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

June 1

Was Mirza Ghulam Ahmad vegetarian?

The Mirza Ghulam Ahmad article links to a reference listing the "Ten Conditions of Baiat" which includes "That he shall not inflict injury on any of Allah’s creatures." Does this imply vegetarianism? 58.147.58.152 (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Possibly not. On the website of the Ahmadiyya movement, you can read the members' pledge of faith; it doesn't mention vegetarianism and refers to injury in the context of injury to human beings: I will not inflict any injury on the people generally, and in particular on the Muslims, under any undue provocation by tongue or hand or in any other manner.

Also on that website, there is a FAQ question about whether meat-eating causes suffering to animals. It concludes: That objection may have looked worth considering before the scientific discoveries of the 20th century. It was no less a person than an outstanding Hindu scientist and a Nobel Prize winner, Sir J. C. Bose, who discovered that vegetables have, not only life, but sensibility particularly of pain. That finishes for all time the objection of cruelty to animals.... to put the animal kingdom to the uses for which it was created is no cruelty.

I haven't found any reference to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad being personally a vegetarian. Perhaps the quickest way to get a definitive answer to that and to your original question would be to contact the Ahmadiyya mosque closest to you. The address for the one in Thailand is here. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

when did the reichstag fire start?

And also, how were the firemen notified? it says in the article (Reichstag fire) that the berlin fire station recieved a call saying the reichstag was on fire at 2125/10p (two different times are offered...) but when did the actual fire start? I would understand if it's not known, but given that there was a trial and everything you'd think a source would exist that said at least aproximately what time it started... if not what time it is/was claimed to have started.

As for the follow up question, how were the firemen notified? did they get a call, ie, was someone on the street walking and was like OH MAN THE REICHSTAG IS TOTALLY ON FIRE (except in German...)? or what, and how did they tell the firemen, it says they recieved and an alarm call/message, was this a phone call? how ubiquitous were phones in 1933 Germany?

thanks. flagitious (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In the UK before telephones were common, a fireman was detailed to sit at the top of the fire station tower and keep a lookout for smoke or flames. Simple but effective. Alansplodge (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia article says the fire alarm in the Reichstag was pulled "shortly before 9 pm" after fire was discovered first in the restaurant. That doesn't tell you exactly how the firemen were notified - by hearing the alarm or by being telephoned or fetched in person by someone who heard the alarm - but it's almost certain that the seat of government (and probably fire stations too) was/were equipped with telephone service in 1933; again turning to the German Wikipedia, the History of the Telephone article says the first phones were available in Germany in 1877; main networks were laid in the 1880s, and by 1936 Germany had 6,647 exchanges with 26 million km of line. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Pulling a fire alarm should have caused a bell to ring at a fire station, resulting in firemen rolling out the door in less than a minute. The alarm ringing at some office wherefrom someone phones the fire station or runs down to the station to knock on the doorseems like a bizarre arrangement. Edison (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"To the bitter end: an insider's account of the plot to kill Hitler, 1933-1944" By Hans Bernd Gisevius, pages 6-8 says that a "divinity student" walking at the west side of the building heard glass break "shortly after 9 o'clock," and saw a light start to flicker. He notified a policeman at 9:05.Witnesses saw a flame moving around inside the building, Two couples walking on the street saw the glow of the fire, approached the building, and saw flames coming out the windows. They ran to a fire alarm box at the porter's lodge in the Engineers' Building and pulled the alarm at 9:14 p.m. The fire brigade arrived within 4 minutes thereafter. Additional alarms were pulled and phone messages went out to government personnel. "The Night of the Long Knives" By Paul R. Maracin, page 93 says the alarm sounded at 9:14 at Firehouse Number 6 on Linienstraße. Shame on the Germans for not having automatic fire alarm reporting via high temperature sensors at the ceilings of the rooms. Such automatic alarms were in common use by 1919, as were automatic sprinklers. Edison (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Google books link you provided seems only to give access to the book for residents of the US, so I don't know exactly what the source says. But by "common", do you mean commonly used across the globe or only in US skyscrapers? --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

They were in common use in factories, warehouses, large stores, and similar buildings where prompt fire department response might decrease loss. The cost was probably offset by lower insurance premiums. As a "self-insurer" a government might just take a chance on the watchment spottong a fire. Another source, "Telephone magazine: an illustrated monthly magazine," Volumes 15-16 (1900) pages 172-173 said that by 1900 the Berlin Fire Department had fifteen engine companies, and each had its own fire alarm circuits. A Morse register at the station records which alarm box sent in a signal. In 1900, a portable phone was plugged in at the alarm to talk back to the station when the engine arrived. By the 1920's it was common to have a telephone at the fire alarm so the citizen could state the address of the fire and give an idea of how large the fire and structure were. Edison (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification (by the way the new Google Book link you provided, only shows up as snippet view for me, which is unfortunately almost the same as not having the link as it barely show one full sentence of the book) --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hypothetical philosophical question

This is a fun one : ) A professor of mine said that an experiment cannot prove something, it can only not disprove something. My thought experiment was a group of experimenters who would leave a kitchen utensil on a table, leave the room, come back in the room, and see if the utensil still existed. This is based on the idea that physical objects do not exist when a person is not looking at them. Well, after close to an infinite amount of experiments, one discovers that the utensil stopped existing when no one was looking at it (they go back in the room, and it's gone).

What does this prove? I believe it's specifically a Descartes thing, but could you point me in the right direction? Thanks!  ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 07:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess you could start with the article on falsifiability, which is the notion your professor was talking about. Gabbe (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You might also be interested in "If a tree falls in a forest" and where that article links to. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

From the scientific standpoint, the fact that the utensil is there every time does not philosophically "prove" it exists, but the best evidence available is that it does exist. A humorous twist on this premise is a Far Side cartoon in which a group of cows are standing on their hind legs, like humans, out in the pasture near a road. One of them yells, "Car!" As the car drives by, the cows are on all fours as they normally would be expected to be. In the final panel, they are back standing on their hind feet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The OP should also consider this: What about something that exists only when you're not looking at it? Meanwhile, I'm curious, from the mathematical standpoint, what specific number is "close to" infinity. And from the scientific standpoint, you have to consider the possibility that someone picked up the spoon and put it somewhere else. The failure to apply rational thought to observations is where religions come from, don'cha know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The falsifiability article is very good, and I'd share Gabbe's recommendation that you check it out. More generally, the issue your professor was referring to was that of the ability to prove inductive theories - I'd recommend reading the problem of induction article to catch up on that. In this case, I'd suggest that the example would prove that at the point of time when the experimenters looked for the utensil and it was not there, the utensil had disappeared. That doesn't solve the problem of whether or not it existed when the experimenters were not looking, as it doesn't state anything about the utensil's status when they were out of the room. (Maybe it did exist when they weren't looking, but ceased to exist on that one occasion when they did). Bilby (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe someone picked it up and moved it, perhaps temporarily. And if they can't determine who moved it, it must have been something supernatural! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A corollary to this experiment, which is based on a similar conceit, is the comment of a sports fan, "They only win when I'm watching", or "They only lose when I'm watching." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ockham's razor strongly leans towards the "anything other than ceased to exist" approach. :) - Bilby (talk) 11:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if wikipedia has an article about socks disappearing from one's laundry? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Coincidentally a variation on the missing socks problem happened yesterday. My brother got his socks wet, and left them outside on a rock to dry. When he went to get them, they were gone. I think a chipmunk is currently shredding them and lining her nest with them. StuRat (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

God in the incarnation of a chipmunk? What'll He think of next? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If you take a look at proof disambiguation page, you'll see that there are a lot of mathematics-related entries, and none that are related to science. Proof only happens in the context of some rules. To oversimplify (I love oversimplifying!), mathematics is about taking rules and proving their consequences, and science is about coming up with those rules in the first place. Sometimes, say, physicists will do a mathematical proof, but proof and experiment are two totally different things. You can "disprove" something with evidence, but that doesn't really have anything to do with proof; someone can come along later and do more experiments to "disdisprove" it. Paul (Stansifer) 15:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Rather than talking about "proof" and "disproof" for real-world situations (as opposed to pure mathematics or logic), it's more useful to talk about evidence and inference. See, for instance, Bayesian inference which talks about how the accumulation of evidence for or against a proposition can be used to rationally update one's level of belief in that proposition. --FOo (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

elimination of advanced culture

Is there a book which covers the degradation of culture, which virtually all historical literature or stage plays in England, or opera in Italy or ballet in Russia represent through perversion by the lower class who find such things unnecessary or a waste of time, aside from books about the Nazis? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been able to figure out what you mean. Could you expand a bit on what you mean but use shorter sentences please. Dmcq (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll try. You are a member of a family unit. You have established routines, etc. Grandma comes to visit and really to stay due to her declining memory. You try to work her in. To do so means you have to stop using fowl language, no more porn on the telly. Forget rock and roll music. You can't skip church anymore. Your established home culture has gone completely a muck and you might as well get use to it because grandma is not ready to die. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"No more fowl language" = "no calling people chickens, or turkeys, or dumb clucks". As for going to church, if granny asks, just tell her you went and she forgot. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean dumbing-down of culture? If so, maybe this book will help? http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dumbing-Down-Culture-Politics-Media/dp/0907845657 --TammyMoet (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Scanning very, very briefly I would have to read more. Possibly. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The example you gave above doesn't lead me to dumbing down. I see that as an example of a temporary modification of your culture in order to accommodate someone else's culture - maybe acculturation? --TammyMoet (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Look at it from grandma's point of view in the event her established culture was violated. A better example might be if the government began to acquire civil servants not far above the mental and social capacity of a computer. Sure they would get the bureaucratic job done but what if the perspective that this was all that had to be done began to effect the thinking and attitude and behavior of the higher ups who at one time liked to attend plays but now find it quite unacceptable to stay in line with and accommodate the new bureaucratic thinking in order to have any respect at all that would allow such beasts to be managed. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Puritan will be relevant. Your last paragraph sounds like a dystopia such as Orwell's 1984 or Fahrenheit 451. 92.15.16.132 (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Puritans may be too idealistic and Fahrenheit 451 to inclusive to qualify since no deliberate distinction is made between practical media like repair manuals and stories or novels. 1984 is another possible but way extreme outcome. In other words literature might not be eliminated but only its depth and certainly the appreciation thereof. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If that is so, then I think you'd have to write your own book - critique, textbook, dystopian novel or whatever, as your narrow criteria are likely to exclude everyone elses. By the way, I think you should try using commas. 92.24.189.54 (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There was no question in the explanation. I compared the explanation with the original and was unable to find any correlation. There was a question mark at the end of the last contribution explaining more but there was no question words in the sentence. You might as well be speaking a different language as far as I'm concerned. You really do need to try harder to communicate if you want reasonable answers. I am pretty intelligent so you probably have drastically restricted the number of potential replies. Dmcq (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What obligation are you under to respond to the question that demands shorter sentences for your comprehension and corrections of an obvious typographical nature your mind can recognize but is unable to make for its self? Perhaps you should work on another question which does not present so many difficulties beyond your ability to resolve.. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've read your "What obligation .." sentence a few times but it keeps on eluding me. We're not a bunch of dummos around here; maybe you should try a little harder to speak in simple sentences that contain one essential idea. Complexity requires more shorter sentences, not a longer single sentence. If you're not getting your message across, that's your problem and your responsibility to resolve, not ours.-- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

When children are in the room sometimes its necessary to talk over their heads. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

After reading through your posts twice, I am still unsure if you think plays, operas and ballets represent good things which we are losing our ability to understand due to the indifference of the lower classes and general dumbing down, or if you consider them bad things, which the upper classes are forcing on the lower classes in order to subvert their culture and destroy their fun (like granny). Therefore I cannot answer your question. Since I feel under no obligation to answer any questions on this desk which I do not understand, this does not bother me in the slightest. I mention this confusion merely for your benefit: since you went to the effort of posting this question, I presume you would be keen for someone to answer it. If so, it would be to your advantage to clarify your question rather than abuse the intelligence and goodwill of the refdeskers (who are generally all intelligent and generous). Gwinva (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

1. You should answer according to both points of view.
2. You are taking this too personally. Go have a beer. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, 71.100, I disagree with the premise that you are starting from: that if many people dislike or turn away from opera or ballet or old literature, then it represents a "degradation" of culture. This is a very controversial stance, which our High culture article touches on (but unfortunately doesn't tackle as much as it should). There was a deliberate, decades-long effort in the Victorian era (more or less) to exalt opera, ballet, and the stage, for the specific purpose of creating a divide between the favored elite and the unwashed masses. We have all been taught for over a hundred years that these arts are pinnacles of human achievement, and the middle and lower classes (and many individuals in the upper classes) feel like idiots for not loving Italian operas from 200 years ago. I am with those who believe this stance is nonsense. There are magical pinnacles of artistic achievement in each of these fields, but so are there in film, cartoons, TV shows, and stand-up comedy. La bohème is not intrinsically, provably superior to Toy Story. (PS: I agree with those who have suggested you use shorter sentences; the run-on sentences make it difficult to follow your point.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What many people fail to comprehend is the nature of the past. Our momentary and present culture starts with the moment before that and that moment starts with the moment before it. A more or less contiguous path can thereby be constructed to the distant past. For some, however, the personal path excludes Egypt and the Cradle of Civilization, Europe, the British isles and about five thousand years of human history. However, because occurred in the past the present can not escape being influenced by it even if it does not lie in the direct path. Consequently the "...magical pinnacles of artistic achievement in... ...in film, cartoons, TV shows, and stand-up comedy." can probability be found in past rather than being original. Again, if a question is above your head then simply ignore it and move on. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't insult people on the Reference Desk, please. Personally, I'm not providing you any further answers on the Reference Desk until you apologize. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not feed the trolls.

Judging by the OP's sympathetic remarks about such supposedly lowbrow things as rock'n'roll, porn, and doing chicken imitations, I think the OP would agree with you. It seems to me the OP is looking for a good example of the historical literature which "represents this degredation through perversion (of the entire culture) by the lower class, who find such things (as art) unnecessary" - even though this is a flawed premise. The OP specifies a story like 1984, but less extreme. (The Time Machine springs to mind, but it's pretty extreme too.) 213.122.61.131 (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support! :-}

H.G. Wells seems to be exploring the topic in a very provocative, extreme and unsubtle way. I'm looking for coverage which is somewhat more camouflaged like the beasts of the jungle, oceans or deserts that wait for the opportunity to eliminate whatever happens by; in this case any form of culture that might take up a moment of their time. 71.100.8.229 (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Very provocative, extreme and unsubtle", was it? Hmmm ............ -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel compelled to point out that the culture of your granny was the popular culture of her day. I know that I much prefer listening to the progressive rock music of my adolescence to the hip hop music of my kids, and the RnB (so-called) of today's kids. To me, my music is "better" simply because it's the stuff I grew up with, am familiar with, and fell in love with. That doesn't mean to say it actually is better. I was inspired to point this out by a forthcoming showing of Aida on the BBC, which led me to remember that my grandmother was in the chorus of a production of Aida in Birmingham in 1919, when she was 17. She used to play the Chorus of the Hebrew Slaves every day until the day she died. When I was a kid she explained to that this was her "pop music". --TammyMoet (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That reminds me when my parents criticised the Rolling Stones when they first appeared on American TV back in 1964; yet they had both been fans of Frank Sinatra who attracted loads of screaming girls in the 1940s. Every generation has its pop culture.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Never ask, 'Oh, why were things so much better in the old days?' It's not an intelligent question." Ecclesiastes 7:10. That is, even 2,200 years ago, this was considered a cliché. Unless everything has actually been constantly getting worse for thousands of years (unlikely), I think we can conclude that people who ask this question have no sense of history. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

THe OP may be interested in deskilling, prolefeed (also see its links), Proletarianization, vulgarity, and Poshlost. 92.15.21.134 (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what the OP is after. if he's looking for dystopic acculturation, I can't think of a better book than Huxley's "Brave New World". If he wants philosophy he should start with Neitzche and work his way up to the Nihilists (or towards the Beat Generation if he's more interested in literature). My sense is he's mistaking the mere presence of culture with a dissolution of freedom, which is inaccurate, but... --Ludwigs2 04:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My reading was that the OP was unhappy about the loss of highbrow or 'elite' culture. 92.15.21.188 (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Cold War histories

I'm interested in reading about Cold War history, but find the reading list at that article somewhat overwhelming. I'm looking for books about the politics, diplomacy, intelligence and military (infrastructure, not the actual equipment) of that time. I'm not so interested in personal histories/memoirs. I've read and enjoyed The Cold War by John Lewis Gaddis and Cold War: For Forty-five Years the World Held Its Breath by Jeremy Isaacs and Taylor Downing and probably a few others that have slipped my mind. I am probably going to get another Gaddis book (which one?) but was wondering if anyone could reccommend anything with a European, British or Russian slant? Thanks --Kateshortforbob _talk 12:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of David Remnick's Lenin's Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire, which is mostly about the period of the 1970s-early 1990s in Russia. It's pretty fascinating on all fronts, and well-written. It's journalism more than straight history, but I think you'll find it as rich as Gaddis. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

For infrastructure in the UK, try Cold War: Building for Nuclear Confrontation, 1946-1989 by Wayne D. Cocroft. Amazon has it. It's an illustrated inventory of the physical infrastructure of Cold War installations in the UK, done in cooperation with the National Trust. You may also like Cold War Secret Nuclear Bunkers: The Passive Defence of the Western World During the Cold War by Nick Catford, a bit less scholarly. Catford's associated with Subterranea Britannica (SubBrit) [1], which has a section on Cold War relics [2]. Acroterion _(talk) 20:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr.98 and Acroterion for the recommendations - I'll have some interesting holiday reading! Lenin's Tomb sounds like just what I'm looking for, and I wouldn't have thought about Subterranea in the Cold War, but it fits in nicely with my Underground London fascination :-) --Kateshortforbob _talk 10:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are still reading: I might also recommend David E. Hoffman, The Dead Hand: The Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race and Its Dangerous Legacy, which recently won the Pulitzer. I am about half-way into it myself and enjoying it. It features a lot on the intersection between US and Soviet politics and their respective military infrastructures, especially relating to WMD research. Time period is mostly 1980s-1990s. Pretty enjoyable and has excellent portraits of both Reagan and Gorbachev and their troublesome interactions, especially relating to the "Star Wars" issue. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Oddly, I have just been reading Dead Hand (nuclear war), which reminded me to come back and take note of these books before the question is archived! That one's definitely going on the list, thanks --Kateshortforbob _talk 15:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

George Orwell quote

This page[3] has a Georege Orwell quote

"Men are only as good as their technical development allows them to be. "

But when you look at the source[4],an essay on Charles Dickens, the full quote is

" When he speaks of human progress it is usually in terms of moral progress men growing better; probably he would never admit that men are only as good as their technical development allows them to be. "

He seems to be presenting it as a statement Charles Dickens wouldn't agree with. Does it imply that Georege Orwell agrees with the statement? Is the first quote a fair representation of Orwell's ideas? Diwakark86 (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Orwell presents it as a true statement Charles Dickens wouldn't admit to (not "agree with"), so I think it's reasonable to assert that Orwell agrees with it. "...probably he would never admit that all real cows have three legs and fly" (or some other false statement) wouldn't make sense as a meaningful contrast. — Lomn 14:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Rev 1

Hi,
what does "Rev 1" mean in "TK (Tamils, LP updated) Sri Lanka (Rev 1) CG [2009 UKAIT 00049 (11 December 2009)"] ?
Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision one, maybe? --Tango (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but revision of what? Of the country guidance? It should be explained in some legal citation guide, or on the tribunal website, but I didn't find anything. Apokrif (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Native Americans in US Politics

Are there currently any Native Americans holding a government seat? I mean like a senator, mayor, etc? Reticuli88 (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. There are all but certainly too many to list at local levels, probably many at state levels, and Daniel Akaka is a serving US Senator. Other Native American members of Congress have included Charles Curtis, Benjamin Reifel, and Ben Nighthorse Campbell. — Lomn 15:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, Wikipedia does not have either a list or a category for them. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(As a foreigner, )I don't usually consider Native Hawaiians to be Native Americans, because they're of Polynesian extraction. Rimush (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a category, Category:Native American politicians. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Rimush, you're not the only one — the Census Bureau (see Race and ethnicity in the United States Census) counts them as "Pacific Islanders". Nyttend (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. government uses multiple definitions of Native American, sometimes at the same time: the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act has "Native American" means of, or relating to, a tribe, people, or culture that is indigenous to the United States".[5] 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Robert Mugabe

Which activities did Robert Mugabe do that people consider him a left-wing politician? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.184.114 (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Two things spring to mind. One, he was one of the leaders of the liberation movement against white-minority rule in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. Before South Africa's reforms, opposing white-minority rule was a somewhat left-wing position (although plenty of British and American conservatives, and possibly others, spoke out against Rhodesia.) Two, Mugabe has been enacting land reform, which is usually a left-wing thing. Having said that, it's probably more accurate to call Mugabe a far-right politician, using the European definition of "far-right" as a party with a governing ideology that its opponents think is racist and xenophobic. Also, Mugabe's most significant achievement that didn't involve racism was crushing the Marxist group ZAPU, so Mugabe's relationship with African leftists has always been contingent and shifting. See Robert Mugabe for more details. --M@rēino 21:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Any attempt to fit people (especially at the extremes) onto a single-dimensional political spectrum is doomed to failure. The Political Compass (which I don't really endorse from a quality analysis point of view, but it does include Mugabe in its famous politicians section so I'll go with it) put Mugabe as "Left/Authoritarian" [6] (the first bit being his economic position and the second his social position), which sounds about right. Somebody like Hitler was Right/Authoritarian, so people tend to equate authoritarianism with right-wing, but there is no reason to do so. --Tango (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

British Petroleum

Is BP wholly a public corporation, or is part of it owned by the British government? Googlemeister (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's wholly public, to the best of my knowledge. Do you have any reason to believe it is partly state-owned? Incidentally, it isn't called British Petroleum any more, they officially renamed as BP in 2001. --Tango (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I can do better than that, actually. Our article (BP#1980s and 1990s) says: "The British government sold its entire holding in BP in several tranches between 1979 and 1987.". It was part of Thatcher privatising everything. --Tango (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Really, I am a little bit surprised since most petro companies with the name of a country in it are either partially or wholly state owned (Petrobras, Saudi Aramco, Sinopec) etc... Thanks Googlemeister (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It was party state owned when it was named, I believe. The UK, mainly under Thatcher's leadership, has largely moved away from state ownership. --Tango (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

But it does not have the name of a country in, as Tango said above. --ColinFine (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It did between 1987, when the British government sold the last of its stake, and 2001 when it changed its name, though. --Tango (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Time for another name change. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

And a name change that completely lacks any association. Who does not think Bitch Petroleum when they hear or see BP? 71.100.8.229 (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Everyone? Seriously, this is another case of US whitewashing. Just because people in the US want to paint BP as a devil doesn't make it so. Exxon are now doing pretty well, despite the Valdez. The British have about gone to "uncomfortable" on the BP-liking scale over this (we've gone to the Hague to support BP before now, by comparison). <gets off soapbox/> - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 08:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Whitewashing? It's quite the opposite, isn't it? --Tango (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is more like mudslinging. Googlemeister (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

As opposed to mudslinging? :-) --Anon, 19:33 UTC, June 2, 2010.

My mistake. It seems like my definition differs from every other human being on the planet (seriously), for no apparent reason. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 08:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's "whitewashing", but more like "the subject is boring, but now it's scandalous, so the press is all over it at last". Here's a report where ABC noticed that over the past three years, BP's oil refineries committed 760 "egregious, willful" safety violations, while Sunoco and Conoco-Phillips each had eight, Citgo had two and Exxon had one comparable citation. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, I'm from USA and I'd always "known" that BP was short for "British Petroleum". (Though I see now that I'd been wrong for the last 9 years.) It never occurred to me that it might be state owned, I thought it was just a name, like "American Airlines" or "American Telephone & Telegraph". APL (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The more accurate statement may be most petroleum companies which are stated owned often have the name of the country in it (clearly not always, some e.g. PETRONAS, Pertamina have names with national in their respective languages rather then the country). Country names aren't generally trademarked, so there's nothing to stop a company naming themselves after their country although nowadays it perhaps risks alienating their international customer base. Royal Dutch Shell is arguably another example (and if I understood the article correctly this one was never really owned by the Netherlands government but was given a royal charter). From a quick look at the article I'm not sure if Nippon Oil Japanese government either. Nor Encana although not sure of its predecesors. Not sure about RWE Dea AG or Japan Energy. While not a country name, Texaco doesn't appear to have ever been owned by the US state of Texas. There are if course some similarites in other areas America Online (now AOL) was never owned by the US government. Of course in this particular case, it was state owned and it just took them a while to change their name. Nil Einne (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2

Two short stories

I've read two short fantasy/sci-fi stories in the '80s. Unfortunately I can neither remember their titles nor the authors. Perhaps someone can identify them?
One is about a woman who undergoes some eye surgery and starts to see other people with various animal heads. She becomes hysterical and is later operated a second time. At the end of the story everyone looks normal but now she has a doe's head.
The other story is about two men on a remote island, experimenting for the military. They bring a robot crab that feeds on metal and reproduces. Soon they overpopulate the island and the metal stocks run out. The crabs then fight and cannibalize each other, each generation evolving to be a more efficient fighting machine. Things get out of hand and the crabs kill one of the men for his dental fillings. --88.241.172.166 (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The first one is "The Blue Lenses" by Daphne du Maurier. Deor (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

And a bit of Googling identifies the second one as "Crabs on the Island" by Anatoly Dneprov. Deor (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That was really quick, thank you! How one's memory deceives himself, I always had a feeling that the crab story was written by Arthur C. Clarke. --88.241.172.166 (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Defending Macbeth

I'm lead defense for our class's trial of Macbeth. We're trying to get Macbeth to face lesser charges as mentally unsound. We have to call witnesses from the play and ask them questions to help get him off the hook. What mental illnesses could Macbeth possibly have, and how would you recommend me go about defending him? {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 04:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

First, figure out what test for diminished responsibility or "not guilty by reason of mental ilness" applies in your class or your legal jurisdiction. See Insanity defense, Mental disorder defence, M'Naghten Rules, Mental disorder defence. In the most absurd instance, someone got off by claiming he had been eating junk food. Once you have determined what standard applies in your situation, you can look for evidence the defendant exhibited behaviors or had beliefs which would get him off or allow a lower punishment. Edison (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

As the article says, the Twinkie defense was nothing like the absurd claim that people repeat. "White's consumption of junk food was presented to the jury as one of many symptoms, not a cause, of White's depression". Let's try not to perpetuate inaccurate press-renderings of reality. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't neglect the pressure his murderous wife put him under - spousal abuse has also, I believe, been used as a defence. DuncanHill (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You could argue that the weird sisters are just voices in his head (I don't suppose the prosecution will say that witches are real, and the only other person to have met them is no longer around). Also, call the folks present at the banquet in Act 3 Scene 4 (during which Macbeth acts as if there is a ghost though nobody else can see it) as witnesses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be very difficult to get any of the characters qualified as an expert in the field of psychiatry since none of them are practicing psychiatrists and none have seemed to have published anything in that field, so Macbeth might be screwed. As an addendum, what point in the play is the trial supposed to take place, since obviously it can not be after the conclusion since there is little point in trying a man who has lost his head. Googlemeister (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The Twinkie Defence won't fly; as a Scot Macbeth is already inured to the (short term) ill effects of a fried-cake diet - indeed salad is more likely to induce psychosis than any snack-cake. Given the relatively high latitude of Forres (it's at much the same latitude as Juneau, Alaska) one might like to argue the influence of seasonal affective disorder, induced by the short day length. I don't think the play clarifies the season, but the presence of a thunderstorm (which are rather more common in Scotland in summer than other seasons) and that of foliage in the Birnam Wood (it'd make for bad camouflage otherwise) would suggest it's probably summer or autumn, which nukes the SAD defence. But let's face it, Macbeth spends much of the play talking to three old ladies he imagines to be witches, and a homeless man he believes to be a ghost (ghosts are, after all, of "no fixed abode"). So he's suffering visual and auditory hallucinations, with supernatural voices urging him to commit acts of violence - you've got a very strong case for a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. Indeed, if you presented yourself at Raigmore Hospital's casualty ward and declared that three witches and a ghost wanted you to kill the queen, that's exactly what they'd diagnose you with. A forensic examination of three kindly pensioners (who Beckett names Flo, Vi, and Ru) and a tramp called Mickey, who all attest the accused believed them to be supernatural, would make for an effective (and if you want, rather comic) defence. As an, at least theoretic, descendent of the real Macbeth, it's incumbent on me to observe that the real king was none of these things, and that his rule was one of wisdom and peace, with lower taxes and improved hospital waiting times. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 15:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, as a military veteran with recent and intense battle experience, Macbeth may be suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 15:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, also, you could paint his flicking between to kill the King or not as indicative of multiple personalities and/or high levels of stress. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Since his crimes were predestined I would take a look at automatism as well. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's outwith the brief to argue that the whole evidence of the play is unreliable and defamatory hearsay and (as per Macbeth of Scotland) he killed Duncan in battle and ruled for seventeen years? --ColinFine (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)}

So you're asking, "Was Macbeth thane, or inthane?" 63.17.89.8 (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Bugs?Edison (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, it is the sort of thing he would say.

Well, thanks to everyone for the advice. We've gone for PTSD, as well as panic attacks. And conjured up a psychiatrist to testify. We've also got Sweno testifying that Duncan was an ineffectual ruler, Lennox about Macbeth's behaviour at the banquet, the Captain from Act 1 about Macbeth's bravery in battle, Lady Macbeth about any number of things, and the Witches. But the spin that the witches decided on, is that they're wise women who've been excluded from society because of their experimenting. The captain of the Tiger was one of their backfiring experiments at medication; the potion they brewed up made Macbeth hallucinate, on top of confirmation bias. The idea was that they would have someone in power who would be hallucinatory and dependent on them, so they could bring about an acceptance of science. Which obviously backfired. (I really like the "three elderly pensioners" idea, but considering that the prosecution is also calling the weird sisters, we have to at least stick that much to the text.) Our Macbeth himself wanted to try out being a repressed homosexual as well, but I'm not sure how well we could argue that denial of his sexuality could have affected anything. It's going to be a hard fight to get Macbeth off the hook, considering how much easier it's going to be to prosecute him, so anything that makes any sense whatsoever is appreciated (forming a coherent defense will be interesting...) . Thoughts? {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 06:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

free speech mini forum

I remember KGO had this program called, "Speak Freely." It was a little forum in which San Francisco Bay Area citizens talk about important things on their minds. The opening and closing of, "Speak Freely," had a jazz music song. (Somewhere in San Francisco, I also heard the same song in a movie theater sometime before the featured movie started.) I'm interested in finding out what the song is and who does it. If anyone knows what I'm trying to say, please come forward. Thank you.24.90.204.234 (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

An email to the television station might be able to clear this up for you rather quickly. Especially if it was a small local show which might not have any information about it on the internet. Dismas|^(talk) 07:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I tried. When I got a response, I learned the people behind the locally produced program has since retired. No one at KGO was able to help me. What should I do now?24.90.204.234 (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Is China a manufacturing leader

00 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashankgandhi3 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This article should give you a start. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Tan authors of literature

Henry was, by all accounts, an attractive and charismatic man, educated and accomplished. And he wrote a book.

Fabrizio Corona would probably fit the bill as he's tan, good-looking and he also wrote a book

Can anyone think of any authors (novels, plays, poetry, etc) that were tan (or I guess notably good-looking, not that the two are necessarily related)? They can be from any time period. Thanks!  ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 07:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It would help if you could clarify what precisely you mean by "tan". For example, there are about 30 slang definitions of the word "tan" here, including "attractive Asian" and "hated English person". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Tan" to me is just an Americanism for "tanned", and in this context means attractively suntanned. In this, as in most matters, I defer to Bruce Springsteen: "But I remember us riding in my brother's car/Her body tan and wet down at the reservoir". It's actually an interesting question: contemporary writers aren't usually thought of as dreamboats, although maybe some Romantic poets would be. Are you interested in men, or women, or both? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Would this then mean the authors have to be white with a suntan, as opposed to being more of a tan colour all the time? Or is the question really more about the authors being attractive? Or is it about authors who don't spend all their time shut away in dark rooms? Byron would fit the last two, being " renowned for his personal beauty, which he enhanced by wearing curl-papers in his hair at night", and got up to a lot of outdoor activity too. But he looks very pale in all pictures I've seen. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Italian television personality Fabrizio Corona has written a book. He's tan and good-looking. Then there's Albanian dancer Kledi Kadiu. He is also tan, good-looking and has written a book as well.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I was looking mostly for males. Richard's understanding of what I meant by tan was good and insightful : ) So yes, whites with sun tans and people that are naturally tan are fine. Byron's a really good example, as are Jeanne's, two people I had never heard of. ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 01:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Actor George Hamilton is famous for his tan, and has written books. See George_Hamilton_(actor)#Books. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Steady customers

I'm writing a paper for a class. In the paper, I have to try to convince my employer to add a machine to mass produce parts in an otherwise custom fabrication shop. One of my arguments is that my employer can have more steady income/work/contracts/etc. if they can produce small parts for local factories. It will lesson the need to win bid after bid and keep a regular flow of money coming in. Is there a term or name for this concept?

Additionally, I have to cite some figures or some expert in the field as to how this would help the business. Maybe if I had a term for this it would help but could someone point me in the right direction to look for a reference about this? Online ref's would be preferred. The course is online and the nearest large library is some distance away. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 07:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

PS Please don't tell me to review my text book for the term. This is a writing class and not economics. Thanks again, Dismas|^(talk) 08:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you want them to diversify their income streams. DuncanHill (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's a diversification, because this is a pretty major shift in how the company (or, at least, this new part of the company) will do business. I assume that the production of small parts for local factories is a lower margin business, in which case the company is expected to "make it up on volume", meaning each mass-produced part will make a lot less profit than a custom part, but the company is going to sell so many of the mass-produced parts that the profit from that "division" will be higher despite the lower margin. I googled high volume low margin, because that's what the new business entails, and found this article and this short article that seem pertinent. By the way, I don't think the ability to produce a lot more means that the company has a reduced need to win bid after bid. It's the nature of any business that you have to keep selling like crazy. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds more like a distraction. Diversification that draws capital away from the core business isn't taken lightly... usually. As they say on TV, if you have no idea how to waste someone else's money, then just start building something. East of Borschov (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the words of caution. This is just a writing course though and I don't have to actually make money at this, I just have to argue for the advantage here. I appreciate the help! Dismas|^(talk) 22:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Capital punishment

How many countries in the world keep the number of executions a secret? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear that this question is really answerable, as it requires us to prove a negative: specifically, "X has not committed a secret execution." But if it's secret, how would we know to distinguish that country from one that didn't have a secret execution? However, our article on capital punishment may be of interest, as we note that many statistics on executions cannot be accurately confirmed. — Lomn 16:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The question "How many countries which claim not to have the death penalty perform executions in secret anyway?" would indeed be a difficult question to answer with any certainty, although groups such as Amnesty International might have a "to the best of our knowledge"-type list. On the other hand "How many countries which freely admit to having captial punishment (try to) keep the execution numbers secret?" (e.g. "Yes, we execute criminals, but, no, we won't tell you who or how many") should be relatively straightforward to answer. Unfortunately, I'm not knowledgeable enough to attempt it. -- 174.24.200.38 (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Amnesty report on capital punishment in 2009 does not answer this question specifically, but it lists Uganda, Tanzania, North Korea, Thailand, Libya, Kenya, Iran, DR Congo, Chad, and China as countries where "an unknown number of people were sentenced to death". In addition to these, Amnesty names at least Belarus, Mongolia and Vietnam as countries that do not officially publish (complete) information on their use of the death penalty. Saudi Arabia also is said by Amnesty to execute more people than the government officially acknowledges. For most countries, the Amnesty figures have the caveat that "it was not possible to specify a figure", but that includes the US, which must mean that there were cases where the sentence was possibly not final, or something like that.--Rallette (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Relationship between "France" and "Frog"

I have seen/heard many persons saying that eating frog is common in France or amongst French people; especially, in the film "Les Triplettes de Belleville," the Triplets cook their meals from frogs. Is that true or just a joke about the words "France" and "Frog" which are pronounced similarly?

124.121.183.170 (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that frog's legs is a genuine meal... ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 10:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes folks, it's true, Frogs eat frogs. DuncanHill (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

So, why French people are called "Frogs"? The Wikitionary tells me that the word "frog" is a pejorative term used to mention to French person or France. Thank you, once again.

124.121.183.170 (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's a pejorative term, particularly when uttered by an English person. We have some information under List_of_ethnic_slurs#F. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

See also Jean Crapaud. The Brewer Dictionary of Phrase and Fable says Nostradamus used this as a term for the French in the sixteenth century ... but it often lies. It's not a very good dictionary. Under frog, it says: "What with the frogs (people of Paris) say?" was in 1791 a common court phrase at Versailles. There was a point in the pleasantry [not sure what this means] when Paris was a quagmire, called Lutetia (mud-land) because, like frogs or toads, they lived in mud... 81.131.60.148 (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think "three toads erect, saltant" might be a confusion with the fleur_de_lis. 81.131.60.148 (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The "three toads erect, saltant" comes from John Guillim. DuncanHill (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought french people were called frogs because in some old war with the french - possibly the Napoleonic wars - the soldiers wore a green uniform. 92.28.249.38 (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary says that it has been a general term of abuse for people since the 14th century; that in the 17th century, it was used as a pejorative term for the Dutch; and has been used in reference to the French (or, alternatively, their language) since the 18th century. The term "froggy" has been used for the French since the 19th century, "a term of contempt for a Frenchman, from their reputed habit of eating frogs." --Mr.98 (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

About the crapauds de Paris: n the Garden of Versailles is the Pool of Latona (Bassin de Latone) because the theme of Versailles is the triumph of Apollo, Louis XIV of France being the "Sun King". For the myth of Latona and the frogs, see Latona.--Wetman (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Why should we french feel aggravated when rosbifs call us "frogs" ? A frog is beautiful & delicious, just as a rosbif, & was part of human diet even before Homo erectus, I believe. But unhappily, we don't enjoy frogs anymore, since like many fine fishes & crayfishes they have disappeared from our streams and ponds : chemical pollution. The frog-thighs you may find now, mainly deep-frozen & coming from Asia, taste like wood-saw mingled with urea, just as nowadays snails are like rubber bits in your mouth.

Fishing frogs is a grand remembrance of my youth, & I've fished a lot of fishes of all kinds & sizes. Look at Maurice Genevoix 's "La Boîte à Pêche" ("The fishing-tackles box") , 1926, if you want to know more about it (good article on Genevoix in WP:fr). And those tender fried muscles, with some garlic & parsley ... (as for nasty ethnic slurs, you may be interested in knowing that in France, when a woman is menstruated, she often uses à litote to speak about it : "Les Anglais ont débarqué" ("The englishmen have landed")...:-) ) T.y. Arapaima (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There are certainly a number of Gilray cartoons using the term; however the French wore white uniforms before the revolution and blue afterwards. To be fair to the French, they often take the joke in good part. A French president, (Mitterand?) when asked how the Channel Tunnel rail link was built through the French countryside more quickly than in England replied that you don't ask the frogs before you drain the pond! Alansplodge (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I had a quick look and found that while most of his troops wore blue, Napoleon's mounted troops did indeed wear dark green... which of course proves nothing, but I thought I'd mention it. 81.131.66.164 (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha. Because of redcoats, obviously. 81.131.66.164 (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The sound correlation shouldn't be completely ignored. If you say "Frank" (as in Frankish) with a french accent, like [frãk], it does sound a lot like 'frog', particularly with some English accents. Steewi (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Music

Hi. I've been playing music since I was very young, and now I'd like to learn how to recognize different types of music. First off, I need to be able to tell the key and time signature of a piece without looking at the sheet music. Any ida how I can do that? Thx --~``` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.230.229 (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Time sigs are relatively easy. Just count the number of beats in the bar, and you have the top line. The bottom line is a bit hit and miss, could be 4, 8 or even 16 but that one's rare. Key is a little harder. You should by now be able to tell major vs minor keys. Sometimes I amuse myself by guessing what key a piece of music I hear on the radio is in, and after 40 or so years I think I've managed to pin down all the "easy" keys. I do this by the way they sound - D major sounds particularly happy. Most rock music is in E. Music with brass instruments in is generally B flat or E flat because that's the key those instruments are in. What lets me down is where a rhythm guitar is being played with a capo on, which means I recognise the chords being played, but that fools me as to the key it's in. Hope this helps. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. No amount of listening to River Man has got me to understand how to count in 5/4 time. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

So try Take Five by Dave Brubeck! The first beat of every bar is emphasised, so that gives you your starting point. The fourth and fifth beat also have some emphasis. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That worked, and has helped with River Man, too. Very slow tempo. Could you say some more about the /4 part of the fraction? What exactly is its purpose, if the length of a beat is itself a moveable feast? --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Its purpose is in the written music, since it tells you the beats are crotchets. But you're right, Take Five could as easily be in 5/8, with all the crotchets replaced with quavers, and so on. You can't really tell by listening, except that you can usually assume the most conventional time signature has been used. It has some bearing on how easy it is to read the music, but you can rewrite something in 5/4 to be in 5/8, 5/2, 5/16, and set the beat to be the same length. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Very helpful. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to exercise your new skills, try listening to Money (Pink Floyd song), the majority of which is in 7/4 time and is relatively easy to count. Karenjc 19:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup, they're working. I'm not sure I'll be able to count some of Frank Zappa's more wildly timed pieces, having an insufficiency of fingers. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

List of musical works in unusual time signatures has some doozies - ⅗/4, for example. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow! We truly do have an article on everything! I must check out my collection and see if I can add to that - think I've already spotted a 15 that's not there, for example. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh God! That gives me some flash-backs. The Scherzo from Borodin's Symphony No. 2, in 1/1. Great to listen to, a nightmare to play. Which probably sums up most of that list! 86.164.69.239 (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Why, or what aspect of 1/1, makes it difficult to play? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not necessarily difficult to play by ear, but difficult to play by eye, meaning it is difficult to conduct and also difficult to play when you're reading the score (which is what most orchestra musicians will be doing in this case). 1/1 lacks structure or partition within the time signature, sort of like r e a d i n g t h i s t e x t w h i c h d o e s n o t g r o u p l e t t e r s i n t o w o r d s a n d m a k e s i t h a r d t o r e a d, only harder. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That, and it's prestissimo. So the conductor is beating pretty much as fast as he can, and you're trying to fit a whole bar into each beat. Combine that with the lack of structure, and that in most orchestras I've been in you don't get much rehearsal time on each piece, so you're trying to pick it up at high speed without all the usual structural cues, and it adds up to Panic. As if you were trying to r e a d t h i s t e x t a s f a s t a s y o u c a n i n t i m e w i t h s o m e o n e e l s e. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, added a Bach piece in 2/1 to that page. On figuring out a piece's key, don't forget the difference between key and key signature. Being able to recognize the various types of modulation might be a good place to start. Pfly (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Buddhists taking offense

Buddhists are known (or claim to be) indifferent to offenses (and apparently also to praise). However, how does that look like in real life? Can you insult the mother of one of them? How do Tibetan monks react to torture? Can you bully Buddhists at work?--Mr.K. (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important to distinguish between Buddhist monks and regular Buddhists. Monks are very well trained and can probably ignore any insults and bullying. Regular Buddhists aren't really any different to anyone else. They may try and avoid taking offence at things but, just as with Christians trying not to judge others, say, they don't always manage. --Tango (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

But some Buddhist monks were so offended by what was happening in war-time Vietnam that they self-immolated. It seemed to happen once a month for a few years back then (late 60s-ish, early 70s-ish). That's a pretty extreme form of protest about anything. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The majority of practicing Buddhists that I have met are in fact, more calm and disciplined than most other people. This is because practicing Buddhists meditate very often. I have also met Catholic monks who meditate, too (they call it "prayer," although it is very similar to meditation because they are concentrating in silence for long periods). They are also very peaceful. Anyone who meditates (including, for example, Christians) will be able to control their emotions and clear their mind of un-necessary (i.e., immature) thoughts.

Another factor is the Noble Eightfold Path: (1) knowledge of the truth; (2) the intention to resist evil; (3) saying nothing to hurt others; (4) respecting life, morality, and property; (5) holding a job that does not injure others; (6) striving to free one's mind of evil; (7) controlling one's feelings and thoughts; and (8) practicing proper forms of concentration. New converts to Buddhism usually join because they already agree with these principles. Violent and restless people don't gravitate toward Buddhism.

Having said these things, Buddhists are still human beings. They can never be perfect. The more devout and experienced the Buddhist, the greater their discipline. The most disciplined Buddhists, especially those who claim to have achieved enlightenment, have complete control over their bodies and minds. They can tolerate anything you throw at them, including torture.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The core teaching of buddhism is that all suffering stems from attachment to "unrealities". If you approach a Buddhist monk and insult his mother, try to bully him, or etc, the monk should (ideally) recognize that your actions are not "real": i.e., your statements about his mother are untrue and designed to inflame, your attempts at bullying are based in unreal conceptions of authority and social interactions, and both stem from your own misunderstanding of the true nature of reality. He should, in fact, feel compassion towards you because you are so thoroughly lost in your own suffering that you feel the need to try to inflict suffering on others. How it actually pans out is a function of his meditation practice, his current state of mind, and etc. - even those who are enlightened are not enlightened all the time. Torture is effectively the same, with the distinction that physical pain (like pleasure and other sensations) is real. Ideally a practicing monk would experience the pain of being tortured without being attached to the outcome. in fact, the real 'torture' part of torture has less to do with the physical pain than with the fears and hopes that people cling to while being tortured - torturers want to put their victims in a place where they believe their only escape (attachment of hope) from further torture (attachment of fear) lies in cooperating with the torturer. --Ludwigs2 06:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In medieval Japan, some Buddhist monasteries took an active military role during periods of political disintegration and breakdown of law and order. Currently, some Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka have the reputation of being aggressive and militant supporters of Sinhalese nationalism. AnonMoos (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"Indifference" doesn't seem like the right word, as it implies not responding. The Buddhists I've met who have been practicing intensely for years are all extremely engaged in the world. What's the point of compassion if you don't do anything about it? How would one of these people react if you deliberately insulted them? Who knows. Perhaps a punch in the face is exactly what you need. Pfly (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Any sports/games where the player is drowned in vegetables/salad etc

I am looking for info on any sport (may be a 2 memebr team) where one of the players is lying on a table and vegetables/fruits/salads are thrown on her[[File:http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs652.snc3/32205_417461217968_150031197968_4156500_482065_n.jpg][7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.249.183 (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

non-fiction books

Suppose, hypothetically, I had written a novel, or perhaps some novels, and gotten it published, and decided to branch out into non-fiction writing, about world history for example, and found that my publisher doesn't print such books. What would I do then, would I be allowed to find a publisher that does, and would doing so be much the same as for the first novel, writing to them and submitting manuscripts, or is there a different procedure outside of the world of fiction?

148.197.115.54 (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That depends on the contract you signed, which depends in part on you having a decent literary agent who didn't let you sign an unduly restrictive contract. What is and isn't covered by such a contract, and what happens when parties don't agree about the trajectory of their joint undertaking, depends on the hypothetical contract. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes; and as to the original poster's last question, submitting nonfiction books is the same process as submitting fiction books, where you have an agent do it for you, or you send to all the slush piles and learn to relish total rejection. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaking from past professional non-fiction publishing experience, whereas people often write fiction first and search for a publisher when the work is finished, it's much more usual with non-fiction for a writer to first find a publisher who will agree to the project, and then write the work to mutually agreed specifications, or even for the publisher to actively seek out a writer to supply a particular work.

Part of the reason for this is that, whereas the market for fiction is essentially unbounded, there is often a limit to how many non-fictional works on a given subject are thought to be contemporarily viable. A given publisher may have a notional gap in its non-fiction inventory it's desirous of filling, or consider its inventory in a particular area complete and not wish to create self-competing works which might dilute its marketing strategies. To convince a publisher to take on a non-fiction work, you generally have to convince a commissioning editor that the new or proposed work is/will be substantially better in some market niche than anything already on the market. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If you had got work published, then you would probably have a literary agent. They would probably handle your non-fiction also. 92.24.181.176 (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Capitulation during WW2

If Britain had not fought during WW2, and had let the Nazis have their way in Europe, would the total mortality have been less than what it was, including further Nazi genocide? On balance, all things considered, would millions of lives have been saved? I'm not suggesting capitulation would have been the right decision, I'm just curious how great the sacrifice was. 92.24.181.176 (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Without checking the figures, mortality on the Russian front was greatest. Capitulation on the western front and lack of British support for the Russians would arguably have had little impact on that. And we can presume the Nazis would have found more people to exterminate in their camps. ON balance, I'd plump for "more deaths" rather than less. The graph at World War II#Casualties and war crimes is probably useful. Russia and China lost an order of magnitude more people. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The Germans still might not have defeated Russia, but they would have had more troops to throw at them (assuming that they did not have to send as many to western Europe and Africa). So, at least, many more Germans and Russians would have been killed. Based on sheer numbers Russia probably still would have pushed them back, and I imagine they would have been a lot more unhappy about the lack of western support. Would Britain have fought in Asia in this scenario, when the Japanese attacked their colonies? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

See the first paragraph of Lebensraum for one take on this. 75.57.243.88 (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Had it ever came to you that "if Britain had not fought" than Stalin would have his way and that Europe would cease to be at all? East of Borschov (talk) 04:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

From New Order (Nazism): ...Third, the neutralization or the conquest of the United Kingdom. Initially, Hitler wanted to make a deal with Great Britain in which the British Empire would be given a free hand over the oceans of the world and Germany would be given a free hand in Europe. The only way UK could have avoided prompt attempt of bombardment, strangulation and invasion was to come to terms with Hitler ensuring at least neutrality with regard to Nazi policies in Europe. Then, I think, Nazi Germany would have had the strenght and concentration to effectively invade and subjugate all the Soviet Union (at least to the Yenisei River...) maybe even without needing a very strict japanese alliance. The alliance of Germany and UK would have also prevented/retarded USA entering WWII, facilitating Nazi victory. With a total Nazi victory, UK would be eventually and inevitably asked for severe racial policies (extermination of the Jews and other Untermenschen and Mischlingen). Together with forced aryanization of continental Europe, Africa and at least half Asia, enslavement and gradual genocide of Slavic and other unwanted populations and a probable air war of conquest against North America (envisioned by Hitler in the Zweites Buch), the death toll would have been incommensurable high. --151.51.51.194 (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Cracked says that Hitler would have been flattened by Stalin before that happened. Of course, it's not reliable and doesn't provide a source (other than one of our own articles). But it's compelling... 90.193.232.165 (talk) 09:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm always amazed by people saying that the Soviet Union couldn't be defeated by Nazi Germany in WWII because it's so extremely huge. I think you have to consider that, once you have razed to the ground the european part of Russia, invading/annexing/subjugate the remains is, in comparison, like eating a piece of cake, expecially if Japan helps you on the other side (and Italy, Hungary, Romania, Finland, Vichy France... on the west part). Also, the Soviet Union was extremely sparsely populated ([8]). Look at this page's tables: World War II casualties. Looking at the population data of 1939:

• Third Reich (Germany + Austria + Others) = 84,045,000, Japan = 71,380,000, Italy = 44,394,000, Romania = 19,934,000, Hungary = 9,129,000, Finland = 3,700,000, TOT = 232,582,000
• Soviet Union = 168,500,000.

It wouldn't be too much unbalanced even with Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia alone.--151.51.51.194 (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• See SS-GB for an "alternate history" account of Britain defeated by a German invasion, and the consequences. With Europe and Britain Nazified, the previous King would have been installed in the UK. The US would have possibly been involved in a fight against Japan for the Pacific. The USSR would have fallen, without convoys from the UK and the US, under attack from Germany and vassal countries, and perhaps Japan. Edison (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that Russia completely crushed the Japanese in all their encounters and was about to invade the main island at the end of the war. Dmcq (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have strong doubts about the capabilities of the Soviet amphibious fleets capabilities to invade Japan. Googlemeister (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

June 3

Jamaica (W.I)

What is the Jamaica(W.I) Appliances and Electronics retails market value?? I would like detail analysis if possible with different parishes in Jamaica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invinciblejz (talk • contribs) 00:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This is just a reference desk.--Wetman (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to answer. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 05:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If such information is available, the best place to find it would be the Statistical Institute of Jamaica. They do not publish the data that you want on their website; however, they do present data on the total value of retail and wholesale trade, which suggests that they may have more detailed figures on specific retail sectors, perhaps broken down by parish. This page has contact information for the Statistical Institute. Marco polo (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

French Revolution

Supposing a Parisian man were arrested during the Reign of Terror on suspicion of dissent or something like that. If his wife or family tried to visit him in jail, would they be let in? And were such prisoners kept alone in cells or in big chambers, as depicted in the painting "Calling the Last Victims of the Terror at the Prison Saint-Lazare"? 75.16.139.34 (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this the painting you are referring to?

Yes. 75.15.87.168 (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

58.147.58.152 (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, with a thought for Antoine Lavoisier & André Chénier , I'd say : yes, families were allowed to see their imprisoned relatives, provided of course that they had some money to "grease the paw" of the gaolers with, & were not afraid to be emprisoned too. & yes, for lack of storage prisoners were crammed up in big halls & cellars, which allowed them at least to converse civilly & play adapted parlour games, like "the guillotine" : a chair was used as a sham decapitating device. Humor of courage & fatalism...& thanks for the painting. T.y. Arapaima (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You mention Lavoisier and Chenier, would it have been the same for a poor or lower-middle-class person? 75.15.87.168 (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Derrick Bird

This cab driver allegedly went around shooting people at 30 locations in Cumbria, UK. Do the police on the beat or in police cars in that area carry firearms? How did he get to that many sites of mayhem without encountering armed law enforcement?Edison (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No, police in Great Britain do not routinely carry firearms, and most are not trained and authorised to do so. Authorised Firearms Officers are a specially trained minority, and are only issued firearms for a specific purpose when responding to an incident involving armed suspects/perpetrators, occasionally during security alerts at airports and the like, or when on guard at certain MOD and other such sensitive establishments. Gun possession and crime is sufficiently rare in the UK that (I believe the reasoning to be) routinely arming police officers would likely result in more injuries and fatalities due to accidental or unnecessary discharges than the policy would discourage or counter on the part of actual armed malefactors. Note however that the policy in Northern Ireland (the part of the UK that is not GB) is different. Note also that the linked article has a See Also section of links to related topics that may well be of further interest. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 05:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Cumbria generally is a pretty sparsely populated rural area - Whitehaven itself has a population of 25,000 but the other places are much smaller - and, although gun crime is a problem in some of the UK's main cities, a scenario like the one yesterday is almost unprecedented in such a quiet country area. Cumbria Constabulary is "the fifth largest force in England and Wales in terms of geographic area (2,268 square miles) but one of the smallest in terms of officer numbers." Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that the incidents at Dunblane and Hungerford would have changed law enforcement in Britain.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

They certainly led to major changes in the law. There are several reasons why we have not gone down the "all police armed" route - not least because the police themselves do not want it. Our tradition of "policing by consent" does not sit easily with a paramilitary force. A routinely armed police force would lead to more criminals arming themselves in their day-to-day criminality. I suspect we also don't have any desire to see levels of gun-related violence anything like America enjoys. Incidents like this one are very rare - and to rush to arm all police just to deal with cases like this would be an idiotic over-reaction which would be very likely to lead to all sorts of negative unintended consequences. As we have seen far too often, most notably in the Menezes case, even well-trained specialist officers are perfectly capable of shooting unarmed innocent people and then lying to all and sundry about what happened. That's something most British people don't want to see any more of. DuncanHill (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Information on the current law in the UK is here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The article on the Cumbrian killings fails to mention how Bird acquired a firearm.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

He had a license for it. Given that Cumbria is a rural area with a significant agricultural economy shotgun ownership is quite high. It's not out of the question that he was a sport shottist, hence the .22 rifle.

ALR (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The case Duncan refers to is the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes.- Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]}

A number of observations were made on Newsnight last night, one of the most pertinent being that these events are in the order of a decade apart. Kneejerk reactions do not lead to good policy, as has been demonstrated by the legislative responses to both of those events. The unintended consequences of both have been significant. Yet neither has reduced the number of illegal personal weapons available.

What both of those indicated to the rational analyst was that the legislation in place at the time should have been adequate, but that it hadn't been properly applied. Neither of the protagonists should have been in possession of a firearms license and failures in the issue and monitoring systems were a contributing factor.

ALR (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

To go back to the original point, most UK police services operate Armed Response Vehicles to respond to incidents involving firearms. In a big city like London, they can be there very quickly, but in rural Cumbria it would probably be a different story. See also Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom. Alansplodge (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

So a gunman in Cumbria who did not run short of ammo and off himself (save the last bullet for yourself), or a terrorist with a wheelman, could likely have gone to far, far more sites and shot countless more innocents, like a wolf in a sheepfold? Perhaps hundreds? A madman in Texas at the Luby's Cafeteria similarly shot dozens of helpless unarmed citizens until he ran out of ammo, leading Texas to pass a law allowing citizens to carry firearms. In England, do private citizens own hunting weapons (rifles or shotguns)? Could such citizens have improvised a defense against a traveling murderer such as this? If a policeman had encountered the shooter, would he have been limited to hitting him with a billy club or "appealing to his better nature?"Edison (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And of course, private citizens with legally held firearms never run amok killing innocents.... DuncanHill (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The death rate from guns per capita is over thirty times higher in the USA than in England. 92.15.7.168 (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes because Texas is obviously the model of societies where innocent civilians can feel safe. List of countries by firearm-related death rate.. I think the OP's question has been answered, this discussion does not need to spiral down into personal opinion of the benefits of gun ownership. Vespine (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

We have Gun politics in the United Kingdom. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Cumbria is a rural place with lots of winding roads, and this guy was a taxi driver in his taxi who knew the area well. By the time he was found he'd driven some forty miles and there were 8 helicopters from the police force, air force and navy, as well as the traffic plod looking for him. Armed response would have almost certainly been in the area in under an hour. They were also looking for him. It's difficult to see how armed civilians would have made any difference. It's difficult to shoot someone you can't find. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back in the real world... Threat assessment and resourcing in policing is based on what crimes actually happen, rather than some speculative nonsense about terrorists taking random potshots at people. FWIW we've lived with terrorism in the UK for many years, we have a much more present awareness of it than you have in the US. Personally I've lost a couple of friends in the province, and I know people who were affected by it on the mainland. Terrorists, per se, do not wander around randomly shooting at people, they generally develop a target and attack it. More recently we've still got some trouble in the province and a number of incidents on the mainland that have a different focus.

I think the fact that Bird had licensed weapons answers the question of whether private citizens have personal weapons. Whether they've actually got the competence to take down a subject in a vehicle without taking down other parties, collateral damage, is pretty questionable. I know from experience how difficult it is to maintain a good enough level of competence with a pistol or revolver. Expecting someone without military experience to have the confidence and presence of mind to get close enough and take him down is pretty optimistic.

For a pair of beat cops in an area car, they may try to contain the target, but they're more likely to just maintain a watch until armed response arrives.

Lets bear in mind that we've only had three of this type of incident in the last 23 years, and inn only one of those has the shooter been vehicle borne. There is far more gun crime using illegal weapons, and that tends to be armed robbery, drug or people trafficking related, so essentially contained.

There are arguments for an against increased or reduced control over personal weapons, personally I'm an advocate for simplifying and relaxing our regulations, as they do nothing to reduce the availability of illegal weapons. The idea that enough people with the time and interest to maintain an adequate level of firearms competence to have a practical effect is barking, IMHO.

ALR (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. My concern was an apparent lack of ability to respond in a timely way to a heavily armed spree killer in rural Britain. How many "Armed Response Units" are there in Cumbria, or where was the nearest one if there were none? Edison (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Cumbria Constabulary employs 86 authorised firearms officers out of a total of 1200 officers [9][10]. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

They also called in armed officers from 3 other counties who would have responded very quickly. --Tango (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As others have said, it's finding the spree killer than is hard. They had the armed officers available to deal with him had they found him. In the US, all police officers routinely carry firearms and a significant number of them end up getting shot with their own weapons (google finds dozens of news stories about such cases, although I can't find any statistics quickly). Since gun ownership in the US is so high, US police have little choice but to carry guns themselves, but it is very low in the UK so the risks from carrying guns routinely are generally considered to outweigh the benefits. --Tango (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the above, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary who guard the Sellafield facility (which the murderer came as close as a mile to) are routinely armed with automatic weapons (I think either H&K mp5 or mp7s, I can't find a reliable source and I'm slightly reluctant to Google too thoroughly...); I don't know what practical contingency arrangements exist that would allow them to go off-site. It's worth noting that Cumbria, and particularly West Cumbria, is probably the most rural, lest well-roaded part of England (making quick deployment of any force difficult), and I'm not aware of any evidence of this individual having been anywhere near any unarmed officers either. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 16:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't England have far more "authorised firearm officers" than they do "Armed Response Units" which actually carry onboard firearms? Do they have 86 guns back at the station for the 86 officers qualified to use them? Fortunately, per the article on firearms regs, even private citizens licensed to own rifles are restricted in how much ammo they can accumulate, making a Va Tech or Columbine massacre difficult. Did Bird have on board more ammo than the law would allow him to purchase? Having the armed guards at a nuke installation go gallivanting away from the place when there are reports of shooting somewhere sounds like a terrible idea, and just the thing radicals/terrorists would use to make it easier to gain access to the plant. Edison (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Each firearms officer has his own weapon, so essentially yes to the first. It has to be borne in mind that each officer is likely to be based at a different station, and the geographic size and difficulty in moving around Cumbria would restrict the ability to consolidate all of them together. Also the shift patterns would mean that only a small number may be available at any one time.

Any experienced shottist could easily make their own rounds, but the number of shots that Bird appears to have taken are well within the ammunition limits. I would note that Columbine had a similar fatality level, even with the second antagonist, the VA Tech incident involved the majority of fatalities being inside a secured building, although

The CNP have limited jurisdictional powers outside the power generation sites, so they wouldn't be expected to go elsewhere, particularly not with their weapons, which are optimised for close quarters operations.

ALR (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As observed above, all of this discussion is pretty moot as the challenge was tracking him down.

2 questions about J.D. Salinger

Hello, I missed Salinger in the last 4 decades, & am trying now to make up for it. Can somebody answer about those 2 items :

• 1/ In the end of the '50, aged IO or about, I read a short story (translated in french , in the then somewhat well-read upper-middle class weekly "Paris-Match" ) written, I think, by Salinger . It depicted a young boy's angst in front of his baby brother, & a sentence ran (very approximately) like this : "I then suddenly saw that his milk & him were the same thing, that he was the milk , & the milk was him, & ..., & that we all belonged to the same being ...".

I have a confusing association of that short story plot ending with the fall of a younger brother in an empty swimming-pool, but I don't unravel it clearly from some individual longings I now know I myself half-consciously had at the time. So my question is : is that short story by Salinger ? & if yes what is its name ? & if no, does somebody know its whereabouts ?

• 2/ I am reading now "A Catcher in the Rye" (&, hush, I find it has not aged along so well...). My question is : who is that Ring Lardner, which is young Holden's next favorite author after his brother D.B. & who wrote a short story (which one ? ) about a cop in love with a very cute girl that's always speeding, & which gets killed because she is always speeding...

Is it Lardner the father or the son ? And do we have to understand that this proclaimed addiction of a 1950 teen-ager (who otherwise says "I am quite illiterate, but I read a lot ") for a 1920 short stories author is a purely derisive Salinger's private joke ?

Thanks a lot for your answers . T.y. Arapaima (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

2. It was Ring Lardner (the father) who wrote the short stories. Our article notes that J.D. Salinger admired Lardner. The story in question is "There are Smiles", published in Round Up Gwinva (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

1. Maurice Sendak's illustrated In the Night Kitchen includes the lines:

I'm in the milk / And the milk's in me. / God bless milk / And God bless me!

I don't know whether this was original with MS or quoted from an earlier source, as the OP's mention (above) would indicate. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

 ::Thanks a lot folks ! Arapaima (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

How old may be that Penguin book ?

Hello, & out of sheer curiosity : does somebody know when could have been issued a Penguin book (JD Salinger's "The Catcher in the Rye") I found in a swap-shop, absolutely brand new, ISBN O-14-023749-6, retail price on the sticker : £5.99 (now 0,20 euro !). On french books, printing year is usually found clearly on the last page, but on the lenghty Penguin 3rd page, I don't really find a printing date. If I compare this book withe some of the seldom-handled Penguins on my shelves, I'say : 25 to 35 years old ? Thanks a lot for your answers. T.y. Arapaima (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

All we can say for sure is that it was after Decimal Day - 15 February 1971. Are you sure there's no date in the first few pages? --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I checked on AbeBooks and the only listing with that ISBN number and a date had it at 1994. This page also lists 1994 as the printing year and I see the same cited elsewhere in the web. While I haven't found a truely authoritative source to back this up I'm guessing this is the year. ThemFromSpace 09:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Amazon also lists this as 1994. ThemFromSpace 09:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)5.99 makes it sound like it is quite new, possible the 1990s. On the Penguin editions from the early 1970s that I own, the price is usually around 40-85p!. Anyway, unless someone has removed the title page, there should be a date in the colophon stating the year of printing. I have yet to see a Penguin edition without it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In almost every book I own the printing year is on the first page (or second, depending how you count them - these pages have no numbers). I'm not sure what to call this part of the book - it isn't really a colophon, it comes before the front matter and it's too plain to be a frontispiece. Anyway, have a look for the dates there - usually "first published" and then "this edition". Edit: alright then, it is a colophon. I should read articles to the end. 81.131.66.164 (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It is the colophon. In most modern books it is placed on the back of the titlepage. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot folks ! Arapaima (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

how do I not talk so much?

I talk way the fuck too much, how do I condition myself not to talk so much? 82.113.119.244 (talk) 10:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Whenever you catch yourself saying "fuck", get out a stopwatch and say nothing at all for 5 minutes. ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe focus on listening. Ask questions based on what the other person is interested in and let them talk. If you are listening well, you will be able to ask follow-up questions that will prompt them to talk some more. Then when you do talk, keep it brief and responsive to what the other person has said. Marco polo (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

another trick is to actively listen to yourself talk. most people who talk too much do it because they are unaware that they are talking too much. if you pay attention to what you say, you will quickly start to bore yourself, and that will lead you to become more selective in what you choose to say. --Ludwigs2 14:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ludwigs2. 82.113.106.111 (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not usually the quantity of talk that's the problem, it's the content. Specifically, people talking, yet saying nothing, is annoying. Some people feel the need to talk whenever there's a silence, and this is bad if they have nothing to say. One cure is to have some things ready to say for just such a silence, like jokes, interesting stories, current events, or odd facts. You might want to rehearse prior to any get-together where the need might arise. On the other hand, if there's no silence that "needs to be filled with talk", then don't interrupt to speak.

Another important thing to keep in mind is "know your audience". Don't talk to grandpa about the latest music video, maybe talk to him about his opinion on General Douglas MacArthur, instead. StuRat (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Talking a lot may be an asset - many people find it difficult to find something to say. You should consider for which job or roles it would be beneficial. 92.15.7.168 (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're serious, you might consider this or this or this. It might not be as painful as it sounds. Zoonoses (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"Accessory before or after the fact"

An "accessory" is a person who aids in the commission of an offence of another person. But, who is an accessory "before the fact" or "after the fact"? Thank you so much.

124.121.186.8 (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone who helps the perpetrator plan the offence, or at least is aware of it and does nothing to stop it happening, could be an accessory before the fact. Someone who becomes aware, only after the event, who the perpetrator was, but still helps them evade the clutches of the law or at least does nothing to alert the authorities, could be an accessory after the fact. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Samuel Mudd is an historical example of someone who was imprisoned for being an accessory after the fact.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The important distinction is that helping someone "before the fact" is actually helping to commit the crime itself, while helping afterwords is only assisting the perp in getting away with it, not in committing the crime (although getting away with it may be helping them to commit future crimes). So, "before the fact" is often punished more severely.

There might also be different defenses used in each case. For "before the fact", you might argue that they "thought it was a joke", say when a friend asked for a lift to his g/f's house so he could kill her. For "after the fact", say after hearing gunshots and having the friend jump back in the car with a blood-spattered shirt, a better argument might be that you were afraid for your own life. StuRat (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What Was the First Gun Invented For?

I was wondering, who invented the first gun, and what did they invent it for? Was it for use in hunting? Or was is made as a weapon or for self-defense? When was the first gun invented, and where? Thanks for the help! Stripey the crab (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I did a Google and found a site called Important Dates in Gun History. It says the first known hand gun was in England in 1375, but does not say whether it was used for warfare, self-defence or hunting.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

An interesting fact is the first known person to be assassinated by a firearm was James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray in 1570. He was the regent of King James VI of Scotland.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Moray was Regent for James VI of Scotland only, Jeanne. James VI did not become James I of England till 33 years after Moray's death. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I knew that Jack. The Morays are not exactly strangers to me. I was only trying to identify King James to those who perhaps were not aware that James VI of Scotland was also James I of England. I have just linked his name which is what I should have done before. I'm afraid history was never my strong point and I've never had much interest in it. takes out tongue in cheek--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Removing James I's name makes what follows read rather oddly now. Your original version was not that bad; had you mentioned James VI before James I, rather than the other way round, I probably wouldn't have commented at all. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume that by gun you mean a personal weapon, rather than a gun?

those articles should answer the question.

ALR (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Gunpowder was invented in the 800s in China. Our article History of firearms states that fire-lances, which were predecessors of true guns, were used for warfare in China as early as the 900s. The evidence indicates that the Chinese had invented primitive guns, likewise for use in warfare, by the 1100s. The technology later spread west via the Arabs to Europe. Marco polo (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Early guns were fairly useless for personal defense or personal use. They could not easily be carried around charged (the powder carried a risk of accidental discharge after being loaded, and was not sealed so quickly became damp and useless in the barrel), took a long time to load (muzzle-loaders), and were relatively inaccurate. They were mostly useful in massed barrage attacks in military contexts, though no doubt they seeped their way into the hunting world once they advanced enough to become more practical than bows and arrows. Cannon came first, and were invented for 'large target' operations - siege devices and inter-ship combat; long-barrelled guns (muskets and eventually rifles) came next, and were combat troop weapons (originally used en-masse from regimented lines (the massed guns offset the weapon's inaccuracy, and multiple lines offset the reload time - one line would fire, then deal with reloading while the second line took aim and fired). Handguns, I believe, were originally officer's weapons, used to keep troops in line - handguns are fairly useless for anything except close-combat situations with other humans. --Ludwigs2 14:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that the first handguns (hand cannons, really) weren't suitable for close-range use, since you needed to manually load the powder and ball, then hold something flaming to the opening in the back. Getting the enemy to stay still while you did this wouldn't be easy. The accuracy was also so low that they weren't very useful as long-range weapons, either. Until they improved the accuracy and firing mechanism, about the only places they would be useful is for executions or as a rich man's toy. StuRat (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

See this article: James II of Scotland.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

We have a History of firearms article, but it is not very detailed on the "why" part of the subject. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As I say above, I think that the article clearly indicates that they were used for warfare. Marco polo (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The first handguns used in Europe were used in battles. The handgun was a short barrel with a touch hole on top of the barrel at its base attached to a short wooden pole which was used as a handle. The short barrel of at least an inch calibre was almost filled with blackpowder and used to fire a stone ball by touching a slow match to the touch hole while the handgun was held under the arm and pointed towards the target. The handgun was inaccurate and could not be aimed. The barrel was designed to hold the blackpowder not to guide the stone ball accurately. The smell of burnt blackpowder and report of their firing scared horses and other troops. The handgun was first used in Europe before 1380 (a Mongol handgun from before 1368 looks very similar). One handgun stone ball could kill a knight wearing coat-of-plates however plate armour started to be introduced from 1400 onwards to defend against longbow arrows and crossbow bolts. Handguns were very cheap to make but the blackpowder was prohibitively expensive. This was the type of handgun used by the Bohemians from their warwagons during the Hussite Wars 1419-1434.

Weren't they called "hand gonnes" when they were first used?--92.251.146.25 (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The arquebus was introduced in 1410, a smoothbore muzzle-loaded long barrel of around 0.6 inch calibre attached to a wooden stock. The touch hole was moved from the top to the side of the barrel and a flash pan was added to hold blackpowder primer. A manual matchlock (later replaced with a triggered matchlock with a spring added to move the lock back when the trigger was released) meant that both hands remained on the stock and the arquebus was fired from the shoulder. At first, the barrel was supported on a rest and a lighter arquebus called a caliver was introduced in early 1500s that could be fired without a rest. Arquebuses were inaccurate and had an effective range of 100 yards. A lead ball was used as ammunition. One arquebus lead ball could not kill a knight through plate armor breastplate (except at point blank range).

Rifles were first used for hunting. The military preferred smoothbores because blackpowder quickly fouled rifle barrels and muzzle-loaded rifles take longer to load than smoothbores.
Sleigh (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

How many Bs make five?

I heard a British speaker say, with regard to his time in public school, "I learned how many Bs make five." What does this mean? A search on this, and variations such as "how many bees make five," returned answers such as "A bee, a bee and a half, two bees, and half a bee" but no explanation of the phrase. Is this a grammar or diction exercise, and was it a basis for the Eric the Half-a-Bee song? 58.147.58.152 (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, it looks like the British speaker failed to learn the saying correctly. Google has much more on how many beans make five. It seems to indicate that the person is good at maths / puzzles. The puzzle itself is, allegedly, a couple of hundred years old [11]. The Urban Dictionary alleges it's a shibboleth to determine what social class a person is from [12]. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've always understood it as a reference to understanding that interactions and transactions between people and within organisations in the real world often require a degree of unofficial give-and-take or mild bribery: e.g. "How many . . . ?" "Four for the company and one for my trouble." or ""How many would you like to make it?" 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

'Tis far more likely that this non-British listener failed to hear the saying correctly. Thanks. 58.147.58.152 (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Fiddle de dum, Fiddle de dean; Eric the half a bean.

On a related matter, how strong is a piece of ling? DuncanHill (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Might he be varying the saying for ironic effect, to imply that he never got A marks? 81.131.66.164 (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Someone who knows how many beans make five will probably also know their onions, how the cookie crumbles and which side their bread is buttered. They won't have come down with the last shower or have been born yesterday, and, if a grandmother, won't need instruction on sucking eggs. DuncanHill (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And will know where massively useful things are as well. --- OtherDave (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

where did Fox argue the right to lie?

where did Fox News go to court to defend it's right to literally lie in it's news casts - specifically what is the brief / written document or oral argument in which this explicit right is argued. Best would be to link to the actual source material. Specifically, which sentence argues literally the right to (in Fox's words) lie/prevaricate/etc in news casts? Thank you. 82.113.106.111 (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to a PDF of the legal appeal from the Fox affiliate. You might also want to take a look at our article on Jane Akre. Marco polo (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In case you do not want to read the whole article, here is a very brief synopsis: Two reporters for a local station owned by Fox wanted to do a huge whistle-blower story to get Monsanto into tons of trouble. The local station asked for documentation to back the story. The reporters and the station fought for a long time. The reporters were fired. The reporters sued the station for being fired and claimed that by now not airing their story the station was airing a lie (by omission of truth). The reporters used an FCC policy as the basis of claiming that the station was committing a lie. The station (actually the owners, Fox) stated that FCC policy is not Federal law. Therefore, it is not a Federal crime to break an FCC policy. Therefore, there was no point in wasting tons of money and court time arguing about omission of the story. The reporters claimed it a victory that Fox argued that it is legal to lie in the news. -- kainaw™ 18:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, OP here - thank you for the synopsis but I had some trouble following it, maybe because when you wrote "by now airing their story" did you mean to write "by not airing their story"?? If so, is the only "lie" refusing to air a report some of your reporters made? Also, your synopsis seemed to say that reporters fought with their own company to the point of getting fired. Why would any employee do that? I don't understand this part, I don't see Microsoft programmers fighting Microsoft to the point of getting fired, etc. Is it one of those "journalism" things? Thanks. 84.153.183.38 (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The employees alleged that each of the 80+ times that the Fox station "asked for documentation", as Kainaw put it, the station was editing their report to make Monsanto look good, avoiding the truth of their findings. It's an "integrity" thing, the reporters allege, not just a "journalism" thing — to make up a cartoonish example, suppose you worked at the Washington Post and did a lot of work for a year on a story that showed that President Richard M. Nixon had illegally obstructed justice, but your editor rewrote your story so it said that Nixon was a really legal guy who was enthusiastic about tiny radios and locksmithing. The reporters would try to raise hell internally to try to get the real story published, to the point of getting fired, yes. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose to be fair we could also paint it the other way, and compare the reporters to UFO cranks trying to get the paper to publish a story about aliens they have convinced themselves are concealed in Area 51. Which would still be a matter of integrity, if they are sincere. 81.131.66.164 (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to be neutral and not claim that their story was real truth or Michael Moore-style truth. I've never seen the story that they wanted to run and I don't know if it was ever published. However, the claim that Fox News argued that they have the right to tell complete lies on air is not entirely true. They claimed that an FCC policy is not a law and cannot be applied as a law. -- kainaw™ 21:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this is not Fox News, the network, but a news program on a local Fox-affiliated television station. So hopefully the OP isn't trying to link this to the blustery infotainment of Fox News. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that the OP is trying to link this to Fox News. It is much more likely that the OP read in a blog somewhere that Fox News is so evil that they went to court to get the right to lie about the news. Luckily, the OP came here validate that claim. -- kainaw™ 22:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

is there any way to "own more than 100%" of a company?

Would there be any way to "own more than 100%" of a company, for example such that if all of the outstanding shares are valued at $1 million dollars, then you have $1.1 million dollars, because you "own" 110% of the company (it is okay if it is not really "owning" but rather some kind of complex derivative), and if the outstanding shares double in value, putting the market cap of the company at $2 million, then you can monetize $2.2 million instead, with the same 110% ownership... ? I realize it is a long shot, but I know options can be quite leveraged, so I thought maybe there is some kind of financial leverage with this effect... naturally I am only talking metaphorically when I say "own". THank you. 82.113.106.111 (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. See short selling. It involves selling borrowed shares, but the person you borrow them from still effectively owns them (and profits if the share price goes up). So, if you own 100% of the shares and then I borrow 10% of those shares from you and sell them to you, you will effectively own 110% of the shares. Your extra profit comes from my loss (since I effectively own -10% of the shares, so lose money if the share price goes up). --Tango (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

For securities lending, I thought that you needed to borrow the shares from a third party though. Googlemeister (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so the OP owns 100% of the company, you borrow 10% of them from him, sell them them to me and I then sell than back to the OP. It makes no difference. --Tango (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It still strikes me as preposterous that you can own 110% of a company, any more then you can own 110% of an apple pie. Hypothetically, if you own an apple pie (100%) and you agree to let your brother short sell 10% of the pie so that you can buy it, you still do not have more then 100% of the pie. That would be like him borrowing $20 from you so that he can pay you the $20 he owes. It might make sense if he borrows the $20 from a third party, but from you? Googlemeister (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess it depends on your definition of "owner". The person that the shares have been borrowed from still gains or loses money (either from share price changes or dividends) as if they owned the shares (since the borrower has to pay any dividends and they can make the borrower give back the shares if they want to sell them), so they do effectively still own that portion of the company. Here's a reference if you want one: [13]. The only difference is that the person the shares are borrowed from no longer has the voting rights of the shares. [14] --Tango (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Tango's scenario only applies if you fail to cover and if the shorts sold exceed the company's value. In reality, this almost never exceeds even the company's float. There are somethings where you can "own" more than 100%, like when a bank lends money and expands the money supply, but that's not exactly the same thing. Insofar as you can "own" more than 100% of a company's stock, it's more akin to currency supply than it is to actual ownership. Shadowjams (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

One other thing. I think in some circumstances the short owner can actually vote, although those regulations are beyond complicated and I could be wrong. The other is that the first link Tango provides only says that your downside risk is beyond 100%. That's not the same as owning 100%. There are lots of ventures where your downside risk can be beyond 100%.... like running a business as a partnership. Shadowjams (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing your percentages - whenever you quote a percentage you need to specify what it is a percentage of (unless it is obvious from context). The article I linked to says the downside risk is greater than 100% of the amount of money you started with - not 100% of the market capitalisation of the company. It doesn't mention the scenario I describe because it is an artificial scenario and is very unlikely to actually happen. --Tango (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(TWO e.c.'s.) Sorry, but Tango's description of short selling is wrong. "...the OP owns 100% of the company, you borrow 10% of them from him, sell them them to me and I then sell th[em] back to the OP." When someone borrows something, what has been borrowed is (usually) returned. When shares are borrowed, the shares themselves are returned (not their monetary value or any other substitute). Repeat: the SHARES are borrowed; the SHARES are returned. Tango's description nowhere mentions the return of the shares by the borrower to the owner who lent the shares (or alternatively to the brokerage holding them in street name); he refers to a "sale", which is not logical (I borrowed my neighbor's hammer, then sold it "back" to him?). As for owning more than 100%, the fact is that you can own 100% of a company's STOCK and still NOT own the company ... specifically, if the company is unable to fulfill its obligations to lenders; in that case, the value of the stock falls to nothing, the company still exists, the lenders own the company (to be broken up and sold or continued after restructuring), and you own nothing. 63.17.72.199 (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Three little things. Shares and stocks are the same thing. If I remember right, Delaware uses the term "shares" but other states use "stock". I know of no difference between the two. Second, the confusion comes from the notion that the person who loaned the hammer/shares is an owner while the person who borrowed the hammer/shares is also an owner. Only one gets "ownership", for whatever that means. Dividends, voting rights, etc., they don't get duplicated.

Finally, if you own 100% of the shares you own 100% of the company's equity; creditors are not "owners" in any traditional meaning of that term. Yes creditors can force dissolution (in the real world almost always receivership or bankruptcy first), but they're not owners. For discussion of that you might want to google for look at deepening insolvency and/or zone of insolvency. There can be different classes of stock, and so you could own a majority of shares and not have voting rights, or better dividends, but at the point you own 100%, you own it all. Shadowjams (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Leo Bloom: Max, you can only sell 100% of anything.

Max Bialystock: And how much of Springtime for Hitler have we sold?

Leo Bloom: 25,000%.

--- OtherDave (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You only return the shares when you close the position. I'm describing the situation between the short position being taken and it being closed. When you take a short position you borrow shares and then sell them. That's the way it works. There is nothing stopping the person you borrowed them from (who wouldn't even know you had borrowed them - their broker worries about that) buying them. --Tango (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Stock lending is a misnomer - in fact, title to the borrowed shares is transferred to the borrower, just as if the borrower had bought the shares. The borrower then (usually) transfers title on to a third party in settlement of a sale already made to that party - that is the "short sale" part. At some future date (either fixed in advance or at the option of the lender) the borrower has to return the same quantity of the same shares to the lender. But title to the shares always passes with the shares - during the duration of the "loan", the third party will appear on the company's register as the beneficial owner of those shares, not the lender. So if the lender originally owned 100% of the company's shares, and then lent out 10%, then during the duration of the loan they only own 90%. If they bought back those 10%, then they own 100% again - but now the borrower has no shares with which to close out the loan. So the short answer is - no, you cannot own more than 100% of a company. You can, of course, use derivatives to create a financial exposure that is more than 100% of the value of the company - but that is not ownership. Gandalf61 (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The OP is clearly talking about ownership in a purely financial sense - owning shares such that you could sell them for more than the market cap (assuming the share price stays the same during the sale, which it obviously wouldn't). Under the scenario I describe, the person in question could sell 110% of the shares in the company (he sells 10%, demands that 10% back under the loan agreement, and then sells 100% - he wouldn't know that was going on, though, since the broker would handle it all, all he'd know is that he had told is broker to sell all the shares he owns in the company which, as far as he is aware, is 110% of them). Similarly, if the company paid out a total dividend of a billion dollars then he would receive 1.1 billion dollars. Apart from votes, he owns 110% of the company for all intents and purposes. --Tango (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no, he doesn't own 110% in any sense whatsoever. Onership means legal title. He can't vote 110% of the shares of the company. He doesn't appear on the company's register as owning 110% of the company. The company doesn't pay dividends on 110% of its shares - it pays dividends on 100% of its shares, and any additional dividends are paid by the borrower and called "manufacturd dividends" (stock lending would be made illegal if it implied unscrupulous investors could make a company pay dividends on more shares than it had issued !). He can't sell 110% of the company's shares in one block - how could that trade be settled ? He can only sell more than 100% of the shares if he sells in two or more trades, in effect selling shares to himself and then selling them on again. This BBA guide to stock lending may make things clearer. Gandalf61 (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The dollars he gets from the loan agreement that replaced 10% of his shares when the company pays a dividend are exactly the same colour as the dollars he would have got from the shares themselves had he kept them. What difference does it make if they are "manufactured"? A dollar is a dollar. The only way in which he doesn't have 110% is when voting. The value of his brokerage account is 110% of the market cap of the company. He gets 110% of any dividends. The OP made very clear what sense of ownership he was talking about: money. Not votes. --Tango (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ownership means legal title, not economic exposure. I could bet on the company's shares so that I gain or lose $110 for every $100 change in the company's market cap (much simpler and cheaper than your implausible scheme of lending shares and buying them back again), but I wouldn't own any part of the company. I could bet on the company's dividend so that I receive $1.10 for every $1 of dividend, but I still wouldn't own any part of the company. There is no generally accepted sense of ownership in which it is possible to own more than 100% of a company. You are making up your own language here. Gandalf61 (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the OP is making up the language, as they are perfectly entitled to do in their own question. The OP had a good sense to put the word "own" in quotes to stop ridiculous pedants. I wish I had done the same. I have answered the OP's question. I really don't care what the generally accepted senses of ownership are; I care about what the OP wants to know. I have used the word "own" in the way the OP very clearly defined it. --Tango (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Then we should inform and educate the OP by correcting their misunderstanding, as several other editors have tried to do above - not reinforce their error by making up answers to fit. "We expect responses that not only answer the question, but are also factually correct" - Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines. Gandalf61 (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The OP has no misunderstanding. They know they are using the word in a non-standard way, hence the quotes. I was careful to say "effectively own" not "own" and I am sure the OP understood the distinction, given the similar care with which the question was asked. --Tango (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Tango is wrong about this. If A owns 100% of the stock, lends 10% to B, and then B sells the borrowed stock back to A, A now has 100% of the stock plus an IOU for 10% of the stock. The only way for B to redeem the IOU is to buy 10% of the stock from A, and then return the loan. At that point, A has 100% of the stock again. If B does not buy stock from A, and so does not redeem the loan, A has 100% of the stock plus a worthless IOU. In neither case does A have "110%" of the stock, nor can he sell his position for "110%" of the market capitalization (which is specifically what the OP asked about). As for Shadowjams comments: 1) I was using STOCK and SHARES to mean the same thing, so what is your point?, and 2) my response specifically decscribed a conditional situation (corporation unable to satisfy debtors; equity owners now "own" nothing at all, or i.e. "own" something with zero value), and given that condition, it was accurate. Your entire post seems completely irrelevant. 63.17.83.221 (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not wrong. I have never said A would own 110% of the stock, I have said A would effectively own 110% of the stock (for all intents and purposes except voting). Holding an IOU for shares with very low credit risk (which such IOUs have) is effectively the same as holding the shares themselves (except with regards to voting). It's the same idea as money creation - when a bank lends money to someone, it increases the money supply, nobody quibbles about the difference between a £10 note and a bank balance of £10 - they can both be used to buy £10 worth of goods and services, so they are effectively the same thing. In your first scenario, A doesn't just have 100% of the stock; A has 100% of the stock plus money equal to 10% of the market cap, since he's just sold 10% of the stock. He can then sell the other 100%, and will (assuming the share price stays constant, which we all know it wouldn't really) then have money equal to 110% of the market cap (exactly what the OP wanted). Your second scenario can't happen - B has a contractual obligation to return the shares when demanded, so if A makes that demand and then puts some shares up for sale, B has to buy them (or be in breach of contract, but B's broker wouldn't allow B to do that). --Tango (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Leaving the diversion into the mechanics of stock lending, and returning to the OP's original question, the correct answer is as follows. Yes, it is possible to gain leveraged exposure to a company's share price that is more than 100% of a company's market capitalisation. You don't need complex derivatives to achieve this - an enormous bet on the company's share price will suffice, if you can find someone else to take the other side of that bet. No, this in no sense means that you "own" more than 100% of the company. Economic exposure and ownership are completely separate and distinct concepts - you can have either one without the other (an uncovered bet has exposure without ownership; a fully hedged seller of single stock futures has ownership without exposure) - so you should try not to mix them up. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Tango, seriously, it's time to admit that you were wrong and move on. LOOK at what you have descended into!: "Your second scenario can't happen - B has a contractual obligation to return the shares when demanded, so if A makes that demand and then puts some shares up for sale, B has to buy them (or be in breach of contract, but B's broker wouldn't allow B to do that)." WOW! Why not just describe whatever dream you had last night and use it as a definition of "reality." DUDE -- deal with it: YOU WERE WRONG. It HAPPENS. 63.17.74.45 (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not wrong. Everything I have said has been factually accurate. Yes, it's using a slightly non-standard definition of ownership, because that's what the OP wanted. That doesn't make it wrong. This is a reference desk, we are here to help people find information they want. We are not here to provide them with the information that you think they should want. --Tango (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Walter v. Lane [1900]

I'm looking for the actual detail of the case - original records of some sort as a reference for a project on which I am working. I can't find any transcripts or rulings online. Are there any online? If not, are there any direct references to printed copies I could simply copy (it's not that important, I don't need to have seen it myself). It's a landmark case in IP law in the UK, but I've had no luck. Thanks. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the ref at Walter v Lane any good to you? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I had an edit conflict to show I'd read that article. It's a start, but more would be better. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Some context might help. In my (limited) experience, references to case law is normally given in a fashion such as Walter v Lane 1900, A.C. 539 H.L., and lawyers &c will be able to use the AC539 index number to find the case in the Official Law Reports, published by the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting (or in republications thereof). The AC539 reference is based on the Oxford Standard for Citation Of Legal Authorities; It is not normal to give an academic reference pointing to this page in that book if one wants to cite the case or its results. Do you need a better reference than the ones the professionals use? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(Reply, but untended) OK, I see. What I've got is two issues. Firstly, the reference, for which your suggestion would be perfect, and some notion of the text of the ruling itself, to tie to it/quote from it. Since we've got the reference part, the question now becomes: is the text of the ruling online somewhere? Failing that, it is in a more mainstream book that I could request my county library? I could possibly lay my hands on the All-England or official Law Reports, but I'm trying to avoid that. Thanks again. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have access to LexusNexus Butterworths? Does your library? That'd surely be the easiest way to get it. All-England or official Law Reports paper volumes second choice. Finding it anything other than summarised in a few short sentences of the sort we have in our article in another publication is, I fear, most unlikely. Is the context of your use such that providing that sort of summary and referencing it with the AC539 reference will not work? A Walter v. Lane 1900 google search will give you a range of short descriptions of the case from which you can synthesise your own. Apologies if I'm going off beam. And it sucks that the case report is not online, since it's surely in the public domain by now. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

All good suggestions. Some LexisNexis stuff is available online using the computers in the library now I check (vaguely called "statutes, legal cases, law reports and more") which I think is a fair bet. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup, if you can navigate through its interface, you'll likely get there. I had a look through Free Case Law Resources on the web and went into British and Irish Legal Information Institute but couldn't find it. Good luck. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don't have any luck with the above methods you can try the resource request. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 19:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

handguns in the b.w.c.a.

• This question has been removed as it may be a request for legal advice. Wikipedia does not give legal advice or opinions because there is no guarantee that our advice would be accurate or relate to your situation and location. We simply cannot be an alternative to visiting your legal professional, so we implore you to try them instead. If this is not a request for legal advice, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or at the talk page discussion (if a link was provided).

It wasn't a request for legal advice, it was a request for information, which we are allowed to give. DuncanHill (talk) 07:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

See the talk page for a discussion about this post. Also, you can see the previous question and responses by looking in the history, or at this old revision. Buddy431 (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't participate on the RefDesk talkpage. I was one of the previous responders, and I object to the removal of my good-faith post without either warning or notification by the remover, to whom I have commenter directly on his talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 10:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

authoritarian and libertarian nations

which nations are authoritarian and which are libertarian? -- 19:50, 3 June 2010 74.14.118.149

Are you referring to widespread national attitudes or government structures? Any dictatorship is "authoritarian" in the second respect. New Hampshire is often considered to be rather libertarian within the United States... AnonMoos (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

China, North Korea and Iran would be considered authoritarian by many people. Perhaps Holland, Sweden, New Zealand might be considered somewhat more libertarian than others; if you want a few quick examples. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Really (re Sweden)? Some people remember news articles of past years about how Swedish parents are very restricted in the names they can give to their children, and sometimes are only allowed to paint their houses in one of a few pre-approved colors. The popular perception of Sweden in the U.S. is much more as being a socialist country than libertarian... AnonMoos (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree there. Considering the examples, I'd say there is a bit of a mix-up between libertarian and liberal in the sense of far away from moral values based conservatism. That's possibly what those countries do have in common, but it is does not fit the common interpretation of libertarian./Coffeeshivers (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"Moral values based conservatism"? Bit of an oxymoron surely? DuncanHill (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There are a variety of Indices of economic freedom, usually published by libertarian leaning organisations, but they only rate one aspect of libertarianism obviously. Edit: See a similar thing was mentioned below. In terms of the above points, you clear need someway to weight each measure and ultimately it's going to be fairly arbitary. The US obviously generally has severe restrictions on recreational drugs, no recognition of same sex marriages nor any universal recognition of same sex relationships (but with recognition of opposite sex relationships), prostitution is largely illegal etc. Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It's all relative. What do you want to use as a central point? --Tango (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Political compass (the chart at right)...basically, there is no real "center", just the four quadrants. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This is how I remember all this being described in my history classes. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a central region in those definitions, but there is still a point at the centre and it is pretty arbitrary where you put it. --Tango (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I recommend checking out the article "List of indices of freedom". Gabbe (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It's of note that if you interpret "libertarian" to be "minimal government restriction", one could make an argument that the line between libertarianism and general anarchy is pretty slim. (I'm not sure a thoughtful libertarian would dispute that point, but I could be wrong.) Under such a definition, Somalia from 1991 to 2006 was fairly "libertarian" in the sense that liberty was not denied by a state body. (Of course, liberty was not affirmed by it either, but therein lies the rub.) Some Libertarian economists have even argued that Somalia was better off under anarchy that it was under government, but I tend to be a bit skeptical that anyone would choose to live there if they had much of a chance to live elsewhere under such conditions. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Mongol tax

before Genghis Kahn, was there any? (I assume he needed tax to pay for his postal system and possibly the army, if they weren't forced into it; also I read that one of his laws exempted priests from tax.) 81.131.66.164 (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I know Tibet had lots of taxes, and most monks were exempt. I also heard somewhere that Tibet and Mongolia used a similar social and political system at one time or another, but I don't know if Mongolia before Genghis Khan was much Buddhist. Rimush (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Where you think about taxes between mongols.? I know that in China mongol rule adopted previous taxation systems that were already in place. (can be confirmed in most chinese history books about that period). ie Tax in pre-mongol china existed.87.102.32.39 (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

One vote makes a difference?!

Last Sunday, Austrian Burgenland elected a new Landtag. This is not very interesting for the rest of the world, however one single vote made a subtantial difference there: Of 188,960 votes, all parties needed to win at least 4% or 7558.4 votes, and one managed exactly 7559, causing the strongest party to lose the absolute majority. Have there been other cases like this in history? --KnightMove (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Just speculating, but in small rural towns I wouldn't be surprised if elections (relatively) frequently come down to 3 votes or less (imagine, for example, elections in Frederick, Kansas or Gross, Nebraska), but on a larger scale, I would assume this is much rarer. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I recall a short newspaper blurb about a sheriff's election in California from 15 years ago in which he won by one vote. "Fortunately, I voted for myself," he was quoted as having said. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems that every November, there is a story in the U.S. about some local election somewhere that resulted in a tie and had to be settled by a coin flip or some other game of chance. Since the U.S. has elections for districts as small as a precinct, let alone towns with fewer than 100 people, tie or one-vote-margin elections likely happen all the time. When I was growing up, the local school levy (in a community of nearly 100,000 people) passed by a margin of one vote. One problem is that, as we learned from the Bush-Gore election, elections in the U.S. often have a "margin of error" that might be greater than the actual margin. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the US is unique in that regard. In the UK, all votes are counted by hand, which pretty much eliminates the kind of systemic problems you see with electronic voting in the US, but it means there is a very real chance of the human being(s) checking a ballot paper simply misreading it. It is standard practice to have a recount if the final count is very close, but even with that there is a significant amount of luck in how extremely marginal seats go. --Tango (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This happens fairly regularly in the UK's local elections, for example this year. Once you had recounts, the margin of error is close to, if not exactly, 0 (although some papers may have been spoiled). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 07:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, when I was active in UK local politics back in the 90s, I was at one election count where two candidates were exactly tied, after a recount, so they drew lots to determine the winner. Then they examined the spoilt ballot papers and argued over one where the voter had drawn a big "X" over the whole paper, and argued over which side of the dividing line between the two candidates the centre of the X was - that argument went to the High Court for a decision, which was that the paper really was spoilt and couldn't be counted for either side. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

See List of narrow elections. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --KnightMove (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Harold St. Maur was elected MP for Exeter in December of 1910 by 4 votes, with his party going on to become the largest party, by 1 seat, which they needed to significantly rewrite the country's government, but months later the votes there were recounted, and his opponant won by a single vote on a technicality. However, by then the election victory had gained the Liberal reforms the support of king George V, and the intended changes went ahead anyway. 80.47.210.130 (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The above is not quite accurate. In fact the Liberals and the Unionists had the same number of seats in the December 1910 election, but in practice the Liberal government had a substantial majority because it was supported on all important votes by both the Labour Party and the Irish Nationalists. It would not have mattered if Exeter had gone the other way. In British elections, a single seat either way is not likely to have a big effect on who forms the Government, although potentially the fact that the Labour government lost a motion of no confidence on 28 March 1979 was caused by the Labour Party's loss of Plymouth Drake by 34 votes in the previous general election (this being the most marginal seat which might have gone Labour but didn't). Some years ago the Guinness Book of Records used to record the case of the Zanzibarian election of 18 January 1961, when the Afro-Shirazi Party won by one seat, after the seat of Chake-Chake on Pemba Island was won by a single vote. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

In the United Kingdom general election, 1964, Labour gained a tiny majority of 4 seats in Parliament. The first Labour MP in Sussex, Dennis Hobden, was elected by 22,308 votes to 22,301 for the Conservative. The result was declared only after the ballots had been recounted something like 7 times. Arguably if 4 voters had voted the other way, Harold Wilson would not have been able to govern for over a year with that majority in the House. Sussexonian (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

History of the Identification Card

Hello I was just wondering when humans started using identification cards or photo IDs. I figure photo IDs came about after the camera was invented, obviously, so probably around the 1800's. What country started using them first? What sorts of information was on them? Who used them? Why are they the size they are? LorenLorenvf (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Our very long article Identity document doesn't have any information about its history, though the first link in "External Links" is to some sort of collective blog about the history of ID cards. I'll raise the point on the article's discussion page. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It begins with black and white photos pasted into passports and blind-stamped by the issuing office. Right after WWI Britain began issuing formal passports that were required to be accompanied by a passport photo.--Wetman (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This article on the history of the passport may be of interest. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

June 4

More on unusual time signatures

Inspired by the earlier question about unusual time signatures, I'd like to find at least the name of a piece that I read about once some years ago on the internet, but have never been able to find again. It's distinctive, but I've never had the right keywords to find it. It was a short French piece for three voices, quite old, maybe 14th-17th century. The distinctive thing was that each of the three voices was singing in a different time signature. One was in 6/8, one in 3/4 and another in 2/4, I think. Any of you into early music recognise these features? Steewi (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As you mentioned French and old, Guillaume de Machaut comes to mind. He often used polyrhythm in his music, but I wasn't able to locate the exact piece you asked for. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This kind of thing was common in the 15th century and thereabouts. While I don't know which piece specifically you are looking for -- there may be more than one, and it is also rather dependent on how you render them in modern music notation, since the concept of meter is more recent than that -- I can give you a great example of a huge piece from that time in four meters, Ockeghem's Missa prolationum. Not only are the voices singing in different "meters" but they sing the same music -- at different speeds (therefore most parts of the piece are mensuration canons). Like the Goldberg Variations of three hundred years later, the successive canons are also at different intervals. Ockeghem would have been somewhere in modern France when he wrote the Missa prolationum; Tours, Moulins, Paris, or somewhere else. Anyhow lots of stuff from that time would qualify. Antandrus (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Qiu Jin book

Does anyone know of a book that has the most detailed informationon on the life of Qiu Jin? The specific article doesn't have very many sources. I'm not looking to expand the page, I would just like to know more about her. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Prejudice and discrimination against Aspies

1. What is the official term for prejudice and discrimination against Aspies?

• I'd suggest aspergophobia, but it gets 0 ghits. (Me, I just have ergophobia.) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

2. What have studies found about prejudice and discrimination against Aspies?

Doing research to do volunteer work. --Friends of Aspies (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This site has a list of online resources covering discrimination against autistic persons (to use the site's own terminology). The article on Sociological and cultural aspects of autism may also be of interest. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you think there is significant prejudice against Aspies? I don't expect most people know enough about the condition to recognise it, so they couldn't be prejudiced against it. (They can still discriminate against them, but it wouldn't be knowingly - they would just think this offensive, unsympathetic person deserves it, not knowing that they can't help it.) If it doesn't happen much, then there won't be an official term for it. As Ghmyrtle's links show, there is quite a bit of discussion about discrimination against autistics in general, but I would assume they are more severe autistics. --Tango (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Not always - here, for example. (I don't think describing people as "offensive" or "unsympathetic", even just to make a point, is very helpful, by the way.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Aspies do come across as offensive and unsympathetic to those that don't know better - that's simple fact. --Tango (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes perhaps, but not always. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My immediate reaction was "what is an aspie?" but my second thought was that they can shout and appear alarmingly aggressive. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

So can other people. Before this degenerates into a discussion about "prejudice and discrimination against Aspies" by WP editors, I suggest that we get back to the OP's two points. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not as 'up' on the clinical literature as on the research lit, but I am not aware of any significant specific prejudice against people with Asperger's. The condition is difficult to recognize from a lay perspective, and is likely not sufficiently common or dramatic to warrant a specific class of its own. most likely people who encounter asperger's categorize the person somewhere between 'odd duck' and 'jerk' without ever recognizing there is a clinical diagnosis involved. there may be an informal (conditional) sort of prejudice - neither odd duck nor jerk is particularly complimentary - but its very difficult to assess the effects of a conditional prejudice as opposed to a categorical prejudice. --Ludwigs2 19:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that prejudice - prejudice mean "pre-judging". You judge someone before you get to know them based on some irrelevant characteristic. If you considering someone a jerk because they are behaving like a jerk, that isn't prejudice. --Tango (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

@ Tango - true, but it could be experienced as prejudice. If someone with asperger's is (say) fired from 5 jobs in a row it might not matter to him that the 5 people who fired him just didn't like him; he might come to see it as an ingrained prejudice. --Ludwigs2 22:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all that proves is that people can get things wrong. People with Asperger's can certainly be disadvantaged by their condition. That doesn't mean there is prejudice against them. --Tango (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

wow, careful there Tango. There's a significant debate in the sociological and psychological literatures on implicit prejudice: e.g., people who use the 'N' word or think women make bad bosses, not because they have anything particular against blacks or women but just because those are prevalent usages in the society around them. prejudice does not always need to be overt and intentional to be considered prejudice. --Ludwigs2 01:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thinking someone is a jerk because they act like one is not pre-judging them, it is just regularly judging them. For it to be prejudice, it has to be a pre-formed opinion based on a generalisation from a certain characteristic. If people don't know how to spot Asperger's syndrome (and most don't), then they can't be prejudiced against them (unless the person with Asperger's is wearing a badge, I suppose...). --Tango (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

On a slightly different tack, the word "official" doesn't make much sense in this context. Who is it that might be granting words "official" status? I think you mean "in wide use", or "widely accepted". --ColinFine (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"Officially" is a very widely misused word, Colin. "The filmstars Marcella Turbayne and Norman Carstairs have now officially announced their separation, something that has been the subject of much tabloid speculation of recent weeks" - rubbish! They've confirmed the rumours, perhaps, but they have no official positions so they can't act or speak in any official capacity. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

In that sense, I guess they mean "formally". --Tango (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe "official" is not the right word. I mean that "Aspie" is the term universally used and accepted by the community, as well as parents, researchers, etc. which may be different from the term "Asperger syndrome" which may be made official by the scientists and researchers. What would be the correct word? And people can be prejudiced and discriminate against Aspies even if they know nothing about the condition. Just like if someone of another race is doing something that is part of their culture and you make a nasty remark to them about it, without knowing about their culture, that is racist. --Friends of Aspies (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Race is defined along visual lines, so people know when someone is of a particular race. There is no easy way to tell that someone has Asperger's syndrome. --Tango (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"Race" is most definitely not always defined "along visual lines". Racism can be apparent on the basis of something as "non-visual" as an accent, or even a surname, in exactly the same way as discrimination on the basis of a person's neurology. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

June 5

Economics question

What is the key differentiating factors between the neo-classical conception of competition and that of the classical approach? I'm trying to research the question but I can't find any good sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Habitual8 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Read neoclassical economics which has a half-decent explanation. In a nutshell, classical economics focused on the intrinsic value of produced goods, while neoclassical economics focused on the perceived value (utility) of goods. It's not a huge shift philosophically (utility is implicit in the concept of demand even back to Adam Smith), but the neoclassical movement is also associated with marginalism, which turned economics from a discursive discipline to a mathematical one. --Ludwigs2 14:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Happiest communist country ever

Whenever you talk to anyone who lived in ex-Yugoslavia, no matter if they are from Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Montenegro or FYRM, most of them will tell you that those were the "happy days", as they could travel anywhere without visas, everyone got a free flat, salary was good so you could buy a car and travel when you wanted and so on....

But if you talk to someone from any other former communist country, they will tell you that those times were terrible, that you couldnt travel anywhere, most of them were poor, people got arrested for saying the wrong thing and so on... It is similar with current communist countries like North Korea, Cuba or Vietnam, we all know that they are very poor.

Could it be said that, as far as standard and (general) happines of citizens is concerned, former Yugoslavia was the happiest communist country of all times? And are the former Yugoslav republics only former communist countries that lived better under communism than they live now? --92.244.146.120 (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There are good arguments for Yugoslavia being the happiest of the eastern bloc. Tito did his own thing to a much greater extent than many others,and some of what he did - particularly in areas of devolvement of control - seems quite good. And clearly he kept a lid on what turned, after his death, into a horrible set of wars. Elsewhere, it's possible that Cuba would compete. I'm sure there are some in the states you list who prefer life as it was. Croatians I spoke to recently are adament that they're happier now, and I get the impression that there's a lot of support within these newly independent states, for their independent state. So I don't think you draw your second conclusion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

A 1985 film called When Father Was Away on Business suggests that things were not as jolly in Tito's Yugoslavia as the OP says. This page[15] asserts "His (Tito's) 'genius' rested in his willingness to use raw military and police power, not in his penchant for conciliatory politics." Alansplodge (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"Happiest of the eastern bloc", no, Yugoslavia was never part of the "eastern bloc". It was never a member of the Warsaw Pact, not part of CMEA, and was not considered on "the other side" by the US in the Cold War. As per above, citizens could travel freely outside the country, which those from most other communist states could not, and tourists from Western countries could travel there without the bureaucracy involved in going to Poland, USSR etc. I seem to remember the dinar was a fully convertible currency unlike the rouble and others. And I believe it was difficult for Czechs, Romanians etc to travel to their neighbouring socialist country Yugoslavia, which was hard for them to understand. Sussexonian (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You might find Ostalgie helpful, which links to Yugo-nostalgia. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sussexonian, there's discussion of whether / the extent to which Yugoslavia was part of the Eastern Bloc in that article. Suffice to say your "never" is misleading or just plain wrong. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know which people from that region you've spoken with, but suffice to say it is not a unanimous opinion that life was better under communism. Slavenka Drakulić has written, if I remember correctly, about how there were no quality feminine products and you always had to keep a batch of newspapers around because you'd never know when there would be a sudden shortage of toilet paper. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hrmph. I was only a wee'un at the time it all fell apart, and I don't profess to have any undeniable knowledge about the times myself, but I still do come from ex-Yugoslavia. First off, (this might, of course, be a matter of historical accuracy) Sussexonian is right - Yugoslavs could fairly freely travel to anywhere in the world - my parents went on shopping trips to the Chech Republic, and they would bring back (to me, used to Yugoslavia's semi-free market at the time) the most unusual thing - shoes with the price tag burned into the sole rubber, and my uncle went to both the US and North Korea in the space of two years, all that of course without having to bother too much about visas. Tagishsimon, the thing is in perception - ever since the Tito–Stalin split in 1948, Yugoslavs didn't really see themselves as part of the Eastern Bloc - in fact, those who still did, got deported to Yugoslavia's very own gulag on Goli otok. Cynicism aside, Yugoslavs were from a fairly early point in Yugoslav history educated that they were not in any one of the blocs - how this proclamation in the West (and what an amateur's simplistic black-and-white notion of history perceives today) is of course a different story. And to the OP: Yugo-nostalgia that someone linked to above is indeed strong here. So is the feeling that in Yugoslavia the peoples of the former Yugoslav lands had something big, something important that is now gone. Tito's cult of personality was not entirely forced here - people embraced it, so unlike when Ceausescu died, people actually in all sincerity cried and the country ground to a stand-still for the day. Is that a good thing or not? You be the judge, but people here seem to not have thunk so. Of course, on the other hand, in the Eighties there were years when gasoline was only available with a special coupon which gave you the right to buy a certain amount of gas on odd or even days, or there were times when the only toilet paper available was the coarsest approximation, or when the only available chocolate was the disgusting Eurocrem ersatz-chocolate. It's really difficult to measure by today's standard, but most people don't care about today's standard, they care about how it was when they were young, shoved by the Western world into the "East Hemisphere", and unbeknownst to the "Imeprialistic bastards" enjoying a lot of the freedoms other Eastern bloc countries didn't - seriously, don't underestimate this factor of non-Eastern-bloc pride. But most of all, how great it was when they were young. Everybody's Free (To Wear Sunscreen) TomorrowTime (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

when to take meds discreetly?

Resolved

first of all, if you don't understand the point of managing others' impressions of you, pleaes skip this question.

as for the rest of you... so I was quite sick for a long time, which caused hell for my family, however I'm quite well - the only remnant is some medicine I'll take daily for the rest of my life. Thankfully the condition itself is perfectly cured and in every other way I'm healthy. I would not like my family constantly to be reminded of my ill status, since given that there is no other effect on my life, why should they. Does anyone have any tips for the best way to take medicine daily in a discreet way? I suppose this is not so specific to medicine, but really anythign anyone does daily that they don't particularly identify with or want to be particularly public about, even within their own family - however I haven't been able to google discussion on specifically this. Thanks so much for any thoughts. p.s. if you don't understand why anyone would care, it's okay, I understand, as a few years ago I myself wouldn't have. If you are ever in the situation I'm in, however, you would quickly understand - therefore my question is directed to those who for some reason already do understand. 92.229.12.33 (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand your position, just not your confusion. How do you do it discreetly? Erm—discreetly! In the bathroom early morning, say? Surely you are physically alone at least once a day? (Like when you use the toilet.) ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 13:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to keep it in the medicine cabinet, because I don't want the sight of it whenever others open the medicine cabinet, for cleaning or their own purposes or whatever. And what object would I have occasion to bring with me to the bathroom every day? If it stays in the bathroom, they will open it when cleaning/rearranging/whatever and if it comes with me... well, what should it be? Should I just have pants on when I visit the bathroom, and put it in my pocket? And I am physically alone once per day, sure. But I don't know where to put this stuff. The best would be if there were some object I would have good plausable reason to keep with me, whether on business or casual situations, wherever I am, and in that object I have my medicine. I suppose others who use a personal hygiene bag could keep it in there - should I start using one then? Other alternatives are to have it with other, specific things like mosquito repellant or whatever. The point is, psychologically, for me and for others, it should be pretty much like mosquito repellant. If you see it in that context you don't think twice abuot it. 92.229.12.33 (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

also I should add that this is by no means a secret - I just don't want it front and center, the way I would, say, a cologne from a nice brand, which for better or for worse would leave others with a good association of me. 92.229.12.33 (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

How about keeping it in your sock drawer and taking it when you get dressed in the morning? --Tango (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

So stick it in the medicine cabinet, but put it behind the aspirin and/or other routine meds. At some point, your statement that "this is by no means a secret" conflicts with your apparent desire to keep it entirely secret. Just stick it somewhere non-obtrusive, and if others poke around and rediscover something (that's not a secret), so be it. If that is still problematic, either for you or for them, then it might be time to talk with your doctor about why it feels so -- to my very amateur mind (but one who's well acquainted with daily meds for formerly serious health conditions), the concern over this is quite out of proportion. — Lomn 14:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Buy a small, opaque plastic container (or if you think it's necessary, a small box with some type of key arrangement), and put your pills in that, throwing out the original pill bottle. you can leave that in the medicine chest. There is no way to hide anything from other family members, not for a protracted period of time; the trick is to present an innocuous facade that does not look like medicine and so doesn't remind them. --Ludwigs2 14:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly advise against ever storing pills in anything other than the container they came in. It makes it more difficult to identify them, so people may take them thinking they are something else (of course, one should never take pills that they aren't 100% sure are what they think they are, but plenty of people do). It also means they aren't stored with the dosage and safety information that is on the label. Finally, the container will have been chosen based on the storage requirements of the pills. A different container may not do the job as well, shortening the lifetime of the pills. (The only exception is those containers with the days of the week written on that people taking multiple drugs sort their pills into each week - since they are only used for short-term storage, it is less of an issue and the added convenience is worth the risk.) --Tango (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, all. Tango's advice is the one I'll be following, as it really addresses my question perfectly - he proposes something really really boring for anyone except the person who's socks they are, who however uses them daily. Socks also come when you travel, and in every other situation, unlike a medicien cabinet. Thank you, all other respondents but this question is now closed. 92.229.12.33 (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad I could help! --Tango (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I know this is resolved, but something else for you to consider. My first husband was an insulin-dependent diabetic, and he used to keep his insulin and needles in an old spectacles case. Perfectly mundane: many people keep them about their person or in a drawer: big enough to hold a hypodermic syringe without any questions being asked. _{However, he blew his cover somewhat by injecting in the middle of a crowded pub in Edinburgh - not the best idea!} --TammyMoet (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Drugs in athletics

I recently watched a programme discussing drug enhancement in athletics. If an athlete who won a medal in a major games is caught using drugs a number of years later in an athletics meeting, can their medal be taking away from them? I believe Ben Johnson had his world record rescinded after he was caught cheating, but would an athlete have all their previous medals taken from them? Jack forbes (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe only medals and records that there is strong reason to believe were gained while the athlete was benefiting from the drugs are taken away. If they won medals before they started using performance enhancing drugs, they would keep them. --Tango (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I know that they are always playing catch up in identifying the new drugs that can be masked. Therefore, cheating athletes may have been using them long before they were caught. Jack forbes (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

They might, but I don't think they take away medals without some significant evidence. --Tango (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

However they may hold samples and test them again years later with new methods. According to [16] it's up to 8 years for the IOC. Nil Einne (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Marion Jones surrendered the 3 gold medals and 2 bronzes she won at the 2000 Summer Olympics when she confessed in 2007 to using THG in the relevant period, and her relay team-mates were formally stripped of their medals. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll point out for Tango that a confession probably counts as significant evidence Nil Einne (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Consumer rights in the EU

Supposing the developer of some software released an "update" that broke some of the features of the product (although fixed some previous bugs and added some features). Would they be required to fix them? What laws are relevant to such a scenario? And no this isn't a request for legal advice, it's a request for legal knowledge. Various websites on the subject only mention actualy physical goods such as chairs TVs etc.--92.251.158.49 (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

One piece of advice that can be given is that the license agreement for the software should be your first port of call when considering an issue like this. Specifically many license agreements do say that features of the software may change without notice. (and that you agree to it to proceed).87.102.43.94 (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Those license agreements may be considered unconscionable and not enforced in court, though. You can't really know if a particular contract is valid until it has been tested in court. --Tango (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I was just getting to that - in the EU the "Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts" is the relevant legislation [17]. We don't seem to have an article on it. If you are in the UK then Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 is relevant, if not then you need to find how your goverment has implemented this directive. 87.102.43.94 (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know examples of specific cases which may set a precedent in this matter - it would depend on what EU country you are in to an extent.87.102.43.94 (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Beyond that I think more specificity would be required for a fuller answer - ie what country, what sort of agreement if any was entered into etc etc...87.102.43.94 (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

comment we definately can't tell you if they would be required to fix a broken feature - possibly someone could give you examples of legal cases that have occured that cover this issue (if they exist) - but the hypothetical answer cannot be given without speculation.87.102.43.94 (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Bourbon Dauphiné

The Dauphiné was only ruled by the Dauphin, who was either the heir apparent of France or the King of France, if there were no heir apparent at the time. It was technically part of the Holy Roman Empire and could never be united to France. These seems the case throughout the House of Valois. But after Louis XIII of France becomes king, the succession boxes doesn't mention the King of France being Dauphin of Viennois afterwareds. Louis XIII should have remain Dauphin of Viennois until his son's birth in 1638, and after Louis XIII there is no more mention of the title; it only mentions Dauphins of France. Did something' happen between those time that made the Dauphiné of Viennois lose it's seperate status?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article Dauphiné is quite explicit. The autonomy of the Dauphiné was ended in 1457, because of Louis' opposition to his father, Charles VII of France forced him from the Dauphiné. The King took back the control of the province and forced the Estates to pledge allegiance in 1457, putting an end to the autonomy of Dauphiné.--Wetman (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

What about the Dauphine being removed from the Holy Roman Empire ? --192.147.55.3 (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The Dauphin was originally simply a garden-variety count; specifically the Count of Veinne. The title became that of the heir-apparent much in the manner that the "Prince of Wales" did for England; after all Wales isn't part of England. The title became that of the heir apparent when the last independent Dauphin sold the title, and the lands with it, back to the crown of France. The Viennois has a close relationship as well with Auvergne, which had its own "Dauphin" title as well. Remember that, prior to the late 15th century, France itself was organized more like the HRE than a unified kingdom, most of the counts and dukes operated essentially independently from their nominal Seignur. Also, the HRE and France were not completely mutually exclusive; they did "bleed together" at the edges, consider the two Burgundies (Duchy of Burgundy and County of Burgundy), the Charolais, which was a personal fief of the Habsburg family within France, the County of Provence was nominally part of the HRE for a long time, as was the city of Lyon, when it was a part of Savoy. --Jayron32 03:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Liberty leading the people help

In this painting, why are the woman's (liberty's) breasts showing? Does that represent something? And why is the dead man at the bottom left not wearing any pants?--92.251.146.25 (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

at the time of the french revolution, Lady Liberty was usually displayed with her breasts exposed. I'm not sure why that convention arose, though it might be a reference to Joan of Arc, and it was certainly in line with French sensibilities of the time (the French revolution had an early and strong women's liberation element). In fact, I believe the Statue of Liberty that France gifted to the US was originally designed with the robes draped differently to expose one breast, but that might just be a myth. As to why the guy on the left has no pants (and only one sock...), this site suggests it represents a man dragged from his bed and murdered by royalist soldiers, then dragged through the street (possibly by the dead soldier at the right). this is a very famous painting, though, and I'm sure you can google up a full analysis if you try. --Ludwigs2 21:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I tried googling I found something about democratic states being represented as suckling at the breasts of liberty, couldn't find anything about the man.--92.251.146.25 (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This site suggests that "the corpse without trousers on the left, with arms outstretched and tunic turned up, is another mythical reference, derived from a classical nude model known as Hector — a personification of the Homeric hero." Of course, we have an article on the painting. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah also read the article before comign here it doesn't say anything about that stuff.--92.251.146.25 (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I wondered if it might be a misinterpretation of the term Sans-culottes. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The French are not so prudish as some others are. Prior to the Euro taking over everything, a version of this painting appeared on the French 100 franc bill, of all things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It was the last-but-one 100 franc note, issued around 1980. Very nice banknote, though French paper money always struck me as being printed on considerably thinner paper than the British, Belgian, German, and Swiss notes I also used at that time! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read the article on the painter, Eugène Delacroix.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

My amateur hypothesis is that Delacroix is hinting at the maternal nature of Liberty. The infant French Republic is suckling at Liberty's metaphoric teat. I can't believe no one's yet linked to the painting's article: Liberty Leading the People. It doesn't answer your question, but some of the refs might. —D. Monack ^talk 02:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No, likely not. Its just probably more likely a lack of prudishness regarding breasts. Breasts are not universally viewed as sexual appendages, and many cultures do not hold them as taboo, I find it much more likely that the exposed breasted woman is an homage to Greek and Roman style art, where exposed breasts were common (c.f. Venus de Milo). The late-18th and early-19th century were part of a neo-classical revival in the artistic traditions, (see Neoclassical architecture and Greek Revival architecture and Federal style). Consider this famous statue of George Washington from around the same time as the painting cited above. So, given that the painting was part of the neo-classical tradition, and the ancient greeks apparently had little problems putting exposed female breasts in art, it seems to be more the case than any intentional symbolism on the breast as nutritive... --Jayron32 03:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Popular fashions for wealthy Frenchwomen in the early 19th century were white, transparent Grecian-style gowns that practically bared the breasts. Some of the ladies even went around without underwear. See Thérésa Tallien.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Fuckin' magnets, how do dey work?

help meh, fuckin' magnets, how do dey work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.41.12 (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably the same way as anything that fucks - see sexual intercourse. You might also want to check out magnet. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

hmmm... I'm trying to choose between an old-timey AC/DC innuendo and a futuristic field theory one. what do you guys think? --Ludwigs2 21:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Or a childish internet meme: [18]. Buddy431 (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

We also just had this question: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2010_May_5#Fucking_Magnets.21. It's incredible how much heated scientific discussion was generated. Suffice to say, magnetism is not an intuitive concept. Buddy431 (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It's nice to see that the first response to both copies of the question was someone making the same intentional misinterpretation! At least we're consistent at some things! --Tango (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Presuming the question is for real:

1./ When ferrus metal is exposed to an electral field and the ferrus molucles are aligned, (this effect can also be produced by hammerig / beating the metal, particularly while still hot), then a magnet is produced; i.e. a ferrus metal attracting / repelling another.

2./ The only proof of magnitism is repulsion, as often static electricity will cause objects to attract.

'Hope this helps.

MacOfJesus (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

We seem to lack an article on sexual magnetism. DuncanHill (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Here it is ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Amory, I think you may have discovered a sexual magnetic monopole, there. I don't know whether to feel impressed, or sad. --Ludwigs2 04:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"The only proof of magnetism is repulsion, as often static electricity will cause objects to attract" That's ridiculous. Aside from the obvious fact that objects with similar net charges can also repel, there are many things that can differentiate Magnetic fields from Electric fields (though they are of course closely related). If you seriously want to know about magnets, you can read Magnet, Magnetism, Electromagnetism, and Magnetic field. There are a myriad of sub-articles on the topic as well. Additionally, to really understand magnets, it's probably good to understand Electricity, Electric charge and Electric Fields. Maybe throw in some of Maxwell's equations just for fun. I know that this question was asked in jest, but the sentiment expressed is valid; magnets are complicated and non-intuitive. It took people a long time (~2000 years) to go from seeing that certain rocks were attracted to each other to forming a good understanding of why they do. See History of electromagnetism for more on that. Buddy431 (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No, this question was not asked in jest. My study of Hermeneutics tells me so. I was answering the question to someone who wanted a basic knowledge of the subject not an indepth, post-graduate, understanding of the subjects. As a hand rule for checking for magnetism, repulsion is the first "port-of-call". MacOfJesus (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

June 6

People who look like their distant ancestors

File:EmanueleFilibertodiSavoia.jpg

A true Habsburg descendant here

I came across the article on Archduke Johann Salvator of Austria and it says he resembled his ancestor Ferdinand II of Aragon and Charles the Bold. This is really interesting and I was wondering if anybody know any other individuals who resemble their distant ancestor.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

How distant do you want? I'm looking at a photo taken in 1880 of my 2x great grandmother, and it's like looking in a mirror! There is a theory (suspect it's a bit of a folk tale) that physical likeness recurs every 3 generations. Of course, us lesser mortals won't be able to go back past the invention and popularisation of photography to check likenesses. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I look like my great grandpa and that as far as I can go. It is weird how genes work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.113.157 (talk) 09:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen Prince Emanuele Filiberto, Prince of Venice and Piedmont and his distinctive Habsburg jaw? Then there's his dad with the thick Bourbon lower lip! No changeling stories in the House of Savoy that's for sure!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There should be an article page on Genetics in Wikipedia. Borus Johnson, Mayor of London, may look like his ancestory in Europe, traced to a Royal Family. I think the same family. MacOfJesus (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

We do have an article on genetics... --Tango (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It is, of course, completely a folk tale. There is no way genes can recur every 3 generations, they just don't work like that. --Tango (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

_{Did I say "genes"? No I said "physical likeness". Yes I know it's related to genes, but don't misquote me.} --TammyMoet (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any quotation marks in my comment... --Tango (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a really interesting observation I once saw, that adopted children often found they looked more like their same-sex genetic parents (women more like their mothers, men more like their fathers) than children raised by their genetic parents. There was some discussion of children trying to avoid 'being' their parents (I know I try not to dress like my mother): without that effect, they chose clothes, styles and makeup that suited them and reflected what they liked, without avoiding the whole area of styles and colours their mother chose. This meant that adopted children were more likely to dress and style themselves in a similar fashion to their genetic parents, leading to this weird effect where a daughter adopted at birth looks more like her genetic mother than a daughter not adopted. I can see how a similar effect would lead to the observation that grand-daughters looked more like their grandmothers (when young) than their mothers. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of inbreeding in royal families, which increases the likelihood of such similarities. I think it is probably related to how we recognise faces - there have been studies on this and they find that they are a few particular characteristics that we use. If those characteristics are the same between two people, we'll think they look the same. If those characteristics have a simple genetic origin (particularly if the version the two people in question have is recessive - if it is dominant then your parent will also look the same, by necessity, and people wouldn't find that as interesting), then there is always a chance that descendants will end up with the same combination of genes. --Tango (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I suspect time travel, or in Johann Salvator's case, a Highlander situation. Lost at sea indeed... TastyCakes (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but there is a difference between resembling in one trait and having a complete striking resemblance like Johann Salvator's case. People not of the House of Habsburg can have Prognathism or the Habsburg jaw.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Prince Emanuel-Philibert clearly resembles his Habsburg ancestors, in more than one aspect; however, what you're asking is whether someone can be almost a double to his or her ancestor. I'd say it's possible, seeing as total strangers can look alike.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

George W.Bush is related to Franklin Pierce, and there seems to be a family resemblance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

When I said there should be a an article page in Wikipedia on Genetics, I meant that the OP may look to see it and observe the formulae for working out the likelihood of likeness in generations. I was not doubting that there was such an article. I see myself as pointing towards the sources so the OP can do the research. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Rather than using such ambiguous phrasing, it would have been clearer to everyone if you has (i) checked to see if there was a Genetics article and (ii) made your mention of it a link the way I just did :-) . 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"X is just a tool; it's value/morality depends on how it is used"

I have seen this argument proffered many times (where x = weapons, the internet, intelligence etc.). I would like to read an examination/debate of the meta-argument, if such a thing exists. 86.45.130.146 (talk) 09:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There's the famous NRA slogan "Guns don't kill people, people do", but we don't seem to have much about it on Wikipedia that I can find... AnonMoos (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an article on the philosophy of technology, which includes a section on such issues; subsection 3.3.1 addresses the moral neutrality of technology in particular. There are links to interesting sites at the bottom of that page.--Rallette (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about references, but when it comes to people the truth is is that objects have karma that changes in relation to the use people make of them. (This is not a physical truth - if you are a robot and have no past or future contact with humans you can't use it). People who use the argument that a tool has no morality usually do so because they are defending one with coal-black karma, that "will surely burn in hell". 85.181.145.156 (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)q

To cut the argument short, let me get right to what will convince you of my viewpoint: consider the Nazi armband. Obviously you instantly realize that it is not "just a tool whose value/morality depends on how it is used" - instead it has coal black karma. You can put it - the object with coal-black karma - into an art installation, but it doesn't change it. That ojbect has terrible karma regardless of whether you use it in any way whatsoever. (again, this truth is not a physcail one - a robot having no connection with people, ever, can't use it in any way). 85.181.145.156 (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You're going to run into headaches if you over-generalize here. Ontologically, objects never have intrinsic moral value. An object may be designed for an immoral use, but the immorality adheres to the potential use of it, not to the object itself. However, there's a difficult distinction between objects that have physical effects and objects that have semantic effects. morally questionable objects with physical effects (torture devices, weapons of mass destruction, etc.) are generally variations of perfectly innocuous or even beneficial objects - a thumbscrew is just a variation of a carpenter's vice, a nuclear bomb just a variation on a power plant - and these things exist in the world without causing offense. even people who've seen thumbscrews in action do not generally get wigged out if you ask them to pass you a c-clamp. morally questionable semantics objects, however, are much more universalized - one cannot wear a swastika, or a pointed white hood, or even a burqa or an orange tie on saint patties day, without making an overt reference to a moral position. This does not mean, mind you, that the moral value is inherent to the object, but actually the reverse: that the object has become subsumed in the moral debate. Sometimes, in fact, semantic objects become totally divorced from their physical origins (e.g., even in this day and age, where most men do not where hats, it still makes sense to call someone a white-hat or a black-hat). --Ludwigs2 22:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

French Revolutionary Wars - Did upper class people still travel between North Wales and Transylvania in 1795?

For my Gothic novel, I do need the characters - who have a castle in Transylvania, to go on a trip there in 1795 (one of them has escaped from Revolutionary France). Did people still do this during the French Revolutionary Wars? I believe some of the German states were allies. Could they avoid going via the Netherlands? Asked this on YahooAnswers, and couldn't believe the abuse I got for not knowing the answer, but haven't been able to find much information about it. LucindaE LucindaE (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if they did - Transylvania was pretty much off the map. But sure, they could. In 1795, Transylvania was under Austro-Hungarian control, and the Dual Monarchy was more-or-less friendly to Britain. As far as I can tell, nobody in their right minds would try to go overland, though - it's much faster (if longer) to go by sea to the Black Sea cost and then travel up the Danube. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary didn't exist in 1795. It was created by the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

For alliances in 1795 see War of the First Coalition and French Revolutionary Wars: Campaigns of 1795. Wealthy Britons in the late 18th Century would often go on the Grand tour, but would have been very unlikely to go that far east. Alansplodge (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to imagine upper-class Britons in the 18th century having any connection to Transylvania. The European nobility at that time was still sharply divided by religion. British nobles would have been likely to have relations mainly with the nobility in Germany (enhanced by the connections of the royal family), the Netherlands, or Scandinavia, though the French Revolution aroused sympathy for the Catholic French nobility, too. Some of the Transylvanian nobility were Protestant, but Transylvania was really a backwater of the Protestant world, with few external connections. Anyway, Stephan Schulz is absolutely right that travel between Britain and Transylvania would almost certainly be by sea, especially given British control of the Mediterranean and French control of most of the continent of Western Europe. Travelers would have had to pass through the Ottoman Empire. Fortunately, by 1795, the Ottoman Empire was at peace with the Austrian Empire as a result of the Treaty of Sistova, so it should have been possible to cross the border between Ottoman Wallachia or Moldavia and Austrian Transylvania. Marco polo (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Back in the 1970s, Virginia Coffman wrote a series of Gothic novels set in early 19th-century Transylvania. They featured an upper-class Irish girl who had been raised in an exclusive English boarding school. They are the Vampires of Moura series. I read most of them. You might want to obtain copies to see how the author handled the logistics of travel, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Europe was at war. The earliest next moment for English traveling was during the Peace of Amiens, 1802.

Ambulance passenger(s)

How many people can an ordinary, everyday ambulance carry to hospital after attending (for example) an RTA. My 8 year old grandaughter asked me! (driver, medic, stretcher, one or two sitting wounded?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.115.19 (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I'm afraid I don't know the answer to your question. You might like to try our reference desk. People there can answer all sorts of general questions. This page is just for asking/answering questions about how to use Wikipedia, so you're not likely to have much luck here. --BelovedFreak 09:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved question here from WP:help desk. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

RTA = Road Traffic Accident. (presumably) 58.147.58.152 (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

See ambulance. They come in all shapes and sizes, and vary from one country to another. The last time I went in an ambulance, there was room in the back for three people if they are all sitting. If the patient was lying down, it would be difficult to get more than one medic in the back. Ideally, victims of an RTA would get one ambulance each, but no doubt they could take two if necessary.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Usually it is one casualty to an ambulance (sometimes plus a friend/relative). I'm not sure how they usually transport walking wounded to hospital - they could take several in an ambulance, I suppose, but I'm not sure they do. Following a major incident they'll often set up a kind of field hospital and walking wounded will be treated there rather than taking them to hospital. --Tango (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

For walking wounded, paramedics in some jurisdictions (British Columbia for sure) can commandeer public transit buses. They kick off the original passengers. Aaronite (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

At the 7 July 2005 London bombings, Double-decker buses were used to ferry walking-wounded to hospital[19]. They have more than 60 seats Alansplodge (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In the U.S., a typical ground ambulance will have a gurney secured centerline in the patient compartment, a squad bench on the curbside (passenger's side), a rearward facing EMT seat near the head of the gurney, and for Type I and III ambulances, a CPR seat on the streetside (driver's side). To be eligible for Star of Life certification, Types I and III are required to be able to carry two patients (one on the gurney and one on a backboard or folding stretcher secured to the squad bench) or four (one on the gurney and three in sitting position on the squad bench). Some, but not all, ambulances also have hooks which drop down from the ceiling of the patient compartment, above the squad bench, where a third patient secured on a backboard.—eric 19:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Bangladeshi sovereign territory within India, and vice versa

Could anyone direct me to evidence of the below, or a list of these 106 enclaves? Found on the BBC commentary on Bangladesh vs England - sounds highly dubious, actually:

"If it carries on like this Bangladesh could end up with less runs than they have enclaves of sovereign territory within India. There are 106, as a result of a messy treaty between the Kingdom of Koch Bihar and the Mughal Empire. Some are smaller than a cricket pitch. India has 92 within Bangladesh."

AlmostCrimes (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

See Indo-Bangladesh enclaves. Marco polo (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears that either we or the BBC have the Indian-exclaves-in-Bangladesh and Bangladeshi-exclaves-in-India numbers reversed. Deor (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

See also this blog post. Jørgen (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

...which links to this paper, that seems to be a rather comprehensive view of the subject. Jørgen (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

And after looking at that PDF, it's clear that we have the numbers right and the BBC mixed them up. Deor (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hitler - Not a Typical German Surmame?

I am from Finland and I know many German surnames. I have been wondered for a long time that Hitler doesn't look like "typical" German surname. Some relatives of Adolf Hitler have used at least in the 19th century that name in forms Hiedler and Huetler. I feel that they look much more Germans. Also I think that for example Hittler with two t:s would be more "real" German style than Hitler.

As a Finnish speaking guy I feel that the form Hitler look likes more English than a German surname. Does those people who have English as their mother tongue also feel that Hitler with h, i, t, l, e and r could be in priciple an English surname like Miller and Parker?

84.231.101.87 (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

John Toland says in his biography of Adolf Hitler that the surname Hitler is likely of Czech or Moravian origin.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

As an English speaking gal, an English surname ending in "-er" denotes descendancy from someone who held that job. In the case of "Miller", that refers to someone who milled (i.e. operated a mill). So "Hitler" would only be an English surname if it referred to someone who "hittled" - and that's not an English word or occupation! --TammyMoet (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict] As a native English speaker, "Hitler" does not feel like a native English name. (If anything, to me it conveys a Yiddish impression.) Native English names ending in -er are almost always the names of (historic) occupations such as Miller, Cooper, Parker, and Cutler. I guess Hitler does have the same kind of shape as a word such as Cutler, but I know what a cutler is (or was). The word hitler is alien to English. Marco polo (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I note that cutlers don't cuttle, and butlers don't buttle. (Instead, they handle cutlery and bottles.) Cutler is from French coutelier, and Butler is from boteillier. On the basis that two data points make a trend, Hitler could have come from hôtelier. It didn't, but it could have. ("Hutler" seems more likely.) 213.122.43.84 (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a hitler would be a person who likes to hit... or would it be a hitter... I don't know. My mother tongue is Finnish.84.231.101.87 (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Bearing in mind Hitler's Austrian birth, I'd say a Czech or Moravian origin for his surname is far more likely than English.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"Hitler" does not sound typically English. It sounds Germanic or Jewish, as do numerous other "Consonant +itler" names to be found on Google, such as "Gitler," which was the pronunciation of Hitler in some of the invaded Soviet territory. A double "t" seems more common than a single one, like "Joseph Sittler." "Whittler" would ((wood)) sound English. Edison (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe "Hitler" was a surname found among Jews from Galicia, Poland. There are several Hitlers in a memorial book of Holocaust victims from Strzyżów. Needless to say, it's doubtful many Jewish families today have kept the name. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Court

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-court-miranda-20100601,0,6330569.story

This article talks about the case, but it never gives its name. --75.25.103.109 (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Berghuis v. Thompkins. See also [20]. Good times for U.S. police. Buddy431 (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Effects of child sexual abuse

There's recent-ish (last few years) research on this that sounds interesting. But it's a heated area with very strong views. I'm hoping that posting a question here will avoid most POV disputes and vested views. This is a quick summary of the research finding as I understand them:

1. Actual handling, perceptions, impact and consequences of child sexual abuse do not correlate well with existing models.
   • Most research has asked about how people felt, without distinguishing how they felt at the time, and how their perception changed subsequently over time.
   • The underlying incident(s) are often reprocessed in light of later cognitive and developmental understanding.
   • When asked, many child sexual abuse victims report not having felt so bad at the time; the trauma developed as they processed it.
2. In cases where force and harm were apparent at the time:
   • The child knew wrong was being done.
   • The matter was unambiguous and the child could later know for sure they had said no, fought, and been unambiguously forced or overwhelmed by physical force against vocal and physical protest.
   • However traumatic, the child could self-reassure they had done what they could, had it forced upon them, and tried to prevent it.
3. But for cases where the adult was persuasive or the child coaxed to see it as attention/gifts/"feeling special"/"playing a game" etc, where the adult obtained abuse by guile, coaxing, and deception, rather than brute force, the consequences were different:
   • The child re-assessed the incident, often years later, in light of increased awareness, and only then truly realized they had been advantage taken, betrayed by a trusted (often close) adult, or a "sexual incident" had taken place.
   • This betrayal was often then shattering. It called into question in their mind, assumptions about themself, about their own complicity, about their ability to take care of themself, about the trust that can be placed in the world, how they know what to believe, deep-rooted suspicion of others and their motives (including difficulty establishing intimacy), and other similar deep psychological schisms.
   • It was then made much more shattering because in trying to make sense of it, they may compare themself to the cultural narrative - which states child abuse victims are usually scared, upset and traumatized and tried to fight at the time - creating an unwarranted burden of immense guilt that other children resist but (in their own memory) they did not, therefore it must be their fault or something wrong with them.
   • There is a powerful emotion of shame in having been duped and made to do things one later massively regrets or which one feels were obtained by transparent (in hindsight) deceit - playing upon previous trust, innocence and naivety. It often leads to internalizing blame ("If I hadn't..."), invalidity as a person, or worthlessness.
4. The study's conclusion seems to be:
   • Differentiation of feelings as a child at the time, and feelings evolving after
   • Emphasis needs to be made on reassuring child sexual abuse victims along the lines of "children don't know enough to say no" to adults who present in a guileful manipulative manner.
   • The belief that child sexual abuse is by definition traumatizing at the time (called "the trauma myth" by the author) is mistaken and harmful because it does not correlate to studies of victims, it does not allow for reprocessing in the light of more mature knowledge and societal understandings, and because it can cause victims to later compare themselves to a myth that is far from universal, and encourages severe self-blame and internalization, where much of the traumatization can (or may) take place.

The book is The Trauma Myth: The Truth About the Sexual Abuse of Children and Its Aftermath (Clancy, S.).

My question is, to what extent is this model mainstream, "fringe", gained mainstream notice as a viable model, what is its due WP:WEIGHT, etc? For this sensitive a topic I would be interested in hearing views from users who are informed, but a bit away from the "coal face" of such articles and POV wars if any. Not planning to edit the topic, but for example - is the book or model notable? Is the above summary an accurate representation of the views in it? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Berghuis v. Thompkins

The Supreme Court ruled that you must specifically state that you invoke your Miranda rights, but doesn't talking at all automatically waive those rights? --75.25.103.109 (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Presumably not according to SCOTUS. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Can't you invoke your rights at any time? I always thought that you could start spilling your guts, and then just suddenly invoke your right to remain silent and end an interview at that point. Incidentally, our Miranda warning article seems to have been edited in response, and not very well. It now asserts that cops don't have to read the Miranda warning; I thought that they still did, and that it just now requires someone to unambiguously invoke the right for the right to go into effect. I'm no expert on US law, though. Buddy431 (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

In the U.S. you only need to be read your rights when giving self-incriminating testimony. Police can arrest you without reading you your rights, if they have no interest in using your statements against you, AND they can question you without reading you your rights, for example if you are being asked for statements regarding a third party. The only time Miranda rights become relevent is when you are being questioned regarding the legality of your own actions, in regards for future prosecution against you. The "TV-show" image we have of officers "reading the rights" to people who are arrested doesn't really happen in real life; most of the time Miranda rights are read at the precinct prior to formal recorded questioning of a suspect, and is not read to people at the time of their arrest. Furthermore, "invoking" ones right against self-incrimination merely means that you don't have to answer questions about yourself regarding whether or not you commited a crime, or details regarding the alleged crime. The issue in the one case cited above was whether or not a suspect, having been read his rights, had to specifically request that police stop their interrogation. The suspect in this case made no specific request, so the police are free to continue to ask questions until they do so. Its a small point on the larger issue of one's Fifth Ammendment rights, and probably will not have a dramatic impact on police interrogations. --Jayron32 03:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

June 7

Orange County where?

Until this edit, our article on Johnson County, Kansas read:

It is known as "the [[Orange County]] of the [[Midwest]]" for its extreme low-density sprawl and massive development of new, upper-middle class and upper-class homes, especially in its southern portion.

Is Woohookitty correct here, or is Orange County, New York more likely? Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

An unqualified "Orange County" is definitely the one in California. (But that sounds like a kind of in-joke for residents of Johnson County, like adding "-vegas" to the name of a dinky little town to make it sound more glamorous.) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, okay; thanks. I saw the bit about the southern portion as indicative of Orange County, New York, since obviously that portion is closest to New York City; on the other hand, I don't know much about Orange County, California. New York is generally my first thought — I know several people who grew up there — and it's close enough to New York City that I expected most people to think of it when they hear an unqualified "Orange County". Johnson County isn't a backwater, however; it has nearly 20% of the entire Kansas population. Nyttend (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

When I hear "Orange County" I think The O.C., Orange County (movie), and The Real Housewives of Orange County, which all refer to the one in California. I think stuff like that has saturated pop culture so that "Orange County" does not make people think of the one in New York...except, apparently, if you know people from that one :) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and how could I forget Laguna Beach and Arrested Development? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, you have the Orange County Choppers. Nyttend (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about 'extreme low-density sprawl and massive development of new, upper-middle class and upper-class homes', you are definitely talking about Orange County, California. That is OC, CA's raison d'etre. Though I'm curious why no one thought about Orange County Florida (which is what consistently pops up second for me when I'm googling OC). Is it so impossible to think that there's a little bit of Tampa hiding out in the Kansas corn fields? --Ludwigs2 05:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

humanities

why do we study humanities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.200.54.130 (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hardback fiction kept in print

In the UK, and I imagine in most other western countries as well, normal practice in the book industry is for new fiction to be published first in hardback and then in paperback a year or so later. But when the paperback is published, does the hardback remain in print or do the publishers take it out of print? I realize there is probably no hard-and-fast rule on this, I would like to know what happens most often. Many thanks. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't find a satisfactory answer on the internet. However, one of my close friends works as a librarian and is a real book enthusiast. I'll give her a ring tonight (in about 8 to 10 hours), and I'll write the answer on your talk page. SmokingNewton _{(MESSAGE ME)} 09:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)