Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:22, 11 October 2010

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

October 6

Writing games with video game characters

Since childhood, I dreamed up fantasies, uniting the characters (well, mostly enemies) in video games/ movies into one world. they were part of this world, and the enemies were combined in an army, in a world ruled by a character of my creation. I'm thinking of putting my ideas onto paper, and possibly publishing. I won't take the video game characters name for name and detail for detail, but I'll give them different names. But, the description of the looks characters in the book will make me think of those in the video game. Other than that, that's where the similarities end. Is this a good idea? This seems like a motivation to keep me going forward, but is this legally and "politically" a good idea? thx --LastLived 02:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look at Archetype and Intellectual property. Many video-games have a hero that has some details that are original, but are based on, say, Beowulf or any Savior. If you create an orginal story with characters who have a not-so-original personality, then it is your intellectual property. It sounds like a fine idea to me; it may turn out well for you :) schyler (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is very misleading. Beowulf is in the public domain. Video game characters are not. That is a crucial difference. Writing something based on copyrighted characters means your work is a derivative work. Whether that is infringement or not depends on a lot of other factors. But it is not the same thing as basing your general story on something in the public domain. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think he meant that both Beowulf and Christ have also been video game characters, as have Robin Hood, Peter Pan, etc. Not that it helps. The question asker is clearly asking about characters that are primarily game characters, not free characters that have also been in games. APL (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read it as saying, "everything is derivative to some degree, don't worry about it too much," which is probably true from a cultural/artistic standpoint, but not at all from a legal one. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to look at fan fiction, which describes the gist (not exactly, but close) of what you are working on. --Jayron32 02:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Legal issues with fan fiction. If you are doing this just for fun and learning and not sharing it with anybody other than a close personal friend or two, knock yourself out. That's clearly allowed in the same way that you're allowed to draw your own pictures of Mario and post them on the refrigerator. If you are going to be posting it on the internet in a fan fiction forum, probably nobody will care, but the copyright owners could probably get it taken down if they wanted to. If you are going to try and monetize it and publish it as a book or something, you will run into legal issues. This is not legal advice, just a rough overview of how this has usually happened in the past, and where the legal issues come into play. The actual resolution of the legal problem would depend on a more fine-grained understanding of exactly what you were writing, a broader legal background, and your jurisdiction (something which is itself complicated if you plan to publish online, which makes you liable in basically all jurisdictions). --Mr.98 (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be warned that there have been some high-profile fan games that, despite a tremendous amount of work that went into them, were forced to disappear. The late, lamented, Chrono Resurrection comes to mind. (I was going to give The Silver Lining (video game) as another example, but I see now that that story has a happy ending!) APL (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that within fanfiction communities, changing a work of fanfiction to disguise it as original fiction is known as filing off the serial numbers. It is considered far less ethical (within these communities) than simply writing fanfiction, because it is pretending to be original, and hence plagiarism. It is, in effect, failing to cite your sources. Straight-up fanfiction at least acknowledges where it came from, and does not claim to own the borrowed characters or universe. It should also be noted that there are some published authors whose work is widely considered to be fanfiction with the serial numbers filed off, and people hold them in some contempt. Selling any fanfiction, disguised or otherwise, will put you in a legally vulnerable position. And finally, if the story you are telling needs these characters in this setting, it will not work properly with different characters in a different setting: filing off the serial numbers will spoil the story. If it will work with different characters in a different setting, then write this original work with these different characters and setting, not using anything from the other work.

I also strongly recommend that you find a nice bit of the online fandom and start exploring it: you will find that you are not alone in your behaviour, and will probably enjoy yourself. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of "Going to the john"

John Harington has been credited as having invented the flush toilet in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. Could this fact be the origin of the slang phrase Going to the john? Back in medieval times the word for latrines was the jakes, hence Harington naming his toilet Ajax. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

etymonline.com says: John, "toilet," 1932, probably from jack, jakes, used for "toilet" since 16c. (see Jack). 24.16.154.46 (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The folk etymology of the "john" being named for a guy named John who invented an Elizabethan flush toilet is as amusing as the "crapper" being named for Thomas Crapper who was a Victorian plumber and fixture manufacturer. Edison (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or of Otto Titzling having invented the brassiere. --Jayron32 19:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This question would have been more appropriate to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. Will add anon.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gift man

A hypothetical scenario: An adult person, perhaps an artist or poet or "spiritual advisor" or something, lives entirely off the non-monetary largesse of a benefactor (or a community of benefactors). Although he lives comfortably, even opulently, he doesn't really have any "income" in the sense of money. He may not even have a bank account. My question is this: Assuming he and his benefactors are in all other respects model citizens, what sort of relationship will he have with the taxman? I understand that if a contest-winner "wins" something like a massive yacht, he often can't assume ownership of it because he can't afford the taxes on it. But if our hypothetical man receives only quiet, casual gifts, it seems unlikely that he would have to pay tax on any given item, even if they collectively amount to a luxurious existence. (My interest isn't confined to U.S. tax law. Any perspective would be interesting.) Oh, and this isn't legal advice. LANTZY ^TALK 19:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All gifts are technically taxable. In order to avoid taxing small gifts (birthday party, etc), in the US, the first X dollars of value from each person is not taxable. This is a lifetime limit, not per year. Ariel. (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citations, please; this is a reference desk. Here is the IRS's FAQ on gift taxes, with the helpful comment that "The laws on Estate and Gift Taxes are considered to be some of the most complicated in the Internal Revenue Code." The most familiar rule is the annual exclusion; as an individual, you can give someone up to US$13,000 per year, tax-free; but amounts above that are taxable. Subject, as mentioned above, to some of the most complicated tax laws in the US. In your example, the gifts are not monetary; but they are assessed at fair-market value as though they were. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada, on the other hand, most gifts are not taxable. As far as I can tell, in the scenario described income tax would be payable only if it was decided that the artist was conducting a de facto business and was in effect being paid for his work. (In which case, the fact that the payment was non-monetary would not save him). --Anonymous, 20:55 UTC, October 6, 2010.

In the UK the main implication of gifts is for inheritance tax. One may give up to £3000 away in any tax year (plus various allowances for smaller gifts) without a problem; above this limit a gift is a "potentially exempt transfer", and if the donor dies within seven years of making it there will be tax implications for their estate, and potentially for the recipient. However, regular gifts made out of surplus income, that do not diminish the value of an estate, are exempt from this rule. Theoretically therefore, your artist or guru could do very nicely out of a group of benefactors giving him £3000 a year each, or one multimillionaire keeping him in luxury with the spare change from his back pocket. However, the taxman is not stupid, and has the power to audit your affairs and examine your means of support. If you are awash with donated cash but declaring no income, and you are not a registered charity or other approved gift recipient, he might look closely at what your donors are receiving in return for their gifts. If, for example, they receive spiritual guidance or nice paintings, he is within his rights to attempt to reclassify your relationship as a business one and the "gifts" as payment for goods or services, no matter how you argued otherwise. He would also look at what state benefits you are claiming. Since these are mostly means-tested, and would take account of your gifted income in any calculations, it is likely that an artist or spiritual advisor supported by benefactors would avoid claiming state benefits in order to escape accusations of benefit fraud, which is a serious offence. The taxman would almost certainly regard a failure to claim unemployment benefits, coupled with your lack of any assets that would generate an investment income (which would be taxable), as supporting evidence that gifts from your admirers could be taxed as income. Ka renjc 21:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the guy is not an artist who produces anything tangible or measurable, but a freelance guru whose contribution to his benefactors is invisible, unquantifiable, arguably illusory, but (as far as the benefactors are concerned) indispensable. He and his benefactors would certainly bristle at the suggestion that he is a businessman peddling a trade. Also for the sake of argument, let's assume that his teachings are innocuous and his police record nonexistent. I imagine that such cases must arise from time to time. In certain immigrant communities, for instance, a religious official may be imported from the metropole and supported essentially by charity. My uninformed intuition is that such a person would be accorded some special tax status, since he closely resembles a dependant, except that he's an able-bodied adult not necessarily related by blood to his benefactors. I wonder, could a wealthy man adopt his priest/rabbi/swami as a dependent? LANTZY ^TALK 04:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, your "religious guy" proposal falls into a special category because the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment provides for a separation of church and state, which has been interpreted as meaning that a valid religious organization isn't taxed by the Internal Revenue Service. Here is the IRS's FAQ index page for churches; a "religious organization" has to qualify as a particular type of charitable organization in order to qualify for tax-exempt status. Your "religious guy" might well not qualify, though; these bureaucratic hoops exist in order to reduce fraud from people trying to avoid paying tax by just claiming they are priests or swamis or shamans. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... and the treatment of religions and charities is very similar in the UK. Interestingly, the Druids have just been recognised as a religious organisation by the Charity Commission and so qualify for tax exemption[1]. Any organisation that exists for the benefit of others (and does not significantly benefit those who run it) can register as a charity, or can qualify for tax exemption without registration if its income is below £5000 per year. An individual receiving large donations would not qualify and might be investigated by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. Dbfirs 22:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for sci-fi novel set on the moon in a socialist society

I've been racking my brain for the title of sci-fi book I read in the 80s, which I think was pretty old then, going by the state of the book, so I would guess that it was maybe from the 1960s. It was set on the Moon, where a number of people had left Earth to set up a socialist society. The main character was born there, in a sort of kibbutz, and was raised with a group of children, only occasionally seeing his father and never his mother, until he was an adult. He grew up to be a mathematician, and there was a famine, but because they needed him to be able to work, he got more food than other people, which made him feel terribly guilty. He eventually travelled to Earth, but was disgusted by their profligacy and waste. Any ideas? Snorgle (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I've read this novel too, but cannot remember the title. However, it does sound like something Robert A. Heinlein might have written, perhaps The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress or Stranger in a Strange Land. Alternatively, this page may provide you with additional hints. Astronaut (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be thinking of Ursula K. Le Guin's award-winning 1974 novel The Dispossessed. She gave it the subtitle "An Ambiguous Utopia" -- it is often categorised as anarchist, but I can see why you might think it socialist. The main character, Shevek, is a physicist, who travels from his moon Anarres to the mother planet Urres, divided in a Cold War-like situation between a hedonistic, materialistic "West" and a dour, authoritarian "USSR"-substitute. There is a famine, you remember correctly, and he has to allocate workers to tasks, making him feel responsible for their deaths. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure you're right -- the description definitely sounds like The Dispossessed, one of the few sci-fi books I've ever read (and therefore not one I'd forget). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you've got it, but on the off chance that that isn't it, Michael Swanwick's excellent Vacuum Flowers features a socialist Mars, which this review entertainingly describes as "People's Mars, an unappealing collectivist state based on classical Sparta". But that's much later than your timeframe. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 01:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the Dispossessed is right, but it was a while ago that I read it, so I may have misremembered certain aspects. It's available cheaply enough second-hand on Amazon, so I may buy it to check as it looks like a good read anyway. It's definitely not the Moon is a Harsh Mistress or Stranger in a Strange Land. If anyone else has any more suggestions, feel free to chip in! Snorgle (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like "The Fury From Earth" (1963 or 1964 novel) by Dean McLaughlin, except for "the Moon" read "the planet Venus." Otherwise, it matches, though "socialist" might not be perfectly accurate for the deprivation-based society on Venus in the novel. 63.17.65.17 (talk) 04:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen Original Colonies

Okay, I've got a question...

I have to find the order in which the 13 colonies were founded, their founder, the date they were founded, their first town, why it was settled (either religion or profit), and the nationality (like dutch, english, etc.).

So, I'm stuck on the order and the dates. You find the dates, you find the order, right?

Well, I've been to so many different websites and so many different books (yes, oh my god someone still reads books) but all of them have different dates! I've even looked here, but it says Massachusetts was founded in 1691, and thissays it was founded in 1620, and my history book says it was founded sometime between 1620 and 1630! And whenever I try to find the specific founder, like for Virginia, I get John Smith, John Rolfe, or London Company.

I haven't even tried searching for first towns yet, or anything else...

Can anybody tell me WHERE I can find ACCURATE answers for this?! I'm going insane! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokegeek42 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there may not be a single answer. If you look at our article Massachusetts, you find:

"The first English settlers in Massachusetts, the Pilgrims, established their settlement at Plymouth in 1620"
" ... Puritans who established the Massachusetts Bay Colony at present-day Boston in 1630"
"In 1691, Massachusetts became a single colony, combining Plymouth Colony and Massachusetts Bay Colony (along with present-day Maine)"

So which is the date of foundation, 1620, 1630 or 1691? --ColinFine (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's all in how you define "founded." For example, was a given city founded when it was first settled, when it incorporated as a village or when it attained city status? Massachusetts celebrated its "Tercentenary" in 1930, so that indicates they chose to use 1630 as their year of birth. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your teacher is making something of a mistake. The number of English colonies in North America, or even on the east coast of North America, varied over time as colonies were founded, merged, and divided. The case of Massachusetts is a perfect illustration of this. It started out as at least two colonies, Plymouth Colony and Massachusetts Bay Colony. (Before Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded, there were the earlier colonies of the Dorchester Company.) Likewise, what later became Connecticut was originally three separate colonies: Saybrook Colony, New Haven Colony, and Connecticut Colony. On the other hand, Delaware started as part of the colony of Pennsylvania and only formally separated during the 1700s. However, the area that became Delaware was settled by Europeans (before it was Delaware) much earlier, in fact by Swedish colonists. However, that Swedish colony had little or no relation as a continuous entity to the much later colony of Delaware. So, it doesn't make sense to ask when each of the 13 colonies that subscribed to the Articles of Confederation in the 1770s was founded, as if each of them had a united and unbroken history from the time of their first settlement or the first founding of an English colony on their 1770s soil. (Incidentally, those "original" 13 colonies were not the only English colonies in eastern North America in the 1770s. Quebec, Florida, and Nova Scotia were all English colonies at the time. Nova Scotia in particular was no different in status other English colonies in North America as of, say, 1770, so it is a mistake to refer to "the 13 colonies" at any date earlier than about 1775.) Marco polo (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Florida was two colonies at the time, East and West Florida. Nova Scotia, on the other hand, then included what was later the separate colony (and now Canadian province) of New Brunswick. As Marco said, merging and dividing. Incidentally, if you look at the Articles of Association (1774), you will see that Delaware is called "the three lower counties of Newcastle, Kent and Sussex on Delaware". That terminology is a relic of its separation from Pennsylvania earlier the same century: see Delaware#Colonial Delaware. --Anonymous, 08:15 UTC, October 7, 2010.

I'd also object to the requirement to classify colonies as founded for "either religion or profit". Certainly, the people who founded Plymouth Colony and Massachusetts Bay colony were motivated in large part by the desire for religious freedom. However, why didn't they confine themselves to the eastern coast of New England? Why did they go on to found the three colonies that came to be Connecticut? They had already attained religious freedom in Massachusetts. Although Connecticut is often classified as a "religious" colony because it was founded by Puritans, in fact a major motivation of the colonists who moved there from Massachusetts was to gain access to the lucrative trade in furs along the Connecticut River. Likewise, Maryland was founded by Cecilius Calvert, 2nd Baron Baltimore both as a haven for Catholics and as a commercial venture. North Carolina, another of the supposedly commercial colonies, was also a refuge for people fleeing religious persecution in Europe. Marco polo (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the people who founded Providence Plantations were fleeing the religious persecution in Massachusetts Bay Colony... The Pilgrim Fathers didn't go to America in search of religious freedom, they went in search of somewhere they could be the persecutors. DuncanHill (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is no definitive way to answer these questions, so just pick whatever founding event you like best. There are many reasonable choices to choose from. Some of the colonies' origins are a bit tricky, with several reasonable "founding events" over long time periods. In particular, Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, and New Hampshire could reasonably be said have been founded in many different ways.

I couldn't help but write an off-the-cuff list of founding dates/events, and first towns. It could be done in many other ways though.

Virginia: founded 1607 (Jamestown established); first town Jamestown.

New York: founded 1614 (as New Netherland); first town Fort Nassau (1614) (now Albany).

Massachusetts: founded November 11, 1620 (Mayflower Compact signed); first town Plymouth.

Maryland: founded June 20, 1632 (charter granted); first town St. Mary's City (1634).

Rhode Island: founded 1636 (Roger Williams establishes Providence); first town Providence.

Delaware: founded 1638 (as New Sweden); first town Fort Christina (now Wilmington).

Connecticut: founded January 24, 1639 (Fundamental Orders of Connecticut adopted); first town Windsor (1633). [alternatively, Fort Huys de Goede Hoop, founded 1623]

South Carolina: founded as Province of Carolina in 1663 (Lords Proprietors receive charter); first town Albemarle Settlements [alternatively, Charleston, 1670, first in what is now South Carolina--earlier settlements were in what's now North Carolina].

New Jersey: founded 1664 (Duke of York's grant to Lord Berkeley and Sir George Carteret); first town Pavonia/Communipaw (about 1630-1634) (now Jersey City).

Pennsylvania: founded March 4, 1681 (charter granted); first town Philadelphia.

New Hampshire: founded May 14, 1692 (Charter of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay inaugurated); first town Dover (1623). [alternately, founded 1629 (Council for New England grant to John Mason)]

North Carolina: founded 1729 (Lord Proprietors bought out by The Crown, royal colony established); first town Albemarle Settlements.

Georgia: founded June 1732 (charter granted); first town Savannah.

I realize this list is rather a hodge-podge, sometimes citing charters and sometimes settlements as founding events, among other things. It might be more sensible to use the dates the colonies were founded as English/British colonies, ignoring New Netherland and New Sweden. After all, there's quite a difference between New Sweden and the English colony of Delaware. Also, some of my "first towns" are more trading posts or forts than towns. There's definitely no single correct list (and don't trust my list anyway--I probably made some mistakes). As for where to find information, I don't know of a single source. Wikipedia's various pages on the subject are of mixed quality. This website has a lot of useful colonial charters and grants. The question about whether founded for "either religion or profit" is way to black-and-white for me to even want to think about. I'd want to say "some of both" for all 13 colonies. Pfly (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SAT essay revisited

Hey, it's me again (again). I kind of tagged this on my last question (thnx for the responses btw) but I didn't really get a satisfactory answer, so I'll clarify. What if I am confronted with a question which is really boring and I cannot think of good examples to support either viewpoint? Also, would it be to my advantage to "lie" in the essay, i.e., fabricate personal experiences and books to create "ideal" examples supporting my argument, seeing as SAT essays are not graded on content. Thanks again. 23:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)24.92.78.167 (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fake anecdotes are kind of pointless. They won't convince anyone, no reader would be dumb enough to care if they were real, and fake sounds fake. Personally I would wonder how effective a personal anecdote would be for arguing anything of that sort, even if it were real. Despite the predilection of modern educational systems to teach high schoolers that the entire world is interested in their "emoting", it really is not very interesting to read, because obviously most high schoolers have pretty uninteresting experiences at this point in their lives. (And if you don't actually have the experience of having saved everyone's life on your plane which crashed in the Andes, don't pretend that you did. Your faking it will just look silly.)

As for boring, it's as boring as you make it. You want it to be exciting? Push it to the extremes. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Boring? No way! What happens if you push it all the way as far as it'll go? "There are people in the world who like to be stepped on by women in high heels. Should those people step on others with high heels?" Generally speaking, not connected with the SAT, the trick in writing anything that is going to show strong reasoning ability is to push the logic as far as it'll go. Find the total boundaries of sense without going over them. Especially if it takes you into awkward territory, like concluding that the Golden Rule is ridiculous and a bad idea anyway, after all these years. The entire trick of the essays is for you to be able to see and find and argue the interesting point in what is probably a boring question. That's what separates you from the crowd. Try to always be arguing for something controversial. If the straightforward answer is obvious, see if you can push it entirely in the other direction. "Nuclear proliferation is a good idea, because..." At the very least, it won't be boring. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't think what you write about really matters that much. Remember, the essay is to test how well you ~~right~~ write, not really how much you know about history, or whatever. I read an article (when the essays were first introduced) that said that the length of the essays correlated very well with the score. They also made the point that you should include "facts" to back up your points; it shows that you know how to form an argument. The article made a point of saying that whether the facts were true or not did not affect the essay's score; it's to test how well you write, not to see how much you know about whatever the prompt is. Buddy431 (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not disagree too much with either of the two comments already made. But if you are going to try to argue for the SAT that the Golden Rule sucks or that "nuclear proliferation is a good idea"... well, you had better present your argument extremely well in such cases as those. But if you can take a boring question and develop it in an interesting or unusual way, and do so well, without crossing any boundaries that you shouldn't be in the context of taking that test, then that is certainly what you should try to do. Do you have an example of a "boring" SAT essay question, and can you say specifically in terms of that example what approach you think you would try to take with it at this point? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think it is easier to come up with interesting arguments that are extremely counter-intuitive, than it is to take something straightforward and come up with a new way of arguing it. But that's just me. Play to your strengths. I don't know how the SAT essays are, but the GRE essays were pretty dull, things like, "Some people have suggested that all foreign travel will prove unnecessary because of the internet. What do you think about that?" I think when I took it I answered pretty conservatively, but that's also because the GRE essays are calibrated for engineers and people who aren't use to writing at length in such a fashion. If I were worried that I would need to stand out (rather than just not have any errors), I would have said, "indeed, travel is crap, let's all join the hivemind." --Mr.98 (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English noble families

It seem like almost all the noble families of England who held peers and land were of Norman French origin. Did any of the old Anglo-Saxon families or Danish families from the Viking Age survived pass the Norman conquest?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Norman conquest of England article certainly makes it sound as if few, if any, did. (Whether any pre-conquest aristocratic line continued in any way at all in the aristocracy past that time seems possible, but would be for someone more knowledgeable about it than I to say). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt some of the families survived. However, William I dispossessed nearly all of the Anglo-Saxon nobility and awarded their lands to his Norman fighters. So those dispossessed families would have survived, if they were lucky, as yeoman farmers, or else as bonded serfs. Marco polo (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who were they? I never actually heard of any Anglo-Saxon noble familys besides the Godwins.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's because they lacked surnames. Their descendants would have been commoners who adopted surnames later in the Middle Ages. Marco polo (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)You'd want to do some research into such anglosaxon titles/concepts as Ealdorman (originally equivalent to a Dux (duke), but later evolved into the title Earl (count)) and Thegn (the anglosaxon middle nobility, probably roughly equivalent to Barons). We even have a categories titled Category:Anglo-Saxon ealdormen and Category:Anglo-Saxon thegns which would give you some start into your research. --Jayron32 01:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so unrelated to the original question - I saw "Ealdor" there and thought of Merlin (TV series). D'you think that's where the name of Merlin's homevillage came from? 184.97.159.46 (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some Anglo-Saxon nobles who survived the battle were Edwin, Earl of Mercia and Morcar of Northumbria. There was also Edgar Atheling, pretty much the only member of the royal family left after the battle. There was resistance in the north from people like Hereward the Wake, but whether or not he was noble is hard to say. William's Harrowing of the North certainly reduced the number of families who could have held land. So, the short answer is basically yes, all the landowners were Normans because the Anglo-Saxon/Anglo-Danish ones were all killed or exiled. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't only the North that was harried; see the Battle of Exeter (a bit of a muddled article - see the talk page). Alansplodge (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a tradition that the Howards of Norfolk descend from a Saxon named Hereward; although the Howards didn't become the dukes of Norfolk until John Howard in the 15th century and by then had already intermarried with the Anglo-Norman aristocracy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This document prepared for a college-level course seems to give a good overview of what happened to the Anglo-Saxons after the conquest. It makes specific references to Gospatric, Earl of Northumbria, his successor Waltheof, Earl of Northumbria - described in our article as "last of the Anglo-Saxon earls" - as well as Edwin, Earl of Mercia and his brother Morcar as already mentioned. It also makes the point that many of the Saxon noblemen left for exile, some to join the Varangian Guard in Constantinople. Edgar the Ætheling, proclaimed as king by the English immediately after the Battle of Hastings, survived into old age under William and his successors, and his sister Margaret became queen of Scotland. Her daughter Matilda in turn married William the Conqueror's son, who became Henry I of England. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clan Lindsay, and therefore the Earl of Crawford is said to be of Anglo-Saxon descent, though that is disputed. The Earl of Kintore through the title of Lord Falconer of Halkerton is said to be of Anglo-Saxon descent. 216.93.213.191 (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to James Lees-Milne, writing in the 18th edition of Burke's Peerage/Burke's Landed Gentry, three English families of the present day can be traced back through the male line to pre-Conquest Anglo-Saxons: the Swintons, the Berkeleys, and the Ardens. Many other families make the same claim, but usually can't back the claim up with convincing evidence. Antiquary (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 7

FLOSSIE

Resolved

(This is one of those tip-of-my-brain things). What is the actual name of the insurgent/resistance/militant group that I'm misremembering as "FLOSSIE"? Part of me thinks it's somehow French, or French-African, and I know it's not FiFI or FAF; I think it's phonetically "flossy", or something very like that. Sorry I can't be of more help (if I could, I'm confident I'd have remembered it by now). Would that we had a List of insurgent groups with harmless-sounding names article (FRELIMO sounds like a circus clown, and Sendero Luminoso sound much nicer than they really were, I fear). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 00:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I found it (Front for the Liberation of Occupied South Yemen - FLOSY). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 00:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. Paul (Stansifer) 14:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which country is the best to live in?

--70.245.189.11 (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That, uh, kinda depends on what you're looking for. → ROUX ₪ 00:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality-of-life index lists the Republic of Ireland (as of 2005; given Ireland's recent travails I doubt that this is still valid
Satisfaction with Life Index lists Denmark
Nonlinear quality of life index lists Luxembourg
List of countries by Human Development Index lists Norway

Nordic countries in general fare well in many of these indices. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 01:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, those same countries tend to fall low on the "Lack of blistering cold and paralyzing snowstorms" scale. --Jayron32 01:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on what you're looking for, the human development indexes make several value assumptions. A billionaire and a unemployed person are going to be looking for different kind of government services. A libertarian and a traditionalist muslim are going to be looking for different kinds of social norms. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to think in terms of cities rather than countries, in which case Vienna regularly comes out on top, see the results of this survey. --Viennese Waltz 07:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People in Costa Rica "report the highest life satisfaction". [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Geneaology

Does the fact that a Chinese person have the same surname mean they all originate from the first who held that surname? I know it isn't the case for the more popular names but out of all the people with the surname Liu how many were descendants of the Emperors of the Han Dynasty?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. Ignoring those who take on a family name through adoption or marriage, there are many examples of a person changing his or her family name, such as Sun Tzu/Sun Wu. Further, family names used to be allowed only by the rich and powerful. Commoners only had a given name. If a surname was required, it was the lord of the land in which the commoner lived. A western similarity would be slaves that took on their master's last name. For a lot more detail, see Chinese surname. -- kainaw ™ 01:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Santorini (?) painting

Resolved

Dear Wikipedians:

I remember seeing a famous painting of Santorini (?: I am not sure if the locale of the painting points exactly to Santorini) in one of the poster sales at my university a few years ago.

The poster is divided roughly into three parts -- a blue sky stretches across the top, a bunch of white adobe dome houses with some of them having arched entry way (without the blue tops of typical Santorini churches) to the bottom left, and an endless stretch of blue mediterranean sea to the bottom right. The time seems to be a lazy afternoon. There seems to be a series of broad terrace steps leading down and around the white adobe dome houses, the terrace steps take a turn around the white adobe dome houses and disappears around the far end of the houses.

I am having real trouble finding this painting on the Internet. I think it should be a very famous painting, made perhaps by a 19th or 20th century impressionist/modern art painter. However, all the Santorini paintings I have Googled either have the houses on the wrong side (right side), too few/no/blue adobe domes, rocky lands visible beyond the sea, no blue sky, or missing the terrace.

Could anyone kindly help point me to the right painting?

Thanks,

174.88.242.103 (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Santorini is a popular place to paint. Could it be a Behrens, perhaps? (Mediteranean; "neo-Impressionist"; popular in "poster" form). Like [3], or maybe [4]...? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WikiDao. Although not what I remembered, but that was about as near as it gets. Maybe I remembered the posters wrong, because it has been a long time since I last saw the poster. 128.100.113.126 (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help! :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SCOTUS rulings.

So the Supreme Court (U.S.) heard oral arguments in Phelps v. Snyder today. When will the ruling be issued (I mean in a typical case, obviously no one here has a working crystal ball)? Are the rulings released at the end of the term, or as soon as they're done? How long does it typically take to finalize a ruling? Buddy431 (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the court's web site (supremecourt.gov), the "Visitor's Guide to Oral Argument" page says "No one knows exactly when a decision will be handed down by the Court in an argued case, nor is there a set time period in which the Justices must reach a decision. However, all cases argued during a term of Court are decided before the summer recess begins, usually by the end of June." The "Visitor's Guide to the Supreme Court" document on the same site is a bit more specific: it says "In mid-May, after the oral argument portion of the Term has concluded, the Court takes the Bench Mondays at 10 a.m. for the release of orders and opinions. This practice continues until all the cases heard during the Term are decided, usually the last week in June." --Anonymous, 08:37 UTC, October 7, 2010.

The time for decision varies, affected by such factors as the complexity of the case, how many justices will write opinions, and the court's schedule. Here the case is quite complex and we can be reasonably confident that there will be more than one opinion. I would guess that a decision will come down in three to six months. John M Baker (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Life Insurance claims India

How do they pay life insurance claims in India, given the amount of potential fraudulent claims, non disclosure at the time of application, the inabililty to confirm date of birth, death or even identity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aneelr (talk • contribs) 07:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are an Indian, you should know the answer - It is single word mantra : रिशवत Jon Ascton (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All life insurance companies in India have to comply with the strict regulations laid out by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDA). Wikipedia has an article on Life insurance in India. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legality of Prescription medicine purchases in Canada by Americans

Is it illegal for Americans to drive to Canada, purchase a car load of prescription medicine and return to the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aneelr (talk • contribs) 07:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, The Reference Desk does not ansewer legal questions please see the rules at the top of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.167.165.2 (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, I think it would be safe to point out that it would not be possible to legitimately "purchase a carload of prescription medicine" unless you had a carload of prescriptions with you. --Anon, 08:40 UTC, October 7, 2010.

Oh no, that doesn't sound right. Medicines typically come in small boxes or bottles, but the prescriptions are only paper-thin and take up far less volume. You might need only a few shoe boxes full of scripts to get enough medicine to fill a car. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a lot of information on the subject at Online pharmacy#U.S. consumers. Ka renjc 14:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes drugs that are prescription in America are over-the-counter in Canada. Perhaps that's what the question is about? APL (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the short answer to the original post "Yes, it is illegal"? I know that UK citizens travelling to the US are warned against taking certain over the counter remedies with them, notably those that contain codeine. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be more about the state-controlled price of prescription drugs in Canada, which can be considerably lower than for the same drugs in the USA. According to the article section I've linked to above, Canadian law allows pharmacies to get a US prescription rewritten by a Canadian doctor, with or without an examination depending on the circumstances, permitting them then to issue the drugs legally against the Canadian version of the prescription. This seems to have been going on for years informally, on a relatively small scale, with mail-order and the internet now making it more widespread and organized. You can find varying opinions online about the legality of importing drugs into the USA after buying them in this way, and it appears to be a complex issue. Wikipedia cannot offer legal advice or opinions on this hypothetical situation, so if the information in our article on the subject is insufficient, you should consult an expert in US law. Ka renjc 15:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Codeine is illegal in Greece.
Sleigh (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. law prohibits the re-importation of prescription drugs, but the government doesn't prosecute people who transport small amounts for personal use, and lots of people do it -- some members of Congress have even taken busloads of seniors to Canada to get medicine. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infringement of persona -- astronaut sues singer

Does Wikipedia have an article discussing infringement of persona? Regarding Bruce McCandless II#Personal, I don't understand what case could be made against someone for using a government photo of an astronaut doing his job, particularly when, as in this case, no features of the astronaut are visible through the helmet's visor. Might Wikipedia be restricted from using certain "work of U.S. government, and thus copyright free" images for fear of infringing a subject's persona? -- 115.67.106.121 (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of copyright, it's personality rights. In looking at this album cover, someone might (that's the claim of the lawsuit, at least) believe that McCandless was involved with the album, had some control over its content, endorsed it, or was getting paid from its proceeds. Wikipedia is on pretty solid ground using a photo of a living person in their own article. If we did something pretty obviously crazy, like we sold "Wikipedia Brand Chocolate Biscuits" and put photos of Brad Pitt on the packet, that would be the kind of thing we'd get sued over. But if we did something like make a Wikibook of famous actors, which had a montage of their photos on the front, that very likely would be fine. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 11:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personality rights are more vague and problematic than (the already vague and problematic) copyright law. Anyway, we'll see how that particular case resolves in the courts. It looks awfully unlikely to succeed to me, but I'm not well-versed in personality rights case law. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finlay McWalter is correct; "rights of publicity" is the more common term. The key concept is that, in the US at least, individuals get to control the use of their image for commercial purposes. This is by law in some states, and by court precedent in other states. If you'd like to get outraged over a rights-of-publicity court case, see Vanna White v. Samsung, in which Ms. White won a lawsuit and an appeal against Samsung because they featured an advertisement in which a robot with a blonde wig turned letters. Another interesting case was when Tom Waits sued Frito-Lay and won over US$2 million when, after Waits had turned down Frito-Lay's request to license one of his songs for an ad, the company hired a soundalike impersonator for the ad. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"bootmakers to the kings" in the film The Good Shepherd (by R.De Niro, 2006)

Hello, can you tell me what Pr Fredericks hints at when, going meekly to his death, he ties up Wilson's shoelace & says "bootmakers to the kings" . Somebody here answered previously to that by (could'nt find again the archive, sorry) : "it's an allusion about humble people being the weary soles of the powerfull..." Don't you think it rather looks like a quotation ? But where from ? The Bible ? Shakespeare ?. Thanks +++ beforehand Arapaima (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You asked exactly the same question (slightly differently worded) just a day or so ago; see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Poetry ref. in the film "The Good Sheperd" (by de Niro, 2006). Whatever answers we can provide will be given there. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Or not, apparently. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So this has been asked and answered before, and I haven't even seen the movie so I don’t know the context. But I’ll go ahead and put in my two euro cents anyway: It looks to me like something a bootmaker would put on his advertisements. There’s a story, though, that the king of France was once so broke he couldn’t pay his bootmaker. And when the bootmaker refused to extend credit, the king had to go around in old, broken boots with the soles worn through. That’s one way to think about it: a king’s majesty depends on humble servants, and he scorns them at his peril.--Rallette (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? where'd you hear that story? In an English context, see John Lobb Bootmaker, since Wikipedia doesn't have an article on George Hoby.--Wetman (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lobb's display the Royal Warrant for the Duke of Edinburgh and the Prince of Wales [5], and previously for Edward VII and George V [6]. George VI must have taken his business elsewhere. Alansplodge (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The story is at least here, in "Joan of Arc" by Lord Ronald Gower:

"The yet uncrowned King of France (Charles VII) regarded the chances of being able to hold his own in France as highly problematical. He had doubts as to his legitimacy. Financially, so low were his affairs that even the turnspits in the palace were clamouring for their unpaid wages. The unfortunate monarch had already sold his jewels and precious trinkets. Even his clothes showed signs of poverty and patching, and to such a state of penury was he reduced that his bootmaker, finding that the King was unable to pay him the price of a new pair of boots, and not trusting the royal credit, refused to leave the new boots, and Charles had to wear out his old shoe-leather. All that remained in the way of money in the royal chest consisted of four gold 'écus.' To such a pitch of distress had the poor King, who was contemptuously called by the English the King of Bourges, sunken."

I have no idea if that particular detail is actually true.--Rallette (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. That's got the right king at least, and the source gives the anecdote perspective. Perhaps depending on Lord Ronald Gower's colourful detail for actual history is like depending on Alma-Tadema for daily life in Rome.--Wetman (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea whether it is intended or not, but the first thing that sprang to my mind was as a euphemism of "cobblers to the king. -- Q Chris (talk) 06:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you most kindly, gentleladies & gentlemen, now I have my chest unburdenned~so its neither the Bible nor Will S. ....Arapaima (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a factoid is that the Bootmakers to the King, currently John Lobb Shoes, are said to have earned their royal warrant initially at least in part by putting secret compartments in the heels of shoes for people to hide information or valuables. Just a factoid but also interesting - shoes with secret messages for those in high places. See the book on the history of the shoe company http://www.amazon.com/The-last-shall-first-bootmakers/dp/0241022738 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinlobb (talk • contribs) 19:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for plays that...

...start off with an exchange between two or so minor characters that foreshadow what will happen ahead. Hamlet's a good example. Thanks! ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 12:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Macbeth is another. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 12:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry V another. --Sean 15:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coriolanus, Shakespeare's most underrated play. Also Julius Caesar -- by the end of the first scene there's some foreshadowing. Antandrus (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oedipus the King for an older example. See also our articles on foreshadowing (and Chekhov's gun for a similar narrative technique). ---Sluzzelin talk 15:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TvTropes has a predictably enormous list of examples for foreshadowing, though you'd need to read through to find out which ones are based on an exchange between two characters. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opie wants a play. --Sean 17:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Persians by Aeschylus, if Darius' mother counts as a minor character. Actually probably all the Greek dramas do this, they were pretty big on that sort of thing. (The Persians is also the first play to depict a ghost on stage!) Adam Bishop (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might have a bit of a problem finding modern plays that do this - the trend in the theater has been towards smaller, more intimate plays that lack minor characters. Bertold Brecht is the only modern author I can think of off hand who does 'scope' plays (I'm trying to remember how The Caucasian Chalk Circle starts - it might be an example of what you're looking for). --Ludwigs2 18:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually interested mostly in modern plays because I couldn't think of any. But thanks for all the responses! ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 19:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this any use? Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead 92.15.17.139 (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

State Designations

I know there are four US states known as commonwealths...Virgina, Kentucky, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. I think all of the other states are just known as "states" However, I was asked last night if Texas had a different designation from just "state". Does anyone know the designations of all of the states? Is Texas known as something different like "Republic"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.226.58.239 (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per our article on Texas, there is no particular unusual designation. Note, however, that "commonwealth" as used by Virginia, etc, is a legally distinctionless term on par with Texas being the "Lone Star State" or Rhode Island being the "State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations". Legally, all the states are states, regardless of the preferred nomenclature. This should be contrasted with other commonwealths of the US, where the term describes Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands. Note that the Republic of Texas is a separate political entity, which preceded Texas' statehood (and preceded its incorporation into the US). — Lomn 17:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Today, the official name of Texas is simply "the State of Texas". Marco polo (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, the State of California's flag bears a California golden bear over the the legend "California Republic" modeled on the Bear Flag of the very transient republic set up for a few weeks of 1846 in Sonoma by settlers rebelling against Mexico. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Texas carries several demonyms which are unique to the state. e.g. Texian, Texican, or Tejano (although the latter two are reserved for Texans with hispanic roots). Texas does indeed have a unique process of becoming a state, with the joint resolution passed in 1845, Texas was offered some abilities which no other state before or after had. These included retention of public lands and having the ability to be separated into up to five states. Also Texas completely skipped the precedent of first becoming a territory before being offered statehood. And finally, The U.S. promised that the border dispute concerning the Nueces Strip would be resolved by The U.S., which led to The Mexican-American War, The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and, ultimately, The American Civil War. schyler (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn't Iran nuked the US?

Fundamentalist Islamic Extremists definitely don't care about self-preservation, so it'd seem that mutually assured destruction wouldn't deter Iran from using nuclear weapons. --70.245.189.11 (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iran has 75 million people, very many of them not Islamic Extremists. It also has a reasonably working government which is, while far from perfect, much more stable and democratic than most other states in the region. Why would it bomb the US, even assuming it had the technical capability? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)There's no evidence that Iran has nuclear weapons and good evidence pointing the other way - that they don't. So that would be one impediment. And then, you're tarring all Muslims with the same brush, which is as outrageous a thing to do as it is ignorant. The fact of suicide bombers has nothing to do with the foreign policy of Iran. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that most Muslims aren't extremists, but the ones who control Iran's government certainly are. --70.245.189.11 (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may be how it looks from Springfield, Missouri. And certainly it is in part a theocracy. Whether it is extreme in an Al Qaedao sort of fashion is very much to be doubted, not least since that organisation appears to be Sunni Muslim, whilst Iran is predominantly Shia. I'm guessing those sorts of subtleties don't travel so well. Other than serially pissing off the USA, wishing for the same sorts of armaments that Israel already possesses, and having a gobby leader with very controversial views, what leads you to conclude that the Iranian government are extremists? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Iran has a bit of "democratiness" in the same fashion as "truthiness" is related to truth. I understand your point of trying to correct the OP in his gross misunderstanding of the Islamic world, but be careful not to overcorrect and give the impression that Iran is like Canada or Sweden, only a bit more muslim. It isn't. While Iran and Al-Queda are unlikely to get along, for the sectarian reasons you note, that doesn't mean that Iran does not sponsor Shia militant groups, like Hezbollah. On the balance, Iran has had a destabilizing effect on places like Lebanon, which in many ways has been a proxy war for war with Israel. Iranian made weaponry is frequently found in the hands of Palestinian militias. Even internally, you can't say that Iran is a bastion of hope and liberty. It isn't. Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran makes it clear that Iran lacks many of the basic hallmarks of a democratic society, such as freedoms of religion, speech, or the press. On the balance, most Iranians who keep their head down and don't stir up trouble probably live pretty good lives with a decent standard of living, and are likely to be unmolested by the government. However, if you pick any random article from Category:Iranian reformists, it becomes clear that if you start to become critical of the Iranian government, things do not go well for you. --Jayron32 01:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think now you overcorrect a bit too much in the opposite direction. What you say about Iranian foreign influence can similarly be said about many other states (replace "Lebanon" with "Nicaragua", "Hezbollah" with "the Contras", "Palestinian militias" with nearly every non-communist guerilla movement). I agree that Iran is far from a perfect (or even reasonable) democracy, but there is little doubt that it more democratic than Syria, Pakistan or Saudi-Arabia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 06:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Pakistan ended it's last military dictatorship only 2 years ago. Apart from that, I think any difference in perception results from the fact that Pakistan, as a Western ally, receives far more favourable coverage in the press than Iran. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds reasonable enough. But even with Musharaff Pakistan wasn't as different from Iran (along some scale of "democracy-ness") than both are from The Kingdom. And Syria definitely gets bad press, but is still rather closer to the first two than to the third. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 07:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cycle short distances, and go long distances by train. How will you do without any gas? ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got spirit. ;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You get your ass hauled to the local supermarket in an intercontinental bomber? That has to be somewhat inconvenient, the jet exhaust will mess up your hair, and I really don't think you will get a better mileage out of that than out of your standard US commuter car. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. They don't have a nuclear bomb; 2. Even if they did, they couldn't get it to the United States with any ease (they have no planes or missiles that could reach the US; they'd have to smuggle it in on some kind of boat, which would be risky); and 3. In any case, the Iranian state (which extends well beyond the Mullahs or Ahmadinejad) is interested in its self-preservation, not its own self-destruction. The kinds of people who become suicide bombers are not the same kinds of people who organize suicide bombers. It's a crucial difference. People don't get elected (or steal elections, if you must) so that they can get themselves killed. They might want to send other people to their deaths (whether you want to draw a distinction here between regular warfare and suicide warfare is up to you), but they aren't putting themselves under fire, as a rule. If Iran wants a nuke (which they probably do, but they might not be actively working towards one at the moment), they want it so that they can have more power in their region and a guarantee against invasion, not as a first-strike weapon. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Springfield, the answer to your question is simple: the people who rule Iran do care about self-preservation! That some of them may have employed a suicide bomber from time to time does not mean that they themselves are in any hurry to blow themselves up! If it were otherwise, they have had ample opportunity by now to self-destruct in any number of ways (even if nuking the US isn't necessarily one of them, because both 1) they do not have the capacity to produce one themselves yet and 2) they did not happen at some point to pick up a loose suitcase nuke or two on the cheap from some cash-strapped Russian plutocrat.;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably an over-generalization, but suicide bombers tend not to be Shi'ite. In Iraq it always seems to be Sunnis blowing up Shi'ites. Whenever there is a suicide attack in Iran, Iran acts completely surprised and tries to blame it on the US. I don't think there is any state-sponsored suicide bombing in Iran. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See 1983 Beirut barracks bombing for the stand-out example. Admittedly Shiʻas seem less likely (per capita...?) to be suicide bombers, and there is in fact a Shia fatwa out against the practice (for what that's worth). I was responding to the OP's link to the Suicide bombing article, in any case. I took the question to be something like "All Fundamentalist Islamist Extremists are suicide bombers; Iran is Fundamentalist Islamist Extremist; therefore, why hasn't Iran nuked the US?" (which does seem more-or-less internally consistent, at least;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of this thread, apart from editors offering speculation and opinions about an event which has not taken place?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had answered the question ("Springfield, the answer to your question is simple: the people who rule Iran do care about self-preservation!") and then I made a few somewhat off-topic clarifications (like this one). Why do you ask? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ask because normally these kind of hot topic discussions get way out of hand and usually result in pointless arguing and insults being exchanged amongst editors.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well then let me say "السلام عليكم" right now to all my fellow editors. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 09:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll gladly add Shalom aleichem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me include a classic Mick Jagger quote: "Brothers, sisters, why are we fighting? Cool out, c'mon. Get into the groove, just relax".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, Jeanne, this has seemed a remarkably peaceful discussion compared to some I've seen recently (like when I asked at the Sci desk how likely it was for the world to be strewn with strategically pre-placed nukes like Easter eggs!;).

But do you know the Velvet Underground? "Let it be good / do what you should / you know it'll be alright..." :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that even if Ahmednijhad (or however it is spelled) could guarantee his personal survival of a US retaliation, being president of a radioactive parking lot isn't all that much fun, so the assumption that deterrence does not apply is not really true. Googlemeister (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's spelled I'm a dinner jacket.Itsmejudith (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess people also forget that the development of nuclear weapons in Iran would never be about bombing the United States itself. They don't have any rocket that could reach the US, for one thing. But they are already surrounded - in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in any other country that stations American troops, and in Sunni countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia that are officially US allies (Iran does not even have any diplomatic ties with Egypt, and the Saudis are not very friendly to Iranian pilgrims to Mecca - some Iranian commandos tried to attack the city once, in the 70s). Nearby Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons already, and while Pakistan might be politically unstable, Iran is probably a lot more worried about Israel, which also has them (and aside from Iraq, the only one place where there are a lot of Shiites is Lebanon, where Hezbollah gets a lot of support from Iran). So this isn't really about Iran vs. the US or one of them nuking the other, but it doesn't help that US influence is everywhere in the area. Surely Iranian perceptions of the US are wrong, but does that matter? Are American perceptions of Iran any better? Given the original question, I would say obviously not. Geopolitics is hard, man, like high school math. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Los Angeles (my hometown), there are a lot of Iranian people. I used to meet them everywhere. Not all US citizens are insular and uninformed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a guess, most of them are people or descendants of people who emigrated when the Shah was overthrown. Do you think this is a representative sample?--Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they weren't descendants, they were people who left Iran in the 1970s. I once saw an anti-Shah protest in Beverly Hills back in 1979.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You look much younger! ;-) Seriously, that sample will be just as unrepresentative, if in another direction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is martyrdom for real, or just PR? My gut feeling is that these people who blow themselves up are just depressed people who see a chance to get $25,000 or so for their families, who are exploited by the wealthy. Which would mean that the elites of Iran or Pakistan will never turn shaheed with nuclear weapons, while Westerners have been giving terrorists a reverence they don't deserve. But has anyone proved the point? Wnt (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit more complicated; depending on the time/place/enemy, the people who sign up to be suicide bombers vary quite a bit. They're not always depressed, they're not always poor. (Consider how many of the lead 9/11 pilots were actually pretty well-educated, middle class, and lived in the West for long amounts of time.) But I do think the observation that states are unlikely to act this way is, so far as we can tell, usually on the mark. There certainly are examples of states (and individuals who head them) doing things which are recklessly dangerous or provoking or self-defeating because of bizarre ideologies or beliefs (both World Wars fall into this category more or less). But Iran, for all of its theocratic aspects and shady elections, is not a dictatorship of the same sort as Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany or Tsarist Russia or North Korea. It has a more complicated political structure and more checks than just the ayatollahs or the president. Its interest in nukes seems entirely rational and self-interested, even if not desirable from the point of view of most of the world. They want regional power, they want security against an American or Israeli attack, they want a deterrent against Israel. All of that is pretty straight-up rational actor game theory. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Life Insurance companies in Bermuda

Where can I get a list of life insurance companies registered in Bermuda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aneelr (talk • contribs) 22:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be what you are looking for? Battleaxe9872 ^{وکیپیڈیا} 22:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)Google is quite helpful in suggesting, for instance, http://www.bermuda-online.org/insurebm.htm --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 8

Infante

When was the first time in which the title Infante was officially used in Portugal, Castile, Leon, or Aragon? The article Infante doesn't say. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be tough to nail down, since the title grew organicly out of the language (Infante essentially means "child" or "infant"), rather than out of actual noble titles like Prince of Wales or Dauphin. The French equivalent of the title is Prince du Sang, which is not a title per se, but a class of nobility which can claim royal bloodlines, hence "Prince of the Blood". I would speculate that the original title was merely descriptive, something like "Children of The King", which was shortened to "Children" or "Infante" and formalized. Finding the exact date that happened would be very tricky because it would mean tracking down old documents and analyzing word usage over time to see when the term started to be applied. --Jayron32 01:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

property question

This might be a borderline legal question, but its purely hypothetical. Suppose a person was under investigation by the FBI and the FBI placed hidden microphones around his house. Also suppose that he found the devices. Would there be anything legally to stop him from selling the hardware on ebay? Googlemeister (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that the FBI would still consider it their (or tax payers) property as the haven't abandoned it. It is there legally if they sought a judicial warrant. They have just seized John Lennon's fingerprints --Aspro (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Your puzzling typo corrected --Anon, 22:40 UTC, October 8, 2010.)

By the time they're demanding it back, you probably ought to give it to them. --Sean 17:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is so legal that it may be illegal to answer it here. If the FBI caused some damage placing their microphones, such as drilling holes or stapling wires, a lawyer might turn that into a compensation claim. If the microphones are not labelled "Property of FBI" then the finder has Plausible deniability that they knew who had planted them. Then of course he/she can't sell them as "FBI microphones" on e-Bay. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only Illya Kuryakin used to hid them like that, which sounds as if they wanted it found, maybe to see his reaction. --Aspro (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Lost, mislaid, and abandoned property notes that in most common law jurisdictions like the US and Britain, the law says that the finder of an ostensibly mislaid or abandoned device is supposed to turn it into the authorities; the finder of such property doesn't get any title to the property if the owner can be located. Thus the finder can't turn around and sell them on eBay whether there is plausible deniability of the actual owner or not. The finder doesn't own the device. Conversion is what the finder would be sued for. A finder who sells lost property may also have committed a crime: Recently an Apple employee left a prototype iPhone 4 in a bar and a guy sold it to Gizmodo for US$5,000 so they could leak the info to the world. This article discusses how in California, the guy might be chargable with theft if he knew who the owner was likely to be. I realize the property was not actually lost by the FBI, but this is the closest information I could find. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think that the "turn it in" approach to mislaid and lost property is largely a statutory creation... at common law it was more open (but I might be very wrong about that). Abandon property is almost by definition for the taking (absent some other prohibition). The distinction between mislaid and lost property is more a question about whether you have to turn it in to if at all. As for the original question... I have no idea. I pity the attorney that has that case. Shadowjams (talk) 07:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Museums

What great and important artifacts have been lost due to poor handling by Museums, fire, or other events?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It happens all the time. Rare books in German library fire--Aspro (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of manuscripts were lost when the Cotton library caught fire (the only manuscript of Beowulf was singed but not destroyed). The Library of Alexandria was of course destroyed numerous times. Many ancient works of art and literature were looted or destroyed in the Siege of Constantinople in 1204, including the Imperial Library of Constantinople. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last stuffed dodo was discarded in a fire by the museum curator, who thought it was too moth-eaten to be worth saving. This link mentions that; I first heard about it in the The Book of General Ignorance. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the P. T. Barnum museum fire in 1865. Who knows what was really lost in that catastrophe. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might also be interested in our article on Nazi plunder. Dismas|^(talk) 18:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Amber Room. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 18:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Elgin marbles have suffered pretty badly in several botched cleaning attempts.--Rallette (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhas of Bamyan. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 19:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and let's not forget Robert Capa's D-Day photos that were ruined in the lab.--Rallette (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"French youth clean a cave and damage prehistoric art" [7] is a notable case from 1992. Authorities let "Eclaireurs de France " go into caves with 15000 year old paintings of bison in the grotto of Mayrieres and scrub the walls with steel brushes, obliterating some of the paintings. Olmec drawings from 1000 to 500 BC were similarly destroyed by foolish cleaning of walls in Mexico. It is common for overzealous conservators of paintings to "clean" them to make the colors brighter, thereby removing shading and details which were part of the original artist's intention. Afterwards everyone enthuses about how "bright and vivid" the images are now, supposing that and shadows were due to smoke and dirt. One interesting comparison showed a pair of paintings which were original a set. One had been kept in the US and had lots of "cleaning". In the US one, metal spear tips were just triangles on one color. In the European one, they looked more real and had detail. Critics complained about overrestoration of the Sistine Chapel frescos originally painted by Michelangelo, in which his own final layers of tone may have been removed to make the colors "bright". "Restorers" and "conservators" may sometimes have a vandalistic desire to have the world see their handiwork in place of that of the original artist, and claim a mystical ability to tell who applied which layer of paint. Overrestoration is a permanent cultural loss. In New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art City art museum, in 2002 an important 15th century marble statue of Adam by Tullio Lombardo was destroyed by the collapse of a plywood base. The statue fell to the floor and shattered while the museum was closed. [8] I was grateful it did not fall over while I was standing next to it a week earlier, since I'm sure the Museum would have loved to have a scapegoat! At the same museum, a terra-cotta relief depicting Saint Michael, made in 1475 by Andrea della Robbia, fell off the wall and smashed in 2008. The statue smashed in 2002 has not been restored for viewing yet. Careless display of art can provide years of lucrative work for a restorer with a gluepot and some marble dust. Most of the early motion pictures were lost because they were on celluloid film stock which deteriorated. They needed to be copied onto modern film stock or digitally scanned. More recent color films have often deteriorated badly due to poor storage conditions. Books printed since the 1850's on acid paper crumble to nothing on library shelves unless temperature and humidity are controlled. Scanning such as by Google Books or microfilming can at least preserve the text and images. The text of books was preserved from decay in ancient times by copying. A fine 1883 work on "Preservation of the classic texts" notes how efficiently slaves could make hundreds of copies of a manuscript in ancient times, allowing the Library of Alexandria collection to be restored after its first two destructions, until finally in 640 the last collection was burned to heat bathwater on orders of the Caliph Omar, because it might contradict Moslem doctrine. During the dark ages and medieval times, monks neglected copying the ancient texts in favor of Christian writing, and the decay process went on, although ancient Greek and Roman texts existed in the collections. Many were lost through this benign neglect, besides ancient texts which were deliberately destroyed because they were detrimental to the promulgation of Christian doctrine. Lack of continued copying led to attrition of ancient works. Many manuscripts were destroyed after printing came along, since velum was useful in bookbinding. Edison (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well, some of that is not true; this idea that people just sat on their thumbs in the Middle Ages and didn't know anything about anything is seriously aggravating. The only reason any ancient texts survived is because they were copied and re-copied in the Middle Ages. Sometimes manuscripts were destroyed due to ignorance or accident, but which ones were destroyed on purpose because they were not Christian? (Actually, the only example I can think of is the Library of Alexandria, which had already been destroyed, by Christians, before the Arabs got there.) Adam Bishop (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article from 1883. Yes, some scholars had access to ancient manuscripts. But they were slighted in copying efforts, in contrast to the more evenhanded program at the Library of Alexandria and in general in the classical world. He said that the monks did not do enough copying of classical manuscripts to compensate for mold and mildew and fungus, along with mischance destroying them. Instead they mostly copied Christian documents. Deliberate destruction was not the only means of loss. Scholars in the 900's or 1300's had access to ancient manuscripts we can only dream of, such as the details of the Library at Alexandria hinted at matter-of-factly in the Plautine Scholium[9], [10] which has details of who served as librarian at Alexandria, and how many volumes it contained at various times, from manuscripts subsequently lost.. There was no official program to ensure that no ancient plays, or works of mathematics, of geometry, or philosophy etc were preserved for later generations. Added to this was reckless use of ancient velums in bookbinding, when Gutenberg introduced mass publication of books.

If this sort of thing interests you, I recommend the book "The Venus Fixers" by Ilaria Dagnini Brey, the story of the Allied special troops charged with protecting the cultural treasures of Italy in World War II. Priceless manuscripts used to wrap fish, vindictive Germans burning the royal archives of Naples, paintings knee-deep in mould, etc. etc. But much was saved, as we know, and these people did amazing work.--Rallette (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The National Museum of Iraq was looted during the 2003 invasion. Some stuff's been recovered, but lots of other stuff hasn't. The Shroud of Turin was damaged by fire in 1532, though not destroyed, obviously. The Parthenon was blown up and looted in 1687 by some Venetians. The Dead Sea Scrolls were subjected to some (what are now recognized as) pretty sickening "conservation efforts", though again, not destroyed (in general). Buddy431 (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Warburton's cook. And I have been told that one of the Chadwicks lost some manuscripts from the Bodleian by leaving them in a bag where the dustman apparently asusmed they were rubbish and carted them away; but I haven't found any corroboration of this. --ColinFine (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we're talking about library destructions, one that pissed off a great many people in the United States was that after the Germans destroyed the University of Louvain library in Belgium in WW1, it was re-built at great splendor and expense, largely funded by American donations -- whereupon the Germans turned right back around and destroyed it again as soon as the Western front "phoney war" ended in 1940! This really did not gain any goodwill for Germany in the U.S... AnonMoos (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original signed copy of the US Declaration of Independence hung on a wall in the Patent Office from 1841 to 1877, exposed to light. It was treated with chemicals to etch a copy onto a copper plate in 1823 [11], [12] to make reproductions, before it eventually made it into an inert atmosphere behind UV filtering glass in the National Archives. [13]. Edison (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether you count these as "other events" (I don't think one can really blame the museums here), but the articles on vandalism of art in general, and Hans-Joachim Bohlmann in particular might interest you as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original Gettysburg Cyclorama is in a pretty sad state of disrepair; it was forgotten about for 32 years until someone found it squirreled away in a warehouse. Restoration work is underway, but it has not been on public display since about 1933. Four versions of the work were painted by the artist; the second version is the one you can see at Gettysburg National Military Park, the other two disappeared and no one knows about them. At one time in the late 1800's Cyclorama paintings were all the rage, however the Gettysburg Cyclorama is among the last extant original Cycloramas left. --Jayron32 05:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And there are accidents. Ming vases on open display at the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge were smashed when a visitor fell down the stairs. "My precious vase hell" tells the story of the clumsy visitor who says he was arrested months later: "Twenty-five police officers came to my house at 7am, some wearing stab-proof vests, others ready to kick the door in." The museum tells the story of the conservation and restoration, including time-lapse photos, here. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those wonderful bringers of good tidings the early Christians destroyed or redacted every book they could get their hands on, if the book contained anything contrary to Christian dogma. Say goodbye to the vast majority of works surviving from Greece and Rome. Thanks, Jesus! 63.17.77.127 (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that happens to be complete and utter nonsense. Large quantities of pagan-written and mythology-referring poetry and philosophy were preserved by Christians, as well as other materials with slighting references to Christians, including the reference to the disturbances by "Chrestus" among the Jews of Rome in the reign of Claudius in the histories of Tacitus, the letter of Pliny the Younger about how to deal with Christians in Bithynia, the Misopogon, etc. Without the efforts of medieval Christian monks, there would be a whole lot less surviving ancient Greek and Latin literature than there is now... AnonMoos (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Court

In an English Crown Court, is the public allowed access to all cases tried there? Thankyou for any help. 217.44.188.78 (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Crown courts have a public gallery, and under normal circumstances the public may observe trials (provided there is room for them to do so). But cases may be tried in camera if a judge deems it appropriate - where national security is said to be involved, for example, the authorities may apply for such a trial. Those involved with the prosecution or defence may also apply to the judge for all or part of a case to be heard in private in certain circumstances, such as to protect the privacy of a child giving evidence. Judges can also order that reporting of a trial in the media be restricted. See Allan Chappelow for an example of a Crown Court trial at the Old Bailey that was held in private to a large extent, as a consequence of government applications to the judge. Ka renjc 22:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that technically there are always restrictions on reporting trials, but these are normally lifted by the judge unless there are special circumstances. We sometimes hear in media reports of trials that "reporting restrictions were not lifted". See here for some information on all this. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

whatever happened to the author of the imponderables books

I see his nemesis Cecil Adams is still going strong, so what's David Feldman been up to? 85.181.49.168 (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "list of david feldman books" yielded this link which shows at least 2 more Imponderables books scheduled for release in March 2011. (I doubt that the same David Feldman is the author of all the books on that list...) Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He runs imponderables.com. --Sean 14:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting phenomenon

More then 7 years ago primer minister of my country was killed. Since then, many streets were names after him and even those who didnt love him at the time agree that he was the greatest politician that our country ever had.

But recently I noticed an unexplainable phenomenom: everyone: rich and and poor, young and old, nationalists and pro-EU, educated or not, everyone remember where they were when they heard the news of the assasination. It is very peculiar, because for example, many of people that I talked to about this dont remember where they were when they found out they were going to become parents, or where they were when we won the World Cup in basketball or where they were 7 days ago. All these things should be easier to remember, yet everyone seems to remember when they were when prime minister was shot and where they were when they first heard the news of it.

Is there any explanation for this, or is this unique for my country? --92.244.147.41 (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: IP geolocates to Serbia --Saalstin (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting and if it's ok I'd like to expand it to major international events in general. For example most people know where they were when they first heard about 11/09/01 and older people remember the same about JFK. 217.44.188.78 (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) OR here, but the answer to the last part of your last question is "no" — recent "It seems like everyone remembers where they were when they heard" events in the US have included 9/11, the assassination of JFK, the Reagan assassination attempt, the Space Shuttle Challenger accident, and the Space Shuttle Columbia accident. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A similar UK example would be the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. Ka renjc 22:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above. I also remember where I was when I was told Pope Pius XII died, in October 1958, when I was not yet 8 years old. I can also remember a few earlier notable events, like the launching of Sputnik in October 1957, and the arrival of television to Australia in September 1956. I remember my parents telling me of their shock when they heard Australia was at war with Germany, in September 1939. I'm sure this phenomenon has been around forever, and I'm really surprised, come to think of it, that it hasn't been given a name and we don't have an article on it. Please correct me if I'm wrong. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended at all but if you can remember all that, then you're older than I thought you were. Dismas|^(talk) 03:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There you go then. As they say, you can grow old but you never have to grow up. :) Not that I'm remotely "old", as far as I'm concerned. I'm still in my 50s ... for a few more weeks. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I have heard this referred to in the US as "the JFK effect", but the only source I can find just mentions it in passing: This is often called the "JFK effect," illustrated by the proverbial question: "where were you when you heard that John F. Kennedy was shot?" -- 111.84.162.240 (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly remember where I was when I found out I would be a parent. I think the earliest world event I remember is the Challenger explosion. I don't remember where I was when the prime minister of Serbia was killed... Adam Bishop (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This says it's been reported at least far as back as the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, and the phenomenon is called flashbulb memory, about which we do indeed have what seems to be quite a comprehensive article. Good ol' Wikipedia, I know we had to have this covered. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A young person with a wonderful sense of humor once said "I'll never forget where I was when I heard that President Kennedy was assassinated. I was in American History class, hearing about something that happened decades earlier. Coincidentally, that was also where I heard that the Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor." Edison (talk) 03:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I was a child at the time, I personally remember exactly where I was when JFK was first reported to have been shot (his death as you all know was officially announced later), and I vividly remember seeing Lee Harvey Oswald gunned down by Ruby on tv. I also perfectly recall when I first heard that Princess Diana and John Lennon were both killed. I also remember the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy as well as the attempted one of Ronald Reagan. Events like these are forever imprinted upon one's brain which is akin to a sponge.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recall that when I heard the announcement that President Reagan had been shot, my first thought was of all the times I'd been told by people that they still remember what they were doing when JFK had been shot. I've wondered ever since if my memory of the event would have been as strong had I not been prepped by all those remarks. -- 124.157.234.91 (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is really just a ploy to out a bunch of wiki editors' ages.... Comet lists the events that I'd first think of for this phenomena in the U.S. I'd be interested to know how universal some of these dates are. I'd imagine that there's a strong correlation with video access. I bet more people remember the Challenger disaster than remember where they were when they heard about December 7th because the former had a singular, dramatic image (like the Kennedy assassination, and 9-11). Similarly, I remember where I was when I heard about the fall of the Berlin Wall (now I've dated myself) but I don't have any image in my head, largely because it was an event that happened over a series of days and weeks, rather than in an instant.

Is anyone aware of any academic works on this point? Shadowjams (talk) 07:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why, yes. Our article Flashbulb memory, to which I alluded earlier, has 36 references to more detailed reading material. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An anecdote in the opposite direction: when the fall of the Berlin wall was being shown on the news, I tried to explain to my daughter, then aged 8, that this was a very significant event that she should remember having seen. However she now says she has no memory of this occasion. In contrast I vividly remember hearing of the assassination of JFK, which happened when I was 10. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My earliest such memory is that of watching a news broadcast about Margaret Thatcher becoming prime minister, and my mother telling me it was a very significant event "and you're here to see it". I was just under four and a half years old at the time. Marnanel (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had barely started school when the Berlin Wall fell, but I remember it: I saw it on Newsround, and people were pulling bricks out to make a hole which they climbed through. It was a dramatic image, and the presenter explained that people had been separated from their families, but now could see each other. I didn't actually know what I was seeing, except for families making a hole in a wall so they could see each other after years apart, but I was able to connect this moment and image to the event later. It occurs to me that some of the songs we sung in school over the next few weeks were connected to this, and we were probably given some explanation, but what I really remember is that image of families tearing a hole in the wall. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I think the article on "flashbulb memory" misses the point: I think what's special is not that you remember "where you were when Kennedy was assassinated" — I think you remember "where you were when Kennedy was assassinated". I think that the location of an event is a very fundamental part of memory, and those who have practiced mnemonics often describe visualizing themselves storing memories in a house, garden, etc. so that each memory is linked to a place to make it clearer. But I have no skill in that regard.

But to give practical examples, I remember where I was when I watched an annular lunar eclipse, and who was with me, and the crude device I used to project it. I remember where I stood the first time I used a good digital camera to take a color image at night. I remember where I was the first time I watched a bald eagle fly overhead, and the second too. It's nothing to do with strong emotion; it's just the combination of what I'd call an "antigenic" memory, one that is very distinctive, with a simple request for the place at which it happened. But that's just my personal opinion, and there's that whole article to say something else. Wnt (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged 1

I read that the French write their 1s with a "flag" i.e. a beginning stroke (like the serif at the top of the typed "1" (such as this one), but longer). I was wondering: How long is this "flag", how common is it to do this? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can be quite large, reaching down to the "baseline" - see for example the price signs on the photo here. To avoid confusion, the number 7 is often written with a prominent horizontal bar through the downstroke. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not just the French. Many people throughout Europe write their 1s this way. Dismas|^(talk) 22:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But, to avoid confusion, we're only talking about handwritten numerals. In print a 1 normally looks the same in all these languages. --Anonymous, 22:44 UTC, October 8, 2010.

I've always been annoyed by fonts in which "I", "l" and "1" look alike because I was taught (here in the UK) to write them all differently, including a small serif and a base-line on the figure 1, though I don't bother with these when I am writing numbers quickly and no confusion is possible. The extreme serif on the French "1" can certainly be confused with a non-French "7" for those unfamiliar with it. Dbfirs 12:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a very confusing lecturer at university who wrote what we took to be a strange triangle-like symbol in his workings, and it would vanish sometimes for no reason we could see. After a few weeks, someone plucked up the courage to ask him what this unexplained, undefined symbol was. "This? But this is a 1!" And we were enlightened. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I spend some time in the US and the UK, and weirdly enough, I quickly got used to writing the 1 as a simple downstroke, but still put the bar on the 7. The extra upstroke in the 1 is usually not very high, at least in continental Western Europe - typically less than half height, often even less than one third of the full height of the glyph.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two men named David J. Pelzer

09/12/2010 04:52 - Peggi Pelzer wrote:

> Are you aware that there are two men named David J. Pelzer? The author, David JAMES Pelzer, is very well known, but his notoriety has had an unhappy effect on David JUDE Pelzer, who is a very talented artist and sculptor. David Jude Pelzer is my son - he was born on June 15, 1958, in St. Paul, MN USA. He has lived in Ireland with his wife and children for the past several years. Before they moved, they frequently received telephone calls meant for the author of A Boy Called It and had a difficult time convincing people they had reached the wrong person. > > A small sample of his work can be found on Facebook - David Pelzer Artworks. Please tell me what to do so that David JUDE Pelzer can be listed on your site. I don't know how to explain what a hindrance the publicity for the author has been to our son, and how important it is to make the public aware that there are two men with that name. I have no desire to "diss" the author, I just want to help my son. Please, can you tell me what to do? > > 174.20.248.195 (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)> I hope this is an acceptable form - I'm not quite sure what to do with this info.[reply]

Wikipedia has a bunch of rules for whether or not a person is "notable" enough for an article. Otherwise there would be 20 billion Wikipedia articles about individual people. See WP:N for this policy, and especially Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals. If he doesn't qualify, then, sorry, Wikipedia isn't the forum to try and create a distinction between the two in the mind of the public. If you think he is sufficiently notable after reading the above, you can ask at the Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of Googling, and I can't find any coverage of David J(ude) Pelzer that would support a request for an article about him. If you could find such coverage and provide links to it, you could ask for the article to be created at WP:AFC. Otherwise this is indeed not the place to make a public profile for your son that is distinct from that of the author. If he already has a website and a Facebook page, he's doing what he can to build a distinctive internet identity. Could he perhaps take to calling himself "David Jude Pelzer" professionally, to underline the distinction? Self-published web pages will not establish his notability in Wikipedia terms - we need articles, features and news in independent, reliable sources - but it may help him lay claim to his own identity out there. Ka renjc 23:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the David J. Pelzer article is in some way an advertisment rather than an encyclopedia article about a notable author. If it turns out your son is notable and that can be shown in multiple reliable sources, then someone will come by and create an article using a slight variation of the title to distinguish him from the author. Astronaut (talk) 08:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharing a name with someone famous can sometimes be an advantage as well as a disadvantage (at least people can remember your name). There are a few other people called David J Pelzer (one is a managing director), but at present only the author is notable by Wikipedia rules. When others, including your son, become famous, Wikipedia will create a disambiguation page to distinguish between the author and other David J Pelzers. We can't really give useful advice on becoming famous, but you should let us know when your son has had several different newspaper or periodical articles written about him, and has had his work in an exhibition or two. Meanwhile, why not suggest that he sets up his own website (not just facebook) to feature his work. If some newspaper articles link to this, then he will be easier to find in Google searches. Dbfirs 11:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One option you might consider to help draw the distinction is that he could start an account at User:David Jude Pelzer, and globalize it to include sites including Wikimedia Commons. If he is willing to release photographs from his "Metal Works by David Pelzer" folio on Facebook [14] for general use, then he could post them to Wikimedia Commons — though I should say that while photos of art are welcome, photos demonstrating how he makes the art would be truly appreciated! With the file names of his artworks (which could include the name of the artist) and his Wikipedia and Commons pages he could help promote an online identity distinct from the unwanted author. (But do read WP:COI carefully; there's only so much self-promotion you can do before the response here gets ugly) Wnt (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 9

Muslim accessories to sin?

Recently there was a news story about a Muslim stonemason whose likeness had been included on a cathedral in France. The story was being reported and discussed in a "there goes Christendom" kind of way. Yawn. I had an entirely different reaction. I was curious to know how a Muslim had been permitted to aid and abet the construction of what was, according to his religion, a pagan temple. Obviously France is a secular country and this stonemason guy might be personally of an ecumenical bent, but even so, would not his participation in the project have aroused the disapproval of his community? That got me thinking about another thing. In the city where I used to live, Cleveland, there was a liquor store owned and staffed entirely by Palestinian Muslims. (Not Palestinian Christians, I happen to know.) I also have first-hand knowledge of a liquor store in Chicago staffed by Arabs, though I can't be sure that they're Muslims. I have spoken to friends, and they inform me (second-hand, no guarantees of verity) of another Palestinian-owned liquor store in Los Angeles, and a Pakistani-owned liquor store in Houston. So here's my question: Is a Muslim allowed to profit from sin as long as long as his clients are predominantly infidels? In other words, would it be "kosher" for a Muslim to market a line of pork sausages, provided that he didn't eat any? Would it be okay for a Muslim to produce pornographic films, as long as the actors were uncircumcised? Etc. etc. (I'm not asking whether the laws of physics permit a Muslim to behave thus. I'm asking whether he would remain more or less respectable in the eyes of his coreligionists.) LANTZY ^TALK 01:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity is not paganism in Islam (nor is Islam paganism, according to Christianity, at least the normal kinds). Of course, it's probably haram to help construct a church, and it definitely is to sell liquor, even to non-Muslims. But you shouldn't assume that all Muslims know or care about the rules of their religion. Do Christians? Do Jews? Certainly not. How many Catholics use birth control? Are they not really Catholic because of it? Etc. Same for Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Bishop (talk • contribs)

True, and I will even go further: the overwhelming majority of "believers" (insert Christians, Muslims, Jews etc) tend not to obey archaic rules which largely lost their reason in the modern world. AFAIK Christians (and Muslims) were not supposed to lend money and collect interest during the Middle Ages - because it was a sin (greed). Jews are supposed not to eat shell-fish. How many people care about such outdated rules these days? Just a tiny minority. Flamarande (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of a bad joke "A Christian, a Jew and a Muslim walked into a bar..." seriously, though, only a small percentage of people in the world obey religious stipulations rigorously, they just happen to be disproportionately loud and annoying. Most people everywhere (regardless of faith) commit the same assortment of minor sins - intoxication, fornication, gluttony, greed, etc. - with very little in the way of guilt. the only real differences are in who they lie to about it and where they go to seek out atonement. Generally speaking business people will sell people what people ask for, so long as its legal; it has more to do with market value and profit margin than religion. It's really kind of funny, in a sad way: if it weren't for that tiny minority of religious fanatics yelling about how we have to obey their rules and despise other faiths, we'd all get along with each other pretty well. --Ludwigs2 04:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, we would simply find other excuses to slaughter each other. Flamarande (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree (more-or-less) with all of the above responses. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with all the above responses. Note that in South Africa (Cape Town in particular) you wouldn't find a Muslim owning a liquor store, in fact you'd hardly find a Muslim cashier at your local supermarket willing to cash out any liquor purchase (they'd respectfully ask you to go to the next counter). Over here people avoid alcohol or pork at all costs; it's all about access to income and opportunities, if there were no other choice things likely would have been different. There's a large and strong enough Muslim community to make it all sustainable. I found it extremely curious that all over Europe you could buy a Halaal kebab from a Muslim vendor who would also have a fridge stocked with beers. You just wouldn't see that over here, more likely you'd go out of business pretty quickly (in fact you wouldn't get Halaal certification in the first place). Zunaid 06:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A chronicle of the reversals of thought by the major religions in matters of science

Does there exist a chronicle of the reversals of thought due to scientific rationalization by the major religions in their explanation of the world (such as physical or biological phenomena)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.1.136 (talk) 06:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, a listing of the times each major religion had to change its teaching due to scientific advance? This might be found in histories of the churches and religions, but probably not in the systematic way you're looking for. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your question seems to contain a Loaded question. You are assuming that religions change their views because they are reacting to the advacements of science. My POV: Science has a long way to catch up to religion... schyler (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One only has to forget the prior history on issues like evolution, the age of the world, the buying of forgivness for sins, equal rights for women, the separation of state from religious authorithy, holy wars, etc. I mean, the priests of the major religions never ever changed their tune when they noticed that their flocks weren't dancing with them anymore. They are truly preaching the very same interpretations (of the holy texts) since the beginning of time (NOT). Flamarande (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poisoned Eucharist

Suppose someone put lethal poison into either the wafers or wine of a Roman Catholic communion, and parishgoers died after taking Mass. Would the fact that the consecrated host was poisonous cast any doubt on the doctrine of transubstantiation? 69.120.0.81 (talk) 09:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few years ago in Italy, a parish priest's wine was poisoned by parishioners and he collapsed at the altar during the Mass. He survived and as far as I know is still at the same parish.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here in California, a lot of the more progressive Christian churches are using low-carbohydrate hosts. Their saying is, "I can't believe it's not Jesus!" PhGustaf (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I don't see why it would. The doctrine holds that the substances of bread and wine are changed (while the accidents remain unchanged) to the substances of the body and blood of Christ. Any foreign matter present in either the bread or the wine would seem to be extraneous to the process. Deor (talk) 09:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Aquinas addresses this scenario in his Summa Theologica part III, q.83. He says: "If it be discovered that the wine has been poisoned, the priest should neither receive it nor administer it to others on any account, lest the life-giving chalice become one of death, but it ought to be kept in a suitable vessel with the relics: and in order that the sacrament may not remain incomplete, he ought to put other wine into the chalice, resume the mass from the consecration of the blood, and complete the sacrifice." He appears to be saying that the contaminated wine must still be treated as the blood of Christ; therefore one can infer that he thinks transubstantiation is unaffected by the poisoning. If people drink it and die it's the cup of death, but the poison is merely an adjunct to the consecrated wine and does not affect its sacred nature. Ka renjc 09:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But suppose the priest doesn't know that that the Eucharist is tainted. Does the Church really think that all of a sudden Christ's body and blood has become poisonous if parishgoers start dying? 69.120.0.81 (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AIUI the doctrine holds that the spiritual prperty of the bread and wine is changed, whereas the physical property of them remains the same. Presumably any toxins would be on the physical side of things. In the Anglican Church, transubstantiation is a concept accepted only by a minority. However, during the recent Swine flu pandemic scare, an order went out from Lambeth Palace to the effect that communion should be bread only to avoid passing the flu virus around with the chalice [15]. Alansplodge (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the physical property too, you're really supposed to be ingesting Christ, but only the actual bread itself is Christ. If it's poisoned, the poison is not part of the bread (or the wine, which works the same way), so there is no transubstantiation of the poison into Christ. That's what Aquinas is saying, as Karenjc pointed out. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Minor spoiler:) The (mistaken) idea that the doctrine of transubstantiation implies that a poisoned host would not be poisonous was used as a plot element in V for Vendetta. Marnanel (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the nub of the question is "would the Church assume Christ's body and blood has become poisonous if the parishioners start keeling over at the altar rail, rather than waiting for the lab results and the fingerprint check on the bottle", I'd suggest the answer is no. Clerics may believe in some really way-out stuff, but that doesn't mean they all lack basic common sense. Ka renjc 19:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has always been one of the greatest difficulties for Catholicism that the doctrine of transubstantiation seems ludicrous to anybody who is not predisposed to believe it -- this was one of the major themes of the Protestant Reformation. Scenarios like this don't really make it any more ludicrous than it already is. Looie496 (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question if a poisoned eucharist would "cast any doubt on the doctrine of transubstantiation," it may. Of course there are many people who love doctrines more than actual dogma, that is, facts about God. This is something I run in to in the ministry: you can show someone all the Bible-based evidence that contradicts a teaching and they will not give up their misplaced love for and faith in handed-down doctrine. schyler (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite aside from both the question of whether transubstantiation is true and the question of whether it may be supported from scripture, if a poisoned eucharist does "cast any doubt on the doctrine of transubstantiation", then the doctrine has not been correctly understood. There is no claim that the bread and wine become literal human flesh and human blood in any form which can be found by experimentation: this is what is meant by the sentence in our article which says "there is no change in the empirical appearances of the bread and wine". If you could poison a wafer, consecrate it, and swallow it with no ill effects, then there would have been a change in the empirical appearance of the bread and wine (since you tested it with your digestive system). Marnanel (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) And anyway you do know of course, 69.120.0.81, that all sacramental wine has alcohol in it, right? It'll get you drunk, even post-consecration – and it'll kill you if you drink enough of it! One assumes Catholics have always been aware of this, and it doesn't seem to bother them that the Blood of Christ might be "bad" for you if not used as directed. Please see also Eucharistic theology#Theories of the real presence. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There must be some relevant philosophical consideration of such things as substantial form, essence, and substance. Surely a Catholic believer must taste bread, rather than meat (in the modern sense of the word); I suppose that certain qualities such as the taste and appearance are unaffected by the process, and I don't see an obvious reason why the functional effect of poison couldn't be among these. Such a discordance is no more strange than the idea, for example, that a visible man could have a divine essence, or that the chance events of life elaborate a divine plan, or that a living person is greatly different than a monkey, or someone newly dead. But I don't know the twists and turns of such philosophy. To me such distinctions are mostly the stuff of dreams, where it is common for me to know that something is a tiger even though it looks like a lion or that someone is my mother even though she looks very different and comes from another country. But surely power attributed to God must be capable of anything that can happen in a dream. Wnt (talk) 06:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tastes like paper, really. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghai, Missouri

The second episode of Ken Burns' series The Civil War opens in 1862, and describes the state of that war, saying "war had spread along a 1000 mile line, from Manassas, Virginia to Shanghai, Missouri." I'm trying to figure out where Shanghai, Missouri is. There's no such article (which means Rambot didn't find a US Census Dept. record for it) and no mention in Shanghai (disambiguation). So I'd guess either that Shanghai, MO was renamed something else later, or that it's one of those places that never grew big enough to warrant being mentioned again (e.g. a farm, crossroads, creek, etc.). This page (one of those useless machine-generated portals) lists it as being in Vernon County, Missouri (that's not evidence of much, other than it appears in whatever geo-database the portal makers used); I can't see any mention of it there, and none of the communities in that county, for which we have an article, lists Shanghai has being a former name or a constituent part (that said, most are essentially Rambot-only, so they wouldn't).This page also puts it in Vernon County, but doesn't give its location. This New York Times dispatch from 1861 talks about "Defeat of the Rebels at Shanghai, Missouri" (so it's not just Burns' imagination). If we could figure out which battle the NYT is describing, that might help locate Shanghai, which is turning into the Brigadoon of the midwest. The NYT article (really only the headline, as I can't see further copy that corresponds with this encounter) is dated 15 October 1861; that seems terribly late to report the First Battle of Lexington (which finished September 20) and the next engagement in the Missouri campaign, that Wikipedia has an article for, isn't until the Battle of Fredericktown, which is later in October. So my researches conclude inconclusively; it seems there might once have been somewhere in Missouri named Shanghai, but there doesn't seem to be now (or have been for very long). Can anyone figure out where Burns' and the NYT mean, or do we have to wait until 2061 for it to magically reappear? -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 17:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sesquicentennial next year might be soon enough. If I lived anywhere near Shanghai, Mo., and had any interest in history, I'm sure I'd be anticipating and probably preparing for the 150th anniversary of this engagement, wherever the battlefield's (or encampment's) location may lie within today's Missouri. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This book of official Civil War correspondence, says Shanghai was in Barton County, Missouri, about twenty-five miles from Fort Scott. That book implies was action there September 27, 1864, but another book says the fighting there was Sept 27, 1861. [16] says Barton County was south of Vernon County. [17] from 1914 lists 15 towns and villages in the county, not including Shanghai. Edison (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon County, Missouri still exists, and it's still north of Barton County, Missouri. The county seat (just to confuse everyone) is Nevada, Missouri. It was organized in 1855, having previously been partly or wholly governed within Bates County to its north. In 1860, its population was just under 5,000; in 1870 just under 12,000; in 1990 just over 19,000; and in 2000 just over 20,000. In 2004, it voted for Pres. George W. Bush's re-election by a vote of 5,732 to 3,206 over the candidacy of Sen. John F. Kerry; in 2008, it cast 5,334 Presidential votes for Sen. John McCain and 3,381 for Sen. Barack Obama. In 2000, it voted for Gov. Bush over Vice President Al Gore. In the 3-way races of 1992 and 1996, it voted for Bill Clinton, having previously voted for Vice Pres. George H.W.Bush in 1988 and Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984. While it turned against Pres. Jimmy Carter in 1980, it had supported his first election in 1976. (It thus voted against Missourian Bob Dole twice, in 1976 and 1996.) From 1952 to 1972 (although only by 33 votes in 1968), Vernon County voted for Eisenhower and Nixon, but against Barry Goldwater in 1964. My incomplete collection of old almanacs also tells me that the county voted against Calvin Coolidge in 1924 but for Herbert Hoover in 1928. It supported FDR's reelection in 1936 and 1940. After the Civil War, Republican politicians and publicists urged Union veterans to "vote as you shot"; if Vernon County was a border community, then its voting seems to reflect that division.—— Shakescene (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I dragged out (and for the first time made some use of) a gigantic Atlas compiled to accompany the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, and given to me several years ago by my brother. Shanghai, Missouri, is on the Big Dogwood River, very close to and due east of Fort Scott, Kansas, and rather north of Carthage, Missouri. A little simple Googling of "Shanghai missouri civil war" and a little patience will yield at least two engagements near opposite ends of the War, one on 1 December 1861 and the other near Shanghai on 27 May 1864. The plate (66:1) in the Civil War Atlas indicates that Shanghai was along Sterling Price's route in 1864 when he was being engaged by Union Major Gen. S.R.Curtis. And Googling also indicates that Shanghai, Missouri, does indeed seem still to exist under that name, as a young person from that location (unless she invented the name or is making some cute allusion to Chinese and Midwestern affinities) is seeking friendship through "OKCupid". —— Shakescene (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The USGS has a "Shanghi Ch[urch]" in Vernon County at about 37.66728N, 94.365W. This corresponds to the location of a town called Shanghai described on this local history page. Doesn't look like anyone lives there now, though, and it's not on a creek, so may not be the Civil War battle location.--Cam (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's roughly where I figured too. Google Maps' terrain view shows a watercourse running roughly N-S a couple of miles west of there. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shakescene and Edison both for your efforts. To confound normal googleation, it seems there were several places named Shanghai in Missouri:

One in Barton County, that Edison found, above.
One in Carroll County, four miles south of Norborne (ref)
One in Johnson County, also called Cornelia. (ref)
One in Vernon County, part of Drywood Township. (ref) Following his description of it being a 1.5 miles south of Avola (and Avola just shows up on Google Maps) would put us about three miles west of Sheldon. So surely that's the one Shakescene's atlas describes.

buuut - the county line (dividing Barton from Vernon, at least according to Bing Maps) runs E-W just south of Sheldon, so surely the Barton and Vernon Shanghais are the same one; and this approximate location is ~25 miles SE of Fort Scott, which matches the description Edison found (I confess I can't find the Big Dogwood River). One thing I think we can safely say is that this encounter (indeed all of the two or maybe three encounters at Shanghai) was, in the grand grisly scheme of the war, barely worth a mention ;( -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to complicate matters further, I looked for that body of water, and the closest I could find was Dogwood Creek, where the 3rd Wisconsin Cavalry operated against Sterling Price's Raid on Missouri on 16 May 1864. Like Shanghai, the Dogwoods or Dogwood Canyons (no doubt like the tree) cover the Show-Me State, with Dogwood, Mo. near Cape Girardeau, at almost exactly the wrong end. So I'm not certain if this is the same Dogwood Creek (which does indeed run roughly north to south and just south of, without intersecting the east-west Marmaton R.) that's on my Civil War atlas's plate. By the way, Yahoo! Maps & MSN Maps (classic) showed nothing, while Bing! (MSN) Maps nearly crashed my browser; maybe others will have better luck with other mapping services than Google's. Google shows Shanghai's location near the intersection of US Routes 54 and 71, between the Bushwhacker Lake Recreation Area and the Drywood Conservation Area. As if we weren't confused enough, there's a nearby Barton City Township in Vernon County, on the other, eastern side of Highway 43, as opposed to Barton County. And Finlay McWalter's right; just as in the 20th and 21st centuries, it's hard to pin down in either time or place, things like cavalry raids and guerrilla/counter-guerrilla operations in sparsely-settled rural areas. Missouri, like Kentucky, even had Senators and Congressmen in both the U.S. and Confederate Congresses. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

¶ But all that, unfortunately, doesn't really answer Finlay McWalter's original question, which was about the line of confrontation that extended to Shanghai, Mo., in 1862. Which Shanghai was it, the one that figured in Sterling Price's 1864 raids (which was mapped in my Civil War atlas), or one of the others (or yet a different one from all of them)? Ken Burns' main source for The Civil War (TV series) was Shelby Foote, who is sadly no longer with us. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well post this map of Vernon County, Missouri, although it must have been printed after Shanghai vanished. —— Shakescene (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which country has the fewest restrictions on free speech?

--70.245.189.11 (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This list http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930918.html and Freedom of the Press (report) may be worth a look. I seem to remember there being an index of freeness but can't find it (can't quite remember the name), i'll try find a free speech based one but they'll be a reasonable start - especially the freedom of the press one. ny156uk (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is what you were thinking of: List of indices of freedom ? Dismas|^(talk) 23:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Press Freedom Index may be of interest, to the extent that press freedom and free speech are related. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 20:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several freedom indices, like the Freedom in the World (report) [18], like Ny156uk suggested. However, most of them tend to focus on all areas of the world, so everything at the top just sort of gets squished together as "free". You can also look at the Press Freedom Index, as Finlay McWalter suggested, but I'm having a hard time finding how those numbers were compiled, so I'm not sure how much we can read into them (and again, everything near the top is more or less "free", so it's hard to make distinctions between them). However, the reason that it's generally hard to make distinctions among the most free countries is that in reality, there isn't much difference in Freedom between countries at the top of such a list. Pretty any much any so-called "liberal democracy" will have laws protecting political criticism. Most will also have some restrictions on what can be broadcast on TV or radio (vulgarity or nudity generally, rather than political speech), and many will have some laws against hate speech. Most countries will have some sort of libel laws, the restrictiveness of which will vary from country to country. The trouble is, with all sorts of different types of speech freedom, how do you create a strict ranking? The United States is known for having very strong protections for political speech, and a pretty high tolerance for hate speech. However, it also has pretty significant restrictions on what can be shown on TV. Canada has looser restrictions of broadcasting, but very stringent hate speech prohibitions. I think that if you want to be a political activist, many western and northern European nations would be pretty darn safe. If you want to express your belief in the superiority of the white race, you're probably better off in the United States. Pretty much every western nation prohibits the production of child pornography (which might be considered "speech" by some), so if you want to make child porn, you're better off going to what's usually considered a less free nation that just has bigger problems to deal with. Buddy431 (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in Hamlet

I have two plot questions concerning Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in Shakespeare's Hamlet. Question 1: Why do the two continue on to England, after the pirate attack? Their mission from Claudius was to escort Hamlet from Denmark to England to get executed. Once their ship gets captured by pirates (and Hamlet is kidnapped), Rosencrantz and Guildenstern should return to Denmark for advice from Claudius. They should not continue on their voyage to England, as they (now) have no need to go to England. Can anyone explain this plot point? Am I missing something here? Question 2: At the very end of the play, why does someone (the Ambassador) mention that "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead" in the scene where the more major (more important) characters are found dead (Claudius, Gertrude, Hamlet, and Laertes)? In other words, after all these important characters die, what is the significance of (chronologically) mentioning the deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern later? It would seem like a trivial matter and rather anti-climactic, given the deadly scene in the Castle. So, I am wondering if there is some literary importance to its mention and placement in that final scene. Surely, the fact that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead could have been brought up at some other point in the play. Why did Shakespeare wait until that moment (when the "main characters" are found dead), to mention these two additional deaths? It almost makes their deaths seem just as important and mention-worthy as the other four deaths in the Castle scene. But, that can't be ... can it? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

To your first question: one could argue that they continued on because Hamlet was expected in England, and so were they. Perhaps by a certain time. Thus, better to soldier on and say "oops, pirates," than to keep someone else waiting. Claudius could then be notified and an alternate plan formed. To your second, I have two answers. One, that R&G were such instrumental parts of the plot to eliminate Hamlet--could, in fact, be seen as his adversaries in some ways--that their death needed to be mentioned along with all the others to tie up the loose ends. Second, to provide the title of a truly wonderful play ;) These questions are what makes Shakespeare still so popular after so long. We all know the basic stories, but the details truly matter, and nobody can agree on them. If you want to see a really, really wonderful insight into Hamlet (as well as the Scottish play and Lear), rent or buy Slings & Arrows. Absolutely wonderful TV show. → ROUX ₪ 23:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, they weren't aware that Hamlet was going to be executed. They were given letters to deliver, but they weren't told what was in those letters, so as far as they knew the letters still needed to be delivered. Regarding the second line, I think it's significance lies in the impact it has on you when you hear it. It's not for nothing that Shakespeare is considered the best playwright ever. You might enjoy looking at the play Roux alluded to, Tom Stoppard's wonderful Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. Looie496 (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course right. It's been years since I've seen or read Hamlet. My bad. → ROUX ₪ 00:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 10

Dutch? Artwork

I have been searching forever for a painting (print) of a piece of art I saw when I was in Amsterdam. It is of a guardian/solider/sentinel on horseback, in the snow, and the most intense look in his eyes. Was thinking it was a Dutch painter, but not sure. Can anyone help me find this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.195.177 (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you remember where in Amsterdam you saw it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parsippany, NJ and the 1st and 2nd Amendments

In general how does the overall population of Parsippany, NJ view our rights as covered in the 1st and 2nd Amendments? Do they accept and welcome diverse cultures, and do they believe in our right to own and bare arm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.202.37.72 (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why you're looking specifically at just this one city? If we knew your intentions, then it might be easier to answer. I doubt much data exists about such a specific portion of the overall US population. Dismas|^(talk) 03:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming that Parsipanny is your home town. Your local newspapers may have polled citizens. Another thought is to focus on the state level by telephoning repeat First and Second Amendment players. The NJ ACLU handles these cases. The Federalist Society may be able to refer you to an advocacy group so the presentation is balanced. I'm not certain but pending litigation may be searched through Pacer. An obvious thought is that the Supreme Court routinely rules on these issues. Despite disagreement or even outrage, th75Janice (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)e Court orders are followed without the U.S. Army intervening. The Court has legitimacy.[reply]

Long ago I worked for the ACLU in New Jersey during college. Printed brochures were circulated detailing the Bill of Rights without formal designating it the "Bill of Rights." Most people queried were very opposed to the rights but when informed it was the Bill of Rights changed their mind. Perhaps you could replicate this sampling.75Janice (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)75Janice[reply]

Kim Jong-il's fashion

Has there been any reason given as to why Kim Jong-il often wears sunglasses and why he often seems to be dressed more casually than those around him? Here's a pic of what I'm referring to: [19]. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 02:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North of the DMZ: essays on daily life in North Korea By Andreĭ Nikolaevich Lanʹkov says he either wears a military uniform or a Mao suit, and says of the latter that it's "stressing the austerity and quasi-military character of the regime". -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 02:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sunglasses are intimidating because they make it difficult to tell what a person is looking at. Either that or he doesn't like bright light. Looie496 (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article says the sunglasses are Ray-Bans, but gives only a metaphorical explanation for them. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 02:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could understand if he were wearing a Mao suit all the time but what he's wearing in the example I gave, and what I see him in most often (confirmation bias?), is not a Mao suit. Or at least it doesn't look like it to me. There are no cargo pockets on the lower part of the jacket and the hem of the jacket is tighter (as if there was elastic in it) than I think Mao suits are. In fact, it reminds me of a Members Only jacket that was popular in the 80s. Dismas|^(talk) 07:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It kinda looks like an Eisenhower jacket but its to conceal his bulletproof vest. In North Korea, they refer to it as the "people's outfit" and I believe its supposed to give the huddled masses that wear the same thing a connection to their Great Leader. 98.228.244.154 (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tie vote in the U.S. Supreme Court

What exactly happens when a U. S. Supreme Court ruling ends in a 4-4 tied decision, due to one justice not sitting on the case? Thanks. (64.252.1.135 (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Didn't we just have this question last week? From what I recall, in such a situation, the lower courts ruling stands. Dismas|^(talk) 03:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. An order is entered stating that "the judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court." The ruling resolves the issue for purposes of that case, but is not regarded as a precedent for other cases. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was really my question. Let's say that this case arises from, for example, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. If the case ended up before the U. S. Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court decided the case with a 4-4 tie ... then the 2nd Circuit ruling will stand. Are you saying that this ruling (the Supreme Court ruling, not the 2nd Circuit ruling) does not have precedent for the 2nd Circuit? Or that it does? And how about for the rest of the country ... does the Supreme Court ruling (not the 2nd Circuit ruling) set or not set precedent for the rest of the USA? Thanks! (64.252.1.135 (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

And if it's not a precedent (at least, say, outside the 2nd Circuit, NY, Ct & Vt), then should the 9th Circuit come to a different conclusion in a parallel case from California, I presume that the 9th Circuit would not be bound by the upholding (or non-reversal) of the 2nd Circuit's decision. If, however, the U.S. Supreme Court were to take up that 9th Circuit ruling (which I doubt they'd be eager to do unless Elana Kagan were able to vote, or else unless at least one other Justice had changed his or her mind) and again split 4-4, then I presume the 9th Circuit's decision would be upheld (not reversed) and remain precedent for that Circuit only — at least until either the 9th Circuit changes its own collective mind or until the Supreme Court is able and willing to resolve the diversity of law.—— Shakescene (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Shakescene ... that is (sort of) my whole point. The Supreme Court is deciding (specific) cases ... but not really deciding on any of the issues. So, the Supreme Court is the ultimate (supreme) arbiter ... yet, they are leaving the issue undecided and unresolved. They are neither clearly deciding it, nor setting precedents for the nation to follow. (In fact, in your scenario, the Supreme Court is encouraging / tolerating / allowing / advocating that different states approach the same exact federal issue in diametrically opposed ways!) In effect, their decision seems irrelevant and pointless. Is this really the way the system would work in such a circumstance? That does not seem to make much sense. Why would the Supreme Court go to all this trouble, just to render a pointless and meaningless decision that serves to not resolve the issue (and, in fact, serves to muddy the issue)? Am I missing something here? Thanks! (64.252.1.135 (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

When the Supreme Court first agreed to take up such a case (I'm speaking hypothetically here, since I'm not following the Court closely at the moment and have only a vague, general idea of what they've decided recently), it might well have been before the Court knew that a serving Solicitor-General of the United States would be nominated to join them, and thus while an expectation of a majority opinion was reasonable. Since the Court has historically declined to issue advisory opinions and insists on hearing real "cases and controversies", i.e. real disputes that materially affect the lives, liberty, property, livelihood, dignity or family relations of real living people, then those specific people deserve to have their own specific case decided one way or the other, even if the effect on other such cases is limited. By the way, I'm not a lawyer; I have a paralegal degree from a two-year community college, but I'm no professional or scholarly legal authority, so I write here only as an interested amateur. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you say ... except for one point. I would doubt very much that the Court justices give any consideration whatsoever to who will (or won't) hear the case and whether or not a majority opinion is reasonably expected. I think they just take whatever cases have merit ... and then let the chips fall where they may. Thanks. (64.252.1.135 (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

If the Court takes a case from the Second Circuit but then has to affirm because of an equal division, the Second Circuit opinion stands as precedent to the same extent as if the Supreme Court had never taken the case. In other word, it will be binding precedent in the Second Circuit, but only persuasive precedent in the Ninth Circuit. (A Supreme Court decision on the merits, of course, would be binding precedent throughout the whole country.)

I don't know the extent to which the Justices would decline altogether to take up an issue because they knew there would be a recusal, but they obviously prefer not to expend their limited time on a case where they wind up being unable to produce a precedential opinion where they avoid it. In many instances, the same question is presented to the Justices in more than one petition for certiorari pending at a time. In there are two petitions raising the same issue, but in Case A all nine Justices could participate while in Case B a Justice is recused, I think the Court would be more likely to grant cert. in Case A than Case B. Then, after the nine decide Case A, they will vote to remand the decision in Case B to the lower court "for further consideration in light of the decision in Case A." Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Newyorkbrad ... you seem to know a lot about this. So, this is where my confusion lies. Is there any distinction (or no distinction whatsoever) if the Supreme Court affirms the Second Circuit (in the normal and usual way) versus if the Supreme Court "affirms" the Second Circuit via a 4-4 decision? Let's say, under Scenario A, the Supreme Court takes the case from the Second Circuit and affirms it (by whatever vote ... let's just say 9-0). Under Scenario B, the Supreme Court "affirms" (or lets stand) the Second Circuit decision with the Supreme's vote of 4-4 (tie). Does the effect of an "affirm" in Scenario A differ from the effect of an "affirm" in Scenario B? From reading your last post above, it seems like Scenario A would set precedent for the USA, while Scenario B would only set precedent for the states of the Second Circuit. Or am I mis-reading you? To me, I would have assumed that an affirm is an affirm is an affirm, regardless of the number of votes counted. Are there some types of separate rules for affirms in a 4-4 tie vote versus any other type of affirming opinion? Thanks! (64.252.1.135 (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

An affirmance by a tie vote ("an equally divided court") is totally different from any other kind of affirmance. In the tie vote situation, the Court is saying "we can't decide the case, so the lower court's decision will stand since we haven't overturned it, but we aren't really deciding anything." Basically the effect is the same as if the case had never been taken to the Supreme Court in the first place.

(Incidentally, the same rules usually applies when the Supreme Court is required to affirm for want of a quorum, which occurs if at least 6 Justices are not available to participate in a case.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Block prints of the Chinese Revolution"

Does anybody know how and where I can get higher resolution copies or scans of the images here? [20]

Also, can anybody post translations for me? I need an image depicting the Wuchang Uprising in particular. I think print 11 says "Wuchang" on the city gate but I am not sure. John Riemann Soong (talk) 03:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The city gate in print 11 says 武昌城 "Wuchang [city] wall". Steewi (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How are prepayments treated in cash basis accounting?

How are prepayments treated in cash basis accounting? Say you have a recurring expense that is paid on July 1 every three years, and a prepayment covering 7/1/2008 - 6/30/2011 was paid in 2008. Should the prepayment be recognized as an expense in 2008? In 2011? Or should it be allocated over several years on a pro rata basis? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.146.193 (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only in Accruals accounting would you allocate it over several years on a pro-rata basis. In cash accounting, the entire expense was in 2008, with nothing in 2009 or 2010. Dbfirs 07:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Workplace Use of e-mails Sent From Home.

I can find lots of information regarding the use of e-mail systems from the workplace but nothing so far on whether employers (current or future) can reference personal e-mail sent from an individuals personal address from their own home outside of work hours.

For example, if person 'a' sends an e-mail to person 'b' (who are both employed by the same company) regarding their dislike of the workplace and then person 'b' shows this to a senior manager, can that e-mail be used to initiate disciplinary, suspension or other action?

Similarly, if person 'a' were to send texts / emails to person 'b' containing material of a private / personal / emotional nature etc. Does the organisation have a right to intervene?

In essence, I am/was under the impression that so long as both parties carry out their duties professionally while in the workplace, the resolution would be down to the two individuals? I'm not sure if it makes any difference but this would be for UK and EU law.

Thanks, Julian UK 87.82.79.175 (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia cannot give legal advice. Certainly people can be disciplined for behaviour outside work that brings a company into disrepute, constitutes discrimination or harassment against another employee, etc. but probably an email between two employees only just saying that one did not like working at the place would not warrant disciplinary action. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your last point, it would definitely make a difference. In most US states for example, there are usually few legal restrictions on what you can be fired for (see At-will employment). In more general terms, plenty of people have been fired for postings to social networking sites in various countries, quite of them postings while they were not at work. [21] These are semi-public so are likely to be seen and more likely to be a problem but as Q Chris has said, it's likely to be possible private emails could be a problem, particularly if sent to a colleague. To use an obvious example, if you repeatedly harass a colleague outside work, e.g. call them a fag who is going to go to hell or a chink who should go back to China or other extreme nonsense like that, there's a fair chance in a number of jurisdictions whoever you work for could in fact get in to trouble if they are informed but fail to take some sort of action, no matter how good you behave at work. Similarly, if you repeatedly email your boss telling them how stupid, incompetent and lazy they are with plenty of expletives etc, it's seems unlike you'll survive long in your job (unless it's in good jest and understood that way) even if you're highly professional at work. Nil Einne (talk) 11:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's really interesting. Thank you. I was wondering if Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life (EU convention on human rights)

1.Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. and Article 10 – Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

Could be called into play? Julian 87.82.79.175 (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're stepping onto legal advice ground here, and (if this is a real case and not a hypothetical one) you need proper advice from a real lawyer rather than from random people with inadequate background information speculating on the internet. All I would observe is that if B has complained to the boss about personal emails received from A, dropping A in it in the process by revealing his/her dislike of his job, it's a safe bet that B sees A's emails as unwelcome and no more should be sent. This type of situation usually has a history and is more complex than it appears. The answer is almost certainly "It depends on various factors including A's contract terms and length of service; the exact wording of the criticism of the firm in the email, who (if anyone) was named in it and who has seen it; the content of A's emails to B and the history of their relationship; any previous incidents of this kind during A's employment with the firm; whether or not A's boss is looking for an excuse to get rid of him/her; and probably some others too." If I were A, I would consult a specialist in employment law, via my union if I was a member of one. Ka renjc 13:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is hypothetical. I am working on a presentation for staff and thought there might be some clear cut boundaries. From the feedback so far it seems to be don't even mention work, talk to other colleagues and such like! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.79.175 (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The law (constitutional, statutory, employment, regulatory and case-by-case) just seems to be very different in the U.S., the fifty states and half-dozen other jurisdictions of the U.S., the European Union, the U.K. specifically, and for that matter, Ireland, Canada and Australia. (The different positions and policies of trade unions in different jurisdictions can also have a direct effect or indirect influence.) This point in itself is probably well worth making in your presentation, unless it's very specifically focussed. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Q Chris and Karenjc - it depends on the circumstances. The questioner may be interested in this. Bear in mind also that comments made on public or semi-public sites like Facebook are likely to be dealt with in a different way to person-to-person emails or conversations. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several events of this type associated with International Burn a Koran Day, including one in New Jersey and one in Australia. These things are always surrounded by great controversy and they always end up with the worker screwed. Even if the worker filed suit and won in court, he'd only end up being blacklisted for the attempt.

A more serious problem for the company might come up if the worker submits useful personal e-mail, such as content for a company sign or ad campaign, since a small physically oriented company might not have thought about IP issues in its contracts. Wnt (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dissolution of the Nederlandse Antillen

Although I've read both Dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles and BES islands, I'm not clear — assuming that all goes as planned, to what can we compare the future political condition of the BES islands? Will they be similar to Guadeloupe or Hawaii, or is the plan for them to be somewhat more independent than that? Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot predict the future. These territories now have a grater degree of self determination. It will depend on how well they are able to pull their own weight. Good luck to them. I notice the airwaves are very busy with 'hams' trying to make radio contact with them. Oh, don't they know, you can just call them up on a mobile these days.--Aspro (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that we can't predict the future; that's why I said "assuming that all goes as planned". I don't understand what's currently being planned. Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What happens to the Netherlands Antilles national football team? Do their team members become members of the Netherlands national football team? 216.93.213.191 (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They need only to ask Angela Merkel to move the goal posts for them and then it doesn't matter what they do!--Aspro (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From reading all of the relevent articles, it looks like Curacao and St. Martin will have the same status individually as the Netherlands Antilles did as a whole before the dissolution; that is they become constituent countries within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which seems to be much the same relationship that, say, Scotland has with the U.K. The remaining islands appear to be organized much as the French organize their Overseas department, which is to say they are now integral parts of the Netherlands (that is, now part of the European Netherlands), excepting for a few issues whereby they are allowed to have differences, (for example, to use the Dollar locally instead of the Euro). --Jayron32 03:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to find a record of a sealed conviction

A man named Lester Coleman entered a guilty plea in a perjury trial and received a sentence and a fine.

A British newspaper reported that his conviction had been overturned: "Court clears Lockerbie claim agent, Marcello Mega, The Sunday Times, 13 June 1999, Scotland News 6" It stated:

"A FORMER American intelligence officer convicted of perjury after

alleging United States complicity in the Lockerbie bombing has been

cleared by a court of appeal.

Lester Coleman, who was convicted of perjury last year, had the verdict

overturned last month. He is living with his wife and three children in

Kentucky and in the past few days has launched an action for $10m

against the American government.

Three judges issued a sealed ruling, an unusual step which means that

not even Coleman and his lawyers can read why they quashed his

conviction. Reporting restrictions also ensured the case received little

attention in the United States."http://plane-truth.com/Aoude/geocities/lestercoleman.html

I cannot find any other newspapers, American or British, that talk about his conviction being overturned.

The article does exist, because http://www.newsint-archive.co.uk/pages/free.asp is the database, and the article can be found if you input the following:

I set the search times from 1 May 1999 to 1 August 1999.

"Lockerbie" is the search term

So, where can I find a US government record that this conviction was overturned and that the ruling was sealed? I find it unusual that this is the only newspaper article that talked about his conviction being overturned. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search for the author of that story, Marcello Mega, indicates that he has something of a fondness for fringe theories concerning the Lockerbie incident, as in this story. Looie496 (talk) 03:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so that seems to be his point of view. The author believes in the conspiracy.

The question of whether the conviction was reversed or not would be a factual question. I find it unlikely that such a conviction would actually be reversed if there isn't a single American newspaper and if there are no other British newspapers reporting on it. I want to know where I should look in order to check whether Mega's statements are correct.

Anyway I referred to this thread at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Lester_Coleman_request_for_comment

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I found an article on the Lexington Herald-Leader.

"EX-FEDERAL AGENT SENTENCED FOR CHECK FRAUD TERM IS PROBATED BUT DEFENDANT ALSO FACES U.S. PERJURY CONVICTION." Lexington Herald-Leader. April 11, 2000. - This says that his perjury conviction was still in effect, and "He will be transferred to federal custody because he is wanted for parole violations" - This also answers the question of why he was released in 2000.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is more information on this story on this old Geocities web page: Lester Coleman - from agent to outcast. The section titled Les Coleman wins Lockerbie appeal states the following details: In a 3-0 decision a 3 judge panel at the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on May 4, 1999 that Circuit Judge Thomas C. Platt violated the civil rights of defendant, Lester Coleman. This should give something to search for. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 11

family

to whome this may concern i have been trying to find information about my father and his family my mother realy dont no much i no my father was born in 1902 he said he came to pass christan ms when he was 17 i no he dame from purto rico hi mother name was petra delgado and his fathers name was pancho levy i hope you can help me i have tryed every thing to find out that side of my family history if i can get a pitcher or any thing i would be so gratful i have tryed anstry that didny help.its like my fathrt never exzisted please help me i no he married my mother in june 12 1964 my name is toni james thank you i hope to find something soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.80.228 (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you know that he lived in Pass Christian, Mississippi, then your best option is to find the records department at the Pass Christian town/city hall and try to find him on the rolls, for example paying local taxes and the such. At the minimum, he should also have birth records for his children, things like that. You could also try U.S. Imigration records, and U.S. census records, both of which are freely availible if you know who to ask. --Jayron32 03:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might find something useful here[22]. Alansplodge (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why have the rich been acting against everyone's interest?

In economies with robust consumer spending, the net present value of assets is much larger than in societies where the middle class is shrinking, even when the nominal value of assets is increasing. Why do the rich tend to increase their nominal wealth instead of their net present value wealth? 208.54.5.71 (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Thorstein Veblen pointed out long ago, what rich people are really trying to increase is their social status, by and large. Which of these measures do you think would correlate best with social status? Looie496 (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So how is the problem addressed? Lowering the status of those who forgo net present value for lesser nominal wealth? Satire? IRS audits? Actuaries canvassing luxury stores? 208.54.5.71 (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your second question, because people are placed in the category "rich" according to their nominal wealth, and NPV wealth is not measured for that purpose? So its just a matter of definition? Where do you get your information from, by the way? Please also explain the logical connections between your first question and the two sentences in your text - they seem to be non sequitur (logic), unless you have hidden assumptions that you have not revealed.I doubt that the implication of your first question is correct. 92.24.189.189 (talk) 11:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

v:Rising Tide 71.198.176.22 (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Depression

what were relief boots and who wore them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.167.133 (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any reference whatsover to anything like that. Looie496 (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were "running shoes," worn by poor children. Rather than leather shoes with leather soles, they could be canvas shoes with rubber shoes, like tennis shoes or basketball shoes. See [23]. Think of any clothing which allows assholes to claim they are better than you because they don't have to wear "relief boots" or any other charity garment, because their Dad hasn't lost his job (yet). Edison (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of the footwear equivalent of Government cheese. --Jayron32 04:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Average Life Expectancy of African-American Single Mother

How do long do the average African-American single mother live up to? What is their life expectancy? 99.245.73.51 (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried looking at http://www.census.gov ? They have a wealth of information like this availible there. This page has a document titled "Expectation of Life and Expected Deaths by Race, Sex, and Age: 2004" and is availible in both Microsoft Excel and PDF formats. --Jayron32 04:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pauline bienvenue "free men of color buying slaves in 1860 in new orleans"

I'm looking for information on Pauline Bienvenue and her connection to free men of color buying slaevs in 1860 in New Orleans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.202.120 (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can find nothing on a Pauline Bienvenue in either google OR google books. I change of spelling turns up a Pauline Bienvenu in google books, [24], however her name appears in the records of the French National Assembly during the French Revolution, apparently the government authorized a payment of 120 livres (pounds sterling) to her for mending some drapes. Doesn't sound like your girl. Otherwise, I turn up squadoosh in a google search. Sorry. --Jayron32 05:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Livres were the currency of pre-Revolutionary France although it has a common root with the Pound Sterling (i.e. originally a pound (weight) of silver). Alansplodge (talk) 12:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not on this woman, but Wikipedia's art:::icle Free negro, does describe the practice of free blacks owning other black slaves. There are some references at the end of the article, numbers 6, 7, and 8, which appear to have some related information. That may give you some leads. --Jayron32 05:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1930s Depression, 1950s abundance

How did the USA get from the great depression of the 1930s, as illustrated by The Grapes Of Wrath, to the abundance of the 1950s? In historical terms it seems rather quick. Or was the depression and abundance illusionary and not universal? 92.24.189.189 (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World Wars have historically proved to be rather lucrative for the USA (at least that's what they told us at school in the UK - stand by for a scholarly debate). This page has some details[25]. Alansplodge (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A starting point is that in the 1930's, unemployment was a major problem. After the wars, it was common for households to have both parents with full-time employment. -- kainaw ™ 12:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to note in the references cited by Kainaw that the US economy went from one with a relatively small federal government which did not collect income taxes and spent comparatively little, to a vast tax/spend/borrow governemnt. Tea Party speakers claim that it is impossible for the government now to improve the economy and reduce unemployment by collecting taxes and spending money and borrowing. The UK also went through war conversion, but I understand that the British people still did not get adequate food in the 1950's, that heat was limited and that electric power was somewhat erratic and inadequate. Did the UK not have a postwar boom of household abundance in the 1950's? Edison (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the UK had a 1950s boom, but it took a while to get going. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because our infra-structure was bombed to bits (there were still large numbers of Brits living in prefab houses in the 1970s); we were only saved from bankruptcy in 1946 by a huge loan from the US while other Europeans were getting Marshall Aid, and a massive defence bill due to the Cold War and the retreat from Empire. Alansplodge (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Harold Macmillan's successful slogan for the General Election of 1959 was "You never had it so good!". And compared with the Slump, Wartime Austerity and even-more-severe Postwar Austerity, he was right and the electorate agreed with him. The Labour Government of 1945-1951 was credited by the voters with introducing reforms like the National Health Service, but remembered negatively for the continuation of rationing and shortages like those of the dark, cold, winter of 1947. Macmillan and R.A. Butler, his Chancellor of the Exchequer, were "red Tories" and stone-cold Keynesians of a type that would make true Tea Partiers and U.S. Libertarians shudder. —— Shakescene (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1950s few women worked outside the home. The 1960s and the advent of feminism changed all of that.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were two reasons for the US recovery from the Great Depression: a very large fiscal stimulus (WWII) and a rise in inflation. During the depression, the economy was crippled by an enormous amount of private debt, but because of inflation this debt was much diminished, relative to the size of the economy. [26] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.166.72.254 (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to statistics I find online, the female workforce increased from 1950-1960: 9% increase, 2 million women more in the workplace by 1952, by 1960, 38% of women worked... -- kainaw ™ 14:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All very good answers, and certainly the second world war had a lot to do with it.

Now, there's tea on the talk page you know! And I am certain that you ladies would be most welcome there, "too"... :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Water supplies during the Berlin airlift

How were the allied-controlled parts of Berlin supplied with water during the 1948–1949 Soviet blockade? —Mark Dominus (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin gets all of its drinking water from deep wells. It currently has 9 waterworks and exports water to Brandenburg. I would suspect that at least some of these wells and works are in West Berlin. Given that the Havel and the Spree also flow through West Berlin, water is not a vulnerability. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! —Mark Dominus (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

costs of things

how much social security money has been spent on Irag and Afghanistan wars —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parpar47 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, from "Social Security" I'm going to assume you're a U.S. citizen. The total expenditure on activities in Iraq and Afghanistan since the September 11 attacks has been ~£1.1 trillion (£1,100,000,000,000) according to the Congressional Budget Office. ([27]) However, obviously nowhere near all of that money would have gone into social security had it not been spent on the wars. For example, between 2000 (before this whole mess started) and 2009, U.S. Defense spending rose from $294b to $690b, while spending on social security rose from $409b to $431b ([28]).

Would social security spending have risen more had it not been for the inflating Defense budget? Probably, but who knows by how much, and maybe it wouldn't have at all. Personally, I suspect that spending wouldn't have increased all that much more, but the U.S. would have a much lower national debt than it's currently bearing, and would have had a bit more leeway in dealing with the economic crisis, which in all likelihood would have taken place, foreign wars or no. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is another angle to this. Apparently, the Social Security Administration invests most (or all) of the social security system surplus (and yes, there usually is some!) into the Social Security Trust Fund, which uses it to buy special US federal government bonds. So the social security system does finance a significant part of the US deficit, and hence of the government spending. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) For the Americans in the crowd (such as myself) that's $1,747,418,586.18. I'm happy to pay off the 18 cents myself, but I could have sworn the mid-east wars tallied up to a good bit more than that - I seem to remember a figure of closer to 3 trillion dollars. Is the CBO report excluding some costs (interest payments, payouts to non-governmental contractors, stockpile consumption, or other implicit expenditures)? --Ludwigs2 17:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source document GeeJo quotes is American, and uses US dollars exclusively. The relevant deficit was $1.1 trillion, not £1.1 trillion. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lookup ancestry.co.uk ?

Who was Mary Arbuthnott who married 1990 Ran Laurie father of Hugh Laurie? Kittybrewster ☎ 17:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Road by Cormac McCarthy

Was the misspelling of words, use of non-words and lack of apostophes intentional in this book? I finally started writing words down to look them up after thinking I was coming down with Alzheimer's.

@@ Line 325: / Line 325: @@
 ==Lookup ancestry.co.uk ?==
 Who was Mary Arbuthnott who married 1990 [[Ran Laurie]] father of [[Hugh Laurie]]? [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster ]] [[User_talk:Kittybrewster|<font color="0000FF">&#9742;</font>]] 17:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
+== The Road by Cormac McCarthy ==
+Was the misspelling of words, use of non-words and lack of apostophes intentional in this book? I finally started writing words down to look them up after thinking I was coming down with Alzheimer's.