Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

December 27

is it really crass to make out at a cafe?

I'm just 18 and neither me or my girl really have anywhere we can be, like each other's houses, do to family. I was wondering if it would be considered really crass to make out in the back of a cafe, if it's kind of quiet or there aren't that many people? Where else could we be in winter? don't have a car. 87.91.6.33 (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It is usually considered uncouth to make out where other people can see you do so. See Public display of affection for a general overview. --Jayron32 00:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

oh. But people can see you anywhere except a home... there are no alternatives? 87.91.6.33 (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Has all tradition fallen by the wayside? Whatever happened to the back of a darkened movie theater (preferably one showing Howard the Duck). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Saturday Night at the Movies

Who cares what picture you see?

When you're huggin with your baby in the top row of the balcony

HTH --Trovatore (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Park? 90.195.179.14 (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You bet - "Lovers' Lane". One of the verses of the century-old song, "In My Merry Oldsmobile", starts out, "They love to 'spark' in the dark old park..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The back corner of a movie theater is a traditional make-out spot for younglings. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Just be sure not to fall asleep. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that you might get ejected from the cafe. After all, they don't make any money when you put your mouth on that type of dish. StuRat (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

And at the very least, the OP is just begging for comments like, "Get a room!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The french stereotypically kiss and embrace at cafes in public all the time. I assume that that is what "make out" means. 92.28.250.245 (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

yes, but what does "Embrace" mean? Victorian authors seem to use it to mean "kiss" but you say "kiss and embrace at cafes" -- does it just mean "hug" or "cuddle" or what??? 87.91.6.33 (talk) 12:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

"Embrace" only means "hug", as far as I'm aware. I'd like to see citations where it means "kiss". Presumably our French colleague used it because of the related French synonym s'embrasser. Marnanel (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

at least I'm not the only one who makes that mistake: "Fiona embraced her. Her kiss was leisurely, intimate." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.6.33 (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily imply the author thought "embrace" meant "kiss", any more than "Fiona went to London. She rode the Millennium Wheel" implies that the wheel was the means of her going to London. People often kiss other people when embracing them. Marnanel (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Embrace means putting your arms around someone else's upper body, and shows affection and/or passion. Usually done while kissing. 92.29.122.99 (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

"Embrace" indeed literally means enfolding in the arms.[1] Related words include "bracelet" and brassiere (the reason for the latter is a long story). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The French typically go one step beyond what their words literally seem to imply. So when they say embrasser they do actually kiss, when they say baiser (literally to kiss) they go the whole way. --Wrongfilter (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that the OP asked a similar question at the Language ref desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Not true. Many similar such incidents have led me to conclude that the standard of English Comprehension here is appalling. 92.29.120.235 (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the best advice could be, get a car. There are those who think the sexual revolution began in the 60s. It actually began when cars became widely available, some 50 years earlier, as it allowed young folks to go some distance away from disapproving eyes. However, if you're too young to legally own or drive a car, then those disapproving eyes need to be there. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Ahhhhh, phonetics rule! The questioner wrote "neither me or my girl really have anywhere we can be......do to family". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.94.139 (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"Do" and "make" are translated into the same word in the Romance languages: facere and its descendants. I'm hoping you were merely pointing out spelling errors and not making more scurrilous suggestions. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is heavily US-centric. In most parts of Europe (for example), having sex in cars is quite rare (what's the point really? it's not a particularily romantic/practical setting) whilst making out in cafees is completly uncomplicated. --Soman (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This response is heavily Euro-centric. Textorus (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure the OP said what country they are from. Assuming they are in Japan or Taiwan or mainland China or most places in East Asia really, I understand that there are these things called "love hotels" which you can stay in for a couple of hours. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

What was the largest U.S. company in 1776?

What was the largest U.S. company in 1776? Adamdangelo (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I take it you mean after the July 4th signing of the Declaration of Independence ? I suspect that the major wealth would be in the form of land holdings, and many of those were fairly inexact, so it might be difficult to say how much land each held and even harder to assign a specific value to that land. To go another way, Harvard University was apparently incorporated in 1650, so would have been a fairly large "corporation" by 1776: Harvard#Colonial. StuRat (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I would guess probably a merchant partnership in Philadelphia, Charleston, Boston, or NYC. At that time, "corporations" as we think of them were not all that common (certainly not in the North American colonies), and often needed to be individually "chartered" by an act of a parliament or legislature... AnonMoos (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

John Hancock was the richest man in the 13 colonies at that time. He inherited his uncle's shipping business, House of Hancock. Corvus cornix_talk 21:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

And to connect him with the first answer above, he was also treasurer of Harvard. We don't really know if Hancock was the richest, but he was certainly among the richest. Was he richer than slave trader Henry Laurens? Or a dozen others reputed to be the richest men in their respective colonies? Hard to say. —Kevin Myers 23:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

AICTE accreditation

Is a degree from a college without AICTE accreditation valid?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.23.47.135 (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

There are many different accredidation agencies around the world, so it depends on where you are. Higher education accreditation covers many of them (follow relevent links to learn more). Without making any statements on which accreditation agencies are "valid", generally any degree from an institution without valid accreditation is pretty much worthless. --Jayron32 02:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

2010 Harry Reid budget bill lookup?

I am trying to find information about the $1.1 trillion, 1900 page bill which was unable to be passed this month. I can't find an article on it, nor a section on any existing page. Can anyone point me to it? If I knew what the bill was called (tried "omnibus" and "Reid budget" bill) then I could probably find it, but I'm not sure Wikipedia has an article on it. Thanks in advance, and I apologize if this is the wrong place to ask the question! bye 69.68.24.132 (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If you go to http://www.senate.gov and click on "Legislation and records" it allows you to search for every proposed and passed bill, and it has the text of all of them. You can find it there.--Jayron32 03:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved Wow, thank you so much Jayron! It is called the (senate) FY 2011 Omnibus Appropriations Act bill. Thank you for that website, which I found it easily. It's amazing how I got an answer 9 minutes after my post. Thank you so much! Wikipedia is awesome and I hope editors like you stick around for a long time. Thanks again, 69.68.24.132 (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

StuRat (talk) 05:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yale M. A.

Hiya. The entry on James Truslow Adams in the Dictionary of Literary Biography informs me that The Yale M. A. frequently mentioned among his accomplishments was obtained by a simple application through the mail in 1900, before that institution established standards which necessitated formalized instruction for the degree. I'm not so sure how to turn my doubts about this into an answerable question, but: really now? You'd just write a letter to Yale, enclose a cheque maybe, and you get an M. A. back? --Janneman (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there is another Yale? There is no rule that a college has a completely unique name, one could imagine such variations as Yale Institute, Yale College, University of Yale, Yale Academy, etc... There are several names of schools which are duplicated in the U.S., most prominently the University of Miami and Miami University, or perhaps Indiana University and Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Note that all four of these are well regarded, accredited universities. But there is nothing stoping a diploma mill from adopting a similar name as an existing university, especially in the 19th and early 20th century, when protections against such things were likely less stringent. --Jayron32 15:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Is that such a bad thing? The universities of Cambridge, Oxford, and Dublin all continue the exact same practice to this day. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Yale had inherited the system in the early 1900s. (Edit: To existing graduates, that is. If Adams wasn't already a Yale graduate, then we need some other explanation.)Marnanel (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yale indeed early on generally awarded an A.B. degree at graduation, with an M.A. to follow 2 3 years later with no additional course work, a practice copied from British colleges. I'm not certain when Yale stopped that practice. - Nunh-huh 05:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Correcting myself, it was 3 years...here are the pertinent passages from Brooks Mather Kelley's Yale: A History: The Masters (in 1717) "were young men who had taken the bachelor's degree (and thus were called "Sir"), lived godly lives for at least three years, and were now going to show the knowledge they had acquired since receiving the B.A. In later years, the M.A. was given automatically on application three years after graduation to any alumnus who had merely avoided conduct of which the college authorities disapproved." In 1872, "the Master of Arts degree remained in the hands of the college [not the graduate school], but the requirements for the degree were finally raised in 1874. It will be recalled that by the nineteenth century the M.A. had become something of a joke. James Hadley wrote of it in 1850,

The M.A. is no honor at all. It certifies indeed that a man has been B.A. 3 years earlier, but the first diploma certifies that. It proves also that a man has paid 5 dollars to the College, but that only shows him 5 dollars poorer than he was before.... It is notoriously no certificate either of application or attainment. If it had been from the first what it now is, it could not have come into use, and being what it now is, must ere long go out of use or change its form to something significant.

It took, in fact, twenty-five more years to change. Harvard granted the old degree in 1872 for the last time and Yale voted in March of that year not to give the degree after 1874 'unless satisfactory evidence has been given that the candidate has been pursuing professional, literary, or scientific studies since receiving his first degree.' It was further provided that the degree would only be given after one year's study and only if the candidate was a graduate of two years' standing." So James Truslow Adams's M.A. degree awarded in 1900 would presumably have been on the basis of requirements more rigorous than simple application, Dictionary of Literary Biography notwithstanding. Unless there was a slip-up of some kind :). - Nunh-huh 19:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

SOmalis in North America

Does Canada and USA have embassies in Somalia and if not, how did Somalis ended up in Canada and USA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.67 (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. allows imigration from areas of the world it does not have diplomatic relations with; many such imigrants may apply for refugee status or Right of asylum. --Jayron32 16:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

"There is no U.S. Embassy in Somalia. U.S. citizens living or traveling in Somalia are encouraged to sign up for the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program with the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate in order to obtain updated information on local travel and security. ... Enrolling is important; it allows the State Department to assist U.S. citizens in an emergency."[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Canada has no embassy there. The High Commission of Canada to Kenya also takes care of Somalia and a few other countries. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

American WWII newspaper

What is the title of this U.S. WWII newspaper? Twilightchill t 15:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite possibly it is U.S. News, in 1933 U.S. News & World Report was founded as United States News and did not add the "& World Report" until 1946. --Jayron32 16:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

"AP" means the story is from Associated Press. A Google News archive search [3] shows other newspapers bringing the story. Do you really need the name of the particular newspaper in the image? PrimeHunter (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Turned interest because of its unique headline. Twilightchill t 18:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It's headline is "Russ Girl Terror of East Prussia" while the headline of the Ottawa Citizen hit in my Google search is the rather similar "Red Army Girl Unseen Terror of East Prussia". I see you added [4] the unidentified Flickr image as source in Roza Shanina before coming here. I think the Ottawa Citizen story with name and date of newspaper (and Google News as authentication) would be a better choice. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The exact same story (with a different headline) ran in the Los Angeles Times as "Girl Sniper in Red Army Kills Five Nazis in One Day," Los Angeles Times (24 September 1944), page 10. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Local papers (then and now) very frequently write their own headlines for wire-service stories, syndicated columns, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

For many years, headline writers used "Russ" to mean "Russia" or "Russian" (or "USSR"). Probably not so much anymore. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

australian law and the paparazzi

Hi, a few years back, Nicole Kidman was being followed by some of the paparazzi in or around Sydney, and she tried to get a restraining order on at least one of them. At one stage, I saw on the news that the judge had thrown the case out of court, but I haven't been able to find that on the internet. Actually, a judge did eventually rule in her favour, but the ruling seems only to refer to his presence near her home.

I'm not interested in the specific facts of the case, so please don't move this to the Entertainment desk, and I'm not a celebrity or a paparazzo, so I'm not asking for legal advice. I just want to know what the law says in relation to people following celebrities around for nothing more than the sake of photographing them for money. Can they ever be barred completely from approaching, say, within a hundred metres, or can one only get restrictions where residential property is concerned? Is it markedly different for ordinary people than for public figures? I'm primarily interested in the Australian situation, but would also be curious about the experience worldwide. Thanks in advance, It's been emotional (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

In the U.S., you certainly can ask for a restraining order to prevent a specific person from coming within a certain distance of you. But the person has to do something threatening or illegal, like stalking, before an order can be issued. If Nicole Kidman goes walking down the street, she can't stop you from walking up and taking a picture of her, as far as I know. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

She could always have her escort fire a flare gun at you: [5]. StuRat (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

POLITICAL QUESTION: how do we find the right amount of government regulation without stifling business and making them do too much tax

i am in AMerica and I believe that too much goverment regulation and taxes makes it harder for the Man to do business. That is why people go to Florida and Texas because there are no such things as taxes and regulation down there (ok there is some, but not as much as up north). On one hand, if u take away all the regulations, then companies like Enron and BP and Goldman Sachs will steal all the moneys and pollute all the environments. But on the other hand if u don't let people run their business and u tax them too much, they will move to other states and other countries or they will exit their industry entirely and do something else with their time and we won't have any jobs. HELP! i don't know how to solve this problem, so how do we go about solving this difficult problem.--Voluptuous Nature (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the eternal problem of governance and regulation, and one that nobody has managed to solve to a degree that everyone agrees with them. It is going to be an essentially contested question as long as there is governance. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

China's government does a fair bit of intervening in peoples' lives. Probably at the other end of the spectrum from the USA. China has a very healthy economy. HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

China's interventions are more political than economic, though. Their economy is largely free-market (though certainly the government is not shy about making macroeconomic decisions aimed at helping their own companies relative to foreign ones).

There is a point of view that economic freedom leads inevitably to political freedom, in the long run. Chile appeared to be a counterexample for ten, fifteen years, but seems to have come around. China will be another interesting test case. I hope it's true. --Trovatore (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

They do significantly less regulation of business, though, hence all the poisoned products coming out of China. StuRat (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's actually more complicated from an economic point of view. The Chinese government does manipulate the Chinese currency and economy pretty directly in many important ways. It is free market in some ways, managed in others. My understanding is that even the PRC government still sees this as a real question to ask and their actions as very experimental. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

One naive answer is to get to the point where you piss everyone off equally, then you know you are doing a good job. That is, if half the people think there's too much regulation, and half think there's not enough, you are golden. With taxes, it's trickier, as you can't just ask if they want to pay more or less tax, since 90% would always say less. You have to ask "do you want lower taxes and less of the following government services..." to get a useful answer. StuRat (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

For a start, the questioner seems to take it for granted that 'government', 'business', and 'taxes' are all necessary. As to whether all or any actually are, this is also a political question, though it's worth mentioning that for most of its existence, Homo sapiens seems to have managed to live well enough without. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if I agree. In a small tribe of hunter-gatherers, there probably was a leader ("government"), who sometimes took stuff from people ("taxes"). Some specialization in work probably also existed, like a person who made spears and exchanged them with hunters for food (a "business"). StuRat (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

That isn't what ethnographic studies of contemporary hunter-gatherers seem to suggest, though there seems to have been a degree of variability in this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall some very early evidence of trade, such as the presence of materials not native to the area. This implies trade over long distances, but trade within the tribe probably happened even earlier. StuRat (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It may be misleading to necessarily assume that objects moved as 'trade' in the sense that is normally used. One could be looking at exchange if 'gifts' instead, though the distinction is not always clear-cut. This is a complex issue, and probably getting rather off-topic in regard to the original question though, so I'll just say that you can't explain the workings of a hunter-gatherer economy well if you try to shoehorn it into the analytic categories of a technologically-advanced market system. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Which is also a good argument for not using hunter-gatherer systems to understand technologically-advanced market systems, either. While the idea of a governmentless society has entranced various anarchists for some time, there is basically zero evidence that such approaches could be used successfully for societies of the size, complexity, and technological development that exists in most modern nations. I find primitive tribes interesting, but I don't want to live in one. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason I brought up China was to emphasise the USA's position at one end of the spectrum. There are many countries who tax and regulate a lot more than the USA and who currently have very healthy economies. Just trying to move the discussion beyond the US view of these things. HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, mainly countries in Europe do that, but there are also many nations with lower regulation and taxes than the US, primarily 3rd world nations. StuRat (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to the original question, one key is to make sure that regulations are transparent and have a reason. That's particularly important for small firms. Rather than have small firms fill in lots of licence applications for different regulatory agencies, they should have a simplified system where they only fill in one or two applications, and there is less risk of major unforeseen costs. Not so simple with large firms perhaps, because if you consult them on the regulations they will try and write the regulations themselves. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Why picas?

I've used desktop publishing software for ages, and never really known why picas continue to be used as a unit of measurement. They are utterly unintuitive, in my opinion, and are totally useless for calculation (46p3.36 + 25p10.2 = 72p1.56.... whaaaa?). I see from the article where they came from, but is there any reason to use them, other than the fact that they have become something of a standard? Do they do anything that inches or millimeters don't do? Do they convey any advantages other than being a silly little system that you have to use in order to be a graphic designer? Any thoughts, insights, and speculations appreciated. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You're referring to Pica (typography), correct? Your link goes to a disambiguation page. Buddy431 (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Units of measurement have a certain amount of cultural inertia. Its why the U.S. has never abandoned the base 2-3-4-12-16 system it currently uses for a simple base-10 system like the metric system. Metric measurements have no inherent disadvantages, and are easier to covert between, than the established U.S. system; and yet people are resistant to change simply because it is change. Industry specific measurements, such as picas used in printing, or troy ounces used in precious metals or any of the other odd measurements keep existing from the sheer inertia it takes to get everyone to just change at the same time. --Jayron32 21:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to see any advantage to switching to metric. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The advantages of metric are clear if you have to deal with a lot of measurements. Three yards plus two feet plus five inches is how many miles? That's not the easiest thing to do even with a calculator (unless it is a Google-style calculator that automatically converts units for you). Two meters plus two millimeters plus five centimeters is how many kilometers? That's trivial if you just write down the numbers and know what the prefixes mean. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Dividing a meter by 3 is not so easy. It's unfortunate that they made the meter as one ten-millionth, or whatever it was, of the distance from the equator to the north pole. When they found it was 39.37 inches, if they had just said, OK, let's make it 36 inches, that would have been fine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Except that in the case of the US metric system, there would be some large cost (mentally and financially) to switching off of metric at this point. For picas, it's hard for me to see what it would be. Everyone who uses picas must also know some other system just as well (e.g. metric or imperial), and there is no financial cost (it would involve simply changing your preferences in your graphic design program). Yet it is still the "standard," still the default. It just seems to me that it is utterly without any additional value; it doesn't make anything easier, and it seems odd to have yet another arbitrary unit, one even more arbitrary than the imperial system. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me phrase this another way. I know standards are arbitrary. My real question is: is there any reason to keep using picas? Does the pica/point system convey any advantages? Could graphic designers turn around tomorrow and say, "like many 18th century French experiments, it probably seemed like a better idea at the time than it does today; let's just switch over to inches or metric and be done with picas once and forever." Would anything be lost? Would there be any costs? --Mr.98 (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

An advantage of the inches-picas-points system is that the numbers 72 and 12 can be divided into more integers than can 10. Twelve can be divided into 2, 3, 4 or 6. Seventy-two can be divided into a bunch of smaller numbers without getting into decimals. This is why the Babylonians liked the number 360 a lot and one of the reasons why computer people like 8s instead of 10s. The question is why there are 6 picas to an inch when 6 can only be divided into 2 or 3. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suppose. Though interestingly, with modern computer design software, you can't use a fractional representation for measurement at all, hence the goofy things like 25p10.2 (as opposed to, say, 25¹/₁₆). All of which seems like more of an argument to get rid of it — if we're doing this all on computers anyway at this point, the need to have numbers that form easy fractions is totally obliterated. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Mr. 98 -- Such measurements were originally created for the purposes of professional printers and type-founders in the pre-20th-century days of hand-setting of physical metal type. Very few people outside the printing and publishing trades had to deal with picas in everyday life before the 1980s, when publishing software started to come to home computers... AnonMoos (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

December 28

UN peacekeepers Bangladesh Sierra Leone

How many Bangladeshi UN peacekeepers die in Sierra Leone? I asked this question because I was amazed that Sierra Leone officially made Bengali as its language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.23.155 (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Our Sierra Leone article says "In December 2002, Sierra Leone’s President Ahmad Tejan Kabbah named Bengali as an "official language" in recognition of the work of 5,300 troops from Bangladesh in the peace-keeping force". That's an "official language", not the "official" language" of course and there is no indication that this is expected to be seen as anything but a honorific gesture, but it does seem to be a recognition of a major role played by troops from what is itself a poor and sometimes troubled country. As to the numbers killed, I'll see if I can find some figures - this perhaps could go into the article too.

See also the Bangladesh UN Peacekeeping Force article, though this doesn't seem to give any specific details on Sierra Leone. (This article needs a little attention too, I think - rather long-winded and essay-like?).

Google finds some useful-looking articles with a search for "Bangladesh Sierra Leone peacekeepers", and I'll keep looking for casualty numbers.

This article [6] says that 92 Bangladeshi UN peacekeepers have been killed while serving in various locations (which include Somalia, Bosnia, Congo and Cambodia as well as Sierra Leone),though unfortunately it doesn't give any specific breakdown by country. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bengal, maybe someone else will find out more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Popular names for governments

Hi there, is there somewhere I can find a list of popular names given to various governments, generally related to the residence of the head of government, example :

• Canada : 24, Sussex Drive
• France : l'Élysée (or is it Matignon?)
• United States : White House
• United Kingdom : Downing Street
• etc

Alternatives names, like when one says : « the White House announced today a XX B$ stimulus package ... »

I'm sure not every country has those, and some are probably not used a lot (example, it's rare that one will refer to the Prime Minister of Canada as Sussex Drive), but I'm asking just in case.

Thanks. Cheers! [CharlieEchoTango] 05:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find a list. I think it also depends on the location of text or speech. The Kremlin (and the Palais de l'Élysée) might be in global usage as well, whereas less prominent governments might be referred to metonymously in more regional sources and local colloquial usage. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

As Sluzzelin says, the former Soviet Union was supposedly run from the Kremlin, I'll not comment on where present-day Russia is run from. I think these 'names by location' are more about 'the State' than 'the Government' though, as they add a layer of abstraction. This raises another question (with me at least): is this 'geographic localisation of an abstract entity' common in all languages and cultures, or is it more specific: the British case seems to be very marked to me: Downing Street, Whitehall, Scotland Yard, The Old Bailey etc (and 'the corridors of power' as an ultimate abstraction). There is a sort of logic to this, in that 'the Government' may change, but 'geography' tends to appear more static. I think perhaps Antonio Gramsci's understanding of hegemony may be relevant here - if you don't mind going of on a sociological/political tangent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to you both.

Sluzzelin, thanks for your response. I'm not sure I understand the concept of Metonymy (I did read quickly over the page). For example, in french, the government of China is often referred to as « Pékin » (another name for Beijing). Would that be an accurate example of metonymy? If so, is refering to a capital as the government a common practice elsewhere? How would you call the government of Australia, for example? Or is « Washington » also a figure of speech for the government of the USA?

Andy, thanks for your response. I definitely understand the layer of abstraction, and I believe it relates to what Sluzzelin pointed out (figure of speech). However I am not sure that I understand how hegemony (if I understand it correctly, it is about refering to the majority to designate a more global group) influences alternative names of governments? Maybe I didn't understand well what you meant to say.

Sorry if my english is not perfect or well structured.

Thanks again to you both. [CharlieEchoTango] 05:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

We aso have Nagatachō, Casa Rosada, Zhongnanhai, and the Beehive featured on our list of metonyms. My personal observation is that foreign newspapers often use the capital city ("Ottawa", "Beijing", "Damascus") metonymously: "Ottawa refuses U.S. appeals ..." etc.) ---Sluzzelin talk 05:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Thanks for the details, I appreciate it. [CharlieEchoTango] 05:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, just went over the list of metonyms. Pretty much sums it up for me as to what « a popular name for a government » was. I now know they are metonyms. Thanks a lot! :D [CharlieEchoTango] 05:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

CharlieEchoTango, glad to be of assistance. Don't worry if you don't understand the hegemony reference - I was perhaps being a little obscure in referring to this. What I really meant is that by referring to 'the White House', rather than 'the government', you make everything seem more permanent - and of course, governments like you to think this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you burn the White House, I don't want to be associated with it!!! Just kidding, of course. Thanks again, Andy - [CharlieEchoTango] 06:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

CharlieEchoTango, you asked about Australia. "Canberra" is used here, outside the national capital, to refer to the federal government, in much the same way as "Washington" is used to mean the US Government. Very occasionally, "The Lodge" is used to mean the Prime Minister, but by no means as much as the White House means the President. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for pointing out The Lodge (and Canberra). Much appreciated, and if anyone knows about other countries, I'd be glad to know. I guess « The Lodge » is used about as much as « Sussex Drive » is used here in Canada, that is almost never except in Op-Eds. Thanks again, Jack of Oz and cheers - [CharlieEchoTango] 06:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

In Canada we usually just say "Parliament" (or "Ottawa", as mentioned). Sussex Drive is where the PM lives, but nothing happens there (except the occasional hilarious security lapse). Likewise you never really hear "Rideau Hall" in place of "Governor General". Adam Bishop (talk) 06:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Here in the USA, I've never heard the White House used as a synonym for the government. It's symbolic of the President, i.e. the executive branch. The House and Senate collectively are referred to as the Congress, the legislative branch. The judicial branch, the Supreme Court, is often called the High Court. But when Americans refer to their government in general, typically it's "The Government" or "Washington" or "D.C." The fact that it's the Federal Government is understood. You would use other terms for lower levels of government, such as "The State House" or the name of the capital city; and "City Hall". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the original poster is using government the way Americans would say administration. For those Brits (or other Westminster-system citizens) who don't know, on this side of the Pond government is synonymous with the state, but not state in the sense of individual state like California or Vermont. --Trovatore (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Trovatore is only describing American usage there. We speak of the Harper government, for example, not the Harper administration. --Anonymous, 09:16 UTC, December 28, 2010.

In similar vein, "Downing Street" is a metonym for "the Prime Minister", not the government as a whole. "Westminster" is for both houses of Parliament, and "Whitehall" is the metonym for the machinery of government, the Civil Service, not far from what Americans understand by the word "government". (This doesn't make sense if you think about it too hard: Whitehall the place is part of Westminster. But metonymy was not made to be looked at too closely.) Marnanel (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about it more, "Capitol Hill" is a frequently used nickname for the Congress, just as "White House" refers to the President. In Parliament it makes sense to refer to "The [Prime Minister]] government", because they are bound together through the British election process. Not so in America, due to the separation of powers. Hence you have the Obama administration, or the 44th Presidency; and you have the upcoming 112th Congress. Perhaps the separation of powers is the reason why it's simply called "the government". There's no such thing as "the Obama government" or "the Bush government" or whatever. But "the [President] administration" is still used to refer to an era in which a particular President was in office, regardless of changes in the Congress. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"The Smith government" in the UK means pretty much the same as "the Smith administration" in the US. In both cases, this is just the executive branch. The difference is that it's elected by Parliament in the UK and appointed by the President (Smith) in the US. The nomenclature itself doesn't have a whole lot to do with the issue of separation of powers. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is different though, because a Westminster prime minister is (at least ordinarily) the head of the majority party in Parliament. So he has a much more direct legislative role than a US president. This is especially true because of the stricter party discipline that generally obtains in such countries — a UK prime minister with a solid majority in the Commons has very few checks on his power; he can effectively dictate legislation and then implement it.

A US president, by contrast, has no direct legislative role, except for the veto. He can propose legislation, in the same sense that you can or I can, though he's much more likely to get a hearing on some form of it than you or I. But in general there's no guarantee that even members of his own party will vote for it.

You may be right that this is not the reason for "the nomenclature itself", but I'm not sure about that. --Trovatore (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

First, you're missing the point of my post: it's precisely about the nomenclature - whether the use of the expression "the Smith government" is due, as Bugs suggested, to Smith controlling both the legislature and the executive. Well, it's not, simply because "government" in UK usage refers solely to the executive (and more specifically to the cabinet, the "team" of ministers); hence, Smith's alleged control of the legislature has no relevance whatsoever. "The Smith government" does not include Smith's majority in Parliament. That's what I meant when I said that "the Smith government" in the UK is essentially the same entity as the "Smith administration" in the US; I didn't mean that they have precisely the same relations to the legislature and the same extent of checks and balances, which is a completely separate issue. Second, as for your remarks about there being less separation of powers in the Westminster system, that may be so, but this shouldn't be reduced to the PM having unrestricted and unchecked power. Technically, the PM does not have any legislative role: s/he can only propose laws, just like a US president can. If one must speak of a lack of separation of powers, one should say that the Parliament has a certain executive role. If a Westminster executive and a Westminster legislature tend to work in the same direction, it's because the legislature controls (to some extent) the executive, not the reverse. You're implying that a Westminster PM is too powerful, but from a Westminster point of view it is the US President that is exotically powerful: instead of one or more political parties working collectively, a single elected individual installs an entire administration and single-handedly has near-complete control of the executive branch. The Westminster PM derives all his power from his Party and the Parliament and can lose it at any time as soon as he loses the confidence either of his party or, in some other way, of Parliament - for instance, because the ruling coalition has split. Also, it's my impression that wherever a constitutional state is dangerously close to authoritarianism, it tends to be, formally, a Presidential democracy. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by saying the PM can only propose laws in the same way the US president can? The PM is (de facto) required to be a member of one or the other of the houses of the legislature. As such, they are perfectly capable of introducing bills on their own account, which isn't a thing you or I or Barack Obama can do. Marnanel (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct in pointing out that there is a formal difference between "proposing" and "introducing" a bill: a President such as Obama can't introduce a bill personally in the way any individual congressman or senator can. A PM, on the other hand, can introduce a bill personally as an individual MP. And the significance of this difference for the actual, practical power of both to influence legislation is, of course, zero.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The word Pharaoh originally meant "Royal Palace", so the use of the building to refer to the individual or the "administration" is older than history.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 19:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone in the UK refers to the Prme Minister personally as "Downing Street" - it is usually used as shorthand for the PM's personal staff. "Downing Street has issued this statement" means that it has come from the PM's press office or from one of his advisors. "The Palace" is used in the same way - it means the Queen's support team rather than the Queen herself. Rather different to the Emperor of Japan who used to be referred to as Mikado ("palace gate") because it was disrespectful to mention his name. Alansplodge (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is heavily Earth-centric. Textorus (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you can add further examples from those who live under bridges on other planets... AnonMoos (talk) 08:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

India has Rashtrapati Bhavan for the president, forget the PM's office. and then the various ministries are refered to as either East or West Block depending on theirlcation in the national capital.

Venezuela also has Miraflores, and Ecuador has somethign too but i forget.(Lihaas (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)).

While we're on Latin America, Argentina has the Casa Rosada, or just "La Rosada". LANTZY^TALK 08:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Tallest vice president?

Hello. There is a list about the tallest US-presidents. Who was the tallest vice-president and how tall is/was he? Jerchel (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Lyndon Johnson was 6'4". He was JFK's VP before he was prez. I'm not sure if that's the tallest. There might be a problem with early VP heights, in that they might have lied about their height, and nobody would challenge them back when it was considered wrong to contradict someone in power. StuRat (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Heights of Presidents of the United States and presidential candidates could be a good basis for starting a list of the heights of Vice-Presidents. It would be a matter then of researching the missing ones to fill in the gaps. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Chopin's Ballade No.1

In Chopin's Ballade No. 1 in G Minor, in bar 170, there is a quintuplet group. The third part of the group, is written as B♮ and B♭, stemmed together, so that the main stem splits in two, forming what looks like the letter Y, where the note heads are on each of the arms of the Y. I've been previously told by another Wikipedian that this indicates that both notes should be played together, however, many notable pianists on YouTube play this as what sounds like two seperate notes, playing B first and then B♭. Can anyone tell me how this is actually supposed to be played? Brambleclawx 19:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think "another Wikipedian" is correct - a split-stemmed note like this is used when notating an altered unison as an alternative to writing two touching B noteheads with two accidentals (flat and natural) before them. I have at the Peters edition, which uses this notation: it's possible that other editions may notate it differently, or even show the B and Bb as distinct notes. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I found what you are talking about on page 7 of this score. It is without a doubt played together. A quarter note quintuplet takes 3 beats. Following the quintuplet there are 3 more full beats. Since the measure is in 6/4 it must be that the B♮ and the B♭ are played in sync. Have fun with the piece, it looks challenging! schyler (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all. Brambleclawx 02:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Before a fixed retirement age

When was the retirement age of 65 for men in the UK (now being increased) fixed? Did people keep on working until death prior to the state pension being established? Was there the same concept of people over 65 being not fit for work as there is now (contradicted by people like Joan Rivers and B&Q employees etc). I was surprised to read that Francis Austen was promoted to Admiral of the Fleet when he was eighty-nine years old. 92.15.14.203 (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Before the 20th century, old people in England who couldn't be supported by their families often ended up in poorhouses/workhouses, as can be read about in many classic novels. See English Poor Laws... AnonMoos (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The retirement pension was established in England by the Old Age Pensions Act 1908, which allowed people over 80 to draw a pension of 5 shillings per week. (This provision went unchanged until within the last 10 years, believe it or not: all over-80s received an extra 5 shillings per week, even when it became 25p!) The pension age of 65 for men, 60 for women was established as part of Beveridge's welfare reforms after World War 2. It is still possible to "work until you drop", and there are well documented examples of people continuing to work until into their second century. such asIt is only the age at which the pension can be drawn that became fixed. Some firms have treated this as the age beyond which they cannot employ someone, which has never actually been the case. --TammyMoet (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Tammy has made a good point in highlighting that for most people these days there is not a retirement age. Anti-discrimination laws see to that. You cannot tell people that they're too old to work. There is, however, a pension age, being the age at which they become eligible to receive a pension either from the government or of their own creation. HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln comparative height

How tall was Abraham Lincoln compared to the male average height in his day? He was 6 feet 4 inches, but what was the average male height then? Currently the male average height is 5ft 10inches, at least in Europe for young men (and six feet in the Netherlands). 92.15.14.203 (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

During Lincoln's time, the average male height in the U.S. was 1.71 m (5 ft 7+1⁄4 in). As such, he was about nine inches or so taller than average. See here for more information. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring percentiles, then the equivalent would be over six feet seven then. 92.29.120.235 (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is heavily male-centric. Textorus (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

And your point? The OP did ask specifically for the male average after all. Dismas|^(talk) 02:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

A better answer would include his height percentile or how many standard deviations above the mean his height was. Edison (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Why "What Is The Best Philosophy?" Is A Difficult Question

I have posed this question to both my trombone and philosophy professors. The RD knows more about me than they do, therefore there was no knowledge of my beliefs involved. My philosophy professor, who reminds me of a mouse, cleverly evaded this difficult question by telling me that the best philosophy is to "cleverly evade difficult questions." My trombone professor, who reminds me of a cat, her answer is wherein my question lies. She claimed that "there is no 'best'" (quotes hers) and additionally there is "no objective truth." So, why do people not like to talk about these kind of things and would rather revert to discussing the weather or his or her pet or other 'lame' things. Similarly, why do some people absolutely enjoy discussions about religion, politics, and philosophies where disagreement unavoidable and warmly welcomed? Thanks for your individual insights Wikipedians! schyler (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It is a difficult question because almost nobody will agree on what "best" means in this context. The one that makes you happiest? The one that gives the most insight into deep problems? The one that is most internally consistent? The one that constantly calls its own assumptions into question? Until you can agree what "best" means, you won't be able to agree which one is "best." For your second question, I would substitute "lame" for "safe." Many people don't want to rock the boat, or showcase their own ignorance, or have a discussion where they'll be forced to disagree with you. In my experience, some people thrive on disagreeing with others, while others loathe it. I'm not sure there's any obvious reason why people fall into one category or the other. In my experience it has nothing to do with either intelligence or self-confidence. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Damn, 98 said pretty much exactly what I had typed before the edit conflict. The only additional insight I had was that I think people actually do like to debate which philosophy is best. When people argue about religion or politics they are usually arguing about which variety is better. This is a debate about which is "da best philosophy." --Leivick (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you can separate "what does 'best' mean in this context?" from the question itself. Questions like "which philosophy could make you happiest?" are footnotes to the main question, "what is the best goal?". This is a moral question, and morality commonly makes people uncomfortable, since it might turn out that they're doing wrong. 81.131.29.142 (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The answer to why it is a difficult question depends on a number of things. For some people who are not very intellectual or reflective, the question is a loaded one --i.e. to them it is very easy. For others, the difficulty is a product of their notion of truth. I.e., if truth is absolute, then there exists some particular philosophy which is best. Just like in mathematics, just discovering that there exists some answer is a big step. However if your notion of truth is not absolute, than what is an is not true is a matter of convenience. (Please be advised that this characterization of that view is not a slight at all.) Epistemologically, the universe does not give us the answers to metaphysical questions. Therefore the best we can do is to find a convenient way to understand reality.Greg Bard (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

One way to get more interesting answers out of your professors is to ask them what their favorite philosophy is. You'll probably hear some amusing responses if they are very clever. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly your question, but you according to this site the theologian Leonardo Boff once "maliciously" asked HH the Dalai Lama: "what is the best religion?" According to Boff, the Dalai Lama answered, "The best religion is the one that gets you closest to God. It is the one that makes you a better person." (And seems to have elaborated a bit further, if you click through all the slides. But, I have to wonder if HH might not have been being a bit mischievous himself, speaking of "God" like that!;). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Many people whose intellects I respect have told me, as the trombone teacher told you, that there is no objective truth. The fact that they are stating this as if it was objective truth bothers me. Marnanel (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an entirely different kettle of fish, but it should be noted that there are many, many variously reasoned ways to talk about truth. There is, I would point out, a big distinction between saying there is no objective truth, and saying that there may be some kind of objective truth that unfortunately or fortunately is never fully graspable by human beings (e.g. Allegory of the Cave). The latter is probably the more true position, though it is harder to defend than the former, for it requires making a few suppositions (which nevertheless may be true). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Asking what is the best of anything is difficult, not just philosophy, as you have to review all the different contenders and also decide on the criteria for evaluating them. 92.15.4.201 (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

First, you have a female trombone teacher? would you be annoyed if I told you I found that slightly scandalous, in a pleasant sort of way?

Second, the tension here is that most people believe that philosophy is supposed to make your life better, and so the notion of a 'best' philosophy starts to take on an odor of religious/moral judgementalism (which makes almost everyone uncomfortable). When you get around to the understanding that philosophy doesn't exactly make your life better, but only makes it clearer, then you start to realize that all philosophies lean towards the best philosophy in their own ways (which is ultimately something like: "Don't make yourself and everyone around you miserable by getting hung up on petty, stupid crap"), and then you start to realize that the general antipathy to philosophy that most people feel is because most people can't even imagine not getting hung up on petty, stupid crap. As someone once quipped, the thing in life that makes us most anxious is not having any anxieties. --Ludwigs2 06:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Asking "What is the best car" or "what is the best painting" are also difficult to answer, so it is not some attribute intrinsic to philosophy that makers it difficult to answer. 92.29.127.80 (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't really apply here, because a philosophy (of life) only has one use, unlike a car or a painting which might be more or less valuable in different contexts. 213.122.8.29 (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Well you could equally well say that a car or a painting only have one use. And a philosophy of life could have lots of different uses - random examples could be that encouraged to keep the peasants submissive in feudal times, that of a suicide bomber, that of a celebrity, that of suburbanites, trhat of Ghengis Khan - in fact there would be myriad different best philosophies of life for all the different historical eras, cultures, classes, personalities, heaklth, wealth, maturity and circumstances of those involved. In short, that deciding the best philosophy is not straighforward is not intrinsic to philosophy and gives you no clues about any special attributes of philosophy. In any case, the best philosophy of life could be the Golden Rule and Logotherapy. 92.24.183.19 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

We apparently have different philosophies of philosophy. :) 213.122.8.29 (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

December 29

Catholic Communion Practices

My spouse maintains that, in the Catholic rite of communion, only the bread is distributed to the participants; the wine is drunk only by the priest(s). I know that both are distributed in those protestant churches that use the rite (in Canada, in the Anglican and United churches, for example). The WP article on the Eucharist suggests both are distributed. Does anyone know for certain? If the answer is that both are distributed, has this always been the case? Bielle (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

My family is Catholic and whenever we went to church here in the UK we only received the Host and never the wine. I was always told b my parents that when I grew up I would be old enough to receive the wine, but to be honest, I had noticed that it was only the priest who took it and nobody else. I do not have any sources for this, so I guess I can only offer this as OR. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

See Communion under both kinds. At one time the Roman church reserved the cup to the clergy, although this has been changing over the past century or so. (I have been to RC services where the laity were given bread, and where they were given both bread and wine.) Anglican canon law requires both the bread and wine to be distributed to the laity, as a reaction to the practice of reserving the cup to the clergy (see Article 30 of the Thirty-Nine Articles). Finally, this Anglican would like not to be called a Protestant, if it's all right with you. Marnanel (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Having been raised in the 1980's in American Roman Catholic churches, the laity were given both the bread and wine. I believe the practice changed for many (but of course, not all) Roman Catholics after Vatican II. --Jayron32 02:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, all. If we have a source for Jayron32's suggestion that the practice changed with Vatican II, it could be an addition to Eucharist. The dates are right for his thought to be an answer to my original query; my spouse's memory would have been rooted in his teen and pre-teen years, prior to the early 1960s, when he last had a consistent relationship with formal religion.

And in response to Marnanel, an Anglican "who would like not to be called a Protestant", so be it. You are not a Protestant. I had no idea that there was any controversy to the inclusion. (There is yet another topic I need to add to my "falling behind the times" list of readings.) Bielle (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

To respond to Bielle's question on Anglican being not protestant: Protestants are members of Christian sects/denominations who derive their origins from Martin Luther or John Calvin or Huldrych Zwingli or similar reformers as part of the protestant reformation; they sought to reform the church and had serious theological and practical differences with the Catholic church. Anglicanism (known as Episcopalianism in the U.S.) arose primarily as a church governance issue (whether or not the Pope served as the head of the church or not). Anglicans, in their origin, had very little objection to Catholic theology or liturgy (indeed, many of the practices observed in Anglican/Episcopalian churches would be very recognizable to any Roman Catholic) and are not really "Protestants" in any definition of the word, since the Anglican church didn't arise from the tradition that produced the Reformation. --Jayron32 04:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

"Many of the practices" and words of the liturgy of the Eucharist in the Lutheran church would also "be very recognizable" to Catholics. Edison (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

True, but the Lutheran Church has a strong historical connection to the Reformation; the Anglican church does not. The Anglican church didn't start out in protest to anything theological; rather it was mostly about the right of governance of the Church. The English church went through a wild roller coaster ride during the reigns of the Tudors and Stuarts. Still, on the balance most of the theological positions of the Catholic church (with the notable exception of the right of priests to marry) were retained by the Anglican church. The two have drifted further apart theologically over time, but initially the intent was to keep the English church basically "Catholic minus the Pope". It is the fact that the early Anglican church had no origins in the Reformation (though later developments were influenced by it) that may lead a member of the Anglican Communion to object to being called a "Protestant". Its a simplistic view that holds that Christendom exists in 3 strains, "Orthodox", "Catholic", and "Protestant". In reality, it is much more nuanced than that. --Jayron32 04:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Jayron32 gives one useful and valid definition of Protestant, but it's not the only one; in British legislation the Church of England is clearly classified as Protestant (the Bill of Rights 1689 calls the nation "this Protestant kingdom" and requires the monarch to be Protestant and to take a coronation oath to maintain the Protestant religion, and the Act of Settlement 1701 requires the monarch to be a Protestant descendant of Princess Sophia. The Protestant religion here is, of course, Anglicanism. - Nunh-huh 05:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Very true; many Anglicans, including apparently Parliament at various times, has no problem with considering the Anglican church to be a protestant one. However, it is clear that some Anglicans (at least one above) does have an objection to such a classification. I was merely providing some background as to why an Anglican may object to being called a Protestant. It was not an attempt to say that they definitively were, or weren't, merely an explanation of one side of the issue. As I said, its a nuanced issue, as much informed by each persons individualized theology as anything. It is best to say that some Anglicans think of themselves as protestants, and some do not. I was merely trying to provide a background as to why one would not. --Jayron32 05:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything you've said, I'm just pointing out that since the Church of England is an established church (by acts of Parliament), one can't simply ignore that the body that established it says it's protestant. - Nunh-huh 05:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I would also add that the view that the Anglican Church was really founded simply so that the King could be in charge, rather than the Pope, is consistent with the version I learnt in an English Catholic primary school, whereas the view that it was part of the Protestant movement, and was a popular uprising by the people, is consistent with the version I learnt in an English (supposedly secular) secondary school. I was forced to conclude at a tender age that neither was entirely consistent with all the facts I had to hand, and that the truth had to be some combination of these. Oddly, the (at first glance, more biased) Catholic version seemed to include more facts that were absent from the 'establishment' version than vice versa. At least this taught me to be wary of my textbooks.

Oh, and the wine with communion is largely a Vatican II thing, but there's an element of individual parishes, priests, bishops, diocese and archbishops making decisions, as well as more Vatican-led changes. For example, about 15 years ago the bishop for my diocese visited us to carry out confirmations and told us that if any of the girls wanted to be altar servers, let him know (previously, we had only had altar boys, and our priest was opposed to female altar servers). Globally, this decision had been made much earlier. Similarly, maybe about a decade ago, there was a crackdown on the wording of the parts of the Mass, and previously popular sung arrangements which altered the words (even just by repeating them in a non-standard way) were completely removed from practice unless used as hymns. About the same time, communion was changed to include wine for the laity, and many more extraordinary ministers were trained to allow for this. I am unsure if this was a Vatican-led crackdown, or if it was just that we got a new bishop, or quite what happened. But, in brief, these things change for a number of reasons, and they tend to propagate out to parishes at variable rates. 86.164.67.8 (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

More OR: I was an "attending" Catholic as a child in Perth, Western Australia, and I recall in the late 1970s and early 1980s that for most weekly masses, the wine was only drunk by the priest, while the laity received only the Eucharist. However at masses for some significant event (Christmas, etc) - and/or possibly only at some specific churches - the laity received wine as well. I'm uncertain of the details, because it was a long time ago, and also it was usual from me to attend the small local church most weeks, but attend a larger church on "special occasions", such as Christmas, funerals, Catholic school annual masses etc, so any distinctions in my mind may be due to selection bias. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

In Canada we never get the wine (at least since the 1980s), although I did get to drink it once in an Anglican mass. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I am an Argentinian Catholic, and I recently got married. We had a mass (not just the wedding ceremony) and both my spouse and myself had Communion under both kinds. I remembered once before, as a teenager, we had also Communion under both kinds in a mass inside a stadium. So communion in both species is admitted, but not widespread (at least in here). I must remark that the deacon also has the wine, not just the priest (after all, the deacon is in charge of the chalice). Sometimes, also the (extraordinary) ministers of communion recieve both species.
Lastly, I've seen coeliac sufferers (or people suffering from similar conditions) receive communion under the species of wine, from the chalice, just after the priest drinks from it. Pallida  Mors 19:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all; this has been a wonderfully entertaining read. Bielle (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

(Interesting idea for coeliac sufferers to receive under the species of wine only. I have seen special wafers used for this.) Marnanel (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem with special wafers if that "Pastors and the faithful are reminded that for bread to be valid matter for the Eucharist, it must be made solely of wheat; contain enough gluten to effect the confection of bread; be free of foreign materials and unaffected by any preparation or baking methods which would alter its nature. The amount of gluten necessary for validity in such bread is not determined by minimum percentage or weight, though hosts which have no gluten are considered invalid matter for Mass. In the Roman Rite, the bread prepared for the Eucharist must also be unleavened." [7], so it is a bit tricky: there are low gluten options, although you need a dispensation and it can't be gluten-free, so only receiving the wine (if possible) is easier for most. It gets harder for priests, who must partake of both species when carrying out Mass: I've had a coeliac priest who broke the smallest possible bit from the wafer for himself. 86.164.67.8 (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

legal

i need a copy of the fourth amendment and related materials, uch a search warants, surreptitios entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.68.8 (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is the text of all ammendments to the U.S. constitution, from www.house.gov: [8]. I'm not sure what you mean by "related materials", but search warrant is a Wikipedia article which covers that. The Wikipedia article Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution has lots of background info on the 4th amendment as well. --Jayron32 02:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

2nd Book on History of Roosevelt NY

I am the author of One Square Mile please advance data with addition of Beyong the Wishing Well- Sheldon Parrish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.236.25 (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't parse that. Could you, as an author, please elaborate your question so we can answer it intelligently? Thanks! --Jayron32 03:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is a book called "One Square Mile: The History of Roosevelt NY from an Autobiographical Perspective" by Sheldon Parrish [9].

Are you writing now a second book from that perspective, Sheldon? Could you clarify how you would like us to try to help you with that? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

why Parliament?

why we need a Parliament? I think, it slows down government. whatever politicians want to discuss they could do so through public forums or through multiple radio / tv channels. I don't think, one guy speaks and others listen, is not a wise thing these people are doing. what is the rationale behind this entire Parliament and discussions? how this can be justified in this Internet era? --V4vijayakumar (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If humans had perfect prescience, and the ability to forsee the best way to solve all problems, governance would be unneccesary. The fact that we have problems, and that those problems do not have obvious solutions, requires people to deliberate over how to best solve those problems. The solving of "big problems" requires the existance of a deliberative body to work through the various proposed solutions and to arive at a sort of consensus way to approach them. While different modern societies have arived at subtly different ways to approach this deliberation, they all seem to require some sort of body, be it Parliament, Duma, Knesset, or Congress, to discuss, debate, and deliberate over the best way to solve problems. The danger in letting one person make all of the decisions without confering with anyone (totalitarianism) is if the person makes the wrong decision, or is more likely, as motivations less honorable than "the good of the nation". --Jayron32 05:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Question is about neither favouring totalitarianism nor against Parliament system. It is about Parliament's inherent nature of discussion. why we need system like one guy speaks, and others listen? what is stopping us to embrace new(?) technologies (like tv, radio, internet) and make use of other efficient methods? Governments are using these mediums, why not ditch parliament, in favour of these ways? --V4vijayakumar (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about the use of Parliamentary procedure like Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice for governing how a Parliament operates? Or over the very concept of requiring an actual group of people to meet in one room to discuss issues of the day? --Jayron32 05:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

second one. "the very concept of requiring an actual group of people to meet in one room to discuss issues of the day" --122.172.41.118 (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The answer is that they by-and-large do not. What you see in the actual chambers of parliament is the end bit of a process that is largely done exactly as you describe. Most of the text and specifics of bills are hammered out in committee meetings of small groups of MPs, and often they will use technology, even including such things as email and videoconferencing, to work out the details of bills. MPs make frequent use of the media to build public support for (or against) various bills as well. The final bit of actually voting on the completed bill does go on in the actual chamber, accompanied with some debate and discussion, but this is actually only a VERY small part of the legislative process. They don't literally write the bill from scratch through parliamentary debate; its often some very small tweaks which are being discussed among the "committee of the whole"; most of the major work is done by the exact methods you describe. --Jayron32 06:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think more pertinent links would be representative democracy and direct democracy. Small city states, like those in ancient greece, could get everyone together in the agora and everyone permitted a say could have one. Once states became larger a representative would be used to stand in for the views of the people in a region, and they would convene in a parliament or such like. Technology now allows for e-democracy to permit direct democracy over a potentially global scope. As to why we are not at that state of affairs yet, I don't doubt our representatives are less than keen on making themselves redundant but there are lots of attendant problems with such a system: the fact that many are still disenfranchised from modern communications and the problems of ochlocracy. meltBanana 14:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I would come at this from a different angle. It's true that government decisions could possibly be made remotely through an internet forum, though we would still need clear rules on who gets to vote, assuming we want to be democratic, since it would be unfair to let those who have the skill and inclination to spend time on the forum to make decisions that affect others. Also, it would be difficult to have a meaningful discussion if the forum had to accommodate 10,000 different opinions on a subject. Still, technically, it should be possible for elected representatives to make decisions in an online forum or a videoconference. However, this leaves out a very important element. The fact is that we are human beings, primates, and social interactions are much more effective when they happen in person, because of all of the nonverbal cues (body language, the physical environment, perhaps even pheromones) that can't be captured effectively even in a videoconference. Part of the usefulness of parliaments (and particularly of committees and hallway conversations where members meet for more informal discussions) is the rapport and the sense of trust that members are able to build with each other when they meet in person. These qualities are tremendously helpful in achieving the compromises that democratic government requires. Marco polo (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

it would be unfair to let those who have the skill and inclination to spend time on the forum to make decisions that affect others — to be fair, we already have that to some extent with the current system. Marnanel (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean here, Marnanel. Formally, only elected representatives get to make decisions in a parliamentary system. If you are trying to say that those people act at the behest of a moneyed oligarchy, at least in the United States, I won't argue with you, but formally the oligarchy don't vote in the parliament. This is a bit of a tangent. Marco polo (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

David Miller (in his book A Very Short Introduction to Political Philosophy) discusses exactly this topic, namely, why the Internet revolution has not yet made elected representatives redundant or superfluous. He argues (citing Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy by Joseph Schumpeter) that people are simply not competent to make many of the decisions currently entrusted to politicians, and that it is therefore in the interests of people to "outsource" governance and law-making to representatives with whom they broadly agree. Gabbe (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Quote

Once, James Madison said:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

By that statement, he meant that humans are imperfect and capable of wrongdoing so government, controls on government, and democracy is necessary.

But did he mean it in a Christian or religious sense? Did he mean it in a Christian or religious context? Was he talking about or referring to original sin or the Fall of Man? Was he talking about or referring to the Christian belief that humans and human nature are sinful? Was he talking about or referring to Christianity or religion? Did he mean all that?

I am asking you all this because I first heard about this statement in Chapter 34: Biblical Christian Politics of the book The Battle for Truth: Defending the Christian Worldview in the Marketplace of Ideas by David Noebel. The chapter said that that was what the statement meant. It also said, "Government became necessary because of the Fall. Since each man is inherently sinful, these sinful tendencies must be kept in check by laws and a government capable of enforcing these laws." and "This Christian understanding of human nature helped pave the way for a more just government than a government founded on a faulty view of human nature.". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.63.234 (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought we covered this issue exhaustively a few weeks ago. To sum up the previous discussion: Madison isn't overly concerned with being scrupulously correct in his use of "angels" as an analogy. He's merely noting the reasons why a) government is necessary and b) government must itself be governed. Any attempt to analyze Madison's quote for religious significance is misguided. It misses the point. Later analysts, such as the one you quote, may have been attempting to draw an explicitly religious or even Christian viewpoint, on the point Madison was making. Lets be clear here: This was not part of Madison's initial quote, these are later additions by later analysts. It may be fine to discuss such concepts on their own; whether, for example, Christian theology requires the existance of government for the exact reasons that Noebel provides in your quote. However, I seriously doubt if Madison's quote has that background to it, however. As I said before, Madison was making a statement about Government, not about Religion. In other words, Madison may accept that government is necessary because people will do bad things; but I am not sure he is thinking about these "bad things" except in the very general sense. He's not thinking of them as "sin" in the sense of being religious proscriptions, merely as the fact that government is necessary to prevent people from being bad, whatever your definition of "bad" is. --Jayron32 05:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's an idea for a fruitful discussion: just how many angels can dance on the top of a pin? And is there any difference if these are Roman Catholic angels or Protestant angels? TomorrowTime (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

In some Protestant denominations, angels don't dance. How many angels can stand on the head of a pin and tell the other angels to stop dancing? —Kevin Myers 00:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's the article: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? What would it mean for an intelligent being to have no spatial extent (in our 3-space anyway)? If it must have spatial extent, what and where is it? What if angels can "dance" the way we can "focus attention" – how many people can focus their attention on the head of a pin? Does that awareness in some sense "occupy" that space, without having any physical extent in that space? Etc. Who knows? Good question, though. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The answer to the head-of-a-pin question is: "Either all of them... or none of them." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Golden Jubilee guest lists

Does anybody know who was on the guest list during Queen Victoria of England's Golden Jubilee in 1887? I interested in foreign dignitaries and kings and queens. I heard Emperor Guangxu and Empress Dowager Cixi were invited, but obviously they didn't go in person.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Some "50 foreign kings and princes, along with the heads of Britain's overseas colonies and dominions, attended the feast. The widowed queen was escorted for the evening by Christian IX, King of Denmark. On her other side at the table sat King George I of Greece, whom Victoria knew as Willy...[later] she received a long procession of diplomats and Indian princes." Neutrality^talk 08:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Does anybody know about those who didn't attend but were invited? Also any non-European kings and queens since most of Europes kings and queens were her grandchildren or relatives at the time.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Supposedly the future Kaiser Wilhelm II spent the Golden Jubilee being his usual obnoxious and arrogant self, insisting on being given an extra high-degree of formal precedence, and making derogatory and racist remarks about some of the non-European royal individuals present (among other things), which is why he wasn't invited back for the Diamond Jubilee... AnonMoos (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Official Guests for Golden Jubilee

King of Denmark King of the Belgians Queen of the Belgians King of Saxony King of the Hellenes Crown Prince of Austria Crown Prince of Germany Crown Princess of Germany Princess Victoria of Prussia Princess Sophie of Prussia Princess Margaret of Prussia Crown Prince of Portugal Crown Princess of Portugal Crown Prince of Sweden Duke of Sparta Infante of Spain, Don Antonio Infanta of Spain, Doha Eulalia Grand Duke Serge Grand Duchess Elizabeth Grand Duke of Hesse Princess Irene of Hesse Princess Alix of Hesse Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz Heriditary Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar Heriditary Grand Duchess of Mecklenberg-Strelitz Duke of Coburg Duc d'Aosta Prince William of Prussia Princess William of Prussia Heriditary Grand Duke of Hesse Prince Henry of Prussia Prince Ludwig of Bavaria Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Meiningen Hereditary Princess of Saxe-Meiningen Prince Philip of Saxe-Coburg Princess Philip of Saxe-Coburg Prince Herman of Saxe-Weimar Prince Louis of Baden Prince George of the Hellenes Prince of Leiningen Princess of Leiningen Prince Louis of Battenberg Princess Louis of Battenberg Prince Hohenlohe Lagenberg Prince and Princess Edward of Saxe-Weimar Prince of Wales Princess of Wales Duke of Edinburgh Duchess of Edingburgh Duke of Connaught Duchess of Connaught Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein Prince Victor of Schleswig-Holstein Princess Louise, Marchioness of Lorne Marquis of Lorne Duchess of Albany Princess Beatrice, Princess Henry of Battenberg Prince Henry of Battenberg Duke of Cambridge Duke of Teck Duchess of Teck Princess Victoria of Teck Prince Frederick of Anhalt Prince Ernest of Saxe-Meingen Some others in the procession were: Sultaneh of Persia Prince Komatsu of Japan Queen Kapiolani of Hawaii and Princess Loluokalani Prince Devawongse Varoprakar of Siam The Thakir Sahib of Morvi Maharaja and Maharani of Kuch Behar Rao of Kutch Maharaja Holkar of Indore Monsignor Ruffo Scilla was the envoy of the Pope Any errors in the list are probably mine, all from the Times.MilborneOne (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we make this an template on her page?(Lihaas (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC));

US VP.

When was the last time the VP was called upon to vote in the senate? i imagine its been quite awhile, but then again i could be wrong.(Lihaas (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC));

For the sake of clarity I guess the OP means the Vice President of the United States. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

We've got an article on that... Seems like the Cheney did it a number of times. This list goes up to 2008; I don't know if it has been updated since. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That senate page must be updated. it hardly has any delays and by "de facto" law it cant.

One should also add a "total" section to that wikipage(the senate page says 244)

Thanks.Lihaas (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean it can't be un-updated? That's silly. It certainly can be out of date and probably is. The Senate Historical Office, who maintains it, has neither infinite resources nor infinite time, and I think it's pretty clear that they did that report on it in March 2008, which is when it ends. (Note that a number of links on the page are also, as of this moment, dead.) Now, it might be that simply it hasn't happened since then. But I wouldn't trust that page to necessarily be up to date on the matter. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the dynamic of the last two years, it doesn't seem implausible that Joe Biden has never been called on in that capacity. There have been lots of close issues in the Senate, but the close vote has usually been cloture, not the bill itself. It's certainly not impossible that there's been some less-noticed bill where a reasonable number of Dems voted with the GOP, but that wasn't important enough for the GOP to force a cloture vote, but I haven't heard about it. --Trovatore (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I guess another possibility would be a 50/50 vote with the Republicans on the "aye" side. Then the Democrats wouldn't need to filibuster; they could just call in Biden to vote "nay". --Trovatore (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I recall it happen routinely. Certainly not on every bill. It is after hours now but Thomas, Library of Congress,should have ready figures as should the VP's Office at the White House.gov — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 23:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The pagan festival of Saturna (not Saturnalia)

The Saturnalia article says towards the end: "The Mishna and Talmud (Avodah Zara 8a) describe a pagan festival called Saturna which occurs 8 days before the winter solstice. It is followed 8 days after the solstice with a festival called Kalenda."

Where can I find more about this Saturna (repeat, not Saturnalia) festival please? After a half hour of Googling, all I've found are dozens of copies of the Wikipedia article, pages where people confuse or fuze Saturna with Saturnalia, and two extremely brief mentions here http://www.ajula.edu/Media/pdf/u6%20-%20chanukah.pdf and here http://onefootwalking.wordpress.com/ Thanks. 92.15.4.201 (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure these are not the same festival, just varient spellings on the same event? --Jayron32 21:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Not according to the Wikipedia article. 92.15.4.201 (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It does seem like the Jewish sources were confused about the name of the festival; "Kalendae" is the name of the first day of any Roman month, not really a specific festival, so they were slightly confused about that too. It probably means Saturnalia. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

A search through this version of Avodah Zara 8a only seem turns up "Saturnalia" and no "Saturna" so it is probably a misspelling that I will now fix. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, it looks like "Saturna" is used in this source (cited in the article). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The original Hebrew says Saturnura סטרנורא not Saturnalia or Saturna (although that doesn't mean they are not the same). Ariel. (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

[e.c.] At any rate, it looks like an attempt to rationalize some Roman customs by fitting them into the framework of Jewish historical tradition. Iblardi (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

December 30

Giants Ninepin and Thunder

When I was a very young kid someone told me that thunder came from Jesus bowling in the clouds and hitting a strike ever time he threw. I always assumed he made this up to mess with me, but recently someone told me that they thought they remembered a legend somewhere of thunder coming from giants in the sky playing ninepin. If so, then I find it interesting that this story eventually came down to me, with the giants replaced by Jesus.

Does anybody know of any such legend? If so, where does it come from? Thanks. 67.158.4.158 (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You said pool in your first sentence, but you meant bowling, right ? StuRat (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Err.. yes. Fixed it now. 67.158.4.158 (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Supposedly an old Dutch legend about the ghosts of Henry Hudson and his crew creating thunder by playing nine-pin bowling was incorporated by Washington Irving into his story "Rip Van Winkle", so the idea goes back a ways. (Don't even think about asking why they picked on Hudson.) Clarityfiend (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

When I was a kid the story was "angels bowling". Adam Bishop (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This was referenced in The Simpsons just recently, a show or two ago. A strike every time? Man, that'd be some boring bowling partner. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

According to my grandparents (relayed humorously by my father), it was God having his coal delivered, a domestic-supply reference that would probably baffle most of the current generation. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Now why would God need coals? The guy bellow I can understand, I mean gotta take care of those fires, they wont keep themselves burning, but I'd imagine God didn't have to take care of heating suplies in heaven... Or does it get chilly in heaven in the winter? TomorrowTime (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Evidently. Marnanel (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, my mother always said it was the Almighty rolling his barrels across the floor of his celestial beer cellar. Seems reasonable enough to me. Marnanel (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

...and my Dad assured me it was God pushing his wheelbarrow down his garden path. I guess we'll never know for sure.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say I'll ask him when I get there, but it'd only be thrown out for breaking WP:OR. Marnanel (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Gosh! They're even writing Wikipedia in Heaven and the other place. Explains a lot about Lucifer, the Original Troll. And this user. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I love how three fourths of the guy's user talk is "dude, change your user name or else!" Absolutely love it :) TomorrowTime (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's especially funny that he hasn't edited in five years, but is still getting the comments. User:Jesus, on the other hand, was indefinitely blocked for his name, despite the fact that it's a not-uncommon name. Buddy431 (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

American descendants of English royalty and nobility

How many Americans are descended from English royalty and the old Anglo-Norman nobility? Which of the US colonies was a scion of the nobility most likely to have settled? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Your first query is an example of the sort of anthropo-mathematical question still being researched (by Joseph T. Chang of Yale University among others - see this) in connection with topics such as Coalescent theory and Most recent common ancestor, but probably "the large majority of those with any British descent" is not too wide of the mark. (Yes, I know, frantic hedging.)

According to Richard Dawkins in Chapter 0 [sic] of The Ancestor's Tale an initial theoretical model (see Spherical cow), known to be an unrefined first approximation but nonetheless a starting point, suggests that 80% of the population of Britain in 1000AD would be ancestors of everyone in Britain today, if Britain's population had always been isolated. (Dawkins looks in more detail at the numbers for Tasmania, whose population was entirely isolated for about 15,000 13,000 years up to 1800AD.) Adjusting for immigrations over the intervening millennium, the numbers and date-span of Britain->New World emigrations, the proportions of Anglo-Norman nobles and 'English royals' (do you mean pre-Norman Anglo-Saxons?) in the population, and doubtless many other relevent factors, I will gladly leave to others. To provide some perspective, Dawkins also explains that the most recent common (not 'sole', of course) ancestor of everyone in the World today probably lived only about 30,000 years ago (see the above-linked Most recent common ancestor for more details, though that article seems to ignore minor isolated populations such as the Tasmanians; see also Identical ancestors point).

Your second query I cannot address except to say that my gut feeling is that there would be no particular preponderance, and I await enlightenment from others along with you. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I met someone on an unrelated online forum who referred to the upcoming royal wedding as "my cousin's marriage", and then added that her nearest common ancestor with the groom was born in the early 1600s. I don't think she was being intentionally facetious. Marnanel (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't answer directly, but if you have an Ancestry subscription, you can access The Plantagenet Roll of the Blood Royal and the Tudor Roll of the Blood Royal, either of which should give you leads as to possible answers to your question. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Jeanne -- Many remote descendants of nobility or royalty can be found in the U.S., but very few people who settled in the British North American colonies were actually aristocrats of any kind at the time that they crossed the Atlantic. In the mid-19th century, some people in the southern U.S. liked to claim that the "cavaliers" who settled Virginia were of higher social standing (and better represented old chivalrous ideals) than the "puritans" or "roundheads" who settled New England, but I don't know how well that would hold up in the study of 17th-century history... AnonMoos (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe quite a few younger sons as well as illegitimate offspring of the English gentry settled in Maryland and Virginia. I have a few direct ancestors who were from landed English families and were given land grants in Virginia by Charles II in gratitude for various services rendered not sure if pimping was one of them. I have read in newspaper articles that in most US presidential elections the candidate with the most noble ancestry normally wins, except in the case of Abraham Lincoln.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

According to this book, which many people accept as truth, it is rare that anyone with any ancestor from Europe is not descendent from Charlemagne. -- kainaw™ 13:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

"Ancestral Roots of Certain American Colonists Who Came to America Before 1700" by Frederick Lewis Weis might be useful, although I have an instinctual urge to remove it from Wikipedia articles when it is listed as a reference... Adam Bishop (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Whence the instinct? It's certainly a more reliable book than the Redlich/Langston/Buck/Beard Charlemagne books (mentioned by Kainaw), if only because it doesn't rely on self-reported pedigrees and has been frequently revised and corrected... - Nunh-huh 21:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

According to a genealogical book which some have claimed to be a hoax (it was written by Gustav Anjou), I and my paternal line are descended from Harold II of England. And Bryan Fairfax, 8th Lord Fairfax of Cameron was a Virginian. Corvus cornix_talk 23:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

poems' unknown authors

I'm trying to figure out who wrote the poem, "The Ship That Sails." I'm also trying to find out who wrote these patriotic poems below;

"I AM THANKFUL TO BE AN AMERICAN"

I am thankful to be an American,

To live in the greatest land of all.

In a nation blessed, it's the very best,

I can stand with my head up tall.

I am thankful to be an American,

To be born in a land that's free.

I am thankful to God for allowing me to be,

An American.

"I LOVE YOU SO"

America, America.

How can I tell you, How I feel?

You have given me many treasures,

I love you so.

America, America.

Land of hope and liberty,

Freedom Rings from every mountain,

From sea to sea.

If more information is out there, please let me know. Thank you.24.90.204.234 (talk) 08:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm, that second song sure pops up a lot on the Internet, but none of the pages I opened have an author. This one comes closest by saying "unknown". Well, as hackneyed as it is, it could have been written by anyone old enough to hold a pen, really. Heck, it wouldn't even have to be a person - I remember way-back-when I was still growing up in Yugoslavia and I had a piece of software for my shiny new apex of computing hardware, the glorious Commodore 64 - it spoofed Yugoslav politico speeches by browsing through a database of random jingoisms and arranging them in sensible sentence patterns and what you'd get was a lot of noise that seemed to make sense but was really just empty bantering. This song reminds me a bit of what that software would throw out... TomorrowTime (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - if the "American" was replaced by any of a whole range of other country names, I would have said it sounded like it was churned out by a machine at the central propaganda department.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It reminds me of that bit from Pinafore, except without the irony. Or is it? It's always hard to tell.

He himself hath said it

And it's greatly to his credit

That he is an Englishman

He iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis an EngLISHman --W. S. Gilbert

--Trovatore (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Is "The Ship that Sails" the verse that begins "I'd rather be the ship that sails/ and rides the billows wild and free; / Than to be the ship that always fails/ to leave its port and go to sea"? The earliest citation I can find (from 1969) is credited to "Anonymous", so I suspect it may not be easy or even possible to find the author. (That "to" in the third line really grates, and there's one in the third line of every damn stanza.) Marnanel (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. I just found, "The Set of the Sails," another nautical-related poem by Ella Wheeler Wilcox. When was that one written?24.90.204.234 (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's proper English, ain't it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Price of infinite goods

How does a seller of infinite goods (that means, software, audio-books) put a price tag on its product? Theoretically, the offer is infinite and could meet any demand of it. Quest09 (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't most software say that it's "licensed, not sold"? Also, as a practical matter, it will become obsolete well short of infinity, more like a decade or less. As for the actual price, presumably it's market-driven: they find the price that will optimize their revenue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) You've defined "infinite goods" as "software, audio-books", but I'm afraid I'm none the wiser. In what sense are these goods "infinite", and what is this infinite offer to which you refer? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 13:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs: licenses are still infinite (for all practical purposes).

Jack: Well, you can serve as many clients as you want. If you were selling something with a physical dimension (like cake or beer) you have n units and try to sell them to the higher bidders. But, in the case of software you could sell infinite licenses if you had to, there is no upper limit. You could sell to the higher bidders, to the middle tier and to the lower tier of the market. You could sell license to anyone how would pay you $0.01 or more. Quest09 (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There is usually a different license agreement/price for multiple-user or server-level-user licenses than for individuals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Bugs: I meant you can produce as much licenses as you want. There is no physical limit to it. Quest09 (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, the price is market-driven, i.e. they charge whatever they can get away with to optimize their revenue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

OR, but when I have sold e-books, this is indeed how I've done it. It's all relative to the prices everyone else is charging. If you price it too low, you'll make less, but more importantly nobody will take you seriously (perception of value is an odd thing). If you price it too high, nobody buys. It's quite a juggling act. Marnanel (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The market mechanism will work here too, as in the case of other products or services. Even if licenses are not limited, I wouldn't say they are infinite, since the seller of them has an absolute monopole over them. He can start offering n license at the x price, if things don't work out he offer them at a lower price. Your source of confusion is that licenses are indeed not really infinite, they are limited by the producer, who makes the price go up or down as he pleases. That makes it impossible to get a license for $0.01. You end up paying what they can charge you. Mr.K. (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I'm sure Microsoft would love to charge a million dollars for every Windows 7 license. But no one would buy it, and users would flock to Linux or something (which illustrates the importance of competition in a free market). However, if they charge 99 cents for it... very few, if any, would buy it, out of suspicion. Hence they try to "optimize" their revenue by finding out "what the market will bear". I don't know how else to explain it to the OP, beyond Econ 101. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Calculating the right price (=where the producer earns more) follows the logic above, but might be trickier to calculate, going beyond the Econ 101 knowledge of Bugs. But this optimized price exists, depends on both demand and psychological factors). Mr.K. (talk)

You can start by estimating how many you realistically expect to sell, not how many it's technically possible to sell. That should give you an idea of your cost (to develop the software or write the book) divided by how many you've sold. Add to that all your transaction costs, and the cut the various dealers will take (Amazon doesn't sell books for free!) and you've got your cost per unit.

This cost per unit will change a lot depending on your estimates of how many you'll sell (Which will be tied to what you're proposing to charge, etc.), but that's not as different as you might think to physical goods. Physical goods still have set-up and design costs that must be spread over every item you sell, and physical goods will cost different amounts to manufacture depending on whether you need a hundred of them(Expensive western hand labor) or a hundred million (Highly mechanized factory in china).

I'm not saying it's easy for them to find the right price, but it's not as crazy as you might think compared to, say, the price of an iPod. APL (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

See also Obsolescence. You may have an infinite supply of copies of what you're selling, but you do not have infinite demand. Who would want to buy a copy of Windows 3.0 any more? Also: market saturation. You basically have an infinite supply of air, but no one is selling it because everyone's already got it. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The technical phrase for what the OP is calling "infinite goods" are "goods exhibiting zero marginal cost" -- that is, the cost of producing one more unit of the good is zero. Market price is determined jointly by the marginal cost of production *and* the demand. So, WikiDao is quite right, if demand is finite at a price of zero the fact that the goods exhibit zero marginal cost does not imply that the market price will fall to zero. Wikiant (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You've left out the fact that Microsoft (and many others) also actively participate in market segmentation. That's why there are fifty flavors of Windows to choose from every time around. The goal is to say, "how much are you willing to pay for my product?" and adding a few bells and whistles to the expensive ones. It's not a "single" price for Windows 7; there are lots of different prices for Windows 7, with more or less arbitrary differences in the product between them. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You are describing price discrimination, which is a separate phenomenon from zero marginal cost. For example, you see market segmentation in car pricing where marginal cost is not zero. Having said that, it tends to be the case that firms that produce zero marginal cost products also engage in market segmentation, but that is due to a third factor -- lack of competition. Zero marginal cost firms tend to be monopolistic. Monopolistic firms, because of reduced competition, find it possible to engage in price discrimination. Wikiant (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

See also natural monopoly. Jørgen (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

interesting geography/GK question

Which (endangered??) animal is not eaten by the locals since they consider it as emblem or guardian. Still populations of the animal have declined here in the last 15 years due to farmland expansion, illegal logging, poaching and mining.

would appreciate any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.211.172 (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Aaand it's another of the World Atlas inane geography quiz questions... [10] TomorrowTime (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If you know the answer, please don't post it here. Go to the worldatlas.com website and post the answer there. Then please donate the prize money to Wikipedia. Marco polo (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Elephant, Rhino? 92.24.183.19 (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

"Elephino!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Turns out the answer was chimpanzee. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess they don't know about bushmeat. Googlemeister (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

AIDS may have jumped from apes to humans via the ingestion of infected chimp meat. Corvus cornix_talk 23:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

economy versus society

what is society? what is economy? Are they two things? Are they two ways of talking about one thing?193.135.2.129 (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

They aren't the same thing. Society refers to the sum total of interactions among humans. Economy refers to the interactions among humans that involve buying and selling things. Society is a superset that includes (among other things) economy, polity, and religion. Wikiant (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

These terms are used somewhat differently in different academic disciplines, but in general you can say that a society is a group of people who share a common political structure, an economy is the collective set of economic interactions of a defined group of people (and a culture is a group of people who share a common set of traditions, understandings, languages, etc). The are often overlapping terms - a society can me mono- or multi-cultural, and usually has its own economy, but is often part of a larger global or regional economy or culture. The best way to think about this is to note that each term focuses on a different aspect of normal human social behavior, and every group of people can be looked at through the lens of each term .--Ludwigs2 18:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

In broad terms, economics can be thought of as the study of value, whatever that means. While traditionally, this means money, it doesn't have to, and some economists (like Freakonomics co-author Steven Levitt) study non-monetary value. Basically, what economists do is to study how value affects behavior; that is how people will behave when making decisions based on value of "things", even if "things" are abstract concepts. --Jayron32 18:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I think one could argue that it is really pretty impossible to talk about economy without some notion of society, and vice versa. They are thoroughly entangled. I am not sure they can be considered one and the same, though. But they do have aspects which are very, very intermeshed. Both are also very broad definitions that encompass extremely fundamental aspects of human interaction. I don't think one could argue that they could be considered independent in any way, or that one could talk about something which was wholly social without having an economic component, or vice versa. A simple example: we might think that I could go spend some time with a friend, without exchanging any currency or anything like that, and it would be something that might fall purely in the social realm. But as even our metaphors allude to, time itself is a resource with value, and the choice to spend it one place versus another gives it a deeply economic aspect. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

In 1987 British PM Margaret Thatcher, who paid an awful lot of attention to the economy, declared "There is no such thing as society". Make of that what you will. HiLo48 (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

... well what she actually said in that interview was ...

I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand "I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or "I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" "I am homeless, the Government must house me!" and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people, and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—" It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it" . That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people:"All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!" but when people come and say:"But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!" You say:"Look" It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!"

She later added "My meaning, clear at the time but subsequently distorted beyond recognition, was that society was not an abstraction, separate from the men and women who composed it, but a living structure of individuals, families, neighbours and voluntary associations." Dbfirs 09:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

cap tossing at graduation

I'm looking for information on the tossing of the mortarboard during or after graduation ceremonies. I read the mortarboard and academic dress articles, and the graduation article mentions it once, in the caption of a photo.

thanks, WhiteDragon (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed a similar phenomenon at military academies, where graduates toss their hats into the air. StuRat (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm, never happened at my graduation. This page said it was happening there in 1912. Marnanel (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

As a foreigner (i.e. not American) it's always looked to me like one of those silly American customs. I'm suggesting that it's maybe exclusively American. It's not an Australian custom. HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You may be correct, because it happens at my high school's graduation...not every student participates, but around 50% do...our school also provides confetti-shooting things for each student to shoot at the conclusion of the ceremony, at the same time as the caps are thrown. --Ks1stm (talk) ^{[alternative account of Ks0stm]} 23:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

A little speculation as I don't have access to the drill handbook, but it may be derived from the tradition doffing ones hat whilst cheering, from the period when gentlemen wore hats as a matter of course. In the military environment that has become a formalised drill movement when the uniform cap is removed in advance and then raised in the right hand.

As mentioned above it's something that happens at Passing Out parades for officers of all three services, although given that ones uniform cap is worth about £200 (c $350-400) then it pays to keep hold of it or not throw it too vigorously.

I've not seen it happen in the UK at university graduation.

ALR (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I remember being told a story about a gathering of Cub Scouts in London in the 1950s (well before my time), where the organizers thought it would be a great idea to finish the event with three cheers and everyone to throw their caps in the air. Right on cue, 2,000 small boys threw their green snd gold caps skyward which looked impressive but it took an hour to unite the right cap with the right child. Alansplodge (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, though, that Cub Scouts generally own their own caps, whereas academic dress these days unfortunately tends to be hired once-off for the occasion as though it was a clown costume. There's no particular problem if you throw a cap that isn't yours in the air and return with one that was previously worn by someone else, as long as the gown hire company get all their caps back by nightfall. Marnanel (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Throwing headgear in the air as a public display of enthusiasm was not uncommon in Britain during the first few decades of the 20th century (when most men usually wore hats or caps in public). It can be seen in old newsreels of crowds cheering Royal processions, goals and final whistles at football matches, and the like. (See also the opening sequence of The Mary Tyler Moore Show, not to mention that of Rhoda.) I believe that one usually attempted to throw one's hat/cap in a frisbee-like manner so that one could catch it again, but I too, have wondered how often headgear was thus lost or damaged. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Which English queen consort had the noblest pedigree?

I am curious as to which English queen consort had the most royal blood?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Define "Most royal blood". Several queen consorts were daughters of monarchs, notably Catherine of Aragon, who was a daughter of TWO ruling monarchs (Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile). --Jayron32 19:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There was also Isabella of France, whose parents were both monarchs. I was thinking of consorts who were the daughters of monarchs rather than dukes, counts, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

After looking over List of English consorts, it seems that the daughter of a Holy Roman Emperor Judith of Flanders might have fit that role. Her article mentions that the custom of how the wife of the king was addressed changed with her because she was a "high ranking princess," the daughter of an emperor among kings. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Tangentially, what kind of transformation did the blood of Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte undergo between 20 and 22 August 1810? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

What does Bernadotte have to do with English queen consorts? BTW, he was not the only non-noble monarch. Look at the 19th century Serbian rulers for example.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I was using him merely as an example to question (though not explicitly to deny) the validity of the concept "royal blood" and what it means to have more or less of it. Incidentally, I now see that the article section Royal descent#United States partially addresses one of your other recent questions. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

House names

All the schools I've ever encountered which use the house system have named the houses after objects, famous people, or in the case of primary schools, easily-recognisable concepts such as colours (so that the younger kids can easily remember that Blue house's house colour is blue, rather than having to remember some more abstract mapping). Most of this is also mentioned in our article. However, I'm currently reading the first of the Psmith books, a school story, to my daughter, and I noticed that the two houses primarily mentioned are named after their current housemasters: Outwood's and Downing's. Was this ever a common practice? Marnanel (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

According to our article on Eton, "Each House has a formal name, mainly used for post and people outside the Eton community. It is generally known by the boys by the initials or surname of the House Master, the teacher who lives in the house and manages the pupils in it." AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I should add that these houses, and presumably those in the Psmith stories, are actual houses, usually within the precincts of the school, where the pupils live in term-time, rather than the system of 'put pupils into some arbitrarily-named divisions called "houses" so that we can run sports competitions between them' that applied at my (grammar) school (ours were British imperial heroes). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed so— and thank you for finding that. (Ours were kingdoms of the Heptarchy, but I believe they have been changed since.) The article House system notes its origin in, and its abstraction from, physical houses, but doesn't mention any habit of naming or nicknaming houses after their housemasters: perhaps we should add this? Marnanel (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Charterhouse School names its houses (which are separate houses) after former masters who were the first housemasters (with '-ites' added to the name). Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

E F Benson's novel David Blaize, which our artcle says was published in 1916, certainly exhibits the system you are asking about. --ColinFine (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

English universities: teaching in cosy private rooms

I've seen a number of movies set in English universities of days gone by, where a typical scene is of a group of maybe half a dozen students gathered in what looks like the teacher/professor's private room. There'll be books on shelves, and a small fire going. They might be having tea and cakes, while they're discussing some philosophical/language/history issue. It looks terribly cosy and intimate. I've often wondered whether these scenes accurately reflect how teaching actually occurred in those places, or whether it's just a Hollywood/Pinewood invention. I mean, for only 6 people to be taking that particular subject, out of the thousands at the university at any one time, seems a little odd. Were these the teacher's "special students", the cream of the crop so to speak, or were they the entire class? Was there really a ratio of one teacher to every 6-odd students? Or was this just one of a number of tutorial groups into which the entire class was split? In other movies they'll show an entire lecture hall full of students, with one teacher in charge, which is much more like my experience at university. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Oxbridge prides itself on the tutorial system. In the past, it wasn't half a dozen students, but one student and one tutor. The student would read their essay aloud and the tutor would comment on it. There were also lectures, treated as less important. But even at Oxbridge it has slipped, and tutorials are more likely to be for two or more students. In other UK universities, students have classes of different sizes depending on the subject, with a definite trend towards ever larger classes. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It happens sometimes at the better universities, if not necessarily in quite such comfort. Oxford and Cambridge get much higher funding per student, so can do the sort of thing that Itsmejudith describes. In some other universities, in some subjects, tutorials with maybe 10 students in attendance, together with a lecturer are common enough (or were 10 years or so ago), though it is more likely to be a cramped office than a posh study, and if you want tea and cakes, you'd best bring your own. I'm sure this will vary greatly with the subject though, and is probably getting rarer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith has hit the nail on the head. To expand a little: supervisions (at Cambridge, called tutorials at Oxford) are part of the reason for the survival of the collegiate system at Oxbridge. All the students are (generally) members of the same college as the fellow who is teaching. (The exception is that the combination of small colleges and small subjects can make this impossible, but it's generally true.) This means that you're taught within a very small community (even the largest college only has a thousand-odd undergrads) and that your supervisor/tutor has an incentive to teach you well, because your exam results affect his college's academic standing and therefore to some extent his own. Supervisions/tutorials are mandatory; exams are mandatory; lectures, which are organised by the university and not the colleges, are optional. I have studied both at Cambridge and at a more modern establishment, and I can confirm that nothing like this goes on at the latter. Marnanel (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Durham has tutorials very similar to the ones described here, except they are organised by departments, not colleges (colleges in Durham handle residential, social, pastoral stuff, not academic stuff). Their usefulness depends on the tutor. --Tango (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that even in gigantic American universities — like UC Berkeley, for example — there are often tutorials or seminars that are a couple of students and a professor. It's not incompatible with the "giant lecture hall" model. When I was an undergraduate, I had classes as small as three students, and classes as large as 500, all in the same department. (They were, of course, at different ends of the curriculum. The big ones were the "feeder" classes that everyone had to take; the small ones were "honors" classes or on more specific topics.) There were never any tea and cakes or fireplaces, however. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

In my own experience at Cambridge, tutorials (we usually called them "supervisions") had between two and six students. I would like to see a reference for itsmejudith's claim that they were originally one student at a time: I can certainly see advantages in having a small group rather than just one, and I have always supposed that that was the norm. --ColinFine (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I will vouch for Mr. 98's observation that this sort of thing happens in the advanced courses at the more prestigious U.S. universities. I experienced it at UC Berkeley and Brown. There were even cookies (biscuits for non-Americans) on occasion, but people brought their own (non-alcoholic) drinks. Typically, though these classes were in austere classrooms. Though at Brown, some departments occupy former private houses and have seminar rooms that are comfortably furnished. Marco polo (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

So, they weren't making it up after all. Thanks to everyone for their responses. And Happy New Year to one and all. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No, and there are a number of literary references to cosy tutorials. Seminars were also originally supposed to be quite small groups - when they came into the UK plate glass university in the 1960s they were regarded as an American innovation. I was asked for a reference for one-to-one tutorials: here is an academic discussion of the changing pattern (at Oxford). Itsmejudith (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

December 31

Weddings on a Sunday

I've just finished reading Around the World in 80 Days and it mentions not being able to get married on a Sunday. And now that I think of it, I can't remember ever attending a Christian wedding on a Sunday. So, was/is this some sort of custom? Am I suffering from confirmation bias? Is it because priests/ministers/reverends/vicars are too busy with regular services on Sundays that they just don't perform weddings on Sundays? Dismas|^(talk) 09:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not very good with searching the archives, but we had this same question here a couple of months ago. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

In 1872, when the story is set, there were a lot of things that were not permitted on a Sunday. In any case, all the churches (in olden days people got married in churches) would have been fully occupied with other services.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This site gives information for Church of England weddings in the UK, noting that Sunday weddings are not ruled out but are rare, apparently because ministers - even now - usually have several other services to perform on that day. However, this article points out the number of weddings that took place on 10/10/10, which was a Sunday. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Anglicans were once much more puritanical about what could be done on sundays than now. My father remembers (in the 1920s) not being allowed to play with toys on a Sunday, unless they had a religious significance - a toy Noah's Ark was permitted for example. My guess is that a wedding celebration would not be considered suitable for the Lord's Day - I'll see if I can find a reference. Alansplodge (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that the wedding itself was probably OK, being a religious event itself. The reception, however, is another story. Dancing, singing, and drinking are not exactly favorite activities among religious conservatives. And presumably there will also be people working that day, such as caterers, and that's also forbidden. StuRat (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No, no. Fogg gets engaged and immediately sends Passepartout to see the minister and arrange a marriage for "tomorrow, Monday". When Passepartout returns, he informs Fogg that the marriage is impossible tomorrow because tomorrow is Sunday. We're not talking about a wedding planned far in advance, that would include a fancy reception; just the opposite. --Anonymous, 09:13 UTC, January 1, 2011.

Well, I was married on a Sunday. We had chosen the Saturday, but the Russian Orthodox priest told us that day was unavailable due to some religious feast. That church is very conservative and quite inflexible in some of its attitudes, compared to some other Christian denominations, but there was no problem at all in being married on a Sunday. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

If the church was conservative and inflexible, I take it you married a woman that day, then, and not a man ? StuRat (talk) 07:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not aware of any Christian churches that solemnise same-sex marriages even in countries that permit it, which doesn't include Australia. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this has just been legalised in the UK, and Quakers and Unitarians now carry out such ceremonies, as does Liberal Judaism, which recently became the first religious organisation in the world to publish a special liturgy for same-sex commitment ceremonies. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 10:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a good news story to start my year off on the right foot. Lovely. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yup, it's great news, though I am pleasantly astonished that it was the House of Lords which initiated the idea. Clearly they're not a bunch of elderly white heterosexual British upper-class males as one would expect :) ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 10:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm tickled (pink) that the person who instigated the change to permit British Christian churches (and other religious venues) to marry gay people is a Muslim. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Buying a set of pencils for artists

If you buy a set of pencils for artist, composed of whatever number of color pencils, it is highly probable that you run out of a specific color (you could be using green more often than pink). What are you supposed to do after that? Can you buy single matching pencils or do they really expect that you buy the whole set again? Are manufacturers forced to provide single pencils, in the same way that manufacturers are forced to deliver spare parts? Quest09 (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

High-end pencils are typically available in singles, and a decent art store (commercial link given as example) will stock them thusly. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you've discovered the real reason for the end of Picasso's Blue Period. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, fortunately, he discovered some left over pink pencils. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Types of conservatism

What's the difference between conservative, nationalist, fascist, and reactionary? --75.28.52.27 (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in conservative, nationalist, fascist, and reactionary. Unfortunately, the differences are subtle and complex, and labels are simplifications of this complex political ideology. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

In the United States, the term conservative really does not refer to an ideology at all, per se. Rather, it's an uneasy alliance of ideologies that don't naturally belong together, but that have had some common enemies for the past fifty or sixty years. In particular libertarian conservatives and social conservatives really don't like each other at all. --Trovatore (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The same thing applies to the word liberal, doesn't it? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The popular myth since the mid 1900s, both in the US as well as in most of Europe, is that "conservativism" is the pragmatic and undogmatic opposite of utopian liberal ideologies and has been so since 1789, while the truth is it is actually a very elaborate ideology with some very definite political objectives (as per the conservatism article). --Saddhiyama (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) That wasn't what I was saying at all. There are lots of ideological conservatives. But conservatism is not an ideology, or at least not a single ideology. It's a coalition among very different ideologies. How long that coalition can hold together is an open question. My hope is "not very long", because I'm aligned with the libertarian side of the conservative movement, and see much more in common with the libertarian left than with the social right. --Trovatore (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Want to be confused? Come to Australia. Our major conservative party is called the Liberal Party. Does that help? HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing strange about that. Among the major Australian parties, they are indeed the most liberal, at least in the classical sense of the word. In a liberal country, it is conservative to be liberal. --Trovatore (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

To simplify a little: "Reactionary" is basically the opposite of "progressive". What is seen as 'reactionary' and what is seen as 'progressive' depends entirely of the context. 'Reactionary' is almost always used as a pejorative. 'Fascist', in a strict sense, refers to a follower of the Fascist movement as modelled by Mussolini. Nationalism and corporativism are key concepts of fascism. However, today 'fascist' is generally used as a pejorative, generally directed what is perceived as repressive and authoritarian. --Soman (talk) 11:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It general,

Conservatism seeks to preserve the status quo

Nationalism creates the concept of national identity. Nationalism comes in two broad forms- liberal nationalism and fascism.

Fascism is an extreme form of nationalism which views the nation as an organic entity and the citizens as part of that organic entity (just as the body cells constitute the human body, fascists believe individual citizens collectively compose the organic entity called nation). Thus fascists equate "national interest" with individual rights. In fascist political system, the individual is complete subordinate to the state. --LibertarianWarrior (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

LibertarianWarrior: that's close, but a bit skewed. let's lay out the definitions in historical relation, to see some of the odd ideological bedfellows in this termonology:

• Liberal (16th-18th century - often called Classical Liberalism): promotes individual property rights, generally to secure the wealth of individuals from seizure by nobles/aristocrats whose coffers were running dry. this asserted a number of inviolable individual personal rights, and rested in an early form of scientific rationalism. Liberalism developed along two different paths: social liberalism (progressivism) that focused on the expansion and maintenance of individual rights, and free market capitalism that focused on economic progress through individual competition.
• Conservatism (17th-18th century): basically a traditionalist movement that opposed rapid change. early conservatives were environmentalist and elitist, wanting to preserve nature against the ravages of unbridled technology and preserve the social order against the too rapid and too wide dissemination of individual rights. This developed along several lines: environmentalism merged into social liberalism (basically by casting the environment as public good to which all individuals had an equal right); free-market capitalism developed both into industrial/corporate capitalism and (believe it or not) into Marxism; social conservatism re-grounded itself in religion and/or in racial/ethnic/national heritage, the first leading to a slew of morality movements, and the second leading to a number of right-wing political positions
  • Side point, for interest: Marxism proper was rapidly absorbed into social liberalism - it's hard to find an academic paper on social justice that does not in some way trace its roots back to Marx - but Marxist derivatives like Socialism were largely absorbed by conservative nationalist movements. Both Stalin and Hitler were leaders of socialist parties, and both went after Communists and Marxists with extreme prejudice.
• Reactionaries and revolutionaries are the extremes of these ideologies, wanting to (respectively) preserve or destroy the status quo, by violent means if necessary.
• Nationalism (20th century): a form of conservatism that is based in national heritage (or if you like Aldous Huxley can be extended to any form of group identification) which promotes the collective group interests of a purportedly insular and identifiable group. it's explicitly exclusionist, usually elitist, and often reactionary. Nationalism often uses the language of social liberalism - empowering and defending the common man, and the like - it just restricts the application of those principles to members of the group.
• Fascism (20th century) is a particularly strong form of nationalism - call it industrial scientific nationalism. unlike garden-variety nationalists, who are pure conservatives (merely wanting to rehabilitate the values of their group), fascists use technological means both to root out problematic elements within the group and to expand their influence and ideology outside the group. Thus, where nationalists are content to identify a problem group rhetorically and call for them to be removed (e.g. the modern US anti-immigrant kerfluffles, or the somewhat dated and racist calls to send African Americans back to Africa), fascists historically applied science to the problem (trying to identify members of the problem group genealogically or genetically and deal with them with industrial efficiency), used mass media to sell their ideology proactively (propaganda and other forms of social manipulation), and then reached out beyond the borders of the group militarily to destroy the "problem" once and for all. --Ludwigs2 16:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, you said "social liberalism (progressivism) that focused on the expansion and maintenance of individual rights". Social liberalism or welfare liberalism is a concept in which state interventionism plays a crucial role (in the form of taxation) and this goes against the concept of sovereignty of the individual. So how does social liberalism focus on expansion of individual rights??? In fact social liberalism is close to social democracy. And free market capitalism do not simply argue for "economic progress through individual competition", they argue something else. Anyway, I don't think this is the right place for this broader discussion. --LibertarianWarrior (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

LibertarianWarrior: in all forms of liberalism (except those that rest on philosophical anarchy), the purpose of the state is to intervene to protect the rights of the individual. Different strains of liberalism present different ideals about how this should be done, depending on what presumptions they make about the state of the world, but the basic idea is universal. even on your end of the spectrum (assuming that the 'Libertarian' part of your name is meaningful), the state exists in a limited form to adjudicate between conflicting interests of different individuals, or possibly to provide communal public goods - such as sewer systems and roadways - that would be difficult to maintain by individuals. Wherever you have the existence of this kind of collective action, you necessarily have some form of taxation or revenue collection - roadways don't get built for free. Most Libertarians I've talked to are not averse to taxation of some sort, so long as there is complete transparency of expenditures and thorough control of the process by the citizenry. They want to be able to get together and say: "We need a road - how much will it cost, how will we divide the cost amongst ourselves, who will we hire to build it...", etc.

Of course, Libertarianism starts with a strict assumption of middle-class (and usually cultural) homogeneity - it's an Adam Smith vision of the world. Libertarianism has no effective mechanisms for coping with impoverished classes, for restricting the actions of exceedingly wealthy individuals or corporate entities, or for coping with disasters. What could Libertarians do about something like the Bhopal disaster (where an exceedingly wealthy corporation accidentally released a toxic chemical that killed thousands of impoverished foreigners and poisoned their land and water for generations)? Would they have a town meeting about it? Liberal ideologies that are concerned about those kinds of problems (social liberalism, welfare liberalism, progressivism, and etc) usually call for stronger government oversight and proactive policies and structures aimed at preventing and alleviating such things. They also usually call for deep public transparency, though they usually accept that these structures will generally act without supervision in the interests of timeliness - e.g. we want FEMA to jump immediately into a natural disaster, and not wait for the public to give it a mandate to do so. The more extensive and independent these kinds of intervention structures become, the more expensive they become, and so budget-centered taxation becomes more of a necessity; we want to give FEMA a regular budget, because we don't want to wait until a disaster strikes before providing FEMA with money. The problem with budget taxation is (again) a transparency problem - the more abstract and opaque the budgeting process becomes, the easier it is for waste and corruption to sneak into the system.

So really, liberal systems (as theory, anyway) all rely on a balancing act: how much of their own wealth and property do individuals want to allocate to collective projects, and how much control over these collective projects (and those allocated funds) do individuals exercise? Libertarians take a very (no pun intended) conservative approach, allocating very little and demanding extensive control; other forms of liberalism are willing to allocate more and allow the people running those collective projects more autonomy. I personally lean more towards the latter approach for pragmatic reasons (libertarianism is too idealistic for my tastes), but I recognize the problems that occur when those collective structures get the bit in their teeth and people lose control over them (which is where the US has been heading for a few decades now...). --Ludwigs2 18:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a view that a lot of political groupings are negatively motivated, being based on a dislike (sometimes a hatred) of what someone else is or does. One could argue that Conservatives just don't like change. Nationalists don't like foreigners. Fascists don't like anyone. And Reactionaries just want to find someone else to blame, and then fight them because of it. (Don't worry about my possible biases being on display here. I could do the same for other groupings. I'm pretty cynical about all people who feel such simplistic labels are much help. I've just restricted myself to those groupings in the original question for now.) HiLo48 (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Benedetto Croce once argued (talking strictly about conservatives and liberals) that politics is motivated by aesthetics: conservatives find the world they live in pleasing and don't want it to change, while liberals find an ideal world pleasing and want the real world to change to be more like it. Unfortunately, cynicism is the death of democracy - you have to assume that most people are trying to do the right thing, even if they have a twisted idea of what 'right' means, otherwise there is no possibility of communication and change. so, chin up, eyes forward, love your fellow man, and all that! Or to mix and mangle aphorisms, if you're trying to catch flies, use honey, not vinegar; if you're trying to catch bears, use honey and a club. --Ludwigs2 20:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

immigration

Wikipedia gave me approximate answers to the question of how many legal immigrants the U.S. has yearly, but I would like to know what the average length of time is for a person who applies for legal immigrant status to be granted it. What are the conditions to be granted immigrant status? I know there is a lottery for a green card (friends from Holland have tried for 3 years) so is it purely luck or can you "wait in line" and eventually get to immigrate? I believe quotas by region of the world have been eliminated. Is that still true? Thank you.75.15.87.165 (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked at any US government websites on the subject? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The question about the average length is maybe impossible to answer, since many people might try it one year and again in 5 years and others, might try it once and get it.

The conditions are very diverse, so you'll have to check the US gov. web-page. There are several routes: to marry, to invest, to study, to work (for a company that sponsors you), to take part on a working holiday program.

Some countries are excluded from the lottery, so it is not only luck. If you don't have a high-school diploma, you are also excluded. Equally excluded are all those which do not have the means for immigrating and covering their own expenses. Quest09 (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

January 1

Bahá'í religious choice

A Bahá'í woman once told me that every Bahá'í reaching the age of 15 is called upon to choose a religion to follow thereafter, and the Bahá'í religion requires the parents to respect the choice.

I don't find this mentioned in the article titled Bahá'í Faith. Where can I find an account of it? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you unable to find anything about it in Google or perhaps on a Baha'i website? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I googled

Bahá'í "15 years old"

I found various items on other topics related to that religion. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I found this bit on Yahoo Answers. It was written by an adherent, who was asked why they chose the faith. Their answer, in part, was "My father and some of his family members became Baha'is in the 50's and 60's, so I was essentially born into it (in 1973). However, as with all Baha'is I had to specifically choose to remain a Baha'i once I reached maturity..." which seems to speak to what you're asking about. I'll see if I can dig up some more, but a quick tip: it doesn't seem to be related to 15 particularly, but rather to maturity. Matt Deres (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC) ps - Ah, maybe I was wrong. This site specifically mentions 15 as the age of choice. Sorry I can't seem to find something more authoritative. Perhaps Bugs, with his superior Google and Baha'i website searching skills, can find something for us. Matt Deres (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

1810

Does anybody know the date or time of the year King Kaumualii of Kauai ceded his kingdom to Kamehameha the Great in the year 1810. I think it should be known since the start of the kingdom of Hawaii can be dated to May or the Spring of 1795.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Quote from "Shoals of Time" by Gavan Daws: "Early in 1810 his ship carried Kaumualii and his retinue to Honolulu...and after several days of celebration the diplomatic issue was broached and settled." Not very precise...--Wrongfilter (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Here it says: "At last, in 1810,..., Kaumualii consented to go to Honolulu... Kamehameha came out with a fleet of canoes to meet him at Honolulu Harbor. The time was late March or early April." --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

However, here: "Intermediary in the agreement was the American sea captain, Jonathan Windship, who in the summer of 1810 brought King Kaumualii and his court to Oahu where the compact was made and the little kingdom formally ceded...". --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Female immigrants to the US

From which country did most female immigrants to the US arrive from the 17th to the 20th centuries? My educated guess would be Ireland seeing as many unmarried Irish females came to the US on their own, especially in the 19th century.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

An interesting question. Mitochondrial DNA studies might tell you a little, but I'd think you'd probably do better looking at ships passenger lists etc. I'm not sure about the Irish case, as the women might have been matched by an equal (or even greater) number of unmarried Irish men. Certainly the general trend for most migrations if for the early arrivals to have a greater preponderance of males. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

voting

The current representative system was developed at a time when people required representation for a number of reasons such as expertise, the need of a congress to permit relatively immediate decisions, etc. Today we have the Internet so is there a system that would allow everyone to represent themselves by default and to be represented by only the person they deferred to per issue? --Inning (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It's been experimented with on shows like American Idol and Dancing with the Stars, which should give a sense of how well direct democracy would work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that most people don't have the time to inform themselves properly before voting on complex issues. Lets say there's a vote coming up on a trade treaty with Romania, or on funding research into a certain type of cancer, or on immigration quotas. Most people spend most of their time working and feeding themselves and their family. They may have opinions on these issues, but how informed are these opinions? How well do they know the potential consequences of voting "yea" or "nay" on a piece of legislation? Wouldn't it be better if there were someone whose full-time job it was to do this sort of thing? --Jayron32 16:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

...er ah that why I said, "...represent themselves by default and to be represented by only the person they deferred to per issue..." --Inning (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that people believe themselves to be well enough informed rather than actually being well enough informed about these issues. People are likely to make malinformed decisions rather than to give their vote by proxy, as you suggest, to an expert or representative. Someone may believe they know the optimum tarrif levels for quail eggs imported from Romania. But that they don't, but would still have an opinion on the issue, is the problem. --Jayron32 18:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree about the part where people "believe" rather than "actually" being well enough informed about public issue to vote wisely. Just take a look at the Vaccine controversy - the hard science is clear, yet the controversy remains. A default self-representation + deferral voting system will probably result in disaster. Royor (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitely - and the vaccine crap is just the tip of it. Just think about how many bullshit factoids you've ever been sent by well-meaning friends who think they're well-informed because they know the truth about - hell, forget the big stuff like conspiracy theories and Obama birthers - how many of us "learned" that October 2010 was so strange for having three Fridays, three Saturdays, and three Sundays in it? I got that forwarded to me from a couple of people. If they consider themselves informed about how the calender they use every day works, I shudder to think how well they'll handle something more complicated. Matt Deres (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that particular "oddity" had been doing the email rounds (but it doesn't surprise me). My local paper published it breathlessly for the "enlightenment" of the populace - so I wrote and explained to them just how commonplace and ordinary it is. The editor at least had the grace to publish my rejoinder. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Tyranny of the majority. schyler (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Crime cost effectiveness study

I'm wondering if anyone has done any crime cost effectiveness studies. Using some kind of algorithm that quantifies potential gain vs chance of detection vs chance of conviction vs potential penalty and used it to work out the most cost effective criminal activity.

For example a bank robbery has a high initial potential gain in direct cash, however the chances of being caught and convicted are probably fairly high too and the jail time is heavy. Shoplifting might only net a small amount each time but the chances of being caught are lower and the penalty is likely to be a fine.

Anyone know any studies along these lines? Exxolon (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No, but I bet that white-collar or corporate crime would have the highest cost-benefit ratio... AnonMoos (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe copyright infringement related crimes have an even better ratio, since the cost is quite low.Quest09 (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Law and economics is probably a good place to start. --GreatManTheory (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear War

I remember hearing about the US president giving an order to use nuclear weapons, but then withdrew the order. I think it was in the 1960's or 1970's. If I recall, an American plane was shot down. It might have been during the Arab-Israeli war, and it could have been the Egyptians that shot down the plane. I'm not sure. Can anyone enlighten me? — Fly by Night (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Cuban Missile Crisis? ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Former Governor of California

1) Why is Arnold Schwarzenegger stepping down as governor of California? Is it simply that he was outvoted in an election, or some other reason?

2) From this side of the pond, it seems rather odd that actors/celebrities are thought fit to run a state or even the country. I understand that California was in a financial crisis when he took office. Did he actually manage to solve the finance problem?

3) In general did he make a good job of running California, or was it just effective public relations without much substance? Thanks 92.29.119.95 (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(2) I've often heard that sort of criticism of actors/entertainers going into politics, but who might be better qualified? Is a lawyer, a corporate executive, a farmer, a civil servant, a scientist, a salesman or a sportsman necessarily any better equipped? I say no, in general. By "this side of the pond", I assume you mean the UK. Look at Glenda Jackson. Then look at the House of Lords, which remains entirely unelected despite recent reforms; its members can include actors (Olivier), composers (Britten), sportspeople (Coe) and others from every possible field of endeavour. Virtually none of them (except defeated members of the House of Commons who are kicked upstairs as compensation) have ever studied the ways of government, yet they all have the right to influence the law of the land. How "odd" is that? At least the Schwarzeneggers of the world put themselves up for election and get tested against the only criterion that ever really matters - the ballot box. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Schwarzenegger is not "stepping down"; he's termed out. Whether he did a good job depends on whom you asked. In my opinion he did OK; I certainly preferred him to either Gray Davis or Pete Wilson. --Trovatore (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

See also List of actor-politicians. The Kaczyński twins, former President and former Prime Minister of Poland, are listed there, though they were only actors in their childhood. When Peter Sodann ran for President (not an office that runs the country), the German media did indeed compare him to Reagan and Schwarzenegger, but they didn't take him seriously. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Sluzzen) I think that Schwarzenegger is generally respected as a governor. He retained generally high poll ratings for most of his two terms, though his approval rating took a nasty slump in early 2010 [11]. He certainly was dealt a pretty awful hand, and California is regarded as being fairly ungovernable anyway (California is notoriously politically divided, and the Initiative and Referendum process makes it easy to pass laws that help certain segments of the population in the short term, but are economically unsustainable in the medium to long term. See List of California ballot propositions). California Proposition 13 (1978), for example, severely restricts how much property taxes local governments can collect to raise revenues. Schwarzenegger leaves California still in a pretty dire economic situation. He has passed some environmental legislation, which many in the environmentally conscious California approve of. He has seriously tried to address the economic issues, but in many cases being stymied by political gridlock. I would not characterize his election as a public relations stunt. I think that in general, Schwarzenegger did act in good faith, and with California's best interests in mind. I will be interested to see what he does with the rest of his life. 174.20.220.94 (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Heres an interesting, brief end of term assessment of Schwarzenegger's time as governor. 174.20.220.94 (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)