The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of humanities.
WP:RD/H Humanities #eee #f5f5f5 #eee #aaa #aaa #aaa #00f #36b #000 #00f humanities Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities Humanities WP:RD/H

Welcome to the humanities reference desk. Is there any way I can get a faster answer? Yes, you can search first. Please do this. Search the reference desk archive to see if your question has been asked and answered earlier. Entering search terms in the box to the left may locate useful articles in Wikipedia. Many questions can be immediately answered by a simple google search. Yes, if you need advice or opinions, it's better to ask elsewhere. The reference desk does not answer (and will probably remove) requests for medical or legal advice. Ask a doctor, dentist, veterinarian, or lawyer instead. The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead. How do I word my question for the best results? Include a meaningful title. Do not write "Question" or "Query", but write a few words that briefly tell the volunteers the subject of the question. Include context. Include links to any information that might help to understand your question. Tell us what part of the world your question applies to. Do not provide your contact information. E-mail or home addresses, or telephone numbers, will be removed. You must return to this page to get your answer. Type ~~~~ (four tildes) at the end of your question. This signs your contribution so volunteers know who wrote what in the conversation. If your question is homework, show that you have attempted an answer first, and we will try to help you past the stuck point. If you don't show an effort, you probably won't get help. The reference desk will not do your homework for you. When will I get an answer? It may take several days. Come back later and check this page for responses. Later posts may add more information. Please, post your question on only one section of the reference desk. After reading the above, you may ... How to answer a question Main article: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines Be thorough. Provide as much of the answer as you are able to. Be concise, but not terse. Please write in a clear and easily understood manner. Keep your answer within the scope of the question as stated. Provide links when available, such as wikilinks to related articles, or links to the information that you used to find your answer. Be polite and assume good faith, especially with users new to Wikipedia. Don't edit others' comments, except to fix formatting errors that interfere with readability. Don't give any legal or medical advice. The reference desk cannot answer these types of questions.

skip to bottom Choose a topic: Computing desk Science desk Mathematics desk Humanities desk Language desk Entertainment desk Miscellaneous desk Archives   See also: Help desk Village pump Help manual

Contents 1 November 28 1.1 The First Indo-European Tribe in Europe 1.2 Tartars of the Rhyn-Sands steppe (Nikolai Leskov) 1.3 Why do so many names of British branded medicinal products begin with the prefix "ben-"? 1.4 Name for type of joke 2 November 29 2.1 Does Islam forbid football? 2.2 exact date in 1980 2.3 Diana Spencer 2.4 Germany Double Summer Time in the Second World War 2.5 What name was J R R Tolkien known by? 2.6 Map of International humanitarian aid given, by country 2.7 Song 2.8 Christadelphian and Advent Christian Churches in Sydney 3 November 30 3.1 Research on Social Interaction / Craving 3.2 Roll/Role Credits 3.3 Sense of Time and Space when driving 3.4 Swiss judges/neutrality 3.5 Epic battles in 16th and 17th centuries 3.6 Looking for good fiction/non-fiction about female messiahs 3.7 Importance of good grades after some years 3.8 Article on and term for "reading to" (e.g. children) 3.9 ambassadorial appointments 3.10 Asian Indians and US Born Pacific Asians 3.11 Marcus Baebius Tamphilus (tribune of the plebs 103 BC) 4 December 1 4.1 World's oldest religions 4.2 Indian International Students 4.3 classical music song 4.4 In the 'Muslim Demographics' video, a popular youtube video, where does he get this piece of information? 4.5 Reproduction rates in the EU countries 4.6 Divorce rates in the USA 4.7 Succession to the British throne: Protestant descendants of Catholics 4.8 Legality of using someone else's unsecured network in UK 4.9 Purpose of swim trunks inner netting 5 December 2 5.1 Borough vs County constituencies 5.2 Did they or didn't They ? 5.3 SCi Fi Book involving unaware humans 5.4 Question moved from article space 5.5 Legal status of illustrations depicting pedophilia in Canada 5.6 Soldier who kept a diary during the Napoleonic wars? 5.7 Ordering employees to lobby Congress 5.8 French poet who taught for a while in a village school in England? 5.9 Regarding Canadian law and bankruptcy 5.10 Language use by world leaders during meetings/summits 5.11 Trends of black and white couples 5.11.1 Asian male and black female couples 5.12 Hindu chant in Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom? 5.13 Peace Corp updated 5.14 Natural-born life 6 December 3 6.1 Dean Koontz Book 6.2 How people look up information 6.3 infant skeletons found in well between convent and monastery. 6.4 Osama Bin Laden's Gun 6.5 national geographic nature movies 7 December 4 7.1 Can someone please explain the context of this Dawn article 7.2 Popular minimalist design style 7.3 Therese of Saxe-Hildburghausen's religion 7.4 Three groundbreaking SF stories 7.5 What was that beautiful Taste ? 7.6 George Washington member of an Scandinavian society in Philadelphia around 1760 7.7 Larry K Fish

[edit] November 28

[edit] The First Indo-European Tribe in Europe

The Sami people and Basque people are the indigenous people of Europe, but they are not Indo-Europeans. What the first Indo-European tribe to arrive in Europe and made settlement? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be hard to say, but the article Indo-European languages indicates that the oldest attested group of Indo-European languages is the Anatolian languages of which the Hittites were speakers, as early as the 16th century BC. The Hittites never ruled Europe proper, but did control most of Asia Minor and so were close, and likely had a large influence over much of southeastern Europe. As far as truly, honest-to-goodness state societies in Europe which were unambiguously Indo-European in nature, then Mycenaean Greece or the Minoan civilization may be another call. The Myceneans were unambiguously Indo-European, but the Minoans spoke an apparently unrelated language. --Jayron32 04:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It all depends on the question of the "PIE homeland". For the last 20 years or so, the biologist Luigi Cavalli-Sforza and archaeologist Colin Renfrew have advocated an Anatolian center from which the Indo-European languages dispersed, and this hypothesis has received a lot of press coverage. However, actual linguists tend to favor a center from which the Indo-European languages dispersed located in southern Russia and eastern Ukraine (east of the Dnieper). In this case, Indo-European would have been geographically European as far back as we can trace back its origins, since the PIE homeland would have been west of the Ural mountains and north of the Caucasus mountains... AnonMoos (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tartars of the Rhyn-Sands steppe (Nikolai Leskov)

In a central episode of Nikolai Leskov's 1873 novella The Enchanted Wanderer, the Russian protagonist spends ten years with Tartars living on a distant steppe "somewhere near the Caspian Sea" in an area he calls the "Rhyn-Sands." The author attributes to them various characteristics (e.g. non-Christian, polygynist, avid horsemen) and certain behaviors and practices (e.g. they remain in their tents during periods of hot weather). Who might these people be and where is their homeland? -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Some preliminary information: This refers to the Рынь-пески (Ryn Sands), now in Kazakhstan and known as Naryn Qum in the Kazakh language. They are at about 48.5 degrees N, 49.5 degrees E. --Cam (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

On looking further, I see that we have an article about it: Ryn Desert. --Cam (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

...wherein is stated, inter alia: "Temperatures can reach extreme highs of 45°C to 48°C during summer..." ! -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Why do so many names of British branded medicinal products begin with the prefix "ben-"?

E.g. benadryl, benylin.--Damriteido (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

According to this page Greek and Latin roots in English, ben is a latin root that means good.

benadryl = goodadryl

Pollinosisss (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The famous tower clockwork, then, must mean Big Good [or maybe Big Well - see below]. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

:)Since it's taken from the name of Sir Benjamin Hall (IIRC), it actually could be translated from Hebrew as "Son of Big"! :) Grutness...wha? 23:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

In that case, the "ben" would have to come first... AnonMoos (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"Benjamin" is an anglicisation of a Hebrew term that translates to "son of my right hand". Nyttend (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

In the Semitic "construct state" or "idafa" noun-compound construction, the possessor has to come second and the possessed first. So "Big Ben" could not mean "son of Big"... AnonMoos (talk) 06:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

All right - "Big son" then. Sigh - doesn't anyone notice smileys any more? I'll add another one just in case. Grutness...wha? 22:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

In the Latin language, the root is most often "bon-", while "bene" is a special adverb form. AnonMoos (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's often used to mean "well", as in nota bene (note well), and maybe "well" is what the manufacturers are trying to convey ("well" vs. "sick"). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

In Latin, bene means "well" in the adverbial sense, as in "Well done!", but it doesn't really mean "healthy" (except indirectly when it was used in certain phrases equivalent to "It is well with me" etc., though it's still an adverb in such phrases, not an adjective)... AnonMoos (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not personally aware of any british branded medicinal products that begin with the prefix "ben-"; benadryl, benylin, benecol and bengay are all brands owned by an american company. Others listed at the CDC beginning with ben- include Benemid (which I've never heard of in the UK) and Bentyl/Bentylol (which is only sold under those names in the USA). Nanonic (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Bengay, formerly spelled "Ben-Gay", a topical muscle rub and analgesic sold over U.S. counters, derives its name from its developer, Dr. Jules Bengué; it's an anglicisation, or Madison-Avenification similar to Chef Boy-Ar-Dee for Ettore Boiardi. Pfizer Corporation produced Bengay until selling the brand to Johnson and Johnson; I don't know if either of those firms produced any of the presciption drugs beginning with "ben". As for British products, H. G. Wells wrote a novel about patent medicine called Tono-Bungay. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Name for type of joke

There may be no answer, but I'm looking for a name for a certain type of joke - the one where you reference two subjects, A and B, and then you say "One is [list of characteristics associated at first glance with B, but also humorously applicable to A], and the other is B." I've found this joke to be extremely common, and yet I know of no simple name by which I can refer to it. Maybe a "one is and the other is" joke? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It is misdirection. That particular joke is used almost nightly by Craig Ferguson. -- kainaw™ 23:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

An example could be this one, from Doonesbury a few years ago, which as I recall they said was merely one they had "heard", not originated: "What's the difference between the Hindenburg and Rush Limbaugh? One is a flaming Nazi gasbag. The other is a dirigible." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

A less actionable one might be, "What's the difference between a catfish and a lawyer?" "One's a slimy scum-sucking bottom-feeding scavenger, and the other is a fish." I don't think there are enough of these jokes that they constitute a genre, but somebody could easily prove me wrong. PhGustaf (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If there enough of them to spread out over 32 or 64 pages, a book could be published. It merely lacks the title. (JoAnne Worley published a "Chicken Joke Book" in the late 60s, and that was spread pretty thin also. So it can be done.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the general category for these kinds of jokes would be riddles. Then they could be separated by type. Whatever those types might be. Like this antique: "What's the difference between an underweight person and a dental procedure? One is too thin, the other is tooth out." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Then there's this type, which came in the early 80s when the team in question was rather weak in the field: "What do the Chicago Cubs have in common with Michael Jackson? They wear one glove for no apparent reason." Or this one: "What do the Bears and the Cubs have in common? They both win once a week." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

These jokes don't have to be riddles. I pointed out above that Craig Ferguson uses them nearly every night. He never begins with "What is the difference between..." He just states that they are different as in: "Being a late night talk show host is a lot different than being a school teacher. One hates his job, acting like a cheeky monkey as he panders to an audience that would rather be doing anything other than listen to his lame excuse for entertainment... and the other is a late night talk show host." Also, I realized that when I stated it was comic misdirection, this is the simplest form of comic misdirection. The complex form requires the comic callback also. For example, Emo Philips did a very complex one at a show I saw a long time ago. The show began with a few one-liners and the question, "Have you ever had a really weird dream?" The rest of the show was jokes about a very weird dream that involved driving in the sewer and finding a door with a mysterious light coming from behind it. He met his mother who had a huge bowl of sauerkraut. The surprise caused him to pass out right on the spot. As the audience waits for the next part of this weird dream, he states softly, "...and that was when I had this really weird dream." -- kainaw™ 04:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Comedian Stewart Lee has said that in the comedy industry this type of joke is called a pull back and reveal[1]. "Pull back and reveal" has literal application in TV comedy when the camera pulls back to reveal what's actually going on, but can also be used metaphorically. Here are some more uses: [2] ht tp://ezinearticles.com/?How-to-Be-Funny---Part-11---Use-the-Pull-Back-And-Reveal-Technique&id=3177289 (link blocked by WP, why I don't know) [3].

In the 1990s Lee and his former partner Richard Herring did a series of routines deconstructing bad jokes. They identified a class of jokes they called "and that was just the teachers" and the closely-related "and then I got off the bus". An example similar to theirs is "My school was full of lazy good-for-nothings who spent all day smoking and looking at girl's breasts. And that was just the teachers ... ahhhhh!" You'll hear both "and that was just the teachers" and "and then I got off the bus" used by comedians familiar with Lee and Herring's work to refer to this kind of joke (e.g. this by Boothby Graffoe). --193.172.19.20 (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 29

[edit] Does Islam forbid football?

A group of teenagers (and some kids), ages 10 to 15, were sentenced to receive 38 lashes each of them for playing football. According to the court, they were wasting time playing football because it's an un-Islamic thing. [4] - --190.50.81.196 (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well if it does, there are a large amount of teams from Islamic nations in the AFC and CAF that are being naughty. Incidentally, Al-Shabaab (Somalia) are a bunch of complete lunatics. Nanonic (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a key difference between a group of people, wishing to exert absolute power over a group of people, and using fear to cow them and religion as an excuse to exert their power, and genuine religious belief. Islam itself has no such proscriptions. There are likely, however, people who are willing to use Islam as a means by which to force weaker people to their will. --Jayron32 02:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sports have sometimes been used as a target for repressionists in the west as well. In the Somlia example, I wonder about the quality of play. Note that the quote was "a waste of time, and un-Islamic". The first part of that could easily be argued, for example, in regard to the three NFL teams that are 1-9 at the moment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

And going back to the original question, it's worth remembering that Islam is almost as diverse as Christianity. I wouldn't be surprised to find some group that forbids football in Islam.Sjö (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, there have been western countries that also forbade the playing of sports from time to time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

As has been said football is very popular in the islamic world, but it also runs into difficulties as it is either seen as a waste of time when you could be worshiping or studying, or occasionally seen as a focus of dissent. Here is a fatwa setting out an islamic flavor to football rules [5], here are some earlier people getting puritanical about football [6] and here is scotland banning it Football Act 1424. meltBanana 18:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

On the subject that Sjö mentions — in college I wrote a short paper for a physical education course (yes, having to write a paper for a phys-ed class was rather annoying on principle!) on various Christian philosophies of physical education, and during my research I discovered that many members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church oppose competitive sports because they believe that sports can lead to aggression and unchristian pride. Nyttend (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently we need an article on Religion and football. :)Sjö (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

And conversely, many attribute the late 19th century vogue for Muscular Christianity to be the reason why so many English association football clubs were created by churches or churchmen as described in Thank God for Football. Nanonic (talk) 12:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] exact date in 1980

What was the exact date in which L.C. Bates died in 1980? What did he die of?24.90.204.234 (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Read for yourself. See the Wikipedia article L. C. Bates, and this reference linked from the Wikipedia article, which states his date and cause of death. --Jayron32 04:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, does the Daisy Bates Elementary School have any school colors?24.90.204.234 (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Diana Spencer

I do apologise for this, since I am certain I have asked this question before, it is just that I cannot find where it is in the archives. My understanding is that Diana Spencer, on her father's side, was a descendant of King Charles II of England through four illegitimate sons:

Henry Fitzroy, 1st Duke of Grafton, son by Barbara Villiers, 1st Duchess of Cleveland Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond and Lennox, son by Louise de Kérouaille Charles Beauclerk, 1st Duke of St Albans, son by Nell Gwyn James Crofts-Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth, leader of a famous rebellion, son by Lucy Walter She was also a descendant of King James II of England through an illegitimate daughter, Henrietta FitzJames, by his mistress Arabella Churchill. On her mother's side, Diana was Irish and Scottish, as well as a descendant of American heiress Frances Work, her mother's grandmother and namesake, from whom the considerable Roche fortune was derived.

The Spencers had been close to the British Royal Family for centuries, rising in royal favour during the 1600s. Diana's maternal grandmother, Ruth, Lady Fermoy, was a long-time friend and a lady-in-waiting to Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. Her father had served as an equerry to King George VI and to Queen Elizabeth II.

So she was also a distant relative of Sir Winston Churchill. But my question is, since these ancestors are illegitimate, how can her sons William and Henry be legitimate heirs to the throne ? It is unfortunate that a particular person is punished themselves for something their parents or ancestors didn't do, then did do, that is, didn't marry, but then did the deed, but there it is, especially as some are claiming Elizabeth the Second is not the genuine Queen due to the alleged illegitimacy of her ancestor Edward IV, and that over 550 years ago. What is the Law regarding this, since I am sure that anyone due to marry an heir to the throne, with a view to creating further heirs to the throne, would have been thoroughly checked out to make sure the issue was going to be entitled. The Russian.C.B.Lilly User:Christopher1968 05:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It was explained before, didn't you read the explanation? Anyway, the Tudors hardly had any respect for Richard III's self-serving legal manipulations... AnonMoos (talk)

Didn't I just say I cannot find the original place I asked the question, so I cannot read the explanation. However, I would be happy to, to read it in its original place I asked the question, if someone would please inform me where it is. Thank You.

In addition, I have another question. What was the name of the lady who, from what I understand, died of a heart attack upon hearing that Martin Luther King had been assassinated ? Thank You. The Russian202.36.179.66 (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Then why didn't you ask somebody for help in finding the earlier replies in the archives, instead of going through the whole long rigamarole again? AnonMoos (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference ? Don't worry about it, why get snotty ? Might have been quicker for you to have told me the answer, since it appears from your first tirade that you knew the question I was referring to, but never mind, I found it in the archives for Nov 16, and thank you to those who answered it then. I apologise for any trouble that might have been caused, and having now read the explanation, I now understand it. Strange they only need one legitimate line, but if it makes them happy, that's fine. Long may they reign.

With reference to my question on who the lady was who died, I understand she may have been a receptionist at Mr. Bailey's Lorraine Motel, but again I cannot recall her name. Shame that one bullet should cause so much death, not only to Dr. King, but this innocent woman, and sparking off the many riots Dr. King would have not wanted to occur. 202.36.179.66 (talk) 07:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Your previous question about Diana and the answer are here[7] (third question down). I assume your question refers to this [8] speculation. Elizabeth II is the genuine Sovereign because she has lawfully acceded and has had a lawful Coronation. As far as I know, there is no way of challenging that; especially on an unprovable hypothesis about an event half a millennium ago. Alansplodge (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Just one thing: a coronation does not make a British monarch the monarch. It's only performed on people who have already been acknowledged as the monarch, and usually at least some months after the event (because it takes a long time to organise). Elizabeth became queen on the instant of her father's death. So her coronation is worth mentioning in the present context only to demonstrate that she was fully accepted and acknowledged as the monarch, but not if you intend it to mean that the ceremony conferred the monarchy upon her, which it didn't. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no proscription against a monarch having illegitimate lines somewhere in their past. All that is required is one legitimate line, and under most circumstances this legitimate line will be as short as parent-to-child. Elizabeth II is legitimate because she was born legitimately of her father, George VI, and you can trace such legitimate lines back at least as far as Henry Tudor, who seized the throne by conquest, and made his son and successor Henry VIII a legitimate heir by marrying Elizabeth of York. Through Elizabeth of York, you can trace a fully legitimate line back through Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York back to Edward III and thus all the way back to William the Conquerer. There is thus a legitimate line of legitimate children that can be traced from Elizabeth I all the way back to William the Conquerer. In the other direction, Elizabeth's son Charles, Prince of Wales is her legitimate son by Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and Charles's two sons, Prince William of Wales and Prince Henry of Wales were his legitimate sons by Lady Diana Spencer. The fact that you can trace illegitimate lines in Princes William's and Harry's past is irrelevent; there is a legitimate line that can be traced all the way back to William the Conquerer. Regardless, they are the legitimate children of the legitimate son of the current monarch, and so would be perfectly legitimate heirs to said throne. --Jayron32 20:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

To answer the question "What is the Law regarding this", the relevant law requires descent from Sophia of Hanover, not from William the Bastard. Thus, any questions of the legitimacy of Edward IV, who lived 200 years before Sophia, are moot. FiggyBee (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, its a good thing that Elizabeth II is also a legitimate decendant of Sophia of Hanover (who herself was a legitimate decendant of William I, via James I and VI and thus via the same line as Elizabeth II), and thus her legitimate children and grandchildren are also legitimate heirs (barring a sudden conversion to Catholicism or marriage to a Catholic). --Jayron32 04:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) First to answer your question of why it's better to ask for help then to re-write the whole question, firstly it saves you time. More importantly, while you did mention first up that you couldn't find the question, it's possible someone could miss this meaning they would read the whole question only to discover/remember it had already been answered, wasting their time as well. Remember RD answerers are volunteers. Note that you should not expect someone to rewrite earlier answers. People may offer to find earlier questions & answers but clearly re-writing an early answer is just a waste of time.

In terms of your comment that it's surprising that you only need one legitimate line suggests you still don't really understand how this works. The legitimate eldest son or the legitimate eldest daughter if their are no legitimate sons of the current monarch is the heir to the throne, and the legitimate eldest son or legitimate eldest daughter if there are no sons of the heir is his/her heir. Who the spouse (mother/father) is, doesn't matter provided they are married. There are a few additional legal requirements, e.g. no Catholics but they don't relate to the spouse's heritage. And technically there was some question of suitability of the spouse hence why Edward VIII of the United Kingdom abdicated but this does concerns the public acceptance and primarily because Wallis Simpson was a divorcée rather then any legal requirement.

In the past it would generally be expected for the spouse to be of the nobility but that was purely a social expectation and if it later turned out they weren't or if questions were raised of the legitimacy later well that would be something 'polite' people wouldn't talk about and no one would question the legitimate heredity of any children solely because of questions over the spouse's heredity. But all this has largely disappeared now anyway. (Note that even if someone does marry a Catholic their children are still in the line of succession if they are brought up as Anglicans.)

These expectations generally lead to fairly inbred populations so in reality you'd probably usually find some legitimate line of succession but it could easily be a long one (HRH The Duke of Edinburgh is currently perhaps 493, he would have been something else at the time of his marriage and birth of his children but anyway clearly rather high up) which would require many deaths before it became of any relevance (so why would it matter?) and in any case if there was a 'suitable' spouse but he/she wasn't in the line of succession it wasn't of any relevance.

Unless we're talking about a brother & sister and the only two children of a monarch marrying (and they can't marry!) then there's always going to be someone higher up in the line of succession then one of the spouses who isn't one of the spouses (and of course in such a case once the child was born they'd be higher up then their mother). Remember if William marries Princess Maria of Yugoslavia but then dies without children she would just become (presuming no other changes) 98th in the line of succession and still largely irrelevant, the next heir would be Henry. (And Kate Middleton is not in the line of succession AFAIK.)

To use a related example, while inheritance laws vary somewhat in many countries the issue (probably children and the children of any dead children) will be entilted to some inheritance (often the spouse too but let's not complicate things) if the death is intestate. In such cases legitimacy used to matter in a number of countries and does still matter in some e.g. Malaysia [9] [10] and Singapore [11]. However who the spouse (mother/father) is rarely did or does. E.g. if a rich person dies without a will, the children of any dead children may be entitled to a share of the inheritance, no matter that the spouse (or mother/father i.e. son or daughter in law) did not contribute to the building of the fortune and wouldn't have been entilted to it if not for their marriage (and in fact may not be entilted to if even after the marriage). In this case, we aren't talking about a single heir, but you can see the same thing.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning that William I of England was himelf illegitimate, so implying that probably all heirs to the English/British throne have illegitimacy in at least one generation of their ancestry. Of course William didn't succeed by inheritance to the English throne, but took it by right of conquest (based on a rather dubious claim of descent). --rossb (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The Anglo-Saxon kings didn't necessarily inherit the throne - they had to be appointed by the Witan, who would sometimes choose the ablest of the royals rather than the next in line. Harold Godwinson was selected in this way. After Harold's death, the Witan appointed the 15 year-old Edgar the Ætheling who had been previously passed-over in favour of Harold. Not long afterwards the Witan forced Edgar to submit to William, on whom they conferred the crown, making it a lawful succession. Alansplodge (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, consider the matter of descent from Sophia: all descendents of Catholics are disqualified from the throne, but the fact that everyone in line for the throne had Catholic ancestors before the Protestant Reformation is irrelevant at least in part because of the descent from Sophia. Nyttend (talk) 06:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Act of Settlement 1701 secured the succession to Sophia's Protestant heirs, while barring Roman Catholics and their spouses from the Throne. That doesn't mean, I think, that the Protestant descendants of Roman Catholics were barred, although their claims might come after those of the Protestant descendants of Sophia's Protestant heirs. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What? As I mentioned above and discussed elsewhere in the RD and in our article, Roman Catholics and people married to them are barred from the throne but their descedants are not provided they are raised Anglican (or I presume more like not raised as Catholics). They are simply treated as dead when it comes to succession. I don't know if it was always like this or it changed at some stage but it's how it is now. Nil Einne (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to apologise to whom ever it was I snapped at. I only did so, because I sensed this person was snapping at me first. I thank all of you for your time and effort in answering these. Be aware, that as a keen student of History - especially that of England, for over twenty five years, I was aware of a good number of things concerning the right of succesion to the Throne - just not the fact that one needed only ONE legitimate line. I had not really thought about that in all that time. It may seem unfair, since strictly speaking James Stuart ( or Stewart) and his son Bonnie Prince Charlie, did have a closer claim to the throne by blood than Elizabeth Stuart's daughther Sophia, and her son George, but could it be the Catholics were also excluded based upon their previous treasonous attmepts, namely the Gunpowder Plot, and before that, the Armada ? I do not count Titus Oates' claims, since I think he was a liar. The parallel for today is mistrust, whether justified or unfounded of Moslems and or Arabs, as there was for Catholics back then. Some may wish to repeal that, but I think it should be left well enough alone. Like it or not, the British Throne nowadsys is a Church of England affair. Of course, this is not to say that Protestants have been entirely blameless in the crimes they have committed supposedly in God's name. C.B.Lilly 05:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

How would you account for 2 lines in any case? Would you add them up and look for the lowest? E.g. This person (a) is number 1 on the father's side and number 200 on the mother's side? This person (b) is number 3 on the mother's side and number 130 on the father's side? So person b had greater rights to succession then person a? I presume these calculations would be at the time of succession so you couldn't even prepare the heir or be that sure of who it was in many cases until it happened since it would be changing. And you'd need to look at a lot of people so do you realise how complicated it would get? Nil Einne (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Germany Double Summer Time in the Second World War

Did Germany adopt Double Summer time during the Second World War, thus moving from UTC+2 to UTC+3. If so, what were the dates? Mjroots (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the Germans often imposed their time on the countries they occupied (no more 20-minute difference for Belgium), an interesting derivative question would be whether they also imposed double or triple Summer Time. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, it's not straightforward, but according to Doane's "Time Changes in the World" Germany observed Double Summer Time from 24/5/45 to 9/23/45. In Berlin and Soviet-occupied areas some cities adopted Moscow time (i.e. German Double Summer Time) but other cities did not. There are all sorts of complications. For example, when Soviet troops marched into Leipzig, they adopted Double Summer Time but for the railway only. In the smaller cities of Saxonia, all the people adopted the time of the railroad clock, which showed German Double Summer Time. In the East Zone, Double Summer Time was also adopted in 1947 from May 11 but only until 29 June....--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a summary of historic summer-time changes in Germany at the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt website. It agrees with Shantavira, i.e. double summer time was only used in Soviet-controlled areas after surrender, in 1945 and 1947. --Cam (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! I'm not sure if that was only in the Soviet zone; it seems to me that the CEMT in 1947 held for all zones. But be that as it may; the list makes it clear that there was no CEMT during WW2, which seems to answer both the original question and Shakescene's conjecture. — Sebastian 18:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] What name was J R R Tolkien known by?

John? Jack? J R R? It's not in the article, nor on its discussion page. Anyone know for sure? Peter Greenwell (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This page [12] says "his family only called him Ronald, and later his friends called him "John Ronald"." Pollinosisss (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

C.S. Lewis (known as "Jack"), a friend of Tolkien's, had a nickname for him. My memory says it's "Tollers"...my copy of volume 1 of Lewis's letters (when he was just befriending Tolkien) only refers to him as "Tolkien", but I'm finding quotations from books on The Inklings that use "Tollers" as a nickname. I think its use probably only extended to other members of that social group, but it's hard to say. User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.227.159.200 (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

the above is actually totally wrong; he went by Jerry. 92.229.13.231 (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am fairly confident in asserting that 92.229's contribution is a troll and should not be believed. --ColinFine (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly a falsehood, as ColinFine notes. Humphrey Carpenter's biography of Tolkien agrees with the site that Pollinosisss cites: it was generally "Ronald". Nyttend (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Map of International humanitarian aid given, by country

Has anyone ever created a map or chart of humanitarian aid provided, listed by country? Measured in currency (US dollars), or percentage of GDP, or both.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.255.118 (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Provided by or provided to countries? Government aid or NGO aid or total? --Jayron32 20:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This is similar: http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=363

Prokhorovka (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Btw, the dating of the Dom Helder Camara quote at worldmapper.org is faulty. The quote certainly predates 2004. --Soman (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Song

There is a song with the lyrics "I don't like sleeping alone" (this line sung by a female) in the chorus. In the chorus, a male singer sings also. The song sounds kind of indian. The chorus is electronic, but the verses have rap (I think).

The song might have been a hit (single) recently (possibly in the last 3 years). What is the artist and song name?174.3.102.6 (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Try the Entertainment desk, the people over there are great with this kind of question. --Tango (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Try this google search. —Akrabbim^talk 23:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Christadelphian and Advent Christian Churches in Sydney

Are there any Christadelphian churches in Sydney? If so, then what are they? Are there any Advent Christian churches in Sydney that are not Seventh-day Adventist? If so, then what are they?

Bowei Huang (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a website [13] which gives # Sydney Ecclesia, Shaftesbury Road, Burwood, New South Wales

1. Sydney Companion Ecclesia, Woodbury Road, Glenbrook, New South Wales

You may not have found these before because their word for "church" is "ecclesia", which is the Greek word for "church". --TammyMoet (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any Adventist churches that aren't Seventh-day Adventists anywhere. Hope that answers your question. By the way, Google is your friend and will get you quicker answers than you can get here! --TammyMoet (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 30

[edit] Research on Social Interaction / Craving

Hi! I was wondering if someone could point me to the correct terms / things to research on this concept.

I feel that people have a craving for just "being" around people (whether or not there is any social interaction). Like someone who is self-employed who likes working in a coffee shop to be around people. I feel that being around people makes a person feel less lonely, if that makes sense.

Is there a concept in sociology to describe this phenomenon? Could anyone point me to what I can further research? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legolas52 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Extraversion and introversion may be of interest. Extroverts tend to enjoy being around people. Pollinosisss (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

In sociology the closest concept is socialisation, but specifically for what you described, the psychological concept of Extrovert personality is more suitable-as Pollinosisss suggested.--Gilisa (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Roll/Role Credits

In TV and movie intro credits, most of the actors will have their name only (eg. Adam Alpha), but sometimes they get credited with a: AND Bob Bravo, or WITH Charles Charlie, or STARRING Daniel Delta. Is there a rule/informal convention that governs who gets a credit prefix and what they get? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.135.122 (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions similar to this one have been asked before. Basically, it boils down to A) the convention that the show uses and B) what the actors agree to in their contracts. The contract will often spell out how and in what order they should be billed. Dismas|^(talk) 06:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Billing is definitely something that actors (or their agents) negotiate over. I don't have a citeable source, but I'd seen it stated than an "and" credit is seen as better than a regular one. This provides a way to resolve things when there are two actors who each think they deserve first billing -- one gets it and the other gets "and". An interesting example is The Longest Day, where the cast credits begin by saying that they will be in alphabetical order, but end with "and John Wayne" (and no, he wasn't alphabetically last). My impression is that "and" credits are more likely to be used if the part is relatively small, but important.

(Another solution to billing conflicts, by the way, is "diagonal equal billing", where one name is to the lower left and another is to the upper right. One case where this was used was The Towering Inferno, a movie made by merging two existing projects into one; the two male leads demanded exactly equal treatment. The opening credits for Key Largo, with three names on the first credit screen, may be interpreted as having two of them placed in similar fashion.)

--Anonymous, 08:18 UTC, November 30, 2009.

Interesting question -- for a long time, I've wondered why Hill Harper gets a "with HH" on CSI:NY. Never really thought of him as some kind of master actor? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

And somewhat related, you may or may not have noticed that in the opening credits, the director is nearly always listed last. Whether that's due to convention or due to union rules, I'm not sure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A similar question, why do these "and" credits often also include the character's name? What's so special about that character? Adam Bishop (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's because they sometimes use an older actor who'd be known to older viewers but not to younger ones, who might constitute the majority of the audience. Maybe some of these younger ones have vaguely heard the actor's name before, but don't know anything about their career or even what their face looks like. So, when the character appears, it enables them to say (or go, if you prefer) "Oh, so that's Charlton Heston. I always wondered what God looked like".  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

For more, potentially unreliable, information, we have some mostly unreferenced articles on motion picture credits, billing (filmmaking), opening credits, and closing credits. Why those are four different articles is unclear—must be those union rules that everyone talks about. My favorite credit oddity is that in the WGA screenwriting credit system, an "and" and an "&" have different meanings. —Kevin Myers 22:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason the director is listed last in the opening credits is because the Directors Guild of America negotiated that in their Basic Agreement. See [14], paragraph 8-201. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, that convention makes sense to me (and there is a need to differentiate between screenwriting teams and rewritings). Dirty Harry is a good example of a movie which has both & and and; Harry Fink & Rita Fink and Dean Riesner. FiggyBee (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There are dozens if not hundreds of examples. Fortunately, according to the WGA screenwriting credit system article, there's "a maximum of three teams of three" that can get screen credit. Otherwise, the writing credits would sometimes last longer than the movie, which actually might be a good thing, since movies with a boatload of writers are usually awful. Can anyone think of examples where the "maximum of three teams of three" has happened exactly, i.e. nine writers in three groups of three, such as "Written by Huey & Dewey & Louie and Tom & Dick & Harry and Harold & Maude & Barack"? —Kevin Myers 01:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, like with The Wizard of Oz. Whatever became of that movie? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The 1939 Wizard of Oz is a classic example of a movie "made by committee" (collectively by the old Hollywood studio system, without any real "auteur" or one single strong deciding voice) which turned out reasonably well... AnonMoos (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I used Dirty Harry as an example because it was on here last night FiggyBee (talk) 05:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sense of Time and Space when driving

I'm from Vancouver BC, Canada, and I think nothing of a 2 hour drive to go to other towns and such (Seattle, for example.) Even Portland Oregon at 6 hours away doesn't seem to much of a stretch, and Calgary or Edmonton at 12 hours isn't totally out of the question (though very unusual to drive). Ottawa, the national capital, is at least a couple of days non-stop, while Newfoundland is closer to Ireland than it is to me.

Nevertheless, given that Canada is so huge, these distances are pretty standard fare. What constitutes "too far" in Europe? Would 2 hours seem ridiculous? I mean, Canada is practically as big as Europe. I realize the question is subjective, but any thoughts?Aaronite (talk) 06:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't answer for Europe, but in Australia we also have long distances between places, and so many of us (myself included) think nothing of a two or three hour drive. --121.127.200.51 (talk) 08:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

In Malaysia a drive from Kuala Lumpur to Penang or Singapore (4-5 hours) or even Alor Setar (5-6 hours) or Kota Bharu (7+ partially due to the lack of good roads [15]) or for that matter even Penang to Singapore or Johor Baru (8 hours+) and similar things wouldn't be uncommon particularly given the Balik kampung that many Chinese and Malay Malaysians do every year (no wikilink sadly although discussed in Chinese New Year & Hari Raya Aidilfitri to some extent or see [16]). The rise of budget airlines like Air Asia has probably reduced the popularity of driving particularly since those who can't afford the price of air travel may not even own a car so will be taking a bus instead (or perhaps train but I think buses are much more popular because they're usually faster and not more expensive) but there's still a large number that do it as traffic jams at toll plazas will atest. Incidentally, I can say from personal experience many people drove for longer times in the past, before the North-South Expressway, Malaysia was completed Nil Einne (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously it varies from person to person, but speaking as a UK resident, I get reluctant from 4 hours and up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prokhorovka (talk • contribs) 10:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm from the UK - a 2-hour drive is nothing. That time might get you 1/3 way up the length of England if the traffic/roads are clear! In terms of a drive it's not considered 'too far' by anybody I know. Sure it's not my 'standard' driving time - I live in the north and the most I tend to do is trips of about an hour - that way I can get to Manchester, Newcastle, Whitby, The Yorkshire Dales, North York Moors etc. etc. so apart from visiting family/holidays there's really no 'need' for me to drive more than about an hour, but i'd certainly not consider >2 hour journeys to be 'ridiculous'. 10:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The UK is a crowded little island and even a short journey can turn into a major undertaking. My 15 mile commute (going out of London against the traffic) took an hour this morning; the worst ever for the same journey was 3 hours. Alansplodge (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Where I live in south-east England, we have six or eight towns and two cities within one hour's travel by car or train, and they cover all day-to-day needs. I might be doing a longer 2-3 hour drive to see friends or family about once a month. A 4 hour-plus car journey is an occassional event for me - say once or twice a year. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As somebody said ^{[citation needed]}: in the UK, 200 miles is far; in the USA, 200 years is old. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Many cities in New Jersey are 2 hours from Philadelphia, and most would think such a drive way out of the ordinary to make on a constant basis for no real reason, but a guy driving from NJ to the Five Towns on Long Island for a date with a really rich girl will see no problem with the journey, even if it takes more than 2 hours. Perhaps its because most of the travel time is consumed by traffic and not distance. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I live near Toronto, which is a much more densely populated part of Canada than where Aaronite lives, and 2 hours is pretty far for me. But then, everything you could need is in Toronto, which is 15 minutes away at best (in the worst traffic it has taken me 2 hours to drive 30 km, but that is pretty rare). My parents are 2 hours away, and that is far enough that visiting is a special occasion. Even driving an hour or less to the north is a special occasion, that's "up north" to "cottage country". Similarly to the US border, which is only an hour or less to the south. Ottawa is 4 or 5 hours and that might as well be another planet. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm also near Toronto, and used to live near London (UK). I drive much further on average here than in England, because things are that much further apart. I drove 30 minutes last week to a nice restaurant for my wife's birthday. An hour to get to a good walking trail for the afternoon. Two hours to ski for a day. Those are not ridiculous things in England, but I do them much more frequently here. As Gandalf says, if I drove for half an hour in England I'd pass dozens of spectacular restaurants, so why would you do that? DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As someone who moved from California to Massachusetts, I would just want to note that distance and time are not the same thing in such places. I am used to long drives that really get you over long distances—things are far apart but the roads are pretty clear in central California. In densely-populated regions, like the Northeast, it is not the case at all—you can spend an hour just trying to get twenty miles away depending on the route. Driving in the large, open spaces is a very different thing that driving on packed highways or through big cities, in my experience. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Just waiting at a red light can take a long time. But there's a fix for that. Try to do something. Like reading a map or fiddling with some papers. The light will go green almost immediately. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand's a bit like the US in terms of distance and age -I used to like in a house in the UK which had one wall dating back to the 15th century. That was old. Here, any 19th century house is old. As for distances, a Kiwi will think nothing of going 150km to a "nearby" town - in Britain, a nearby town would be 15 km or less away. Longer drives, as pointed out above, aren't uncommon, but with a lot of things nearer at hand, why bother a lot of the time? Grutness...wha? 23:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Some years ago I stayed with friends on Jersey (the original, not New Jersey). They took us to their favourite restaurant, to which they did not go often, because it was right at the other end of the Island - 10 miles away. I created a theory whereby the furthest distance you can possibly go is necessarily 'long', and other distances are 'short' and 'medium' in comparison. --ColinFine (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

My original research agrees well with ColinFine. When I was a child, my family and I spent a summer in Dervock, a small community in northeastern Northern Ireland. We found that people in the church we attended thought a trip to Belfast — approximately 80 km, or slightly more than an hour's drive according to Google Maps — to be a long journey, and going to the other side of Northern Ireland they imagined to be a ridiculously long trip; and when we told them that we planned to drive from southwestern Scotland to Shropshire while holidaying on Great Britain, they thought we were crazy. As an American, I found this quite surprising, seeing that all of Northern Ireland is approximately the size of Connecticut, and drives around my native Ohio are very frequently longer than any of these drives — just today I rode for six hours without thinking it to be at all uncomfortably long. Nyttend (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it might also depend on your expectations. I can find a 20-minute drive to be tedious. Yet I've also sometimes driven 750 miles in a single day. And I've known folks that have driven, by themselves or with others, from one coast of the USA to the other, some 2,700 miles. Not in one day, obviously. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I used to live in a city in the UK with a population of about 250000, and I had little reason to travel away from it. I would sometimes travel to smaller towns ten miles away for tourism, and only rarely went to the capital which was about an hour away by train. As someone pointed out, in the UK there would be no point in driving two hours as you can find what you want within 10 or 20 minutes. Since the rail network is I expect more dense, then its more comfortable to go by train rather than drive. Now I live in a smaller town, and I do travel to the nearest city more frequently. 78.147.2.230 (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the person, obviously, but I suppose the size of the country counts as well. I live in this tiny country, Slovenia, where you can drive from one far end to the other (from the coast to Hungary) in something like three, three and a half hours. My parents live two hours away by car, and I find that far to drive, so I don't visit as much as I'd like to... TomorrowTime (talk) 07:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Swiss judges/neutrality

List of judges of the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland All the judges have a political party listed after their names. Do they belong to those parties? Does this impact on their neutrality/independence? F (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The article says it's the "party nominating that judge". Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland doesn't give much information, but the French version seems to say that the Federal Assembly tries to balance the various linguistic and cultural communities in the country, so presumably having a mix of political backgrounds is part of this. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Just having the appearance of bias is enough to disqualify a judge in English systems, does this not matter in the Swiss system?F (talk) 03:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Can't find information on Swiss law here on Wikipedia at the moment; but in the system used in France and many other countries, a judge in a trial courtroom should not be neutral, so I'd not be surprised if higher-up judges aren't required to be neutral either. Nyttend (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

In the US, supreme court nominations are fairly contested, and Judges are often classified as "nominated by a Democratic/Republican" president. The Swiss are simply more open about it... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

In the U.S 2 hour drives can be stressful..... especially if the radio in the car isnt working :D

[edit] Epic battles in 16th and 17th centuries

which epic battle in 16th/17th century resulted in about 100,000 were killed or wounded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.99.207 (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of epic battles then (Battle of Mohacs? Battle of Lepanto? Battle of Vienna?) but I don't know if any were that big. There is a big list at List of battles 1401–1800. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The Siege of Tenochtitlan. See List of battles by casualties.--Michael White^T·C 06:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for good fiction/non-fiction about female messiahs

I am looking to purchase a book (hopefully bestseller) in which the protagonist is a female messiah/chosen one/etc. Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.4.8.12 (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A quick Google search for female messiah novel produces Ann the Word : The Story of Ann Lee, Female Messiah, Mother of the Shakers by Richard Francis, non-fiction. Daughter of God by Lewis Perdue, fiction. The Last Day by Glenn Kleier, fiction. There may be more. 89.242.99.245 (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I may be in the minority, but I thoroughly enjoyed "The last day" by Glenn Kleier (fiction, a modern-day political/religious thriller). Grutness...wha? 23:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Parable of the Sower/Parable of the Talents by Octavia Butler is precisely that, as is the Xenogenesis trilogy, also by Octavia Butler. Steewi (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Try Valis by Philip K. Dick...Rhinoracer (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Importance of good grades after some years

How important are good grades after you have been working some years? I have the impression that whether the goods not the bad grades that I got have any influence... ProteanEd (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Working where, and for how long? Good grades at what level of education? (Without any further info, I'd have to guess that your grades in school are completely unimportant.) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That's an impossible question to answer, as it infinitely varies according to what you're after in life. Some employers don't care a jot for any kinds of grades. Some are obsessed. FWIW, when I recruit, I pay little attention to them, but in a former job, my boss was an educational snob and pushed hard to get me to appoint candidates with the best educational background. --Dweller (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Like everything in life, it depends, but here's the general view: in most professions, your actual grades decline in importance as you spend more time in the workforce. Grades are used as a rough proxy for various attributes (intelligence, personality traits, social class, etc) and the utility of that rough proxy matters less and less when there is more immediate information. This isn't true for all professions though, as I've been told that your class rank matters for longer in law than it does for other professional domains. Things like independent projects and actual experience seem to be more valued in computer science/IT-related fields.--droptone (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

In my experience in the Library field, good grades are totally irrelevant. Once you complete your Master's or Diploma in Library Science, it doesn't matter how well you did, so long as you have that piece of paper. I don't know too many employers who ask for a transcript. What really matters is quality of interview and/or CV. I suspect in many other fields this is true. Aaronite (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am the OP. I meant after your bachelor, and not trying to get into a graduate program yet. If you have been working some years, apparently only what you did as an employee seems to be evaluated. Would that mean that good grades are useless after a while? (perhaps excluding fields like law or PhD candidates.).ProteanEd (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The only entry on your resume that really matters is the last one, chronologically. If you have never held a job before, then your grades are very important. If you are going for a second job, your prospective employer is going to care most about how and what you did in your prior job, not what grade you got in French class back in 1995. --Jayron32 20:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This is WP:OR but what the heck... I recently got a promotion. When they were vetting me for this, the hiring managers asked if I had taken various classes in college. I've been out of college for about 12 years, so I had to refer to my transcript to even remember the classes. The managers didn't ask about grades at all. They only wanted to know what things were covered. I have the degree, so they assume I passed (which I did) but that was that. Dismas|^(talk) 21:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say "not very" - but they can matter if you want to do something new, using skills which are related to those grades, and you more recent work and/or voluntary experience doesn't show that you have acquired them. That's particularly true in education - for example, at the university where I work, you will not be permitted to do an MA if you do not have at least a 2.1 in a degree, unless you have lots of relevant work experience. But you may get made an offer if you have a 2.1 but it is not in a directly relevant subject. Some companies require employees to have achieved an exam grade showing basic competence in English and maths. It usually doesn't matter to them if you failed such an exam, or received a poor grade, provided you have now got that qualification. Warofdreams talk 22:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Your university seems rather severe - I've known several people who have done master's degrees when only having a diploma and not a degree. Another way around may be for example to take something like the GMAT which may override your other grades. I think you can re-take it any number of times. And another way around in the UK at least, would probably be to take an Open University degree or postgraduate course for which I imagine the entry conditions are probably lower, if they have any at all. There may be equivalent institutions in your country. Or you could go to evening classes/night school and get other qualifications, or even repeat the ones you have. I've noticed that entry to educational courses seems more based on self-selection now than it was in the past, without your past being asked about or having to be proved. I think what employers and educational institutions want is someone who shows evidence of being hard-working and dedicated. For jobs being too well qualified may be a disadvantage as they will think you may soon leave for another better job, and a lot of people would hate to have a subordinate better qualified than themselves. 89.242.99.245 (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Article on and term for "reading to" (e.g. children)

The Dutch Wikipedia has an article on (actually "voorlezer"), meaning reading to someone (e.g. children). Is there a corresponding article in the English language Wikipedia? (Reading mentions it briefly, but there is probably more to say about this.

Secondly, is there an English term for this other than "reading to"? You could say "to recite" in some situations, but not when to children.

Thank you in advance. 83.81.42.44 (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There is bedtime story (a rather short article). You can say "telling a story to" rather than "reading to" (telling a story includes telling stories from your head as well as from a book). --Tango (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ambassadorial appointments

In the US, are you required to accept an ambassadorial appointment if offered one? If not, how do you keep ambassadors in some of the less fun countries, like Nigeria, Sudan or Mongolia? Googlemeister (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Fun isn't exactly the only reason someone takes a job. There's prestige (any ambasadorial appointment is likely to give you better future job propects than none), there's money, there's a sense of duty, there's personal fulfillment. After all, we can't all have Ron Jeremy's job... --Jayron32 21:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As Jayron says, Ambassadorial jobs are highly prestigious and allow the holder to hobnob with the upper crust of whatever country he or she is being posted to. Countries that are difficult to live in often are extremely interesting in job terms (Nigeria would likely fit into that category for many persons). And there's no accounting for taste. You may think Mongolia sounds like the boringest place on the planet, but for someone else interested in - take you pick - nomads, deserts, mining, post-communist economic and social transition, it can be fascinating. --Xuxl (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention fantastic fly-fishing!DOR (HK) (talk) 06:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

And to answer your original question, of course you can decline an appointment as Ambassador. There may be cases where the Head of State/Government or the Foreign Minister will twist your arm to accept, but it is not in the sending State's interest to post as an Ambassador someone who doesn't want to be in the receiving country. There are also often monetary incentives for serving in patricularly difficult locations. --Xuxl (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, being in a country with a very low cost of living but earning a first world salary gives you massive purchasing power. A friend of my dad had a job as a national head of operations (or something like that) for a big multinational. There is one for every country the company does business (which is most of the world), so it isn't really a top job, but because he was in Vietnam he was able to have a mansion with a cook, housekeeper and driver. He would never have had any of those things if he did the same job in a first world country. --Tango (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

And for those monetary incentives, see hardship post (something that even Moscow used to be). Nanonic (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If you really didn't want to go, and if for some reason you didn't decline the appointment or the President and the Senate went ahead and nominated/confirmed you despite your decline, you could always resign before you got on the plane. Nyttend (talk) 06:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

While not exactly the same, I did have the privilege of turning down a deputy ambassador-rank job. Huge ego trip! DOR (HK) (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Asian Indians and US Born Pacific Asians

Is Asian Indians count as white sometimes because they sometimes have dark brown skin tones, as well as Mexicans usually have brown skin tones. Do US Bron Asian counts as whites? Because [17] article 2006 census counts Asian indians and US Bron Asians as other race.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Who's "counting"? ...My error, it's the US Census doing the counting.--Wetman (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The census forms ask the respondent to categorize him- or herself, and recently they've been accepting "Other" (for people who feel the categories don't fit them). There's no "official" categorizing procedure. In the not-so-distant past this was primarily an issue only in segregated areas: could subcontinent Indians ride in the Whites Only car, e.g. -- and results might vary, depending on whom you asked. Mercifully that's mostly a thing of the past. Elphion (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders used to be classified with Asians under "Asian/Pacific Islander", but are now a separate category. Asian includes all Asians, certainly including East, Southeast and South Asians, but also, I think, Southwest Asians, as well as Arabs and Israelis who don't consider themselves African, White or Other. It's not a classification by 19th-century racial groups (such as Aryan, Caucasoid, Semitic or Mongoloid), unless the respondents themselves choose to go by such classifications (e.g. an Iranian-American or a light-skinned Brahmin considering himself an Aryan or Indo-European and therefore White). As said above, it is a matter of self-classification, which makes sorting out Hispanics, e.g. in The Bronx, very tricky (many Hispanic-Americans consider themselves a separate racial group, but others count themselves among Whites or Blacks).—— Shakescene (talk) 05:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Confusion on the definition of "other race", especially Hispanic/Latino-related confusion, is (if I remember rightly) the primary reason that "other race" won't be an option in the 2010 census. Nyttend (talk) 06:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Resident Population of the U.S., 2000

Race	Population
aaTotal Asian	10,243,000
Asian Indian	1,679,000
Chinese	2,433,000
Filipino	1,850,000
Japanese	797,000
Korean	1,077,000
Vietnamese	1,123,000
wOther Asian†	1,295,000
yNative Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander	399,000
zNative Hawaiian	141,000
zGuamanian or Chamorro	58,000
zSamoan	91,000
zzOther Pacific Islander†	109,000
† [Either another subcategory or more than one within the same category] Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2003, Table No. 23

Also remember that the U.S. census relies solely on self-identification in its racial/national origin statistics. They don't show up at your door and say "Yup, you're white" and at your neighbor's door and say "Yup, you're not white". What they do is send a form to your house, and you fill in the little circle next to the group that you think you belong to. That's about it. --Jayron32 20:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Do people even have to fill out that form when they get marry. On normal forms lapplication like DMV I see that form and I just color in what I belong. Do we have to do this when we get marry? I thought people just get marry in the church.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

In the United States most (maybe all) states require you to file for a Marriage licence with the state. I would imagine that because of the ugly history of Anti-miscegenation laws, many states have eliminated racial questions from the applications for these licences. However, every U.S. state handles such licences in a wildly different manner, so there are no general statements which can be made as to what each state requires in order to file for marriage. It's going to be very different from state to state. Of course, you could just get married without any licence at all, but most (all?) states and the Federal gov't offer priviliged status to married couples vs. single people, and in order to claim these benefits, you need to have a state-licenced marriage. You do get married in a church (or anywhere else you like), but a week or so before the wedding, you go down to some sort of civic office (town hall, city hall, county government complex) and file for a licence. I got married in Fairfax County, Virginia, and about a week before my wife and I were married (in a Southern Baptist church), we filled out an application for a licence. We filled out most of it in the County Government offices, it was then notarized, and we took the application with us to the wedding itself, where it was signed by the officiant (minister) and some witnesses. We then mailed in the application and received the actual licence a month or so later. We needed the official licence so my wife could change her name, etc. etc. --Jayron32 21:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about in other states, but in Ohio, it's illegal for a minister to perform a wedding for a couple who don't have a marriage license; shortly after he moved to Ohio from another state, my pastor was scheduled to marry a couple from his congregation but had to ask another minister to officiate, because he wasn't yet permitted. Nyttend (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Marcus Baebius Tamphilus (tribune of the plebs 103 BC)

What relation is Marcus Baebius Tamphilus (tribune of the plebs 103 BC) to Marcus Baebius Tamphilus (consul 181 BC)? There does not seem to be an article on the first.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If you look at Baebius#Late Republic, it states: "both praenomen and cognomen uncertain". Baebius a colleague of Saturninus is from the De viris illustribus of Aurelius Victor 73. Colleague would mean tribune in 103. It is presumed that this is the same Baebius as was torn to pieces B.C. 87 (Lucan II.119), see: Sulla's first civil war#Aftermath. If this is true, then Appian gives the praenomen 'Marcus' Appian B.C. I.72. 'Tamphilus' is then further speculation as that would be most likely for a tribune 'Marcus Baebius' around that time. If you're headed to the library there is a discussion in Rawson, Elizabeth. (1987). Sallust on the Eighties? The Classical Quarterly, 37, p. 166. doi:10.1017/S0009838800031748.—eric 18:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] December 1

[edit] World's oldest religions

What is the oldest religion we currently know of (not counting Neolithic religions and those that have had to be reconstructed), and what is the oldest religion still practiced today?99.251.239.89 (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It depends on how you define 'oldest' and 'religion.' Some would say Buddhism is a religion, but as it lacks a god, others would contend it is merely a spiritual philosophy. Of the Abrahamic religions, Judaism would predate the other two, which are splinters of Judaism. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Hinduism says that because it is rooted in the Historical Vedic religion, it is the oldest. Also see Urreligion for other information on the claims that Zoroastrianism and Judaism has (if you count it starting with Abraham, as opposed to Moses). —Akrabbim^talk 04:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It depends on very much on what degree of substantial continuity you would require in order to call something the "same" religion through time, and also on the vagaries of surviving historical records (which give us detailed knowledge of religious practices in ancient times only in very limited areas of the world). Hinduism and Judaism are good candidates, yet there's evidence of definite differences between what could be called the first attested major historical stage of Hinduism (practiced by animal-herders roaming the Punjab) vs. the second attested major historical stage of Hinduism (practiced by settled agriculturalists along the valley of the Ganges) -- while Judaism as we know it today also emerged from ancient Israelite religion after a series of reforms under Josiah, Ezra, the post-Temple-destruction rabbis etc. AnonMoos (talk) 06:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Asserting that modern-day Judaism is a different religion than what existed prior to Ezra is like saying dentistry is a new profession after the advent of implants. It may be advertised as such, in a sort of sensationalistic fashion, but I would hardly consider it a new entity. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that there was any one critical break-point; I said that there was a series of successive reforms/transformations. For example, before the development of Rabbinic Judaism after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., the temple at Jerusalem was the one center of Jewish worship, and the leading priestly families (or "Sadducees") were the official religious leadership of Judaism. After 70 A.D., Judaism had to accomodate itself to the overwhelming fact of the loss of the Temple, and the whole prior higher leadership was now completely discredited or irrelevant. Also, according to the text of the Bible itself, before the reforms of king Josiah of Judah ca. 640-610 B.C. a large number of Israelites were polytheists in their worship. There certainly had been loud prophetic voices demanding reforms, and these did receive some degree of support under certain monarchs (such as Hezekiah), but many Israelites were still polytheistic in practice much of the time during that period (or most Israelites most of the time in the northern kingdom of Israel before its fall in 721 B.C.). AnonMoos (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot of inaccuracies or simplifications in there, but I assume that's for space. For most of Jewish history there were polytheistic Jews, but they were not practising Judaism. It's like you're arguing that because some modern day Catholics use birth control, Catholicism has changed its stance on condoms. On Jerusalem, we know there were places of worship other than Jerusalem in convenient places - it's just that sacrifices (as opposed to prayer) were supposed to be offered only in Jerusalem. Even that was subverted by a political desire by the Northern kingdom to break Jerusalem's stranglehold. Etc Etc Etc. Yes, modern Judaism is somewhat different, but to try to argue it's a different religion is an incredible stretch. --Dweller (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I never said that it was a different religion; I just said that it's gone through a series of successive reforms, which meant (for example) that the post-Talmud Judaism of the 6th-century A.D. and later had very many altered characteristics with respect to the pre-Hezekiah Israelite religion of the 8th-century B.C. and earlier (which were separated by ca. 1,500 years). And I think you underestimate the overwhelming importance of the Jerusalem temple before 70 A.D. Jews could certainly pray anywhere, but the temple was at least as important to the Jews of the time as the pilgrimage to Mecca is to Muslims now. If (after the reforms of Josiah) you denied the pre-eminence and exclusivity of the Jerusalem temple, you could be a Samaritan, or a far-flung benighted half-heathen like the ethnic Jews of the Elephantine papyri, but you were considered to have cut yourself off from the mainstream Jewish community... AnonMoos (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, then we agree. To this day, Jews are focussed on the pre-eminence of Jerusalem. --Dweller (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. For some ancient Israelites who vigorously contested the prophets' and reformers' definition of Israelite religion, consult verse Jeremiah 44:17. AnonMoos (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why religions originating from the Neolithic period should be excluded, but Shamanism dates back to the Paleolithic Era. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Shamanism is a general classification or style of spirituality / religious practices, rather than a specific set of doctrines or persisting affiliation. Shamanism is on a level with other general terms (such as "monotheism" etc.), but not really comparable with specific religious traditions (such as "Judaism" etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism is one of the old ones - the article is vague about how old. 78.147.2.230 (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

So little is known about important periods in the history of Zoroastrianism that some of the main developments of Zoroastrianism over time before the Arab conquests remain very obscure. For example, part of the impulse of Zoroastrianism at some periods was quasi-monotheistic, yet during the Arsacid (Parthian) dynasty and part of the Achaemenid and Sassanid dyanasties (all of which adopted Zoroastrianism — or at least reverence of Ahura Mazda — as an official state religion) there were government-supported temples to Anahita as a goddess etc... AnonMoos (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This question has definitely been asked before, but I can't seem to make the archive search engine work (it finds no hits for the word "religion", which is bizarre). --Dweller (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to defend the suggestion of a form of shamanism or animism as the oldest religion. Certainly, shamanism or animism as categories are no more religions than monotheism. However, there are examples of animism whose roots probably go back further than Judaism or Hinduism. The roots of those two religions go back no more than 5,000 years. We all agree that Judaism and Hinduism have undergone substantial evolution from their earliest known forms. So, the evolution of animistic traditions over time should not disqualify them as very old religions. Archeological evidence suggests that some peoples with animistic traditions have had a continuous record of cultural continuity in a region for more than 5,000 years. Examples include the Puebloan peoples or the Igbo people, among many others. Their indigenous religious traditions are probably older than those of Judaism or Hinduism. Marco polo (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find the article at the moment (which is driving me crazy!) but it mentions that there has been loads of evidence that points towards jewdism as being the first religion..... i think i spelt that wrong! Blasted spell check!

[edit] Indian International Students

How many Indian international students go and study abroad in Canada each year? Sonic99 (talk) 04:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

According to this article, there were 47,639 Indian foreign students in Canada at the end of 2007. Here's a full table listing the number of Canadian student visas issued by country, 1999 to 2008. India averages 2,500 per year, but the trend is growing (2008 was over 3,000). --Xuxl (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] classical music song

There is a classical music song (may be an opera aria, not sure; may have been written by Beethoven, not sure). I remember the tune pretty well can can try to type in some representation if necessary. The only words I remember are "violetti graziosi" (maybe misspelled) which recur many times and may be enough to identify the piece, but googling fails. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.117.145.149 (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's Le Violette by Alessandro Scarlatti. The words you needed to google were "violette graziose". Here are the lyrics, and here's a half-way decent recording, by Carlo Bergonzi. Enjoy. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It was a favorite encore of Tito Schipa.--Wetman (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I wanted to find a good recording by Schipa, because his rendition is the best I know of. But the utubular Schipa recordings are execrable. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I will try to listen to the youtube versions soon (can't do it from here). I'm a bit surprised about Schipa since I thought of the piece as a soprano composition. 67.117.145.149 (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That may be because you've only ever heard it sung by a woman, but both types of humans can sing it. I'm sure Luciano Pavarotti did a recording, as did Victoria de los Angeles and Teresa Berganza, among various others of each sex. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] In the 'Muslim Demographics' video, a popular youtube video, where does he get this piece of information?

"No culture has EVER reversed a 1.9 children per woman fertility rate". What is the source of this information, and what examples of cultures have declined in such a way historically?--4crassandchmp (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I would ask if any historical culture is actually known to have had such a low figure before the present era: if not, then the statement would be trivially true but irrelevant, since it would only describe ongoing situations whose future cannot be firmly predicted. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suspect this is a no true Scotsman situation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There are birth control restrictions in China for long decades already. However, 1.9 average is low fertility rate in any case (meaning that the new generations size is smaller as the average is lower than 2).P.S. about 70% of Iranian population is under 30 years old, meaning that a culture can reverse a sharp shrink in the population size. However, Iranian economy is not a real modern one and the implications of such fertility rat are different then it would have in modern economies--Gilisa (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how this is a no true Scotsman situation — while I see the factual problems that other commentators here have noted, I don't see anything subjective in the claim. Nyttend (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The US total fertility rate rose from 2.0 in the late 30s, to 3.7 in the late 1950s (source: Total fertility rate). I'm not exactly sure what the quote means, but if the US rate can nearly double from 2.0 in 20 years it seems unlikely that 1.9 is necessarily a staging point on the road to extinction. See also Demographic-economic paradox and Birth control#History. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.19.20 (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That type of statistics pretty much didn't exist before the 19th century, so I'm not sure on what basis he's generalizing to all centuries of human history preceding the 19th... AnonMoos (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[[18]] says Japan, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong and Macau have all had fewer than 1.9 live births per woman since 1990. Moreover, Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia, the Cook Islands and Niue each had smaller absolute numbers of people in 2007 than in 1990.DOR (HK) (talk) 06:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a point of information, the replacement fertility rate is actually 2.1 in a developed society (by which I don't mean Western, I just mean lowish child mortality and other death rates) to account for the small number of children who won't survive until childbearing age. Prokhorovka (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that France has seen an increase in birthrates, claiming generous maternity laws and child tax benefits are to thank. This may have pushed it across 1.9, but it seems like a pretty arbitrary number. Why not 1.8 or 2? A better number would be the self sustaining number, which I think is 2.1 or so for most developed countries. TastyCakes (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reproduction rates in the EU countries

How common is it for adults in these countries (espcially in Frence, UK and Germany) to choose not to having babies?--Gilisa (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The UK Office of National Statistics says:

Childlessness has been on the increase in recent years. One in five women born in 1963 remained childless, compared with one in eight women born around 1933. [19]

--Tango (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tango, the link does not provide information on childless rates today or about what it define as women who remaind childless (is she a 30 years old women? a no longer fertile women?).--Gilisa (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried our article on Demographics of the European Union for a starting point? There are also articles on the individual countries, such as Demographics of France, or Demographics of Germany. Searching for fertility rates will also yield you many newspaper articles on the topic, such as here. The basic answer is rare, but getting more common - all European countries currently have fewer babies being born than the replacement rate, so we are doing our bit to fight global overpopulation... --Saalstin (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Fighting overpopulation is one of humanity great challenges. However, the decision not to bring a baby (even one for a couple)is personal and I guess that it's not motivated mostly by one's (or two's :)) feelings towards earth. Also, even if European population decline to 0 world population will still continue to raise because of other countries which share none of the responsibility.--Gilisa (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Environmentalism is one of the many reasons people choose not to have children. In industrial countries (esp. United States, but also Europe), even a single child dramatically increases the amount of CO² in the atmosphere, for example, if you factor it over their entire lifetime. A child in the U.S. consumes many times more resources than a child in, say, Africa. Which is not to say that voluntarily avoiding having children is the key towards environmental sustainability (it isn't, by itself), though having LOTS of children (e.g the quiverfull people) in an industrialized country does certainly have a detrimental environmental effect. The amount of net environmental resources a child consumes DOES matter a lot depending on where it is born. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If you google "childfree france", "childfree germany", etc., you get better results than looking at raw fertility rates. What you are interested in is the number of people who are childfree, not the number who just don't happen to have children (which can be for a variety of reasons). --Mr.98 (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Great article 98! (however it does not seems to give precents).--Gilisa (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Choosing not to have children, for whatever reason, makes those folks part of a social experimentation in extinction. Namely, their own. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Only if you consider "extinction" to be something that runs in immediate families, which isn't usually the definition of it. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Extinction in the sense that you've removed two more entries in the gene pool of those who want children vs. those who don't. The stuff about not having children due to their "environmental footprint" sounds like something out of The Onion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it isn't. The long-term ecological effects of unrestricted reproduction is something to take seriously, once you are willing to get past the sentimentality people have regarding their own offspring. (And I doubt that wanting kids/not wanting them is genetically transmissible for the most part, so there isn't likely any significant gene pool effect.) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Humans have had a large environmental footprint from the very beginning. If you don't want kids and don't have any, that's the end of the line for your genetics. Others who do want kids will continue to produce them, and thus will continue that particular genetic line. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not just about individual genetics, even from an evolutionary perspective... and not everyone thinks a blunt evolutionary perspective is the best way to view either personal or global decisions. Anyway, we have gotten well outside the scope of the Ref Desk on this—if you want to debate endlessly, there are better places for that. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There have always been people who have chosen not to have children, for various reasons. What distinguishes some countries in modern Europe currently is the number of people who choose not to have children for reasons which could be considered rather dubious, and yet which are somewhat supported by the surrounding culture -- such as men wanting to stay at home and have their moms continue to cook for them and do all their laundry into their thirties, and women dreading the fact that you can't wear skin-tight jeans when you're pregnant. (These have been alleged to be contributing factors to the decline of the Italian birth rate...) AnonMoos (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that the latter example is necessarily the driving force here. It sounds like a parody of the childfree people. In my experience, the people who don't want to have kids have usually given a lot more thought to the question than those who do, but I'm saying that as a member of the former group. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's a claim that ^{[citation needed]}. It wouldn't surprise me people have made that claim in fact I seem to remember something like that possibly coming from the Italian government or the Catholic church or some such), but that doesn't mean it has any basis in fact. I would say there's evidence it's the opposite. In the past, people often got married and then had kids because they felt it was what they were supposed to do (due to social, religious etc reasons). There was great social stigma particularly attached to an unmarried woman and to a less but still relevant extent to a couple who decided not to have children (again particularly the female). In a number of traditional societies of course, taking a second wife (or divorce as mentioned in the other discussion below) was not unheard of if you didn't have children (or in some cases male children) with the first (regardless who was at fault which couldn't easily be determined in those days) [20]. This ref partially supports my second assertation at least in Australia although it's not a particularly unbiased source [21]. While this stigma still exists e.g. [22] (but then again also to someone who does have children for different reasons) it's drastically reduced in much of the Western world. Also the greater acceptance of divorce means there's probably fewer people having children to try to save their marriage. Taking all these together, in other words a far bigger factor is probably far fewer people are having children for 'dubious' reasons then the opposite. I'm pretty sure there's a well established correlation between education and reduced fertility which would seem to me to further suggest the point. (Of course I would question whether not having children because you want your mother to do your laundry or so you can wear skin-tight jeans is actually a dubious reason, it sounds to me like these are precisely the kind of people who should not be having kids. Perhaps they could be regarded as a bit 'selfish' but then so are many other kinds of people and its ultimately their choice.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Divorce rates in the USA

how much is divorce rate in USA. Is it like 60%? Since at English class the teacher mention divorce rate is going up, and trifolds from 1960. Was divorce rate like interracial marriage that low or is it much higher? I though divorce rate now is less than 40%.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There are actually two (somewhat redundant) articles which cover this, to a point. See Divorce (United States) and Divorce in the United States. The first one has state-by-state marriage rates and divorce rates. You could get a rough estimate of the number of marriages ending in divorce by dividing the marriage rate by the divorce rate. A quick glance at the statistics at Divorce (United States) shows that some states show significantly more than .50 divorces/marriage, while other states show a LOT less than .50 divorces/marriage. Of course, even these statistics end up meaningless when you consider it is only counting the marriages performed in the state, not the marriages of residents of that state. You are more likely to be married out of your home state, but more likely to be divorced where you live. Just look at the marriage stats for Hawaii and Nevada for a comparison. --Jayron32 22:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Historic divorce rates are also misleading. The "Divorce law" section of Divorce in the United States goes into detail, but basically, prior to the 1970s, divorce had to be "for cause": adultry, infertility, abuse, and so on. As a result, there were many couples who were still legally married, but living as if they were divorced. --Carnildo (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Another reason is what Alan King once said about the old days, that "divorce was a luxury that few could afford." So it's a mistake to conclude that the U.S. is "less moral" now because the divorce rate is higher than it was 50 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be a mistake to conclude that it is not less moral too based on that information. Googlemeister (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I just read in this morning's newspaper, that, as a backlash to Proposition 8, a California activist is circulating a petition to outlaw divorce in California in order to "protect marriage". 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Succession to the British throne: Protestant descendants of Catholics

Let's imagine a delicate situation: If William marries a Roman Catholic, he will lose his place in the line of succession and will be replaced by his brother Henry. However, if William has Protestant children with his Roman Catholic wife, those children will have succession rights. That would mean that, in this situation, Henry would never be able to be Prince of Wales as he would never be heir apparent (his position would be threatened by the birth of a nephew/niece). To complicate the matters even more, what if Charles dies before William has Protestant children? Henry would become Henry IX and then suddenly his older brother has a child who is the rightful heir according to primogeniture. Would Henry cease to be a monarch immediately as Victoria would have ceased to be a monarch had her aunt given birth to her uncle's posthumous child?

Please, don't say that they would make something up like forcing William to give up succession rights for his children. How would this situation be handled under current law? Surtsicna (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the current list of succession has such a case. One of them married a Catholic and converted but his children are brought up in the Anglican church. He was removed from the list but his children are in it. Please notice that I might be wrong in some of details. Flamarande (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC) On personal note I want to point out that religious discrimination in the Western world seems to be slowly declining but changing the rules of royal succession can be only be done by all-too lazy politicians.

You are right, there is a similar case, but you haven't answered my question. by the way, please don't turn this into a discussion about religious discrimination. Surtsicna (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that "Victoria would have ceased to be a monarch". She was the heir to the throne at the time of the king's death and that is what matters. Rmhermen (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Parliament gets to decide who becomes the English monarch in every situation and at all times. The succession law currently on the books could be amended, repealed, or modified at any time should Parliament feel the need to. If there was an apparent succession crisis of the nature described by the OP, Parliament would merely need to pass a bill stating "So-and-so will be the next King/Queen" and that will suffice. --Jayron32 00:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No they can't. No act of parliament takes effect until it has received royal assent and that can't happen if you don't know who the monarch is. Changing the law would require them to anticipate the problem before the current monarch died, if they didn't do that the problem the OP describes would still be a problem. --Tango (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

How would they be caught by surprise on this issue? The only conceivable way that could work out would be if the heir apparent converted to Catholicism and the current monarch died within a very short time of each other. Prince William isn't going to just wake up one day and decide he's a Catholic. If he were to convert to Catholicism, the Parliament would likely have ample time to consider ammending or clarifying the succession law to decide how to handle it. They could repeal the ban on Catholics, specifically exclude his children as well as himself, specifically name Harry as heir, they really could do any of that. As the Monarch is forbidden from ultimately withholding royal assent, the whole issue is only of practical concern in the unlikely event of simultaneous death of the monarch and conversion of the heir apparent. The rest of is nonsense. --Jayron32 03:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The OP explicitly asked what would happen under current law. And the monarch isn't forbidden from withholding royal assent, it is just generally accepted that if they ever did there would be a (very peaceful) revolution and the monarchy would cease to be (or, at least, would cease to have the de jure power of royal assent). Conventions are extremely important in British politics, but they aren't law. Any violation of political conventions are dealt with through political means, not through the courts. --Tango (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

First, in this case it's not just the British Parliament (which by the way includes the monarch) which can decide. The Statute of Westminster commits members of the Commonwealth to seeking a joint solution to changes in the Act of Succession; so Parliament would have to orchestrate a joint change throughout the Commonwealth. (That said, I'm not sure how this would play out in an emergency.) Also, Harry would not become Prince of Wales, since the title is reserved for the Heir Apparent, not an Heir Presumptive. Harry would not be the Heir Apparent since any (Protestant) children of William would supplant him in the line of succession. (Oh, you did say that, didn't you; sorry.) Elphion (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

As for succession after Harry becomes Henry IX (assuming he takes that name), once Henry is king no new child of William's could dislodge him, and I think the Act is pretty clear that Henry's direct heirs would come before any others. The interesting question is whether William's children would still precede any other future heir of Charles's. (One presumes the answer is "yes", but I don't what the law actually says about that.) The question of a posthumous child might be interesting; England has never had a case where the succession might have depended on a posthumous child (and again, I don't know whether the law addresses this -- the Act of Succession assumes there is an heir to inherit immediately upon the previous monarch's death). But France has: when Louis X died in 1316 they had to wait to see whether his posthumous child was a son (it was) and then wait for the infant John I to die before Louis's brother became Philip V. Elphion (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that they're likely to know this will be a burning issue in addition when William's wife becomes pregnant (presuming he/she's already converted). You can come up with rather implausible cases I guess, e.g. William annouces he's converted to Catholicism, his grandmother dies of a heartattack on hearing the news and then his father dies of a heart attack upon hearing his mother died then his wife goes into premature labour upon hearing her grandmother-in-law and father-in-law died. Nil Einne (talk) 05:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it fortunate we now live by the Rule of Law? Could anyone seriously imagine a Civil War in the United Kingdom, along the same lines as the Barons' Revolt, or any of the other numerous such scraps that Merry Olde Englande's flesh was heir to in less enlightened days? Back then people, whether well meaning or not, were ruled by their passions, such that to them authority was represented by the size of your army - or at least by that of your "Warwick", if you had one. Charles I wrecked it for everyone else by asserting his own rights, which biblically he did have, but in addition by not considering everyone else's, which the Bible also commands. True authority, that is, the recognised right to rule, has to lie in something that is the same and inviolate. Some may say that at least such tricky questions as these were avoided in the old days by simply railroading the parties concerned into doing what you wanted, if you thought you were king ( re Henricus Octis ), or invading and killing your rival claimant and libelling his memory by rewriting history ( Henry VII - his daddy ), or entering Parliament with the sole intention of arresting five or six flies in the ointment - probably the reason to this day why Her Majesty may not enter the House of Commons to this day, over 360 years later. I have said before, that problems can be avoided by anticipating them, and taking proper precautions, not by moving the goalposts mid game. This is interesting, because has not HRH Prince Charles, the future Charles III, if he decides to take that name, gotten away with what was denied his own great uncle? It seems, if the standards change, how will anyone know where they stand ? I guess the difference here is that maybe they have barred any possible issue from this union from claiming the crown. I know that when Edward VIII abdicated, he renounced any claim on the throne for himself and any children he and Wallis might have ( they didn't ). But again, imagine this had occurred in 1436, not 1936, with a teenaged Henry VI, choosing Margaret of Anjou, that " tiger's heart wrapp'd in a woman's hide' and Parliament or the Council said no, but not necessarily because she was only six at the time. Of course, back then, Kings of England were not forced to do anything, so if in THIS alternate history he actually had a spine, he may simply have demanded what he wanted, arrested his protectors, and made good use of the chopping block in the Tower. Henry Tudor, Jr., would have. Of course, back then the English looked for any excuse to start a civil war, so we might have had it nearly twenty years earlier. Thankfully, even though it did take about a thousand years, people began to realise that the kingdom could not be ruled by the caprices of its monarchs. Ideally, the monarch should actually be the ruler, with Parliament, not just a rubber stamp, because that is their birthright.The Russian.C.B.Lilly 05:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

According to my 1999 Whitaker's Almanack, Prince Michael of Kent, a grandson of King George V, and the Earl of St Andrews, a son of Prince Michael's brother the Duke of Kent, gave up their position in the line of succession by marrying Roman Catholics. However, their offspring, so long as they remain in communion with the Church of England, retain their places.—— Shakescene (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there a precedent for Parliament just chopping off the head of a monarch who displeases them, and appointing some random politician or general as "Lord Protector?" See also WP:IAR. Edison (talk) 06:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a precedent, but somehow I doubt it's legal now. This question keeps turning up, though. Is there a viable "threat" that Prince William is going to marry a Catholic? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok (let me strain my brain). Let's just assume that everything happens as Surtsicna proposes and the parliament doesn't change the succession laws (all extremely far-fetched...). We end up with 'King Charles and William married to a Catholic'. Henry will become the next king. William has a protestant child before Charles dies? The child becomes the next King or Queen after the death of Charles. William's wife has a child after the death of king Charles? Tough luck, because Henry is king already and he doesn't lose his kingship. Surtsicna, can you please explain the: "Victoria would have ceased to be a monarch had her aunt given birth to her uncle's posthumous child"? I don't think that would have worked (at the least, it wouldn't be legal). Flamarande (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I recall the stuff about Catholics and succession was abolished a few years ago. 89.242.106.49 (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If so, the Succession to the British throne article has not been update to reflect that fact. (edit: You may be thinking of the Prince of Wales's comments in 1995, talked about under Succession_to_the_British_throne#Changes.)-- 128.104.112.95 (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it's still there. There has been talk about abolishing it for years, but it hasn't happened yet. --Tango (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Victoria would have ceased to be a monarch according to our own article, the proclamation of her accession (notice the part: saving the rights of any issue of his late Majesty King William IV which may be born of his late Majesty's consort) and several other sources (eg. The Constitutional History of England from 1760 to 1860). It makes sense because her uncle's child couldn't be disqualified just because he/she wasn't lucky enough to be born before his/her father's death and because the child would have been the senior heir according to primogeniture. According to this precedent/provision, Henry would lose his crown in favour of the heir who is senior according to primogeniture and not disqualified by anything. Jayron, I am sure they would amend the law if this situation happens, but I'd like to know what would happen if they didn't amend the law. Surtsicna (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Good old-fashioned civil war? Seriously now, you seem to have stumbled upon a vague issue. Assuming that 'William marries a Catholic woman and King Charles dies', Henry inherits the throne. Sometime later William and his wife have a child which is baptised not as a Catholic but as an Anglican. Victoria's precedent (where the hell did you find that?) indeed suggests that King Henry would lose his throne in favour of that child. However we do know that precedents are one thing but the supreme power of the Parliament is another. Flamarande (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

One becomes religiously ineligible for the throne by being "reconciled to or holding communion with Rome", or by professing "the popish religion", or marrying a papist. It's not clear that being unknowingly and non-volitionally baptised by a Roman Catholic priest fulfills any of these exclusion principles. One is, after all, baptised a Christian, not a Catholic or an Anglican. It's likely that some action as a reasoning human being (i.e., as a more-or-less adult) would be needed to exclude one from the succession - such as receiving the Roman Catholic sacrament of communion. - Nunh-huh 23:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Technically, yes and no. Baptisms for both Anglicans and Catholics are both sacraments and rites of admission to the church. Someone baptised into the Catholic church is not necessarily a member of the Anglican church, and vice versa, and would have to go through some additional process to be admitted - though not another baptism. However it's hard to imagine how someone could be "unknowingly and non-volitionally baptised by a Roman Catholic". Is the priest masquerading as an Anglican? In the Catholic church the intention would be considered important. If you thought you were being baptised as a Catholic, then it's a valid Catholic baptism. Again I p[resume vice versa too. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No, baptism is an admission to Christendom and not to any particular sect of Christianity. And one is "unknowingly and non-volitionally baptised by a Roman Catholic" if one is baptised by a Roman Catholic priest when one is an infant. - Nunh-huh 00:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You understand what I said but let's imagine that the parliament is extremely lazy and doesn't want to bother doing anything about the issue or that everything goes like Nil Einne said (William annouces he's converted to Catholicism, his grandmother dies of a heartattack on hearing the news and then his father dies of a heart attack upon hearing his mother died then his wife goes into premature labour upon hearing her grandmother-in-law and father-in-law died); in other words, let's imagine that nothing is changed and that the situation mcan be handled only by the current laws. It is indeed far-fetched, but it's nevertheless possible (just like a fertile octogenarian and the unborn widow example).

Where the hell did I find Victoria's example? Well, as I said: Wikipedia, credible Internet pages and books concerning British constitution. Surtsicna (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

As in Utopia,

by our Constitution we are governed by a Despot who,

although in theory absolute--is, in practice, nothing of the

kind--being watched day and night by two Wise Men whose duty

it is, on his very first lapse from political or social

propriety, to denounce him to me, the Public Exploder, and

it then becomes my duty to blow up His Majesty with

dynamite

Which is to say, it's all practicality and custom. I think it seems more and more likely that the old joke is true: the Queen aims to outlast Charles so that he is never king, taking us straight from Elizabeth II to William V (or whatever he goes by). Oddly, this seems more okay, to the extent that I wonder if there is some contingency to pass over Charles if necessary (have him abdicate?). In which case, an emergency conversion to Catholicism could work nicely. 86.166.148.95 (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks as though we might have to wait a bit longer for a change in the law, even IF Mr Brown stays at No 10[23]. Alansplodge (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Legality of using someone else's unsecured network in UK

Are there any precedents on this? What about the practice elsewhere in Europe? Kittybrewster ☎ 23:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

We have something at Legality of piggybacking#United Kingdom --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose of swim trunks inner netting

I've notice men's swim trunks have an inner mesh lining with elastic leg openings. What's the purpose of this "mesh underwear" built into swim trunks? Other swim shorts (like Speedos) don't have any mesh lining. I don't think womens' beach wear has any mesh lining either. --70.167.58.6 (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably to preserve what little might be left of your modesty. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

In trunks, it has two purposes. Firstly, it provides a measure of support for those who prefer briefs to boxers. Secondly, as Baseball Bugs implies, it holds a man's bits in. Should the trunks rise up, as they are prone to do in water, particularly in waves, there won't be a surprise appearance by man-bits. This isn't necessary in speedos, because the brief and elastic nature of the speedos (in theory, at least) holds the genitals within, and there is less chance of a free peep-show, even if the speedos mean that everyone's seen it all before. Steewi (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

And I theorize that it is netting so that sand does not get stuck inside. Googlemeister (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's like the old joke explaining the CND symbol; "Y-Fronts prevent Fallout!" Alansplodge (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The inner netting is made of netting to let the air out when you enter the water and to let the water drain out when you exit the water. Astronaut (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] December 2

[edit] Borough vs County constituencies

Does anyone know the party breakdown for borough and county constituencies in the United Kingdom. I think it would be interesting to see how much Labour dominate the more urbanised borough constituencies and the Tories in the county constituencies. Sam 12:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs)

Not sure exactly but Local government in England#Principal authorities may be of use? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

...or a map like this? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

A map like that, but NOT THAT MAP! That's a map for elections to the UK parliament not borough and county council elections!

If you want results for individual constituencies for local government elections, you'll probably have to turn to individual council websites or local papers. United Kingdom local elections, 2009 has a map showing all 27 county councils, and results for borough and other council elections can be found yearly on the BBC[24][25][26] though they don't combine them with areas where there's no election that year. Elections in the United Kingdom has more general info.

Note that counties, which are mostly rural, are divided into boroughs, which are therefore also mostly rural, while urban areas tend to have unitary authorities, except for London boroughs which are subdivisions of the Greater London Authority area. So maybe you really want to compare unitary authorities with counties? --Pleasantman (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No need to SHOUT!! - the original question could be interpreted in several ways. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Counties are divided into districts; some of these have borough status, but many do not. Warofdreams talk 10:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, my apologies, I don't seem to have been very clear. I did mean parliamentary constituencies, which are classified as either 'borough (burgh in Scotland) constituencies' and 'county constituencies'. The former tend to be rural while the latter are in urban areas. [here] I think it would be interesting to see how the Tories dominate the county parliamentary constituencies, and Labour the borough ones. Thanks for your help guys. Sam 16:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs)

From the first House of Commons in 1265 to the Reform Acts of the 19th century, I seem to recall (although not directly!) that each county elected two members ("knights of the shire"), and each city or large urban borough also elected two, with smaller boroughs electing only one. If it's of any interest to you, my reprint of the 1900 Whitaker's Almanack shows the election of 1895 returned 377 members from British & Irish counties, 284 from boroughs, and 9 from University seats. They divided into 411 for Lord Salisbury's ministry (340 Tories + 71 Liberal Unionists) and 259 in Opposition (177 Liberals and 82 Irish nationalists, sharing a dozen Labour men between them). In the Oldham bye-election of 1898, Walter Runciman and another Liberal defeated Winston L.S. Churchill and another Conservative. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The number of representatives wasn't quite as simple as that. You can see the numbers here. Most English boroughs, all English and Irish counties, plus Dublin and the university constituencies elected two members; Welsh and Scottish counties, Welsh boroughs, Scottish burghs, all Irish boroughs except Dublin and a handful of English boroughs elected one member; London and Weymouth and Melcombe Regis elected four members. Starting with the Reform Act 1832, a number of reforms were carried out to more closely fit the allocation of seats to the distribution of population (see List of constituencies enfranchised and disfranchised by the Reform Act 1832); some counties were divided and others given an extra member, while various boroughs were disenfranchised or created. Warofdreams talk 10:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Try this[27] or this[28]. Any good? A bit of a clue - urban constuencies are a lot smaller than rural ones! Don't forget that it will all change in a few months' time. Alansplodge (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

A quick calculation reveals that the statistics since 1997 are as follows. This is a rough calculation so don't shoot me if it's out by a few but it should be enough to go on with.

1997: London boroughs: Lab 57, C 11, L Dem 6. English boroughs: Lab 160, C 18, L Dem 7. Welsh boroughs: Lab 6. Scottish burghs: Lab 27, L Dem 1. Northern Irish boroughs: UU 2, SF 1, UDUP 1. Total Lab 250, C 29, L Dem 14, UU 2, SF 1, UDUP 1 in the 297 borough/burgh constituencies.

1997: English counties: C 136, Lab 112, L Dem 21, Ind 1. Welsh counties: Lab 28, PC 4, L Dem 2. Scottish counties: Lab 29, L Dem 9, SNP 6. Northern Irish counties: UU 8, SDLP 3, SF 1, UDUP 1, UKUP 1. Total Lab 169, C 136, L Dem 32, UU 8, SNP 6, PC 4, SDLP 3, Ind 1, SF 1, UDUP 1, UKUP 1 in the 362 county constituencies.

2001: London boroughs: Lab 55, C 13, L Dem 6. English boroughs: Lab 158, C 18, L Dem 9. Welsh boroughs: Lab 6. Scottish burghs: Lab 27, L Dem 1. Northern Irish boroughs: UDUP 2, SF 1, UU 1. Total Lab 246, C 31, L Dem 16, UDUP 2, SF 1, UU 1 in the 297 borough/burgh constituencies.

2001: English counties: C 134, Lab 110, L Dem 25, Ind 1. Welsh counties: Lab 28, PC 4, L Dem 2. Scottish counties: Lab 29, L Dem 9, SNP 5, C 1. Northern Irish counties: UU 5, SDLP 3, SF 3, UDUP 3. Total Lab 167, C 135, L Dem 36, SNP 5, UU 5, PC 4, SDLP 3, SF 3, UDUP 3, Ind 1 in the 362 county constituencies.

2005: London boroughs: Lab 44, C 21, L Dem 8, RU 1. English boroughs: Lab 152, C 20, L Dem 13. Welsh boroughs: Lab 5, L Dem 1. Scottish burghs: Lab 17, L Dem 1, SNP 1. Northern Irish boroughs: UDUP 2, SDLP 1, SF 1. Total Lab 218, C 41, L Dem 23, UDUP 2, RU 1, SDLP 1, SF 1, SNP 1 in the 288 borough/burgh constituencies.

2005: English counties: C 153, Lab 92, L Dem 24, Ind 1. Welsh counties: Lab 24, C 3, L Dem 3, PC 3, Ind 1. Scottish counties: Lab 24, L Dem 10, SNP 5, C 1. Northern Irish boroughs: UDUP 7, SF 4, SDLP 2, UU 1. Total: C 157, Lab 140, L Dem 37, UDUP 7, SNP 5, SF 4, PC 3, Ind 2, SDLP 2, UU 1 in 358 county constituencies. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Did they or didn't They ?

Last night I was watching a programme in which one of the characters suggested that Jackson Pollock once had some sort of fight or duel with Ernest Hemingway. Based on what I have learned of Pollock in particular, that sounds plausible. Now I cannot remember which programme it was on, nor do the articles here on both men have anything about it. Is it true, seeing they were contemporaries? The Russian.C.B.Lilly 14:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)

[edit] SCi Fi Book involving unaware humans

Someone told me about a sci-fi book which was in a dystopian future and the world was going to end (?) and that the only saviors were humans that were unaware that they had some sort of special powers and that these would be "activated" when the moment was needed. But I forgot the title and the author. Does anyone know? --Reticuli88 (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Childhood's End by Arthur C Clarke comes to mind, although it was a near-future setting so maybe doesn't quality. But the page on the book has a section discussing other books with similar themes so it might be worth a look.--Pleasantman (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Kind of sounds like the movie Knowing. Googlemeister (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Jack Williamson's "Brother to Demons, Brother to Gods" has some similar plot elements... AnonMoos (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Question moved from article space

This was the entire text of the article What is the difference between hoarding and saving prefix:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives, created by new user Asternoide; I suspect it was intended for here:

(What is the) difference between hoarding and saving in barter system (?)

Gonzonoir (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Perception.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Legal status of illustrations depicting pedophilia in Canada

Just curious, is it legal to possess or to view an illustration depicting pedophilia? The reason I ask is because I've read about a comic called Mai Chan's Daily Life where supposedly a tiny enfant is raped (and then popped into a blender, but that's a different story). I have to wonder how such a thing could even get published. I'm under the impression that in the film industry, it's illegal to show underage sex, even if the actor is of age.

Thanks. 99.250.7.109 (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Just took a quick look through the child pornography laws of Canada article. My question is answered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.7.109 (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't answer legal questions, but I don't think it's going beyond the bounds of neighbourly advice to tell you that child pornography is illegal. However it's certainly possible to imagine a comic in which child sex is part of the story, but not depicted. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect; we don't offer legal advice, but we answer legal questions like focused maniacal legends of the law of all nations. Tempshill (talk) 06:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors may be of interest to anyone who wants more information on the subject. Pollinosisss (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the article. I realize you don't answer legal questions because there might me some unfortunate implications but I ask purely out of curiosity. If I was in need of legal aid, I would consult a lawyer. 99.250.7.109 (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Soldier who kept a diary during the Napoleonic wars?

What was the name of the British soldier in the Napoleonic wars who kept a diary which has subsequently been published? Thanks. 89.242.106.49 (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

William Green (British Army soldier) or Benjamin Randell Harris? meltBanana 18:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Are the texts available for free online anywhere, as if published in the 19th. century they must be long out of copyright? I have not found them at Google Books or Archive dot org. 92.29.36.113 (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Can't find William Green online but here is Benjamin Harris and here is a list of the many other accounts. meltBanana 00:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ordering employees to lobby Congress

Please comment on the legality/ethics of a U.S. employer ordering its employees to call their congresspeople and lobby for a specific measure related to the company's business. Does it matter whether the employer is a non-profit? The Hero of This Nation (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't offer legal advice, so I can't comment on legality. However I'm pretty sure ordering employees to take political action is highly unethical. Do you really mean "ordering", because "suggesting" or "asking" would be much less ethically dubious. The best place to get advice on legality would probably be your congressperson. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not a request for legal advice. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If the employer is a lobbying firm, then that would be expected of the employees (although probably only on company time) Googlemeister (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That is not a helpful answer. Obviously lobbyists' job is to lobby. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, the employer might not request the lobbying, but the union leaders might. Would that be any less ethical or illegal? Googlemeister (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutly not. But union leaders don't have nearly the power over their members that an employer has over their employees. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Employers having influence over the politics of their employees is not something most Americans would be comfortable with as a question of civil liberties. If an employer "encouraged" employees to do so, it'd be a little less problematic. To a certain extent it also matters what method of lobbing is used and what the objective is (i.e. honest belief that said legislation is harmful/beneficial to the taxpayer vs. obvious grab for money). It's akin to ordering an employee to get a divorce from their abusive spouse when the stress prevents the employee from working: if they choose to do it on their own that's their business. The legal questions would mostly come up if the employer took action against the employee based on their noncompliance with the order, and you'd need an actual lawyer in that case. SDY (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. Let me get specific, while discarding the request to comment on legality, and only retaining the request to comment on the ethics. Is it ethical for a non-profit intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded to require its employees to call their congressperson and lobby in favor of H.R. 1255? The Hero of This Nation (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If they require it, then no, absolutely not. No modern democracy should permit employers to dictate an employees political actions. What do they say will happen if you don't? DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It happens all the time and makes me a little uncomfortable even when I agree 100%, e.g. a public community college or school using taxpayer funds to lobby the electorate for more taxpayer funds (or in 1978 against California Proposition 13) when the other side does not similarly benefit from public funds (I'm a democratic socialist; so it's the principle not the fiscal issue that concerns me). Under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code there could be problems for a non-profit ICF's status under Section 501(c)(3); they cannot campaign in elections and might be limited in the amount and kind of lobbying in which they can engage (although, according to Wikipedia's article, a big non-profit like the American Red Cross can spend up to million dollars a year on lobbying). If you want a rough parallel to clarify what you feel is improper, you could ask how people would feel if Walmart, Godfather's Pizza or Burger King ordered their line employees to lobby against the minimum wage or H.R. 1255? —— Shakescene (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It really happens all the time? I knew US politics was money driven, but for that to happen in either of the countries I am familiar with would be a scandal; and any employee discriminated against for refusing to take part in the lobbying would undoubtedly win an unfair dismissal case (that's not legal advice of course). I find it hard to believe that there is no legislation preventing an employer from requiring an employee to do things that lie outside their job description, just like they can't be required to clean the CEO's yard. DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I hesitated over what phrase to use; I should have written "commonplace" or something else to suggest that it seems to happen often enough without objection that it seems to be unnoticed. The relevant legislation for Federal civilian employees (rather than contractors or tax-exempt organizations) is the Hatch Act. I'm no labo[u]r lawyer but as I understand the doctrine of employment at will in the absence of a job description or labor contract, a private employer can fire you without cause anyway, so long as he isn't discriminating or retaliating against you for union organizing or whistle blowing (e.g. complaining to the authorities about violations of civil rights, labor or environmental law). You'd have no cause for action if you were discharged after failing to clean (or even after cleaning) the CEO's yard or walking his dog. In the absence of strong private whistle blower laws, it's even unclear and unsettled how much civil protection a private (as opposed to a government) employee has against retaliation for reporting outright fraud or crime by his boss, although the latter's retaliation could be criminally prosecuted for obstruction of justice. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] French poet who taught for a while in a village school in England?

Who was he? I've forgotten. Probably 19th. century. Thanks. 89.242.106.49 (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing that you are thinking of Paul Verlaine, who taught for a while in the small town of Lymington in Hampshire. His pupil, Lucien Létinois, only really known as the object of Verlaine's affection, taught at Stickney, Lincolnshire. Arthur Rimbaud also taught in England, but in London, rather than at a village school. Warofdreams talk 18:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Canadian law and bankruptcy

I worked for a company for several months that went under and closed up. I'm still waiting on a final paycheque, but have been told that it will be payed from assets in the claim. Anyways, I called the place handling the bankruptcy and was told there "hadn't been a filing yet".

Can anybody translate this into English? Anybody with experience in this sort of situation that could tell me how long I may be waiting for this process? Thanks (Note that I'm not looking for legal advise to this second question, just for people who have waited like I am) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There is an article Bankruptcy in Canada which may help. Generally speaking, bankruptcy is a legal proceeding where a court protects a debtor from their creditors. In the process, the court attempts to pay off the creditors to the greatest extent possible. The "filing" likely refers to the official filing with the court - that is, although the company is "bankrupt" in that it is closed and doesn't have enough money to pay off its debts, it hasn't yet petitioned the court to start the official bankruptcy proceedings. How long it will take to resolve is anyone's guess. My understanding is that bankruptcies can take anywhere from months to years, depending on the complexities. -- 128.104.112.95 (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

They might mean that the plan for how to liquidate/reorganise hasn't been filed yet. --Tango (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Language use by world leaders during meetings/summits

I have noticed that some world leaders will always speak the language(s) of their home countries when they have meetings/summits with their counterparts, while other world leaders will speak the language(s) of his/her counterparts' home countries, or some other language which all sides can understand. Are there any rules regarding what languages world leaders must use when speaking with their counterparts? 128.2.247.44 (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There aren't really any rules. Leaders will do whatever they think is most effective. Some leaders may not feel that they can communicate effectively in the language of the country they are visiting, or, for that matter, in any language other than their native language. However, if a leader can communicate effectively in his or her host's language, he or she is likely to use that language, because doing so is likely to ingratiate the officials of the host country. Marco polo (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There are differences policies in different countries. Germany, e.g., has foreign languages among the requirements for its diplomatic corps, while France is very eager to promote the use of its own language and advises its diplomatic corps to only resort to other languages as a last resort; at least that's what I heard some 20 years ago. — Sebastian 21:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Depends - on formal occasions diplomatic protocol requires leaders to speak the language of the country they are representing. In less formal circumstances - e.g. bilateral meetings on the sidelines of a summit, press conferences, etc, leaders are free to choose whatever language they feel is appropriate to the occasion and the audience. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, there have been some embarrassing events involving these assumptions. I remember reading somethign about Richard Nixon's visit to China, and the problem of translators, but the details elude me. Steewi (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

In the middle ages, Latin was pretty much the language of European diplomacy, while in the 18th-century it was French. Nowadays there are the six official languages of the United Nations. However, in personal conversations at summit meetings etc., if two leaders have a common language they both feel confident speaking, then they'll probably use that language; otherwise, they'll probably go through translators... AnonMoos (talk) 07:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Helmut Schmidt and Valéry Giscard d'Estaing (if I remember the right Chancellor and President) would telephone each other regularly and communicate in English. — Shakescene , — (continues after insertion below.)

Interesting! How do you know this? I had always assumed they talked in French. — Sebastian 08:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it was a contemporary parenthetical aside in The Economist. Schmidt spoke good English with an American accent (which doesn't preclude skill in French); I don't know how sound or shaky Giscard's German was, but he didn't feign the ignorance of English that most French presidents since de Gaulle have felt to be a patriotic duty. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What I find to be a post-imperial irony is that often the revolutionaries and terrorists who are plotting across national/linguistic boundaries to destroy all the positive achievements and freedoms of the U.S., the U.K. and the Commonwealth use English to communicate with each other, as an earlier more-positive generation whose aim was national liberation from English-, French-, Spanish-, Portuguese-, Russian- or German-speaking empires were often forced to use the colonizers' language. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? Because I would've thought a lot of them communicated to each other in, say, Arabic? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese leadership is grateful for the opportunity to brush up on their native language whenever the Australian Prime Minister comes calling or they visit him. Normally, they have to resort to English or other languages. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Trends of black and white couples

Is it just black male and white female is going up, or white male and black female is also going up. From [29] said in 2007 black man/white women is 2.68 times vice versa, that's about 73%, but 2006 table we had is 2.44 times vice versa. Also is white male and asian female continue rising, or we got some rlief from white male and asian female couples. In 2000 record high of 3.08 but 2006 is 3.05. Is white male and asian female going to be past 3.3 times vice versa. By 2010 is white male and asian female going to hit 3.5 or so?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This page 76 might answer my own question.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Asian male and black female couples

I though it is the thoughtest of all to find a asian amle with black female but the google image post afew of asian guys dating a black lady. Which famous peoples follow this pattern?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If you are interested in researching your fixation, subject of your repeated scribbled queries, I suggest you start with miscegenation.--Wetman (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

or OCD. Mr.K. (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Concurring with the above, did you even read Afro-Asian that was provided to you last time you asked? Nil Einne (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hindu chant in Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom?

I was wondering if the guy who got his heart ripped out in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was chanting Aum Namah Shivaya? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Peace Corp updated

Is a civilian surge of agri-specialists into Afghanistan and the paying off Taliban fighters instead of a military surge a way to transition from Taliban grown poppy seeds to Karzai grown GMO products? 71.100.160.161 (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The solution you suggest is an interesting one. Some reasons why it would probably not succeed are 1) There is probably no crop, GMO or otherwise, that could generate anywhere near as much per acre/hectare in Afghanistan as poppies. (Note that the corrupt Karzai government probably profits more from poppy cultivation than do the Taliban.) 2) Afghanistan is lacking in infrastructure (decent roads, access to ports) needed to bring lower-value crops to market at a low enough cost for them to be very profitable, even if the powers that be could be convinced to give up their poppy money, which is doubtful. 3) The existing power structure of warlords (many of whom are associated with the Karzai regime) does not want to lose their poppy income. 4) Imagine that most Taliban are willing to be "paid off". What do they do then? The Afghan economy is a disaster and incapable of generating employment for these men. Ending poppy cultivation would only reduce the size of the Afghan economy and worsen the prospects of the paid-off Taliban. What would stop them from taking up arms again to try to drive out whoever is preventing/profiting from poppy cultivation so that they can reinstate the poppy economy and pocket the profits themselves? 5) Probably a fair number of Taliban recognize that any pay-off is a one-off and will prefer to carry on the struggle, and others are ideologically committed to it. Marco polo (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Opium production in Afghanistan may be relevant here. AFAIK the only power in recent times to make a successful clampdown in Afghanistan's poppy production were the Taliban in 2000 and our article says it may have significantly weakened their position Nil Einne (talk) 08:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The reference desk is not a forum for debate. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Natural-born life

Why is in a sentencing court, atleast on TV (as I haven't experienced it in real life) the judge uses the phrase "natural-born life" when refering to a life sentence? Grsz¹¹ 23:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Literally for the rest of your life. vs. "life" as 20-25 years. 198.161.238.18 (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

ISTR either a real account or fictional tale of someone who petitioned to be released from such a sentence after they were resuscitated after a heart attack. They claimed that, given that they had been clinically dead for a few seconds, their "natural-born life" had finished. Grutness...wha? 23:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It means they aren't going to end your life early (by executing you). Someone sentenced to death will also spend the rest of their life in prison, but it won't be all of their natural-born life. --Tango (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The obvious meaning to me (an unbeliever) has always been that the judge is referring to the rest of one's life on earth (and not trying to usurp the Almighty by presuming to dictate where or how the convict will spend Eternity). Cf. "and may the Lord have mercy on your soul" at the end of the classic English death sentence. The phrase may be "the rest of your natural life"; I'm not sure how "natural-born" would fit in, although it may sound more euphonious or rhythmic to a script-writer's ears. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of a story attributed to Kenesaw Mountain Landis when he was a judge before he became Commissioner of Baseball. He had before him a convicted criminal who was like 75 years old. Landis sentenced him to 30 years in prison. The man pleaded, "I can't serve a sentence like that!" Landis said, "Well, do the best you can!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] December 3

[edit] Dean Koontz Book

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I've heard that Dean Koontz wrote a book that contained a fake spider on a spring which would jump out at the reader. Is this really true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.78.55 (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How people look up information

I am trying to find statistics on how people look up information - by library, internet, buying books etc. In other words how people try to find information to answer something. I can't think of a way to phrase the search query or find to find any relevant statistics. I am writing a paper and need to substantiate the claim that people prefer to use Wikipedia, search engines, google, online databases etc as opposed to going to a library for their information retrieval needs. I know this is true.. but I need statistics to back it up. And don't know how to find them. Thanks for any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baalhammon (talk • contribs) 03:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Depends. Market research companies and industry reports will have specific market shares for, for example, different modes of advertising (classifieds, phone directories, online sources ilke Google), or specific information providers (market information, weather information, TV schedules). Government statistics organisations might survey entertainment / leisure habits of people (in terms of watching TV, going to the movies, reading, etc.)

You need to ask what kind of information you are really asking about. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the heads up - but I already have a conceptual understanding of the topic, I need hard statistics. I wouldn't be posting here unless I already looked using those keywords - what comes up is exactly what you linked to, theoretical papers. I need statistics that demonstrate how many users use Wikipedia, search engines, online databases, other web 2.0 technologies versus library visits. I think its obvious to most people that this is true.. but without the data I can't make the claim in good conscience.--Baalhammon (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If there are any studies about that for Wikipedia, you should be able to find them at Wikipedia:Wikipedia in academic studies‎. — Sebastian 08:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

@OP: I wasn't talking about theoretical papers - I mean industry reports would have statistics, as would government statistical organisations. It sounds like ("keyword") you did some online searches. Have you considered contacting such organisations to see if they have proprietary data that you could use? You may have to pay them, but your academic organisation should be able to support that, perhaps? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the above a reply to my post? If yes, please explain how it relates to what I wrote. If not, please correct your indentation. — Sebastian 23:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a reply to the OP. Putting it in the same alignment as your post may have made it difficult to distinguish between the two posts. I have added an "@OP" at the beginning of my previous post. I trust that this is satisfactory to you. Please let me know if you have any further queries. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the ways I look up information is on the reference desks. I noticed you posted the same question on the computing desk. It's normal to restrict to asking a question just once. --Phil Holmes (talk) 09:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] infant skeletons found in well between convent and monastery.

I remember reading about a well somewhere in Europe (i think) that was excavated, which had provided water for centuries a convent and monastery that it was in between.

At the bottom, dozens or scores of infant skeletons were found which exposed the hypocrisy of the supposedly celibate monks and nuns.

I've searched for it since, but to no avail. Any one know about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.182.8 (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds way too pat and like a pure urban legend. Tempshill (talk) 06:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Among otherr problems, nuns & priests-even Medieval ones-knew better than to dispose of human remains in their water supply-Nunh-huh 06:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Besides, wouldn't it just be easier for the convent, nunnery, whatever to simply banish pregnant nuns? Googlemeister (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds suspiciously like the "awful disclosures" of Maria Monk... AnonMoos (talk) 07:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This [30] is only a blog, but it suggests it's an urban legend with a number of variations, including a similar story that preceded the Maria Monk story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The pamphlets of extreme anti-Catholic Jack Chick describe this, but no, there is no evidence to back it up. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have heard of stories like this - it reminds me of Jane Fonda's Agnes of God, but also about twenty or so years ago my father had hold of a number of Christian comic books - assumedly based on truth - known as Crusaders, by John Rice, I believe, or, as mentioned, Jack Chick. This exposed many of the actual scandals and real conspiracies of the Roman Catholic Church ( the da Vinci Code is not one of them, since Jesus Christ did not marry, nor did He have children - that was not His purpose, as romantic as it might sound). Many Catholics might not like that ( including some of my own relatives - since one of my grandmothers was a Catholic of Irish descent), but this is what the magazines said, and having read and considered what they had to say, a fair bit, if not all of it, does ring true. By the way, Mr. Chick, whose pamphlets are hard hitting, but to the point, is not so much anti Catholic with respect to people, but just opposed to a monstrosity of a church that drags its people into bondage, when Christ actually wants to set them free. (John 8: 32,36). All of this kind of thing, with poor babies buried for even centuries behind ancient walls, comes about from the Catholic Church tinkering with the real Word of God. NOWHERE in the New Testament does the Apostle Paul nor any of the other writers command anyone serving God - Yahweh, to be celibate. Paul asks that people saved remain as he is ( it is believed, but not proven, that he was a widower), but he also adds that if they do marry, they have not sinned. In addition, the Bible only allows for pastors, or that is, bishops, from the Greek episcopai, meaning overseer, for elders(presbyters), and deacons, all men; "for I suffer not a woman to preach or to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence", (I Timothy 2:12),so sorry, Joyce Meyer, et al., Womens' Lib does not apply to the true Church of Christ, no two ways about it. Those in New Zealand will be aware of Mr.Brian Tamaki of the Destiny Church making himself a bishop in some sort of ceremony. The thing is, as stated, a pastor is a bishop, so it is not meant to be some higher rank in the church, and being a pastor is a calling from God, and even the Apostle Paul states in Galatians that he did not need any official man made blessing to preach God's Word, just the revelation Jehovah had given him in the first place. I may agree with some of what the Destiny Church has to say, so long as it is Biblical, but some of his antics do concern me. The only trouble is, he does not trust the fourth estate enough to explain things to them calmly, and do they give him a fair go ? Perhaps he needs to answer to fellow Christians and let them determine, by Scripture, what is right or wrong, since he cannot deny that as a final authority. Back to the question at hand, the Crusader magazines do make mention of these and many other things where certain perhaps well meaning churches have gone wrong. The idea behind rubbish like the da Vinci Code is to suggest that those high up in the Catholic Church, like some sort of Black College of Cardinals, and I don't mean that in a racist manner, is in the know, as if they are aware of all the " lies " of the Bible, but choose to cover it up, so as to retain their power. But does anyone think that the early martyrs of the Christian Church would have allowed themselves to die for something they knew to be a lie ? As for the idea of the babies buried like that, it may or may not have happened, and yes, one needs proof. It's a bit like the question a few months back about the supposed town in Sweden with 50000 womem and no men, you need to see it to believe it. I believe some things like that do happen, but do I have incontravertible proof ? Na. And sorry for going all over the place, I tend to ramble, and being a Mathematician as well, I like to go off on tangents. If you can find them, check out the Crusader magazines, since they had references for some of their claims, like Gibbon's Decline and Fall, and such like. The Russian.C.B.Lilly 08:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Osama Bin Laden's Gun

The topgun is often shown carrying a very short and sophisticated AK 47 type gun. It is certianly not AK-47 or AK-56 or AK-97. What model it exactly is ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This one[31]? Alansplodge (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly ! That is what I meant. And my ! what a beautiful gun. But exactly what model is it ?

 Jon Ascton  (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

To me it looks like an AKS-74U. There's a couple of pictures on the page, see what you think.Tobyc75 (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

As much as I can tell, the gun was given to him as a gift from his subordinates during the Afgan war against the Soviet Union. It was taken as a loot from the body of a Russian special forces officer.--Gilisa (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] national geographic nature movies

I was wondering; how do they make these kinds of clips: www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxbuysNGLOM&feature=channel? It seems impossible to me to film this in the wild. Does anyone have an idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.118.76.108 (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Lots of patience. It has certainly gotten a lot better in the age of digital cameras, but nature photographers and cinematographers can wait days or weeks to get the right shot. There may have been hundreds of hours of footage to put together that sequence. Keep in mind that nature films like this aren't put together any differently than other films, in that the sequence is not a single shot, or likely even a single day, but rather put together from dozens of shots that are edited together to tell a story. --Jayron32 21:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Not only are such films put together from dozens of different shots of different bees and spiders, many of the shots in such films don't feature animals quite as 'wild' as you might think. David Attenborough series often feature 'making of' segments, and some of the most striking shots (a bird in flight, shown from right next to the bird as it flies, for example) are shot using trained or prepared animals. These are used to illustrate something (such as how a bird flies), and then spliced in with other footage of similar animals, usually arranged so as to tell a story. It isn't deception on the scale of driving lemmings off a cliff (it does, at least, aim to show typical behaviour), but it isn't raw footage of a single animal in the wild. 86.166.148.95 (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot of arguing that has been done about what a "true" nature film should be over the years, what sort of liberties are allowed the filmmaker, etc... Gregg Mitman's Reel Nature: America's Romance With Wildlife on Film is an interesting book on this subject for those who want something of a comprehensive view. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] December 4

[edit] Can someone please explain the context of this Dawn article

"ISLAMABAD: A majority of the NRO beneficiaries have been bureaucrats and government officials as a list, released by the government on Saturday, contained names of only 34 politicians out of a total of 8,000.

According to the list, almost 97 per cent of the beneficiaries are from Sindh. The ordinance will lapse on Nov 28 in the light of the Supreme Court’s July 31 verdict in the PCO judges case.

The list shows that a total of 8,041 people — 7,793 from Sindh — have benefited from the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), promulgated by former president Pervez Musharraf on Oct 5, 2007.

These people have got withdrawn 3,478 cases (3,320 in Sindh) registered against them on charges of corruption, financial bungling, misuse of authority and criminal charges." - Dawn 22 Nov 2009.

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/04--nro-qs-10

I'm confused about how the article keeps mentioning the Sindh all the time. Is there some social context that I'm missing? Or is it simply just a passing observation made by the Dawn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ExitRight (talk • contribs) 01:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Popular minimalist design style

Is there a name for this design style? Where did it start from? A sans-serif font, white letters on bold solid colours, often lower-case titles in big letters, a casual disregard for capitalisation, somewhat minimalist...? Thanks. A few examples below.

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/
http://www.graniph.com/en/
http://www.superdry.co.uk/
--210.250.2.98 (talk) 05:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems to have become the design style du jour for 2009; as lots of existing companies have been coming out with newly designed product lines with similar style. Consider the new Pepsi design, Target Corporations new "in house" brand redesign ("up and up"), Giant Supermarket's new logo, etc. etc. All of these new designs have popped up in the past year, and they all seem to have this same basic style. Its becoming pretty widespread. --Jayron32 05:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Therese of Saxe-Hildburghausen's religion

What religion did Therese of Saxe-Hildburghausen, Queen consort of Bavaria, follow when she was born? Weren't all the Ernestine Dukes of Saxony Protestants? How did they become matched up with a Catholic Bavarian king?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Three groundbreaking SF stories

In Stanley G. Weinbaum, it says that Isaac Asimov considered "A Martian Odyssey" one of the three stories that changed how all subsequent ones were written. Anybody know what the other two are? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] What was that beautiful Taste ?

In 1976, at the age of eight, at Avondale Primary School in Christchurch New Zealand, we were studying Arabs and their customs. One day we were given an Arab dish to try. It consisted of a kind of bread roll, which we dipped into a green coloured creamy dip, which tasted beautiful. I have no idea what the dip was called, and have never had it since. Does anyone have any ideas, as to what it could be ? Thanks. The Russian.C.B.Lilly 08:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)

Hummus ? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps Raita? I know it's more 'indian' than arabic but colour wise it fits the description so worth mentioning. 09:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk)

İmam bayıldı or mutabal? Those are made with aubergine (AKA eggplant) and the first is delicious enough to make an imam faint. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] George Washington member of an Scandinavian society in Philadelphia around 1760

According to a Danish book (unfortinately only in Danish) "Danske rekorder og mærkværdigheder" (Danish records and strange occurences) by Alf Mørkeberg (ISBN 87-7365-334-9), George Washington joined a Scandinavian society in Philadelphia in 1760. In a later speech (still according to the book) he proclaimed:

Gentlemen. I have a surprise for You. The earliest trace of ancestry, my family has been able to locate was from Jutland. A Dane named Hvass.

I have googled for information to confirm this story, but so far I haven't had much luck. Any input would be appreciated. Someone has made a scanned portion of the book is available in the bottom of the first posting here (still only Danish). -- Hebster (talk) 09:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Larry K Fish

Sirs, Please can you direct me to any articles concerning Larry K Fish ex-chief executive of Citizens Bank of Rhode Island then taken over by RBS. he is listed above red Goodwin as the highest paid beneficiary to his pension yet I cannot seem to find a dedicated entry for him unlike Fred Goodwin who is easily accessed. Can you guide me to more infoermation about him? Godfrey foster (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

There is as yet no Wikipedia article about him (or, seemingly, even mentioning him), but you may find more information through internet search engines (e.g. Google) than you may have already by using the more formal version of his name, Lawrence K Fish. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)