Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

August 19

oil paintings

i was given 4 paintings, that i was wondering about.they are called the four seasons by v. diaz, can you tell me anything about these? i have tried looking them up, but am unable to find anything, of course, i'm not sure which era they are from or anything.

please help? 98.21.57.212 (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)mistymorningtears98.21.57.212 (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be impossible to give you help on such scant information: the Four Seasons have been a classic subject for sets of paintings, sculptures etc for many centuries. --Wetman (talk) 03:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You need to speak to an export. An art conservator most likely. Ask a local museum for a referral. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Say, human trafficking is illegal, even if they're just art conservators. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 07:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Your best bet is start by tracking down information on the artist, rather than the paintings themselves. Unfortunately, Diaz is an exceedingly common Spanish name. Although I doubt it's the same person, you might want to start by looking into Narcisse Virgilio Díaz and Daniel Vázquez Díaz. Talking to an art appraiser may also be helpful. Good luck. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Quote!

Who gave the quote 'The government is of the people,by the feople,for the people'?Anyone to answer is heartily welcome.117.201.98.78 (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I know of no quote with those exact words, but Abraham Lincoln used similar ones in the Gettysburg Address, the last sentence of which is:

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Jack's absolutely right--just an added note that, if you're interested in where Lincoln developed the phrase from, we have some potentially interesting information at Gettysburg_Address#Lincoln.27s_sources. User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.231.197.110 (talk) 07:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do many men prefer blue eyed, blonde women with pale skin?

I have nothing against women having such properties, but I prefer brunette women to blondes. Despite this people on discussion forums disagree with me. Can this cultural phenomenon be explained?--Whatever She Sings, We Bring (talk) 08:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

And on a somewhat related note why does a google search for "scandinavian women" bring me to Stormfront within the first couple of pages of results?--Whatever She Sings, We Bring (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, because racist dicks make a big deal out of having blue eyes and blonde hair? -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Why bring bigoted detectives into this? DOR (HK) (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not? They gotta be somewhere, might as well be here. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 06:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know but it seems like people on other forums are saying "this is what is best" and if you don't agree, you're weird, or something.--Whatever She Sings, We Bring (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can only suggest that you choose a better type of forum, I guess. Anyway, if you're going to express a certain preference, you're going to find people who express a different preference. I don't think it's not a cultural phenomenon of any significance any more than some people choosing chocolate ice cream over vanilla, it's just people having their own preferences. It's pretty much a non-issue, and just because some people on some forum are loud, that doesn't make it any more significant. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Face perception and Face perception#Gender-related Asymmetry in Facial Processing in particular. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the cultural phenomenon you want explained, the fact that many men prefer blue-eyed blonde women, or the fact that people on discussion forums disagree with your preference? I'm in no position to answer the first one, for more than one reason. For the second one: many forum participants treat such places as venues to vent their spleen, and telling them that you happen to have a different viewpoint or are attracted to different types then they are is an invitation for open warfare. Such places do nothing to elevate the human spirit, so you might consider severing your connections to them and spend all your available spare time improving Wikipedia - besides, there are limitless opportunities for discussion here, on every topic imagineable, and open warfare, while not unknown, is frowned on. And anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, and they had better be prepared for a fight to the death.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be much of a discussion forum if everyone agreed with everyone else. You can find loads of mutual appreciation societies where everyone agrees with everyone else as well and I'm sure there's some with your predilection. People are different from each other, I don't think one can call this disagreement a 'cultural phenomenon'. Dmcq (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Blue eyes and pale skin are actually somewhat maladaptive traits which are hard to explain by natural selection. They may have come about by sexual selection. You may also be interested in the handicap principle and of course human hair color and eye color. Haukur (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

A theory I have heard is this: Both Blonde hair and blue eyes are more 'rare'. This rareness makes those people 'stand out' as different from the general population. People are attracted to difference at least as much as they are similarity, and so people are attracted to these people as they are rarer than brunettes. Certainly the obsession with blonde hair/blue-eyes seems more noticeable whenever i've gone on holiday to countries where the general population has olive-skin and dark hair - again i've heard this being put down to rarity. Also aren't most babies born with blue-eyes? I suspect that could be a reason for the liking of blue-eyes too? I'm also more of a brunette man - as for the forum people, i've never understand why people can't just accept that people like different things to each other and that's there is no wrong/right version of beauty/perfection, only that which we think is so in our own minds. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Neoteny seems to be a factor in the development of the human brain and why people look like they do nowadays. I'd guess evolution has had to mangle the brain too so there's a preference for all sorts of babyish things in a mate rather than people still falling for the gorilla look when they grow up. Dmcq (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

not all of us. I like brunettes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

One theory I heard was that it's easier to spot illness with pale skin (if you're slightly jaundiced, for example, it will show up more on paler skin), so if you pick a mate with pale skin you can be more confident that they're healthy. However, I'm going to join the apparent majority of Reference Desk participants that prefer brunettes, which may suggest that actually blondes aren't preferred, people just think they are. --Tango (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps it just suggests something about the character of RefDeskers... - Eron^Talk 17:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Who cares about their hair colour, as long as they certain parts in large proportions... More seriously tho, is there any evidence that men do prefer blondes as opposed to all other hair colours including red hair and brunettes? I'm talking about all men here. How about African men, East Asians? South Asians? Arabs? Indigenious Australians? Native Americans? Nil Einne (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In China, blue eyed people were thought (pre-modernization) to be able to see treasure or gold buried underground. And, pale skin even today is considered a sign of the elite throughout East Asia, since those who have to work outdoors tend to have darker skin. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You might find Whiteness studies interesting. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

1911 Encyclopedia Britannica

Is there any place online where I can read Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 edition? If there are sites which contain entire 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, then which of them is most reliable? The article Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition gives two links [1][2], but states these two site may contain errors. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's sister site Wikisource has some elements of EB1911 transferred at wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica along with TIFF images of every page at wikisource:User:Tim_Starling/ScanSet_TIFF_demo. Archive.org also has a complete copy here. Nanonic (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in this article about the 11th edition Immortal Encyclopedia? by Craig Stark Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are interested in EB1911, come on over to wikisource and help out. Pick an article, read it in the scanned TIFF version, and transcribe it into a Wikisource article. I have only done one such article, but if enough folks do one article apiece, we will get there eventually. I wanted to add an article on Michel Baron to Wikipedia. I found the EB1911 article TIFF, but no Wikisource article, so I created The Wikisource article first, and then created the Wikipedia article. Alternatively, you may find a Wikipedia article that derived from an EB1911 source that does not have a corresponding Wikisource article. In such a case, you might decide to read the original EB1911 article to see how the Wikipedia article has evolved. This might inspire you to create the Wikisource article. -Arch dude (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Poverty and prosperity

I always wonder why such a big gap between human beings in terms of prosperity(wealth,health care,standards of living etc etc)exists just because people are living in different parts of our common mother earth.In todays world there are so many universities and institutions doing research in various fields of social sciences.Why are they unable to find a answer for the above question? Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.70.74.134 (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

They are unable to find an answer because it is an incredibly complex question. Just to begin, how to measure prosperity? You listed three items but as you note with the etc., there are many more. Which ones are more important? Then there are all the different factors that may affect prosperity: availability of natural resources, population base, climate, infrastructure, social cohesion, public institutions, laws, etc. etc. And these factors are often interconnected.

These things can be studied and people do come up with all sorts of theories about them. But how can these theories be properly evaluated? Societies are poor laboratories for experimental proofs. So theories are generally measured by how well they explain existing and historical societies. However, as these tests and comparisons are not rigourously controlled, they cannot really "prove" that the theory is correct - only that it seems to explain some situations. - Eron^Talk 17:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think one major contributing factor is that it's much easier to create wealth when you are already wealthy, so once a small gap develops a big one usually follows. The cause of that small gap can be absolutely anything - random fluctuation would probably do it. --Tango (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that we can't find the answers. I don't think a lack of answers has ever been the problem. Sure, if we were to try to come up with a comprehensive plan to solve all of the worlds problems we'd certainly fail, but if we allow solutions that are proven (enough) or are believed to probably work move forward then we can surely go much further and faster toward a more just world than we have been. We have more than enough food to feed everyone, and so on. I think some (super-rich) people bend/break/change the rules to work for them and come up with solutions that work for them but that they wouldn't accept for their families if they were on the other side of them. Thankfully in market economies you're enabled to make every effort to stop giving people your money when they step on other people. -LambaJan (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Researchers have found answers for most of these questions, and we know many of the steps that could be taken to improve life for the world's have-nots. The problem is that real solutions would involve a reduction in power and income for those who are most powerful and affluent, since their income tends to derive at least in part from conditions of severe inequality. For example, the world's wealthiest people live largely from their investments. Their income depends largely on the profitability of multinational corporations. Multinational corporations' profit depends increasingly on minimizing pay for producers, increasingly located in poor countries where pay is lowest, and maximizing sales in countries where pay is higher. That is, many companies' business models depend on sharp inequality, in theory the sharper the better. Also, aid programs to benefit the poorest would have to be funded from taxes on those who are better off, but those who are better off want to minimize their taxes. Because improving the lot of the poorest would require trimming the income of the wealthy and powerful, improvement is unlikely to happen, because for most of the wealthy and powerful, maximizing their individual income is more important than, say, reducing infant mortality in Africa. Marco polo (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I find measuring prosperity / poverty to be relatively easy (index for the number of calories and protein consumed; longevity; literacy; access to safe water and sanitation; and a few other items such as medical care and personal security). What usually happens, however, is that researchers either can’t get adequate data or want something measured in “headline” dollar amounts (major headache). As for inequality between societies, geography is a huge factor: either your land is fertile or it isn’t, either you have a port or you don’t; either you have nasty neighbors or you don’t. After that, I’d say religion is next most important: either it support change or it doesn’t. The main reason no one agrees on these issues is that we can’t control for variables and experiment. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Esso & CAA

Hello. Why do Esso's and the Canadian Automobile Association's logos look similar? Both have ovals outlined in blue and red letters. Was there a logo trend? Esso was annexed from Standard Oil around the same time that CAA was founded. Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's just a coincidence. They both use a different font, and they look a little bit different. Paragon¹²³²¹ 23:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

August 20

re Russia/Georgia conflict

If Georgia originally nvaded Ossetia, as your article says, why do you then it the Russian invasion of Georgia?Pgbeatty (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It is perfectly possible for Georgia to invade South Ossetia (which was de jure part of Georgia) and for Russia to then invade Georgia. It is also perfectly possible for the second of these to carry more international significance. 217.42.157.143 (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

An invasion by Russian forces is surely a Russian invasion, even if there are other forces involved. Strawless (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Executive power

I have just read the following referring to the current Bush administration: "the unprecedented concentration of executive power by the White House" [[3]] (Nor is The Daily Show afraid of tackling what it calls "super depressing" stories, such as President George Bush's decision to approve the use of torture after the September 11 attacks and the unprecedented concentration of executive power by the White House.) I'm not American and don't understand: in what way is it unprecedented? Thanks for info., Alex --AlexSuricata (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Previous presidents (which is where the executive power is concentrated) were restricted by something called the Constitution of the United States of America. This one seems to feel that such restrictions do not apply. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

More specifically, see Separation of powers under the United States Constitution. The degree to which the Bush administration has explicitly flaunted Congress (declaring that laws passed did not apply to him) and the Judicial Branch is seen by many as being unprecedented. (Of course, a nuanced historian—or lawyer—can find precedent for anything.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course there's precedent... calling it "unprecedented" is a rhetorical device, you shouldn't take it seriously. It must mean that the reporter really, really doesn't like Bush's behavior. One glaringly obvious precedent is Abraham Lincoln's suspension of the right of habeas corpus and imprisonment of Confederate sympathizers without trial. Long before there was a President Bush (either one) there was concern about an Imperial Presidency. - Nunh-huh 06:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup. The combination of the Imperial Presidency with Bush Derangement Syndrome has made for some amusing, if historically naive, hyperbole. For better or worse (probably worse), the power of the presidency has been growing steadily since FDR, but some folks seem not to have noticed this until recently. Some of the geniuses who think Bush's actions are "unprecedented" probably like Woodrow Wilson! 24.172.156.74 (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The power of the executive did take a big jump with FDR but it took a bit dip down after Nixon. What Bush has done, and what his staff have encouraged fairly explicitly, is attempting to overturn the reforms that were done after the Nixon affair, where both the Courts and Congress attempted to introduce more checks to Executive power (e.g. FISA, FOIA, etc.). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

See also Signing statement (United States). -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Question!

What events were more "evil": Nazi Human Experimentation OR Unit 731?

I think it's Unit 731, personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvltgrinder (talk • contribs) 02:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

How evil something is is entirely subjective. The reference desk is not intended to be a site for subjective debate. --Tango (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd also go with 731, but there is no real 'good' or 'evil'. As aforementioned, it is completely a matter of opinion. Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 03:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm more of "When in doubt, go with the nazis" kind-of-a guy. I recently read an article online that listed the top ten most evil experiments on humans (WARNING: the article is horrifying, don't read if you're not ready for it) and Unit 731 and the Nazis did indeed top the list. The author stated (in the third comment) that the only reason Nazis topped Unit 731 was that they killed more people. I agree, I think that the crimes themselves are so cruel that you can't compare them to each other, the only way to measure is in pure lives lost. 90.235.18.8 (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My Acme Prototype Evil-o-meter overheated and melted when I fed this question into it, so no categorical answer is possible. Does the difference between "very, very, very evil indeed" and ""disgustingly, nauseatingly evil" really matter that much? You wouldn't want either to marry your daughter. Karenjc 21:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Roman Empire

in the days of the Roman Empire royalty would have a person taste test there food for safety before they ate it. What was the name they gave this person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.129.85.220 (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what Romans called them but Food taster may be of interest and could be used in further searches. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Poison tester? Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 03:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A temp? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Intern? DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Roman culture, but as for the language, gusto is the Latin verb for "taste," so perhaps the term was something like gustator "taster."--El aprendelenguas (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Googling in Latin dictionaries indicates that praegustator, -oris, m is the term. We also got an article on Halotus, one of the more famous professionals in this job. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. A Google search [4] finds sources calling him praegustator. The term is also in the German version of Food taster: de:Vorkoster. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

law question

Conflict of Interest, how is this aplied in court as well as when and by whom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckclock (talk • contribs) 12:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Conflict of interest? Your question is currently somewhat vague. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Tigishsimon, it's an essay question, that's why it's vague. Please do your own homework. If you can do some groundwork first, we will help you with something you can't understand. We won't write it for you.78.148.49.125 (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

In court, conflicts of interest are essentially a matter for judges and advocates (that is, lawyers speaking on behalf of one side or the other). It's very unusual for a lawyer to arrive in court with a conflict of interest, because they have seen the papers in advance and know where they stand. But judges can find they have such conflicts and need to recuse thermselves. Strawless (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of life?

Why does life exist in the first place? Why is earth not just a giant pile of rocks like most planets that we know of in existence? Is there a scientific reason, not religious, why life has to exist. Maybe I am feeling melancholy, but I hate suffering so.... --Anilmanohar (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you read abiogenesis? (by the way, half the planets we know well are giant balls of gas, not giant piles of rocks) Algebraist 13:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone give me the Cliff Notes version of the link above? --Anilmanohar (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't yet know how life began. Algebraist 14:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick summary of abiogenesis:

Basically it's this: all life today comes from life that was here previously. You're the result of egg-cells from your mother and sperm-cells from your father. Plants grow from seeds. Cells divide. This is the way new life is made, from older life.

However, this process can't stretch back indefinitely. Go back further, waaaay back (a few billion years), there had to have been a primordial cell. A first cell, that started dividing, from which everything else comes from. But how did it get there? It can't have come from some earlier cell, because there were none.

Truth is, as Algebraist said, we have absolutely no idea. There are theories, but no one knows for sure. We probably will know, some day, but it remains one of the great mysteries of nature.

As for the question "Why earth, why not some place else? What makes this special?", that leads to something called the Anthropic principle. There is much debating and theorizing going on about that question, much of it deep and arcane philosophy, but it basically boils down to this: "Why here? Well, if life developed on the planet Zargon in the sixty-third dimension, there'd be a bunch of Zargonians asking the same question!" Well, sort-of. 90.235.18.8 (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Life rises out of complex molecules, you really need to read about biochemistry. Strawless (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Why life has to exist"—nobody says that it does. It doesn't exist most places in the universe. The only reason we are hear to wonder about it is because it did happen to exist here. But it's not likely common that a planet can support life—it takes a precise set of conditions. Our planet is the only one in the solar system that can support life at the moment. Nobody on Mars is asking this question because there's nobody there. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's an argument using the Drake equation: life exists in the universe because the probability of it existing is too high. The universe has 9*10^21 stars. Assume that one in a thousand have planets, which is probably too low of a value. Assume that one in a million of stars with planets have planets in which conditions are suitable for life. Out of these, let's say 1 in a trillion actually develop life. Even under these pessimistic assumptions, one would still expect 9 life-bearing planets in the universe. --Bowlhover (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and if we assume that 1 in a quadrillion develop life, then we should expect a small fraction of one life-bearing planet. At present we have no knowledge whatsoever of this probability (if such a probability even makes sense) except that it is not zero, so I'm not sure what this sort of argument is supposed to achieve. Algebraist 20:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And a 1 in 1.5 chance of developing life would yield many more life-bearing planets. The argument answers the question "Why does life exist in the first place?" with "It may be because the probability of it existing is too high." I also disagree that "we have no knowledge whatsoever of this probability"; there have been many attempts at an educated guess, including by Drake himself. This webpages states:

"The scientific consensus, however, is presently shifting toward the opposite conclusion; namely, that unless conditions preclude the possibility of life altogether, life is likely to evolve. This view is supported by the discoveries of organic material in space [...] meteorites [...] and comets; of water (both liquid and frozen) on worlds other than the Earth; and, most significantly, of extremophiles, which thrive in what, to other organisms, would be extraordinarily hostile environments. The present consensus of astrobiologists suggests that fl ~ 1"

My estimate of one in a trillion is extremely pessimistic compared to 100%. --Bowlhover (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

first aid

what first aid should be provided after or during disaster? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.190.214 (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

in case of a disaster, my first aid is to aid my self and get the hell out of there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

See Emergency management. Strawless (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia's threats regarding the missle defense base in Poland

So i was reading in the news this morning that Russia's military leaders had the hilarious idea to warn of a possible nuclear attack on Poland regarding the missle defense base they are building there. I dont know how the leadership of the country would be crazy enough to let something like that slip out. I have noticed in the past of course that half of foreign relations with countries one is at odds with is a great big pissing contest, but something like that should have been dismissed as entirely unhelpful by any kind of government office that has any knowledge of proper foreign relations. What could this serve to accomplish? And more importantly what do the common people in Russia think of making ridiculous statements like this?

129.252.70.53 (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

How is this ridiculous? Nuclear war between Russia and the US is a possibility. Poland is now part of the US's defences in case of such a war. It would thus be natural for Russia, in the event of nuclear war, to attack Poland (and the UK, and various other countries) to weaken US defences. Russia has reminded Poland that this is the case. It's not as if Medvedev has said he might wake up tomorrow and decide to nuke Warsaw. Algebraist 16:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think what Russia is saying is that if Poland helps the US with its missile shield, and then Russia feels the need to nuke the US but can't due to the shield, it will nuke Poland instead (or as well - once they've nuked Poland they can probably move on to nuking the US). I don't think this should come as a surprise to anyone - it's an obvious risk of hosting a missile shield for another country. Russia only said it as a fist shaking measure. --Tango (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What the statement could serve to accomplish would be to make any other nation think twice about aligning itself with the US in a way that Russia finds militarily threatening. Russian authorities are reminding other nations that there are downsides to taking a hostile military posture towards Russia. I'm not sure how this is at odds with "proper foreign relations" when the United States and other major powers have always issued warnings like this. Probably many Russians are happy that their leaders are standing up to what they may see as Western bullying. Marco polo (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As if they need reminding... they'd have to be pretty thick not the realise! --Tango (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I recall the US found itself in a similar situation before. It is far from ridiculous to be annoyed about missiles on your doorstep. Fribbler (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between defensive and offensive missiles. This isn't really comparable. The problem, as Russia sees it, is (I believe) that this shield will allow the USA to launch a nuclear attack on Russia without fear of reprisal. Mutually assured destruction has prevented the use of nuclear weapons for the last 63 years, but that will no longer be the case if the USA is shielded (Russia may have more faith in the effectiveness of this shield that I do!). --Tango (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Nuclear missiles and kinetic ABM missiles are pretty different. (In any case, the Cuban Missile Crisis itself was spawned in part by the US putting nuclear missiles at Russia's border.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I know it's off-topic, but I just can't get over this factoid: once during a press conference, the Cuban missile crisis was mentioned and current White House Press Secretary Dana Perino had never heard of it! --Sean 14:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's important to remember that missile defence is only useful as a first-strike weapon, because it doesn't work very well. If the Russians were to launch a full-blown attack, missile defence wouldn't help. But if NATO attacked first, eliminating most of the Russian's fire power, missile defence could stop the odd rocket the Russians might still be able to launch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, the missile defense is for SRBMs. Russian ICBMs will face no problem hitting the United States. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that in the future, high powered lasers will be able to shoot down missiles and even bombers carrying nuclear weapons. They have the advantage of hitting at the speed of light, so they are a very effective defensive system. Mobile Tactical High-Energy Laser, and Airborne Laser are working prototypes which have demonstrated this, and in the future, the lasers will be more powerful, and potentially they can be mounted on satellites to provide better firing arcs and other advantages. So the threat of nuclear weapons is mostly in the form of nuclear terrorism, which lasers and other missile defenses can't protect against. ScienceApe (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe. If anyone ever gets laser defences working, people will start thinking about ways to counter them. In any case, for now and the near future, neither the US nor Russia has anything to prevent nuclear destruction at the hands of the other. Algebraist 16:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

They are working actually MTHEL demonstrated shooting down missiles and artillery. In the future, they will be even more powerful. There aren't too many ways of countering lasers other than using just launching more missiles and hoping you overcome the defenses through sheer numbers and dummy missiles. It's not really practical to armor a missile. Yes, like I said this kind of defense is still in prototype stages. ScienceApe (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Poland doesn't seem to have thought it out very well. If Russia fires some nuclear SRBMs in that direction (presumably at UK or France or Germany), Poland will have to destroy them either while they are still over an ally's airspace (Ukraine) or their own. The resulting airburst would kill huge numbers of people. No, of course, as Russia says, the scenario now will be that Russia will attack Poland first. It doesn't need missiles to destroy anti-missile defences, as a conventional armoured assault would do, but in any case, at such close range, nuclear missiles would do the job nicely enough, even with airbursts.--ChokinBako (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Liberal Democratic Party of Russia

Is Liberal Democratic Party of Russia somewhat proto--fascist political party? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, comparing the parties manifesto with the basic concepts outlined in the fascism article, you would have solid ground to stand on if you were to label them as such. Whether they would label themselves as fascist, I don't know. Fribbler (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

They certainly don't call themselves Fascists. They say they are Liberals. But the key to the party is in its leader, so I suggest you might like to read about Vladimir Zhirinovsky. Strawless (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, the Nazis called themselves "socialists", East Germany was a "Democratic Republic" and Central African Republic was once an "empire". Go figure :-) Fribbler (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

August 21

Conservatism in the United States

I was wondering if anybody knew a significant amount of information regarding the history of conservatism in the U.S. I've checked the article regarding it, but didn't get particularly sufficient information. Also, it would help if references are given - perhaps even a book regarding the political philosophy to educate myself, and reference through the article. Right now, my primary goal is to remove POV statements and original research from the article Conservatism, starting with the Conservatism in North America section, which is very weak even among other paragraphs in the article. It's actually a somewhat daunting task. Master&Expert (talk) 06:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The books here (available online) may be helpful. Dostioffski (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Richard Hofstadter's books are also useful on the subject, or at least I find them so. Lexo (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Family History

I am trying to see if the Kidder Castle in Germany is the one in my blood line. My name was Melanie K. Kidder. My uncle said it was, but I am trying to figure out which one for sure. I found three on one page. Could you help me distinguish which one is the correct one? The name is in German and I do not read German.

Thank you, Melanie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.128.49 (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you want to paste in a URL for the page? 192.251.134.5 (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find any Kidder Castle (Burg / Schloss / Ruine) via Googling German sites (I am a native speaker). There is a Normannic Kielder Castle, but that is almost in Scotland. Can you provide some more information ? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Kidder seems to be an English name which came to the US in the early years of the settlement of New England. In 1633, there was a John Kidder at Boston and a James Kidder at Cambridge, Mass. Strawless (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Dead body outlined in chalk at a crime scene

Why do police outline dead bodies in chalk at a crime scene? ScienceApe (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's necessary to remove the body fairly quickly for post-mortem and simply out of respect, but the investigation into what happened can take much longer, so they need to know where the body was in order to correctly analyse the scene. --Tango (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Apart from Tango´s comment on forensic analysis of this specific area of the crime scene it may also be a matter of simple piety. Few people would deliberately trample over the graves in a cemetery.

I recall an installation in a local art gallery where I observed the audience painstakingly avoiding such a shape, embellished with crimson paint and markers for spent cartridges, outlined on the floor in a passageway. Of course, everybody knew that nobody had died there, but the cultural taboo seemed stronger. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely that could just be the cultural taboo against walking on artwork? Algebraist 22:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Even the museum's taboo of touching artwork. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it is the normal behaviour in a museum / gallery not to touch the paintings and sculptures. In this case the installation was deliberately placed in a narrow connecting passage, requiring visitors to daintily step over the outlined legs and arms. I remember that many of the other exhibits did specifically expect people to interact (in a tactile or motoric sense) with the objects. I recall the entire floor of the foyer being painted like one of the panels of the Sistine chapel (God creating Adam) with dummy Vatican tourists being affixed to the ceiling. Clearly, it had been the aim of the artist(s) to fiddle with our "normal" concepts of space. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. Algebraist 11:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect forensics have more to do with it than respect. They don't exactly treat the bodily daintily.

Bodies decay in fairly predictable ways. The quicker you can get it on ice, the better a chance you'll have of pinpointing the exact cause and time of death, and be able to answer questions like "did the body die here or was it moved here?" You keep the chalk outlines to indicate after you've moved the body the general area it was in. (Note, of course, that before moving the body you also take copious photographs.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that we've seen some reasons, let's back up one level. Do police routinely outline dead bodies in chalk at a crime scene these days? --Anonymous, 19:18 UTC, August 22, 2008.

There was one episode of Mythbusters (the cola one I think) where one of them says something to the effect of "They don't really do that, you know, it's just a myth," regarding the chalk outlines. 67.169.56.8 (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Good old Cecil Adams has done some work on this. The column is here -- the short version is that the use of chalk outlines seems to be restricted to fiction, and to the occasional well-meaning efforts of police officers unfamiliar with murder scene protocol. If we don't address this somewhere, honestly, we might want to....although do chalk outlines merit their own article? User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.231.197.110 (talk) 04:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

1005

At the end of WWII the NAzis tried to hide what they had done by destroying the crematoria at Auschwitz, and other such things such as operation 1005. What I wish to know is are there or were there any death camps that were never discovered? eg documentaion concerning Camp X was found but the acctual location never was? What are the chances that such camps existed? do we have and article related to this of any sort, or any other relavant info would be a great help Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me moving your question here from Miscellaneous WP:RD/M, as a historical question like this falls into the same general area of law, politics etc. Which we call Humanities.

Anyway, I can't give a definitive answer, but I would say yes, probably. Albert Speer is known to have ignored (partly at least) Adolf Hitler's instructions to destroy everything (Scorched Earth).78.144.168.48 (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What's Dalai Lama's nationality?

Chinese, Indian? Tibetan isn't a nationality. Thanks a lot friends. --190.49.96.207 (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You have opened up a can of worms on what the difference is among nationality, citizenship and ethnicity. --Kvasir (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)This implies that Tenzin Gyatso does not hold Indian citizenship, or at least did not in April. I very much doubt he is a citizen of China. He is, however an honorary citizen of Canada and of Ukraine. I am certain he would self-identify as Tibetan, disagreeing with your statement that this is not a nationality (remember that not every nation is a sovereign state). Algebraist 22:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No comment on your contention that Tibetan is not a nationality, but HH may be a Stateless person within the meaning of the convention. DuncanHill (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless those honorary citizenships count for anything. Algebraist 22:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Our article Honorary Canadian citizenship suggests that it is not a citizenship as such, simply a nice thing to say about someone. DuncanHill (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Chinese citizens are of many nationalities, including Jewish, Tibetan, Mongol, Tatar, Russian and others. Tibetan is a nationality. The DL may not be a Chinese citizen, but I think he'd be shocked to be told he's not a member of the Tibetan nation. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong here but it seems fairly clear to me that the OP wants to know about citizenship. My guess is that he is officially a Chinese citizen, even if he is persona non grata. (Maybe it is different elsewhere but if I asked someone "what is your nationality" and they responded "Jewish" I'd be surprised. That's not what I consider to be a "nationality" in the standard vernacular meaning even if the term "nation" has many meanings.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of "nationality" in JackofOz's comment preceding yours is "ethnicity," words fairly synonymous in vernacular English. For the record, in Israel, a citizen's or resident's nationality might be Jewish or Arab (or other), which prior to 2005 was noted on the ID card that serves as a form of internal passport. One's religion (Judaism, Islam, Christianity, etc.) was and is not noted on that document. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

And my guess is that he has probably renounced any Chinese citizenship he might have had (assuming the Chinese didn't strip him of it first). Does anyone have an actual source on this point? Algebraist 02:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried to figure out what sort of passport he goes under. This blog quotes a Chinese official as saying that he has a "refugee passport." Which probably means he is a stateless person as suggested above. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Some countries don't allow their citizens to renounce citizenship if they would become stateless, or don't allow it at all. I don't know if China is one of those. --Anon, 10:45 UTC, August 22, 2008.

Although it isn't a passport, you might be interested in Green Book (Tibetan document), which says: "Those Tibetans who live in India but do not have Indian Citizenship can receive a travel document from the Indian authorities; it was reported in 1994 that the process of applying for such a document typically starts with presenting one's Green Book (along with various other documents) to the CTA office in Dharamsala, which then forwards one's application to Indian authorities." Strawless (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

DL was born in 1935, before the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949. He has left China/Tibet (whatever you want to call it) in 1951. It's not likely he has a PRC passport or proof of citizenship of the PRC. He may not even have PRC citizenship (that he can proof) to begin with. --Kvasir (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

August 22

Cousheries

Aphra Behn's novel Oroonoko mentions creatures called "cousheries"(it's not totally clear if the word is singular or plural) that live in Surinam, described as "a little beast in the form and fashion of a lion, as big as a kitten, but so exactly made in all parts like that noble beast that it is it in miniature". Does anyone know what this creature is? It sounds like it could be a monkey, but I'm not sure. 68.123.238.140 (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Margay or Jaguarundi? I'd think "in the form and fashion of a lion" would let out even a marmoset or tamarin. Though Aphra Behn may have actually visited a plantation in Suriname, her knowledge of natural history of northern South America is mostly second-hand, isn't it?.--Wetman (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A note to the Oxford Classics edition gives:

cousheries: possibly couchari, the Galibi word for a deer ( Todd, Penguin).

Todd is: Behn, A., & Todd, J. M. ed. (1992). Oroonoko, The rover, and other works. Penguin classics. London, England: Penguin Books.—eric 18:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I found an online reading guide which identified the cousheries as "deer" with no further comment, so that's interesting to know. If Behn really did have only secondhand knowledge of Surinam fauna, I guess it's not implausible that she could have confused the word for "deer" with accounts of local felines and vaguely lion-esque monkeys. 68.123.238.140 (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Historical estimates of marginal propensities to consume

I was wondering if anybody knows where I could find statistics with estimates on the marginal propensity to consume/save in different countries and for different times. Is there such a database somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.94.182 (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? Nobody? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.94.182 (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Counsel's notebook

• Counsel's notebook

Can anyone tell me precisely what this is used for, and who by, in the context of the British legal system? Thanks. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 13:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A counsel is a Barrister, if that helps. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

What is Shiv Sena stand on gays in Mumbai

Since Shiv Sena is Pro Hindu and in the Hindu Mythology there are many gay references, are they okay with a relationship between a MAN and a Man or WOMAN and WOMAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvisdsouza (talk • contribs) 22:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Our article Shiv Sena contains few clues, but it does have a link to the website of the party's publication [[5]]. At the bottom of the site's homepage there's a contact button. You could always click on it and ask them. Karenjc 22:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

From this ref I get the feeling they don't particularly approve of homosexuality... Nil Einne (talk) 05:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Modern-style publicly "out" gays are arguably not really part of traditional Indian culture, but hijras are indisputably part of traditional Indian culture... AnonMoos (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Shiv Sena is a Hindu chauvinist and militant Marathi nationalist political party and it does not approve homosexuality. When Fire (1996 film) was released, Shiv Sena organized violent demonstrations against this film. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

There are references I've heard of of homosexual sexual activity in classical India, such as a male harem in addition to a female harem, or in manners similar to the Persian traditions, but none to ongoing relationships between two men or two women. The idea of homosexual marriage is not common in India, especially modern India. The modern notion of homosexuality is different to that of hijra. Whether it's moral or not is not the issue here, but as Homosexuality in India says, it is not generally acceptable to much of the modern Indian population. Steewi (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

August 23

date of Jewish New Year 2008

I tried to read the enormus amount of info but nowhere could I find an answer to my question: What date does Jewish New Year fall In 2008? like month and day Is it called something else? my calendar has some of the holidays but none of them are Jewish New Year Please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.213.179 (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a table at Rosh Hashanah#Date which says 29 September. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That table specifies that Rosh Hashanah, as all Jewish holidays, starts at sundown (on the date indicated on that particular table). However! please note that conventional printed calendars, particularly those using only the month/day according to the Gregorian calendar without indicating the Hebrew, usually (if not always) print the holiday on the (first) full day. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah is of duration 2 days. Unlike other Jewish festivals which are all of duration 2 days (except Yom Kippur - the Day of Atonement) outside Israel, Rosh Hashanah is of duration 2 days even in Israel. The dates for 2008 are 30 September and 1 October (or more precisely from just before sunset on 29 September until it gets dark (one can see the stars) on 1 October). Simonschaim (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Rome capital punishment

Information on the punishment for murder that involved chaining the corpse of the victim to the back of the murderer until he, too, died. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiuff5827 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Nihilism

Can anyone please explain me what is the goal of Nihilism. I read the article repeatedly, but I repeatedly failed to understand what Nihilism says us to do. For example capitalism says us to make private property, Marxism-Leninism says us centrally panned economy, fascism says us do whatever the state is telling you, anarchism says us abolish the state, but what Nihilism says? What Nihilists tell us to do? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing. What would be the point? It doesn't matter anyway. - Eron^Talk 12:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Then what is the meaning of Nihilism? And what is the purpose of this ideology? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing the "joke". Eron is referencing nihilist ideology in his answer to you—nihilism is about there not being a point. It doesn't give you instructions. It says, "what's the point of instructions? there's no point." --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Atheism doesn't come with a set of commandments because the whole idea is that morality doesn't come from outside, it comes from inside (your social conscience). I don't know much about nihilism really—I don't even know if there are real people who identify as nihilists or if it's just a derogatory term applied to others—but I gather that, like atheism, it's an ism that rejects the idea that isms should tell you what to do. I suppose my version of "positive nihilism" would be that life consists entirely of the things that actually happen, not the things you think you're striving towards. -- BenRG (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Nihilism has no goal. It's the belief or attitude that everything is pointless and nothing really matters. It's not trying to accomplish anything, except perhaps a certain degree of enlightenment, and even that would be just as useless anything else. It's a little like saying that everything we do is worthless and nothing has any meaning, but some of us are aware of this fact. Depressing? Well, yeah. Of course, while nihilistic thoughts aren't very rare in some degree or another, very few people really subscribe to it on an all-encompassing level and apply it to everything in their lives. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Dia de los Muertos

Among the customs noted for Dia de los Muertos, gifts are prepared for and offered to the dead at their graves or on altars set up by the families. Other than noting:

• "Some people believe the spirits of the dead eat the 'spiritual essence' of the ofrenda food, so even though the celebrators eat the food after the festivities, they believe it lacks nutritional value."

But what happens to the gifts? Are they collected by the cemetery attendants and distributed to the needy? Kept as mementos by the loved ones? Or what? -- Thanks, 16:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Nastia Liukin

Hello everyone,

I had a few questions about Olympic gymnast Nastia Liukin. First off, I've heard her last name pronounced two ways: Lukin and Leeukin. Which is the proper pronunciation? Maybe someone should add the IPA pronunciation to her Wikipedia entry. Secondly, I know she was a student at Southern Methodist University for some time. Did she ever say whether she will be finishing her education there (or elsewhere)? Thanks!

Mike MAP91 (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The surname Люкин in Russian is pronounced /ˈlʲukʲɪn/, which is something in between Lukin and Leeukin. English often ignores the /ʲ/ (palatalization) of Russian names, particularly where it occurs before <е> or <и> (Менделеев comes into English as Mendeleev and not Miendielieev), but the fact that her name is transliterated as Liukin and not Lukin is probably what gives some commentators reason to pronounce it Leeukin. So I guess the answer is that neither is "proper" since they're both approximations and both in frequent use. Strad (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is it not transliterated (transcribed) Lyukin? This may not be authentic, but it might give a clue to the many Anglophones who don't know the formal standards of Cyrillic romanization or proper Russian phonology. -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The only way to find out if the pronunciation of someone's name is correct is to find out how that person pronounces it. Has anyone here heard Liukin pronounce her own name? --Anonymous, 18:45, August 23, 2008.

On the Mendeleev thing: that is one way of transliterating it, but Mendeleyev (or even Mendeleyef) is also found, and is imo a much more useful approach. cf. Fadeyev (vs. Fadeev), Matveyev (vs. (Matveev), Alexeyev or Alekseyev (vs. Alexeev), etc. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Note also that in most of the US, UK /lju:/ is pronounced /lu:/, just as there is a diff in the pronunciation of news. kwami (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Compare with the current Russian prime minister Dmitry Medvedev, the pronunciation of whose name (see IPA for Russian pronunciation in his article) provoked considerable angst in the British media and English-speaking world in general. Again, it was about the "ʲ" palatalization issue. There's quite a good article here about it. Karenjc 14:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian woman cannot have surname Lukin. Her surname is Lukina.--Dojarca (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but she's not a Russian woman. She's an American woman of Russian ancestry, and it's rare for feminine name endings to be used in anglophone countries. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help everyone. I guess it's sort of like a silent "j". As an Anglophone, I doubt if the pronunciation will ever be spot-on, but I can at least know that I am mispronouncing it :). That article and the references to Medvedev and Mendeleev were also helpful.

Mike MAP91 (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Politician attributes

Is there an existing source or reference for the attributes of politicians such as what political party they belong to, what schools they have attended, what memberships in other organizations they have, how much money they have and how many pets, kids, marriages they have had and how many houses they own? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.13.184 (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What country are you interested in? There may be an appropriate Who's who guide which would contain some of the information you want, at least. --Tango (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

USA

nndb.com has pretty thorough information along those lines. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this reminds me of the Burke people in history thing and Six degrees of separation. Great stuff!

There is www.theyworkforyou.com in the UK. Things such as how much money they have, pets, houses owned etc. are hardly 'important' information about a politician so unless they willingly passed on that information it's not likely to exist anywhere. Far more important is accessing records of their voting history, speeches made in the appropriate place (House of commons in the UK) and etc. In the UK most of this information can be found for current MPs. ny156uk (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not many people do not look at the "important" things but go for the trite like the Jeri Ryan scandal, etc. because they do not want to end up doing such stuff themselves.

Mystery airplane

Mystery airplane

I spotted this airplane circling over Yellowstone National Park on August 8. It appears to be a WWII-vintage fighter or ground-attack airplane. It appears to be painted in a Army Air Forces camoflage pattern, with a white star on red roundel. The number on the tail appears to be 683, but that's not the registration N-number. Any idea what the airplane is? --Carnildo (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Its not a Supermarine Spitfire, Hawker Tempest, de Havilland Mosquito, or North American P-51D, or a Hawker Hurricane unless radically modified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.13.184 (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it could be a modified Grumman F4F Wildcat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.13.184 (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Another possibility is the Douglas AD-1 Skyraider.

Thanks. It does appear to be an A1-E Skyraider, very similar to the one in this image. --Carnildo (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's it for sure. Much bigger plane than the F4F Wildcat with a proportionately smaller cowl and lower wing attachment. From a private collection no doubt. Lots of 25 million dollar ranches not far from there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.13.184 (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

A little more looking around indicates that it's almost certainly this airplane. --Carnildo (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Political system without new laws (ie. unchanging consitution)?

What political theory proposes that the government (or anarchist equivalent) should only enforce a basic, unchanging constitution, but not make new laws? Steohawk (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The closest I can come up with is expressed by the motto of Outback Steakhouse - "No rules, just right." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.13.184 (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha. All kidding aside, I want to make it clear that I'm not talking about a system of lawlessness (ie. no rules), but a system in which there are a few, unchanging laws. For example, human rights and civil liberties would be protected, but the government wouldn't be allowed to make new laws. Advocates of such a system would likely argue that the US has become increasingly oppressive since its inception, except for the extension of rights to women, minority races, etc. Steohawk (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A great many religions - which, of course, are social systems - are based on a static constitution (i.e. a credo). Unless I missed something, nobody in the Vatican has come up with any additional commandments for quite a while. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Although their intepretation is in constant flux and development, as newer circumstances arise that could not have even been wildly fantasised about in Moses' time. If a government (in the general sense of the word) can't make any new laws, doesn't that mean that there'd be no need for any kind of legislature? There might be a bunch of guys who were the "government", but they'd be reduced to a policing role. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

There'd still be an executive, presumably. On the Pope front, he often promulgates doctrinal documents which look suspiciously like new laws. I suppose you could view the doctrine of papal supremacy as an all-purpose enabling act. Algebraist 23:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually new laws have to be consistent with old laws or risk being invalidated by a judge. In many cases old laws are simply updated by including new variables rather than making a new law unless there is not an old law from which to start. Its laws which are inconsistent with existing law that you have to disallow. In effect constitutions are therefore not changed but merely modified to distinguish some exception or to specifically include something which is not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.13.184 (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

---

There have been some traditional interpretations of Islam according to which Islamic religious-based law (shari`a) is the only valid form of law, and it can be applied to all important questions of interpersonal social conduct (by no means narrowly limited to strictly religious matters only). According to this view, a ruler can issue low-level administrative regulations -- but if the ruler were to decree an actual new law (not found in traditional Islamic law), then he would be impiously arrogating to himself a privilege which belongs to God alone. For example, Islamic law specifies in precise detail which taxes are Islamically allowable, and several times in Islamic history, there have been revolts when rulers imposed other types of taxes... However, in practical terms, this theoretical Islamic prohibition against new laws has been pretty much a dead letter for a number of centuries. And traditional Christian societies never really adopted this idea of a "closed legal canon" in the same way... AnonMoos (talk) 04:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In the Baha'i Faith there are the Writings of Baha'u'llah, which are similarly very comprehensive. Although most of it is pretty clear-cut, where there could be differences of interpretation `Abdu'l-Baha, who was the first head of the faith after the passing of his father Baha'u'llah (and whom Baha'is believe to have been given the authority to do so) cleared up which way they should be interpreted. Shoghi Effendi, the next and last head of the faith before the Universal House of Justice, which is the current executive body for an indefinite period of time, elucidated a bit as well. The current executive body can only make decisions on things that aren't covered by the others or on how and when to implement the directives set by the others. So, I think this is a good example. Although it is a religion, the laws cover taxes, inheritance, criminal punishment, marriage, divorce and a whole lot of other things that states are concerned with. The only reason why you don't hear about it like other religious law codes is because Baha'is aren't in the business of having or trying to obtain sovereignty over some country and Baha'is are required to follow the existing laws of their country. -LambaJan (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Denmark and its shape

If I was to say that Denmark looked like Elvis Presley's head, would that be paredolia? Everyone knows that Italy looks like a boot, but it's not so common knowledge that Denmark looks like Elvis, with his quiff and a microphone (the microphone is the island that Copenhagen is on).--Smocksmeagel (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Your posting has two parts:

(1) Yes

(2) Not a question but a rant.

--hydnjo talk 22:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't class that as a rant. It is not as if the OP is actually annoyed that Denmark looks like Elvis. He is supporting his question with an explanation of his opinion.--ChokinBako (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And I had thought that the King Prince has already left the building, well, shuffled off this mortal coil, providing us with a long awaited rest of silence? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the average size of a woman's breasts?

Because I tend to only like girls with large breasts. I once had sex with a girl who had 36DDD and she was amazing, but I find that that isn't so common, which means that in the future it might be difficult for me to get a girl with breasts that big. I also like girls with large buttocks, and sometimes kinda chubby, but not obese. I understand that this is not a place to ask for tips for picking up women etc., but I need to know what the average size of a woman's breasts is, just as an objective fact, if that's OK, wikipedia is not censored right?--Smocksmeagel (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct, Wikipedia is not censored. --hydnjo talk 22:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct, but it's an encyclopedia, and the purpose of this Humanities Reference Desk is to help people find, as Smocksmeagel says, objective information. Addressing the OP: Your comment heading is off-base; what you apparently want to know is the distribution of extra-large breasts (a condition called "mammary hypertrophy")in the juvenile female population, which is unlikely; did you perhaps mean "women" and not "girls"? Since you insist on going into (IMO inappropriate and crude) details of your personal sexual preferences, have you read about breast fetishism? Use that term for further web searches that may be more informative. Then try searching on "women + [mammary hypertrophy or an equivalent term in the vernacular]+ sex partners + [your geographic area]". For future reference, this sort of question probably belongs on the Science ref desk. -- Deborahjay (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Distribution of breast sizes in a given population sounds pretty objective to me... While you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, I find it best to keep personal opinions to oneself when answering questions since, as you say, the purpose is to be objective. Your suggested search terms are more likely to find dating agencies than useful statistics, so are not particularly helpful. --Tango (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarification noted, Tango. In trying to be helpful and also respect what I consider to be the spirit of the Ref Desks, I failed to stick strictly to the objective question. Strike-through is accordingly added. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

[6] has some useful information. I've no idea how reliable it is, though. --Tango (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it depends where you are, which ethnic group you're speaking about, and natural breasts/breast implants. All of these could affect results. Also, I hope Deborahjay isn't offended when I say that I don't think you implied juveniles. The word "girl" frequently means a woman of 18 or more years of age, at least in England. Out of decency we will assume you are speaking about adults.78.144.142.121 (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You might find true happiness in certain parts of the world where evolution and diet have combined to produce a larger number of women with larger than average breasts. Russia, for example, as opposed to say, Japan. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Non Residents Pakistanis, Indian and Sri Lankans

Is there a map where they show which nations do Non-residents Pakistanis, Indians and Sri Lankans migrate the most? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.242 (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Britain is probably one of the most common countries that they go to. South Asians are everywhere in the UK... there are even curry houses in Portree and Kirkwall.--Smocksmeagel (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I mean, here's the Portree Indian restaurant website and there was a notable murder case about an Orcadian guy who murdered an Indian man who worked at a curry place in Kirkwall in 1994, not sure if Wikipedia has an article about it.--Smocksmeagel (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that Smocksmeagel means well however he/she has not provided the map that you requested. Stay tuned, perhaps another RDer will provide a more responsive response. --hydnjo talk 23:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a map using 1961 data. Fribbler (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a lengthy article with quite a few useful tables, B3 .. B6 being most relevant. It also contains interesting data on temporary labour migration of Indians into the OPEC regions of the Middle East. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

August 24

How culture and language contributes in the making of nationalism?

How does culture and language play an impotant role in the making of natioalism in Europe?Give 3 instances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishilaish (talk • contribs) 03:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

A tip for the future: When posting your homework questions on the Wikipedia reference desk, don't include bits like "give 3 instances", it makes it far too obvious. --Tango (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

What language do they speak in France? Pantsylvania? Spain? Italy? Also, I would use "do" in place of "does", but my grasp of English (where do they speak that, again? Oh, right, Canada) is probably tenuous at best. 98.169.163.20 (talk) 04:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you just completed your FAILwork for the night! --mboverload@ 05:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Did Ancient Egypt control any part of Asia?

If yes, when and what part? I think they did at least conquer Sinai but I'm not sure... Guy0307 (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, during the New Kingdom, the Egyption Empire extended through Sinai, Canaan, and Syria. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Guy0307 (talk) 07:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama's "Present" Votes

Much has been made about Barack Obama's propensity to vote "present" rather than "yes" or "no" while in the Illinois Senate [7]. However, was Obama's "present"-voting frequency (about 3% according to the article) substantially higher than usual? --Histirisis (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The official site, [8], lists the respective roll calls and votes of the individual US Senate´s decisions for the past 10 years. You would have to click your way through it and accumulate a check list. Maybe, a USian native can find proper statistics somewhere. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the US senate, I think the OP was talking about the Illinois state senate. Their official site might help, although I can't find the information after a couple of minutes of looking ([9] seems to be the place to start, though). --Tango (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ooops, I am European. The link from Tango allows you to check the listed SBs (presumably that is state bills). A further link gets you to the votes on the specific bill where the names (house or senate) / yeas / nays / no votes are given. Again, you would have to spend some time checking through the individual bills to get some idea on the voting pattern of selected members of the state assemblies. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian shirt - Dr Zhivago...

A very, very rough diagram

Hi; there's a sort of shirt people tended to wear in Tsarist Russia (particularly noticeable in films such as Dr Zhivago and Fiddler on the Roof, a bit like the picture on the right - with buttons down the left-side of the chest. What's it called and do we have an article on it? Thanks! ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 07:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I took a guess based on a garment name I've seen often in Russian novels, and seem to have succeeded: according to this, 'a Tolstoy blouse or Tolstoy shirt is a traditional full Russian shirt with the collar opening on one side of the neck.' Algebraist 12:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

See kosovorotka. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The image in the article is stylised, but it doesn't appear to have a collar. The version with a collar is a kosovorotka (косоворотка), the one without a collar being a golosheika (голошейка). -- JackofOz (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all this :-) ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 07:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Military Uniforms

When was it that the British Infantry uniform changed from its characteristic red to khaki/green? I know that in the Khyber Pass campaign, the British were wearing a sandy colour, as well as in parts of North Africa, but in the Zulu War the uniforms were still red/blue. By WWI it had changed to khaki/green. When was this change and what was the stimulus for it?

I had heard that the French changed their infantry uniform from dark blue/red to all light blue/grey because they could be too easily seen in the opening battles of WWI and their idea was basically taken from the Germans, who had already been using all one colour (blue/grey) even at the start of the war.--ChokinBako (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Red coat (British army) details the history of the uniform. Fribbler (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! Everything answered!--ChokinBako (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Red coat (British army) doesn't go into all the detail/rationale, however. Sigh. Yet another thing to add to my to-do list. The change to khaki was not a dramatic or sudden thing. while campaigning in India during the mid-nineteenth century, British soldiers still officially wore the red coat, which was heavy and hot. So many commanders let their men wear "undress uniform" in the field: the white fatigues worn for training and so forth. These were commonly worn in the "Indian style": that is, with the shirt out, like a tunic, rather than tucked in. Then someone had the great idea of dying these white uniforms "khaki": initially a greyish colour. (Incidentally, the 52nd Foot were the first regular regiment to do this.) This change happened at a regimental level, and was an unofficial action; following the Indian Mutiny, regiments reverted to the standard red coat. But officialdom eventually took note, khaki was introduced as standard field dress in 1885. It darkened by WWI to a greeny colour. Later, shades altered depending on theatre (lighter for desert warfare etc). Note that dress uniforms did not make the same changes; some regiments in the British Army still have red coats for officer and NCO dress uniforms; all regiments in the NZ army retain the red for full dress. Gwinva (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice one! Thanks!--ChokinBako (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

organisational behabiour management progrm

people needs organisation,organisation needs people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.197.7 (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

People needs question. Fribbler (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

See our article on Organizational Behavior Management. This is a bit stubby, but there are some external links. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Who memorized Homer?

I have in the back of my head a notion that an English writer had a Homeric epic committed to memory, and could recite at length. Thomas Carlyle comes to mind, but does someone know beyond guessing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dukesnyder1027 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be surprised if there have not been several such people. Algebraist 16:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Esp. since the entire point of those old epics was to be memorized. That's one of the reasons they were done as poems and all that—a pre-literate way of remembering long stories. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Turning 100 bucks into 1 million

The dilbert cartoon of today [here] affirms that you can turn 100 bucks into 1 million if you invest it 190 years at 5%. Is it true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.K. (talk • contribs) 16:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Any one of a dozen compound interst calculators will show this to be correct, ie 1,061,614.46 (ignoring inflation, of course). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Inflation shouldn't have any affect. A million dollars will still be a million dollars. It just won't be worth as much when translated to actual goods and services. -- kainaw™ 16:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct, you'll have one-million physical dollars, but (because of inflation) you won't have what you currently think of as one-million dollars in purchasing power. To approximate your purchasing power, do this: $(\$100)(1+0.05-r)^{1}90$ (where r is the annual inflation rate). For an inflation rate of 4% (roughly the historical average in the U.S.), the one-million dollars will buy what $660 buys today. Wikiant (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

In which case you may as well calculate on a "real" interest rate of (5% - 4% inflation) 1% and get to 662.31. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Or you could add the 4% to the 5% and decide that to get an inflation-adjusted million (OMG: $1,291,322,174.00) you need to invest at 9%. -LambaJan (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the easiest way to get a job in the UK?

Being a legal English speaking alien. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.K. (talk • contribs) 16:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're permitted to work in the UK and speak English, then the same way as locals. What that is depends on the kind of job you want. The local paper will have a "help wanted" section, the internet has job adverts, try googling for the type of job you want. You could try the local Job Centre (I don't how much they help non-citizens, but that should at least let you look at the job ads). You can also try sending a letter (maybe with a CV) to a few places you would like to work asking if they have any vacancies. Larger companies will often have application forms online (at least for graduate jobs). --Tango (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Many Australians spend a year between high school and university working in Englang (as a 'gap year'). The most common jobs they get are in pubs, in boarding schools, or as a nanny. Pubs in smaller towns and villages often welcome an English speaking foreigner as an oddity that might draw in locals. Boarding schools often need young people as supervision, classroom assistants and general staff. Nannies are less needed than in other parts of Europe, where an English-speaking nanny is more in demand. As a man, you might find it more difficult for the last two. 130.56.65.24 (talk) 00:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Keeping surname after marriage in Spain

Why do Spanish woman keep their surname after marriage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.K. (talk • contribs) 16:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do they not, in some other countries? It is a matter of custom and culture. If one is interested in geneology, then having both partners keep his/her birth name makes tracking people much easier. In Canada's common-law provinces, for example, in order for a woman to change her name to her husband's, she must go through a post-marriage series of filings to change the name on her passport or driver's licence, health card etc. This is a process somewhat easier than applying for a name change that is not to the surname of the spouse. (No advertising need be done, nor is there any requirement for documentation beyond birth certificates and marriage certificates, as I recall.) It is a matter of choice here, and, as far as I know, also a matter of choice in the US and the UK. Many woman are now choosing to keep their birth names after marriage, though some restrict that use to their professional world. Very few of the Hollywood type of celebrity changes names upon marriage, for example, which is likely a good thing given the frequency of marriage, divorce and re-marriage. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Many (probably most) cultures do not require a woman to adopt the husband´s name, Chinese, Arabic and Hispanic nations amongst them. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Slightly more information. For a Spanish person, the surname is a guide to a person's parentage. If my surname is Juarez Gonzalez, it means my father's name was Juarez and my mother's name was Gonzalez. If I were a woman, and I married, my father does not change, nor does my mother, so there seems little reason to change the name. This is different to English speaking culture, where the family name traditionally applies to the new family formed by the marriage, so there is reason for the names to be equalised. Bielle is correct, however, that the tradition is changing. It is not unacceptable for a woman to keep her name after marriage. This is more important when a person is published, or a celebrity, because they lose the name recognition. Many women in academia keep their surname after marriage, so as not to confuse later researchers. 130.56.65.24 (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There is the article Spanish naming customs, which explains some details and variations. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Avast, mateys

Who be the most successful (a) pirate and (b) privateer of all? (September 19 is just around the corner.) Clarityfiend (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

How do you want to measure success? Algebraist 21:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ching Shih? The Women in piracy article says "Commanded six fleets consisting of 800 large ships, about 1,000 smaller vessels, and between 70,000 and 80,000 men and women."--64.228.91.86 (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Others suggest Peter Easton or Rahmah ibn Jabir.—eric 23:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

crucifixion

Is there is crucifixion in modern times? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquitania (talk • contribs) 21:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If you mean actual execution rather than ritual re-enactment, then yes. Some allied prisoners were executed this way by the Japanese in WW2. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There are some reports that under the Sudanese interpretation of the Shari´a this mode of execution was used quite recently. See our article on crucifixion. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The Holocaust after the Holocaust

To what extent did the murder of jews continue after the death camps were liberated. I've read that even after they were freed, they were killed by civilians. Is this true? Thanks, Hadseys 22:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

One noted instance is the Kielce pogrom in July 1946. -- Deborahjay (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Even though pogroms continued in Poland after the Holocaust, as they did before across Europe, they were not the same as the highly organized mass extermination carried out by the Nazi Germans during the war. I certainly wouldn't call them a "Holocaust after the Holocaust". There were probably various reasons for continued anti-Jewish violence after the war: from traditional anti-Semitism to fear of the Jews claiming back their property they had been forced to abandon and that was taken by the Poles, to the fact that many of the Communists, particularly the loathed Communist secret police, that started a rule of terror in Poland after the war were Jewish (see Żydokomuna). — Kpalion^(talk) 18:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

name of liability law code

What is the name of law regarding liability? What search terms should I use to find the rules for this type of law - would it be under the criminal code? The juris diction I am in is Ontario Canada.--64.228.91.86 (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Liability is an aspect of almost every type of English common law, upon which Ontario and Canadian law is based, from professional licensing laws to insurance law to traffic law, to product safety, to contract fulfilment, and everything 'round about and in between. Could you be more specific about your interest? ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I can try, didn't want to ask legal advice. I want to read the law codes that will cover whether if a company charges the public for the use of a place or building or apparatus (eg a metal lookout tower), is the company liable if the apparatus is not properly maintained and fails when a person who paid is on it. Thanks.--64.228.91.86 (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That kind of liability will generally be as a result of a contract the user has with the owner. (Check the back of your ticket or receipt, or any posted rules or limitations on liability.) Having paid a fee, one generally expects to get the service or product for which one has paid. If that service or product is not available when and where specified, or is not in conditon to be used to the full degree understood by the payment and acceptance of the fee, then the company will likely just refund your money once you notify them of the failure. I cannot speak to the company's liaibility beyond that, but I can say that, in general terms, you are not entitled to more than a refund unless you can prove that you have suffered some significant harm or damage from the company's failure to provide, and even then the failure has to be in some way within the reasonable control of the company. For more than that, you would need to consult a lawyer, which I am not. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question specifically, I should also have said that if there is a specific code to cover this problem, I don't know what it is. Someone else may be more knowledgeable. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying! That was helpful. I will come back later in case anyone does know the name of the law. Thanks.--64.228.91.86 (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

August 25

India

In india what religion is older? Hinduism or Buddhism?

• ~*~* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.255.204 (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You'll probably find the answer in Religion in India#History. --Tango (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You can say Buddhism is a child of Hinduism. It is much younger. --Omidinist (talk) 03:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

However, the religion that preceded Buddhism was different in many ways from modern Hinduism. In fact, modern Hinduism has borrowed heavily from Buddhism. I think that it would be more accurate to say that both modern Hinduism and Buddhism are descended from the same religious tradition, a tradition that really predates both of them as we know them. Marco polo (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that depends on your perspective. The impression I have from talking to a Hindu friend of mine is that they (at least a part of them) consider Buddhism to be a part of their religion. It's like if you consider their religious history as an evolving religion with a bunch of different prophets (like if you consider all the Abrahamic religions to be different parts of the same religion), only instead of throwing a big fit whenever a new one comes along (like in the Abrahamic tradition) they just accept them to varying degrees and keep it pretty loose under the same umbrella. I think us westerners can learn a thing or two from that. -LambaJan (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The Sinking of the Lusitania

In the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, what is the first funnel to be collapse (first, second, third, or fourth funnel)?Aquitania (talk) 03:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

RMS Lusitania#Sinking says: "Along the way, some boilers exploded, including one that caused the third funnel to collapse, with the remaining funnels proceeding to snap off soon after." --Tango (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In the sinking, when the water completely flood the boat deck, Lusitania's propellers still not exposed. Is the Lusitania's propellers exposed before the Lusitania slipped beneath the wave?Aquitania (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Happy Third Humanities Desk Anniversary!

The Humanities desk has always been my favorite RefDesk, so I decided to pull up this little section dedicated to another year. It was created 3 years ago by an IP, and the first question was "Can anyone recomend a book on the history of toasters?" I've also created a chart of our top 20 Humanities contributors, excluding bots, using the past 50000 edits from now as a counter. As a result, the results may be skewed against our oldest users.

Contributor	Edits	First Edit
Clio the Muse	4097	03/23/2007 14:29
Xn4	1554	07/30/2007 02:37
JackofOz	852	03/26/2007 00:35
Lambiam	800	03/23/2007 15:12
Marco polo	747	03/29/2007 17:51
Sluzzelin	651	04/03/2007 05:14
Edison	629	03/25/2007 04:54
Julia Rossi	523	11/04/2007 04:32
StuRat	516	03/23/2007 15:34
Bielle	492	04/16/2007 05:37
24.147.86.187	492	03/23/2007 23:07
AnonMoos	474	03/23/2007 20:26
DuncanHill	472	06/23/2007 21:59
Corvus cornix	441	03/28/2007 19:17
Wrad	407	07/08/2007 22:36
Adam Bishop	385	04/10/2007 14:59
Dweller	369	03/23/2007 14:30
Geogre	362	04/08/2007 01:55
DirkvdM	354	03/31/2007 06:19
Mwalcoff	351	03/29/2007 23:16

Close up are Nil Enne, EricR, Kainaw, Wetman, Algebraist, S.dedalus, Saukkomies, SaundersW, A.Z., and TotoBaggins. Completely dwarfs my 56 edits here. Thanks to all who make the Humanities Desk so great. I look forward to more quality answers from you all! bibliomaniac15 03:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that many of us also contributed to the simple Reference Desk before it was split into different subjects, but I guess it would be difficult to count those edits. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool table. Not sure about the first edits though. They're all quite close to each other for most of them. For example, looks like this was Lambiam's first edit in May '06. Have I missed something? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm much mistaken, this is the tool used to create the table (type "Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities", or desk of your choosing, into the box). And, as Bibliomaniac15 points out, it only takes the most recent 50,000 edits into account (which takes it back as far as 23 March 2007). --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The ref desks are all loaded with edits. I'd venture a guess that the total number of edits in the Humanities desk alone is already at 100k. bibliomaniac15 20:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The (unreliable) method of looking at the diff between first and last edits gives more than 100k. Algebraist 22:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If you really wanted to be accurate, the number for 24.147.86.187 should really be more like 1,147. Wink wink. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Raising the Chinese flag

When raising the Chinese flag, the soldier would throw the flag out while it is being raised. It is not done to other flags (Olympic, Greece, UK). Why? F (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My source says it is merely to make sure people see their flag. Nothing more. --ChokinBako (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Viking Helmets

Where exactly did the myth of the viking helmets having horns arise from? I'd heard that it was from the ear coverings being tied up on the sides of the helmets, but I doubt this, as there was no actual 'uniform' as such, so not everyone would have been wearing them, and even if they were, their gear would not have been much different from that of the Saxons, nor that of most other peoples of Northern Europe, so it would not have stood out so much as to be a remarkable feature. I have a hunch that this was a 19th Century creation, when the vikings started to appear in romantic North West European literature. Does anybody have any ideas?--ChokinBako (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Viking tales were told by oral tradition because paper didn't arrive until much later. Artists absorbed the oral tales into the existing artwork. There are many cliches in art (including stage) to quickly identify people. The artists adopted the horned-Viking cliche to quickly identify a person as a Viking. Perhaps there was a popular story about a Viking with a horned helmet at the time. Once it began, it was impossible to stop. Try and tell everyone that your Viking isn't supposed to have horns. Be it a painting or an opera, it will fail. -- kainaw™ 17:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The article Viking#Horned_helmets points some fingers. Cheers WikiJedits (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As does our article on the horned helmet.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Diplomatic immunity for governors of provinces in Ancient Rome

I saw on a show (I think it was the onscreen commentary on the dvd edition of the series "Rome," dir. Michael Apted), that governors of provinces in the Roman Empire had diplomatic immunity. Is this correct, and how far did it extend? Could it in theory have saved Gaius Verres? It's been emotional (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That is what our promagistrate article says. But if you were really incompetent or a blatant criminal like Verres, you could still be prosecuted. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Discriminative Discount?

Here in the UK, one relatively famous DIY store offers a 10% discount for people over 60 years of age. How is this lawful, surely it goes against every discrimination law there is? Kirk UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.79.175 (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a bit like offering OAPs free bus passes.--ChokinBako (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much age is protected. I remember a news story a few months ago about it becoming more protected with regards to employment, but I don't remember the details. Discrimination is only illegal if it's on the list of protected groups, people under 60 may well not be a protected group! --Tango (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the notion of 'protected groups' is a bit misleading, at least in most Commonwealth countries. I don't find strong evidence from a quick Google that it's used much in the UK either although this ref does [10] but only minorly and it's clear what it means. There isn't such a thing so much as a protected group as a form of discrimination which is illegal (in certain areas). In many countries, this includes race, religion, sex/gender, probably disabilty, probably sexual orientation and sometimes age. All 'groups' within these categories are 'protected'. It doesn't matter whether you are male or female, homosexual, bisexual, asexual or heterosexual or English, Scottish, Irish, South Asian, black etc etc etc. Age is perhaps the only one where there may be specific protection although this is likely to be only e.g. people under 18 may not be 'protected'. But even then, I suspect most legislation applies to all ages above whatever the minimum age is. Nil Einne (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That's outrageous! And in my city, blind people get free bus passes! But seriously, why does it matter? Most elderly people are on a small fixed income. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

According to this [11] there is legislation against age discrimination in employment and training, but it doesn't mention anything about legislation against age discrimination in other circumstances Nil Einne (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It matters to me because there are many other people across the world who are on a 'small fixed income' so why should someone benefit financially because of their age? If a shop offered a discount for people between twenty and thirty years of age, would that be acceptable? In the UK, age can no longer be specified in job advertisements neither can years of experience so how can being above a certain age qualify someone for a financial discount? I understand the restrictions regarding insurance as apparantly discrimination laws do not apply to 'areas of risk' but should teh fact that someone has been alive for more years than someone else entitle them to financial gain via a discount? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.79.175 (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I see it not so much as a financial gain, but the lessening of a financial burden. Seniors often also qualify for reduced public transport costs, reduced utility costs, etc. I imagine this is dependent on production of a "seniors card", the issuance of which is not only dependent on age but is also means tested. Would you say that the age pension should be available to anyone at all, regardless of age, who chooses not to work anymore? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Movie Name

Does anybody know the name of the black and white (though modern) movie about a barber in the USA who ends up getting convicted for the murder of the wrong man (i.e. he killed someone, but the guy he killed actually killed the guy he gets convicted for killing, while his wife gets convicted for killing the other guy, etc.....)? Very complicated but entertaining movie. I thought it was called 'The Barber', but our article refers to a totally different movie. Can anyone help?--ChokinBako (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like the Coen Brothers film The Man Who Wasn't There. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the one!! Thanks!!--ChokinBako (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Marguerite de la Roque

I read an amazing story about this French noblewoman, who was marooned on an uninhabited island off the coast of Canada in 1542. I would love to find out what happened to her when she returned to France. When did she die, did she ever remarry, did she have other children, and did she regain control of her inheritance? Thank you so much!

~Jessica Kathleen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.200.209 (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Her entry in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography does not mention what happened to her afterwards, although one of her historians identifies her as the source of the tale, which suggests she survived a while at least. It seems that Jean-François de La Rocque de Roberval was her relative (uncle according to this account). I only had time for a very quick search; it shouldn't be hard to find some more. Gwinva (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)