Revision as of 07:51, 10 May 2012

• 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

May 5

presentness as opposed to presence

May someone know, please, in which philosophical text or context they have been used for the first time? Many thanks in advance. --Omidinist (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

A quick Google search credits it to Robert E. Spiller, on whom we don't have an article. He was apparently active in the late 60's/early 70's, but I haven't been able to find exactly which book the term originates from (as yet). Tevildo (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I would have associated that with St Augustine of Hippo / De Trinitate where he ponders the essence of time. Of course, this would depend on the specific translation (and possible interpretation) of Augustine´s Latin. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you help me find the exact place? Which book (I-XV)? Which chapter? --Omidinist (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hesychius?

In Book 20, Chapter 5 of The City of God by St Augustine of Hippo, I find this sentence:

It is this which I have been at pains to do in a letter which I wrote to Hesychius of blessed memory, bishop of Salon, and entitled, "Of the End of the World."

Do we know which 'Hesychius' this is, and does the letter exist today? I don't see a letter to Hesychius in the list of Augustine's letters here: www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102.htm

86.140.54.3 (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Augustine's exchange of letters with Hesychius of Salona can be found in CSEL 57 as letters 197-199.See here. I don't know if there are any good English translations around. Iblardi (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

And this Hesychius is mentioned briefly in the "History" section of our article Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Split-Makarska. Deor (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, this was very helpful. By knowing which letter numbers they were, I was able to at least find detailed discussion of them, for example a thesis. It looks to me like some 19th century book chose to exclude these letters, among others, in their English translation, and so everyone sticking public domain translations up on the internet also excludes them. But I think I'll be able to find them now. Thanks, both of you. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The preserved Pharaoh in Islam

The Quran talks about the Pharaoh of Egypt in Moses's time being drowned and his body being preserved by God for people to see. I know that several Pharaohs have been preserved in tombs and that a body would not resist decomposition in the sea. A google search for 'Islamic pharaoh preserved' turn up several pictures. My question is who is the Pharaoh in the pictures and is there any Pharaoh whose body was found in the sea or any other water body? Thanks. --116.71.49.113 (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Just because he was drowned doesn't mean he was also preserved in water. Is that what it said ? Note that while a body will decompose in water, it can be preserved in other liquids, like formalin. While this wasn't available then, perhaps they could have managed to distill alcohol. StuRat (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Most of the articles Ive seen so far don't mention a date when he was found and I doubt he was found at the time or a little after he drowned. Some of the articles Ive read say it was Ramesses II, but the Misplaced Pages article mentions nothing about him being found in the sea. Another dubious religious claim? --116.71.49.113 (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

We have an article on pharaohs in the Bible, with a section about the Book of Exodus, as well as an article on Islamic view of the Pharaoh of the Exodus. The Exodus is most commonly dated to the New Kingdom, and because of the burials in the Valley of the Kings from that era, we have the mummies of most, but not all, New Kingdom pharaohs. No pharaonic corpse has been retrieved from the sea, but many people have looked eagerly for signs of drowning on the known pharaonic mummies, as proof of the Exodus story. There was significant disappointment in the nineteenth century when Merenptah, a popular candidate, was found with no such signs.

I think you're probably looking for Ramesses II, another popular candidate for the Exodus pharaoh. This story talks about Ramesses' mummy and how people have claimed that the damage to Ramesses' body and the salt found inside it suggest that he was washed away in a chariot and soaked in seawater. The author (Zahi Hawass) dismisses the idea, but that seems to be the likeliest origin for the rumors you're talking about. Ramesses' mummy is also a popular one to photograph. A. Parrot (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Neither the Old Testament of Christians nor the Hebrew scriptures said that any Pharoah was drowned when the sea closed back after Moses and company crossed. The writings just said that the sea closed over the soldiers, horses, and chariots. Any scripture quotations to the contrary are welcome. That said, there is no historical evidence that anything like the parting of the sea and the 40 years in the wilderness ever actually happened. Edison (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Jewish traditional teaching is that he survived, but after the disastrous destruction of his army, couldn't bring himself to return to Egypt. Instead, he fled and went on to become king in Nineveh. This nicely explains the remarkable reaction of the sinful king of a sinful city when Jonah reluctantly delivers his message of impending doom for the city. --Dweller (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Zahi Hawass disputes it? It must be true... Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 10:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Who ordered the construction of Tauride Palace?

Robert Massie in his book "Catherine the Great" (Kindle location 9716-23)claims Catherine had the Tauride Palace constructed for Potemkin. Wiki article claims Potemkin himself had it constructed. Who is right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.198.38 (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sunlight At Midnight St. Petersburg And The Rise Of Modern Russia By W. Bruce Lincoln says; "Again acting on Catherine's orders, Starov built the Tauride Palace on an empty grassy knoll...". A History of Western Architecture By David Watkin agrees; "...his masterpiece, the Tauride Palace (1783-8), commissioned by Catherine for her lover, Gergory Potempkin...". Russia By Johann Georg Kohl "When Potemkin, the conqueror of the Khan of the Crimea, resided in the Tauride palace, presented to him, and afterwards purchased from him by Catherine..." However, Russian Architecture and the West By Dmitriǐ Olegovich Shvidkovskiǐ says; "the Tauride Palace... which he built for Gergory Potempkin...". I suspect that the financial arrangements between an autocrat and her paramore would not have been a matter of public record. Alansplodge (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the large presents certainly were a matter of public record, it's just how one interprets them that's difficult. The Tauride palace was ultimately funded by Catherine on behalf of Potemkin as a reward for the peaceful annexation of Crimea ("Tauris" in its classical form) - ubt who "commissioned" or "built" it is a matter of perspective. Montefiore (the most comprehensive recent biographer of Potemkin) says that Catherine essentially said "Here's 100,000 roubles, go build a nice palace with it", which sounds a reasonable perspective on those events. - Jarry1250  15:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Eritrea and Ethiopia

Why are Eritrea and Ethiopia seperate countries? I know some elements of their people's culture are different. The Amhara people and the Tigray-Tigrinya people. When in history did they became seperate ethinic groups? Has there been any talk of unification?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Well Ethiopia being larger is more diverse. Omoro people are in the centre (where Addis Ababa is) there are also Somalis. Ethiopian PM Meles Zenawi is also Tigray. Mostly personality politics over a fiefdom of who controls what...but see the Eritrean War of Independence and Eritrean–Ethiopian War. It seems religious reasons played a large part (though there are plenty of Christian Eritreans and Muslim Ethiopians),,,Also across the diaspora Eritrans/Ehiopians are ain to Indians/Pakistanis. Same food, language, etc.Lihaas (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

KAVEBEAR -- One difference is that Eritrea was under European colonial domination for much longer than Ethiopia. More recently, the rebellion against the horrendous "Derg" Communist tyranny was organized partly along ethnic lines, and it was agreed between the different rebel groups that Eritrea would become independent when they were victorious. When there came to be tension over where to draw the exact border between Ethiopia and Eritrea, the Eritreans arguably had the better legal position -- but then the Ethiopia-Eritrea war happened, and Eritrea lost the moral high ground in terms of international public opinion, because it was widely perceived to have chosen to start the fighting. Eritrea also more or less lost the military fight, and the war destroyed any incipient Eritrean democracy, largely destroyed the Eritrean economy, and led Eritrea along a path of external alignments to where it is now considered by the United States to be a strong supporter and ally of extremist radical Islamic groups (some with al-Qaeda connections). Any movement towards "unification" would basically be an admission that the whole idea of Eritrean nationalism and separatism was a big mistake... AnonMoos (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

May 6

Historians

In the question above on slave-owning presidents, it was taken for granted that historians make moral judgements and express them in their work. This came as a shock to me. Why are historians allowed to make any moral judgements whatsoever? They obviously have their own opinions about historical events, but I thought the goal of historiography was to be objective and factual instead of judgmental? It's hard to be unbiased about history, but I thought that publicly expressing your personal bias in a paper would instantly discredit the paper, just as expressing personal biases in a Misplaced Pages article would discredit the article. --140.180.5.49 (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

As an Australian I can only point you at the History wars article which documents the amazingly different views expressed by historians on the impact of British colonisation on Australian Aboriginal people. There are massively diverse views. HiLo48 (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Even if they managed to hide their bias, there still would be way more historians doing work on the most famous Presidents than the obscure ones, revealing their bias (although this concerns which ones they think were most influential, not which were good or bad). StuRat (talk) 06:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not necessarily a question of whether they should (or are "allowed to") make subjective judgements, but an acknowledgement that they do. Even just collecting documents on a subject and publishing them unedited and unanalysed would not be "objective and factual", since the selection of documents, and even what you choose to collect documents about, involves subjective value judgements. As for wikipedia, we also acknowledge here that objective factuality can be impossible to achieve, which is why articles on contentious subjects need to be well-referenced and cover all major points of view. FiggyBee (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I strongly recommend In Defence of History by Richard J Evans. He goes over a lot of this kind of question. I seem to recall that he argues that historians should not pretend to be unbiased, but should guard against seeing only what they want to see. He also argues that a good historian will express moral judgement not by saying (in the style of 1066 and All That) "He was a Good King but a Bad Man", but rather through the use of irony, sarcasm, allusion and implication. He's a specialist in early-mid 20th century Germany, so he has plenty of opportunity himself to practice this approach. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

In the social sciences, historians make judgements about the meaning of history within theoretical structures of society. This is judgemental to the extent that many of those theories have implicit or explicit political outcomes. Institutionalist historians often defend the apparatus of liberal democracy, by writing about the failures of liberal democracy to protect itself. Marxist historians often write histories that are designed to arm the working class for its conquest of power. Within the humanities, historians make judgements based on their recounting of stories that, like any other story-telling, includes character and genre conventions. You may be unable to personally identify this aspect of academic histories, possibly due to unfamiliarity with the genre, possibly because you only read one history on a period or person. By reading multiple histories in comparison, you'll soon start to observe that historians are highly judgemental. Usually not individually moralising though. As far as trying to stop this, it is as difficult to stop historians making judgements as it is to stop chemists making measurements—futile and counterproductive. (Historians, incidentally, police each other's judgements quite vigorously, and attack each other over unsubstantiable judgements.) Fifelfoo (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

As others here have indicated, there is no such thing as a "lack of bias". It is inherent in the act of being human. It is incumbent upon learned people to recognize that bias is universal, and to expect it in all situations, and to know how to read any situation expecting it. As soon as you assume that it is possible for humans to avoid bias, you start to assume that people who share your bias are the only unbiased people in the world, and your own personal worldview becomes self-reinforcing. It is better to know that all people have biases, and therefore if you are trying to develop a complete picture of anything, it is best to get your information from multiple sources. To take Fifelfoo's excellent science analogy a bit further, every measurement has an inherent level of noise, that is there is always both uncertainty and random error in every measurement, and the only way to counteract this is to take lots of measurements. When reading history, the same thing is required: if you want to know what really happened, and what it really means, your best to get lots of "data points", that is lots of information from lots of sources. --Jayron32 12:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Even expert scientists are usually encouraged to offer their professional opinions and speculations in the "discussion" section of their works. The scientific answer to your question is that the freedom to express such opinions is protected by law and moderated by peer and public review. 71.215.84.127 (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

A nice phrase that I have seen is that objectivity is not neutrality. Historians need to be objective (in that striving sense, that one wants but never achieves). But they do not need to be neutral, and rarely are. A lack of neutrality need not be a bias; bias is an issue with objectivity, not neutrality. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Pillars of Society

Hello! Is Dina Dorf from Pillars of Society Bernick's daughter or not? Our teacher said she is but I Johan Tonnesen once remembers her as a child, playing angels in thetre with her parents. I already searched the web but the answers there differ as well. Thank you in advance!--Atacamadesert12 (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The Pillars of Society is an Ibsen play, for those who are wondering what the question relates to. The list of characters says she is a "young girl who is the daughter of the actress involved in the scandal of 15 years ago and who now lives as a charity case in the Bernick household." --TammyMoet (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Abe Lincoln vs. The Native Americans

Hi! Just yesterday, I read a story on the Internet saying that a young Abraham Lincoln once served in the army, probably about 30 years before he became President, against some Native American tribes. I wonder if the story if really true, or if Lincoln saw action or not. LKAD (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the story is mostly true. Lincoln was a member of the militia, not the regular army. He was on active duty, but, according to Abraham Lincoln in the Black Hawk War, saw no direct action. He did experience the aftermath of a couple of battles. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

According to his account, he somewhat enjoyed his brief stint in the militia, but saw a whole lot more mosquitos than Indians... AnonMoos (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

CBS ABC FOX CNN

Is there somewhere I can find out who are the major avertisers on these news channels?99.146.124.35 (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Watch them. Hot Stop 14:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I meant to say, find statistics on which companies avertise the most on these channels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.35 (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Advertising Age and similar publications report on the topic (e.g. here .) If you want a compendium of such statistics, they are (unsurprisingly) available commercially. 71.215.84.127 (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Free bus passes in England

Are the free bus-passes issued in England sponsored by the government or do they go directly through the travel company? --Thanks, Hadseys (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If you mean the free passes for the over 60s (rather than other passes, such as those for school children) - they're issued by the local authority. Some authorities may devolve the actual issuance to a transport company, but the ones I've checked require people to go in person to a council office, library, or similar "access centre". -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 15:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Strictly, bus passes aren't provided for the over 60s - they are only available for people over the female state pension age, which is now considerably over 60. --Phil Holmes (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

As to how the travel actually gets paid for, Business Link has some useful info here. The fees are paid by bodies called Travel Concession Authorities, which are largely just local authorities. The concessionaires (bus companies) now electronically record details of bus passes and block-bill this back to the relevant TCA. They can do that because most busses now have pretty sophisticated electronic payment systems - only a few years ago they didn't, and it seems the TCAs were billed by means of some handwavey survey-based scheme. This report about a similar scheme in Scotland discusses abuses by concessionaires (where they'd say a traveller was going further than they really were), which were alleviated a bit by the later electronic systems. I think the TCAs in turn are, in part, compensated by a block grant from the Department for Transport, as the current interoperable scheme is mandated by Parliament in the Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 15:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Life imprisonment in England and Wales

Our article says that adult murderers in England and Wales are sentenced to life-imprisonment, while those between 18 and 20 are sentenced to "custody for life" and those under 18 are sentenced to "detention for life". Are there any differences between these sentences? The article doesn't give any details. Custody for life simply redirects to the parent article. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The main difference is in the type of institution used - adult offenders will serve their sentences in a prison, juvenile offenders between 18 and 20 will be sent to a Young Offender Institution, and those under 18 will go to a Secure Training Centre (on which we don't have an article, surprisingly). There are other differences in the treatment of adult and juvenile offenders, of course, but this is the reason for the difference in terminology. Tevildo (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Isn't 18 the age of majority in the UK these days? How come one becomes an adult for the above purpose only when getting to 21? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 19:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

In many countries, young offenders are granted a transition period in which they are still treated either fully or partially as juveniles. "Age of majority" is a tricky concept - in the US, you can drive at 16, join the army at 18 (IIRC), but drink only at 21. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

So no drunken teens driving stolen tanks ? What fun is that ? StuRat (talk) 04:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

In this particular case, it's a question of an historical situation - the separation of younger from older prisoners - being maintained because it works reasonably well, considering. YOIs (or, rather, Borstals) were first set up to fill the gap between approved schools (STCs) and proper prisons in 1902, when the age of majority was 21. Tevildo (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Our article notes that anyone under the age of 21 can't be sentence to a whole life order/term. Nil Einne (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

@Stephan Schulz - With parental consent, one can join the U.S. Armed forces before 18 (I don't know the lower limit), but cannot deploy to a combat zone prior to 18 (unit deploys, soldier waits and follows). The military has no drinking age, relying on country of location - can drink if of age in assigned country or during leave/travel, including international flights. Dru of Id (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. currently allows 17 year olds to join but they have to have a high school diploma or equivalent or get one within 6 months of enlistment and cannot go to war zones until 18 (except when they forget). Military use of children Rmhermen (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

about islam

]can i have some information on this question? "this world is a cultivation for the hereafter" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.213.209 (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a reference to Predestination in Islam. V85 (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

See also Dunya... AnonMoos (talk)

This is a very similar to a quote from Ethics of the Fathers, 4:21, a compilation of about 400 years of rabbinic sayings codified in about 220, along with the rest of the Mishnah, of which it forms a very atypical part! This source renders it: "Rabbi Jacob used to say: This world is like a hallway to the future world. Prepare yourself in the hallway that you may enter into the banquet hall." I think I more usually see it as a "corridor" than "hallway". Islam borrowed much that is good in Judaism - it would be no surprise if this quote found its way into Islamic teaching. If you believe in an afterlife, it's sound advice, whatever your religion. --Dweller (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Handbury question

When Helen Handbury died in 2004 she had 14 grandchildren. They included Keith, Jessie and Elisa Handbury, Fiona Payne, Melanie, Stephen, Peter and ??? Handbury, Will (died 2009), Sarah, Helen (now married) and Nick Paterson. Who are the three missing people? Kittybrewster ☎ 16:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you give us some context please? Even a country would help. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

She is sister of Rupert Murdoch. Probably Australia. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Viewership vs advertising

Which is a larger source of revinue for most news companies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.35 (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I would guess advertizing... but it probably depends on the specific news company. Certainly the three "traditonal" American TV news networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) get no revenues at all from viewership (viewers don't pay anything to watch them), so advertizing is their primary source of revenue (I don't know about the cable networks - viewers have to pay the cable company to access the cable, but I don't know if the networks get a cut of those access fees or not... even if they do, it probably does not equal their advertizing revenue).

Old fashioned "dead tree" print news companies certainly get some revenue from "viewership" (Sales - readers pay to purchase the paper)... but my guess is that advertising fees usually generate more revenue than sales of the paper.

Then there are on-line news outlets... there are two business models here... some on-line news outlets don't have any advertizing and thus no advertizing revenue (depending entirely on access fees by viewers for revenue), while others have gone the more traditional advertizing based route. Blueboar (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages thinks that "a newspaper typically generates 70–80% of its revenue from advertising, and the remainder from sales and subscriptions." - Jarry1250  11:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"bread" as a slang word

In the English language, approximately when was the first usage of the word "bread" used as a slang word meaning money?--Doug Coldwell 17:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Our article on bread says: In Cockney rhyming slang, bread means money; this usage is derived from the phrase "bread and honey". It doesn't date the origin, though. Looie496 (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

{EC} It's rhyming slang; "bread and honey" = "money". According to our article; "Rhyming slang is believed to have originated in the mid-19th century in the East End of London, with several sources suggesting some time in the 1840s", so that would be the earliest date. The Phrase Finder: Cockney Rhyming Slang has a list of rhymes that were in Ducange Anglicus, The Vulgar Tongue. A Glossary of Slang, Cant, and Flash Phrases, used in London from 1839 to 1859 and John Camden Hotten, A Dictionary of Modern Slang, Cant and Vulgar Words, 1859. However, "bread and honey" is not amongst them, but "There may have been many examples for dictionary makers to record by the 1850s but, like most slang, these were street level terms and not in general usage." Alansplodge (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The Shorter Slang Dictionary By Rosalind Fergusson, Eric Partridge, Paul Beale (p.28) says; "Originally Teddy boys', hippies' and drug users' slang but now in common usage. The term originated in British rhyming slang (short for bread and honey), but in modern British use it was adopted from the USA around 1955." Gawd blimey! Alansplodge (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Would this have anything to do with the old term of dough for money? HiLo48 (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Or would dough be derived from bread? Money --> bread and honey --> bread --> dough? Seems very plausible to me. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 10:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The OED says bread for "money" is originally US, and cites it only from 1952, with a dubious citation from 1939. The meaning "livelihood, means of subsistence" long predates it, from 1719, and seems to me a perfectly adequate etymology, without bringing in rhyming slang, particularly since if the OED is right it is from the US. The OED also says dough as slang for "money" is originally US, and cites it from 1851.--ColinFine (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Business Magazine question

Which business magazine was first called New Business when it was launched. the founder decided to change its name in 1930 after witnessing wall street crash in 1929. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.244.183 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This ain't The 64 Dollar Question. If you already know the answer, then just tell us. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Robot education in science fiction

This is going to be a lengthy question; apologies but I don't think I can shorten it and be clear. I am working on a book, and one of the points I need to discuss is that modern AI work shows clearly that there is no prospect of ever getting robots to behave intelligently by simply downloading knowledge into them -- they will have to be capable of learning from interaction with the environment. Thus robot intelligence will require some system of robot education. Possibly once one robot has learned, the knowledge could be uploaded to others of the same design, but there would still have to be an education to start with. The thing is, in spite of having read a lot of science fiction, I have never seen any SF story that showed an awareness that robots would need to be educated -- the sole exception is 2001: A Space Odyssey, in which Hal, while being destroyed, reverts to a childlike state in which he is taking lessons from Dr. Chandra. But of course I have only read a tiny fraction of the science fiction literature. I'm wondering if any readers of this desk remember any stories in which robots are put through an education. Looie496 (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Not a SF story, but a real life case of "AI education"... see Watson (computer).

Moving on to fiction... there is Data (Star Trek) who learns through interaction with humans... although often imperfectly. Blueboar (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. To clarify, I'm not so much interested in robots that can learn (I know lots of examples of that) as in robots that are put through a formal process of education. I have never watched the new Star Trek, I confess -- was anything said about how Data was initially given intelligence? Looie496 (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If anyone's interested in feeling old, "the new Star Trek" was first broadcast 25 years ago this September. FiggyBee (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it counts as "science fiction", but this is a major plot element of the Infocom text adventure A Mind Forever Voyaging. Tevildo (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This tale (which I've heard from several sources, none of which cite a real source, and so which does seem like an urban legend) may be instructive. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

In WarGames, WOPR has to be taught not to blow up the world. How about a nice game of chess? Neither it nor HAL are robots, BTW. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a major theme in The Lifecycle of Software Objects by Ted Chiang, although that story is about "digital residents" in a virtual world rather than physical robots 59.108.42.46 (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Voice recognition software often needs to go through a "training period" where it becomes accustomed to the voice of it's "master", not unlike training a dog commands. In the case of the software, the "master" must speak a series of words to it as it learns to recognize each word. As voice recognition would be a key skill for any robot, I'd expect something like this might be necessary there, too. And beyond just recognizing words, it would need to interpret them, too. For example, if you ask it to play music, what music should it play and what should be the volume, if you don't specify either ? StuRat (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Bender went to bending college. He majored in bending. Also, Johnny 5 may have got a lot of basic facts by speed-reading an encyclopedia (downloading knowledge), but he was still pretty stupid until he did some interacting with his environment ("Error: grasshopper disassemble. Reassemble!") 98.226.12.79 (talk) 09:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I remember reading one book with the problem of making a wire small enough to connect to a nerve ending. When this is done then AI could use animal brain tissue and be programmed by computers. Much smaller and thus smarter than non-animal memory storage.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

elections in the uk

what is the total number of elected politicians in the uk?? Including MPs MEPs Local Councillors, Scottish Parliament, Boris Johnson and everyone? How many in total? Thanks. Amisom (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's rattle off a few here, all from Misplaced Pages articles:

• 650 Members of Parliament
• 20,680 "Councillors" (County, Unitary authority, London Borough, Metropolitan Borough, District, Welsh Unitary Authority, Scottish Unitary Authority)
• 16 directly elected mayors
• 129 MSPs
• 60 Members of the Welsh Assembly
• 108 Members of the Northern Irish Assembly

Total, 21,643, give or take(!). That's unless anyone else can think of other elected officials not already mentioned. - Jarry1250  23:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget 72 MEPs. And what about town/parish council officials? And do members of Church of England governing bodies count? AlexTiefling (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Do we wish to contemplate "indirect" elections such as appointments to boards of Quangos, instrumentalities, government owned or partially owned corporations, etc? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that but theres also the London Assembly and mayor 26 people, and as alextiefiling says, local parish councillors like from Bideford town Council w hich was in the news this year. Amisom (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the London mayor was already included, but yes, the Assembly counts. Even if we restrict it to directly elected (thus non-Quango) and universally-open (thus excluding the CofE) posts, the number of parish-level councillors must be immense. (I wouldn't know exactly, as I don't live in a parished area myself.) AlexTiefling (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The National Association of Local Councils, which represents parish and town councils in England and Wales, claims there are "nearly 100,000 councillors" at the parish/town level (town level meaning that it is a parish council with a mayor, rather than meaning a city, district or unitary authority). If we take them into account (and assume that Scotland has a proportional number to its population - i.e. another 10,000), that means there are around 130,000 elected politicians in the UK altogether - though the vast majority of them will not be full time politicians. You could, arguably, include school governors in the extended definition of politician - there are more than 300,000 of them in England alone - in which case there are probably just shy of half a million elected politicians. Smurrayinchester 13:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Just realised not all school governors are elected. I can't find how many elected school governors there are, but it'll much smaller than 300,000. Smurrayinchester 13:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is the number of politicians who hold more than one elected position. It's quite common for one person to be elected to parish, borough and county councils and hold 3 positions at the same time. So is the OP asking for the total number of positions available to be filled, or the total number of elected officials, which would be smaller? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

And in November there will be elections for Police Commissioners. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The OP asked about "elected politicians". I don't think any RS would call school governors politicians, except those who happen to be, erm, politicians in other ways. I hope the day never dawns that we regard our Police Commissioners as politicians, but it may be coming. --Dweller (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to see how an elected police commissioner can be anything but a politician! It's possible they may not be party affiliated, but the idea is that the postholder will be independent of the police and set policing agendas to reflect the needs of the community. Sounds like a politician to me. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

May 7

Exclave of Berkshire in the middle of Buckinghamshire

This map, and a few others I've seen, of historic counties of England has a small exclave of what I presume is Berkshire far into Buckinghamshire, in an area that by eye I'd guess lies between Wendover, Great Missenden and Princes Risborough. What is it? 86.21.250.191 (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't find any information at either List of county exclaves in England and Wales 1844–1974 or Counties (Detached Parts) Act 1844. Still looking, but perhaps the exclave is miscolored, and doesn't belong to Berks? --Jayron32 04:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That isn't in any way 'my backyard', but could it be Princes Risborough? (Not that I know what it'd be coloured with a different colour.) V85 (talk) 05:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I fopund "Thomas Denton’s father resided at Caversfield, a Buckinghamshire enclave in Oxfordshire". See Caversfield Alansplodge (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That's the wrong way round. Caversfield was geographically in Oxfordshire, but politically in Buckinghamshire. For what it's worth, in the SVG file itself, the exclave is part of the object that makes up Berkshire, but unfortunately the file isn't commented at all, so I don't know what the objects are. According to List of Buckinghamshire boundary changes, nothing has been transferred from Berkshire to Buckinghamshire since 1844, and nothing at all has been transferred in the Princes Risborough area. Smurrayinchester 09:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It could just be an artifact. Note that there is no mention of it on this 1860 map nor on this 1855 map. Unless the SVG is exaggerating the size of it, but that doesn't seem likely either. - Jarry1250  10:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I found this map, which gives no indication on it either. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC) This map shows a part of Herts not far from the area in question --TammyMoet (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Tammy has probably found the best candidate - the parish of Coleshill, Buckinghamshire - but it's pre-1844 (with the map dated 1851), and a considerable distance south-east from the marked exclave. I think the best conclusion is that the map is inaccurate. Tevildo (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I added to the map caption above so people outside the UK will have some idea where to look. StuRat (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The map definitely seems to be post-1844, as it shows Oldbury/Dudley/Halesowen as being in Worcestershire, not Shropshire, and Lindisfarne as being in Northumberland rather than County Durham (see Islandshire).

Looking at the similar map here, it also has this exclave, as well as a couple of others I can't identify, such as one in Northamptonshire just east of Rugby. 86.21.250.191 (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I have studied the map against this modern version and the "exclave" appears to be somewhere around the Great Missenden area. I have studied the history of Buckinghamshire a great deal, and have certainly not come across any mention of a Berkshire exclave in Bucks around this area. The 1844 Act (in which most of these outlying parts were ceded into the counties they were surrounded by) makes no mention of a Berkshire exclave in Buckinghamshire. The only thing I can suggest is that the map is wrong. If you can hold out until the weekend I can ask at the Centre for Buckinghamshire Studies; I'll be popping in there on Saturday. -- role 23:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Second(?) Longest regularly scheduled National elections cycle in the World?

The United States has had regular elections for President and the House of Representatives since the 1790s. While there have been small tweeks, (mostly moving the elections nationwide to a consistent November date), the cycle has remained consistent since then. At this point, I haven't found any other country with *regularly* scheduled elections that go back farther than 1900. The Swiss parliamentary elections go back to 1931 on a regular 4-year cycle and the Mexican Presidential elections go back to 1934 on a regular 6-year cycle. Situations like the British parliament where no parliament can go more than a specific number of years *aren't* what I'm looking for. Any ideas?

Reading fixed-term election suggested looking at Norway, who come pretty close: they have had parliamentary elections every 4 years since 1945, and before the war, they had elections every 3 years from 1817 to 1936, except for one blip (a two-year gap between 1868 and 1870 - the articles don't give any information as to why). Of course, they were in a union with Sweden until 1905, so you might not count elections earlier than that anyway. Hmm... does anyone know why there apparently wasn't an election in 1939? 81.98.43.107 (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't find anything to verify this, but my theory is that they changed the system from three-year terms to four-year terms in the period following the 1936 election. Hence, the next election would have been scheduled for September 1940, not September 1939. But in April 1940, the Germans invaded Norway, and there were no elections till after the end of the war in 1945. Had an election been scheduled for September 1939, its delay could not have been explained by the German invasion; and Norway declared its neutrality, so there was no involvement in the war in any other capacity to explain the delay either. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 20:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The Norwegian version of the article on the election of 1936 says the parliament elected in 1936 changed the term of office from 3 to 4 years. This vote was on April 5th, 1938. But the Nazi invasion kept the next election from happening until 1945. By my personal criteria, this means that the start of the current cycle for the Norwegians is 1945. Naraht (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Althought Norway was in a union with Sweden, the two countries were ruled seperately. So, Norway had its constitution, institutions and elections, seperate from the Swedish ones.

As for the missing 1939 election, Jack is right: The election period was changed in 1938 (1938-04-05 to be precise) from three to four years, so that there was never meant to be a 1939 election, and the 1940 election was cancelled due to the occupation. V85 (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That info should go into the relevant articles if anyone can find good English sources. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 21:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

There are some in our article on Vidkun Quisling (shameless plug) that you can borrow. - Jarry1250  22:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Any idea on why the 1868-1870 two year gap (rather than three)?Naraht (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't found any concrete evidence for this, but in 1869 the Constitution was amended to let parliament meet annually. Prior to 1869, parliament was elected for a three year period, but during that three year period, it only met once. Since 1869, parliament has met once a year, regardless of whether that period lasted for three or four years. My guess would be that because of the new, annual meetings, the 1871 election was 'preponed' to 1870. It would be unfair to force MPs who had been elected to serve in only one session of parliament to meet in two. (But, again, I haven't found any evidence spelling this out directly.) V85 (talk) 11:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. and so WP:OR. :), Please include it referenced in an appropriate English language article (and let me know!) even if referenced in NorwegianNaraht (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Back to the original question, I appreciate that Norway has had fairly regularly scheduled elections with a couple of glitches, but I'm looking for them without glitches, so they can be expressed as Country X has had elections scheduled every Y years starting in year Z. For Norway it is "Norway has had selections scheduled every 4 years since 1945".Naraht (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Psychologists/psychiatrists having sex with ex- patients

How can psychologists/psychiatrists have sex with ex-patients? Is there a cool-off period after stopping therapy? Is that absolutely impossible even if both parts are adults and the patient just had some minor non-impairing mental problem, like arachnophobia? Is that a legal or just ethical constrain? 83.58.230.255 (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a straight answer, but I found one 25-year-old survey "Ethics of Practice: The Beliefs and Behaviors of Psychologists as Therapists" (Kenneth S. Pope, Barbara G. Tabachnick, Patricia Keith-Spiegel) It appeared in American Psychologist, vol. 42, #11, pages 993-1006. The authors had "sent a survey questionnaire to 1,000 psychologists (500 men and 500 women) randomly selected from the members of Division 29 (Psychotherapy)." 456 psychologists responded.

Quote: "About half of the respondents believed that 'becoming sexually involved with a former client' was unethical. (This figure may be compared to the 6.4% who believe that becoming friends with a former client is unethical.) These beliefs seem consistent with the harm that can be associated with these relationships (Pope & Bouhoutsos, 1986; Pope, 1994), with the awarding of general and punitive damages in malpractice suits in which the sexual intimacies occurred only after termination (e.g., Whitesell v. Green, 1973), and with a multiyear study of the adjudications of state licensing boards and state ethics committees (Sell, Gottlieb, & Schoenfeld, 1986). The study found "that psychologists asserting that a sexual relationship had occurred only after the termination of the therapeutic relationship were more likely to be found in violation than those not making that claim (p. 504)."

See link for exact breakdown. Admittedly, it's not the most up-to-date study, and it's limited to the United States, but it might be a start for further research. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

How can psychologists/psychiatrists have sex with ex-patients?... lot of ways: "Missionary" position, doggy style, swinging from a trapeze, in a hammock... etc.. :>) Blueboar (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully the shrink has a vinyl couch, so they can hose it down before the next patient comes. StuRat (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Charming. Who invited him? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 07:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Canada-France relationship Jean Chretien Francois Mitterrand

Did Canada and France have good relationship during Jean Chretien's and Francois Mitterrand's term in the 1990s? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.107.115 (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes ... however Canada and France generally had a good relationship throughout the 20th Century... so that does not really mean much. If you are asking whether the relationship was in some way extra good during their terms... not particularly. Blueboar (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

See Vive_le_Québec_libre. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Jean Chrétien became Prime Minister in the Fall of 1993, and François Mitterrand's second (and last) term as President ended in May of 1995. So they were not in power simultaneously for very long, and the last six months or so of Mitterrand's term, he was a lame duck, under a cohabitation government to boot. That time was the run-up to the 1995 Quebec Referendum, so it was a time of relative tension in the Canada-France-Quebec triangle, as both the federalist and separatist sides wanted France to be in their camp (or at least, not to be in the other side's camp). Mitterrand kept the traditional post-de Gaulle line of "not interfering without being indifferent". --Xuxl (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

May 8

Why has the Battle of Moscow recently taken the spotlight as the turning point of WWII's Eastern front when Battle of Stalingrad has enjoyed that title for years? What changed?

I thought the conventional wisdom was that Stalingrad has broken the Wehrmacht and German blitzkrieg. And now suddenly, my lecturer is claiming that Stalingrad was largely irrelevant and that Moscow and to the much lesser extent Leningrad turned the course of WWII Eastern front. In his 6 hour long analysis of European WWII, he mentioned Stalingrad exactly twice. What gives?

In other words, why was the Battle of Stalingrad long considered a turning point in the war on the Eastern Front and why has the Battle of Moscow since been regarded as having greater significance?--Melmann 04:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You think the Battle of Moscow is now regarded as having greater significance simply because your lecturer happens to think so? Is your lecturer even a historian? If he is, how do you know there's even 1 other historian who agrees with him? --140.180.5.49 (talk) 04:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he holds a Ph.D in history and is a published academic and a fulltime history lecturer. I was simply not given a chance to ask him about it so I'm turning to you for some help. I am not taking his claim at face value, but to be honest I don't think there is anyone who's opinions on history I hold in higher regard than him.--Melmann 06:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I can speak from experience that having a Ph.D., a publication record, and being a history lecturer does not make one reflective of all thinking in the historical discipline. It's a big discipline. This sounds like a rather idiosyncratic opinion. Maybe a very good one! (I don't do the Eastern Front, so I don't know.) But it doesn't sound like something one should assume is common. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's really a question of interpretation. No war has a single turning point at which an army goes from invincible victors to hopeless losers. The Battle of Moscow was the first time the Soviets really stopped a German army, so it had symbolic importance as well as preventing the fall of Moscow which would have been a major blow to the USSR. The Stalingrad was much more decisive in that huge numbers of German troops were captured and the German war machine was greatly weakened and it began to seem that Germany would lose the war. On the other hand, some call the Battle of Kursk the really decisive one as it was the last time Germany mounted a major offensive on the Eastern Front, and it was completely turned around, paving the way for the total defeat of Germany. We have good articles on all of those which explain their significance. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

And I might argue that the turning point was when the Germans first decided to attack Russia, without having taken Britain out first. This two-front war (three, if you count North Africa) was ultimately unwinnable, although it took some time for this to become apparent to them. Similarly, I would argue that Japan was guaranteed to lose WW2 as of Pearl Harbor, they just didn't know it yet. StuRat (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Both of those, in my mind, somewhat misunderstand what is meant by "turning point". Victories are not turning points. They may be Pyrrhic, but neither of those were Pyrrhic. They were just choices (victories, at that) which many years later proved to be bad gambles. But they were not "turning points." A good "turning point" is, generally speaking, a climax. Midway was the Pacific turning point, Pearl Harbor was not. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Here we disagree. A decision may inevitably lead to defeat, even if not, at the time, obvious to all. I call the point at which such a decision is implemented the "turning point", not the point at which the disasterous results of that decision become apparent to all. StuRat (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"Turning points" are, as the dictionary will alert you, climaxes. They are when the "tide turns," when the victor becomes the loser. They are pivotal moments. Pearl Harbor was not a pivotal moment — the Japanese were still on top in the Pacific until Midway, many months later. If one counts "all decisions that turned out badly" as "turning point," then you might as well say the Reichstag fire was a "turning point", or Hitler's taking power a "turning point", or any of the millions of technical antecedents to events as "turning points." Which so dilutes the phrase that it loses all useful meaning. In any case, the US was already on the path to war by the time of Pearl Harbor — that just made it an easy sell to the public. Even without Pearl Harbor it is inconceivable that the US would not have entered the war soon anyway; they'd have just found another excuse. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The diff is that Hitler might have remained Führer for decades, following those other events, but once he attacked the Soviet Union without first securing the Western Front, he was doomed. Similarly, Japan could have held onto their gains, if only they didn't attack Pearl Harbor. In both cases, a negotiated peace would have secured their possessions, if only they didn't get greedy (or Germany could have taken out the British Isles and then attacked Russia). StuRat (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Medical education in Russia

Is Russian medical education good? What is the best medical institute in Russia for a foreign student? I google search I found a new of corruption in russian education system. does it happen in all russian universities? what is the reception of russian degree among American medical community? I am planning to study medicine in Russia. Plz help!!! --Ghechang11 (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You could email the American Medical Association, and ask: mss@ama-assn.org. They may have a list of accepted credentials.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Russian universities have a general problem with corruption. E.g. bribing professors to get a passing grade is common in many universities, and student cheating is the norm, and expected by both students and professors. This may or may not affect individual student's learning, since it is possible to both learn well and graduate under these conditions, it depends on the student. AMA does not recognize medical degrees from Russia as automatically equivalent to MD, they require additional (possibly very hard) certifications (tests) to qualify someone with a Russian medical degree to practice in the US. If you want to practice in the US, and don't have a medical degree yet, I'd say it's not very practical to obtain a degree from Russia. Get one from the US or Canada. --216.239.45.4 (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Prince Henry?

I know we don't do "what ifs" here, so can anyone point me at a site where the question of what Great Britain would have been like if Prince Henry, the firstborn son of King James I of England had lived and succeeded his father, instead of the second son who became King Charles I, is discussed? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The main alternate history forum is http://www.alternatehistory.com. Try searching there or, if the question hasn't yet come up, ask it yourself. Dalliance (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Guess I'll be spending some time round there! --TammyMoet (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd also suggest searching soc.history.what-if in whatever your favourite long term USENET archival service is. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh I leave such geeky stuff to my husband, who is an uber-geek and plays about on USENET for fun! Why keep a dog and bark yourself! --TammyMoet (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest getting your trained dog to poke around on shw-i. Most good allohistorical content was produced on shwi 2000 to 2006. In contrast alternatehistory.com is much more mixed. On alternatehistory.com I recommend Jared's "Lands of Red and Gold" as an example of the better kind of speculation. You may find that restoration what ifs tend to be fairly poor in quality. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

An even more interesting speculation is what England would have been like if Prince Arthur hadn't died and went on to become king of England instead of Henry VIII (who was destined for the Church)?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That's your opinion, Jeanne. I'd venture to say that it is more common knowledge that Henry VIII had an older brother who died, than that Charles I had an older brother who died. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

What would Great Britain have been like if William of Normandy had never been born? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Who can say? Possibly there would never have been a 'Great Britain' at all. The Normans were largely responsible for the initial forced incorporation of Wales into the kingdom, for a start. The language would be rather different too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't do "what ifs" here. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 02:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

But we do refer people to sources of discussion of what-ifs. The discussion of Normanness has wide traction in both historical and allohistorical writing. I'm pretty sure that "Non-Norman England" comes up so often that it is viewed in communites that discuss allohistory as relatively "boring," like the goddamned Sealion. See soc.history.what-if or alternatehistory.com for a wide variety of discussions of Normanising England. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hanukkah

Is there some religious reason given why Judaism does not include the Book of Judith or the books of the Maccabees in the Torah, and yet celebrates Hanukkah which is based around events in those books? I'm not interested in external reasons, but in reasons given within the religious Jewish context. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

See Development_of_the_Hebrew_Bible_canon#Criteria_for_inclusion_in_the_Jewish_canon, which mentions Judith explicitly. There are several references to the book of Maccabees in the rest of the article: its inclusion/exclusion appears to be contentious. --Dweller (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are several things to consider:

• Historically, Hanukkah was a minor Jewish festival, it is not counted among the High Holy Days, it is more of a cultural-historical rememberance; which is not to say that it doesn't have any religious significance. Most ancient religions, and Judaism especially, does not draw a clear distinction between the cultural, historical, and religious significance of such things. However, Hanukkah has never been a "big deal" in Judaism, though in modern times it has become a bigger deal because of the proximity of Hanukkah to Christmas on the calendar.
• The fact that the books of Judith or Maccabees aren't included in the Tanakh doesn't mean that the Jewish people or the Jewish religion considers them to be untrue or insignificant, they just aren't considered canonical scripture. The article Development of the Hebrew Bible canon covers much of this, it is very complex and not as simple as "if it isn't in the canon, we ignore it". Many of the so-called "apocryphal" or "extracanonical" books like Judith or the Macabees books were at one time part of the canon, in various times and places. For example, among many Hellenized Jewish people of the late BC-early AD period, the canon was the Septuagint instead of the Masoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls seem to indicate some acceptance of non-Masoretic texts as canonical among the Qumran.
• It isn't, therefore, a contradiction for a people to celebrate a significant historical event in their culture, and to celebrate such an event with clear religious implications, even if the event is not described explicitly within the canon. The reason it is celebrated is that it was an important event in the history of Judaism. --Jayron32 14:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

See Lag BaOmer and Tisha B'Av for other Jewish holidays which have no biblical origin. --ColinFine (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Lotus Blossom Babies?

I just read some examples of stereotypes on Asian women from a paper. In that paper, it states:

...."Lotus Blossom Babies" (a.k.a. China Doll, Geisha Girl, and shy Polynesian beauty)."

And then I noticed that this article has a similar statement. But as a non-American, I can't imagine what those characters are look like.

My main question is: who are "Lotus Blossom Babies"? 112.105.52.20 (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't understand "what those characters are look alike". The stereotype is described in our article as "submissive, docile, obedient, reverential". I would add shy, and in traditional dress. StuRat (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. And there is a typo, it should be "like" instead of "alike". And I at first thought these terms, such as China Doll or Geisha Girl, are some names of movie characters. 112.105.52.20 (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, "what those characters are look like" still doesn't make sense. Do you mean "How do those stereotypes look" ? StuRat (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a grammatical mistake I often come across when talking to people who have an East- or South-East Asian language as mother tongue. It is a complication of the simple present tense, so the question should be 'What those characters look like', or, indeed, as you say, 'How do those stereotypes look?'. V85 (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The designation "Lotus Blossom Babes" was no doubt inspired by the geisha character Lotus Blossom in The Teahouse of the August Moon, who is a classic instance of the trope. Another example (also in a film featuring Marlon Brando) would be Maimiti in Mutiny on the Bounty. Deor (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What is an MRS degree?

How does a person get a MRS degree from a 4-year college or university? What does MRS stand for, and what does it do? I was reading an article for nurses, and it recommended that the reader should not "snag up a doctor" and "get an MRS degree". Hope that context helps. Is MRS degree related to nursing in any way? Or is that Master's of Nursing Practice? 140.254.121.33 (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a joke, I say a joke, son. The stereotype is that a certain sort of female university student enrolls, not so much to get an education, as to get a husband. It's Mrs. rather than MRS. --18:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I doubt they were referring to a Masters in Religious Studies. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, this is the sort of question that can be answered with a simple search , , , Nil Einne (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Racism laws in South Africa

This is not a legal question, I don't even live in South Africa, just curious about how their laws compare to America's. Are you allowed to publicly be a racist in South Africa? Either racist against blacks or whites. Or have hate groups in South Africa? I'm mostly comparing their laws to the laws in the United States. I know in the US, you are allowed to be racist and have hate groups, these are protected under the 1st amendment. Like for example if a blogger in South Africa wrote anti-white or anti-black blogs would they get into trouble?

I'm assuming that after whites dismantled apartheid in South Africa, they took measures to ensure that they would not be oppressed by blacks. What, if any, measures did they take to prevent this? ScienceApe (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on South Africa, but I think there are some pretty racist groups openly operating there, such as in this link or this video. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000, section 12 prohibits dissemination, broadcasting, publication or display of information, advertisement, or notices "that could reasonably be construed or reasonably be understood to demonstrate a clear intention to unfairly discriminate against any person", section 11 prohibits "harassment", and section 10 prohibits "hate speech". Most of the South African court cases relevant to this act and with articles on Misplaced Pages are about discriminating against sexual orientation, but the law specifically lists "race" as well (see article). This pdf file has the exact wording. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Decapitate

When this practice was made worldwide illegal? I read in Decapitation article but the info was not in there!Pendragon5 (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

In Saudi Arabia, at least, it's apparently still in use. They don't mess around with evildoers in that country. Chop-chop, you gone. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Must be confusing when the prison tries to take a head-count. StuRat (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The last beheading in France was in 1977, see Hamida Djandoubi. The guillotine was abolished there in 1981, and in East Germany in 1987. --Jayron32 02:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

East Germany formally abolished the death penalty in 1987 (the last military death penalty was acted out in 1981 (Werner Teske), the last one in a civil case in 1972 (de:Erwin Hagedorn)), the guillotine was abolished in 1968. --::Slomox:: >< 07:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

In short... the practice is not "illegal" worldwide... there are a few countries that still practice it. Most countries have banned it (in some cases substituting another form of death penalty) but they did so individually, and at different times. Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The OP may be under the mistaken impression that there is some global organization that decides these kinds of issues. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

May 9

Soviet invasion of Xinjiang

Why did the Soviet White Army help the Red Army in its invasion of (nationalist) China? --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Because White Russia was part of the Soviet Union? I assume that is the meaning of "White Russian" in that article, since the "White" (anti-Communist) forces had been long purged from Russia by 1934. Since there are two distinct meanings of "White Russian forces", only one makes sense in this context. --Jayron32 02:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

"White Russians" here means emigrés who had sided against the Communists in the Russian Civil War. It seems there was an emigré community in the province that did not want strong Chinese-government control of Xinjiang.--Cam (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected then. The article should probably be fixed then, because the meaning of "white russians" is ambiguous for anyone who doesn't know the deeper history. --Jayron32 05:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The ambiguous links in that article should either link to White movement or, per Jayron and Cam's comments, to White émigré. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Most beautiful women

In which country women are most beautiful? I mean what is the relation between ethnicity and beauty? Are Eastern European women are more beautiful than American women. Also are Iranian women more beautiful than Americans? And what is the genetic factor behind this? --NGC 2736 (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I would expect the answer to depend on one's perspective and desires. →Στc. 07:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The only fairly universal measure of beauty is symmetry, in particular human facial symmetry. There are no good statistical analyses of populations with high proportions of highly symmetrical people, or groups of people with high average symmetries. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The media also plays a large part in determining what others should regard as beautiful. A woman who is considered beautiful in 2012 might have been judged as unattractive in the 1950s. Cultural factors also come into play.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Venezuela has a claim on this. See Miss_World#By_number_of_wins.--Shantavira| 07:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

See the picture at Surma people for an alternative idea of beauty. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 08:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That' ugly. I wonder why some cultures have such bizarre perception of beauty? So Marilyn Monroe will appear ugly to Surma men? Why some people percive beauty in different way? Why to the Surma the ugly becomes beautiful and beauty becomes ugly? --NGC 2736 (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It's really no uglier than artificial boobs. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

One interesting anecdote -- Nigeria tends to have standards of preferred body type which are rather divergent from modern Western preferences, so traditionally Nigerian beauty contest winners fared poorly in international competitions. So some Nigerian pageant organizers decided to try to cater to outside preferences in choosing the winner, and the very first year of this experiment, Agbani Darego won Miss World. However, that meant that the following year's Miss World should be held in Nigeria, which turned out to be an almost complete fiasco... AnonMoos (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

There's always going to be cultural influences, particularly about tangential things like fashion, or body modification (think tattoos, piercings, hairstyles, etc.), but don't kid yourself. Beauty is a relatively universal concept based around reproductive fitness. There's a metric-ton of literature on this subject. This study in particular you might find interesting... finding that facial attractiveness was highly correlated (.94) regardless of ethnicity, or of exposure to western media, however body-type attractiveness varied. Shadowjams (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

There are obviously many similarities; however, some of the differences are by no means as trivial or minor as you seem to rather dismissively suggest (consult Neolithic Venus etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

One thing that will be universally seen and beautiful is a lack of signs of disease. That is, no blemishes and no missing body parts (unless they are customarily removed in that culture). A rather strange exception formerly existed in the West, however. Women who fainted at the least provocation and were deathly pale were seen as beautiful back then. Another related ideal is that women should look like they are incapable of doing any work. This goes along with long fingernails and foot binding. StuRat (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

See attraction to disability. Absolutely nothing related to human judgement is universal. --140.180.5.49 (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Just my guess but the notion that human facial symmetry is a universal measure of beauty is a notion that will eventually fall out of favor. Bus stop (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I suppose extreme asymmetric faces are simply ugly, however, more symmetry doesn't mean more beauty. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Early numbers of cars

A friend of mine stated that in 1896, there was the big break of car sales. I tried to research that by looking for statistics of early car numbers, but yet failed to find suitable ones. I'm also interested in engine statistics (steam, gasoline, electric). Do you know sources for that? --KnightMove (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Abu Qatada Gap

So Abu Qatada was convicted in absentia of serious crimes in Jordan in 1999. In 2001 he went to ground fearing arrest, and in 2002 the British government found him and detained him, beginning the game of legal cat and mouse which continues to this day. Why the two year gap from 1999 to 2001? Did the government just not bother extraditing people convicted of terrorism until post-9/11? Because that seems a bit lax. 130.88.172.34 (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably more dependent on the specifics of UK-Jordan extradition treaties, and judgments of how the case was likely to proceed through the UK legal system, than on broad policies. However, around that time, individuals in the French national police and intelligence agencies accused their British counterparts of allowing a cesspool of Islamic extremism to accumulate in "Londonistan"... AnonMoos (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Trooping the Colour Music

During a recent Trooping the Colour broadcast i heard a military march of which the melody is the same as La Marcha Real (The royal march), the national anthem of Spain. Who knows the background of this remarkable similarity? I contacted the Trooping org., the UK ambassy in the Netherlands, a british military guards club, all without any success.

kind regards egbert muller <address redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.74.101.91 (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I added a header and removed your address to save you from unwanted junk mail. Rojomoke (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Two possibilities come to mind (both guesses): the first is that someone connected with Spain (such as the ambassador or a member of the Spanish Royal Family) was attending the particular "Trooping the Colour" that was broadcast, and so the band played La Marcha Real to honor him/her. Another is that the tune was being played during the "trooping" of a Grenadiers regiment - According to our article on La Marcha Real, the tune was originally also known as La Marcha Granadera (or "The Grenadiers March"). Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Might be useful for the OP to specify which occassion this was - it sounds like he/she is referring to the annual British ceremony, but the parade for this year will not be until June, so if it was "recent" in the sense of "in the last couple of weeks" then it must be a re-broadcast of a parade in the past. It may be easier to track down the information if the OP could specify which year he/she saw in the broadcast. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Puerto Rican statehood vote 2012

Will the 4.6 million Puerto Ricans living in the U.S mainland also get to vote on the issue of Puerto Rican statehood in November 6 or will the 3.7 million Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico be just the ones who can vote on the issue of Puerto Rican statehood on November 6? Willminator (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who has the residential right to vote in Puerto Rico will be able to vote, and if they are not currently in Puerto Rico, they may request an absentee ballot be sent to them. Puerto Ricans who have moved away from Puerto Rico do not have the right to vote as they are now considered residents of the state they live in. This is still a tricky subject that is being debated but that is how it stands now to the best of my knowledge (which is that of a High school Social Studies teacher- so somewhat educated but not the be all end all expert) Nightenbelle (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here's the law that authorizes the plebiscite, and here's an English translation. The voter eligibility is in section 5, which says that

All residents of Puerto Rico duly qualified as voters, in acccordance with Act 78 - 2011, known as the "Election Code for the 21 Century" (Hereinafter the "Election Code"), shall be entitled to vote in the plebiscite.

You can download the electoral code here (word document). It's in Spanish, which I can't read. However, looking at article like Elections in Puerto Rico and Puerto Rican general election, 2008, I think that there is a residency requirement. It's interesting, because H.R. 2499, on which this poll is modeled on, does make it at least possible for Puerto Ricans living in the U.S. to vote in the referendum (section 3.c.2), but I don't see any comparable section in law 283. Buddy431 (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

H.R. 2499 was never approved by the U.S. Senate and therefore never became a law. In contrast, this year's referendum was authorized by Puerto Rico's government and is open only to residents of Puerto Rico registered to vote there. Nightenbelle is correct that residents who are temporarily off the island may vote by absentee ballot, but people who have established residence off the island in a U.S. state are not eligible to vote in this referendum. Marco polo (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

unemployment benefits (USA)

I'm trying to understand how the system in america works for giving needed money to people who have no chance of earning it by working, and so far as I can tell from the article on the subject, someone would only qualify if they had lost their job recently, and have worked a certain number of hours over a certain time period, and that as such someone who has recently left school and been unable to find any work since then would not be eligible at all. Is this anything close to the actual rule or am I getting this completely wrong?

148.197.81.179 (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

What you first have to understand is that in the United States, people do not really have a right to food, shelter, or clothing. They are supposed to work to earn those things, and if they are able-bodied and unable to find work, that's just their misfortune. This is not my opinion, in fact I think it's wrong, but that is the reality. You are right that unemployment benefits are available only to people who have worked and lost their jobs, and not to just any people who have worked and lost their jobs, but only to those who have worked a certain number of hours over a certain period and whose employers do not claim that they were dismissed for doing something the employer didn't like. If you are dismissed because your employer claims to be unhappy with your work, you have been fired and do not qualify for unemployment insurance. As for people who have never worked, there are benefits called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, but these are only for families with children and can be claimed for only 60 months in a lifetime. At present, only certain states or municipalities offer benefits for single individuals who have never worked under a General Assistance program, and these benefits are sharply limited. In many places, there is no cash benefits program for able-bodied single persons who have not been employed. Even unemployment benefits come with a time limit. In addition to these cash benefits there is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or "Food Stamps", but these can only be used to obtain food in food stores. Marco polo (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Marco is correct, I just want to stress that while America does not say its citizens have a right to government provided foot, shelter, or clothing- there are numerous programs available to those without a job to give them those things should they seek them out. In addition to long and short term homeless shelters and food stamps, there are government subsidized school loans to help unemployed workers get more education, there are unemployment offices that work with people to place them in jobs, and you can also enlist in the military or national guard to gain employment. While these may not be ideal- they are better than being on the street. This is not to mention the privately funded options available. So while the American system is far from perfect, it is not a total disaster either. I was unemployed for 6 months last year, I had worked enough hours at a qualifying job to get unemployment insurance- the experience wasn't pleasant (I had to justify why attending online classes did not take away from my ability to work on a daily basis for instance)- I survived, didn't loose my house and found new employment. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Nightenbelle is correct that there is a private non-profit "charity" infrastructure in the United States to serve the indigent, but this safety net is patchy and full of holes. The fact is that there are millions of Americans suffering from malnutrition and inadequate shelter in addition to a (smaller but very visible) homeless population. Marco polo (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

There are a few other government-backed programs which support people who physically or mentally cannot work. Disability benefits are available for those individuals. Otherwise, it's basically as Marco and Nightenbelle addressed above. A student with no job would generally not qualify for such support. — The Hand That Feeds You: 20:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This is where the military comes in. They won't fire you from the military unless you really, really mess up. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Or historically if you're gay, lesbian or bisexual and refused to keep it a secret. And probably still if you're transgendered .... Nil Einne (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Are images on Misplaced Pages part of the public domain?

Can you please tell me if the images you use on Misplaced Pages are in the public domain? I want to use the following historical photographs in a learning environment, but I will be charging for the workshop. I understand that copyright permission is in order if it is not within the public domain.

Alexander Graham Bell Henry Ford Thomas Edison

Thank you!209.203.137.3 (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Some are, some are not, but the vast majority can be used in your workshops. Click on the image you're interested in and check out the licence associated with the image. Some will be PD. Others will have Creative Commons Share Alike licences. Links from the licence will fill you in on the details. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Due to changes in Copyright laws, very little produced after 1920 is truly public domain. That does not mean, however, that you can't use many of those works in certain contexts. You might want to read our fair use article. There are also specific provisions for educational use, but they're technical and if you're interested you should find a guide oriented towards teachers. And for the issue of figuring out whether a use is an infringement, whether or not the use is for profit is usually not a relevant factor. There's a common belief that if you don't charge for something or profit from it, copyright doesn't apply. That's not the case (although that may be a factor in other areas of copyright law, and in some very narrow cases of infringement). Shadowjams (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

As with anything else regarding copyright, you really need to consult a copyright lawyer before using the images. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Click on the images you are interested in and they will tell you their copyright status as much as is known by Misplaced Pages contributors. Most of the images on the pages you've mentioned are listed as being in the public domain, but not all of them. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

foreign students

If an american student wishes to study at a british university, would they receive any sort of student loans or financial aid from either government or from the university itself to help with this?

Kitutal (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Generally, no. There are such things as the Chevening programme, being government sponsorship for a small number of students; and a couple of similar progranmmes - see here. But practically speaking, no, you're on your own. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh. There you go. Marshall Scholarships, 40 per year to deserving yanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec x2) Not usually, but there are exceptions, such as Rhodes Scholarships. StuRat (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

French for black male servants to French women during colonial times

What is the French word for Black men in Africa being servants of French women in colonial times? I think it starts with the letter S and I think sounds like sapeur and something like that. Does anybody know? -- 18:37, 9 May 2012‎ 65.95.106.112

The French word for a servant is "serviteur". It may be as simple as that. --Jayron32 03:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

First Christian Nation and/or First Nation Claiming to be "Christian"

Thanks for your efforts. I wish to find the "first Christian Nation", and/or the first Nation to claim "Christianity" as a national religion.

I worked for the Armenians from 2001 to 2003. They always claimed to be the "first Christian Nation Circa 300 C.E..

I've always wondered if this is true.

I have searched "First Christian Nation," "First Nation of Christianity," and "First Nation Claiming Christianity," but there aren't any entries for these.

I'm wondering exactly about the question. That is to say, ...

WHICH NATION CLAIMS TO BE AND IS OR ISN'T FOR HISTORICAL REASONS, THE FIRST CHIRSTIAN NATION.

Thank you very much for you consideration and assistance. This question isn't asked to diminish the claims of any person nor peoples.

Thank You.76.126.11.102 (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

There's really no specific answer we can give. For one thing, we'd need to define what constitutes a "Christian nation." Second, many nations that might qualify have actually changed borders/governments since the inception of Christianity; it may no longer be the same nation it was in early Christiandom. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say San Marino would be a reasonable bet. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Armenia: "The Kingdom of Armenia became the first state in the world to adopt Christianity as its religion, in the early years of the 4th century (the traditional date is 301 AD). The modern Republic of Armenia recognizes the Armenian Apostolic Church, the world's oldest national church, as the country's primary religious establishment. ... Christianity spread into the country as early as AD 40. King Tiridates III (AD 238–314) made Christianity the state religion in AD 301, becoming the first officially Christian state, ten years before the Roman Empire granted Christianity an official toleration under Galerius, and 36 years before Constantine the Great was baptized."

San Marino: "San Marino is a predominantly Catholic state — over 97% of the population profess the Catholic faith, but it is not the established religion." -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 22:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

San Marino claims its foundation date as 3 September 301, when Saint Marinus built a small church on Monte Titano, "and thus founded what is now the city and state of San Marino". Is it coincidence that both countries give a foundation date of 301? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

They don't. The year San Marino was founded was the same year Christianity was made the state religion of Armenia, which had existed for a long time before that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 02:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If the Roman Empire is thought of as a "nation", then that's the answer. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope, if the claims of Armenia are accurate, it predates the Roman Empire adopting Christianity by a bit less than a century. Emperor Theodosius I made Christianity the State religion of the Roman Empire in 380 AD. Of course, the modern Armenian state only existed since 1990, and has a rather discontinuous record of true independance during the past two millenia. --Jayron32 00:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

With an asterisk for Constantine the Great, although it looks like Armenia beat him by a little bit. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

We seem to be recreating the wheel here. The quote I provided from Armenia says: "King Tiridates III (AD 238–314) made Christianity the state religion in AD 301, becoming the first officially Christian state, ten years before the Roman Empire granted Christianity an official toleration under Galerius, and 36 years before Constantine the Great was baptized."

The date of foundation of San Marino is irrelevant to the question; it has never been a formally Christian state, even if 97% of its people are Catholic. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 02:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Vini, Vidi, Viki. I came. I saw. I concurred. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

San Marino was founded as a Christian monastic community. To say that it "has never been a formally Christian state" is being over-pedantic and not relevant to the original question. No formal claim that it was a Christian state was needed, because it was obvious. I'm not intending to prolong the argument - I expect the questioner has the information they needed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

What is the best life strategy? a - expect the best or b - expect the worst

a. has some advantages. If you believe that who works and searches really hard for whatever (jobs, opportunities, partners) finds it, you'll be more motivated to get going. But b. also has advantages: if you expect an earthquake, an economical crisis, whatever bad, you can also be prepared for that. So, which way provides better results? The optimistic or the pessimist? 23:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsmanRF34 (talk • contribs)

Hope for the best and plan for the worst. StuRat (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't that lead to a contradiction at times? Even if I admit the sentence sounds good, it doesn't have to be logical. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

For example, you hope your house won't catch fire, but you still have a fire extinguisher and escape plan, just in case. StuRat (talk) 05:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It's like buying insurance. You pay for it because you need it, but you never want to use it.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 23:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Charles Bukowski, on becoming a writer, has this to say. Bus stop (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

... unless being still would drive you to madness or suicide or murder, don't do it. That reminds me of the Advice for Budding Writers I saw somewhere once: Write something, even if it's only a suicide note. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 05:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

May 10

English AP exam prompts

My exam for English AP is tomorrow and I feel that I have trouble grasping the complete concepts of literature or that I am unable to nail the work's theme, literary devices, and so on. How can I place myself in a mindset to really get it. I am looking for advice like on this page (http://www.ehow.com/how_4491937_identify-symbols-literature.html). --Melab±1 ☎ 00:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Worrying about how to read and write about literature a few hours before a major exam is setting new standards of "too little too late". At this point, the best advice I (as a teacher) can give you is to get a good nights sleep, eat a decent meal, and be in peak physical condition, so your mental state is not distracted by being tired and hungry. Cramming is next to worthless at this point, indeed if you sacrifice sleep or other physical needs for studying extra, you are likely to have a significant negative impact on your ability to recall information or perform skills needed to do well on the test. --Jayron32 00:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Jayron is right. Tonight is for rest. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Was Brad Mehldau's Largo recorded live?

Was Brad Mehldau's Largo recorded live? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.29.132.240 (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It was recorded in a studio (as opposed to at a concert venue, in front of a live audience), but it was recorded "live, on the floor. There were no overdubs." See production credits at Nonesuch Records ---Sluzzelin talk 03:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Gesturing while Talking

Is the practice of gesturing while talking nearly universal among those physically capable of doing it? 98.116.69.250 (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

No. I rarely do it, as it only seem useful when describing something tangible which is hard to visualize without gestures. I wouldn't see much point in adding gestures to describe what I had for lunch, for example. StuRat (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Merger of elevator divisions of ThyssenKrupp and Hitachi

The elevator divisions of ThyssenKrupp and Hitachi should have been merged some years ago, but they weren't merged. My question: Why? --84.61.181.19 (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links
• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums