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

December 5

Christmas in the Finnish Orthodox Church

Will the Finnish Orthodox Church even in the 29th century celebrate Christmas according to the Gregorian calendar? --84.61.129.27 (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

How could we possibly know that? They could change their calendar before then, but otherwise, yeah they probably will. (Maybe Robot Santa will change the date. Who knows.) Adam Bishop (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think they don't already do so? As far as I know they switched calendars in the 1920's. 85.156.72.50 (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Finland may have changed their secular calandar, however many Eastern orthodox chuches have not changed their liturgical calandar from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar, for the simple reason that they do not recognize the legitimacy of such a decision being handed down unilaterally from the Bishop of Rome. So you often find that the date of holidays in such Eastern churches is off by several weeks from the modern Gregorian calandar, regardless of what calandar the secular society those churches are located in uses. --Jayron32 18:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately facts are easy to look up if there is an encyclopaedia at hand: Gregorian calendar was used in Finland from 1753 on. The Finnish Orthodox Church switched to the Gregorian calendar in 1923. 80.186.0.23 (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, there ya go. --Jayron32 01:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The remotest places on earth, or in mainland Britain

What are the remotest places on earth on land? There could be several alternative criteria for evaluating remoteness. And if you live near there, then it is not remote for you. The criteria I am interested in are: a) which spot on earth would take the longest to get to for a traveller starting from London or New York and using the normal tourist types of transport (so no parachuting out of a plane or Artic/Antartic expeditions or deep-sea diving or jumping into a volcano)? b) which spot on land is furthest from a drivable road? Similarly for places in mainland Britain. I would like to restrict this to places it is possible to get to and return from. 92.27.148.85 (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You might find Pole of inaccessibility interesting. --Tango (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Lucky for you we have an article about this that might interest you: Extreme points of Earth#Remoteness :) Mac Davis (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There's also Inaccessible Island which was long inaccessible, because the island is surrounded by one-thousand-foot-tall cliffs. As for Britain, Yahoo Answers suggests Cape Wrath, the Assynt Peninsula or the Island of Foula. I have no idea what those are. The Guardian has a page on it too, with a video.[1]. Mac Davis (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any of those qualify. Foula is an island and thus not mainland Britain. Assynt is easily accessible by road. Cape Wrath is the point furthest away from London (and requires a ferry trip and a minibus ride to get there - but still road accessible). There are plenty of places in Britain that require a long drive and a long walk to get there. I would think that the interior of the Great Wilderness (Fisherfield) or of the Knoydart Peninsular would be good guesses.195.128.250.106 (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

There was correspondence (in the New Scientist?) around this very issue -- how to measure remoteness in Britain. One correspondent opined that the most remote spot would be the one furthest from a pub. A second letter-writer propsed 10 Downing Street, as being the furthest removed from reality. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with Rockall...hotclaws 21:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Marcus Livius Drusus children flock

Looking at the article on Cato the Younger it lists some of the "children flock" that Marcus Livius Drusus cared for. I see 5 here, however could there have been as many as 7 children that he cared for. Who then would the other two be?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It lists 6 if you count Cato. Why do you think there is a seventh? Adam Bishop (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Six looks like the amount of infants counting Cato, using that article's information.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

According to the article Quintus Servilius Caepio the Younger, he married Livia Drusa, sister of Marcus Livius Drusus the Younger. Livia bore him three children: Servilia Caepionis; another daughter, also called Servilia; and a son, Quintus Servilius Caepio. According to the article Cato the Younger, both Servilia Caepionis and Quintus Servilius Caepio were "adopted" by Marcus Livius Drusus. So whatever became of the other daughter, also called Servilia - since her brother and sister were "adopted" by Marcus Livius Drusus the Younger? Could she also have gone with her siblings to Marcus Livius Drusus, as one big happy family, since at that point Livia remarried to Marcus Porcius Cato Salonianus. I assume this other daughter is Servilia the Younger.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the younger Servilia did go with her siblings.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

According to the article Marcus Livius Drusus Claudianus, he changed his name from Appius Claudius Pulcher. While there may have been 7 names involved, there was in fact only 6 infants. No wonder I am confused.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

German citizen

What must I do, aside from marriage, to achieve German citizenship? There is no German in my lineage. Mac Davis (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the article you linked to? The "Naturalisation as a German citizen" section precisely answers this question. --Tango (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Also, while I've never had to hire a German lawyer, my understanding is that lawyers in Germany are much, much more affordable than in most English-speaking countries. If this is something you're serious about doing, it could be worthwhile for you to set up an appointment. --M@rēino 04:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No Derivative Works

(This is not a request for legal advice, just for some legal understanding.)

I consider myself fairly copyright savvy but I've had some difficulty really understanding what something licensed as "no derivative works" (e.g. as one of the Creative Commons licenses) would really mean. I know that the concept of what is and what is not a derivative work is pretty broad.

Let's say one had a photograph from someone else that was licensed CC-BY-ND (and that you satisfied all attribution requirements of the BY clause).

Could one:

1. Reprint the photo as part of a book, without any changes made other than resizing it to fit the page?
2. Reprint the photo as part of a book, without any changes made other than resizing it to fit the page AND setting it to grayscale because the printer is in black and white?
3. Reprint the photo as part of a book, without any changes made other than resizing it to fit the page AND setting it to grayscale AND tinting it red?
4. Reprint the photo as part of a book, without any changes made other than resizing it to fit the page AND setting it to grayscale AND tinting it red AND putting text over it?
5. Reprint the photo as part of a book, without any changes made other than resizing it to fit the page AND setting it to grayscale AND tinting it red AND putting text over it AND photoshopping a goat into the photo?

My intuitive feeling is that it becomes a "derivative work" only when real creativity is involved (that is, you are transforming it), and so #5 would be a definite "no" (it is reminiscent of the classic mustache-on-Mona-Lisa), but I'm not really clear about #3 or #4. In a way, this sort of reasoning is somewhat backwards—usually one is not trying to claim that one's modifications are totally non-derivative, but in the case of CC-ND you actually get MORE freedoms if you can claim you are making no real substantial transformations. That is, if you were in a "I am modifying this a lot" point of view—like one does if you are trying to assert that have created a derivative work out of something in the public domain—you would claim that tinting it red was really quite creative, since you could have chosen really any color, and the choice of color was so wonderfully transformative, etc. In this case, though, you get more out of saying, "this is NOT a creative change," as otherwise the CC license doesn't apply (and it is regarded as just copyrighted).

Items #1 and #2 seem pretty mechanical to me and thus plainly non-derivative, but I've put them in there just as part of the spectrum of possibilities.

Anybody have any thoughts? I doubt there is really case law on this as it applies to the CC-ND provision in particular, but I'm just trying to reason my way through it. Again, all of this is purely hypothetical, and yes, I know that only a lawyer could give you real advice, and yes, I know that in fact, the only place where this would be decided for sure would be in a court of law, which nobody wants to be in! --Mr.98 (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to have the best chance of getting this question answered, the better place to ask is the Wikipedia:Media copyright questions noticeboard rather than here. --Jayron32 18:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I would expect that nobody could give you a definitive answer without taking it to court, since what you are after is an interpretation of the law. A lawyer is your next best bet. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The trouble you'll find is that there's lots of jurisprudence about what is a derivative work (because copyright owners want their money) but very little that distinguishes between a derivative work and the same work (because the difference gains or loses no-one any money). CC-ND says thou shalt not "transform", but doesn't really specify what "transform" means; in practice it's impossible to use a work without transforming it in size and (modestly) in colour, if for no other reason than printers and screens don't reproduce anything perfectly. There are a few lawsuits where copyright owners sue to prevent distribution of altered versions of their works (even when they're not losing money); one such was when some "family friendly" group made a no-sex edit of Titanic and recorded it over legally-bought copies of the original (so there was no loss of money for the owners). The producers nevertheless sued to prevent this: as copyright owners they enjoyed the right to control what derivative works of Titanic were made, and they didn't want the bowdlerised version being sold. I don't think the case actually went to trial. That case relied upon the transformations being substantial. CC-ND doesn't define how substantial a transform is permitted (on the face of it, it prohibits even the most trivial and inevitable ones). So I think the real answer is "nobody knows" and, as with a lot of things in legal land, it'll cost a million dollars just to find out. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 11:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Museums in Chelyabinsk, Russia

Hello, I was wondering if anyone could figure out what museums were in Chelyabinsk; the Wikipedia article doesn't mention anything. I know of a gallery there, Челябинский Музей Искусств, but I can't seem to find anything else when searching tourism sites.

The institution I'm looking for was 75 in 1998, and the "regional museum of local history" had an touring exhibit of the Muppets of The Muppet Show and Sesame Street. There's an article mentioning the exhibit here... -- Zanimum (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like maybe: Cheliabinsk Oblast Regional Museum of Local Lore.—eric 22:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a perfect fit! A 1923 opening... but is it still around? The website they link to is gone. I'm going to try emailing to them no matter what, but does it say whether or not their still around on the linked page? -- Zanimum (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

island

what is the smallest inhabited ocean island? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.246.167 (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the lists at the bottom of List of islands may have what you're looking for and more. Dismas|^(talk) 21:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Two of the five islands here: [2] seem to be oceanic islands and barely large enough for the single house built there. Rmhermen (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

December 6

Polynesian expansion

I did a quick check of the archives but couldn't find anything relevant, so I hope I'm not doubling up here.

In the WP articles I've read through there are two points that leave me curious, and the first may require some speculation. I understand now that population expansion (as opposed to hero conquest, religious fanaticism) was probably the main motive for the massive eastern expansion of the prehistoric polynesian peoples, and that they likely did in fact make it all the way to South America, but my question concerns the fact that they didn't actually appear to settle SA at all. If the Polynesian peoples were so motivated to expand through all of the Pacific islands, why would they suddenly stop when then encountered a huge fertile land-mass? Surely the west coast of SA wasn't that densely populated at the time, was it? Or were the Polynesians less interested in abandoning their islands?

My second question: one article gives reference to a navigation technique involving "studying the reflections on clouds" in order to find new islands. I guess that means they were spotting dark/light spots over the horizon via reflections on the bottoms of flat clouds, but does anyone have any other information about this?

Thanks in advance! 219.102.221.182 (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably some Polynesian ships did make it to South America (statistically it seems likely), but on most of the islands they settled the Polynesians were the first human inhabitants, while that was not the case in South America (where most areas suitable for human habitation would have already been inhabited). Also, the winds blowing from the west in the south Pacific kind of lead to the coastal desert areas of Chile. We do have Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contact#Polynesians -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with anything regarding studying reflections on clouds, but our article does mention that clouds tend to form over islands, which is what I would assume is being talked about. That clouds do tend to form over islands is probably the result of orographic lift, though our article implies that's a slightly different process. Matt Deres (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It's fairly well accepted that the polynesians used the sight of clouds as indications of the location of islands, in exactly the way that Matt mentions. I'm not sure how they would use the "reflection of clouds", though. Grutness...wha? 22:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Not the "reflection of clouds", but the reflection of a bright turquoise lagoon on the base of a cloud. Try a simple google books search.—eric 00:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The turquoise blue of the coral shores reflected on the bottom of white standing clouds! Great, thanks a lot. About the Pre-Columbian contact; it seems that if they had arrived in SA (which I believe they did), they aren't there anymore, and that was my question. I imagine the shores of Chile wouldn't have been nearly as densely inhabited as (and have more resources than) a previously encountered small tropical island at the time, so it's a bit of a mystery to me why there wasn't more incentive to continue expansion along the SA coast. 219.102.221.182 (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see any reason to presume if they did arrive in South America they aren't there anymore. There's a good chance they would have mixed/inter-married with the local population and some native South Americans may very well have Polynesian 'blood' from centuries previous. Is there any particular evidence that suggests this is unlikely that I'm not aware of? Nil Einne (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, all that takes is a genome test, right? Even if it can be shown that their blood still exists in the Americas, it still seems pretty clear that their culture didn't have a very strong impact on the tribes at that time. 219.102.221.182 (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

. Given that there was already quite a number of significant cultures with probably some fairly well established populations in South American and the Polynesia voyagers often weren't particularly interested in conquest, it's not that surprising if the Polynesian immigrants would have become well integrated into the existing cultures but I don't see any evidence that they didn't have a 'strong impact', however you define that. (Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the Mapuche language is significantly Polynesian in character but rather when you have so much uncertainty about how it developed over time, concluding that there was no Polynesian impact is likely going to be difficult.) There's some disputed evidence for chickens for example, that may very well have had a resonable impact on some of the cultures of the time for example. And looking at Mapuche, the section on the pre-Columbian history is rather short but does have evidence for controversies on where the language came from for example. While I presume a fair amount more is known about their history then covered there it seems likely to me that what is known is still rather limited and often disputed and what and who impacted many parts of its development is unclear. How you can conclude therefore that Polynesian immigrants had no sigificant impact, I'm not sure. And that is of course just one of the number of cultures. Some of the ones who have survived less well we probably know even less about. Some of these may have been resonably significant at a time, the fact that they didn't survive so well doesn't mean they can be ignored. And as for genomic analysis, sure it could provide some clues but would likely be rather difficult since 1) We don't know how well those that did integrate survived the later events 2) Given there remains some uncertainty over precisely when and where both the Polynesians and South Americans came from etc, showing that certain South American people had historic mixing with Polynesians is probably difficult at the best. P.S. Polynesian navigation appears to cover the additional evidence or theories for a Polynesian influence in the cultures of the Americas better then anything else I saw in our articles. While I'm not saying I believe any of these have great merit, I think it does illustrate the fallacy of coming out with a point blank 'oh they had no significant impact' when there's still so much we don't know about either, and a fair amount of it is lost too. Nil Einne (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested in the work of Thor Heyedahl, who sailed the boat named the Kon-Tiki in the opposite direction (from S. America to Polynesia) to show that the islands could have been settled from South America. Heyerdahl's theories have been somewhat discounted by other evidence (such as ethnography, etc.); however his methodology is still important as it represents an important landmark in experimentalism in the social sciences. One could basically argue, using his expedition, and others modeled on it like the Kantuta Expeditions, that cross-Pacific travel, using crude ships (by modern standards) was perfectly feasible. That is, if one can make it from South America to Polynesia via small craft, one could make the trip in the other direction. There is the evidence of Sweet Potatoes in Polynesia which predate Western exploration there by some 1000 years; it is unclear how these sweet potatoes got to Polynesia, whether native Polynesians went to South America and brought them back OR whether native South Americans brought them to Polynesia, but it basically proves that there had to be SOME connection which has, to my knowledge, not been fully explained. The article Polynesian navigation also contains some good, referenced, information on this topic. --Jayron32 06:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Public Law

How do I look up a public law? I want to see the text of the 1947 soldier brides act, public law 213. 174.20.56.210 (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Google "War Brides Act" u.s.c. and there's a lot of material - your question is interesting because I looked up that law at Cornell's LII and of course it says "omitted" because it's no longer a law - Tempshill (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, though, that there are about three or four things that could end up being called "war brides act," but only two of them actually are; the ones in 1945 and 1946. That search is showing stuff related to those two. 174.20.56.210 (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If you have access to Lexis Nexis Congressional, it is pretty easy. Otherwise I suspect it may take a trip to a law library. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that's probably unnecessary. If you look up the major official links to the United States Code, which is where Public Laws end up after being unnumbered Statutes at Large, most of those official sites are annotated, showing when changes were made, and usually what those changes were. I haven't tried this for the Soldiers' Brides Act of 1947, but it seemed to work for the Glass-Steagall Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. I took a very elementary paralegals' course in Legal Research & Writing, but Wikipedia itself and laymen's sources like Findlaw.com have good guides to figuring out the jargon and nomenclature for the ordinary man or woman in the street (or on the Clapham Omnibus). —— Shakescene (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Okie-dokie. I've just found that historical statutes can be somewhat hard to find online (outside of Lexis Nexis, which makes a point of making it pretty easy), but are pretty easy to find in paper copies. A huge amount of legal publications were done exclusively on paper or microfilm until relatively recently. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not too surprising; same problem with the other obvious source, The Congressional Record for the "Do-Nothing 80th Congress" (1947-49). Relatively recent pages going back over the last six or ten Congresses (2-year sessions) were, last time I checked, available, as well as some from the 19th century, including the Journals of the Congress of the Confederate States of America. But given a huge task with inadequate resources, the Library of Congress will take a while to put on-line even those Records of continuing, lively interest such as the debates and filibuster over the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the debates over Watergate and President Nixon's potential impeachment. [As for sorting and declassifying the huge base of intelligence documents (even on the Korean War or the Bay of Pigs) that the intelligence community doesn't want to declassify anyway, one should realistically expect to wait for several more Presidencies (or perhaps the Second Coming) for that to happen.]—— Shakescene (talk)

It's in this huge PDF file: [3], page 401. Here's the text:

“ To amend the Act approved December 28, 1945 (Public Law 271, Seventy-ninth [H. R. 3149] Congress), entitled "An Act to expedite the admission to the United States [Public Law 213] of alien spouses and alien minor children of citizen members of the United States armed forces".
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That the Act approved December 28,1945 (Public Law 271, Seventy-ninth Congress, ch. 591, first session) (59 Stat. 659 ; 8 U. S. C. 232-236), is amended by adding a new section thereto, to be known as section 6, and to read as follows

"SEC. 6. The alien spouse of an American citizen by a marriage occurring before thirty days after the enactment of this Act, shall not be considered as inadmissible because of race, if otherwise admissible

under this Act ."

Approved July 22, 1947 .

”

-- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

And some background: At the time, the Magnuson Act allowed only 105 Chinese immigrants a year to come to America, and Japanese people were banned from immigrating or becoming U.S. citizens. After World War II, some U.S. servicemen presumably married Asian women and wanted to bring them home with them. This law looks like it allowed them to do so. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

There is (as the enquirer noted) a huge amount of background, of which I got a glimpse by Googling "Soldier Brides Act 1947". The main purpose, heavily pushed by the Japanese American Citizens League was to allow Japanese soldier brides (not technically war brides but brides of the Allied Occupation) into the country, but it was superseded by a racial immigration liberalization in the otherwise-illiberal McCarran-Walter Act of 1952. While the 1947 Act may have affected or superseded the Magnuson Act, it was probably more directed (as was the Magnuson Act) to repealing the Asian Exclusion Act incorporated within the Immigration Act of 1924. See, for example, these semi-random Google hits: "Out of an obscure place": Japanese War Brides and Cultural Pluralism in the 1950s and About the JACL. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! You guys are awesome, and I'm sorry that I forgot I had asked this. Now there's an interesting thing here; I was looking this up because the book War Brides (Shukert and Scibetta) claims that the phrase "irrespective of race" is in this law. While the intent is certainly the same, I'm wondering why they (evidently from another source) are claiming that this phrase is in the law. But you guys don't need to answer that. 174.20.56.210 (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

albert henry prime minister of cook islands 1965

Albert henry governed the cook islands 1965 and died 1981 looking for photos of him and his family brothers and sisters and his history before he returned to the cook islands if he was in sydney or new zealand did he have a relationship with a therese bower from new zealand aged 19 at the time. who were the cheifs before 1964 and kings and photos of them too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabrielle fenner (talk • contribs) 09:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not start here, Prime Minister of the Cook Islands and here, Albert Henry? See also Cook Islands, History of the Cook Islands and Politics of the Cook Islands. [My personal knowledge is limited to their rule by New Zealand and their nifty postage stamps I once collected showing maps and portraits of Captain Cook.] —— Shakescene (talk) 11:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd also see if I could find anything in the archives of the New Zealand Herald. —— Shakescene (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

John J. Farrell (Lord Mayor of Dublin)

Did someone know informations about this Lord Mayor of Dublin? Or are there any sources about him? I didn't find anything about him in the internet, beside his term as Lord Mayor. --89.12.136.94 (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I Googled "John J. Farrell Dublin" and didn't see much, either. However his heart seems to have been in the right place (if that's not inserting a personal opinion or starting an inappropriate debate on a matter of current public controversy), since the one thing I found apart from his term in office was a two-sentence story from The New York Times of May 13, 1911 (datelined London, May 12), reporting that he and members of the Dublin Corporation appeared in full municipal regalia before the House of Commons in Westminster to present a petition in favour of women's suffrage. It adds that "the ceremony was attended with picturesque details." DUBLIN FOR WOMAN SUFFRAGE; Lord Mayor Presents Petition to Commons Urging Enactment of a Bill. leads to a short, free PDF. Perhaps a parallel search of The Times, The Irish Times or Hansard for May 1911 might yield more. In 1939, I see, Dublin got her first female Lord Mayor. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are highways named after police officers who died in the line of duty?

Do they name the highways to honor the police officer who died in the line of duty? WJetChao (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

In New England and I presume other parts of the U.S., highways or intersections are often named after soldiers, sailors, Marines and aviators who died in the line of duty. That's apart from numerous veterans' parkways, and roads named after the Grand Army of the Republic or the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Other roads have been named after public officials (such as the Kennedys) and artists (e.g. George M. Cohan Boulevard in Providence, Rhode Island). That doesn't mean, of course, that other highways, roads or squares might not be named after a fallen police officer or firefighter. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Local roads are often named for locally important figures of ALL types. I have frequently, in many parts of the country, seen highways or segments thereof dedicated to police officers, possibly those which have died in the line of duty. It is uncommon for these names to become the primary name of the road; but act as more of a memorial to the person so honored. It isn't only fallen officers so honored, but given that highway patrol officers are highly visible on the highways, it makes sense that many of them, when killed in the line of duty, recieve such an honor. --Jayron32 02:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold - Gay couple?

Our article says homophobic remarks were directed at Klebold and Harris. Last night, I watched a documetary on NatGeo, and they said there were rumours about their relationship and sexual orientation. My question is, is there any evidence about their sexualities?. Thank you and forgive me If I've committed any spelling mistake. I am from a non-English speaking country. --190.50.92.48 (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No, nothing more than rumors. It's high school, people always make such rumors about anyone they don't like, so I wouldn't put much stock in it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

December 7

What happened to the Hitler Diaries?

I'm interested in the eventual location of the diaries themselves, the ones forged by Konrad Kujau that were bought by Stern magazine in 1983 for about ten million Deutschmarks. Where did the forgeries wind up in the end?

Any information is helpful. Thanks in advance.

pmooney78 01:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmooney78 (talk • contribs)

The article on Hitler Diaries indicates that the German magazine Stern was the original purchaser of the actual diaries. It does not say what they did with them after they discovered them to be a hoax. There was a 1986 book account (cited in the Hitler Diaries article]] which may contain some initial clues, but then again, a lot may have happened in 23 years. Even really important documents go missing for a long time (the original rules of Basketball as written by James Naismith, sat mouldering in a desk drawer for the better part of a century, for example) So it could be that the original documents are in a warehouse somewhere long forgotten. Or maybe not... --Jayron32 02:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"Jeschke, Greve & Hauff" "hitler diaries".—eric 04:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks -- I've checked the relevant Wikipedia articles, done a google search, etc. and read the relevant English-language books available ... was hoping that someone would point me toward something I hadn't seen. Probably should have mentioned that in the original post, though. I appreciate your input. pmooney78 04:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmooney78 (talk • contribs)

Shakespeare's non-masterpieces according to Bloom

In the article on Harold Bloom, it says that he's stated that twenty-four of William Shakespeare's plays are masterpieces. Has he ever indicated which plays he feels are not masterpieces, and if so, which were they and what were his justifications for not including them in this category?--99.251.239.89 (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about Bloom, but to get an idea of popularity go to the any major Shakespeare festival or company (e.g. Royal Shakespeare Company or Stratford Festival of Canada). Look back at past programmes and you'll find that the same plays get performed again and again, whereas others hardly ever are. Henry VIII and King John are examples of the latter. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This is purely speculation (having not tread the book) but I was bored.

• The Merchant of Venice
• A Midsummer Night's Dream
• Much Ado About Nothing
• The Taming of the Shrew
• The Tempest
• Twelfth Night
• Romeo and Juliet
• Macbeth

• Hamlet
• Othello
• All's Well That Ends Well
• As You Like It
• The Comedy of Errors
• Love's Labour's Lost
• Measure for Measure
• Richard III

• Titus Andronicus
• Julius Caesar
• King Lear
• Antony and Cleopatra
• Henry IV, part 1
• The Winter's Tale
• Henry V
• Henry VI, part 2

I'm fairly confident on at least 22 of these. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The article may be misquoting Bloom, i think the correct quote should be: "Shakespeare has some two dozen masterpieces among his thirty-nine plays..." rather than ""twenty-four of which are masterpieces."—eric 20:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that Coriolanus isn't on the list. It's a good drama, however rarely it's played. I read it in tenth grade; it was a favorite of a teacher I disliked at the time, but who sneakily taught me more about writing than any dozen others. PhGustaf (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) With respect, Amory, that was a total waste of time. How can you have any confidence at all without reading whatever Bloom wrote? The OP wants to know specifically about Harold Bloom's division of the plays into masterpieces and others, and not the general view. Without reading Bloom, we cannot know whether his division was mainstream or quite peculiar. And please let's not now have a general discussion of the best and worst in Shakespeare. (pace PhGustaf). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I never claimed it was anything else, specifically noting it was out of boredom. That being said, I can show that Bloom thinks The Tempest and The Winter's Tale are masterpieces and that Cymbeline is not. Moreover, I'd say a fair portion are undeniably masterpieces (Hamlet, Lear, etc.) and since the author has noted a (perhaps vague) target number, a simple process of elimination can give a rough idea. I did not mean for it to be definitive, but it is better than nothing (a random selection). Although perhaps 20 would have been better than 22. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You're still talking about what you think are masterpieces, or what are generally considered masterpieces. That is not what the question is about. It's about what Harold Bloom considers to be masterpieces. Guesses for this type of question are as good as useless, because for any particular play apart from the 2 you've identified, there's no way of knowing whether Bloom would classify it as a masterpiece or not. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is often how the Ref Desk works. The questioner asked about Bloom's writings. The first response was "I don't know about Bloom, but...." Here at the Ref Desk, you'll always get an answer, though not necessarily to the question you asked. But we mean well. —Kevin Myers 04:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As PhGustaf noted, Bloom's statement was a vaguish "some two dozen" rather than an "exactly 24". I don't recall that he made an actual list; one can infer from his presentation that certain plays are included, but there is, I think, no way to make an exact list. For example, he says "As You Like It" Is "not the least" of the masterpieces. - Nunh-huh 20:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the original Bloom quote was correct: Bloom has stated more than once that twenty-four of Shakespeare's plays are masterpieces (see for example The Western Canon, p. 37), although perhaps he has been more vague on other occassions. Presumably he has made a list, though perhaps it has not been published in list form. If not, one would likely be able to create a fair approximation of Bloom's list after a couple hours at a good library going through his writings, if one were so inclined. Richard III is not one of Bloom's masterpieces; the villain is too cartoonish for Bloom, who says that the Bard had not yet risen above the level of Marlowe. According to Bloom, Shakespeare's first great play was Love's Labour's Lost; he therefore excludes Titus Andronicus, The Taming of the Shrew and The Comedy of Errors, among other early works, from the list of masterpieces. See his Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human for more. —Kevin Myers 04:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Somebody has to say, "Little note nor long remember", and let this bit die. PhGustaf (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Why? Kevin gave a good answer based on Bloom's own views in Bloom's published work. Based on this example, other people might bring similar evidence from Bloom's work to identify or rule out other plays. 86.166.148.95 (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Prayer

Does the phrase, "Pray as if you were dying," register with anyone as ever having been used in any definite context? Thanks --71.111.194.50 (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like part of the "Dance like no one is watching, sing like no one is listening, love like you've never been hurt, etc. etc." aphorism which has been misattributed to about 100 different people, from Satchel Paige to Mark Twain to about every witty commentator of the past 250 years. this cite attributes a similar quote "Pray as if you were to die tomorrow" to Benjamin Franklin, but again, about 99% of the things attributed to Franklin on the web, he never actually said. --Jayron32 06:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

99%, eh? That's even worse than Yogi Berra, who merely said, "I never said half the things I said." In this case, Yogi might say, "Pray as if you were talking to God." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Judaism encourages its adherents to repent just before you die, which leads inevitably (if you think about it) to the need for an ongoing process. Hence, many traditions of Jewish prayerbooks include Viduy at the end of morning prayers. --Dweller (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. In this case, I heard it from am imam, in the U.S., in English (unless I misunderstood what he was saying, which I feel was probably not the case). I was trying to see if anyone knew if that was identifiable to Islam or any other religious tradition or other context. --71.111.194.50 (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't sound particularly Islamic, since Muslims are supposed to pray at least 5 times a day anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, but what I think he was implying -- but was I trying to see if anyone here had a deeper source of knowledge in the area -- was that he was exhorting the members of the prayer congregation to approach their prayer on that particular day and and that particular moment with the same fervor and seriousness as if they were in danger of meeting imminent death. --71.111.194.50 (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Its a common exhortation among all religions where prayer is important; even if it isn't used in the same words, the sentiment is present in Christianity as well, see Matthew 24:36-44 which certainly exhorts people to act as though it were your last day on earth. --Jayron32 03:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

US Supreme Court case temporal overlap

Sorry for the subject line, couldn't think of a better way to concisely get my idea across... On average, how many cases are open before the Supreme Court at one time? I know that oral arguments do not lead immediately to a ruling. My personal feeling is that handling multiple cases at once would diminish the quality of the work. Lower branches of the Judiciary take it one at a time, don't they? Is this practice at all controversial, or is it just the way it is? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There will be multiple cases going on at all levels. A given judge will probably only have one trial going on at a time, but they will have other cases are various stages of the judicial process (some of which do include hearings in court). The Supreme Court is similar - they'll probably only be hearing oral arguments in one case at a time, but there will be cases are various other stages at the same time (initial application, written arguments, writing up a final ruling, etc.). --Tango (talk) 12:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Last time I was in Washington, I picked up a brochure about attending the Supreme Court as a spectator. They basically have an annual cycle -- they have a series of sessions starting in October when they hear oral arguments, then the following spring they have a series of sessions when they release their rulings. So with the exception of matters requiring a specially expedited schedule, all of their cases are going on in parallel. --Anonymous, 21:20 UTC, December 7, 2009.

Copenhagen climate change conference

COP15 starts today. It seems there are more coverage of this COP when compared to the previous ones. Is this true? Why? Also, it is reported that the COP15 area at the Bella Center ceases to be on sovereign Danish territory and is officially United Nations territory. What is the significance of this move? F (talk) 10:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This one is much bigger than previous ones and has lots of national leaders attending rather than just ministers and civil servants. I don't know what it means for it to be UN territory and I'm sceptical that it is true. The UN may be in charge of security, etc., but there is no such thing as UN jurisdiction - any crimes committed would have to be tried under Danish law (although lots of attendees will have diplomatic immunity), since there is no UN law and no UN courts. The only significance I know of this being a UN event rather than a Danish event is that people banned from travelling to Europe (Robert Mugabe, for example) are allowed to attend UN events, even if they are geographically within Europe. --Tango (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The original reason why it received so much attention is AFAIK because as mentioned in our article that 'The overall goal for the COP 15/MOP 5 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Denmark was to establish an ambitious global climate agreement for the period from 2012 when the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol expires'. As our article also mentions, but not very well, this was effectively abandonded at the APEC summit when several key players including the US & China annouced they no longer thought of it as an achievable goal. However interested remained strong and once many world leaders started to annouce they would attend (some had said they may not attend after its importance was downgraded) picked up again. Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Symbol identification?

Unknown symbol

I just moved a bunch of images to Commons, and one of them was a photo of an unknown symbol in Pittsburgh's Hill District. The uploader was unsure of its meaning and speculated that it was a Jewish symbol, possibly some for of the Star of David. I'm not convinced. Is anyone here familiar with this symbol?--Blargh29 (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What kind of building is this on? What sort of neighborhood is it in? Having a social context may help. --Jayron32 16:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This is purely intuition I'm going off of here, but my guess is that it's mere decoration; the horizontal lines aline with the rows of bricks and perhaps the architect or builder or owner just wanted something a little aesthetically pleasing and added the extra elements to create a star-like pattern. . . Seems kind of late 19th century American in appearance. --71.111.194.50 (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It's suggestive of, but not sufficiently accurate to actually be, the outline of the Sephiroth diagram from the Kabbalah: I imagine this is pure coincidence, but it might explain the suspicion of a Jewish connection. It might well be a Masonic symbol, in which case we probably need the input of someone with specialist knowledge in that area. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this is a photo of a building in the Hill District of Pittsburgh. The user who took the photo seemed to have a preoccupation with documenting the Jewish influences in the Hill District. See Talk:Jews Hill (Pittsburgh) and the now redirected Jews Hill (Pittsburgh) article. In that article, this image (and other less ambiguous pictures) were offered as proof of that influence. See commons:Category:Files by User:HeyYallYo from en.wikipedia for a category of related pictures from this user that I moved to Commons. --Blargh29 (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What are my rights? What would most likely happen?

I know someone who has illegal precription drugs and illegal drugs in the glove compartment in his car. I saw him last week trying to sell some of it to some college kids. If I call the police, will they have to know my name? And If I call anyway, would they even bother to search his car? --JBikeride (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, we can't give legal advice. However, I will note a number of police tip lines do allow you to remain anonymous. If that's the case where you are, we can't say. -- 128.104.112.95 (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the above, they can't really force you to give a name. You can just call (from a pay phone, even) and tell them the info. Whether they will take it seriously is a different issue, but if they have a strong reason to suspect the tip is actionable, they would get a warrant. You may be interested in Illinois v. Gates. Also, I do not consider this legal advice. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

how is this a request for legal advice? . If you are concerned that criminal activity is occuring you can contact the police. As noted, many will allow you to make anonymous tip-offs, but I really don't see why you'd necessarily want to be anonymous - the police are not going to say "we want to search your car because Jim Jimmini said you've got drugs in your car." They can just use you as witness if things go further or potentially come back to you for more information if necessary. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Depending on the competency of the police in question and the potential danger posed by appearing to be a witness against criminal activity, there can be good reasons to want to tip anonymously. See e.g. the examples of violent recrimination discussed in the Stop Snitchin'. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You can call the police station (from a pay phone, if you are feeling paranoid), and say, "I'd like to submit a tip anonymously—is that possible?" They'll tell you what the local policy is on that. As for whether they would search his car... the relevant legal question is whether anonymous tips can constitute probable cause. This is a legally contentious issue; my understanding is that on the whole they are considered insufficient (in part because it could just be one police officer telling another, which would pretty much get rid of the concept of probable cause) by themselves. They'd probably have to put the suspect under some kind of surveillance and look for illegal activity independently. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You probably have a Crimestoppers system. In Canada, at least, people are urged to give anonymous tips. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

And in Britain, many Crimestoppers calls can generate cash rewards for the caller if the information is good - and you still don't have to give your name even to get that. Been described as just about the only legitimate circumstances in which you can walk into a bank, and pick up an unmarked brown envelope with cash in it --Saalstin (talk) 11:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

How would you get that money without identifying yourself? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"You never have to identify yourself or testify in court. If the tip leads to an arrest, you may earn a cash reward of up to $2,000. People providing information get a secret code number. Calls are not recorded and no one involved with Crime Stoppers knows the identity of the callers. Crime Stoppers doesn’t have call display." (According to [http://www.222tips.com/aboutus.php the Toronto Crime Stoppers site.) Adam Bishop (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Beware though, that if you do identify yourself to police you may be forced to testify under a subpoena203.217.43.224 (talk) 09:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Otto Graf Lambsdorff

Could somebody please explain what the "related to Tsarist Russia" claim on Otto Graf Lambsdorff means? I put a {{template:huh}} tag on it, which got instantly deleted and I was warned for vandalism. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the German obituaries, "connected" seems to be a better word. I can't see an indication of kinship. --Wrongfilter (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of the Welt obituary is that a member of the family served as foreign minister to the Tsar. That seems to be a reference to Vladimir Lambsdorff, who wasn't alive in Tsarist Russia (which we say ended in 1721) but served in the Russian Empire under Emperor Nicholas II of Russia (making him the Tsar referred to in the obituary).

Since the de:Lambsdorff line has been around for centuries, it's possible they were connected to pre-1721 Tsarist Russia, but the obituary doesn't say that. I think perhaps "connected to Tsarist and Imperial Russia" might be better, but the Tsarist bit still isn't supported by this source. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Decimus Junius Silanus (Consul 62 BC)

Is there any record as to when Silanus died?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What is "magisterial Protestantism"?

And why is it called "magisterial"? Google is only mildly helpful, and there's no article on it in WP. --Atemperman (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Because it sought to stay in a working relationsip with the government (magistrates). See magisterial Reformation, radical reformation and Christianity in the 16th century. Rmhermen (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Atemperman (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The dark side of the magisterial Reformation was "Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants"... AnonMoos (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

God guiding people

How does God guide people according to Christian tradition?Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.228.34 (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely this depends totally on which religious teaching you subscribe to, but you might start with our Prophet article. I added a section header (or question title) for your question — next time please click the "new section" tab at the top of this page to ask your next question, and the section header will be created automatically.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, check out Holy Spirit. Not sure about Catholicism, but Protestants believe that God, being omnipresent, indwells believers who have received salvation through Jesus Christ and His death for their sins and resurrectrion. The Spirit thus guides people in numerous ways, which are consistent with the attributes of God. (In other words, God wouldn't direct a person to go against Hi Word.) The person still has free choice, however, they can choose to ignore the indwelling Spirit, but they can lose blessings, rewards, and opportunities.209.244.187.155 (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC).

How is one guided by truth?Pollinosisss (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're asking that as a real question, and not trying to sound deep and significant with a God=Truth metaphor, our Truth article will be of interest (e.g. "what is it?"). Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to sound deep or significant; I was trying to help the original poster. Asking how one is guided by truth could lead to a better understanding of divine guidance. Pollinosisss (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The original poster may also wish to see discernment.--Dpr71.111.194.50 (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

the humanitarian imperative

the core belief of humanitarianism is said to be assistance on the basis of need and it seems that this is considered to be some sort of objective moral principle. is it possible for humanitarian aid to in fact be determined by such principles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.240.93 (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this a homework question?--71.111.194.50 (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure some would claim that human rights are the objective principles that should guide humanitarian aid. Pollinosisss (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't do your homework for you. But I recommend you start by looking up the terms Humanitarianism, Humanitarian Aid and Objective Morality. Prokhorovka (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like somebody's extrapolation of Kant's Categorical Imperative... AnonMoos (talk) 09:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ed Koch

Ed Koch (mayor of New York from 1978-1989) made a statement to the effect of "If you cannot afford to live in New York City, then MOVE OUT!" Does anyone have a CITATION for this? Or at least the context in which it was spoken? Anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.184.50 (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Some possible leads: here, here and here --Dpr71.111.194.50 (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe I remember that statement in a different context. Koch, defensive about the charge of NY's being unaffordable, pointed out that Brooklyn and Queens had plenty og affordable housing. I think he meant "move out of Manhattan". Rhinoracer (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be consistent with a practice among residents of NYC's other boroughs (e.g. the aforementioned Brooklyn and Queens)referring to or calling Manhattan "New York." -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Before 1874, when part of the Bronx was annexed, New York really was just Manhattan and a couple of much smaller islands. The Five Boroughs were consolidated in 1898. (See the City of Greater New York and History of New York City.) Until the New York State Legislature established Bronx County in April 1912, New York County included the Bronx as well as Manhattan, but since the operational launch of Bronx County 95 years ago, in January 1914, New York County's turf has been identical to that of the Borough of Manhattan. (Robert M. Morgenthau is just retiring as District Attorney of New York County, in succession to Frank Hogan and Thomas Dewey. In the television series Law & Order, Steven Hill, Sam Waterston and Fred Thompson have portrayed the D.A. of New York County. See List of Law & Order characters#District Attorneys for an ironic note about TV vs real-life longevity.) —— Shakescene (talk) 07:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

December 8

Uknown Painting

File:ChairPlantPainting.jpg

Unknown painting

Dear all, I am trying to identify what the name and creator of the painting in this picture is. I am referring to the one on the right with the chair and plant. Someone suggested Georgia OKeeffe but I'm doubtful because that doesn't seem to be her style. The colors seem impressionist， like Gaugin but I don't think it's him. Thanks for any clues or suggestions!! --Buffalojerky (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you know about this room, where it is and who owns it? That could help in IDing it.--Cam (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Chosen by the decorator simply for its color scheme. Not by anyone you'd ever heard of.--Wetman (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean

"the painting (by an artist we've not heard of) was chosen by the room's decorator simply for the painting's colour scheme . . ." or

"the picture of the room (whose owner we've not heard of) was chosen by the decorator simply to illustrate the room's colour scheme (which includes the painting). . ." or/and

"the picture of the room was chosen by the decorator (whom we've not heard of) . . . ? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

A question from the ad/business world

The brand campaign abbreviation reads CHEW in English and GOMME in French. The campaign was recent.

I am looking for the brand and the campaign.

I have searched extensively on wikipedia and also on the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.160.161.42 (talk) 09:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This is actually question 5 of this weeks Strategist Quiz, though I guess there's nothing the the rules that says you can't use Wikipedia to help you (Yahoo Answers too by the look of it). I don't know the answer, but it might be about chewing gum. Prokhorovka (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's any help, you're looking for a brand that is either international or Canadian (or from some other country that's bilingual French/English). --Dweller (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's available in Canada at least. I know I've seen it in my house somewhere, but I can't find it now... Adam Bishop (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Roman tribe Lemonia

I see Servius Sulpicius Rufus was of the ancient tribe Lemonia, however there is no information I can find on that tribe. Is there anything unique about that tribe, like what the name means?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It was one of the 35 tribes with voting rights in Rome as of 242BC which was part of the Roman city of Bononia (now Bologna). There seems to be some info behind the jstor paywall on notable people that I can't access. Nanonic (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That will work for me, thanks. I don't need to go into the JSTOR information.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am skeptical that the Lemonia tribe was based in Bononia as early as 242 BC, since according to our article on Bologna, the Romans did not found a colony there until 189 BC, after defeating the Boii Celts who controlled that region from the fifth through the third centuries BC. According to this site of unknown reliability, the Lemonia were a Latin tribe of Etruscan origin, in which case the meaning of their name may be lost in the uncertain murk of the Etruscan language. They were apparently involved in the settlement of Bononia in the early second century. Marco polo (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

According to Festus the name is derived from pagus Lemonius, situated outside the Porta Capena. It's unclear whether this was a toponym, or from a (Etruscan) family name.—eric 20:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This additional information is useful. Thanks all for the sources.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

International phone numbers

What is the standard way to display your phone number so that people around the world can call you? I'm in Canada, so we have a three-digit area code, and then seven numbers, like ### ### ####. If you're calling from within the same city, usually you just dial the last seven, if you're dialing from within Canada or the United States, you need to add a "1" in front of it all. 1 ### ### ####. If you're dialing from the UK, you need to add "001" in front of it all: 001 ### ### #### (i think). What's the most general way of describing my phone number so that people from anywhere can pick up a phone, dial those numbers, and reach me? Sancho 21:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Use +1 xxx xxx xxxx. The "+" sign indicates that you must use the international access code, whatever that is in your country. International Direct Dialling - Fribbler (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This answer is correct, but I'll go into a bit more detail. Sanchom said that when dialing across area codes in Canada or the US, we dial 1, then the area code and phone number, i.e. for Toronto transit information dial 1-416-393-4636. The international format for the same phone number, as Fribbler says, would be "+1 416 393 4636". The fact that both begin with 1 is a coincidence; the country code for the US and Canada just happens to be the same as the long-distance access code 1 that we use internally.

Now, in many other countries, they consider the access code to be part of their area code. For transit information in London, calling from within the UK, the number is 020-7222-1234. But even though they consider 020 to be the area code, the leading 0 serves the same function as our access code 1 -- it indicates that an area code is being used. So the international format for that number drops the 0 and is just "+44 20 7222 1234". (The 44, of course, is the country code for the UK.) A combined form like "+44 (0)20 7222 1234" is nonstandard but is used in practice by many people.

In North America the coincidence of the 1 being the same means that there's no desire to use that sort of form, but instead we have the problem that many people may be puzzled by the + sign because they never dial numbers outside of the US and Canada. So Fribbler's answer is correct, but using the proper form may confuse some people calling from within North America. --Anonymous, 23:51 UTC, December 8, 2009.

When Hu Jintao meets African Leaders oversea

When Hu Jintao goes on a international tour to Africa [4] like 2009/2/13 to Senegal will Hu Jintao get to meet First lady Viviane Wade or he could only see Abdoulaye Wade. When Hu Jintao went to Zambia in 2008 have he met Maureen Mwanawasa. I've seen Maria Guebuza when Hu Jintao went to Mozambique. have Hu Jintao even met any African first ladies beside Thabo Mbeki's Angolas' Malis' and Chantal Biya?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

December 9

Bengali folklore

You know how Punjabi folklore has the famous Heer Ranjha and Sohni Mahiwal. Does Bengali folklore has famous folktale has like Heer Ranjha? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.143 (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

1

Apart from being the birth of Jesus, what happened in 1 that made it the first year of the Common Era? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 02:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh... that's exactly why it was made the year 1: Annunciation Day was assigned to the Vernal Equinox (which was then March 25) and Christmas Day was assigned to the Winter Solstice (then December 25). The calendar was reworked from the Roman calendar whose basis was the presumed beginning of the Roman Empire. It was also an estimate, as scholars now reckon Jesus to have been born maybe 4 or 5 B.C. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Has it been nailed down that tightly these days? ~10 years ago I remember my college Historical Jesus textbooks arguing for a lightly post-1AD time, something between 10 and 30AD. It's interesting to think it's swung back the other way, and has been so narrowly confined given the source material. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it couldn't have been later than 4 BC, since Herod the Great died in 4 BC, and he had to have lived several months beyond when Jesus was born, if there is any historiocity of the biblical accounts. So that sort of sets a final limit on when Jesus was born. Luke assigns the date of Jesus's birth to the "Days of Caesar Augustus" (Luke 2:1) and his baptism, generally taken to be at age about 30, to "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar" (Luke 3:1), so if those dates are to be believed, then the absolute latest Jesus would have been born would be 14 AD, but that would mean that the Herod mentioned in all of the gospels was Herod Antipas and not Herod the Great; however when mentioned Antipas is usually named as distinctive from his father. Tiberius's 15th year would have been AD 29, which would have made Jesus born very close to 1 AD should we assume him to be baptised at 30; but he could have been baptised at age 27 or 33 or somewhere else in that time frame. It's the date of Herod the Great's death that sets the most reliable date of Jesus' birth at 4 BC. --Jayron32 04:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the while the Gospels of Matthew and Luke make Jesus' birth contemporary with Herod the Great - deceased in 4 BCE/BC - Luke also make him contemporary with the Roman Census of Quirinius which is dated to 6 or 7 CE/AD (although the alleged procedure of having everyone return to their place of ancestral origins seems to be otherwise unattested, impractical and unlikely). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that we have no idea on which date Jesus was born on, but it almost certainly was NOT December 25th, or any other time in the winter. Even using only the bible's own accounts make that highly unlikely, since the descriptions of the shepards who first receive news of Jesus's birth make it more likely that Jesus was born in the springtime. --Jayron32 05:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Jesus was most likely born in the springtime. Ironically enough, he was actually born sometime around Easter. In Constantine's time, they associated the Christian God with the pagan sun god (which is not too much of a stretch), and they assigned (as I put it earlier) the winter solstice as His birthdate. Exactly 9 months earlier, of course, was Annunciation Day, neatly connecting Mary's "fertility" with the vernal equinox. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Members of the LDS (Mormon) Church traditionally believe that Jesus was born on April 6, thanks largely to this verse in the Doctrine and Covenants. We still celebrate Christmas on December 25, though. Kingsfold (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dionysius Exiguus (who established the current A.D. year numbering epoch) seems to have thought that the birth of Jesus happened on Dec. 25th in the year 1 B.C. (technically a few days before January 1st, 1 A.D.). AnonMoos (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So I see. As I understand it, in the "old style" the year actually began on March 25. So according to that theory, the first anniversary of the Annunciation Day would have been the first day of 1 A.D. If D.E. could be around today, he would probably argue that the celebration of Jesus' birth in genereal is more important than the specific date (especially as he got it wrong). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, for most of history, and for most Christians, Jesus's birth was NOT all that important of a date. Under the Julian Calendar, year 1 was designed to have started on March 25, which would have been the date of Jesus's conception (i.e. when the Virgin Mary became pregnant). The most important date in the Christian year is, of course, Easter. --Jayron32 17:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's fairly confusing. One source says Jesus was reckoned to have been born in 1 A.D. and another says 1 B.C.??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Moving from the above details back to the OP's specific query, the Before Common Era/Common Era system seems to have been introduced as a reworking of the Christian-specific BC/AD system:

1. to avoid the problems with the uncertainty over the actual (if real) birth year of Jesus while avoiding the obvious paradoxes of saying things like "Jesus was born in 4BC";
2. to avoid imposing an explicitly Christian-derived system on the large proportion of the world that is non-Christian and indifferent to or, for historical reasons, less than sympathetic to Christianity;
3. to avoid the huge upheavel and confusion that would be caused by adopting a different origin year from that in wide use.

One often sees pro-BC/AD advocates (curiously, almost always Christians ;-)) railing against this "modern, Christian-attacking" BCE/CE alternative, but I recall that most of my History textbooks back in the late 1960's, at a school run by the christian Methodist Foundation, used BCE/CE. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Cruel and unusual punishment

When convicted rapists, murderers of children, people who committed horrible crimes, try to delay their executions claiming that the method of their executions (lethal injection, electric chair, gas chamber) is cruel and unusual punishment, isn't that contradictory? can't the Justice overturn that appeal, just to respect the victim's family?. --190.50.108.253 (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The perpetrators' lawyers' job is to do what they can. It's also important to understand that the laws are not written to appease the victims, but to deal with the perps. The "cruel and unusual punishment" argument doesn't really work for capital punishment in the USA. Notice it says "AND" not "OR". Capital punishment is not necessarily legally regard as unusual, nor even necessarily as cruel, especially with lethal injection now the preferred option. If some state were to decide to execute by dropping the perp into a tank of piranhas, the lawyers would have a better case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Believe me Bugs, some would deserve that. --190.50.108.253 (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. McVeigh comes to mind, for example. But, again, the purpose of capital punishment is not revenge primarily, it's permanent removal from society. It used to be that once the perp was found guilty, he was done away with in fairly short order. The dragged-out appeals process now makes capital punishment probably less cost-effective than lifelong confinement. However, sometimes the cost is worth it, for example to finally see an evil character like John Wayne Gacy get fried. Closure is good. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but he was not fried, Ted Bundy was fried. --190.50.108.253 (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking metaphorically. :) Yes, Bundy was fried. Gacy was injected. I learned a bit about executions when Saddam was strung up a few years ago. Hanging is actually a more humane and faster method than almost anything. It just sounds grim. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's of course presuming we're talking about the long (or measured) drop method, which several countries use (including Iraq) instead of the short drop or simple suspension which some countries do use (notably Iran) although even then many won't agree. Even with the measured drop method, it can go wrong although the effect of that is probably easier to see then say with some of the things that can go wrong with the lethal injection. The drop being too long is of course probably a better result then it being too short even if it seems gruesome. Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally in reply to the original question, in many countries the rights of all people, including convicted criminals are important and denying them their rights simply to respect the victims family is unlikely to be acceptable. One of the reasons why these issues come up in death penalty cases is because of the urgency. Once you've carried out the death penalty, it's too late to reverse any decision. Appeals are not that uncommon in other cases too but there's less urgency there since while you can't give the person back the years they spend in prison, you can release them and given them compensation to try and make up for it so the decision is not permanent as such (in some cases the person may of course die in prison particularly if they're old).

Further in reply to the OP, I'm not sure if you're aware of this but at mention in our article, the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution bans "Cruel and unusual punishment" and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights bans "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" so whether the death penaly is a cruel and unusual punishment is an important point in a number of countries including the US. It's not therefore contradictory to argue that the death penalty is a "cruel and unusual punishment". While the method does come in to it and is usually the primary issue in the US, for some abolitionists the idea of a death penalty itself is cruel and unusual, no matter how humanely and painfree it is carried out. In the US, the general current view by the courts is it is not, in Europe there's more support AFAIK for the idea it is. Whether you agree with this view isn't of course an issue suitable for discussion on the RD.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In Europe, the right to not be executed is enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which gained the full force of law eight days ago. Algebraist 16:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

To the OP- there is nothing contradictory in protecting the criminal from cruelty. The state's position is that nobody should be treated cruelly and unusually. That is why the criminal is punished (because he has violated the state's laws), and also why the criminal is protected from cruel and unusual punishment. To say "the criminal treated his victim cruelly, so we should treat him cruelly" would be contradictory. Staecker (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Pretty much every advancement in law since the Code of Hammurabi has rejected this "Eye for an Eye" type of revenge. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "Eye for an eye, aka "Lex talionis", remember that this legal/moral formula is often thought to have been introduced in order to limit revenge/punishment to "proportionate" responses rather than more savage ones (such as death as a punishment for causing injury). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If someone wanted to commit murder and get free room and board for life, certainly Europe would be the place to go. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Technically that is also true for the US as well.--Saddhiyama (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not entirely free - you are usually required to do some kind of work. In the UK, at least, they have to pay you for that work, but they don't pay you very much. But yes, modern prisoners do have it pretty good. You could commit the murder in a US state that doesn't have the death penalty if you wanted, of course. --Tango (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the European position is that killing is morally wrong, period, and that two wrongs don't make a right. Also, killing isn't the best way for the state to prevent killing unless there is no other option, as is the case in defensive warfare. Marco polo (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That is one of many arguments against the death penalty. Others include the fact that you can't fix miscarriages of justice if you have already killed the wrong person and the fact that, at least for some people, life in prison is more of a punishment than death - if you kill someone they don't suffer for long. There are also objections to the US system because it results in people spending decades on death row, which some people see as cruel and unusual in itself. --Tango (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Australia & New Zealand Navy against Japanese Whaling?

The Japanese whalers are in Australian water which is its Exclusive Economic Zone. Why Australia and New Zealand aren't sending their navy and coast guards to stop the Japanese whalers? The Japanese whalers would still hunt for whales despite of the anti-whaling protests. 174.114.236.41 (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's generally bad form to bomb unarmed vessels out of the water, regardless of what they are doing there. --Jayron32 04:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That'd be rather drastic. 174.114.236.41 was probably thinking of arresting the crews, impounding the boats, etc. Or perhaps just escorting them back to Japanese waters (under threat of the arresting and the impounding, etc.) APL (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. The waters are only in Australia's EEZ because of its claims to Antarctica. The Antarctic Treaty System and the positions of all governments who do not have claims basically mean that nobody recognises any soverign claim over Antarctica. Basically, Australia says "that's Australian waters" and Japan says "no its not". Hell, some greenies got a court injunction against the whalers but even the judge giving it to them said that there was no possibility of its enforcement because of the state of international law regarding Antarctica. If it was in undisputed Australian waters the government would (and regularly does....especially to Indonesian fishing vessels) board and confiscate the vessel.203.217.43.224 (talk) 09:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Teaching technique for young adults

Is there a teaching technique, especially for higher education students, where a game is involved that in order to accomplish the goal the process teaches the subject? What are these type of techniques called? Can you give examples?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Edutainment and Educational game should have some useful info. --Pleasantman (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a game called "The Regeneration Game" which was produced by NIACE in the UK, which aimed to increase participants awareness of the issues around urban and rural regeneration. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Randy Pausch, the American professor of computer science and human-computer interaction who achieved worldwide fame with "The Last Lecture: Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams" describes in that lecture this very technique. He calls it a "head fake", and designed Alice (software) to teach kids how to program without them realising that that was what they were learning. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Now I get it and have a better understanding on this concept. Apparently Aesop's Fables and Parables of Jesus fit this category? Would Paradox (literature) fit this concept? And Allegory of the Cave by Plato?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I always think of these techniques as Karate Kid teaching. Just like Mr. Miyagi teaches Daniel fighting techniques without doing it overtly, but by trickeration, so don't these teaching techniques. They work pretty well for kids, but I should note that as an adult, I always tend to see beyond them, kind of like seeing the man behind the curtain who is making the Wizard of Oz talk, so I am more annoyed when someone tries them on me. I find that adults learn better when you "give it to them straight", but that kids do respond well to this sort of teaching. --Jayron32 22:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So you were able to see right through Plato: The Allegory of the Cave, from The Republic?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dante's Divine Comedy seems to be a figurative mode of representation conveying meanings other than the literal. According to the article it seems to convey certain levels of meaning: the historical, the moral, the literal, and the anagogical. This to me seems to be "behind the scenes" lessons intended for adults. You can see through the story?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

early Congolese bishop

In A Brief History of the Human Race (New York, 2003, p. 313), Michael Cook writes that a Congolese king sent some of his people to be educated in Europe, of whom "one in due course was made a titular bishop by a reluctant pope." The reference is not documented. Can anyone tell me the bishop's name? Thank you. -- --Halcatalyst (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a time period? Christianity is 2000 years old or so, so it would be much easier if we knew roughly when this event occured. --Jayron32 17:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This was the Kingdom of Kongo in the sixteenth century. Afonso I of Kongo is the king in question. "Part of the establishment of this church was the creation of a strong priesthood and to this end Afonso's son Henrique was sent to Europe to be educated. Henrique became an ordained priest and in 1518 was named as bishop of Utica (a North African diocese in the hands of Muslims). He returned to Kongo in the early 1520s to run Kongo's new church. He died in 1531 as he was about to go to Europe for the Council of Trent." Adam Bishop (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow! I'm impressed with the quickness of this response and with the article "Roman Catholic Church in Kongo"" to which it led me. Thanks! --Halcatalyst (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! There was only a small time period in which there was a kingdom in the Congo that was in contact with Europeans, it wasn't too hard to find. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Pompey

In the article on section "Caesar and the First Triumvirate" it says he was overseer of Rome's grain supply in 59 BC during his consulship. Later in 55 BC he obtained another consulship (through political corruption). Did he then have another governorship control as overseer of Rome's grain supply during this second consulship?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Was this in 55 BC the First Triumvirate or the Second Triumvirate?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

::I assume this was during his second political alliance with Crassus that he had governorship of Hispania Ulterior that was in absentia.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently his very first control of Rome's grain supply was in 82 BC when he secured Sicily?--64.138.237.101 (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawing questions.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Critisms of John Kufuor

Is there any oppositions and concerns about John Kufuor? I originally thought John Kufuor waa an excelent leader until I visit my old high school and the principal told me John Kufuor was on the news all the times and they have been concerns about his leadership.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there any leader who manages not to raise concerns? Government is the art of balancing resources and priorities. Even for well run governments, those are not things lending themselves to consensus, and that's before we put an ideological overlay on top. That said, I have no knowledge beyond this general observation. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The perfect defense against capital punishment?

If someone is accused of a capital crime, the defense attorney, during jury selection, asks each venireman, "Could you ever sentence anyone to death?" If the person answers "yes", the attorney should dismiss him. If the person answers "no", the prosecution can't dismiss him because the prosecuting attorney is required to make his decision before the defense attorney questions the venireman, as well as because of the Supreme Court's decision in Witherspoon v. Illinois. If the jury acquits the defendant, he can't be retried and is thus free to go. If the jury convicts him, they lied during jury selection, meaning that they are guilty of perjury and also that the trial is invalid.

There's got to be some reason why this wouldn't work, otherwise someone would have already thought of this. Why wouldn't this work? ----J4\/4 <talk> 17:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

They probably aren't allowed to ask that question, especially if the case could lead to capital punishment. They can't just ask any random question, and they can't consciously compose a biased jury. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it the judge who does the sentencing? Also, there are ways of discerning a potential juror's attitude towards various things - particularly, upholding the law whether they agree with that law personally or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In the United States, no, Bugs, the judge doesn't sentence a prisoner to death; in the interest of reducing the capricious and/or random imposition of the death penalty, it is now required to be the jury that sentences, due to Furman v. Georgia. Back to the original question, that's a tactic that doesn't work, because, I believe, each side can strike an unlimited number of potential jurors for reason in the voir dire process, but only a limited number without reason — of course, there is a damn good reason for the "without reason" dismissals, but the attorney doesn't want to tell the judge the reason. The "for reason" dismissals have to be that the attorney has a legitimate concern the juror would not be able to render a fair verdict or sentence under the law. The potential jurors who answer "yes" to your question then the juror is affirming that he/she is able to render a fair verdict under the law, so this would not be a dismissal for cause; it would have to be without cause, and the attorney only gets to do that something like 10 times. Sorry, I've no reference for any of this at the moment; will look later. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In the Scott Peterson case, which is fairly recent, the jury recommended the death penalty, but the judge made the decision and pronounced sentence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the judge can't sentence someone to death without that recommendation from the jury. --Tango (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. However, I'm guessing he can reduce the sentence or even vacate the conviction if he thinks the decision is unfair? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think he would dismiss the case without letting the jury return a verdict rather than vacate the conviction afterwards, but yes, I think judges can stop juries being overly strict. They just can't require a jury to be stricter. --Tango (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Illegally collecting unemployment in the US

I know someone who is illegally collecting unemployment while she is working 40 hrs a week for a temp agency in CT USA. Will she get caught? I don't think it's fair that my tax dollars are paying for her greed. --JBikeride (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Look up your state's unemployment insurance department phone number and leave an anonymous tip, then. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking this might come under the guidelines of what the reference desk is not or maybe fall under a form of women folk gossip.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

HA HA HA YOU KNOW HOW THOSE WOMEN ARE WITH THEIR GOSSIP AND THEIR UNIMPORTANT CONCERNS. Or, in other words, men and women gossip (although men tend to call it other things, since 'only women gossip'). I have heard at least as many men as women speculate on the employment, situation, etc of people they know.

More specifically to this case, the OP does not say they think the person is illegally collecting unemployment: sounds like they're pretty sure (possibly the person themself said as much). So, it is the case of knowing that a crime has been and is being committed. Whether you report it or not depends on whether you think the world would be improved by people reporting this sort of crime, whether you think the world would be improved by people being prevented from committing this sort of crime, what you think would happen if you didn't, what you think would happen if you did, etc. The OP has asked for help in finding information to allow them to weigh these factors up ("Will she get caught?") and has been given a possible lead to resolve it (By Comet Tuttle). If you have more information that could help them (such as a phone number specifically set up for such things), provide it. If not, don't. 86.166.148.95 (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the amount you can draw out of unemployment insurance tied to how much you have contributed to it? After you extract a certain amount (the amount you put in?) you are no longer able to take it out and the UE cheques stop coming. That's when you have to start abusing welfare instead, which is considerably less generous, I believe. So by collecting UE while you're employed you are hurting yourself, as well as doing something illegal, and it probably doesn't make much sense based on that alone (unless you never expect to withdraw your UE contributions). That is my understanding based almost entirely on the episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia entitled "Dennis and Dee Go on Welfare". TastyCakes (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And we haven't even got to all those that work under the table for CASH. THOSE are the ones I would think one should be concerned about as nothing gets reported and they don't even have to pay taxes. How many of those do you think there are in CT USA? I'll guarantee you way more than you can handle. How many of those do you know about? Do you report those? I'll bet not. If you don't know of any, then maybe there isn't any - or is there? Of course there is! Maybe the problem is really a problem of jealousy about one particular individual. Otherwise why not work on all those CASH workers that don't even pay taxes.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that JBikeride should not report a definite crime that he/she happens to know about because, you surmise, he/she may know about other comparable crimes and, you assume, has not reported them, and you feel free on this basis to speculate about what you hypothesize may be JBikeride's "real" motivations? This line of thought can only morph into a discussion, so I think it should go no further. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I note that JBikeride has brought three crimes to our attention in the last two days (theft, drug peddling and now fraud). Not sure what to make of that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If she is really concerned about her tax dollars I think perhaps her time would be better spent going after the big fish, instead of the little minnows - like those that do not pay their taxes. Many of those would be day laborers working for CASH and many of the self-employed. How about a person that just got layed off and became a real estate agent. S/he could collect umemployment for up to a year and get commission checks at the same time. Since commission checks are not "in the system" as a normal payroll check is, it simply can be cashed and the money disappears. If that person is not honest on their income tax reporting, then they don't have to pay taxes on their commission checks. This could amount to thousands of dollars, maybe even tens-of-thousands of dollars of tax free money - all the while collecting umemployment at the same time. I'm simply not convinced there is a crime here. If that person is working for a temp agency then they are "in the system" and their imcome is reported to the unemployment insurance agency of their local area. This other lady already obviously knows this, since she "supposedly" is collecting unemployment, because of her previous employer reporting. Since she knows how the system works, then why would she collect unemployment AND work for an employer that would report her income? Doesn't make sense! In many states a real estate agent's commission check is not reported to anyone, so it can slip through the system simply by cashing it. So bottomline is if that person is doing as JBikerid is saying, then yes that person will be caught automatically by the local unemployment insurance agency as they are "in the system" and it would show up in the computers automatically with a red flag. I'd worry about the other ones, otherwise I'd mind my own business.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"if that person is doing as JBikerid is saying, then yes that person will be caught automatically by the local unemployment insurance agency as they are "in the system" and it would show up in the computers automatically with a red flag." Hooray! A helpful answer that directly addresses the question the OP asked. 86.166.148.95 (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all very much. I appreciate all opinions. In this case, I was just fed up with the boasting this person makes and her weekly drunken binges at the cars an clubs. I was laid off earlier this year (now employed) but I put my EU to good use (rent, food, essentials) and once I was employed again, I did not file for EU again. This person also uses and sells drugs on the side and that's why I might have a nasty taste in my mouth for this person. --JBikeride (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC) (oops, forgot to sign in)

I'll even go so far to say I do not see any crimes here; theft, drug peddling nor fraud. The only way JBikeride would "know" this for sure is to have seen a unemployment check and a temp agency payroll check showing the same time period. I don't believe she has (I'm calling her bluff!). This would be a good time to speak up and say so, otherwise I'm sticking to my jealousy theory. I don't think leaving an anonymous tip at the state's unemployment insurance department would do any good. Reason being: How many of those do you suppose they get daily? Do you really believe they have the manpower (or woman power) to follow up on all these, where the odds are most will be dead ends because somebody was speculating. Better have better proof that just speculating or else I speculate nothing will happen. Silence now from the original questionaire person means she is just speculationg, purely guessing - most likely because of jealousy. Besides, if the lady is working for a temp agency it probably means she applied there (as well as many other places) for work - a requirement of her state's unemployment insurance department in order to get further unemployment. I'll speculate after she was hired with the temp agency that she then told her unemployment insurance department she got a 40 hour job and then the checks stopped coming to her. I'm speculating this employed lady obviously knows how the system works, while JBikerid does not.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Understand your stance, regardless, someone abusing privlages is not fair to others who need it. I am at a loss at what to do bc the other things I didn't mention was theft, drug use, drug selling, and claiming unemployment. The"proof" I have is that this person told me directly exactly what she was doing and how she could always find ways to get easy money. You might call it jealousy. Myself, I see a person that needs help and really tired of witnessing these crimes, petty and not petty. --JBikeride (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, jealousy. I knew it all along. The other lady is teasing you. Dr. Phil might be able to help. No more advice from me as I won't be able to help you from here. I answered all your questions.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps teasing is not fully the correct word and a better word would be taunt. She knows you have no proof on all these other items you speak of and is taunting you to do something. This then will get you into trouble, which is exactly what she wants. I'd say ignore her, mind your own business, and go onto bigger and better things - or see Dr. Phil. I can not help you more than this other than to say there is easier ways to make money than you are doing - and not break any laws! Try Brian Tracy. His material is at your local library AND I have not connection to him. Just trying to help you.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Coronation of Richard II of England

Hello, I'd like a bit of information on the coronation of Richard II of England, particularly information on what events would have taken place and what nobles might have been in attendance. I'd also like a bit of information on the appointment of titles to the nobles during the coronation and in what manner this was done. Basically just general information regarding the event, kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• There's a lot of useful information in this book. It seems that most of the details of the event come from Thomas Walsingham's Historia Anglicana, so, if you can obtain a translation, that might well answer your questions. Warofdreams talk 03:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Walsingham is available as PDFs here. It might be better to ask on the Richard II talk page, since it's a Featured Article and whoever worked on it probably has access to that information. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You might also take a look at The Last Plantagenets by Thomas B. Costain. If you're into English history, that entire series, starting with The Conquering Family, is well worth reading. They are non-fiction, but written in almost a novelstic style. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Confessing upon hearing Not guilty verdict

Has anyone cofessed to a crime upon hearing "not guilty", sure that double jeopardy means they couldn't be tried again. 92.224.205.128 (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hard telling, but that would be a stupid thing to do, as it would open him up to civil action. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be foolish as if they had been declared not guilty they couldn't be tried again anyway, regardless of whether they confessed afterwards or not. Although, if they did confess that may be considered as "new evidence", and therefore the person may be tried again for the same crime, but based on different facts (i.e. their confession). In anycase its hard to know if anyone has ever done that, regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

He couldn't be tried for the same crime twice. If he had testified in court and proclaimed his innocence, maybe they could get him for perjury. But regardless of the verdict, if someone confesses to a crime, you can bet there will be someone ready to sue him for damages of some kind. The O.J. case is a close example. He didn't confess overtly, but he managed to be found liable in a wrongful-death suit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The way I understand double jeopardy the defendant couldn't be tried twice for the same crime if the prosecution is based on the same set of facts, surely the confession would be considered a "new" fact? Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This all depends on the jurisdiction. In the US, I believe double jeopardy is pretty absolute, the prosecution have to get all the evidence in place before they start. In the UK, the law was recently changed so that significant new evidence could allow a new trial. I don't know about other jurisdictions. Whether claiming innocence in court is perjury also depends on the jurisdiction - in some jurisdictions the defendant doesn't have to take the oath (this is related to the right to remain silent, I think) so they can lie as much as they like. --Tango (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If they're not compelled to take the oath, I don't see why any juror would believe them. They cannot be compelled to testify, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought new evidence could only exonerate you - that you could not be tried again once found not guilty regardless of the new evidence. By the way what really would happen if immediately when the jury read "not guilty" the defendent popped up in their seat and said "ahahaha gotcha bitches! I'm guilty as sin buthank God I live in the greatest country on Earth!!!". What could they do? (other than hold you in contempt of court) 85.181.148.40 (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

someone might yell "Mr Garrow!". In all honesty I do not know ^^. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As Bugs said, they could arrest the accused for perjury, which is a felony in the US and rarely prosecuted except for outrageous events such as the one you describe; and also the victim, or the victim's relatives, could file a civil suit for monetary damages and get an easy victory because of the "bitches" confession. But "new evidence" does not allow for trying the accused again in the US; that would be easily gamed by any cruel district attorney, who would try the accused once and withhold a few thimblefuls of evidence barely important enough for the purpose; each time the accused was declared not guilty, the DA would declare he had found an additional thimbleful of evidence and try the accused again, until he was bankrupt and destroyed. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And the scenario you've just described is precisely the reason for the double jeopardy rule in the USA - to prevent prosecutors from continuing to retry someone until they get a guilty verdict. Presumably that kind of thing used to happen under British rule. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, not in the last 940 years or so in England, as our article on Double jeopardy mentions; or did you mean by "British" rule that rule "predating the Anglo-Saxon conquest of England"? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, yes, new evidence can exonerate the convicted person. Note it has to be new evidence. Part of the check and balance is that the defense can't ask for a new trial on the same evidence, in hopes of finding a more sympathetic jury. Appeals are based on claims of new evidence and/or claims of legal errors on the part of the prosecution. That's kind of the flipside of the double jeopardy rule. If the higher courts agree that the trial was unfair or that new evidence could make a difference, they will order a new trial and the convict has another chance to beat the rap. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't this most of the idea behind Fracture (2007 film)? TastyCakes (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And now we are all lawyers? Bielle (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is actually planning to do this. It's hardly legal advice. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Neither have we answered the question of whether it has ever actually happened. With all the criminal cases in all the courts in all the world, I'd certainly be surprised if it hadn't, but I haven't heard of any famous cases. Perhaps because defendants in famous cases tend to have good lawyers who will advise them against such admissions. --Anonymous, 05:10 UTC, December 10, 2009.

Emmett Till.—eric 05:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Julie Hogg.—eric 05:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That's more like it! Especially the first one, as the other says it was "years later". Thanks. --Anon, 10:41 UTC, December 10, 2009.

Although the US has a double jeopardy law, it's possible for people to be tried by a federal court for violating someone's human rights even if they've been acquitted of attacking/killing them in a state court, as happened with Rodney King and Vincent Chin. This isn't possible in every case, of course.--Pleasantman (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

In the TV series The Practice, although ficticious it was complimented for some of its accuracy. Their one case, as they were defense lawyers, was to defend a serial killer, who insisted he was guilty. They argued insanity, that he believes he committed the murders when in fact he didn't. They win the case, even though the guy was guilty and maintained his guilt throughout, but he was crafty in that he re-stated a lie that the police had put out about one of the murders in the newspaper, as if to demonstrate that he wasn't the murderer but was learning all about the murders from the press. Rfwoolf (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Car manufacturers in Bangladesh

Which automobile manufacturers are being used by an average Bangladeshi? Honda? Toyota? Mazda? Nissan? MErcedes-Benz? BMW? Jaguar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.116.24 (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Manufacturers include: Bajaj Auto, Premier Padmini, and Tata Motors. More information here here. I hope that helped. JW..[ T..C ] 01:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The average Bangladeshi does not own or often travel in an automobile, unless you include buses. Marco polo (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If they drove or owned an automobile, there is a good chance it would be built by one of those manufacturers. I do agree that the average Bangladeshi does not own an automobile. JW..[ T..C ] 04:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason they would prefer to buy Indian rather than from another Asian country? Is there a domestic automobile industry? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Price. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't ask if they own Indian cars. I meant to say that which automobile do they drive because I see they drive different cars that not seen in North America and the only time I have seen these cars in Bangladesh is when I watch Bangladeshi dramas and/or movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.201 (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Correlational studies?

In a correlational study, why is it incorrect for a researcher to write about one variable producing changes in a second variable? What language would be preferable, in a research report? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joetrivium (talk • contribs) 04:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You are asking why Correlation does not imply causation, aren't you? --Dr Dima (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in part. The language to reflect conclusions is the main interest of mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joetrivium (talk • contribs) 05:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do researchers use language that does not state causation when the study design does not provide any firm answers regarding causation? Because the researchers want to be truthful, or cynically, using causation language would get the paper rejected from reputable journals. What language is preferable...something to the effect of 'An increase in variable X is associated with an increase in variable Y' (for a positive correlation). Basically any phrasing that merely states that there is some sort of connection between changes in one variable with changes in the other variable(s) without implying that the first variable is the sole cause.--droptone (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Because research requires exceeding discernment + discrimination, the verbiage used to analyze, evaluate and determine proposed or discovered relationships or lack thereof in respect to, for example, the presence or absence of protein A and the proposed subsequent effect A' must tread lightly and not exceed the powers of deduction themselves. A great example is in a recent OPT study (Obstetric + Periodontal Therapy) in which pregnant human females exhibiting periodontal disease were either given periodontal therapy during the second trimester or a few weeks postpartum. The results showed no significant difference between the test and control groups in terms of pre-term birth, and as such, the null hypothesis was unable to be rejected. Even that concept -- rejection of the null hypothesis -- is a great item to study in terms of language used to reflect reality. One can never prove the null hypothesis, one can only succeed or fail to reject it. The results of the OPT study, that the periodontal therapy made no statistical difference between the groups doesn't mean that periodontal therapy doesn't help, but that periodontal therapy as provided in this study doesn't help. Therapy provided in the first trimester or even prenatally, or continual therapy provided over a long time (rather than just one time periodontal therapy) might provide a significant difference, but that wasn't what was tested. Check out the articles on null hypothesis, sensitivity and specificity and other statistics related articles to see how language is used very precisely to express exactly what is meant. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Pradeshiya Sabha in Sri Lanka

According to Gampaha, a Pradeshiya Sabha is a "divisional council" in Sri Lanka, but there is nothing in Wikipedia about divisional councils, although this could be - or not be - related to Divisional Secretariats of Sri Lanka. I found the place in many places on the web, but I could find no definition. I found the word "pradeshiya" here in the Tamil translation of "divisional secretariats", but the following word is not "sabha", so I can guess there are probably divisional councils related to divisional secretariats, but I find it surprising that I can find no authoritative answer on the web. I didn't find relevant interwikis and I have no easy way of searching online or paper dictionaries for the moment. Apokrif (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

First science fiction literature

Is Frankenstein first science fiction literature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lit Scholar (talk • contribs) 13:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

History of science fiction, especially, probably, History_of_science_fiction#European_proto-science_fiction. Some say yes. Some say no. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Brian Aldiss is probably one of the more vocal proponents and makes a good case in Billion Year Spree. Should be stuffed in my library somewhere. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Which is noted in the referenced article now that I read it. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a certain case to be made for a book like Utopia, written by Thomas More in 1516, that it may qualify as a bit of "Proto-sci-fi" for the very sci-fi elements that it uses. If you consider that travel to the stars wasn't part of the 16th century worldview, then Utopia reads very much like science fiction. The fact that it is forward looking as a book in terms of looking towards a more advanced sort of human society is why it is probably closer to sci-fi than fantasy, which as a genre is usually more backward looking. The cite above from History of Science Fiction notes this as well. --Jayron32 16:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Some might consider Gulliver's Travels to be SciFi. The predates Frankenstein by something like 100 years. Googlemeister (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

rednecks and reverse parody

hello,

a friend argued that 'rednecks', the song by Randy Newman, is a reverse parody. Does a reverse parody exist, and if it does, what is it?

thank you, Whambarfoddbadseed

[lyrics removed]

Hi, you can't post the entire lyrics to a copyrighted song on Wikipedia. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead sentences in Nationalism article

A rather civil discussion at this article involves the first few sentences in the lead - that is, its definition (Talk:Nationalism#Disputable_definition). I'd like to see some good dictionaries' and encyclopedias' definitions there, rather than individual scholars' takes, preserving those in a subsequent dedicated section. Thoughts please. Novickas (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)