Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

January 15

A book that describes the use of submachine guns some two hundred years before they were invented?

I Remember reading it as a child But forgot the title. any help greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.193.49 (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Submachine guns are a late 19th century invention, although James Puckle patented an early machine-gun in 1718, nearly two hundred years before. So the book would need to date from the late 17th century. Who were the most inventive writers of the age? Grimmelshausen, Madame de La Fayette, Aphra Behn, William Congreve? A bit later, Daniel Defoe, perhaps, but I'm afraid this is beyond me. Xn4 (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I interpreted the question to be about a relatively recent Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court sort of book where someone took machine guns back in time, rather than a two hundred year old novel, since not many kids read two hundred year old books. --Sean 12:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Something like Guns of the South? 208.1.253.163 (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like one of Harry Turtledove's alternate histories (Timeline-191). See List of fictional timelines, perhaps for other possibilities. S. M. Stirling is another author who likes alternate history. See also 1632 (novel). Steewi (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Or better yet, List of alternate history fiction. Steewi (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wine

What happens to the crushed grapes in wine? When the grape juice is fermenting, are the grapes there as well? So then, is the grape mush rendered inedible and toxic?96.53.149.117 (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

See pomace. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Also Lees (fermentation). Itsmejudith (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel bans "Arab political parties"?

Glenn Greenwald today mentioned "Israel's banning of Arab political parties." Can anyone furnish some more information on this? I can't find anything pertinent at List of political parties in Israel. --zenohockey (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel disqualifies Arab parties, from the BBC, Monday, 12 January 2009. Google News pointers to another 300+ stories on the issue. We have coverage at Israeli legislative election, 2009#Parties. Apparently the same two parties were banned in 2003, a decision reversed in the courts. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks much. --zenohockey (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Is a government still considered a democracy if the 90% ethnic majority in the legislature votes 90%-10% not to allow the ethnic 20% of the population with the 10% share of legislative seats to field candidates in the election? Edison (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

They didn't say they can't field candidates, just not under those parties. Note: I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the action. AnyPerson (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly the problem that happened in Northern Ireland which was a protestant state for a protestant people. And the present peace didn't come about until Tony Blair decided not to go upholding democracy all the time with Britain's money but make it in their interests to come to an agreement with each other. Normally it isn't a big problem because people are happy to have just the power their numbers should command, it's only when outside parties interfere that there's a real problem with a distortion in relative power. Dmcq (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This is referred to as the 'dictatorship of the majority' but we don't seem to have a article on it Dmcq (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Tyranny of the majority? Fribbler (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes - thanks Dmcq (talk)

Technical terms are Ethnic democracy, Ethnocracy, Herrenvolk democracy etc. Israel is more democratic by most measures than all or almost all Arab countries (including the Palestinian Authority under Arafat), but there are certain structural factors which limit the influence of Arabs within the Israeli system (such as non-Bedouin non-Druze Arabs being pretty much absent from the Israeli army, while the Israeli army plays an extremely important social role within Israeli society, and military veterans have priority entitlement to many benefits and privileges), and there are certain "red lines" which are not permitted to be crossed within the Israeli political system (of course, a few like Azmi Bishara make a point of being seen to be crossing such red lines as often as possible, which makes for good theatrical drama and many cheers from the gallery of his fervent supporters, but is not the way to consolidate practical influence in Israeli politics). AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Constantine Andreou's awards

As per Constantine_Andreou#Awards, he became a Commander of the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres in 2001 and an Officer four years later in 2005. But Commander is the highest grade, Officer is a lower one. How could he go from a higher to a lower grade, or is there an error in the article? The references provided are all Greek and French to me! Jay (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I read French but not Greek. The Order doesn't seem to have an archive that goes back to 2001, so I was unable to find out about any award he might have received then. The constitution of the Order says nothing that would indicate that the sequence of events you describe is possible. You have to step up a grade at a time, with five years' tenure at each step, except for two situations: Officers and commanders in the Legion of Honor are automatically granted the same title in the Order. (Andreou's awards include Knight of the Legion, in 2000. If he soon after advanced in the Legion to commander, that would explain the jump to that rank in the Order, but that 2005 award of officer leaves me puzzled.) The other way to jump to commander, I think (the wording is unclear), is to be a foreigner who doesn't live in France—foreigners deemed worthy of membership in the Order can be named commanders (again, I think. Um...Sharon Stone????). The "Andreou" article says he left France to live in Greece in 2002, meaning that in 2001 when he supposedly became a commander he didn't qualify for the foreigner's exemption. Bottom line, it's still a mystery. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The article on the order only states 2005 as the year where Constantine Andreou was nominated for officer. The official site states that in 2005 he has been promoted to the grade of an officer, which implies that he had been a knight previously. The French WP states 2001 for commander, the German WP says 2002 (it has 2001 for Croix de Chevalier de la Légion d`honneur), the Greek WP has 2000 for Chevalier / Légion d`honneur and 2001 for Commandeur de l'Ordre des Arts et des Lettres. Same for the Spanish and the Suomi WP.

Kimon Andreou, his nephew, in a blog has the same data as the English WP, ie Commandeur 2001 and Officier in 2005. As he includes a link to the en:WP article, he may have copied the data. Kimon Andreou can be contacted here [1]. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Is Kimon Andreou the same as User:Kimon who has made several edits to the Constantine Andreou article, including this one which is the contention we're discussing? Jay (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep - one and the same. I only found this discussion as I was getting referrer hits from Wikipedia on my blog and had no idea why. I have been off of Wikipedia for a *very* long time with no immediate plans to return to editing due to personal reasons.

In any case, the data did seem strange to me too when I was entering it but, I had copied it from a publication of the Teloglion foundation of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. I figured they'd know better than me. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to ask my uncle before he died to clarify (I wonder if that would've been considered OR?).

Anyway, I'll be monitoring this thread for a couple more days but if anyone wants to contact me can do so via email. If anyone can figure out the accurate sequence of events, please edit the article appropriately and I'll follow suit on the blog. --Kimon^talk 17:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that until this is cleared up, to remove the "Commandeur" entry. Especially since the official online record only lists the 2005 award. I'll go ahead and remove that entry pending someone clarifying it (or me getting my hands on my uncle's paperwork). --Kimon^talk 14:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Order and Disorder in Hamlet.

This is an essay question, and i know i need to do it myself but id like some ideas of what to include in my answer.

Katy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.160.135 (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You could start by reading the play titled Hamlet, by William Shakespeare. Its at least tangentally related to this question, and may contain some ideas for you to include in your essay. Then, if you are looking for additional ideas, you could read our article on Hamlet as well as another article we have entitled Critical approaches to Hamlet. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A good approach to start with, once you've read the play would be to consider each of the main characters and conside whether they are an agent of order or chaos in the story, or are they both? Then consider the biggest events of the play. Which events brought order to the kingdom of Denmark? Which ones where the biggest catalysts of bringing about the chaotic ending? Are there any soliloquys or quotations about order and chaos in the play? Reread the play, keeping an eye out for quotes that help bring the idea into perspective. If you can answer those questions well in your essay, you'll almost definitely pass. Steewi (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As you read, keep a big pad of paper at your elbow: copy out every statement that describes order or disorder, with act , scene, line number, so that you can locate it again: "the time is out of joint: I.v.188" etc. and weave many quotes into your essay, to support the points you'll be making. Good practice for writing Wikipedia articles too. --Wetman (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Political Rivals

You guys don't have a list of political rivals of each nation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.19 (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

List of political parties by United Nations geoscheme is a list of lists, which allows you to drill down. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You've from Canada so I expect you know this but if not, as people have mentioned above many countries don't have the two party system that predominates in the US. While you could argue al political parties are 'rivals' of each other, often it's a lot more complicated then that. For example, in NZ the Green Party is usually consider to the left of Labour. Realisticly despite some occasional noise to the contrary, the chance of them having an agreement with a National led government is slim. Similarly, ACT is to the right of National and the chance of them ever having an agreement with a Labour led government is slim (even if it was started by former Labour members). Yet both parties have once or twice agreed with each other on some issue (if not in reasons at least in the vote) against other parties. Nil Einne (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Famous People Who Have Wikipedia Accounts

The other day, I saw a post on Wikipedia by Amy Fisher. In the past, I've seen a post by a member of REO Speedwagon on the aforementioned talk page and once saw a post by Peter Gabriel but it turned out to be another site. Out of curiosity, is there a list of famous people who have Wikipedia accounts? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

We have Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles. Algebraist 21:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Remember, anyone can establish an account under a name that might seem to be famous.-- Wetman (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Edison (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ex cathedra: literally?

For a statement by the Pope to be considered ex cathedra, would he have to sit in his throne to pronounce it? Or would he only need to attach "this is ex cathedra" to his statement? The ex cathedra section of our Papal infallibility article doesn't discuss the question. Nyttend (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The article you have linked to says: The "chair" referred to is not a literal chair, but refers metaphorically to the pope's position, or office, as the official teacher of Catholic doctrine, which should answer your first question. Afaik, such "ex cathedra" statements are extremely rare, the last is assumed to have been Munificentissimus Deus (Pope Pius XII) in 1950. Bear in mind that ex cathedra statements are not the sole means by which the RC church can invoke infallibility of its teachings. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And it's never as clear cut as a pope saying words to the effect of "What I'm about to pontificate upon will be spoken infallibly". Theologians still debate which (if any) of the pronouncements of the popes are meant to be put into the "Infallible" box and which into the "Other" box. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Btw, the WP equivalent to an ex cathedra pontification is the WP:reference desk, where numerous volunteer pontifexes dispense infallible truthinesses 24/7. Divisionally, this results in a rate of 3.42 (note the prime 42 !), the remaining 96.57 % being negligible bugs in our partial omniscience. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's actually "pontifices" (if I may say so ex cathedraically). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

*woosh!* --Tango (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The phrase in question would be more generic than specific application to a Roman pontifex maximus suggests. It evolved from the chair (Greek kathedra > Latin sella) located on the raised floor (Greek bema > Latin tribunal), often found at the inner end of a basilica, where any high Hellenistic, then susequently Roman, official might sit to render judgment or issue an official decree (edictum). Since the polity of churchdom was early modelled on governmental power structures, any bishop might occupy his own cathedra (Latin transliteration from Greek). Hence comes the expression 'cathedral church'. It therefore originally did refer to any pronouncement thus rendered authentic. Cf. also English 'see', transliteration of Latin sedes 'seat', which has an analogous origin.Billhattalmiyd (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ethics question

Let’s say an anonymous person gives an organization the right to print and use their words (a personal account for instance). Is it ethical to then use those words in a artistic work if you have permission from the organization who owns the rights? --143.44.71.9 (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The permission from the person for the organization to use their words may not necessarily mean that the organization can permit third parties to use them. This is not legal advice, just a commonsense observation. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It depends entirely on how the work is liscenced, who has the liscence to the work (the author or the company he worked for), etc. etc. There is just too many variables to be able to give a definitive answer given the rather general information you have given here. Unfortunately, even if you asked a more specific question, it would probably beg for some form of legal advice, which is probably verboten here. If you have any genuine concerns, contact a lawyer who works in this field, or better yet, the author AND company you allude to directly. They will let you know straight up. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the question is about ethics, rather than law. Though the law ought to be ethical, sometimes even though you have the legal right to do something, it may not be the right thing to do. So, in general terms, it is not, in my world, ethical to use someone else's words for any purpose (no matter how artistic, and no matter whether or not money is earned from this use) without that person's specific permission to do so and without giving the person whatever credit the permission requires. I am not here talking about who owns what, but rather who created what. YMMV. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Bielle is right that this is an ethical, rather than a legal, question, though of course there may be legal implications to the acts involved in the original question. I would strongly advise that no-one ever consult a lawyer for ethical advice. DuncanHill (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, that copyright permission needs to be given by the holder of the copyright, not people who have received a one-off (even repeated) permission or licence themselves. Depending on where you are, you could find it helpful to check out the law advice centre for artists in Australia[2]] on the ins and outs of copyright and appropriating material. It's an interesting area because you can appropriate/use stuff while a student, for example, that is not permitted when you aren't. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This is very helpful. Thank you. How would you view a situation in which an individual gives an organization their words with the express desire that that organization disseminate them and make use of them in whatever way will help a specific cause? I’m thinking of, for instance, someone who speaks to UNFPA with the intention of helping to end genocide, honor killings, infanticide—something of that nature. I can also see the argument that there is implied personal consent there. . . It may also be very hard to FIND such a person for very good reasons. Thank you for your time gentlepeople. --143.44.71.9 (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

We could do endless variations on a theme here and still not have answered your question. If you have a specific situation in mind, as you appear to do, why not give us all the information and we can then, perhaps, make meaningful commentary about the ethics? ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The above seems like a fairly specific (and for artists, rather common) situation to me. . What other details would make a difference? The instance I’m currently thinking about is with UNFPA permission material. --143.44.71.9 (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This statement "an individual gives an organization their words with the express desire that that organization disseminate them and make use of them in whatever way will help a specific cause" could mean a number of different things, for example. How does one "give words"? Were they published words, or transcribed from a recording of a speech? Were they written specifically for this cause in a contract situation, or were they written for another purpose and then adapeted for this cause? How is the "express desire" expressed? Are you talking about detailed permission evidenced in writing, about a reported conversation or a conversation to which you were a party? Is the "artistic work" in which these words will be used also being given to the cause for its use in the same campaign? There is a difference, I would suggest, between taking a personal account of, say, an act of genocide, that has been reported in writing to an international body, and quoting that account (all or substatially all) in a publication being produced by that same body for the same ends, and privately absorbing the same material into a publication under another individual's name. Even if, in the latter case, the second individual, the artist, intends the same objective and accredits the source, there is still a personal benefit that arises from using someone else's work. What I would understand in the first case as probably being acceptable, I would not, in the second. This is all hypothetical and likely now a branch too far. It is difficult to discuss the ethics of a situation without the details. That was my only point. ៛ Bielle (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The main thing afaican see is: "you have permission from the organisation who owns the rights". Permission comes from the owner of the copyright, which in your example may not necessarily be the source – permission/license is required from the owner of the copyright. When a person gives their story or words to an organisation in a "free release" way, then the organisation owns the copyright and can give permission afaik. You may need to see a form of that "free release" in writing if possible. If the organisation doesn't have ownership, you might try to find the "author" or the material to get permission to use their words, and if you can't find them after you have done your best, a disclaimer to that effect is the usual thing. It's possible the artwork is yours to create after that. Again check with a legal person to make sure. Btw, a license may have a time or use limit on it and there's usually a fee...

The problem for me is the use of the word "ethical". The thing that bites you on the bottom is the legalities of using and "publishing"/exhibiting, and claiming authorship, rather than the ethics of an action. Ethics may include making some/any proceeds from using the artwork available to the organisation or that person to help them in some way. That's a different area. Unethics is benefiting from someone without exchange. As a last resort you may try to fictionalise or make composite a number of stories to get the gist into your work (seeking permission and then running it past them for approval perhaps, though I don't know if this would be strictly necessary, it's ethical which means it's up to you). How you handle this may influence whether they are willing to work with you next time.Julia Rossi (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

NHL player stats against specific teams

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am searching for a website where you can view the stats of NHL players against specific teams during their career. These are shown on the player profiles of team websites before the games, but unfortunately they are changed after the event. For example: Career vs. LAK: 64 games played 7 goals 38 assists... 24.202.236.203 (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have said that your best starting point would be the Elias Sports Bureau (homepage: http://www.esb.com/ ), given that they are the official statiticians for ESPN. You know all those insane stats "So and so scores 2.5% more goals on Tuesdays under a full moon" that sort of stuff? Well, that's usuall Elias that comes up with that stuff. Unfortunately, their homepage pretty much sucks. Other statistics services include STATS, Inc. (homepage: http://www.stats.com/ ) which has a better website; unfortunately access to their data is by subscription, and it doesn't look like the data you want is provided by them in a public forum, though they are pretty much the #2, after ESB, sports stats company in America. You could also check the NHL's official website: http://www.nhl.com/ but it does not appear that they have that data either. Wish I coulda been more help. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You could try The Internet Hockey Database Wolfgangus (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

January 16

DNR (Do not resuscitate) orders in South Africa

Can a South African issue a DNR order or request / instruct not to be resuscitated on spontaneous cardiac arrest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.211.155.94 (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

One could of course request it, but the issue with do not resuscitate orders is whether they're honored. I read through the South African Living Will Society's web site and came away with the impression that DNRs are not universally recognized, though they didn't say so explicitly. --Sean 14:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Margarethe von Holzheim

I working on a list of Hessian consorts. And I was wondering if Louis II, Landgrave of Hesse had two wives or one. I know one is Mechthild of Württemberg but is Margarethe von Holzheim (from German Wikipedia) a legal wife of Louis II. I mean could she be counted as a consort or was she morganic wife. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I am just guessing about the morganic part. I can't even read german. lol!--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The usual form is "morganatic". AnonMoos (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Louis II only had one wife, by whom he had at least three children, Anna, Wilhelm I, and Wilhelm II. He also had a bastard daughter Margarethe; the German article claims he also had a bastard son, John, whose mother "could have been" Ludwig's mistress Margarethe von Holzheim (saying they had 8 children together, but their source for this is unstated), and also gives Louis a 2nd legitimate daughter, Elisabeth, who died young. Anyway, for your purposes, Margarethe von Holzheim is alleged to have been a mistress, not a consort or wife, morganatic or otherwise. - Nunh-huh 11:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Actual cost of LPG

I'm having some trouble figuring out how much liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) actually costs. I found a price online, but it implied that it costs something like $70 a gallon, which doesn't sound so reasonable. I'm also unsure of how I should account for LPG's different efficiency; I'm sure driving the same distance on gasoline vs. LPG wouldn't require the same amount of each fuel. The thing causing most of this is that LPG doesn't seem to have been introduced into the U.S. (where I am) yet. Any help?--The Ninth Bright Shiner 12:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be £.5 per litre in the UK [3], which would be £2.25 per gallon. That would be about $3.50 per gallon. Something like £.06 per litre is a fuel duty (i.e. tax) and so the pump price exclusive of tax will probably be around $3. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

£0.50 a litre would be £1.89 a US gallon (about $3.08). DuncanHill (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Without going into too much detail, and to generalise to an extent that will undoubtedly infuriate other Wikipedians, the cost for LPG is significantly lower than that of petrol - although this varies by country according to tax laws, a saving of between 20-30% is reasonable. BUT the fuel consumption is also significantly higher than a petrol or diesel car, so in terms of cost, your average driver isn't going to notice a great deal of difference in their bills - The main advantages of LPG are lower carbon emmisions than a petrol equivalent (so lower road taxes in some juristictions) and for fleet buyers, who can get financial incentives from governments for using them. 87.112.26.250 (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is the situation in NZ is largerly that it is has been cheaper to run an LPG vehicle then a petrol one if you have high fuel consumption. However because of the conversion cost it may take a while to make up for it plus while many petrol stations in Auckland do have LPG not all do and of course usually only one pump so it definitely increases the burden. But it's fairly common among taxis (which are often owner-operator in NZ) and indeed even a driving instructor I knew had it (and that was in 2003 so before the petrol price extremes). I don't believe there are any specific incentives for conversion other then the cost savings. Of course NZ as with many developed countries does have a high tax on fuel so there may be something there but I'm not aware of any. According to [4] it's 28.4% higher fuel usage on average so provided the cost difference is more then that, you will save money (well neglecting if you have to drive longer to find a refueling station and any maitance costs, as well as perhaps any extra costs if you have to refuel more often). From [5] & (note that graph is comparing the price of petrol with LPG*1.284 to account for the usage differenceas mentioned in the notes(may seem to be biased but they seem to be fairly honest to me which they probably have to be) suggest it is still cheaper even with the recent drop in petrol price although not so much. Also it's comparing pump prices for petrol to prices for LPG with their cards and I'm not really sure what discounts you get with fuel cards for petrol but the fact that it's so common amongst taxi drivers and the like suggests it is cheaper, I don't think they're all so stupid (after all some of them are nuclear scientists). However without a high fuel consumption it may not be so wise, (check question "I may as well run on petrol") does suggest if you pay normal pump prives and particularly if you use supermarket discount vouchers petrol may be cheaper and this is supported by [6] where if you compare the prices of petrol to LPG it's likely cheaper to use petrol currently. Nil Einne (talk) 09:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Prospering businesses in this climate

Inspite all the economic woes and massive lay-offs and closings, what businesses (in the USA) are actually making a stable profit presently? --Emyn ned (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There are staples which people need even in bad times, like basic food items (loaves of bread, for example). There are also some items people buy more of in bad times, because they are a cheaper alternative to something more expensive. For example, Netflix movie rentals might go up if fewer people can afford to go to a theater to see movies. StuRat (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Giffen good --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Inferior good :D 79.66.46.92 (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The fast-food and family-restaurant business (and associated areas) is still doing fairly well, though there's obviously a lot of variation. Even in tough times people still like to go out for supper, they just shift to less pricey options. Porn is often referred to as "recession proof", though I don't know about how true that actually is. Anything tied to addictions would have a leg up, so booze and cigarettes are probably doing okay. Isn't it a comforting thought that in the toughest of times you can count on greasy burgers, professional whores, and booze-hounds to keep things shored up? Matt Deres (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As a cigarette-smoking booze hound, I'm just happy to be doing my bit for the economy. (I draw the line at fast food, though, and will maintain a discreet silence with regard to your "professional whores" example. Deor (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well some people did try and seek a bailout for the porn industry [7]. They may not have been serious but they did say their industry had declined even if they expect to survive Nil Einne (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Bankruptcy lawyers, repo men, pawn shops, educators (people go back to school for more training). Clarityfiend (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The typical thinking is that "non-cyclical" (not following the 'business cycle') industries continue to perform at a steady pace during downturns. You'll actually see their stock perform pretty well during these periods because equity investors flock to their relative safety. They are called "defensive industries."

Consumer Non-discretionary Items - (things for cleaning (toothpaste, toilet paper), eating and household goods etc.) - Proctor and Gamble

Healthcare - Insurance providers, hospital operators, supplies manufacturers - Johnson and Johnson etc.

National Defense - Equipment manufacturers, systems etc. - Northrop Grumman etc.

Sins - Tobacco, Alcohol, definately NOT gambling however - Altria

These are the traditional defense, non-cyclical plays. If you're asking for reasons of investment, make sure your prospects have plenty of cash on hand. It will reduce their need to use global credit markets, and allow them to maintain dividends even if FCF starts to waver.NByz (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Expect some shake-up in the contractors supported by "defense" spending.--Wetman (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

For what is ABC an abbreviation?

Resolved

A medal is on ebay. Quotation: The obv depicts a man in flying gear? and is inscribed ARBUTHNOT TROPHY TRIAL 1923. The rev is engraved SUB LT N.S.H. DARCY R.N. 5 H P A B C. "Flying gear" should be motor bicycle gear. Presumably 5HP means 5 horse power. ABC has me confused. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Cracked it. All British Cycles. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I was going to suggest maybe an Ariel Motorcycles, but "All British Cycles" sounds more likely as a class in a touring trial. DuncanHill (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

World population growth since when?

When was the last time world population decreased over a period of a year or longer? The data in World population estimates note the last decrease in the 1340-1400 period, but they do not give yearly values for the time after this. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing so precise as yearly data exists anything like that far back. Algebraist 19:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of this, but the answer to my question might well be sometime in the 19th or 20th century - e.g. during one of the world wars.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the population was so substantial after a certain point - 2 billion by 1930, 3 billion by about 1960, 4 billion by 1971 - that it would be hard for enough people to have died to outpace the births. Although if you look at the larger estimates of deaths worldwide during the Spanish Flu outbreak, 1918 might be possible.

(Edit with figures later when I had time) The increase was, on average, 33 million over 1930-1960; given its length, I doubt any one year of WW II had the deaths outweigh the births, even though it wasn't 30 million each year.

1830-1930, however, only saw an average increase of 10 million a year. While that many wouldn't have died in one year of WWI the Spanish Flu killed most of its victims in the first half year or so, meaning in 1918; which was also a very bloody year of the war and a year of a lot of deaths for Russia, I think, even with no war, considering the turmoil there. So, I'd say 1918 likely did see a small decline in world population.Somebody or his brother (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

January 17

Joshua Kaeo

Does anyone know the geneaology of Joshua Kaeo. I know he is the son of Asa Kaeo (don't know Asa's gender); grandson of High Chiefess Manoua, daughter of Kalaniopuu. I was wondering what sex is Asa, who was his/her spouse, and who was Manoua's husband? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Our article on Joshua's son Peter Kaeo indicates that Asa was male. Rmhermen (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

bioclimatic design

I'm not sure if this is the sort of question you're allowed to answer, but I thought I might as well give it a go. It's not really doing my homework for me or anything like that, I just need a bit of advice.

I was supposed to write an essay on any subject related to enviromentalism, sustainability and such like in architectural design, the choice of subject being based on any article in a particular magazine. I read a few issues of that magazine, and had some trouble finding any topics that fit the requirements, but just recently I suddenly came across three almost at the same time. Now I only have a few days to write this essay and I don't know which of the three options to choose. It would have to be a subject for which I could quickly find a lot of information, but not too much, from a variety of sources and then write about differing opinions on the subject. The three options are:

• The use of timber in construction, particularly the use of a new system combining timber and concrete,
• The development of an open public space around the heavilly industrialised Lea river,
• Working towards either the development and building of low CO2-producing new buildings, or reducing the pollution created by existing buildings.

I doubt I have time to research all three before choosing one of them, so some advice here on what to do next would be very helpful.

As would some suggestions as to where I could find out more about these topics.

Thanking you all in advance, 148.197.114.207 (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if you don't have time to do some basic research on each one and need to quickly start researching one, I would suggest you quickly choose the one that interests you most and start working on it. The few days you spend waiting for someone to help you decide which one is best would be far better spent on working on one. I mean after a day if you find the one is chosen is completely this, you can always change your mind. Also in future don't leave your homework to the last minute. If you didn't and in fact your teacher just didn't give you enough time, try approaching your teacher about this in a polite way Nil Einne (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The third one is the only choice which lists an environmental goal right in the description. The others may, or may not, be designed to help the environment. StuRat (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

And the third is the only one with two obviously stated differing opinions, though it is the topic I would find least interesting. Unless there are oposing opinions on whether or not the other two are good, environmentally beneficial ideas.148.197.114.207 (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If you choose the first, there is a large technical literature on wood in construction. Do you know enough materials science to read into it quickly? If you choose the second you ideally need to go and visit the site in Lea Valley - is that feasible? The third looks easier but actually it is broad and it has its own problems. Make sure you refer to a lot of documentation as well as the article you choose from the magazine. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Having now decided on the third option, where do I go to find out more. After a while of searching onthe internet I have only a few scraps of information, gathered from websites run by companies that include a couple of paragraphs on the subjectwithout much depth or detail. Is there anywhere a site that might have all the information and statistics for both sides of the argument, so I can find what I need and work out what to write? 148.197.114.207 (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

China surpasses Germany to become the world's third-largest economy

Has China become stronger or Germany weaker?--Mr.K. (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Chinas economy has been growing.[8]--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, so has Germany's. Just not as quickly. —D. Monack ^talk 06:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

How did Israel know that the tunnel was built for capturing Israeli soldiers?

From 2008 Israel-Hamas ceasefire: "On 4 November 2008, Israeli military raided a Hamas-dug tunnel between Gaza and Israel on the Gazan side of the border. The IDF claimed it was intended for the capture of Israeli soldiers, while Hamas, and one IDF source maintained it was for defensive purposes."

How did Israel know that the tunnel was built for capturing Israeli soldiers? Was it true? Was there any other verification of the claims made by the IDF?

In a newspaper today I read: "the military pummelled the territory with 40 air strikes against ... a mosque suspected of being used as a weapons store, the army said". This must mean that the Israelis have informants on the ground. Is that right? ExitRight (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

They probably do have informants on the ground, sure. But they could also have been monitoring their communications, or they may be receiving intelligence from agents operated by other parties, or they could've taken prisoners and interviewed them -- in the most humane manner imaginable, I'm sure. There are lots of ways information like that could be obtained. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Do they publish information about sources? How would one ever verify an answer? Dmcq (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the nature of intelligence, Israel may not want to publish its sources, for fear that it will disrupt further intelligence gathering or endanger the lives of its agents. If they just came out and said "We have a double agent placed within the Palestinian forces, and here he is to explain how he found out about the tunnel!". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, how one would verify an answer would depend on who one is. If one is a private citizen, one's chances of verifying it would be pretty much nonexistent, short of actually going to the site and seeing what's what -- but of course the information to be verified wouldn't be known to one at all until it's pretty much too late. Information about sources is very rarely published before it doesn't do any good, except from a historical point of view, in order to protect them. One can only conclude that as far as this goes, for a private citizen, life sucks. (Though for most of us, nowhere near as hard as it does for those living in Gaza.)

However, if one is not a private citizen and has access to the intelligence, as well as a bit of authority, one could contact other intelligence agencies for corroboration; even if that wasn't available, one could still find out of there's any reliable information out there that contradicts the intelligence -- if there isn't any, that makes the information more reliable. Or one could simply send in reliable agents to confirm the intelligence, or at least to ensure that there's no reason to believe that the intelligence is faulty. Among other things. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the matter is really very simple -- if a tunnel goes from a built up area of Gazan Rafah to a built-up area of Egyptian Rafah, then it's a smuggling tunnel. If a tunnel has no discernable relationship to accessing Egypt and convenience of transporting bulky items, but instead aims towards Israeli military outposts, or the Israeli border far from Egypt, then it's a military tunnel... AnonMoos (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the OP, no-one is disputing the military status of the tunnel. The question is whether it is intended for attack or defense. Algebraist 00:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

A "defensive" tunnel would be a bomb shelter, a storehouse, or a means of going from one location to another within Gaza without exposing oneself on the surface. It's extremely difficult to see how any tunnel which closely approaches or crosses the Israel-Gaza border can be "defensive" in any meaningful sense of the word. AnonMoos (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

WOLF, meeting with a Lamb astray from the fold, resolved not to lay violent hands on him, but to find some plea to justify to the Lamb the Wolf's right to eat him. He thus addressed him: "Sirrah, last year you grossly insulted me." "Indeed," bleated the Lamb in a mournful tone of voice, "I was not then born." Then said the Wolf, "You feed in my pasture." "No, good sir," replied the Lamb, "I have not yet tasted grass." Again said the Wolf, "You drink of my well." "No," exclaimed the Lamb, "I never yet drank water, for as yet my mother's milk is both food and drink to me." Upon which the Wolf seized him and ate him up, saying, "Well! I won't remain supperless, even though you refute every one of my imputations." The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny. (The wolf and the lamb, Aesop's fables) --PMajer (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If the people of Gaza have dug this tunnel into Israel to attack there, does that make it the same as the one at Dover castle, which the article says is the only one of its kind in the world?

I'm sure I've heard something like that wolf fable before, from a different angle, where the wolf, or possibly a fox, says things like that he has to eat, or he'll starve.

148.197.114.207 (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

ya... was it Lebensraum, the fable, maybe?--84.220.118.103 (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It is so unfair of Israel not to allow their neighobrs to drop artillery shells on Israeli settlements. So unfair. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

please halp me

so im in love with this girl goes by boxxy how do i track her down and marry her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.110.229 (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Come on, do you seriously think we can help in the slightest if the only information you give us is her nickname? --Tango (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if this [9] is the Boxxy the OP is writing about, then she is certainly photogenic. If anyone here has the patience to listen to more than a sentence or two, perhaps s/he will discover (a) the attraction, beyond the obvious and (b) the information the OP needs to track Boxxy down. I lasted about 30 seconds, and can be of no further help whatsoever. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I just watched that video. I will never have those 30 seconds back again. Damn you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

She doesn't mentioned much of interest in the videos other then being married to Addie in Gaia. She said her husband is Sheldon in her latest video although I'm not really sure whether that's in Gaia or what (she also said she's moved on from Gaia although I'm not sure what she's referring to, it may be 4chan or YouTube). Incidentally the two videos that appear to be released earlier this year are actually much older (it's kind of obvious if you listen to all 3). Also it's unclear what her age is, she may be underage. There's some discussion here of who she may be [10]. You can try asking her in a video response or something (she says in the latest video, boxxybabee is her real account and the history suggests that's correct) but I doubt it'll be successful since I strongly suspect she's putting it on and given the attention she's getting she's not liable to actually give private details to some random person on the internet (who would?). Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Taking the government to court

I was having a discussion with my dad earlier (we live in the UK for reference) and I was curious: is there any section of the government you can't take to court for one given reason or another? I originally thought you couldn't take to court any section that was under the Queens title such as HM Revenue & Customs, but a fairly recent court case decided you could. This has left doubt in my mind. So out of curiosity only (I have no intention of sueing the government) could someone clarify this for me? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't answer your question directly, but the articles Crown proceedings, Crown Proceedings Act 1947 and Public Interest Immunity may be of some help. DuncanHill (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The general broad legal concept is sovereign immunity... AnonMoos (talk)

Thanks for your answers, Crown Proceedings Act 1947 is what I was looking for really. Basically, the crown is no longer immune to the law. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm much more knowledgeable about American law, but the root principle is the same: the sovereign cannot be sued without consent. To argue that the Crown is no longer immune would be a misreading, I think. Rather, the Crowm has consented to suit in certain circumstances. The US has a similar statute on the books, and the same principle (rooted in the common law tradition shared by both countries). The sovereign (a state or federal government) cannot be sued without its own consent, but that consent can and has been given, by statute, in specified cases. In the abstract, however, the sovereign remains immune from suit, in the sense that it can, at any time, rescind its permission for suit. (There is an exception in the US; a state can be sued without its consent in federal court for injunctive relief, though not for money damages.) Tb (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The Crown cannot at any time rescind an act of parliament. Only another act can do this. DuncanHill (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, whoops, I misspoke. The Crown can't rescind it, and in the US, the Executive branch can't cancel the Federal Tort Claims Act (the parallel act here, also enacted in the late 40s). What I mean is that the sovereign--the State, not the Crown--can rescind it at will. In the US, for example, the Congress could rescind the FTCA in the middle of pending legislation and thus rescind the agreement to be sued. I had forgotten the technical use of "Crown" to mean the executive. Tb (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Both "Crown" and "Sovereign" in the UK refer to the monarch (of, rather, the office of monarch). The executive in the UK is Her Majesty's Government, which is not "the Crown" (although it operates largely through the delegation of the royal prerogative). --Tango (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Almost any act by a public body in the UK, including government departments, and also any failure to act when necessary (viz., breach of statutory duty) is susceptible to judicial review, initially in the High Court. You need to apply first for leave for judicial review, and most such applications fail, but where leave is granted there is a good rate of success, as High Court judges are (usually in practice as well as in theory) strictly independent of government. Xn4 (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Another thing to point to in history is the "petition of right" which is reasonably familiar to anyone who has seen the play "The Winslow Boy". This was a way subjects could try to recover money from the Crown, but in order that it not be abused, the case had to be authorised by the Crown (on advice from the Government of the day) with the majestic term "Let right be done". According to our article on the subject, the Monarch would still be required to give permission for a lawsuit against her personally, but the use of the petition of right on state bodies established by the Crown ended in 1947. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

January 18

Classical Piece

Could anyone suggest a short but challenging(for someone who just learned an arranged version of the first movement of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata) classical piece? I just got back from west Africa where there wasn't a piano in sight and I'm trying to get back in shape. Thanks!--Elatanatari (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC) "Turkish March" by Mozart. Exercise your fingers. Edison (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I found Bach quite useful for getting rust piano skills back. The great thing about Bach's piano (keyboard) music is that it often sounds quite nice even when played way slower than usual. Also there is a general simplicity of a sort--a limited range, few ridiculous leaps, etc. But there is also a surprising amount of technical challenge, especially in fingerings--passages that sound perfectly naturally sometimes require rather awkward fingerings. I got a lot out of using the Goldberg Variations. Naturally there were only a few variations I could play at first, and those quite slowly. Although I'll never be able to play all of them (or even half of them, really), over time I have slowly found myself able to play more variations. It is nice how with practice the piece opens up as your skills allow you to work on harder variations. Also, it has the technical challenge of trying to play on a piano music that was composed for a two-keyboard instrument. Some of the variations revel in both hands playing one on top of the other in ways amazingly difficult to do on a piano. Those are beyond me. But many of the less difficult ones also involve questions of how to cross hands or swap voices hand to hand. Finally, the Goldbergs are amazing in they way they are constrained by quite rigid rules patterns of canon yet are highly musical, beautiful, even transcendent. I've been playing them for years now and have never grown tired of them. They are like little jeweled crystals--beautiful to the senses as well as the mind. Anyway, worked for me! As a whole the work is long, but each variation is quite short. Pfly (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You might like to try Satie's Gymnopédies. Xn4 (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of the easier preludes of Chopin, and many of Mendelssohn's Songs without Words would fit the bill. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yikes! Those all seem out of my league. Did I mention I don't have a teacher? The Last song I tried to learn, unsuccessfully, was Aragonaise from Le CidElatanatari (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't let the names of the composers put you off. Try Chopin's Prelude No 7 in A major, or some of the "Venetian Gondola Songs" in the Songs Without Words (Nos. 8, 12 and 29). You might like the famous old Minuet in G by Beethoven. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some Bartok toccatas? Steewi (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I printed out Songs Without Words Op. 30 No. 6 |Elatanatari (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC) are the tiny notes in the third measure of the 7th line just regular 16th notes? Thanks!!!

No, it's a two-note acciaccatura (or crushed note). They're played quite quickly (without rushing), theoretically taking no time at all, but practically a short duration of time. They lead into and accentuate the first note of the next measure; they are never accented themselves. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Where did "March 4" come from?

The US Constitution in its original form specified that the Congress could choose the date when electoral voting for the presidency would take place, and that the president once elected would serve a 4-year term. But it did not name the date when that term would begin, nor did it authorize Congress to choose one.

Well, George Washington took office on April 30 and his second term began on March 4 (and why wasn't that an unconstitutional violation of the 4-year term?), and March 4 then remained the normal date until the 20th Amendment bumped it up to January 20.

I presume that April 30 and March 4 were dates chosen by the Congress at the same time that it exercised its power to choose the date of the electoral vote. But what were the actual acts involved, and was there any debate over the proper date? In particular, did anyone consider that the constitution might be interpreted as requiring the new president's term to begin immediately once the electoral votes were counted by Congress?

--Anonymous, 07:42 UTC, January 18, 2009.

The Congress of the Confederation set the timing of the beginnings of the new government. It passed a resolution on September 13, 1788, which set the election for January 7, 1789, the meetings of the electors for February 4, and the effective date for the Constitution and the new government to be March 4. Much of the early business of the new government was set by the Congress of the Confederation, which established New York as capital, the dates for the elections. The new Congress did not actually achieve a quorum until April 1. Adams was not sworn in as VP until April 21. Washington only reached New York on March 23, and was not sworn in until March 30. See History of the United States Constitution#The new government. Tb (talk) 07:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You can find the document with the actual resolution of the Congress of the Confederation here [11] and here [12]. Tb (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean April 23 and 30. But anyway, thanks, that's what I wanted to see. So I guess this means Washington's first term is like Zachary Taylor's term -- it really began on March 4 and he just didn't take the oath of office and "enter upon the execution of his powers" until later.

The reason I wanted to see if the original resolution was that I was wondering if it said anything about the time of day. Since it does not, this implies that the change of presidents officially happened at midnight between March 3 and 4. So for example where Wikipedia says that Thomas Jefferson served "March 4, 1801 - March 4, 1809", it's wrong by one day. (His term was still 2922 days, the same as Dwight Eisenhower's, but it was 2922 complete days, ending on March 3, while Eisenhower's term was 2921 complete days and two halves.)

Am I right that this means a bunch of articles need to be fixed? --Anonymous, 04:24 UTC, January 19, 2009.

No, I think you're incorrect. (Tb)

I'm going to use Interleaved replying style here so I can address several points in Tb's items simultaneously. (--Anon)

Let's suppose your argument was ironclad. Let's suppose you could establish that, at the time, midnight was meant when no time was specified. Even then, this would only be original research. (Tb)

I assumed you had provided a source and the most authoritative one possible. If a law says that it takes effect on a certain date, that means it is effect as soon as that is the current date. And the date in our culture changes at midnight. How ironclad do you want? (--Anon)

What we'd need is a source that identifies the time as you would have it, rather than the way it's listed now. (Tb)

Well, the pages as they are now don't list a source, do they? And many references don't give the dates a president's term began and ended, just the year. However, I have here at hand the latest World Almanac, which does list the actual dates on pages 516-517. Specifically, it shows them as dates of "service". And it shows the end date as March 3 for all presidents from Washington to Hoover, except those who died in office. Incidentally, for both Zachary Taylor and John Tyler it shows their "service" beginning as of when they took the oath of office, i.e. March 5 and April 6 respectively. (--Anon)

I think it's just as reasonable to think that the default time was dawn, or noon, or that it was generically "during that day" with no actual attention to the moment. The question is not about legal interpretation, but about historical reality--and about veriable sources that establish that. Tb (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly if it was generally accepted that the outgoing president was still in power on the morning of March 4, that should be good enough. If, of course, there are verifiable sources to establish that. (--Anon)

Further investigation shows that it was generally taken that the terms changed at noon, though there were consistent minority views which held they terminated at midnight. See [13]. (Tb)

Aha! And indeed, the author of that page seems to agree with that. (--Anon)

Also, my first note above explains where the original March 4 came from, but it should be noted that once Congress met, it passed a statute to the effect that terms started on March 4, as did Congress. (Tb)

What was that last bit? Oh, you mean Congress also started on March 4. Got it. (--Anon)

Apparently there were Presidents who did continue to function as such on March 4 until their successor was sworn in. You may also be interested in [14]. (Tb)

Well, this one really addresses the issue as far as Congress is concerned -- thanks for finding it. (--Anon)

But no, no change to our pages is called for. Tb (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. Since you've found a source to indicate that it was the actual historical practice, I don't have a problem with all of those March 4 end-of-term dates standing. But they all need a footnote mentioning the issue and reading something like "Sometimes given as March 3. See End of U.S. presidential and congressional terms before 1935." Where that link, of course, is to a new article that goes into the things we've covered here -- and cites sources, like almanacs, telling whether they say March 3 or March 4.

I'm not prepared to do that at the present time (and even if I was, I can't, because I'm not registering with Wikipedia and that means I can't create new articles or edit some of the existing ones that are semi-protected). But someone needs to do it. Would you like to volunteer or should we plant a note on a suitable talk page somewhere? We're obviously getting out of bounds for the reference desk now.

Thanks for your help in locating the relevant facts.

--Anonymous, 08:20 UTC, January 19, 2008.

• Please don't interlace comments like that. Anyhow, you have misunderstood what I said. I said that what counts is a reference that lists the times as you would have them, not your (or my) legal speculations. We do have a source that says the end at noon: the Sonate determination once Jeff Davis played his "I'm not elected anymore" game. Tb (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it was a helluvalot more readable interlaced than if I'd made all those separate points below your posting. Anyway, I did cite a source giving March 3 as the end of presidential terms, and a respectable one: the World Almanac. I haven't seen a source that gives March 4; the existing WP articles don't cited one. And the Senate decision seems to apply only to the Senate, not to the presidency. --Anon, 05:34 UTC, January 20/09.

Hessian consorts

I am starting a list here User:Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy/List of Hessian consorts. I was wondering if anybody can help me clarified some dates. I may have accidently included morganic spouse. I suspicous of the status of Marie, Countess of Mansfeld. Weren't countesses consider unfited for marriage by the Hessian royal family? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Also there is the Hesse-Darmstadt Langravines. I not sure the number of wife Louis IX, Landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt had. Who was Marie Adelaide Gräfin von Lemberg in relation to Louis IX? I think she might be a wife. I have no idea what this say. Kurz nach dem Tod seiner ersten Frau heiratete Herzog Ludwig IX. im Jahre 1775 Marie Adelaide Gräfin von Lemberg. Die Ehe blieb kinderlos--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It says more or less the following: "Shortly after the death of his 1st wife, Duke Luis IX married Countess (see:Graf) Marie Adelaide of Lemberg in 1775. The marriage was without children." Flamarande (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The far more commonly used and recognized form of the word is actually "morganatic". AnonMoos (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I imagine the title of this Marie (more likely, Maria) is to do with the Counts Mansfeld of the Holy Roman Empire, and not our own Earls and Countesses of Mansfield (or Mansfeld). If so, she was perhaps the widow of a Count Mansfeld, so might have been of any origin.

An even odder Mansfeld marriage happened in 1583 when Gebhard Truchsess von Waldburg, Prince-Archbishop of Cologne, fell in love with the beautiful Agnes, Countess Mansfeld, canoness of Gerresheim, converted to Lutheranism and married her, which led to his being deposed. Gebhard retreated into his Duchy of Westphalia, collected an army and had some military successes until the arrival of Spanish forces. See Schiller's History of the Thirty Years' War. Xn4 (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As Xn4 notes, it's the HRE counts involved here. This particular woman was a Mansfeld both by birth and later by marriage. Per Europäische Stammtafeln, she was the daughter of Johannes, Graf von Mansfeld and his second wife Margarethe of Brunswick-Lüneburg. Ludwig III (your IV) was her first husband; her second, whom she married in 1611, was Philipp, Graf von Mansfeld, son of Bruno, Graf von Mansfeld and his wife Christine von Barby-Mühlingen. - Nunh-huh 22:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

French immigration in Australia

Hi, in my job (customer service), I've encountered a large number of French people. This is matched by a fairly high French presence on Australia's multicultural television service, SBS, in the form of a daily, 40 minute news bulletin, and a swathe of French films. Am I right that there is either a wave of French tourism, or perhaps immigration, in Australia at the moment, and what is the cause of it? Regards, and thanks in advance, It's been emotional (talk) 09:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This seems to suggest the French influence on the arts and media may be disproportionate to the number of French immigrants. Rockpocket 21:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe France is in the top 20 countries from which immigrants come to Australia. This has been the case for many years. We don't hear much about French migrants here - much more about Italians, Greeks, Lebanese, Sudanese, Vietnamese, Chinese, Turks, New Zealanders and British. But they're here nonetheless, keeping a fairly low profile. Maybe they felt it should have been a French, rather than a British, colony in 1788 - and it almost was (see Jean-François de Galaup, comte de La Pérouse @ Pacific). The USA is also in the top 20, which would surprise most people. Maybe they're preparing for the announcement of the 51st state. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a sizeable French community in Canberra. It is enough to support a bilingual school (K-10 at Telopea Park School) and a healthy Alliance Francaise. The French community is largely bilingual, though, with a generally very high level of English compared to other multicultural communities. They're less visible than other communities, I think (WP:OR!) because it is less exotic than, say, the Chinese, Vietnamese or Sudanese communities. Steewi (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ming Restoration

Is the only restoration of the Chinese monarchy in the heirs of the Manchu Qing Dynasty? In 1644 the Manchu emperors forced on the Chinese Han majority and if their ever would be a possible restoration of monarchy; would the Han Chinese choose the a descendant of the Qing Dynasty? Could it ever be restored under a descendant of the last native Dynasty, the Ming? There must be a direct descendant of the Ming emperors out there with the surname of Zhu. Is there a Ming pretender out there? --172.190.213.195 (talk) 12:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

See Line of succession to the Chinese throne. Hope this helps. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese have not kept to one single imperial dynasty (the way the Japanese have done). The doctrine of the mandate of heaven means that being a distant descendant of an overthrown royal family wouldn't count for much in terms of practical politics in most cases. AnonMoos (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama – 44th or 43rd president?

Many media state Obama as the 44th president of the United States. However, Grover Cleveland, 22nd president, had the 22nd and the 24th presidency. So Obama has the 44th presidency; but is he the 43rd president or the 44th? --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 12:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a philosophical question more than anything, but a numbering that would make him the 44th president seems to have been adopted quasi-officially... AnonMoos (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

By convention, presidencies are taken to be contiguous administrations; whether for 4 years, 8 years, or in one case, a bit more than 12 years. Since Cleveland served in two non-contiguous terms, his two administrations are counted seperately. Thus, Obama is the 43rd person to hold the office of President of the U.S.; but the Obama Presidency (that is, the administration as a concept, not the man) is the 44th. This numbering scheme is a bit confusing, but its been in place for a long time, so we stick with it. Its at least more logical than the number of most monarchies; for example that England/Great Britain/UK has had eleven Edwards as King, the last of which is titled Edward VIII, or that the current King of Sweden, Charles XVI is the ninth recorded King of Sweden with that name... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the numbering of English monarchs begins only with the Norman Conquest of 1066. You have to start somewhere! Xn4 (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean of course like Ethelred II of England and Harold II of England and Edmund II of England? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the *current* numbering starts with William I, and British monarchy#Style agrees with me. --Tango (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly possible to number a very small number of the Anglo-Saxon kings, but I believe doing so is a modern development. It was hardly necessary at the time, because the early English had such a wide range of names, compared with the Normans and their successors. Indeed, the Anglo-Saxons often made up a name for a child, as we do again now, and the handful of their royal names which weren't new could be differentiated with an epithet such as the Unready. Xn4 (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And consider Pope John XXIII (of blessed memory). There were only ever 20 legitimate popes called John before him, but the numbering got confused along the way (the original John XXIII was an antipope, and there was no John XX at all) and it would have been more trouble than it was worth to retrospectively renumber all the older ones. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll note in passing that in pre-Norman England the old Indo-European dithematic naming pattern was still 'living': most personal names consisted of two elements, arbitrarily put together, one of them usually taken from a parent's name. William and Henry and Edward are frozen examples of the pattern. —Tamfang (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Map locations

Kiev and shiraj —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.95.67 (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Kiev is in the Ukraine and can be found on several maps in both articles. We have no article on Shiraj and I have no idea where it can be located. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If you refer to Shiray / in the vicinity of Kandahar / Afghanistan: Latitude = 32 38' 54" and Longitude = 65 08' 32" . --62.47.154.1 (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC). Whoops, --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Could also be Shiraz in Iran. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Particularly after poking your nose into one of the 7,000 year old amphoras of the stuff. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Lovely stuff, especially as the Aussies make it . . . DOR (HK) (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

When Jan 20th is on the weekend....

Hello Wikipedia, Just a quick one.. The new US President gets inaugurated on the 20th of January (not long to go now!), whih this year is a tuesday, but what if its a saturday or a sunday? Does it make any difference?86.6.101.208 (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In the past, several presidents have delayed their inaugurations by one day if the scheduled date of the beginning of their term fell on a Sunday, but there's no rule saying this has to be done. AnonMoos (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, one president Zachary Taylor has delayed his inauguration because the date (at the time March 4th, it has only been January 20th for the last 80 years or so) fell on a Sunday, and he refused to be inaugurated on the Sabbath. He was inaugurated on the 5th. This led to some speculation that David Rice Atchison, at the time President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and under the then-existing law, next in line for the Presidency, was actually "Acting President" for one day. Most historians and constitutional scholars discount that, noting that the President, by the constitution, becomes so instantly at the expiration of his predecessors term, and that the oath is merely required before he can exercise his duties. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

According to United_States_presidential_inauguration#Sunday exceptions, a number of them did... AnonMoos (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It notes that the addressses (speeches) were delivered on the Monday following. However, AFAIK, the actual act of inauguration, i.e. the oath-taking, was only ever delayed by Taylor... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

how much apple stock does the woz own?

how much apple stock does steve wozniak own? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.85.178 (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This article cited by our own article on Steve Wozniak notes that he is a shareholder, but it also notes that Woz's stock position in the company varies over time. Also, that interview is over 8 years old. I have no idea if his actual holdings today are published anywhere. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

AAPL has an unusually small proportion of their stock owned by insiders (0.67%, according to Yahoo). You can see recent insider activity here; Wozniak is not listed. Presumably you can get better data from one of the premium (i.e. pay) services available. Antandrus (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that that just means that Wozniak has not moved any of his shares in the past 90 days. He could just be holding what he has. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That's correct. Unfortunately I don't know a way to get static stock ownership data without paying substantially for it. I just did a little bit of extra digging on my brokerage website, which gives me documents you'd have to pay for elsewhere; he's not listed doing any insider trades going back to the beginning of 2007. (Al Gore shows up on the list. Cool.) Note that Wozniak may not be listed as an "insider" any longer, if he is no longer an officer of the firm, so his activity may not be publicly trackable at all. Antandrus (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Is Woz still counted as an "insider" after all this time? The article says he's still on the payroll but gives no more clue of what role he's had since 1987. —Tamfang (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

how do the people you would 'pay substantially' know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

They compile data filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States, which regulates trades of securities. I imagine there is a similar regulatory entity in France (taking the liberty of noticing the originating point of your IP). The laws that established this were the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. I don't know all the ins and outs, but certain transactions -- e.g. insider trading, and trades over a certain size -- are reported to the SEC, so that investors can get an idea of who or what owns a publicly-traded company, and when insiders make moves. If you look at the published data, you can see how many shares insiders own, and when they trade those shares. The reports I have seen give the total number of shares owned by insiders at the time of trades, along with the size of the trades. Hope this helps, Antandrus (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

[15] Here is the raw data on the SEC filings. By clicking on "document" for each one, you can see the person involved in the title. I scanned a bunch, but didn't find any Woz. He isn't listed as a board member in the Annual Report, but, according to his site, he is still an employee, receiving a small paycheque; he wants to be an employee for life [16]. If he is an executive employee, he would be required to make statements of beneficial ownership of securities filings for any change in ownership. It's likely that he is not an executive employee, so his financial affairs are probably private. NByz (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

For visual artists (and anyone else interested)

Resolved

 – $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 19:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that (thanks especially to Wikipedia) I have a thorough grasp of the basics of primary colors, both in the "strict" sense of our trichromatic vision and the "pigment" sense of the RYB color model. I understand that when it comes to the color yellow, for example, the yellow we see on a computer screen is really made out of "different ingredients" (red and green) than the yellow in a rainbow. So my question is less about the specifics of experimental evidence and more along the lines of aesthetics, and it goes as follows:

The RYB model makes intuitive sense to me — I can "see" the blue and red in purple, the yellow and red in orange, and the yellow and blue in green. I understand this to be a product of the mixtures of pigments in whatever substance I'm looking at. But the RGB model is more troublesome, especially when it comes to "red plus green makes yellow". Is it possible to explain it in a way that makes sense — or is this like asking for quantum mechanics to make sense? $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 17:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

RYB makes sense because it is subtractive color—we imagine it like we are mixing paint. It's easy to visualize. RGB is additive color—it is like mixing light, not paint. So instead of thinking of it as "red plus green equals yellow", think of it as "white minus blue is yellow." Does that make more sense? We aren't using to thinking about mixing light, but we're pretty used to mixing paint. Getting the metaphors crossed means a lot of confusion, of course. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, there's the crux of it! Aren't the terms "backwards", though? Isn't mixing a process of "addition"…? and when you say "white minus blue is yellow", that sounds like a process of subtraction! Well, after reading some of the relevant talk pages, most of the mysteries seem cleared up. Thanks! $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 19:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What's up with the "the" in "The Ukraine"

Yes, I know that officially and properly the name of the nation is merely Ukraine, but it is common (if wrong) practice in English to refer to the country as The Ukraine. From where does this come? I understand the use of the definate article when refering to places whose name is descriptive, such as The Czech Republic and The United States of America and The Netherlands or even The Hague, but as far as I can tell, Ukraine has never fit any of these categories. Calling it "The Ukraine" seems like "The Russia" or "The China". It seems wrong, and yet the practice exists. So how did it come to be that much of the English-speaking world calls the country "The Ukraine"? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It is common to refer to regions with "the" and countries without, though individual cases vary much. In the case of Ukraine, the style "the Ukraine" was preferred by the Soviet Union to stress its political union with Russia, and to mark it as a region (as is the Moldau, the Levant, the Outback, the Great Basin, etc). Countries do not normally get "the", and so when Ukraine became an independent nation, it properly dropeed "the". So what about the exceptions? When the name of the country is headed by a common noun, it is necessary to use "the" for good grammar; hence, the Czech Republic, the United States of America, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom. "The Netherlands" is an exception, and indeed, simply "Netherlands" is sometimes seen. Netherlands (terminology) does not address the use of the article, as far as I can tell. Perhaps it's because it's the Netherlands. So the upshot:

* Regions sometimes get "the", sometimes not;

* Ukraine, when it was a region, got "the";

* Countries (except when there is a common noun heading the name) don't get "the".

* When Ukraine became an independent nation, word went out, "drop the 'the' please".

Oh, and what about "The Hague"? It's a shortening of Des Graven Hage, which means "the count's wood"; it's thus "The woods" in colloquial English, and gets "the" because "woods" (or "Hague") is a common noun. A similar case occurs with "the Bronx" which comes from the name of a family farm north of Manhattan, owned by a family named "Bronck". There are two stories, one is that the area is named for the Bronx River (that is, the Broncks' river), and gets "the" because names of rivers do; the other is that it came from a custom of saying that one was at "the Broncks' [farm]". Tb (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"The" Sudan is another, as is The Yukon. I can understand "The Yukon" as deriving from the name of the general region, but was that also the case with "The Sudan"? I notice that both our Yukon and Sudan articles use the "The" form intermittently throughout. Antandrus (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There's also "The Lebanon" at times, and "The Levant". AnyPerson (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(The) Sudan is also the name of a physical region, isn't it? —Tamfang (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Netherlands sometimes gets "the", sometimes not. We'd never say "I'm going to Netherlands for a holiday". The name is grammatically plural, and sounds like a name for a collection of nether lands (which in fact it is), so it's natural to use "the" in that context. But our article is titled simply Netherlands (although it starts off with "The").

During the Falklands War, some newsreaders consistently referred to the warring countries as the UK and "the Argentine". Not "the Argentine Republic", just "the Argentine". It sounded a terribly affected way of talking to me.

Re Ukraine. Russian does not use definite or indefinite articles, but one of the Tsars' various titles, in English, was "Tsar of all the Russias". This referred to the fact that Russia was "Great Russia", Ukraine was "Little Russia", Byelorussia was "White Russia", etc. Further, Ukraine is from Украина (Ukraina), which comes from the Russian words у (u, meaning "in/at") and край (kray, meaning "region"). We'd say "in the region", not just "in region". Hence, it was traditionally known as "the Ukraine", and old habits die hard. I suppose if we wanted to be a bit closer to the "correct" pronunciation, we'd call it (the) Oo-crane, not You-crane. Maybe some people actually do call it "the Oo-crane", which, unless you insert a glottal stop, sounds identical to "the You-crane". Another good reason for dropping the "the".

Oocrane sounds funny to me; somehow I can more readily imagine English-speakers adopting Oocryne. Irrelevantly. —Tamfang (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Some old hands still refer to "the Lebanon", a calque from "the Levant", I suppose. It sounds like a shorthand way of saying that it used to be a colony, and "colonies do not cease being colonies because they are independent" (Benjamin Disraeli). -- JackofOz (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Vietnam was sometimes referred to as "The 'Nam" by U.S. veterans of that conflict, as in "Were you in the Nam?" [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] , [21].

Could "the 'Nam" be short for "the Vietnam war"? --Tango (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Doubtless so, unless they were asking about falling in the Nam Song River. Edison (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

See also Name of Ukraine. Украина meant, initially, "the outskirts", and was used to refer to lots of peripheral territories. (In Russian, compare the similarity of the modern word for outskirts, окраина). It's not unlike Australia in this sense (whose name is derived from terra australis incognita, the unknown land of the south), in that its name derived from earlier words meant to indicate its location. In English it would not be totally untoward to put a "the" in there when discussing it as a region and not a political entity, even though Russian/Ukrainian have no articles. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"The Punjab", "The Sudan", "The Argentine". All sound very British and very out of date now. "The Ukraine" is now only an alternative for "Ukraine". Itsmejudith (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That probably dates back to when they were regions of the British Empire (or, in Argentina's case, places the British wanted to be regions of the Empire, although I've never actually heard of "The Argentine", so perhaps it is in less common usage since it was never actual British), so is consistent with Tb's analysis. --Tango (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Scotland once qualified for the World Cup (which was being held in Argentina), and had a song with the line "We're off to the Argentine". DuncanHill (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

On the other side of the ledger, we have The Gambia, which is generally referred to as simply "Gambia". -- JackofOz (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Also "The Comoros", which I thought was because it looks like a plural, but is apparently because it is officialy "Union of the Comoros". Adam Bishop (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What it going on in England and UK?

This question has been removed. Please re-read the header to the Reference Desk above. The Reference Desk is not an open forum for discussions. If you have a specific, direct question please feel free to ask it. However, open invitations to discussions of opinion will be deleted. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

photo

How do I submit a photo of NYC Polive Capt. John S. Folk for the section on Civil War Draft Riots? I have copied it from "Brooklyn Guardians" by W.S. Fales, 1887. <email redacted>— Preceding unsigned comment added by Byron711 (talk • contribs)

I removed your email address. Also, please remember to sign your talk-page questions with four tildes: ~~~~. Now, if you want to upload an image, you will probably get the best help from Help:Images. Also, you may want to ask your question at the Help Desk where people there may be better able to help with the technical aspects of uploading pictures. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

January 19

Earliest film of the oldest person

File:LouisLePrinceFirstFilmEver.jpg

Roundhay Garden Scene 1888

What is the earliest film of the oldest person? By that I mean, is there any moving images of, say, War of 1812 veterans? Or Mexican War veterans? Or perhaps any of the General staff of the American Civil War? I have seen film of Civil War veterans taken in 1938 (75th anniversay of Gettysburg) but are there any older films of even older people?75.174.112.209 (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, you're asking if all the people who have ever been filmed were still alive today, who would be the oldest? Dismas|^(talk) 07:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the question is referring to the oldest person caught on film after filming became technically available (obviously no 1812 veterans would be alive today). I think that's it, but I could be wrong. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 07:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In Roundhay Garden Scene, filmed on October 14, 1888, the featured actress Sarah Robinson Whitley was 72 years old, meaning she was born around 1816. I would suggest there may not be too many people born before her recorded on film. Rockpocket 08:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If the IMDB is to be believed, there is some archive footage of Otto von Bismarck, who was born in 1815. Warofdreams talk 11:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

And earlier still - Pope Leo XIII, born 1810, was filmed at the age of 88, in 1898. Apparently he also blessed the camera. Warofdreams talk 12:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

He also blessed YouTube. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

With regard to War of 1812 veterans, I can't find any footage of them alive, but we do have a clip of last surviving veteran Hiram Cronk's funeral in 1905. 143.167.127.122 (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're counting photographic film, not just video footage, then you can get back further, but I don't know how far. Steewi (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

On the German wikipedia, we had a fascinating discussion about the earliest born person of whom a photograph exists. We managed to go back to a birth date of around 1746. You can find our results at de:Diskussion:Geschichte_und_Entwicklung_der_Fotografie#Die_ältesten_fotografierten_Menschen. (The discussion itself is here.)--Wrongfilter (talk) 11:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

How many months in the year were there originally?

Could someone please settle an arguement for me, someone told me that a long time ago that there used to be 13 months in the year. Was that for the calender system we use today or was it in some other calender system that's no longer used ?

Scotius (talk) 11:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The Hebrew calendar has 13 months... Dismas|^(talk) 11:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

For the history of our calendar, see Roman calendar#History of the calendar. The earliest known version had 10 months. --Tango (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The ancient Roman calendar supposedly originally had ten months because its purpose at that time was keeping track of the yearly agricultural cycle and certain religious rituals, and nothing much much happened on either front around January-February in very early Roman times, so why bother keeping up a calendar? Lunisolar calendars (Jewish, Chinese, etc.) will alternate between twelve-month years and thirteen-month years in order to keep the lunar months synchronized with the solar year. In the Roman calendar before Julius Caesar, months had lost any connection with lunar phases, but there was still a 13th month inserted every few years (between February and March), called "Mercedonius" (during years when Mercedonius was inserted, February was only 23 days long!). Julius Caesar's big reform was to abolish Mercedonius, and replace it by a single leap day (originally considered to be inserted after February 23rd). So, since around 45BC, the Julian and Gregorian calendars have always had twelve months... AnonMoos (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) The development and variety of different calendars is quite complex. Most calendars seem to have originated with months based on the synodic lunar month of 29.53 days, implemented via a cycle of 29 and 30 day months. Unfortunately, this does not fit at all well into an annual cycle - a year is 12 lunar months plus a bit less than 11 days. Various different solutions to this problem have been adopted:

1. Create a fixed "short year" cycle of 12 lunar months and do not attempt to synchronise the lunar and annual cycles - this is what the Islamic calendar does.
2. Abandon the link between months and the lunar cycle, and create an annual cycle of 365 days divided into 12 months of 30 or 31 days each - this is what the Bengali calendar does.
3. Create a "short year" cycle of 12 lunar months but add a 13th intercalary month every two or three years to roughly synchronise the lunar months with the annual cycle again. Adding 7 extra months in 19 years gives a total of 235 lunar months in a 19 year cycle - this is what the Hebrew calendar does.

To further complicate matters, some calendars have "months" that seem to be unrelated to the lunar cycle. For example, the Bahá'í calendar has an annual cycle of 19 months of 19 days each plus an extra 4 days (5 in leap years) to make a 365 day cycle. And the Aztec calendar had an annual cycle of 18 months with 20 days each plus 5 days running in parallel with a religous calendar of 13 months with 20 days each - these two calendars only synchronised every 52 years. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There are also some interesting angles on this at our Duodecimal page. Xn4 (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The Pax Calendar reform proposes an annual cycle of 13 months of 28 days each, giving a 364 day year. The extra month, called "Columbus", is inserted between November and December. This creates a perpetual calendar in which a given date falls on the same day of the week every year, and a given day number falls on the same day of the week in every month. To realign the 364 day cycle with the Gregorian calendar, an extra "leap week", outside of the monthly cycle, is added on 71 years in a 400 year cycle. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That's actually just Auguste Comte's old Positivist calendar, rejiggered so as to have a leap week instead of a leap day... AnonMoos (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

And without all the names. Algebraist 09:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The Hebrew (Jewish) calendar has 13 months ONLY in a Jewish leap year. Otherwise it has 12 months. There are 7 leap years in a cycle of 19 years. In this way 19 Jewish years will be virtually equivalent to 19 solar years. This fact is important since the Festivals in the Jewish year must fall in a particular season and seasons depend on the solar year. For example, Pesach (Passover) must occur in the spring. Simonschaim (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for the Spanish Armada

For h/w I had to write a report on why the armada occured. I know about the religious side but my teacher mentioned something about piracy between the English (namely Francis Drake) stealing silver from Spanish ships returning from South America. I can't find much on it- any help 81.137.219.188 (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If you don't need English Reformation, for your beginning please try Anglo-Spanish War (1585), Spanish Armada, Elizabeth I of England, Philip II of Spain, Francis Drake, John Hawkins, and Privateer. Xn4 (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There was also the rather complicated matter of the legitimacy of Elizabeth's rise to power, vis a vis the fact that Philip II had been married to Elizabeth's older half-sister, who herself was Queen of England. Philip, as a former "King consort" of England himself, supported his Catholic cousin Mary, Queen of Scots as the only legitimate successor to his wife; when Elizabeth had her executed it was a "Last Straw" of sorts. Our article on Philip II (linked above) gives an overview of this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

do women prefer reading porn to watching porn?

so romance novels get quite racy, and it is almost only women who read them. porn movies are probably less one-sided (more women watch them I think than men read romance novels), but even so are stereotypically (and probably more than in the simple majority of cases) watched by men.

so, does this reflect something about men's and women's preferences. I'm specifically asking about women (since I'm a man): do they TEND to prefer reading porn to watching porn, and if so, why?

obviously I'm asking for generalities here -- there will be exceptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe men do seem to be more sexually excited by visual stimuli, while women are more effected by certain combinations of words. This is why you don't find many women working on the perfect pick-up line or men putting on make-up. StuRat (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the main difference isn't necessarily a simplistic verbal-vs.-visual distinction, but rather that men tend to be more easily excited by isolated depictions or descriptions free from any meaningful overall context (or placed within a perfunctory and stylized pro forma context which makes little attempt at realism), while women tend to be more excited by whole specific meaningful situations located within a particular realistic background context. The same things that some women would find exciting as part of a whole elaborate "scene" or scenario, they might find to be off-putting or disturbing if presented in the form of isolated out-of-context fragments... AnonMoos (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The written equivalent of a porn movie would be erotic fiction, which is distinct from romance novels (although the dividing line may be a little blurred in some cases). --Tango (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

what...combination of words? So, there are words I could combine, right here, at the Humanities reference desk, and the women wikipidians reading it would get wet just by reading that??? What would some examples be, please, I find this very hard to believe! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Erotic literature is a combination of words, that's what StuRat is referring to. --Tango (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

could you give me an example? I am very skeptical that a mere combination of words (as opposed to images, etc) would have the effect you propose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're male, as males find it difficult to believe that females can fall in love with a man based solely on a combination of words. Females, incidentally, find it equally inconceivable that a male can fall in love with a woman based solely on her appearance.

It's going to be a slightly different word combo for each woman, but it will usually include assurances that the man will love and be loyal to the woman, and her children, forever, and can't live without her, ...yada, yada, yada. (You might want to omit the "yada, yada, yada" part when trying to get into a woman's pants.) StuRat (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you're not answering your question, since no one reading this will be sexually excited when they get to your word steam "assurances that the man will love and be loyal". I'm asking for an example of a stream of words that, right here, WOULD have the effect we're talking about -- not getting INTO a woman's pants, but acting like a pornographic image. I just find it hard to believe that you can give a set of words that have the effect you're proposing. I am asking for a counterexample, if it exists (although it doesn't). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The Song of Songs is a good early example of the sort of stuff required. Or some stuff from Romeo and Juliet. I don't suppose too many people can complain about them and block WIkipedia for referring to them! Dmcq (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Try reading some Women's erotica, there is plenty available online. It generally involves explicit descriptions of sexual acts with emphasis on the participants' feelings and thoughts. --Tango (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd specifically recommend the writings of Anais Nin, such as the compilation Delta of Venus. Does it for me... --TammyMoet (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm still having a lot of difficulty believing that -- could you give me an example?

btw I tried clicking through to the Anais Nin article, it has this quote:

“ I do not want to be the leader. I refuse to be the leader. I want to live darkly and richly in my femaleness. I want a man lying over me, always over me. His will, his pleasure, his desire, his life, his work, his sexuality the touchstone, the command, my pivot. I don’t mind working, holding my ground intellectually, artistically; but as a woman, oh, God, as a woman I want to be dominated. I don’t mind being told to stand on my own feet, not to cling, be all that I am capable of doing, but I am going to be pursued, fucked, possessed by the will of a male at his time, his bidding. ”

would that be an example? if not that then what?

Maybe, although I think the context is important. A single paragraph isn't likely to have the emotional depth required. (Of course, being male, I don't pretend to understand the female mind!) --Tango (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

how about women reading this? Does the above paragraph turn you on? If not, is there ANY sequence of mere words (as opposed to an image) that you could reproduce here as an example of what does? I remain skeptical! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You can remain sceptical all you like, but Mills and Boon continue to make money and pornographic fanfic continues to be popular. If you really want to know and understand, rather than disrupt, you might want to look up some fanfic using additional search terms such as 'slash', 'hurt/comfort', 'hot', etc. There are different levels of graphic-ness, catering to different audiences. Part of the secret is using the imagination; it's about fantasy. However, if you wander into a community for this sort of thing and start asking questions in the manner you are doing here, no matter how you intend it, you are liable to find yourself banned. Just a heads up. 79.66.92.148 (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking about average women, like the ones who would be reading this, not once who gravitate toward an erotic site. You still haven't been able produce an example paragraph that actually affects average women in the way you propose. Is such an example too much to ask for? You're actually mentioning banning me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I mention that if you act in this way on sites where you can find people actually sharing such experiences, you will be banned. I mention this because you need to know that if you are going to investigate this; you are acting in a way that would be considered offensive and aggressive in those places.

I am not talking about erotic sites; I am talking about average women. Mills and Boon sell in huge numbers, fanfic is massively popular and found in places that would never be described as 'erotic sites'. I strongly suggest you read the article on Mills and Boon. At the more literary end, it is common to find women describing crushes on and fantasies about literary characters.

I'm not going to provide you with an example, because that misses the point. Some women have fantasies about Mr Darcy from reading Pride and Prejudice; some of them share these fantasies online, in written text. Some women find these fantasies, in turn, good reading. Other women have and share fantasies about real or imagined characters from all areas. The point is, no example is going to convince you. If you do not wish to believe, you won't believe. Fine. 79.66.92.148 (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

you say "i'm not going to provide you with an example, because that misses the point". Then you go on to mention NICHE fantasies. I'm asking: is there something at affects the GENERAL woman. You ask me to go to specific authors or communities but that tells me nothing about the AVERAGE woman. Either there is an example that would turn MOST women here reading it on, or there isn't. I guarantee you that there are examples of images that would give MOST men looking at it, if I were to insert it here and not have it removed, an erection. Is there such a thing for (MOST) women only it's not an image but just a mere group of words?? I find that incredibly hard to believe, and your refusal to give me an example that works for MOST women leaves me incredibly skeptical. Especially, I already reproduced a paragraph above and nobody has said "yeah that is an example in my case", presumably because the women reading this DONT find it a good example. So, that one isn't an example; are there any? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sentences like "He plunged his manhood into her rich generosity" (an actual quote from Mills & Boon) might make some women wet in their own rich generosities. But most? No idea. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear readers: I maintain 'not one of you' is sexually excited by the verbiage "he plunged his manhood into her rich generosity". Please reply if this is not the case. If I get no replies, I must assume I am correct: and also, I must remain skeptical that there are streams of verbiage that would excite most women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

it was automatically reverted but I inserted an example here at the reference desk. now would any of you say you actually find that anything other than long and boring? (let alone sexually exciting, like a pornographic image is.) Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No one will be able to provide a satisfactory example, 82.120, because you are still thinking with the male mind. You are thinking that the mere sight of a "combination of words" is what is exciting. Alas, no. For instance, simply looking at the words "Then his arms went around her waist and shoulders and she felt the hard muscles of his thighs against her body and the buttons of his coat pressing into her breast" might not be the least bit interesting. But if you have read the 258 pages of Gone With the Wind up until this sentence and you know that Rhett is holding Scarlett while Atlanta burns behind them, and her world is falling apart and she's got a whole group of scared people to take care of, and even though she doesn't like him very much, Rhett is the one solid, dependable thing in her world right now (and really, everybody knows they're supposed to be together)... THEN that sentence, that "combination of words," might set you all aflutter.

Besides which, women are all very different and what turns one woman on might not do the same for another. I know a lot of chicks who get all gooey over The Notebook, but I have never been able to find myself emotionally invested in it. So the words "It's not over. It was never over" or whatever that sappy quote is when they're kissing in the rain might not mean a darn thing to me but that "combination of words" might send another woman's heart racing. I hope I've made this make a little more sense to you. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, it is much clearer... IF swooning overlaps with getting hot and wet. Because if so, then I didn't know that -- I thought "set their heart racing" or "set you all aflutter" = makes them swoon. But I didn't suspect it is the same as making someone wet (hot and bothered; ie the KIND of feeling that is the same kind as moves someone to masturbate right then then and there). If the answer to these questions is yes then you have addressed my questions.82.120.227.136 (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming that there is a single magical "combination of words" that will produce a sexual response in every, or even almost every, woman. Since you seem to have no problem with the idea that visual stimuli have the same effect on men, do you think that there is a single picture that will generate such a response in all men, regardless of context? No, the claim is that *in general*, when a woman wants to get in the mood, she will prefer to use text to do so, while a man will prefer something more like a photograph. The specifics of which text, or which photograph, will depend not only on the individual but also the situation. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 05:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, there certainly ARE images that will make give almost all men a hard-on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd disagree. I go more for the voice and a smile is good. And a picture doesn't have movement. The looks are more of a cut off point. And I hope I'm not being too female in saying a good sense of humour is pretty essential too. Which is all a bit difficult as I believe women actually make most of the first advances which is one reason men tend to be a bit undiscriminating. Dmcq (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If there are, then the advertising industry hasn't found them. Most of the "sexually-charged advertising" I've seen has women that vary from uninteresting to repulsive. --Carnildo (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a generalisation, a truism of a generalisation that is being made here about the men visual/female verbal sexual stimuli distinction, but nonetheless a generalisation. It's ridiculous to think that men are attracted to women on looks alone. I know I'm not. That implies that I'd be content with a woman who was mute or mentally handicapped as long as she was good looking, which is completely false. Whilst the looks of a woman are important to me, her personality and what we talk about is vitally and critically important. Whilst women don't need to use "pick-up lines" (a somewhat archaic concept anyway) as some men will do, some of the things that girlfriends and partners of mine have said to me have been long-lasting and resonated with me. It is important. Likewise, whilst women certainly do take more from the verbal cues and what their partner can provide, I don't think that the looks of their male partner are of no importance whatsoever to them - reduced in comparison with men's preferences, yes, but not non-existent.--Lawless Railtrack (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I'm still essentially male-brained. I can get turned on by a woman without having to know anything about her. But sex is obviously and critically distinct from love. The idea of 'no-strings-sex' does seem kinda boring to me though. Seriously, I'd want to get to know a girl at least a bit before having sex with her! Not that I would say no if a girl that I found reasonably attractive on first physical appearance impressions threw herself at me and wanted to have sex almost immediately (which has happened to me in the past at least once, possibly several times depending on how you read the context), but it'd be a very lonely and sad existence having a relationship with a girl without appreciating her personality, and just having her for sex alone. I think that many men, or reasonable men, would agree and empathise with my position here.--Lawless Railtrack (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Woody Allen is living proof that patter has an effect (note: on his women, not this one). His epilogues may disprove it just as well, but not going there for now. In the Simpsons, Bart's letters to Mrs Krabappel seem to work, and then there's Life on the Fast Lane for more tips for the pickupline-challenged. (Btw, how is any femme on the refdesk "average"?) Julia Rossi (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

NON-EXTRADITIONARY COUNTRIES

WHAT COUNTRIES CURRENTLY ARE NON-EXTRADITING TO THE UNITED STATES FOR ANY REASON? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.84.77 (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

All EU member states aren't allowed to extradite to countries where the suspect would face the death penalty so it would depend on the nature of the crime. (Obviously there's extraordinary rendition but that all a bit hush hush..)86.6.101.208 (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Usually the US gives assurances that they death penalty would not be used when requesting such an extradition. --Tango (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Extradition, "No country in the world has an extradition treaty with all other countries; for example, the United States lacks extradition treaties with over fifty nations, including the People's Republic of China, Namibia, and North Korea." --Tango (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

of course none of the above is legal advice of any kind, and is only for entertainment purposes. Please consult with an attorney if your question is serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

But UK extradites to USA -not every crime is a capital offence in the USA (I hope). Itsmejudith (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The extradition of the NatWest Three received a lot of public attention. We seem to have an article on the Extradition Act 2003 but not one on the US-UK Extradition Treaty 2003 and the list of US extradition treaties does not include it either. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of countries without the death penalty extradite people to countries that have it, even when the person is charged with a capital offence. As I said, they receive assurances that the death penalty will not be used. If a country used the death penalty in spite of assurances otherwise, the diplomatic fallout would be enormous. --Tango (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the ECHR forbid the death penalty from being used? Also, what law allows the UK to be able to extradite to the US (as in with Gary McKinnon)? Whatever law it is, it's a draconian one.--Lawless Railtrack (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, which is why European countries require assurances that it won't be used before extraditing anyone. Itsmejudith linked to the relevant act a few comments up. --Tango (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

More bank bailouts

Hello Wikipedia,

Today (or was it yesterday) the UK government announced another few hundred billion to bail out the banks and underwrite still more of their toxic debt. RBS has recently lost something like £25 BN(the highest loss in UK corportate history) so why can't it just be allowed to 'do an icesave' whereby the savers are compensated by the government but the bank goes bust? Why do we keep writing blank cheques -aren't we supposed to cut-throat capitalists these days?86.6.101.208 (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Because banks going bust is a very bad thing. It's not just savers you need to worry about, there are all the other financial dealings that banks have. Also, it would probably end up costing more - all these bailout plans aren't donations, they're loans and guarantees. The actual cost to governments making them will end up being much smaller than the enormous numbers being quoted in the media, in fact, they may even make a profit (eg. the UK government now owns large portions of various banks, when the recession is over those banks will recover and their shareprices will rise and the government will probably be able to sell them at a profit). --Tango (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There does seem to be a disconnect between the capitalist ideal and recent actions. If businesses are so large they can't ever be allowed to fail, then it can also be argued that they should be government owned, or at least heavily regulated, to prevent the need for such catastrophic bailouts. If not, and if the owners of those businesses know the government will pay for any mistakes they make, they have little incentive left to behave in a cautious manner. Why not just pay the CEO as much as the taxpayers can cover ? (One billion a year ? Ten billion ? A hundred billion ?). StuRat (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Many have blamed the current problems on lack of regulations and then is something that is likely to improve in the aftermath. A lot of the bailouts have included restrictions of executive compensation - the money is going towards keeping the banks afloat, not paying the managers (although one could argue that they should lose their jobs entirely, not just their bonuses). --Tango (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• "There does seem to be a disconnect between the capitalist ideal and recent actions." Not at all. There is a disconnect between the free market ideal and recent actions, but they are perfectly aligned with capitalism. - Jmabel | Talk 02:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Strictly speaking bringing banks under state ownership/control is not aligned with capitalism. I know that the UK government is avoiding getting involved with the management of these banks, but in theory they could do. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• • So would you say that mercantilism was not a type of capitalism? And that the Bank of England is not a capitalist institution? - Jmabel | Talk 06:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Regulation increases and decreases much the same as anything. During times of major trouble in an industry/sector we see calls for regulation - then after a while and confidence builds in stability the firms seek de-regulation or self-regulation. Then eventually (it seems) inevitably we end up with a tipping-point, regulation becomes too weak and problems bubble up under the surface, a big event occurs it all comes out and we start again. The struggle for optimum regulation goes on. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Unitary state or federation or neither

Which Caribbean nations are unitary state and which are federation and which are neither?

• Antigua and Barbuda
• The Bahamas
• Barbados
• Dominica
• Grenada
• Jamaica
• Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Saint Lucia
• Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
• Trinidad and Tobago

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.80 (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried reading our articles on each of those countries? --Tango (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Bahrain and Palestine

I notice that you guys didn't put Bahrain and Palestine in neither both of your articles "Unitary State" and "Federation"? What type government do they have that is so unique? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.80 (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You are one of you guys. It is people like you who edit the articles. You have managed to write something on this page, you can manage anywhere else. If you are interested in those countries you probably already have a very good idea of what they are in this respect. Dmcq (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Palestine is unique because the Palestinian Authority is not a recognized (or even declared) state. - Jmabel | Talk 02:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

which eastern european country is chomsky's grandfather from?

Chomsky says "...my grandfather, who was an ultra-orthodox Jew from Eastern Europe..." but I can't seem to find which country. Anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Chomsky's father, William Chomsky was from the Ukraine (then a part of the Russian Empire), so it is likely that his father was also from the Ukraine. I do not know where Chomsky's mother's family came from. DuncanHill (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the history of Eastern Europe, you'll see why vague terms like that are used: the land in question has changed hands frequently and often. --Carnildo (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Which chinese provinces/regions have the most christan protestants?

Which chinese provinces or regions have the most christan protestants in China today? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a map: [22] you can order that has the information. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of churches in China that are nondenominational, due to Watchman Nee's influence. bibliomaniac15 19:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It can be hard to judge, in some ways, because there are official churches and unofficial churches. The official churches will be easy to count, but counting the unofficial ones is difficult because they have to maintain their anonymity. Steewi (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

China allows its people to worship Christianity now. Watchman Nee died long time ago. He doesn't discourage the chinese people from worshipping Jesus today.

Jayron32, why don't you order the map and tell me the answer. 72.136.111.205 (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Princesses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

Were the daughters and male-line granddaughters of Prince Albert Princesses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha? Other than her granddaughters who were daughters of Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the technically correct answer to this question, but I have some thoughts on it. I suspect Albert's children were entitled, so far as his own family's protocol was concerned, to the titles of princes and princesses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. I've seen (for instance) Eudoxia and Nadezhda, daughters of Ferdinand I of Bulgaria, called princesses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and Ferdinand of Bulgaria, although a Coburg, was only a great-grandson of a ruling Duke, whereas Albert was the son of one. I think your question is complicated by the fact that in the UK a British subject needs a royal licence to use any foreign title, and it seems to me rather unlikely that Victoria would have granted such a licence to any of her children unless there were a need for one. Nowadays, this rule no longer seems to be observed (or, at least, not enforced) but the courts of the Hanoverians were stuffy on such matters. Xn4 (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Also speaking of Ferdinand I of Bulgaria, were his daughters, granddaughter, and ect., the current Bulgarian royal family, Princess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha? The same question with the descendants of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha princes, who became reigning monarchs in another land, Leopold I of Belgium and Ferdinand II of Portugal. One other think I think all male line descendants of Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha were Princes/ princessses. The male line descenandts of Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfield became Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha after Duke Ernest I change the name from Saxe-Coburg-Saalfield. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Serial Killer Andrei Chikatilo: Russian, Soviet or Ukranian?

Andrei Chikatilo. Why is on the article "Ukranian native who was arrested as a Russian serial killer" ?????? what's that????. He was born in Soviet Union, when it fell he already was in Russia as a Russian citizen. What do you think? In my opinion he never was Ukranian.--190.49.101.204 (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems entirely reasonable to say that someone born in the Ukraine is Ukrainian, regardless of any political super-entity which may have contained the Ukraine at the time. Similarly, I'd call anyone born in Ireland "Irish", before or after independence from England. StuRat (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't understand... before the falling of the USSR he already was in Russia as a Russian citizen! --190.49.101.204 (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

He was born in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, he lived there through the great famine and everything. He's a "Ukrainian native" as the article says. If you mean "Ukrainian" as "a citizen of the modern-state state of Ukraine", then yes, he wasn't that. But culturally and by birth he was Ukrainian. When people say someone is "Ukrainian" (or anything else for that matter" they are usually referring to their nationality, not necessarily their citizenship (ambiguous as that is). In the case where the governmental regime changes one rarely decides that somehow invalidates a nationality. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't matter if he moved to Brazil and became a full citizen, he'd still be a Ukrainian native if he is from Ukraine. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

January 20

What are the names of Annie Oakleys siblings?

I am doing a project for school and I need this information. I would really appreciate any information you might be able to provide.

Regards, Iluvgofishband —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 01:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are the names of her parents and four older sisters, though our article says Sarah Ellen, whereas the other source says just Ellen. The sixth child, according to Wikipedia, was named Phoebe Ann. The last child had a different father. This mentions a brother, while this refers to a "brother John". Bear in mind that there is a hidden comment in our article that says "Wrong names are especially frequent" in Oakley biographies. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

MY BAD. Phoebe Ann is Annie's name. Our article mentions a brother John and a sister Hulda. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

DOES ANYBODY KNOW!!!!!!! THE PROJECT IS DUE BY LIKE FRIDAY!!! PLEASE HELP!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 03:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sadly we are forbidden by good sense to do people's homework for them, and you need to check the Annie Oakley article, Clarityfield's answer, sign your posts with four of these: ~, not shout with all capitals (they act like flyspray on our goodwill) and google search too. Best, Julia R. 11:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Saint Praxed

Who was Saint Praxed? I'm studying Robert Browning's poem "The Bishop Orders His Tomb at Saint Praxed's Church", and I've been able to ascertain that the church actually exists, but I can't figure out who it was named for. Neelix (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

According to this [23] she was a martyred Roman virgin. But why not ask her at User talk:St Praxed :) DuncanHill (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Bingo, found her - she's Praxedes. DuncanHill (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously we need redirects for Praxed and Saint Praxed. Tb (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Student Loans

Does anyone know if a student could get a federal student loan for an organization like this one which provides college accredited educational programs abroad?--Elatanatari (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"English-speaking world"

I'm looking for concepts and terms naming those parts of world population whose native language is English; or maybe narrower, who feel themselves as part of an English-based culture. --KnightMove (talk) 10:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A History of the English-Speaking Peoples. Algebraist 10:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Anglophone and/or anglo-saxon are what you are looking for. (Anglophone for any English speaking countries, anglo-saxon for essentially white-majority English speaking countries..).86.6.101.208 (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok... would, say, an Irish American or a German American define himself as "Anglo-Saxon"? --KnightMove (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

An Irishman or Welshman certainly wouldn't, and I'm not sure many Englishmen would either. I certainly wouldn't. Algebraist 13:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There's also the concept of the Anglosphere -- Ferkelparade π 12:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What President left office the night before inauguration of his successor?

I heard on the radio that one United States president didn't take the traditional ride with the incoming President, and left the night before, but a quick Google searchw ith those terms isn't helping. (Too many articles about the current inauguration for "outgoing President," I guess.) Anyone know who it was? The fellow said it was even mentioned on the History Channel a few nights ago. (Hmmm, I ugess I could look there. :-)Thanks.172.129.144.3 (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Johnson, 1869 , impeached. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the 1868 impeachment and acquittal of Johnson would impact his ability to attend an inauguration the following year. — Lomn 21:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of John Adams, who slipped out of town at 4:00 am the morning of Jefferson's inauguration. —Kevin Myers 16:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and there was no "ride" with Jefferson to take. No horse-drawn carriage for a republican presidential inauguration, thank you very much—too much like royalty. —Kevin Myers 16:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The streets of Washington could be knee-deep mud in the early days, but one source I found said Jefferson at his first inauguration "disregarded the precedents of the two Federalist President, who at their inauguration had been accompanied to the capitol in state, and walked with a few friends to the simple ceremony." (Of course the Jefferson inauguration was the first in DC; the earlier inaugurations were, iirc in New York and Philadelphia). "The Road to Monticello" by Hayes says Jefferson was staying at a boarding house at New Jersey Avenue and C street, on the south side of Capitol Hill, so the trip was a short one.(2 blocks or so per MapQuest). Washington and Adams had ridden in carriages to the ceremony at their inaugurations. [24] says Jefferson rode up Pennsylvania Avenue to the capitol for his second inauguration in 1805, and [25] says he rode a horse down Pennsylvania Avenue accompanied by a crowd, with a band playing music on the trip back. "'I Do Solemnly Swear' - Presidential Inaugurations From George Washington to George W. Bush" by Morledge (2008) [26] looks like a nice history of inaugurations, with details beyond the texts of the addresses. Edison (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Help with settling an arguement

Can someone help me settle an arguement for me which is whether or not Abraham Lincoln was the first black president. From what I was told it's on mothers side the person that adament about it says it's his grandmother or something. I really don't know if its true or not, so can anyone help ?

Scotius (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

See Nancy Hanks and Melungeon / Melungeon DNA Project. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

While Lincoln may have had distant black-African and Native American ancestors, it is not clear how far back it may have gone. The main evidence is that Nacny Hanks, Lincoln's mother, was born in an area of Virginia known for racial mixing between Blacks, Indians, and Whites. The matter is complicated by the fact that the genalogical record is confused by two different Nancy Hanks from Virginia born at around the time Lincoln's mother should have been born, and it is unclear which is her. The deal is, Nancy Hanks's ancestors are not well known, so it is entirely speculative that Lincoln MAY have had black African ancestry. However, it would be incorrect to say that he was Black, which in America is entirely about ones relationship with the culture. There is no evidence that Lincoln self-identified as anything but White, and there is also no evidence that anyone in the culture related to him as anything but White, so it is not accurate to claim in any way that he may have been Black. Obama, on the other hand, clearly meets the definition of Black as commonly understood, especially as he is likely to be treated by the culture he is in; based on his appearence. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Also note that, if there was any evidence that Lincoln was black, or even if any of his relatives even appeared black, this certainly would have been used against him at the time, as there's no way, at that time, that the majority of Americans would have voted for even a partially black President. So, if he was partially black, that was something nobody at the time seemed to know, which makes this theory unlikely to be true. StuRat (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was one of the political rumors that was used against Lincoln by his opponents in his day. In any case, the question of whether anyone in their time "seemed to know" is rather spurious—people have been "passing" for hundreds of years without people knowing it. When people say Lincoln was "Black" they mean, as Jayron explains, that he might have had distant Black ancestors, not that he had coal-black skin. (As a slightly later analog of the same sort of reasoning, see the one-drop rule.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

An example of a claim that Lincoln had African ancestry is found in "The Old Guard," in the column "Omnium," Sept 1, 1863 says (p 239), which noted a pamphlet (the 1860's equivalent of today's blogs in being self published and not generally unreliable) saying Abe was "part negro." The publication I link to, "The Old Guard," in the "Omnium" column says that they have "always known" that V.P. Hannibal Hamlin was part negro based on opposition publications when he was running for office (the 19th century version of today's mudslinging and Swift Boating, and again not even then generally accepted as reliable). Hamlin was claimed to be 1/16 negro. Senator Sumner was claimed to have a great-great-grandmother who was a negro. The writer claimed he could see negro ancestry in Hamlin and Sumner, but not in Lincoln. Other Civil War papes in the South claimed he was part negro [27]. Northern Democrats and their papers were given to speculate that Lincoln had "negro blood." [28] Claims that he had Melungeon ancestry appear to be very recent, dating back only to 1997, per [29] which attributes the claim to Brent Kennedy and Robin Kennedy, "The Melungeons" (1997) pages 28-31. Some want Lincoln to be of Semitic background, specifically Sephardic Melungeons. Edison (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be no more correct to say that Abraham Lincoln was African-American, than it would be to say that Tom Hanks, a descendant of Nancy Hanks's brother, is African-American. AnyPerson (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If we can't say he is black, what about saying he was of black descent ? Scotius (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem there is that, as evidence suggests that the earliest humans arose in Africa, *everyone* is of black descent. Thus, saying "of black descent" is synonymous with saying "human". Wikiant (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Peaceful?

Rev. Rick Warren delivered the invocation at Obama's inauguration a few minutes ago. He said today's event is the 44th peaceful transfer of power in the U.S.

It does not seem to be correct to me as George Washington's rise to power was, well, not very peaceful.

Do they hire some people to check their speeches? -- Toytoy (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Washington took over entirely peacefully from Cyrus Griffin, President of Congress. This was six years after the peace treaty with Britain and 8 years after fighting ended. Rmhermen (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC with above) Actually, given that Washington assumed power in 1789 from the Continental Congress, it was a rather peaceful transition. The Continental Congress's assumption of power from, ultimately, George III of the United Kingdom, was of course rather violent, but the assumption of the power by Washington was a rather uneventful day in New York... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that George III was not king of the United Kingdom at the time; he was king of Great Britain and Ireland. He became king of the United Kingdom in 1801, after the Act of Union.

God, I hate the ridiculous Wiki policy on naming monarchs - it goes completely against common usage. No-one ever calls him "George III of the United Kingdom". Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's the (principal) place he was king of. How would you disambiguate him from George III of Georgia and George III, Prince of Anhalt-Dessau? Algebraist 20:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not that this is the place for this discussion – I'd use brackets, as per standard disambiguation procedure. ie George III (United Kingdom). It is ludicrous that Queen Victoria, for example, is referred to as Victoria of the United Kingdom but, you know, policy is policy. Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The airwaves were quite full of self-congratulatory opinions claiming that "only in the United States" are there such "peaceful transfers of power". You had to wonder if the newscasters had any concept of say, France, the UK, Denmark, etc. When was the last coup in Andorra? Switzerland? - Nunh-huh 03:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps they intend to ignore monarchies? Still, that leaves France...and dozens of other republics...but have any of them had 44 peaceful transfers in a row, or for 230 years in a row? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

France?!? You have got to be kidding! France has hardly been a stable state over the past 230 years, having in that timeframe changed forms of government quite frequently and rather violently (anyone remember French Revolution, Napoleonic Wars, July Revolution, the 1848 Revolution, Paris Commune, etc. etc.) Heck, even as recently as 1958 (The Algieria Crisis) France had a rather tenuous collapse and reorganization. Actually, given that France pretty much changes its form of government in a rather dramatic way every 30-40 years or so, its quite overdue. The French Fifth Republic is by far the longest acting French government (at only 50 years old) since the Revolution. Of course, the U.S. did fight a war over the election of a President so I guess we lose that one too... Yeah, its a clear case of American Exceptionalism. But its not all that inaccurate when you try to dig through the history of the several-hundred-odd other countries to exist in the past 230 years and compare their history to the U.S., the U.S. certainly comes out in the top half in terms of "relatively peaceful transfers of power". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgot the May 1968 Revolution that drove DeGaulle from power. So that's 40 years since the last violent overthrow of a leadership. Way to go France! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's completely inaccurate. The commentators weren't discussing 230 years of uninterrupted changes in power, but simply the fact that a change in power was happening without gunfire. It's not merely exceptionalism, it's incredibly parochial. They actually apparently thought peaceful transfer of power was a rare thing. And they certainly provided no limitations on their claims ("other than monarchies...", "not counting our Civil War...", "we're in the top 50%....", etc. - Nunh-huh 05:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, is it a peaceful transition of power when the president is shot through the head?. That seems a fairly violent transition to me. Malcolm XIV (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Charles De Gaulle wasn't overthrown by a violent revolution, any more than Lyndon Johnson was overthrown by the protest movement in the 1960s, Edward Heath by the striking miners, or George W Bush was overthrown by the Iraq War. The Gaullists did well in the June 1968 elections, and De Gaulle resigned a year later over opposition to his plans for reforming the French senate and disputes with Pompidou (see Gaullist Party). That's hardly a modern equivalent of the French Revolution.

Meanwhile Sweden has had a fairly stable government for hundreds of years; Gustav III of Sweden came to power in a largely bloodless coup in 1771 and as far as I can tell from History of Sweden it's been boring since then. The Republic of Switzerland was conquered by Napoleon I until 1815 and had a very minor civil war in the 1840s (0.05% of the casualties of its American equivalent), but generally there's been nearly 200 years of stability and even greater boringness. (History of Switzerland) --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oath of office botched by Chief Justice Roberts

Chief Justice botched the administration of the oath of office to Barack Obama. Was this the worst botch in the history of the administration of it, and if the words as uttered by Obama are switched around a bit from what is specified in the Constitution does it still count, or is a do-over (perhaps with less ceremony) required? The official oath says "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Roberts, with several stutter steps and restatements led the oath taking by saying "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear that I will execute the office of President to the United States faithfully, the off-, faithfully the pres-, the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Despite this, Obama managed to recite the correct oath except for saying "execute the office of President of the United States faithfully" rather than "faithfully execute the office of President of the United States." Has any previous taker of the Presidential oath switched the words around a bit? Edison (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sure of two things.

1. It absolutely and completely doesn't matter at all, and no one who matters will care one bit.
2. The nutjobs will seize upon that little bit and declare that everything Obama does from this day forward is invalid. Of course, they are entirely wrong, but it will just give them something to seize on.

As far as prior glitches, I am not sure if there have been any. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If someone wants to be really picky about it, Obama, a judge (or other qualified official), and some witnesses could just get together sometime tonight and go through it correctly. And being the tech savvy person he is, Obama could put that up on YouTube. Dismas|^(talk) 22:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone that picky should notice that the constitution does not require the presence of a qualified official or any witnesses. It simply requires that the oath/affirmation be taken. Algebraist 22:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A witness would be generally considered necessary to substantiate the reciting of the Constitutionally required words. It does not say "or words to that effect." Edison (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

ABC News says [30] Chief Justice Taft flubbed the oath giving to President Hoover in 1929, substituting "maintain" for "protect." The Great Depression ensued later that year (not implying any causality). NY Times [31] says Coolidge did a "do-over" oath by a Supreme Court justice "when questions were raised" about the adequacy of his swearing-in by his father. Edison (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Odds are that Roberts will administer the oath another five times or so. Hopefully he'll get better with practice! —Kevin Myers 01:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It was widely noted that Princess Diana botched her marital oath. She took "Charles Arthur Phillip George" to be her husband, not "Charles Phillip Arthur George". But nobody ever suggested she married the wrong man (well, not for that reason alone, anyway), or that the marriage was invalid. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

We're talking about radical conservative bloggers here though. I don't mean to say that we corner the market on political quackery though...  :-) Dismas|^(talk) 03:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the name of the character

that appears in this image? I know it's from Mad (magazine) which I only heard about through Wikipedia, but what is the name of the comic character creation?--Hotpotch'd (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be Alfred E. Neuman. DuncanHill (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

We learn something every day: I never noticed the "disquieting" asymmetry of his eyes. —Tamfang (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Irish smile

What is it? deeptrivia (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A pattern on a tie, a song, or a cheesy poem. Do you have any sort of context that might help us out? Maybe you're looking for something related to an Irish Makeover? Dismas|^(talk) 04:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps another synonym for a Glasgow/Chelsea smile? Nanonic (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

US Cabinet members

When does the term for the outgoing secretaries end, with their president, or upon confirmation of their successor? Grsz¹¹ 21:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

According to United States Cabinet, the successor does not take office until they take the oath. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That much I knew, but what about the Bush cabinet, when are they done? I know that the Senate is currently in session reviewing some nominees. Grsz¹¹ 22:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(edited)The Wikipedia article on Condoleezza Rice says she is still Secretary of State. Similarly, the Department of State website at the present time does not show that her term is over and does not list her as a former Secretary of State. The Wikipedia article on United States Secretary of State, in contrast, says she is "the former Secretary of State". Did her job end the minute Obama became President, must she submit a resignation, does Obama have to fire her, or does it end when her successor is confirmed? If she is still Secretary of State, she would still be 4th in succession to replace Obama. The U.S. Treasury Department website says that Henry Paulson, Bush's Treasury Secretary, is still the secretary, making him still fifth in succession to the Presidency. The Senate appears to be in no great hurry to confirm Hillary Clinton as the new Secretary of State or Geithner as Treasury Secretary, although they are expected by most to be confirmed. Secretary of Defense Gates is a holdover from the Bush administration, chosen to continue by Obama, and apparently does not need to be reconfirmed by the Senate, so he should presently be 4th in succession to the Presidency, if the terms of the outgoing Secretaries of State and the Treasury are ended, and the new ones have not been confirmed. Apparently the cabinet secretaries of outgoing administrations in the past have continued in office until the were replaced in some cases. See Talk:United States Secretary of State#Secretaries of State holding on in inaugural transition. Edison (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This certainly is an unprecedented event - having to change so many articles, adding boxes and successions to some and removing them from others. I'm content with letting these things hammer themselves out over the coming days. Grsz¹¹ 22:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There are not all that many cabinet secretaries in the U.S. government. I suggest that when reliable sources like CNN or the New York Times report the predecessors are out and/or the new cabinet secretaries are in, or when the official websites of the departments or the White House report the departures from office of the Bush officials/confirmation and swearing in of the new appointments, then the articles should be revised and harmonized. Edison (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As a general rule, they hold office until their successors are confirmed. But also, they normally resign effective noon on January 20, so they don't actually continue--if they didn't resign, they would, but they always resign. So in between, their deputy generally stays on to keep things going until the new person is in place. Tb (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Cabinet officers serve "at the pleasure" of the President. Upon taking office the all sign undated resignation letters which the President holds. If they really want to resign, they merely date the letter. If the President was them out, he dates the letter.

Gates is already Secretary of Defence, needs no further confirmation, and will stay as long as both he and Obama want him there.

The newbies take office after the Senate confirms them, at which time their predecessors' letters are accepted. Rice remains at State until Clinton replaces her, probably in about a week.

Ex-cabinet officers usually attend a last transition cabinet meeting as a resource for a smoother transition. B00P (talk) 09:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Church and State

As one of the "non believers" President Obama kindly acknowledged in his inaugural speech today (albeit as a bit of an afterthought), I was rather surprised at the amount of - for want of a better phrase - needless God-invoking there was at today's inauguration.

The USA has a separation of church and state, why therefore was there a Christian invocation including the Lord's Prayer as part of the official ceremony? Is this just another example of civil religion? Is the elements of the ceremony included at the discretion of the incoming President, so if he were not a Christian, would there be a different (or no) invocation? Historical examples or published opinions from Constitutional scholars would be welcome, thanks. Rockpocket 23:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it would be up to the President being inaugurated. Grsz¹¹ 23:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The state does not recognize nor enforce any religion. However, the people holding offices are real people with real religious views, and are free to hold and profess any views they wish. Indeed, if Obama were prevented from expressing his religious views by the apparatus of the government, the government would be in violation of the "free exercise" clause. Remember, the constitution forbids Congress from enacting laws (and by extension, the executive from enacting regulations) which either establish a state religion OR prevent individuals from participating in their own religion. This refers to the government, and not to any individuals who hold jobs in the government. In America there is always a conceptual distinction between the Office of the President and the man who holds that office. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The incoming president controls just about everything about the ceremony, and (at least within recent memory) personally chooses the person he wants to deliver the invocation - Obama's choice was controversial (and, in the result, rather disappointing). It's the president's choice about most of the religious elements of the inauguration: which (if any) book of scripture is used, whether or not to include the non-Constitutional "so help me God" at the end of the oath, etc. For some

history you may be interested in [a blacklisted site] (which in turn uses Wikipedia as a source) and [32]. Political reality pretty much dictates that there will be an invocation - no president has been bold enough to scrap it. - Nunh-huh 00:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I study American constitutional law and have practiced in the area. My belief was that we need separation of church and state in the United States. When I recently researched faith-based organizations receiving government funds, I was surprised to learn that the First Amendment does not say separation of church and state. The Constitution forbids an estabished religion. "Establishment" was not defined. Several states had existing established religions. During the Warren years, the Court focused on Jefferson's statement to Baptists in Danbury that he preferred separation of church and state. Madison and Jefferson are often quoted. They were not the only framers. It is clear religious content for religious purposes was banned not to leave religion separate from the state but because everyone wanted their own particular denomination to flourish. Strangely, there was little discussion or debate concerning the wording.

The present Court has almost demolished the understanding of the Warren Court. Religion is accomodated as much as possible. Thus, the Court has upheld the Congressional chaplin's prayers and many displays of the Ten Commandments. The majority argues that much usage is traditional and historical. The area is very heated. The Court has acknowledged its failure to set proper standards that can be identified. The dissenters disagree. It is difficult to discern reasoned application in lower court decisions. The political party of the judge is a good identifier of how the court will rule. Once President Obama has a chance to appoint some justices, the present trend may be reversed.75Janice (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)75Janice

Thank you. I would note, in response to Jayron32, that there is a difference between preventing one expressing one's religious views, and not formally including religious elements in a legal ceremony related to one's (federal) job. There is no constitutional issue with Obama mentioning his God in his inaugural speech. Restricting him from doing so would obviously be in violation of the "free exercise" clause. My question was not about that right, but about references to a God in legal procedures. I note, for example, that some oaths of office (though not the Presidential one) legally require the person taking it to finish with "...I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God." [33] I struggle to see how that is reconciled with "the state does not recognize nor enforce any religion". Rockpocket 00:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that source is either incorrect or whoever drafted the phrase is an idiot. It appears to permit one to affirm rather than take an oath (presumably to permit one to avoid the religious implication), but then requires that the person making the affirmation appeal to God anyway. Rockpocket 00:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"So help me God" is not part of the president's oath in the Constitution. It's been added by custom since at least 1881 (see http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-01-07-washington-oath_N.htm). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hence (though not the Presidential one), above. Thanks for the link, though. Most informative and it led me to this lawsuit. Rockpocket 02:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a .gov source for the theistic wording of the judge's oath. Rather than embracing Rockpocket's use of the word "idiot", I'll merely opine that it was composed in a time when the issue was less charged. I'm reminded of an anecdote of my ex-wife when she worked for a Jewish charity. One day a CETA worker, a Hispanic girl, was assigned to buy and send birthday cards for some donors, who in due course asked why they had received cards with shiny gold crosses. To the girl, apparently, that's simply what birthday cards look like. —Tamfang (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

So it would appear it is correct after all. I'm rather amazed, in todays litigious climate, that oath has not been changed as unconstitutional. I've been thinking about this further after watching the inauguration again. I think Michael Newdow does have a point. At the end of the oath Chief Justice Roberts - apparently in his constitutional role - clearly says "So help you God?" to which Obama repeats, "So help me God." [34] If Obama had chosen to finish off with that unprompted, then good luck to him - thats his business. But the fact that the Justice prompted him as part of an oath of office (official or otherwise) does indeed seem questionable with regards to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Though a district court disagreed, of course, on the basis of Marsh v. Chambers. [35][36]

Our country was founded by our founding fathers, who were christina, and upheld strong christian beliefs, and for that, may we all be thankful! "may god help obama and give him wisdom guiding our country!!!:) ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 03:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You might want to read Deism#Deism_in_the_United_States, then rethink that statement. AnyPerson (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure all of them weren't called Christina. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The Eagles

According to our own List of best-selling albums worldwide article, Their Greatest Hits (1971–1975) by The Eagles is the third-best selling album of all time. Quite frankly, I don't understand how this came to pass. I'm not asking for opinions on the quality (or lack thereof) of The Eagles music, but perhaps someone could shed some light onto quite how this happened. Enduring popularity leading to steady sales over a number of years? A spectacular advertising campaign? Led Zeppelin hadn't released a good album in a while? Hammer Raccoon (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember that at one point this album was close to being the one to remain on the Billboard top 500 the longest. The deal with greatest hits albums like these is that they tend to have staying power, and so sustain sales for a long time. Original material albums tend to have swift sales when they are new, and then the sales drop off rapidly once the new album comes out. Greatest hits albums tend to maintain steady sales for many years. The Eagles album was certainly on the charts when I was in college (mid 1990's) despite being over 20 years old at that point. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The appeal for Greatest Hits albums is that people buy because it has all (or most) of the songs that they already know and love. There is no need to buy all the various albums that they came from individually. Have I owned a copy, yes. Do I have any interest in other material by The Eagles, not really. And if you're interested in album chart records, check out Dark Side of the Moon. Dismas|^(talk) 03:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but lots of artists release Greatest Hits albums. Why is this one so successful and not the others? This is purely speculation on my part (and I was too young to remember it myself) but one possible explanation is that the Eagles were a singles band. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Another point to realize is that The Eagles songs are a great example of Crossover (music). Their sound has found many fans of rock, pop and country styles. They have received airplay on many different themed radio stations throughout the years, resulting in more exposure and record sales. Several of the bands members: Don Henley,Glenn Frey and Joe Walsh have also had quite successful solo careers, resulting again in more potential attention to the group's previous works. cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This would be an excellent question for the Entertainment Desk. StuRat (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Equality before the law

Where did the earliest concept of equality before the law originate? Where was it first implemented? (By this I mean only in places with actual set laws, of course-not including in places like tribes) Thanks! 99.226.138.202 (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The first record of the concept is probably in Herodotus, who attributes it to the Athenian Cleisthenes. In Greek it was called isonomia. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You may want to start at legal history, History of democracy and maybe take a look at rule of law. The definition you use for of "legal egalitarianism" matters too. Classic Greece and Rome had concepts of citizenship which excluded women, slaves, and certain conquered peoples but ensured a certain rights for said citizen. Around the same rough time frame legalist philosophy developed in China. I'm not sure when or how it was put into practice but Islamic law had a premise for a least some laws being applicable to everyone. John Locke's political theory in 1689 argued for every man deserving equal application of justice. The article for equality before the law says that legal egalitarianism as a political development arose in the 18th century Enlightenment in both the United States and France after their revolutionary periods. I hope this helps. 152.16.15.23 (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What this guy said. Ancient Greece was the birthplace of Western civilisation, furthered by Ancient Rome. Such concepts must have been first formulated during this period. Then later in the medieval age and afterwards, other thinkers from Britain, France, Germany, Italy etc. furthered the concepts developed during this period and modernised them, a process that has continued to this day.--Lawless Railtrack (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Another take on it would be Early Irish law where the kings didn't have the power to enact laws. It is interesting that women had rights taken away with the coming of Christianity because of its saying women were subject to their husbands. Dmcq (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean "equality of some" or "equality of all" ?

If the first case is what you meant, I would think that would apply anywhere that laws existed. That is, whatever group of people those laws applied to, they applied to them all equally. The Code of Hammurabi is perhaps the earliest written law we know of. While there were certainly different laws for slaves and peasants, this was true for most of history.

If the second case is what you meant, we don't seem to believe that today. Children and aboriginal people may have different rights, non-citizens, homosexuals, and convicted felons may be denied certain rights, etc. StuRat (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Police State

When was the term Police State first used?

The earliest reference the Oxford English Dictionary has found so far was an 1851 description of Austria in The Times. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster says 1851, Dictionary(dot)com says 1860-1865, and the Online Etymology Dictionary says it was first recorded in 1865 in a reference to Austria. Hope this helps. 152.16.15.23 (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Google Books can often do better on this kind of question - for example, here is a use in 1832. Warofdreams talk 10:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you look closer, you'll find that that use of the term is in Leon Trotsky's The Bolsheviki and World Peace (1918). I have no idea why that book and the 1832 volume are included in the same Google Books file. Deor (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yes. The dating of that book is clearly incorrect; the section refers in detail to the Franco-Prussian War and the previous page includes a sentence starting "As Marx had already foreseen in 1870..." This is why Google Books should be regarded with very great suspicion as a research tool: many of the dates are entirely wrong and texts must be carefully studied and referenced against catalogues (e.g. linguist Mark Liberman attempting a similar analysis: "Google Books' dates (and other metadata) are very unreliable"[37]) --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting. I wasn't relying on the metadata, but on the title page - and failed to notice that was from a different book! Still, this looks a good bet from 1847. Warofdreams talk 14:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen the Metadata wrong too...For Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906–1921 and The American Battleship, it added an extra author...which I then used to cite articles here on Wikipedia. -_- —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 14:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Aretha Franklin's song

Why was Aretha Franklin singing the melody of the British national anthem "God Save the Queen" at Obama's inauguration ceremony? - Is there some hidden message there? --AlexSuricata (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My Country, 'Tis of Thee is an American patriotic song. Rockpocket 02:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And The Star Spangled Banner is sung to an old British drinking tune. What is it with Americans and patriotic songs - can't they come up with any tunes of their own? DuncanHill (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the political sector for you. —Tamfang (talk) 07:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed; the U.S. and England share a lot of tunes, with different words. For example "To Anacreon in Heaven", better known as the "Star Spangled Banner", was originally published in London in the 1770s. Antandrus (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And what's wrong with that? At the time many of these songs popped up, most of the writers were former Brits. It's easier to transfer patriotism than to completely remake it. Wrad (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for answering this one. I too wondered why she was singing what sounded like God Save the Queen.--Lawless Railtrack (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounded like The Royal Canadian Kilted Yaksmen Anthem to me! Adam Bishop (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tamfang. I've never liked the Star-Spangled Banner for exactly that reason. Sorry to get all nationalistic on everyone but the national anthem should be an American song. Just my 2 cents. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the tune for 'God Save the Queen' was originally composed for the King of...France, by Lully...True? False? Rhinoracer (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

False, it would seem. See under "History" in God Save the Queen. DuncanHill (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Uzbekistan Immigration

What are the requirements for immigrants who want to permanently settle in Uzbekistan? Is it easy for people to immigrate to Uzbekistan today? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've heard that Uzbekistan is still problematic with regard to human rights etcetera. Apparently, it's the most populous country in Central Asia of the five former CIS states in the region, even more population than Kazakhstan despite being considerably smaller, which surprised me when I first heard it. Also, it would probably depend on where you're immigrating from. I hear that Central Asia (i.e. these five states in particular) are growth regions with regard to oil etc. Look on Wikitravel for info - it can be useful.--Lawless Railtrack (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's another Obama question

While reading this article, I read:

The Obamas were more enthusiastic, splitting up to dance with Marine Sgt. Elidio Guillen of Madera, Calif. — who was shorter than dance partner Michelle — and Army Sgt. Margaret H. Herrera, who cried in the president's arms.

My questions about this are, is this some sort of tradition that I'm unaware of? And who are these two people? What makes them special enough to dance with the first couple? Dismas|^(talk) 05:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Ann Curry's interview with Army Sgt. Margaret H. Herrera this evening (oozing empathy from every pore, as usual), the Obamas requested this especially and it is not traditional. Herrera said she was nominated by her commanding officer, perhaps because of her politeness and good manners, ably demonstrated in her politically correct answers to all of Ms Curry's questions. Rockpocket 07:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Mobius loops in operas?

Hi - this is a strange question - I'm working on a story set on Saturn's rings, and part of the conceit is that they're solid (it's steampunk, set in a time when people might have still thought them solid), their shapes determined by the strange forms that spacetime took in the very early universe. Our heroine, an opera singer, is riding a ringwhale over the surface, and for reasons we don't need to go into, has to travel over a prominence in the landscape that is like a mobius strip. It'd be nice if she was able to make sense of this by relating it to some similar looping-back movement in an opera, especially something from Wagner (the story's called Ringcycle). I know nothing about music, and less than that about opera, so forgive me the ridiculous hand-waving I'm doing, but if anyone can at least make suggestions of something that might approximate what I'm talking about, I'd be very appreciative.

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 06:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about the mobius strip as being representative in a diagram form of an actual pattern in the sound/notes/rhythym of the music itself, or merely as a theme of an opera?--Lawless Railtrack (talk) 07:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What the question made me think of is a counter-fugue or something of that sort. (I don't really know about these things, I've only read what Hofstadter says about them in Gödel, Escher, Bach.) --Anonymous, 02:43 UTC, January 21, 2009.

thanks for the replies: I meant the former, Lawless, and thanks, Anon - I'll check it out. Adambrowne666 (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There are oddly circular, mirrored, etc pieces in Bach's The Musical Offering. The one called "Canon perpetuus" repeats infinitely, each time one step higher in pitch. It was written as a puzzle, with no ending given. Actual performances have to invent some way to make it end. Operas don't usually have odd music of this type--they are more about the singing and the story. Pfly (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Nicolas Slonimsky composed something called Moebius Strip-Tease, "a perpetual vocal canon notated on a Moebius band to be revolved around the singer's head; it had its first and last performance at the Arriére-Garde Coffee Concert at UCLA on May 5 1965, with the composer officiating at the piano non-obbligato." [38] ---Sluzzelin talk 15:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Still no opera, but you might be interested in Robert Wechsler and his Palindrome Intermedia Performance Group. I saw them about 15 years ago, and they attempted to translate several conundrums and form-play from mathematics and biochemistry into dance. One of their pieces was titled Möbius Band (Möbius strip). Both music (live performance) and choreography emulated the Möbius structure, if I remember correctly. I found it a bit contrived, personally, but it was certainly interesting. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Does Frank Zappa do the majority of singing on his albums?

I have heard a whole bunch of Frank Zappa's stuff and I'm not ever sure who's doing the vocals. Can someone explain? I understand that on the Hot Rats album there is a song where Captain Beefheart does vocals and they later worked together on the Bongo Fury album but did Zappa do the majority of the vocals himself? Because I'm listening to the Apostrophe (') album just now and I honestly cannot tell who's doing what.--Lawless Railtrack (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Zappa sings the lead vocals on most of his songs. Some songs have a lot of backup vocals, and sometimes someone else takes the lead during particular parts of songs. On some songs someone other than Zappa sings the lead vocals, such as "Why Does It Hurt When I Pee?" on Joe's Garage, sung by Ike Willis I believe. I think Zappa sings lead vocals on all the songs on Apostrophe ('), although with quite a lot of backing vocals and harmonizations. Pfly (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Another of the rare exceptions is the wonderful Valley Girl, sung by Moon Unit. Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This question belongs on the Entertainment Desk. StuRat (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia vandalism a computer crime?

Obviously it depends on the jurisdiction. But it's an interesting question. Personally, I would say that if Wikipedia vandalism can be construed to be a computer crime, it would fall towards the very lowest end of the scale of what is considered important in law enforcement. More likely it would constitute at the most a violation of the ISP's terms and conditions. But the way that a lot of laws are written (i.e. Computer Misuse Act 1990) a critical part of them is that the access must be unauthorised. Wikipedia provides the means for vandalism to take place - it is against Wikipedia's policies, but it is not unauthorised access in the same way that password cracking and hacking would be. To someone who knows more than the layman about computers, the distinction between Wikipedia vandalism and true hacking would be very clear. Also, this is not asking for legal advice just wanting some opinions.

Also, even if Wikipedia vandalism is de facto legal, there could be other ways in which it could be illegal (i.e. if it involved harrassment, stalking, etcetera).--Lawless Railtrack (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia vandalism" is NOT a crime and NOT an illegal activity of any kind because members of the public are invited to make the Wikipedia Article better. Since "better" is in the eye of the beholder, any changes is better than the previous version of the article in the mind of the "vandal". Signed - The Vandal. 122.107.203.230 (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if it is a crime, we still won't need law enforcement. We have pretty efficient means of dealing with vandals. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia does not give legal advice. Conservapedia, which is based on the same software and model as Wikipedia, asserts that vandalism is a crime, but I believe that they have had no success in attempting to prosecute vandals. Warofdreams talk 10:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There's clear policies on what constitutes vandalism and people are directed to the guidelines for editing. Whether it is a crime, a misdemeanour or a civil offence I don't know. Nothing is going to happen to anybody in the real world, but you're free to virtually punish them. How about setting up a virtual hell prison in second life complete with devils to poke avatars with sashes carrying the ip numbers of vandals on them? Or they could sit around recanting their sins to one another and be shown good edits? Dmcq (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say it depends on the level of vandalism. Just as a kid writing hop-scotch squares on a public sidewalk with chalk isn't going to be charged with vandalism, someone writing "chicken butt" in a Wikipedia article won't rise to the legal threshold for a crime. But, if the same kid smashes a window or breaks into the Wikipedia servers and deletes all the files, then it does become a crime. StuRat (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

A tribe called the "Sunderlanders" that was like 8000 years old?

I dunno, maybe he was talking about the Sumerians, but he said that they had agriculture and used plastics and everything, this guy I was talking to... he also said that Atlantis was a civilisation that actually existed... was this guy just talking nonsense? I said that people thought that Crete was Atlantis but he said that this was just brainwashing used by the history books. Was this guy just talking utter nonsense?--Lawless Railtrack (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ummm...probably, IMO. The earliest thing that could be called "civilization" was a village that was built somewhere in Turkey (I forgot the name of the village). Then came Mesopotamia's time with the Akkadians and the Sumerians; this was followed by Egypt, the Minoans, Assyria and Greece, I think (something like that). —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 14:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That village is Çatalhöyük. And yes that guy was talking nonsense. Was he from Sunderland? Adam Bishop (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That village goes back some 9500 years, so the 8000 year figure isn't unreasonable. If we go closer to where Sumerians lived, ancient Samarra goes back some 7500 years, which your friend could easily have rounded to 8000. There are also many who believe that the myth of Atlantis is based on some small grain of truth, similar to how the Iliad does seem to be based on a real war (the Trojan War). There were some small Greek islands destroyed by volcanoes that could be candidates, for example. The Biblical Philistines may have come from there. StuRat (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

So help me God.

Can an atheist, muslin or whatever -provided he doesn't believe in the Bible - become American president? Mr.K. (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. As long as you are 35 years old and a natural-born American citizen, you can be elected to be president. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 14:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're worried about the swearing in, then you can relax. The bible is strictly optional, and "So help me god" is not part of the official oath. It's just something that presidents decide to add on.

The court system has procedures for swearing in witnesses and such that aren't christian. Presumably they'd probably go with that. APL (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the candidates in the 1952 presidential election was lawyer Vincent Hallinan, an atheist who "once sued the Roman Catholic Church for fraud, demanding that it prove the existence of heaven and hell" (New York Times obituary). Gandalf61 (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And he won 0.2% of the popular vote. So, that approach wasn't exactly successful. StuRat (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There are two different questions here, whether it's legal (which it is) and whether they would be a politically viable candidate. Unfortunately, I'd have to say no to the second part (with the possible exception of Jews). I'm not aware of any athiest or Muslim (or believer in a non-Abrahamic religion) ever being the candidate for either major party, much less winning. A Jewish President might be possible, though, as we almost had a Jewish VP 8 years ago (Joe Lieberman). A Buddhist might do well with California voters, but I'm not sure if they could carry any other states. Of course, I'm assuming they are honest about their religion, but, these being politicians, perhaps that's a bad assumption. A candidate could always "find Jesus" a few years before the election and listen to "Praise Je-ah-sus" for the prerequisite number of times at the local church, and thus fool everyone into voting for them. Also note that religious attitudes of American voters tend to become more liberal as time passes. At one point, a Catholic President seemed impossible, but, since JFK, that's no longer the case. StuRat (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are a couple of Buddhists in Congress and neither of them is from California. Polls seem to show that being Jewish is probably not a big disadvantage when running for office but atheism would be a heavy cross to carry.[39] It's not all about worshiping Christ - a hypothetical Mormon does a lot worse than a hypothetical Jew. Haukur (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I rather suspect that there have been several agnostic presidents, and probably one or two atheist presidents, but that they had the political nous to pretend otherwise. DuncanHill (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

We were also a heartbeat away from having the anti-Christ as President for the last 8 years, but I suppose even he believes in the Bible. :-) StuRat (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Funny how often liberals put ad hominem crap on wikipedia, disguised as humor. I'm laughing. truly. ha ha. lulz. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 16:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is when one argues against a position not by advancing an argument, but by attacking the proponent of the position. Since StuRat is not arguing for or against anything, his comment is simply an insult. Algebraist 16:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Algebraist - LOL. Thank you very much for that clarification. :) 216.239.234.196 (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't anyone here take a joke? That was a common joke on many blogs. You people need to lighten up. Besides, wouldn't a liberal not post something insulting Obama?  Buffered Input Output 17:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)