuals can spend their entire lives arguing with each other about who understands the world better, in the realm of sports the answer to the question "who is best?" becomes much more definite when one team beats another. Gabbe (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the layperson, playing a full hockey game would be positively exhausting. Plus assembling twenty or thirty guys to play is no mean feat. Plus the equipment, the rink... same goes for many others sports. It's just much easier to flick on the tube and have your interest satisfied that way. Sure you can play hockey with as little as one person, but then it's just not the same is it? Vranak (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as the question says, it is a focus of conversation. You can talk for hours with fellow fans about games that you are all equally incapable of playing yourselves. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

News, Weather, Sports - all mostly-harmless topics. And this, from A League of Their Own: (Tom Hanks) "What's this? Crying? There's no crying in baseball!" (player) "It's hard!" (Hanks) "Of course it's hard! It's supposed to be hard! If it were easy, everyone would do it!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well consider past empires (Greek, Roman, etc). Everything they did has long since been over so clearly whatever miniscule effect on real life a sports game in progres might have, it is still more than the effect on the present that a historical account of a past kingdom in progress can have. Yet people still read about past kingdoms. Why? Well, for one thing, to learn more about the present. Is there anything from sports to be learned regarding real life? Why, of course, from sportsmanship to rivalry. So, in sum, not only do I understand sports fandom, but I consider it having at least as great claim to serious following and study as ancient history does, on the grounds that it has at least some (if only economic) connction with present day real life. 84.153.189.240 (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but sports fandom was just as insane in ancient Rome an Greece as it is today. Chariot racing is the ancient soccer (or NASCAR or Formula One or whatever). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this make gladiators the ancestors of hockey players? (I went to a fight and a ludus broke out.) Clarityfiend (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. They had their own groupies and everything. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can also compare boxing to the medieval joust. The latter was far more dangerous, however.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for some great short story, poem, picture, etc. about teamwork. I've googled it but I couldn't find a good one. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.120.162 (talk) 05:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Greene's The Destructors is very good. Zoonoses (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Five Run Away Together.--Wetman (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Charge of the Light Brigade? --- OtherDave (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Country of the Blind by H.G. Wells. dlempa (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Were all English queens and British queens technically titular Duchesses of Normandy in the Channel Islands? Is there any reference in their time to that title after the year 1204?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the "Duke of Normandy" article? Gabbe (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have. But I wonder if there are any claims by the female consorts of British monarch on the title Duchess of Normandy. Like was the title ever used to apply to them.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never read anywhere that the title Duchess of Normandy was ever used by an English or British consort or applied to them; however, you might want to ask User:Kittybrewster or User:Surtsicna as they both know a lot about titles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All English queens from Matilda of Flanders until Isabella of Angoulême were also Duchesses of Normandy (though most of them used the title Duchess of the Normans). Eleanor of Aquitaine is known to have styled herself "by the Grace of God, Queen of the English, Duchess of the Normans, Duchess of the Aquitanians and Countess of the Angevins". All these titles but the Aquitanian one were acquired by her second marriage. Her daughter-in-law, Berengaria of Navarre, signed herself ""Queen of the English, duchess of the Normans and Aquitanians, Countess of the Angevins".[1] So they definitively used the titles Duchess of Normandy and Duchess of the Normans. Surtsicna (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Surtsicna, you answered this question beautifully. I shall therefoe mark it as resolved. I was curious as well about the title.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My question is why are some of the states that make up the USA absolutely massive in central to western areas whereas the ones on the east coast in particular are tiny, for example Rhode Island. It just seems a bit disproportionate that you have huge and tiny sections of a country like that. Thanks, Hadseys 11:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of the United States would be a good read, especially the "westward expansion" section. The USA started as relatively densely populated areas on the east coast, and the states were all small and manageable by 18th century standards. The western areas, generally more sparsely populated, needed to encompass a much larger area in order to have the minimum needed for becoming states. And by then, we had a network of railroads, so managing much larger entities became feasible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and a lot of vast territory in the west was acquired by treaty or purchase, such as Louisiana Purchase and Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the need to manage on a much larger scale. Even now, much of the great plains remains sparsely populated, particularly areas like Wyoming and the Dakotas. Some of those western states have counties that are considerably larger than some of the smaller eastern states. But they are also much less densely populated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another factor would be disproportionate representation. No matter how few citizens a state has, it's entitled to at least 1 representative and 2 senators, thus giving them a proportional edge already, as we see at Presidential election time sometimes. If you cut Wyoming into pieces the size of, say, Connecticut, not only would that area have a disproportionate voice in Congress, you might have some "states" with virtually no residents. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hadseys, I note you're from the UK, which had its rotten boroughs, in their way even more disproportionate. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Pocket boroughs". Now I've got a Gilbert & Sullivan song in my head. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and a lot of vast territory in the west was acquired by treaty or purchase, such as Louisiana Purchase - I always wonder if this is a fair assessment. It's clear that Jefferson's government bought whatever claim France had on Louisiana from Napoleon. But certainly France's claim to the area was spurious at least by Natural Law, Jefferson's favorite justification for the Declaration of Independence. Large parts of the territory sold had never seen a Frenchmen or any European, and it certainly already was occupied by people who had every expectation of assuming it was theirs. So, generously speaking, what the US bought was the right to steal the land from the indigenous people without intervention from France... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is probably more accurate to say the US bought the right to tell the other European powers to stay out of that bit of land. We had to do our own "treaties" with the natives. Googlemeister (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it sad (and tedious) that European editors glibly remind us Americans of how we stole the land from the indigenous peoples, while forgetting that this was an occurance in all the Americas, Africa, Australia, the Phillipines, etc. with various European nations claiming land for their sovereign and displacing the indigenous without so much as a by your leave. Oh, and while we are at it, let us not forget about Europe with the Normans invading England, then centuries later English and Scottish planters displacing the Irish in their own land; then we have Napoleon and his dreams of conquest, the Austrian Habsburgs and the Balkans crisis which catapulted the world (including the USA-ahem) into one of the most bloody, unnecessary wars ever fought on this weary planet of ours. Last but not least we have the Anchluss, the first step on the march of Hitler's Wagnerian lebensraum fantasy. It's convenient, not to mention cool to lay every bloody act, genocide, and atrocity on the big, bad Americans' doorstep while nonchalantly ignoring one's own nation's past, bloody misdeeds. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh! Godwin's law already! Edison (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

while forgetting - who forgets? We should not bowdlerise history on either side of the Atlantic - or anywhere. Tu quoque is as good as "an eye for an eye" - it makes the whole world blind. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Stephan. Let's close this thread as it just generates hostility and we have really drifted far away from the OP's question. Cheers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the establishment of the United States, some little states got disproportionately large representation (2 Senators regardless of population) as an inducement to ratify the Constitution, giving up their sovereignty and entering a union which they could not subsequently leave voluntarily (see also American Civil War: you can choose whether to join, but once in you can't leave, like the Mob). Edison (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, they can choose to ask for statehood, and Congress has the final say in the matter. As far as secession is concerned, unfortunately the Civil War kind of decided that question by force rather than by court ruling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the h..l is Godwin's Law? And why should I care about it? Whenever a European begins his or her self-righteous attacks against Americans (for committing what Europeans have been doing for centuries), it's obvious that Hitler has to be brought into the equation. For starters, Hitler was European, and he committed one of the worst acts of genocide in mankind's living memory, and if that wasn't enough, he launches a war against a continent that was still healing from the last war (again started by Europeans). So..... when a European has the temerity to rub the genocide of the Native Americans into my face along with Vietnam, Bush, Iraq, etc., I will pull him or her up and ask (with all due politesse), to please judge their own nation and its history before flogging the knackered horse of anti-Americanism.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should care about it because invoking Hitler is taken as a sign of weakness in one's argument. True, Godwin's Law is usually invoked in discussions about current government policy rather than European history. This cartoon is relevant. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Again, you are asking me to accept that challenging someone about Hitler is a weakness in my argument. Who says it's a weakness??!!!! I could just as easily have brought up Slobodan Milosovic, Oliver Cromwell, Vlad Tepes, Torquemada, Cortes, Caligula, Elizabeth Bathory, Catherine de Medici... there is no shortage to European names I could match to every George Dubya Bush or Armstrong Custer (or whichever American George it's trendy to hate at the moment). I chose Hitler because of the sheer magnitude of his crimes and the fact those same heinous events are now being given the Cavalier treatment by some Europeans who prefer to cast Americans in the same role as Hitler and his followers. I am not saying all Germans supported Hitler, nor is this meant to be an anti-German tirade; rather it is anti-Europeans-who-hate-Americans. As an American I am fed up with every bl..dy thread or question being twisted into a cat-o-nine-tail's whip with which to flog Americans and their history! Have I made myself clear that I have not accepted defeat?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You ask who says it's a weakness? Godwin's Law says it's a weakness. I am not quarreling with you about anything, just trying to explain Godwin's Law, a widespread, well-known, and amusing point of argument. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it's a violation of Godwin's Law to compare Hitler to Hitler? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I once had one of these exchanges with a hip young German—clad in black with the obligatory blond dreadlocks—who asked me "How does it feel to live in a country built on the graves of millions of murdered Amerindians?" I responded "How does it feel to live in a country that carried out the industrial murder of millions of Jews, Gypsies, leftists, and gay people?" He stormed off in a huff. How is it that some Europeans think that they can get away with this kind of historical sanctimony? Marco polo (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only people in Europe who aren't anti-American are the Albanians. Also, the Russians, Romanians, and Moldavans I've met are more interested in how we live than berating us for daring to live.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, I don't want to generalize about Europeans any more than I want them to generalize about Americans. I've found plenty of Europeans in every country who are not reflexively anti-American. And certainly, I wouldn't deny Europeans the right to criticize U.S. government policies. I criticize them myself. Marco polo (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We all criticise government policy. The problem I find with many (not all) Europeans (remember I live in Europe and I experience anti-Americanism on a daily basis) is that, while I may criticise a nation's government, I don't by extension blame the citizens for the actions of their elected rulers; whereas many Italians I know here blame me for US foreign policy!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take European hostility towards America as underlying resentment for having bailed them out at least twice in the last century (three times if you count Kosovo) - a living example of the old saying that "no good deed goes unpunished." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This phenomenon is a product of history. In fact, each state has its own unique history. The reasons why each one was created and then admitted to the union as they were have to do with the arcane details of the politics of the day. The smallest states are in the northeast. This is so because they, like all other states on the eastern seaboard (apart from Florida) started as English colonies. Each of the little states was settled by a group of people who, for one religious and/or political reason or another, did not want to be part of a neighboring colony and so founded their own little colony. Some of these split off relatively late, such as Delaware, which did not completely separate from Pennsylvania until 1776, and Maine, which did not separate from Massachusetts until 1820, after the United States was already independent. The larger eastern seaboard states other than Florida—New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia—all began as areas granted to an individual proprietor or to a company of proprietors by the English crown. Actually, all of these areas were originally granted by the Charter of 1606 to Virginia, but the other colonies were set aside for other proprietors by subsequent charters. In each case, negotiations resulted in relatively large areas being granted. To the people in London making the grants, the borders probably looked like arbitrary lines on a chart. With the exception of odd leftover bits of territory such as Vermont and West Virginia, which broke away from Virginia in the 1860s for political reasons, the remaining states were created from territories that had not been occupied by English colonists before the United States gained independence. Florida became a part of the United States when the United States acquired the previously Spanish territory through a treaty. It was not broken up before statehood. Like Florida, almost every post-independence state began its existence as a U.S. territory before being granted statehood. Territorial boundaries were drawn mostly based on administrative convenience. Because most future states east of the Mississippi River (and a few to the west, such as Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri) began as territories before railroads existed or linked them to other U.S. territories, their size was somewhat limited by the slowness of travel. Texas and California are somewhat special cases, and you really need to read their histories to understand why they are as they are. Also, before 1860, admitting states to the union always involved compromises between proponents and opponents of the spread of slavery. Typically, for every new free (non-slave) state, a slave state had to be admitted. Each side had some interest in limiting the size of states admitted so as to maximize the potential for the admission of future states on each side. After the 1860s, railroads began to spread west of the Mississippi, and vast areas became thinly settled rather quickly. As a result, relatively large areas were marked off as territories and later admitted as states. This is a generalization, but to understand the details, you need to read the history of each state. Marco polo (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You expressed this beautifully, Marco. Yes, one has to read the history of each state to understand how and why it came into being. Another thing is that various states attracted different classes of people. For instance, Virginia and Maryland had many younger sons of English gentry amongst thier settlers, whereas Puritan New England had mainly yeoman farmers. The English Civil War divided many of the colonists, as the South tended to be Royalist, while the North was obviously Roundhead.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeanne - see Godwin's Law if you haven't already. As for why people (not necessarily Europeans) are talking about Americans stealing from the Indians is... because the question is about the creation and expansion of the US states, particularly the western ones. Not talking about US treatment of the native population there would be a hopeless bowdlerization. When we get a question about Spain's history, we can talk about all the Moors and Jews and various other folks that got burned or beheaded or worse. You are the one who got on the soapbox first. Matt Deres (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually a book out now called How the States Got Their Shapes -- it's not the most scholarly of works, but it does explain to some degree why each state is the size it is. The coast of the country got settled first, so the big thing in the charters each colony received was the extent of their coastline. No one gave much thought to the interior, which is why several of the original 13 states are so elongated. Most of the other states were created by the federal government as territories before becoming states. Obviously, the original states didn't want to be overwhelmed by new states in the Senate, so they didn't want to turn the Northwest Territory, for instance, into 100 new states. Also, the Western areas (the area known as the "West" moving closer to the Pacific as time went on) started out being thinly populated, so it made sense to give them a lot of territory. Furthermore, Congress felt that a territory should have at least 60,000 people before becoming a state (as stated in the Northwest Ordinance), and the only way to get 60,000 people out of a frontier area was to have generous borders. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a decent book, but a better one on the subject is American Boundaries by Bill Hubbard Jr. I've noted some serious errors in How the States Got Their Shapes, for what that is worth. As others have said, the basic answer is that the eastern states evolved out of often vague definitions during the colonial era. The US federal government had power over state creation, including boundaries, from the creation of Ohio. While there was some attempt to keep new states relatively small (Iowa being a good example), in general a larger size prevailed, for various reasons (read that book). One key reason was that the West was mostly arid, making agricultural development risky or impossible. If you've ever driven across Wyoming, it should be obvious why it is a big state, relative to eastern states.````

This is a photo taken in 1948 in the Dominion of India. From the left are C. Rajagopalachari (Governor General), Baldev Singh (Defense Minister) along with the three service chiefs of the Indian Armed Forces. Of the three service chiefs, i can identify the one in centre as Air Marshall Thomas Elmhirst from his shoulder tabs (striped ones used for both Royal and Indian Air Forces). But i cannot identify the other two - which one is the Navy Admiral and which one is the Army General. Can someone id them from the uniforms? (their peaked caps are distinct and should help) --Sodabottle (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The one on the left is recognisable as General Sir Roy Butcher from a photograph on this http://www.normanby.info/bucher.htm site (the top google hit found under that form of his name). Further googling the other two officers' names similarly finds sites with photographs of them. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!. I had guessed from the pictures. But needed a second confirmation from the uniforms.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Certainly the General is recognisably wearing an Army-style cap with a downward-inclined peak, while the Admiral, though not well seen, is clearly wearing a Navy-style cap with upward-inclined peak. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the confirmation! Exactly what i was looking for :-)--Sodabottle (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Hallow,

May you please assist me with the full address of Asha Rose Migiro,

It will be highly appreciated,

Thanks and best regards,

Tracy

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggrecious2010 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Headquarters‎, New York, NY 10017, USA.

--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just recently stumbled upon the Judgment notwithstanding verdict article. How rare or common is this judgment? Does anyone know of any actual cases where a judge had to apply this? Because to me it seems very unlikely that this kind of situation would ever happen: a "judge determines that no reasonable jury could have reached the given verdict" and so "the judge enters a verdict notwithstanding the jury findings"; one would think that only if they were bribed or under duress that a jury would give such an unreasonable verdict as to invoke this judgment; othe--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)rwise everyone on the jury could, by some freak chance, really be that mentally incompetent. So any actual precedent cases of this happening would definitely be interesting to read about... I'm probably not making any sense. -- œ^™ 13:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books Advanced Search is your friend: [2] shows the appeals record for several such verdicts. Some general info is at [3], [4], [5], [6]. Sometimes the judge is the only voice of justice in a deranged world, and finds himself having to take an unpopular stand. In the landmark civil rights case of the Scottsboro Boys, Judge James Edwin Horton committed career suicide in the racist south of the 1930's by setting aside an Alabama white jury's verdict of "Guilty" in the case of Haywood Patterson , a black man, accused of raping a white woman. Edison (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Louise Woodward case is a famous recent case.John Z (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Had Lee Harvey Oswald lived long enough to be tried and convicted, the presiding judge might very well have applied this judgement.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the time factor in which Oswald is claimed to have performed so many feats: 8 seconds to fire off at least three shots at a moving target, using an 1890-vintage rifle with a rusted scope, from the 6th floor of the TSBD; then in 90 seconds time climb over the stacks of boxes placed around his sniper's nest, sprint across the warehouse floor, carefully hide the rifle between books, walk quickly down the open staircase and be seen breathing normally by Officer Baker; 45 minutes later he is in Oak Cliff where he allegedly shot Officer JD Tippit, yet didn't rob him (a man on the run would surely have needed cash). A good lawyer would have pointed all these improbabilities out to the jury, and it's possible that had the jury gone ahead and found him guilty, the judge could have applied the judgement. I say could as he might have supported the jury's decision.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he only needed 8 seconds to fire TWO shots. The first shot was the 0 point of that time scale. Also, from the way he talked to the reporters in the police station, he certainly came across as a guy with a rehearsed answer when asked if he kill JFK. However, had he actually gone to trial, lots more evidence might have come out, one way or another. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His response to the reporters sounded like he'd been programmed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the time it sounded like a rehearsed answer. But a trial would have been interesting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been the trial of the century!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, we've already had at least 2 of those. How many "trials of the century" can there be! -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently at least one per generation. Somehow, I suspect that the trial of a President's assassin might trump those other two. Even now, I can see Oswald's tell-almost-all autobiography appearing on bookshelves: IF I Did It, I Must Have Been Programmed by the CIA/FBI/KGB/Mafia/IBM. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and can you see all Oswald's former girlfriends with their tell-all autobiographies describing his prowess between the sheets?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JNOV or Judgment as a matter of law, as it's widely called now under the federal rules, is sometimes requested by the losing party. There are specific rules that govern the timing and preconditions to requesting a JMOL, most importantly that one asked for a directed verdict at closing. But as the standard would suggest, it's rarely granted. I'm talking about federal rules in the U.S., and I don't know how it works in state court, nor have I actually studied any statistics in federal court about it, but that's just my instinct about how it works. Shadowjams (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fascinated by the links between the SDLP and the UK & Irish Labour Parties. I'm especially interested in the SDLP's taking of the Labour whip in the House of Commons. I don't understand the significance and mechanics of this. I've read what I could find on WP, but I'd appreciate any refs to other sources (or WP articles I may have missed). Thanks

Is mise, Stanstaple (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In 1913 the British Labour Party decided to give the Irish Labour Party exclusive 'rights' to organize in all of Ireland, a move resented by protestant Labour politicians in Northern Ireland at the time. There have been several unfruitful attempts convince Labour to became an all-UK party by opening a branch in Northern Ireland (see Northern Ireland Labour Party, Labour Party of Northern Ireland). SDLP and British Labour are fraternal parties and the implication of your comment is that SDLP MPs sit in the same group as British Labour MPs. --Soman (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The SDLP is a member of the Socialist International, as are the British and Irish Labour Parties. The British Labour Party hasn't stood candidates in NI since 1913, as Soman says; the Irish Labour Party hasn't stood candidates in NI since 1964. The SDLP therefore has never stood against either of these organisations and are happy to take the British Labour Party whip in the House of Commons. But the SDLP is also an Irish nationalist party, and on that basis, its relationships are rather more complex. A possible merger between it and Fianna Fáil has been discussed, although that now appears unlikely. Some British Labour Party politicians are closer to other parties in Northern Ireland - for example, Kate Hoey is a unionist and has supported DUP and UKUP candidates in the past;[7] Jeremy Corbyn has been considered close to Sinn Féin. Warofdreams talk 13:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know they have spices and such, but lots of countries had spices. Plus it seemed like a REALLY long way to go just to get some spice. Some insight into this would be helpful. Were their assumptions to what India had, exaggerated? ScienceApe (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of India, especially the redirect to Colonial India, may provide some clues. You could also check out the India article and see where it goes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also British Raj and John Company. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll also want to look at Spice trade and Silk route. India was a very 'strategic' country for nations in those days. It's not like today where things can pretty much by-pass countries (what with planes) and 100s of major international ports, back in the day the key Trade routes were much more important, and having 'control' of them could be hugely beneficial. ny156uk (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spices brought the first Portuguese traders to India in the 16th century. Once they saw the richness of the country, they realized how much more it had to offer. Until at least the 18th century, India was a rich part of the world, at least as rich as western Europe. It had been at the center of long-distance trade in Eurasia for centuries and had amassed great wealth in precious metals. It produced a large agricultural surplus as well as expensive tropical woods, cotton (not produced in Europe until the late 18th century), and lots of luxury goods. Europeans were eager for access to the lucrative trade possibilities. After the mid-18th century, the British also began to see the potential for revenue extraction and industrial profits (by making India a market for British manufactures). Marco polo (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe most of the British who lived in India were posted there by the government, as India never attracted the type of permanent European settlement such as the USA, Canada, South Africa, etc. India required a large number of military personnel as well as government officials and civil servants to enable Britain to administer and maintain British rule. Most of the British eventually returned to the United Kingdom, apart from many of the railway workers and soldiers, who married Indian women; hence the sizeable Anglo-Indian community. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, kind of. See the East India Company and Company rule in India. The British conquest of India was mostly a commercial undertaking until 1858. Most white settlers and Anglo-Indians left for the UK in 1947 out of fear of reprisals. Alansplodge (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, re: spices—spices are a pretty good commodity for these guys because they don't go bad and they can be shipped in very high volumes without too much trouble (they don't break, they are consumed in relatively small amounts, they are widely popular). Pound for pound many of them were probably far more valuable than gold. Each ship of spices you brought back would be pretty valuable. I think discounting the idea that the spices would have been a monetary incentive by themselves is incorrect. Many of the spices in question could not be easily grown in quantity in other countries with the agricultural technology of the time—they depended on very specific weather and soil conditions. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian climate was not suitable for settlement on a vast scale such as the US was in the 16th and 17th centuries. India was far more populated than the American continent as well. As Alan says, India was mostly a commercial enterprise for the British as it previously was for the Portuguese. I must read the linked articles before I comment further though.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that India seemed to have a real psychological pull for the British as well, for reasons not directly related to spices. Something about Vedic mysticism perhaps. Vranak (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, a real psychological pull for profit which develops from a large market on account of a large population. Add to that extremely valuable spices, gems, gold, tea, and last but not least, huge amounts of opium for the Chinese empire whose emperor had forbidden to buy any kind of British/European goods whatsoever (and Chinese tea, porcelan, etc were being paid in gold and silver). "Vedic mysticism" at its finest indeed. Flamarande (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The pull of profit was there certainly, but there was something beyond that for many. I'm reminded of M. M. Kaye's characterization of India as "that beautiful, bewitching, often maddening and sometimes terrifying land". DuncanHill (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I scoff at the notion, Flamarande, that the only reason anyone would spend time in India (in this century or any other) would be for rank mercantile profiteering. I mean, come on. England is England -- not everyone wants to spend their whole existence there, regardless of how many gold doubloons they may or may not have. Vranak (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that it was all about the money. I'm just pointing out that profits and power were without any doubt whatsover the main reasons for the overwhelming majority of the British/Europeans of the 17th, 18th, and even 19th century. And yes, some British colonizers eventually fell in love with India, its people and culture but only after they got there in the first place (and most traveled to India to gain something). I somehow doubt that Vedic mysticism produced any kind of "real psychological pull for the [majority of] British [colonizers]".

Let me also point out that most British returned to the UK. We can also be certain that the stockholders of the East India Company were interrested in profits and little else. I vaguely remeber that they even attempted to remove some gems from the Taj Mahal and were considering to dismantle it. Flamarande (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Imperialism, Colonialism and White Man's Burden. Edison (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a further note to the explanations above: "spices" didn't originally just mean flavourings for food but a wide range of commodities including dyestuffs and drugs. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

England had a large supply of younger sons who would not be inheriting their family's wealth. India was more of a meritocracy (for Europeans, not unfortunately Indians) than Europe. Many social reforms such as Bentham's Panopticon prison design and reform schools for street youth were tried out in India first. I have just done a quick search and not found backup for the Panopticon idea..I got this from an English Prof. some fifty years ago. The Magdalen asylums were also installed there. (When they were started they were considered a good thing) User : Sesquepedalia

I am having trouble finding an essay by Henry Corbin called “Eyes of Flesh, Eyes of Fire: the Science of Gnosis.” According to the Wikipedia article on him it was "presented" in June of 1978, but no mention is made as to where it was presented or where (or even if) it was published. -- noosphere 01:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look here [8]. It was an address to the Université Saint Jean de Jérusalem, whatever that may be. DuncanHill (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's perfect. -- noosphere 19:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading Mansfield Park, and there's a peculiar use of a word that I didn't get. Phrases like "his sister was not out", "She was then out", and "Miss Price is not out" [emphasis in original] use the word "out" as in a girl being out. What does "out" mean in this context? The only guess I came up with is that the girl has hadher first menstrual period and is thus a woman and ready to marry, but that doesn't make much sense since Miss Price is 18 years old! Sorry if I'm not familiar with the British social customs and terminology of the 18th siecle. Best, 76.230.146.50 (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could be to do with coming out, or it could be to do with being "in" or "out" to callers - one might ask the footman to tell callers that one was "out" in order to avoid having to see them. I've never got on with Jane Austen though, hopefully a Janeite will be along soon to help further. DuncanHill (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a very good explanation of the ins and outs of the word's meaning. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It means she hadn't yet made her debut in society. See the links DuncanHill and Clarityfiend have provided above. The word out is often used in Jane Austen and Victoria Holt novels.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jeanne Boleyn; you can read "out" as a short form of "out in society." --- OtherDave (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Executive of Hong Kong Donald Tsang said that he and his politically appointed team will boycott the Hong Kong by-election, 2010.[9] Are there any cases in history where the head of government/ the executive would boycott a legitimate election held by that government? F (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much a "boycott" as such, but in Australia, not all the major parties always contest by-elections. Elections of all kinds, at the federal level, are conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission, a government-created and -funded body but one that operates independent of government and is answerable more directly to the Parliament of Australia. In a broad sense, however, one could say that all elections are conducted by the "government", but there have certainly been occasions when the government of the day has chosen to let the other parties slug it out. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The boycott in this case is by not voting. Traditionally, the Chief Executive and major officials would stage photo-ops such as inserting the ballot into the ballot box and by opening the ballot boxes at close of poll. They are refusing to do it this time. F (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked out all the elections listed in the article "Election boycott"? Gabbe (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regnal number seems to me to follow the Asturian-Leonese-Castilian monarchs in Spanish history. Is this true? I know that the Crown of Aragon was technically abolished in the aftermath of the Spanish War of Succession. So would a future heir to the Spanish throne named James or Peter follow the Castilian regnal number and be James I of Spain and Peter II of Spain or the Aragonese regnal number and be James III of Spain and Peter V of Spain?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been a precedent, so we won't know until a James or a Peter ascends the Spanish throne. I don't think there's a rule saying who is counted and who's not. I'd like to know whether the Navarrese monarchs will be counted from now on. If they were going to count the Navarrese monarchs, Charles III of Spain would've been Charles IV. But they might be more concerned about Navarre now than they were three centuries years ago, so Infanta Leonor of Spain might reign as Leonor II. Surtsicna (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Navarrese Crown merged with that of France and not Spain. See Henry IV of France. Spanish Navarre was conquered early in the time of the united crowns of Castille and Aragon; it was a bit of a side-conflict during the War of the League of Cambrai. See Spanish conquest of Iberian Navarre. There remained a "rump" Kingdom of Navarre (known as Lower Navarre) until Henry III of Navarre became Henry IV of France in 1589 (Paris being well worth a Mass, apparently also worth a LOT more than the puny Kingdom of Navarre). Navarre continued on in name in personal union with France until Louis XIII of France officially abolished it as a seperate kingdom in 1620. Numbering of Navarrese monarchs would therefor have little bearing on regnal numbers in Spain. --Jayron32 23:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ferdinand II of Aragon conquered a part of Navarre and assumed the title of King of Navarre by the right of conquest. Was that part of Navarre incorporated into another Spanish kingdom or did it remain seperate until the reign of Philip V like the other Spanish kingdoms? If the latter is true, numbering of Navarrese monarchs should have some bearing on monarchical ordinals of Spanish monarchs, shouldn't it? Surtsicna (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. I don't see where there is any evidence he claimed right to the title King of Navarre. The article you show states that he conquered part of the kingdom and annexed its lands to Spain/Castile, but I see no reliable sources which state he, from then, claimed the title to King of Navarre. Near as I can tell, the was never any Spanish claim to the title; there is no mention of the title King of Navarre being part of either the Crown of Aragon or the Crown of Castile. --Jayron32 15:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he claimed right to the title King of Navarre.[10] His immediate successors, Joanna and Charles I, used the title Queen and King of Navarre.[11] All their successors seem to have used the title as well.[12] What's most interesting, it seems that the Habsburg Kings of Castile actually held different monarchical ordinals in Navarre.[13] For example, Philip IV of Castile ruled over his part of Navarre as Philip VI.[14] Even after the Crown of Aragon disappeared, Spanish monarchs seem to have held different ordinals in Navarre (for example, Charles VI of Navarre[15]). The sources which mention Cortes generales and Charles as Charles VI are especially interesting. Do I need to cite more examples and more sources? Evidently, there are precedents and Leonor could reign as Leonor II. Surtsicna (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More then likely, the Castillian numbering will continue. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to find a quote by an Islamic philosopher (or maybe a Sufi mystic), who said something like "when you put a match to cotton, it is not the flame that burns, but God." Does anyone know what the original quote was and who its author was? -- noosphere 19:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was al-Ghazali in The Incoherence of the Philosophers, which actually has the passage about cotton quoted in the article, although it is uncited. Averroes criticized al-Ghazali in The Incoherence of the Incoherence, and quoted long passages so he could refute them, so the bit about cotton burning is also in there (see this translation of Averroes for example). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor just asked on the Help Desk about two white crosses on the side of Sugarloaf Mountain, New Brunswick. I was able to provide them with this link to a short account of their origin [16], but was wondering if anyone had any further information. DuncanHill (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This guy, Arthur Kemp, who has his own Wikipedia article and everything... he is asserting that the white Western native British people even if their ancestors have lived in Britain for centuries if not millennia... (that may be true sometimes but...) constitute an "indigenous people". Whilst his genetic findings may have some truth in that the British people may not have much admixture, that does not make the British an "indigenous people", regardless of their genetic heritage. Do the white British live in huts, caves, or so on? Do they hunt fish with spears? No. Do they obtain their food from Tesco and Asda... yes.--Lightsin (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they left an actual question in those caves? --- OtherDave (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheddar Man lived in Britain 9150 years ago, give or take a few, and people related genetically to him live in the same spot now. The Romans found Britons to be little natives who smeared their skin with blue clay and fought like hell. They lived much as you describe, and did not get their food from Tesco at the time. Edison (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably there are some people who were the first people to settle a land; even someplace like Britain, and they would therefore be "indigenous". The decendants of those people don't have to be living in caves to be indigenous, just that they are decended from those people. Indigenousness has nothing to do with economic status. That being said, I make no statement about the validity of his ideas; just that ones objection shouldn't be based on the use of the term indigenous to describe a population of people. --Jayron32 00:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you need to consult a dictionary on the meaning of "indigenous". It doesn't mean "hunt fish with spears". FiggyBee (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree fully with FiggyBee. Indigenous peoples are any ethnic group who inhabit a geographic region with which they have the earliest known historical connection. --Lgriot (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understood it, the earliest British people were the Welsh or Celts. They got driven back, or perhaps intermarried with, many waves of migrants such as the Romans, Saxons, Normans and so on. The ancenstry of British people is that of mixtures of migrants. 92.26.59.240 (talk) 09:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a request for legal advice. This is just me watching K-PAX and getting curious. If an officer asks you to take off your sunglasses, are you required to do so? If someone refuses to take them off and the officer takes them off without permission, is that legal? What about a hat? A coat? Gloves? How far does it go if it goes anywhere? Wrad (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me pose it to you in the opposite way. What constitutional right would protect you from that request? Shadowjams (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(So if a police officer told you to hum the theme-tune from Doctor Who you would be required to obey that instruction in the absence of a specific constitutional right to the contrary? Come off it.) ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 09:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've basically assumed this question has applied to the U.S. law because it's reference a scene in a movie that occurs in the U.S., and I don't know U.K. law, but yes, if a sovereign nation passes a law that says if you don't hum that tune you can be imprisoned, there's little "law" to dispute that. As a practical matter, in the U.S., state constitutions, as well as the federal constitution, will imply a rational basis test, and humming a tune may be one of the very few instances that fail that test. I can't comment on the U.K. But we should be very aware that sovereign nations are largely free to do what they please, as a practical matter. Free societies should always remember this. Shadowjams (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the matter with you? "Free societies should always remember this." If you want to lecture about state theory, the Reference Desk is very much the wrong place. Your assertion that removal of glasses would be required unless there was a right to the contrary is clear nonsense, as illustrated by my example. Issues of sovereignty don't enter into it. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 09:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not the response I expected from you, but you feel strongly about this.

I stand by my point. Police power means what it is. And sovereign nations are free to exercise whatever control they want, with practical concern from what other nations may impose on them (i.e., war). In the U.S. the police power is relegated to the states generally, and in enumerated cases delegated to the federal government. There are restrictions on this, the most obvious of which are based in the U.S. Constitution, but perhaps controversially are also based in English common law. I would never support such an arbitrary law, nor would I ever believe a sane court could view humming a particular tune as a rational basis for a law, but if you want to understand how the rule of law works, that's it. Rational basis is a product of a legal system, it's not an a prior truth, and it certainly doesn't enforce itself on its own. Shadowjams (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A sovereign nation may be able to pass whatever laws it likes, but the police aren't a sovereign nation. The police can't create new laws when they want to do something that is otherwise not allowed, they have to follow the existing laws. In the absence of any law authorising the police to remove somebody's glasses, doing so would be assault, which is as illegal for the police as for anyone else. The question, therefore, is whether or not there is a law that authorises police to remove somebody's glasses. I don't know the answer. The police have certain powers related to identifying people, but what exactly they are in the jurisdiction in question, I don't know. If somebody refused to remove a disguise and the police didn't have the power to remove it themselves, then I think they would at least have the power to arrest them (in the UK, at least, the police have the power to arrest someone for the purpose of identifying them). Once somebody is in police custody, there is probably something that would let them remove glasses (even if they have to call it a strip search). --Tango (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent answer. Shadowjams (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a defective argument in the US, where all the government's rights are granted it by the people, as is made explicit by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The government (and therefore the police) don't have, by default, the right to do anything they want unless a constitutional right circumscribes their power; it's the other way around. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not. The federal government's powers are limited to its enumerated powers, the 10th amendment is an express description of that; the States, however, have plenary police power. That power is only limited by the Constitution, or any subordinate law (such as a state Constitution). Shadowjams (talk) 06:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right the rights of all U.S. governments, whether at the federal level, or at the State level, are granted by democratic process, but there are wide ranging statues giving law enforcement officers wide discretion to investigate suspected crimes, at both levels. Notwithstanding the constitution, namely due process considerations, these rules would be relatively unrestricted. Let's say state X passed a law that said any resident had to comply with any and all orders issued by a law enforcement officer. If that were a law, on what basis might one object? Shadowjams (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the grounds that some of what they might order you to do might be unconstitutional. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only trying to elucidate what the premise of this objection is. This isn't necessarily the world I'd design, but it's the world that is. Let's be clear about what the law actually is.

So, which Constitutional provision? Shadowjams (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this, and I don't have any particular case law at hand; but I would first reach for the way the Bill of Rights has been applied to the states, as discussed in Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. The 9th and 10th amendments make it clear that the government's rights, as you say, are granted to it; and the 14th has applied most of the Bill of Rights to the states; so if a particular power hasn't been granted to a cop, then he doesn't have that power. If a cop walks up to a person in the US and tells her to jump up and down on one leg for 60 seconds, she can, and should, tell the cop to go to hell, because Americans haven't constitutionally granted the government the ability to harass Americans at will. Now, if the cop has a reasonable need to see behind the sunglasses in order to fulfill his public duty, that's a different matter. (I also don't know if reasonableness is the standard.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comet: Practically I think you're right. Reasonableness is the standard, and it's reasonableness in carrying out the duties that are either permitted or legitimized by a democratic law (not one made up on the spot by an executive official, an officer). But the 9th and 10th amendments are rarely discussed in this kind of scholarship and because they're more structural I don't think it makes sense to talk about them as being incorporated by the 14th, nor have they. Our articles on both of those amendments are very good. Shadowjams (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What if the policeman ordered the subject to confess or he would be shot? Obviously, a violation of the Fifth Amendment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of the 5th amendment if by federal officials, 14th if by state officials, and murder in every jurisdiction. Shadowjams (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming we're talking about being pulled over, there are certain things the cops can do and certain things they can't, but one thing they can certainly do is to verify that you are licensed to drive. As part of that, they have to verify it's you, and in so doing, they would likely tell you to take off your sunglasses or anything else that's hiding your face sufficiently that they can't make a positive ID. Driving a car on a public thoroughfare is not a constitutional right, it's a privilege granted by the state, and in getting that license you agree to abide by the driving laws. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although the latter is correct, the original poster didn't mention driving. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They also never say that they're US American. Dismas|^(talk) 07:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical matter, see Terry stop. Shadowjams (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, in the UK, specially-authorised police can require anyone to remove anything which it appears is worn solely for the purpose of disguising themselves. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 09:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my local area, there's a sign at the entrance of all local banks, requesting people not to wear hats or sunglasses in the bank, since they obstruct security cameras. AnonMoos (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to OP -- No, of COURSE you are not "required" to do so. The only conceivable exception would be if a legal search (which, absent arrest or warrant, is limited to a search for weapons) involved examination of the glasses or the area they covered, but that is almost impossible to imagine. If checking an ID, no arrest would result for refusal (though the cop might find other ways to hassle you, at the risk of a lawsuit or formal complaint); contra BasballBugs, your lack of an inherent right to drive does not grant the cop the right to absurdly doubt your ID's picture unless you remove your glasses, and certainly doesn't create any right to order you to remove them. Shadowjams's answers are inaccurate improvisations -- just making stuff up. "Police powers" have nothing to do with the police per se; that is, states could exercise police powers even if there were no police at all, as indeed they did for the first couple of centuries that the "police powers" concept existed. "Reasonable/rational basis" has absolutely nothing to do with what the police can or can't do -- it applies exclusively to legislation. The Constitution doesn't enter into it at all, 9th or 10th or nth amendment. The police can't order you to take off your glasses (unless you're in custody) any more than anyone else can. All of the irrelevant references to police powers and reasonable basis and the constitution would only apply if a) legislation was interpreted to give police the power to order you to take off your glasses, or b) a policeman was defending himself against a lawsuit or complaint resulting from forcing you to take of your glasses by claiming an implicit right to do so. But neither of those hypotheticals exists, and the OP's question presents no such hypothetical. Again: Can ANYBODY order you (an adult not under arrest or a minor not in school or otherwise under quasi-parental authority) to take off your sunglasses, except on private property (in which case the remedy is "you must leave," not "you're under arrest")? NO. Can the police do so? NO. It's as simple as that. Of course, a control freak policeman might respond to a refusal by arresting you on trumped-up charges, but the charge would not be "failure to take off glasses." 63.17.51.114 (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my "improvisations" are inaccurate at all. In fact, yours appear to have some problems, most obviously your assertion that the police under no circumstances can force you to remove your sunglasses. That's an absolutely remarkable claim, and anyone who's ever practiced a day would recognize that assertion as such. If you want to attack my ideas that's fine, but explain your basis for doing so. The OP is way gone at this point anyway... Shadowjams (talk) 08:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you refuse to take off your sunglasses to allow the cop to verify that you are the one pictured on the license, then he might well take you in on suspicion of driving with a stolen license. Now, are you going to go through that hassle? Or are you going to doff your sunglasses? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP specifically said "required." (Meanwhile, I specifically mentioned the possibility of being hassled on something trumped-up for refusing, and also the risk the cop takes of being sued or formally complained about for arresting you on obviously bogus charges.) Here's the same question: can anybody walking down the street walk up to you and legitimately order you to take off your sunglasses? Can anybody pull up next to you at a stoplight and shout a legitimate order at you to take off your sunglasses? The answer is no, and the answer has nothing to do with police powers or rational basis or the constitution. 63.17.51.114 (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the police have reasonable cause to question you, then they have reasonable cause to demand identification. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think my comment above contains the short answer to the OP's question. The cops probably cannot "make you" take off your sunglasses as such. But they have authority to confirm that you are who you claim to be on the license, and if you won't cooperate, they would have reasonable cause to believe that you've got someone else's license, and could take you in. Then, someone could probably "make you" take off your sunglasses. So if you want to go through all that, let us know how it turns out. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So if you had a full beard but had been clean-shaven on your ID picture, the cop could order you to shave? PLEASE. 63.17.51.114 (talk) 04:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Your honor, the suspect was tall, skinny, young, caucasion, male, and had black hair; his license read 6-foot-3, 170 pounds, 23 years old, male, and black hair, and the photo showed a white person. However, I couldn't tell if he had blue eyes or brown eyes or green eyes, and his license said 'brown,' so I arrested him for driving with a stolen license." 63.17.51.114 (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On suspicion of driving with a stolen license. And you don't have a constitutional right to drive on a public roadway. You have to abide by the traffic laws. And if one of those laws is that you must confirm you're the guy on the license, then you must do so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually kind of the flip side of some Muslims who wanted to be photographed for their licenses with only their eyes visible. As the states pointed out, you don't have to have your eyes visible in general, but the state doesn't have to give you a license if you won't cooperate. The drivers license rules are defined by the individual states. The Illinois Rules of the Road[17] indicate that there are serious penalties for presenting someone else's license as your own. So if you refuse to let the cops identify you to their satisfaction, they would have reasonable cause for arrest on suspicion of license fraud. And if you tried to claim "constitutional rights", they would probably take your license away anyway, on the grounds that you're too stupid to be driving. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a website where it shows the surnames in Bengali language in terms of which religious community uses which surnames? So far I know that all surnames that are Arabic are used by Muslim community. So far, I know that Mazumdar, Sarkar, Chowdhury, Biswas, Halawdar/Haldar, Aich, Bhuiyan and Talukdar are used by both Muslims and Hindus. So far, I know that Acharya, Adhikari, Aich, Ain, Ash, Baag, Bagchi, Baidya, Bandyopadhyaya/Banerjee, Banik, Basak, Burman, Bhadra, Bhanja, Bhar, Bhatta, Bhattacharya, Bhowmik, Bhuiyan, Biswas, Bose/Basu, Brahmachari, Chakraborty, Chanda, Chandra, Chandratre, Chandratreya, Chanda, Chattopadhyaya/Chatterjee, Choudhuri/Chaudhuri/Choudhury, Daam, Daha, Das, Dasgupta, Dasbiswas, Dastidar, Deb/Dev, Debnath, Dey/De, Dhar, Datta/Dutta, Dutta-Gupta, Dutta-Ray, Duari, Gangopadhyaya/Ganguly, Gaur, Ghatak, Ghosh, Ghosh-Dastidar, Ghoshal, Goswami, Guha, Guha Neogi, Guha Roy, Guhathakurta, Gunin, Gupta, Haldar, Hazra, Hor, Hui, Jana, Kabiraj, Kar, Karmakar, Kolapatra, Kumar, Kumhor, Kundu, Laha, Lahiri, Maitra, Maity, Majumdar, Mal, Malla, Majhi, Malakar, Mallick, Mandal, Manna, Maulik, Misra, Mitra, Mukhopadhyaya/Mukherjee, Munshi, Nag, Nandan, Nandy, Naskar, Neogi, Pal, Palit, Pathak, Poddar, Poriya, Porel, Pradhan, Pramanik, Rakshit Ray, Roy/Ray, Raychowdhury/Ray Chaudhuri, Rudra, Sadhukhan, Saha, Samaddar, Samanta, Sana, Santra, Sanyal, Sarbhan, Sarkar, Sen, Sengupta, Sensharma, Sharma, Shastry, Shikdar, Sinha\Shingha, Som, Sur, Swar, Talukdar, Talapatra and Thakur\tagore are used by only Hindus. So far that I know that Barua is used only by Buddhists. Is there any Hindu or Buddhist Bengali surnames that I should know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.170 (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which Punjabi surnames are purely Muslim? Which Punjabi surnames are purely Sikh? Which Punjabi surnames are both Muslim and Sikh? Which Punjabi surnames are purely Hindus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.133 (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a website is shows the Hindus names, both male and female that derived from Sanskrit like Dilip, Prakash, Rani, Raja, and such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.133 (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the US spending $2.55bn a year on military aid to Isreal, according to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8681919.stm ? A surprisingly large amount of money. Why so much money, and why Israel and not some other country? 78.149.199.79 (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first two paragraphs of Israel – United States military relations pretty much describe the two main and one minor reasons: they share (some) security interests, there's a strong pro-Israel lobby in Washington, and less importantly, they help develop better weapons. Plus the U.S. would suffer a blow to its prestige if it were to abandon its longtime ally. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for why not some other country, no other country has such a powerful lobby in Washington pressing for military aid. Marco polo (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the most important "lobbying" that was ever done in this respect was the Arabs' pathetic performance in 1967, a year when they combined irresponsible grandiose aggressive sabre-rattling and frequent bloodthirsty bombastic wannabe-genocidal threats to "throw the Jews into the sea" etc. etc. ad nauseam magnam before the war, together with an ignominious abject shameful complete military collapse when it came to actual fighting. This created a wave of support for Israel in the U.S. -- before 1967, the U.S. government supported Israel in some ways, but it always carefully avoided the appearance of any kind of direct U.S.-Israel military alliance. After 1967, this reticence was tossed aside, and Arab-Israeli conflict became part of the U.S. Soviet cold-war confrontation, with the U.S. heavily backing Israel militarily and in other ways -- and the Arabs didn't really have anybody but themselves to blame... AnonMoos (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To 78.149.199.79 -- 1) It would be nice if you could actually spell "Israel" correctly. 2) I wonder why you don't object to U.S. aid to Egypt, which is also in the billions per year range? AnonMoos (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so paranoid - the OP was not aware that the US paid any aid to Eygpt. 78.147.140.229 (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

> After seeing ROBIN HOOD, I researched the history of the times.......and > I saw the statement that there was 'infernal blood in the > Angevins'...........I have tried to check that statement out....with no > luck... > > WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THERE WAS INFERNAL BLOOD IN THE DYNASTY?? > > > Dave Gaefke >

email address removed, answers will be posted here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.141.116 (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked out this article: House of Plantagenet?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it doesn't mention the contemporary legend that the Counts of Anjou and by extension, members of the Plantagenet dynasty were descended from the devil. It was just a popular myth at the time, just as Elizabeth Woodville was said to have been descended from Melusine, the fairy-witch.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And we have an article on Melusine, of course. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that, thanks Adam! The family of Lusignan was allegedly descended from the enchanting Melusine. Oh, and have you ever heard of the medieval malady water elf sickness? I read about it in a book that was set in 14th century England. It was a popular mental illness at the time in which afflicted people were said to be possessed by nixies, kelpies and water elves.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember the name of this book but the key theme is it all takes place within heaven. The character dies (before the novel starts) and the beginning describes his arrival and what happens as he explores the place. Any ideas? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Five People You Meet in Heaven? (The summary says the protagonist dies at the beginning, but this was a bestseller.) Category:Bangsian fantasy is a trifle thin, but have a look. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Dreams May Come by Richard Matheson? But apparently the protagonist dies early in the novel. dlempa (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the best name for the new UK coalition government? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.240.208 (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Condems" has been suggested. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her Majesty's Government appears to be the official version. MilborneOne (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Conservatives? Unsurprisingly I'm not the only one to think of it [18] Nil Einne (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what is meant by "the best name". The Cameron ministry covers it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the United States contribute financially or otherwise to the defense of the Scandinavian countries? If the US suddenly spent much much less and scaled back a huge amount on the world scale a(hypothetically take the US out of the picture for a minute)would the Scandinavian countries have to increase their military financially and in man power? I wonder because I know they don't spend much for military and while some of their armies are compulsory service they don't seem very large in size, so, how do they effectively protect themselves and if they did have to increase efforts would that put a financial burden on the countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.251.203 (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Political neutrality goes a long way towards decreasing a nation's defence needs. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden and Finland are more or less neutral, but Denmark, Norway, and Iceland are members of NATO and as such count on US assistance in the event of any attack. Looking at our List of countries by military expenditure, Sweden and Norway spend similar amounts on their militaries. Sweden spends $5.2 billion, or 1.4% of its GDP in its military, while Norway spends $4.8 billion, or 1.5% of its GDP. Denmark spends 1.3% of its smaller GDP on its military. Finland spends 1.2 % of its GDP. Iceland has no true military. It is doubtful that countries as small as these could hope to defend themselves against a massive invasion from a much larger power such as Russia or the United States, no matter how much of their GDPs they devoted to military spending. (I know that the latter scenario seems implausible.) The most they can do is try discourage invasion with a promise of inflicting damage if invasion were attempted. Beyond that, small countries such as these have always relied on alliances, diplomacy, and the balance of power between larger powers. Since Sweden and Norway spend such similar amounts, and since all Scandinavian countries (other than Iceland) all spend similar proportions of their GDP on their militaries, I don't think we can assume that a US withdrawal from NATO, for example, would change the military budgets of Norway or Denmark. Marco polo (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The icy mountainous geography of Scandanavia largely precludes a thrust through there by the Russians, who would logically concentrate their main attack through the centre of Europe. The military domination of the North Atlantic by the US Navy and Royal Navy, (and don't forget the Marine Nationale) precludes any seaborne invasion of Iceland. The US isn't going to be withdrawing from NATO any time soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.16.248 (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might also be interested in List of states with nuclear weapons, which explains that some countries that have nuclear weapons may or may not actually have control over them. None of the Scandinavian countries are mentioned in our article on that subject, but you might consider NATO status as something similar. Shadowjams (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have an ancestor who was released from the Union Prison at Point Lookout, MD in June 1865. This is about when the prison was closing and emptying out due to the end of the war. I'm curious how soldiers would have gotten home after being released. My ancestor was sick at the time and had a long way to travel (but he made it). Wrad (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, as you may be aware, there were at least rail roads in the North, but once he got further South, they may have been beggared up by General Sherman, and it would not have been a priority for the Yankees to care whether or not one of their ( former ) foes made it anywhere. People can be quite resourceful if need be - reminds me of the scenes in the movie Cold Mountain, where Jude Law's character is trying to get home by any means. I suspect also that as much as Andersonville was a hell on earth for the Union men there, the Northern run prisons could not have been much better, based on what I understand about how Dr. Samuel Mudd had been treated upon being falsely accused of being confederate with Booth and the others, when all he had done was what a doctor would be nature do. I have pondered and researched the idea of writing a novel about the idea of a Confederate trying to get across country like that in those days with no transport other than train or horse. I guess in those days people - especially the hard working farmers and labourers of the South, were tough and could put up with anything if it meant finally getting back to their family. You could be sure your many greats grandfather had like minded Southerners who would have helped him. Who's to know if even a few Northern ones might have? Although any thought of them wanting to be charitable may have been pretty much dashed once Mr. Booth did his dirty deed. Not in any way to liken the two too much, but it is known that the Nazis had the ODESSA network, which got people away from the custody of the Allies to escape justice by heading out to mainly South America, and it is also believed - Australia and New Zealand, which is why we have had the occaisional trial over the years for those hunted down. It would be interesting to know whether or not there was some similar sort of set up eighty years previously for characters a lot less odious, most of whom had only fought for what they saw as their rights not to be dominated by a far away capital. Depending on where your ancestor had to get to - better if he only needed to make it to Virginia, as opposed to all the way to Texas - but I suspect there must have been ways to ask for help if they could from whom ever would give it, travel by rail, horse or even just walk. Then boat would be a good idea for some journeys also. There must be books on that sort of thing. I have one on the major battles, published over twenty years ago, and I also owned one called the Divided Union, but I know not whether they had any hints on how soldiers may have made it home. History Channel could also have something on that. 202.36.179.66 (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He had to get to Northern Alabama. I suspect he had dysentery or something from bad water. He never owned any slaves. His mother was a widow and very poor and destitute throughout the war. As far as I can gather he had grown up picking cotton in someone else's fields alongside his three brothers, one of whom was killed and another crippled for life in the war. My ancestor was relatively unscathed. Wrad (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People were a lot closer to the land in those days, and had a better clue of how to survive outdoors than we would. Keep in mind that Lewis and Clark and their party walked 2,000 miles or so in each direction, and only lost one man along the way. Another factor to consider is that many men might have found themselves in your ancestor's situation, and maybe he was one of the lucky ones who made it. Unfortunately, no one has so far answered your specific question with certainty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that this was true of most Confederate soldiers, regardless of their personal views on Negroes. This is the age old story of nobs getting normal people to fight their wars for them. My understanding is that the South was rebelling on the principle of not wanting to be told what to do by the North, and it was just that slavery was one of the issues within that. It is also a fact that President Lincoln did not emancipate the slaves - in effect only then making the war about slavery - until the first of January, 1863. Certainly the defeat of the South led to the end of legal slavery on a national level - but no one can legislate personal opionion. The mal treatment of blacks continued in many other ways for over a hundred years thereafter - and it can be said, still occurs to this day. My thought on why individual people did fight for the South is that they are as varied as there were people. One could parallel the plight of the South in terms of their thoughts on not wanting to be ruled over by others to that of the Americans daring to take up arms against his most glorious Majesty, King George the Third. It is interesting that the same reason justified back in 1775, leading to the skirmish at Bunker Hill, did not seem valid in 1861, nor also does it for the anti government militias of today. I am not defending them - especially where acts of violence occur - but it is interesting that a nation that founded itself on the idea of liberty and no taxation without representation should now become one that sometimes - not always - tramples individual rights, and yet on the other hand, is also a country that sticks up for the oppressed of other lands, as mine is too. As for King George, it has to be said, that although he was America's anointed leader, he did not help the situation, and other means could have been found that could have been fair to both sides. But I digress. Amazing how a question on one subject can end up all over the place. As for the idea that people were closer to the land - yes - that makes sense, and due to that, your ancestor may even have known about some natural cures for dysentry in the form of plants and such on the way home. Certainly getting out of that camp was a start. I suspect if he did have help, ( and why shouldn't men who had been through like experiences, and who still felt a bond of loyalty, not assist one another ? ), this would have been desirable, with safety in numbers, and as long as they could make their long journey not bothered by vengeful Northerners, and with the good will of people on the way in places like Virginia or Tennesssee, even if through some of those mountains, then the journey would be, if still dangerous, long and draining, still manageable. The Russian202.36.179.66 (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Southerners have often tried to deflect the slavery issue and defend the Confederacy by saying "the war was not about slavery". That is flat out, dead wrong. It was not the only reason for the war, nor for what kept the war going, but it was a prime ingredient in the stew that had been simmering since the Constitution was written, and after a number of compromises, it finally boiled over when we got a President who was anti-slavery and wouldn't kiss up to the South. The Emancipation Proclamation did not immediately free any slaves, but it was a brilliant stroke politically, as it took away any remote possibility of the British helping the South, as it would have compelled them to overtly defend slavery. Lincoln had been anti-slavery for a long time, and this was his chance, his foot-in-the-door, to start to put an end to it. The Emancipation Proclamation was a major step in ensuring the defeat of the South and in the abolition of slavery. None of these responses answer the OP's question definitively, though. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ with you Bugs on this issue as I had several maternal ancestors who fought for the Confederacy and they were from an area in Northern Arkansas that did not have slaves. In point of fact, those ancestors in question (2 of my great-great-grandfathers) had never seen a black person in their lives. One was wounded, the other killed (it says on his tombstone that he was killed in the War of Northern Aggression). The Ozarks, in the beginning, did not wish to take part in the Civil War for that very reason; however, they were eventaully persuaded to do so on the grounds that the conflict was really over states rights. I was taught in school that the south were the bad guys, but remember it was the northern slavers who brought the slaves to America in the first place and many of the northern soldiers mistreated blacks as well as whites after they invaded and pretty much destroyed the south, leaving it impoverished and deeply angry and resentful. In fact, many of the guys in blue uniforms were conscripts who had just arrived in the US. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for an instant justifying the heinous institution of slavery, but it's wrong to say all southerners donned the grey uniform because they upholded slavery.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs clearly states that slavery wasn't the only reason but that it was the main reason. I suspect that the majority of Confederate soldiers fought to protect their family, property, way of life, and their rights; the most important one being the right to own Black slaves. Flamarande (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for the war and the reasons why individual soldiers fought are two very different things. The vast majority of Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves and were fighting for a variety of other reasons: loyalty to their state, anger at "Northern aggression", etc. But if you look at why the Southern states seceded as stated in declarations passed by state legislatures, they all named the preservation of the institution of slavery as the primary reason for leaving the Union. To put it in a modern context: if most U.S. soldiers fighting in the Gulf War didn't own cars, would that mean the war wasn't about oil? (I'm not saying it was, only that the motivations of the troops is irrelevant.) Soldiers don't declare war; national leaders do. —D. Monack ^talk 07:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many people joined the Confederacy due to family and/or community pressure. As I had poined out before many people of the Ozarks felt it wasn't really their fight, but were pressurised into joining for fear of being ostracised by the community; in point of fact, the famous Hatfield-McCoy feud allegedly resulted over the two families having taken opposing sides during the Civil War.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's always the same old story everywhere all the time. Your national leader(s) leads your nation into war. You enlist in the military because it is your duty as a citizen to fight for your country and your people. If you don't join then the majority will consider you a coward or a traitor (failing sensible medical - and perhaps religious - reasons of course). These basic principles can be applied to most soldiers in most conflicts. Flamarande (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not take the word of the vice-president of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, as to what the war was mainly about? See Cornerstone Speech#.22Peculiar_Institution.22... AnonMoos (talk) 11:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You all are talking about the big picture of the war from the point of view of people who were wealthy and had slaves, or, for that matter, could read and write and argue well and understand arguments and political issues. I'm interested in that, but I'm more interested in the views of this individual man who had no slaves and who was probably illiterate. I don't have anything written by him about why he went to war. I suspect it was for money and a chance to get out of a very bad situation. War life for him seems to have been better than life at home. I also suspect that there may have been community reasons for it, tied to the fact that many in his church were going. I have a memoir written by a man who fought in his company who was a bit wealthier and educated. The letter constantly emphasizes secession, but never mentions slavery. I imagine my ancestor would have known the writer of this memoir and heard him talk quite a bit, but I have my doubts as to how much he would have understood fully.

In any case, here's the route my ancestor would have taken if he had used google maps in his trip from prison camp to home:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Courtland,+AL&daddr=Point+Lookout,+Severna+Park,+MD+21146&hl=en&geocode=%3BCdRQcu3e_dbaFalDVAIdQkVv-yk1bZPoVfq3iTGRpnS5hmYXoA&mra=ls&dirflg=w&sll=36.844461,-81.958008&sspn=9.823011,19.753418&ie=UTF8&z=6

Wrad (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrad, I'm sorry that no one has answered your question about how your ancestor might have gotten home. Your Google map shows a route taking Interstate highways, which of course didn't exist at the time. According to this source:

"Beginning in February of 1865, prisoners who swore an allegiance to the Union were classified for release. Subsequently, groups of approximately 500 were each given a food ration, money and or transportation vouchers and placed on a train for City Point, Virginia. City Point was the major Union army supply depot in northern Virginia and from there each prisoner was provided assistance to his home destination. However, due to the fact that the war was still ongoing and the overall condition of transportation in the South was poor it is very conceivable that these men had a difficult time reaching home

"Those soldiers who survived were released in groups at the end of the war and provided the same assistance for returning to their homes in the South. By the end of 1865, the camp was fully closed, all buildings torn down or moved to nearby locations."

This source describes the procedure at a different camp than the one where your ancestor was held, but probably the procedure was the same at all Union prisoner camps. So your ancestor could have traveled relatively comfortably, by train and steamer and other conveyances, back to his hometown. Here is a railroad map of the Southeast as of about 1865. Point Lookout is not far from the main line between Baltimore and Washington, and I would guess that prisoners might have been taken by wagon to the main rail line or else taken by steamship or sailing ship from Point Lookout to Baltimore, where they could transfer to a train. From Washington, released prisoners could catch a ferry to Alexandria, Virginia. As you can see, rail lines connect Alexandria with Decatur, Alabama, through Lynchburg, Virginia, and Chattanooga, Tennessee. From Decatur, it would not be a long wagon trip to Courtland. Alternatively, if your ancestor was processed in City Point, Virginia, as described in the source above, City Point is located on an arm of the Chesapeake Bay outside of Petersburg, Virginia, so it would have made sense to send batches of men from Lookout Point, Maryland, by steamer or sailing ship directly to City Point. There, they would have been processed and then taken by wagon to Petersburg, where your ancestor could have taken a train through Lynchburg along the route I've just described. Marco polo (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Wrad (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reading our article on City Point, I see that there was in the mid-1800s already a rail line linking City Point with Petersburg, so that would have made that stage of the journey that much easier. You can see why they would have used City Point to process released prisoners: It was both a seaport and a rail depot. Marco polo (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the difference between the Old and New Styles of Calendars, with regard to the introduction of the Gregorian which we use now. When I entered the date 3 September 1651 into the Wolfram Mathematica website for finding out significances of dates in History and the future, I saw that this was given as a Sunday, being the Gregorian date for the Battle of Worcester. Now I know that the 3rd of September 1651 was a Wednesday (O.S.), but this site was suggesting that the date 3rd of September is the one we would now give to the date the battle was fought on - that is, to look at another example, in the sense that on the day that was to England within 1642, Isaac Newton was born on Christmas Day, but the Gregorian date, as it would have been in France at the exact time he was getting his bottom smacked to help him breathe, was, I understand, 6 January, 1643. So my question is, have a lot of dates of old battles such as that been changed to what they would be now under the Gregorian Calendar, or did say the Battle of Worcester occur on what was to those who were actually there, Wednesday the 3rd of September, 1651, which would have been a different day and date had England by then already adopted Gregoria, which they did not do for another 101 years to the day, I think, or was it a different date, which would have been 3 September under the New Style ? My thought is that if September the Third is the New Style date, then the battle would have been fought on what was actually about August 23rd or so to those who were there at the time. The Russian202.36.179.66 (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I found some books online published in England before 1752 that give the battle's date as 3 September. So I can say with reasonable confidence that 3 September is the Old Style date. The New Style date would be 13 September. In my experience we don't usually convert historic dates from Julian to Gregorian. So it is understandable that when you ask Wolfram what happened on September 3 it tells you the Battle of Worcester happened. There are some exceptions, for example Washington's birth is always given as 22 February 1732 (as Wolfram will tell you) even though at the time of his birth it was reckoned as 11 February 1731. --Cam (talk) 05:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The exceptions are always for people who lived through the calendar change. Otherwise, the dates are not (or should not be) updated. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An example of a famous battle commemorated in the New Style is the Battle of the Boyne which actually occured on 1 July 1690, but is celebrated annually by loyalists in Northern Ireland on 12 July. In point of fact, the Calendar was 10 days behind in England and Ireland in the 17th century, so the actual Gregorian date for the Battle of the Boyne was 11 July 1690.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A similar case is when Grand Duchess Tatiana Nikolaevna of Russia celebrated her birthday on 11 June instead of the correct 10 June date after 1900. She was born on 29 May 1897 by the Old Style Calendar.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There've been many such cases, Jeanne. A couple that come to mind are Vladimir Nabokov (it's explained in detail in the Notes section); and Sergei Rachmaninoff. Let me quote from the booklet accompanying the complete edition of Rachmaninoff' recordings, issued by RCA Records in his centenary year 1973:

• 1873 - Born on March 20 (o.s.)/April 1 (n.s.)*
• * In the 19th century the difference between the Julian calendar (O.S.), still in use in Russia, and the Gregorian (N.S.) was 12 days. In the 20th century this difference grew to 13 days and thus technically Rachmaninoff's birthday fell on April 2 (my highlighting; I circled these words in my copy, and wrote the comment "CRAP!"). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some encyclopedias which give Lenin's DOB as 9 April 1870 which is the correct OS date, but he celebrated it 22 April when it was actually 21 April seeing as he was born in the 19th and not 20th century. It's all so confusing and terribly annoying to put it mildly.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet it needn't be. It's an incredibly simple concept. The difference between the calendars at the time of the date in question is the only factor that needs to be taken into account. The difference between the calendars at the time the calculation is being done is utterly irrelevant, otherwise people like Ivan the Terrible would have 4 different death dates by now, depending on whether the person converting the date was living in the 16th, 18th, 19th or 20th century, and that's just a ridiculous concept. He died on 18 March 1584 (os); at that time the difference was 10 days, so the NS date is 28 March. End of story. It doesn't "become" 29 March in 1700, 30 March in 1800, or 31 March in 1900, but stays at 28 March forever. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. One calculates from the century in which a person was born/event took place, not the century at the time of calculation; otherwise George Washington's birthday would be celebrated now on 25 February instead of 22 Feb. As an astrologer, I do a lot of proleptic Gregorian calculations and it's very simple to arrive at the correct date.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard of a philosopher who held that parents should be allowed to kill their children up to two years of age as a sort of post-birth abortion. Who is this philosopher, and where can we find these views espoused? dlempa (talk) 03:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Peter Singer is who you're thinking about. Shadowjams (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marquis de Sade? Wrad (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is bad enough this practice is allowed at all, and now some want to extend it, to the point that even pro choice people would have to say that that is not on. The Russian. 202.36.179.66 (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there isn't a parent alive that hasn't thought about whacking their two-year-old. Most of them resist that temptation. Peter Singer's own parents, for example. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Singer's book Practical Ethics features this argument. See also Groningen Protocol and child euthanasia for more info. Gabbe (talk) 06:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

It was Peter Singer, but this is an oversimplification of his stance: he didn't advocate the killing of children, but instead put forward an argument based on preference utilitarianism, which effectively argues that the right action in any given circumstance is that which brings about the most good, in which "good" is defined as the meeting of preferences. A foetus has no preferences, and a new born child has few preferences. Thus, in a simple equation, it is possible that their preferences will be overridden by that of a parent. However, the equation becomes more complex, as there may well be the preferences of other people to take into account, and thus this doesn't mean that he's advocating the random killing of two year olds. His stance is complex, and utilitarianism, while not an approach I support, is a significant attempt to try and understand ethics. I've always thought that what Singer brings is a willingness to accept the logical outcomes of the approach, even though those outcomes may be counter-intuitive. Anyway, you probably want Rethinking Life and Death as a source. - Bilby (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved around the above messages based on indenting and what seems to make sense. Particularly given the collapse box, the discussion was rather confusing the way things were before [19] Nil Einne (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the responses; I think Peter Singer must be who I had heard of. dlempa (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, if you're allowed to lock up a person for fifty years for killing his child, then you're also allowed to kill a child. Vranak (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing in regards to the LDS prophet Thomas S. Monson. I am not sure what his day to day prophetic responsibilities are as they are not articulated in the article. Also, there is no information regarding what prophetic acts he has carried out. As we attempt to describe Monson in the most encyclopedic (not necessarily Mormon) way, it is pertinent to understand his prophetic conduct and functioning through a global lens. Tkfy7cf (talk) 08:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the articles "Prophet, seer, and revelator", "President of the Church" and "Revelation (Latter Day Saints)"? They expand on what "prophecy" means in the context of Mormonism. Gabbe (talk) 08:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The origin of national emblem of the United Kingdom and ite symbolic significance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majian1ma (talk • contribs) 09:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the article "Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom"? Gabbe (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the royal coat of arms, the United Kingdom does not have a national emblem. Its constituent countries of England, Scotland and Wales each have their own national symbols. The position in Northern Ireland is more complicated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The symbol for Northern Ireland is the Red Hand of Ulster, which is not accepted by everybody in the North.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That comment is a misrepresentation of the position discussed in the article to which I have linked. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The United Kingdom DOES have national emblems: Britannia[20] (a woman with a Roman helmet, a Union Jack shield and a trident) is the personification of the nation, much as Marianne is for France, although she has a few years on her French counterpart, apparently dating from 1672. Also a royally crowned lion passant - the British lion - as used on the emblem of the British Army. Otherwise Ghmyrtle is correct; the Royal Arms, the Royal cypher (EIIR) or a stylised representation of St Edward's Crown all have their uses. Alansplodge (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, Britannia (one 't', two 'n's) is a personification of Great Britain, rather than of the UK - perhaps a point of detail, unless you live west of the Irish Sea. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! I was let down by the link still working with my rubbish spelling! Alansplodge (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but in general terms "British" usually means the UK - the British Army doesn't exclude Northern Ireland and in the Olympics we have "Team GB". Alansplodge (talk)

"British" definitely means "of the United Kingdom" (or "of Great Britain", but usually the former), but "Great Britain" is never (correctly) synonymous with "United Kingdom". Britannia is "the personification of Great Britain", not "a British personification", so you can't interpret it as referring to the UK. Yes, the terminology is very confusing and rather arbitrary. Confusion and arbitrariness are probably much better emblems of UK than anything else! --Tango (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although what you say may be technically correct, I still believe that Britannia represents the whole nation. Did this cartoonist[21] mean to specifically exclude Ireland? I don't think so. Doesn't she have a Union Flag on her shield? Just my opinion though. Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't we invent an emblem comprising confusion and arbitrariness and include it on the UK article? ;) Jack forbes (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about a snarling Sylvester the cat?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Alan. When they sing "Rule, Britannia! Britannia rule the waves; Britons never, never, never shall be slaves" these days, they're thinking of the whole British nation (i.e. the UK, including NI), although the writer of the words in 1740 would have had a narrower scope in mind since at that time the crown of Ireland was in personal union only with the British crown but the people of Ireland were not in any sense Britons. That all changed in 1801 when Ireland became part of the UK. It changed again later when the bulk of Ireland became independent, but NI remains British. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People may sing "...never shall be slaves", but the original is "never will be slaves". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sculpture work of marcel duchamp a symbolism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpollarco (talk • contribs) 11:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking for information on Marcel Duchamp and Symbolism (arts)? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sculpture work of Marcel Duchamp a symbolism , pragmatism,or formalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpollarco (talk • contribs) 11:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked to articles for you. --Lgriot (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been something iv always wondered, what are the differances between the uk school years and the americian school years, like what is 5th grade for uk schools.

NB: Reception is the UK's version of kindergarden by the way

so could you fill this table in, thanks Sophie:# 12:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the USA: "7th Grade through 12th Grade", don'cha know. 1 through 8 traditionally were Primary School, also known as Elementary School. 9 through 12 were Secondary School, also known as High School or Prep School, i.e. preparatory for college. Grades 5-6-7-8-9, or a subset thereof, are now often Junior High School and/or Middle School. 9th through 12th are also referred to (echoing college usage), as Freshman, Sophomore, Junior and Senior. For the time prior to 1st Grade, there is also "Pre-School". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I went to school, grades 7th through 9th were known as Junior High, and grades 10th through 12th as Senior or just plain High School. For the first semester of the 9th grade I went to a private junior high school called a Free or Middle School, although the latter term was then rarely used.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was brought up in the Scottish education system so I can't speak for the rest of the UK. At 5 years old we started Primary School. This went from primary 1 to primary 7 when we would move on to secondary school. At secondary school we started from 1st year through to 5th year, or 4th if you decided to leave school. Jack forbes (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same as England when I was at school, though they now seem to number consecutively through secondary schools. I think that the UK column is one year out, with year 1 starting at 5 and reception at 4. See Education in England#School years -- Q Chris (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the system in the table the prevailing system in England and Wales, for state education purposes. The UK ages given are for the age the vast majority of the year are at the end of the year, not the beginning. (I don't know about the US.) Traditional systems vary widely, but Year 12 is still fairly commonly called Lower Sixth and Year 13 Upper Sixth, which you've missed. For a while, Year 11 was the last compulsory year of education, but starting with one recent year's Year 7, Year 12 will be. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 13:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should have added that I am a middle aged guy and that things may have changed since I was a nipper. Time rolls on. :( Jack forbes (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two of my kids attended school in Ireland, where they start at 4 in a class known as Infants. Here, in Italy it's different, where they begin at 6 in Scuola Elementaria; at 11, they move on to Scuola Media, then at 14, which is the legal age in which a child can leave school, they move up to Scuola Superiore which is usually a liceo (Italian school) , where they choose a school adapted to each individual's own particular scolastic ability. They normally leave at 19, such as my son, who's 19 and in his final year. However, he has a friend and classmate who is 22.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should also have read the link I gave you to Scottish education which gives the school years for all parts of the UK.[22] Jack forbes (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. I've Corrected the table. All the pages we have on the American system suggest the intention of the table was the age of the majority of pupils at the beginning of the year, and so I've adjusted the English system to this effect. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 13:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be pedantic but I've changed it from UK years to England & Wales years. Jack forbes (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ahh, so it seams that the us is one behind the uk school years because our "reception" is the usa's kindergarden Sophie:# 13:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, American kids normally enter kingergarten at about 5, although it depends on which time of the year a child is born. For example, if a child was born in December 1956, he would have entered kingergarten in September 1962 not 1961 because September is the cut-off date for births in any given year.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is the cut-off date in England and Wales too. The child's nominal age is the age on 1st September. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schools were & are (more so) structures to program children to become slaves to the coporate world. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Literacy is a corporate conspiracy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what literature they give you. Jack forbes (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

You obviously didn't go to my British comprehensive in the 1970s - it was largely staffed by Marxist-Leninists (they were the moderate ones!). Alansplodge (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. In 12th grade I had one of those (even looked like Trotsky!) who tried to get me to watch the film on the Russian Revolution he was showing; I merely held up my copy of Massie's Nicholas and Alexandra, which I was reading at the time, and he shut up-very quickly|--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I've forgotten most of my schooling (too much time bunking off) and have spent the last couple of decades educating myself to the degree where I can now string two sentences together. I know, that was only one sentence but I'm working on it! Jack forbes (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was at a direct grant school in the 1960s, and was taught economics by a (very good) teacher who claimed to be a card-carrying member of the Communist Party. But this is getting dangerously off-topic, so watch out I don't tell you off... Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

California has recently changed their law so that you can't start Kindergarten unless you've had your 5th birthday as of September 1 of that year. It used to be sometime much later in the year, I'm thinking December 1, but I'm not positive on that. I know that that would have prevented me from starting school till I was almost 6, even though I was already reading at the age of 4. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...during the 20th. and 21st. centuries? I bet lots of them had zilch. 78.147.140.229 (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a list here which contains wikilinks to biographies you can read. Gabbe (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A.E.K.D.B. ("Adelphoi En Kardia Dios Bous,". Meaning "brothers in the heart throughout life" or "brothers in the heart forever.") On the talk page the Kappa Sigma editors want to delete the long form and the translations on the ground that is is "unreferencable". This seems odd to me. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since it doesn't mean what it's said to mean, it probably is unreferenceable. "Throughout life" might be "dia biou" (διὰ βίου), but "dios" looks like the adjective meaning "divine" (or it could be the genitive of "Zeus"), and "bous" means "ox" or "bull". Normally, one would have some articles in there, as well. Deor (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Doer, can you confirm that the English transliteration for "Αδελφοι εν καρδία διὰ βίου" is "Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou" so that there are no more mix-ups? =) Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the fact that the motto is Αδελφοι εν καρδία διὰ βίου" is *still* unreferenced.Naraht (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea whether this is indeed a motto of the organization in question, and it would certainly need to be referenced before it could be included in the article; but to answer AEKDB's question, the five words with diacritics included (and with the word for "heart" in the dative case, as the object of the preposition ἐν) would be Ἀδελφοὶ ἐν καρδίᾳ διὰ βίου. A transliteration might be "Adelphoi en kardiai dia biou" (I'm not really sure what the usual way of transliterating a vowel with an iota subscript is, so "kardiai" may not be standard). As I implied before, this isn't terribly good Greek, though. Deor (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's reasonably tolerable "Telegraphese" or "Headlinese" Greek... AnonMoos (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyon know whether there ever was an electronics engineer to which the book, A Canticle for Leibowitz refers? Or was it just a made-up name? --78.148.127.191 (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it would be very difficult to prove that there was no such real-life electronics engineer as Isaac Edward Leibowitz (Liebowitz is in itself a conventional Ashkenazi Jewish surname), I've never in over 35 years of active SF fandom heard it suggested that there was, and in the era the book was written it was usual practice to avoid deliberate or inadvertant references to identifiably real people in case they took real or simulated offense and sued. However, SF and other writers sometimes use the names of acquaintances for characters (a process called "Tuckerization" after the SF fan and author Bob Tucker who popularised the practice, and more recently some authors have actually sold the privilege of having one's name so used, often donating the proceeds to charitable causes. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For an example of auctioning a name for charity, see Kick-Ass (comics)#Promotion. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 09:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

H. P. Lovecraft named one of his characters Klarkash Ton in honor of his friend, Clark Ashton Smith. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bloch also featured as "Robert Blake", if I recall correctly. This was indeed a game that members of the Lovecraft circle mutually indulged in. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. See Robert Harrison Blake. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in advance! --92.74.123.203 (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This says "strong Anglican faith". Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please give me a list of the oldest U.S. national parks? - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 20:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By "oldest," I assume you mean the earliest to be designated National Parks. If you visit List of National Parks of the United States and sort the table by "Date Formed," you'll be able to answer your question.Annish33 (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know where this is. thanks! Reticuli88 (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oberhofen Castle on Lake Thun in Switzerland.--Cam (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any Generals who were the opposite of Pyrrhus IE lost major battles or multiple minor battles, but lost their way to victory? Lost battles but won the war? --Gary123 (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guy who lost to Pyrrhus, I guess - Publius Decius Mus. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So a Music Defeat? Haha. Wrad (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

France in both World Wars. East of Borschov (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Pyrrhic victory article has several more examples - so perhaps the opposing leaders in those battles will also work here. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The militias in the battle of mogadishu seems like another example. --Jabberwalkee (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Polish historians often use the term "moral victory" to describe a lost battle where those defeated have shown to be militarily weaker, but morally superior (yes, it's just nationalist propaganda). Anyway, that could be called the opposite of Pyrrhic victory. And then, there's also what Polish sports journalists call "the victorious draw" – that is, when Poland kicked England out from World Cup eliminations in a 1:1 match in 1973. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sounds like those fun, low intensity conflicts where the goal of one side is to just draw the war out so long the other side decides to go home because the whole thing seems pointless. Googlemeister (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Spartans at the Battle of Thermopylae might qualify. Matt Deres (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find historic road/trail maps of the US prior to 1850? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old almanacs, probably at the library. I don't know where they'd be online, although since they're out of copyright, I'm sure some exist. Is there a specific trail map you're looking for (I wonder the extent of actual roads prior to the 1900s / car) Shadowjams (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm generally looking to see what the major connections between US cities on the East Coast were during the late 18th and early 19th century. For example, what was the main land based trail between New York City and Philadelphia? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can find some decent historical maps just by searching Google Images with terms like "historic map new jersey". For example, here is a map of the area around New York and Philadelphia from 1749. You can see that the main route at that time between New York and Philadelphia was to travel by (sail) ferry from Lower Manhattan to the port of Elizabeth. The exact route that a traveler would have taken through Elizabeth is difficult to determine looking at a modern street map. I'm guessing that the landing would have been near the foot of present-day Elizabeth Avenue, and that the route from there would have headed up Elizabeth Ave. to the main route coming south from Newark, or Broad St. Having crossed the Elizabeth River on the Broad St. bridge, the route would have headed south to what is now Route 1. I'm guessing there was a no-longer existent road from the Broad St. bridge to Washington Ave./Edgar Rd. which merges with Route 1 south of downtown Elizabeth. From there, looking at the map, I would surmise the following route using modern street names and route numbers: Route 1 to Rahway, then Route 514 (Woodbridge Rd., Rahway Ave.) to Woodbridge, then Route 514 (Main St., Woodbridge Ave.) to Highland Park, then Route 27 through New Brunswick (possibly crossing the Raritan on a ferry) and Kingston to Princeton, then Route 206 to the edge of Trenton, then Lawrence Rd. to Brunswick Ave., then Broad St. to Ferry St. At the foot of Ferry St., a traveler would have taken a ferry across the Delaware, then continued on East and West Philadephia Ave. to Bristol Rd. (all of which was then probably called Bristol Rd., which would haver run in a straight line where its route is now deflected by the railroad) to Main St. in Tullytown to Radcliffe St. to Market St. or Mill St. to Old Route 13, to Route 13 (with a ferry probably crossing Neshaminy Creek), continuing on Route 13, then continuing into what is now the Northern Liberties of Philadelphia on Frankford Ave., which probably merged with Front St., which continued to the waterfront of Philadelphia. Parts of this are speculative (though based on many years of studying maps and exploring old routes) but it all fits the historic map that I've linked.

By the period that you are interested in, the main routes between the main towns along the east coast of the United States were no longer "trails" but were instead a loosely connected network of dirt roads and ferry links suitable for stagecoach travel. Marco polo (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the argument for the existence of god that goes something like, regardless of whether he exists I can perceive the possibility of a God. This God is perfect, and since in order to be perfect he must exist (corollary: non existence is an imperfection) therefore god exists. I think that Dawkins deals with it briefly in his book, but I don't have it to hand. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.39.113 (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ontological argument. Algebraist 13:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well... it's called reification. It argues existence on the basis of personal imagination. Not terribly compelling logic, suffice to say. Vranak (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the maximum number for a political party to win a majority government in the federal level? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.251 (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]