Revision as of 10:21, 3 May 2011

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

• WP:RD/H

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

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.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages: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.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

April 28

what is a stock "target price"?

what is a "target price", what does it mean? Does it mean "what it will be exactly 12 months from now" or "what it will be exactly one month from now" or "what it really should be now" or what?

Now I have a bizarre question. If all the firms like J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs, issue a price target of "100" when the stock is trading at 50 now, but a call option with a strike price of 60 for 18 months from now is only priced at 20 (the premium), then does that mean that the "market disagrees with Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan"? Because you can buy at 20, hold for 12 months, and the stock is at 100, meaning you're $40 in the money, i.e. 200% of what you paid, plus there is time value for the next six months? How should I interpret an agreement from all the firms like Sachs and J.P. Morgan and my own analysis for target of 100, and reconcile that with the options market valuing a call option for 60 that expires 18 months from now at just $20 premium??

Is my interpretation that this means the market grossly disagrees with J.P. MOrgan, Goldman Sachs, and my own analysis, correct? (Since otherwise, it would not give someone a 200% ROI, it would price the premium on the option much higher). Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.2.135 (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Essentially, it's the price an analyst thinks a stock should reach at a certain time. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That's how I would interpret the option price, yes. I would also note that if J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs were so damn sure about that target price, then they, and the clients whose money they manage, would have bought those options (and the stock itself) so much that the price would have risen, such that there was no "gross" disparity between the current price and the eventual target. Note that these firms are not to be trusted with "target prices". The underwriter of any IPO, for example, always claims some fancifully sky-high "target price", which differs a lot from the evaluations of any disinterested financial firms. Also I don't think that these firms often put a date on their "target" prices. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

GK Question

which country/province contains a large group of historic cities and also one of World's major rivers passing through it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.228.20 (talk) 06:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

There are lots of countries that fit this description. Germany, Russia, China, and the U.S. all spring to mind, and the list doesn't stop there. —Angr (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Depending on what "major river" means, take a look at List of rivers by discharge. So, major rivers with many historic cities? Ganges, Yangtze, Brahmaputra, Mekong, Pearl, Saint Lawrence, Volga, Danube, Indus, Ghaghara, Yamuna, Nile, Yellow, Rhine, Rhone, Po... any of these would satisfy the question. Take your pick. Pfly (talk) 09:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That GK site has some of the worst defined questions. Googlemeister (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Do we know which site it is, so we can avoid it? – b_jonas 13:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

What gigs in life will force me to mature faster?

So my case manager assumes that "if you haven't matured enough by 24, then you'll never mature."

I counterpointed him with, "I'm sure some of Edison's colleagues once told him that after 500 tries, if he couldn't make a working lightbulb by now, he will never make one. But he did, 9,500 more tries later."

Even though I'm disqualified from military service just because of current medication, I asked him how much faster anyone in my situation would mature. He said "the military would make or break you." Some wouldn't even be in combat before just the military life compounds mental health issues.

So with that option out, what could be some ways to mature faster? Thanks. --129.130.99.8 (talk) 10:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're disqualified from military service, maybe you can join some paramilitary organization like the police, fire department, or Boy Scouts. Pais (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure the mental health would disqualify me from the police. Fire Dept. - there may be a little better possibility. Boy scouts - isn't that a now or never for 17 and under? --129.130.99.8 (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing that mention of Boy Scouts means that you're in the USA. (Most of the rest of the world now has just Scouts, including girls at all levels.) But adult leaders are always welcome in Scouting in my country, and training is excellent. I suspect the same is true of America. HiLo48 (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"Paramilitary" wouldn't be the first word that would spring to mind if you saw my Scouts trying to march! Alansplodge (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha. Have to agree with that for my mob too. It's definitely not what they're good at! HiLo48 (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP address is assigned to a location in the U.S., so I assumed the OP is in the U.S. and answered accordingly. Another option is the Militia movement; if you have mental health issues, you'll fit right in. In some of them, it may even be a prerequisite. Pais (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Jokes aside, if you have mental health issues, please consider not to hold a weapon on your hand. A much better attitude could be to go with something which could build you up, like outdoor sports or team sports. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I would just suggest getting out there and volunteering in lots of places, especially with other adults. Get exposed to lots of different people's approach to life, and be open minded about accepting some of the ideas and approaches involved. HiLo48 (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Scouting UK also do "Network Scouts" for 18-25 year olds.. though there might not be a group in every area. --Errant 11:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you're into motorcycles at all, but if you are, you might think about joining a Biker gang. Some of them are pretty regimented, much like the military. There are some criminal ones, but others do a lot of charity work and generally obey the law. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

My late father-in-law used to tell me "Growing older is mandatory - growing up is optional". Just something to bear in mind when people tell you you're being unnecessarily childish! --TammyMoet (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

129.130.99.8—what do you mean by "mature"? We may be applying different definitions in our different responses. Bus stop (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

When I thought further about the conversation the OP had had, many questions came up. What definition of "maturity" was the manager using? What behaviours did he believe displayed "maturity"? Is the manager's definition a generally accepted one, or is it peculiar to his/her culture/religion? I understand the OP may not in a position to challenge said manager, but if it were me in that situation, I definitely would! --TammyMoet (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I would also question the manager's perspective. I was not very mature, by some measures, at age 24, but I think most people would find me fairly mature now at more than twice that age. I have not done military service. Maturation does not stop at age 24. Since I know that the manager is wrong from my own experience, I don't have much respect for his point of view. However, if you have to work with this person, ask him to list qualities that he associates with maturity, mention that you are disqualified for military service, and ask him to suggest other ways you might develop those qualities. If his suggestions all involve the risk of bodily harm, as military service does, then I question whether this person has your best interests at heart. Could you consider going to his superior with that information and requesting assignment to a different manager? Marco polo (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I would be interested to know if the OP has ever held a job. That is often a good first step in gaining maturity. Part of being a mature person is accepting that there are things in life that you have to do, even though you might not want to do them (even a relatively simple thing like getting up each morning and showing up for work on time can aid in maturity). Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points:

Your case manager is wrong. people can mature at any point in their life, and there's no 'state of maturity' to reach. it's an ongoing process that continues over your life.

'Maturing' is a complex phenomenon. Basically 'maturing' means finding better, more satisfying ways of existing in the world that's given to you. Often times the next step in maturity is completely incomprehensible - you cannot make sense of it until you've taken the step; and once you've taken the step, you have a had time making sense of the way you thought before. Most people do not take a step up in maturity until they are dissatisfied and uncomfortable with their current state of existence (part of the reason why the rich and powerful in the world tend to be notably immature).

Life experience is good. having to face different facets of life forces you to adapt to new situations, and the act of adapting opens the door to a growth in maturity. It's not sufficient - a lot of times people will adapt to new situations by trying to turn them into old situations, so that they can continue with the same way of existence they've always had - but it does open the door to the possibility. Best thing you can do is to actively avoid trying to force things back into your comfort zone. If you feel unsettled by a situation, be humble and allow yourself to be unsettled by it; accept that you're not quite sure what the problem is and can't figure out how to solve it. If you do that, your own mind will naturally and quietly work on the problem until it figures out a way to make the unsettledness go away, and that will likely be a moment of maturing.

Most of all, just have a little faith in yourself. it will happen naturally if you let it, there's no need to force it. --Ludwigs2 17:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

All options to work without leaving my apartment?

I hope to find a job that doesn't require me to leave my apartment, nor has a fixed schedule on which to attend. (I'd have trouble with morning commutes especially in rush hour traffic. Also, I'm not a morning person.)

Therefore, I'd like jobs that only have a due date, but doesn't require me to be at it during fixed times every day, nor go anywhere to do it. Preferably something that I can submit online.

What jobs are they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.130.99.8 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Some possibilities: freelance translator; writer; composer; (visual) artist. Pais (talk) 11:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

See our articles telecommuting and freelancer. As you probably know, very few companies are comfortable with actual employees who work exclusively at home, with the notable exception of, as the telecommuting article states, call center employees. Quite a few more companies are comfortable working with independent contractors who can work on their own schedule on their own, as the freelancer article discusses. The disadvantage of the latter is the need to continuously scramble to line up the next job while you're working on the current one. Being a freelancer, you will not realize the goal of never leaving your apartment (if that is really a goal). People want to meet, in person, the people they do business with. After that first meeting, some managers will be comfortable with never seeing you again and only interacting with you for the remainder of the project via phone, e-mail, and even IM; but you should expect many managers will want to meet with you regularly, at least when a milestone delivery is due. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You may like to work as a telephone answering service. OK so you might have to meet those who hire you to do this, but you would otherwise be working at home, answering calls for small businesses who can't afford to hire staff. --TammyMoet (talk) 07:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Phone sex worker. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Most employers have a simple expectation that you will show up and do your work for the number of hours specified in your employment contract. Assuming you are looking for a reasonably professional type of job and depending on the employer, you are usually expected to show up some time in the morning (usually before 10am) so that you can interact with your work colleagues. Once you have been there for a while, you might be able to discuss working from home on some occasions. Astronaut (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you do, watch out for fraudulent work-at-home schemes. —Angr (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

And about online stock trading...

I would like to start on trading starter tech stocks. What stock trading software can I download (hopefully, for free?) that has the lowest cost-per-trade and would allow me to buy and sell these stocks fast? (e-trade, ameritrade, datek, etc.)

I was told not to put all eggs in one basket, so of course I'll diversify by buying stocks from 10 separate starter tech companies at once. (Hopefully the cost-per-trade will remain the same, despite whether I buy from one company, ten, or one hundred. Right?)

PS: Where are some great YouTube lecture videos that gives primers on how to trade stocks online? (As well as specifically about penny stocks?) If the lectures come from the Ivies, then that could be a plus.

Thanks in advance, --129.130.99.8 (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Why would Ivy League lectures be of any value? Can they even predict the future? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.34 (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Any of the discount brokerages (Scottrade, E-Trade, etc.) let you trade online for a low commission. They also provide analysis software for free, so long as you have an account. In general, each trade of a different stock is a different commission, although you can trade 1 or 1,000 shares for the same commission. Given the high volume of trading necessary to make money(not to mention the volatility of penny stocks), this is a losing game unless you have thousands (preferably tens of thousands) of dollars in risk capital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.186.80.1 (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that although it seems very exciting, most at-home day traders end up losing all their money. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? What makes you say that? Please back that up with a source or some other reputable link. Thanks! --70.179.169.115 (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

See Efficient-market hypothesis. Unless perhaps you have the equivalent of PhD in something like algorithmic trading and the resources of a major bank, then you may as well gamble your money at a casino. The "rake" of the stock market in trading fees is I guess more than that of a casino, so you would be worse off. A lot of people will be happy to sell you various stuff such as software and shares. I suggest studying the subject for a few months and trying simulated trades (remembering to take into account transaction charges and real-life delays) before spending any money. 92.15.8.107 (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Admiral Sir William Penn

It is common knowledge/folklore that William Penn, Quaker & founder of Pennsylvania colony, received his grant for land in the New World from Charles II to settle a 'debt" the crown owed his father, Admiral Sir William Penn? Can anyone provide details on what occasioned the debt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.86.71 (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

According to William Penn (Royal Navy officer), he commanded the ship which brought Charles II back to England from the Continent. Perhaps the "debt" was not a financial one, but rather one of gratitude for his role in the Restoration. It also seems that he as a bit of a "double agent" during the Commonwealth period, serving actively in the Commonwealth Navy, while remaining in "communication" with expatriate Royalists. --Jayron32 13:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No, the debt was a financial one. Apparently Admiral Penn was owed £16,000, consisting of backpay, money expended on supplying the navy, and five years' interest on the unpaid debt. --Antiquary (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

what's a 501?

I know what a 401k is, but what's a 501? 94.27.199.222 (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean a 501(c)? Pais (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

A 501(c) is a tax-exempt organization in America. If that's not what you were thinking of, here are some other uses of 501. BurtAlert (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

More specifically they're references to the section of the Internal Revenue Code that define them. Shadowjams (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Guevara resources

Please suggest some books and journal articles that explore the negative/brutal side of Che Guevara. --Dcrucalu (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Che_Guevara#References is a good start. I'm sure you can peruse those and find ones with the perspective you are looking for. --Jayron32 13:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Just did a quick Amazon search and found Exposing the Real Che Guevara: And the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him by Humberto Fontova. From the title and the description it seems pretty critical. BurtAlert (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

We have an article about Humberto Fontova which covers that book and another he's written on the same subject. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 14:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Middletons as middle class

Will Brits stop seeing the Middletons as middle class after the wedding? It's surely amusing that they are seen as middle class despise their millions and the top education of their children. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Will they suddenly gain noble ancestors after the wedding? Certainly, Kate and William's children will no longer be of the middle class, but under the usual British understanding of class, its not a thing thats solely tied to wealth. People who get very rich doing very middle class things didn't instantly become "upper class". Likewise, there have been very poor noble families who wouldn't be considered not nobility merely because they had no money... --Jayron32 16:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Noble families never - ever refer to themselves as poor. Financially distressed perhaps, but never poor ! After all, the poor live in poverty by choice, where as the nobility are short of liquidity due to misfortunes being forced upon them. Usually blamed on the evil deeds of others which separates them from Dieu et mon droit and the cash that goes with it. --Aspro (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You're spot on about money and class being, especially these days, quite separate things. The OP does hint at something that's been annoying me for a while. The press have been building this up as the tale of the ordinary girl that became a princess, which is total nonsense. Both of her parents are business proprietor. Her dad's side of the family includes pilots, bank managers, and solicitors (). And that was back before all of the ambulance chasers that we have today; when going into law, in fact just going to university, really was very prestigious. Fair enough, her mother's side of the family is ordinary; but she's far from being an ordinary girl. — Fly by Night (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Your IP address suggests that you are in Spain. Understand that the British have a different concept of class than some other societies. See Social structure of the United Kingdom. Marco polo (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

So going by that article... we will have to wait to see if a certain person calls herself Princess Billy of Cymru before we know for sure if she's is U or non-U. Or should that be 'ov' Cymru?--Aspro (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If you define class purely in economic terms, the Middletons probably rate as "Upper" (or at least Upper-Middle)... but in a land like England, where historically class was defined in terms of Nobility, Squirearchy, Merchants and Peasants, things are a bit more complicated. Blueboar (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

In the UK, working class and middle class are determined largely by how you live your life, just as in the US; upper class, however, is determined by your family. You can become upper class by marrying into the upper class, so I think Kate could easily be considered upper class after the wedding. In the past, the rest of her family might have been able to ride into the upper classes on her coattails, but I don't think that kind of thing happens much any more (it's not like there's an active royal court that you can get your family positions in). --Tango (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

…because not many people in Britain, besides the tourists, give a damn. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Class is commonly used to refer to two different yet related complexes: social hierarchies of cultural status; and, social relationship to production. Both the Middletons and Windsors extract surplus value from the UKGBNI working class, and from the international working class, through their ownership of capital or control of apparatus that is effectively equivalent to the ownership of capital in value terms (the UKGBNI parliament). They are both "bourgeois". However, in terms of the social hierarchy of cultural status their positions are determined differently, with reference to survivals of pre 19th century culture mainly through inheritance. It is possible to be "bourgeois and middle class" "bourgeois and noble / upper class" and "bourgeois and working class". It kind of depends on why you're conducting a class analysis. British royalty has long accepted the commercial basis of their state's power. And this is yet another stitch up wedding to cement the British bourgeoisie's hegemony over social discourse. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Or, you know, they could actually love each other.--Britannicus (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• You know, the fact that he seems to be a genuinely nice chap who hasn't fucked around his girlfriend and genuinely wants to marry her means that I've excluded him from my opinion that a Cromwellian solution is appropriate for the house of Windsor. Is this not a kind of love? Fifelfoo (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"...who hasn't fucked around his girlfriend ..." That's not the impression I got. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a specimen of British slang that I'm not sure I understand, but I think it means that he hasn't cheated on his girlfriend, and the article you linked gives no evidence that he has. Marco polo (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. It means to mess someone around. Cheating on them would count, but so would numerous other things. --Tango (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That works no matter how you parse it: fucked around his girlfriend and fucked around his girlfriend. -- Jack of Oz 20:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, working collar folks who started their own business, made a success of it, and were able to send their daughter to an exclusive school. Hardly qualifies them as upper crust. "British bourgeousie's hegemony over social discourse"? A bit of a left turn, no pun intended. No maybe it was. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You obviously didn't take the time to read my first post, nor follow the link to her family tree. Do you call pilots, bank mangers and solicitors "working collar folks"? Having three generations of solicitors starting in the 1800's is far from being "working collar". As little time ago as the 1950's, a university education was a really big deal, reserved for the privileged few. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard the expression "working collar" before. Is it a portmanteau of "working class" and "blue collar"? —Angr (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Fly by Night could be right here: isn't it much more pleasant to believe that Kate is from an ordinary middle-class family and that your daughter could be the next one who's married by a royalty? – b_jonas 13:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

cause of domestic terrorism

Post-nomial letters and the law

In the UK, is the use of post-nomial letters regulated in any way? As in, if I go round referring to myself as Bill Bloggs MA even though I don't have a degree, is that itself illegal? What about Bill Bloggs CBE? Or Bill Bloggs FRSA? (Not a request for legal advice because I don't want to do these things – my name isn't even Bill! – but as a matter of interest.) ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 22:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding post-nominals arising from military decorations (e.g. VC): Section 197 of the Army Act of 1955 made it a criminal offense if someone "falsely represents himself to be a person who is or has been entitled to use or wear any suchdecoration". Whether simply having VC on your business card would be sufficient to trigger that I don't know, but on the face of it, it might have been. Apparently this provision was altered in the Armed Forces Act 2006, but as it's massive I can't find what that change was. 87.115.52.162 (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

In Britain you are normally free to use any name you like as long as you are not doing so for fraudulent purposes. I don't see why the post-nominal part shouldn't be the same (unless it is specifically prohibited in particular cases). But perhaps if you used an honour or qualification you weren't entitled to, you might have to work harder to establish that this wasn't for fraudulent purposes. --ColinFine (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

In Britain you are normally free to use any name you like ... Except Princess Catherine. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That's her title, but there's nothing to stop her from calling herself Kate. Or Gertrude, for that matter, if she's of a mind to. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Mitch's point is that Princess Catherine is not her title, even though William asked for it to be. Pais (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure she could call herself that anyway. At no small risk of causing trouble. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Pretending to have a degree you don't really have for personal gain (eg. to get a job) would be fraud. I don't think there is any specific law about post-nominal letters, though. --Tango (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If you decided to call yourself John Smith, M.D., you could probably get away with it if you merely wanted to work at McDonald's. If you opened a business as a physician, that could cause some problems. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If you opened a business as a physician without actually being a medical doctor, you'd be in problem no matter what name you used. – b_jonas 13:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Natural law and anti-slavery in antiquity

I am trying to find instances of anti-slavery concepts and thoughts in history from about 1600 back. I would really like to find an example where someone put 2 and 2 together and said that man by nature (or perhaps by God) has the right to life and liberty and that taking these rights from a man without due cause would be immoral and unjust. The Stoic view just seems like they were trying to rationalize doing what they knew to be wrong. Can anybody point me in the right direction? --65.195.232.118 (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well this is way back there. B.C. but I believe Plato wrote some stuff about self-determination and freedom/liberty.190.56.107.254 (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The Lollard medieval priest John Ball was a major organizer of the Peasants' Revolt against the English feudal system - which placed the serfs at the very bottom, with few rights - in 1381. The rebellion became very bloody - the Lord Treasurer was killed, the Tower of London was stormed, as was the home of the king's uncle - but among Ball's quotes was this statement, "From the beginning all men by nature were created alike... ." DCI2026 (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Our article on Abolitionism has examples going back to the early 16th century, including the New Laws of 1542 which banned slavery in Spanish New World. (In 1545, the laws were repealed, but still, there were there for a time...) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, and you don't need a philosopher to know that oppressed people want to be free. (You do need a philosopher to explain how in fact people are better off under oppression.) See Spartacus. And certainly the teachings of Jesus Christ are against slavery if they're against anything (even without a specific reference to the matter).--Rallette (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment on the original statement that slave-holding societies should have figured out that "man by nature (or perhaps by God) has the right to life and liberty and that taking these rights from a man without due cause would be immoral and unjust": I think many people in ancient societies did hold this view. Unlike us, however, they thought that if someone was captured as a prisoner of war, or found guilty of a particularly heinous crime, then that would (in their societies) constitute "due cause" for taking them into slavery (see "Slavery#Ancient"). For them slavery was just as natural a punishment as throwing felons in jail is for us. Gabbe (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

@User:Rallette: The Bible and slavery seems to imply that both the Old and New Testaments are pretty vague on the issue of slavery. It actually does take considerable work to consider human beings who are less well off than you, who are less "civilized" than you, who are a different color than you, etc., are actually accorded the same rights as you. The idea that this is self-evident (rather than the result of an ongoing process of Enlightenment, which is hardly complete) is belied by the historical record. There is ample evidence that people normalize received privilege quite easily. They continue to do so to this day to lesser degrees than slavery. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You won't find much. Concepts of equality in the Ancient world were all 'in group' equality: You'll find liberal democratic leanings in Greek thought, Roman thought, even ancient Hebrew (pre-Judges) thought, but only with respect to Greeks, Romans, and Hebrews. Outsiders viewed as non-people, to be dealt with as needed. Universalistic egalitarian principles really began with Christian monotheism, and even that took a thousand years before it shifted from equality in God's eyes to equality in man's eyes (beginning with Protestant secularism, I'd guess). You'll have best luck with Roman philosophers (Maybe Augustine?), or by shifting to non-European contexts (some forms of Hindu and Buddhist thought are broadly egalitarian). --Ludwigs2 15:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Our article Slavery in Britain and Ireland quotes Anselm of Canterbury at the Council of London (1102); ""Let no one hereafter presume to engage in that nefarious trade in which hitherto in England men were usually sold like brute animals.". This is thought to have carried moral rather than legal force. A reported quote from an English court case in 1569 over a slave imported from Russia; "that England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in." The slave was freed. More details at Slavery at common law. Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Still, these sentiments were not meant to be universal either, but explicitly confined to either a geographical locality (England) or perhaps Christians in general. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

William Francis Ainsworth and the Battle of Nasib

The article about William Francis Ainsworth (cousin of the novelist William Harrison Ainsworth) in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography states:

Ainsworth's next venture, the Kurdistan expedition, was altogether less successful. The Royal Geographical Society, one of the supporters of the Euphrates expedition, and the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge undertook an expedition to the survivors of the Nestorian church to purchase or transcribe ancient manuscripts in their possession. An ulterior motive was to map and explore remote areas which were politically sensitive and possibly contained mineral deposits. Ainsworth was put in charge and went to Mesopotamia, through Asia Minor, the passes of the Taurus Mountains, and northern Syria, where he was arrested as he observed the battle of Nasib in 1839. Although the British ambassador secured his release, his maps and plans were confiscated and their irrelevance to the Nestorian church made public the real motives of the expedition. Ainsworth returned via the Kurdistan Mountains and Lake Orumiyyeh in Persia, continuing through Armenia and reaching Constantinople late in 1840.

Does anyone have more information on the battle of Nasib in 1839? I have been unable to find anything by googleing. Thanks. P. S. Burton (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I found it, Battle of Nezib. P. S. Burton (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

April 29

Round homes

In recent years, have any round vacation homes (they look a bit like silos, for example the "Monte-Silo" house in Utah) been built, particularly in the Upper Midwest? Is there any information about these homes online or on Misplaced Pages? DCI2026 (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have not found any articles or categories regarding round dwellings on Misplaced Pages, though browsing around articles related to silos yielded the Quaker Square article. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Upper Midwest (almost) and recent (geologically speaking)

Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Early Breton dynasty?

I have done genealogical research lately and have discovered that some ancestors were early Breton monarchs. This seems to be during a period - roughly the early "Dark" Ages - when Brittany evolved from a Celtic tribal region and became a land divided into principalities like "Domnonee" and "Cornouaille." Among these supposed monarch-ancestors is a "Prince Hoel-Vychan II of Cornouaille", who lived in the sixth century, and a Hoel III, who had a female descendant who married into a Celtic (Welsh?) family. To make matters more complicated, this Welsh family contained rulers of the long-gone kingdom of Pomys - Merfyn Frych is one of these Pomys rulers. DCI2026 (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's List of rulers of Brittany only mentions a Hoel II of Brittany, who was also Hoel V of Cornouaille, an earlier Hoel would have been Hoel III of Cornouialle then. I don't find either of your names at the French Misplaced Pages, which has a "List of kings and counts of Cornouialle" here: and a "List of Princes of Armorican Dumnonee" here: and a "List of Sovereigns of Vannetais" here: ; the three main regions of Brittany being Cornouaille, Dumnonee, and Vannetais. However, I did find at the "List of Armorican Chiefs" here: , a "Hoel III" who is listed as a "Roi" or king, sadly the redlink means that the French Misplaced Pages has no info on him either. I see no information on any Hoel-Vychan II on any of these lists, however. As far as the Welsh kingdom, I assume you mean Powys and not Pomys. Kingdom of Powys mentions Merfyn Frych. That article has a rather complete list of the Kings of Powys, so you may find more luck there than researching the Breton lines. --Jayron32 03:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the question here? Brittany was settled by people from Wales and south west Britain (see map) - the areas of Cornouaille and Dumnonée in Brittany derive their names from Cornwall and Devon (Dumnonia). At that point in time, Wales (including Powys), Devon, Cornwall and Brittany were part of one ("Celtic") cultural whole, sharing a (broadly) common language. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for replying - both answers have helped. DCI2026 (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That was very fortuitous, DCI2026. In future, could you please actually ask a question, so that it's clear exactly what it is you're wanting to know. Your statement could have led to many different questions. -- Jack of Oz 20:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Tales Of Hoffman

1951 Film Production of "Tales Of Hoffman"

When I saw this film in 1952, I believe I recall a beautiful scene depicting a ballerina dancing upon lilly pads.

Today when I review scenes of this movie on the computer I cannot find the above scene. Do you know if this scence was subsequently edited from the original film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.69.203 (talk) 03:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Here it is. The BFI synopsis says it takes place during the prologue. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Perception of healthiness of country vs. Perception of one's own situation

Some years ago I read about how the perception of a people of the healthiness its own country vs. how individuals perceive their own state differs vastly by country, but is in direct correlation to the media of the country. For example: in the US, IIRC, 40% more people were willing to say they were doing well than were willing to say the country was doing well: this gave the US a number of -40, which was the lowest of any country (but very comparable to other western nations). The worst offender was Zimbabwe, which had a number something like +30/40, and which has a completely non-free press. Russia was about +11, China was in the negative but not as much as the US, etc.

There is actually an official term for this. Does any of you know what it is? I'm trying to find more stats about it. 68.232.119.30 (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation bias came to mind, but I'm not so sure that's it. People like to think that they have control of their own situation, while they typically can't control the larger world, so they might be more apprehensive about it. Yellow journalism feeds into this. The Hearst papers a century ago and more were sensationalistic. Nowadays you might call it the CNN / Fox News syndrome. Negative things often make for interesting news subjects, but they can also make people think that "things are worse than they really are." That complaint about the media has been around for a long time. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There's also the addage "All politics is local", meaning of course that regardless of what your opinion is of how the world is going; how your immediate situation is going has a greater impact on your political decisions. --Jayron32 12:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a standard feature of political poll results in the U.S. in recent decades that people have a very negative view of congress overall, but are on average moderately satisfied with their own individual local congressman... AnonMoos (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Which is probably one reason why discussion of congressional term limits has gone nowhere. Many would like other states terms limited, but not their own. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Congressional term limits were being implemented until they were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1995 in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton. It was a close 5-4 decision, with Kennedy joining the liberals to kill term limits. Unless another case comes along to reverse this ruling, it would take a constitutional amendment to implement term limits, which is always a difficult process. —Kevin Myers 07:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

god vs satan

who is more powerful? who will win if there is a conflict between them? --Satanist God (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, given that in most religions God is omnipotent, I think it's fair to say that that trumps Satan. The question you should be asking is, who'd win in a fight between Satan and a dinosaur? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 13:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You kind of need to give us a theological context; there is no shared belief about what god is and what Satan is. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

In a battle of wills, Satan would win. God is merely the indifferent Creator, while Satan is Lord and Ruler of the Earth. Satanism celebrates Man's link to nature, and enjoyment of the earth's bounty and indulgence of the senses. God is about denial, sacrifice and putting the intersts of others before one's own. Those things go against nature.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

In a battle of wills, Satan would win. God is merely the indifferent Creator, while Satan is Lord and Ruler of the Earth. Satanism celebrates Man's link to nature, and enjoyment of the earth's bounty and indulgence of the senses. God is about denial, sacrifice and putting the intersts of others before one's own. Those things go against nature. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 14:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"The God of this world" is one of the epithets that the Bible gives to Satan. See these notes and commentary on John 12:31, for example. Gabbe (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ask Harry Hill to sort it out. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Fifelfoo is correct. It depends on how God is conceived. Those who believe that God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and transcendent would take one of the following two positions: 1) God is ominipotent, omnipresent, and transcendent, and Satan does not have an independent existence but is merely a mental construct of those who fail to fully realize or understand God's transcendence and presence; or 2) God is ominipotent, omnipresent, and transcendent, and therefore present in Satan as well. Marco polo (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a good summary. The Christian view would be that God cannot be defeated. Satan is not a god, merely a fallen angel. Whatever Satan's powers are, they are only there because God gave them to him. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Anton LaVey's The Satanic Bible best explains what Satan represents I used to own a copy, but I left it behind in the Texas Bible-belt--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it best explains what Anton LaVey thought Satan represents. Pais (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Then one can also read Dante, Milton, Aleister Crowley, Blatty. The beat goes on.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

See http://www.multilingualbible.com/romans/16-20.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

In Biblical Hebrew, "satan" is a word meaning "adversary" or "accuser." The only major appearance of "ha-satan" ("the satan") in the Hebrew Bible is in the Book of Job where he appears as one of a group of angels. He has the power to mess up Job's life, but he is clearly subservient to God and only uses his powers with God's permission. In much later Jewish works and in Christianity, Satan becomes the incarnation of all evil. In Christianity, he also rules hell. But according to Jewish tradition, Satan is a creation of God (like everything else) who serves the purpose of testing the piety of people. He was created by God and thus could be destroyed by God if God wanted to. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like Satan evolved from a mere angel to a Christianized version of Hades, the Greek god of the underworld. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

OP -- The conception of evil as practically co-equal or equipotent to good is much more characteristic of Persian religious traditions than it is of Judeo-Christian religions. In traditional Christian religious iconography it is St. Michael the Archangel (not God) who fights and conquers the devil, while Judaism doesn't really have a concept of one super-demon ruling over other demons. AnonMoos (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this question has been answered definitively before. "In the struggle between good and evil, evil will always triumph, because good is dumb." -Dark Helmet, Spaceballs (1987) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.156.102 (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Philosophically speaking, should good triumph over evil or evil triumph over good, each would immediately cease to exist, since each depends on the other for its very definition. so there. --Ludwigs2 00:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

See http://www.multilingualbible.com/revelation/20-1.htm and http://www.multilingualbible.com/revelation/20-2.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you're going to need to verify the existence of God and Satan, and publish some reliable data about the strength and abilities of each, before this question can be answered factually. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Within traditional Christian iconography, the question is already answered (see image). On the other hand, if the question is about entities from completely different belief systems, then even some of the geekiest geeks find questions such as whether the Star Wars Empire could defeat the Star Trek Borg (or vice versa) to be extremely pointless and tiresome... AnonMoos (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Continental Army, winter of 1778-1779

Where did the Continental Army spend the winter of 1778-1779? We all know about Valley Forge in Pennsylvania the previous winter. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Middlebrook encampment, apparently. Pfly (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

For security and provisioning reasons, Washington divided the army into three camps for that winter. Middlebrook was the primary encampment, where Washington had his headquarters. Troops also wintered in Danbury, Connecticut and at West Point. "I hope they will be in a more comfortable situation than they were in the preceeding Winter", he explained. —Kevin Myers 03:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Titular William

It seems that, as something of a wedding present, Prince William was created not just Duke of Cambridge, but also Earl of Strathearn as well as Baron Carrickfergus. Looking at each I can't help but notice that the official locality of the Duke of Cambridge is in England, that of the Earl of Strathearn in Scotland, and Baron Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland. Am I correct in surmising that this was done deliberately? Is such spreading out the honours amoungst the kingdoms of the realm commonly done? -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Not commonly, only to those who should one day become monarch of all three nations. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

But yes, it is a fairly standard practice that heirs and heirs-to-be get peerages in all nations which they don't at the time on their wedding day. ╟─TreasuryTag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 17:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Among members of the Royal Family, it seems fairly common to spread the titles out among multiple Home Nations, for example Prince Philip is Duke of Edinburgh (Scotland), Earl of Merioneth (Wales), and Baron Greenwich (England), while Prince Charles is Prince of Wales, Duke of Rothesay (Scotland), Duke of Cornwall (England), Earl of Chester (England), Earl of Carrick (Scotland), Baron Renfrew (Scotland), and Lord of the Isles (Scotland). Prince Andrew (Charles' younger brother and 4th in line) is Duke of York (England), Earl of Inverness (Scotland), and Baron Killyleagh (Northern Ireland). Prince Edward (the third brother) is Earl of Wessex (England) and Viscount Severn (Wales). Interestingly, they all have titles from multiple home nations, but none has titles from all four home nations... --Jayron32 19:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

William will if he gets invested as Prince of Wales (I'm assuming that's why Wales was missed out of the titles he was given today). --Tango (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

None of them have ever had territorial designations from the other Commonwealth realms - e.g. Duke of Saskatchewan, Marquess of Port Moresby, Earl of Waitangi, Baron Uluru - yet the Royal Family is not just the UK's Royal Family, and William will become King of 16 nations, not just one. -- Jack of Oz 20:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It's because they hate you. --Jayron32 23:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't say I've ever felt hated by the Royal Family, either as an individual or as a citizen of my realm. Do you have a source for that rather grotesque remark, Jayron? -- Jack of Oz 03:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

So which royal is the Duke of Earl? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? -- Jack of Oz 03:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Why, the Duke of Earl, of course, Jack. Ah this younger generation, no sense of history (sigh)! —— Shakescene (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

My humble apologies for being far too young to catch the reference. I promise I'll try to grow up extra fast.  :) -- Jack of Oz 09:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

To try to answer Jack's question, I imagine it's because Australia, Canada and NZ don't have a system of peerages and the "home" nations do. That was the one part of the British Constitution that the Dominions (as were) didn't feel the need to replicate. Probably a wise decision. Alansplodge (talk) 07:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Given the name of Kate's hometown, he should have been created Master of Buckland. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

And yet, UK peerages containing Australian or New Zealand (at least, there may be others) designations are on the record. Ernest Rutherford was "Baron Rutherford of Nelson". See Australian peers for hereditary and life peers with Australian places in their titles. -- Jack of Oz 09:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Rutherford was in fact the slightly more convoluted "Baron Rutherford of Nelson, of Cambridge in the County of Cambridge" - the formal territorial designation was in England, but he took the NZ placename as an additional note. There's a similar thing with the military victory titles - Montgomery, for example, was "Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, of Hindhead in the County of Surrey". I don't believe there are any which don't have a UK territorial designation (except for the ones with pre-independence Irish places in the title). Shimgray | talk | 10:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

There are Baronets of Nova Scotia, though those seem to be only in the Jacobite peerage and therefore possibly not recognized by the current monarch. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Charles I created the Baronetage of Nova Scotia in 1625, for Scottish baronets; it continued to be used until the Act of Union. The baronetcies originally involved grants of land in the colony, hence the name, but it seems they all carried Scottish territorial associations - "Napier of Merchistoun", "Forbes of Craigievar", etc. However, that said, a baronetcy is more akin to a knighthood than to a barony - it's not a peerage title, and the territorial names aren't particularly significant. Shimgray | talk | 21:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

On a related noted, assuming Kate becomes queen someday, what will we call the Misplaced Pages article about her? She's currently at Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, which is fine, but Queen Catherine is disambig page, and all the other Queens Catherine have some sort of geographic appellation to disambiguate themselves from each other, like the Catherines of Lancaster, Valois, St Sava, Habsburg, Austria, and Braganza, or else they're listed by their maiden names, like Catherines Parr, Howard, and Jagellon. Will we start calling her "Catherine of Reading" when she becomes queen? Or will her page move back to Catherine Middleton? —Angr (talk) 08:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The standard approach here seems to use their maiden name. The Queen Mother what was, is under Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, although she stopped using that name almost 79 years (!) before she died. So, on that basis, I guess the D of C will become Catherine Middleton again. Crazy, but that's consensus for you, apparently. -- Jack of Oz 09:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, I see that all current European queens consort are called "Queen of ": Queen Sofía of Spain, Queen Paola of Belgium, Queen Sonja of Norway, Queen Silvia of Sweden. Calling the late queen mum "Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom" would of course be ambiguous, as most people would expect that name to refer to her daughter, and indeed the link does redirect to Elizabeth II. But calling Kate Queen Catherine of the United Kingdom would be unambiguous, as all the previous Queens Catherine were of England only, not the U.K. If and when the time comes, that's the option that will get my Support. —Angr (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Apart from issues of ambiguity, the Queen Mother was never the "Queen of the United Kingdom". That would suggest she was a Queen regnant, with a regnal number. But she was not. She was a Queen consort, and was named "Queen Elizabeth", not "Queen Elizabeth <of somewhere>". -- Jack of Oz 21:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Aren't those two different things? Prince Harry is Prince Henry of Wales, but he's not the Prince of Wales. —Angr (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, wow, that reveals a rather ridiculous inconsistency. All the British (generic) queens consort are titled - on Misplaced Pages, I hasten to clarify - by their name before they became queen consort, hence Mary of Teck, Alexandra of Denmark, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen, Caroline of Brunswick, Sigrid the Haughty (what a great name) and all the rest, etc. But the queens consort of other countries get the names we all know them by, as per your list above. Can anyone explain why we treat the British ones differently? -- Jack of Oz 03:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Jimbo is angling for a Dukedom - or at least a Knighthood ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

An honorary knighthood is possible, as long as he doesn't expect to become Sir James Wales. Unless he becomes a Brit. Maybe he can convince Charles and Camilla to adopt him, then he'd be Prince Jimmy of Wales. He wouldn't be in line for the throne, though, which is a good thing. He's too busy running the Kingdom of Misplaced Pages as it is.  :) -- Jack of Oz 03:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

We don't do adult adoption in the UK anyway. DuncanHill (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Clingy Dalai Lama

Isn't the Dalai Lama clinging to the liberation of Tibet? He doesn't seem to accept that maybe Tibet will be a part of China forever. Quest09 (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Clinging has a narrow definition in Buddhism. It's not enough to want something to be 'clingy.' Just take a look at Upadana for a definition and types of clinging. Besides that, you can only cling to things that you have. Otherwise that's craving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.34 (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it will, maybe it won't. I'm sure he accepts that the former may be the case, but that does not preclude his hoping for the latter, and acting - within appropriate limits - so as to favour that eventual outcome. "Forever" is a long time: neither China nor the human species will last forever, and the composition of that entity known as China has varied greatly over the centuries. Since neither Misplaced Pages nor any individual has a crystal ball, neither it nor we individuals can predict how politics (in which someone once said "a week is a long time") may play out over the next century or so. Your underlying question, Quest09, may not be appropriate for the RefDesks as it is not amenable to a factual answer. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.136 (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you for real? Yes, he's clinging onto his soul ideological objective. The Pope is clinging onto a hope for the second coming. That's what devoted people do. ╟─TreasuryTag►District Collector─╢ 18:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a good spring clinging. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• The propensity of religious leaders to moral hypocrisy is widely known. While some people believe that moral reproach is a valid way to assail religious or (as in this case) a political leader; other methods of criticism such as the comparative evaluate of pre- and post-Chinese dominated modern Tibet also afford viable pathways forward in analysis. One may even be inspired to condemn both parties vying for control of Tibet for hypocrisy in relation to their own belief systems. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• I doubt that blanket insults to religious leaders and their followers is any part of an answer to the question posed. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Since the official position of the Tibetan Government in Exile is, I believe, that they want autonomy, not independence, you seem to be attributing ideals to the Dalai Lama that he does not hold. --Golbez (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yellow press in Spain

Why doesn't Spain have yellow press like the UK (like The Sun) or Germany (with the Bild Zeitung)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.34 (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Because newspaper publishers in Spain don't think there's any demand for it? Gabbe (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I can think of might be that the nation remembers the Franco era too well to want to buy the kinds of papers that call for simplistic solutions to complex problems. Germany, by contrast, has had fully thirty more years to digest and forget about the slippery slope that kind of thinking sometimes leads to. On the other hand that could be my anti-rightist bias trying to tar and feather and evilly denigrate the right-thinking family-values class that is the keeper of the traditions that made the West great... ah who am I kidding? The Sun is shite. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 19:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Who says it doesn't? I'm struggling to find anything useful online because every search I do comes up with lots of sites about the alleged role of yellow journalism in the Spanish-American war, rather than about modern Spain, but I would be surprised if there wasn't a Spanish equivalent of The Sun. --Tango (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yellow press? We have red-tops, properly called tabloids in the UK, but AFAIK the only thing printed on yellow paper is the Yellow Pages! --TammyMoet (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

See yellow journalism. --Tango (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that piece Tango. As it refers to something that is out of date, may I refer the OP to Tabloid journalism for the UK. "Yellow press" is not something we identify with in the UK. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, I had never heard of yellow journalism until now. I've added a {{See also}} hatnote to Tabloid#Tabloid journalism to make the similarity in journalistic style clear. Astronaut (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

How about Marca (newspaper)? ny156uk (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the situation is similar to that in France. France also appears to not have a yellow press tradition. I was told the reason for this is that French society has a clear division between what is private and what is public. There is therefore little taste for the kind of political scandal and celebrity gossip which fills the pages of newspapers like The Sun. Of course that is all original research based on my own experiences. Astronaut (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

However, it wasn't all that long ago in historical terms that France had a rather savagely and viciously partisan press, with Communist newspapers dripping vitriol on those who didn't follow the current Moscow party line, and ultra-rightist newspapers run by people who still rejected the revolution of 1789, and combined their hatreds of Jews, Freemasons, and Communists into elaborate conspiracy theories... AnonMoos (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Marca is not yellow press or tabloid. It´s just a sports journal, which is widely read in Spain. Actually, no, Spain does not have something as The Sun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.58.2.10 (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Spain and France don't have daily celebrity tabloids, but they do have weekly magazines like ¡Hola! and Paris Match which fulfil a similar function, with lots of celebrity gossip and other soft news. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I encountered an issue of either "Paris Match" or a similar and closely-competing publication a few decades back, and was rather startled to find that it seemed to cover almost exclusively royalty and nobility (including the families of several deposed monarchies)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Gesture during New Testament recitations

When a priest in church starts to read the excerpts from New Testament, people touch their nose, mouth and something else in a manner different from crossing. What does this gesture mean and how to perform it properly? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.224.253 (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Although raised in a predominently Christian-based culture, educated at a (Methodist) school and having attended many hundreds of (Protestant) Christian services I have never noticed such a gesture, nor ever been taught it. Can you be more specific as to the geographical locale, cultural context and Christian denomination where you have witnessed this? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.136 (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I can only say that I see that in Roman Catholic church in Poland, when the priest announces which gospel he will recite. 89.76.224.253 (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I've seen that in Catholic services. I think it's a fairly archaic 'bless me' kind of ritual, which would originally have been done with a small cross (like the one generally found at the end of a rosary). One touches the cross to one's forehead (the same place where ashes go), kisses it, and then touches it to one's heart. I'm not sure of the origins of the ritual, and in the modern world where people do not generally carry rosaries around with them it has morphed into a simple hand gesture without the cross. Maybe someone can give more details on the practice. --Ludwigs2 18:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a version of the sign of the cross, and certainly the little cross on the forehead is a symbol of Christianity at least as old as the larger, stereotypical gesture across the body (as Tertullian said, "We Christians wear out our foreheads"!). It is typically done just before the Priest (or Deacon) reads the Gospel, rather than before any other New Testament reading. One makes 3 small crosses with the right thumb, one on the forehead (Christ be in my thoughts), one on the lips (Christ be in my words), and one over the heart (Christ be in my heart). 82.24.248.137 (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I add that you might find the old Catholic Encyclopedia article interesting in giving some history and context. Here. It isn't always reliable on anything that touches on the modern world or practices that have shifted, but it is usually pretty good on early Christian history and linking it to 'current' (pre-Vatican II) practice. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

IIRC from my Catholic upbringing, you use your thumb to make a small cross on your forhead, your chin, and chest; the implication being that you are asking God to bless your thoughts, your speech, and your heart. --Jayron32 19:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you were supposed to be making it on your lips! Perhaps you never got taught this bit? 82.24.248.137 (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Chin, lips, same difference. --Jayron32 19:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you speak from your chin? I was mostly puzzled as to why you replied to my, more detailed, referenced answer with much the same information, from vague memory, subtly wrong? You can check the Catholic Encyclopedia article for the description of the motions the priest performs before reading the Gospel, which is what the people are echoing on themselves: he traces it on the Gospels, then on his forehead, lips, and breast. If you can get hold of a Missal aimed at clergy, there's a good chance it will have the same information. I'm not sure what symbolism your chin has for you personally? Perhaps it has some specific cultural link to your words that your lips do not? 82.24.248.137 (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Even more sourcing, because I always like an official one: "134. At the ambo, the priest opens the book and, with hands joined, says, Dominus vobiscum (The Lord be with you), and the people respond, Et cum spiritu tuo (And also with you). Then he says, Lectio sancti Evangelii (A reading from the holy gospel), making the sign of the cross with his thumb on the book and on his forehead, mouth, and breast, which everyone else does as well." 82.24.248.137 (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I should also add that the 'translation' given of the Latin here is the old, less-literal translation that we currently use, rather than the more-literal translation that we're going to start using in September. Which is why Et cum spiritu tuo has the word spiritu which isn't really in the translation: this is one of the major things which has been changed, and it comes up in the Mass a lot. It's going to be chaos for months :D 82.24.248.137 (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. --Jayron32 20:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Roman Catholics aren't the only ones who do this. Anglicans/Episcopalians, especially those on the high church side of the Anglican spectrum, also make little crosses with their right thumb on their forehead, mouth, and heart at the beginning of the Gospel reading in a Eucharistic service. —Angr (talk) 08:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Captain Cook's Death

Who built the monument for Captain Cook and why? How many other similar monuments were built along coastal waters in memories of ships captains?76.178.113.225 (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)222smile

According to Kealakekua_Bay#Recreation, the monument was placed on the orders of Likelike, Hawai'ian princess. It does not mention the names of any of the people who may have dragged it into place; such people's names may have never been recorded by history. --Jayron32 19:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation the the White House (US that is)

I had heard that an invitation to the White House by the president is mandatory, but 1, is there any truth to that, and 2 what would the authorities charge you with if you failed to show (assuming they really wanted to pursue it). Googlemeister (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No. If you search for "declining White House invitation", you'll get lots of people who didn't go. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If it were mandatory, it would not be an "invitation" but a demand, command, summons, requirement or subpoena. Despite the massive spin and euphemistic lying and words being twisted beyond all recognition, that often come out of places like the White House, 10 Downing St, The Lodge, etc, most words still mean what they seem to mean. -- Jack of Oz 21:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It is socially mandatory, mandatory under the rules of etiquette. Ask any authority on manners, and you will learn that when one is invited to the White House by the President, one must attend. The rules of etiquette are not legally binding, however. Just as it is not, technically, illegal to blow your nose on a tablecloth or weat a baseball cap to a church wedding, it is not illegal to decline a President's invitation. However, it is appallingly bad manners, and will reflect negatively on you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Socially mandatory? I may not be Miss Manners, but I believe it is only required by the rules of etiquette to politely decline if so inclined. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not true that "one must attend," nor is it necessarily the case that failing to accept an invitation will reflect badly. As a daily reader of The Washington Post, I can confirm that people frequently decline invitations to the White House, and at least half a dozen of them have gone on to happy, productive lives. Newly-chosen Speaker of the House John Boehner declined to attend the state dinner for Hu Jintao last January, for example. No doubt he did this politely; he's only attended one state dinner during his 20 years in office. My hunch is that he'll still get invited to the next state dinner, because failing to invite the Speaker could be appallingly bad manners, and certainly unwise politics. --- OtherDave (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Presumably there is a difference between an invitation to a social event at the White House and an invitation to a meeting with the President. If the President asks for a meeting, saying "no" would be very unwise for your future political career. --Tango (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It is of course never legally required to accept an invitation to the White House, but traditionally it was viewed as socially unacceptable not to do so except under extreme circumstances:

Once it had been unacceptable to decline a White House invitation except in the case of illness, a death in the immediate family, or a great distance between one's home and the White House. (William Seale, White House Historical Association, The President's House: A History Vol. 2, 2008)

Back in the 1960s and earlier, you didn't decline an invitation to the White House if you were lucky enough to receive one. Today it is commonplace to call the social secretary with a regret. (Jane Alexander, Command Performance: An Actress in the Theater of Politics, Capo Press, 2001)

It is not permitted to decline an invitation to dinner, or to any social entertainment, extended by the President, except for illness, or the illness or death of some near relative. Any invitation from the President is regarded, by courtesy, as having the weight of a command, and it is allowable to break any previous engagement which conflicts with its acceptance, even if it is an engagement to dinner. (The Manners That Win, Compiled by the Latest Authorities, 1883)

I hope this helps. Neutrality 02:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

April 30

human race

why is it that they are different race —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyphilia (talk • contribs) 01:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If you mean why there are human races, probably a combination of founder effect, limited adaptation to climatic conditions, and sexual selection... AnonMoos (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

That is one answer, but as our article Race (classification of humans) demonstrates, 'race' is largely a social construct: it only really exists because we want it to. Curiously, one of the things that unites the 'human race' is a propensity to divide ourselves up into arbitrary categories... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

There are two kinds of people: Those who go around dividing the world into two kinds of people; and those who don't. -- Jack of Oz 03:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If you don't like the way Joyphilia phrased the question, imagine it was "Why are there consistent externally-visible phenotypic variations between human populations"? (That was the question that I was answering above...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

See Human genetic variation. Like all living things, the human genome undergoes mutations. Because humans are spread over a huge area of the planet, and until recently, had (relatively) little genetic migration, the opportunity for genetic differences between populations arose. Similar effects are seen for other organisms, with terms like Color phase, Subspecies, Breed, or Race (biology). Some of this variation is undoubtedly driven by natural selection, while other aspects are probably random effects due to the founder effect and genetic drift. Buddy431 (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

USNSY Pearl Harbor Drydock #2.

Someone recently wrote, I arrived in Honolulu Airport 17 Sep 1971 to report to my duty station, USS HADDOCK SSN621, which was in USNSY; Pearl Harbor; Drydock #2. (in part of a question over on the Misplaced Pages helpdesk ).

I've read about USS Haddock (SSN-621), and...I am just curious about what USNSY is, in this context. My guess would be, 'US Navy Service Yard' - but I don't actually know. Any ideas?  Chzz  ►  03:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

United States Naval Ship Yard? —— Shakescene (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC) ¶ See the opening paragraph of Brooklyn Navy Yard for comparison. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

ocean liners and Willie Morris

Did Willie Morris travel aboard the SS Flandre from the USA to the UK? Mr. Morris didn't travel aboard the SS Ile de France from the UK to the USA. (That vessel was scrapped in 1959.) Mr. Morris return to the USA was in 1960. I could be wrong about a few of those items. If I'm right, what ocean liner did he travel aboard for his return?24.90.204.234 (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Studies in race

What generally accepted studies have shown that there is/isnt a relationship between a person belonging to a particular region of the world and his intellectual capacity if other factors are not considered?-Shahab (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Race and intelligence. --Tango (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Westminster Abbey flag

What was the flag flying over Westminster Abbey before the royal wedding? - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 17:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Standard of Westminster Abbey.svg the abbey flag with the coat of arms of Westminster Abbey. MilborneOne (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The main emblem on the lower half of the flag is from the attributed arms of Edward the Confessor who built the first great minster church at Westminster in 1045. "The arms attributed to Edward the Confessor originated in the silver coins of his reign, which bore a cross between four doves: symbols of piety and gentleness". Another (less likely) explanation is a local legend from the Romford area of the east London and Essex borders. "King Edward the Confessor is the first notable person to have a connection with the area. He occupied the royal house in the village of Havering atte Bower. His life, like so many Saxon kings, is full of legends. It is said that this holy man was disturbed in his prayers by the singing of nightingales, and so he leant out of the window of his room and told the birds to be quiet. They were, and he continued his prayers in peace. This incident is commemorated by the inclusion of the heraldic birds on the arms of St Edward". Alansplodge (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The other three parts of the flag come from the Plantagenet family; the "white-in-red rose" in the two corners comes from the roses representing the two branches (York and Lancaster) that fought during the Wars of the Roses. The centre bit is part of the traditional Royal Arms of England, the Gules three lions passant guardant in pale Or armed and langued Azure aka, three gold lions on a red background, with blue claws and tongues, is one of the oldest symbols associated with England, dating to Richard I, and the other two quarters, being gold fleur-de-lys on a blue background, is a symbol of France, and was long part of the coats of arms of English Kings, coming from the claims of the Plantagenet English kings to the Throne of France, and date from the age of the Hundred Years Wars time. You can find most of these elements, along with Edward the Confessor's cross and birds motif, at various arms of English Kings throughout the ages, see File:Coat of Arms of Richard II of England (1377-1399).svg. --Jayron32 05:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Presumably, the Plantagenet emblems are from Henry III of England who had the Abbey rebuilt and is buried there. Alansplodge (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

...except that the "white-in-red rose" is not a Plantagenet emblem, it's the Tudor rose. Thus Henry VII, who had a chapel built for him at the Abbey (the Henry VII Chapel, surprisingly), is a more likely candidate. 87.115.153.210 (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

ten year census

Is the imformation from the last census private? Do only a select few get to view the trends?76.178.113.225 (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)222smile

Which country's census? There are 200-ish sovereign nations in the world, so we need to know whose decennial census you want to find information on... --Jayron32 19:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's the Uk 2011 census you mean - personal information is kept confidential for 100 years (so will be released in 2111. Also it notes that personal information is not shared with government departments. (http://2011.census.gov.uk/My-census/Frequently-asked-questions#27) ny156uk (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

However, all the aggregated information will be made public, with lots of breakdowns. --Tango (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP address is from the U.S., so I assume the OP means the 2010 United States Census. In that case, personal information is kept private for 72 years, so it won't be released until 2082. But the trends, without personal information, is probably available already at http://www.census.gov/. —Angr (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Existence in the universe

When people deny the existence of something because it is an imagination or mythological (like a unicorn), are we all referring to this planet but not the entire universe? For example, an exact copy of the Earth might exist somewhere in the other galaxy. If you deny, then I will ask how do you know?. (Please note that this does not apply to God because of its definition, and please do not start an argument about God here) Aquitania (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You have to remember that it is impossible to definitively prove anything, given any particularly arbitrary standard of "proof". For example: prove definitively that I exist, and that you are not currently hallucinating this conversation, or more to the point that your entire existance isn't an elaborate hallucination. By the same standard, its also impossible to disprove anything. However, at some point you need to assume that you can trust your own senses and intellect, because to believe that you cannot makes it impossible to operate in the world. Insofar as you can do that, there needs to be some standards of proof, whereby we say "Insofar as I see no evidence of it existing, I will assume it doesn't, pending such evidence". There is no evidence that unicorns exist, so we must take the standard that they do not. To believe otherwise, to assume that all things exist until proven that they do not, is a greater impossibility, because I could just invent some fanciful thing right now, and I would instantly have a claim that it exists, and could demand that you prove that it doesn't. One thing you should read is Occam's razor, which covers this philosophical ground quite well. --Jayron32 21:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course, if we're assuming everything exists until it is proven not to, then a universe where unicorns don't exist exists. We've shifted back the burden of proof, and no-one's gone anywhere. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

When someone says "X exists", it is usually assumed to mean that X exists in a way that is accessible or tangible, at least to that person and conceivably to others. restating the question in the form "X exists somewhere where no one can experience it" makes for a different and completely unanswerable question. In other words, saying "there is a man in that room" can be answered - Either there is a man in that room (true) or there isn't (false). saying "there is a man in that room whenever no one is observing" is unanswerable. "Unicorns exist on this planet" lends itself to reasoned investigation and discussion; "unicorns exist on some other planet, far, far away" can only be speculated on. --Ludwigs2 22:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose it can be speculated upon, but there should also be no reason to expect any person to accept the possibility of unicorns existing merely on the non-disprovability of their existance. We can speculate on anything, but we are not required to accept as possibly true, any such speculation. There's no requirement that we accept extraterrestrial unobservable unicorns as more possibly true than any other random, imagined thing. And that's the crux of it; people have no right to demand that others consider the viability of an idea with zero evidence. We can play "let's pretend" all day long, but we should not consider such pretense to be reality. --Jayron32 23:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Myths about creatures like unicorns are generally either about Earth or another "plane of existence" or whatever it's called. I don't think foreign planets in this universe count if the creatures have never visited Earth or been visited by humans. If we tried to count extraterrestrial life then we could also get into arguments about when "horse-like" creatures with a "horn-like" pointy thing on the "forehead" is a "unicorn". Considering the billions of galaxies with billions of stars, there may well be things out there which would be called unicorns if they were suddenly discovered on Earth, but I wouldn't consider that any vindication of unicorn myths. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

From Russell's teapot: "... the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others ...". Mitch Ames (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the interesting comparison here is space aliens. Most scientists have no problem with the possibility of extraterrestrial life - if fact, the search for life in other places of the universe is a significant scientific endeavor. On the other hand, most scientists scoff at the idea that there have been extraterrestrial beings who have visited this planet - the later is a much stronger claim with much weaker evidence. this is the difference I was suggesting above. --Ludwigs2 05:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, before the 18th-century in European literature, black swans were used as the textbook example of a non-existent animal (more so than unicorns, since not everybody was convinced of the non-existence of unicorns until a relatively late date). Then of course black swans were found in Australia... AnonMoos (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Which just goes to show that - as I have always suspected - Australia is an imaginary place. I mean seriously: Kangaroos? Koalas? Duck-billed platypi? who are they trying to kid? --Ludwigs2 04:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed imaginary - . There are no real people or animals here. That means no black swans, of course. -- Jack of Oz 11:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Coo! Does that mean that the black swan who is nesting on the River Avon down the road from my house in Warwickshire comes all the way from Australia then? That's some migration!--TammyMoet (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

According to Black Swan, "Black Swans were first seen by Europeans in 1697, when Willem de Vlamingh's expedition explored the Swan River, Western Australia"... AnonMoos (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Evidence of absence and the articles it points to is where I would start, although semantically I would argue that when a person declares "There is no such thing as a unicorn", the declaration is implicitly about Earth, and not a twin Earth across the galaxy, or a slightly-different Earth in an inaccessible dimension. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

When did the American Civil War end?

For my sets of maps (like Territorial evolution of the United States), I've been wondering, what date should I consider to be the 'end' of the American Civil War? There appear to be five valid options:

1. April 9, 1865: The Army of Northern Virginia surrendered. This was the primary army of the Confederacy, and its surrender essentially ended major combat.
2. May 5, 1865: CSA President Jefferson Davis declares the Confederate government officially dissolved.
3. May 10, 1865: Jefferson Davis is captured.
4. June 23, 1865: General Stand Watie, the last remaining Confederate general, surrenders his army.
5. August 20, 1866: U.S. President Andrew Jackson declares the war formally at an end.

Number 5, while the 'official' proclamation, is not commonly used, just as few people say that World War II in the Pacific ended on April 28, 1952. #3 seems extraneous to #2 but I included it since a capture also has meaning. #4 meant the end of large military activities (at least one ship was still raiding until August, but I can't count that as it would also mean counting, for example, the Japanese holdouts after WW2). So that seems to leave me with options 1 and 2. 1 is by far the most well-known date, but - in this particular circumstance - I'm making a map of the history of Alabama. And the armies in Alabama didn't surrender until around May 9. Still, for simplicity's sake, and for the sake of the most well-known date - Lee's surrender - it seems prudent to just use April 9, 1865, as the proper date. Any thoughts? --Golbez (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what purpose I was doing this. If I were trying to give a general date for the end of the war, April 9, 1865 is as good as any. However, if I were doing a map showing when each state rejoined the union, I would use the official dates of when each state officially rejoined the union, which would be different for each state. For example, an animation showing the order of each states readmission would be better than one in which the entire confederacy magically becomes union again on April 9, 1865; or indeed any other single date... --Jayron32 23:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I sense a slight against my map where the confederacy magically becomes union again on April 9. ;) Don't worry, I'm fixing that in version 2. And after looking over it, ... I don't know, they were technically "readmitted to congress", not the union; as far as the union is concerned, they never left, so they never needed to come back. Then again, being a state means having representation in congress. There's a lot of waffling going on here. :P This is a map of how the counties of Alabama have changed over time, so ... I suppose I could include two things, when it was readmitted to congress, and when the confederate government was dissolved (if one believes the states actually seceded, then that simply split them from a confederation into individual countries again). --Golbez (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

All those dates are significant, but for the subject at hand, I would definitely base it upon the dates found at Reconstruction_era_of_the_United_States#Readmission_to_representation_in_Congress. Schyler (one language) 23:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking at an historical atlas right now, and there's a map with a date written over each confederate state listing the date it was readmitted to congress. So clearly, others have felt that those dates were significant. --Jayron32 23:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

April 9 is traditionally thought of as the end of the Civil War, at least more than any other date. However, anyone who's spent any time in the South can tell you the war never really did end. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Having lived in the old Confederacy for nineteen of my years, it's odd that I've never heard of such a holiday. --Golbez (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

#5:That's Andrew Johnson, not Andrew Jackson. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

We should consider what date is used by reliable sources, and avoid original research. If the town of Stump Junction, Alabama refused to admit the Civil War was lost, and the local militia drilled each month in Confederate regalia until 1968, that does not mean the American Civil War lasted 167 years! The end of a war does not await the admission by the very last combatant that the "Great Cause" is lost, or WW2 would have lasted until 1974 when Hiroo Onoda and Teruo Nakamura stopped running around on Pacific islands pretending the war was still going on. Edison (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Good thing I specifically discarded that situation! --Golbez (talk) 02:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You could have a longer war, such as the Russo-Japanese War, which only saw the end of warfare between Montenegro and Japan in 2006. Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Or the Peloponnesian War, which was ended with a peace treaty in 1996, after a trifling 24 centuries ;-) . Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Bashar al-Assad, even though an Arab, practically looks like a white man

It's interesting, he looks no less white than many Southern and Eastern Europeans and Jews (all of whom look a bit less white than Northwest Europeans e.g. Germanic/Celtic peoples, who are the most obviously white), and he has blue eyes. Don't give me the 'race is a social construct' BS because the nonsense leftist moron theory of 'social constructivism' wilts in the face of biological genetic reality. I suppose many Turks look like Southern and Eastern Europeans as well, and Syria is close to Turkey.

My question is do you think race is a social construct? I don't, and I think that genetic differences determine not only a person's physical appearance (morphology) but other characteristics as well, such as mental characteristics. This even happens amongst people of the same race. No one is scared to say that dog breeds have different temperaments and the same applies to the different breeds of human. I am talking about race alone and not ethnicity, nationality or culture. At the end of the day I don't see humans as being anything more than intelligent animals, who have developed religions in order to cope with the fact that they're scared of their own death. It's not polite to say so but I believe it's essentially true.

There are differences of magnitude in terms of racial differences. Black people for example are genetically different from the rest of humanity to a greater degree than any non-black people, who are all more closely related to each other than they are to black people.

It is also worth noting that the differences between men and women, not only physically but most critically psychologically, are more significant than the differences between people of different races.--X sprainpraxisL (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Race is a social construct. It does not require your thinking it to be truth. There are genetic difference between people, but there's litterally no connection between the races we assign people to and the genetics of those people. Chinese people have more genetic similarity to Swedish people than do people from two neighboring African tribes; and yet we call both members of the African tribes the same race, and the Swede and the Chinese person of different races. Bashar al-Assad is an Arab because he self-identifies as an Arab, was born into an Arabic culture, speaks a an Arabic language, etc. Any other definition, based largely on what you believe he should look like based on your own limited belief of what Arabs should look like is completely irrelevent. It doesn't mean that being an Arab is an invalid classification, or that he is or isn't one; its just that you need to understand where the definitions of cultural groups come from, and genetics isn't it... --Jayron32 23:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The idea that "race does not exist" sounds like it's an attempt by some to eliminate all ammunition from racists. It's usually accomplished by comparing all genes from all groups, in which case you find a minuscule portion of them which vary by race. However, if you only look at those genes which do vary primarily by race, like skin color, eye color, hair color, hair texture, the sickle-cell anemia gene, the Tay-Sachs gene, etc., then it certainly isn't true that, for those genes, "Chinese people have more genetic similarity to Swedish people than do people from two neighboring African tribes". And how could it ? Certainly people who live near each other are far likelier to interbreed and thus have common genes than those on the opposite sides of the planet, at least for those genes which have recently "arrived" via mutations. Then there's also the effect that some genetic mutations are selected for in certain climates and against in others, like sickle cell genes being helpful in areas with endemic malaria but harmful elsewhere.

So why has the idea that "races do not exist" perpetuated, despite racial distinctions being used in medicine, anthropology, etc. ? Mainstream scientists don't want to go on record as saying that races exist, for fear of being called racists.

Of course, many incorrect racial distinctions have been made in the past, such as saying that morality and intelligence is based largely on race. However, this in no way means that all racial distinctions are invalid, like the chances of suffering from certain medical conditions. StuRat (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Aaaand I think that's enough of that. I don't see any real question there, just racist/sexist soap boxing. No thanks, buddy. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the "hatnote" to reintroduce the open discussion. In general, if you let a little off-topic blather close off a thread, you make trolls more powerful than honest participants.

Now to begin with, Bashar al-Assad is the son of Hafez al-Assad, who lived in the upper northwest corner of Syria and was an Alawi. Now Alawi has tribes, but it is a religious minority rather than a race according to the article, so I don't know, but it may be that he is one of the many Syrians who are not Arabs. More broadly (since I'm sure there's a gradient between races) look at a map and you'll notice a few things about Syria: it's not in Africa, it's not on the Arabian peninsula, and it is on the Mediterranean. The Mediterranean was the main highway for thousands of years and the people north and south and east of it were quite free to move around and mingle. For example, Alexander, from Macedonia, built Alexandria, and the Western Roman Empire was as much an African empire as a European one. Likewise Turkey and Greece were a single civilization on the shores of the Adriatic. So there's no reason for someone from Syria to look like he came from, say, Mecca, rather than somewhere in southeastern Europe.

Now for the moment I'll leave the sexual stuff out - there's been a whole lot of speculation about sexual differences for a very long time, and in our current society, with as many women in technical professions as men, it sounds like it didn't add up to a hill of beans. But the situation with race should be dealt with openly. It is clear that yes, there are local genetic differences in genes representing physical appearance. You can tell what race someone is from a genetic test. But it's not easy - not every gene, nor most genes, are affected. People can learn to look for racial features and recognize where someone came from, but everyone, from any race, has a face, and all the parts work the same as anyone else's. (Well, except maybe the earwax) When you look at the details, you see trends - blood group B absent from Native Americans, common in Northern India - but these trends don't really go anywhere - it's just random assortment from place to place. There just hasn't been enough time for any really serious evolution - you're not finding many brand new genes in different parts of the world, just random shuffles. When you do find something new it is so small, so trivial, a base pair or two here or there, no one seriously believes it matters.

Last but not least, the spell. From Gregory the Great: "Non Angli, sed Angeli". It has a special power to drive out the demons of racism, probably now more than ever. Wnt (talk) 06:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Race is a 'political concept, not a scientific one. The concept of race predates science by several millennia, and is basically an attribution concept: people from other tribes are conceived to be qualitatively different simply by virtue of being from other tribes, and thus they can be killed, enslaved, oppressed or etc. in ways that people from our tribe should not be. In fact, this is still essentially the way that race is used in the modern western world: racial problems always reduce to a fear that "that group" (whomever 'that' might be) is more likely to rob us, bomb us, do violence against us, or etc. (whomever 'us' might be) and so 'we' need to take stronger measures against 'them' (preemptive violence, indefinite imprisonment or excessive punishment, unequal application of law or outright oppression...) so that we can control or destroy the threat they represent. Genetics has been applied to the already extant concept of race in a speculative fashion - with no real scientific evidence to support it - because it seems like it ought to fit our preconceived notions on the matter. silliness. --Ludwigs2 17:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Ludwigs2, that's a very insightful way to look at it: That there are genetic differences between races doesn't necessarily mean that races themselves are not a social contruct. There are other genetic differences by which we could group people, but do not, and that arbitrary racial groups have a coincidental genetic component does not make them less arbitrary. I like that line of reasoning. --Jayron32 18:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: There are differences between ethnic groups in that certain ethnic groups are more likely to have certain characteristics than others. However, the division of ethnic groups into three or four or five "races" is more or less artificial. Putting Bangladeshis in the same "race" as Hungarians and in a different category from the Burmese is clearly a social construct. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd even say that's sketchy. Ethnic groups are just races more finely divided. Its the exact same issue. What makes someone French is not their genetics per se, although certain genes may predominate in France through nothing more than the accident that, on the balance, historically French people tended to have sex with other French people. It is their relationship to the French culture and the French state. There's nothing about the genes that makes people French (or Hungarian, or Bangladeshi), those definitions are based solely on socio-cultural mechanisms, not on genetic mechanisms. You can't seriously claim that, for example, Prince William isn't English, even though much of his ancestry, prior to a certain date, lived in other countries. At what magical date does residency in a culture change you genetically to become part of that ethnicity? --Jayron32 19:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The best way to put this is that while there are clearly genetic differences between more-or-less isolated groups of humans (e.g., there are genetic variations across the population of humans which produce differing amounts of melanin in human skin), there is almost no evidence that such genetic differences correlate with conventional notions of race, there is almost no evidence that such genetic differences correlate with any differences in cognition or behavior, and there is literally no evidence that conventional notions of race correlate with differences in cognition or behavior, mediated by genetics. Genetics is (scientifically speaking) a powerful red herring. Lot of smoke poured out on this topic; very little fire. --Ludwigs2 20:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The "race is a social construct" is something of a red herring itself - the meaning of the sentence is that race is defined socially, not that it doesn't have any genetic basis at all; but that basis is made up of really trivial stuff. An example of the social definition with real-world consequences is the race of Hispanics, which was actually only invented a few decades ago. In the weird world of American race, Hispanic is dominant to black, which is dominant to white. So, as far as I understand it, whenever a Hispanic man in the U.S. has children with a black or white woman, or vice versa, the children are all "Hispanic". In light of this it is unsurprising that Hispanics are "America's fastest-growing minority"! But the way that this plays in the press, in the general population of the country, is with an image that "the entire country is being taken over by Hispanics", who are in turn assumed to be illegal immigrants from Mexico. This has whipped up some of the less friendly parts of the white community into a frothing mad fury - but I think they're being whipped up by a bogus statistic that comes from an unreasonable definition! Wnt (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, none of that is exactly true. First of all, the U.S. census, insofar as it represents the closest thing we have to "official" definitions of these sorts of things, doesn't treat Hispanics as a race. It treats Hispanics as different category of existance, the only other part of that category, according to the U.S. census, is "not Hispanic". I wish I was making that up, really I do. Race is a seperate category, thus one can be both black and hispanic (as someone from the Dominican Republic is likely to be) or white and hispanic (as someone from, say Cuba is likely to be). They also place absolutely no requirements or instructions on how you are to answer the questions; it is purely self-identification. Thus, they don't require you to call yourself "Hispanic" if your last name is Garcia or Hernandez; if you don't feel particularly "Hispanic", you are free to answer "not Hispanic." Likewise, if your name was something like "Fox" or "O'Higgins", and you feel that you are "Hispanic", you are free to enter "Hispanic" for yourself. And before we jump to any conclusions, ask yourself how Vicente Fox and Bernardo O'Higgins might answer that question. this is the full form used in 2010. Its only 10 questions, and questions 8 and 9 are the relevent ones. The definition, according to the U.S. census, of what you are is "What do I think I am?" Ultimately, its the only one that matters. --Jayron32 05:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That also allowed Obama to put down that he was just black on his census, even though he is half white and was indeed raised by his Irish American mother's side of the family. Same with Phil Lynott and Bob Marley; both of them were half black and half white, but everyone thought of them simply as being black (in Lynott's case, black-African instead of black Irish). So yes, it can be rather arbitrary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

All of that can be true, without being bad. It's actually quite a good thing that it works this way. Race and ethnicity (and in America, whatever Hispanic means) is about how a person relates to their culture, and to other cultures. Race (and the rest) is about how you are treated, how you relate to others, how you feel about your place, etc, as it relates to the particular definitions of race (and the rest) in your current situation. No one, who isn't you, can tell you how you fit into society. Only you can figure that out for yourself. So, that President Obama fits into society as a black man has nothing to do with how you, or I, or anyone else should decide how he should fit in. We can't say "Society doesn't treat you like a black man because your Mother is of Irish and English decent". How do we get the right to decide how Obama relates to his society and culture? We don't. Only he knows how he fits in, which is why only he can answer that question for himself. --Jayron32 22:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

And that's enhanced now that we don't force people like Homer Plessy to declare themselves black. I happen not to particularly care what he calls himself, I care more about things like his policies, and I think most Americans would agree with that. As much as we talk about racial discrimination and what-not, we (at least in North America) really have come a long way from where we once were. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights -- according to the old "one-drop rule" (which still has cultural influence in the U.S., though no longer legally binding), Obama would be considered obligatorily black. The option to declare yourself multiracial was only added to the census in 2000. I'm sure Obama doesn't have the slightest wish to deny or insult his mother and mother's family, but he long ago came to terms with the fact that most people would consider him to be black according to conventional U.S. cultural categories, and he married a woman who is indisputably black according to conventional U.S. definitions etc., so it's not too realistic to expect him to redefine his identity at this late date... AnonMoos (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

May 1

Wendi Deng

why she married Rupert Murdoch, i mean a person who is 40 years older that her? --HoulGhostjj (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Because she wanted to. --Jayron32 05:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

After his money, clearly. (I hope the OP gets irony.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether she married him for love or money (or both) is no one's business but hers and his. Still, women marrying very rich, much older men is a tradition that must be millennia old. Another recent example is Anna Nicole Smith, who married a man 62 years older than her. —Angr (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a link to Age disparity in sexual relationships is called for here. Dismas| 09:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan politician wearing vests?

What's with Taiwan politicians always wearing vests with their names on it? When did this start? Is this done in other cultures? F (talk) 09:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• 
• 
• File:Voa chinese Cung Shao-ho 20apr11 300.jpg
• 

same reason that US politicians all wear flag pins - it's symbolic/expected. --Ludwigs2 18:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

They're political campaign vests. A jacket saying 'vote for me'. Nanonic (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

In the UK it has become popular for politicians, especially very senior ones, to visit factories or schools or even conventions without a jacket and with the sleeves rolled up. The purpose presumably is to give the impression that they are "working hard" and/or "down there with the ordinary people". If only! Caesar's Daddy (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Prince William's medal

Does anyone know, specifically, what medal Prince William when he's in dress military uniform? Swarm 09:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It's the Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal. Proteus (Talk) 09:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It's one up from a Blue Peter badge. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Oxford Group

The Oxford Group, it says, was founded by a Lutheran pastor, but is the group itself a "sub-group" of Lutheranism? If a person follows most of the group's ideas, is the person a Lutheran more or less? Geschichte (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the group had ideas that were not in sync with Lutheran doctrine. Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Encouraging diplomats to defect

Hi, I'm wondering... if I contact ambassadors, consular officers or other diplomats from repressive regimes serving here in my country (Australia) and encourage them to abandon their brutal masters and seek political asylum here in Australia, am I breaking any laws?

What will be the likely reaction of the Australian government? Need I fear any repercussions to myself?

Also, why is this (attempting to encourage defections) not done more often - either by governments of human rights groups?203.45.95.236 (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless it ends up as actual harassment, you're most likely to be ignored. However, encouraging people to defect is not that easy. Diplomats are typically doing fairly well in their home country. Moreover, they will most likely have been pre-screened for reliability. And they will have their own justification for serving their government - they may disagree about the "brutal and oppressive", or they may view this as unfortunate but necessary, or as the lesser of two evils compared to the alternative (which, very often, is not Swedish model democracy, but another oppressive regime). That said, I always thought that for the money the Iraq war consumes, you could probably give a few million to each insurgent, give them Skiing lessons, and resettle them to Aspen, Colorado. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly likely to discurage more people from becoming insurgents. Googlemeister (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ambassadors defecting usually happens when their country's government is collapsing and they want to get out while they can (that's what's happened with Libyan ambassadors recently). As long as their home country is still working well, they probably aren't going to be persuaded by a few letters. --Tango (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I normally despise respondents asking OPs things like "Why do you care?" or "What does it matter?". But in this case, I'm tempted. Surely the ambassador can get exactly the same news and information about their country that's available to you, and probably a whole lot more that's not available to you. If they were remotely minded to defect, they know the diplomatic channels to approach, better than you do (unless you just happen to work for DFAT), and the only encouragement they're likely to pay any attention to would be trusted friends or colleagues of theirs, not random strangers. If I were an ambassador being encouraged to defect by a total stranger I'd never even met, from the country I was being encouraged to defect to, I'd be extremely suspicious, which would tend to negate any thoughts of defection I was already having. But that's just me. -- Jack of Oz 19:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Note... if you are a citizen of the nation with the repressive regime, and are encouraging one of your own diplomats to defect away from your country ... the regime might well charge you with a crime (such as treason). Blueboar (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Any guesses someone makes on the impact to yourself and the reaction of the Australian government would be pure speculation, because we don't know how things would play out. Encouraging defection, especially on the part of a government, would be a very risky move. Said government would probably, assuming they permit free speech (and if they don't... why defect?), receive quite a lot of flak from within as well as without. sonia♫ 20:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Particularly if we are talking about the embassy of a large country say China, I doubt the ambassador will even see the letter. I'm pretty sure that as with many people in high positions, they don't actually read all the mail addressed to them. Someone else opens it and reads it and does whatever they think is best (which may occasionally mean sending it on to the ambassador). In the case of a letter encouraging the ambassador to defect they probably aren't going to send it on to the ambassador, far more likely they are just going to junk it or perhaps send a reply defending their country (perhaps getting the ambassador to sign it probably still without bothering to show them the original letter, perhaps not ) and perhaps also send it to their security person if they think the person is a security threat (not because they think the person is going to convince the ambassador to defect but because they fear the person who sent it may harm them in some way). P.S. For those who saw the Chaser's War on Everything episode where they snuck into the APEC security cordon dressed as Osama bin Laden will know in the same episode they tried to get the Chinese consulate to pay for bullets to assassinate Hu Jintao, I don't think anything happened from this other then getting kicked out of and perhaps banned from the Chinese consulate. Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Consult a solicitor Fifelfoo (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Time travel - becoming a historical figure

I'm not a big fiction reader. Has anyone ever written a story about someone traveling back in time to become a historical person? Like if someone traveled to ancient Macedonia and switched their baby with the son of Phillip II of Macedon. This would mean their own son would grow up to become Alexander the Great. Or, a person adept in an ancient language traveled to the past to become the hero they read about in history books. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This TVtropes page mentions a few examples of "person goes back in time to become significant figure"; it's not historical, which I think you were looking for, but Night Watch pulls the trick off very well. Shimgray | talk | 21:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That example is fine. I was just wondering if anyone had done it before. Thanks. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Several writers of Science Fiction, in which Time travel is a popular theme, have used plot devices of this type (time-traveller becoming historical figure): just off the top of my head, there's Michael Moorcock's Behold the Man; Robert Silverberg's Up the Line; and Harry Harrison's The Technicolor Time Machine. I have purposely refrained from giving any details of those works to avoid giving you or others spoilers, but you may choose to follow the links and read their individual articles, which themselves hopefully do not over-spoil the works. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.100 (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

An interesting twist on this theme is Simon Hawke's TimeWars... at one level, the novels are standard "time commandos" trope (a team of police/military types are sent into the past to prevent the bad guys from changing history)... but each novel also follows the basic plot of a classic work of fiction (Ivanhoe, The Three Musketeers, The Prisoner of Zenda, etc.). The time travelers end up becoming main characters in those fictional works. Blueboar (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

In one of my editor rejection letters for my own novel (stating that it was too common of a plot), I was given that series along with a list of about 20 other books that involve replacing historical figures with people from the future as that was a key plot element in my novel. I figured that if you have access to all humans throughout time, it would become trivial to find someone with duplicate dna (a dude) and use that person to replace someone. It is so common, that Paul McCartney is replaced just to show how it works at a "take a vacation in a historical person's life" resort. -- kainaw™ 12:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A fairly early example was in Poul Anderson's Time Patrol series (an agent becoming Cyrus of ancient Persia, greatly helped along by timeline inertia or rebound -- the idea that except at certain critical points, history tends to resist being changed in any major way). AnonMoos (talk) 02:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There was at least one episode of Quantum Leap where the lead character, Sam, 'leaps' into the body of a historical figure. The one that comes to mind is where he leaps into the body of Buddy Holly. Dismas| 02:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

He did that a lot, I seem to recall the network thought it boosted ratings (I don't remember Buddy Holly, but he did become Elvis and Lee Harvey Oswald, at least). Adam Bishop (talk)

I have read quite a few books where the female protogist is hypnotised and regressed back to her past life as an historical person such as Maud de Braose and the Countess of Buchan.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

However, alleged memory of past lives is not really the same as "active" time travel into the past. AnonMoos (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There was a Star Trek Deep Space 9 episode where this happened and the captain ended up as some kind of historical revolutionist. Googlemeister (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I can only very dimly remember the specifics of The Stainless Steel Rat Saves the World, and I think the time travel rather convolutes things. But if memory serves the hero is chasing a time meddler named "He", and I'm almost certain I remember a cliffhanger (perhaps from the 2000AD rendering of it) where the characters are shocked to discover that some historical figure (my 30 year old memory says Oliver Cromwell, the article suggests Napoleon) is really He. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 15:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Smokey Clegg

hello was in the paper today as well that Nick Clegg is still smoking is there a way yo find out which brand he smoke?? and if not is it a ligitimite freedom of information act to find out so? Thank You Sally james langley (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I doubt very much that the Freedom of Information Act 2000 applies to which brand of cigarettes Clegg smokes, as he is not a 'public body' (e.g. a government department, school, council etc). If he smokes, he does so in a private capacity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It does not seem to me that it would be a valid freedom of information request - the FOI legislation is designed to allow documents held by government bodies to be released to the public, not to acquire information on the personal habits of politicians. Were the Cabinet Office to be buying the cigarettes for him, then there might be a FOI aspect, but otherwise he himself isn't FOIable! Shimgray | talk | 21:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• It is definitely not a valid FOI request, as no public body 'holds' the relevant information (Clegg buys his own ciggies, I'm assuming, rather than having the Cabinet Secretary nip out to the corner-shop for him) This guidance from the Information Commissioner's Office has the technical details. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 22:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Nick Clegg smokes Silk Cuts, I believe. See This article from the telegraph. Hope this helps! 119.225.16.46 (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Painting in The Other Guys

Anyone know the title/artist of this painting, seen in the movie The Other Guys?Reflectionsinglass (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2

List of locations of polling places in last Czech Parliamentary elections?

Is there anywhere a comprehensive list of locations of polling places can be found for the latest Czech parliamentary elections? Thanks.--128.54.224.231 (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question. I poked around a bit online and couldn't find anything comprehensive. Apparently the mayor of the municipality a voter lives in will inform them of their specific voting place at least 15 days before the election. Voting locations are also published in September newspapers and in the town halls of cities within the Czech Republic. FUTURI (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If the Czech Republic has an equivalent of the UK's Freedom of Information Act 2000 then I suspect that would be your best bet? ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 21:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting... Apparently brief internet research indicates that there is a FOIA from around the same time yet it seems like one must be a citizen to make any sort of request. As such it seems like archival research would be best using newspapers (or asking a citizen to do all the paperwork for you). This would be a difficult undertaking however. Thanks anyways.--128.54.224.231 (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Update: Ok, so I found this website here. When you click on a region, say Praha (Prague), it lists municipalities and next to it, it counts wards. I know these wards are not more specific as to location like I originally asked, but is a ward represent one polling place. Any idea what ward means in this context? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.224.231 (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Teen views on same sex marriage

There are many polls that break down support of same sex marriage by age bracket, and not surprisingly, the younger respondents are more supportive. However, I've yet to see a poll that includes the 13-17 year old group. Based on the pattern, I'd predict that teens are more tolerant of same sex marriage than young adults, but does anyone have data that supports/refutes this hypothesis? --140.180.16.144 (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

13-17 year olds tend to be more tolerant of many things such as the absolute wisdom of the latest pop-idol. bearing in mind that the human brain is usually not fully formed untill one reaches the 20s much less gathered wisdom, it seems reasonable that the lower age groups might not be the best place to seach for informed guidence.190.56.17.88 (talk) 03:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The upper age groups aren't good places to seek guidance either--they're just old and senile miscreants with outdated views. The middle-age group should be ignored, too, because they're too busy getting mid-life crises to think rationally about the wider world. While we're at it, we should avoid the young adults, because they're frantically looking for jobs and likely to promote whatever political views get them richest the fastest, and have no time to be idealistic.

My point is that we should judge a person's opinions on a case-to-case basis instead of using sweeping generalizations. I'm very sure that for every social issue I've ever thought about, at least one teen in the world has pondered it more rationally and more objectively than me. I respect the opinions of everybody who is willing and able to justify them, regardless of age or any other physical characteristic. In fact I've often succeeded in having intellectual conversations with teens on "sensitive" topics, whereas the adults I tried to discuss them with simply accused me of insulting their beliefs and refused to continue the conversation. --140.180.16.144 (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that was magnificent! And I've had much the same experiences myself comparing teenagers and adults. DuncanHill (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The OP didn't say that they were looking to 13-17 year olds for guidance. Just data from surveys of that age group. Dismas| 03:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thank you.17.88190.56.17.88 (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Dismas is correct: I was just looking for data, not for guidance. However, I thought that your post was insulting enough to warrant a response. --140.180.16.144 (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It occurs to me that some jurisdictions may have child-protection laws which would have the effect of discouraging (not necessarily explicitly) the inclusion of minors in opinion polls and statistical surveys of social attitudes, either in general or just on certain subjects including those related to sexual activity. Similar considerations of informed consent may be covered by the research ethics of those engaged in social research. If so, there may simply be few surveys which have gathered this sort of data from the age group in question. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.85 (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Time Urgent-- help us find a list of companies that supported Jim Crow?

We need a list of companies that supported Jim Crow laws or came under boycott as part of the civil rights movement. For example, this story on the National Civil Rights Museum shows the Montgomery Bus Boycott exhibit, their bus carries a Pepsi-Cola ad suggesting that company was a sponsor-- but obviously, I want a source, not an inference.

What other companies that still exist fell under boycott? Please help. Time urgent and for a good cause. --Tangledorange (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The article Rosa Parks does not imply that the boycott was against any particular company or companies, but against the state law. Similarly, I think you will find it difficult to find any companies that were explicitly either for against this law. No doubt there were individuals who spoke out both for and against segregation, but few people would have regarded it as appropriate for companies to say or do anything one way or another. In particular, I think your assumption that Pepsi-Cola "sponsored" the Jim Crow laws is misplaced: they were a company who advertised on buses amongst other places. Until Rosa Parks made her famous stand, there was nothing political about buses, and even after there was nothing about one particular bus company as against others. --ColinFine (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's my understanding too, but I know boycott was too powerful a tool for the civil rights movement to have limited it to buses. --Tangledorange (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The article Rosa Parks speaks only of the "Montgomery Bus Boycott", and makes no mention of boycotting anything else. This strongly implies that only buses were boycotted. It's possible he was concerned about Coke's local bottler or distributor rather than the Atlanta company. --ColinFine (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Greensboro sit-ins famously began at a lunch counter in a Woolworths, but I wouldn't take that to mean that Woolworths the company explicitly supported the segregation legislation - they may have agreed with it, they may have hated it but tolerated it as the price of doing business, and we just can't tell. You may be able to find some examples of firms that chose not to do business in the South due to opposition to the laws (though it would take some digging), but it'd be much harder to find a major corporation that explicitly and publicly stated its support for the legislation. Shimgray | talk | 23:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

In Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous "I've Been to the Mountaintop" speech, given a day before he died, he encouraged Memphis residents to boycott Coca-Cola, Wonder Bread, Sealtest milk and something called Hart's Bread because of unfair hiring practices. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Online Korean Language courses - where, please?

Also, for anything less than $225/credit-hour, please? (Coming from a Kansan resident.) A Korean class has been elusive for me, especially an online one.

Online Comm Courses

Moreover, what are some communications classes online that I can take through a community college (or other places that'll, for me, cost less than $220/credit-hour?) (I already took Public Speaking, so maybe Interpersonal Communication, Persuasion, and whatever could teach me to negotiate myself to better positions in life. --70.179.169.115 (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are christians happy that Osama Bin Laden is dead?

I thought their religion teaches them to love their enemies. Isn't this part of their religion? I am confused. 69.68.161.178 (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You are a little confused. There are many kinds of Christianity, and many Christian opinions within these kinds. Some Christians are upset about the assassination of Osama bin Laden for religious reasons, others for political reasons. Some are celebrating the assassination of Osama bin Laden for political or nationalist reasons; and, a smaller minority for religious reasons. In addition, many of the people celebrating his killing who aren't Christian are doing so for political or nationalist reasons. Many people, many views, many reasons. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Because terrorists gave up their claim to humanity (in some of their views anyways). Googlemeister (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of the New Testament is that you can't ever give up your claim to humanity, whatever you do. Love the sinner, hate the sin, etc. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) :Many, many Christians are not happy that he is dead. They see this passage: "Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when they stumble, do not let your heart rejoice, or the LORD will see and disapprove" as being true and applicable in this case. (Proverbs 24: 17,18) --TammyMoet (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

As others have said, clearly not all Christians are happy over his death. From our own article on the death:

Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi said that while Christians "do not rejoice" over a death, bin Laden's death serves to remind them of "each person's responsibility before God and men," expressing hope that bin Laden's death "would not be an occasion for more hate, but for peace." The Vatican went on to say that Osama bin Laden must answer to God for having killed an innumerable number of people and exploiting religion

Nil Einne (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks it is a troll post? --Reference Desker (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think people are celebrating the removal of a person who had thrown down the gauntlet against the western world and therefore made it impossible for innocent people (be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, athiest, pagan, Wiccan, Satanist, whatever) to travel in planes, the metro, by train or to even feel safe in their own streets, towns and cities. It's not "nice" to threaten people, you know.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not necessarily a troll. Consider it from the other side... After 9/11, the news media directed at Christians focused heavily on showing anyone who looked anything like a Muslim having a huge celebration. Many Christians asked why the Muslims are celebrating the deaths of so many people. Now, I'm sure that the news media directed at Muslims is focused heavily on showing anyone who looks anything like a Christian having a huge celebration. Many Muslims will certainly ask why Christians are celebrating the death of another human. In both cases, the root of the evil is the news organizations that are truly focused on making money in any way possible - mainly through exploitation of ignorance. -- kainaw™ 14:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Is that true? One of the images I remember from the reporting on 9/11 was a crowd of Iranian women in full hijab chanting "America! Condolences! America! Condolences!". Anyway, I as a Christian cannot feel happy that Bin Laden is dead, however much as an American I feel like I'm supposed to. Although I utterly disagree with both his ends and his means, joy is not what I'm feeling today. I will feel joy if Obama takes this opportunity withdraw American troops from Afghanistan, though I'm not holding my breath. Pais (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Another possibility is it's not a troll but still not a genuine question, e.g. a person trying to make the point that it's a flawed idea to use some members of a religion as representative of the whole religion. Note that I'm not suggesting we not discuss the question because of it. Nil Einne (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

1) Not all Americans are really christian, and many Christians aren't observant. Americans are _everything_. Young people in big cities especially tend to be secular or some other religion. When we see the huge crowd on TV, we assume American Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus are all probably in that crowd. 2) I think some Americans do feel a little 'weird' about celebrating a human death-- but bin laden caused so much pain, people are feeling joy that that evil is gone. --Tangledorange (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There were some Muslims dancing in the streets on 9/11, while others (including Arafat) expressed shock and horror at what happened. Last night there were also Muslims dancing in the streets at the death of that evil being. As one of them said, Osama bin Laden had caused a great deal of harm to Muslims in America and around the world. While it may not be right to celebrate one man's death, it is a war we're in, and which we have to win. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Tangledorange's answer is correct on both counts. I should elaborate that I think much of the rejoicing is not directly because people had been afraid of terrorism - I don't think they were, and the threat at least right now may be higher than ever. But it's a hope that after a whole decade of security lunacy, trillion dollar wars, and a whole new kind of Cold War mentality, that this death might inexplicably bring about a return to sanity and prosperity, as inexplicably as people allowed the original attack to cause all those things in the first place. Wnt (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I think it's more of a relief than anything. We've been waiting over 9 years to deal with that guy who harmed us so badly. He's like Hitler, in being a good, visible scapegoat for everything bad that's happened in America and around the world during the past decade. It appears that Pakistan double-crossed us at every turn, until we finally got wise and did it ourselves (don't ask why it took us 9 years to figure that out). Even though al-Qaeda will surely go on, their founder is gone, and there's no grave for them to rally around. And as soon as the next guy takes over, he'll be hunted down and killed too, and maybe the followers might start to get a clue. It's to be hoped that this is the beginning of the end of this situation, this "war on terror" or whatever to call it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Very few people derive their morals from the nominal tenets of their religion. Most inherit it from their society and then pick and chose some parts of the faith that can be used to support this pre-existing framework.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not exactly a theologian here, but I think that it might be possible to love one's enemy and want them to be brought to justice for their crimes at the same time. I don't think there are any Christian societies that have interpreted the command to love one's enemies to mean that criminals should not be punished. (Although some may view that as a reason not to have the death penalty or torture criminals) Many Christians do view mass-murder as a capital offence, not sure if that's because of a specific bible verse or societal conditioning. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Different people interprete Christianity differently. Constantine the Great and Catherine de' Medici would have little use for Thou shalt not kill, or for turning the other cheek. The Quakers and Jehova's Witnesses interprete this part of the teaching more strictly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Very true, it's a good reason why one shouldn't make generalizations about members of any given religion. Qrsdogg (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere does it ever say that loving one's enemy means condoning any of their actions. When you forgive someone, it means you've stopped hating them for doing whatever it was they did that hurt you, it doesn't mean the hurt didn't happen in the first place, nor does it mean that the person is suddenly relieved of responsibility for making whatever amends are possible and necessary. When you go to Confession (or whatever they call it these days; Reconciliation, I think), and the priest asks you to say 10 Hail Marys and forgives you, you still have to submit yourself to whatever legal processes are necessary if there's any breach of the law involved, and take whatever punishment or pay whatever fine the state decides is appropriate; or, if it's a private matter, you still have to apologise to the offended party and build a bridge by demonstrating your regret and your commitment not to reoffend. This distinction between people and their actions means that not even Osama bin Laden was an evil person; he was a person who committed evil deeds, and deserved whatever punishment was appropriate for those deeds. If you start a war, you run the risk of being killed. It's that simple. -- Jack of Oz 20:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The simple answer to this question is that the world is full of people of all races and religions who are ignorant enough to get excited over pointless violence. Bin Laden's death changes nothing, the war on terror has changed nothing, even 9/11 didn't really change anything - but for some reason they each made different people feel good about themselves. It reminds me of an old apocalyptic science fiction book (can't remember the name), where the last living act of the last living human on the face of the destroyed planet is to thumb his nose at God. --Ludwigs2 18:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

On a more general note, this article contains an interesting discussion of the psychology of revenge. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Beyond revenge, think "decrease of menace." A man who organized the murder of over three thousand of one's countrymen, in an effort to kill far more, who had demonstrated his malevolence in many attacks over many years, who wished one ill and had every desire to kill one and one's family, is shot dead. What person would not feel great relief and satisfaction at such an event. Jesus Christ would have absolutely "turned the other cheek" after Osama slapped his one cheek. Most people, even followers of Christ, are not really that Christlike. Even his own apostles in his last hours were not Christlike: Judas was a paid traitor and an accessory to murder, one attacked the servant of a Temple official with a sword, Peter denied knowing Jesus repeatedly, all the remaining ones but Thomas locked themselves up in a secure room for fear of physical harm to themselves. They may have been Christians, but they were flawed. Edison (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You've implicitly brought up the divide connected with active killings in general. True "right-to-lifers" will oppose any deliberate taking of human life: abortion, murder, capital punishment, and warfare. The dilemma comes when you're attacked, or more generally, when your loved ones or your society or your homeland are attacked. If someone harms you, you can "turn the other cheek" and forgive. But if someone harms someone else, then the "greater sin" concept comes into play. If an armed robber breaks into your house and you have a gun, do you use it? Strict right-to-lifers might say "No". But then the robber kills you and may kill others later. While it may be a sin to kill him, it's a "greater sin" to allow yourself and your family to be killed. Capital punishment may seem like revenge, but what it really is is permanent removal. Once dead, that person cannot harm anyone again. That's what's going on with OBL. He and/or his organization killed 3,000 Americans directly, and who knows how many other people worldwide. He is now permanently removed, and will never kill again. And that's reasonable grounds for celebration, in my book. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact, a true Christian might feel sadness for OBL the human. How did it come to this? What went wrong in his life that turned him into such a hateful, evil being? Those are reasonable questions to ask. But while answers to those questions might explain his behavior, it doesn't excuse it. And to quote Mr. Spock, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." OBL had his life, and he had a choice to be in the right. He chose to be in the wrong, and ultimately he chose the way he died. Not so for his victims in the WTC and elsewhere around the world. He chose for them. And to allow him to get away with it would be a very great sin. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it says somewhere in the Old Testament about an "eye for an eye" and "he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword". In the last century, Christianity lost its former fire and fury. All this talk about "loving one's enemy" and "turning the other cheek" is nauseating, and that's putting it mildly. The people celebrating in the streets are glad a major threat to their own lives and the lives of their families has been removed. It's normal. As it was normal for Europeans and Americans to have celebrated the end of World War II. As I have said before, it is not wise to threaten people. They will retaliate. The law of nature is to protect one's own life and those of their loved ones.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the "lives by the sword" is from Matthew 26:52, and it's Jesus telling Petrus what not to do! And while "an eye for an eye" is indeed in the Old Testament, the whole point of Christianity is a New Covenant which gets rid of many of the rules of the Old Testament. That's why Christians don't have to get circumcised, and are allowed to eat a nice pur porc salami, and have cheeseburgers and shrimp cocktails. Oh, and don't have to be Jews. In particular, The Man himself has said (if you believe in the infallibility of the Bible): "You have heard that it was said, Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." (Matthew 5:38-39, NIV). Christians have spend 2000 years finding excuses, but it's very hard to argue that their Christ would support this killing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Jesus was preaching passive resistance. It worked for Gandhi in India. I seem to recall reading that Gandhi conceded it wouldn't have worked against Nazi Germany. So what would you have us do after 9/11? Nothing? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there's little doubt in my mind that doing nothing would have been the most effective response to the September 11th attacks. Bury the dead and encourage people to redirect their anger to good causes, such as a national campaign against drunken driving. (Steal the terrorists' one virtue, instead of their vices) If people came together patriotically in such a way, they could save more lives and more monetary damage than Osama inflicted, and it would show the terrorists that all their efforts add up, in sum, to less than nothing. I don't feel like there's any unusual sin in rejoicing at Osama's death, but the way of the saints is better than that of ordinary men. Wnt (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Even among those happy with the hunt, there was some concern with the Wild West approach of Wanted, Dead or Alive. It seemed to place a greater emphasis on the first option. Gosh, even Saddam was captured alive and tried in a court. HiLo48 (talk) 08:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe Jesus was a passive "hippie at Woodstock", barefoot in the park, man of peace and all you need is love, love, love. One only has t recall his violent action in driving the moneylenders out of the temple. Tht took a lot of balls.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with Stephan Schulz and Wnt. The simple and obvious lesson of history is that retaliation begets retaliation, violence breeds violence, killing leads to more killing. Bin Laden's assassination does not make us any safer (probably the opposite) and there is certainly no moral justification for celebrating it in any way. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Why does morality have to be dragged into everything? Humans are animals; they have no morals. The idea of morality is a facade invented to pacify us amd to make us feel superior to beasts. We are not. It's a basic instinct of survival to strike at those who pose a danger to ourselves and loved ones. I will confess to having rejoiced when people who were my open and declared enemies died. I don't practice hypocrisy nor shield behind a false code of morals.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous nonsense. Humans are reasoning beings, and whenever we treat our fellow humans as reasoning beings like us - which should be all the time - then we are taking a moral stance. All society and civilisation is founded on morality of one form or another. Without morality, all you have is barbarism and savagery. And without morality you have no basis for saying that anything that bin Laden did was even wrong or to talk of "retaliation" in the first place. You do have a moral code, albeit an unattractive one. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

OBL himself had a "moral code" of some warped variety. We need not care what his "moral code" was, only what his impact on us was. We could sit still and continue to be bullied by the likes of him, or we could take a stand and do something about it. His kind will always be around. That doesn't mean we have to put up with it. And I'm sure Jesus would understand. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

So let's teach the bullies how not to be bullies by beating them up until they give in. What could possibly go wrong ? Gandalf61 (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no teaching the likes of OBL to do anything. He made his choices and nothing was going to pursuade him to change his mind or his actions. One of his choices was to be killed, and we obliged him. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The flaw in the "doing nothing" argument is that you'll eventually end up getting killed anyway, and what good will that do you? Do nothing after 9/11? You may not believe in war, but your enemy does believe in war, and he'll keep on killing your countrymen, upping the ante from tens to hundreds to thousands to hundreds of thousands until he gets your attention. How about doing nothing after the attack on Pearl Harbor? How about doing nothing after the attack on Fort Sumter? How about doing nothing to resist the British in the 1770s? How far back do you take this pacifism theory? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Civilisation is just a facade built around mans' inherent need for law and order, which exists in the animal kingdom. I personally dislike cruelty and abhor violence, yet if one were to threaten me or my chidren's existance, the vestiges of civilisation would drop and barbarism would take over in my natual instinct to protect my offspring. Barbarism is present in all of us. Pacifism is a flimsy excuse not to recognise this. Pacifism is the brave Apollo who denounces war yet has a friend who beats his wife.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the argument is that attacking bin Laden allowed him to portray himself as a martyr, and thus attract more recruits. So, ignoring him would hopefully decrease the number of recruits. This is counter to the conventional wisdom that we need to "send them a message". I don't think that works with people who are already suicidal. However, there's also the issue of destroying his capability to make war, by taking out the leadership, training camps, weapons stashes, command and control, etc. This applies as well to terrorism as to conventional warfare. StuRat (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Ignoring enemies doesn't make them go away, it makes them stronger and more determined, as Europe found out with Hitler. And it's important to keep in mind that this has not just a one-man targeted effort. They've been systematically taking out these characters over the last 10 years, and not just that, but trying to erode their influence as well, like you're saying. Al-Qaeda has not been a "conventional" enemy, but they're an enemy nonetheless. And whether it's wife-beaters or Al-Qaeda, passively enabling them doesn't work. They have to be actively stopped. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Dulle Griet/Dull Gret

Online, I can only find reference to the painting by Pieter Brueghel and the cannon, both of which reference a Flemish legend... where can I read more about the legend itself? 165.91.189.35 (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

OK so it's not online but de Dulle Griet bar in Ghent has an ancient cartoon strip which explains one version of the legend: Adam and Eve are in the Garden, and are tempted by the snake to eat an apple. Adam goes first, grows hair and genitalia, and jumps Eve. Eve goes next, and gets mad as hell and takes it out on the snake. Is that the version you're after? --TammyMoet (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Double Jeopardy

Forts / Fortresses in Medieval Europe

The size of Fortresses could vary I suppose, and thus how many men they could hold would also vary, but in general how many men would you think a fort could hold?

Also how few could the smallest forts hold, and how many could the biggest forts hold? Just to get an idea of the minimum and maximum capacity. I want to make clear that I speak of 'real' fortresses, solid proper fortresses made of solid stone, like in the crusades. And I don't really speak of a citadel or anything like that which was part of a city, where soldiers might live outside, in the city.

Instead, imagine a fort situated somewhere at a frontier, away from cities and towns, but that it is still fully manned because some enemy, or perhaps barbarians or somesuch threatens to attack the kingdom from that direction.

I'm sure that one can squeeze in a lot of men in that fort over a short time, but over a longer period soldiers would live there, sleep there, eat there and patrol the walls, and simply be there in case the enemy shows up, so there has to be some limitation as to how many soldiers a fort could hold. I cannot picture a fort holding... thousand men or more. As I said before they need to sleep there and enough food needs to be available to feed the men etc. I can imagine a fort being able to holding maybe 100 to 300 men over a longer period..?

But since I'm only speculating and do not know for sure, I ask for your opinion :)

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.123.18 (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, from what I know about castles in 12th century England, towns grew up around them, so wouldn't the same thing happen elsewhere? Googlemeister (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Martello tower article says they held from 16 to 26 men, so that could be a lower limit. The Martello towers were designed to have one cannon on the roof. See also Broch. 92.15.8.107 (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

But the Martello tower was late 18th early 19th century. Not from the Middle Ages. Still, it might be a reasonable starting point. Googlemeister (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I for one took that as read. Brochs were Iron-age. 92.15.8.107 (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Caernarfon Castle says "In 1284, Caernarfon was defended by a garrison of forty men, more than the thirty-strong garrisons at Conwy and Harlech. Even in peace time, when most castles would have a guard of only a few men, Caernarfon was defended by between twenty and forty people due to its importance." Caernarfon was one of the most important, and largest, castles in Wales. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're thinking of a literal crusader fortress, you are probably thinking of Krak des Chevaliers, which (according to our article) "may have held about 50–60 Hospitaller knights and up to 2,000 other foot soldiers", plus many hundreds of horses. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Of Edinburgh Castle the article says "A large garrison was installed, 325 strong in 1300"; that's at the very height of a war of which the castle was one of the key targets. In 1341, still a highly contended strongpoint, its garrison was 100 men. By 1688 (a bit later than the period of the question) it was 160 men. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks all of you. Very helpful :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.123.18 (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Princess Royal

If Kate and William have a daughter, will she take over as Princess Royal from Anne, or would that only occur if and when William becomes King? 216.93.212.245 (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Princess Royal article explains exactly this, in its introduction. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Should've read that first. Thanks. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Middleton's money

How did the Middletons Snr make enough money to send their daughter to an expensive school? Thanks 92.15.8.107 (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

They own Party Pieces, a party supply company, which Carole Middleton (formerly a flight attendant) founded in 1987 (), when Kate was 5. The Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge says the company's value is ~£30million. Both previously worked for British Airways. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Her great grandfather set up a trust to fund the education of his heirs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.84.184 (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

So not really middle class, as 'they' would have us believe. 92.15.8.107 (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Since you apparently live in the UK I would have thought you understood this better then me but my impression was that in the UK it is accurate to say they are middle class (I think more specifically upper middle class) since they aren't members of the aristrocracy i.e. the Upper class#United Kingdom no matter how rich they or their ancestors may have been. This seems to be supported by that article and in more detail by Social structure of Britain#Upper class. Or did you miss the plenty of reminders that Kate was the first untitled woman to marry a close heir? Nil Einne (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

92's missing a lot of things; how many of these posts have we had in the past few weeks? We get it, you hate the monarchy, thanks for letting us know. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Bay Area US Peace Index

The GPI at is very interesting. Does anyone know of any research like this in the San Francisco Bay Area? Ryan Singer (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

People in the situation room last night

I was trying to figure out who all the people are in this picture. I've figured out Obama, Biden, Clinton, Gates, Daley, and Donilon (I think) thus far. Qrsdogg (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The flickr link lists them all. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

DOH! Qrsdogg (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You'd think that when they obscured the classified document in the foreground, they would have taken pains to make it look less like a pixilated porn image. Though, with Biden there... --Ludwigs2 01:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a great pic. I have to be a bit concerned, though, with the Prez, VP and Secretary of State being all in one room together... something Cheney and Bush supposedly didn't allow. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

May 3

What happened to Mauro David?

This is about dates for Italian hyperrealist painter Mauro David whose image features in that article. While voting for pics, found this one - the file has the artist Mauro David 1949-2007 - did something happen to him? I find it confusing because he's been congratulated on his talk page as if still living. Thanks in advance for any help, Manytexts (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the biographical note on his website, he died on the 6th January 2007. DuncanHill (talk) 10:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In that case, commons:User:Mauro David isn't him, because that user's only edit was on February 25, 2007. I suppose the congratulatory talk-page posts were made by people who didn't notice the death date. Pais (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Family tree: Should mother-in-laws & father-in-laws (and their family) of my cousins, uncles and aunts be added?

Good morning (here in South Africa).
I'm busy building a family tree and have already got all my "close" relatives' information neatly written down.
But now: should the genealogical tree also include the mother-in-laws & father-in-laws (and their family) of my cousins, uncles and aunts? Is it irrelevant or necessary?
Thanking you in advance
Suidpunt (talk) 08:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If the family tree is meant to be handed down to your children and their children for posterity, then I would put the in-laws in. As regards aunts and cousins, I would concentrate first on compiling all the direct ancestors.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's good to focus on direct ancestors primarily. It's also good to enter as much as you know and as much as you can find out, because someone else might need or want that info someday, and once someone is gone, they may take that knowledge with them unless you've written it down. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)You can do whatever you want with it. The more names and information you have, the better. You can, of course, make note of blood relatives vs. in-laws. Also, keep in mind that your own spouse is not your relative. If you have kids, they are related to both of you, and also to any in-laws that are in your direct line or your spouse's direct line. It's usually customary to at least list the spouses of relatives, where known, and how far you take their trees depends on (1) how far you feel like taking it; and (2) how close you are to them personally. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It all depends on you, and how addicted you are to the research! If I hadn't gone through my family tree thoroughly, I wouldn't have found the genetic basis for the rheumatoid arthritis I have (I've traced it in 5 generations). Nor would I have found the relationship to Edward III I have (in common with approx 80% of English people, apparently). Sometimes you find the in-laws and the aunts etc are the same... and that can give you pause for thought! Good luck with it. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Arabs

Why have they always been, and continue to be, so troublesome?

1. "Voting in the Czech Republic". expats.cz. Retrieved 2 May 2011.

• Misplaced Pages help forums
• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers