Revision as of 15:57, 20 September 2008

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

• WP:RD/H

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

How can I get my question answered?

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

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

September 12

T. W. Wood

I would like to know whether Thomas Waterman Wood is a different T. W. Wood from the T. W. Wood that illustrated books for Darwin and Wallace - Commons:T. W. Wood. That they have the same initials, surname, occupation (artist) and apparently first name, it seems to me unlikely that they were different people. But I don't see anything about such work in the biography here, and Waterman Wood seems to have lived in America pretty much exclusively - is it likely that he would have done so much art for British books when he was that far away? Richard001 (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest they are different people. The artwork is quite different in style and nature. Also, the Thomas Waterman Wood article is detailed, yet does not mention any involvement with Darwin. A quick search suggests that T.W.Wood was a zoologist, not a portrait painter. , , , , , , , and so on. Gwinva (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you must be right - it sounds like the British T. W. Wood got up to a fair bit of zoologizing as well as his art, and that would hardly go unmentioned in the article. Since we don't have an article on this T. W. Wood, I'll just add a note that it's not the same one. Richard001 (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And the American (we say) first visited Europe in 1858; hardly time to have significant contact with Darwin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

They are different people. The T.W. Wood that illustrated Darwin was a British artist. Thomas Waterman Wood was President of the National Academy of Design in New York during the 1890's and a leading painter of genre scenes. He founded the T.W. Wood Art Gallery in Montpelier, Vt. his home town and it still exists today. No connection whatsoever with the other T.W. Wood. Paul Worman N.Y., N.Y. ( I am writing his biography and catalog raisonne)

DVDs about British society

Some time next year, I (outside the anglosphere) have to teach a short course about recent British politics or social history or mores or something. (Blairism to binge drinking: I have a lot of leeway.) The students will be 19 or so and I can expect them to study, though they have little experience of real study (as opposed to rote learning) and also little appetite for extended reading. Still, their English comprehension is pretty good. Various books are available, but I fear that the course would easily become boring if based on any one book, however good: this is instead a course that cries out for video (probably with supplementary short readings).

I thought of basing it around a small number of carefully selected (feature) films, but have decided not to do this, as in any worthwhile fiction film the "content" (however scrupulous and perceptive) is likely to be sidelined -- indeed, should be sidelined -- by character, plot, etc. And of course films do last rather long, which makes scheduling difficult. (Plus I think a lot of "relevant" films are terrible: for example, while Brick Lane (which I sat through to kill time during a long flight) has a few good ingredients, it has scenes directed like shampoo commercials, and some ham acting that would be at home in a third-rate TV series.)

Even if there are no copyright issues, unfortunately I do not have the time to start building up a collection of recordings of programs that may happen to pop up on satellite TV. Are there good documentary DVD series? I really haven't a clue about this kind of thing, but f I know the titles of one or two possibilities of predigested series, I can then of course use them to google for more. Thanks. Tama1988 (talk) 05:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The comedy quiz Have I Got News for You Would give a good idea of events, culture and the British sense of humour. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Additionally if you contact the Open University they may be able to help. As an OU student doing social-science courses I am innudated with dvds with documentaries on, these also show late night on the BBC. I suspect they may have reservations about providing you with them for free but it might be worth contacting them, or trying to find ebay-listings with old social-science DVDs and literature (I have all my old dvds for my courses and within there are plenty of 'modern Britian' like documentaries). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure they would enjoy the Seven Up! series. You could use it to introduce the changes that have occurred in British society since the 1960s, and ideas about class and social mobility. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Happy-Go-Lucky and The Royle Family? — Gareth Hughes (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, all. I'd never heard of Happy-Go-Lucky (though I had heard of Mike Leigh), and while I had heard of the other titles mentioned above, I haven't seen any of them.

Have I got news for you sounds to me as if enjoyment would need some degree of pre-marination in British news culture, even if just ten minutes' worth of infotainment from the telly plus a vague awareness of what are the latest obsessions of the Sun. That pre-marination won't be there. Still, if I can pick up a best-of DVD cheaply, I'll give it a look.

The Royle Family sounds as if it would need more time. If this were, say, a week-long, all-day seminar, I could show an episode every day. But it isn't. Still, if a DVD box is going cheap.....

I'l try to get hold of Happy-Go-Lucky. I think I'd enjoy it. If it also turns out to be usable in some way for my pedagogic purpose, well, that's a pleasing bonus.

Seven Up! -- yes! (It had slipped my mind.) But damn, the package (a very reasonable $90US from a certain evil online monopolist) runs 710 minutes. That's about the entire classroom time. Students do not watch videos outside class, unless perhaps they happen to star whoever's the latest heartthrob. Hmmm ... Seven Up! and thereupon fast-forward to 49 Up, perhaps? (Thinking of this makes me glad I asked this question seven months before the course starts.)

If a student at the Open University could tip me off to a few of the DVD titles that were more interesting (and that don't assume too much background knowledge or much appetite for socio-econo-political theory), I'd be very grateful. I could then google for these. Tama1988 (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I did think with 7Up that the individual programmes are not too long and showing clips from them makes sense. If they like cinema heart-throbs, then perhaps an excerpt from Bend it like Beckham with Keira Knightley. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Each entry in the Seven Up series shows clips from the earlier episodes, to show how the people have changed, so you don't need to pick clips on your own. If I were going to show just two episodes to 19 year-old students, I'd show them the second and third episodes (14 & 21). Those have plenty of clips from 7Up, and some rather dramatic developments that 19 year-olds will find particularly interesting. Maybe then I'd finish up with clips from the latest entry (I haven't yet seen 49 Up) to show the subjects in mid-life. Just an idea. —Kevin Myers 14:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

For politics, the later episodes of Andrew Marr's History of Modern Britain might provide a good overview. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the Up Series a lot but yeah, it's a big time investment. I don't think the effect would be quite as strong if you just skipped from the first to the last. I'd second the notion though that the ones of them as teens might work out the best for them, even though they aren't very contemporary any more. 49 Up would not be interesting (IMO) to someone who had not seen the others (a lot depends on knowing how the people were doing in the previous episodes—some who are up are now down, and vice versa). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

How about newspapers? Many English newspapers are available in capital cities (and other large cities) worldwide, though often a day or two old and at a cost of about $4. Something like The Times would have coverage of world events from a british viewpoint, plus more domestic issues such as the current level of knife crime in the cities. Whilst a lot of the news is also covered in the newspaper's online editions, the physical newspaper also gives hints about the relative importance of the news stories to the majority of the readers, and more subtle hints to the society through the paper's layout, TV listings, advertising, etc. Astronaut (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, thank you for the input.

I'll get hold of the Seven Up series and try to digest it myself. When I know it, I'll have a much better idea of how I might deal with it.

Andrew Marr's History of Modern Britain sounds very worthwhile but it's not yet available on DVD. I'll try to remember to poll that online monopolist for it once every couple of months. (When I look now, I'm tld no but mysteriously offered Sex and the City as a substitute.)

I'd like to use newspapers, but I can't. They'd only work for people who can read them easily and for whom at least some of the wordplay would raise a smile (and the students probably aren't quite at that level), who enjoy reading (for most of them, reading in any language is an annoying chore), and who are at least moderately acquainted with the newspapers where they live (and while these kids aren't all gossip and fashion all the time, I'd be as surprised to see them voluntarily reading a newspaper as they'd be to see me reading a fashion magazine). Tama1988 (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

1 dollar a day

Often it's said that a huge part of humankind has to live with less than $1/day.

Is that the purchase power or the nominal value after an exchange? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.K. (talk • contribs) 10:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is the nominal value rather than an equivilent purchasing power value. This article (http://www.divinecaroline.com/article/22357/34117) for instance shows an individual living on a dollar a day and they were getting an egg for '7 cents' - which would suggest that living on $1 a day is not the same in country X as it would be in America itself (where $1 would purchase you very little and 7 cents is not likely to get you an egg). Though I must admit my knowledge of purchasing power and nominal value is limited to a very basic understanding based on seeing the words in context numerous times. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a substantial portion of the earth's people live on less than $1 per day calculated according to purchasing power parity (PPP), according to this source. That said, PPP is calculated using a basket of goods, and goods purchased by the very poor may be relatively cheaper than the basket as a whole. That is, while an egg may cost 7c in nominal US-dollar terms in Indonesia, it might cost 16c in PPP terms, still cheaper than the same egg in the United States. Other things to consider are that people living on less than $1 per day tend to be subsistence farmers who grow much of their own food, or town dwellers who subsist on the very cheapest foods (e.g., the cheapest legumes and grains), to make their own clothing from the cheapest cloth or fibers, and generally to substitute their own labor to make homemade products rather than buying goods that carry a substantial labor cost. Of course, they generally do without things like computers, cars, cell phones, and even bicycles. They get around mainly on foot. This helps to explain how it is possible to live on so little money, but of course these people live in profound poverty and sometimes face hunger or an inability to meet other basic needs. Marco polo (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, remember the eggs in your supermarket are probably better quality than the eggs they are buying for 7 cents (at the very least they are probably bigger). --Tango (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to take away from your larger point but I get excellent eggs for 12.5c an egg (well, a dozen for $1.50) in my local farmers market (New York City). --Regents Park (count the magpies) 18:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, which led to me accidentally removing the above comment--sorry) The $0.07 egg story was published in August 2007. $0.07/egg is $0.84/dozen. Later in the article, she buys 12 eggs for $1.00. As recently as 2007 Q2, wholesale egg prices in New York were only $0.92/doz. As recently as 2006 Q3, the wholesale price was $0.64/doz. Even with high food inflation, I can still buy eggs from a local farmer for $1.50/doz. $0.07/egg does not strike me as ridiculously cheap in 2007 for a market with (presumably) less regulatory burden. -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to agree with Marco polo that many of those "living on less than $1 per day" are subsistence farmers, plus their families, of course. Huge numbers of the world's rural people actually have a negligible income in actual currency, and the "less than $1 per day" figure is surely per head and not per worker. Strawless (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I can often get good quality size 6 eggs for here in NZ for 30 for NZ$4.99 from one of my local vege shops, which amounts to ~US$3.31 or 0.11 US cents and egg. And thats includes GST of 12.5%. Without GST it would be ~NZ$4.44 or ~US$2.94 i.e. ~9.8 cents an egg. So while stuff can be quite cheap in poor countries, this doesn't seem like a great example Nil Einne (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The actual answer to the question of PPP vs. nominal is "both." When the World Bank and other institutions began calculating $1/day numbers, PPP was not widely used. Later, it was adopted as the convention. So, if one is looking at say, data published in 1970, the $1/day would be nominal. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

These ( ) show you don't have to be in a poor country to live on one dollar (ok here one pound) a day. 190.244.186.234 (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Early Christianity

This article states, in relation to various early Christian movements:

"Many disciples didn't associate the earthly Jesus of Nazareth with a spiritual Christ. Some simply followed the Gnostic teachings of the earthly Jesus Movement while others believed in a Jesus that never actually lived in the flesh. Many Christians did not regard any writings as inspired by God."

Assuming these statements are true, which movement(s) never believed Jesus lived in the flesh, and which did not regard the scriptures as God's word? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I recommend the "Historical controversies" section of Christology, and also Docetism, Adoptionism, Apollinaris of Laodicea, Nestorius and others. The scriptures question is more complex, and the article is probably over-simplifying. Many early Christians were also Jews and regarded Jewish scripture as 'inspired by God'. Agreement over which post-Jesus writings were 'inspired by God' was arrived at over time. See Biblical canon. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have studied this issue extensively. The Gnostics were much more likely not to believe in the earthly Jesus - there were varying degrees of this (e.g., Jesus didn't actually come to Earth but was a "projection" in the Platonian sense). As for the Old Testament scriptures, I don't believe the Gnostics held they were from God, although I'm not sure. There was one Gnostic sect that believed there was a true highest God (the God of Jesus), but that his wife (or was it daughter?) accidentally created a vengeful evil God, but was embarrassed so she put a sheet over him - this is Yahweh of the Old Testament. The OT scriptures were universally accepted by Jewish and mainstream Gentile Christians. The New Testament scriptures, obviously, were a lot more controversial, because it wasn't established at the time - the Judaizers wanted nothing to do with Paul, and certain books were or were not included (Epistle of Barnabas almost made the canon); to this day, there are books only accepted by certain sects (e.g., 3 Corinthians).

If you need any clarification on these issues, please feel free to ask further. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Also Docetism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Overruling the Ecumenical Councils

Thank you both. Your replies summarize it neatly. The article also described that the issues of the First Council of Nicaea were agreed upon by a vote! If I am not mistaken, the Roman Catholic Church has accepted the decision of this council. Does a reigning Roman Catholic pope have the authority to change this by holding a similar (albeit, much larger) vote? Today's Roman Catholic leaders are just as capable of making such decisions as the 4th century bishops. Obviously such a drastic change will never occur in the Roman Catholic church, nor would such a change go without a major schism, but I am only interested in whether such a vote is possible, or whether the rule is "What's done is done". — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

They always vote at councils. Apparently several dozen bishops tiptoed out early when the First Vatican Council was taking up the issue of papal infallibility to avoid having to vote on a topic they disagreed with. And some of the documents of the Second Vatican Council passed by relatively close votes.

Not to be glib, but the Catholic church has centuries of practice in re-examining and reinterpreting its past. Apologists will offer arguments that the church never officially held that the sun revolves around the earth, for example, but I'm pretty confident that in centuries past you could get in a lot of trouble for disputing geocentrism, and not only if your name was Galileo.

But there are various ways that the church finds its way through the world. I believe, for example, that a future council could find a way to decide to ordain women (despite attempts by recent popes to prevent that); I don't think they'll suddenly decide the Trinity doesn't exist or that transubstantiation was a misunderstanding. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

ADVERTISING SMALL SCALE BUSINESSES

WHAT ARE THE MERITS AND DEMERITS OF ADVERTISING TO SMALL SCALE BUSINESSES? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thug ngel (talk • contribs) 15:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a response, but more of a suggestion: nobody will respond to messages typed in all caps. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I know that text in "all caps" annoys many editors. I think this question is from a new editor, who is probably not used to Misplaced Pages.

Much has been written about the value of advertising to small business. If you have a library handy, there are books on the subject. Here are a few points to consider.

Advertising can bring new customers and increase business.

Advertising can be very expensive.

It is important (and sometimes difficult) to find out if the advertising is bringing you enough business to cover the cost of the advertising. If you know this, it is easier to decide whether to do more advertising.

Many business include discount coupons in ads. This is partly to increase interest and partly as a way of learning whether people respond to your ads.

The article Guerrilla marketing is very relevant to this question. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we can't do your homework for you. Have you done any preparation work we can help you with?78.144.107.126 (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Marriage Locations

I havent yet decided weither I want to marry inside of a church or outside and enjoy nature. The reason is this. My fiance is pagan/Satanist and i guess i just dont have a relgion at this point in time. Well the question is that we have looked from church to church and found some gorgeous catherdrals, the only problem is that these churches and cathedrals obviously dont support our religion. I understand that if you are having a satanist paganistic wedding that you just dont have a catholic or lutheran priest perform the ceremony. So does it depend from church to church or is it a big flat out no when i ask if you can get like a judge or justic of the peace or whatever they are and have them perform the ceremony in the church. I understand if it would be a no because what kind of catholic wants to marry a satanist in the house of the lord. But are some churches open minded? I mean there isnt anything huge that makes it a satanic ceremony just the fact that we are handfasting and having our own gothic vows rather than the lighting of the candles and so on. So is this a possibility or am i better off getting married outside?

--Chaela <3 (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

sorry to ask but i cant look up for myself. this is the only site i have access to at work and so this is how we work... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaela89 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you really like the venue there's no harm in asking. You'll certainly have more luck with Unitarian Universalists than with Catholics or Evangelicals, but if the answer is no then it's as simple as that, clergy generally aren't into making scenes. You could also look into renting a party hall or a ballroom in a hotel, or enjoying nature :-) Good luck. - Lambajan 16:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems quite odd that a pagan/satanist would want to celebrate one of the most joyous moments of their life in a building specifically built by and for people and ideas that are at stark contrast with their own core beliefs. There are plenty of great locations everywhere that do not specifically exist for the celebration of Christianuty, and that would be great for a wedding. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if you were Christian, you may well not be able to get married in any church you feel like, particularly not the biggest, nicest cathedrals. They often require at least one of the couple to have actively worshipped at that cathedral for a time - otherwise they would too many requests (I know Durham Cathedral is like that - there is an urban legend that any graduate from the University of Durham can get married there, but it's nonsense). --Tango (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

One thing you can look around for is buildings that used to be churches but aren't any longer. My city has at least one deconsecrated church that is now rented out as an event hall, and several more disused churches that are for sale and might be rentable by an enterprising person who approached the owner. You could also try large cemeteries- the one in my city rents out wedding space in its funeral chapels. There are some Christian churches that will let non-Christians use their sanctuaries, but I don't think many pastors will let the church be used for a pagan/satanic ceremony. Except, as mentioned above, the Unitatarian Universalists. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Vice-Presidential election in the U.S. Senate

If no vice-presidential candidate receives a majority in the electoral college, the U.S. Senate decides who shall be Vice President. But if there is a tie, can the current Vice-President cast the tie breaking vote?

Judging by this passage from the Twelth Amendment, I would say no:

"and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice."

But does anyone think the current V.P. can, and why?

92.233.14.195 (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

According to this, that clause "essentially prohibits the sitting Vice President from casting a tie-breaking vote in the case of an evenly divided chamber." --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is a tie, wouldn't the Senate just continue voting until someone has a majority? Sounds like a prime opportunity for behind the scenes deal making to sway a vote: "campaign contributions," jobs for friends/relatives, porkbarrel projects for the Senator's state, or good old fashioned blackmail. There is often a wishy-washy fence sitter who will change parties. Edison (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That "wishy-washy fence sitter" becomes converted to a "kingmaker" (or, in this case, "vice-king maker"). (Which is not to suggest that your VPs are kings of vice - well, not necessarily.) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a princemaker? :-) --Anon, 22:24 UTC, September 12, 2008.

Presidential/Vice-Presidential Elections decided in the U.S. Senate

I'm sorry but part of the process of presidential elections being decided in the Senate doesn't seem clear to me. If no presidential candidate gains a majority in the electoral college, the election is decided in the House of Representatives. But is it the outgoing House that decides or the newly-elected House?

I can't quite figure out when it would take place in the electoral cycle. 92.233.14.195 (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this should clarify both of your questions? It has to be the still-sitting (outgoing) House, I believe, since the new House members wouldn't have started their term yet. The House (not the Senate) is in charge of determining the President. The Senate is in charge of the Vice President. Not to be mixed up. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The incoming house decides the new president in the case that nobody gets more than 50% of the electoral college vote. This is not a problem because the electoral college votes relatively late, and the outgoing president simply sits in office until the new one is chosen (see United States presidential election, 1800). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, OK. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The missing fact from these answers is that the incoming Congress comes in on Jan 3 (see Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution), leaving 17 days of overlap between the new Congress and the old Presidency. During those 17 days the official electoral-vote-counting session is held. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 00:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up question

For the record, an item titled "Follow-up question" was deleted. Reasons follow. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not a soapbox question but a more concise follow-up question for the original question posted here (Original post)

Despite the above statement, IMO this is a "soapbox question". In fact, no real question is asked.

Also, if this table was published in some reliable source, the source should be stated. If not so published, the table ought not to be here. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Furthermore, the IP address 71.100.xxxx has a long history of soapboxing and trolling on this page. This question should be deleted. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you guys were not so trigger happy maybe you would have clicked on the link to the source.

Hey if you do not want people to pin down the truth about the candidates so they can be an informed voter then why should I care. But then I keep forgetting how many of you are from England and have no need of information which might help you decide which candidate represents your own point of view best. Had you not deleted the link to the source then it may have helped others to learn more about the candidates by how they compare. But then I realize you do not care about others either. --- (above unsigned post was by 71.100.3.239 )

Regardless of your intentions, this reference desk is not the right place to serve as host for your project. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not all users, in particular myself, believe their impression of a candidate should remain tainted by everything except relevant fact and my "project" if any is merely to seek assistance in verifying relevant fact which the Misplaced Pages reference desk apparently does not want me or anyone else to do in preference to duping us, a sad, sad thing I must conclude. 71.100.15.15 (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Antireligion and atheism

I want to know what is the difference between Antireligion and atheism? Does this indicate that it is possible for a person that he believes in the existence of god, but does not support organized religion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable distinction to me. — Lomn 20:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There is also the opposite unusual combination, not believing in the existence of gods but thinking that the fact that others do is a good thing. Believing in gods and thinking that organised religion is a positive thing are or two different axis, and all four combinations are possible. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Living in the UK, I wouldn't say that was an unusual combination. On the contrary, here it seems to be pretty much the default position. - 88.111.70.235 (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you consider reading our articles Antireligion and atheism, which you linked to twice? DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the both articles. But none of them explicitly mention the difference except the article Antireligion which mentions "Antireligion is distinct from atheism, although many antireligionists are also atheists." My confusion is in this statement. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Antireligion is ... distinct from antitheism, which is opposition to belief in deities rather than opposition to religion itself." DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The William Blake example is a good way to see the difference. Blake was obsessed with god and spirituality but despised organized religion. He was antireligion but definitely no atheist. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 21:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you RegentsPark. This clarification makes sense. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You could also imagine an antireligious agnostic pretty easily. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Agnostic could go with all four combinations. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson sometimes had violently anticlerical moods, but was not an atheist in any meaningful sense... AnonMoos (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln was also someone who believed in God, but did not like religion. Saukkomies 22:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

damaged steel from the Pentagon

I saw this small article on CNN. It was about damaged steel that was removed from the Pentagon following the attack on September 11, 2001. The source said the steel is going to be used in building the USS Arlington as part of a memorial to the victims who perished in the Pentagon attack. Is that true? What materials may be used in building the USS Somerset as a memorial to the victims who perished aboard United Airlines Flight 93?72.229.139.13 (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

USS Somerset: Metal from a crane that stood near Shanksville - http://www.tribune-democrat.com/local/local_story_219233528.html -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

USS New York: Steel from the Twin Towers - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article723328.ece -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

USS Arlington: Hmm, this says fragments of the Pentagon will be displayed on Arlington, not (unlike the above two) that they'll actually be used in her construction. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

CNN's story (circa yesterday) is here. They first say the steel "will be used to build", but later says "The metal eventually will be encased in plastic and built into the USS Arlington as a memorial", which is rather different from the other two (where significant amounts of metal seem to be used) and rather stretches "used to build" a bit. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm also interested in buying some mementoes that would commemorate the above three vessels. Where would I be able to find the mementoes?72.229.139.13 (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You can buy clothing and other memorabilia from the USS New York website. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 10:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Will any recycled steel be used in the building of the USS Arlington?72.229.139.13 (talk) 05:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sir Charles Russell QC MP

MP for where please? Drawn by Spy. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Amazon finds "Banquet to Sir Charles Russell, Q.C., M.P. on Tuesday, November 23rd, 1886: Speech by Sir Charles Russell and list of those present. Sir Horace Davey, Q.C. in the chair "(here). Perhaps it's Charles Russell, Baron Russell of Killowen (who was both a QC and an MP). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

But maybe not. I guess the picture you're referring to is this one, which says of its subject "Sir Charles Russell, 1st Bt (1863-1928), Solicitor. Sitter in 2 portraits." (and was made in 1907, after that bloke died). It's not his son, who was called Frank nor his grandson (Charles), not yet born. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, there's hunners of Russell Baronets; is our man is Sir Charles Russell, solicitor, 1st Baronet (1863-1928) ? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

He's the solicitor who briefed Carson in the Oscar Wilde libel case, refused to act for Casement, subsequently an unsuccessful parliamentary candidate, sat on the London County Council, and has an entry in the ODNB. DuncanHill (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And is the son of Russell of Killowen. DuncanHill (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• If it's a QC, MP, then its surely Russell of Killowen, who was twice caricatured by Spy.

  But then he was a GCMG, not a baronet. The 1863-1928 chap is the solicitor I struck above, Kitty - do you have a link to the Spy pic? DuncanHill (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Only List of Vanity Fair caricatures which seems inaccurate. I didnt manage to confirm 1st baronet was a QC; He was a KCVO because he solicitored for the monarch and started the firm of his name. He dspm. Kittybrewster ☎ 02:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, the first baronet (1863-1928) was a QC, but not an MP - his father was a QC and an MP (and later a law lord), but not doesn't seem to have been a baronet! DuncanHill (talk) 04:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason why a baronet couldn't also be a GCMG. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

True but the 1st baronet was KCVO not GCMG and was a solicitor not a QC. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sir Charles Russell, 3rd Bt (1826-1883) is a possible one? Geoff Plourde (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

:::It is a Charles Russell born in 1833, we don't have an article on him Geoff Plourde (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It is Lord Killowen Geoff Plourde (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

September 13

What is this type of illustration called?

Hi. Does anyone know what simple background illustrations are called? In other words, if there is text in the foreground, and behind it are faint vine silhouttes or something. They don't have to be repeated patterns.--Welcome Home Cover 56 (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It could be a watermark. --Tango (talk) 08:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks!--Welcome Home Cover 56 (talk) 08:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, a watermark is possible, but in the context of a book it's not likely to be that. More likely it's just what you said -- a background. --Anonymous, 21:25 UTC, September 13, 2008.

How can I find a list of winners of this award?

Cause I met a guy last night who said he won it a few times but I think he was just drunk.--Plastic Lament (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest looking for his name on List of NASCAR drivers? DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

A ship's "stemhold"

In improving our USS Somerset (LPD-25) article (following the question #damaged steel from the Pentagon, above), the source talks about the ship's "stemhold" (ref). While the bow article mentions, in passing, the "stem" it doesn't talk about the stemhold, and I can't find anything worthwhile in Google about "stemhold" or "stemhold" (likewise for "sternhold"). Is this an error on the part of the newspaper, or are we (and the rest of the web) deficient in its mention? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

According to this the stemhold is the bit at the front that cuts through the water. DuncanHill (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that I've only found mentions of "stemhold" (as a ship part) in media that relates directly to this specific story. Surely if this is a term that is, or has really ever been, in use by ship guys then it would be mentioned elsewhere. I'm concerned that one or two journalists at one press conference might have misheard or misunderstood something said by a navy bloke, and I don't want Misplaced Pages (well, me) to be inadvertently responsible for promulgating that little error any further. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Not in the big OED, although "stem" is, in the context of Stem (ship), with associated words stem-end, stem-head, stem-piece, stem-post. Perhaps they meant one of those? Or is it a local term? Gwinva (talk) 09:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Eckhart Tolle and Scientology

Has there every been any suggestion or evidence that Eckhart Tolle (author of A New Earth) was influenced by, or has studied, Scientology? Or, perhaps any similarities between A New Earth and Scientology are coincidental or merely due to L. Ron Hubbard's having studied Buddhism (does anyone know if Hubbard studied Buddhism)? Thank you. --24.211.242.80 (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the Wiki article on Eckhart Tolle, he was influenced by many different people and teachings, including Buddhism. However, the list of Tolle's influences does not include L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology, or Dianetics. Likewise, in the Wiki article on Scientology, Hubbard is credited with being influenced at least in part by Buddhism, as well. There were other crossovers between Tolle's and Hubbard's influences, not just Buddhism, so there should be no huge surprise that their teachings would have possible similarities. However, from my cursory investigation, I do not find that Tolle was inspired by Hubbard. Not that he wasn't, but just that if he was I couldn't find it from my short search. Saukkomies 13:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you --24.211.242.80 (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Listening to Piano Music - Where to Begin?

Hello everyone,

Recently I have discovered that I actually enjoy classical music, and since August I have not been able to get enough. I started with George Lloyd's Symphony No. 5, and from there I went on to Bach's Brandenburg Concertos, Mozart's last symphonies, Mendelssohn's Italian/Scottish, and Shostakovich's 5 and 9. I am looking to start with some piano music, but I am not sure where to begin. The only names I've really ever heard of are Isaac Albeniz,William Bolcom, and John Ireland, but I really don't know anything about them, and I don't want to just blindly buy any old piece by a random composer. There are so many choices and so many sub-genres. I know this isn't a lot of information to go on, but what would you recommend from your own experience? Besides traditional piano music, I am also looking for some lighter piano music to listen to more as an ambiance than a listening experience, maybe like some minimalist stuff? In this area I've heard of Michael Jones. I really am not sure. I am also looking for some more great traditional classical music. I guess it's a very open question. Thanks, in advance, for all the help!!!

Mike MAP91 (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy, what a challenge. Well, starting with the composers whose orchestral music you already like, Mendelssohn wrote lots of piano music. His "Songs without Words" are well known and might be a good intro to him. They vary from slowish tender "flowery" things to virile fast-paced pieces. All quite short (5 minutes max.) From that same era is the supreme writer of piano music - Frédéric Chopin. Virtually anything at all that he wrote is as excellent as anything else - scherzos, ballades, mazurkas, etudes (studies), waltzes, preludes, the Barcarolle, the 2nd and 3rd sonatas (the 2nd contains the well-known Funeral March, but don't let that put you off, it's magical stuff). His compatriot Franz Liszt wrote an enormous amount of stuff, and for a beginner I'd suggest the Consolations, the 2nd book of Years of Pilgrimage, the Hungarian Rhapsodies, and some of the piano transcriptions of Schubert lieder (songs). Speaking of Franz Schubert, have a listen to the 8 Impromptus (in 2 sets), and the 6 Moments Musicaux. Also the Fantasy in F minor for 2 pianists (at one piano). Then there's the 3 B's - J. S. Bach, Beethoven and Brahms. If you like Bach, try some of his 48 Preludes and Fugues played on a piano. They can be a bit dry, but for more fun from the same era listen to Vladimir Horowitz (or anyone) playing Domenico Scarlatti's short sonatas on piano. He lived in Spain for a long time and they have a noticeable Spanish quality about them. That gets us into Albeniz - lots of great piano music ("Iberia" is probably his best known suite) - and Enrique Granados ("Goyescas" is fantastic, and the last movement "The Maiden and the Nightingale" is better known by itself). Across the border to France, and Claude Debussy (Children's Corner, which contains his single best known work "Clair de lune"; Suite bergamasque; 2 sets of preludes), Maurice Ravel (Sonatine; Jeux d'eau; Valses nobles et sentimentales) and Gabriel Faure are the big 3. Beethoven and Brahms - wonderful stuff, but for a beginner I'd start with Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata, and Brahms rhapsodies, intermezzi and assorted pieces (not his sonatas at this stage). Robert Schumann - Scenes from Childhood, Carnaval, Papillons, the Humoresques. Over to Russia and there's Rachmaninoff (where to start? - the Preludes, I'd say), Tchaikovsky (The Seasons), Stravinsky (3 movements from Petrushka), and Shostakovich (24 preludes; 24 preludes and fugues; Dances of the Dolls). I've probably forgotten some huge names, but that's a start. This is just solo piano pieces, and I haven't even started on 4-handed music (apart from the Schubert), and music for piano and orchestra (concertos, mainly). I'll leave the minimalist and other more recent stuff to people who know what they're talking about. Enjoy. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations Mike! I’m interested in how you got into classical music since the composers you name as being familiar to you are actually relatively obscure modern composers. The usual way people discover classical music is through Mozart, Beethoven, etc., or else the other way, jumping the gap between experimental rock and experimental classical. In any case welcome. . .

The Symphonic literature you’re listening to is good, and might be complimented by some Beethoven (Bernstein is a good conductor for Beethoven btw). For “light” piano music you can do no better than the impressionist composer Erik Satie. Another impressionist, Claude Debussy, is similar, but unlike Satie his music can be enjoyed both superficially and profoundly with equal legitimacy. The only minimalist piano music that I really find interesting is John Adams’ piano music. You might find his music interesting in general too. Here is a list of the top piano music literature.

• Frédéric Chopin, often called the “poet of the piano” he wrote almost exclusively for the instrument. You might start with his Nocturnes or his Waltzes.
• Franz Liszt, a staple in the piano literature (which does not necessarily mean he was a great composer by the way), Franz Liszt was the first virtuosic pianist and composer. His music is very flashy, but is often a bit superficial. The Transcendental Etudes are a good place to start with Liszt.
• Ludwig van Beethoven, perhaps the first composer to write music specifically idiomatic to the modern piano. His piano sonatas are considered extremely important in the piano repertoire. The Pathétique, Moonlight, Tempest, Waldstein, and Appassionata sonatas are played most frequently and probably considered most highly.
• Johann Sebastian Bach, the pieces in the Well-Tempered Clavier, books 1 and 2 are basic piano literature everywhere.
• Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, personally I’m not a big Mozart aficionado, but someone will come along here and recommend some good Mozart for you. :)
• Sergei Rachmaninoff, another important name in the piano literature. The Prelude in C-sharp minor is well known.
• Béla Bartók, not a composer most people associate with piano music, but his Allegro barbaro has suddenly become a standard performance piece.
• Claude Debussy, I already mentioned him above, but he is really a master of the piano so he bares mentioning twice. Check out his two books of Préludes.
• György Ligeti, a more modern master of the piano. His Musica ricercata and three books of “Études pour piano” are masterpieces!
• Olivier Messiaen, a 20th century French composer. His music is highly unique and very beautiful. He specialized in writing music on religious themes and incorporated bird songs and complex rhythmic schemes into his music. The “Vingt Regards sur l'Enfant-Jésus” pieces might be a good place to start.

In terms of performers you can’t go wrong with the wonderful Murray Perahia. Maurizio Pollini is quite good too. Vladimir Horowitz is highly regarded as well, although his interpretations can a bit unusual. Glenn Gould is quite good for Bach, but his recording of Mozart in particular should never be used as your primary recording of a piece. His extreme interpretations of some pieces are interesting, but completely non-standard. For all modern piano music Pierre-Laurent Aimard is the best there is.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask if you have more questions. Best, --S.dedalus (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Józef Hofmann is one of my favorite pianists, as is Rachmaninoff, as both a composer and a performer. bibliomaniac15 22:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

For present day composers, try Yann Tiersen (e.g. the first "Mouvement introductif" from La Valse des monstres, the "Comptine d'été" series from Rue des cascades, "Comptine d'un autre été: L'après-midi" or the piano version of "La Valse d'Amélie" from Amélie, or the "Childhood" series from Good Bye Lenin!) or Max Richter (e.g. memoryhouse). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi MAP91 -- you've already received some excellent answers, that cover most of what I'd mention myself. Here's one suggestion for the modern, minimalist or ambient kind of thing you might be looking for: have a listen to Terry Riley. Try The Padova Concert -- I'm listening to the CD as I type this -- while Riley is often called the "founder" of minimalism, this series of improvisations (Riley is a master at improvisation, something cultivated all-too-rarely in the "classical" realm) is slightly more developmental than, say, Philip Glass. You may enjoy the music of Frederic Rzewski as well. Happy listening! Antandrus (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Mike, what a great question! And you've received some fantastic responses from people who really know what they're talking about, it seems. However, I also wanted to put in my two bits' of suggestion by plugging what I believe to be one of the finest places to discover classical music - namely, Minnesota Public Radio, which does a very fine job of providing information on the classical music they play. Here is the web site for Minnesota Public Radio's Classical Music Department, which includes links to hear their broadcasts via Internet. If you spend enough time listening to their programming, you'll end up gaining a 'pretty good' education in classical music. Saukkomies 12:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. A radio station devoted to the genre you're interested in is the best single way - short of a university music degree (which even then focusses on technical aspects of music and less on the grand scope) - to learn about that genre and its sub-genres. Most decent radio stations are now online to the world. I'm listening to ABC Classic FM as I type this, and I learned probably 85% of what little I know about music from this station and its AM predecessors. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow...thanks for all the help everyone! There is so much information here. I think I will go with either Rachmaninoff or Chopin for a first. I do have (from what I've heard) a great classical station in my area (New York City), WQXR 96.3 FM, run by the New York Times. From what I've heard, it is one of the premier classical stations anywhere, so I will start to listen to that as well. At some point, I would like to try some Messaien as well. Thanks again everyone!

Mike MAP91 (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

American Painter: Ray Musselwhite

Ray Musselwhite. Biography

Raymond (Ray) W. Musselwhite (American Painting and Sculpture, 1931 - 2003)

Ray Musselwhite is recognized for his artistic talent, but also for his role as an educator at North Carolina State Univeristy School of Design (1963 -1978). His artistic works show his range from the wood and metal sculptures of his earlier years to watercolors and oil abstract paintings, fiberglass sculptures, ending with prints to the poetry of his later career. The artistic style was “Destruction of the Form” which started with a ground form, then base line and color added, and finally arriving at a new visual experience. His exhibitions and gallery showings range from Georgia, North Carolina, Mississippi, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Washington DC, New York, Lebanon, Japan, Europe.

Ray Musselwhite’s works can be found in private holdings and museums throughout the United States, including the Gregg Museum of Art & Design, Mint Museum of Art, Oklahoma City Museum of Art, and Fred Jones Jr. Museum of Art.

September 14

constitution

how well does the constitution address many of today's contemporary political issues? -sophia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.33.110 (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Which country's constitution and which particular 'contemporary political issues'?--Regents Park (count the magpies) 01:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

the united states and any/all of today's political issues —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.33.110 (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

For whatever constitution, it's very much a matter of opinion, and this is not the place to debate it. Particularly since my opinion on the question is likely to be inflammatory, and I'm tired of defending it. —Tamfang (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The answer to the original question could fill volumes. Without more context, it would be very hard indeed to give you anywhere near a succinct answer. Dismas| 10:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I always thought that if the so-called "strict constructionists" truly had the courage of their convictions, then they should rule the U.S. Air Force to be unconstitutional, since Article One of the United States Constitution clearly refers only to an "army" and a "navy" and "the land and naval forces"... AnonMoos (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

One advantage of the U.S. Constitution is that the framers did not attempt to regulate every aspect of life, nor did they try to anticipate every possible development in the future. Compare with the recent European constitution boat-anchor. (This is just a comparison; Europe faces a much more daunting task in attempting to closely link sovereign nations.) Of course, the U.S. Constitution has given rise to endless legal wrangling and judicial interpretation. And maybe a dynamic equilibrium is the best that can be hoped for in a constitution. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

impending economic depresion of the US

how true is it that there will be a second depression soon and how bad do economists think it will be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.11.185 (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean, "second depression"? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I imagine you can find copies of Ravi Batra's Great Depression of 1990 pretty cheap in used bookstores nowadays -- just look for it in the marked-down-to-almost-nothing pile, next to the Reader's Digest Condensed Books... AnonMoos (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the United States has not had a major economic depression since the 1930s is actually an anomaly, not the norm. In other words, if one looks at the historical record, major economic depressions were regularly occurring phenomena under a capitalist economic system throughout the 18th and 19th Centuries in Europe and North America. See the Wiki article on List of recessions in the United States. Due to several factors, though, the United States has been spared this misfortune for the past 60 years. Some of these mitigating factors have to do with the fact that the United States was the only industrialized country to emerge out of World War II unscathed with its manufacturing sector intact and very healthy. There were other such things at play as well, that involve the basic nuts and bolts of how an economy works, as well as the fact that there were also policies that were undertaken by people who were in positions of influence in the US that have helped avert depressions and economic troubles over the years. However, this still does not negate the fact that, according to classic economics, any given country's economy will undergo periods of "readjustment", during which recessions or depressions will occur. Perhaps the most significant driving factor in the financial crisis that the United States is experiencing right now has to do with the over-inflated price of real estate, and what is happening now is that these over-inflated prices are now "readjusting" to a more realistic value, which means that many people are taking a beating by having payed more for their homes than they are now worth. See: United States housing bubble and United States housing market correction. Just one example of many to illustrate that there are certain trends in the economics of a capitalist economy that seemingly cannot be avoided. So, to address your question, there has not been just "one" economic depression in the past - there have been many. And is the US heading (or already in) another depression is a question that is answered either "yes" or "no", depending at least in part on the political motives of the person who is supplying the answer. Bush supporters would of course be inclined to deny that there is a depression, and anti-Bush people will insist there is. So, read up on what people have to say about it and come to your own conclusion, is my advice. For more information, refer to Economic crisis of 2008. Saukkomies 10:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think there’s something wrong with the economy? Equity markets are diving; housing is going through a once-in-a-generation crash; the current account is still in deficit to the tune of 5% of GDP; household debt service ratios are record high; the federal debt is $10.6 trillion (prior to the $1.6 trillion Freddie/Fannie bailouts and whatever emerges from this weekend’s fiascos; call it $11 terabucks); and we no longer have any faith whatsoever in the credit ratings provided by Standard & Poors, Moody’s and the like. Aside from that, Europe and Japan are contracting; at $100 a barrel oil looks cheap; the statistical accuracy of LIBOR is being questioned; and the WTO Doha Development Round is failing. So, if real domestic demand contracts year-on-year in the first two quarters of 2008, it is just business as usual. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

religion

I need information on an event that happened in 1668 called La Purga in Italy concerning the Vatican and the Illuminati —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.196.46 (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the only references I've found come from Dan Brown's Angels and Demons. Supposedly la purga was when the Vatican branded four scientists with crosses to cleanse them of their sins. I have not been able to find any evidence that this event actually happened. Judging from other allegations made by Dan Brown in The DaVinci Code that are unsubstantiated or inaccurate or flat out fabrications, I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of those. Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, especially since the group normally called the Illuminati were founded in 1776. Algebraist 09:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

a curious hypothetical side-effect of Edward VIII's abdication

His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 links to the text of the Act, which includes:

His Majesty, His issue, if any, and the descendants of that issue, shall not after His Majesty’s abdication have any right, title or interest in or to the succession to the Throne, and section one of the Act of Settlement shall be construed accordingly.

This seems to imply that, should a future monarch (or other Protestant descendant of Electress Sophia) marry a descendant of the Duke of Windsor, the issue of that marriage would be excluded. Ironically, such a marriage would in effect be morganatic (a scheme that had been suggested for Edward but rejected because it had no precedent in British law)! (Footnote: this is purely hypothetical, as the Duke of Windsor had no issue.)

I'm wondering whether anyone knows of any parallel, intentional or otherwise, to this effect: that descent from a specified person can negate some benefit that the descendant might otherwise have. (Not counting any rules about miscegenation, i.e. descent from any member of a large indefinite group.) —Tamfang (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This is just a typically poorly-drafted bit of British royal legislation: the intent was not to deprive all descendants of the Duke of Windsor of their rights, but rather to prevent the transmission of such rights through the Duke of Windsor. As you note, since he had no descendants, there will never be a situation in which the law applies; but if he had, the law would likely have been interpreted according to its intent, rather than its letter. As to your actual question: can't think of one, though laws of attainder come close. - Nunh-huh 03:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, though, while he had no legitimate children, he almost certainly had children. There have been various claimaints over the years, and it's unlikely they're all impostors. Even if the paternity had been proven and formally acknowledged by the royal family, they still could never have succeeded him had he remained on the throne, because they were illegitimate. But it's possible that their descendants could marry into the royal family, and their descendants could find themselves in the line of succession. If the law were interpreted according to its spirit and not its letter, one of Edward's descendants could indeed one day inherit the throne. Hypothetically speaking. Assuming the UK monarchy is around that long. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

A specific instance of any person who claimed in public to be the illegitimate child of the Duke of Windsor would be interesting to hear about.--Wetman (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This claims that he had a son with an Australian Aboriginal woman. Corvus cornix_talk 20:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I remember reading about that one. And I'm sure there was a Canadian and an American claimant as well. Anyway, the real point of my post above was that it's possible that he fathered children outside marriage; and it's therefore possible that one of his descendants could become monarch (for the exact same reason that one of my descendants, or Vladimir Putin's descendants, or Jerry Seinfeld's descendants, could become monarch of the UK). Funny how the law works sometimes: in this scenario any issue of his valid marriage, and their descendants, are excluded forever; but a descent from the product of a non-marital bonk is not a barrier. What a shocking loophole! :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to be a bit puckish: the abdication states that his issue and their descendants are ineligible to succeed, not his lawful issue.  :) - Nunh-huh 05:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Tks for the correction. It's still possible, though. Someone who was raised as the child of Mary and Fred Smith of Dry Gulch, but who was actually (although they never knew it) the biological child of Edward VIII, could produce a descendant who inherited the throne. Of course, nobody else would know about the connection either, so royal watchers would not be writing about how Edward's descendant had come to the throne. Who knows who really fathered some of the Europoean monarchs that were accepted as the legitimate issue of their parents? King Olav V of Norway was said to have been fathered by someone other than Haakon VII, and there's considerable evidence that this was true, but it didn't make any difference as far as the Norwegians were concerned, even it were true. See my recent comment at Talk:Olav V of Norway. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There are claims that the current resident on the throne of the UK is a descendant of Muhammad. Corvus cornix_talk 00:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There are estimates that the number of Charlemagne's living descendants is equal to the number of living humans, and he lived later than Muhammad. —Tamfang (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Medieval Europe Demographics

What was the life expectancy and mortality rates in Medieval Europe? Thanks in advance, 220.244.72.108 (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that over a long enough period of time, the mortality rate hits 100%. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

They're all dead. Goshdarn, if only they hadn't been born so early! - 88.111.70.235 (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Start with Medieval demography. Saukkomies 12:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

But keep in mind that there isn't really an answer, since that sort of info was not recorded for the vast majority of people. And it would differ vastly in different places for different people at different times. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The mortality rate is obviously 100%, but there is a nice summary for life expectancy throughout history at Life expectancy#Timeline for humans. It pegs medieval britain at 20-30 years (btw, jesus christ that's short! it pegs people in the stone age at 33!) 195.58.125.39 (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's life expectancy at birth. It is so low because many died in early childhood. If you made it through to adulthood you had a reasonable chance of getting through to old age. Contrary to popular belief it does not mean that a person of 30 was considered old. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That belief is, strangely, quite prevalent. I don't know if it's due to a misunderstanding of statistics, or just a general belief that the "dark ages" were primitive. That same timeline makes the note that in the early 20th century life expectancy from birth was only 30-40; yet few people would argue that in 1920 people thought a man aged 40 was ancient! Our modern life expectancies are so much higher because the infant mortality rates have dropped, not because people live twice as long. Gwinva (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

J.J. Horak, Netherlands ambassador to Israel in 1993?

I have some archival references dated April 1993, to a "J.J. Horak, Netherlands ambassador to Israel." My WP & web searches have turned up nothing for this surname in that capacity. The name might be written with diacritics that weren't used in the source text. Info or further search advice welcome. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I found one search result using this Google query using the Dutch word for ambassador. It's about the tenth result on the page, beginning "J. Horak, Nederlands ambassadeur in Tel Aviv...". I don't know Dutch, but it looks to me like the link is to some sort of archive search page. Using their search functions I ended up with "Mr. dr. J. Horak, Nederlands ambassadeur in Tel Aviv, wordt binnenkort ambassadeur in de Turkse hoofdstad Ankara. Hij volgt daar mr. J. Warmenhoven op." on this page. It gives a date of "vrijdag 4 juni 1993". It seems you have to pay to read the article, but it's only €1.15. Hope this helps.--92.41.69.168 (talk) 10:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it does help! Apparently searching _Dutch ambassador "Jan Horak"_ places him in Ankara in 1995, but nothing before or since. Pending other results turning up, I think a "Jan Horak" being posted to Turkey after Israel is a likely option. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

According to this article, on August 1, 1996 Dr. N van Dam became the new Dutch ambassador in Turkey, "succeeding Mr. dr. J. Horak, who took early retirement". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all - I used the above input in a fax I sent to the Dutch Embassy in Tel Aviv, and was rewarded (next day, phoning to prompt a response) with the following: Mr. Dr. Jan ("Jenda") Nepomuk Jozef Bedrich Horak, Netherlands ambassador to Israel 1989 - 1993. That'll do it for my purposes. I also took the opportunity to share my impression that their public information staff might be interested in evaluating and possibly enhancing their web presence. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

Why aren't the Irwins getting a new father? February 15, 2009 (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not sure I understand your question. Do you mean the children of Steve Irwin? That would be up to his widow as to whether she wants to remarry and also whether she and her potential new husband would want them to be adopted by the new man. Dismas| 10:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you proposing marriage to Steve Irwin's widow and have been rejected or something? (I *doubt* there's ever been a marriage proposal on the reference desk - but stranger thigns have happened.) Because why would it matter whether his widow was going to marry someone else or not? That would be the only way they would actually get another father. And, plenty of widows have raised perfectly good children.

Now, they could get a male nanny or have someone else int heir lives who would be a male role model for them, but if they did, that would be more in the realm of their private lives and it wouldn't necessarily be mentioned in the press if they did.Somebody or his brother (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone proposed to Clio the Muse here once. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Putin's ancestors and Stalin

According to our article Vladimir Putin, his grandfather was Stalin's personal cook. In Roy Jenkins' biography of Winston Churchill, on page 701, we find Stalin having an interpreter called Putin. Same person? Relative? Anyone know? DuncanHill (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Putin's grandfather may have turned into a "personal cook", but according to Peter Truscott in Putin's Progress he was a "cook at the country houses used by Lenin and Stalin". It doesn't seem to me that a country cook would be likely to have the high level language skills needed by an interpreter, but I suppose it's possible. More likely to be another member of the Putin family, though. Strawless (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This in the St Petersburg Times, has the grandfather as a cook in the Astoria Hotel before becoming Lenin's & then Stalin's personal cook. DuncanHill (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Spiridon Putin's biography in Russian Misplaced Pages is about to be deleted on account of the guy's lack of notability. He never worked in the Kremlin and was not a personal cook of Lenin and/or Stalin, as some tabloids have claimed. He worked at the Lenin Gorki sanatorium as one of the cooks for Lenin's wife and siblings who lived there. After WWII he was employed by the little known Ilyuchivesky rest home near Moscow. As it was run by the Moscow gorkom, the guests of Ilyuchevsky included the then-leaders of the Moscow gorkom such as Nikita Khrushchev and Ekaterina Furtseva. --Ghirla 13:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Putin, IIRC, is actually quite a common surname in Russia. 82.36.179.20 (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. --Ghirla 13:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See also Rasputin. Coincidence? We think not. Edison (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

philosophy

Relation between emotion and knowledge.... "there can be no knowledge without emotion...until we have felt the forcce of the knowledge of it is not ours" .... Discuss this vision of the relation ship between knowledge and emotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.181.109.135 (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't use the word "discuss" in a reference desk question, people will think you are asking them to do your homework... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you know that, or is it simply a feeling you have? --- OtherDave (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

heh heh. Saintrain (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well clearly 'discuss' is a word used in question setting. The above question is phrased in such a way as to make it obvious that 59.181.109 isn't asking the question themselves, but merely repeating a question that they have been asked. It may not be homework, but there's little doubt the request is not a question by the person posting, but a question from someone else that they have been tasked with answering/want to know the answer for. By way of helping you I would consider starting at Emotion, knowledge and experience (hopefully there'll be a segment within that shows experiences and emotional reactions/emotions combining). 21:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler and helicopter travel

Are there any known occassions when Hitler travelled by helicopter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arri66 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

We have an article on Anton Flettner, a German engineer involved (amongst other stuff) in helicopter design. The linked German article implies that only one of his designs was built in some numbers after 1942. The associated picture shows a rather tiny helicopter which was manned by a single pilot and conducted surveillance. It would seem that technology had not progressed sufficiently to build anything heavier with a cabin for VIP passengers. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Germany actually had a couple of helicopter models that were produced during WWI that would have had the capability to carry a pilot and a passenger:
•In the Wiki article on the Flettner Fl 282 German WWII era helicopter, it describes how the B-2 model was able to hold a pilot and an observer/passenger. BMW managed to produce a couple of dozen of these helicopters before the factory was destroyed by Allied bombers. These Flettner Fl 282 B-2 helicopters were stationed in Ramsdorf until the end of the war.
•Likewise, the Focke Achgelis Fa 223 helicopter was also produced in limited numbers - about 20 - before the factory that produced them was destroyed by Allied bombing. The Focke Achgelis Fa 223 actually had a cabin that sort of resembles the more modern-day military helicopters, and was used to transport wounded soldiers, among other things.
•There were several other helicopter models that were only developed as prototypes (not put into production) by Germany during WWII, including the Focke Achgelis Fa 226, that were capable of carrying at least one passenger.
~ Theoretically, therefore, it would have been possible for Adolph Hitler to have been a passenger in one of these helicopters, however, I couldn't find a reference to such an event. Saukkomies 19:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

We also have an article on the Focke-Wulf Fw 61 of 1936. In theory, it was possible, as Saukkomies says, but my guess is that these early helicopters were looked on as too dangerous for important people like Hitler to fly in. It's just as hard to imagine King George VI or F. D. Roosevelt going up in one. Strawless (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Toll free numbers and postage-paid envelopes

Is it illegal to call a toll free number with no interest in whatever they do, or return a postage-paid envelope without whatever they expect? Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer and this may depend on jurisdiction, but I can't see why it would be. Unless you're calling the emergency services or somesuch, of course. Algebraist 21:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, this is strictly a business-type affair (without my finance at stake). I'd be too chicken to ever try prank calling emergency even if I wanted to. Imagine Reason (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

How they would ever establish that you did it maliciously, I don't know, but even then, I doubt it would violate any law. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

They might discover that I've called similar businesses a few times, and establish that I don't have interest in their products. Imagine Reason (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hell, in the US its encouraged ! -hydnjo talk 23:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There are several web sites and I know of several people who encourage/take part in/etc sending back junk mail in the included postage-paid return envelope just to prove a point to the company. From what I've read, credit card companies alot a certain amount of their budget to paying for the postage on these types of things. There also used to be a web site or two that asked people to send to the web site, the free AOL discs that the people would receive in the mail. They, the web site owners, wanted to send them back to AOL in bulk. See the "Controversy" section of AOL disk collecting. Dismas| 04:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It can be illegal to call the free lines in the US. Someone set up a phone machine to call a religious organisation's 1800 number continuously. They were convicted.Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That might come under some form of nuisance call. But just phoning once for no particular reason - that wouldn't be illegal, would it? The analogy is the religious groups that come knocking on your door. If they're told they're unwelcome, they'd be foolish to keep on coming back. But they don't know this till they knock the first time and discover what the resident's attitude is. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, if you installed Skype and then rang the numbers I doubt they could ever track you. Richard Avery (talk) 08:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

September 15

Cloak

Are cloaks completely dead as serious garments? I imagine that a strong waterproof cloak would be a quite versatile piece of clothing. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is all OR. A cape requires a lot of material, much of which is flapping around your legs. It weighs a ton because of all that extra material. It gets caught up between your legs, unless you can afford silk or cotton clothes and a silk or cotton lining on the cape, just with noraml walking. Forget trying to run unless you can bundle it up in your arms before you take off. You certainly can't ride a bicycle in one. Even sitting in a car, it is bulky and interferes with the operation of seat belts and gear levers. It is too big for the overhead rack on an airplane. If it is waterproof, the rain drips down onto your legs or footwear (including inside your boots). If it isn't waterproof, it gets soggier and soggier the whole length and then weighs two tons. The hem is always covered in muck if you wear it full length, and if you don't, everything drips and splashes right at the place where the cape ends. It is a lovely elegant garment when made of velvet or silk or satin and can be whirled about with great style and panache. It does, however, require a wardrobe mistress, a servant and a very leisurely lifestyle in order to show it off. You can hide things -and perhaps another person-under it and use it for a blanket or a pillow. For most practical purposes, it is a complete bust for modern life. That means, however, it is likely prime for a new fashion trend. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The last man who rocked the cloak the way it was meant to be was FDR. If he were here today, he could still rock the cloak. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually there was a man who 'rocked the cloak' at least as effectively since FDR: Pierre Trudeau. this is the only picture I can find but I'm sure there are others. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In the developed western world, cloaks seem to survive mostly in uniforms, formal evening wear, and fancy dress outfits (wizards, Hallowe'en, etc.) but in some other parts of the world, such as Africa, you do still see them in everyday use - for instance, see burnous and bernos. Strawless (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that cloaks haven't gone anywhere, but like everything else, it has evolved. Look at the trenchcoat (or coats in general). That's essentially a cloak with holes for the arms. Name one advantage that a waterproof cloak has over a trenchcoat? 195.58.125.39 (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

They're still popular in some circles - especially amongst historical reconstructionists, folk music afficionados, some goths and the like, but definitely more for women than men. Steewi (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ponchos (the kind for girls/women that was recently in fashion, and then quickly out of fashion) might count as a cloak, as would a sort of a wrap to go with an evening gown. They've just changes style, perhaps? --Alinnisawest, (extermination requests here) 00:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would a Georgian minister say this?

I'm always hearing about the "Israeli-Georgian" connection in the 2008 South Ossetia War, but I don't believe it. But how do I explain the following?

From http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1010187.html

' Jewish Georgian Minister Temur Yakobshvili on Sunday praised the Israel Defense Forces for its role in training Georgian troops and said Israel should be proud of its military might, in an interview with Army Radio.

"Israel should be proud of its military which trained Georgian soldiers," Yakobashvili told Army Radio in Hebrew, referring to a private Israeli group Georgia had hired.

Yakobashvili, Georgia's minister of reintegration, added that this training provided Georgia with the know-how needed to defend itself against Russian forces in the clashes which erupted last last week in the separatist region of South Ossetia.

Yakobashvili said that a small group of Georgian soldiers had able to wipe out an entire Russian military division due to this training.' Haaretz.com, 11 August 2008

I'm trying to understand the political motivations behind these statements. Who are these statements directed to? Was he trying to rally Georgians? Or was he trying to encourage more military support from Israel? Was he trying to say to the Russians that Georgia is well trained and equipped? 203.217.36.198 (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If the Western press, the Georgian press, the Russian press and the Israeli press all report that the Georgian army received support from Israel, perhaps it is time to stop being skeptical and accept that this is probably true. And why did Yakobashvili say these things? Well, he was interviewed by the radio station of the IDF, what else is he going to say, "your support didn't help us one bit"? DAVID ŠENEK 16:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Georgia receiving arms from Israel. I already know that this is true. I'm talking about the particular statement quoted and the political reasons for saying so.

I guess what you're saying is that Yakobashvili was trying to gain empathy from the Israeli audience listening. He was trying to build up support for the Georgian cause. Does anybody else have anything to add (or correct)? 124.171.166.27 (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a hopeless task to disentangle the confused and self-contradictory pronouncements of the Georgian leaders anxious to gloss over their ignominious defeat. As may be inferred from the Russian press, Yakobashvili is a Georgian Jew who recruited several recently retired Israeli generals to lead the Georgian units into South Ossetia. Quite a few Russian soldiers were killed with Israeli-made weapons. As a result, Russia offered to sell its high-tech weaponry to Syria. The Syrian leader visited Moscow immediately after the conflict to finalize the deal. That will make Israel think twice before selling their weapons to rogue regimes in the future. Naturally, Yakobashvili is anxious to retain Israel as a valuable arms supplier, hence his statement. --Ghirla 13:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Consider along with Ghirla's remarks, the need to distinguish the "players": the Government of Israel (arms dealing), and these trainers (former IDF personnel now employed by private companies) are not equivalent to "its military," a.k.a. the IDF. Here's another source with more extensive content (including what's in the Haaretz link above), from the online English "ynet news" published by mainstream daily Yedioth Aharonoth. It distinguishes between the private companies' activities and those of the Israel Ministry of Defense. Of note in this type of reportage is the description of Georgian Defense Minister Davit Kezerashvili as "a former Israeli who is fluent in Hebrew" – but not long ago in the Israeli press I read that he attended one year of high school as an immigrant teen, then returned to Georgia. (The Israeli identity card is issued at age 16 while the age of majority is 18, so it may be techically true he's a "citizen who returned to his native Georgia.") I'm translating this from the Hebrew Misplaced Pages to correct the citation on his page here, as just because it was published in a newspaper article doesn't mean it's authoritative or reflecting reality; see the variety here. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ghirla and Deborahjay. I believe that sometimes I can get a better understanding of an issue when I hear different viewpoints on the matter. Any further comments would be much appreciated. 203.214.118.24 (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Stadium music

In the US, if a stadium for an NFL, NBA, MLB, or NHL team plays a popular song over the PA, do they have to pay royalties to a record company, like radio stations do?97.118.170.250 (talk) 05:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I’m sure they do, and the royalties are almost certainly paid to ASCAP or BMI, not to “a record companie." Radio stations don’t pay the record companies directly either incidentally. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, these things depend on how long they play the song for. I think under a certain number of seconds doesn't require payment, but once it gets beyond a point they have to pay. I remember this featuring in a Charlie Brooker Screenwipe episode where he explained loads of stuff about how much it costs to make even a basic tv show. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Recession and Depression

Are recessions and depressions absolutely necessary (to clean up after the market tested some options) or just residual risk (thing that get wrong even if we do our best)? Mr.K. (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

See Business cycle. Some people argue that recessions serve the purpose of "cleaning the fat" out of the economy to "make way" for the following exansion. They put weak companies out of business thus ensuring that only the stronger ones survive. The employees (and other resources) from the bankrupt companies are put to use more efficiently in the stronger companies. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

History of science question

Not sure if this belongs here or in the Science Desk, but it feels more arty/historical than scientific, so will give it a go. Somewhere, maybe in a Borges story, I read that natural philosophers used to believe that where there was a disease, there would also be the plant that cured it - a kind of sympathy between the two causing one to grow in proximity to the other (I suppose like quinine easing the symptoms of malaria, both deriving from the tropics). Can anyone tell me the term for this school of thought and point me to an article about it?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 09:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sympathetic magic doesn't sound quite like what you're after, but it turns up in Traditional Chinese medicine. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Does Doctrine of signatures fit your requirements?--droptone (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The theory of humorism included plenty of ideas that are very similar to sympathetic magic. Scholars from Antiquity until the Renaissance made many "intuitive" associations between health conditions and the foods or drugs (the difference between the two were not particularly strict) that could fix them. Medieval medicine has more information on the application of humorism in the Middle Ages. See for example "Theories of medicine" and the example of the use of the plants skullcap and lungwort.

Peter 08:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone - lots of grist for the mill - maybe I was wrong, maybe there was no such theory, about proximity linking disease and cure - still, got lots of grist from the mill from you guys. Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Erm, what was that British battle?

Hello all. Came across an interesting question at WT:MILHIST, which has failed to get an answer there, and so I advertised the wonderful ref desk. So it's now up to you all to prove your worth! Gwinva (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I read a quote once, moons ago, about a British battle, probably WWI, with appalling losses for the British. It was so appalling that... if I remember the quote correctly.. some politician or general or other was trying to rebuild the British army, and someone remarked, "Can't you see, you're fighting against X?" where X is the name of the battle... sorry so vague. Thanks in advance. Ling.Nut 15:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There's the Battle of Fromelles fought North of the Battle of the Somme, with appalling losses for the Allies including the British. Could that be it? Julia Rossi (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There are stats for battles here which outrank this unless it's for a single charge, including the Battle of Passchendaele (80K British) in a summary here. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the actual casualty figures Battle of Passchendaele is the one deeply enough embedded in the British psyche that someone is likely to have made the above remark. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall the battle either, but I remember hearing a quote like that in the beginning of My Boy Jack (film). — jwillbur 22:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ovo vegetarians

Do ethical ovo vegetarians actually exist? I have a sneaking suspicion that ovo vegetarianism is, in practice, nothing more than a logical possibility. I have never met or heard of anyone who considers eating eggs ethical but drinking milk and eating cheese, yogurt, etc. unethical. At best, ovo vegetarianism may exist among people who in principle would be lacto-ovo vegetarians, but are lactose-intolerant, allergic to milk, etc. Has anyone else ever encountered someone who rejects meat, fish, and dairy products on ethical grounds, but accepts eggs? —Angr 12:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sure there is someone, perhaps someone who keeps hens in ideal conditions in their back-yard, but I have never heard of any organisation or religion that advocates this diet. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone else ever encountered someone who rejects meat, fish, and dairy products on ethical grounds, but accepts eggs? See our article on this very creature! --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My sister, believe it or not, is an ovo vegetarian (and i never thought it was especially weird until now...). She doesn't eat diary on ethical grounds however, more becuase she thinks it bad for her. but still, doesn't change the label..82.22.4.63 (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a close relative who doesn't see eating dairy food as unethical, but does not eat any dairy food, although she does eat eggs. she is not lactose-intolerant. There's a tendency to assume that all vegetarians have some ethical basis for their diet; it's not always an accurate assumption. Consider, in the non-vegetarian world, the kerfluffle over dolphin-safe tuna (a concept with little sympathy among tuna), or the many Americans who down hundreds of pounds of beef per year but are adamantly opposed to the human consumption of horsemeat. --- OtherDave (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware there are people who are vegetarians for other than ethical reasons. (I myself mostly eat vegetarian food, but not for ethical reasons -- you could call me an unethical semi-vegetarian!) But this question was specifically about "ethical ovo vegetarians", people who exclude dairy for ethical reasons, but include eggs. The anon's sister excludes dairy for health reasons; your relative excludes dairy for some unspecified reason that isn't ethics. So we still don't have an example of an ethical ovo vegetarian. —Angr 07:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake -- I didn't catch the "ethical" in the original question. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This question is impossible to answer with complete certainty. As you suggest, they probably do not exist; but who knows? There could be some person out there who loves animals but absolutely hates bird ova (the existence-of, not the taste-of). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, okay, my first question, "Do ethical ovo vegetarians actually exist?" is probably impossible to answer with complete certainty, but my last question, "Has anyone else ever encountered someone who rejects meat, fish, and dairy products on ethical grounds, but accepts eggs?" should be answerable. —Angr 08:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Consequences to acceptance of risky or bad debt by Federal Reserve

In recent months the U.S. Federal Reserve System (or the Fed) has agreed to accept billions of dollars worth of risky or bad debt from investment banks and other financial institutions, including the failed investment bank Bear Stearns. After the failure today (or yesterday) of Lehman Brothers, there is discussion of possible Fed intervention (further extension of credit). With the news today that AIG, a huge insurer in serious danger of bankruptcy is asking the Fed for a bailout, and with other major corporations likely to follow, I am wondering whether there are limits to the Fed's ability to prop up or resuscitate failing megacorporations. What are the possible consequences of the Fed accepting perhaps more than a trillion dollars of supposed collateral that may in fact be worthless? What are the consequences of lending hundreds of billions of dollars to corporations that may never be able to repay? And if there are no consequences, why doesn't the Fed just send a check for $1 million to every U.S. citizen? I have some understanding of finance but am a little baffled by the role of central banks. Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The possible consequences would be losing the money... --Tango (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, they don't have an unlimited purse. Expect the foreign debt to balloon in the coming years. Also, sending a million dollars to every US citizen would be a bad idea even if they could. Inflation would skyrocket. 90.235.8.202 (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

True. Even sending $300 to every American was a stupid idea. —Angr 14:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Try looking at pages such as inflation, national debt. There will be a limit to the number of firms a government can 'realistically' bail-out. The consequences of lending money that may never return could be positive (if it helps prevents a longer/harder depression) or negative (if it ends up that the depression happens anyway and taxpayers end up with a big loss with no notable upside). The value of money is not in the number itself, but in its purchasing power. If everybody was given $1m it would ruin the value of the dollar, having a horrific impact on the local and international economy, would hugely affect imports and exports and would make problems much worse. It's important to remember the value of a dollar (or any money) is in its perceived worth not in the amount written on the bill itself. (see Fiat currency, and gold backed currency - if that article is titled that) 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, forget my question about $1 million to every U.S. citizen. Obviously the purchasing power of each dollar would then be much smaller than at present. But nobody has answered my main question, namely, what are the limits on action by the Federal Reserve and the government? Can they bail out every failing corporation and then everything will be hunky-dory? Or do they face any constraints? Marco polo (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The fed would be limited by its own balance sheet. Note that in some cases (like Bear Stearns), other banks also provide some of the capital to protect depositors. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It's not as much about the money itself as it is about Moral hazard. Mainly, if the feds starts bailing out some corporations, other corporations will, at the least, raise the probability of their being bailed out as well and will take more risks. With the Lehman call, the feds may be saying, we're not going to do this again. (IMHO, they should have kept their fingers out of Bear Stearns as well!) The money is an issue but, in the worst case, they can just go ahead and print more of it (devaluing the dollar of course) or go out and acquire more debt or some such not so good thing. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 16:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ba in finance, and good question. First of all, your thinking is slightly a Loaded question. The limits? I do not agree that there are limits. Its a hugely complicated issue. You could look at this from a legislative angle. What if congress passes a bill, and the president signs it, that says the limit of government bailout shall not exceed 10 billion dollars per year. Now that you have a limit, do you really think exceptional circumstances won't necessitate emergency bailouts? So if the limit on paper is $10B, and the de facto limit is undefined, what am I supposed to tell you?

The most logical way to look at this, is that government spending for these types of financial doomsday prevention, are best resolved on a case-by-case basis. In business school, we had to do a case study on Long-Term Capital Management. read that article, and it has some great links under the See Also section. The government should handle everything on a case by case basis, and only give out bailout funds when it is "worth it". They should not give bailouts when they're not worth-it. But you're question is way to advanced for me to properly answer it. Maybe you have an interest in politics? Sentriclecub (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sentriclecub is obviously much more knowledgable on this subject than me, so listen to him :) Just to add a little bit to his answer: the federal reserve can't wave a magic wand and make money out of nothing (well, they could, but inflation would reduce the value of the US dollar so they would not be adding actual capital value), it has to come from somewhere, whether it is from taxes or from foreign lenders. But realize that the US government first of all has a pretty darn huge income stream, much higher than any single coorporation. And they can borrow huge amounts money without any problem at all. So to answer you question, what's the limit, well, the federal reserve can borrow as much money as it needs to. It doesn't have the kind unpassable limit you're thinking of.

However, as I said, they can't wave a magic wand and get cash. They have to pay interest on the loans it gets, which will come from tax-payer money in the future. So they can't go completely crazy. But the bigger issue is (as someone already said), moral hazard. Companies need to be able to sustain themselves, and if they think that the government will just bail you out anytime you run into trouble, companies will not make responsible choices. The actions the fed are taking right now are emergency tools. If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were allowed to go under, it would seriously destabilize the world economy and very possibly lead to a new depression. Together, they hold a debt of around 5 trillion dollars. If you sum up what the entire world spends in a day on stuff, it's about 50 trillion. So the fed had to bail them out. They really had no other choice. 195.58.125.39 (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't Charles Ponzi's operation illegal even without the Ponzi scheme?

In light of the recent financial troubles Wall Street is suffering through, I started to meander through Misplaced Pages articles (as you do), and I came upon the fascinating article on Charles Ponzi (I was reading the article on Goldman Sachs, and in the history section there was a link to Ponzi scheme). I knew about his Ponzi scheme and how it worked, but I hadn't heard about where the income stream from his company was supposedly coming from. The article states that he had built his business on the idea that in Italy (which had a very weak currency compared to the dollar), someone would buy lots and lots of international reply coupons cheaply, and send them to the US where they would be exchanged for postage stamps, which would then be sold at a profit. The article states that "his was a form of arbitrage, or buying low and selling high, which is not illegal".

My question is this: how can this possibly be legal? Setting aside the fact that his business was failing and that he was using his eponymous scheme to make it seem that it wasn't, how can this fundamental business model be allowed to exist? I mean, he's basically taking huge sums of cash from the United States Postal Service, and not giving anything back. I mean, all money is paid to the Italian post-service. Why would the USPS allow that? It's basically stealing money from the government! And this part of his business wasn't kept from the public, it was well-known that this was what he based his business on (well, it wasn't, but supposedly it was).

In the article on international postal reply coupons, it says that "in practice the overhead on buying and selling the very low-value IRCs precluded profitability", and that since then, prices for the coupons have been adjusted so as to make this type of thing impossible. But my point is this: it's not completely infeasible that he could have built a business on this practice in the 1910s and 1920s, and in fact most people were convinced that this was actually what he was doing. And nobody was stopping him, not until his wider criminal actions were revealed. So why didn't the US government shut him down sooner, and saved all those poor people from losing their life-savings? 90.235.8.202 (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Without truly understanding the workings of this system, from what you state where is the illegal activity? If the US government is foolish enough to offer a product that can be redeemed for something that has a higher value than the purchase-price of the original product then anyone taking advantage is simply operating within the boundaries of the system. I don't see where in your details it amounts to stealing? They offered these coupons for sale at price X, they can validly be redeemed for stamps at price Y, if someone can find a way to make X cost less than Y then they can turn a profit. examples of arbitrage occur all over the place - the bookmakers who accidently set odds that make it possible to bet on all outcomes and still turn a profit, the company offering free air-miles that work out being worth more than the cost of the product itself (see the film Punch drunk love), the company offering vouchers that are worth more than the minimum-contract period required to obtain them. It sounds to me like this is much the same thing, an oversight that few people would A) notice and even fewer would go to the effort to exploit. Though i'm bound to be misunderstanding something. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

But this is different. The coupons purpose was to allow people to send a letter from overseas and provide postage so that the recipient can respond. The purpose was never to allow large-scale trading of these coupons, Ponzi was clearly abusing the system for his own profits, to the detriment of the government of the United States. Certainly, one can argue that what he did wasn't technically illegal since he had found a loop-hole in the system, but it would take congress (or indeed, the post office) all of ten minutes to close this loop-hole (by, for instance, making it illegal to change the coupons in above a certain value).

And remember, this wasn't a private enterprise he was scamming, this was the US government. Different rules apply. If a bookie makes the boneheaded error where someone can bet on everything and make money, that's certainly unfortunate for the bookie, but it doesn't go much further than that. If a company offers frequent flyer miles with their products that exceed the value of the products, then they are only responsible to their stockholders.

But the profits that Ponzi generated (well, supposedly generated) came straight from the pockets of the taxpayers! His whole business model was to cleverly exploit a flaw in the system to steal money directly from the taxpayers! What sane government allows this to happen?

As for anyone not noticing, he had thousands of customers, and was personally made a millionare within six months, which he very publicly claimed came straight from the exchange of these coupons (it didn't, as it turned out). You'd think maybe someone at USPS or the Department of Justice would perk up and say "Hey, this dude has apparently stole millions of dollars from us! Maybe we should do something about it?" 90.235.8.202 (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Or even "Hey, this dude says he's stolen million of dollars from the postal service, yet we don't see any loss of money on our balance sheets. Maybe we should investigate were he got the money". But they didn't, it was the media (thank god for the free press, huh) that exposed him. 90.235.8.202 (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether it was the intended use of the system is irrelevant, the system they produced evidently had a hole in it and some people exploited it. Different rules don't apply to taking advantage of a poorly considered product/policy. Certainly it 'feels' worse because innocent tax-payers are made to pay for government inability, but similarly innocent share-holders would pay for inept management/price-setting in the bookies example. A government is just a liable to stand by its fine-print as other firms. As unintended a consequence as this may be, until the loop-hole was closed 'exploitation' will continue. The government doesn't so much "allow" it, they simply don't disallow it. Obviously once enough attention has been raised it will eventually be stopped, but the problem with people exploiting weaknesses in systems is that they will always find new ways to do it. Benefit fraud is a huge problem for governments, though in many cases that includes breaking the law, but from the sounds of it was Ponzi did (in the coupon department) didn't go against the rules that were laid out - that it was against a government (and that taxpayers felt the pain) is a mute point, they are just as responsible as business for the ineptness of their decisions. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If coupon resale is not explicitly illegal (under the jurisdiction where it is being sold) then there is nothing illegal in buying it at the low asking price and selling it at the higher price. Arbitrage traders explicitly exploit these price inefficiencies and often, if the market is imbalanced but the low initial price has to be maintained, legal prohibitions against resale are necessary. Ticket scalpers are a good example of arbitrage traders and ticket scalping is prohibited by law in many areas (not that the prohibition works very well!). --Regents Park (count the magpies) 17:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Voting in Indiana

Hello, I am a student at Indiana University, and I am from Missouri. I registered to vote in Indiana, and I voted in the Democratic primary last spring. I plan to vote again come November, but I do not have any documentation of my voter registration with me in Indiana. What can I do, or what do I need to get, to ensure that I can vote in the coming elections? Thanks, 156.56.171.157 (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to mail off for a absentee ballot from your local Missouri clerk. You wouldn't be allowed to vote in Indiana even if you had your registration as you are not a Indiana voter. If you qualify to vote in Indiana (I'm not sure) the deadline to register is Oct. 6 - this link also recommends visiting the canivote.org website. Rmhermen (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If he's registered to vote in Indiana, why not? He should call the County Clerk of the county in which the campus he attends lies; if he's at Bloomington, this would be Monroe County, Indiana, and the County offices are in the local phone book - and linked to from our article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally, full-time students are eligible to vote where they attend school... AnonMoos (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You do not need documentation of your registration to vote. If you registered and voted, then you are still registered at whatever address you used when you registered. The precinct workers often do not check people's identification at polling places, but that's the most they generally will do. So, if you haven't moved, just go back to the same polling place where you voted last time (unless you've received a notice that the polling place has changed). You might want to bring identification and some proof of residence, like a recent utility bill, if you're concerned that you might be challenged. You should be able to vote there. If you have moved since last spring, then you need to register again using your new address. You should do it immediately, as the deadline for registration for voting in November is probably very close. You can register with your town or county clerk or board of elections and perhaps at some other government office. Do some research in Google using the terms "voter registration Indiana" to find out your options for registration. Once you register at a new address, they will typically send you a postcard with your new polling place. Marco polo (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's state-dependent, which is why you should talk to the county clerk; in some states, moving from one dorm room to another would not require reregistration. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, voting in the Democratic primary does not indicate that the questioner is registered to vote. Primaries are run by the policital parties. The real elections are run by the states. It is trivial to vote in both Democratic and Republican primaries without being qualified to vote in the real elections. -- kainaw™ 18:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, this depends on the state. In my state, as in Maryland, primaries are run by the counties, under state authority, just like the general election. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I am a former chief election judge in Maryland. (That means one of the two people in charge of a voting precinct.) I believe the practice here applies to Indiana as well. With that disclaimer: If you voted in the Democratic primary, you certainly were a registered voter at that time. The difference between a primary and a general election is that some states have closed primaries in which, for example, only registered Democrats can vote in the Democratic primary. A registered Republican who wanted to vote in the Democratic primary would have to change his party affiliation by the cutoff date (usually several weeks before the primary). In other words, when you show up to vote in a closed primary, you get the ballot for the party listed with your name in the voting registry.

In an open-primary state, you will be asked which party's primary you want to participate in. Your registration doesn't matter, but you can't vote in more than one primary at a time, so you have to choose which party.

(None of this applies if you actually participated in a caucus, rather than voting in a primary. Did you have voting machines, a voter registry, all that jazz?)

In Maryland, the primaries are run by the state board of elections, not by the parties. (Election judges are commissioned by the state.) That's true elsewhere: you will recall the flap in Michigan and Florida, where the party would have had to reimburse the state for the cost of re-running the Democratic primary. I believe but cannot say for certain it's true in all states.

The board of elections where you registered in Indiana (it's probably a county board, even if you voted in a city) should still have you on its rolls. Check with them ahead of time to be sure; your having voted in the primary tells me you're registered, and your name will appear in the voting register for the precinct where you voted in the primary.

If you show up at the polling place and for some reason are not listed in the register, you have the right under federal law to cast a provisional ballot. This is something like an absentee ballot; it will be compared against the lists of actual voters to ensure that you didn't go to more than one precinct and attempt to vote. --- OtherDave (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And, more importantly, to make sure you are registered. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OtherDave got it. Also, there is no penalty for registering more than once, or in more than one place. The only restriction is that you can only vote in the last place you registered, and you can only vote once per election. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(original user here) Well, that was a bigger answer than I anticipated! I found this Indiana Statewide Voter Registration System, and I found my name in it under search results. I think this shows that my registration applies to both primary and election. It also had a note, "no additional documentation required", so is my driver's license pretty sufficient? I also changed addresses from my IU residence last school year, so do I need to update my address or is it no big deal? Thanks, 98.223.188.95 (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd guess that you'd have to update your residence: when I took an American government course a few years ago, my professor spoke of a close vote here in Pennsylvania that was overturned because tons of college students (who had voted for the measure) had moved addresses since registering, making their votes invalid; the vote was overturned because the margin without the disqualified students was a majority against. I'd definitely update it; there's no real reason not to, at any rate. Nyttend (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And if you don't, you will have to, at least, spend time on election day affirming your change of address. No reason not to do it now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Public Law 109-2005 requires Indiana residents to present a government-issued photo ID before casting a ballot at the polls on Election Day, says the Indiana secretary of state. The link includes the requirements for valid ID.

<editorial>This is the bogeyman of voter fraud, a near-mythical crime feared mostly by political parties who can't sign up enough folks. I'm glad I'm not working a precinct in Indiana. As check-in judges for the 2004 election, my partner and I handled some 50 voters per hour -- that's about 70 seconds from "next, please" to "next, please"." Add 20 - 30 seconds for people fiddling with their ID, and you're going to need a lot more precinct workers. (The head of the Baltimore County board of elections, asked about the demographics of her workers, said that their average age was "deceased.") If you have nothing to do for 15+ hours on election day, plus set-up the night before, plus mandatory training, volunteer to be an election judge. If not, don't grumble at the lines. Blame your state legislature.</editorial>

You may want to look at 'a resident of another state attending college in Indiana' as well, especially the third and fourth paragraphs. Though if you already registered and voted in Indiana, then I guess they think you live there permanently. --- OtherDave (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why does it say North Korea is a socialist republic?

When they are obviously communist? Also their official name is, Democratic People's Republic of Korea. But they aren't democratic, nor a republic. 98.221.85.188 (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Their view is that their society has reached the level of socialism and is now heading for the ideal state of communism. Obviously, neither applies. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And the natural extension of my colleagues answer is that they get to pick their own name ;) SGGH 16:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a republic. North Korea doesn't have a monarchy. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

So any government that doesn't have a monarchy is a republic by default? That's not correct. 98.221.85.188 (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. 82.36.179.20 (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Anarchies don't have monarchs, and they aren't republics. 98.221.85.188 (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No, there can be oligarchies and pure democracies, for example, but as the common people don't all make governmental decisions (it's not like ancient Athens or traditional New England town government), it's not a pure democracy, and as the government is officially all elected, it's not officially an oligarchy. "Republic" doesn't necessarily mean that the people get to choose who is in charge: even in the Roman Republic, most people didn't have a say. Nyttend (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a hereditary republic ;-) Itsmejudith (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As was Florence.... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Syria under the Assad dynasty is a "hereditary republic" (apparently)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, note that there are different kind of monarchies. Just because something is a monarchy, it doesn't mean that the people aren't in charge: look at the UK or Sweden, for instance. 195.58.125.39 (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And now, for the umpteenth time on the ref desk, here is, the chart! Hopefully, it will serve its purpose and provide some understanding./Coffeeshivers (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The democracy/republic chart

Except that you'd have a hard time convincing everyone just exactly where North Korea fits in the table. There could be arguments for all 4 spots. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

How would one argue that North Korea is democratic? 82.36.179.20 (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

They have elections therefore they are a democracy. Of course it's a one party system, but that is irrelevant in terms of describing a democracy. You still get to choose which member of that one party represents you (Though you really don't as it is an uncontested list system, the problem lies with the definition of Democracy). Fribbler (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The official title of the country asserts that it's a democratic republic. Some people might actually believe that; others see it as an undemocratic republic. In its choice of leaders it has operated more like a monarchy than a republic, and again, both democratic and undemocratic could be seen to apply. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree totally. I was just responding to the IP's question on how it could be considered a democracy. Fribbler (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Republic" has sounded good since the time of the Romans, and in today's world even kleptocracies, megalomaniocracies, and crime syndicates with pet parliaments find it necessary or useful to pretend that they have actual elections. And the Lincoln Rule applies to "democracy" much as it does to "leg." (If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four -- calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.) --- OtherDave (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC) (added sig after noticing I hadn't added it)

Just trying to clear this up a bit:
• Republic - this only means that there is a body of legislators who each represents a constituency, and which convenes to discuss legislation and the nation's budget. Calling a country a republic does not mean that the legislators would have been elected, or appointed, or inherited their position (although each of these methods of selection are possible in a republic) - it only indicates that there is a legislation present. However, in order - technically - for a country to be considered a republic, the laws that its legislation passes should be upheld as the law of the land. Whether the executive ruler of the country adheres to these laws is another matter entirely.
• Democracy - indicates that at least some of the political leaders are chosen through some kind of an election in which at least some of the nation's citizens are allowed to vote. This doesn't mean that all of the people in the country get to vote, nor does it mean that all the country's political leaders are elected, nor does it mean that those who are selected to run for office were chosen through a democratic method, nor does it mean that any citizen may run for office, nor does it mean that the elections are held on a regular basis. All it means is that at some time in the recent past that there was an election in the country, regardless of whether there is another planned election in the future.
• Socialism - this means that a country has economic policies in which the government (state) actually owns and controls at least some of the country's institutions that produce goods and/or services. However, it goes beyond just maintaining a postal service, an education system, police and firefighting departments, and a standing military, among others. A country would be considered to be socialist when its government owns most of the nation's health care network (but not necessarily the health care networks for the needy and/or military veterans), the public utilities such as gas and electric (but not water and sewer utilities), airlines (but not airports), and banks (but not treasuries or certain housing mortgage firms such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). Some countries that are considered to be socialist still allow private ownership of some businesses, while other socialist countries only permit state-owned businesses. If this definition seems arbitrary and silly, it probably is... The label of socialist is a very vague and confusing one.
• Communism - since North Korea is "supposed" to be following the teachings of Karl Marx, specifically his doctrine of Historical Materialism, a country may only be considered to be truly communist if it has passed through the phases of being capitalist and socialist first, which North Korea has not done, apparently. Or, at least it hasn't done so according to whoever in North Korea is in charge of giving the country its official name. Indeed, there probably has not yet been a nation that has fully realized Marx's vision of being a truly communist society. However, because there were countries that became controlled by a "Communist Party", they have been called "communist" as a result, even though technically they were not communist according to Karl Marx's definition.
So there ya have it - even after that explanation I would still not be surprised if you were as confused as much as before. Saukkomies 08:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Aren't those definitions kind of pointless though? Because then technically almost every country in the world would be a democratic republic and a few are socialist, none are communist. It's not really helpful in understanding what these governments are actually like though. Saying you are going to spread "democracy" to other countries becomes a meaningless phrase. 98.221.85.188 (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No, not pointless, but it is complicated. People enrol for courses in political science to learn more. Saukkomies' definition of republic needs refining because a constitutional monarchy also has a body of legislators. On the other hand Saukkomies made a good job of explaining the definition of "communist". Even so, let me try to state it once more. There are two distinct definitions of "communist". 1) a highly egalitarian society (Marx's definition) and 2) a country run by a communist party (an everyday usage). North Korea doesn't fit under 1) but it does fit under 2). Itsmejudith (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I do totally agree that the definitions are pointless ... mostly. Because the whole subject of what constitutes a democracy, a republic, a socialist or communist state is so fraught with subjectivity and controversy. As per a constitutional monarchy, I'm sorry, but for better or worse, it actually IS a republic! A country may have a republican form of government and still have a monarchy. I do agree totally with what you say about communist countries, Itsemejudith. Saukkomies 23:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Gandhi's hair

Was Gandhi bald later in life, or did he shave his head? The pictures I've seen of him in early years show hair, but never does he have any in later photos; and our article on him says nothing that I could find on the subject. Nyttend (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Gandhi voluntarily shaved his head in honour of those martyred in the name of non-violence in 1921.--Shahab (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is very interesting, Shahab. Is it possible to cite a source for this, though? Thanks in advance. Saukkomies 08:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The only source I could find on the net was Q27 in this online quiz. This is a reliable site so the information must be correct. I must add that probably another source can be found in this movie. I saw this movie many years ago, and in it there was a scene in which Gandhi shaved his head and stated that he was doing so in memory of the first martyr of the non-violent protests he initiated in South Africa. (Not sure about the date 1921 though; if he had shaved his head in South Africa that would have meant before 1915). I do not know the answer to RegentsPark question. Regards--Shahab (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Shahab. The reason I wanted to get this as solid fact is because I happen to teach high school history, and I cover the life of Gandhi quite thoroughly. I wanted to know whether this piece of information about his bald head was accurate, as it would be a great thing to help hold the students' attention. Saukkomies 23:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(Follow up Q) So did he keep shaving his head or did he go bald later in life? (Just curious!) --Regents Park (count the magpies) 20:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

According to this article he kept on shaving his head, ergo didn't go bald--Shahab (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Only his hairdresser knows for sure. —Tamfang (talk) 04:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I could ask at the Science Desk if hair contains salt: if so, perhaps we could say that he shaved as a precursor to the Salt March :-) Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Returning to a Room from Childhood, How Small it Seems...

I feel like it was Proust, but I cannot find the source -- an author who wrote about the phenomenon - many people have experienced this - that when you return to your old home after many years it looks so much smaller than you remember.

Is there an author who wrote of this? Or is there a name for this psychological / phenomenological experience? Thanks Saudade7 18:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The phenomenon is known as 'growing'. A room from childhood appears smaller because the last time you saw it, you were smaller and took up much less space within it.82.36.179.20 (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha. No. Saudade7 03:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Wolfe, You Can't Go Home Again. Or the singer/songwriter Charles Anzavour, in his La Bohème (video in French, with less-than-ideal English subtitles), with an artist recalling the past:

Quand au hasard des jours      When, by chance

Je m'en vais faire un tour     I made a visit

A mon ancienne adresse         To my old address

Je ne reconnais plus           I didn't recognize anything...

Ni les murs, ni les rues       Not the walls, not the streets

Qui ont vu ma jeunesse         Where I was young

En haut d'un escalier          At the top of a stairway

Je cherche l'atelier           I looked for my studio

Dont plus rien ne subsiste     But there was nothing left

Dans son nouveau décor         In its new getup

Montmartre semble triste       Montmartre seemed sad

Et les lilas sont morts        And all the lilacs were dead

--- OtherDave (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC) , who has forgot to sign comments three times today.

Yes, really, it's just because you're bigger. --Tango (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought there'd be a word or simple phrase for it, either way. Steewi (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks every-helpful-one. I love Charles Aznavour, especially that mean-spirited "Je bois" song that I first heard on the Bob Dylan Theme Time Radio Hour. I, too, think there has to be a word for the phenomenon. I don't think it is just a result of growing bigger, because I have experienced this phenomenon since I have "become fully growed" -- for instance just last year I visited the Gustave Moreau museum in Paris and when I went back a few months later it seemed so much smaller than I remembered. A friend of mine tells me that the passage I am looking for might be in Proust's Swann's Way which I have just downloaded Here -- I will let you know the results of my quest. P.S. That La Bohème video is heartbreaking - the story of my life! Ciao Saudade7 22:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I need to write a geography essay on Rio de Janerio.

There are no specific things that I have to write about. Just Rio. What should I write about? Can anyone leave their, e-mail, msn or skype to help me further with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.147.129 (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at Rio de Janeiro? This is a public page so I don't think anyone will provide you with any private contact details. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Not nitpicking, just forestalling unwelcome comments from your teacher: You'll definitely get better marks (or at least you won't lose marks) if you spell Janeiro as Janeiro. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing a text

Is there anyone here who is ready to edit and considerably shorten a geography text which I have just written. If yes, please leave an e-mail or msn or skype id. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.147.129 (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In case you're under the impression that wikipedia is the tip of a mountain filled with OCD dwarfs heigh-hoing 24/7 to fix mss from all over the universe in an attempt to bring perfection now, I have to say it isn't but I wish you luck. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think actually it is. Edison (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The correctly edited phrase would be "I actually think it is." DOR (HK) (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is "Actually, I think it is.". :) Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It actually is. Or it is, actually. What isn't so, is that the dwarfs are not drones in that some of them will choose not to snap up such an offering and will obsessively edit pedia things instead. Mebbe. Is there a difference between slave and volunteer? Should this be on the language desk? ... ∞ Julia Rossi (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Because I'm a suspicious bastard, I have to say that I'm having trouble with buying the idea that in the space of a couple of hours you went and wrote a geography text that's just so long that it needs editing and "considerable shortening" that you just can't do yourself. You wouldn't have, oh, I don't know, just copypasted our article (or some other article) on the subject and now need someone to weed out all of the unrelated crap from it, would you? -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Travelling with friend

Hello. I'll be travelling with my son and his friend to the US in February from the United Kingdom and was wondering if it is okay with US Customs to allow my son's friend through with us even though she is not considered a family member? I ask because of the strict rules when travelling with children. All three of us are British citizens, will be travelling under the Visa Waiver Program and my son and his friend will both be 17 by the travelling time. Thanks, 86.145.104.161 (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I recommend calling a US embassy near where you live. They would probably have better information. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm wary of answering this question because it could approach being a legal question. The contact information for the U.S. Embassy in London can be found at http://www.usembassy.org.uk/ukaddres.html. —Angr 20:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I would echo the advice to call the embassy. When I worked for an international railway company, we used to recommend that in similar situations, the parent of the child concerned should give a "letter of consent" to the responsible adult in the travelling party, stating that the parent has given their consent for the child to travel with them. DuncanHill (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The embassy has that information, but I would recommend having a letter of consent, even if it's not required, just in case someone tries to make a fuss. When I did an exchange program (from Australia, and not to the US), not only did we need a letter of consent, but it also had to be cross-signed by all custodians (even - or especially - if divorced) and by a notary lawyer. The worry was that there are often cases where a child is taken overseas by one of their parents after a divorce, but never come back. Steewi (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Country Names-- Czechoslovakia

Why is it that so many English speakers, even people in their thirties, are still calling the Czech Republic "Czechoslovakia"? It's rather strange to me, since it's been gone for 15 years and counting. It's also interesting that meanwhile, a Czech I know (citizen/national or not, anymore I mean) gets the name right. Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 21:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, McCain's also got it wrong several times. (See National Missile Defense#Recent Developments.) I thought he was supposed to be an expert on foreign policy. Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 22:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's partly because a lot of people haven't noticed that it's changed, and partly because there is no accepted one-word name in English for the Czech Republic. --ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Old habits die hard. Not only did they separate countries, but new languages were officially born. No more Czechoslovakian language, now it's the Czech language and the Slovak language. Steewi (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh? I was over thirty when the combined state ceased to be, but don't remember hearing of a Czechoslovak language. —Tamfang (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There was never a "Czechoslovak language". Czechoslovakia was always considered to have two main languages, Czech and Slovak. I think Steewi is confusing it with Serbo-Croatian, which is a language that got broken up as the country it was spoken in broke up. —Angr 07:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That's plausible. —Tamfang (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The usual tendency is to minimise the number of syllables the speaker has to laboriously get through. That's why the abbreviations USA, UK and USSR (or Soviet Union, rather than Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) etc are/were in such common use. During the Soviet era, many people referred to the USSR by the (syllabically speaking) even shorter name Russia (usually not realising that this was a large part, but still only a part, of the whole Soviet Union). Czechoslovakia presents an exception to the usual rule, because it contains 6 syllables as against only 5 for "the Czech Republic" and 4 for Slovakia. I heard some commentators at the recent Olympics referring to athletes from "Czechoslovakia". I know that these particular people know that the country broke up years ago because I've heard them get it right on many occasions. But in the white hot heat of the final seconds of a closely contested race where the commentators are approaching paroxysm (in some cases, almost orgasm), I guess the brain goes into automatic and the old program's still in there. (Oh, there was never any such thing as the Czechoslovakian language). -- JackofOz (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's inertia. See also "England" rather than Britain or the U.K., and "the Ukraine" for a country whose language doesn't have the word "the." --- OtherDave (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not, there are still people whom I have met who refer to the whole region as Bohemia! Specifically, descendants of Czeck immigrants in Chicago, where there is a considerable and tradition-rooted community of Bohemians, refering to the fact that they are from Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic/Bohemia, and not that they are wild, rebellious, artsy youths. Saukkomies 08:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you English speakers introduce the toponym Czechia into your language? Is there any other European dialect that lacks this one-word term? --Ghirla 13:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Because English has a phonological rule that -ia can be added only to stems at least two syllables long. —Angr 14:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What about Russia or India? :) The root of the problem is that most Slavic speakers use adjectives to denote their countries, e.g., Česko for Czechia, Polska for Poland or Rus'ska for (Kievan) Rus. But you have to come up with a noun if you want to render it in English. --Ghirla 15:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Notably, Russia and India form their adjectives by adding -n, not by dropping -ia. If Czechia were a word, the adjective (and the name of the language) would have to be *Czechian, not Czech. But since the adjective is Czech, it can't come from Czechia. —Angr 15:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, on a linguistic level you may be correct. On the other hand, there are plenty of examples where the adjective have no regular connection to the name of the country, e.g. dutch, ivorian, chechen, so there is nothing preventing the convenient but irregular combination of Czechia/Czech . /Coffeeshivers (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've certainly heard the country called Czechia, and called it that myself. Algebraist 15:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

We have an article Names of the Czech Republic... AnonMoos (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think English speakers are having difficulties with Czechoslovakia/the Czech Republic, imagine the confusion between Czechia and Chechnia. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If we introduced Czechia, what would we do with the Central African Republic? Centrafrica? Before we start coming up with Czechia, we would have to recognise that in English we use Polish orthography for a country that has nothing to do with Poland. We don't do the same with Anton Chekhov (it's not spelled Czechov), yet his name is a cognate of what we call "Czech". -- JackofOz (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I like saying "the Czech Republic" more than "Czechia". I have a feeling that the word "Czech" comes from Polish, seeing that "Czech" means a Czech man in Polish. Incidentally, (though this is vaguely related) I wonder how names (eg. Václav ==> Wenceslas, Jan ==> John) get translated. Interestingly enough, the name "Marie" seems to never be translated, or, at that rate, pronounced correctly. Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 09:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh it's from Polish alright. We've had this discussion at least twice before in my time around these parts. I'd be fairly confident in believing that Polish is the only language in which "cz" is regularly pronounced "ch". English has borrowed "Czech" and related words from the Polish language. We've also come up with "Czar" (but that's a bastard of a word if ever I saw one; and I mean that in both senses of the word - and it's not pronounced "ch"). -- JackofOz (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We aren't introducing Czechia; it's already the prefered short English name as promulgated by the Czech government. And if we want to shorten the name, what's wrong with calling the CAR 'Central Africa'? Sure, it's imprecise, but a lot less so than America. Algebraist 14:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually didn't know that, so ta for the info. However, a country that speaks a certain language doesn't get to decide how its name or any forms of its name will be rendered in other languages. It might suggest or request, but its promulgation cannot extend beyond its own territory. I know some anglophones do use the word "Czechia", but it hasn't achieved widespread use or any sort of formal recognition in anglophone countries, as far as I'm aware. And I doubt that it ever will. Czechia might sound ok to a czechophone (have I just coined a word?), but it sure doesn't sound ok to my anglophone ears. Not that my opinion is necessarily representative of anyone but myself; but if I think it's an extraordinarily ugly word - and I do - there's an even money chance others would have the same opinion. I honestly can't see it ever catching on, despite whatever the Czech government might have to say on the matter. (Famous last words, probably). -- JackofOz (talk) (or, for my New Zealand friends who may be watching this conversation, CzechofOz :)

Ha ha. Gwinva (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

How about Czechland? We call it Tékkland in Icelandic. Haukur (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Another reason we English speakers don't adopt the word Czechia into our language is because so many of us American English speakers (I can't speak for other English speaking nationalities) are barely aware that there had ever even been a country called Czechoslovakia in the first place, let alone that it broke into two separate countries, each with its own name. If you were to ask the typical "man (or woman) on the street" somewhere in the United States if they knew that a country called Czechoslovakia had existed, you'd be lucky to get 50% of the people to know about it. And to ask them if they knew that Czechoslovaki had broken up into the Czech Republic and Slovakia, you would just get a blank stare about 99% of the time. Part of the reason for this is due to the fact that America is just such a huge country that it takes a lot of concentration just to keep up with what is going on in the US, let alone what is happening in other continents elsewhere. But another part of it is that a lot of Americans were simply not taught about world history very well in school. Be that as it may, don't expect Americans to be able to use the new name of the Czech Republic - or Czechia - any time soon. Saukkomies 15:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

But even with the National Missile Defense stuff? At least McCain should get it right... Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 06:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Saukkomies, I can readily accept that "a lot of Americans were simply not taught about world history very well in school". But the bit about "America is just such a huge country that it takes a lot of concentration just to keep up with what is going on in the US, let alone what is happening in other continents elsewhere" - that does not wash with me at all. Not these days. It might have been true in 1950 (although even then I'd have difficulty accepting it); but certainly not now. If I'm wrong, what does it say about American journalism, Americans' ability to use the internet (for other than the latest fan gossip), the general impact of the information revolution on the USA, and Americans' propensity to undertake overseas travel? Not to mention Misplaced Pages's penetration of its home country. Has the Prague Spring been forgotten so completely? -- JackofOz (talk) 08:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Constitutional Paradox

Does anyone know of an example or examples of inconsistancies in the U.S. Constitution? An example of what I mean would be something like one article that prevents another being fully enactable.

Thanks. --Rixxin (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Three-fifths compromise may be of interest - it isn't that it is inconsistent, per se, but rather it is a specific exemption to another segment. 98.169.163.20 (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

We have expert opinion that there is, but what the inconsistency actually is is not known; but it may survive: not all his papers have been read. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the 21st Amendment is incompatible with the 18th, but I imagine you're looking for subtler examples than that. —Angr 08:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

On the Gödel angle here is the source the article mentions: "What might have bothered him, though, was Article V, which places almost no substantive constraints on how the Constitution can be amended. He could have interpreted this to mean that, as long as an amendment is proposed and approved in the prescribed way, it automatically becomes part of the Constitution, even if it would eliminate the essential features of a republican form of government and obliterate virtually all the protections of human rights" (source).--droptone (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, the Constitution was ratified by the original states in a manner that was inconsistent. Technically, it really should not have become the law of the land. The reason for this is that the law of the land of the early United States was based on the Articles of Confederation. The ratification of the Constitution should have therefore been done according to how the Articles of Confederation dictated. The 13th Article of these discusses how the Articles of Confederation would be changed, and says that: "...the Articles are perpetual, and can only be altered by approval of Congress with ratification by all the state legislatures." However, when the state legislatures convened and discussed whether to ratify the new Constitution (between the years 1787 and 1790), not all of the states supported it! Indeed, what really happened was that the Congress of the Confederation (the federal congress at the time) used NOT the Articles of Confederation to determine whether the new Constitution was to be the new law of the land, but rather they used the Constitution itself to determine this! Precisely, in the new Constitution, it states in Article Five that there were two methods that Congress (or a national convention requested by the states) could take in order to change the Constitution. Under the first method, Congress can propose an amendment by a two-thirds vote (of a quorum, not necessarily of the entire body) of the Senate and of the House of Representatives. Under the second method, two-thirds (2/3) of the state legislatures may convene and "apply" to Congress to hold a national convention, whereupon Congress must call such a convention for the purpose of considering amendments.
The Congress of the Confederation should have used the law of the land that was in effect at the time when the Constitution was being ratified by the various 13 states in order to determine to accept the new Constitution as the new law of the land, which would have been the 13th Article of Confederation. Instead, what happened was that the Congress of the Confederation used the 5th Article of the Constitution to determine its own ratification! Specifically, once two-thirds of the 13 states' legislatures had voted to ratify the new Constitution, the Congress of the Confederation approved it as the new law of the land - even though this was acting against the Articles of Confederation, under whose law they were supposed to be acting, which would have required that every one of the states would have had to have ratified the new Constitution before it would have legally become the new law of the land.
So, on June 21st, 1788, New Hampshire became the 9th state to ratify the new Constitution, and this meant that at that point 2/3 of the states had ratified the new law, and so the Congress of the Confederation moved to incorporate the Constitution as the new law of the land, even though Virginia, New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island had still not ratified it! Indeed, there were people in these four remaining states who had serious misgivings about the new Constitution, and there were those who were very upset that Congress had acted in this way, claiming that the new Constitution was illegally adopted.
Eventually, over the next 2 years, the four hold out states did vote to ratify the new Constitution, making it unanimous. However, the point is that at that time it was accepted as the new law of the land, it did so not under the rules that were governing the nation at the time. This would perhaps be an example of a paradox in the Constitution. Saukkomies 09:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Consideration of the Article of Confederation is a good slant but I disagree b/c as far as I am aware, the Confederation was a loose grouping to address common problems. It was virtually powerless. The Confederation did not incorporate English common law or current political theory. The framers of the Constitution were very aware they were establishing a new government based on British constitutional theory but bolstered by philosophy and classical literature. For instance, some patriots were rightly concerned about loss of state power to a more centralized and powerful government. The records show great deliberation and consciousness of what was happening in Philadelphia. Did the framers live within their apparent authority when they were sent to negotiage changes to the Confederation and immediately tabled improvements to the Confederation? No. Somehow, though, their actions were viewed as legitimate. Imagine the ACLU if a group of delegates decided to table the U.S. Constitution (imagine George Bush and executive power towards foreign policy and terrorism.) 75Janice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 21:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I beg to disagree with your summation that the Articles of Confederation were a "loose grouping to address common problems". The Articles of Confederation were accepted by the duly elected representatives of the people of the burgeoning republic of the United States of America to be the basis for the law of the land. It is true that there were some significant problems with the Articles of Confederation, but that is irrelevant to the point that they still were the foundation of the law of the land. If you would examine the Wiki link to the page that discusses the Articles, you will find that they indeed do spell out precisely what the process would be in order to amend or to change the law of the land - to adopt a new constitution. This process, however, was not adhered to by Congress. Additionally, it may be worth your while (if you're at all interested in this subject, and are not just trying to create argument for argument's sake) to read some of the newspaper articles that were published collectively as "The Federalist Papers". These were written under pseudonyms by three men who all served in the Constitutional Convention, and who were trying to convince the American people to adopt the newly drafted Constitution. The arguments they lay out are quite fascinating, and discuss the issues that Americans were concerned with at the time. Contrary to what many people are taught in school, the adoption of the Constitution was actually a rather difficult sell - there were many people who opposed the idea of Big Government, and that was what they saw the Constitution was creating. Also, it was not the framers of the Constitution who were responsible for what I was discussing, namely the method that was used to ratify it. And additionally, I must also disagree with what you said that the men who were sent to the Constitutional Convention lived "within their apparent authority when they were sent to negotiage changes to the Confederation and immediately tabled improvements to the Confederation". They were free to come up with whatever document they managed to agree upon, regardless of the outcome. In fact, looking at your posting there, I really wonder whether you actually bothered to read what I had written before criticizing it. It seems to me as if you were completely missing the main points in order to push forward your idea that the Constitution was an inspired document, which was really not the issue being discussed... Saukkomies 18:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

All these were exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. Thanks people. Rixxin (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Any bit of law is bound to have loopholes and inconsistencies. I was amused by Analysis of the British Nationality Act from 1986 using a logic programming language. You'd have though nationality at least could be determined without contradictions and omissions but no way. I believe they get round it to some extent now by asking on what basis citizenship is claimed and only checking that, and you can't change your basis for a claim. Dmcq (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't even begin to give a better answer than the ones given above, but I have a little favourite among constitutional paradoxes: presidential succession. If the president and vice-president is killed, the speaker of the house would be the next in succession. But no person can hold office in two different branches of government because of separation of powers. So the speaker would have to resign from the house of representatives. But then the speaker is no longer the speaker, so she's (I'm using the female pronoun because of the current speaker) no longer the successor! So really, the next person in line is the Secretary of State! (the same issue would arise with the pro tempore of the Senate, thus skipping him too) 90.235.13.101 (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion's Description of God/Universe

I know that some religions describe God as simultaneously immanent and eminent but which religions in particular do that? Also are there any religions that look at God as simultaneously a root cause and an emergent property? How about simultaneously personal and impersonal? 71.113.3.76 (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There are all sorts of people who believe contradicting things about God (e.g. that he is both personal and impersonal). I personally see this as incoherent as God cannot contain contradictions. However, to answer your question, I am wondering if you are thinking of the word "transcendent" to go with immanent? Christianity teaches that God is both transcendent (i.e. above all and thus not entirely explainable) and immanent (still ever-present and capable of revealing himself to humanity). This is not a contradiction but a complimentary thing. As for God being the root cause and emergent (also contradictory, but anyways), check out process theology. 68.31.82.188 (talk) 02:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

September 16

Mexico's Independence

I am curious; didn't Mexico win independence from French this very day? If not, then what had happened in Mexico that they celebrate today? 66.230.106.85 (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

France? You mean Spain: Mexican War of Independence Fribbler (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

France came later; see French intervention in Mexico. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you thinking possibly of the Battle of Chapultepec? 68.31.82.188 (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you read Grito de Dolores? That's what is commemorated on the dieciséis de septiembre. —Angr 08:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing Sept. 16 with Cinco de Mayo. Marco polo (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

pattern of human

pattern of human, that called is 423 what is 4? what is 2? what is 3? everybody will passed this. maybe from philosophy tibetian. please explain to me..thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.93.37.88 (talk) 08:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is the riddle: What walks on four legs in the morning, two legs in the middle of the day and three legs in the evening? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That most likely refers to the old riddle, "what walks on four legs in the morning, on two legs in the day, and three legs in the evening?" The answer is "humans" -- we crawl around as children (4 "legs"), walk upright as adults (2 legs) and lean on canes when we get old (3 "legs"). I doubt it has a lot to do with Tibetan philosophy, but then again, it's not like I know much about Tibetan philosophy. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a Greek riddle, see Sphinx#Greek traditions about sphinxes. It could have pre-dated it's appearance in Greek plays, but I've never heard of it being Tibetan. --Tango (talk) 10:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Sphinx was Theban not Tibetan. DAVID ŠENEK 12:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Next you're going to tell me that Shakespeare didn't write his plays for lesbians! --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be Claude Pepper. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Who says that he did? GeeJo ⁄_(c) • 21:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Fed's balance sheet

Pursuant to my question from yesterday, I read the section on the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve System (Fed). If you look carefully at the assets and liabilities listed on the balance sheet, you find loans under the Term Auction Facility (mostly to shaky investment banks backed by questionable collateral) listed as assets. Because these loans (which look more and more like handouts) are listed as assets, they only make the Fed's balance sheet look stronger. So the Fed's balance sheet sets no constraints on the amount of money the Fed can use to bail out financial firms. (The bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by the Treasury is a separate issue.) What I am trying to figure out is, how can there be a financial crisis if the Fed has an unlimited ability to bail out any financial firm? I sort of understand the issue of moral hazard, but why is it even an issue? Why doesn't everyone continue to play high-risk financial games, and why isn't the Fed playing backstop, boosting its balance sheet (on paper) with hand-outs to all of the players? What might happen if the Fed did this? Is there a concern that foreigners might not want to hold dollar assets if the Fed hands out dollars too freely, or is there some other practical constraint on the Fed's action? Thanks again. Marco polo (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If people don't pay back the loans, the Fed loses money. The state doesn't have unlimited funds - if would end up having to raise taxes or cut public spending to cover the losses. The Federal bank isn't creating new money to hand out, it's lending existing money - printing billions of new dollars would cause hyperinflation (which would be roughly equivalent to a tax on people holding cash). --Tango (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Fed is different from the state. I don't think it's state-funded. Also, I am fairly certain that the Fed can create new money. I am hoping that someone on the desk will be able to answer my question. The world's most important central bank should not be so mysterious! Marco polo (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Federal Bank can make new money, but that's not what it's doing in this case. You're right about the Fed and the state being separate, I'm not entirely sure what would happen if the Fed went bankrupt, but I expect it would end up costing the public money in some form or other (via either tax or inflation). --Tango (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Federal reserve notes (i.e. money) are backed by the "full faith and credit of the U.S. government". See Federal Reserve Note#Value. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Which means almost exactly nothing - it's fiat currency, it has value because people believe it has value. --Tango (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I hear this criticism of the Fed a lot and it makes no sense to me. Nothing has value unless people believe it has value. More fundamental is supply and demand. The dollar and other "fiat" currencies are valued because they are kept relatively scarce (or not depending on monetary policy). —D. Monack 00:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Most things have value because they serve a purpose. A brick has value because I can use it to build a house. A dollar only have value because the person selling bricks is confident that the person selling him his dinner will accept it as payment, and so on ad infinitum. --Tango (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it means that the government may levy taxes or borrow to pay the fed's debts (if the fed goes bankrupt). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What debts? The only thing the Fed has to redeem a dollar for is a new dollar. --Tango (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on central banking but I disagree with your comment that "the Fed's balance sheet sets no constraints . . .". If the fed (or anyone else) lends money (to anyone) then it will take cash out of its bank account and give it to the borrower (so the fed's assets will decrease) and then record the loan as an asset (so its assets will increase again). The net effect to the balance sheet will be zero (calm down, nitpickers). I think you perhaps understood the handing out of a loan to strengthen its balance sheet, right?

If the loan is not worth the cash that was handed out then you would expect its balance sheet to deteriorate (assuming the loan value is recorded correctly). So when I said earlier that the fed is limited by its own balance sheet, I was saying that if the fed buys risky assets and loses more than $40bn (its capital) then it will be unable to meet its own liabilities, which are primarily federal reserve notes and deposits from other banks. Defaulting on these liabilities would really be an extreme event. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Although the US government could, in theory, default on its liabilities when they fall due, I think it would be far more likly to raise funds by issuing more bonds, in effect rolling over the debt (this happens all the time), or by increasing the money supply (metaphorically "printing more money"). Of course, this is not a "get out of jail free" card, because if a government does this too much and too often it fuels inflation, devalues its currency, and will eventually lead to its bonds being downgraded. There is no rule that says government bonds must be AAA rated, and the Main issuers table in our List of government bonds article shows a correlation between a government's financial liabilities as % of GDP and the rating of its bonds. So there are constraints on national debt, but they are soft rather than hard constraints. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all, and particularly to Zain Ebrahim and Gandalf, whose answers were enlightening. Marco polo (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Bible

Hi! Is New Testament also part of old Jewish literature or not? I think that only Old Testament is part of it? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atacamadesert12 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See Tanakh. --Tango (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In other words, the Tanakh (called the "Old Testament" by believers in the "New Testament") is the basic Jewish scriptures, what Jews call "the Bible." The "New Testament" is not Jewish scripture, and it is not Jewish literature; it is not part of the Jewish religion. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, most of the authors of the New Testament (except Luke) were Jews. —Angr 21:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Without splitting hairs nor delving exhaustively into the "Who-is-a-Jew?" issue: The noun "Jew" or adjective "Jewish" can mean either an ethnicity or adherence to the religion Judaism that does not avow the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and still awaits the coming of the Messiah. -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, wait a minute here. Luke was a Jew. He was a Jew with a classic Greek education, but that does not mean he was not Jewish. It's just like comparing him to a modern Jew with an education in a public high school in the United States, who would still be considered a Jew. Saukkomies 18:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you want to split hairs that far, technically, Jesus himself was a Jew. --Alinnisawest, (extermination requests here) 23:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course he was. What else would he have been? Saukkomies 19:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And it's nothing to do with splitting hairs. Jesus was totally, completely, 100% a Jew. Some Christians (and I stress "some") seem to conveniently forget this when it suits their anti-semitic arguments. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if Jesus was God, and therefore not human, then he wasn't really a Jew, was he? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Except that the dogma says he was simultaneously totally human and totally divine. In his humanity he was a Jew. In his divinity, he was of no ethnicity or religion; rather, the source of all ethnicity and all religion. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Not all dogma says that; monophysitism for example. I can never sort out who believes what kind of christology but debates over Christ's exact nature is pretty much why there are so many types of Christian churches. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's put it this way. As far as the Romans were concerned, he was a Jew. And as far as the other Jews of the time were concerned, he was a Jew. It was his alleged claim to be King of the Jews that saw the Jews and the Romans collaborate to have him put to death. And what was put on the cross - a sign with the Latin initials INRI, which stood for the Latin equivalent of "King of the Jews". The sign was also in 2 other languages just so that nobody had any doubt what his crime had been. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there are two issues here. Was Jesus considered Jewish at the time? The answer to the question is surely yes. In Christian theolology, was Jesus Jewish is however a different question. Aside from the issue of monophysitism there is also the issue of did Jesus actually inherit any genetic material from Mary? I'm not sure if there is any consensus on this even among the modern Chalcedonian believers. If you believe Jesus did not have a father then it's conceivable you can believe Jesu's birth mother was not his biological mother. Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the subject at hand, I have given this some considerable thought. My first reaction was, of course - the New Testament is NOT part of old Jewish literature. But then after some thinking, and delving deeper into Angr's comment, I could see how one could argue that the books of the New Testament do belong to the broader category of writings done by ancient Jews, and could therefore be considered to be part of the legacy of historic Jewish literature. On the other hand, even though the authors of the New Testament were Jews, they were also Christian, and there is a difference between these two things. It would be similar to saying that Gautama Buddha was a Hindu, which he was, but he was also the founder of Buddhism. And his teachings belong to Buddhism, not to Hinduism. So, to come full circle, I have to return to my original presupposition that the books of the New Testament are not Jewish literature, but Christian. Interesting quesion, Atacamadesert. Saukkomies 20:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: some of the New Testament is Jewish literature (i.e., written by Jews and reflecting a Jewish world view) but it is not Jewish scripture. Keep in mind, that while Jesus and most other early Christian figures were Jewish, authors of the various books of the New Testament may or may not have been Jewish. —D. Monack 01:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, every single author of all of the books contained in the New Testament were Jewish - that is, if they actually existed. Saukkomies 05:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The authors all existed (that is, someone had to write them), it just may be that they are not who the Christian establishment thinks they were (that is, not Matthew the Evangelist, Mark the Evangelist, Luke the Evangelist, John the Evangelist, Paul the Apostle, Saint Peter, James the Just, Jude, brother of Jesus, etc.). -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Saukkomies, it is not at all certain that Luke was Jewish, at least by birth. According to the New Oxford Annotated Bible, "many considerations support the early Christian tradition that the author was the physician Luke, a Gentile convert and friend of the apostle Paul (Col 4.14; compare 2 Tim 4.11; Philem 24)." Now if Luke went through the procedure of converting to Judaism in order to become a Christian (a common practice at the time), then he counts as a Jew; but some people were content to baptize Gentiles as Christians without making them officially convert to Judaism first. If that's how Luke became a Christian, then he doesn't. —Angr 18:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the edification, Angr. Certainly I must have overlooked that in my studies of the New Testament. However, I still hold that your previous statement, in which you said that: "most of the authors of the New Testament (except Luke) were Jews", is inaccurate. The most you could say would be that there is some speculation that Luke was not Jewish... Saukkomies 15:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true. —Angr 19:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Help me identify my vacation photos

I photographed this statue in the gardens of Chirk Castle and I can't find any information about it online. Does anyone know who sculpted it or who it depicts? There are more pictures at the Language, Miscellaneous and Science desks. Thanks, BenRG (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's probably not obvious in the thumbnail that she's clasping flowers to her chest and her foot is stepping on a snake. The snake especially made me think the statue alludes to some particular legend. I just had the bright idea of searching Misplaced Pages and the web for "stepping on a snake," which turned up a few references suggesting that it's symbolic of the Virgin Mary. I'm still not sure about the flowers, though. -- BenRG (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is one of four bronze nymphs introduced into the gardens by Lord Howard de Walden, who leased Chirk from the Biddulphs from 1911. "These were modelled by Antonio Luchessi, a leading sculptor of the Victorian age" says Garden Guide, but the name seems misspelled: either Antonio Lucchese or Lucchesi would be possible, but this name is unfamiliar to me.--Wetman (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Very cool statue. Saukkomies 18:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly Andrea Carlo Lucchesi (1860-1925), a London born and trained sculptor of Italian / English parentage. There is a sculpture of his, depicting Queen Victoria, in Bath (the city, not the tub for royal ablution). I can´t find anything about an Antonio L. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Andrea Carlo Lucchesi's father was also a sculptor. From this , it appears that young women in their scanties were very much his (the son's) thing. DuncanHill (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I found the Garden Guide page but I couldn't make it fit with what I'd seen. I saw a total of four statues in the garden: two that could be described as "naked nymphs," this one, which wasn't naked and didn't look much like a nymph, and one of Hercules which was even less nymph-like (though he was nude). I thought I'd missed two of the four nymphs and this statue was unrelated. But maybe Garden Guide got the description wrong (they got the sculptor wrong, after all) and this was one of the four Lucchesis. Or maybe there are only three. -- BenRG (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I googled together a starter entry for Andrea Carlo Lucchesi, using your illustration!--Wetman (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It makes me think of Eve, with the flowers and the apron. Stepping on a snake brings to mind Genesis 3:14-15: "And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." --Masamage ♫ 04:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thread bookmark

You know how some old books come with a thread attached to the spine that one can use as a bookmark. Any idea if that thread has a name? Thanks. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 19:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Our article calls it a "bound bookmark". --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Gee, all I had to do was look (lazy son of a ..., that's me.) Thanks! --Regents Park (count the magpies) 19:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

US Constitution on creating new gov't departments

Does following the constitution have any implication on the ability of congress to create new departments, such as the Department of Education?

I was having a discussion with someone who was supporting the proposal to get rid of the Department of Education, and he supported his argument by saying "Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to establish the dep't? Don't you want to follow Constitutional limits on government?"

Is this person's argument logical? If not, what is the best response to this? My first inclination was to say "If the constitution doesn't mention it, the constitution doesn't apply to it," but I wasn't sure if 1) this was true, and 2) even if it were, if this would be the most accurate way to put it.

Any help much appreciated, thanks!

— Sam 20:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless the constitution (presumably of the US) specifically limits the ability of the DOE (as in "thou shalt not set up a dept. of education"), there is no bar on having a dept. of education. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 20:41, 16 September 2008 (UTCC

Congress needs no express authority or permission to establish a cabinet level executive position. The framework of the Constitution implies powers to carry out the responsibilities. There is no limit in the Constitution express or implied setting up the Department of Education. The argument is almost comical. No one has even challenged its constitutionality by filing a lawsuit. Democrats, Republicans and Independents, legal scholars on both sides, the present Court agree on the DOE's constitutional status. A much more persuasive argument with some credibility would be that it is not politiically wise to have a DOE. The remedy is through the political system. Courts are barred from making such judgments.75Janice

I believe the Constitution is silent about all specific departments. Article II, section 2, says that the President may require the written opinion of "the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments." Article I, section 8 gives Congress the power to make all laws necessary to carry out its powers, those of the government, and those of any "department or officer thereof."

So there's as much (or as little) rationale to abolish the Department of Agriculture, or State, or Justice. But leave Homeland Security alone; it's four years and counting, and they've got enough problems. --- OtherDave (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In Canada there is a section that says anything they didn't think of in 1867 is up to the provinces in the future (so, education, highways, stuff like that). Is there something similar in the US? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The tenth amendment says that powers not delegated to the United States (meaning the nation), nor prohibited to it by the states, are reserved to the states or to the people. Education was traditionally a state and local function; that's one source for the contention that the Department of Education is unconstitutional. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, see Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; see also Wickard v. Filburn, which eviscerated the Tenth by making the Commerce Clause a blank check. I'd say Congress can erect executive departments and call them whatever it likes; but schooling is neither its proper concern nor constitutional. That no one has sued to abolish the DoE may be because the courts (appointed by the same officers they're supposed to restrain; whose idea was that?) have ruled that mere taxpayers have no standing to sue for misspending of our money. —Tamfang (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

See also: Enumerated powers. —D. Monack 02:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering I owe the U.S. Department of Education over $14,000, I wish the Republicans would hurry up and abolish it already. —Angr 06:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Congress has been establishing new Departments since the 18th century (e.g. United States Department of the Navy). Your friend might as well argue for the abolishment of the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, and so forth as well, by his argument (I see no reason that education should be any special case). In any case, it seems rather unreasonable to me (not a Constitutional scholar, mind you) that the federal government would be expected to be disbarred from creating additional departments and agencies as needed for its own administration. Whether the departments or agencies have any specific power seems to me to be the Constitutional question—and one that has come up quite a bit—not whether the agencies or departments can exist. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

--98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Holocaust

This sounds really dumb, but when did it begin? Did it begin in April 1933 when organized boycotts against the Jewish people began. Did it begin in 1935 when the Nuremberg laws were introduced. Did it begin in 1938 when Kristallnacht and ghettoization occurred. Or did it begin in 1941 when mass murder was introduced as a method of eradicating the Jewish population. Also why does our article state that the Holocaust is generally regarded as the genocide of the Jews? Do they have a rationale for not including the very many other groups who were killed by the regime? --Thanks, Hadseys 21:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the article Holocaust? Corvus cornix_talk 21:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(Corvus and I got here at the same time.) When it began is a matter of judgment; the Holocaust was not a discrete event like the sinking of the Titanic or the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt. You could make a case that it started when the Nazis came to power in January, 1933. Hitler himself wrote, "Once I really am in power, my first and foremost task will be the annihilation of the Jews." When the official government advocates murder and has the means to carry it out, things like discriminatory laws, intimidation, and the technical aspects are tactics, not strategy. --- OtherDave (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It is true that the Nazi regime persecuted and killed its opponents and those considered "undesirables" on a variety of grounds (political, sociocultural, ethnic, etc.), and those on the basis of ethnicity ("race") could arguably be termed genocide. The use of the capitalized term Holocaust in reference to the extermination of European (or world) Jewry was chosen to reflect the pervasive, extensive, and fundamental scope of Nazism's antisemitism in theory and practice, word and deed, and the immense scale on which this genocide was enacted as "the answer to the 'Jewish Question'." -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So far as the Jewish victims are concerned it could be considered to have started as early as Kristallnacht or to have started after the Wansee Conference. I do not see why it should be limited to Jewish victims of the Nazis, since other groups were designated for genocide and also have millions of victims. Edison (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to have to have a definite year, I'd say 1942 when the policy of the Final Solution (this was when the Nazi goverment made the decision completely exterminate the Jews) was finalized, and the extermination camps were set up. But I agree, it's kinda silly to set a solid date, by 1942 one million Jews had already been killed. But that's as close to a definite date as you're gonna come. 90.235.13.101 (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

September 17

World Food Prices

What's the status of world food prices right now, are they still unbearably high compared to...Oh say, 2 years before? 99.226.24.150 (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Complex subject. I'm going to point you here for better analysis than we could give. But the short answer is, for some, prices are unbearable. For most in the west, they're merely a slight annoyance. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the IMF (annual data back to 1980: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/01/data/WEOApr2007alla.xls), the big run-up in wheat and rice prices was in 2004-05, barley in 2006-07, and most other grains in 2007. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Xidan

Any sources for the shopping area in Beijing?Chuletadechancho (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This search may help. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Regional Government in England

The provincial governments in Canada have certain roles and responsibilities separate from the federal government in Ottawa. This is also true of the US states. I am curious how it is broken down in England. As there is no provinces or states per say, are there regional government responsibilities that differ from county to county? Does for example Somerset have a rules or laws that would be different from Norfolk or Kent in terms of maybe health care, education or tax rate? I am not interested in every law - just an idea on how responsibility is divided in England overall.142.177.144.118 (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You may find the article Local government in England helpful for an overview. Nanonic (talk) 10:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Local authorities in England & Wales don't generally get to make laws - they can only make (relatively trivial) bye-laws. They are mostly concerned with the administration of local services (education, transport, waste disposal, social services etc) and have some control over the budgets and policy for these (within national limits). They also have some control over the rates of tax (Council tax and Business Rates), but again these are subject to national regulation, and in any case a large part of local revenue is in fact from central government. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Check whether you actually mean England or the United Kingdom. Scotland and Wales now have much more autonomy than they once did. And Scottish law and Scotland's education system have always been different from the equivalents in England. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Also look at Regional assembly (if an article exists?) - there are regional assemblies in the Uk. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

London is the only English region to have an elected regional assembly, the other 8 Regions of England do have regional assemblies, but these are unelected bodies composed of councillors from counties and boroughs within the region, and they don't actually have much authority - they're mainly a method of passing central government funds down to the local authorities. -- Arwel Parry _(talk) 23:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Without wanting to be too much of a pedent how do we define 'authority'. Regional assemblies certainly have a lot of power to influence and impact upon local-government policy. Power in the country may be formally quite centralised but in practice that is not especially the case. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

poem by douglas macarther

looking for a copy of a fathers prayer attributed to general macarther, any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.216.68 (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Here you are , it appears it wasn't by MacArthur though. DuncanHill (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Goverment buying bad debt

What is the point of buying bad debt? Can't the government simply let these people fall? It could also help the poor with some sort of bonds it that is the matter. If I personally run into too much debt with my credit card, it is my fault, isn't it? It would only mean that the guys at Wall Street aren't the smartest guys on town. Mr.K. (talk) 11:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Because not buying it may have potentially worse consequences for the economy. See Too Big to Fail policy. Remember that a bank's liabilities are its promise to repay depositors (and policyholders for insurers). Some reasons for the recent AIG bailout are given here. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What about a preemptive intervention? It would have potentially less consequences for the finances of the government. Mr.K. (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that, in this case, rely on time travel? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Bailing out a big bank is a very drastic action, so governments don't want to do it unless it's clear they have no choice - that means waiting until the last possible moment. --Tango (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Related to Zain's answer, these financial giants are parties to a huge number of derivative contracts. Greatly simplifying, these are contracts between Party A and Party B, which say something like "Party B pays Party A $X. Then, if Event Q happens, Party A pays Party B $Y." These can be bets on stock prices, oil prices, credit defaults, whatever. The total amount of money at stake is staggering—possibly much, much larger than what either company is worth. Normally, this is OK, because a company's portfolio of such contracts will be largely offsetting—some contracts will pay off if oil goes up, and some will do the opposite. Now, if Company A, which is worth $10B fails, but is a party to derivatives contracts that involve $100B or $1T, there's a lot of other companies—the counterparties to these contracts—that are well and truly screwed. AIG, in particular, wrote a lot of contracts that pay out in case of credit defaults. We now know that there's going to be a lot of credit defaults. If AIG can't pay out in a default event, then all those other companies could end up going under, as well. This problem is called counterparty risk, but our article is weak in the context of derivatives. The point of a bailout is not really to help AIG, it's to keep it from taking a lot of other companies down with it. -- Coneslayer (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

@Zain: very funny, but no, I was not asking about a concrete case like AIG.

It is understandable the huge amount of wreckage that a bank can make. And that is exactly why the government should intervene when the banks start to take more risk that they can cope with. The question is what instruments of early intervention does the government have.Mr.K. (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

See Bank regulation and Capital requirements in particular. But these are clearly not enough. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Another factor affecting this decision is that BIG MONEY people have a lot of political clout. Saukkomies 08:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Consequences of government buying bad debt

So, once again, the government (or in this case its unelected quasi-arm, the Federal Reserve) has propped up the house of cards of derivatives by bailing out another megacorporation, justifying its action by saying that the risks to the economy were too great for it to do otherwise. Clearly, the risks were high for the ultrarich who have parked their money in hedge funds that have bought the risky derivatives backed by AIG. What nobody seems to address is the risks or consequences of government (or Fed) bailouts to the taxpayer or the long-term health of the economy. What are those risks or consequences? Could these bailouts have a long-term net benefit for the ultrarich at a long-term net cost to the ordinary taxpayers who will have to foot the bill? Marco polo (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the ref desk. If you have a genuine question, then ask it, if you just want to rant, go elsewhere. --Tango (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as a tangent, one reason for buying bad debt (meaning debt that doesn't look like it'll be 100% repaid) is that you pay a discount because you expect to make a profit based on your outlay. If MegaStore has $100,000 in past-due bills, it might be willing to sell them to me for $50,000 in order to avoid the expense of trying to net more than that itself. Meanwhile, I've got skilled collections people and believe I can net $10,000 after my expenses. If I manage that within a year, I've got 20% return on my initial investment. (Not that the government is doing this -- but what the heck is with the 79.9% figure for AIG shares?) --- OtherDave (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not just the expense of collecting, it's the risk. MegaStore may not be willing to take the risk of people defaulting whereas you are. You are basically offering MegaStore insurance - in exchange for them paying you a fixed amount (in the form of the discount on the debts) you will absorb any losses incurred, that's exactly what insurance companies do. --Tango (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

First Survey of Wikipedians

Does anyone know when the recent survey of Wikipedians will start reporting its findings? This survey is a collaboration between the Wikimedia Foundation and UNU-MERIT, and was announced as starting this January. It was said that preliminary findings would be reported to the Wikimania conference held this summer in Alexandria. I have tried emailing both the institutions doing the survey, without any answer. Dano'sullivan (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Elton John

I am planning to dress up as this rather flamboyant musician for Halloween, and (I am female and it's going to be awesome and) I would like to be able to plop down and play at least one of his songs if I am challenged to do so. I do have a small amount of piano-playing ability, I can read sheet music, and I have a lot of time to practice. What I don't know is which of his songs would be the easiest to learn and play. Any suggestions? Or alternatively, better places to ask? --Masamage ♫ 14:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• I can play "easy" versions of Candle in the Wind and Can You Feel the Love Tonight. I'd recommend the first of those, naturally. I can't remember what books I got them from though, sorry, but I'm sure google knows. I'll post back if I remember &/or find it. AndyJones (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I found Your Song to be fairly easy to learn. --LarryMac | Talk 18:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is of course terribly subjective. I'd suggest Rocket man, Daniel, Goodbye Yellow Brick Road, Nikita or Crocodile Rock. --NorwegianBlue 21:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen the music to any of his songs, but I was also going to suggests Daniel. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips! Goodbye Yellow Brick Road is my favorite, but it's got some tricky little flourishes in it, so I'll look into all the rest of these, too. Whatever the case, though, I can always just leave the hard stuff out. X) --Masamage ♫ 17:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

20 most important world dates

From christs birth to the present day, any takers? --217.227.96.141 (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few possible considerations:
• May 20, 325 - The First Council of Nicaea is convened under orders from Emperor Constantine, the result of which will become the Christian Church.
• March 31 to April 25(?), 627 - The Battle of the Trench in which the supporters of Muhammad defeat a confederation of their enemies, the Meccans, some Arab tribes, and a few tribes of Jews. The result of this battle was a permanent weakening of Muhammad's enemies, and the military ascendancy of the Islamic forces.
• October 14, 1066 - The Battle of Hastings, in which the English language eventually doubled its vocabulary with many new French loanwords, among other consequences.
• April 12, 1204 - The sacking of the city of Constantinople by Crusaders from Western Europe, thus permanently weakening its ability to fend off Muslim Ottoman Turk invaders
• April 5, 1242 - The Battle of the Ice (also known as the Battle of Lake Peipus), which checked the eastward advance of the Teutonic Knights and the spread of German/Prussian influence, thus preserving Russian independence.
• October 12, 1492 - Christopher Columbus discovers the New World.
• October 31, 1517 - Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, thus beginning the Protestant Reformation.
• July 14, 1789 - The storming of the Bastille in Paris, inaugurating the French Revolution
• June 28, 1914 - Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria inaugurating the beginning of World War I.
Saukkomies 20:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a quibble - I don't think an assassination qualifies as an inauguration. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Saukkomies 20:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think an assassination lacks the sense of occasion that an auguration involves. My Merriam-Webster defines inaugurate as

1: to induct into an office with suitable ceremonies

2 a: to dedicate ceremoniously : observe formally the beginning of <inaugurate a new school>

b: to bring about the beginning of. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So, what would be so wrong to use the word "inaugurate" according to the definition 2b above, namely, that Archduke Ferdinand's assassination brought about the beginning of World War I? It seems as if you're just digging yourself a deeper hole... A piece of advice here, Wanderer57: before you go out of your way to criticise someone, make sure you have solid facts behind you, otherwise you may end up appearing to be a bit foolish. Saukkomies 22:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Saukkomies: By labelling my comment as a quibble, I thought I signaled that I was raising a small point. I'm sorry you took it as anything more.

Would it be petty to go searching for support for my point of view on the "inauguration" issue? ... Yes, I think it would. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your compassionate response, Wanderer57. How about we make a pact where we will trust that each other is not out to criticize the other, even though such an interpretation may be warranted from initial superficial reading of a particular comment? I tell you what, I actually do sort of like how I used the word inaugurate in the context that I did. I had no idea that it would be conroversial at all. However, if it really bothers you that I've used it in the way I did, I'll strike it out and put in another word that will satisfy your preferences better. Saukkomies 23:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree to your proposed pact.

Please do not alter anything you have written, or write in future, in response to a quibble of mine. It would be an overreaction. (Moreover, in this instance, changing "inaugurating" to something else would render this entire discussion well nigh incomprehensible. I expect you would agree that that would be a loss.) Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh! Well, actually what I was proposing was to strike out the word, which would give me the chance to use the fancy strike out feature in the Wiki editor. Hee hee! Saukkomies 23:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry Corvus, I see you beat me to the Battle of Hastings, which I later added after my first post. Saukkomies 20:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

October 14, 1066 - the Battle of Hastings. The Norman Conquest meant that the small, isolated Germanic kingdom of England would become tied to the continent, leading to the Anglo-French wars. Corvus cornix_talk 20:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

September 28, 480 BC: the Battle of Salamis - Persia was prevented from conquering Greece, thus insuring Athenian independence and keeping Greek thought, philosophy and democracy alive. Corvus cornix_talk 20:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, from Christ's birth. That would negate the above. Sorry. Corvus cornix_talk 20:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at some of the examples above, I see that the importance depends on which part of the world you come from! --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 20:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so give us some ideas, not just criticism! Hey, I was just shooting from the hip. If I'd really wanted to make this a scholarly treatise, I'm sure I could have come up with some more events and places that would have been more well-rounded in scope. Saukkomies 20:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just kidding! But, since you want me to put my money (what little is left of it after the last few days!) where my mouth is, then I notice that the date of Buddha's enlightenment is not included anywhere. The birth of Buddhism is certainly an important day in world history.--Regents Park (one for sorrow) 18:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't fit into the OQ's timeframe. Corvus cornix_talk 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but thanks, RegentsPark, for the effort. (grin) Saukkomies 07:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There are only two memorable dates in history. DuncanHill (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Another quibble-like comment: I don't think that Columbus can be said, in any sense of the word, to have "discovered" the New World. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Columbus did discover the New World, just as others had done so before. Discovering something does not specifically imply that you were the first person to do it. At any rate, I do concede to the spirit of your argument, if not to the letter. ANd of course (believe it or not) I was fully aware of the Scandinavian discovery of North America, as well as its possible discovery by Brendan the Irish Monk, the Basques whale hunters, the Phoenicians, the Egyptians, the Book of Mormon Israelites, and even the Native Americans themselves. However, Columbus' discovery of America was very important and significant because it came at a time when some European societies were poised to launch an era of discovery, conquest and settlement of the vast lands in the western hemisphere. Columbus' discovery provided the direction for these countries to exert their efforts in expansion. If Columbus had not come along, it is theoretically possible that the Spanish Conquistadors (who had just that same year finally completed their conquest of the Iberian Peninsula) would have crossed the Straights of Gibralter, and would have continued to have waged their age-old war against the Muslims, spreading eventually across North Africa and perhaps even so far as Egypt. Instead, they went west to the New World, along with many other Europeans. This was a very important historical turning point. Saukkomies 22:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with most of that list, but I'd probably think about inserting October 10, 732 somewhere in there, as the crux of the conflict between the Christian and Islamic worlds. GeeJo ⁄_(c) • 21:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I was looking for that, and couldn't remember the damn name of the battle.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 21:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Good choice, GeeJo! I would only amend it by saying it was the crux of the conflict in Western Europe between the Christian and Islamic worlds. The Crux between the Christians and Muslims in the East took place somewhere else. Dang. Now I'm going to have to look it up! Saukkomies 22:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the date of Jesus Christ's own crucifixion, or, more particularly, the date (whatever it was) of his alleged resurrection 2 days later (by our reckoning). That - or, at least, the belief that it happened - changed the world far more than any military or political event. Also, what about 11 September 2001? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I thought about including the crucifixion of Jesus, but decided against it. The reason is that there is no objective, historically verifiable proof that Jesus of Nazareth ever existed. To include his crucifixion as an historic event would, therefore, be controversial and not necessarily accurate. Instead, I included the Council of Nicaea, since it is pretty solidly clear that that event did take place, and moreover, it was during the Nicaean Council that the doctrine of Jesus' divinity was firmly esconced as official Christian doctrine - which it wasn't before, being that there were quite a few people who called themselves Christian who did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, even in spite of the fact that Jesus' resurrection was recorded in some of the books that later were incorporated into the New Testament. Saukkomies 22:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice answer. My only comment is that the question did not explicitly ask for dates involving people historically proven to have existed. It asked for "the most important world dates". No matter how long the process took, the resurrection ultimately came to be believed by billions of people, and there is no question that the belief in that event led to the course of history being altered more profoundly than probably any other single event. Of course we cannot say that the resurrection actually happened, because we cannot say that JC even existed to begin with. But if he existed, and if the resurrection took place, it took place on a specific date. We may never know what it is, but that's not the issue. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

JackofOz, this is an interesting discussion about the actual impact of the belief in Jesus' resurrection. I think that Christianity has indeed had a significant impact on world history, but what I'm wondering is whether the effects that Christianity had on history would have mostly taken place whether Christianity was around or not. What I'm getting at here is that from a certain perspective Christianity - and by that I mean the kind of Christianity that emerged from the Nicaean Council and was accepted as the state religion of the Roman Empire - whether it would have been just as influential had the state religion been Mithraism or some other religion. What I see about this is that Christianity was a way for some of the basic precepts and practices of the Greco-Roman civilization to be spread out beyond the borders of the Roman Empire. But would this have happened anyway, had Christianity not been made the state religion? Perhaps I'm being biased in favor of the inevitability of the spread of Western Civilization, thinking that such a process was inevitable. I do think that religion gets blamed or credited with a lot more of historical significance than it probably ought to be. So, for instance, the conflict between people in the Middle East and the West would probably have happened anyway, regardless of religious differences. The conflict between the Protestants and the Catholics in Northern Ireland was really more of a conflict between different ethnic groups than that of religion. The list goes on. I'm not saying that religion is not a part of these conflicts, but is it the major foundation for the conflict that many wish to attribute it to? Perhaps not. And so, perhaps the actual impact of Jesus' possible crucifixion is not as significant as it might seem. On the other hand, this is just a fun little discussion we're having so why not include it? Saukkomies 10:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, Sept 11th...Did it change anything, really? Will people remember or care about it in 500 years time? Anyway, more for the melting pot:

4 September 476: traditional date given for the fall of the Roman Empire]] when Romulus Augustulus, the last Roman emperor was deposed. Odoacer.

18 June 1815: Battle of Waterloo, ended long-running wars in Europe, redrew map of Europe, ushered in long period of peace, last of the "old style" warfare.

1 September 1939: Hitler's invasion of Poland, which precipitated WWII.

9 November 1989: fall of the Berlin Wall, ultimately symbolising the end of the Eastern Bloc and the Cold War. Gwinva (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, it changed quite a lot. Whether it will be remembered in 500 years' time is neither here nor there, mainly because nobody alive now can possibly know the answer to that question (with the greatest respect to my esteemed colleague). History is by definition a backward-looking discipline, and we can only view past events through today's prism, not tomorrow's prism. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Some additions: from the Roman Empire, I think we should count the Ides of March in 44 BCE (although technically, that was before Christ, I guess) and whatever date Diocletian decided to split the empire in half and install Maximian as emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire.

I think many of the most important things that have happened in history can't be pinned down to a specific date, but nevertheless changed humanity for ever. Some examples:

Thomas Newcomen inventing the steam engine, thus laying the foundations for the Industrial Revolution

Galileo rolling two balls down an incline and realising that they actually accelerated and weight didn't have anything to do with it, thus creating science.

Norman Borlaug creating new types of crops that would eventually save a billion people from starvation. This is probably less known that many of the other things mentioned, but in my mind there is nothing in history that have had such an effect on humanity. A billion people, in just about fifty years. Imagine how many people will have lived in 2500 because of it. Jesus may have fed a few thousand people on some loaves and fishes, but Borlaug fed the entire starving nations of India and Mexico, just using some wheat. Jesus ain't got nothin' on Borlaug!

From these three examples, you may discover where my biases lie :) As for dates that aren't so Euro-centric, I can't really think of any (I was going to say Qin Shi Huangs unification of China, but that fails the not-before-christ-was-born test). Most of the other good ones that I can think of have already been taken, so I'll stop there. 90.235.13.101 (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Dare I suggest the above reflect a bit of a Western bias? ;-) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and that is a valid criticism, I believe. However, it could be argued that Western Civilization has had a more profound and significant impact on the course or world history, and has affected the lives of more people, than any other. As such, events that take place in Western Civilization have a stronger impact on history. Not that I'm saying that this is the correct interpretation, but it is just one argument in support of a stronger Western bias for such a list... Saukkomies 22:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but no. I'm just saying, if you lived in China, you'd see a different engine pushing the world. It's all about your perspective and what you consider to be influencing what. Remember that for a huge amount of time, Europe was a backwater of civilization. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It is true that Europe was a backwater for quite a long time. However, there was one thing that makes Europe different from China - a very important thing - Europeans expanded outside of their homeland, while Chinese (with a few minor exceptions) did not. The end result of this is that today European culture dominates the world, while Chinese culture has yet to really make as significant an impact on the world. I am sure that for people living in parts of the world that are mostly cut off from outside influences that European influence is not as important as it is in most places, but what the op is requesting here is a list of events that are important not just for Brazilian rainforest natives, or for Siberian reindeer herders, or for other groups of people who are isolated from the outside world, but a list of events that effect the greatest number of people in the world. Chinese isolationism is therefore the reason why most of the events listed are not Chinese - even though they were actually the original inventors of many important discoveries and such. But without contact beyond their borders Chinese influence was just limited to their immediate neighbors mostly. So, like it or not, European/Western Civilization simply has a greater impact on more people in the world today than any other, including that of China, in spite of the fact that most Europeans were covered with lice and filth and eating with their grubby fingers in manure-covered houses just a few centuries ago... Wait - that sounds like some of the people who live here in America today! Saukkomies 15:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Lots of serious dates here. My candidate for the Top 20: September 3, 1189. This is the date at which time immemorial came to an end in England, according to the Statute of Westminster of 1276. --- OtherDave (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, a couple of later additions to my list:
• July 16, 1945 - The first Atom Bomb is detonated at the Trinity Site at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. Thus, E actually does equal MC.
• July 20, 1969 - Apollo 11 lands on the moon, and Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin become the first human beings to step foot on another planetary-type celestial object.
Saukkomies 23:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Moon landing, splitting the atom, end of China's dynastic system (Oct 10, 1911), manned flight, transoceanic communications . . . DOR (HK) (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy. I hate to do this, because I really don't want to be a "quibbler", but I think I would choose another way to describe the change that took place in China on October 10, 1911, than to call it the end of the dynastic system. The reason being is that I believe it can be objectively and intelligently argued that the Communist Revolution was actually the beginning of a new dynasty in China's history. It is different in some respects, but there are many similarities with the current government in China and other dynastic governments that have seized power during interim periods of chaos between dynasties. And although Mao outwardly spoke against Confucianism, again, it could be argued that Maoist communism incorporates many Confucian ideas in its application as well as the philosophy that underlies it. Again, I do not wish this to seem as a criticism, because I think that the events that took place in China during the last 100 years ought to somehow be marked in a list of top 20 most important - but I would urge prudence in how to label such things... Saukkomies 23:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Have to add another ... September 9-11, 9 A.D.: the battle of Teutoberger Wald, the high-water mark of the Roman Empire: the place where they reached, were overwhelmed, and died. That the Romans never conquered Germany, and that for two thousand years there has been such an enormous cultural fault-line on the Rhine, I think is one of the most momentous events in world history (yes, the world, not just the West). The subsequent history of Europe, and the world, would have been incomprehensibly different had Germany developed a Romance language and culture (imagine, for a moment, Gaul as Celtic as Ireland). There's a good collection of essays collected by Robert Crowley entitled What If that covers these kinds of scenarios. "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." (Leon Trotsky) Antandrus (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion, Antandarus. Yes, I would support including Teutoburg to the list. Saukkomies 10:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

20 most important world dates - arbitrary section break

A couple more considerations:
• February 3, 1868 - Emperor Meiji declares himself supreme authority for all of Japan, thus formally beginning the Meiji Restoration.
• August 15, 1947 - India gains its independence from Great Britain, becoming the largest democracy in the world. Saukkomies 02:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Where's the birthday of the Internet? Or computers? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought of several, most of which have already been mentioned, but here are some that haven't been yet:

• 4 July 1776 – the beginning of the end for the British Empire
• 17 December 1903 – the first controlled, powered and sustained heavier-than-air human flight. I never cease to be amazed that humans landed on the moon only 66 years later. I wonder how much sooner it would have been if two world wars hadn't intervened.
• 6 August 1945 – the first use of nuclear weapons in warfare
• 9 August 1945 – the last (in the sense of most recent, and hopefully in the sense of final) use of nuclear weapons in warfare
• 12 April 1961 – the first human orbits the Earth

As for 11 September 2001, it seems very important to us today, but only time will tell if it is of long-term importance. Actually, the same is true for the beginning of the end of the Cold War on 9 November 1989 – in 300 years, will the Cold War even be remembered by anyone but highly specialized historians? —Angr 08:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that the British Empire was at its largest extent in 1919, the America-centric date 4 July 1776 really is just a bit too early to be "the beginning of the end for the British Empire". 80.254.147.52 (talk) 09:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. It was the first time citizens of the British Empire said, "No thank you, we'd rather not be citizens of the British Empire anymore." No one had dared do such a thing before, and it was a very long time before anyone dared do it again. The American Revolution was also an inspiration for the French Revolution, suggesting that 4 July 1776 is a more important date in world history than 14 July 1789, already mentioned above. Not everything that happens in America is irrelevant to the rest of the world. —Angr 10:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make it "the beginning of the end". The end of the beginning, perhaps. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I tend to fall on the side of not including July 4, 1776. There had been many previous instances when people under the rule of the British Crown had tried to rebel and kick the Brits out, albeit unsuccessfully - specifically Scotland and Ireland. Indeed, one could make a case that the American Revolution was actually the grandchild of the English Civil Wars, in which English commoners tried to get rid of the monarchy (among other things). Many of the early settlers of New England were among some of the most radical rebels of that event, and their grandchildren inherited much of their misgivings over being under the rule of a monarchy. I think instead of looking at American independence as the beginning of the end of the British Empire, it would be better to look at the impact it had on how the people seized power away from a monarchy. This inspired the much more significant French Revolution.

No, I would say that the beginning of the end of the British Empire took place when Britain declared war on Germany in World War One. This embroiled many of Britain's far-flung colonies, and the result of this was that local colonial subjects were for the first time given weapons and uniforms and taught how to be soldiers. For many of these people it was the first time they'd ever held a rifle, and the personal empowerment it gave to these colonial subjects was something that could then not later be taken back once the war ended. The end result of World War One was that there were trained militaries among the indigenous populations in many of Britains colonies, where there had been none before. And the result of that was from that point on, these colonies began the struggle for their independence from the Mother Country. Saukkomies 10:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 10:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Saukkomies, I disagree that the French Revolution was "much more significant" than the American Revolution (on a global scale, I mean, of course it was much more significant in France), and if you agree that the FR was inspired by the AR, I don't see how you can consider the Storming of the Bastille more important to world history than the signing of the Declaration of Independence. —Angr 11:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Declaration of Independence was probably signed on 2 August 1776 anyway. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Margin re-adjusted. Okay, let's look at this business of the American and the French Revolutions. Which was more significant, both for its time and for the overall impact on subsequent history since the late 1700s? I suppose it could be possible to devise a method that would objectively measure just how much of an impact each of these events had, thereby allowing us to have an empirical answer at hand. However, I cannot myself think of how such a method could be devised, so we're left with purely subjective, if not rational, analysis, which of course is ... well ... subjective. Let's compare what happened as a result of the two revolutions: American Revolution:
• created a democratic republic. However, there were other democratic republics already in existence in Europe at the time (notably the Dutch Republic, and the Old Swiss Confederacy, but also the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, the semi-independent French Department of Goust, the recently defunct Corsican Republic, the small Italian states of Lucca, Republic of Genoa, Republic of Venice, San Marino and Cospaia, the Dalmatian Republic of Ragusa, the Russian Pskov Republic).
• gave the Middle Class power. However, this was happening anyway.
• got rid of the monarchy.
• created a new country that would eventually become the most powerful on earth.
French Revolution:
• created a republic.
• gave the Middle Class power.
• got rid of the monarchy.
• inspired the French to export the ideals of the revolution across all of Europe, thus changing the history of almost every other European country to some degree.
So, which of these two events had the most immediate consequences for the most number of people? Obviously it would be the French Revolution, since the American Revolution directly affected the lives of just a few million people who lived in the United States, while the French Revolution directly affected the lives of tens of millions of people thorughout all of Europe and elsewhere. However, which of these two events had bigger consequences over the subsequent years is a matter of debate. Assuredly an independent United States has proven to be a very powerful influence in world affairs - especially in the 20th Century up to now. However, the reason that the US became powerful was due largely to the fact that it was the only industrial power to emerge virtually unscathed after the ravages of World War II, which could easily and safely be argued was a product of the Treaty of Versailles, which was a result of World War I, which was a result of the shortcomings that were built into the Treaty of Vienna, which was a result of the Napoleonic Wars, which were a result of the French Revolution. This direct line of descent of cause-and-effect domino-like events going from the French Revolution down to the major wars of the 20th Century is quite easily delineated, and therefore if one looks at the causes for why the US emerged supreme on the world stage after WWII, one must attribute this in large part to the chain of events that began at the storming of the Bastille in Paris in 1789... Therefore, the result of America being a powerful country is only partly due to the American Revolution giving the US independence, but also due to the French Revolution insuring that Europe would self-destruct within a hundred and some odd years. It is, therefore, apparent from this analysis (in my opinion, at least) that the French Revolution was the more important and significant of the two events. However, I'm open to further discussion on the matter... Saukkomies 14:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
One more addendum to your comments above, Angr. It is true (perhaps) that the French Revolution was inspired by the American Revolution, but that does not necessarily indicate that due to this inspiration that the American Revolution was more significant. For one thing, the French Revolution would have almost assuredly taken place regardless of whether the American Revolution would have occurred or not. Look at it this way - the American Revolution was inspired (at least in part) by the English Civil War. So, would that mean that the English Civil War was more significant than the French Revolution? I doubt it. Saukkomies 14:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the English Civil War was 120 years before the American Revolution, any influence must have been extremely indirect. (You might as well say the American Revolution was "inspired at least in part" by Caesar's civil war.) Certainly English Civil War#Aftermath says nothing about any influence on the AR. American Revolution#Worldwide influence, on the other hand, makes it clear that it affected the lives of far more than "just a few million people who lived in the United States". —Angr 15:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's look at some of the things that took place between 120 and 140 years ago, to see whether they might have some influence in our lives today... 1) 120 years ago - the Spanish American War - hmmm. There's a possibility that that conflict might have some influence today, no? 2) 127 years ago - Edison invents the Kinetescope, thus paving the way for motion pictures and television. Hmmm, influences? 3) about 130 years ago - invention of the teletype machine, which led to the invention ultimately of the Internet. 4) about 140 years ago - the US Civil War - hmmm. do you think that this could still (after lo these many years) be having some kind of an influence on our lives today? I do agree with you that the Americans were probably inspired in part by the Roman Republic when forming their own. However, the fact that the Wiki article about the English Civil War does not mention that it influenced the American Revolution obviously must mean that such a connection must not exist - after all, how could it be true if it's not in a Wiki article? . Here's the facts: the Puritans who settled New England in the 17th Century were the very people who supported overthrowing the Monarchy and establishing a republic under the leadership of Parliament. Their grandchildren were the people who ended up overthrowing the British Monarch's rule, and established a government that was led by congress. So, you are saying that there is no connection between these two things? Interesting indeed. As per the reference to how the American Revolution affected the lives of people, you were misquoting me. I stated that the American Revolution directly affected the lives of just a few million people at the time that it took place. Saukkomies 14:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure there's influence in a subconscious "this is the way the world works" kind of way, but not the immediate, direct causation within the space of less than thirty years seen in the Atlantic Revolutions, which were started off by the American Revolution. —Angr 16:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, other than saying we disagree about this, I don't know what else to say about it. I did write a 30 page article about the influences of the English Civil War on the American Revolution, which I presented at an AHA conference held at the Montana State University in Bozeman back in the 1980s, in which I dug through scores of primary source material (journals) and secondary source material to uncover what convinced me was a direct link between those two events. However, if you insist on maintaining that there is no direct connection I will just have to say that we're basically done here, right? Because you are really not going to convince me otherwise, and there's only so much pounding a dead horse can take before it becomes absolutely pointless. Additionally, it was NOT the American Revolution that inspired most of the Atlantic Revolutions of the early 19th Century, but rather the French Revolution. Simón Bolívar, who was very hugely influential in many of the Latin American revolutions of that era spent some of his formative years serving under Napoleon Bonaparte's French Army! The Brazilian Revolution occurred as a result of Portugal's king fleeing from Napoleon's invading army, and the Brazilians took heart from the French revolutionaries and seized the opportunity to get out from under direct Portuguese control. The Mexican Revolution of that period was also directly inspired by the French Revolution - most specifically, it was actually inspired as a reaction against it! Napoleon had siezed control of Spain, and replaced the Spanish King with his own brother, Joseph Bonaparte. It was a reaction against this new king that led to the Mexican rebellion - which had absolutely nothing to do with the American Revolution. Even the Irish Rebellion was mostly connected with the French Revolution, which did a lot more than the American Revolution to inspire the Irish to rebellion. Indeed, I hardly see how you can make a statement that the Atlantic Revolutions were "started off" by the American Revolution, other than the American Revolution happened to have taken place chronologically before the others did... Saukkomies 16:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Angr, having re-read through my postings, and having given it some cogitation, I've come to the conclusion that perhaps I may be pushing my own agenda about the influence that the English Civil War had on the American Revolution, seeing as how I presented a paper on this very subject once. And so, instead of trying to present this debate in terms of what my own ideas about the subject may be, I'd like to say that what I have proposed - i.e.: that the Puritan settlers of New England influenced the American Revolution a century later - that it is a subject open to debate, and that one should not take what I am proposing as "the truth" about the matter. Of course I still am convinced that such a connection exists, but I am just one voice of many. If someone wants to disagree with this idea, I won't mind. But all I ask is that if someone were to disagree, to support his or her argument with solid evidence and sound logical points. Saukkomies 16:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

See my response to Gwinva above. I really don't quite understand why people are wanting to qualify the current importance of 9/11 by reference to events that haven't happened yet. They haven't done it for any of the other dates suggested in answers. Right now, it's a significant date in the history of the world. That may not always be the case, but, as far as this question is concerned, so what? -- JackofOz (talk)

Interesting. Would it be correct then to say that the question is flawed because it asks us to compare the relative importance of dates when the importance of some of those dates is currently unknown? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the point Angr is trying to make is that it's far easier to look back at an event 50+ years ago and say it was truly monumental event then it is to look back at a 7 or 19 year old event and say the same thing. And I would have to agree I don't really think September 11th is anywhere near in the top 20 world events. Perhaps time will prove me wrong but I'm far from convinced. I suspect this has a lot to do with how people see history. For some, September 11th was the catalyst for the Iraq war and made an dent on the US and/or world economy we are still reeling from today. For others, the Iraq war was probably always going to happen and definitely can't be primarily attributed to September 11th (or at worst, it was a convinient excuse) and while the US economy was badly affected by September 11th, a lot of things contributed to it's current problems and September 11th is not the primary cause of it's current problems. Nil Einne (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

But, but... after 9/11, everything changed! That's why we can ignore international law, start wars without cause, torture our prisoners, abduct people without due process, violate national sovereignty when it is convenient, shred the Constitution.... if 9/11 doesn't justify all of that, what does? ;-) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Nil Einne. I had a history college professor back many years ago who once said that events cannot be properly understood until at least 20 years after they took place. Indeed, even people who were directly involved in some events are not necessarly the ones who are best equipped to understand what happened. History is like a pond which is surrounded by children throwing rocks into it. Some rocks are larger than others and will make larger waves and ripples. A particular place on the pond's surface will have ripples pass over it from all the various rocks being tossed hither and yon, and some of those ripples will be bigger, depending on the proximity of the rock's splash, as well as its size. If you happen to be located right next to a splash it will seem to be large, but once its ripples spread out for a while it may not be as large as it seemed right next to it. Measuring these splashes and the impact they have over the entire surface of the whole pond is what we're basically attempting to do here by making a list like this. Which splashes made the biggest ripples over the largest part of the pond? Perhaps this analogy is not the best way to look at history, but I thought I'd just put it out there in the hopes that it might help some get a handle on this thing. Saukkomies 10:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree you: recentism plagues history analysis as much as it does WP! To Jack, I must say that my comment regrading 9/11 was not qualified by "reference to events that haven't happened yet", but to things which have. The Iraq war, the current economic recession and so forth have roots far deeper than 9/11. I have no wish to belittle the suffering of those involved, or the impact it had on the community, but I'm not sure it was unique, or world-changingly influential: there was plenty of rhetoric and flag-waving, of course, but I'm not sure how much cause and effect can be directly attributed to it. I'm happy to listen to any who can present the case, of course: I have mounted no soapbox, just musing on how it might be perceived in the context of the late 20th / early 21st century. I have a suspicion that it cannot be isolated, but forms part of the picture of "terrorist" activity which has occured throughout the period: just thinking of the events affecting the UK there are myraid examples, of which the IRA bombings of the 70s-90s, and Lockerbie are particularly memorable (but by no means the only ones). A browse of Category:Terrorism by country will keep you busy for hours. (I was going to move on from the UK, for other examples but then decided I didn't have the hours to spend.) I'm not sure it's possible to rank the significance of such events, and certainly make no attempt to place 9/11 on any scale, merely to mention that terrorism, and governmental response to terrorism has existed for quite some time. 9/11, however, is certainly one of those "collective moments" we discussed a few days ago, and perhaps achieves significance because of its symbolism; after all, I did mention the Berlin Wall, as representative of the fall of the Eastern bloc... Gwinva (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Further, I must say I've been considering it form the perspective of "20 events in history since the birth of Christ", and thus comparing it against the fall of Rome, and such like. Now, if we were to exclude the 20th century from our considerations (on the basis that significanc can't be judged as such a near interval) and set up a separate debate regarding the 20 significant events of the 20th/21st centuries, then that would allow a different approach, given different benchmarks. We are already 20th-century heavy: I can't beleive that of the 20 most significant events of the last 2000 years, the majority have occured in the last 100 years.Gwinva (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Two thoughts: 1) the end of the explorative period in the Ming Dynasty, when large ocean-going expeditions ended. However, from the article it seems that there is no definite date for this, more of a gradual process. 2) The event of June 30, 1908 could potentially have made the list if it had not happened in the middle of nowhere. Jørgen (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

True; the eruption of Krakatoa on 26–27 August 1883 also had world-wide impact. It was probably far more global in its effect than the vast majority of the political events discussed above. —Angr 11:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point about Krakatoa; it struck my mind when I wrote the above but didn't stick stick for long enough to make it into the post. Jørgen (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Oooh Saukkomies, i was almost your biggest fan for a second. Just to quibble, Scotland didn't reject the British empire. Scotland is british. Had you said English, of course we'd have no issue82.22.4.63 (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! I do stand corrected. Would it help rectify things if I said that I'm married to a Scottish lass who's family's from Skye, I love Scotch whiskey, and that Robert Burns is my favorite poet? Saukkomies 20:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No true Scotsman would spell whisky with an E. Malcolm XIV (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Double Ouch! Okay, well, at least in this case I can beg amnesty, since I'm not only not a "true Scotsman", but am not even an untrue one! However you want to spell it, though, good single malt Scotch whisky is like nothing else on earth. I'd say it was ambrosia, but that isn't quite accurate - it's ambrosia distilled and kicked up a notch! Back in 2001 when many of we Americans received "Bush Bucks", I took my wife to a very nice pub in Chicago and spent my $300 on Scotch whisky. That might sound like we would have had to been taken home in wheelbarrows, but see, we were buying TOP SHELF Scotch, which at $35 to $50 a shot doesn't take much to add up fairly quickly. When you get to that level of quality in Scotch it is an entirely different thing than the sort of Scotch one typically finds in a regular ma and pa type liquor dispensary... Some of that stuff is like you're sipping from clouds. It was a memory I'll cherish all my life. Saukkomies 07:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on that subject, Scotland didn't fail in their attempt to reject the English. During the Wars of Scottish Independence in the late 13th / early 14th centuries, Scotland responded to an English take-over bid, and eventually won. They remained completely independent for another 300 years, until the Scottish king inherited the English throne. They followed their own path during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. People have different views on the Acts of Union 1707, when the parliaments merged, of course. England's parliament taking over Scotland's, or the forging of a partnership? But Scotland hasn't "rebelled" since. The Jacobite rising was not an attempt by Scotland to throw off English rule, but a civil uprising of some English, Scots and Irish aiming to restore a Stuart king to the throne. They didn't want to break from the Empire: just have a different head. There were Scots and Englishmen on both sides, and certainly wasn't "England v Scotland". Gwinva (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So you'd be a fan of the song "Both Sides the Tweed" then, no? Saukkomies 20:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Followup to the Holocaust Question From Yesterday

Someone asked about the dates of the Holocaust, and after reading the responses and looking at the Wiki article, I have a question myself. Am I to take it that the Holocaust is strictly to be taken as concerning ONLY those who were victims of the Nazi death camps and extermination programs who were Jewish? Would someone who had been killed by these programs during that time who was gay or Romani or had a birth defect be considered to have been a Holocaust victim? Or is that status only reserved for the Jewish victims? Saukkomies 15:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends who you ask and the context. Personally, I would include the extermination of non-Jewish groups in term "the Holocaust", but there are many who would not. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This question has been reviewed and discussed a lot in the Talk page of The Holocaust. Look in the current page or the archives. The consensus is given at the beginning of the article. Wanderer57 (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Wanderer57. I really ought to have taken the time to have peeked at that page's discussion before posing my question here. Saukkomies 23:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The Grim Reaper

Where did the concept originate from, or what is it from? The classic dark robes, skull face, and scythe look. Death (personification) mentions him, but never actually states the origins of the entity other than saying it's a western concept. 98.221.85.188 (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't the Grim Reaper the one who was playing chess with that 14th Century Swedish knight? Oh, sorry, that was just a movie... Saukkomies 16:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, this takes me back - I wrote an essay on this at college years ago! (What a cheerful course it was...)

As I remember it, the Grim Reaper is supposed to have evolved gradually from a combination of older personifications of Death going back to prehistory, who all contributed a bit of the image. There's the Jewish Azrael, the Angel of Death who must cut the body away from the soul, and also from his alternative coworker Samael, who has a poison-tipped sword for that job. There's also an evolution from the "coach driver" role he's supposed to play, transporting the soul away after it's been separated. See Ankou, for instance. And there is the actual "harvester" role - Sucellus or Silvanus was a Celtic / Gallic entity who in some traditions turned up with a scythe when you died in order to harvest your soul. I had a quick google about and this seems to be quite a useful piece with a roundup of all kinds of Death archetypes and their origins. Karenjc 23:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the attire of the plague doctor didn't affect the robes aspect of things? --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As a completely unfounded hypothesis, I would say that old Hades and the horsemen of the apocalypse probably had some influence. Also, lets not forget Odin. Odin was a psychopomp (which is essentially what the Grim Reaper is), which means that he had the task of shepherding the dead from the land of the living to the land of the dead. It seems to me that Odin closely resembles the image of the Grim Reaper, as a large hooded man on a scary-ass horse. He didn't have a scythe, but he did have a spear.

I'm not saying all of these old gods were direct inspirations of the Grim Reaper, but I do firmly believe that they all play into the same archetype, the large, dark, mysterious psychopomp who guided souls to the underworld. If you study mythology, it blows your mind how often extremely similar figures or stories arise in completely unrelated systems of belief (these are sometimes called mythemes or archetypes). As an obvious example, almost all religions have some sort of trickster, whether they be Norse, Christian, Greek, West African or Native American. No one quite knows why this is. Maybe they all arise from the ur-religion that developed when humanity was young, and while changes happened over the ages, the essential core of the story remains the same. More likely though is that these stories reflect real concerns or thinking patterns that all humans share.

Compare for instance the story of The Death of Baldr (possibly my favourite myth of all time) and the story of Orpheus and Eurydice. Both detail the death of a beloved figure, and both detail the quest of superhuman people to revive that person (Odin and Frigg in the case of Baldr, Orpheus in the case of Eurydice), and they both just barely fail, just on the finish-line. Odin and Frigg gets the whole world to cry for Baldr except Loki (I've always been curious how they got the rest of the giants to go along with it, but whatever), and Orpheus looks back just at the final second to see his bride, dooming her to spend an eternity in Hades.

In some ways, it is baffling to consider that two such separate religions could have such a similar story, but in another way, it's completely understandable. In all of human history, one of the very few things that have been constant is the inevitability of death, and the impossibility of reversing it. People want to know why, why can't your loved ones be brought back, whether it is your son or your spouse. Are the gods just that heartless? I think these myths offered people an explanation where there really is none: even the gods, the most powerful beings in the universe, are helpless in the face of death. And if the gods can't do it, why should we be able to?

I think this is what's going on with the reaper. It may come from some definable source (well, it does come from somewhere), but maybe that's not the point. It may be that this sort of figure scares the bejesus out pretty much anyone, so that it makes a good symbol for death and for that reason many mythologies adopt it (I certainly can't imagine anything scarier than an unstoppable hooded man that brings death wherever he goes, uncompromising and unbeatable). It speaks to a deeper place in our psyche that we don't really have access to.

I realise it's sort-of an unsatisfying answer, but it's the best one I can offer you :) 90.235.13.101 (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is relevant, but "Grim" is actually the alternate name for Woden, the Anglo-Saxon version of Odin. It might add weight to the idea of a connection between Odin and the Reaper. Then again, it might not. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I should also have mentioned that we have a pretty good article on Danse Macabre, which talks about the development of the skeletal Death personification from the "talking corpses" type of story and artwork that were known from early mediaeval times onwards. You know: three healthy young men in the prime of life meet three rotting corpses which tell them "We were once like you, and one day you'll be like us". Very salutary for reminding you that all earthly life is vanity. (See also Vanitas.) Remember, "You may be a king or a little street sweeper / But sooner or later you'll dance with the Reaper." Karenjc 15:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What happens if the electoral college ties?

I happened to be reading this nice summary of the polls and possible scenarios for the election, and the author states that there is a not unlikely chance that the electoral college will tie at 269-269, since the electoral college is composed of 538 electors. The wisdom of the electoral college is obviously questionable, but even if you accept that it's there and not going away, it seems to me to be mindnumbingly, monumentally stupid to have an even number of electors. At least the senate has a tie-breaker. What would happen if this scenario played out (I understand that it's not all that likely, but it seems to be possible this time around)? Certainly it would be one of the biggest (if not the biggest) constitutional crisis the US has ever faced. I realise that this is unprecedented so there is no road-map. Would congress make the deciding vote (either the shiny new one or the old stodgy one)? Would there be another election a few months later and Bush would remain president? 90.235.13.101 (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

See Electoral_College_(United_States)#Joint_session_of_Congress_and_the_contingent_election. The House of Representatives picks the president if that's the case. It would not be a Constitutional crisis—it's pretty explicitly described in the Constitution (Twelfth Amendment). It has happened twice already, but both times in the 19th century. There is no tie-breaker—the House must come to a compromise. It would certainly be pretty ugly, I agree, though it hardly seems more ugly than having the Supreme Court make the final decision. At least the House is made up of people who were actually elected, and are made up of people who are actually accountable for their decisions. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the clarification, I should have read the article on the electoral college more carefully :) (in my defense, it's pretty long). Kudos on the constitution-writers by the way, that's just solid planning. Although I still think it's utter foolishness not to have the number of electors be even. 90.235.13.101 (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I only know about it because someone asked a similar question a week ago. :-) I think part of the danger in mandating even or odd electors is that somebody is going to gain or lose an elector one or another under such a requirement, and debates over representation are pretty nasty. The odds that both the electors and the House vote would be dead-even seems pretty low. (Especially since the House is an odd number of representatives.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

True, but to solve that problem, just make the number bigger: 1001 electors will more fairly represent the nation than 538 will (and 300 million of them even more so, but that's another discussion :) 90.235.13.101 (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

How would just multiplying the number make it more representative? In a winner-take-all system all that really matters is the percentage of the total. That doesn't change if you multiply the entire thing by 2X or something. (Which isn't a defense of the electoral college. But I'm just saying. In the existing system it wouldn't matter if you increase the number if the proportions were the same.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This section began as a discussion of the effects of a tie vote. The likelihood of a exact tie diminishes as the number of voters/electors increases. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really as long as it's largely a winner takes all system. If you have 5380 electors but who they are supposed to elect is chosen in the same way (winner takes all), you're still going to end up with a tie (ignoring the increase likelihood of faithless electors). Since there are two states which are not winner takes all, an increase in the number of electors will make a small difference but the bigger difference will come if you remove the 'winner takes all' component (and even the congressional district component) from all states and instead make their vote completely proportional (so if people vote 55% Democrat, 45% Republican in California then ~55% of the electors from California vote Democrat, 45% vote Republican) even without increasing the number of electors. The trouble is, states may be reluctant to change their system from a winner takes all system to a proportional system if other states don't do likewise since it gives an advantage to the person who receives a minority in their state. Something like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is what's probably needed. Of course, I expect the chance of an exact tie is not actually that high if you do the sums, since ignoring Nebraska or Maine (or counting them since they've never split their vote) only certain combinations of states can actually produce an exact tie and many of the cominations are probably not likely. Nil Einne (talk) 09:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wyoming has about 500,000 residents, Montana has about 950,000 residents, but they both have 3 electors in the electoral college. That means that an voter in Montana has less influence (almost half) over the electoral college than one in Wyoming. It's inherently unfair. The problem is that there are 300 million people in the United States, and there are only 538 electors to divide between the states, so there's going to be pretty severe rounding-off errors (Nevada has 5 electors, California 55, but California doesn't have exactly 11 times the population). The more electors there are in the college, the less of these rounding-off errors there will be. That is, the more electors there are, the better they will represent the people of the united states. I brought up the concept of increasing the number of electors because then there could be an odd number of them, so that they wouldn't tie, and 98.217 argued that then people would complain about the fact that either a "republican" state or a "democratic" state would get an extra elector. That wouldn't happen if you increased the total number of electors significantly, no one could complain about that. No sane person can honestly say that more electors doesn't represent the people more fairly. They clearly do. 195.58.125.53 (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I only mentioned that if you simply multiply existing numbers that doesn't change anything. In any case, in a winner-take-all system the issue of fair representation is pretty murky. If 51% of California favors one candidate and 49% favors the other, is it "fair" to give 100% of California's populational representation to the one that is favored? Adding more electors doesn't affect that basic fact very much. (And as for fairness—a citizen in Montana still has more proportional influence than a citizen in California. If things were "truly" "fair" in this respect people in Montana would have really no say at all—the state has only .3% of the total population.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that when the House of Representatives meets to choose a President in the event of an Electoral College tie, that each state gets one vote. That means that California gets the same number of votes as Wyoming. Now, I don't know if they will divide that vote up proportionately (say that 45% of the California Representatives were Republicans and 55% Democrats, would they give .45 of a vote to the Republican candidate and .55 of a vote to the Democrat, or would the Democrat get 1 vote (assuming party line voting)). Corvus cornix_talk 20:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

September 18

How long have "Humans" been on the earth?

I'm having trouble pinning down a reference for this number of years so that I can fix the intro to this article-to-be: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Explodicle/Planetary_human_habitability http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Explodicle/Planetary_human_habitability

GabrielVelasquez (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The concept you're looking for is "anatomically modern humans".--Wetman (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You can look up the information within the subject of "Anthropology" at the public library or at a university library. A main campus university library is often better than any public for up to date text books of different subjects. Subject titles such as Hominid origins, Paleo-anthropology archaeology, early man, or perhaps East African archaeology. Archaeology (the British spelling) is also spelled as Archeology (American spelling). For professional journals start with Science and Nature. Even a current Paleontology university text might have the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.204.243 (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Homo Sapiens have been on this planet 200,000-300,000 years. All the species that have descended from the genus "homo" have lived here much longer. Australopithecus is the oldest ancestor that we know of so far. ScienceApe (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Poetry by Federica Garcia Lorca

I am looking for the poem "The Balad Of The Sea " By Federica Garcia Lorca. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.79.164 (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This might be what you are looking for ("La balada del agua del mar") -- Ballad of the water of the sea. Antandrus (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Australian author Paul John Radley

Some years ago, I stumbled upon a book Jack Rivers and Me by Paul John Radley. It was set in a (fictional) small Australian town called Boomeroo, and thus was the first book of Radley's "Boomeroo Trilogy". The second book, My Blue-Checker Corker and Me was easy to find and just as enjoyable, and then it took me a long time to get my hands on the final book Good Mates, which I finally had shipped to me (in the US) from an Australian used book seller. Said bookseller alluded to some scandal related to the author, perhaps the books were not the work of a 24 year old after all or something . . . I've thought perhaps that might explain why the third book didn't seem to have been published in the States. Anyway, I've never found out any details and was wondering if any of the erudite Ozzies round here might know more. --LarryMac | Talk 14:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"This is a good book, but in 1996, Radley admitted that his uncle wrote it. "Jack" was published under Radley's name so it would qualify for the first Vogel Prize competition for young Australian authors. (Radley's uncle was too old.) "Jack Rivers" went on to win the first Vogel Prize. And then to become a full-fledged Australian literary scandal." According to an Amazon.Com review. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I wonder why that didn't show up in my search results? In any event, I'd love to find something more reliable than a random Amazon customer. --LarryMac | Talk 20:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

We have mention of it in The Australian/Vogel Literary Award. This google search seems to pull up some reliable sources, as does this. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I bow to your superior google-fu; it's an interesting and sad story. I guess it's too bad that uncle didn't write more, because I really enjoyed those books. --LarryMac | Talk 20:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Honorary academic degrees

Anyone have an idea where (presumably off Misplaced Pages) I could find a list of honorary degrees granted to various people, sorted by name? I'm working in an archive where we have objects related to a certain person, including hoods that he received when being given honorary doctorates; while most of the hoods are labelled, one isn't, and it would be helpful to be able to discover what doctorates he was given so we could determine the other one by process of elimination. 63.172.28.202 (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you're not saying who the person is? It would probably be easier to search from the person to the degree. The chances that there's the resource you're looking for is vanishingly small. Who would coordinate the collection of such information from the hundreds of universities around the world who make thousands of such grants each year? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You might try contacting the Intercollegiate Bureau of Academic Costume, which is the organization under the American Council of Education that oversees the standards of the academic costumes worn at commencements in the United States. Saukkomies 23:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(You may know this already.) In some, if not all, cases the academic dress pattern is unique to a particular university. Eg, the color bands used on the hood, and the order of the colors "identifies" the university. Wanderer57 (talk) 05:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

When I was a boy, we had a general encyclopædia with colour plates of academic dress. DuncanHill (talk) 09:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There is some useful information at the article I linked, but alas no gallery that I can find. DuncanHill (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Another encyclopaedia is better than WP? Shocking! We have all failed... Gwinva (talk) 09:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It was jolly good, my mum's still got it. If I knew its copyright status (published sometime in the 20's) I'd be copying loads of stuff from it into the Misplaced Pages. DuncanHill (talk) 09:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds very interesting. What's it called, Duncan? -- JackofOz (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

obama and 9/11

what does barack obama think about the documentary "loose change"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.237.101 (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you would be better off asking Barack Obama himself, rather than Misplaced Pages editors who are not even running for president. Astronaut (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, that's a little out of line. People are more than welcome to ask questions about what politicians have said their opinion is on various issues. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt he has seen it. Even if he has, I doubt he would admit it. Even if he did, I doubt he would say he felt anything other than it was BS. Because he's a guy running for political office. Obviously. Use your head! --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, be civil, please. But I do agree with your first reply; we are just editors of an encyclopedia and don't know Barack Obama's personal tastes.

The 2 x 98.217.8.46s seem to be different persons. One asks for civility, the other displays incivility. How odd. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Especially since it was done in one edit. Maybe we're dealing with conjoined twins with radically different personalities? Matt Deres (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

September 19

Michigan History Magazine 8, no. 29 October 1924

Does anyone have access to Michigan History Magazine 8, no. 29 October 1924? I'm wanting to track down page 476 to get clarification of the domain in which sales of Ben King's verses exceeded any other single volumes of poetry for 25 years. As you do once you've been on wikipedia long enough. See talk --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There are at least a half a dozen libraries within a 10 minute drive from where I live that have this issue. However, I'm lazy and cheap, and instead of hoofing it myself, I would suggest why don't you go to your own local library and request the page in question through their InterLibrary Loan service? It's free or very cheap, and they'll get the information for you. The other solution is to call a library that owns the issue and ask for their Serials or Reference Desk. Call early in the morning just after they open when they'll be less likely to be too busy to go out of their way for you. Ask if it is possible that the librarian could locate the information and tell you over the telephone. If you want to know which libraries own this, go to WorldCat and search for "Michigan History Magazine", and then after selecting the right record, click on the button that says "Libraries worldwide that own item", and you'll get a list of the libraries that own it. Saukkomies 01:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm, yes, thanks. Good try. Appears there are 2 copies available in the UK, both in university libraries. IIRC, these will not interloan to public libraries. Perhaps you made the assumption that I was anywhere near Michigan? I'm neither lazy nor cheap, but am working on the assumption that someone on Humanities might well have very easy access. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I hate it when I act like a typical dumb Yank and assume everyone on the Internet lives in the US. I apologize for the oversight. However, you still have the option of calling a library that has a copy of this issue you're looking for, and asking whether the Reference Librarian could pretty-please go grab it off the shelf and take a look at the page in question and tell you what's on it. Actually, and to clarify things, I am an information professional, and would, for hire, hoof it over to the local library, copy, and fax the page in question to you. I charge $75 per hour for such services, plus costs of photocopying and faxing. To do this for free would be equivalent for you asking a barber to give you a free haircut in his home... I hope you understand... However, I did for free tell you how to obtain the information through a Reference Desk. Just keep in mind that many libraries have a policy against having their Reference staff doing precisely this sort of thing, especially for people who live outside their jurisdiction. However, as I pointed out, if you call during a not-so-busy time, and if you're nice about asking, the librarian may go out of his or her way to help you in this matter. Your other choice would be (of course) to hire an information professional to do this for you. Unless you can get someone here in the Humanities Desk to help, or to find it full-text online, but of course that would be the lazy and cheap way to do it... Saukkomies 14:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The name of the author and the title of the article would help me locate it through JSTOR, if it's available that way.--Wetman (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Walter E. Banyan, "Ben King Memorial", Michigan History Magazine 8, no. 29 October 1924. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not in JSTOR. It should be in Google Books however per usual the "snippet view" is pretty much useless (I have yet to really understand what the point of this aspect of Google Books is). My university's copy is not available at the moment, otherwise I'd check it out for you. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not in Google books as far as I can see. DuncanHill (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure it is (twice), but you have to play with the advanced search to get it, for some reason. But in any case, there isn't anything to see other than the citation info and useless snippets. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input to date. Keep searching, Humanities team. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You sure you can't get an interlibrary loan to your closest university/university college/school library? Of course, that might still be some place away from where you live, but it could be worth a try. Jørgen (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

He already said he was in the UK, where there are not many copies of it anyway, and he seemed to imply he was not a university. And I have never known a university to do interlibrary loan (in the US, anyway) for someone who was not a member of the university (it does cost money for the university, after all). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and he's already been told what he'll probably have to do to get the information. However, I think he's hoping someone here will do the work for him so he doesn't have to do it himself. Saukkomies 10:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think he's hoping that someone here would combine 1) ready access to the text in question with 2) a helpful attitude. DuncanHill (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have fairly ready access to the information, and was as helpful as I desire to be, but I ain't about to be doing something in a professional capacity without remuneration for it. So, I hope that your comment about having a helpful attitude is not a jibe. Saukkomies 10:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not meant as a jibe - by ready access I meant "not having to go out of their way for". Sorry for any, entirely unintended, slight to you. DuncanHill (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for coddling my ego, DuncanHill. I have a built-in resentment about how information professionals tend to be dismissed as being glorified clerks, which if you think about it, can also be said of most lawyers, too. However, if I did get this material for free I could write it off as "pro bono" work. Heh. We'll see... Saukkomies 13:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'll just say that here in Toronto, Canada, I have borrowed items from university libraries via interloan to my local public library. Typically there is a fee of $10 or so, and sometimes the university library insists on a "reference loan", which means I am not allowed to remove the item from the public library, but other times they don't. --Anonymous, 23:47 UTC, September 19, 2008.

I have worked for over 16 years as a professional librarian, and a goodly part of that time directly with InterLibrary Loans. So, with that said, I can say that the entire business of InterLibrary Loaning is very complex. Different libraries have different policies regarding what material they will loan out to other libraries, and how they'll do it, what material they will try to obtain for patrons, and what kind of agreements they might have with other libraries to do the InterLibrary Loan transactions. I am sure that Toronto's public library system is par excellent in regards to its InterLibrary Loan services - indeed, Toronto Public Library has an excellent reputation among libraries, even down here in the US. I am sure that if it is at all possible to obtain anything through InterLibrary Loan, that the librarians at Toronto Public Library would move heaven and earth to obtain the item. However, such is not the case universally. Every library is a little different in this regards. Some libraries get a bad reputation for borrowing material through InterLibrary Loan from other libraries and then never returning the material (usually due to their patrons just never returning the stuff). When this happens other libraries will be very reluctant to loan out items to these "bad reputation" libraries in the future. InterLibrary Loan offices are very often understaffed, too, and have a difficult time keeping up with the basic day-to-day requests for normal type materials. Having special requests places huge burdens on their time and patience. And the same goes with librarians staffing Reference Desks. However, librarians and library staff are typically very dedicated, and are willing to put in the extra effort to try to do everything that they can within reason to help patrons with their information needs. It's just that sometimes it is - believe it or not - basically impossible to obtain certain things through InterLibrary Loan, for one reason or another. It happens all the time. And if there are only two libraries - both Universities - in England that own this publication, it very well might be that those libraries will not loan or even photocopy the issue at question here. I totally trust Tagishsimon's memory that these materials will be unobtainable through InterLibrary Loan. Saukkomies 12:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I notice that the Newberry Library in Chicago apparently has the magazine. They will take photocopy requests by email and mail the results to you once you send them payment. It looks like most copies are inexpensive. Unfortunately, it will cost you at least $7 to have the copy mailed to the U.K. Crypticfirefly (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as an aside, my reference librarian gave me a wonderful tip, when asked on the ILL form "maximum copy charge" say zero. Got the original and not a bad xerox. Saintrain (talk) 05:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This is good advice, Saintrain. "Typically" libraries charge for photocopying only when it becomes absurdly expensive for them. By writing down "zero" where it asks how much you'd be willing to spend on photocopying charges, you're not necessarily telling them you don't want the article if it costs too much, but you're telling them that if it becomes too expensive for them, to tell you about it. You can always later come back and say to go ahead and order the ILL material and pay the photocopying fees. It isn't always up to the library you're working through as to how much these photocopying charges will be - the loaning library might have very different policies regarding how much to charge for photocopying, which is out of the realm of control of the library you're requesting the material through. Same goes with how long material will be allowed to be loaned, etc. The loaning library can dictate the terms, and the borrowing library pretty much has to go along with them, regardless of what their own policies allow. Saukkomies 13:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Gender, race and class in the Cthulhu Mythos

Hi there, members of WP:RD/H, my boyfriend is in English Lit. and has been given an assignment to do a reading of any book he wants with a strong reading of class, race or gender. A friend suggested the Hitchhiker's Guide, but he is really rapt with the idea of doing a reading from the Cthulhu Mythos and so I was wondering what books there might be which we can use for this. Thanks in advance. Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 01:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the Mythos at all but I would caution that in an assignment like this, proper choice of text is absolutely necessary. Trying to do this kind of analysis on a text which doesn't have a lot going on in those particular areas is either an exercise in futility or bullshit. ;-) There is a lot of other turn-of-the-century "horror" literature that would work better for this sort of thing (e.g. Dracula, Sherlock Holmes, etc.). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I read probably almost all of the Lovecraft stories, and a fair proportion of the Derleth ones, in my youth, but can't remember which ones would be most suitable for your purpose (though I can remember some, such as "Color out of Space", which would not be particularly useful). Why not try Clark Ashton Smith? He has a lot of fun-to-read short stories which would probably be of interest to your project (only a few of them set in the Cthulhu mythos, however). AnonMoos (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Robert E. Howard (creator of Conan) was also in Lovecraft's circle & wrote some stories in the Cthulhu mythos.Crypticfirefly (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Grade level for Twilight Book Series

I am interested in finding out the appropriate grade level for the book series Twilight. Might anyone please be able to help me? Thank you, Brett Bstephens0726 (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. They seem to be targeted at junior high schoolers and high schoolers. If it helps, I found this description in a Chicago Tribune article: "Yes, the ingredients seem ripe for steaminess a la 'Gossip Girl' -- Bella, the central character, a typical high school prom-going girl; Edward, the gorgeous hunk who turns out to be a vampire; and Bella's close friend, Jacob, a strikingly handsome werewolf in cutoffs. But Meyer, 35, is a devout Mormon. So there's no smoking and no drinking in the books. And no sex either." (Patrick T. Reardon. "'Twilight' series successfully walks fine line". July 31, 2008. 1.) Zagalejo^^^ 04:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is plenty of implied sex, but only after they have the requisite teenage wedding. Man, only a Mormon could come up with the concept of abstinent vampires! Adam Bishop (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama terrorist links?

Hello Misplaced Pages, i read on a blog (i now can't remember which one -it might even have been a post on YouTube) which said that Obama had 'questionable' links with terrorist organisations.. Is this just racist BS because his middle name is Hussein or is there some grain of truth? Where did the 'story' come from?217.169.40.194 (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Insofar as there's anything to it at all, see Bill Ayers... AnonMoos (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama–Ayers controversy has more details. DAVID ŠENEK 12:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

And it's pretty much bullshit—guilt by association nonsense. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

CliffsNotes

What is the legal relationship between the condensed books CliffsNotes produces and the original works? Does CliffsNotes have to pay fees to publishers of original works for the rights to produce summaries, or are CliffsNotes publications treated as original works which do not require fees to be payed to other publishers? I understand that many works covered by CliffsNotes are in the public domain, but certainly not all. --Shaggorama (talk) 09:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call CliffsNotes "condensed books." They summarize plots, highlight themes, and provide other kids of analysis. As you say, for works in the public domain, they can write whatever they want. I imagine that John Wiley & Sons relies on fair use protection. Although CliffsNotes are clearly commercial (you have to buy the notes), they're also educational -- I doubt that 5% of their sales are to people other than students. Also, their effect on the potential market of the copyrighted work is probably low -- the kind of student who uses only CliffsNotes and doesn't buy a copy of the work wouldn't have bought the work anyway. So the CliffsNotes defense is most likely "it's criticism and scholarly work." --- OtherDave (talk)

And since they are designed to help kids avoid reading their homework, the works they concentrate on are those that are assigned in high school and college, which are quite often in the public domain anyway. - Nunh-huh 22:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Former Yugoslavia: Agreement on succession issues and PD

Hi, what is the relationship between public domain and the Agreement on succession issues cited at {{PD-Yugoslavia}}. Is this template valid, i.e. does the agreement really put some works into public domain? If it does, which ones? --Eleassar 12:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer; this is not a legal opinion; your mileage may vary. The text does not seem to put any works in the public domain, though I am not a lawyer and I do know know anything about copyright in the republics that formerly made up Yugoslavia.

THAT SAID, this wording seems clear:

All rights and interests which belonged to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and which are not otherwise covered by this Agreement (including, but not limited to, patents, trade marks, copyrights, royalties, and claims of and debts due to the SFRY) shall be shared among the successor States...

Which I read as saying "unless they're covered elsewhere, rights formerly held by Yugoslavia will be be shared among us new countries as follows..."

You can't share public domain, at least in the U.S. The Sonny Bono law has prevented any works from automatically entering the public domain for several years; the only way they get there is for the holder of the copyright to release it. It's like pregnancy: a work is in the public domain, without reservation, or it's not. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

William Donaldson

William Donaldson makes very entertaining reading but I am not sure how much of it to believe. There are no sources and much of the article seems to be lifted directly from the linked Guardian obituary. I suspect that not every word of it is true, which may all be part of some in-joke since this guy was a media insider and satirist. Any ideas on how the article might be improved? --Richardrj 14:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added a link to the Indie obit too. He seems to be the sort of charming rascal we produce far too few of nowadays. DuncanHill (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Knowing quite a lot about Beyond the Fringe, one thing I would like to point out is that the cast were on a fixed fee plus a percentage of takings, and they initially made about £114 a week each. It was still a lousy deal (and on a per-performance basis it was less than they got for the original Edinburgh show), but not quite as bad as the article suggests. (Also, Donaldson produced the show in 1961, not 1960. The producer in 1960 was Johnny Bassett.) --89.168.154.234 (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Atomic Energy Act of 1954

What's up with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haptic (talk • contribs) 21:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific, please? Your link neatly sums up one provision of the Act, "No patent shall hereafter be granted for any invention or discovery which is useful solely in the utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy in an atomic weapon." In a nutshell, you can't patent atomic technology in the US. Surely sensible? No doubt there's more to the Act than that. Strawless (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

but why not? can't you patent bombs and guns and things? you can patent living organisms but not this? seems odd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haptic (talk • contribs) 23:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There are many things you cannot patent. The list of things you cannot patent continues to grow. Hopefully web design and computer programs will be added to the list soon. As for why... consider why there is such a thing as a patent. The patent protects the inventor's investment by ensuring that there will be no competition at first. Without the patent process, inventors may choose not to invest in a new invention because the profit will be made by someone able to compete in the market better as soon as the invention hits the market. Medications are a good example. It takes millions of dollars to come up with a new medication. Why invest that money if as soon as you are capable of making a pill for a dollar, someone else with a larger factory in a cheaper country makes it for a quarter and steals all the profits? So, understanding the why of patents... Why would the government want to protect someone's profits for nuclear or atomic bombs? -- kainaw™ 03:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is more to do with the government wanting to ensure that they can use atomic weapons technology without any pesky "inventor with a conscience" getting in the way by exerting his patent rights. DuncanHill (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Mysterious stone object

While cataloging the Macartney Collection at Geneva College under the direction of the head librarian, I came upon the object pictured to the side. My supervisor (who has given permission to post this question and photo here) tells me that he's never seen it, and the archivist who placed it in this box tells me that she has no special remembrance of it. It suggests somewhat of a stylized compass rose (a major point at top, right, bottom, and left, with three smaller points between each of the four major points, totalling sixteen in all), with a face in the middle — the closest thing to which I can compare it is the "Sun of May" on the flags of Uruguay and Argentina! The object (diameter about 7 inches/18.5 cm) has a hook attached near the top, apparently placed to allow it to be hung on a wall. One of the librarians to whom I showed it thinks it to be some sort of plastic, although it feels more like stone to me: quite heavy, denser than any plastic that I can remember holding. While it's gray and black on the front (by the way, the light spot in the middle is really black; it's light due to reflection from the flash used in taking the picture), the back is almost entirely black, similar in smoothness and in color to the smooth black areas (including the reflective middle area) on the front. Gray areas on the front, on the other hand, are rough. Some small damage on the back and side (not visible in this photo) reveal the object under the mostly-black surface to be tan or brown, similar to the small damaged areas on the right and bottom right visible in this picture. Yet another librarian, who has examined these areas, notes that they exhibit a thin sheet-like structure like that of slate. Macartney I know was an amateur historian of the American Civil War (aside from this object, the only contents of the box were various portraits of Abraham Lincoln), but I can't imagine what this would have to do with the Civil War or anything else that we've found in the collection. Any ideas on what it could be, or its origins? I can provide more specific details if necessary. Nyttend (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

isn't it an Aztec calendar? - Nunh-huh 21:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an Aztec calendar image, yes. You'd have to get an expert to know if its actually an artifact of any value or if it is just some trinket someone got on their visit to Mexico. There's a lot of that kind of stuff made there for the tourist crowd. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

And from your description (sort of like plastic, but not, and heavier) it sounds rather like it might be cast stone, which would make "trinket" more likely. But it has to be seen in person by someone who would know. - Nunh-huh 22:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I would be willing to bet money that it's a small-scale replica of the famous (and very large and very heavy) sun-disk or Aztec calendar stone found in 1790 under the central plaza in Mexico city (which is a unique artefact and now a national symbol of Mexico, and so would be well deserving of an article to itself). For the connection between Mexican history and the mid-19th-century United States, see William H. Prescott.. AnonMoos (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Luckily...Matt Deres (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Entrance to the Public Park in Arles

Is van gogh's painting "Entrance to the Public Park in Arles" on public display anywhere; and if so, where? thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.148.143 (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It is in The Phillips Collection in Washington D. C. in the United States of America. See . DuncanHill (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

September 20

Henry VIII

Modern people criticize King Henry VIII for his flagrant behavior, but what was the general opinion of him during the time he ruled? I imagine he wasn't popular with the church, but what of his subjects?CalamusFortis 02:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Sarah Palin a creationist?

I know that she has stated that she would support creationism being taught in schools, but does she actually believe in it and is she a young earth creationist? I cannot see anything in the article, or elsewhere, that actually says she believes in it, just the assumption due to her support for teaching it. Baked Bean Bob (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This Salon article (you may have to go through an ad before you can read it) makes a pretty strong case that, yes, she believes this stuff: "Another valley activist, Philip Munger, says that Palin also helped push the evangelical drive to take over the Mat-Su Borough school board. "She wanted to get people who believed in creationism on the board," said Munger, a music composer and teacher. "I bumped into her once after my band played at a graduation ceremony at the Assembly of God. I said, 'Sarah, how can you believe in creationism -- your father's a science teacher.' And she said, 'We don't have to agree on everything.' I pushed her on the earth's creation, whether it was really less than 7,000 years old and whether dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. And she said yes, she'd seen images somewhere of dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them."" DAVID ŠENEK 09:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

$100,000 deposit guarantee for accounts

Is this guarantee for every person or for every bank account? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.K. (talk • contribs) 10:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What country are you talking about? --Anon, 11:17 UTC, September 20/08.

In the US, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insures deposits in "member banks", and according to the FRB FAQs "Almost all U.S. banks and savings associations are members of the FDIC.". Also see the FDIC FAQs. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

By the looks of this (http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/insuringdeposits/index.html) it seems yes if the bank is a FDIC member. ny156uk (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Discriminating the fat and ugly

Is there any law that prohibit discrimination fat, ugly people? I don't remember having seen a law stating that discrimination on grounds of appearance is not allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.K. (talk • contribs) 10:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Whilst undoubtedly there will be discrimination against obese people and 'ugly' people (obviously ugliness is a personal preference trait rather than consistent), I am not aware of any discrimination law specifically designed to cover this form of discrimination. That doesn't mean that an individual that is blatantly discriminated against on this basis couldn't successfully sue the accused though ny156uk (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What country are you talking about? --Anon, 11:17 UTC, September 20/08.

Does it matter? is there any country for which the answer would be "yes"? - Nunh-huh 12:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Are textbook questions copyright?

The question came up in conversation today, and I can't seem to find any real answer out there in cyberspace. The textbooks we had mind were maths textbooks (though I'm curious about this in general), and we eventually figured you probably couldn't copyright something like "x + 2 = 0, solve for x" - there must be many textbooks with that exact question. But what about a page full of such questions? What about something like "The bus has two people on it, then in 5 minutes, no people. How many people got off the bus"? What about exam papers? If you write up and distribute worked solutions to either a text book or exam (that aren't included in the original work), are you violating any copyright laws? Cheers, Ben (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In order to accurately answer your question it is necessary to know what you would be using this for. Is it for a classroom or other circumstance where teaching is taking place? This has bearing on the usage of copywritten material. Saukkomies 13:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, suppose I write up worked solutions to the exercises for a textbook or exam, is it ok for me to give these out for study purposes (no money involved) provided worked solutions to the exam/textbook weren't a part of the original work? If so (and I presume the answer is yes), is it then ok for me to include the original question together with the worked solution so people know which question I'm working out? If not, to what level are the questions copyright (ie, my original question)? Thanks for your reply, Ben (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, my wife helped me on this. She is an expert in copywrite law, being the person at the university she works for (she too is a librarian) who is the "contact person" for all copywrite questions. She answers copywrite questions all the time that come to her from faculty and graduate students who are publishing articles and writing books and such. So, with those credentials, here is what she had to say on the subject. This pertains to the United States, and may or may not be applicable in other countries.

If you were to take a textbook and copy verbatim a list of mathematical formulae in the form of a test or study guide, then you are using someone else's creative work. In other words, someone went to the bother of collecting all those formulae and putting them down in an organized way, and that requires some creativity on their part. When a person creates something it is automatically considered to be protected under copywrite law - regardless of whether the person actually goes to the effort to formally and officially make it copywritten. So, if you were taking a page from a textbook, and either photocopying it or copying it by hand, you are using copywritten material, and breaking the law (see below for exceptions to this).

In a broader sense, general mathematical formulae and scientific data are of themselves not copywrite protected; they're considered public domain, general knowledge. However, once someone takes the mathematical formulae or scientific data and organizes it into a test, a textbook, a table, or anything else, then that person has used his or her own creative effort to do so, and that is when the material then becomes protected under copywrite law. Story problems are such examples of taking mathematical formulae and using creativity to come up with them, so for example: the mathematical formula "2 plus 2 equals 4" would not be protected under copywrite law, but "If Sally has 2 apples and Dick has 2 apples, and they both give all of their apples to Jane, then how many apples does Jane have?" would be protected under copywrite law.

So, the problems themselves are not copywritten, but the problem sheet or the collection of them is.

Now, regarding the "Fair Use" clause under U.S. copywrite law, material that is protected by copywrite may be used for educational purposes if it successfully passes certain requirements for how it's being used, which are called "The Four Factor Test", or "Balancing Test". The Fair Use wiki article goes into this in detail, but basically here are the four factors:
•the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
•the nature of the copyrighted work;
•the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
•the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Another thing to keep in mind is whether the book you're using is a workboook. A workbook, which has tear-out sheets meant to be used by the student, is considered under copywrite law to be a "consumable" product. As such, it does not fall under the Fair Use clause. So, if you're getting your math problems from a workbook - regardless of whether you're consuming the tear-out sheets or not (for instance, if you photocopied the tear out sheets) - then you would not be following the Fair Use guidelines. You could use the exact same information from a textbook, though, and if it is being used for educational purposes, you'd be probably protected under Fair Use and would not be breaking copywrite law. Confusing, no?

The whole thing about Fair Use is that there's really no hard, set-in-concrete answers. The reason is that there have been so very few court cases that have tested the use of material for educational purposes, that it is difficult to point at any legal precedent for a particular instance of how any material might be used. That, and the "Four Factor Test" is deliberately vague for the protection of the person who is wanting to use the material.

Hope that helps. If you want, reply back for further clarification, and I'll see whether my wife is up to the task! Saukkomies 14:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

women's breast size

For an average women with higher bra size, say 36 D or something like that, what would be the distance between two nipples (natural when not wearing any dress) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.122.65 (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages help forums
• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers