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

July 23

Susan Rice and Condoleezza Rice

What is the connection between Susan Rice and Condoleezza Rice? -- adaptron (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

They both worked at State? They aren't related. --Golbez (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. [1] says "The Rices are not related". PrimeHunter (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that grain of knowledge. StuRat (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

reckoning years B.C.

How did people who lived B.C. reckon the year they were living in? For example, we say that Plato founded the Academy in 387 B.C., but what year was it to Plato, who despite his talents could not see Christ coming in three-plus centuries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dukesnyder1027 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Many calendars with different years have been used through the times, and more than one is still used. See List of calendars. Hellenic calendars looks complicated and I don't know what Plato would have said. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

He presumably would have used one of the Athenian calendars whenever necessary, but that wouldn't be very useful in everyday conversation. For that he would have reckoned the year in terms of the eponymous archon. Since our January-December year cuts across two different years in ancient Athens, the archon in 387 was either Pyrgion or Theodotus, depending on when specifically the Academy was founded. That wouldn't have meant much to anyone outside Athens though; another "multinational" way of reckoning the year was by the Olympiad (387 would be the first year of the 98th Olympiad, unless my math is horribly wrong, which is quite likely...). He could have also reckoned the year in terms of some other well-known event; the death of Socrates for example (399), or the conquest of Athens by Sparta (404), would have been useful personal and political events. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.170.49 (talk)

Note that the Anno Domini system was only invented in AD 525 and wasn't widely adopted until centuries after that. Many other year numbering systems were used before then and many are still used now. Regnal year numbering is still fairly common in Japan, for example, and according to the article was used officially in the UK until 1963. -- BenRG (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Photo identification

I'm trying to find the photo of a dirty-looking (rural?) girl from a poor region of China that won an award for depicting the area's underdevelopment. I've never personally seen the photograph, though, and know of it only because another person described it. --Bowlhover (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

She's not Chinese, but make sure Sharbat Gula isn't the one you're thinking of. Oddly, when I did a Google image search for "national geographic girl" to find that person's name, I also hit a picture of a Chinese (well, Tibetan) girl. Maybe this is what you're thinking of. Matt Deres (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Tibetan girl Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Flikr Picture Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

what qualifies as an essential governmental function?

what qualifies as an essential governmental function? I need to document this as well. Please Help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.83.64.218 (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Where and in which context? If the term is from a specific text then say which. Maybe a Google search [2] can help you. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

in the state of georgia specifically as used in the housing authority code —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.83.64.218 (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Most likely, the term "essential governmental function" is defined by the relevant code. If it is not listed in the code, it may be explained by case law. If you have access to a law library (most courts, law schools, universities, Lexis, WestLaw), ask the law librarian for help. To say more may constitute the practice of law.75Janice (talk) 02:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)75Janice

Genealogical relationships

The question above about Condy and Susan Rice got me thinking. Strictly speaking, all humans are related. It's just that in many cases it would be impossible to identify the exact relationship. I read somewhere, lost now, that it would not be be necessary to go back any further than 55 generations, assuming all the records were available (which they're not), to establish the exact connection between any 2 random people who have ever lived are alive today (I struck out the "have ever lived" because clearly humans go back further than 55 generations.) Is this true, and how do they know about the 55 generations? If I took a random Inuit and a random Kalahari bushman, is it really true that they're no further apart than 55th cousins? -- JackofOz (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Within 55 generations, I'd assume that they wouldn't be a part of the same descent, but it's quite probable that there'd be some common people in their family tree, i.e. they have 6th cousins 5 times removed in common. Quite an assumption. There are groups of people who might be exceptions, that is, people in the highlands of PNG and in the deep Amazon would be harder to find a link to. However, 55 generations might be enough to do it. Steewi (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the concept of most recent common ancestor. According to the article, estimates for the time during which the MRCA was alive range from approx. 30 000 years ago to as recent as 1000-2000 years ago. One to two millenia seems to be the amount of time required for 55 generations. --Bowlhover (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Checking the MRCA link shows that the estimate of 1000 years ago is for the MRCA of Western Europeans. TresÁrboles (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to this preceding sentence: "However, Rohde, Olson, and Chang (2004)[3], using a non-genetic model, estimated that the MRCA of all living humans may have lived within historical times (3rd millennium BC to 1st millennium AD)." --Bowlhover (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for the answers. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Cakes and Ale?

In the Shakespeare play, Twelfth Night, Sir Toby Belch states: "[...]Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale?" What exactly are the 'cakes' suppose to be? Cakes or something else?--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 05:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

According to John Leslie Hotson: Banbury cakes.—eric 06:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

See note at Cakes and Ale to the effect that cakes and ale are the emblems of the good life in the tagline to the fable attributed to Aesop, The Town Mouse and the Country Mouse: "Better beans and bacon in peace than cakes and ale in fear"..--Wetman (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Seashell Traveling

How many days would it take to reach the border of Scotland from London by carriage? How many days extra if the carriage was made of seashell?

Thank you!MelancholyDanish (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

What sort of carriage (railway carriage? Horse-drawn carriage?) and what kind of roads? That makes all the difference. I doubt whether anyone could make a useable carriage out of nothing but shell, which is very brittle.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That depends on whether the hippocamps drawing the seashell carriage were winged or not. --Wetman (talk) 08:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, is the hippocamp African or European? 12.43.92.140 (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The baseline is perhaps the ordinary stage coach journey. An advertisement in the Edinburgh Courant for 1754 reads:

“ The Edinburgh Stage-coach, for the better accomodation of passengers, will be altered to a New Genteel Two-end Glass Coach Machine, being on steel springs, exceeding light and easy, to go in ten days in Summer and twelve in Winter; to set out the first Tuesday in March, and continue it, from Hosea Eastgate's, the Coach and Horses, in Dean-Street, Soho, London; and from John Somerville's, in the Canongate, Edinburgh, every other Tuesday, and meet at Burrow-Bridge on Saturday night, and set out from thence on Monday morning, and get to London and Edinburgh on Friday. In Winter, to set out from London to Edinburgh every other (alternate) Monday morning, and to go to Burrowbridge on Saturday night; and to set out from thence on Monday morning, and get to London and Edinburgh on Saturday night. Passengers to pay as usual. Performed, if God permits, by your dutiful servant HOSEA EASTGATE. ”

One supposes the hippocamps and seashell coach could improve on this, or why would anyone use them? Xn4 (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes! You've told me exactly what I needed to know. You guys are wonderful. MelancholyDanish (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

P. S. The article doesn't mention this or not, so are hippocamps able to travel on land? MelancholyDanish (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

No, the hippocamp London-Edinburgh route closely follows the North Sea coast, crossing The Wash and following the same route taken when delivering coals to Newcastle.--Wetman (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

education of 25 year olds in the US and France.

1. What % of current 25 year olds living in the U.S. have a bachelors degree or higher? 2. In France what % of current 25 year olds have a university degree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.239.144 (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As of 2003, 27% of those 25 and over in the US had a college degree. Of those specifically 25-29, 28% had such a degree.[3] I expect there's not a major deviation likely to be found between "25 and up" and "25 only". — Lomn 15:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As for France, I find conflicting and dubious information. USAToday reported 20% "college completion" for French students vs 17% for Americans, while The Economist noted a 24% degreed European workforce versus 39% American. The USAToday numbers in particular do not mesh well with anything I've found elsewhere (note also that France's 30% attendance vs 20% completion flatly contradicts the oft-echoed ~50% first-year dropout rate discussed by The Economist), but that's the closest thing I've found to a single number. — Lomn 15:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If you use OECD statistics you have some chance of making a fair comparison. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. You must also check that the definition of "college degree" is the same for both countries. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

OECD's online stats are hard to navigate, or I would direct you to the exact page. The International Labor Organization is another possibility. The definition of degree for France and USA will never be identical but you want to use the definitions that are accepted for international use. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Political prayer

Which religious groups, if any, accept (or promote) the use of prayer for political means, such as to influence an election or other political event? And among Neopagans and Wiccans, is it acceptable to use magic(k), spells and rituals for political purposes? 68.123.238.140 (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• For the second question, there's no way to generalize about such things; there are almost as many varieties of neopagans and wiccans as there are neopagans and wiccans, and issues such as the ethics of ritual are one of the distinguishing features. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd imagine it's quite common - for example as a child I remember praying as a group for 'the leaders of south africa to see sense and end apartheid' - that was in a christian church.87.102.86.73 (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh that sort of thing is, yes. Praying that leaders will be wise, honest and just is quite common in christian churches, but I don't know if that's the sort of thing they were asking about. Notice how that prayer did not ask for a specific electoral result, or even that those in charge be usurped. 79.66.124.253 (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

See Rule of Three (Wiccan). Wiccans are very reluctant to try to influence others. Corvus cornix_talk 23:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Religion and politics often get intertwined. See for example Christian democracy, Christian socialism, Islamism, Hindutva. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Having formal separation of church and state is no guarantee this won't happen. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

July 24

corporate actions

How many corporate actions are available world over? What are the effects of these corporate actions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratapbalu (talk • contribs) 08:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you're asking but have a look at Corporate action if you haven't done so already. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

See this random page from google for a list that's definitely not exhaustive. The effects will vary from action to action. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are asking how many different types of corporate action there are, then it is impossible to give an exact answer to your question. It is a bit like asking "how many different types of transport are there ?". First problem is one of where you draw the boundaries in your taxonomy - is a tuk tuk just a sort of three wheeled car, or is it a separate type of vehicle altogether ? Second problem is that folks are inventive - just when you think you have completed your list, someone invents the Segway. I think SWIFT tried to create a standard international list of corporate actions and came up with a list of seventy or eighty types, but I am sure that is not exhaustive. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the OP is a francophone? In French, action can mean stock share. Rhinoracer (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it true that...

Arabic numerals were actually invented in India?

Indian ink was actually invented in China?

What country were French fries invented in?

Any more examples of items with names that wrongly claim which country they were from?

--218.186.12.11 (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. See arabic numerals, india ink, and french fries.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm.., yes the Arabic numerals were first invented in India. Most of them were first inscribed in the 'Smriti' of the Vedas. According to the theorem of 'Boudhayan', all numerals come from 0-9.This has also been said in the 'Sankhyasutram'.117.201.96.18 (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Others that come to mind include Canadian bacon, the French disease. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Spanish flu. Rmhermen (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

English muffin, German chocolate cake, Russian dressing, French horn, English horn. Edison (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised by the number of cat and dog breeds that are actually claimed to be from the regions of their name. I figured they would mostly just pick whatever sounded classiest. Dalmatians, at least, don't seem to be from Dalmatia. Recury (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The most everyday example must be the turkey, which really is named after the country even though it's native to North America. (In French, by the way, they do even worse: their word for turkey is dinde, which means "from India".)

Other examples include Panama hats and Chinese checkers. --Anonymous, 17:50 UTC, July 24, 2008.

Guinea pig but not Guinea fowl. Rmhermen (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A reverse example is the country Brazil, which some people believe is named after the brazil nut, which they believe is found only in Brazil. The Brazil nut is indeed native to Brazil, but also to various other South American countries. Brazil was named after a different tree, the brazilwood, which is native only to Brazil. The brazilwood tree produces no nuts (that I'm aware of; certainly no edible ones), and it got its name from the deep red hue of its wood, the early Portuguese colonists calling it “pau-brasil”, meaning “ember tree”. Brazilians don't call Brazil nuts "Brazil nuts", or use any words that look or sound like "Brazil". (Fascinating irrelevant fact of the day: Brazil nuts contain 1000 times more radium than any other food.) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Crushed Brazil nuts are sometimes found on Danish pastries. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Few "bohemians" would come from Bohemia; Chinese whispers are made up by anyone; god Jack is that right about radium? There's a tv ad currently in Oz about your subject, Cardigan is not about cardigans, etc, but Bega (a cheese brand and a town) is about cheese... Julia Rossi (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, recognition at last - god Jack. :) Despite My latterly-acknowledged omniscience, I cannot Personally attest to the bit about radium. But I read about it in Wikipedia, and that is obviously always 100% correct.  :) Btw, Cardigan may not be about cardigans, but the cardigan was named after Lord Cardigan. Eponyms tend to work only in one direction, but there's still a connection. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The numerials that are currently used in many Arabic speaking countries most likely didn't originate in India but they call them Indian numerals. -LambaJan (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Another example: Chinese water torture was never used in China. --Bowlhover (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

...and French Letters?--Artjo (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Canary Islands Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 09:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Attila the Hun

Is it true that Attila got a sword named 'the Sword of Mars' before assailing the Romans commanded by Flavius Aetius? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.97.83 (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

See Sword of Attila - annoyingly this is not linked to from Attila the Hun - perhaps a historian would know how to fix this??87.102.86.73 (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Improved the short aticle and made the connection.--Wetman (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Very happy to see that, thank you.87.102.86.73 (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

why is sir gawain not a prince?

just wondering.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.107.154 (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The usual methods of becoming a prince are being born to a king and/or queen or (in some countries) marrying a princess. Did he do either of these ? StuRat (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Cecil Grandoff (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Gawain was the son of King Lot and nephew of King Arthur so it is a good question. Perhaps he is called Sir as all the other knights are - just as the round table was created to keep all the knights equal. Rmhermen (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact, most Knights of the Round Table are sons of kings: Percival, Sagramore, Prince Claudin, Maleagant, Aglovale, Agravain, Ywain, Cligès, Erec, Gaheris, Hector de Maris, Lamorak, Sir Lionel, Ywain the Bastard, Tristan, Sir Tor, Safir, Mordred, even Lancelot. Rmhermen (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be relevant that (according to the OED) the styling of the sons of the sovereign as 'princes' only dates back to the 17th century. Algebraist 18:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

However, the OED also states prince as in "any male of a royal family other than a reigning kin" has been used since at least the 14th century. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

King Arthur says he was in the 6th century, though, so that's still a big gap, the term could well have not been in use. I'm not sure how things worked in those days, perhaps being a knight was more prestigious than being a non-eldest son of a King? (Were any of the knights mentioned eldest sons?) --Tango (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

True, plus many of the popular accounts started around the 12th century (which is partly why Arthurian tales have a medieval setting). This would pre-date the 14th century definition bringing us to the older definitions of a prince. A prince in its earliest form was a leader. Thus to call Gawain Prince would be to give him the same rank as Arthur. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Dukes of Norfolk and Howard Family

I have been reading on the site for some hours and frankly I'm in a muddle. Would someone at your desk more astute than myself explain the connection between The Dukes of Norfolk (contemporary times) and The Howard family of Castle Howard?

Cecil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecil Grandoff (talk • contribs) 14:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

According to our articles, Castle Howard is the home of the Earls of Carlisle, who descend from William Howard, third son of Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk. Of course, the modern Dukes of Norfolk descend from Thomas's first son, Saint Philip Howard, 20th Earl of Arundel. Algebraist 14:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is Conrad H. Roth?

Could someone with more advanced Google-fu than I unearth the credentials of a one Conrad H. Roth? His scholarship at Varieties of Unreligious Experience is most excellent, and I would love to use it to source humanities articles, but his scholarly affiliations need to be established to meet WP:SPS. Skomorokh 15:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If google fails, you could just ask him. Algebraist 15:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

True, but a temperament as mischievous and arcane as his could easily deceive, and I've had luck with employing the skills of search engine experts before. Also, it's rather impertinent to ask someone whose identity is intentionally cloaked who they are really. Thanks for the suggestion, Skomorokh 15:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to "source" humanities articles at Wikipedia from a "mischievous" blogger anyway?--Wetman (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Extremely helpful, thanks for contributing. Skomorokh 19:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Google scholar picks up no trace of a Conrad Roth (there is one, but his citations are all in the 1920s and 1930s). He sounds like an interesting guy, but I don't know that he has any publications. Steewi (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

How do we even know Conrad H. Roth is his real name (or that he's really Conrad)? If he's michievous as you claim, he could easily not be (if he's even a he). Nil Einne (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the obvious level of education and apparent absence of institutional links to the name "Conrad H. Roth", it's probably not his real name. I was hoping someone with greater sleuthing skills that I could uncover it, you see. Appreciate the response, Skomorokh 18:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Photograph copyright

Is it an infringement of copyright to use a photograph as the basis for a creative interpretation using another medium such as watercolor paint? Epsomdown (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Derivative work. It depends which country you are in. Fribbler (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

All my teachers in art classes have insisted we use our own photographs if we need a picture as a basis for what we are going to label "original art". Even if there is not a copyright issue, there may be an ethical one unless you give full credit to the source of your inspiration. If your interpretation of the photo is far enough distant from the original that one could not be recognized from the other, someone would have a difficult time in proving infringement. ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Koons fell afoul of copyright infringement (seeRogers_v._Koons) with his String of Puppies sculpture based on another's photo, so I'd be careful. Rhinoracer (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Can one get a Professor Degree in USA just for his publications in Humanities?

Without serving as a tenured staff member in any university or college? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.37 (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

While the meaning of professor varies, it is definitely a job description. There's no such thing as a 'professor degree'. Algebraist 18:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If you mean "can one earn a PhD only by publications" then the answer is yes. A PhD requires a course of study and a thesis which may be published. Rmhermen (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It is fairly unlikely that any serious university will issue a true Ph.D. (and not an honorary doctorate) to someone based purely on their publications, which I understand to mean here that they did not complete coursework, oral examinations, working with an advisor, etc. It's probably not impossible, but it's not very likely. --140.247.241.140 (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

My question was dealing with granting a professor title to somebody that does have a PhD, without hiring him/her as a tenured staff member. 128.139.226.37 (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In which case the answer is yes, there are many professors (in the US say) who do not have tenure. Algebraist 20:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess you mean to people who work as lecturers or instructors that are called "professors" in colloquial language only, although they didn't grant the title formally (as described in professor). But is it possible that somebody will have that title formally without teaching, because of his publications? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.37 (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Assistant professors and associate professors are non-tenured professors in the U.S. Lecturers and instructors are a different class (but are usually addressed as professor anyway) We have a whole article on professors in the U.S. linked from the professor article. Rmhermen (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Associate Professors are tenured in most systems. Assistant Professors are not, but are "tenure-track", in contrast to lecturers. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's unlikely but it's possible. Mike Davis, for example, was denied his PhD from UCLA, but turned his thesis into a very fine book, which basically won him a MacArthur "Genius" grant (talk about a f*** you to your former professors), and now he's a professor at UC Irvine. Again, it's a pretty anomalous situation—I doubt it happens often. But who universities hire as professors is at the discretion of the faculty and deans. I am sure some politicians end up getting jobs in this way after they retire from public office—at schools of government and etc.—whether they have PhDs or not. You'd have to have something of a "superstar" status, though. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There's probably some law, 140.247.241.140, that requires the BBC news site to have had in the last week or so an example of the very thing you identify as not likely. Not that I disagree with you, more, I guess, that I want to support your "not impossible" observation: Veteran, 91, receives railway PhD

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/7510565.stm

Four Horsemen

Does anyone know who it was who decided to call Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett the Four Horsemen? I know it is the title of a DVD, but who coined the term for these four atheists? Thanks Kristamaranatha (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Google is your friend and if you try "Four Horsemen atheist coined" in Google's searchfield you will find the answer. According to this site: http://ichthyes.wordpress.com/four-horsemen/ it was someone named DJ Grothe an "associate editor of Free Inquiry magazine, and a program director of Center for Inquiry". The site also tells that the original name was: "the four horsemen of the counter-apocalypse". Flamarande (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That sort of refers to it in a roundabout way, but the obvious derivation was from the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've found it ironic that while these men claim that religion is the root of all evil they would take on an apocalyptic name that itself represents death and destruction. Kristamaranatha (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

They "took on" nothing of the sort, and may have been largely unaware of the journalistic nonce phrase at Free Inquiry magazine, a "hook" for an article. --Wetman (talk) 06:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to believe they would be "largely unaware" of the term, especially because Richard Dawkins himself advertises the DVD discussion between the four of them, called The Four Horsemen, on his website. Kristamaranatha (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You haven't perhaps considered that the irony is deliberate. Also within the video itself all four state that they have no problems with appreciating the art and culture of the religiously inclined, any more than they would with drug-inspired artworks (my examples Samuel Taylor Coleridge, or The Beatles). Jooler (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Persian/Iranian Writing System throughout history?

1. Why did Persians abandon the Old Persian cuneiform? and 2. How was the Aramaic script able to influence all later forms for Persian writing systems, including Arabic, and why was it chosen to be used if Aramaic/Semitic nations did not conquer the Persian territories, but the other way around? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kharshayarta-shah Amritatvi (talk • contribs) 19:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

For one, the Achaemenid Empire began and ended at the same time Old Persian cuneiform did, so possibly, the script was only used for that empire.

For two (a), you might want to see Aramaic alphabet for more.

For two (b), Darius made Aramaic the official language of Persia in 500 BC. See Aramaic language for more.

I hope this helps! Spencer^T♦C 00:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Persia was conquered by the Arabs, so that explains the spread of the Arabic alphabet. Earlier, Aramaic was used because it was the most established literary language, and sort of an international spoken language, like Latin used to be and English is now. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

July 25

Government Crop Incentives

Where can I find informaton about government crop incentives that enable a farmer to make a profit. I have tried looking, but I haven't really found anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler123459 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And would you fancy giving us a clue about the country for which you want this information? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You might get in touch with your state or federal grain board/body/growers association relevant to whatever crop the farmer is producing, they might help you. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In Europe the phrase to search for is 'crop subsidy'

In fact crop subsidy may be a good search term in the US as well http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=crop%20subsidy&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 87.102.86.73 (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

2 Secord Avenue

When did the fire on 2 Secord Avenue happened and where can I find full news articles on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.50 (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried searching, like this? -- kainaw™ 03:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Searching Google for "2 secord fire" reveals many results, including [4]. --Bowlhover (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

three meals a day?

Does anyone know the origins of breakfast, lunch, and dinner? I read where the terms come from, but why is it that humans decided on three meals a day? Evaunit♥666♥ 04:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget second breakfast ! I imagine that in situations where food supply is adequate, the human digestive and metabolic cycle will establish a preferred interval of five to six hours between meals, and thus three main meals in a day. However, the timing and relative size and importance of these meals varies with culture and period in history - see this article from History magazine. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Under meal there's this link[5]. By humans I take it British type humans because others like the French have more, such as eight in Singapore, and less than three. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous laws?

I need a few examples of real, ridiculous laws. Preferably non-American examples.

For example, I heard that it is illegal to tie an alligator to a fire hydrant in some states of the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.11 (talk) 09:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

A well-known British example is the law that forbids people from dying in the Houses of Parliament. DAVID ŠENEK 09:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to check http://www.dumblaws.com/; however please note that the whole field of obscure and ridiculous law is replete with poorly researched and arguable claims. For example, the 'law that forbids people to die in the Houses of Parliament' is not a law (either statute or common law), but a legal fiction which exists in English common law: no non-Royal may have their death recorded within a Royal Palace. In the event that someone does actually expire within the precincts of a Royal Palace, their death certificate will state that they were discovered dead on arrival at hospital. The Snopes site has a better-researched Legal affairs section. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Another thing to keep in mind is that it's not at all ridiculous to forbid tying alligators to fire hydrants. I'd certainly want anyone who was going around doing that to be locked up. It would be ridiculous to specifically forbid it, but often these items only say that it's illegal (as in your example). -- BenRG (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify with an example, suppose the law said, "No person may tie an animal to a fire hydrant." That's a reasonable law that would draw little notice. It follows from this law that you can't tie an alligator to a hydrant, so the book authors write, "It's illegal in Foobar, Iowa, to tie an alligator to a fire hydrant." True, but misleading, and written to make the law sound ridiculous. (You could do the same thing if the law said, "No person may possess a dangerous animal within the city limits.") -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I know that many of the "ridiculous laws" are just urban legends. Could you point me to a list of verified examples? How would I check whether a ridiculous law (for example, dumblaws.com says that it is illegal to climb trees in Canada) is actually true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.11 (talk) 11:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Most dumb laws you'll find are not actually the laws but interpretations of them. For example, the law where I live states that you cannot drive faster than 55mph over our new bridge. I can interpret that as "We have a dumb law that states you can't drive a golf cart faster than 55mph over our new bridge while wearing a pink tutu." That, basically, is the basis of the laws. In your example, the law may state: "No animals may be tied or leashed to a fire hydrant." So, someone said "Here's a dumb law: No alligators can be tied to fire hydrants." -- kainaw™ 12:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Some dumb laws are also old laws that no one ever bothered to take off the books. Example: In Omaha every house must have a hitching post out front. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have to tie your alligator to something. -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Try this book Ludicrous Laws and Mindless Misdemeanors by Lance S. Davidson. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Also some supposed dumb laws don't seem all that dumb. This article from July 1st 2009 (sic) "It is illegal to park a car on railroad tracks" (I should sure hope so) and a bunch of others seem resonable [6] Nil Einne (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I can remember many years ago, when the Notre Dame Fighting Irish defeated the Alabama Crimson Tide in football, the Alabama legislature passed a law making it illegal for Notre Dame to score against the Alabama team. Corvus cornix_talk 21:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In Cleveland, Ohio, you need a hunting license to use mousetraps. Spencer^T♦C 14:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

As usual, this is a misinterpretation of a basic law. First, Ohio law states that you do not need a hunting license if you are hunting on your own land. So, even if you needed one for mice, you wouldn't need one for your own house. As far as the "using mousetraps" part of this misinterpretation, it is a stretch of the definition of "animal trap." So, what is the law? You must have a hunting license to set animal traps in Cleveland (intended to outlaw people from trapping dogs, coyotes, birds, etc... without a license). So, someone read this law and said "What about mice? You need a license for a mouse trap?" That evolved over time to be the claim that you need a hunting license for a moustrap - which is a much different device than an "animal trap" - a cage that shuts when the animal enters. -- kainaw™ 18:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a real live Australian one. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

See Dumb laws. In the AFD for that article [7](it was kept), I said "If this were an article mindlessly repeating the fake or misrepresented "dumb laws" circulated by lazy newspaper columnists or uncritical emailers, it would be a good candidate for deletion. As it is, it provides encyclopedic information to show that such laws are often nonexistent or grossly misrepresented. An example is a book claiming that a city has "an ordinance against tieing alligators to fire hydrants"[8] when the actual ordinance prohibits tieing ANIMALS to fire hydrants (a 'gator is an animal, right?). As references, there are such sources as the Snopes debunking of sorority houses being banned in some small town as brothels. The article as it exists could be renamed Dumb law hoaxes to more accurately represent it. Or it could have a section on actual dumb laws in addition to the hoaxes. There have been and are some genuinely dumb laws, like the "no snowball law" [9] [10]. If a legislature calls some laws "dumb laws" and moves to repeal them, then it is likely the laws really exist [11]. which could be included if 1)a printed source exists to call it a dumb law and b) a citation to that actual law is provided. The American Bar Association Journal and its counterparts in other countries sometimes include such material in a somewhat humorous but verified way. Some "dumb laws" are actually just old laws which had no sunset provision, such as actual law from my town from circa 1900 which required that an automobile be preceded by someone walking along ahead to assure that horses were not frightened." Edison (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

How about these examples? If the information in the articles Military use of children and Legal drinking age is accurate, then at 16 and a half you may join the military of the United Kingdom. In the USA it is even more funny: you may enlist in the military at 17, and depending upon local legislation, buy a gun at 18 and drink a beer at 21. It really must be safer to hand a gun to a teenager than a beer :). Flamarande (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I heard in Cleveland the law states that women aren't allowed to wear patent leather shoes. -LambaJan (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Nevermind. I thought that one didn't fit the pattern but now I think it does. -LambaJan (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Your information is incorrect. In the U.S., you can buy a gun, enlist in the military, and purchase/drink alcohol all at the age of 18 (enlisting at 17 is done by the legal guardian with the understanding that the child will not begin military duty until he/she is 18). That is Federal law. State laws have increased the drinking age to 21 to reduce deaths - far more people die from drunk driving accidents than gun accidents or military-related deaths. If you are not in an area governed by state law, the drinking age is 18 - which is why the bars on military bases are popular (they aren't just there to see those guys out of uniform). -- kainaw™ 02:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow - just found out that in 1997, all bars on Federal property went to 21. You can tell I haven't been to any of them in a very long time. Regardless, my point about the reason for a higher drinking age is valid. More people die in drinking-related accidents than gun or military-related deaths. -- kainaw™ 02:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Iran's religions vs. ethnic groups

I remember there was a map of Iran where there was crescents representing Islam, the dark green ones were Shi'a and the white crescents were Sunni. There would colours indicating ethnic groups and languages they spoke. Where is the map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.229 (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it the one at the top of Religion in Iran? Fribbler (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

removal of all edits and external links

Hello, I edited an article today and added external links, but a little later all was removed. Some earlier edits are still there, but very few of them. I would like to know why clarifying edits and external links are removed, and why soo fast. Especially because the edits were clarifying and the links external. And of course because the article should have as many contributors and data as possible without exceding a reasonable length. 192.38.110.236 (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC) Taodeptus

Which article was it, 192.38.110.236? Nothing's showing up in your contributions history, but maybe you were at another computer? In general terms, you might get more respect for your editorial edits if you were to create an account. Without seeing the links you added, we can't say what it was about them which led to their being taken out. Xn4 (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And adding an edit summary is also important. Many people might assume that an edit with no summary by an anon I/P is vandalism and remove it. Also, I've noticed the database has been locking up a lot today. If that happens when you edit, you should get an error message, but maybe you missed it. Can you tell us which article you edited so we can investigate further ? StuRat (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If the links looked like they might be advertising, they might have been removed for that. Or maybe someone just didn't think the links added much to the article, it's difficult to say without seeing them. --Tango (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Look at who is doing the editing and ask them on their talk page for their reasons. Also some link edits are done by bots (which has happened to another person on a article I'm working on). Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This has apparently been resolved. Matt Deres (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

July 26

Strange literary quirk of Poe (and others?)

I've noticed that in several works, specifically by Poe though others may have done similar, he uses incomplete names and even years. An example is The Purloined Letter [12] which took place in "the year 18__" and involves a "Monsieur G-" and a "Minister D-". I had originally thought that maybe the translation from handwritten to typewritten could not decipher some of Poe's handwriting, but having seen some original manuscripts, they are in fact written out like that. I've even seen (somewhere, can't recall offhand), that some story's events took place "in the year ____". Anyone have a backstory to this sort of thing? Thanks! Arakunem^Talk

Poe was a remarkable character writer. This quirk is actually part of the character style he is using. Imagine the letter as a "true" story being written by someone who wants to stay ambigious (and thus give a sense of anytime and person). Poe ranks up there with Stoker in being able to manipulate character writing. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone will come along with specific examples, I am sure. The tecnique, when used in fiction, is to give the impression that real (and possibly important) people are involved, and a real events. The dates and names are just hinted at so that there is no way to confirm (or deny). When used in non-fiction, it is still a tecnique for hinting at names and dates, while avoiding possible libel. See Roman à clef for a similar tactic. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Yikes, I shouldn't have sent you to Roman à clef without checking it out first. That's not a very good article, and not a very good explanation, though there are a lot of examples shown. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Dostoyevsky also uses initials for place-names in Crime and Punishment, probably for the same sort of reason-- creating a little verisimilitude by hinting at the possible location of his story. 68.123.238.140 (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This is used all the time in 19th-century writing, even into early 20th century. Arthur Conan Doyle does it in the Holmes stories too at times, as do many Russian authors of the same period (I want to say I read a short story by Lermontov that did something like this). It's to make it look "authentic"—like it's a true story that they can't actually give you the details to. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Who's responsible?

This is a hypothetical case and is therefore not, I repeat NOT, a request for legal advice. Suppose you see a driver about to strike a pedestrian. You heroically push the would-be victim to safety, but in the process break your [supply body part here]. Assume this happens in North America. Is the driver liable for your medical bills? Does it make a difference if the injury was due to the car hitting you or you hitting the ground? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The laws vary from province to province in Canada, and I suspect, from state to state in the U.S. That's only one of the reasons the Ref Desk doesn't do legal advice. Even from an expert, the answer is frequently: it depends. And that applies to hypothetical scenarios, too. In general terms, and this is not legal advice, deliberately putting yourself in the way of harm, however high-minded your motives, is not likely to result in someone else being held responsible for the consequences, financial or otherwise. Perhaps the person whose life you have saved may feel a moral responsibility, but I wouldn't count on much more than effusive thanks. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So if the situation were to ever arise, I should give preference to rich, generous people? Bummer. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The area of law you are talking about is known as causation. Interpretation will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, scenario to scenario. The Wikipedia article is pretty good at going over some of the different schools of thought about it. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Presuming the common-law mostly applies (which to my understanding is the case across most of the US) the main question a court would have to ask is "did the driver breach the duty of care they owed to other road users when neglecting to see you and your friend". In most jurisdictions drivers have a duty to take reasonable care to avoid colliding with other road users. So if the court found that, in the circumstances a reasonable person would've done something different (that is kept a better lookout, not sped, not been drunk etc) then the driver breached their duty of care.

Then they must ask whether that breach of duty caused the accident. So if your freind stepped out of nowhere and a driver taking proper care still would've hit them, then it cannot be held that the driver's negligence caused the accident. On the other hand if a reasonable driver could've been expected to avoid the accident then the court would hold that the driver's negligence did cause the accident.

This is of course a simplification and there are many other factors that could come into play. Also, in many jurisdictions drivers have compulsory third-party insurance which covers the costs of personal injury done by drivers to others in all circumstances (regardless of fault). ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.198.12 (talk) 09:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean are they liable criminally (eg. could they be fined by the police?) or in civil law (eg. could you claim damages?)? They would both be completely different things, of course.

Transferred malice might be important, but I don't know if you have it in the USA and Canada. If it is relevant, then the driver couldn't defend himself by saying: "I was reckless towards the first pedestrian who was saved. When I was reckless, the other person was actually on the sidewalk, so I'm not guilty." That wouldn't matter, the point is the driver was reckless and injured, even though the injured was not the one he was reckless towards.

If it were English law, the short answer is they probably would be criminally liable. Jordan and Smith are two cases that come to mind about a victim being an "intervening factor" in causation, but I'm afraid I can't remember the ratio decidendi in each.84.13.99.85 (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Religion

The lives of saints who were being persecuted because of the faith203.177.57.170 (talk) 03:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that just about all of them ? Do all you want a list of them all ? StuRat (talk) 04:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Start with martyr.--Wetman (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Fox's Book of Martyrs is a great resource for people up to the Reformation era. The Voice of the Martyrs is a great place to learn about present-day martyrs around the world. Kristamaranatha (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Importance of a person

Has anything well-known or well-reviewed been written about what can make a person important in the long term, and about whether one can have a meaningful life without being important? Secular, deistic or agnostic material would be preferred over anything that presumes -- or attempts to impose -- a religion. NeonMerlin 04:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't all of this hinge on what we define as "important"? There are lots of figures who some people consider important and some people do not. There are many people who become considered important by people long after their deaths. Many people considered generally important fifty years ago are practically unknown today. Major Bong was considered important enough in 1945 for his obituary to share space with the bombing of Hiroshima; who cares about him today? I have no idea whether there is much secondary literature but it seems on the face of it like a question about how we define importance—something which is clearly contextual, and shifts drastically in a short amount of time—not about how people can become it. I can distinctly remember how I tried to convince people that the Taliban were important in 1999 or so, and practically nobody could see that they were. After 9/11, though, there was no question—though of course not for the same reasons I argued for. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

To me that would make you important at some level, gaining the right to say I told you so at least. Importance[13] is relative but not nearly tightly related to timing, varying from 15 minutes of fame to history (and depending on who writes it). A sense of importance to someone somewhere is part of what nourishes humans according to Eric Berne among others in that field who work with issues of esteem and self esteem. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Artists of some type probably have the best chance, except for the rulers of major nations. Poems dating back to ancient Greece (Iliad, the Odyssey, the works of Sappho) are still read, and in some cases taught, well over two millennia afterward. Vultur (talk) 04:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Quotation from literature comparing Marian shrines/aspects

I'm trying to recall where I read of characters comparing their "favorite" Virgin Mary, I think as a humorous response to the diverse characterizations of the figure in various Marian cults before the Reformation. I believe one character says something to the effect of, Our Lady of [?] is well-known, but the Mary of [?] is the kindest. Or something to that effect. Can anyone help me? Cannongrandee (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Gegel - Philosophy and History

When reading articles on Rudolf Steiner and on Anthroposophy and Theosophy I keep coming up with Gegel, surname only. A Google search and a Wikipedia search come up with nothing on this individual. Please tell me who he was. There is no Wikipedia article on himDr Ron Howe (talk) 05:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure it's not Hegel? ---Sluzzelin talk 05:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There is an obscure printer, Ludwig Bernhard Friedrich Gegel (1731-1788), from the German Palatinum (Pfalz). However, I fail to see any connection to Steiner´s Anthroposophy. Hegel, on the other hand, is often seen as a theologian manqué and possibly fits into Steiner´s concepts. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

For some reason (unknown to me) Hegel is referred to as Gegel in Russian sources.87.102.86.73 (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

eg/ie http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Гегель%2C_Георг_Вильгельм_Фридрих see the "Г" for both George and Gegel (Hegel).87.102.86.73 (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That was an older phonological adaptation convention -- Genrikh is the Russian version of German Heinrich, there were jokes about Harry Hopkins being known as "Garry Gopkins" in Moscow, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(after ec)I can't find an article in WP that discusses this, but up to around 50 years ago Roman 'h' was customarily transliterated to 'г' in Russian. A Google search for 'гуго', for example, turns up articles about a number of people named 'Hugo', And the Soviet national anthem was Гимн Советского Союза (Gimn Sovietskogo Soyuza), where 'гимн' is a direct borrowing from 'hymn'. --ColinFine (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hitler is still spelled in Russian as Гитлер, pronounced Gitler. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a clarification about 'гимн'. Colin’s answer could be read that Russian borrowed it from the English word 'hymn'. While Russian has indeed borrowed some words from English, it did not do so in this case. Vasmer’s Etymological Dictionary says this about 'гимн':

• вероятно, через польск. hymn из лат. hymnus, греч. ὕμνος
• meaning: Probably via the Polish “hymn”, from the Latin “hymnus” and Greek “ὕμνος”.

So Greek and Latin were the ultimate sources of the English word, the Polish word, the Russian word, and many others. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

Is reproducing a Wikipedia Page on knol.google.com a copyright violation? I ask because I recently came across this. Thanks --MagneticFlux (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it. It claims to be licensed as CC-by 3.0 (not GFDL), and I can't find a list of contributors. Algebraist 07:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

More discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Can we use Wikipedia as a source for Knol?. Algebraist 11:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

lottery as a monopoly of the government?

Is lottery a monopoly of the government? I mean, is it legal (in most places) to start a lottery business on my own? --Taraborn (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Lotterys and most other forms of betting are something that (most) governments like to control, or have a hand in. See Lottery87.102.86.73 (talk) 11:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In the US, almost all gambling industries are government controlled monopolies. There are some exceptions (Las Vegas and Atlantic City casinos). What is interesting is that, when left to the private sector, gambling pays far better odds. For example, most state lotteries distribute half of the proceeds as prizes and retain the other half for the state. This makes the gambler's expected loss 50 cents for every dollar bet (prior to accounting for taxes). Private casinos typically pay 90 cents for every dollar bet making the gambler's expected loss 10 cents per dollar bet. Wikiant (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Many places allow lotteries for charity. In other jurisdictions anyone can sell lottery tickets, so long as they also offer lottery tickets for free. The way to make this profitable is to make each lottery ticket you sell cost less than the price of postage and require people to send away for their "free" tickets, which requires that they buy a more expensive stamp. StuRat (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Those "percentages" need to be taken with a dose of salts. The claimed expenses or overhead for running lotteries and corporate-owned gambling are not anything like those even of the worst-run "not-for-profit" institutions.--Wetman (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. The percentages given aren't dependent on claims of expenses and overhead. They are quite simply the ratio of money paid out as winnings to money taken in as lottery sales. If any lottery lied about those figures it would be a serious criminal offense. StuRat (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the government gets to do that sort of thing. The purpose of state-run lotteries in the U.S., for example, is to raise revenue that would otherwise require taxes. So, as the saying goes, lotteries (and gambling in general) are a tax on not understanding math. The difference is in the degree of non-comprehension. You have more chance of being struck by lightning this year, for example, than of winning PowerBall on the basis of a single ticket. If you don't buy PowerBall tickets, of course, lightning odds are much better than winning odds. OtherDave (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the simple term: "stupidity tax". StuRat (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I'll never understand why so many people can't understand that lotteries are the most obvious swindle ever. --Taraborn (talk) 07:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Economics on-line discussion forums

I need some Internet forums about economics, the larger, the better. Google didn't help much... Do you know any? Thanks. --Taraborn (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

large numbers of ancient ethnic groups from around the Middle East

I was looking at a list of ancient/ medieval peoples, and all of the really old ones (3rd or 4th millenium BC) seemed to be from around the Middle East (eg. Akkadians, Amorites etc.). I asked a question some time back, about how we identify various historic peoples as a distinct group, and received the answer that we follow the designations of people like the Greeks living at the same time, whose writings we rely on as sources. So I'm wondering if the prevalence of so many very old cultures from the Middle East on the historical record has something to do with the Egyptians leaving records behind, and if so, do we use the names they gave them? thanks in advance, 203.221.127.38 (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There are really only two (and a half) ways of finding about an ancient people.

• If there are contemporary written records (by them or others) we may be able to find out quite a lot about them, including what they are called (by the people who wrote the records we have)
• If we find physical evidence of their way of life, then archeology may be able to tell us a lot about them; but not usually what they were called. (Certain well-studied peoples have a conventional name today, but there is absolutely no reason to suppose that they or any other contemporaries used such a name. See for example Anasazi.
• The 'half' is that some people believe that we can reconstruct something about the vanished people who spoke a language that preceded some known languages, such as the Proto-Indoeuropeans. However, this view is controversial, and certainly will not tell us anything about what they were called.

Since the oldest written scripts we know about are from the middle East (Sumerian and Egyptian) it is to be expected that we would know more about the names of ancient peoples in that area than anywhere else. --ColinFine (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that answer. Can I ask further, does that mean we are using the names for various peoples that the Sumerians and Egyptians gave them? Like, did they invent the terms "Amorites" and "Akkadians" etc? 202.89.166.179 (talk) 11:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What's the name of the hat worn during the American Civil War?

The one worn by most infantry on the Union side. ScienceApe (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean the blue forage cap? -- kainaw™ 19:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think so, although when I search for Forage cap here, it redirects to another kind of hat... ScienceApe (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That is why I googled for "blue forage cap." The term "forage cap" is highly ambiguous. It basically means "a cap worn by military units when they are outside." Since nobody wears the Civil War era cap anymore, the term is used for what is currently worn. -- kainaw™ 19:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Were there any other militaries that used that hat? I recall that some Japanese soldiers in the movie The Last Samurai wore it. Not sure if that's accurate though. ScienceApe (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

At this time many armies used that kind of hat. French uniform style was adopted all over the world untill the Franco-Prussian War.--Tresckow (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is some info on some of the styles and who manufactured them Dirty Billy's Hats Nice or in evil (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It is the kepi. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The kepi is a different kind of hat actually. ScienceApe (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

the forerunner of the forage hat was the shako.--Tresckow (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Gunpowder era fighting in the jungle

Were there any jungle battles that took place during the gunpowder warfare era? ScienceApe (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the conquistadors (and boy, that article needs help!) certainly fought in the South American jungles, and undoubtedly used their muskets there. I'm sure there are other examples. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what kind of tactics they used? Obviously line formations wouldn't work too well in the jungle. ScienceApe (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

They used biological warfare! The fourth Chinese domination of Vietnam might be another case, though I only assume there was jungle warfare because it is Vietnam, which would be quite a bejungled region at that time. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm mostly interested to know how combat with single shot muskets occurs in such an environment like a jungle. Most battles depicted in movies are almost always in open fields where single shot muskets have an advantage. ScienceApe (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

They probably tried to stay out of the jungle itself as much as possible. Thick vegetation is not good conditions for moving more than a small number of soldiers. I suspect that the Spanish and Chinese would have used swards or light sidearms at close range mostly in thick jungle, since the inaccurate muskets would have been rather ineffective when your opponent can creep up on you from umpteen directions. --S.dedalus (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not my field, but I have been in rain forests and cannot imagine how they could have kept the gunpowder dry in such conditions. In the south with pampas and mountain terrain this would not apply. Bush wars are mostly about sneaking about and finding suitable attack-points such as clearings Dr Ron Howe (talk) 04:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I can't imagine either, which is why I'm curious abotu it. I guess no one is really sure? ScienceApe (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to look at the Seminole Wars. In general, the tactics used were ambushes and massacres. Pitched battles were rare, and firing lines even more so. --Carnildo (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

July 27

Professor title (second try)

Let me try to focus my question. Is it possible in the USA that a person (that does have a PhD) will get a professor title in Humanities from any institute just for his/her publications, without teaching there?

And another question please: Can somebody that worked in an institute as a lecturer call him/herself "professor"? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.37 (talk) 06:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

When Isaac Asimov decided to become a full-time writer, he was an associate professor at Boston University. As this was a tenured position, he was allowed to retain the title even though he was no longer teaching (and was not being paid by the university). 21 years later they promoted him to professor. So, in effect, he did get the title of professor just for his publications.

But this was a science position, not humanities. And, more important, he had an existing tenured position at the university. It's not as if they had hired him to start as a full professor with no teaching duties. --Anonymous, 08:02 UTC, July 27, 2008.

My question is even more radical: getting the title without any teaching at the place (in the past, present or future). I guess the answer is no.

Can anybody answer my second question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.37 (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

According to our article, the term professor has different meanings in the United States. In can refer to any post-secondary educator, in which case the answer to your second question is yes. Or it can refer to a specific rank that contrasts with that of lecturer, in which case your answer is no. --Allen (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

First: In the US, it is possible for someone who has no teaching responsibilities and no previous association with a university to be granted the title of professor. This is, however, rare and almost always involves someone who is very well known in his field. The understanding is that the person will continue to publish and will list his affiliation with the title-granting university. Second: In the US and Europe, the title "professor" is reserved for what are known as "full professors" -- people who have risen above the rank of associate professor. In the US, students typically call teachers without Ph.D.'s "professor" and teachers with Ph.D.'s "doctor." While common, this usage actually reverses the prestige of the titles (as, at most institutions, to rise to the rank of associate professor requires that one hold a terminal degree). Wikiant (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Since Wikiant's entry discusses US vs. non-US usage, the 4th sentence should probably start "Second: in the UK and Europe..." /Coffeeshivers (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I intended what I wrote. The first item I know to be true for the US. The second item, I know to be true for the US and Europe. Wikiant (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for clearing that up. I see what you mean now. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As to your second question, the term 'professor' is ambiguous -- it is both a rank, as is discussed above, and a sort of a description. You might say that whoever is teaching the class is the professor (in the second sense), but if a person who holds the rank of instructor refers to him/herself as professor, that person is being a bit disingenuous (and probably knows it). Llamabr (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. A little more info: I believe your "first sense" use is typically capitalized while the "second sense" use is not. E.g., "Our professor is Professor Smith." Wikiant (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

All this is true so far as it goes, but you can just go ahead and call yourself Professor, as Irwin Corey the comedian did. The word implies that you're connected with a college in some way, but it's got about the same validity as "colonel" from Kentucky. OtherDave (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of cheesy unaccredited diploma mills in the US which grant aggrandized titles to people on their faculty. Some of these are "bible colleges," others specialize in healing or philosophy. There might just be a professorship in humanities to be had at one such based on life experiences, publications, or financial contributions, but it would not be taken seriously.. Edison (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

french revolution

when french revolution occured —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.60.214 (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

See French_revolution GreatManTheory (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

personal pacifism and the military?

Recently I've gotten to know someone who's in the military. This person has told me that they believe in peace. This has gotten me to thinking: is being a pacifist compatible with being in the military? To me, they both seem to be polar opposites for obvious reasons. Thanks for your help as always. - Thanks, Hoshie 10:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps asking this person would be the best way to get a good answer for this question, but I think it's possible... kind of. It's entirely possible for a person to prefer a peaceful solution to all situations but still feel that it may not always be an option. Perhaps your friend feels that being a pacifist in an organization like the military gives them at least some potential make or influence choices that lead to war rather than peace, for example. Still, that is a kind of a contradictory situation to be in, and I would imagine that if they're honestly committed to pacifism to any significant degree, that's probably going to lead to a lot of internal conflict for them, for pretty obvious reasons. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

See Pacifism. While simply "believing in peace" is enough to make someone a pacifist by some definitions, typically the word refers to the more radical view that war is never justified under any circumstances. Most people believe in peace in some sense, but only a few are pacifists. So your military friend may not be a pacifist. --Allen (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall that pacifists were sometimes assigned non-combat duties like being medics in the military. Rmhermen (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite a few people believe in peace but also believe in the occasional necessity of war. I would imagine very few people truly "believe in war" as something desirable, even in the military. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy of war - the notion that war is like an unwanted fire or plague that must be extinguished is a common one.87.102.86.73 (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You want to read the Conscientious objector article. And for an interesting real-life story in this area, see Alvin York or watch the fictionalized version in the movie Sergeant York. --Anonymous, 22:50 UTC, July 27, 2008.

The temptation to quote Doctor Who is too great!

The Doctor: No, no. I'm trying to stop the fighting.

Jenny: Isn't every soldier?

Plus, of course, "Call me old-fashioned, but if you really wanted peace, couldn't you just stop fighting?"

Sorry. I'll find another rock to crawl under now... 79.66.124.253 (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I recall reading in The Atlantic Monthly about a conscientious objector who was drafted into the Marine Corps -- something he didn't think could happen. This was during the Vietnam War. He had a hell of a hard time in boot camp, ended up (if I recall correctly) as a corpsman (a kind of medic). OtherDave (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Afghanistan maps

Where are the maps of Afghanistan where they show the languages and ethnic groups by provinces instead of districts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.191 (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

here are some links Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ethnic groups of afghanistan-provinces.jpg there are extra links to other maps contained in this discussion.

also http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Linguistic_maps_of_Afghanistan

also http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_Afghanistan

for some reason they are not in the category http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_Afghanistan I don't know if this is correct or not.87.102.86.73 (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The Royal Order of the Golden Star

I have a very old calendar that was put out by The Royal Order of the Golden Star. The calendar was aimmed at children with a lesson for each day, such as, "I will be unselfish under all circumstances" and "I will not waste any time in idleness". The buzz words on the top of the calender are "Physically Strong, Mentally Alert, Socially Kind, and Morally Clean". I would like to find out more about The Royal Order of the Golden Star. Can you help? Thank you, ____ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portsmouth1974 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the name right? Google search for that term brings up only similar names, such as Golden Star Fraternity and Lodge of Order of the Golden Star (PDF). You might check if the calendar has a publisher's name on the back. What year is it for?64.228.89.144 (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Psychology

If you Google P.W. Thorndyke, you get a sense of this clinical psychologist's significance in Cognitive Development research, particularly correlating familiarity with narrative structure and the retention and use of any and all information. From my limited research, it is one of the few hypotheses that has not been refuted with contradictory research. In fact, the Buros Nebraska Institute for Testing & Measurement confirmed it. However, the information available through Google is limited, and most of the work cited was done a quarter-century ago. For instance, is the good Dr. Thorndyke alive or dead in darkest America? Might he still be working at some institute? Has he turned up any new developments lately? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RealityUnlimited (talk • contribs) 18:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

European colonization of the Americas = crimes against humanity?

Would the European colonization of the Americas be considered crimes against humanity if we used modern language to describe exactly what took place and was done?

What specific modern words would be used to accurately describe the type of exploitation, taking of land, cultural assimilation, and other negative actions/campaigns that took place?--Sonjaaa (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

For modern words, you could check the language used to describe recent events in Rwanda (genocide), Zimbabwe (land reform, an euphemism), West Bank (illegal land annexation), Tibet (resettlement, another euphemism), Ex-Yugoslavia (ethnic cleansing). Cultural assimilation is itself a modern term and the extensive See Also section in that article gives another slew of terms. Recommended reading: Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.64.228.89.144 (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If a crime is a violation of a law, then this would be a case of applying the law retroactively. Since the concept of "crimes against humanity" didn't exist at the time of the European colonization of the Americas, it seems to fit the retroactive application clause. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

By inflating the concept it can be diluted and rendered largely ineffective, which is often the unspoken subtext when applying holocausts and diasporas to marginal situations.--Wetman (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think a "crime against humanity" is necessarily a legal concept, and I don't think that's what the original poster was asking about -- it seems to me that she was asking how those events would be interpreted through modern-day morality. Personally, I don't think calling them crimes against humanity would be particularly inaccurate. Even if we conclude that it doesn't technically qualify as a crime against humanity, that was some pretty shitty treatment of other human beings by any standard. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, if the reason you're asking is for the purposes of writing in Wikipedia, then the correct terminology to use would be "whatever the reliable sources use"! :-) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 16:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

When modern humans came out of Africa circa 30,000 years ago and "replaced" Neanderthals, was it a "crime against pre-humanity?" or a "crime against subhumanity?" Edison (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Very good question! It depends if "humanity" means only our species or if it means any Homo. Maybe "crimes against homininity (or homininkind)"? Do we have evidence that our species treated Neanderthal civilization in a criminal way? Or did we just compete fairly against them and they couldn't keep up? That is another question.--Sonjaaa (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd call it a "crime against nature," except the homophobes already got that one. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Kosher law on soy "meat" and "dairy"

According to the modern interpretation of Jewish food laws, is it acceptable to combine vegetarian meat substitutes like tofu with real cheese, and to mix soymilk(and similar products) with real meat? What about combining fake meat and fake cheese? And is tofu acceptable under kosher law if it's flavored and shaped to resemble something forbidden, like shellfish or bacon? 68.123.238.140 (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be very surprised to hear that someone had a problem with this. Tofu isn't meat, it's bean curd. It's no different from a mango or a carrot in terms of, uh, meatitude. If something tastes like shellfish or bacon, but isn't shellfish or bacon, there's no problem -- provided, of course, that the flavoring doesn't come from actual shellfish or bacon, or some other non-kosher source. If you're concerned, you may want to check with a rabbi or something; I guess it's possible that there are some weird interpretations of kosher laws out there, but there's no reason to believe that I can see that tofu is somehow off limits. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Soy products like tofu and soymilk are always kosher because they are vegetables, not meat or dairy, assuming they meet general kashrut requirements for any other vegetable. —D. Monack ^talk 00:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The reasoning behind mixing meat and dairy has to do with actual deaths of animals or the use of animal products—it has nothing to do with appearances, flavors, cooking methods, packaging, trademarks, etc. Fake meat doesn't kill any animals. Fake cheese doesn't use any animal products. So what problem could there possibly be? If you said, "I'm going to mix tofu and vegetable oil products" nobody would bat an eye—the only reason you even think to ask the question is because you are calling them by less-descriptive names. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It states in the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 87:3 comment of Rema, that if one eats beef with coconut milk, one should place a piece of coconut on the table for appearances sake (marit ayin). However since today everyone knows that there are soya sausages, soya milk, etc., people usually don't put the labelled package or the container on the table.Simonschaim (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Depending on context and how strictly observant the people in question are, it might be polite to do something like that. I agree with User:Captain Disdain that a rabbi's opinion on the exact social forms would be best, but at the very least it seems to be kosher. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 16:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Privilege (sociology)

We have no article on privilege (sociology)? This is a fairly important concept in gender studies, sexual diversity studies, aboriginal studies, black studies and other minority studies! I don't know enough to start the article, but I encourage somebody to! I'm also curious what is the opposite of privilege. I.e. is the person who doesn't have privilege called unprivileged or marginalized or non-privileged or? --Sonjaaa (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Afaik, it's the disadvantaged as in underprivileged. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

As well, I find anything related to Pierre Bourdieu's themes can take you to privilege, its dynamics and spin-offs, further links and reading list. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

July 28

public access to the will of a deceased

Is there somewhere I can access that will (if possible) give access to the will of someone in the USA known to be dead in the last year? 206.75.215.14 (talk) 01:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wills are not necessarily public record. They are not required to be published. Even if they are public record, they are not required to be published on the Internet. Therefore, there is no website that you can go to for some random person's will. -- kainaw™ 19:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have found wills filed in county courthouses for persons whose estates have been through the court system after their death. In the US, a person can keep his/her will secret before death. There is often good reason for this, since possible heirs might get upset if they do not get the bequest they want. When the person whose will it is dies, for the will to be effective in distributing the estate, it is presented to the court as the "last will and testament" of the deceased. The will of a dead person must be filed as a court document, and can be read in the court files. The terminology varies from state to state You can put your estate in a trust before death, or by means of a will after death, and the terms of the trust can be kept secret. You or your agent would generally have to physically go to a courthouse in the county where the deceased lived and check the probate records. The deceased might have died intestate (no will). You could contact a lawyer in the state and county where the deceased lived and the lawyer could find out for you the details of the probate process. Sometimes it is a while (years) before the estate is closed, as when a disputed will is presented, or would-be heirs claim the deceased was not in his right mind when he left all his earthly goods to his cat or to the waitress at the neighborhood restaurant where he ate breakfast, or to the woman his children hired to look after him when he got Altzheimers. Edison (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Canadian death records

Where would I look to find out if someone has died and when?206.75.215.14 (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to try http://www.deathindexes.com/canada.html. Spencer^T♦C 21:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I should have been more specific: looking for a registered death since 1985 in OntarioDeb Tilley (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Visit [14]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

first female attoneys in united states?

When were women first allowed to practice law in U.S.? also who was first woman to argue in front of supreme court  ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.226.230.36 (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Second question: According to this Google search, it would seem to be Sarah Herring Sorin. Dismas|^(talk) 04:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

For the first question, see Women in the United States judiciary. And as an addendum to my first response, it seems that Sorin was the first to go before the Supreme Court without aid from a man. Belva Ann Lockwood was the first to do so under any circumstance. Dismas|^(talk) 06:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetical: lawsuit in USA & can't afford lawyer

In the USA, what do you do if you are sued (non small claims, but large claims) and you have no money for a lawyer, can't get a loan, can't spend years studying the law to defend yourself, etc.? Or if you also have to travel someplace to a court and can't afford it? This is hypothetical, just something I worry about at times, the basic idea of how with civil suits in the USA justice goes to the highest bidder. William Ortiz (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely a problem. Some courts have a "Pro Se Office", which can provide some assistance to a person who's appearing pro se. If the case goes to trial, many judges will bend over backward to accommodate the pro se litigant, realizing that s/he isn't familiar with the court's rules. Nevertheless, the side with a lawyer inevitably has a big advantage. The outcome of the case may reflect that advantage more than it reflects the merits of the dispute. JamesMLane t c 03:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It puzzles me why a person or company would be attempting to win a case for "large claims" against someone who is too poor to afford a lawyer. It costs them money to go to court, so, absent a need to set some sort of precedent, I can't see the financial sense in such a scenario. Civil suits don't always go to the highest bidder. Insurance companies are generally reluctant to go to court because they perceive a bias against them, especially if a jury is involved. (I once worked for an insurance company where "Settle, don't sue" was the underlying policy.) ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Also see Legal_services#Legal_aid_in_the_U.S.. --Allen (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There are several reasons why a plaintiff might bring such a case. One, as you mention, is to set a precedent. Another is that the plaintiff doesn't need a precedent of general applicability but wants to be vindicated in this particular dispute "as a matter of principle" (e.g., the plaintiff is willing to pay a lawyer to establish that it was the defendant who ran the red light or breached the contract or whatever). Yet another is that the plaintiff doesn't believe a defendant's sad story about poverty. Defendants have been known to lie about such things. Finally, a defendant might not be stone-cold broke and yet find the litigation expense a huge hurdle. If you spend pretty much all your ready cash on paying a lawyer to defend you, and get a verdict in your favor, is that a win? The verdict is in your favor but now you really are stone-cold broke. Of course, if you had lost, the plaintiff could get a lien on the building that you own where you conduct your business, and you'd be broke and unable to continue to operate.

The burden of litigation expenses is what often makes settling a good idea for all litigants, not just your former employer and other insurance companies. By the way, as to the danger of bias: In New York, the lawyers aren't allowed to let the jury know that the defendant is covered by insurance. That knowledge is traditionally thought to risk biasing the jury in favor of a large verdict (because this defendant who's here in front of them won't have to pay it). On the other hand, the insurance industry's incessant propaganda campaign about a mythical "lawsuit crisis" can make it cut the other way. A judge once said to me, "I get these yuppies come in here" -- pointing to the jury box -- "who think that if they give a plaintiff's verdict, their insurance rates will go up." JamesMLane t c 04:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer Bielle, there are things like SLAPP lawsuits (for examples, read about Scientology). In addition, some large companies will due lawsuits they can't win against small companies just to try to force them out of business through huge legal fees. William Ortiz (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

In the UK, it's a very different story. It's standard here for the loser to pay the winner's costs so lawyers will often work pro bono if they think they've got a good chance of winning - if they lose, they don't get paid, if they win, the other side pays ("No Win, No Fee!" as the adverts say). --Tango (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There are even bigger problems, in areas where pro-bono simply isn't available - English defamation, for example. The McLibel Case comes to mind, where Greenpeace campaigners put in months of research to defend themselves against the enormous fast-food restaurant. They didn't have legal aid and they lost. But presumably they never had to pay the £40,000 judgement, which was never collected by McDonalds. (It was such a PR disaster, it was not worth the effort.)84.13.108.201 (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A practical suggestion to the OP if he's concerned is to buy insurance. Many homeowner and renters' policies provide liability protection to limit your exposure to civil lawsuits. Hate to sound like a TV ad, but talk to an insurance agent. —D. Monack ^talk 06:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Coluni

What's the difference between a college and a university? Les Games (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This will depend on where you're talking about. University and college have some information, but you'll have to tell us your location if you want more detailed information. Algebraist 12:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A university is, very specifically, an "institution of higher education and research, which grants academic degrees". The meaning of the word "college" is less precisely defined, varies according to where you are in the world, and may overlap with "university" in some locations. In the UK, a college may a secondary school (e.g. a sixth form college), a professional body (e.g. the Royal College of Surgeons), or a constituent part of a university (see collegiate university). Confusingly, some collegiate universities contain a college called University College, such as University College London or University College, Oxford. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Except that in the U.S., university generally means an institution that grants undergraduate and postgraduate degrees (not only undergraduate degrees). Rmhermen (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The height of the ivory tower ? StuRat (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

In the US there are many educational institutions which were established to train school teachers, and originally called "Normal Schools," which later were upgraded to "State Colleges," and later upgraded to "State Universities." Thus they seek to be on a par with the great universities of the world, but probably never will. Edison (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Aren't U.S. universities made up of two or more colleges? Are there any universities in the U.S. that aren't comprised of individual colleges? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, many. University of California institutions have "schools." DOR (HK) (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Captain wants to speak to Bradbury

Hello, I am trying to help out a user who is all very keen to find out about a short story by Ray Bradbury, and sometimes he is asking in the wrong place. When I tried to put him in touch with Mr Bradbury he say "You're talking nonsense". I think he is also claiming to be a captain; perhaps he is a real captain. He also asks questions about dinosaurs when he obviously brought up "prehistoric animals". Sure to be it is a 'leap of faith' from prehistoric animals to a dinosaur - can someone advise me how to deal with him well and to find his story as he is reluctant to contact Ray himself.

A kind gadget has sent me to here for extra tip - We establish it not the Sound of Thunder. It has paralysis and bears dying in it. The protagonist is chased. Thank you for your help and I shall let the 'captain' Rommel know. King of the Fondue (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry User:King of the Fondue, I should have checked if you'd reposted here! As I say, I will get you the name of it tonight once I get back home. Hopefully nobody will beat me to it! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 15:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If anyone might be curious as to what "gadget" referred him here, it was me. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay! The story is named The Ruum, and it was written by Arthur Porges, not Ray Bradbury. There is a Ray Bradbury story in the same book I've got here, The Fog Horn, which also features a dinosaur so I can see where the confusion might arise. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 19:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I just went to try and get an ISBN number, but unfortunately it seems an inconsiderate previous owner of this book has damaged it. :-( It's named "Good Stories" if that helps anyone. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 19:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Frack- forgot about "The Fog Horn". I read Bradbury in the days when it was "that sci-fi crap"— now it is in the text books. "The Ruum" was published in the October 1953 issue of Fantasy & Science Fiction— I might have that in my library, as it now seems familiar, but it looks like the story has appeared in several anthologies. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I'd better do that article on the Ruum after all, been putting it off long enough. ^{*Unless someone beats me to it, fingrs crost*} Julia Rossi (talk) 08:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Paradoxical driving law

Has any locality ever had a law stating that if two cars meet at an intersection, each must remain still until the other has passed? I've heard rumors about this, although I can't seem to find it on Dumb Laws(and as mentioned in an earlier refdesk item, sites like that aren't necessarily reliable). 207.233.85.23 (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I seem to remember that if there's an intersection governed by four Stop signs (I've seen such places in Australia, so they do exist, or have existed in the past), and four cars all arrive from different directions at the same time, each car is supposed to give way to the other three. Or even if there are only 2 cars travelling in perpendicular directions. In the 2-car case, I suppose one would just wave the other through, but I don't know how well the defence of "He indicated he was giving way to me" would stand up in court if there were a collision. It would be one driver's word against the other's. The one who moved first would have to explain why they didn't give way as the Stop sign requires, and the other one would have to explain why they didn't give way to a vehicle that was already in motion. In the 4-car case, it could get quite tricky, which is why intersections like this are now usually governed by either traffic lights or they've been turned into roundabouts. I can't give you any refs about actual laws on these matters, sorry. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

All-way stop intersections are actually relatively common in the United States; the idea is that cars should depart in the order in which they arrived. Whether that actually happens or not is another matter. An interesting situation at a junction near me (in Australia) is a crossroad with a stop sign on one side and a give way sign on the other. My interpretation of the road rules is that these signs are equivalent, except that you must stop at the stop sign even if there is no conflicting traffic. Other people seem to have other ideas... FiggyBee (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your interpretation, FiggyBee. A Stop sign means you have to come to a dead stop, no matter what, even if only for a few seconds. A Give Way sign sometimes requires you to stop if that's part of the process of giving way in a given situation, but it doesn't necessarily mean you have to stop. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

But the tricky bit seems to be if you have two cars coming from opposite directions, wanting to turn right in front of each other. My feeling is that a car already stopped at the stop sign has right-of-way over a car approaching the give-way sign, but a lot of drivers seem to think the driver with the stop sign should always give way to the driver with the give way sign. See what I mean? FiggyBee (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. Well, in that case I'd disagree with you in general. If they're both indicating they're turning right, then there'd be no issue anyway because there'd be no chance of a collision (or if there were a collision, the car that was indicating "right" but didn't actually turn right would have some explaining to do). If the car approaching the Give Way was not indicating they were intending to turn but proceed straight through the intersection, then it would depend on how far that car is from the sign, and how fast they're going. "Stop" means stop, and then give way as appropriate. Once the first car has already stopped, the two signs might as well both be Give Way signs. If the "stopped" car can take off and turn right safely in plenty of time before the other car arrives at their Give Way sign, they'd be perfectly in their rights to do so because it couldn't be interpreted as turning on front of oncoming traffic. But if they misjudged the other car's speed, and a collision occurred, the "stopped" car would have some explaining to do. Equally, if the "stopped" car had already started to turn right before the other car arrived at the intersection, and the second car didn't slow down sufficiently to avoid a collision, then they would be the one to do the explaining, because they clearly failed to "Give Way", as required by their sign.

In essence, it's a fallacy to assume that a Give Way sign automatically gives a driver any more "rights" than a driver facing a Stop sign - and a potentially very dangerous assumption. It all depends on whether the first car is already moving, in which direction, at what speed, and some other factors. The only drivers who can (generally) safely assume they have any more "rights" over those with Stop or Give Way signs are those with no signs at all, including traffic lights; but even then, they have to drive in such a way that takes account of all circumstances, many of which cannot be codified because of the subtleties, complexities and inherent uncertainties of human perception, not to mention some of the crazy things our governments do with road and traffic arrangements. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Cuil"

The new search engine Cuil just launched, and all the press says that the name is pronounced "Cool." While I don't doubt that the creators want it to be pronounced "cool," is there any justification in the English language for pronouncing it thus?

I suppose there are a few "ui" --> "oo" examples (I can only think of "juice"), but "cuil" to me seems like it should be pronounced "quill" or "CUE-ul" or something. For instance, "cuish" is pronounced "kwiss" [15], "cuisine" is "kwee-zeen", "acuity" is "a-CUE-itty". Hmmm... I guess it could also be pronounced "kill", if we look at "circuit" and "biscuit."

So does is there any justification in English for pronoucing "cuil" "cool"? (Besides the fact that "they can pronounce it however they want 'cause they invented it"). Thanks! — Sam 19:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Haven't you answered your own question by providing "juice" as a corroborating example? English pronunciation is sufficiently borrowed and cribbed from enough sources that virtually any pronunciation can be "correct"; there's certainly no need for "cuil" to be expected to adhere to the most common pronunciation of "ui", whatever that might be. — Lomn 19:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

On that note, I'm going to go catch some ghoti. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, pronunciations are based on context. That's why ghoti would't actually be pronounced that way, and that's why the joke works. English pronunciations, though often irregular, are usually easily worked out by English speakers. So even if you haven't ever heard the word "pone", you can be pretty sure it's pronounced like "bone" and not like "done", because that's the way that letter combination would regularly be pronounced in English. (Also, now that we have the Etymology from GreyKnight, we see that the reason for this non-English pronunciation is because they are using the Gaelic (i.e. non-English) pronunciation.) — Sam 19:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Cuil (also coll, calltuinn; orthography is fun in Gaelic!) means "knowledge" (also "hazel"; there's a mythological connection there). The Gaelic word is pronounced that way, so there you have it! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 19:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Their use of the Gaelic word is referenced to http://www.cuil.com/info/faqs/ by the way (bit slow to load at the minute, I suppose they're having some server load issues). --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 19:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that answer. That sort of answers my original issue: it wouldn't normally be pronounced that way in English because it's NOT English! Nice coincidence for them that the Gaelic pronunciation sounds like a marketable English word. — Sam 19:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone here speak Gaelic? They could help, even if it isn't fluent.84.13.108.201 (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have got your answer, but maybe future questions of this nature would be best directed to the Language ref desk, which is brimming with cuil customers just itching to answer language-related questions, pronunciation being a language-related question. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The Gaelic pronunciation of cuil is [kʰuəlʲ]. The anglicised version of it would definitely be pronounced the same as cool. In Ireland, it's common enough to have Gaelic names for brands, towns, etc. They have the correct Gaelic pronunciation, and an anglicised pronunciation which approximates the Gaelic pronunciation with English phonology. Steewi (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

When spealt with the gaelic fada over the "u" i.e. cùil, the pronounciation would definately be "cool" or at least "coo-il". Without the fada, in gaelic, I reckon it would be pronounced "quill" 165.228.176.26 (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Mark Twain's Jim

I remember an episode in which someone, probably either Tom or Huck, upon seeing Jim cut himself, is surprised to learn that Jim's blood is red, too, or that underneath, black people are "just like us". It was mean to to be the sort of humanistic lesson found over and over in those adventures, I assume. Having just finished both adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, I didn't come across the event, though. So, am I making this up in my memory? Does it occur in another of his novels? Is it added in one of the film, or television adaptations? Thank you. Llamabr (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

May have been Bowlderized - see the tvtropes article on that sort of thing, I'll link it once I get home since I seem to have forgotten the name of itAvnas Ishtaroth (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So I just made it up? It seems a strange event, for me to just have imagined. Llamabr (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ordinary general meeting

What's the difference between an ordinary general meeting and an annual general meeting? ----Seans Potato Business 21:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You may want to see Annual general meeting and Extraordinary General Meeting. I can't find anything here about ordinary general meeting, though. I hope this helps, Spencer^T♦C 21:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh here, found this: Mass meeting. This seems to be the ordinary general meeting. Spencer^T♦C 21:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

History of the Sikh Religion and the Muslim/Hindu Conflict

My father who grew up as a Hindu in India tells me that the history of the Sikh religion began when a coalition of Hindu gurus had their followers send all of their first born sons to Northwest India to fight the Muslim invaders. My father also says that these Hindu gurus gave these sons their own guru. However, when you read about the history of the Sikh religion none of this is mentioned. Is there ant truth to my father's story or is it just Indian folklore? Even so is there any history of gurus in India sending a wave of first born sons to the Northwest around the time of the advent of the first Sikh guru? 71.231.122.22 (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in reading this. Spencer^T♦C 23:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Or History of Sikhism. -- kainaw™ 01:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

July 29

Japan Revenge and World Domination

I think Japan has not forgetten the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you think the Japanese have forgiven the Americans for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I think they still hold a grudge and they may be planning something to get back at America and conquer the world. Maybe they have a secret weapon. Is there something that the sneaky Japanese are planning or there's really nothing at all? 72.136.110.93 (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The answer is your opinion. I try to be neutral. From my personal experience, some Japanese continue to remember the atomic bombings and become emotional especially during history class and may have chose certain letters and numbers (e.g. the date it occurred) to commemorate the incident on their license plates. Some others, on the other hand, think that the US forgave them. Public opinion is mixed. IF (big if) Japan is planning something sneaky (I hope not), then we might never know. There are more than enough nuclear weapons to end this world. Just out of curiosity, any word on whether Japan apologized for their actions in WWII? --Mayfare (talk) 02:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No, they don't seem willing to accept any responsibility for the war and the genocide they committed. This is a problem for their relationship with those countries most affected, China and Korea. Their history books are also highly biased in a pro-Japan POV. This is a problem for their movements towards rearming. It makes the US and others uncomfortable if they rearm without first admitting the mistakes of the past, which would seem to make them less likely to repeat those mistakes. StuRat (talk) 03:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hush, hush! If anyone's going to take over the world, it'll be China or Russia! Avnas Ishtaroth (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, Japanese public opinion on the bombings is mixed, but those who have lost relatives or friends or seen the explosions' aftermath would be more likely to condemn the bombings. Regarding apologies, see Japanese_atrocities#Official_apologies and judge for yourself, but remember that China and victims of Japanese atrocities are not unbiased.

Here is a long New York Times article covering the atomic bombings, Japanese textbooks, and government apologies. According to it, "the mood in Hiroshima is not one of anger toward Americans, but simply frustration at what is seen as their callousness and insensitivity", "...frustration that South Koreans and Chinese feel when Japanese officials refuse to apologize for World War II", and "the textbooks, which are censored by the Japanese Government, seem intended to avoid unpleasantness of every sort. They give only cursory attention to Japan's invasion of China and attack on Pearl Harbor, sometimes describing them in a way that makes them sound like natural disasters unrelated to human behavior, and they treat the atomic bombing in a similar way." I also remember seeing, on Wikipedia, the percentages of the American and Japanese public that belive the bombing was justified, but I can't find the data now.

As for sneaky revenge, political parties in democratic countries are motivated mostly by popular opinion. Starting a nuclear war or bringing about economic sanctions certainly won't assist any incumbent party in the next election. --Bowlhover (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Around Anzac Day the media here dredges up all kinds of stories and I remember vaguely something like a war's end quote from a prominent Japanese promising they would dominate the western world by commerce. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

They need to work fast, what with the low birth rate, high life expectancy, and near-total lack of immigration. OtherDave (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that it's not uncommon for a country which has committed its own atrocities to focus in on apparent atrocities committed against them as a way of putting themselves up as "victims", even if they started the whole thing. Ergo, the Japanese response to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which is used to absolve them of any complicity in WWII or their own horrible treatment of the Koreans and Chinese, and similar things are done in regards to Dresden. (I'd be first in line to say that Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were massacres of civilians without question, but that hardly absolves a country.) I'd also be willing to venture that the Japanese people don't associate themselves intimately with the government of the WWII period, which is probably less of a stretch there than it would be in a democracy like the USA, and so are focusing on the aspects in which "the people" were victimized, not the ways in which "the soldiers" or "the government" did victimizing themselves, but that is just my own speculation. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, consider how easy it is for you to say "I'd be first in line to say that Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were massacres of civilians without question, but that hardly absolves a country." We all know they were horrible atrocities, but we weren't responsible and the people who were are not in power. It doesn't bother us. Plus, 'they' did horrible things, so it's okay... And everyone knows that WWII was the 'good war' with good fighting evil and winning, so that's all okay too. Right? Absolutely not getting into any sort of ranking of atrocities and crimes, but we all see history through a fug of propaganda and myth. I don't really see how the Japanese are any different in this regard. 79.66.124.253 (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the big difference here is that most Americans, for example, can say, "yes, they were massacres of civilians, but there was some purpose to them—the atomic bombs were part of a purposeful, and successful, strategy to cause quick resolution to the war." Whether they are right or wrong in that, I don't see the Japanese saying that in their discussions of their actions in China or Korea, or the Germans saying that in regards to their mass killings. That's a pretty big asymmetry if you ask me, and I think it does say something about the relative moral standings of the events in question. Targeting civilians with aerial bombs in wartime is certainly no moral high ground, but I think one could argue that it's not the same thing as death camps, systematic rape, systematic torture, etc. --Panoptik (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As The Onion put it: "Nagasaki Bombed 'Just for the Hell of it': Second A-Bomb Would Just Have Sat Around Anyway, Say Generals" Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Each of us is the hero of our own life story. I suspect this is true of countries, too. ៛ Bielle (talk)

JFMAMJJASOND

Hello. The initials of each month in the Gregorian calendar is JFMAMJJASOND. Does the bolded have any significance (maybe from Greek mythology)? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is a coincidence. Or, IT'S A HUGE CONSPIRACY!!! Paragon12321 (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is a conspiracy. Otherwise, why would September be the 9th month when sept=7, October be the 10th month when oct=8, November be the 11th month when nov=9, and December be the 12th month when dec=10? Obviously, someone purposely crammed in two extra months: July and August - therefore turning SOND into JASOND. I blame Jason D. for doing it. -- kainaw™ 03:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If you'll look at the Wikipedia articles for each month, you'll see that their English names come from a variety of sources, and you'll learn why September is no longer the seventh month. Much more interesting than tracing hocus-pocus pseudo-patterns.--Wetman (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Wetman is probably just covering for the Secret Overlord's nefarious plan to invade the calendar. ;-) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 08:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a widespread belief in the U.S. that the JASON Defense Advisory Group got its name from the months, though the Wikipedia article says that's not so. OtherDave (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Its all to promote a radio guy: J. Jason, DJ. FM, AM. Edison (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You can thank roman emperors for july and august. Julius and Augustus, respectively. -LambaJan (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the conspiracy was the Greeks creating English. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Joy?

Here's one of the most abstract and personal questions the reference desks have probably gotten. Do you find life enjoyable? I always puzzle over the seemingly-unending happiness that many people feel, because to me, almost every day comprises only tedious pre-arranged tasks that must be accomplished. I'm not in depression, but I'm almost never happy either. Utterly stolid are perhaps the best two words to describe me.

As a second question, do you actually *feel* a strong sense of affection around relatives or friends and miss them when they leave? I've never missed a companion before, so that feeling is not comprehensible to me. It's strange, the supposed "basic" human emotions. --121.29.120.204 (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comments suggest to me (by no means an expert) that you fall somewhere along the line of the autism spectrum. Many people (particularly males) have the same sense of detachment to a greater or lesser degree, but are still able to live a perfectly normal life, and indeed may have abilities in other areas that compensate. Again I am by no means an expert. Jooler (talk) 09:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean "a perfectly normal life" by male standards, Jooler? Maybe 121.29, you haven't found your passion. You might like to read Passion (emotion) and Stoic Passions. Maybe you're a stoic from a long line of stoics... Julia Rossi (talk) 09:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Julia. Autism is more common in males but it is by no means exclusively male. You may perhaps be interested in one of the books on the subject by Wendy Lawson. Jooler (talk) 09:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ill agree with the OP I feel bored and numbed 90% of the time and hate life, I am not depressed, but have also only ever longed for ex girlfriends, never friends or family. And I am quite sane thanks

I do enjoy life (not every part of it, not all of the time, but on balance) and I do feel affection for friends and relatives. Most people genuinely have those feelings. But I think you're overestimating the happiness of the people around you. Most people put on a happy face when talking to other people, unless they're very close. My mother is delightful to talk to and cheers up everyone around her, but in private she's often depressed and unsure of herself. My father seems detached in the stereotypical male way most of the time, but he has a deep emotional bond to his children and he has a passion in life (teaching). If you didn't know my parents as well as I do, you'd probably never notice these things. So don't jump to conclusions. You might want to read An Anthropologist on Mars, by Oliver Sacks, about Temple Grandin. -- 81.98.253.215 (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Joy is a fleeting experience. Good sex ranks on a par with excellent pizza. Aim for serenity and productivity. And take time consciously to give yourself credit when you've accomplished something as well as it could be done.--Wetman (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC).

Well, we can’t give medical diagnoses here, so I would caution against suggesting any sort of mental condition. Indeed what the OP describes is also consistent with the normal range of human emotion.

I’m not sure where you live 121.29, but many parts of the developed world are currently addicted to happiness. The way happiness is viewed seems to be that there is something wrong with you if you are not always completely happy. Nothing could be further from the truth. A little controlled melancholy is necessary for a healthy life, just as is occasional happiness. Life and joy always fade. True happiness I believe can only be found in the little things. Bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens as it were. I highly recommend the book Against Happiness: In Praise of Melancholy by Eric G. Wilson. Although the author is slightly long winded, he does a very good job of depicting the Brave New World culture in which we now find ourselves.

As to your second question, I think you are defining “miss” too narrowly. I think I do miss family members, but not in the way you seem to be thinking of missing someone. I notice the absence of that person’s presence, the absence of the excitement or humor they bring to things, but I rarely miss people in the painful homesick way. I think this just stems from being somewhat introverted. Perhaps this is your experience to, 121.29? --S.dedalus (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not diagnosed with autism. I can communicate both verbally and in writing with proper conventions and without repetition. S. dedalus: yes, my experience when a relative leaves is exactly the same as yours. I usually enjoy the absence of a family member because I prefer being alone, not participating in group activities. --121.29.120.30 (talk) 04:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

My IP address changed from 121.29.120.204 because I'm behind a router with a dynamic IP. --121.29.120.30 (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

countries and discrimination

are there any statistics on the level of discrimination in countries? which country has the most discrimination? which country has the least? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.19.150 (talk • contribs)

That's hard to quantify directly, but people do measure wealth inequalities (see Gini coefficient etc.), and I think that part of the Human Development Index measures entrenched inequalities... AnonMoos (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Inequality is, of course, not necessarily related to discrimination in any what whatsoever. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The Job Of The Philosopher.

Please can any one tell me what the job of a philosopher is. i am a student of philosophy and the course is kind of law but with no particular job interest. and i hate it. please i need to no what someone with a degree in philosophy can do or where he or she can work apart from teaching. Darldave (talk) 10:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A number of philosophy majors go on to law school and have successful careers as attorneys. Apart from that, writing seems a likely choice. Really philosophy is a very broad field, so the number of career possibilities stemming from its study is limitless. GreatManTheory (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There are post-baccalaureate fellowships at the NIH for bioethics, business ethics consulting may be a live option without a graduate degree (I never heard back from the companies that I sent inquiries about what educational background is required for their jobs, so they aren't ruled out), there was a guy answering an Edge.org question who claimed he preferred hiring philosophy majors for business jobs in the film industry because he felt they made better decisions. Basically as long as you stay away from metaphysics and are sure to have decent technical background (statistics, maybe calculus, economics, etc) then you shouldn't be too hard pressed to find work, but the only jobs I know of that only require a philosophy background are those dealing with ethics.--droptone (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There are also many fine jobs for philosophy majors in the food service industry. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There's applied philosophy author and more, Alain de Botton. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of incredible jobs on offer to people with philosophy degree's however if you are an average student, with a mediocre degree from a nothing-special college/university, then you probably won't get a good job. You will probably find that a philosophy degree does no more than show you are capable of learning and the best option may be to take a vocational conversion course into something with good employment opportunities. Philc 0780 19:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As an undergrad, I had to declare a major and chose philosophy for the reason that only philosophy majors were permitted to take certain classes. In the first of these, the professor told us that X thousand of philosophy PhDs were awarded in the US in the previous year, and that there were something like 17 jobs available as professors of philosophy. That was probably the single most useful thing any professor ever said to me. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

True for many areas in the humanities. When I was a freshman, the head of the English department told a group of us that the department had found 300 different jobs that English majors could hold. Surveying grads, they found that more than half of them were... teaching English. OtherDave (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Civil law obligations of people without permanent adresse

If someone don´t have an adresse, how can he receive a cease and desist letter/order and similar documentation? Does it mean that he has no civil law obligation since many, if not all, procedures are based on letter being sent to an adresse?

See our article on Notice. There are other ways of informing people of their obligations, such as posting in the newspaper. I believe the standard often used is that the method must be reasonably calculated to give notice. GreatManTheory (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Casting vote

"The voting members of the Executive Committee shall be the Executive Officers listed in Section 5.1. The casting vote shall be held by the Chair." What is the 'casting vote'? ----Seans Potato Business 12:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

See casting vote - basically, in the event of a tie, the Chair's vote decides the issue. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have checked that first. Does the Chair get to vote normally or only in the event of a tie? Why do you suppose the Chair is given the casting vote and not the President? ----Seans Potato Business 13:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine the person with the casting vote is, in most situations, allowed to vote normally. However, the local rules of the particular organisation should clarify that for any given actual instance; there may be variation. In general, the Chair is the presiding officer of the body over which he has the deciding vote; again, perhaps there is local variation in a given instance, but I think that one's quite regular. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 14:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I would assume to the contrary, that whoever has the casting vote will not vote unless there is a tie. In the Australian House of Representatives, one member of the government is elected "speaker of the house" and then effectively acts as chairman/ convenor, voting only in the case of a tie. I'm guessing this is the general procedure, because the chair has the duty to remain impartial until the last moment. 202.89.166.179 (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose in the case of government it is more usually done in that fashion. I was thinking from the point of view of a corporate board or other committee. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 16:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You'll enjoy Kevin Costner's new film. Swing Vote.--Wetman (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That's true for the Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives, but the President of the Australian Senate has a deliberative vote, but not a casting vote. In order to preserve the appearance of impartiality, the Speaker is not permitted to vote - unless there's a tie, in which case his/her casting vote decides the issue. Whereas the only time the President of the Senate can vote is during a general count of numbers; if it results in a tie, the motion fails and the President is powerless to change it, not even if he/she had chosen to abstain from voting in the general vote. For the same reason applying to the Speaker - the appearance of impartiality - the President of the Senate hardly ever votes in a general count of numbers, and thus hardly ever votes at all. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

One important reason for the person with the casting vote to not vote normally, is that this could then create a tie vote. Note that having an odd number of voters, including the casting vote, is no protection against this, as people may be absent or abstain. StuRat (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, in the U.S. Congress, the Speaker of the House has the right to a vote on all matters, presumably since the Speaker is considered a representative in his or her own right. The vice-president of the U.S., under the Constitution, is President of the Senate, but can only vote to break a tie. According to this page, no VP since Schuyler Colfax (left office in 1873) has cast more than 10 such votes, and 11 VPs (including to my surprise Lyndon Johnson) never cast one. OtherDave (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

commas

Are the commas appropriate in this sentence: Notices shall include, if applicable, the deadline for submission of business. ----Seans Potato Business 13:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

They look appropriate to me. They are setting off a clause, "if applicable", that can be removed without affecting the meaning of the sentence. I think the sentence might flow better if the clause were moved the end: "Notices shall include the deadline for submission of business, if applicable." (You also might want to take this question to the Language desk. - Eron^Talk 13:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I'd move "if applicable" to the beginning: If applicable, include the deadline for submission of business in the notice. Even better, The notice should include any deadline for the submission of business. OtherDave (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Heaven in space

If someone dies in outer space, for example an astronaut or spaceman/woman, do they still go to heaven? I mean, since religion has been based on Earth and never in it's construction was the possibility of going into space, nearly all "old school" religions give the impression that heaven in "up there" or equivalent to being in space. Is it a requirement to die on Earth to go to heaven? What is the church's position on this? ZigZap (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where a person dies, they aren't going to heaven (or hell). The church's position is that "God" is ruler and creator of the entire universe, so it doesn't matter where a believer dies. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The "three-tiered" model (earth, firmament, heaven) is, I think, usually interpreted to include "outer space" as part of the "firmament" tier. So heaven is still "above" it, although obviously we don't mean in terms of "up" and "down" here. Maybe God meant to include an appendix on how gravity works but forgot! (A pity; there are people who would like a few pointers on where to look!) :-) Let me see if I can find a Wikipedia article on the three-tier model for you. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 14:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, I found firmament, but it could use some work... Of course, I suppose most of Wikipedia does too! Maybe it will help you anyway. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 14:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And a lot hinges on what you mean by "the church." Not every religion believes in an afterlife. And what you mean by "heaven." For example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church defines heaven as "the state of supreme and definitive happiness." In other words, from this viewpoint, it's not necessarily a place up in the sky. As for dying, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, only two individuals are regarded as not having died: Enoch and Elijah. The consensus seems to be that both made it to Heaven; Genesis has Enoch walking with God, and Elijah arose in a fiery chariot. OtherDave (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

".. religion has been based on Earth and never in it's construction was the possibility of going into space" - that also applies to aircraft travel, or balloon travel, or airship travel, unheard of when most religions were founded. Many people have died on board aircraft, with no implications for whether or not they went to heaven (or hell). These days, scientists consider the atmosphere, stratosphere etc to be part of "the Earth", but I doubt if early religion-founders would have thought this way. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User:JackofOz's comment showed me that I wasn't very clear in my response. :-) The ancient "three-tier" model has the following: (1) the earth (2) the "firmament" (e) heaven. "Firmament" is sometimes written as "sky", which is where the confusion comes in, since nowadays we often use "sky" to refer specifically to Earth's local atmosphere. However, in the original usage, the firmament was considered to be a single unit going all the way from clouds to stars (many "celestial sphere" models had an outermost "firmament" sphere or the equivalent to hold the fixed stars). So, in modern times, it would make sense to say that the "firmament" would also incorporate "outer space", since that seems more consistent with the original intent. Rabbi Pinchas Frankel postulates an opposing point of view here which may be of interest. He still doesn't equate "outer space" or "up there" with heaven, mind you.

In any case it would seem to be a moot point; since it is pretty much an established point of Christian theology that all of the universe falls under God's jurisdiction, therefore you can't accidentally "fall off the world" if you see what I mean. I hope that is clearer than my last comment! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 11:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

What is a field of study that focuses on how one could affect one's personal environment?

1. I want to study the types environments or situations that people get into that can be personally classified as good or bad.

2. I want to study the effects on people or the environment that go through these situations or environments.

3. (and most important of all) I want to study techniques of how individuals can break up these situations or environments, or build up the "good" ones.

I thought of some examples of some small scale ones, but I would also like to study large scale ones too, like government.

-a situation where some-one's life is compartmentalized, ex: they are a completely different person at work vs at home.

-An environment where only one train of thought is allowed

-An environment where there is bonding over the hatred of others

-Or just an environment where there's a lot of people talking behind each others' back

Uh, is there something already like this that I can study?

If not, what should I become a master in so I can get the authority to get this train of thought to gain weight?

A doctorate in psychology was mentioned to be near the right path to getting to research this.

Thanks!

69.129.127.151 (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds more like sociology than psychology, to me. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this sounds like sociology. If you're planning to take a major decision like studying for a doctorate, you should probably consult an advisor at the university (or other institution) to make sure you are getting the most appropriate course you can. There's nothing worse than accidentally enrolling yourself in a course and then finding out it's a lot more boring than you thought it was going to be! ;-) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 14:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like either sociology, psychology or even politics (based on your point 3, and the mention of government). I think people can help you the most if they give a short reading list for these disciplines that would give a representative sample of what you might plausibly encounter at university (actual experiences depend a lot on the lecturer, tutor and other students). From my experience, a very good "sampler" for politics is Political Ideologies by Andrew Heywood. It's used as a textbook for a university in my home city, and is quite interesting in its own right. For psychology, find out what the textbook is for the course you might be studying - they seem to all be reasonably similar, since psychology is a fairly well organised discipline, with a clear idea of a curriculum for beginning students (compared to sociology and politics). 202.89.166.179 (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Social anthropology? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

At-will employment in Canada?

I have been reading about the U.S. doctrine of "employment at-will" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment, whereby an employee who is not bound by an employment contract may be terminated without cause or may quit without cause.

Does anyone know if a similar legal doctrine exists in Canada? Any background would be appreciated. Phlonx (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm X's assassins

Malcolm X was assassinated by "Norman 3X Butler" and "Thomas 15X Johnson". I haven't yet been able to find an explanation of the "3X" and "15X" names -- were those somehow associated with Malcolm and/or the Black Muslims? Was it a common thing to have some kind of "X" as one of your names? Why 3 and 15?

Thank you.

CSWarren (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm X said about his 'X' that "the 'X' is meant to symbolize the rejection of 'slave names' and the absence of an inherited African name to take its place. The 'X' is also the brand that many slaves received on their upper arm." I assume the other 'X'-s were there for similar reasons, but I don't know about the 3 and the 15. DAVID ŠENEK 18:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the numbers were used to identify the individuals from other people with the same names. Corvus cornix_talk 18:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Rhetorical device name?

What's the official term for a rhetorical device for mentioning something subtly as a threat, but which doesn't seem it? For example, by saying "And if we are to really contribute to this company, consensus is better than mediation." as part of a long speech which otherwise doesn't mention mediation at all, to imply you will force people into mediation (believed by your audience to be A Bad Thing) but in such a way that it is easily denied? I read about how this technique is used in politics somewhere to frighten the bejesus out of people sub-consciously, but I can't remember what it is called. 82.34.42.70 (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I doubt you were thinking of something as simple as Fear, uncertainty and doubt 'FUD' ? 87.102.86.73 (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly it could be considered a form of paralipsis. Deor (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Is paralipsis the same as "veiled threat"? Julia Rossi (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. :) 82.34.42.70 (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"personal Lord and Savior"

I'd like to better understand just what is being communicated, in terms of religious affiliation, by use of the formula "to accept Jesus Christ as one's personal Lord and Savior." Is there a one-to-one correspondence between users of this formula and Evangelicalism? Or is it a subset or superset of evangelicals? Our articles sacrifice and Christianity both mention the phrase, but both are vague and poorly sourced where this phrase is concerned. --Allen (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

good luck. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

One thing it kind of implies is the priesthood of all believers... AnonMoos (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a phrase that can be used by any (christian), but as you have suggested - tends to be associated with more evangelical denominations.87.102.86.73 (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not typical of (Roman) Catholics, though many Catholic theologians would probably agree that a Catholic individual's relationship to Christ is highly personal -- e.g., via the doctrine of transubstantiation, when a person receives the eucharist, he is consuming the true body and blood of Christ. You can hardly get more personal. To analogize and generalize, it's like American flag stickers on private cars: that sticker doesn't mean that you're politically conservative, but I'd pay you 50 cents for every Democrat with such a flag if you'd pay me 25 cents for every Republican. OtherDave (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a great deal of debate about this among theologians. To require, as a precondition of salvation, that one accept "Jesus as one's personal saviour" implies that salvation is not a gift, but a reward. This is antithetical to much of scripture and, regardless, portrays God more as someone conducting a transaction than as a loving creator. Wikiant (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's also saying that not only do you believe in Jesus but you also believe in their understanding of the trinity. -LambaJan (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd add that the origin of the "personal saviour" doctrine in the American Great Awakenings is important. It was the time that the responsibility for salvation was more specifically placed on the believer, their actions and their reaction to the Good News, rather than on their adherence to doctrine, attendance at church meetings and church membership. Steewi (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! What I'm really trying to get at is not the meaning of the phrase, or what groups agree or disagree with it in principle, but rather the remarkably rigid linguistic formula. I don't hear, "Do you believe Jesus is your personal Savior and Lord?" or "Do you think Christ is your Savior, personally?" but rather, word for word, "Do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?" It's as if some influential institution published these words and said, "This question is what separates members of our movement from everyone else." But perhaps the specific wording is just a folk custom that doesn't correspond to any formal institution or well-defined movement. --Allen (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Custom, mantra, incantation? Julia Rossi (talk) 05:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd go for custom. I don't know that it's "rigid" so much as "habitual," almost the way people say "bread and butter" rather than "butter and bread." As suggested, though, it tends to be more Protestant than Catholic, and probably more evangelical than mainline (e.g., I have trouble imagining Presbyterians or Episcopalians talking much about their personal lord and savior). (I think shibboleth would be too strong.) More a leading indicator, the way New Yorkers wait on line rather than in line. OtherDave (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A customary or traditional phrasing, I think would be the best way to describe it, as User:OtherDave says. The doctrinal background mentioned by User:Steewi is of interest, but the common phrase itself is just a common-or-garden custom. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 12:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The "rididness" also helps with the flow of things. There is an old joke where a priest was having trouble with his microphone. The priest says "There is something wrong with this mic." The congregation answers "And also with you" (assuming the priest had said the traditional/ritual greeting of "Peace be with you"). Particularly the stucuture you are talking about is noticable in the Roman Catholic rite in the declaration of faith said during Baptisms and Easter. Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Mutiny

(NB: I am not a member of any armed forces and ask this purely out of idle curiosity) If a member of an armed force's commanding officer mutinies, what is that member supposed to do? In most cases of military coups and similar it seems to be taken as read that soldiers will follow their officers (people only ever talk about convincing generals or other senior officers to their cause, never their soldiers), but it seems unlikely that the regulations would agree with that. Is someone (knowingly) following the orders of a mutinying officer also committing mutiny? Is so, would the fact that they were following orders be taken into account during a court martial? --Tango (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in the military either, or ever have been, but I can tell you my first thought is that if I were the mutinying officer I would probably leave my subordinates in the dark as much as possible about that and let them think it's business as usual until we've already gone too far to turn back. When they figure it out I'd simultaneously threaten them with punishment or their lives and try to convince them that I'm right and the whole world is wrong. If they were ever questioned about it later they'd say they were ignorant until there was little they could do, and they were threatened. I'd also probably spread some misinformation around the unit so that the solders don't trust eachother enough to try to take me down. -LambaJan (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd try to convince them and I'd only threaten them if they didn't buy it. But you get the point, right? There's a lot that goes in these situations that would have to be sorted out. About using 'following orders' as an excuse, I think many situations would allow them to skirt around it much as I just did, but if really confronted on that point... I couldn't say. I guess it would depend on what particular action they're using that as an excuse for. -LambaJan (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In the U.S. army, you'd better not obey orders you know to be illegal. (To Obey or Not to Obey, United States v. Keenan). At the end of World War II, the Germans also found out that it is no defense to say, "I was only obeying orders." (Nuremburg defense). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're ordered to commit war crimes, then yes, certainly. What if the orders aren't inherently illegal, they're just contradicting the orders of a more senior officer? --Tango (talk) 03:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

How is not obeying the lawful orders of a higher ranking officer not illegal? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If your officer, Officer Q, says "Go to point A" when the actual order from Q's superior, Officer X, was "Go to point B". This, as opposed to Officer Q saying "Kill all civilians", when (hopefully) Officer X did not encourage civilian-killing. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between an order being illegal because it's given by the wrong person and it being inherently illegal because it's an order to do something which the law says you're not allowed to do. International law is very explicit in saying that follow orders is not an excuse for war crimes. --Tango (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As a soldier in most armies, you won't know what your superior's orders are. So you won't know that what he's telling you to do is contradictory to what he's been told to do. FiggyBee (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually the "I was only obeying orders" reason works quite well in most ocasions. Only in extreme cases does it not work. Search around; I bet you will find plenty of cases where the accused was absolved because of it. Of course if your country lost the war and surrendered uncondicionally then all bets are off. In most ocassions only high ranking officers can refuse orders from a higher ranking officer and still get away with it. A low ranking officer, or god forbid a common soldier, which refuses any direct order from in a superior officer in a war zone will be truly lucky not to be shot on the spot (depends largely upon the circumstances and the army's discipline). This means that the highest ranking officer on the scene will be held accountable by a court of law, while those obeying his orders tend to avoid any blame or punishment. Flamarande (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Does that apply even when the soldier knew the orders were mutinous? While in many cases they won't know, I can imagine there would be plenty of cases where they would - if you're ordered to invade the royal palace you would probably be somewhat suspicious, however convincingly your CO tried to explain it. --Tango (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Our article on Command_responsibility sheds some light on this issue. GreatManTheory (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

World trade

IN THE NEWS on the main page a report of the World Trade discussion breakdown is provided. Have we found the motive for 9/11 or is Chavez wrong? Julie Dancer (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The US, China and India failing to agree on agricultural trade in 2008 (which, if you read the history of the WTO, is hardly something new) is a motive for a terrorist attack in 2001? I'm not seeing the connection. FiggyBee (talk) 07:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

World Trade Center serving as a symbol of first world nations exploiting third world nations like Afghanistan before 9/11 with an even more horrific agenda than the one now being used to exploit more developed nations in 2008? Just a thought. Julie Dancer (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi User:Julie Dancer; I'm not sure what your specific question is. If you want to enter into a complex debate about these events, a discussion forum might be a better venue. If you have a specific question, please clarify and I will see if I can help you. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 12:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess we are not on the same page. I thought everyone was still trying to figure out the real reason why Al-Qaeda (Bin Laden) did it. Besides what is there to debate? Julie Dancer (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Julie, you are asking a Reference Desk to speculate on a possible connection between 9/11 and current US-India/China economic policies, right? If so, I'm afraid you're in the wrong place. Do you have a factual question? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm asking the reference desk for a list of Wikipedia or other resources where I might find the answer. I would never ask a reference librarian about subject matter but only where I might find it because I know she would not have a clue. Julie Dancer (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case you might look at some of the following for the articles which contain summaries of what is hopefully verifiable commentary on the matter: September 11, 2001 attacks, Collapse of the World Trade Center, and of course there is a mention in World Trade Center itself. I am sure there are other relevant articles, they are probably linked at most one or two steps away from one or more of these. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 17:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of people wondering why Bin Laden "did it". It's pretty clear that he was attempting to attack symbols of American finance, military, and politics. It's fairly explicit. I doubt he cares much about the economy of Afghanistan. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the point to make here is that WTC and WTO are not related. Philc 0780 19:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC) 19:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Queen's Gold Medal for Poetry

In recent years, the Queen's Gold Medal for Poetry has usually been awarded on April 23rd. However, on the British Monarchy web site there is nothing to be found concerning the 2008 award. Was there no award in 2008? Has it been delayed? Why? I'm just wondering... -- 84.160.15.65 (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it just hasn't been awarded yet for some reason. It seems the April 23rd date is only a tradition, due to the Shakespeare connection, so it may not be significant. I couldn't find any mention of it anywhere. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A psychological phenomenon ?

It would be appreciated if someone with psychology knowledge would look at this.

Thesaurus request

Thank you. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The disputed garment in the Talmud

The Talmud has a ruling about a disputed garment that if one man claims all the cloth and the other half, then the first gets 3/4 of it and the other 1/4. This has come up as part of cooperative game theory for me. Does anyone know, is there a corresponding ruling about where there are only two claimants and they have a total claim less than the total. Does it just specify a proportional division or is it more complicated than that? Thanks very much Dmcq (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)