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

July 24

Fully licensed restaurant in the UK

Lately, my wife and I have gotten into watching Gordon Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares show on Netflix. A detail of one episode caught my eye. The sign above the restaurant of the week included the words "Fully Licensed". What does this mean to have an eatery that is fully licensed? Is there such a thing as partially licensed? Dismas|^(talk) 01:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Alcohol licensing laws of the United Kingdom#On-licence answers that nicely for you--Jac16888 ^Talk 01:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup. This is licensed as in 'licensed to serve alcohol': they can sell you wines, spirits etc with a meal - but you can't buy alcohol to consume off the premises. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I see. So it doesn't have to do with the food at all, just the alcohol. Interesting. Here in the States it would be strange to see a restaurant use this as a selling point. Thanks!! Dismas|^(talk) 01:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It isn't so much a selling point as a requirement. I'm no lawyer (blah, blah, etc), but I think that a notice regarding the license has to be displayed. I'd certainly expect a restaurant to be licensed, but not the local McDonalds etc - so it is probably in the interests of the proprietor to make indicate this anyway if there might be any doubt. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"Fully licensed" is also distinguished from "BYO licence" - bring your own - whereby patrons are welcome to bring their own alcohol, which will be opened and served to them by the staff, and there may be (an exorbitant) corkage charge, but they generally cannot purchase alcohol there because the restaurant is not licensed to sell it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps my use of the term "selling point" was a bit off. The sign in the episode was for a nice sit-down restaurant and the words were painted on their sign. I understand the "displayed prominently" bit of the law, after all bars over here in the States have to have their liquor license displayed prominently as well. It's just that the sign had three pieces of info on it. The name, "fully licensed", and the telephone number. That seems a bit over the top for the prominent display provision.

I'm not trying to turn this into a discussion but the only places that I've seen where you have to BYO here in the States were at places that had relatively restrictive blue laws in the city/county. Of the examples that I can think of, all of them were strip clubs. The local laws said that you couldn't sell alcohol if there were strippers performing there. Dismas|^(talk) 02:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well if you're looking to have wine with your meal, it helps to know that you can buy it on the premises or that you have to bring it with you! So putting it in big letters I would consider to be a plus point. --TammyMoet (talk) 07:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Different cultures, different customs, different laws. Vive la différence. HiLo48 (talk) 08:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It's possibly worth pointing out, that in the UK, something like 99% or more of "nice sit-down restaurants" will sell you alcohol, and will object to you bringing your own (or at least, inflict a "corkage charge"). McDonalds and similar establishments, along with generic pizza or fried chicken places and so on, don't serve alcohol and also don't generally expect you to bring any. I've only been to two "proper" restaurants (the sort that have table-cloths) that didn't have alcohol available for sale, and both had that arrangement because of their adherence to Islamic principles. (Though I think the smaller of the two also had an eye on the cost savings.) Of those two, one encouraged you to bring your own, and one, allegedly, did not want any alcohol on the premises. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

McDonalds, generic pizza, and fried chicken places are the same here. I think this topic has been run to the ground though. I feel it's something that would be expected for a nice sit-down place and therefore not worth mentioning in such a prominent way. As HiLo said, vive la différence. Dismas|^(talk) 08:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This topic is done to death, but I thought I'd just mention that it's a similar situation in Australia. I think most restaurants here are BYO and always have a prominent sign, many are "beer and wine only", and the restaurants that sell booze will also say fully licensed. Vespine (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Legal majority for women - when where they no longer minors?

When did women in Britain attain legal majority? I have difficulty in finding the answer for this question, and the expression I get is often contradictory. Normally in European countries, women where minors up untill about second half of the 19th-century.

Unmarried women where under the guardianship of the closest male relative no matter how old they where, and married women under the guardianship of their husbands. They where, for example, not allowed to handle their own money, and could not take out their own money from the bank withouth the signature of their guardian. Only widows where their own guardians. My question pertains about the unmarried women. In Sweden, for example, unmarried women attained legal majority in 1858, but I have found no such year for Great Britain.

I have heard that Great Britain (and the Unites states) was different then all the other Western countries, and that unmarried women where in fact of legal majority by old English law already in the 18th century. But, despite of this, many films and novels, such as for example Affinity (novel), states that unmarried women where not allowed to handle their money and take out their own money from the bank withouth the signature of a male guardian. This is confusing and contradictory.

If unmarried women where not allowed to handle their own money, then the term legal majority could not have had the same meaning in Britain as it had in other countries. When, in that case, was the law regarding legal majority changed to give women the same rights as men?

I heard some one mention that it was in 1873, and that the reform was completed in 1893, but it don't remember where I heard that. Does any one have any knowledge of this? I have not found this anywere in wikipedia, though perhaps it should be mentioned here, as it is an important question. It seems strange that such an important thing is so hard to find an answer to. I would be most gratefull for any information of this! Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

See Married Women's Property Act 1882 and femme covert. I don't know if those articles will answer your question, but at least they're a place to begin. Dickens' novels describe several women (e.g. Betsey Trotwood in David Copperfield) bound by moribund marriages and separated or reappearing husbands. —— Shakescene (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think a time frame is needed here... the legal rights and status of women have changed over the years... So what era are we talking about? Anglo-Saxon Times? Middle Ages? Tudor Age? Victorian Era? Blueboar (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The question, I would say, pertians to the unmarried women of the early modern age, say 1500-1900. --Aciram (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this question, Aciram. It interests me, in and of itself, and it annoys me that I don't have a definitive answer to give you. I can give you some background within the English legal system for the period between Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) and the winning of the vote on equal terms to men in 1928. (See Women's suffrage in the United Kingdom. Note that even England and Scotland have different laws, let alone the United States, although at that time Canada took most of its laws from England; see the "Persons" case, also of 1928. You may need separate answers for each jurisdiction. The answer you find depends on where you look.)

Legal majority is concerned with more than just property, but it is worth remembering that the vast majority of women had no wealth to worry about. (The same was true of a large majority of men.) If you are considering women's rights to be accepted as witnesses in a trial, to sit as jurors, to be elected to a public office (which happened earlier in some municipalities than gaining the right to vote in general elections), to marry without their father or (male) guardian's consent, to initiate divorce, to keep their children after a divorce, to decide where to live and what to study, and so on, the question becomes much broader, as each of these rights may have been won discretely -- I don't know.

Looking at money alone: a woman could inherit and she could earn, but if she married, this money went to her husband. For class reasons, by and large if one inherited one did not earn, and vice versa. Girls who grew up as heiresses were aware that they were targets for fortune hunters, and their fathers or other guardians made financial arrangements accordingly. We have pre-nuptial agreements and so did the Victorians, although they were called "marriage settlements" and were making provision against death rather than divorce. Victorian literature is rich with examples; I commend Wilkie Collins, who wrote about the effects of the marriage, divorce and property laws in several of his novels, e.g. The Woman in White (1859). In real life, we have the examples of Caroline Fitzgerald, one of the richest heiresses of Ireland at a time when that country was ruled from London; her story is set out in Janet Todd's Rebel Daughters: Ireland in conflict 1798 (2003). (CF was the mother of Margaret King, and thus finds an anonymous place in MW's Vindication.) Another woman held up in her day as the wealthiest in the land was Angela Burdett-Coutts (1814-1906), who took the decision not to marry (knowing that if she did so, she would cede personal and financial power to her husband), and spent her life, with a female best friend (companion? lover?), as an innovative philanthropist, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation of her day. I hope this provides a beginning to an answer. By the way, a few times you confuse the word "were" with "where"; I've used both in my answer so you can see that one is a verb (I was, you were) and one points to location. BrainyBabe (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a linguistic point, not really related to the substance of the question: Has it ever been the case that women were described as minors? I have never heard of this. I understand what you're getting at as far as being able to dispose of their own property and make contracts and so on, but calling this "minor status" seems to be a bit of an extrapolation. Unless that's the way the term was really used, in which case I'd be interested to know that. --Trovatore (talk) 05:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The article pointed to above, Coverture, doesn't use the word "minor". It says:

Under traditional English common law an adult unmarried woman was considered to have the legal status of feme sole, while a married woman had the status of feme covert. These are English spellings of medieval Anglo-Norman phrases (the modern standard French spellings would be femme seule "single woman" and femme couverte, literally "covered woman"). A feme sole had the right to own property and make contracts in her own name.

BrainyBabe (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I simply used the word "minor" just as a way to describe my question, because unmarried women, in all countries it seems except Britain, was placed under a male guardian untill they were granted legal majority. If unmarried adult women were not allowed to take out their own money from the bank withouth the signature of a male guardian, then could they be considered to be adults in a legal sence? In that case, it does not seem that legal majority for a woman had the same meaning as legal majority for a man. In Sweden, unmarried women were granted legal majority in 1858, and that ment that they were given the same rights as adult males (with exception of the right to vote). I see that many of you above mention the rights of married women, which is interesting, but my question is mainly about unmarried women. It seems Britain is an unusally complicated case. In the other countries I have read about, there is usually a specific year in the period of 1860-1900, were unmarried women was granted legal majority, which gave them the same legal rights as men with the exception of the right to vote. Thank you for the replys so far. It seems to be a very complicated question. In France, were the term covert etc seem to have its origin, women does not seem to have been granted legal majority untill 1904. I wonder why England was such an exception from the rest of Europa in this regard. --Aciram (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The concept of "majority" encompasses a variety of legal domains. If you are only concerned with the right of women to own their own money and property, this happened in 1870 in the UK. Of course, women were only allowed to own property if they inherited it (until 1882), so it's debatable if this counts as "majority" status either. Kaldari (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, thank you, but this still seem to regard married women rather than unmarried women? It does mention that unmarried women were allowed to own property, but so are children; it does not say that unmarried women were allowed to take out their money from the bank withouth the signature of a male guardian. --Aciram (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

New York City under British occupation during the American Revolution

I am looking for accounts of life in New York City while British forces occupied it, from early in the American Revolution, in November 1776, until Evacuation Day November 25, 1783, when the British left and George Washington rode in, quite a while after the end of fighting in the war. My preference is for period accounts, by American or British writers, such as books, diaries, or newspaper articles, or reminiscences written years later, but I am also interested in historical fiction. Have there been comprehensive books about the period, in which historians have incorporated and evaluated all the primary (and self-serving) sources? I have recently read some of the Alexander Kent novels about British Navy officer Bolitho, some of which are set during this period. Novels set in the period would also be of interest. After the war, I expect that people remaining in the US who had resided in New York 1776-1783 claimed to have always supported the revolutionary cause, and to have spied on the British and sabotaged their every effort, like Frenchmen who were in Paris during the Nazi occupation. During the war, many of the same individuals were doubtlessly declaring their undying loyalty to the King. Outside the city, in nearby US held zones or in the "no-man's land" of Westchester County were raiders or bandits called "Cowboys" and "Skinners" who preyed on farmers in the neutral territory, or on civilians in "enemy" territory, and robbed them of cattle and other goods. Cattle from neutral areas got sold to the British in New York City. Did each share with the local military authorities, and did they hold high level summits like modern gangsters? [1] says that "The two parties often operated in concert, the Cowboys bringing contraband from New York to exchange for the property plundered by the Skinners." While researching Revolutionary War era original documents at the Westchester County archives, I found evidence that the "patriots" who captured Major Andre were likely Skinnres, outlaws or highwaymen. They were later highly honored as heroes of the American Revolution, and given pensions, but originally they said they had agreed to share all the loot they got, and they hid until a horseman rode along, and pounced on him like common highwaymen. Who did law enforcement and investigation of crimes? How did the criminal courts function? What types of corruption existed? Has anyone written mystery novels set in this interesting setting? It would be a fascinating setting for detective novels. I have read the relevant Wikipedia articles. Edison (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a specific question. I'm guessing HMS Jersey (British prison ship)#American Revolutionary War might give you some keyword leads if you haven't already read that one. [2] has a few NYC mentions, and I suspect years '77-'82 do too. Some books are at [3] and [4]. This seems like a job for a university library. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If you have access to a university library, take a look at American diaries : an annotated bibliography of published American diaries and journals for potential leads. —Kevin Myers 09:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both for the suggestions. It looks like there is fair coverage of the period in histories of the city, lumped in with the entire period of British control, from the late 1600's to 1783. My hope is to find something comprehensive, will all historical accounts, and in life in the "no-man's land" where farms and villages were raided of everything portable by both British and American irregulars. I've found from those sources that the city did have a civilian police force and police courts, with no jurisdiction over the military. Edison (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

science and religion

I have read the book " autobiography of yogi " by paramhansa yogananda which contains his own experiences which can not be explained by science.It contains bi-location of a yogi ,a women which eat nothing for many years ,the charater of mahavatar babagi,a person rama raised from the dead , Resurrection of his guru yukteswar etc . is it mean that there may be some truth in religious stories although religions have many false ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.187.4.118 (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The most likely explanation is simply that the events described in the book aren't true. Either he's mistaken or lying. It is possible that they really happened and that science is completely wrong, but it's not likely. --Tango (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Not using these books as proof, no. Since they are autobiographies, the authors can claim whatever they want and claim it as things they experienced. The problem is that there is no proof that any of these events actually happened other than on the author's word. Like wikipedia, you can't take it all on faith (unless you want to, at which point it is religion, but that doesn't make it true). You need well-documented, reliable third-party sources to back it up. Now, some of the events of the book could be based on true stories, but have been exaggerated for exactly the reason to make them seem like miracles. For example, eating very little can look like not eating at all if you do it right. And people can be raised from a state that appears very much like death. Mingmingla (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

David Hume had a good rule of thumb: "When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The Emperor's New Clothes is a helpful allegory applicable to many cases in both religion and science. Schyler (one language) 23:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Names of the Utoya victims

Where can I find a list of the names of those killed? (This is NOT for any article.) Bielle (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that Norway is a modern liberal state with decent privacy laws, I'd expect nowhere. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

At least as of the BBC news at midnight, the names have not been released. The police seem to think there are likely to be bodies remaining undiscovered on the island and maybe in the damaged buildings. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

One could hope that you are right, Steven, but there will likely be memorials that will list the names. (I went to check, but Norway is not listed in the article you link.) Does anyone have Norwegian sources? Names of some of the survivors are given, I note, but perhaps they are all of major age. Bielle (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Why would someone want to keep the names private? 88.8.79.148 (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

E.g. to protect the families from unwanted attention. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, in general is understandable. But in this case, you'll get the the attention divided by many families. And it can be that they want what you call unwanted attention, that could be a healing process for the families. 88.8.79.148 (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well if one family wished to make their loss public and give the name, I don't think they are legally prevented from doing so. Googlemeister (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

CBC News (Canada) said this morning that the names of the victims had "not yet been released". Thanks. Bielle (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The only person I've seen named is Trond Berntsen, who was an off-duty police officer and the half-brother of Crown Princess Mette-Marit (he was the son of the princess' mother's second husband).[5] -- Arwel Parry (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

@Bielle, I don't know how much you can pick up from Norwegian newspapers but the list of victims will almost certainly appear at www.vg.no and www.aftenposten.no immediately the police announce them. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What's the sentence for killing >90 in Norway?

It's clear that you won't get executed, but does Norway has an upper limit for maximum time in prison, like many European countries? 88.8.79.148 (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the table here, Norway has no life imprisonment, and the maximum sentence is 21 years in prison. I don't know they handle multiple offenses and concurrent service, though, but I would not be surprised if 21 years is the actual maximum, regardless of legal wrangling. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I have read otherwise, in a discussion among Norwegians and others, in which the circumstances do apparently allow for consecutive sentence terms, but I can cite no authority confirming this. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

We have an article on Life imprisonment in Norway.

Speculation: From the sparse information on the motives of the suspect one can conclude that the defense may claim insanity of the perpetrator (or the Norwegian equivalent). It seems that he has immersed himself in a paranoid world of a crusade against the forces of cultural Marxism who destroy the fabric of a Christian Europe. The little I know of his voluminous manifesto implies that he sees himself as a combatant against these conspiratorial forces whilst being perfectly aware that nobody else will.

The prosecution may even support this plea if it were the only possibility to detain the suspect for a period exceeding 21 years. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(moved from below) Returning to the original question, there is an apparently authoritative article here which suggests that, in theory (but regarded as unlikely in practice), the sentence could be extended beyond the 21-year maximum, for periods of up to five years at a time, if the inmate is deemed to be a high risk of repeating serious offences. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't nearly as unusual as it sounds. Canada has a similar restriction, where the maximum sentence is 25-years-to-life. For all practical purposes, this is a life sentence, but it creates a situation where even Clifford Olson and Willie Pickton can apply for parole every couple of years and in theory get out if they were good. They way it sounds, the law in Norway would work in a similar way to keep him locked up. Mingmingla (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That's incorrect; you are confused about Canadian law. There is no sentence of "25-years-to-life" in Canada. There are many offences in the Criminal Code for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. Two examples are robbery and aggravated sexual assault; there are many more. Somebody given a sentence of life imprisonment would be eligible for parole after a period of time, but even if parole is granted, it would still be a life sentence: the person would be "on parole" for the rest of his or her life (unless a pardon is issued). Mathew5000 (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Justification for mandatory short sentences ?

I find the 21 year limit difficult to comprehend. By what logic do Norwegians believe that any crime, no matter how heinous, should be fully forgiven in 21 years, and the perpetrator released and left to his own devices ? I certainly understand objections to capital punishment, but the thought process here baffles me. StuRat (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant Forum discussion WP:NOT#FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not to say I disagree with you (and saying that is also not to say that I agree with you), but just to play the devil's advocate here for a second, one could imagine a Norwegian similarly claiming "By what logic do the residents of the (insert country name here) see any crime as heinous enough that one would want to remove a person from society forever (either by death or life imprisonment without posibility of release)." Expressing incredulity doesn't imply anything more than you come from a different culture with differing standards of punishment and retribution. People tend to have a form of confirmation bias which holds that their own culture's standards are somehow the "normal" for the world, and other cultures whose standards lie outside of their own are somehow "wrong". Thus, a culture that imprisons a serial killer for 21 years maximum is considered dangerously light on punishment, while one which issues the death sentence for simple theft would be cruel and inhumane, but only when viewed from a culture whose standards lie between those extremes. People who live in those cultures probably (on the balance) see their standards as, well, standard. I could see the arguement for relatively light prison sentences as being justified if prison isn't seen as punishment, but rather as rehabilitation. If a culture does not value retributional punishment in any form then life imprisonment makes no sense to them. This is not to say that the Norweigian system is right, or that it is wrong, but merely that it is different, and without objective evidence as to its effectiveness, we really shouldn't express incredulity solely on the basis of its being different than what our culture values. --Jayron32 04:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC) You fail to address the "...and left to his own devices" though. A prisoner locked up for the rest of his natural life cannot go back out at age 53 and do it all over again, and again at age 75. Nothing to do with retribution or rehabilitation but simply deterence. Rmhermen (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Well, there are many reasons to imprison a mass-murderer longer. Here are a few: 1) As noted above, they might kill others, if given the opportunity. 2) Presumably there is a risk that they will be harmed by the families of the victims, once released. 3) There's the Old Testament "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". Or, more broadly, doesn't a punishment equivalent (although not necessarily identical) to the crime seem appropriate to most cultures throughout history (noting that, at times, punishments were vastly disproportionate to the crime, as well) ? 4) The risk of long sentences presumably might discourage at least some future mass murderers. So, I'm looking for arguments like these, but that reach the conclusion that letting mass-murderers go is the best way to handle the situation. There is Jesus' advice to "turn the other cheek", but that seems to be aimed at individuals dealing with minor insults, not to nations dealing with mass murderers. Then there's the liberal concept that once a person is reformed, healed of their mental disorder, or perhaps attains salvation, that they should be completely forgiven. However, why would an assumption be made that this will always occur within 21 years, or, indeed, at all ? StuRat (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Actually, what I am saying is that there is no reason to be anything except perfectly equivocal on which system is better, in absense of actual evidence one way or the other. That is, you can't claim "life imprisonment is better than the lighter sentence". Of course, you can't claim the reverse either, but that was the point of my comments. You can't just say "My way is better because its my way", which is so far all you are saying. You've proposed lots of hypotheticals, which I suppose could be ways to grant some objective way to measure "better", but the hypotheticals you propose don't necessarily encompass all the ways that one could measure "better". You've presumed that someone wouldn't be rehabilitated in 21 years, but have provided no evidence that they wouldn't be. Again, that's not to say that evidence might not exist to prove your assertions correct. You just can't assume them correct without at least some evidence one way or the other. --Jayron32 06:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Pope John Paul II forgave his attempted assassin, but that has nothing to do with whether he should be kept behind bars. Life imprisonment is not so much "punishment" as it is "permanent removal from society", for the protection of society. Which is also what capital punishment does too, except that it's truly permanent, with no legal loopholes (except for the one around the murderer's neck). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC) The question becomes whether "permanent removal from society" is justifiable. Certainly, one could issue the exact same "protection" for things like petty shoplifting; i.e. steal a pack of gum, get life imprisonment without the possibility of release. After all, the incarcerated shoplifter can no longer steal gum from stores anymore! To merely describe the definition of "life imprisonment" doesn't in itself provide justification for its practice. People in prison cannot, by definition, commit crimes on society outside of prison. To state that fact is meaningless in solving our dilemma here, which is "what level of incarceration is appropriate." So far, no one has proposed any evidence one way or the other, other than making supposedly self-evident assertions that life imprisonment for mass murderers is somehow "better" in some non-defined way than a shorter sentence of defined length. I've also not claimed that the shorter sentence is better. I have just claimed that no one has presented any evidence either way. We don't even have a defined metric by which to measure "betterness" in this case. Again, for those advocating that Norway's system is somehow inadequate, I am not arguing that you are definitively wrong, I am just arguing that you can't claim yourself right without presenting some evidence (like data would be nice) to support the stance. --Jayron32 06:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC) My comments weren't directed at you, but I wasn't sure where to put the proper indentions. The question comes down to whether society has the right to permanently protect itself against murderous predators like the guy in Norway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC) "But mercy is above this sceptred sway, It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself, And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." DuncanHill (talk) 08:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Sure, and that's why we use lethal injection now, instead of drawing and quartering. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Bugs, that was poor even by your standards. It may that nothing would give you greater pleasure than torturing someone to death, but please allow for the possibility that such feelings are not shared by the rest of mankind. DuncanHill (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC) At least my comment makes logical sense, as opposed to the quotated gibberish in your previous comment. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Bugs, your comment above sounds like a non sequitur to me. What do you mean? What does using lethal injection have to do with mercy? It's not as if execution by lethal injection is less barbaric than execution by drawing and quartering. Such a double standard certainly doesn't apply to the so-called "murderous predator", does it? (Using dehumanizing terminology makes it so much easier to treat perpetrators of crimes as monsters rather than people.) After all, the guy in Norway shot his victims quickly, and most of them died immediately. Does that mean he should get off more lightly than if he had tortured them to death slowly? Pais (talk) 09:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Lethal injection is a much more humane execution method than drawing and quartering. As to showing mercy to the killer in general, perhaps the killer can figure out a way to undo the grief he caused. Then he could ask for mercy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Bugs, the thing about mercy is that it is given - it isn't deserved or earnt or whatnot. It is given, and as pointed out in a more famous section of the "quotated gibberish" above "It is twice blessed; It blesseth him that gives and him that takes". Dehumanising the person you want to kill is probably exactly what the culprit in the current case did - and it certainly appears that he believed the killings were necessary for the good of society. Do you really want to stoop to his level? DuncanHill (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) But you brought up lethal injection in response to a reference to mercy, not a reference to humaneness. Pais (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Apparently you're unaware of the term "mercy killing". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Oh, is that the latest euphemism for the death penalty? Pais (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC) A lot of folks think the death penalty is much less of a punishment than life imprisonment would be. They miss the point that it's not about punishment, it's about permanent removal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC) And permanently removing people is so much easier and cheaper than rehabilitating them. Then why bother putting people in prison for 10 or 20 years first before executing them? Why not just take them out behind the courthouse after sentencing and dispatch them quickly with a bullet to the back of the head? Pais (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Because it gives them the opportunity to exhaust all legal remedies. Taking them out back and stringing them up is indeed how it used to be done. Now the convict is given a much better shake. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC) How long have you entertained these desires to kill? DuncanHill (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC) You're funny. How long have you entertained these desires to return murderers to the streets? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC) You really don't get it do you? Are we to strive to be better humans - more merciful, less hate-filled, and do we try to fashion society to support that, or are we to obsess over vengeance and live life according to our basest instincts and fears? Do we try to build the New Jerusalem here on earth or just sit back and let the cycle of hatred continue? DuncanHill (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC) It is you who don't get it. We are not robots. We choose our actions. I'd like to hear your theory on how someone like this character in Norway could be "rehabilitated", i.e. to somehow magically change his views that (1) Islam and multiculturalism are evil; and (2) his own countrymen must be killed for tolerating and supporting those things. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Sorry, but the fact that you haven't changed an opinion in the last 20 years does not mean that nobody does. We don't have a completely reliable method for changing personal views, but then we also don't have a completely reliable method of getting people into orbit and back again. Errors can kill people in either case, but we still do both. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Since this is a Reference Desk, not an Opinion Desk, let's take a look at some facts. Incarceration rates - US: 743 per 100,000 population; Norway: 71 per 100,000. Intentional homicide rates - US: 5.0 per 100,000: Norway 0.60 per 100,000. The evidence is that long prison sentences and the death penalty do not reduce the rate of serious crime. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 76 / 4.9 million or 1.55 per 100,000 in Norway were killed in the 2011 Norway attacks, suggesting that Norway's 2011 intentional homicide rate will likely be in excess of 2.0 per 100,000. -- 203.82.81.103 (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Long sentences and capital punishment are not about serving the needs of the criminal, they are about protecting society from that criminal. The criminal chooses to commit his crimes. He thus also chooses his sentence in the process. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Bugs, so you'd rather have long sentences and a high crime rate than shorter sentences and a low crime rate? DuncanHill (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Bugs - my point is that the statistical evidence shows that long prison sentences and the death penalty do not act reduce the rate of serious crime, and so clearly do not act as a deterrent. If your "rational choice" model of criminal behaviour was correct then serious crime rates in the US would be lower than those in Norway, not 8 times higher. If you know of facts that suggest the contrary, rather than just opinions, then please show them. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Bugs, if that were the case, equivalent crimes would serve equivalent sentences in different societies. Since that clearly is not the case, the society plays a major part in the decision. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) Another non sequitur. The point is that long sentences and capital punishment do not protect society from criminals. You're also creating a false dichotomy: it's not as if "criminals" and "society" are mutually exclusive groups. Criminals are a part of the society, and if society wants to protect itself from crime, it should work harder on preventing the causes of crime in the first place rather than waiting for the crimes to be committed and then either locking people up and throwing away the key or simply executing them. Pais (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC) It has long been argued that these things are not a deterrent to crime. That's not what it's about. It's about protecting society from these characters. I recall a prison warden talking once about the value of criminals aging. They are much less likely to be violent when they turn 60 or 70 than when they are in their youth. Your argument seems to be that society does not have the right to protect itself against these folks. That's what I call "liberalism gone mad". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC) You say "it's about protecting society from these characters", but the fact is it doesn't protect society at all. Your argument is proved wrong by the facts, and yet you stick to it. That's what I call "conservatism gone mad". (Well no, not gone mad, it's conservatism as usual.) Pais (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC) You're wrong. John Gacy freely chose to kill 33 victims. Once he was incarcerated, his murders stopped. And once he was executed, there was no possibility he would kill again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC) And yet society was not one iota safer for it. Pais (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC) How do you figure? Society became temporarily safe from Gacy once he was behind bars, and permanently safe from Gacy once he was snuffed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Safe from Gacy ≠ safe. It's not like he was the only killer out there. Pais (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC) So? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC) So executing Gacy made no one safer. Pais (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Sure it did. It took a murderer out of the populace. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC) And made a murderer out of whoever executed him. Lose one, gain one. Pais (talk) 10:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Wrong. Murder is the unlawful taking of life. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC) So the guards at the concentration camps weren't murderers, since Nazi Germany had no law against killing Jews? Pais (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Bugs, which do you prefer - 5 murders per 100,000 people or 0.6 per 100,000? DuncanHill (talk) 09:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Neither. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Unless, of course, the murder victims are themselves murderers, in which case you prefer 100,000 per 100,000. Pais (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Meaning what?? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC) That's the difference between us, I prefer there to be fewer murders. That's what I call "Liberalism". DuncanHill (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Stats don't commit murder, individuals do. And stats mean nothing to the actual victims. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC) You honestly don't think that a high murder rate is worse than a low one? You honestly don't mind seeing more victims? More families torn apart? You disgust me. DuncanHill (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, it's worse statistically. But a rate doesn't matter to a victim. With those status, you've offered a fool's choice. I would prefer a rate of ZERO. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Of course he doesn't. The more murders, the more executions he gets to exult in. Pais (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC) You have no clue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I think this is disintegrating now. Bugs, you have been flailing without a valid or consistent argument for a while now. Everybody else, please assume good faith at least on a general level. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC) My argument is consistent, you just don't agree with it. Meanwhile, I'd like to know how the mercy-ites would rehabilitate a guy who thinks of himself as a modern day John Brown or something. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I agree that Bugs' argument is consistent. "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" is a consistent argument. Pais (talk) 10:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC) My argument is that society has the right to protect itself. Sorry you don't agree. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Of course society has the right to protect itself, but when its method of protection is both morally repugnant and demonstrably ineffective, it should try something else. Pais (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC) The Norway shooter claims he has not actually committed any crime. Maybe you agree with him? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC) He's just like you Bugs - he thinks it's legitimate to kill in order to protect his view of what society should be. And like you, he's wrong. DuncanHill (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Bugs these views are unpleasant in the extreme! What would have happened if the UK had capital punishment in the case of Barry George? Your argument may well be 'consistent', but so are the arguments of a load of froth-mouthed psychopaths! I am so happy we have never met because if we did I might accidentally stick a rusty nail in your foot. Jeremy Wordsworth (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Your personal attacks are a joke, and you have no clue what my actual opinion about the death penalty is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Hello Pot! This is the Kettle! I have noticed we share the same colour! I think your statements above give a pretty good indication of what your opinion of the death penalty is. You have no clue. Jeremy Wordsworth (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC) You're wrong. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC) So in conclusion, if you want to go on a crime spree and want to get off light, go to Norway and do it. Googlemeister (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Bingo! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC) How so? The facts presented in the unhatted section of this question clearly states that there are a good possibility that the murderer will indeed end up in jail for the rest of his life. So unless you mean "if you want to go on a crime spree and not get executed for it, go to <insert majority of countries in the world here> and do it. But as has been stated below "of course, one should never allow actual facts to get in the way of a good argument". --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Back to the topic, please

Some comments:

1) The comparison of murder rates between the US and Norway would only be valid if the two nations were identical in every way except for prison terms. There are other major differences, though, like the availability of handguns, which make the conclusion that "long prison rates don't prevent crime" invalid.

2) About recidivism: Do you really need statistics ? That's like asking for proof that a melted down handgun kills fewer people than one on the street. As long as their is any recidivism, then imprisonment MUST eliminate that, with some possible exceptions:

2a) Some crimes may still be committed from jail, like telephone fraud.

2b) Other crimes may be committed in jail, against other prisoners or guards. However, I'd expect that this is universally preferred over crimes committed at large (except by the prison victims).

2c) Others may "take up the cause" and commit crimes on behalf of the imprisoned person. I could see this in the case of bin Laden, for example, had he been imprisoned (or perhaps hostages taken and killed if he wasn't released). For some types of crimes, like dealing illegal drugs, the removal of one dealer may create an opportunity for another to fill the vacuum. However, none of this seems to apply to your average murderer.

For items 2a and 2b, those seem like arguments for improving the prison system (such as adding the disclaimer "The following is from a prison inmate" before each call or letter, in the case of 2a, or isolating prisoners more, in the case of 2b). 2c is an argument for the death penalty, in the case of the bin Ladens, and addressing society's underlying problems, or perhaps legalizing drugs, in the case of drug dealers. StuRat (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

2c is hardly an argument for the death penalty, since others may "take up the cause" and commit crimes on behalf of an executed person as well. Perhaps even more so since an executed person will be seen as more of a martyr - and more in need of avenging - than a merely imprisoned person. Pais (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Stu, can I just ask you never to change my indents or otherwise refactor any comment of mine in any way ever again. Especially do not refactor hats to end a discussion on a point with which you happen to agree, as you did earlier in this thread. It is frankly rather dishonest of you. DuncanHill (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• I didn't. I merely broke the question in two. Others added the hats (see the talk page) and removed them (was that you ?). StuRat (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't lie. You actually moved where the hat started. I then removed it altogether with an appropriate edit summary (something you seem incapable of). DuncanHill (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not lying, I neither added nor removed the hats. My question was in the hat, so I took it out, along with some helpful responses, but left the bickering between you and Bugs in there. That belongs on your talk pages, not here. Also, while I didn't, you need to learn to use {{outdent}}, since your prolonged fight with Bugs has run clear off the edge of the screen. StuRat (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I never said you added or removed them, I said you refactored it by moving it, which you did. DuncanHill (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I moved stuff out of the hats, not in, so if your complaint is that your stuff was inside, your complaint is not with me. Also, please don't put complaints like this on the Ref Desk, it all belongs on talk pages, not here. StuRat (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You moved what suited you out of the hat. So yes, my complaint is with you. As I made clear in my edit summary at the time, hat all or none. DuncanHill (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

So, what I'm looking for here are links to articles (or the text itself) where Norwegians (or others) argued for shorter prison terms for serious crimes, preferable translated into English. There's just some POV I don't understand here, and I want to, even if I disagree with it. (I also read Mein Kampf, not because I agree, but because I wanted to understand the thought process behind it.) StuRat (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

On (1), see List of countries by gun ownership. No other country in the world comes even close to the US gun ownership figure of 88.8 guns per 100 residents. However, Norway has a similar tradition of private gun ownership for hunting and recreation purposes, and is 11th in the table, with 31.3 guns per 100 residents. And yet if we look at List of countries by firearm-related death rate, we see the US rate is 7.07 firearm-related homicides per 100,000 population per year, whereas the rate for Norway is only 0.3 per 100,000 per year. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For #1: that would also mean that the need for differing standards regarding prison rates would also, by necessity, be different. Norway, (hypothetically, just for the sake of arguement) may have more resources availible for intensive rehabilitation of criminals, so it is able to lower its recidivism rate solely because it can better rehabilitate those criminals. That is, insofar as cultural, social, and other differences may be responsible for the difference in crime rates, the same exact reasoning could also fully justify distinctions in sentencing standards. That is, the Norway sentencing standard works fine in Norway, but it would never work in the U.S. and visa-versa. Furthermore, we have no idea how they deal with issues of non compos mentis, for example it may allow for involuntary commitment to a secure mental facility for life, which would allow for reasonable exceptions to their 21-year maximum sentence. About #2: Yes we do need data. Like I said above, stating that lifetime imprisonment eliminates recidivisim (with your caveats about internal prison crime, etc.) doesn't in itself justify its own existance. You've merely stated a corrolary of what the concept "life imprisonment" means, without justifying its existence. We can imprison someone for life for stealing gum from the corner store; such a person wouldn't ever steal gum again. Such a fact does not itself justify the need to imprison them for life. Regarding 2c specifically, there is no distinction here; since one may take up the cause from the dead as well; there is little distinction between taking up the cause for an imprisoned comrade vs. taking up the cause for a martyr. --Jayron32 13:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I really should have divided 2C into 2Ci, the terrorist case, and 2Cii, the drug dealer case. For 2Ci, after the results of the imprisonment of some of the PLO terrorists from the 1972 Munich attacks, Israel decided that targeted assassinations were the better option. The US seemed to reach the same conclusion regarding bin Laden. Yes, murders may be committed to commemorate a dead martyr, but most dead martyrs fade quickly, unlike an imprisoned martyr, which can continue to attract new generations of followers for decades. StuRat (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Murder to avenge murder. DuncanHill (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want your indents changed, you need to do a better job yourself. You neither placed your comment after my relevant comment, nor indented it to show it was a response to mine. As written, it appears to be a response to Jayron.StuRat (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You changed your indents, apparently at the same time as I was posting. This is how it was indented when I posted. DuncanHill (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, but please change your indent now, and, since you didn't place your response after my relevant post, I will move my subsequent posts. StuRat (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not changing them as no dount you'll come along and change yours again (as usual, with no explanation) just confusing things even more than you have already done. I don't know what weird kick you get from fucking things up. DuncanHill (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Geez, will you assume good faith, please ? I made a mistake by not indenting my response to Jayron enough, and then immediately fixed it. Had your response to me been placed after my relevant comment, which was properly indented, it never would have been an issue. Also, can't you at least make your text small, when it has nothing to do with the topic ? StuRat (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As for the death penalty or life imprisonment for stealing gum, there was a time when such extremes were the norm, but those do seem to violate the Judeo-Christian norm of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". StuRat (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Now, Jayron, I'm still trying to decipher your argument. Is it that, if the recidivism rate is low enough, that the risk to society is better than continuing to punish the criminal ? StuRat (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• First of all, understand that I am not endorsing one system as better than the other. What I am arguing for is some standard more consistent than the argument from emotion; that is before we can properly say "The Norweigian system is inadequate" and "The U.S. system is better", we need to first define a) what is meant by "better" and b) allow for a metric to measure "better".
• To provide a counter the arguement made by Bugs in the collapsed section (which I think was inappropriately collapsed), his standard seems to be "no murder is acceptable". I agree with that, but to then define a policy which reduces the murder rate to literally zero murders is a literal impossibility. One may only prevent all murders always by imprisoning all persons in solitary confinement from birth until death. To allow two people to interact socially is to allow for the non-zero possibility that one may murder the other. Once you realize that you cannot prevent all murders, you need to define a system which is based on other standards. You need to decide how much you are willing to sacrifice your own very humanity to ensure your own security. Bugs's standard of "no murder ever" isn't reasonable. Is he willing to personally, himself, spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement just to ensure that no one else may commit murder? I would suppose not, since I think he does occasionally interact with other people face-to-face.
• Our goal should still be to prevent murder, but that needs to be counterbalanced with not imprisoning someone who would not have committed murder had they not been in prison. After all, lets say that I have a non-zero chance that I will murder someone. If I am walking free, and it can be determined that some other individual has a smaller chance of committing murder than I do, it would be unjust to imprison that person. That is, if you stand less of a chance killing someone than I do, by what right do I have to keep you in prison while I walk around free?
• If we allow that the right to imprison someone is based solely on preventing future crimes (which I have seen several times as an arguement) and I simultaneously demand justice in the sense that we should not imprison people who are not going to commit a crime (for any given minimum standard of "are not going to") then we need to allow for the possibility that merely committing a crime in the past does not automatically mean that I am guaranteed beyond any doubt to commit a crime in the future. That is, people seem to be arguing that "once someone has killed, they have a higher chance of killing again", and they are arguing that without presenting any evidence that such a fact is inevitable.
• If we allow for all of the above, then there is at least the possibility that murderers in Norway who are released after 21 years in prison kill less people than the general population at large. If the only justification for keeping someone in prison is to prevent murder, then how can one justify keeping people in prison who are actually shown to be less likely to commit murder than other people who are not imprisoned. I am not arguing that this fact is true, I am merely arguing that if it were shown to be true, then Norway's system could be then said to be working. I am perfectly open to the possibility that such evidence may present itself to show the exact opposite (that Norway's system isn't working) but I am not open to the idea of declaring Norway's system somehow inadequate based solely on the "We don't do the same thing here" standard, which is so far all that has been presented by those which are attacking it as such.
• Of course, all of that still doesn't mean that the Norway system is universally better. We also need to allow that:

• a) One may reasonably define other justifications for keeping someone in prison, which have nothing to do with justice, OR have nothing to do with keeping society safe. For example, one merely needs to redifine that which is just, and the Norway system can be invalid under those standards even if it released murderers kill less people.
• b) One may also reasonably argue that even if the Norway system works in Norway, that it may work in no other place on Earth. That is, insofar as societies are different, they must respond to crime in different ways.

• All of my above arguements can be summed up simply. Before one can say "The Norway system is unreasonable" one must first a) define what reasonable looks like b) define a way to measure it. and c) show evidence that it does not meet that definition. So far, with the exception of some statistics above regarding murder rates (which may or may not be valid for proving anything yet) no one has yet presented any actual objective arguement one way or the other. --Jayron32 14:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

While I appreciate the idea of backing up to decide what the goals of imprisonment are, there is such a thing as backing up too far. The fact that mass murderers are more likely to commit murders than the general population is so blatantly obvious that commissioning a study would be seen as a waste of money (although figuring out exactly how much more likely they are to commit murders might be justified). We could even back up further and ask if murder is a bad thing, or if we really even exist, but this also isn't very helpful to the question at hand. Rather than us discussing our goals, perhaps the better question is how the population of Norway defines them, in such a way that those goals are best achieved by releasing prisoners after 21 years. StuRat (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(pre-EC response before you added the bit at the end)It may be blatantly obvious that, absent of any intervention, a mass murderer presents a real threat to society that must be stopped. It is not necessarily blatantly obvious that the mass murderer is irredeemable however, in the sense that some hypothetically proper intervention could rehabilitate the person who commits many murders. You earlier cited "Judeo-Christian" ethics, which I should note does not include anywhere in it the notion of "eye-for-an-eye and tooth-for-a-tooth". It is absolutely not in the "Christian" part (any reading of Christian scriptures cannot possibly come to that conclusion) and one can also not reasonably say that even Jewish scriptures and traditions (even pre-modern ones) demand such a standard either (Jewish standards during ancient times do mandate a highly legalistic tradition of atoning for one's wrongs via a highly proscribed system of temple sacrifices, for example; however I don't think that modern Jewish thought even goes this far.) Judeo-Christian ethics holds that the individual is, hypothetically, always redeemable, and never mandates that proper justice includes meting out punishment identical to the crime. (post-EC response just to StuRats addition of the last sentence) YES YES YES! That is pretty much exactly what I have been arguing all along!!! Jeez, thanks for finally understanding! --Jayron32 15:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

StuRat can read of Eye for an eye (see article) in the Old Testament. However StuRat is wrong to quote it as a Christian norm because that is denied here:

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38–39, NRSV)

Jayron32 is right about this. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I am aware that "an eye for an eye, a tooth for tooth" is not in accordance with the teachings of Christ. However, a larger percentage of those who call themselves Christians believe in such Old Testament justice, nonetheless, at least in the US. Is this not the case in Norway ?

As for reform, yes, always a possibility, but the question is not if it ever happens, but if a mass murderer can ever be guaranteed not to commit more murders, at least to the same level of confidence as the average citizen who hasn't been convicted of murder. That is, can they ever be released without putting the public at additional risk ? I'm pretty confidant that the answer here is no, they will always be more of a risk than non-convicts. If so, what benefit do Norwegians think the release may offer, that equals or exceeds the risk ? StuRat (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm bit puzzled by the argument here about Norwegian system. If you look at the article Life_imprisonment_in_Norway than you can see that Norway does allow for imprisoning people for life, if they are considered a danger to society. The maximum sentence served as punishment is 21 years, but after that the prisoner is judged whether he is a danger to society and can get his sentence prolonged by 5 years. Meaning that dangerous people can be kept of the street in Norway.94.208.67.65 (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks, that's useful, and I didn't get that from News reports here in the US. StuRat (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

See, there's the other possibility that we're all just arguing the wrong arguement to begin with. Since Norway doesn't automatically release mass murderers after 21 years, then it kinda makes this entire thread silly. of course, one should never allow actual facts to get in the way of a good argument. :) --Jayron32 15:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Related Question

What is Norway's felony re-offence rate, and how does that compare to the re-offence rate in the US? Googlemeister (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This states that for Norway 20% of convicted criminals are back in jail within 2 years, while the figure is around 60% in the US (2005-6 numbers). However there is apparently also a disclaimer about differences in definition and measurement, so they should probably not be taken at face value. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It actually says between 50% and 60% for the US and UK. And, how many end up "in jail" isn't the same as how many re-offend. They could end up in jail for doing something non-criminal, but which is a violation of parole, such as failing to show up at the parole officer's office for mandatory check-ins. Also, one nation may tend to let ex-cons go without jail time for minor offenses, while the other does not. StuRat (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

July 25

Capital punishment in Venezuela

Did Hugo Chavez reintroduce capital punishment when he took over? --134.10.113.106 (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Our article on the subject is only a year or so old, So I'd think that it would have noted this if it had happened. Was there any particular reason why you asked? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

How would Chavez keep power if he couldn't execute dissenters? --134.10.113.198 (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've no idea. How did George W. Bush do it? Please use the reference desk for its intended purpose, not as a soapbox. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to kill people legally to get rid of them. 88.8.79.148 (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a completely different topic than the one you asked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't asked anything. 88.8.79.148 (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a nice summary of human rights concerns in Venezuela compiled by Amnesty International. It does not look like Chavez has murdered anyone or had them executed. It is alleged that various governmental bodies have arrested, threatened, and occasionally beaten up dissenters. As far as official repression goes, that's pretty good for Latin America, historically speaking. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

schist disk

I was watching a film entitled "The The Pyramid Code" It mentions the "schist disk" discovered by British Egyptologist Walter Bryan Emery at Saqqara, Egypt in 1936. I have searched to find out more factual information, but only weird websites have some information. I want to know the facts about it and more details of it's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.128.211 (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia articles on Saqqara do not mention the artifact, neither does the article on Walter Bryan Emery. However, the Walter Bryan Emery article does contain a bibliography of his writings; if you have access to a good library, you may be able to find these books and be able to see if he wrote about it himself. I tried a search for "schist disk", but really schist is a rather common stone, so I don't know if the term "schist disk" was a formal name for the artifact or just a description of it. Good luck! --Jayron32 03:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

They are called the Hemaka discs; Emery found three of them. Brief description here, photo here (they are each about 10 cm in diameter).--Cam (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There are images in a video, purporting to be taken from the 'Egyptian museum of antiquities' posted on you-tube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwFSBVzKEUg. The object displayed does not resemble Emery's gaming discs of Hemaka. It appears to have been subjected to some serious reconstruction from smaller pieces. There is a serious lack of solid information on either the museum or the illustrated item in electronic format. Wikipedia does not permit republication of screenshots without attribution of copyright. http://ve3ute.ca/query/schist_disc_wwFSBVzKEUg.zip

Why was Anders Breivik exempted from conscription in the Norwegian military

I heard about this guy in the news and came to Wikipedia to read the article on him, and saw reference #21 there, but I don't read Norwegian. Thanks. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, other sites (e.g. the BBC) are saying he did normal military service, and I'm not convinced by the translation used - I suspect it means he was released form military service, not exempted. We need a Norwegian speaker. DuncanHill (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Translation of article[6] by Oddvin Aune et. al. from NRK (Norwegian Broadcasting) 23rd July 2011
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
32-åringen skal tilhøre høyreekstremt miljø 32-year old allegedly belongs to extreme right-wing movement (Translation of article[7] by Oddvin Aune et. al. from NRK (Norwegian Broadcasting) 23rd July 2011) 32 år gamle Anders Behring Breivik, som er siktet både for eksplosjonen i Oslo og skytedramaet på Utøya, skal tilhøre et høyreekstremt miljø og har hatt verv i FpU. Anders Behring Breivik, 32, who is charged with both the explosion in Oslo and the shooting spree at Utøya allegedly belongs to an extreme right-wing group and has held office in FpU (Progress Party of Norway). Dødstallene etter skytemassakren på Utøya har steget voldsomt, sier politiet i natt. Minst 84 mennesker er nå bekreftet drept. I tillegg er sju personer drept i Oslo. Tonight the police announced that the death toll after the shooting spree at Utøya has risen drastically. At least 84 people are confirmed killed. Additionally 7 people were killed in Oslo. Anders Behring Breivik er fra Oslo, og er bosatt på Skøyen. Boligen hans har blitt gjennomsøkt av politi med skuddsikre vester i fredag kveld. Anders Behring Breivik is from Oslo and lives at Skøyen. Police wearing bulletproof vests searched his house this Friday evening. Politiet opplyste lørdag morgen at 32-åringen siktes både for angrepet på regjeringsbygget og skytedramaet på Utøya. The police announced on Saturday morning that the 32-year old is charged with both the attack on the goverment building and the shooting spree on Utøya. Dette anses som en terrorhandling, og er den mest alvorlige straffeparagrafen politiet har til rådighet, sier visepolitimester Roger Andresen. This is regarded as an act of terrorism, and is the most serious legal clause available to the police, stated Vice Police ChiefRoger Andresen. Han skal ha vært iført politiklær og være sett på begge åstedene. Mannen er fraktet til Oslo, og skal avhøres formelt av politiet i løpet av lørdagen. He allegedly wore a police uniform and was seen at both crime scenes. The man was taken to Oslo and will be formally questioned by the police during Saturday. Har bakgrunn i FpU Has background in Progress Party Behring Breivik meldte seg inn i Frp i 1999 og betalte sin siste kontingent for året 2004. Behring Breivik joined the Progress Party in 1999 and last paid his due for 2004. Han var medlem av lokallaget på St. Hanshaugen i Oslo i perioden 2001-2003 og en kort periode i lokallaget på Frogner i Oslo i 2003. I 2006 ble han fjernet fra registrene, skriver Aftenposten. In 2001-2003 he was a member of the local group at St. Hanshaugen in Oslo and for a short time in 2003 of the group at Frogner in Oslo, according to Aftenposten (newspaper). Han var dessuten engasjert i Fremskrittspartiets Ungdom (FpU) fra 1997 til 2007. Han meldte seg aktivt ut i 2007. He was also active in Progress Party Youth (FpU) from 1997 to 2007. He resigned in 2007. I FpU hadde Anders Behring Breivik to verv, det første som formann i Oslo Vest fra januar 2002 til oktober 2002, det andre som styremedlem samme sted fra oktober 2002 til november 2004. The two positions he held in FpU were firstly as leader in West Oslo from January 2002 to October 2002 and secondly as committee member at the same place from October 2002 to November 2004. I et innlegg på Document.no skriver Anders Behring Breivik selv at han «i flere år» har arbeidet for Frp. In Anders Behring Breivik's own words at Document.no he worked "for several years" for the Progress Party. Jeg ble i dag tidlig gjort kjent med at han har vært medlem hos oss. Det er aldeles forferdelig å vite, sier Siv Jensen til Aftenposten.no. I heard early this morning that he had been a member with us. That is utterly awful to know, said Siv Jensen (leader of the Progress Party) to Aftenposten.no. Høyreekstremt miljø Extreme right-wing movement Etter det NRK får opplyst, har ikke den pågrepne noen yrkesmilitær bakgrunn. Han ble fritatt fra verneplikt, og dermed har han ikke spesialutdanning eller utenlandsoppdrag for Forsvaret. NRK has no indication that the arrested person has any professional military background. He was not conscripted and so has had no special training or foreign service for the Defence. Den pågrepne skal tilhøre et høyreekstremt miljø på Østlandet og skal ha registrert to våpen på navnet sitt: Ett automatvåpen og en Glock-pistol. Utover dette er han ukjent for politiet Allegedly the arrested one belongs to an extreme right-wing movement in the East region of the country and has two guns registered to his name. An automatic and a Glock pistol. Other than this he is unknown to the police. Behring Breivik står som medlem i Oslo pistolklubb, og han skal også være medlem av en frimurerloge. Behring Breivik is listed as a member of Oslo Pistol Club and is also said to be a member of a masonic lodge. Anders Behring Breivik skal i en periode ha bodd på Rena, og står registert med å ha drevet et firmaet som bedrev dyrking av «grønnsaker, meloner, rot- og knollvekster» - en bransje hvor man også kan få tilgang til store mengder kunstgjødsel. Dette kan brukes i sprengstoff. Anders Behring Breivik is said to have lived at Rena for a while and is registered as operating a firm that grew "vegetables, melons, root- and bulb crops" - an industry that also gives one access to large amounts of artificial fertilizer. This can be used in explosive. Tungt bevæpnet politi tok seg i natt inn i huset på gården. 10-15 politifolk gikk gjennom gården for å sikre spor etter den antatte gjerningsmannen. Heavily armed police tonight entered the house at the farm.10-15 Police combed the farm to secure traces of the assumed perpetrator, Da vi kom hit natt til lørdag, virket gården øde, forteller NRK's reporter Kurt Sivertsen. The farm seemed deserted when we came here Saturday night, relates NRK's reporter Kurt Sivertsen. Bare et enkelt lys var på inne i bolighuset. Senere kom tungt bevæpnet politi, og vi fikk beskjed om å fjerne oss, forteller han. Only a plain lamp shone in the house. Heavily armed police arrived later and we were told to go away, he reports. Aktiv i nettfora Active in Internet forums Mannen har én twitter-melding fra 17. juli som sier «One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100 000 who have only interests», et sitat av den britiske filosofen og sosialliberalisten John Stuart Mill. Den pågrepene har allerede fått en hatside på Facebook. His single twitter post from 17th July is "One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100 000 who have only interests" which is a quotation from the British philospher and social liberal John Stuart Mill. The arrested one has already gained a hate page on Facebook. Han skal også ha markert seg som enn flittig debattant på flere islamkritiske nettsteder, blant dem Document.no, der han i flere innlegg ga uttrykk for nasjonalistiske holdninger og framsto som kritisk til et flerkulturelt samfunn. He allegedly also distinguished himself as a regular debater on several anti islam websites, among them Document.no, where he expressed nastionalist views in several posts and was seen to be sceptical of a multicultural society. Document.no valgte lørdag å publisere alle Breiviks innlegg på nettstedet. Der framgår det at Breivik ikke har skrevet noen innlegg siden 29. oktober 2010, men at han i en periode var svært aktiv. On Saturday Document.no chose to publish all of Breivik's posts to the website. It shows that Breivik made no post since 29th October 2010 but was very active for a while. I innleggene han skal ha skrevet kommer han blant annet med grove karakteristikker av tidligere statsminister Gro Harlem Brundtland. Among the posts he wrote he gives crude characterisations of former prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. Han har også vært aktiv i en debatt på Minerva, hvor han kommenterer et innlegg fra Høyre-nestleder Torbjørn Røe Isaksen. He was also active in a debate in Minerva (Norwegian periodical) in which he commented on a post by Vice-leader of the Right party Torbjørn Røe Isaksen. Nasjonalistisk i debatter Nationalist in debates VG Nett skriver at 32-åringen fremmer svært konservative meninger, som han også kaller nasjonalistiske, i nettdebatter. Her viser han motstand mot at kulturelle forskjeller kan leve sammen i et samfunn. VG Nett write that the 32-year old advocates very conservative views, which he calls nationalist, in Internet debates. In these he expresses denial that cultural differences can exist together in a society. Til sammen er minst 87 mennesker drept etter angrepene mot Regjeringskvartalet i Oslo og på AUF-leiren på Utøya utenfor Oslo. Altogether at least 87 people killed after the attacks on the government quarter in Oslo and on the Labour Youth camp at Utøya outside Oslo. Politiet har funnet en bil som inneholder eksplosiver på Utøya. Bilen tilhører trolig den antatte gjerningsmannen. The police have found a car containing explosives at Utøya. The car probably belongs to the assumed perpetrator. Translated by Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The translated article says Breivik was excused conscription and not why. That could have been for many reasons because Norway allows for conscientous objection (fritaking for militærtjeneste av overbevisningsgrunner) and there are civil duties that are acceptable as a replacement for military service. The relevance of the information is that Breivik is not known to have received military training or experience. His ownership of a Glock pistol is consistent with his membership in a pistol shooting club but I wonder what reasoning lay behind issuing Breivik a license for an automatic weapon (automatvåpen) which is not usual in Norway. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Terms of Loan Guarantees

Hi, this is a purely theoretical question, with no practical implications for me ATM.

When writing up loan guarantees (private ones, not government or corporate), how do they write the terms to ensure that the guarantor can only be called upon when the debtor can't pay, and not merely because the debtor won't pay? Is there usually some clause stating that the guarantor only becomes liable if and when the primary debtor declares bankruptcy and all his seizable assets have been liquidated by the trustee? Otherwise, what would stop debtors simply deciding not to pay, knowing that the creditor won't bother chasing them (given that the loan is anyways guaranteed)? If I were to be a guarantor, I'd want to ensure that the creditor did the heavy lifting in chasing the debtor, not me. (I'd accept liability if the debtor had been stripped of all his assets, and truly didn't have the money). How would I achieve that? And will those demanding loan guarantees (e.g. banks and other financial institutions) accept such a "limited" loan guarantee as sufficient to extend credit?

(Note: No one is asking me or anyone I know for a loan guarantee. It's just that this question has bugged me for quite some time). Eliyohub (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The answer is that very often loan guarantees don't ensure that the guarantor is only called upon when the debtor can't pay. Private guarantees are required as a condition of a loan, and the loan company has an interest in protecting its money. They word the guarantees so that the guarantor is responsible in the event of non payment for any reason. The guarantor and debtor can take it or leave it. I have previously acted as guarantor for my daughter and made sure that she understands that if she misses a payment they will come to me. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope you at least expect her to pledge whatever assets she has as security for the loan, leaving you a reduced (unsecured) amount to "cover" with your guarantee? That will at least reduce the moral hazard of your daughter being tempted to default. If you guarantee the whole loan, I think you're being foolish. Eliyohub (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Becoming the guarantor of an institutional loan requires more faith than it does financial good sense. That's one reason you don't do it for strangers or even for people who do not share your moral values with respect to promises made. One would assume there is some such compatibility between parent and child. I would say that if you cannot afford to lose the money, don't become a guarantor.Bielle (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That was my feeling. I could have afforded to lose it (with some hardship like missing a holiday and delaying car renewal), but if my daughter had defaulted through just not paying I would be more upset that my daughter would do that than for the financial loss. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The other key thing if that you know your daughter and, presumably, you trust her not to default. My mum is guarantor on my rent. That's not because my landlord has reason to think that I'm a credit risk, but rather because he doesn't have reason to think that I'm not. I don't have enough credit history for anyone to draw conclusions from. However, my mum has much more to go on than my landlord, so was able to reach the conclusion that I'm not likely to default. (And, as you say, she's my mum so she would be willing to take the hit if I needed her to.) --Tango (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If the debtor can pay but doesn't, then the creditor and the guarantor can possibly both sue the debtor. The loan agreement can possibly specify that the creditor would have to try to sue the debtor before charging the guarantor. Ask an attorney in the actual jurisdiction to be sure. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(from the OP). What I alluded to earlier was an arrangement whereby the liability of the guarantor is secondary to the security (real-estate or otherwise) pledged by the debtor as a lien. If the debtor defaults, the creditor must first seize the security, and the guarantor is only liable for amounts outstanding (i.e. any difference between the value of the security, and the amount outstanding on the debt). Would a bank accept such a guarantee as sufficient? It would seem to pose no additional risk to the bank (though it would impose some "bother" on them). Anyone know? Eliyohub (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

With respect to the original question - how do they write the terms to ensure that the guarantor can only be called upon when the debtor can't pay, and not merely because the debtor won't pay? - the answer is that they never do this. Lenders will not accept or see value in a guarantee that requires them to show that the debtor can't, rather than merely won't, pay. The guarantor generally can proceed against the debtor for any amounts paid under the guaranty, although if the guarantor really is worried that the debtor might deliberately stiff him, then he shouldn't extend the guaranty anyway. I suppose it might be possible for a lender to agree to a limited guarantee that requires the lender to proceed against collateral first, but that would be an unusual and customized arrangement. John M Baker (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Did the seclusion of women in ancient Greece also include royal women?

Usually, people associate "Ancient, Classical Greece" with the Republic of Athens, but my question is about the ancient Greec kingdoms (excluding Sparta, which I know was a unique case). I know about at least two ancient Greek Kingdoms: Macedonia and Epirus. I have heard about the seclusion of upper class women in ancient Greece. They were not allowed to mix with men outside of the family, and the social life was gender segregated. My question is; did these rules also pertain to royal women in Macedonia and Epirus? My impression is that women were more free in the Greek kingdoms than in the Greek republics, at least the royal women. Was the queens secluded, or did they have official ceremonies to attend to? Were they present at official occasions? Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea specifically to answer your question directly, but there is some question about how "purely Greek" even Ancient Macedonia was. Without getting into the whole modern conflict over the use of the term Macedonian, Ancient Macedonians had a strong cultural influence from cultures outside of Greece proper (like Thracians) as would be expected of any polity on the borders between cultures. In the case of the ancient Kingdom of Macedonia (and possibly also Epirus), one cannot discount the possibility that standards there are inapplicable to other Greek states simply because such standards may have been influenced by non-Greek culture. That is, the Macedonian Standard may not be anything resembling the idealized "Greek Standard", given non-Greek influences on the Macedonian culture. --Jayron32 15:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

In monarchy, such customs are defined at the whim of the monarch, so this probably varied a lot on a case-by-case basis. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems very wrong to see the phrase "the Republic of Athens" in text. The classical Athenians never described their specific system of government that way; outside of the relatively brief periods of oligarchical rule, it was a direct participation democracy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but that has no significance in my question. have you any information about the question? --Aciram (talk) 11:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That's information about just three words of your question. Others may be able to help with the rest. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Recording and photographing a meeting

I anticipate having a meeting with an aggresive bully which I would like to record for evidence. Where can I find out if openly recording and photographing them is legal in the UK, even if they do not agree to being recorded and photographed? 2.97.216.222 (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You can find out via appropriate professional legal counsel. My understanding is that in the UK system this would be a solicitor (as opposed to a barrister), but I'm open to correction. Perhaps call some offices and ask if they have experience with surveillance law? Note that our article on photography and the law includes a statement that aggressive photography of an individual can constitute harassment. — Lomn 21:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Another avenue, at least in the States, would be to go to the local "spy shop" (which caters to private investigators and generally suspicious people, selling hidden cameras, audio recording systems, and the like). The staff there could certainly provide advice on what's legal, and they might even be correct. More relevantly, though, I'd expect that they'd know which local lawyers are well-versed in these matters. — Lomn 21:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The US (not UK) Supreme Court has decided in 1971 that recording conversations using concealed radio transmitters worn by informants does not violate US law. Such a transmitter has these advantages over a concealed recorder:

• a remote third person can make the recording and serve as a witness that it was not tampered with, and
• the remote person can if the situation becomes ugly instigate an intervention.

Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried asking your local Citizens Advice Bureau or police force? Of course, another issue to consider is whether the recording will actually be useful as evidence (for example, if you plan to use it in a court case). 81.98.38.48 (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's an FAQ on recording phone or e-mail communications in the UK, which isn't exactly what you asked, but is similar. In the United States, (not sure about the UK), wiretapping laws have sometimes been used even when the conversation is in person, in public (i.e. Christopher Drew was charged with violating wiretapping laws in Illinois, an All-party consent state, when he recorded a video of police arresting him in a public place). In the U.S., there are generally state laws that allow recording in secret when there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" (or similar language). Illinois is, I believe, the only state without such protections. Again though, not applicable to the UK, so take Lomm's advice, and ask the appropriate legal professional. Buddy432 (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Maintaining a record of the meeting is permitted, although both parties may wish to keep their own records. The other party may reasonably request a copy of any notes taken or written up following the meeting. Asking permission need not be explicit, it can be a reference to "noting down some points". In practice taking notes are encouraged as should the situation go to an industrial tribunal contemporaneous evidence is useful.

Video and audio recordings of the meeting fall under the same legislation. The demand the consent of all parties. There may be points in the company handbook about one or both of those, as the company premises are private property the use of imagery collection devices may be banned.

The applicable legislation would be employment law and the Data Protection Act. As already suggested CAB is probably your best bet with respect to guidance in advance, although a solicitor with particular expertise in employment law.

ALR (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As an alternative, how about inviting someone else to the meeting to act as a note-taker and witness (and could maybe intervene if it turns nasty)? Astronaut (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's an acceptable option however the same provisions apply if the other party wishes to keep their own notes.

ALR (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Forget legalities. Do you want to have proof after the meeting of being assaulted (one way or another) or would you rather it didn't happen?

By going down this route, you're actually being very passive-aggressive yourself and you're not helping avoid conflict.

A far better option would be to have someone with you in the meeting, which is a far more normal way of going about having a meeting, has no legal implications for you to worry about and happily, not only are they a potential witness, unlike a camera they also have the physical means to prevent or shorten an assault in the worst case.

Strongly advise you to ditch the camera/video idea. --Dweller (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Safe Money

Which denomination of money (Euro, Peso, Yen, etc.) should/could one convert all his or her U.S. Dollars to before it is all worth-less? Realizing the whole world economy is tied in with the U.S. dollar, which would be most stable following a period of hyperinflation of the dollar? Schyler (one language) 22:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

For maximum safety, buy some of each. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The Swiss Franc has really taken off in the last few months because it is considered a safe haven. Of course that safety is also something of an illusion of the world economy really tanks. Also, of course, markets will, to a high degree, take the relative safety of investments into account, so if you get out of the dollar now, you will pay quite a premium - and if things turn around, you will not recoup your money in full. It probably is safest to invest into something tangible you yourself can use - e.g. a flat to live in. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The safest form of currency would be guns, bullets and canned food because those items are inherently useful as opposed to pieces of paper or little metal discs. Googlemeister (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

But they are not inherently more valuable in the future than they are now. Just because they are useful does not mean their value will be constant. If you are making a serious investment choice and not just preparing to be an extra in The Road, then that matters. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Purchasing gold is one option. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The gold market is likely holding nearly as much value as it can handle. It has been seen as a safe haven during the recent financial crisis since 2008, and its value has grown so fast in that time, many are fearing a "gold bubble" (see [8] for one example). Looking at how fast gold's price has gone up: Almost 3 fold in 5 years. Anything that goes up that fast is quite likely to come down that fast as well, and you don't want to get on that ride at the top of the hill; it will hurt when you come crashing down with it. The last two investment classes which had price profiles resembling golds (that is, such a rapid rise in a short time) were dotcom stocks in the late 1990s and housing in the middle 2000s. I'm not sure either of those panned out for people who bought at the peak of the market. If you want to invest in a commodity whose price is likely to rise relative to the dollar, perhaps oil may be a better purchase. It shows no obvious signs of bottoming out anytime soon. --Jayron32 20:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The OP didn't ask about speculative investments, but about a way of keeping his property safe from hyperinflation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.79.148 (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Materials commodities are often recommended as inflation hedges. Gold has long been considered an inflation hedge. So recommending gold is not the worst idea, except for the fact that there has been a ton of gold speculation recently, which has probably created a bubble. This article is a nice, recent discussion of inflation hedges. Obviously any inflation hedge is speculative — you're being speculative if you're betting that hyperinflation will happen (pretty unlikely — even in a worst case scenario, hyperinflation is pretty rare) and so picking a proper hedge is necessarily speculative as well. There was a nice article in Harper's by Thomas Frank recently on the relationship between gold speculators ("metal heads") and fears about hyperinflation. Unfortunately it is subscriber-only but the gist of it is that people who are currently investing in gold as a hedge not only are probably building up a bubble on par with the dot com one, but that the entire logic of doing so is ridiculous from an economic and historical point of view. The bottom line is that there's really no good reason to believe that US currency is going to become worthless anytime soon, but the scramble for inflation hedges is making any attempt to buy an inflation hedge very risky. Anything that you think has intrinsic value can be an inflation hedge. You could posit that SUVs will not lose value even if the dollar does, and invest in those, for example — except, of course, there's a great possibility that they could lose value relative to currency, which is the speculative part. If your baseline assumption is an entire, catastrophic collapse of the dollar, I'm not sure you can reliably predict what would be an inflation hedge in that situation. But an economist would probably have a better assessment of this. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

privatization of government

Would a political jurisdiction where public government was replaced by private government default to the will of those with the most money and are there any examples of such transitions? --DeeperQA (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware of any de jure situation where such an outcome was the intent of a government; that is to allow money in and of itself to be the sole determining factor in political power as a intentional function of government organization. There are governments that have similar outcomes, for example see Oligarchy#Corporate_Oligarchy_.28Corporatocracy.29 or more insidiously see Kleptocracy. An interesting fictional treatment of your exact proposal is the 1975 film Rollerball, which presumes a political future which is pretty much exactly the system you are proposing. --Jayron32 00:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The idea of anarcho-capitalism is similar to this, where all state services are eliminated and instead of a state-funded police service and army you can pay a police service and army to protect you. That article contains some discussion, but it has never been tried. Warlordism, where government breaks down entirely as in present-day Somalia or the Civil War-era Russia, can be close (although there is the obvious problem that just because you have money and can hire mercenaries doesn't necessarily mean you can stop people robbing you). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

In a sense, weren't US coal mining company towns in the 1940s an example for a privitized local govenment? Googlemeister (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Cutting the USA debt

Who is proposing what? What are the consequences of each proposal? Why don't they settle it by meeting in the middle? - Kittybrewster ☎ 23:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The issues are complicated but they come down to a budget surplus versus a budget deficit and the proper way to move from the current budget deficit to a budget that is surplus. As far as a default is concerned it is a question of either making payments on the debt or on entitlements since tax loopholes and tax breaks have deprive the US government of sufficient revenue to make the payments. --DeeperQA (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Obama admin has offered to meet it in the middle -- he offered a plan to slash a few hundred billion from spending, even from entitlements, so long as pushes for reinstating the Bush era tax cuts are ditched (they are largely what is causing the high deficit in the first place, in terms of lost revenue[9]). The Republicans have refused to settle largely for ideological and political reasons — they want more (despite Obama being willing to compromise to levels that have his own base very angry) and they want Obama to look bad. Anyway the bottom line is that it's a very nasty political situation that has nearly nothing to do with the actual proposals. It's also what makes it rather dangerous — it's a game of chicken at the moment that has very little to do with the actual numbers on the table, but is about scoring political points. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If we take the simple simple simple version, the issue is that the U.S. spends more money than it takes in with tax revenue. Such a situation cannot occur indefinitely, but there are differing opinions as to what this means, and what to do about it. Solving the debt problem involves some measure of a) increasing revenue or b) decreasing spending. The deadlock involves deciding which proportion of each of a) and b) the government should do. Democrats in the Senate and House, and Republicans in the Senate all support some level of both revenue increase and spending decrease, while House Republicans (which are heavily influenced by the "Tea Party" movement) refuse to allow any revenue increases in solving the problem. Confounding the issue is that the U.S. has a legal "debt ceiling", that is a prior Congress had enacted a law that set a maximum amount the U.S. could borrow. The only way that that ceiling could be broken is if the current Congress would need to either repeal or modify the earlier law to allow the U.S. to borrow more. Everyone except the House Republicans see this as a major problem, because if the U.S. isn't able to borrow then it will have to default on some of its obligations; either it doesn't pay its entitlement obligations (social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.) or it doesn't meet payroll, or it defaults on its debt. There is no other options. The House Republicans actually seem to want this to happen, since it would literally force the U.S. to spend less money, which is a major plank in their platform. --Jayron32 23:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the government spending more than it takes in can continue indefinitely, so long as the economy (and thus, the total amount taken in) continues to grow: essentially, the government is paying off this year's excess spending using next year's income. Hardly ideal, but it works. --Carnildo (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Except that the debt ceiling law prevents it. --Jayron32 01:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yet the debt ceiling has been raised more than 100 times. So really, it can continue as long as Congress keeps raising it. Livewireo (talk) 09:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Perpetual growth of an economy is no more possible then a perpetual motion machine. Googlemeister (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a bad analogy — the economy is not a closed system. If it wasn't, we'd still be living like medieval times, where there was no capital. You can actually create new value, new wealth, etc., which is the physical equivalent of extra energy coming into the system. Finding new petroleum reserves, for example, is the equivalent of hooking a battery up to your motion machine. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the economy is a closed system if you are dependent of fossil fuels like the current economy. Oil can't last forever. Wealth is created in 3 ways. Mining, manufacturing and agriculture. Mining involves non-renewable resources and is most obviously non-perpetual. Agriculture is renewable but uses non-renewable inputs (mostly in the form of fossil fuels). If you run out of fossil fuels, you can keep farming, but your output will drop dramatically. Manufacturing also uses a large amount of non-renewable resources in terms of metals, and petroleum products like fuel, oil or plastic. In essence, unless we are to discover a magical free energy source, the economy is jstill a closed system, just one that is large enough that we haven't quite found the boundary yet. Googlemeister (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Holy shit, did your economics class get as far as mercantalism and then just quit? I'd go back to your school and have some angry words with your professors if that were the case. What kind of pre-modern society do you live in where the only sources of wealth are based on physical objects? Information, entertainment, finance, etc. these are all large, sizable sectors of our economy and to claim that wealth is somehow a "closed system" and depends solely on raw materials and turning those raw materials into finished goods is such an outdated view on economy that it boggles the mind. Its like thinking that Copernicus is the last astronomer who had anything important to say on the universe, or that Newton said all that needed to be said on the topic of Physics. This is not to deny that dependence on non-renewable resources is a serious concern for the long-term health of the economy, but besides the complete non-sequitur in comparing a short-term political budget battle towards something as unrelated to the current situation as the problem of fossil fuel exhaustion is the problem that you don't seem to have any grasp of modern ideas about wealth and how it is made and managed... --Jayron32 17:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Some information can improve the efficiency of wealth creation, but information can not create wealth in a vacuum. Entertainment does not create wealth, it moves wealth from the moviegoer to the film producers. Finance can make it easier to create wealth via loans, but also does nothing to create wealth by itself. Making broad statements like "Perpetual growth" is absurd, (note I am not accusing you of making these statements, mostly it is those talking heads in the media). Everything in terms of wealth boils down to resources, services are not a long term solution. Googlemeister (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not advocating perpetual growth in the way that you seem to think perpetual growth means. But it is beyond simplistic to view wealth in terms of "resources" unless you mean resources in such a purely metaphorical sense to include things like "human capital", "education", "knowledge", etc. Wealth is itself created by economic activity; it is not solely a sum of the value of raw materials dug from the ground coupled with the value added to them by human labor. There are lots of human activities which create wealth that have nothing to do with that practice. Yes, there are major problems for the economy when raw materials run out. However, to claim that it is the sole source of wealth is like claiming you can drive your car with wheels only: Sure, you cannot drive your car without wheels, but it is not necessarily the wheels that make the car go. If wheels doesn't work for you, replace it with any vital part of the car. The wheel is unimportant to the analogy here, but what is important is realizing that one cannot extrapolate the idea that a vital part to a system is the same thing as the sole vital part to the system, nor is it irreplacable. If wheels become scares, it drives car manufacturers to necessarily come up with alternate modes of propulsion. If we suddenly had no wheels, we may tank tracks becoming more prevalent, or even better yet exotic hover systems. The impending exhaustion of raw material supplies represents both a challenge and an opportunity. Its not as though one magical day the tap will run dry and the entire human race will shrug and say "well that was fun, lets go back to the cave!" When it becomes economically better to transition out of the petroleum economy, humankind will do that, just as it transitioned into the petroleum economy from earlier economies. --Jayron32 19:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you there, if you take out the non-material stuff from the economy you have a gasoline engine car with a fuel tank full of diesel fuel. At best, it will barely sputter along. Googlemeister (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if the issue was just accessing material resources, if history is any indication, there are far more material resources available than is evident at any given time. Petroleum doesn't last forever, but eventually you transition to other energy sources, and after applying enough capital and intelligence at exploiting them, you are able to get them just as cheaply. So the oil will run out, and eventually we transition (some many decades down the line) to purely solar/hydro/wind and/or fusion power, and continue from there on, and so on. And yes, the sun eventually burns out, yadda yadda, but the point is that you can have continual (on average) economic growth for many thousands of years without running into any significant material snags, as we've been doing since the fertile crescent. There is technically a fixed amount of wealth in the universe, indeed, but the human race is not going to hit it anytime soon. Comparing the economy to a perpetual motion machine is as silly as saying that the entire universe is a perpetual motion machine, because the energy eventually will run down. It's technically true but totally irrelevant for the current discussion. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No, that's a bit naive. You should definitely watch this (despite the funky title). At a moderate growth rate of 3.5%, the economy will double every 20 years - or by a factor of ~30 in 100 years. This is not sustainable for long by scientific and technical advance. We are above sustainable carrying capacity for the planet now, at least with our current model of resource usage. Yes, so far we have found enough new resources for current usage so far. But that's the nature of exponential growth: at the beginning its slow, but if you assume e.g. the constant 3.5%, we will use the same amount of resources in the next 20 years than we have used throughout history up till now. If we now have 90% reserves, we will run out in 60 years. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me for being a little skeptical on these numbers, I agree that resource limitations are a serious problem, but people have been making these predictions for hundreds of years, and they have universally turned out to grossly underestimate the ability of humanity to adapt. They always presuppose "if nothing changes in the way we consume", and then it turns out that human progress isn't static, and changes much faster and more drasticly than their models predict. If Thomas Malthus were even one iota correct, we'd be eating each other by now. --Jayron32 02:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

austerity programs

United States government employees and pensioners have not receive a cost of living increase in over three years while prices for food and other retail items have increased by an average of 30%. This means that the purchase interval for a box of oatmeal, or a gallon of gasoline has had to be extended by 30%. This means hardship and at a certain point inadequate food and gasoline to conduct normal life so such programs are definitely limited by how long they can last. What might be the longest an austerity program could be extended before government employees and pensioners began to riot in absence of other methods of reducing a deficit? --DeeperQA (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a rather specific prediction, and I'm not sure that anyone could make any reasonable evidenced answer as to the date when government employees would openly riot over the lack of COLA adjustments. --Jayron32 23:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What methods might be used to restore COLA to include the increases from the time when it was ended? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeeperQA (talk • contribs) 00:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Congress would pass a law. --Jayron32 00:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The government could borrow (at the low, low rate of 0% interest these days, I'm not kidding; in fact I think they can charge to keep funds on account) or increase revenue, by, for example, letting the Bush tax cuts expire, which would bring in $5.4 trillion over 10 years. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"prices for food and other retail items have increased by an average of 30%" -- citation needed. This page certainly shows no such large increase. --Sean 14:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not see them list what they are pricing, so we are left to assume they are pricing the same items for each time period. Is there verification that there is not product substitution (chicken for beef for example)? Googlemeister (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Look further (e.g. by clicking on the June data). It's based on fixed food plans, last nailed down in documents published 2006 (for "thrifty") or 2007 (for the other 4 plans). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

People don't buy less oatmeal when the cost of oatmeal increases. In fact, they buy more. It's luxuries you stop buying (and if those are luxury foods, then you need to replace them with cheap foods, such as oatmeal). While people would get quite upset at not being able to afford as many luxuries, they would need their real-terms income to reduce a lot before they started going hungry. --Tango (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

30%? The government says prices have increased less than 5% since 2008. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, retailers play all sorts of games to hide price increases from price monitoring authorities even if they have real-time access and copies of store inventories with accurate prices available to their computers. ie, citations are meaningless because the data is intentionally deceptive. It is a case where original research is the only way to avoid deception, which reveals techniques like 30% price jumps on individual items to replace more frequent lower percent jumps to fool the monitoring authorities who are looking for high frequency jumps. Furthermore, the wealthy are not effected by a price increase of $1.88 to $2.44 for a bottle of ketchup. They will keep buying at the same interval but those who have been on an austerity program for over three years and who were at subsistence levels to start off with have no choice but to increase the interval between purchases to deal with the problem. Even an idiot can see that at some point the interval will grow so large that an item will not be available when needed, like food and other necessities for the poor while the rich are unaffected. DeeperQA (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The Labor Department (which calculates inflation) doesn't just call stores to find out the prices; they have people visit them too. If you think there's a conspiracy to make inflation look tamer than it is, it would have to involve thousands of store managers and small-business owners across the country. Plus, if the government were to fake inflation stats, people would figure it out after a while. Stuff would be seven times as expensive in 20 years as opposed to twice as expensive at current inflation rates. People would be drinking $7 cans of pop and know there's no way inflation was only 3.5 percent a year during that period. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

yada, yada, yada. Just like taxes there are loopholes in the inflation accounting process that do not reflect true inflation for the very poor and it is this group that believe through experience that inflation calculation which includes items like soda pop. I am talking about the price of bread, meat and potatoes and the basic necessities of life. When it costs three times as much to cook food then even if the price of food stays the same the total will be more. It is a gimmick to include items that do not inflate and that are not necessities with basic foodstuffs which have negative or no or very low inflation like certain consumer electronics and soda pop, --DeeperQA (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the BLS website above, the U.S. city average annual CPI of bread in 2007 was 140.094 and 159.759 in 2010, that's a 14.0% increase which is less then half the claimed 30%. The U.S. city average annual CPI for potatoes was 280.432 in 2007 and 301.971 in 2010 which is an increase of 7.7% again far less then the claimed.

The U.S. city average annual CPI for 'Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs' was 195.616 in 2007 and 207.694 in 2010 an increase of 6.2%. To exclude 'luxury' meats if we look at the U.S. city average annual CPI for 'Fresh whole chicken' it was 196.176 in 2007 and 211.065 in 2010 which comes to 7.6%. If fresh whole chicken is still too much of a 'luxury' item for you, we can move on to 'Uncooked ground beef' where we see the U.S. city average annual CPI was 184.280 in 2007 and 203.635 in 2010 meaning an increase of 10.5%.

Okay and moving on to the other 'basic necessities' and the claim it costs 3 times as much to cook, well the U.S. city average annual CPI for electricity was 175.825 in 2007 and 193.095 in 2010 an increase of 9.8%. Meanwhile the U.S. city average annual CPI for 'Utility (piped) gas service' was 217.688 in 2007 and 189.678 in 2010 a decrease of 14.8%, whoops. Of course for people who are say, using whiskey as their fuel source for cooking food I haven't considered that, but it's probably not common....

I'll throw in one last 'basic necessity' for good measure, 'Rent of primary residence' for which the U.S. city average annual CPI was 234.679 in 2007 and 249.385 in 2010 an increase of 6.3%.

BTW, the U.S. city average annual CPI for 'Carbonated drinks' was 140.138 in 2007 and 154.676 in 2010 which is an increase of 10.4% i.e. greater then the increase for general meats, potatoes, piped gas (which had a negative increase), electricity or rent although I'll give you less then the increase for bread and barely less then the increase for ground beef. I'll also give you that the U.S. city average annual CPI for 'televisions' was 16.938 in 2007 and 7.985 in 2010, a large decrease.

In any case all this talk of 'loop holes' etc sounds like an attempt to avoid lettinng the facts get in the way of a good rant. If this is not the case, please provide some actual evidence backed up by reliable sources for your claim. Note I'm not particularly interested, as I'm sure with most of the RD, on your particular situation, it may very well be that prices have gone up 30% for you in the last 3 years but that doesn't tell us anything useful on what has happened for other people.

P.S. [10] may be of interest before any more spurious claims are made.

P.P.S. I see in the original post, the claim was made about oatmeal and gasoline (i.e. petrol). The BLS doesn't appear to include oatmeal seperately, I presume it comes under 'Cereals and cereal products' and possibly the subcategory of 'Breakfast cereal' although I'm not sure of the later.

It does of course include 'Gasoline, unleaded regular' and I wasn't surprised to find the U.S. city average annual CPI was 238.151 in 2007 and 237.888 in 2010 i.e. a small decrease. Of course the price has gone up since then but it also went up in 2008 (hitting a peak in July 2008 which is higher then the CPI has reached thus far, before it started to fall when the world economies and companies collapsed). It's well known the price of crude oil etc and therefore the price of petrol has had some rather massive changes over the past few years (and had started to be fairly high in 2007) so this shouldn't be a surprise.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, everyone knows gas prices make no sense. I think they spin a roulette wheel to determine the price. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Nil Einne - 30% refers to the average increase since cost of living increases for pensioners and Federal employees was put on hold. If you use the price of gold in US dollars (although the US is no longer on the gold standard) you see that it takes many more US dollars to buy gold which means the dollar is worth less in countries that supply food and other items to the US. --DeeperQA (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is of course completely irrelevant since the price of basic food and power clearly has not gone up 30%. In fact while it's true the dollar is worth less compares to some currencies, the connection to gold is only indirect since no other countries currency is tied to gold. People don't buy food or power in gold. Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

July 26

British Slavery and Racial Equality in Europe

I was wondering why slavery was such a touchy subject for the British. I mean I watched Amistad (film) and noticed how the British portrayed on it were so against it. I know they were abolished it before America. Also I read that blacks in Europe had it better off than in America for a long time, a prince of Hawaii once wrote that a black man could sit on the bus with the Queen of England while in America he was kicked off a train because he was thought to be a slave. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The important thing here is that there are different types of slavery. For centuries the British used a form of indentured servitude or apprenticeship to accomplish similar means that chattel slavery accomplishes. "Chattel" is akin to cattle, thus a form of personal property, i.e. huamn beings owning other human beings. Chattel Slavery "proper" was never a large practice in Britain and was dogmatized in the Southern United States from the American Colonial Period to the American Civil War. As to your second question about Quality of life of blacks, there are a slew of reasons, ranging from Jim Crow Laws (most important in my opinion) to Multiculturalism (European countries are stereotypically very homogenous) to the psychological effects of Government Assistance from the Freedmans Bureau. Schyler (one language) 01:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

One thing to consider is that the British economy (that is, the economy of the Island of Great Britain, as opposed to that of Her Colonies) is not dependent on large Plantation economy like the colonies in the New World were. Several major crops (primarily rice, and sometime later cotton in the American South; sugar cane and to a lesser extent coffee in the caribbean and S. America) were dependent on having a large, cheap labor force, which is why slavery took hold in those regions, where it did not in Great Britain proper. Race-based, permanent slavery had no economic reason to exist in Great Britain, so it was easy for them to dismiss the practice. In places where it was a major part of the economy, it was harder to do so. That does not mean it wasn't an abhorrant, evil practice that had any moral justification, but it does help to understand why the practice was more tolerated in the colonies than in Europe. Great Britain was hardly "enlightened" with regard to attitudes towards other "races"; it just manifested itself in other ways besides slavery. The UK had its own race riots as late as the 1950s, so one can hardly say they had been living in a "color-blind society"... --Jayron32 02:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The British Crown also incentivized the ownership of slaves in the New World, awarding more land to family heads with more people (including slaves). Lord Baltimore at one point claimed to own over 40 million acres! Schyler (one language) 02:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The OP mentions the portrayal of slavery in a fictional film. Certainly, in the early C19 it was one area in which the British liked to think of themselves as ahead of the Americans; remember it had not been that long since the loss of the colonies. "I was wondering why slavery was such a touchy subject for the British." Have you read Slavery in Britain and Ireland? The Triangular trade brought wealth to cities such as Bristol and Liverpool, but the pressure grew for Abolitionism, aided by the legal decision of Somersett's Case, which eventually led to first the Slave Trade Act 1807 and then the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. (Also, User:Jayron32, we have articles on the Brixton Riots of the 1980s and 1990s, and the Category:Riots in England mentions the 2001 Oldham race riots as the most recent one with "race" in its title.) BrainyBabe (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be some rather uneven comparison of what qualifies as a "race riot", though! The Oldham riots resulted in no deaths and twenty people injured. (Note that such injury statistics for UK police officers can include being stung by a wasp or getting sunburnt.) By contrast, the 1992 Los Angeles riots resulted in 53 deaths and "thousands" injured. Our article Race riot is particularly incomplete in this respect; it lists the two UK events where no-one died, alongside a slew of historical race riots in the USA, each of which saw dozens of deaths. Keith Blakelock is notable for being someone who actually died as a result of a race riot in England (in 1985) - virtually unheard of. It's misleading to think of race riots in the UK as a city-wide orgy of lethal violence, arson and looting, as U.S. race riots seem to be. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That's true. The British weren't that nice when it came to the Indians and Chinese during the 1800s and 1900s. But the "equal" conditions in Europe for blacks in the time when in America they were being lynched and enslaved is really intersting. To what extant were their so called equality or better treatment (more accurate word).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The upper classes in the UK would have had servants, not slaves, once society had changed from feudalism. As far as race riots here go, for some reason we tend to go after property rather than people, although there are cases where people have died during riots (Isiah Youngsam in Birmingham is an example). We may not have had the entrenched racism of the American Deep South, but we still have had it over here. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This book seems to have good information about the situation in 1949, when mass immigration from the Commonwealth was just beginning. Small Island by Andrea Levy gives a vivid account of the period, very well researched historical fiction. It's a TV film too. That's one of the periods when the UK seemed to have less discrimination than the USA. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Loyalist (American Revolution)#Slavery and Black Loyalists has a small amount of information relevant to this issue in the late 1700s. Supposedly a community of 10,000+ free blacks in London at that time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

William Wilberforce, a convert to evangelical Christianity, was the driving force behind the British abolition of the slave trade; he led a mass movement against it, support coming mostly from the prosperous but deeply religious middle-classes who were scandalised by emerging details of the treatment of slaves in transit to the West Indies. It took him 20 years. Alansplodge (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Odd extension on the rear of an 1870s house

Can anyone guess at the function of this small addition to the rear of a preserved house in southern Indiana? You can see the exterior on the right edge of File:Jacob Rickenbaugh House, southern side and rear.jpg and on the left edge of File:Jacob Rickenbaugh House, northern end and rear.jpg — it's the partial-story element with the sloping roof. The house was built in 1874, but its remotely rural location seems to have kept it from keeping up with popular styles; for example, it has Greek Revival elements more common on buildings several decades older. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Storage? Perhaps this was a place to keep cordwood dry for burning in a fireplace or woodburning stove. --Jayron32 01:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

First that came to my mind was a Hideaway Hole for escaped slaves using the Underground Railroad. Schyler (one language) 01:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Storage of some sort, possibly low-temperature storage (thick walls and no obvious ventilation). It's far too visible to be a hiding place. --Carnildo (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It is most definitely usable for storage, and was probably built for that purpose. Yet, visibility is not necessarily bad for hiding. Sometimes something that has an obvious use may deter a would-be-slave-catcher. See these pictures.
The only other point is that the Jacob Rickenbaugh House intersects quite nicely with one of the routes in Southern Indiana on this map. Schyler (one language) 02:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there access to this from inside the house? If there isn't, storage for firewood seem plausible. Certainly no good as a hiding place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What you can see in this image is all that I could see — I didn't go inside. The house was built in the 1870s, so the Underground Railroad isn't that likely. Nyttend (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the thick walls enabled it to serve as a root cellar, even though it is above-ground? BrainyBabe (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

1874? It looks like an icebox cellar to me. A walk-in fridge of the era. 208.54.5.230 (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Concurred. It's rather heavy-duty construction if it were only for keeping wood dry. On the other hand, stone walls that thick would certainly keep any animals (bears) away. Vranak (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. It seems to be a larder (or a pantry). --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

One thought that came to mind was coal storage for a coal-fired furnace. However, if it had been used for that purpose, I'd expect the walls to be blackened by the coal dust, unless it was later cleaned, perhaps by sand-blasting. StuRat (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There appear to be more courses of stone visible from the outside than from the inside, so there may be a layer of dirt and debris at the bottom. It would be weird to build such a structure to protect something from bears, in the 1870's, as Vranak suggests. It would not be a convenient coal cellar, since there is no outside hatch for delivery, but that seems possible. It would have been very unhandy to have to crawl into it to get a shovel of coal from the distal end. Did that primitive house even have a coal furnace? The same problem applies to its use as a wine cellar or a fruit cellar. As a larder, it should have been easily accessible from the kitchen. It is so far out of the ground that it would not have stayed particularly cool in the summer, like a fruit cellar or springhouse might have been expected to. I note that the ceiling is huge flat stones which span the gap between the walls, rather than archwork as was common in 19th century stone structures, but they then built a roof over it, so they wanted to keep the contents dry. It sticks out like a sore thumb, so there was no goal of concealing anything from visitors. It may have been someone's folly. ("Oh, Herman! I am terrified of tornadoes! Build me a tornado proof room! Oh Herman! I am afraid of snakes! Build me a snakeproof woodshed!) Edison (talk) 03:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely it's for storing long things. Otherwise, it'd be a nightmare to get to the things at the end. I'd rule out the larder - you'd always be eating the things you just put in, while the older items rotted, because they're inaccessible. See LIFO and FIFO. The wood idea is attractive, because it could have been stored as longish poles, but it would be annoying having to chop the things once to put away and then again before usage. All in all... nice question. And as a rabbi I knew used to say, "A good question is better than a bad answer". --Dweller (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It could be a crypt. Maybe the builder was an Edgar Allen Poe fan, and built it to house the oblong box containing his dear departed young wife, so that he could haul it out and open it in privacy when he wished. Maybe someone in the house was afraid of premature burial and wanted a crypt which communicated with the house to contain his Safety coffin. Maybe the owner wanted to lure his enemy to the far end of it to look for a cask of amontillado, then knock him out while he bricked up the house end of the space. Maybe someone wanted a crypt which was secure against grave robbers. Edison (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks very much like a venison larder (Google image brings up a fair share of similar oblong looking constructions, not very spacy or bright, but it must have done the trick). While it does seem awfully prosaic compared to romantic stories about underground railroad hideaways and Gothic crypts, it does still seem like the most reasonable explanation. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

For the thing to be practical, the thing contained in it should be capable of being hauled out without having to crawl to the far end to remove coal, fruit jars, firewood, or whatever. Maybe a side of beef or venison could be on a plank so that it could be drawn out by a rope. It works better for one big thing than a lot of little things or a heap of something. A partly underground cellar would have kept meat cooler than this above ground, ambient temperature store. But I admit lots of people in the 19th century were ignorant, deluded and stupid, and might have believed that being surrounded by stones would preserve meat from spoilage. Edison (talk) 04:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Mu guess is an ice house or at least an ice extension. Collect big lumps of ice from a lake or river in the winter - pack it away in a thick-walled building - you have ice to hand for several months. Refrigeration was (I think) only in use in large commercial undertakings in the 1870s. Alansplodge (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It would not have worked at all well as an ice house. There is a negligible amount of insulation in a stone wall.The south view of the house shows that wall of the crypt exposed to the sun. 19th century ice houses were typically double walled with a foot-thick layer of straw as insulation. sawdust, tanbark and charcoal were also used as insulation. A drain was needed for the melt, which could have been achieved in this installation by a thick layer of gravel below. The ice would have melted quickly in a little stone enclosure without insulation. It would have needed a couple of tight-fitting doors. It would likely have had some shelves to store things which needed refrigeration. Think days, not months, if the outside temperature was warm, for blocks of ice to melt in this uninsulated structure.. If it had a foot of straw on the bottom, then some blocks of ice sawn from the frozen river, then a foot of straw all around and above, there might have been some ice for weeks after it got warm. Of course the homebuilder might have erroneously expected the stone crypt to work well as an ice house. The south view shows a big chimney in the house near it. A place to keep fuel dry and handy is certainly one possibility, but as noted above it would be awkward to crawl to the back to get out the last of the wood, and most fireplaces would not accommodate long logs stuck in it endward. Edison (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

My guess is a "cold room", for storage of vegetables over the winter. I think winter squash grows late into the autumn. But to extend the supply of such produce into the deep winter it may be useful to have what is in essence an unheated room in the house. Bus stop (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

By the 1870's it was plausible that "the iceman" came around a couple of times a week with big blocks of ice from his large and well insulated icehouse. There might once have been an interior insulating structure in this stone crypt which could hold several cubic feet of ice, and which could have been used to chill and preserve milk from a dairy operation, as well as other foodstuffs needing refrigeration, including a tight fitting door. Did the farm include many cows? A chilled milkhouse was an important 19th century part of a dairy operation. The damp could have caused this wooden and sawdust structure to rot and be removed and discarded. The suggestion of storage during the winter is also a plausible one. We have never been told any dimensions of the structure, which would be very helpful. Is there any information available from archeologists/docents/historians/conservators of the structure as to the purpose of the crypt in question? Edison (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The roof on the exterior pictures does not seem to match that shown on the interior picture. Was the roof designed to be opened? If so, then it may be a store for coal, firewood, or ice. I suppose that there could have been several feet of snow outside, so you may want the coal or firewood to be easily available from inside. Or it could be a root store as previously suggested. 92.29.113.104 (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

My missing Family!!

I would like to find my family that are from Plantersville South carolinia.The last name is Lance can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.25.198 (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless they're famous, they probably won't be here. Suggest you look at ancestry.com. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Plantersville has a population of about 100 people. It is primarily a tree farm area. However, it is growing fast. If your family is "from" Plantersville in the past, there was even fewer people there in the past. There are people there with the last name Lance. In fact, the principal of Plantersville Elementary School is named Arthur Lance. -- kainaw™ 18:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oceania

I researched a little into Monarchies in Oceania and found out some small island states that existed back in the 1800s and had their own flags. But how did these islands really exist and have their own flags examples like Eastern Island which had no central ruling chief or king even till the modern age but had a flag in 1876. I know having flags is not really a big thing but it must be a sign of attempts to modernize and to save themselves and their independence from European colonization.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Or, in the case of Hawaii, American colonization :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really, even smaller than Hawaii. Easter Island, Rurutu, Rimatara. Besides Hawaii was recognized by comtemporary powers in the Pacific while most of these other islands weren't.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There were Kings of Easter Island for centuries, up until the nineteenth century. Kings of Tahiti as well, to name two examples. I suppose they adopted flags by copying the Europeans. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well actually the article on wikipedia is wrong Easter Island had no central government till recent times, being ruled by different clan chiefs and all, and even then it never truly evolved into a hereditary monarchy sort of system. I suppose they copied the westerners on making flags.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If Spain truly did conquer England in 1588, then whom did they intend for the throne?

If the Spanish Armada had succeeded with its task and conquered England in 1588, what was its plans for England then? Who would be the next English monarch after Elizabeth Tudor? I assume the Spanish intended the English crown for a Catholic, so who was the Spanish candidate? I have not been able to find it. Was whas the plan of Spain in this regard?

And, another question; what had the Spanish intended for Elizabeth herself? Did they truly intended for her to be accused of heresy? Does anyone know about the Spanish intent in these questions? They must have had a plan. Thank you. --85.226.44.158 (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Originally, Phillip supported Mary, Queen of Scots as the legal queen. However, she was executed in 1587. Harry Turtledove, usually good with his research, has the Infanta Isabella on the English throne in Ruled Britannia, with Elisabeth imprisoned in the Tower. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It presents an interesting problem, the article Anglo-Spanish War (1585–1604) indicates that the Pope gave Philip the authority to install "whomever he chose" as King of England. If he indeed had the gumption to reinstall himself as King of England (a position he previously held jure uxoris as husband of Mary I) or even to install a child of his own as King of England, one could easily imagine this sort of upset to the "balance of power" not going over well with the rest of Europe, particularly France. France always felt "hemmed in" by the Habsburgs, and if the Spanish Armada created a third Habsburg front for France, it is likely to have generated a "War of English Succession" over the move. Mary Queen of Scots would have been acceptable, she herself had been a Queen of France by marriage, and due to the Auld Alliance the French would probably have endorsed such a move; but imagine the world from the French perspective had the Armada not only been successful, but if a Habsburg scion had been placed on the English throne as well. The Armada's main goal was to end the Dutch revolts, and without English material support, it might well have done that. So, the French would have had to contend with the Habsburgs in control of Austria, the Holy Roman Empire, large swaths of Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal (don't forget that Philip II also enacted the Iberian Union when he inherited the throne of Portugal) and now England? Europe was already looking like a lonely island of France surrounded by sea of Habsburgs; a Habsburg England would have completed the isolation of France. It was in France's best interest to play England and Spain off each other; I am sure it didn't mind the idea of an Anglo-Spanish war, but the notion that Spain would install a Habsburg on the English throne didn't work all that well in their interest. --Jayron32 19:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if Mary's son James, who eventually succeeded Elizabeth anyway, would have been acceptable. He was baptised Catholic but raised Protestant and at least nominally sided with Elizabeth, but still, he could have been the next logical choice. I guess that might not have been acceptable to the Pope though. It is entirely possible that Philip would have chosen himself or another Habsburg; if France didn't like it, so what? Also, as for what would have happened to Elizabeth, she had already been excommunicated and declared a heretic by the papal bull Regnans in Excelsis, so definitely she would have been tried as a heretic. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

In any case it's not clear France was in a position to do much about it: see Day of the Barricades for an account of what was going on in Paris around that time. Looie496 (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Philip Howard, 20th Earl of Arundel? His father was a cousin of Elizabeth and had been considered as a potential husband to Mary Queen of Scots, but he was executed by Elizabeth for plotting against her. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Not my area of expertise, but is it possible 10-year-old Lady Arbella Stuart would have been the highest-ranking Catholic in the chain of succession? That would have allowed Phillip to install whoever he wanted as regent and de facto ruler. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

From what I've read of Philip's character and the way the Habsburgs tried to control their empire at the time, I don't think he would have looked beyond his mirror. --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Harry Turtledove, usually good with his research..." I can't take this assertion seriously, nor any conclusion based on Turtledove's works. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Of course he writes (mostly) alternate history, but he has a Ph.D. in history from UCLA, and the base history for his alternates seems unusually sound. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Black Swan

After watching that movie, I wonder, what percentage of the time does the same dancer perform both the roles of the White Swan and Black Swan in Swan Lake ? Also, do they ever appear on stage together ? (If so, I assume a stand-in is used for one or the other during those scenes.) StuRat (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Location of post office in Houston

Hi! I found: "Post Office™ Location - CIVIC CENTER 700 SMITH ST HOUSTON, TX 77002" But which building in Houston is it in? I haven't physically visited the area, and I can't tell which building it is in based on internet searches. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The courthouse building on the West corner, per Google Maps. 99.17.204.52 (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So the possibilities are the Bank of America Center and the federal courthouse building.. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You could always call them and ask... Their local phone number is listed on the USPS web site. Dismas|^(talk) 22:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There are also other USPS locations in downtown Huston within a 10 block radius. Astronaut (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Global Economic Crisis

Probably the majority of the worlds countries now find themselves in debt to people. The debt is reaching unsustainable levels and is for some countries looking to result in sovereign bankruptcy, currency devaluation and general loss of quality of life for the countries citizens. My question is with all this debt, who is the person giving it out and does the money really exist, or is it just numbers on a computer screen. Why can't the powers that be just right off every countries debt and say "we're gonna start from scratch". Also what would happen if every country that was in debt all collectively decided to default on their payments. I mean the creditors can't force them to pay can they, because the debtors outnumber them significantly, I'd imagine. --Thanks, Hadseys 23:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Individuals, corporations, and China hold much of the debt. They certainly can default, and it might be a good thing in the long run, if nobody will loan them money to engage in reckless spending any more. However, it would cause a considerable economic crisis in the short term. StuRat (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The extent to which China owns US debt is often implied to be more than it is. They own less than $1 trillion, and just a little more than Japan.[11] 99.17.204.52 (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hadseys, Do you, or does someone in your family, have a pension fund? What about a unit trust or mutual fund? Odds are, that if you do, you hold some of that debt and would be among the people who would not be paid in the event of a default. This would also apply to most financial institutions, and so they would then have trouble paying out deposits or making loans. In the end, the resulting crisis would be the worst one in recent history. Not good. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Should Congressio​nal paychecks be stopped if Debt Crisis in Washington​ DC is unresolved​, effective August 1, 2011?

How can the American Public demand that Congressioal Paychecks be stopped until the Debt Crisis in Washinton DC is solved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 001Gberg (talk • contribs) 23:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What the American people can demand is that the rich refund all of the funds they received from the tax cuts, tax breaks and tax loopholes they were granted since the Clinton administration. These guys are worse than priests who have sex with children. DeeperQA (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC) |}

Yes. Edison (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No? Pascal yuiop (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

To someone unfamiliar with the workings of American government finances, a more genuine, informational question is... Can or will such paychecks be stopped? I'm guessing the answer is no, but would like confirmation please.

I assume that you would want them to keep working after their paychecks get stopped, and that's slavery. So no. Just like any other job, they have to be paid. The level of pay can be changed, but not by an average joe. I suppose there's a committee. Pascal yuiop (talk) 06:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That might be a false assumption. Some in the US (Libertarians, anarchists, taxation opponents, Idaho militias, diehard Confederates) would expect an improvement in life in the US and in the world in general if the US Congress went home and stayed there, with their paychecks and pensions stopped. There would be problems when it came time to swear in the next President and confirm his cabinet, or confirm federal judges. There could be recess appointments until the present Presidential term expired, then I expect the Executive department would wither. Of course the last couple of years under the Articles of Confederation, Congress rarely had a quorum. Those Congress member served mostly from a sense of duty and for the honor of the thing, so volunteer congressmen (or corporate sponsored ones, as is effectively the present case) could serve. State governments could do their thing. Perhaps various programs would expire when their funding bills ran out, or they might be able to continue with the same level of funding. Do funding bills for the FAA, the FBI, the NIH etc only fund a definite period, or do they leave funding indefinitely at the last budgeted level?Edison (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Congress itself would have to sign off on a bill which is unlikely as Obama vetoing it since according to him and many others Congress is not working. -- DeeperQA (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleting the hat because I'm going to try to answer the question narrowly. How can you demand that Congress do something? Well, you can call your local representative and senators' offices and say so. You won't get him or her on the phone, but their offices often tally up calls for and against proposals from constituents. You can also write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper, call a talk-radio show or go to Washington and hang out outside the Capitol with a sign stating your point of view in a few words. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The nice thing about doing those things is they will distract you from the realization that you don't matter. Unless you are a large corporation who can fund the representative's re-election campaign, you'd be more effective complaining to a wall. Or bitching at a bunch of random strangers on teh interwebz. Don't ever be under the illusion that the "voters" have the ability to influence legislation. Protest if you like because it makes you feel better, but don't expect anything to come of it. --Jayron32 23:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's the cynical angle. The reality is members of Congress do (sometimes) consider how their constituents feel about an issue, and if enough of them write or call about it, it may very well influence his or her decision. Certainly there are many times when lawmakers float a policy and retract it after a lot of people get ticked off about it. It's true that you alone probably can't do anything, but if enough people do, it may make a difference. (Especially on an issue like this where there really are no monied interests involved except the members of Congress themselves.) Think about it: Why did Congress vote to deny itself a pay raise in 2009? It can't be because there was some big lobby that really cared about it, because the amount of money involved is less than a millionth of the federal budget. They did it because they thought it would anger voters if they were to take a pay hike when the economy was in shambles. And how do they know it angers voters? Because people complain about it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Especially if those people are employees of a corporation who writes a big check to a re-election campaign. Those people get to influence legislation without even knowing it! --Jayron32 00:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Corporations can't directly fund official campaigns, and big corporate PACs don't give a damn about something as minuscule as $3,000 congressional pay increases. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I did the math, and a $3,000 pay increase for members of the House of Representatives equals what the government spends in two seconds. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

(pre EC response to first point) Operative words in your statement are directly and official, which allow loopholes large enough to drive giant armored trucks full of cash through. And because corporations and their PACs don't give a damn about congressional pay, the elected representatives can enact such measures with impugnity (though they have to wait until their next election to begin collecting their self-given payraises). (post EC response to second point). Well, that's kinda moot. I wasn't commenting on just this one legislation, just legislation in general. I was just trying to correct the misconception that members of congress pass legislation (or don't pass it) based on the opinions of voters in general terms. Of course, there are some rather insignificant, minor, and unimportant things that go on in Congress which the "voters" occasionally have some influence with. But I wouldn't count on the big stuff, where most of the money gets spent, or industries get regulated, or anything like that, to be responsive to input by voters. Yeah, they throw the voters a bone once in a while to they can pretend they care. --Jayron32 00:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever worked in a legislator's office? I think your cynicism is a bit over-the-top. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It is very difficult not to be cynical and to attempt to follow politics in America for any significant length of time or in any real depth. For people that bury their heads in the sand and then poke them out every four years to vote for whichever slate of candidates hold the same opinion of gay marriage as they do; for those people it may be easier to have faith that one's elected representatives act in the rational interest of the nation and of their constituents. For people that pay close attention to what American politicans do as much as possible, it is difficult to see any general trends in that direction. --Jayron32 05:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I have worked in a legislative office and around legislators in various capacities and I can tell you that you have a very simplistic notion of how government works, no offense. There certainly is corruption and big-money influence, but to say that legislators never care about what their constituents think or what they think is best for their area is way off. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well then, I defer to your superior knowledge and personal experience in this matter. It's clear that you have every reason to know more than I do; it would have been nice if you had corrected my errors earlier since it wouldn't have let me look as much like an asshole. I do trust your experience, and if you say that the government is more on the up-and-up than I make it out to be above, I trust you on that. It's heartening that you had a positive experience working with legislators, and I'm glad to here that there are trustworthy people working in the government. It's too bad that those well-meaning legislators can't work through the budget mess. They seem to be spending a lot of time campaigning for the next election, and not enough time working out a workable budget. It's perhaps my frustration with seeing that sort of behavior more than anything that led to my hyperbole above. --Jayron32 06:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Question: as I understand it, assuming no legislative action, Obama is left with two pieces of inconsistent legislation: one, budgeting many expenditures - such as Congressional salaries - and the other forbidding that any more debt be accrued. In the case of genuinely inconsistent law, wouldn't he have the right to decide which items to cut at his own discretion - such as those Congressional salaries? Wnt (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

July 27

A question about religion

Hi there everyone. I just have a quick question. See, I believe that there is a God, and that he created the universe, but he didn't create everything else. I believe He created the universe and the universe in turn created the Sun and the stars and the planets and eventually us. Is there a "taxonomic" term used for this? Any answer would be appreciated. 64.229.153.236 (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Though not exactly the same concept, our article on Deism may help. A Deist seems to believe in a Creator, but not a Meddler... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

See more specifically Theistic evolution, which isn't just refering to biological evolution specifically, but combines the notions of a creator God with the idea that the universe is a changing, evolving place. --Jayron32 02:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't the universe contain the sun, the stars, the planets? I don't understand the question. Indeed the sun, the stars, the planets had a point of inception. At Universe I find: "The universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists…" Bus stop (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he created a huge pile of raw material and enough space for it to fit into, gave it a push, and left it all to its own devices. But that raises the question: what was there before the space was created (which to me is an even more interesting question than what there was before the raw material was created). -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

@Bus stop: Sorry, I'll make myself clearer: I was just wondering if there's any specific religion or theory that states that God created the universe, but didn't actually create the stars and the planets personally, as if the universe made its own course using chemical reactions, etc. 64.229.153.236 (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, sorry, by "created the universe" I mean he "started" the big bang. Sorry for any confusion. 64.229.153.236 (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

64.229.153.236—when I say I don't understand your question I mean that I cannot accept what I see as a discontinuity of events that I think you are positing. God, having initiated the universe in any way, becomes the initiator of all sub-events, by my reasoning. To my reasoning, once you say that God initiated reality, you are saying that God micromanages reality. I think you may be right that there exist theories of religion that further break down reality into that which is or was managed by God and that which is outside of God's aegis. To my way of thinking, one either accepts a theory of God in which God is and was involved in everything, or one rejects the notion of "God" altogether. Bus stop (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

But in a nondeterministic universe, setting the initial conditions certainly does not constitute micromanagement, and even in a deterministic universe, a nonomniscient creator isn't intentionally controlling the fine details of eventual outcomes. -- 203.82.93.98 (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC) (An atheist who sees where the OP is coming from.)

Maybe something at Unmoved mover or one of the many pages linked from there would be useful. Pfly (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes - there is the belief (allied with Deism, if not exactly the same thing, as I understand it) that a competant God would be quite capable of setting the necessary parameters, pressing 'Start', and then sitting back to se what happened...

"In the beginning was the Bang. And it Was Big..."

The great thing about this belief system is that not only is it unfalsifiable (most religions are), but that it tells you nothing whatsoever about God, other than that He/She/It isn't omniscient (otherwise why bother?), but is curious to learn about things, through scientific experiment. Now there's irony for you, if God turns out to be not only a scientist, but one who doesn't believe in miracles.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Try this... don't think about how God created the Universe but God's motive for doing so. You can think of space-time and mass-energy as His tools. --DeeperQA (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Motive, curiosity. These already suggest cause-and-effect. Isn't God supposed to be above such things? Pfly (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the few god concepts that could feasibly exist, but compared to the demonstrably false major world religions, it offers very little emotional comfort. Not only that, but by the very definition of the god you propose, he/she/it is beyond our detection and thus we can neither confirm nor deny its existence. Its the same with all gods, except most can be disregarded due to internal logical inconsistencies. Just don't fall into the trap of thinking that because a god could have created the universe, that that means Yahweh or Allah or aliens or His Majesty the Spaghetti Monster definitely exists. Pascal yuiop (talk) 05:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems hard to be curious if you are omniscient. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The theologian Baden Powell, an Anglican priest, saw god as essentially a lawgiver, who set in motion the physical laws of the universe and then confined himself to moral issues, not interfering in the physical world. DuncanHill (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Daoism may be of interest. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds very like the view of creation put forward by the author of the Kuzari. --Dweller (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A very relatable concept; I too believed this. You may be interested in Naturalistic pantheism. Schyler (one language) 19:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You might also look at Baruch Spinoza's beliefs. His God is a bit more present than a pure Deist's, but still non-interventionary. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Pfly got there before me. Aristotle philosophized the notion of the “unmoved mover,” which is that which gave the universe its first motion. Call it God, if you wish; he did not. The idea is that there was just one nudge that started the process of what we now call the Big Bang and evolution, and after that the “mover” retired. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Economic simulation digital computer model

There use to be an economic simulation model it seems at Leeds University that was online back in the '80s that allowed the user to select various parameters such as percent tax and percent interest in order to model the British economy. Is that simulator still online and if not is there another one somewhere else? --DeeperQA (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about this particular simulation, but we have an article on an earlier attempt to model the British economy here: MONIAC Computer, it worked through hydraulics. Apparently it always tended to leak, and nobody could get it to function properly, so evidently it was entirely accurate... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I meant specifically. --DeeperQA (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

USS Constitution

Why is such an obsolete ship as the USS Constitution still in service? Shouldn't it have been broken up for scrap over a century ago? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 15:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The Answer is in the third paragraph of the article: "Constitution's mission today is to promote understanding of the Navy’s role in war and peace through educational outreach, historic demonstration, and active participation in public events." Most large navies keep one or two historical ships, often sail-powered, for ceremonial and public affairs purposes. The Constitution is now basically a floating museum that promotes the US Navy. There's no thought of ever using it again for military purposes. --Xuxl (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

To simplify Xuxl's response, see the article marketing and come back if you have any questions. --Jayron32 16:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

To further underline Xuxl's point, yesterday I happened to cross Portsmouth Harbour (Why? To get to the other side, of course!) by the Gosport Ferry, and as always could see the masts and rigging of HMS Victory and passed close by HMS Warrior. Note also our article Museum ship. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.97 (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A number of Coast Guards and Navy keep sailing ships to train their officers on. Probably more as a team building type of excercise. Rmhermen (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not just for the sake of marketing and such either. There's a morale component as well. I've toured the Constitution and took a moment to chat with the crew aboard her. Some of them have a genuine interest in history and seeing her sail. Dismas|^(talk) 22:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you break up a wooden ship for scrap? Wouldn't it be breaking it up for firewood? 88.8.79.148 (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be hard work for most of us, but allegedly the "harpies of the shore," whoever they are, would find it easy to tear down the tattered ensign, and then pluck apart the "eagle of the sea," as some term the wooden ship in question. Plucking apart sounds like harder work than breaking up, even though breaking up is hard to do. Actually, the Secretary of the Navy in 1830 proposed breaking up the future tourist attraction and national symbol. Similarly, in the second half of the 19th century there was consideration of tearing down the obsolete White House, or converting it to government offices, while building a more modern Presidential palace. If something makes it past the point where it is merely old fashioned and inefficient, and becomes a landmark, or national treasure, then the cost of maintaining it ceases to have much meaning. Edison (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you break up a wooden ship for scrap? Yes: "The availability of wooden vessels for breaking was therefore at its height during the second half of the nineteenth century and it would have been apparent to the astute businessman that the rapid developments taking place would create an abundant supply of seasoned timber for recycling purposes."

Why do women like men?

Not a question that I am joking about. To me, females are always neat, clean, composed of thought, smooth skinned, anatomically as well as beautiful facially compared to men.

I just don't understand why women would like men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.243.39 (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The world is a highly diverse place, and you will find a full continuum of every possible personality type among both genders. You cannot reliably make sweeping, inaccurate generalizations and then ask "why". I could say "Why do pigs fly?" If they don't, in fact, fly, there is no point in answering it. Likewise, your question presupposes something which is so totally wrong and inaccurate, the idea that all women can be pigeonholed into a specific personality, and likewise with men, that I see absolutely no need to attempt to answer it directly. --Jayron32 16:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't like all men, only nice men. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Nor do we all like men... --TammyMoet (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I was defining "like" broadly. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

In short most women are attracted to a different set of features. In a species that engages in sexual reproduction, it is biologically necessary (with a few exceptions for unusual matting habits) for both genders of a species to be drawn to each other (at least when reproduction is possible). In humans it follows that most males are attracted to characteristics that they perceive as feminine and for most females to be attracted to perceived masculine characteristics. The extent to which these features are culturally or biologically determined is difficult to understand. There are a variety of articles you may want to take a look at to help understand attraction: Physical Attractiveness, Pair bonding and for fun, the Sexy son hypothesis. --Daniel 17:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It may be counterintuitive but for some baffling reason some women are attracted to some men. It could be a fluke of nature. I have a hunch women like the fact that men find them attractive, but that's just a tenuously-grounded hypothesis. Bus stop (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

But looking at guys, I find it hard to believe that anyone could find males attractive. We're so funny-looking compared to women. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Your perspective doesn't matter, if you are male. Genders are meant to like each other, otherwise, through evolution something would get pretty screwed. Both gender evolved to like each other. 88.8.79.148 (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

But looking at cute guys, I find them far more attractive than women. (And I am male). I find it hard to believe that anyone would not find them attractive, Mwalcoff. They are so muscular/sexy/handsome even compared to the best looking women! ---Lgriot (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Evolution is a short, but unsatisfying answer. But there you have it: women liking men seems to be a pattern that has been reinforced, because it leads to viable offspring, which maintain the species, etc. The internal mental quality of this 'like' is ineffable to outsiders. From my perspective, there is nothing human-specific about this question. How is it different than 'Why do peahens like peacocks?' See sexual selection and sexual dimorphism for starters. Also, keep in mind that, though we sometimes speak of 'traits of men' and 'traits of women', these are often heavily influence by culture; they are not supported by biological science (except the small set of features that are biological, such as the claim 'males have XY chromosomes' (and even that statement is problematic to some...) ). SemanticMantis (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There was speculation a few years back that a gene which causes women to be attracted to more masculine men was a cause of homosexual attraction in men who inherit it. μηδείς (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

But what about gay men who are attracted to more feminine men? Pais (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought that the traditional answer is that men give women money, pay to take them out on dates, provide them with a home, support them financially, pay to raise their kids, etc. Men earn, women spend. If any woman would like to go out to work to support me while I stay at home watching daytime tv and painting my nails, please let me know. 92.29.124.70 (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

How to learn more about classical music

I'm a lawyer currently dating a musician (pianist/composer/aspiring film scorer) and would like to learn more about classical music. I'm not really an idiot about it - I played classical piano for ten years growing up (more modern-era than classical-era, but "classical" as in not jazz etc) - but I have never really listened to symphonic music much and have big gaps in my music knowledge. I'd like to learn more but I'm not sure of the best way to go about it. Is there an engaging book on the history of music you would recommend? This one at Amazon looks promising. Even with that though I think it would be really limited in terms of listening. I guess I could go to youtube and pull up representative clips as I read, but that seems like a big hassle. Is there a series of documentaries like Burns' jazz documentary that would give me a good introduction? Interactive resources? Any other ideas? Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yale University offers the course MUSI 112 Listening to Music by Craig M. Wright as a free course (audio, video, and transcript) here. If you follow this along with the companion book, you should be able to learn a lot. I also enjoyed Leonard Bernstein's Young People's Concerts, some of which are out on DVD. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That online course looks really promising, thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

In my senior year in high school (before I went to university where I dropped my Music Composition Major) I read Music, The Brain, And Ecstasy. Even without the basis on music, it was one of the best books I've ever read. Very well written and suited for any person, regardless of his or her musical training. I would also suggest looking at the articles contained in Template:History of European art music. You could maybe even memorize the order and the placement of "big names," i.e. Bach: Baroque; Mozart: Classical; Beethoven: Romantic, ad infinitum. Schyler (one language) 19:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There have been several similar queries previously here. I don't know whether reading the threads would be of any help. Deor (talk) 11:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You could just find a stream/station that you like, and whenever a particularly good piece comes on, you could look up the composer's wiki article, or the piece in particular -- it may have one if it's really popular. Vranak (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Duas for Ramadhan

Someone told me that during the holy month of Ramadhan, there are three duas for each week like the second week of Ramadhan is seeking forgiveness? Sorry if my question is not understandable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.195 (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Statistics and discrimination

Suppose that a company chooses mainly people from college X, and that college X has a tendency to attract a certain kind of people (depending on their race, economical background or whatever). At the end, this company would have hired proportionally many graduates of certain social groups, even if not discriminating directly. Could this company be accused of discrimination due to this statistical effect? Quest09 (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

They are discriminating directly. How do you know they aren't choosing college X because it only attracts the sort of people it wants to hire? Your description of events sounds like Willful blindness, that is to deliberately arrange events so as to establish Plausible deniability in the event someone calls you to the floor for the results of your actions "See, we're not discriminating against women, we just hire from colleges that are 90% male!" People and companies have a responsibility to ensure that the outcomes of their actions are just and fair; anyone can come up with excuses after the fact as to why their actions didn't produce fair results. Good people have the foresight and responsibility to ensure that fair results are produced always. --Jayron32 21:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Under British law, that would constitute "indirect discrimination", which is illegal. --Tango (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There's certainly nothing illegal in the U.S. about favoring graduates of a certain college in hiring. It's not uncommon for people to get jobs because they went to the alma mater of the guy doing the hiring, like the guy who competed with Homer Simpson for the nuclear plant job in a flashback episode. However, if your office is in downtown Detroit and your staff includes 100 white people and no blacks, it won't look good to the EEOC if someone does accuse you of discrimination. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This question reminds me of a big ruckus that was raised a few years back when a newspaper pointed out that the local baseball team was the whitest in the league. It turns out the relative lack of Hispanic players was because the team preferred to sign college players over teenagers, and few Dominican prospects go to U.S. colleges. The ruckus was mainly directed at the newspaper for even bringing it up. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that it's always discrimination. If a company hires mainly mechanical engineers, it will be hiring mainly men, and it doesn't matter from where it takes the candidates. On a further note, I don't know if a company has to keep a balance among people from certain social groups. That would be mostly a form of positive discrimination. Anyway, AFAIK, unless the company admits the discrimination explicitly (at least in some internal report) in most cases the law maker will let them go away with it. 88.8.79.148 (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There are no government-mandated minority quotas in the private sector, generally, but having an unusual lack of women or blacks or whatever could be used as evidence -- along with other stuff -- by a plaintiff or complainant trying to make a case that your company discriminated against that person. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Except it doesn't always work like that in the real world. For example, chemists and chemical engineers are still overwhelmingly male in the UK, especially as you go higher up the ladder. However, Loreal got in trouble with gender discrimination laws in the EU because their research and development team, made up mostly of chemists and chemical engineers, was overwhelmingly female. In fact, the whole company was overwhelmingly female, from scientists to engineers to testers to managers, etc. They had to put a positive effort in to recruit men, to avoid being fined. So, despite the gender balance of the overall pool of chemists and chemical engineers, the company was attracting and recruiting almost entirely women. And then had to work to recruit men.

Anyone who's worked in industry knows that there are companies that certain groups can feel comfortable applying to and working for, and others where you are just never going to feel comfortable and will have to fight for every inch. Some people are happy being trailblazers: most people want to work somewhere that they can feel welcome and safe. And people pursue education based on the sort of jobs they think people like them can get and enjoy. Some companies reach out to teenagers by showing them possible careers in science and engineering.

And, on a smaller scale, in my year, at my university, in my engineering discipline, there was a good proportion of women. This was not the case at other universities, or in the years above us, or in the other engineering disciplines. Our department had done something in its promotions, and in its open days, to make us feel this was a good choice for us, so we picked that university. There were lots of little factors, but I think it helped that they included female students in the teams of students that showed us around, even though they were a low percent of the total student body, and we saw female teaching and research staff, even though (again) they were a low percent of the total. They were visible, so we could see they were there and mattered. There were lots of other little things that they did that made it feel a safe and exciting option, all of which really showed that they were getting something deeper right. So, we voted with our feet and clustered there.

So, actually, if your company is only or overwhelmingly diaproportionately recruiting men, or white people, or the able bodied, you probably are doing something wrong without knowing it. As a result, you're only recruiting the people who want to work somewhere that gives off such a hostile message to other groups. Some places have legislation against that: others just let such groups wither away. 86.164.73.187 (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

time

I am not much more then old school education, thus not real smart, Who decided to start the anno dominon calendar? Also before that time, what year was it really. I,m sure the people ten years before did not know about B.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.74.206.14 (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Our article on Anno domini says it was all started in 525 by Dionysius Exiguus. Hope this helps. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And before that, and for quite a long time after that, since the Anno Domini system didn't catch on for a few hundred years, there were other ways of measuring time. In the Roman Empire they often used Ab urbe condita, from the foundation of the city of Rome (assumed to be 753 BC), or dated the year by the names of that year's consuls. An early Christian system was anno mundi, from the creation of the world (I think that was 5509 BC, at least according to the measurement used by the Byzantine Empire). People also often used a more recent date like the beginning of the rule of a pope or a king (in which case the date would be given as "in the fifth year of X's papacy", for example). Adam Bishop (talk) 06:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

We English folks like to give the credit to the Venerable Bede; "Although Bede did not invent this (AD) method, his adoption of it, and his promulgation of it in De Temporum Ratione, his work on chronology, is the main reason why it is now so widely used". Alansplodge (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

His adoption of it and his promulgation of it? That's two reasons. Shouldn't that 'is' be an 'are'? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ethics with Mac and Virtualbox computing

To do some high school bioinformatics research project, we plan to make an iPhone app relative to our research. We need a Mac to create apps for the iPhone; if we just use Flash, we are limited in what we can program. However, being the computer specialist he is, he says he can obtain the Mac OS online, which Apple purposely released. We would put it into the VirtualBox, which would run the program on our computer in one window, and we could practically use a Mac on a Windows 7 computer. Would the scientific community frown on this? What are your thoughts on the ethics? Thanks for your input! --DSbanker (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It's almost certainly illegal, and the scientific community almost certainly wouldn't give a hoot. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If he's acquiring Mac OS online, he's almost certainly pirating it. (Unless he's "obtaining" it by ordering a copy from Amazon.com, or something).

The legality of using MacOS on a computer that is not Mac-branded is disputed. It is against Apple's terms of service, but there's a good deal of debate as to how much legal weight that carries. It probably depends on which nation you live in, and I don't think it's ever been tested in court, anyway. (See : Hackintosh )

But I agree with Stephan that the scientific community won't care too much. Especially if you're using a paid copy of the OS and not one you just nabbed from The Pirate Bay or something. APL (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Apple disclosed it publicly here. --DSbanker (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed your link. Hope you don't mind. Dismas|^(talk) 22:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!--DSbanker (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No they didn't. They used Open source componants when making the operating system. And they're forced to release their version of the source for those packages. (And they've done so, at the link you provided.)

But there's not enough there to make a working MacOS computer. You need the entire package for that. You need to buy that.

This seems to be a common misconception. I'm not sure why. APL (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You might also have a problem with Flash on an iPhone. See iPhone#Internet connectivity (ref). Astronaut (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe you're mistaken for most of 'And they're forced to release their version of the source for those packages.' Some of it is GPL which they are indeed forced to release. Some of it may be other licences which they are forced to release. However most of it is Apple Public Source License only, which was clearly not something many developers were using and while some licences may require release but allow it to be released as APSL only I don't think there are any common ones. Note that while they did use BSD code, they are/were not required to release the source code since it is not a copyleft licence. And although their stated reason for APSL is to give back to the community, I doubt BSD (or other permissive licence) advocates found what they released under APSL particularly useful since it's partially copyleft and BSD advocates generally dislike copyleft more then Microsoft does (who afterall now have such a licence themselves), although perhaps they find it marginally better then what Microsoft have done, who have also used some BSD code but not generally released much source code back under any open licence. That may be partially why OpenDarwin was so unsuccessful it died a lonely death and PureDarwin is I don't think having much more success. I believe Apple did release some code under a BSD licence at one stage. Nil Einne (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

July 28

Morphological taxonomy of jokes

When you search online for a "joke database", what you find are relatively brief, haphazard lists of entries, in no particular order, organized (if you're lucky) according to broad thematic categories like "Irish" or "mother-in-law" which are usually irrelevant and inessential to the underlying humor. Folklorists have long organized stories into systematic taxonomies, according to shared features, motifs, etc. As a result, when you wish to look up a fairy tale, there's a straightforward way to do it. Why has the same sort of rigor never been applied to cataloguing jokes? LANTZY^TALK 01:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it's impossible? As our Joke article implies, there is only one joke: that the universe always turns out to be different from what we expect it to be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Jokes are shorter in length. Their meaning is somewhat cryptic. You are pointing out above that "Irish" or "mother-in-law" as an organizing principle are "usually irrelevant and inessential to the underlying humor." Perhaps this disagreement as to their essential meaning frustrates "cataloguing" jokes. Bus stop (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There are people who study jokes in the same way that folklorists study tales; I'm not sure they've put their categorizations online, though. Google books turns up The Linguistic Analysis of Jokes which goes into some detail in providing a rigorous framework for talking about joke structure. There are lots of other things that come up when you Google Books search for "joke taxonomy" which implies there is a rather rich literature on jokes. It just might not be online. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here is a breakdown of jokes by broad type (pun, practical joke, ethnic jokes, etc.) This page breaks down jokes into 7 types (page down about 2/3rds through the blog post) and also quotes a Scott Adams treatment of the subject as well. Here is an actual scholarly article breaking down jokes taxonomically as Lantzy requested. Here is an essay classifying jokes by their structure. I typed "Types of jokes" into Google and got bored after the second page. I'm sure anyone else could do that too.... --Jayron32 02:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be that you need multiple dimensions to classifying jokes. For example, a pun or slapstick could both be clean or both be blue. You might also want to grade them on difficulty to understand. Then there's the subject matter, like bosses, for example. StuRat (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that one could sort jokes in any way that suits one's fancy, as long as there is an underlying logic—an organizing principle. Bus stop (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

But that is the point: there is no ″organizing principle″ to jokes, other than that they fit into the category 'joke', as opposed to the category 'not-joke'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you even think to read some of the references supplied above before commenting, or is this itself an attempt at a joke? --Jayron32 02:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I did. None of them give any real indication of how you distinguish a 'joke' from a 'non-joke' as far as I can see, so they can be of little use for sub-categorisation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that distinguishing jokes from non-jokes isn't the issue here: as far as I can see, the issue is distinguishing some jokes from other jokes by identifying characteristics found throughout the first group but not at all in the second. Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Why would you have a "non-joke" in a taxonomy of jokes? APL (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Just as a joke someone might throw in one non-joke in a taxonomy of jokes. Bus stop (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but unless there is some means of separating 'jokes' from 'non-jokes', a taxonomy makes no sense. To quote from our taxonomy article: "Mathematically, a hierarchical taxonomy is a tree structure of classifications for a given set of objects. It is also named Containment hierarchy. At the top of this structure is a single classification, the root node, that applies to all objects". Until one can define the root ('Joke'), one cannot make further distinctions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. We subdivide "information" many ways, but information scientists have never come up with a conclusive definition of "information" or a bright line to separate what is "information" from what is not "information". Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

...As anyone who has ever had a debate with Bus stop will understand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

My apologies to Andy for my impeccable logic on those rare occasions we've disagreed… Bus stop (talk) 10:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but perhaps one could be both joke and not-joke at the same time. Like "AndyTheGrump is a joke" insofar as AndyTheGrump is worthy of ridicule. However, since jokes are by definition a form of humor, and AndyTheGrump has no sense of humor, AndyTheGrump is also a not-joke. Thus, simultaneously a joke and not-joke at the same time... --Jayron32 04:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

We have a several articles on the classification and categorisation of humour - see Category:Humor research. A classic work is Freud's The Joke and Its Relation to the Unconscious. There is even an International Society for Humor Studies. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Another interesting article is In-joke as well as Category:In-jokes. Bus stop (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The book you need is Rationale of the Dirty Joke by Gershon Legman (and, with luck, the second book titled, No Laughing Matter, which is currently out of print (iirc). I do not doubt that it is the most thorough and scholarly (and heavy!) attempt at cataloguing jokes. Rather than developing an entirely new schema, Legman mostly makes use of the existing folkloric schemes to do the cataloguing. The one drawback to the volume(s) is that Legman was a capital "F" Freudian, so a lot of his analysis consists of strained attempts to link jokes to "penis envy", "the Oedipal complex" and other stuff you think about when you think of a stereotypical Freudian psychologist. I believe he mostly uses the Aarne system. Matt Deres (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine. I'll accept that is possible to compile a taxonomy of jokes. In fact, it is probably possible to compile many different taxonomies of jokes. Which then leads to the obvious question. How does one determine that one such taxonomy is any better than any other? How does one ascertain that any particular taxonomy isn't arbitrary? A taxonomy may be useful for the purposes of understanding the thought processes of the compiler, but I can see no way to determine if it has any particular relation to the subject matter. Still, taxoniomies can be fun, even if they are useless (and being fun is itself 'useful', presumably): I think we should leave the last word to Jorge Luis Borges, who revealed the Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge's Taxonomy, a list which divides animals into:

• Those that belong to the emperor
• Embalmed ones
• Those that are trained
• Suckling pigs
• Mermaids (or Sirens)
• Fabulous ones
• Stray dogs
• Those that are included in this classification
• Those that tremble as if they were mad
• Innumerable ones
• Those drawn with a very fine Brush
• Et cetera
• Those that have just broken the flower vase
• Those that, at a distance, resemble flies

AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

All taxonomies are abitrary. They are not always useful. Like you: arbitrarily not useful in answering the question for the OP. However, merely because you choose to reference an unuseful taxonomy doesn't mean that all taxonomies aren't useful. Like you again: Just because you as a single example of someone answering this question doesn't provide a useful answer doesn't mean that, by extension, no person could answer the OP's question. Likewise, providing examples of bad taxonomies doesn't in itself deny the possibility of constructing a useful taxonomy. --Jayron32 14:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming that the taxonomy of jokes would be a "natural" category, e.g. one that presents itself as being made by nature itself. (Species, for example, might be a natural category, but that's debatable.) That doesn't mean having a taxonomy can't be useful. The first Linnean taxonomy for plants was totally self-consciously arbitrary, but it served the purpose of letting people in different places figure out a good way to tell each other, "hey, we have the same plant over here, but we call it XYZ rather than ZYX." Which aside from being really cool is also the first step in making any kind of systematic study. Saying "it can't be categorized at all" is just false, false, false. You can categorize anything. Whether the categorization is useful is generally the most important question. I see no reason to assume you can't make a useful categorization of jokes. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The most natural categorization of jokes would involve two basic categories: funny and not funny. The former then could be divided into subcategories such as: mildly funny, quite funny, very funny, hilarious... — Kpalion^(talk) 05:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Citing the Federal Reporter

I'd like to cite a ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana from the Federal Reporter, a publication of which I'd never heard until looking around at http://ftp.resource.org, the source for the document. Since the text is also available from Lexis-Nexis, I tried getting a citation from there, but it would only export in a format that my computer can't accept. However, it did tell me that the opinion went from page 1112 to page 1117. Do I guess rightly that it would be <999 F.2d 1112-1117>? Nyttend (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Full citation including title (which can be omitted if given in text), and assuming no subsequent history (e.g., affirmed or reversed on appeal), would be United States v. Gerber, 999 F.2d 1112 (7th Cir. 1993). John M Baker (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

And if you want to cite a certain page number (for a quote or a proposition of law), you'd say United States v. Gerber, 999 F.2d 1112, __ (7th Cir. 1993). [Filling in the blank with the page number.] Though the pagination of that version of the document is strange - don't know what was going on there. There is no subsequent history, so don't worry about that. (The Supreme Court denied certiorari, but it's far enough out that you are not required to put it in the citation.) And by the way, the "publication" of the Federal Reporter mainly exists in a virtual sense these days - basically all legal research is done online so it functions more as a database identifier than anything else. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

ICJ Statute again (article 54)

Sorry for asking for helps about ICJ Statute again. Article 54 of the Statute prescribes:

"1. When, subject to the control of the Court, the agents, counsel, and advocates have completed their presentation of the case, the President shall declare the hearing closed.

"2. The Court shall withdraw to consider the judgment.

"3. The deliberations of the Court shall take place in private and remain secret. "

I don't understand that what shall be withdrawn by the Court or from what the Court shall withdraw? In procedural law, "withdrawal" is an act of removing certain pleading, such as motion, plaint, request etc., from consideration. Or does Article 54, paragraph 2, mean that the Court shall withdraw itself from everything in order to further make a judgment? Thank you so much. --Aristitleism (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely it just means that the Court (i.e. the relevant officials) move from a public space (the courtroom in which the case is publicly conducted) to a private one where their discussions cannot be overheard by anyone else? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.2 (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, one of the meanings for the verb "withdraw" given in a dictionary is to "retreat or retire", in this case to a private place of deliberation. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 12:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

And the ladies of the household used to withdraw to the (with)drawing room after dinner, leaving the gentlemen to port and cigars at the table. Bielle (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Withdraw is not a legal term. It means to change rooms.
Sleigh (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

special needs/developmental delays

which conditions cause excessive, difficult to control drooling and release of mucus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.10.10 (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Whichever ones your doctor tells you do. --Jayron32 14:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Reference Desk cannot provide medical advice. However, if you are just looking for general information, we have a articles on drooling and hypersalivation. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

"release of mucus" from where? --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Calomel is a poisonous mercury compound which 19th century medical doctors loved to dose their patients with as a quack treatment for anything from cancer or heart disease to infections to broken limbs. They would dose the patient in increasing amounts until they saw excessive, difficult to control drooling. It also caused teeth to fall out, besides general poisoning. This is not medical advice, just a link to one historical cause of excessive drooling. Edison (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

any condition that increases parasympathetic nervous system activity will result in increased salivary and mucous production. So the use of certain cholinergic drugs would have the effects you describe. - Nunh-huh 19:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't this debt crisis "solution" cause massive inflation?

Over at CNN in this article, the guy says one theoretical (though admittedly extremely unlikely) thing the president could do, seeing as there are laws limiting the amount of new paper money that can be created, is get the treasury to make a couple $1 trillion platinum coins, deposit them in the federal reserve, and write checks on them. Wouldn't that cause an inflation mess just like making the paper money? 20.137.18.50 (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a joke. There is no such thing as a law limiting money made from a thin cellulose substance but allowing unregulated production of money made from a metallic substance. Regardless, adding money to a system decreases the value of money in the system. It doesn't how or why you add money to the system. -- kainaw™ 17:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Not such a joke, if a Constitutional law professor is to be believed: http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/28/balkin.obama.options/Edison (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The "little known statute" is here in section k. Note that section k is bound by the previous sections - especially section a which states what denominations are allowed. Taking statutes out of context is a common law joke. -- kainaw™ 20:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

My favorite "law joke" made by taking statute out of context is the one that notes how the Constitution of the United States repeatedly says "Congress shall pass no law". Apparently, the current congress agrees. Blueboar (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Issuing a few trillion dollar platinum coins, or giving the Federal Reserve an "exploding option" or just announcing the debt ceiling law is unconstitutional are all on the table as tricks if Congress continues to be irresponsible. Having told Obama to spend money, now they refuse borrow to pay the bills. The 14th Amendment requires the government not to default on debt payments. Edison (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Creation of physical coins/bills would surely be pointless, since nowadays most money is only represented by electronic records - about 90% currently in the USA according to that linked article. Arbitrarily increasing the numbers in those records is a recognised economic tactic, described as Quantitative easing (and in part is intended to cause slightly higher inflation, which can be a good thing), but to my limited, non Usaian understanding doing this would be irrelevant to the current problem, which is the need to increase the US Government's arbitrary ceiling on its public debt. I leave it to more knowledgable responders to address the point properly. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.2 (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)-

Are you aware that Usaian is derogative? Is that your intention?Quest09 (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Wut? Assuming you mean 'derogatory', who considers it so, on what basis, where, and since when? It's a pretty handy short adjective for specifying something from the USA, rather than all Americans, when there is likely to be confusion. It is also sometimes used as a noun to describe people from the USA, in similar circumstances, although here it was simply an adjective clarifying that the writer was not speaking from the perspective of or from the USA. Words certainly can turn out to have unexpected derogatory meanings, but I struggle to see how this one could. 86.164.73.187 (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Quest09, I was not intending to be derogative, was not aware that anyone would consider the term derogative, and question whether that is true. I have seen it used both self-referentially by US citizens and by non-USA citizens on other sites where no offense was evidently intended or taken, and not infrequently refer to myself as an Ukian or Brit on these Desks and elsewhere. I have always interpreted all such usages as being informally friendly and useful alternatives to the more formal, longer and sometimes ambiguous alternatives. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.43 (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I live in USA and have never heard the slightest suggestion that "USAian" is "derogative". (Or even derogatory.) I know many USA nationals who use that term or other close variants regularly without any hint of hidden meaning. In fact, it's usually used in an attempt to be "Politically Correct" because, strictly speaking, "American" could include anybody living on either American continent. (This is especially true if you're speaking of non-humans. "American Plants", for example, need not grow in USA.)

Is this some right-wing anti-PC thing? Do you have a reference? APL (talk) 09:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I got it wrong, my fault, sorry. Indeed, I had a ref, but, as I know now, not a reliable one. See anyway USAian and USian for two cases of Internet research gone wrong.Quest09 (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't find it derogatory per se, but it does suggest a chip on the shoulder of the speaker. The only common meaning of American in English, in most contexts, is of or pertaining to the United States. In certain contexts, of or pertaining to the Americas is also available, but this meaning is clearly less common. Speakers who decline to use the word in the commonly understood way give the impression that they object to the language as it stands, and it seems likely that they do so because of some sort of animus towards the United States or its citizens. I'm sure that impression is not always correct, but in my experience it's a reasonably reliable inference in most cases. --Trovatore (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That's surely paranoia. A language pedant may be concerned about the common way residents of the USA use the language, but may like every other aspect (or at least many other aspects) of American life. To read inferred criticism of language usage as "some sort of animus towards the United States or its citizens" is hardly sensible. It always intrigues me that so many people from the country with the most power act so defensively. HiLo48 (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That is certainly possible, for an abstract hypothesized language pedant. It is not my experience that they are the most common people to talk like that. --Trovatore (talk) 02:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, In fairness, I've only seen it in typed, online writing, so it's popularity may have less to do with being a pedant, and more to do with saving a couple of characters. I like the pedant explanation better though. Especially when the term is not being used to describe humans. APL (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

O. J. Simpson case

I still don't get how the case end up that way. Was he actually a murderer? If he is then why the jury found no guilty. If he is not then who actually killed the 2 victims?Trongphu (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems useful to answer here in generalities: US law (and that of many other nations) operates on the basis of the presumption of innocence; the legal burden of proof rests on the prosecution and not the defendant. From there, the legal system (at least in the US) has only two real possibilities: conviction, where the court finds the defendant guilty, and acquittal, where the court does not find the defendant guilty. Note particularly that acquittal is not a statement that the court has positively found the defendant innocent: he is presumed such, not proven such. Note also that the court verdict need not reflect reality; it merely represents the finding that the legal system will use. So, back to specifics: Simpson was acquitted; therefore, in the eyes of the legal system, he is not a murderer. As there has been no conviction for those murders, the legal system does not know who the killer is. Personal beliefs and speculation vary widely. — Lomn 19:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The legal system does not know who the killer is beyond a reasonable doubt, but apparently does by a preponderance of the evidence, given that OJ lost the civil case. --Trovatore (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Right — it's worth remembering that there were two cases, but they had different standards of guilt based on the fact that one was a criminal case and one was a civil case. From a non-criminal court perspective, there is really no doubt that O.J. did it, something which the civil case verdict reaffirmed. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

O. J. Simpson murder case might be of interest. Albacore (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As i read the the whole case. The prosecutor has proven a lot of points that Simpson did it. How can he even be innocent?174.20.71.229 (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

He does not have to be innocent in order to be acquitted. The jurors themselves may have believed it was likely he was the murderer, but decided that there was reasonable doubt based on the information it received during the trial. O.J. even wrote a book, long after the trial, titled If I Did It which discusses how he would have committed the crime, without actually admitting to doing it. --Daniel 00:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Also bear in mind the trial lasted over 8 months. Whatever you read, I somewhat doubt you really read the whole case as represented in the 8 month trial. (The jury only spent 4 hours delibirating suggesting they were already fairly convinced the case hadn't been proven beyond resonable doubt, either that or they just wanted it to end.) Another thing if you read anything which wasn't part of the original case, whether because it was excluded, not available at the time or simply considered irrelevent, you also clearly aren't considering the whole case but stuff beyond the case which the jury did not (or should not) have considered. Nil Einne (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

There was plenty of evidence, if they took it at face value. They obviously thought the behavior of law enforcement was so suspicious, the chain of custody of physical evidence so sloppy (if not fraudulent), the testimony of some important law enforcement officers so hard to believe, that they didn't take it at face value, and as I recall I didn't think they were totally out of line on that point.

I remember one member of the public, interviewed later, saying "the police framed a guilty man". --Trovatore (talk) 02:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

On that point, one more thing to bear in mind is reading probably doesn't have the same effect as seeing a police officer say one thing and then being presented with evidence suggesting he lied/committed perjury. More so if you're already aware of some details of the case. In other words, even if you did read the complete jury transcript for the 8+ month trial, it probably wouldn't have the same effect as having been on the jury during the trial Nil Einne (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The verdict was a result of poor instruction upon and application of the principle of reasonable doubt, as well as of Ito's allowing an implied positive defense (drug dealers did it) without requiring entering evidence in support of that supposition. Given the full context of the evidence it was unreasonable to conclude anything but that Simpson was guilty of first degree murder. The fact that one could, with a fertile faculty for fantasy, imagine how each bit of evidence could have been faked is not reasonable doubt--it is imaginary doubt. The problem is epistemological, and widespread in the modern judicial system. μηδείς (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Juries (in the US at least) don't need a reason to acquit. A judge can overturn a conviction on the grounds that the standard of proof wasn't met, but can't overturn an acquittal on the grounds that it was met. It could easily be that all the jurors agreed that OJ's guilt had been proven, which meant they had to choose between (a) jailing a proven murderer (and tacitly approving the actions of the LAPD) or (b) reprimanding the LAPD (and letting a proven murderer loose). They might have decided that (b) was the more socially responsible choice. -- BenRG (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Which would be an example of jury nullification. (not commenting on whether this was the case, just providing a link for the original poster.)Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not nullification as I ordinarily understand it, which has to do with a jury refusing to convict because they don't agree with the law, or sometimes because they sympathize with the defendant's actions in the particular circumstances even if they don't want to overturn the law in general. It's related, though. --Trovatore (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like the US need a Not proven verdict, like the Scots. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Why? That's what our not guilty verdict is, really, so it seems redundant. What you could argue for is to allow juries to make a finding of factually innocent, in exceptional cases where it is clear that the defendant really did not do it. Extending the speculation a little further, such a verdict could then forclose the possibility of a civil suit on the same facts. But I don't think it would really work, because the rules of evidence are different in criminal cases, so a criminal jury could be misled into thinking there's nothing there when really some evidence had to be excluded. --Trovatore (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sulla

According to our article on Lucius Cornelius Sulla, he had a daughter I believed named Cornelia Fausta. Did she die young? Who might have sent Sulla a consolatory letter upon her death?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

She married the politician Titus Annius Milo, so she must have reached at least the teenage years (the average age for a Roman girl getting married was apparently 13 or 14). --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

In the article it is even stated that she married Milo in 54 BC, and Sulla died in 78 BC, which means she must have lived to at least 24 years of age, and was most likely some years older since she was daughter of the third wife of Sulla, and he had four wives in all. So no, she did not die young and she died decades after Sulla. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Anybody or nobody may have sent him a consolatory letter. Do we even know if the Romans had such a custom? Their ideas about death were quite different from ours - see Roman funerals and burial. They might have written an epitaph? Anyway, my reading of it is that if anyone would have done, it would likely have been a member of the family. --Dweller (talk) 10:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It was a major literary genre in Roman times, see Consolatio Literary Genre. Seneca particularly excelled in it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The OP asked about people sending letters, not making eulogies. I didn't know that this had developed into letter-sending... and if it did, is there any evidence it developed as early in Roman history as Sulla's time? --Dweller (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

From the article "...its origins date back to the fifth century BC" and it "...is a broad literary genre encompassing various forms of consolatory speeches, essays, poems, and personal letters". It is not a clearly definable genre though, since the public sphere and publication is not easy to delineate in Roman times, so personal letters and literary genre tend to overlap. But perhaps one can compare them in some ways with the modern condolence card (not the content, which of course is quite simple compared to the ancient examples, many of which reads like philosophical essays, but rather in the intent of the medium), which is both a personal message but can also be meant for a wider audience. For example it is quite clear that many personal letters, like the those of Cicero, Pliny the Younger, Horatius and Seneca was also meant for a wider audience, but that doesn't mean that they didn't also function as personal letters in their own right. As you can see from many of the examples mentioned in the article, there are also numerous examples of persons outside of the close family sending consolation letters to friends or relatives of friends (Seneca, Pliny, Ovid, Plutarch etc.). --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Buckingham palace

What do the 450 staff at Buckpal actually do? 92.24.133.177 (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This site should help you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

So they are all looking after the Royal Family? 92.24.133.177 (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

No. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the site above, there are 1,200 staff members (450 funded by UK taxpayers, who apparently have to vent their anger at the WK RD.)88.8.79.148 (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Some of my compatriots would be happier if visiting heads of state were taken to McDonalds for a Happy Meal. Alansplodge (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Are they all UK based? They seemed to be so forthright in their views that I always got the impression they weren't (I meant enough republicans here, none prepared to burn the palace down, so to speak). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, McDonalds, a hallowed British culinary institution. I'm sure Mrs Beeton would have recommended it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Take them down to the local takeaways for some Fish and chips? Nil Einne (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, what do the 1200 or 750 staff actually do? Seems rather a lot to look after one family, albeit extended. 92.29.113.104 (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Rather than persisting with asking random people here the same question, why not look at the site that gives you the answers? For example, "The Master of the Household’s Department... is responsible for all hospitality, catering and housekeeping arrangements for official and private entertaining at all the Royal residences. Whether it is a lunch for two or a banquet for 800, the Master of the Household’s Department organises everything, from the guest lists and seating plans to the preparation and service of the meal on the day...." Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That only accounts for 250 staff. What about the other 950, 500, or 200 people? 92.29.113.104 (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Largest component is security and facilities management. The estate is quite large and given the age needs a fair amount of quite manual work to keep it going. Other than that there is the usual element of running a business; finance, HR, commercial, ICT, admin.

From experience of a job I did with a client a couple of years ago that had some dealings with the household, they're woefully inefficient so there is some scope for rationalisation. Not as much as one might hope given the facilities management element.

Also worth noting that the facilities and security encompass the various other properties as well.

ALR (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

How do the staffing levels compare with up-market hotels? Which chains of hotels have similar numbers of staff? 92.29.113.104 (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

oldest website

What is the oldest website on the Internet? Neptunekh2 (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

See here (http://info.cern.ch/) "The first web page address was http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/TheProject.html, which centred on information regarding the WWW project." ny156uk (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Flashback

Hi. What are some classic books (novels, not plays) or short stories that handle flashbacks very well OR in an unexpected and remarkable way? I know this is an opinion-like uestion that you don't like having, but I just need some ideas to get myself going. :appreciation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.111.11.75 (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's a start at flashback. Bielle (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

TV Tropes has its characteristic cornucopia of examples at its main Flashback article. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 20:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Might I recommend The Sound and the Fury by Faulkner. Also Gravity's Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon. Both are written in a sort of "stream of consciousness" style and make use of flashbacks as part of that style. --Jayron32 06:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Use of Weapons by Iain M Banks uses an unusual chronological ordering to bring the story to it's climax. Astronaut (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

13th century Scotland

I was wondering what the months were called during the high middle ages in Scotland, around 1226. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by McHell8 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The Julian calendar was used throughout Europe in the middle ages. It had the same months as the current Gregorian calender but new year was at the end of March and there were no leap years. Some notes here about the pronunciation of months in the Scots language. Whether the spellings that they use are authentic, or relate to the Early Scots used in the 13th century, I'm not sure. Alansplodge (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There certainly are leap years in the Julian Calendar: slightly more (3/400 years) than in the Gregorian calendar, in fact. --ColinFine (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right; I was just reading my own link and realised that I'd got it wrong. Also new year was at the Annunciation on 25 March - Scotland moved new year to 1 January in 1600. Alansplodge (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Me again; Medieval Scottish Calendar and Holidays might also help. Alansplodge (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

July 29

Flag of Hawaii

Only referring to the version with an union jack. Is there a seven stripe flag of Hawaii? There is a nine and eight stripe version but I've never seen a seven stripe version and historical sources seems to say there was a seven, eight, and a nine stripe version.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What sources? I can only find reference, either on or off Wikipedia, to a nine and an eight striped version. --Jayron32 05:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Lord Byron in 1825 and Jarves (James Jackson Jarves?) in 1816.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Byron died in 1824; I doubt he spent much time in Hawaii after that, and probably didn't have much to say about the flag from his grave. James Jackson Jarves edited a newspaper in Hawaii, but he was born in 1818, so again, I don't think the little sperms living in his father's testes had a lot to say on the flag of Hawaii... Check again. --Jayron32 05:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The flag is made up of seven stripes, red, white, blue, red, white, blue, and red, signifying seven islands, and in the corner an English Jack. - Golovnin, October 1818: Press Pub Co. (1922), Paradise of the Pacific, vol. 35, retrieved 2011-07-29 ^Avic_ennasis @ 05:52, 27 Tamuz 5771 / 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Byron as in George Byron, 7th Baron Byron not the poet. This lists more observation by explorers all, with exception of one, before 1845 when the eight stripe version was adopted by Kamehameha III.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, based on those sources; especially with the one that Avicennasis has as well, you should be able to fix the article to indicate that a seven-stripe variety was in effect. --Jayron32 05:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, KAVEBEAR, you did just refactored your original comment about Byron above. You had originally written "Lord Byron", and when I checked the dates for Lord Byron, you can see why it led to my confusion. Now that you've altered your original comment that I responded to, it makes me look like an idiot... not that I don't do enough of that on my own. I just don't need any extra help from you to do that. --Jayron32 06:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh sorry but this Byron is also called Lord Byron (which is really confusing) at least in his book and many Hawaiian history books.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that out by now. And now you've changed it back to "Lord Byron", which makes my imediately preceeding comment nonsensical. Ah, but whatever. We all know what the source of the confusion was; there have been 13 Lord Byrons (I know, I checked Baron Byron), and unfortunately one of them was a LOT more famous than the rest. But anyhoo, back to the problem at hand; you've got decent sources now to make additions to the Flag of Hawaii article regarding the 7-stripe flag. --Jayron32 06:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah in the middle of it but stuff still confuses me.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It's sooooooo confusing. All the explorers' observation don't agree with each other. Some mention red and white and blue, others mention white and red and blue, others mention red and white with no blue, and one even mentions dark and light, and etc. Also the nine-striped version really confuses me since according to the wiki article and nowhere else the ninth stripe is suppose to represent Nihoa, the uninhabited island beyond Niihau. But the problem is Nihoa wasn't known to Hawaiians for generations due to its abandonment centuries ago and wasn't discovered and added back to the kingdom until 1822, eight years after Louis Choris, the first man to make an observation of the Hawaiian flag, wrote about the nine stripe flag in 1816. :Also no explorers left any mentions on where the union jack sat on the seven-striped version and probably even the nine stripe version, how many stripes down it goes. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Credulity of Westboro Baptist Church members

How come members of WBC believe so strongly in all that stuff, when the rest of the world dosn't? They think everyone else is wrong: why havn't they therefore considered that they might be wrong also? 92.29.113.104 (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

One might ask this about members of any group whose views diverge significantly from the consensus view of reality. It's clearly a human trait that groups of many sizes form their own view of reality. Some are happy with their difference, some try to force it onto others one way or another. It's not limited to the WBC at all. It's not limited to religious groups at all. Arguably the consensus view of reality is just such an approach that has been very successful for both logically valid and invalid reasons (there are lots of things that lots of people "know" to be true that are almost surely false). --Mr.98 (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Westboro Baptists don't really believe any of that stuff. It's an elaborate hoax; whether they do it to piss people off for fun, bring attention to themselves for some reason, or to discredit other Baptists/Christians, I don't know, but they are the real-life equivalent of Internet trolls. They're like, say, PETA (or certain vocal elements of it), or Morrissey or Glenn Beck. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No, they really are bigotted against homosexuals. If you don't believe that people can be bigotted, then you probably haven't been paying much attention... --Jayron32 12:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

And PETA indeed do believe in what they say. No matter how funny it sounds, even when they say meat is murder and dairy is rape. That's all seriously meant. Quest09 (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of people who believe that homosexuality is evil and more than a few who believe that God is punishing America for its sexual immorality. See Hurricane Katrina as divine retribution for instance. The difference is the incredibly offensive ways Fred Phelps and his family promote their views, such as picketing military funerals with signs that say "God Hates America." My question is where do they get all their money to travel around the country, let along eat and stuff. I know Phelps was a lawyer but even lawyers aren't loaded enough to quit their jobs and do that kind of thing forever. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you read Westboro_Baptist_Church#Funding? --Jayron32 23:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If evil could be explained, it would be rational. If it were rational, it wouldn't be evil. μηδείς (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Famous only after death

Which people died unknown, but became famous after death? And with no inkling that they would be posthumously famous? 92.29.113.104 (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles about the posthumous fame of Vincent van Gogh and the posthumous fame of El Greco. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 11:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Samuel Pepys? --Dweller (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Numerous posthumously-decorated soldiers? See --Dweller (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Numerous victims of murder? See Category:Murder victims --Dweller (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Robert Johnson. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Anne Frank. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It may be worthwhile differentiating between those who became famous because of the nature of their deaths, and those - like van Gogh and Johnson - who became posthumously famous for what they achieved during their lifetime. Pepys was quite famous in his own lifetime - MP, President of the Royal Society, etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Bradley Nowell, John Kennedy Toole. --Jayron32 12:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Todd Beamer. μηδείς (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Gregor Mendel. Emily Dickinson. Also Johann Sebastian Bach, although not exactly unknown, was certainly not famous during his lifetime. Looie496 (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Edgar Allen Poe. Schyler (one language) 18:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really. See Edgar_Allen_Poe#Publishing_career. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Herman Melville was well-known and popular early in his writing career, but largely forgotten by the time he died, then rediscovered in the 1920s. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Franz Kafka. [[Malcolm X]] was little-known outside of New York until after his death. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure that was true of Malcolm X - he had certainly spoken and created some controversy in London and Paris during his lifetime. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Karl Marx was "a relatively unknown figure in his own lifetime". Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Lucy didn't become famous for some considerable time after her demise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but was she a "person"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Mostly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Who was that American author(s) whose mum got his manuscript published after he died? 92.29.113.104 (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That was John Kennedy Toole's book A Confederacy of Dunces. I cited him above. --Jayron32 23:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Jim Croce? Although he did have an #1 hit two months before his death. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That makes him well-known in my eyes. A better example from the same time might be Nick Drake, but I'm not sure quite how "famous" he now is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The Unknown Soldier. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

What was the text of all the articles in the last News of the World issue?

The one whose title says "THANK YOU AND GOODBYE" - I'd like to find the whole text of all the articles in that last issue.

Being from the United States, I can't order the physical copy, so I hope that a copy of the text floats around somewhere online. Thanks. --70.179.165.67 (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Um... you can order the physical copy from the US... it's just harder and perhaps more expensive. Have you tried contacting one of the major public libraries (such as the New York Public Library or the British Library)? Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Being from Kansas, I'd be nowhere near the major libraries you mention. Can't there be a copy of the whole text (plus pictures maybe) anywhere online? Simple as that. --70.179.165.67 (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The News of the World website, previously paywalled, was made free when the paper's demise was announced and had an epaper link. The website has now been removed but the epaper might still be found somewhere. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You almost certainly want to find an epaper copy, not just the text in eg HTML, because the final copy was even more picture heavy and dependent on layout than usual. 86.164.73.187 (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

And the best of luck to you in finding that. I couldn't. I tried Googling headlines and such from this Youtube vid of the final magazine, but all the sites I found were reposts of just that story, or a quick summary of it. One headline ("Red Hot Chilly Peddlers") did lead me to the article here, from which I then tried Googling some specific passages, hoping that the article text might lead me to better results than mere headlines. It didn't. ^Avic_ennasis @ 11:47, 28 Tamuz 5771 / 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, it seems you can pick it up cheaply on eBay. ^Avic_ennasis @ 11:53, 28 Tamuz 5771 / 30 July 2011 (UTC)

A cabbage leaf?

I was flicking through a fascinating book (at a friend's house) which is a genuine Edwardian baby care book (reprinted). It's fascinating because it mostly gives fairly decent advice, often with explanations of the scientific justification, which take account of the practical difficulties at the time. So in the chapter on clothing, it gives lots of advice on how to dress a child to manage their temperature while still making it easy for them to run around and climb and play, and taking account of costs and washing. It emphasises the need to protect a child's head when out in the sun, and suggests a pith helmet to protect while still letting air circulate around the head. And then, bafflingly, it adds a simple sentence to the effect that a cabbage leaf in the crown in a sensible homely precaution!

What? What was a cabbage leaf in your hat supposed to achieve? This is a book which carefully explains the basic practical chemistry of how casein reacts in the stomach, and various ways to treat various animal milks to make them more nutritious to babies who cannot be breastfed. There must be an actual reason for the cabbage leaf, but it was apparently so obvious that no further explanation was given. 86.164.73.187 (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The early 20th century was a transitional time for the sciences, especially medicine, where the beginings of sound scientific practice of medicine and related fields lies interspersed with the sort of "folk wisdom" and blatantly wrong stuff like this still bleeds into stuff. Good intentions gave us the taste map for example, and that's as close to bullshit as it gets. I am not surprised when something completely off the wall like that ekes into books. Heck, it probably even happens today. --Jayron32 17:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Cabbage Leaves are still in use today in the 21st Centery.Cabbage Leaves for Treatment and Prevention of Breast Engorgement . An' don't ridicule -or nurse will pick you up by the ankles and smack your bottom!--Aspro (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so is it supposed to be cooling the head? I could sort of see that, actually. 86.164.73.187 (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Aspro's cabbage leaf link relates to applying the cabbage leaf to a breastfeeding woman's breast to ease the pain of engorgement with milk. Apparently it works. (And the effect is the same whether the cabbage leaf is chilled or room temperature.) So maybe cabbage leaves have interesting effects apart from temperature. One scientist suggested that the mechanism re: engorgement pain may be that "sulfur in amino acid methionine acts as an antibiotic and anti-irritant, which in turn draws an extra flow of blood to the area." I'm not sure how this would be useful for an infant's head... Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Er... no. That highly questionable suggestion was made by a "Sister Merle Lees who has been researching this topic." [12]. There is no suggestion that she is a scientist. --ColinFine (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops, my bad... I thought it was taken from one of the decent-looking studies the page cited. Anyways, even if the mechanism is unexplained, it's possible that cabbage leaves applied to skin have interesting effects. Calliopejen1 (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Contribution-lands

In Evelyn's diary, he visits the Netherlands, then in a state of war involving England, Spain, France and Holland. In the course of his tour, he comes across what he calls Contribution-lands. What were these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.196.174 (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This book (see note 66, glossing a roughly contemporaneous quote) says North Flanders and North Brabant. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking for a specific Conrad Gessner quote

Right now I'm building the article about the Bernese Mountain Dog up from scratch (in sandbox) and am already running into problems. In several of my books, the earliest written in 1989, there's a statement that, in 1523, Conrad Gessner said the following:

"Some of the big and strong dogs are especially trained to stay around the houses and stables in the fields. They must protect the cattle from danger. Some guard the cattle, some the fields and some the houses. Other dogs are trained to protect people. They must contend after murderers and other mean people. They must be fierce and big and strong, as they must fight against warriors in their armor."

This is also listed on the BMDCA's site here. The issue there, of course, is that Conrad Gessner would have been seven years old in 1523. I can't find anything remotely close to this text in the English translation of Historiae animalium either -- if it does exist, it'd be a nice addition, but I'm not convinced at all. Google results for portions of this quote turn up only the BMDCA website. Any ideas as to where I can look for such a statement? This wouldn't be the first time dog writers got it wrong, to be sure. Anna ^talk 20:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't find anything confirming this quote - sounds like it could be apocryphal... Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably is -- thanks. Anna ^talk 00:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually the passage at the top of this page, from the Thierbuch, a German translation, seems to run along those lines (my German is too meager to say for certain).--Cam (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, it's very appreciated. If no advanced German speaker comes across this and is generous enough to confirm I'll try to seek one out myself. Cheers, Anna ^talk 04:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You truly need a bigger image with bigger letters. I tried to read the whole text but I was unable to find the quote mentioned above. I was unable to find anything about warriors in their armour, but several sentences escape me. The text mainly speaks about the characteristics and appearance of big dogs - they should be white so that they become a part of the herd and so that the owner may recognize them during the night - and that these dogs protect [their master's] home from robbers and other kinds of human scum. The text seems to begin with:

"Etliche grosse and starke Hunde werden besonderlich dazu erzogen das Sie den Haus/die Stell/auserhalb des Haus/das vieh so sich weidet vor gefahr und schaden werhüten werden gementlich genenet Schaffhund:...

A word-for-word translation: "Several big and strong dogs are specially trained so that they the house/the ??? (probably Stall - animal stable)/outside the house/the livestock who is grazing from danger and damage prevent are commonly called Sheep dogs [an ancestor of the German Shepherd Dog?]:..."

I would translate it into: "Several big and strong dogs are specially trained so that they protect the[ir master's] home, the stable, and the livestock who is grazing [in the field] from danger and damage. They are commonly called Sheep dogs:..."

The "outside the house" might refer to the barn OR to the livestock, I'm not certain. As I said, you truly need a bigger and sharper picture. Flamarande (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Baseball, Duff Cooley question

I'm expanding the article Duff Cooley, with a draft in sandbox. Slight problem; this book states that Duffy was traded to the Pirates for Heinie Reitz and Tully Sparks, but baseball-reference states he was purchased by the Pirates. So, what should I write here? Albacore (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are various ways I deal with this when I'm editing:

• Go with only one source if that source seems significantly more detailed/reliable.
• Present both views if the sources seem comparable.
• Just leave it out if explaining both views would be tedious and the fact is not that important.

In this case, I'd probably go with the book and drop a footnote to the website. I think the book looks more reliable (though I know that ordinarily baseball-reference is good... so you may disagree), and it's also more specific (if he was in fact just bought, why would they invent two specific players he was traded for? I always think the less detailed one is more likely to be a sloppy mistake). I'd keep a footnote to baseball-reference though because ordinarily they're accurate. Alternately, I'd just present both views. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually now that I see that baseball-reference gives a specific dollar amount, maybe you should just give both in the article text. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Baseball reference is usually good in absense of other sources. I would basically use it as generally reliable if there is no other source, but would trust any other more reliable source when there is a conflict. In this case, I would go with the book reference in the main text. Perhaps a footnote noting the discrepency would be good. I ran into a similar situation when working on the Plymouth Colony article, where a normally reliable source contained what appeared to be an inaccurate or contradictory statement. If you go to Plymouth Colony, and look down at footnote 119, you can see how I handled it. I think a similar approach may work here. --Jayron32 23:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

July 30

Former Location of Conservatoire de Paris

After reading the historical sections of both the Paris Conservatory (CNSMDP) site and the Wikipedia page on the same subject matter, I'm still uncertain of where the music conservatory was located between 1911 and 1990. Was it housed in a former Jesuit College (Rue de Madrid)? If so, is that building (or set of buildings) still standing and what is the exact address? I appreciate any assistance that can be offered.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnsmdp.fr%2F http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatoire_de_Paris 98.242.77.225 (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

In the French WP about the Rue de Madrid, it is said that the conservatory was located from 1911 to 1990 at the number 16 of this street. But in the page about the Conservatoire à rayonnement régional de Paris, it is said that the Paris Conservatory was settled at number 14 of the rue de Madrid. I checked with Google Street, the correct address is 14; a shop called Le temps industriel is located at the number 16. — AldoSyrt (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Politic worms

Hello, can you please tell me the meaning of the word politic in shakespeare's expression "a certain convocation of politic worms" ? 41.141.77.160 (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This book glosses the word as "shrewd" or "scheming". Calliopejen1 (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

gold versus bonds

Doesn't the US government have gold it can sell instead of bonds? --DeeperQA (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)