January 1

In opinions of the Ninth Circuit such as this [1] there are page numbers on the documents that indicate the document is part of a publication, i.e. the page numbers don't refer just to the pages in the particular document. What is this publication these pages are from? Nomad2005 (talk) 05:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain. Lexis has different page numbers assigned. FindLaw shows the page numbers in your link. The official U.S. F3d citation that should be used to cite the opinion is not ready yet. My guess is that FindLaw has its own pagination system. All the caases for a particular court or courts are collected. The fifth page of a United States Supreme Court decision might be page 690 of all the opinions reported. Some jurisdictions have public access reporting on the internet. The page number helps lawyers find a particular place in a decision. I hope this helps.20:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)75Janice (talk)75Janice.

They refer to the pages of the current volume of the Federal Reporter, Third Series, or "F.3d" for short. Look at Federal Reporter for some details. They are published by Thompson West (also the publisher of Westlaw) and are the "official" reporter for the federal appeals courts. The Supreme Court has its own reporter, refered to simply as "U.S.". The citation format is typically "<Case name>, <Volume> F.3d <Page> (<Court> <Year>)."

You can buy the whole set for $7,500[2], or download it for free. Shadowjams (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has info too. Shadowjams (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Janice and Shadowjams, but I don't think these are pages from the Federal Reporter. They are too high. The example I linked too had pages in the 16,000 range, far too high for a volume of the Federal Reporter. I don't think that Findlaw supplied this pagination. It appears in the opinions on the Ninth Circuit's website. Any other thoughts? Nomad2005 (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page reference is not to F.3d, the official reporter for Court of Appeals decisions. As I stated earlier, Lexis, the main commercial reporter, reports the case with different page numbers. The FindLaw opinion looks exactly the same as the document you cite. I never learned the entire process for publication of opinions. FindLaw Pro would be the place I would go to find answers. Maybe FindLaw supplied the page numbers. If you would explain why assignment of pagination is so crucial, it might help provide better answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 06:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lexis isn't the official reporter, and while West and Lexis are neck and neck, I don't think there's any consesnsus that either West or Lexis are the "main" reporters. Obviously together they are, though. I don't see how findlaw would factor into it at all.

Perhaps they're slip opinion page numbers? I'm not familiar with 9th circuit practice so I'm at a bit of a loss, but I'll do a bit more indepth research. You're right, 16k is too high to be a page number within a volume. My guess is that it's some internal 9th circuit reporting; this PDF does come off of their website after all. Shadowjams (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other courts of appeals don't do this format either. I'm as curious as you are at this point. Shadowjams (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest Lexis as the official reporter. Lexis, Westlaw are the main commercial reporting services that lawyers use. Both Lexis and Westlaw report the official F.3d paginatoin when it becomes available. It is permissible to cite to either until the F.3d pagination is available. FindLaw pro reports this case exactly as shown in the example, including type face, spacing, the enitre document. My feeling is that FindLaw may supply its own pagination. If I knew why the assignment of pagination is so important, I believe I could help more. I am pressed for time now. Going to FindLaw and asking them for support may very well yield a definitive answer.17:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)68.81.42.101 (talk)75Janice

My guess is that FindLaw is just republishing the public domain release PDF from the court. The very first link is from the court's website. A good way to tell is find another case from outside of the 9th circuit and see if they have that pagination. The 8th circuit, for instance, does not have that kind of crazy pagination on theirs.

Like the OP, I'm still at a loss. Shadowjams (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The version is the one the Ninth Circuit uses for its public domain cases. Frankly, I graduated law school long before public domain cases were available on the Internet. I do not recall if the public domain case is the slip opinion. The Blue Book or ALWD might supply some information. As long as the citation is consitent, does it truly matter? I skimmed the case. It is fairly interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 23:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now been able to provide an answer to Lit Scholar's query on 14 December 2009, and have added it in the archive [3]. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. If this question is not appropriate for the reference desk, it can be removed.

On a train from Tampere to Helsinki, I saw two elderly couples, allegedly all Protestant Christians, discussing a pamphlet published by Jehovah's Witnesses. One woman called it "the work of the forces of darkness". Now being an atheist, I don't know much about how these religion-related things are supposed to work, but isn't it a bit too much to call another denomination within the same religion as yours "the forces of darkness" just because, although they believe in all the same deities in the exact same mythology, their belief happens to differ in some details? JIP | Talk 21:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

_{The Devil is in the details. -Pollinosisss (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

If you read the article on Jehovah's Witnesses and compare their beliefs and practices with those of, say, Lutherans, you will see that the religions differ quite radically on some points. If you read the "Criticisms" section of the JW article, you will see that some Christian critics find JW beliefs and practices disturbing. I don't think that most Protestants would consider JWs "another denomination within the same religion". JW's rejection of the Trinity puts them outside of mainstream Protestantism and other mainstream varieties of Christianity. Their belief that Armageddon is imminent and ultimately desirable is disturbing to many other Christians. Finally, the authoritarian structure of the JW community—forcing members to obey the dictates of religious leaders and punishing those who don't with shunning—is a radical departure from the freedom of individual conscience that was at the heart of Protestantism's original split with Catholicism. Marco polo (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An enemy within is much more dangerous than one without. -Pollinosisss (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I don't consider myself Christian, so I don't see JW as an enemy within, or any kind of enemy for that matter, nor, I think, do most Protestants. Marco polo (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has studied Biblical Hebrew, I have a problem just with the name, since the word "Jehovah" itself is based on a mistaken form which never existed in ancient Hebrew... AnonMoos (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Sectarianism and Heresy. On the specific point, JW's don't follow "exactly the same mythology" as mainstream Protestantism, but I'm fairly confident the people in question have similar views on the Roman Catholic church, even though the doctrines are much closer. In any ideologically-charged environment, _corruption_ of the True Way is generally regarded as more objectionable than mere _rejection_ of it - an Arsenal fan will hate a Spurs fan far more than he'd hate a fan of Sporting Lisbon. Tevildo (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general, mainstream Christians seem to regard the JW's as mostly-harmless eccentrics, and not infrequently an object of ridicule due to their unconventional ideas (starting with their fake/obsolete name, as AnonMoos points out). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness and hated it. A New Testament college course led a clear path away from their teachings. Despite my hatred of the group, they are not "forces of darkness" anymore than any other group. They possess many positive attributes. The Hugenots massacred in France probably saw a dark force and vice vera in England. The Witnesses are disdainful of any power other than their own. Worldly status is rejected. Wikipedia has an article on Christianity that shows a flow chart for what most Christians believe. The Witnesses are divergent. Countless thousands died during the struggle between Roman Catholics and Protestants. The divergent points were minor compared to the areas of agreement. My family suffered much from antiWitness persecution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 23:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm playing a word game with someone and trying to get the correct words to fill in the puzzle. The bold italicized words are the key ones and I need the same number of letters with the last letter being the same. These are my guesses for those words. Do you have any further suggestions?

Rules of the Game

The basics to decode it are to use opposites, for example:

• With the use of the capitalized adjective On, the word it modifies is a coded word.
• With the use of a comma directly BEFORE the conjunctions "and" or "but" then that segment to the next comma is a true statement, otherwise it is the opposite.
• Other meanings of the Biblical words have EXACTLY the same number of letters with a key word ending with the same letter and fits correctly to the historical record.

(allegory)
Chapter 107 (Photinus the heresiarch)
Photinus, of Gallograecia, a disciple of Marcellus, and ordained bishop of Sirmium, attempted to introduce the Ebionite heresy, and afterwards having been expelled from the church by the Emperor Valentinianus, wrote many volumes, among which the most distinguished are Against the nations, and To Valentinianus.

Puzzel solution:
Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, better known as Augustus (23 September 63 BC – 19 August AD 14), of misericordia, a leader of movements, and ordained overseer of kingdom, undertook to introduce the opposite conformity, and afterwards having been expelled from the Roman Republic by the founder organizations, produced some history records among which the least humble are for himself and no organizations.

Thanks for any help.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any other criterion that the words have to meet? Does the final text have to be gramatically correct (which it isn't at the moment)? Does "no organizations" fill two gaps or one? Tevildo (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part 1 - no.

Part 2 - no.

Part 3 - fills two gaps.

--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK... I don't see, in that case, how any answer can be "better" than yours, as there's no way of assessing it. Is it just a question of picking (using "kingdom" as an example) a random seven-letter word ending in "m" and hoping it's the right one? Your choices have as much chance of being right as anyone else's. I _was_ going to suggest "Capita Bubula" (the villa in which Augustus was born) as a replacement for "misericordia", but it's two words - I suppose that makes it invalid. Tevildo (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for input. I believe my guesses fit the description of Augustus however.

• misericordia - mercy, compassion
• movements - a progressive development of ideas toward a particular conclusion.
• kingdom - related to the new creation of Roman Empire.
• opposite - from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire.
• founder organizations - founder of the Roman Empire.
• no organizations - in some instances he was not humble.

Is that pretty close to Augustus' description?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, to be honest. Augustus wasn't particularly merciful or compassionate (see Caesarion), "kingdom" is a very inappropriate word to describe the Roman Empire (one of the reasons for Julius Caesar's unpopularity was the suspicion that he intended to make himself king, even though his assumption of dictatorial powers was accepted), and Augustus was successor to the Second Triumvirate rather than the republic - by the time of the Battle of Actium, Rome had quite definitely passed from republican to oligarcic government, but it continued to be a de jure republic for some centuries - Diocletian was the first emperor to officially rule as an autocrat, rather than primus inter pares. On a more practical point, I don't think that the "right answer" will have _two_ "organizations" in it - you should change one of them, at least. Tevildo (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions and ideas and history lessons. After thinking over what you had to say, perhaps one of these words would be more appropriate in these positions below?

• First key definitely is a 12 letter word ending in a. Perhaps one of these apply better: hypochondria, bibliophobia, cerebrotonia, pseudolunula, respondentia, kleptophobia, coenesthesia.
• Third key definitely is a 7 letter word ending in m. Perhaps one of these apply better: problem, freedom, uniform, program, perform, conform, confirm, stratum, blossom, heroism, egotism
• Last key definitely is a 13 lettter word ending in s. Perhaps one of these apply better: opportunities, peculiarities, complications, modifications, contributions, ramifications, nationalities, deliberations, contingencies, preliminaries, proclamations, anticipations, civilizations.

Keeping the sentence that way, since that is the way the old historian gave it to me. He is also giving me history lessons in ancient Romans. Which might be better words of the suggestions I provided for those key words or others if you can think of them that use the same number of letters with the last letter being the same. This is the "rules" of the game.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzel solution with revised possible replacements of key words:
Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, better known as Augustus (23 September 63 BC – 19 August AD 14), of hypochondria, a leader of movements, and ordained overseer of egotism, undertook to introduce the opposite conformity, and afterwards having been expelled from the Roman Republic by the founder organizations, produced some history records among which the least humble are for himself and no ramifications.

• If you feel "misericordia" is not an appropriate word, perhaps "hypochondria" fits better.
• Looks like to me "egotism" fits better than "kingdom."
• Perhaps "no ramifications" works better since he seemed to have absolute control.

Does that look better and fit his description?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter 107 (Augustus, the emperor)
Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, better known as Augustus (23 September 63 BC – 19 August AD 14), unconcerned with hypochondria, a leader of movements, and ordained overseer of uniform, undertook to introduce the opposite conformity, and afterwards having been expelled from the Roman Republic by the founder organizations, produced many history records, separate from the least ordinary are for himself and to peculiarities.

Above is another alternate.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Caesar

(allegory)
Chapter 112 (Cyril the bishop)
Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem often expelled by the church, and at last received, held the episcopate for eight consecutive years, in the reign of Theodosius. Certain Catachetical lectures of his, composed while he was a young man, are extant.

(puzzel solution with same rules as above):
Julius Caesar, (100 BC - 44 BC) Dictator of modernize rarely received by the optimates and at last received, held the lower positions for eight separate times (military tribune 73 BC; quaestor 69 BC; aedile 67 BC; Pontifex Maximus 63 BC; praetor 62 BC; governor Hispania Ulterior 61 BC; consul 59 BC; governor Gaul 58 BC) in the life span of traditions (cursus honorum). All occupational praises of it dispersed while it was an older item and are no longer existing.

Then does this look O.K. using the same rules as above?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Tevildo said, it's very difficult to judge whether anything is correct if the resulting paragraph doesn't have to make grammatical sense. You could stick anything in there, really. (Why doesn't it have to make grammatical sense, anyway?) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, using grammatical sense and keeping the just of the ideas and the key words, how might "Julius Caesar puzzle" look to ya'alls?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Humor me! This is the way I was given the sentence, so I would like to follow through. The key words seem to fit, as far as I know of this ancient history.

• First key word must be 8 letters and end in e.
• From my understanding of the material in the Julius Caesar article at first he was not received by the optimates, then later he was when he became dictator.
• The next key word of traditions seems to fit as the traditional method of progress for the ranks then was by cursus honorum. To my understanding this procedure went though the Roman Republic and Roman Empire, a very long time. After this time then, the procedure was no longer followed.
• The next key word of occupational seems to me to be appropriate as it was their occupation and eventually the occupational procedure was not followed.

Its just a game with certain "rules" he is playing with me for a teaching tool to learn ancient Roman history. It seems to work, as I have had to study up on these articles to see what he was talking about to fill in the key words. To me only certain words will work, not just any words. They must fit the ancient history or ancient character properly and have a certain number of letters with the last letter being a certain letter. Any further help would be appreciated.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have his original statement of the "rules", or an example of a "correct answer"? I think we're missing an essential compoment of the excercise. Tevildo (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, do not have his original statement of the "rules" as a written set was not given to me. What is it you are lacking to complete the Julius Caesar puzzel? The words I put in the key words seem to make sense to me, however I am the student, not an expert on ancient history as you are. Just looking for the correct key word. The other parts are immaterial as to correct grammatical sense. Are you saying it makes no sense at all? What is not correct as to the basic historical parts?

Domitian

(allegory)
Chapter 134 (Sophronius)
Sophronius, a man of superlative learning, wrote while yet a lad, In praise of Bethlehem and recently a notable volume, On the overthrow of Serapis, and also to Eustachius, On virginity, and a Life of Hilarion the monk. He rendered short works of mine into Greek in a very finished style, the Psalter also, and the Prophets, which I translated from Hebrew into Latin.

Below is another example with the key words I filled in.
(puzzle solution):
Titus Flavius Domitianus (51 AD – 96 AD), a man of ruthless teaching, did not write a history record while yet young, in lack of attention of criticism and long before a vague history record on the support of friends and also to principles, on having some previous experience and a time of children, the one by himself with no mother or siblings. They removed long history records of his from black out of a ruthless style (Damnatio memoriae), another chapter also and the numerous which he rendered from shadow to taken.

From the article on him it seems to make sense to me of the key words I put in. What part, in the way of the key words does not make sense to you?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaius Julius Alpinus Classicianus

(allegory)
Chapter 133 (Amphilochius the bishop)
Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium, recently read to me a book On the Holy Spirit, arguing that He is God, that He is to be worshipped, and that He is omnipotent.

Here is another I have recently worked on that I filled in the key words of the last letter being the same and fits the ancient history.
(puzzel solution):
Gaius Julius Alpinus Classicianus (d. 69 AD), procurator of problem of the rule of the United Kingdom long time ago wrote from him a history episode on the very object (unusual punitive policies), agreeing that it is bad, that it is to be despised and that it is unrestricted.

This one to me seems obvious and simple. Do you see this incorrect in any part as to the history?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one, if nothing else, illustrates the difficulty we're having - this sentence just doesn't make sense, no matter what possible "keywords" are chosen. It looks very much as if it's been machine translated. We're really going to have to see an example that the person who set the problem thinks is right, and even then I doubt if there's much we can do to help. I'm sorry. Tevildo (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, right. We now have some rules and some other examples - we're getting somewhere. Where did you get them from? If we're going to get any further, we'll need the _full_ set of rules (including the basic statement of the problem - what is the end result supposed to be?) and a _complete_ question and _complete_ answer. I think the problem is still that we don't really know what's happening. Tevildo (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Claudius Marcellus Aeserninus

(allegory)
Chapter 108 (Phoebadius the bishop)
Phoebadius, bishop of Agen, in Gaul, published a book Against the Arians. There are said to be other works by him, which I have not yet read. He is still living, infirm with age.

(puzzel solution):
Marcus Claudius Marcellus Aeserninus, (f. 48 BC) overseer of town (Cordoba, Spain) in coal, published a history episode for the troops. There is said to be the same history by them, which they have likewise produced. It is still surviving strengthened with time.

This one to me also seems obvious and very simple. Apparently the town of Cordoba is known for coal mining. Do you see this incorrect in any part as to the history?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure anyone can make sense of the history, when the grammar doesn't make sense. Has your professor made any corrections that you can show us? That would help us figure out what he wants you to do. Perhaps it is supposed to be like a cryptic crossword where the answers are anagrams or something unexpected like that. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe you are correct. It is some sort of a cryptic crossword puzzel, maybe in the line of an allegory.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically he wants me to find the key word that plugs into the sentence. No, he has not given me any corrections. The history seems to be in the articles, so should be easy to decipher. The history does not change, even if the grammer is not perfectly correct. So, is the history correct, ignoring the grammer? Seems correct to me, however I'm biased.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tevildo, now that we have the basic rules, we also have some more information from a discussion on Doug's talk page. As far as I understand it, it seems that Doug (or the person who made this puzzle, or both of them) have the idea that Jerome's De Viris Illustribus is an allegorical reworking of Plutarch's Lives. It seems also that Doug believes that De Viris Illustribus was not written in the 4th century, but the 14th, and in English, or that the 19th century English translator made it all up? It's entirely likely that Plutarch was an inspiration for Jerome, although this is not what I would consider "allegory". As for the rest, hopefully Doug can explain that better, because the way I've explained it is obviously impossible and I assume I've misunderstood something. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh - so this is a Bible code sort of thing? Or - er - that chap who, about 30 years ago, interpreted Nostradamus by forming anagrams of the text (and leaving any inconvenient letters out)? (Who was he, and do we have an article on him?). Let's see how it develops. Tevildo (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's see how this develops. The "Rules of the Game" I figured out on my own. Yes, the allegory came from Jerome's De Viris Illustribus which is on WikiSource. Yes, these examples we have been working on and all 135 "characters" follow these same Rules. Yes, some of this is from Plutarch, however most is from Livy's Histories and Polybius Histories. When all are decoded, it happens to follow a chronological timeline starting in the 4th century BC and going to the 1st century AD. Hopefully ya'alls think I have this kind of knowledge to plug it in this way somehow. Yes, I believe this was written originally in the 14th century in English. That's the reason why the English flow looks rough to us, since it came from Midaeval Middle English. No, I do not believe this was written originally in Latin in the 4th or 5th century. Reason being, then why in the English version we have today does it follow this allegory pattern for all the "characters"? All you have to do is follow this set of Rules of the Game on these above examples we are working on and it works, as it does for all other chapters. Ask me some specific questions on the Rules of each of these examples we are working on and I will give you detailed logical answers. The questions must be specific and logical. Without asking me questions, then you are not seeing how this develops out. Then you have your eyes closed to a new idea. Below are some more examples I am fine tuning. I have already done them all.

Who's Who of ancient Roman commanders

--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on Who's Who

Chapter 101 talks of secret of possible murder of Mithridates V by his wife queen Laodice and of the incest marriage of Mithridates VI to his sister, also named Laodice.

Chapter 103 talks of mausoleum at Scythian Neapolis; it was used from ca. 100 BC to ca. 100 AD. It also speaks of Skilus having 80 sons.

Chapter 108 points out that the town of (Cordoba, Spain) mines coal.

Chapter 110 talks of Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa as the workman and overseer of temples. Click article to see several example pictures of temples he worked on.

Chapter 117 there are 17 coded words, all of which when the decoded word is put in - fit perfectly. It talks about the event Crassus did giving away 3 months supply of grain to 10,000 families for public entertainment. It also talks about the 6,000 slaves he captured and about the First Triumvirate. It also talks of the ancient Roman army technique for motivation called decimation.

Chapter 131 is Titus Statilius Taurus the 1st. Then next Chapter 132 is Titus Statilius Taurus the 2nd . It also talks about him being a monetail or moneyer as the only history record he left.

--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Odes (Horace)

In addition to Plutarch, Livy, and Polybius, there is references to Horace Odes. Chapter 109 in particular. Note here the Roman Odes. It is a set of 6 Odes that are often referenced to as one, therefore there are 83 Odes when first published as requested by Augustus. Note the reference to 83 in Chapter 109. The decoded part fits exactly to that of Horace Odes.

--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q & A section

Sorry to be a pain, but if this is homework, why are we helping you with it? Scrub that, I've just answered it. But am I the only one getting a bit weary of this line? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not homework as I am 65 years old as of tomorrow. Have not been to school for some 45 years. Just something I stumbled into.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question from above:
...the _full_ set of rules (including the basic statement of the problem - what is the end result supposed to be?)...
Answer to this question:
Since it came from the Middle Ages I believe it to be one of many of Allegory in the Middle Ages as apparently this was popular then. The end result I believe to be that it teaches one about ancient Roman history - a teaching tool. I sure have learned a lot of ancient Roman history over the last couple of years. Now I have answered the questions with specific logical answers, please ask your questions for each of these examples we are working on (in that character's level position) as specific logical questions and I will give you specific logical answers. Just throwing around generalities doesn't do any good. You want some new ideas? Well here they are, IF you can take them. Notice the big IF.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you frequently defend the ungrammatical sentences with the defence that the game is very old, implying that these are written in an older version of English. I see here you say it came from the Middle Ages, suggesting that you think the game is written in Middle English or Early Modern English at best. In that case, the spellings of the words are completely up for grabs: knowing the number of letters and final letter will be quite insufficient. 86.177.121.171 (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To make sure I am understanding your point I will point out a couple of things. The spelling on the decoded key word can be any way, as long as it has the same number of letters as the Biblical word and matches correctly to the historical record and, of course, ends in the same letter as the Biblical word. The other "Rules of the Game" still apply, for example if there is an "and" directly after the comma THEN that segment to the next comma is true, otherwise it is the opposite. A little rewording to our American English of today (for better grammer, better flow, or better understanding) can be done as long as you follow those basic ideas.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But if, as you say, it was written in the 14th century, what possible relevance is the number of letters in the standard modern spelling of a word? --ColinFine (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OUR American English? Some of us are British. I've read all you've written here and on your talk page, but I'm not sure I understand: do you think the person who wrote this and set up the 'clues' for you to decipher was writing in Early Modern English, such as the King James Bible was written in? Or Middle English, as would have been used in the 14th century? Or 19th century American English? Because older forms of English spell many words quite differently, without 'standardisation' in the way you would expect today. This means that if you think this was written in an earlier form of English, I could make all sorts of words 'fit' the word lengths and final letters, just by adding extra letters. 86.177.121.171 (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me say "sorry" to the British - as I feel I misspoke here. The mss involved where I feel it came from originally was from England and from Oxford University and from the 14th century. I feel the person that wrote this was a professor from Oxford University and wrote it in the middle part of the 14th century - whatever English that is. It so happens that all the key words used in the deciphering was in use at that time. I have done all 135 chapters and it works out that the key decoded word that replaces the Biblical word always has EXACTLY the same number of letters with the last letter being the same. I do not believe that you can ...make all sorts of words 'fit' the word lengths and final letters, just by adding extra letters... as you say AND have it fit the ancient history involved for the character decoded and / or his related history. Of the ones I have shown of chapters 110 - 134 please give me some examples. Better yet, show me where my key decoded word does not apply. Keep in mind with this exercise that the key decoded word MUST fit the recorded history. Are you saying my decoded key words do NOT fit the recorded history? Examples please!!! Since you have here a couple of dozen decoded characters of ancient Roman commanders, this will be a good chance to prove your point and disprove my point. No generalities, but specifics will be needed here. On average there is about 5 decoded key words per these couple of dozen decoded ancient characters. Multiply 5 times 24 and you get over 100 chances to DISPROVE my point. What an excellent question and point. Lets see how this pans out and develops. This is such a good point it will most certainly PROVE my theory that this is DEFINITELY an allegory. Now show me "proof in the pudding" of what you say. Let me say in advance, thanks for your help in proving my point.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copies before 14th century

Doug, forget about the "key words" for a moment; there are manuscripts of De Viris Illustribus from the seventh century, and dozens of other ones all dating from before the fourteenth century. Other medieval authors from before the fourteenth century had access to these, and used them, and quoted them, and knew they were written by Jerome, all in Latin. How would this be possible if De Viris Illustribus was not written until the fourteenth century, and in English? This is all in Herding's edition of Jerome, and Richardson's translation, which I described above (I can post it again here if you missed it). Adam Bishop (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, got it. I'll respond here, then you can help 86.177.121.171 as he is going to need a lot of help from ya'alls. I like your question and point made here. A good point IF you could prove it. I believe you are saying something to the effect that Richardson and Herding said this. Thought about that question for the last year, so did a heavy duty investigation. It turns out no matter who I talk to worldwide, nobody today has a copy before the fourteenth century. The oldest copy I could find is held by the British Museum and it is from the 15th century. Others have pointed out to me a copy held by the General Theological Seminary in New York supposedly from the 12th century. It turns out they no longer have it AND don't know where it is AND rethought about it and concluded its from the 15th century. I contacted them and here is what they said

.

So, what you say is hearsay. If Judge Judy will not accept it, then I don't either. Unless you can come up with proof, then it is just hearsay. In this case, not good enough since you haven't gone through as much investigation on this point as I have. Can you now give 86.177.121.171 a helping hand, as he is having a little trouble backing up what he said - proving my point! --Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's one manuscript, out of over a hundred that Richardson knew about, and that was a hundred years ago. I think the oldest manuscript listed by Richardson was in the Vatican, dated to the seventh century. One problem that we are having here is that we are only using the books we can find online. A quick search through my university library catalogue shows that there are more recent Latin editions and English translations, and the editors and translators of those will likely have better information. In any case, what language are those fifteenth century manuscript in? Latin, surely? There should be plenty of people who quote Jerome in Latin prior to the fourteenth century, too. I could try to find some, I suppose. But there are other problems. You don't know the difference between Middle English and nonsensical Modern English, and you don't know Latin or Greek to read Jerome, Plutarch, Livy, Polybius, etc., you don't know what allegory means, you have no academic training. And if this goes the way it always goes, nothing we say will convince you. Why should anyone spend any time helping you? Adam Bishop (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I say hearsay. Don't need any further help as I have decoded all 135 chapters already. Looks to me like 86.177.121.171 needs a helping hand, as he is having a little trouble backing up what he said - proving my point! Do know that there is definitely a set of "Rules" to this historian's system as can be observed through logic. I have given't it to you already above AND so far ya'alls haven't even come close to disproving it with specific details. Remember generalities don't count, but specifics do. Logic and common sense is all that is required. Beside, ya'alls haven't even asked who this 14th century historian is that wrote this - and I have given ya'alls many clues already. Look through what I said and try to figure it out. Its so obvious, IF you had paid attention. Here, I'll give you a couple more clues:

1. How many books in the Christian Bible? The one most people know of.
2. Now look in Chapter 10 of Acts of the Apostles and tell me who is spoke of.

I'm betting you are afraid to answer these simple questions. I'll be surprised if you do.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius the centurion? And there are 73 books in the Bible? I don't know what that means to you. I suppose a 14th-century person you would know of is either Chaucer or Wyclif, I think you've mentioned them already.

Anyway, some more thoughts; what did Gennadius of Marseille expand, if not Jerome's De Viris Illustribus? Why did Ildefonse of Toledo say that Jerome wrote that work, and why did it inspire him to write his own work in the seventh century? (The English translation is on Google Books, here.) You can also see where the Venerable Bede has quoted from DVI, here. And this is just from a few minutes of Googling. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note (if I haven't done so already) that the only code you could possibly have found is between the English translations of these works. None of this would work in the original languages. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original language I say is English. It works just fine. Yes, you are correct that it doesn't work in these other languages as they are copied for the original 14th century English version. Surprised you answered the above questions. I believe you got one right and one "debatable." Cornelius the centurion is correct. The debatable one is, as far as my understanding is, that most people think it is 66. This could go on debating this issue forever, so I leave it at "debatable." According to the article on the Bible it says the Protestant Old Testament of today has a 39-book canon and that Both Catholics and Protestants have the same 27-book New Testament Canon. I find it interesting that "Cornelius" is Chapter 66. Chapter 67 happens to be Hannibal when decoded. Two more questions, IF you care to answer:

1. How many books to Acts of the Apostles?
2. How many Famous Women did Boccaccio write of?

Note that I have given you chapters up to 134. Add the two up above. Coincidence? You will say so. The last chapter is sort of a "signature" saying what he did (so is not one of the characters), however completely different when decoded. Yes, I believe Wycliff wrote up Jerome's De Viris Illustrius that we are taking about.

So, do you have any specific points to debunk the "Rules of the Game"? So far I haven't seen any. No, its not just one manuscript we are talking about that "might" be before the 14th century. There are none before the 14th century. Give me proof other than hearsay.

I believe 86.177.121.171 has a really good point IF he could prove it. So far, haven't heard from him. Perhaps you could help out as this pertains to specific details that could disprove what I am saying - otherwise he has proven my point!--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you're not using 14th century English, you're using 19th century translations into modern English. What does that have to do with the 14th century?

What do you mean "books to Acts of the Apostles"? How many books come before it?

Boccaccio wrote about 106 famous women.

The rules of the game don't make any more sense than the stuff you've decoded. I guess that's convenient; they can't be debunked.

86.177 only said what everyone else has said, that your English makes no sense. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should have made it clearer. How many books of Acts of Apostles? Note in Jerome's "Chronicle of Universal History" in chapter 135 as to how many homilies.

Boccaccio answer is correct. Seems like an odd number, wouldn't you have to agree.

Scipio Africanus is also called "Cornelius Scipio", the arch enemy of Hannibal.

(Note: "Cornelius" is Chapter 66 of Jerome's "characters" AND in Chapter 10 of Acts of the Apostles. 66 books to the Bible. Just more coincidences I suppose.)

So, no specifics I see. Only generalities. Proves my point.

However every decoded key word used that replaces the Biblical word in the decoding process was used in the 14th century.

Another interesting note you should be aware of is that when the completed process is done of Chapter 1 - 134 it is in chronological order going from the 4th century BC to the 1st century AD. Ya'alls think I could pull this off somehow? Please say, yes. You can see the chronological order in the "characters" I have already given ya'alls.

So take note there are 134 "characters". That is 106 plus 28. Coincidence. Perhaps.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's only one book of Acts, although it has 28 chapters, if that's what you mean. And nothing here proves your point, why do you keep saying that? It only proves that no one has any clue what you're talking about. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are still the basic problems I mentioned above. Gennadius, Ildefonsus, and Bede knew about DVI in the 7th/8th centuries, and the English you have come up with is not 14th century English, just nonsensical modern English. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to disprove. Everything you are finding, you have put there yourself, because your 'rules' are so flexible they let you do so. You are playing with a Bible code, but a rather freer one than most. --ColinFine (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Food for thought. Don't you find it interesting, or at least noteworthy, that I mentioned that Jerome's "Chronicle of universal history" has 28 homilies AND Acts as you say has 28 chapters. Yes, I can see now I am way over ya'alls. Somebody sometime I imagine will ask me about "Cornelius". And what's this of Scipio. How does Scipio enter in the picture? Maybe someday somebody will be curious enough to ask me. But then that is another chapter - and I'm not sure if Wikipedia has enough memory in their servers to follow all that. So, for now I'll drop this and wait until others have read this over and ask me later of some specific questions. All I can say for now is that the cat is out of the bag.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine you think it's a big secret that Scipio was from the gens Cornelia. By the way, don't you also find it curious that over the past few weeks, whenever you asked if the key words you were plugging in made any historical sense, and everyone agreed that they did not, you didn't care and insisted they did anyway? Why did you even bother to ask? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scipio being from the gens Cornelia I don't believe is any big secret. But, the point I hinted at, apparently is as it went right over your head. Guess again. By the way did I mention that 106 and 28 add up to 134 which just happens to equal the number of "characters" of Jerome's Illustrious Men. Curious, wouldn't you think?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Anyway, since we know that as early as the 7th century, the work was available in Latin, and you haven't come up with anything in middle English, all else is just a bunch of random numbers. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Well, let's drop this for now and let Wikipedia's servers take a breather. I think we used up all their memory.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to find out if "Ava: Life in the Afternoon" by Rex Reed was published in the may 1967 issue of Esquire magazine. The Ministry (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems so [4].--Cam (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksThe Ministry (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2

I have a family picture of my father circa 1928-1932 reading a newspaper and pointing to the headline "FDR HIDES PLANE" Is there any way to date the photo from historical info?? The picture was taken in the summertime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.44.21 (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you narrow it down for us by confirming in what English-speaking nation of the many in the World this photo was taken/the newspaper was published? While the USA would seem to be the most likely possibility, it would be tedious to work on that assumption if it were in fact wrong. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, can you tell (either from the picture or by general knowledge) what newspaper it is? If it still exists, the newspaper's offices may be able to locate the date for you easily. At a good public library or a university library, especially in the city where the newspaper is from, it may also be possible to locate the paper by the headline. --Anonymous, 04:20 UTC, January 2, 2010.

Can you read any other headlines? Maybe his dramatic flight to the 1932 Democratic National Convention? Don't know why he would be accused of hiding the aircraft, but newspapers sometimes print strange things during an election.—eric 06:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wild-assed guess here, but is it possible that the headline actually reads "FDR Rides Plane"? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a ProQuest search on all multiple terms, multiple newspapers relating to Roosevelt and planes. I found no obvious candidates. I would also inquire as to whether you can be sure that is what the headline says, and if you could perhaps scan the newspaper part of the photograph for us to inspect on our own. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with our anonymous contributor's savvy guess, if the flight was dramatic. "Hides" would be odd: in a barn at Campobello?

No results at Google News Archive for eithr "Hides" or "Rides." I agree that "rides" is more probable. It is hard to hide an airplane while confined to a wheelchair. A high def scan of the newspaper would be helpful. Edison (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

???? It is hard to hide an airplane while confined to a wheelchair. Those with the full use of their legs go around hiding planes with consummate ease, do they? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mebbe push it into the barn, or pile branches and camo netting over it, if the legs are working. Edison (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election, 1932#Campaign says: "After making a dangerous airplane trip from his Hyde Park estate to the Democratic convention, Roosevelt accepted the nomination in person. ... Roosevelt's trip to Chicago was the first of several successful, precedent-making moves designed to make him appear to be the candidate of change in the election." The 1932 Democratic National Convention started June 27. Could there be a bad pun in Hyde Park and hides? Probably not. Maybe he had hidden that he was going to make the flight? Maybe he didn't give reporters access to the plane? PrimeHunter (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above ideas and requests, but I will note that, if you're sure of the dates 1928-1932, I think we must be looking at 1932. Roosevelt, while prominent prior to the election of 1932, would (in my opinion) be very unlikely to be referred to casually as "FDR" in a headline prior to the election. I just don't think he'd be well known enough that the nickname would be instantly recognizable. I may be wrong, but a little jumping around looking at headlines involving Roosevelt from the late 1920s/early 1930s suggests to me that a headline using the initials FDR would have been almost unheard of. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How much the public would have recognized "FDR" before the 1932 presidential campaign, and how often FDR would have appeared in headlines, are semi-objective questions to which I don't have the answer, but there are reasons that the initials might have been relatively familiar before that. (1) Once his name started appearing, "Roosevelt" had to be distinguished from Theodore Roosevelt (President 1901-1909, Presidential candidate 1912, died January 1919), often identified with the initials "TR". (2) In both cases, "Roosevelt" (like "Eisenhower", usually headlined as "Ike", and unlike "Ford", "Bush" or "Obama") was too long a name for many headlines, so editors would have been partial anyway to using "TR" and "FDR". (3) FDR had been Assistant Secretary of the Navy under Josephus Daniels during World War I (hence his "former naval person" exchanges during the Second World War with Winston Churchill, a former wartime First Lord of the Admiralty), and had been the Democratic Party's unsuccessful candidate for Vice-President in 1920 running with James Cox against Republicans Calvin Coolidge and Warren G. Harding. (4) New York newspapers (then as now read well beyond New York) would have been running many headlines about FDR since 1928, when he was elected Governor, so if the newspaper's a New York one, "FDR" might well have been natural as early as 1928. ¶ But, unlike the previous responder, I haven't yet done any actual sampling, so this is just informed speculation. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FDR was the Democratic Party candidate for Vice-President in 1920. That should have drawn quite a bit of national attention, even though he and Cox lost the election. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask how recognizable the were the initials for the Republican VP candidate in the 1996 election, but considering that Jack Kemp's initials were JFK, the point would not work well. Googlemeister (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

BTW, I tried doing a Google News archive search for "FDR" but unfortunately the old scanning techniques make such searches difficult. "fdr" in the majority of the old cases is a bad scan of "for". 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to learn more about governance in England. I know the broad outlines of what a parliamentary system is, but I want to learn more nitty gritty things like what causes an election to happen and what are all these different types of elections, who picks the prime minister, how are the districts determined, etc. The general articles like "Parliament of England" are all too broad. Any advice on where I can get some more specific information? 24.20.200.67 (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The general articles, such as House of Commons of the United Kingdom and Elections in the United Kingdom, really are the best place to start. Not only do they answer some of your questions ("The actual election may be held at any time before the end of the five-year term (...) The timing of an election is at the discretion of the incumbent Prime Minister"), they also have links to articles that may treat the nitty gritty things, for example the article on the Boundary Commissions that determine the constituencies (electoral districts). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing to point out is that there is very little governance in England, specifically. There is UK governance and there is local governance in regions of England of various size, but there is very little that covers all of England without covering more than just England. There have been calls for a devolved parliament of England, but there are no signs of there being one any time soon. --Tango (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "Prime Minister of England". The Prime Minister of the UK is the person who forms the UK government (covering Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as England) at the request of the monarch, and is usually the leader of whichever political party wins the majority of seats in the House of Commons after a general election. Where the leadership of the party changes between elections, as when Brown took over from Blair, the monarch invites that person to form the government and become PM. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly speaking, a UK citizen who is on the electoral register of a polling district in England is eligible to participate in three types of elections:

• European Parliament elections to elect their Member of the European Parliament.
• UK elections to elect their Member of Parliament.
• Regional and local elections to elect local councillors at various levels, and, in London, to elect the London Assembly and the Mayor of London.

The European and UK elections may be part of a general election, or may be a by-election triggered by the resignation or death of the sitting MEP or MP. In addition, UK citizens in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland are also eligible to vote in elections for the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly, as appropriate. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you don't have by-elections for the European Parliament. MEPs are elected by regional party lists. When a vacancy arises, it is filled by the next person on the party's list. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recently watched an episode of John Safran vs. God where John tried to "join" the Ku Klux Klan. In the segment, the Grand Wizard showed John a chart and stated that Able came fro the union of Adam and Eve but that Cain came from a union of Satan and Eve. I read the artical on the KKK but I didn't see any reference to this. Can anyone help me to understand where this idea came from and what "evidence" there is to "support" it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.117.26 (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see: Christian Identity, Serpent seed.—eric 06:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit about the possible origin of the idea can be found in the second paragraph of the article Cain and Abel. Deor (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. Do these - ahem - fringe theologians have any position on Seth? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They regard Seth as the first - er - legitimate son of Adam and Eve (after Abel), and hence his descendents to be of pure blood. The _main_ problem with the theory is the position of Noah - either they have to reject the Flood (or, at least, claim that it wasn't a worldwide flood and/or the "sons of Cain" survived elsewhere - on floating mats of vegetation?), or try and come up with a theory that only _Ham_ had tainted blood, and the other two sons of Noah were pure - difficult on any theory of inheritance, even the most irrational. But, coherent thought and extreme racism tend not to be found together very frequently. Tevildo (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Midrash has a story about Og surviving the flood, by hanging on to the outside of the Ark. I don't recall Og's genealogy, or if it's given, but it's possible he's a descendant of Cain. --Dweller (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does utilitarian ethics assign positive value to Earth's continued existence and to the average person's life, when most people seem to suffer from material existence more than they enjoy it, and to have more to fear than to hope for in this world? NeonMerlin 07:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps utilitarians do not share your premises ("most people seem to suffer from material existence more than they enjoy it" and "most people seem to have more to fear than to hope for in this world"). Life can be fun too you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also require some citations on your two premises, but Kurt Vonnegut wrote that it was a pretty common combination for a human to be miserable yet have an iron determination to continue living. Possibly the assigning of a positive value to the survival of Earth and humanity is an extension of the survival drive. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a hedonist point of view, both egoism and utilitarianism (though not always interwoven in harmony) share positive values to human existence. At the sometime, I agree that utilitarianism is the subset of positive political theory that can only move things in a democratic society. It does not mean that individual egoism cannot be hidden in a positive political theory; minimum in a highly developed democracy. I think OP is saying that most people do not see (or enjoy) what they have but suffer from material existence and have more to fear than to hope for. Couchworthy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Those who don't fear, don't survive. That was true of the dodo bird, anyway. The business world equivalent of that is, "If you snooze, you lose." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it is possible to value the survival of oneself as an individual, and the Earth, but not humanity. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a person gripes constantly to themselves or to others that life stinks, it doesn't mean they really feel that way deep down. If they truly did they would commit suicide. "Death is the only sincerity." Vranak (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has Antarctica the freedom of panorama? --84.62.205.233 (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "freedom of panorama"? Shadowjams (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably he or she means Panoramafreiheit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no government in Antarctica as such; its occupants co-exist under treaty arrangements. I don't see anything in the article about the subject of picture-taking. Freedom of panorama seems to figure mostly in the area of paintings and statues, and I doubt there are many paintings and statues in Antarctica (probably not even a brass monkey). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be covered by the Antarctic Treaty? Adam Bishop (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any specific mention of it, and it's probably way down the priority list in such a hostile environment. But it does say that the criminal laws of the individual nations apply to their citizens who are stationed there. So, theoretically, if an American citizen violated the American rules restricting freedom of panorama, they could be held accountable for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation isn't usually criminal, it's civil. --Tango (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the copyright laws of the various nations of people who are in Antarctica still apply to them. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be guessing that people are allowed to take pictures of places in Antarctica, since there are very few people living there, and there are plenty of photos on Wikimedia Commons of the place (including research stations of different countries). ~AH1^(TCU) 19:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of panorama only usually comes up in very limited circumstances anyway. National monuments, giant art exhibits, buildings done by great architects, etc.—and only in situations where there's the possibility of somebody making some money. It seems rather unlikely that the types of man-made structures in Antarctica would run afoul of that. It's possible, of course. The South Pole is not devoid of artistic flourish. The station certainly is distinctive looking. But yeah, I doubt anyone really cares about the copyright of the structures themselves, at least not enough to make a nuisance about it in such situations. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that streetlights many times use mercury-vapor lamps. What type of areas or towns or cities favor these type of lights, verses say sodium-vapor lamps or other gas-discharge lamps that use an arcing mechanism? Put on Science Desk instead. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This might not be entirely relavent, but mercury-vapor lamps contribute to more light pollution than sodium-vapor lamps do, so I'm guessing it's the areas that do not have legislation to mitigate light pollution. ~AH1^(TCU) 19:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the answer and noticing the question on the Science Desk.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What type would you guess are these in Street light interference?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In January 1901 did the world welcome the new King Albert until he said "Naw, let's make it Edward," or had he made his preference known (at least to Downing Street) during his mother's lifetime? —Tamfang (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Edward VII of the United Kingdom, for those who don't get the reference). Edward announced his desire to be known as "Edward" during the sitting of the Accession Council on 23 January 1901, before the official proclamation was made. See [5] for the London Gazette entries. It was a matter of public knowledge that he didn't like the name "Albert", but I don't think there was any official announcement before the actual accession. If he had died _before_ the proclamation (and after Victoria's death), it's quite possible that he'd be down in the lists as "Albert I", as well as holding the record for the shortest reign. Tevildo (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria was first proclaimed as "Alexandrina Victoria"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Charles has apparently alreadey decided to be George VII [6] Alansplodge (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't say that. What I would say is that, according to that article, unnamed "family friends" have said that Charles has considered using George VII rather than Charles III. That's a BIG difference between THAT and saying that Charles has decided to be George VII... --Jayron32 03:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantically, he'd be down in the lists as "Albert", as Kings and Queens don't acquire a numeric suffix until there's a second instance of the same name. Hence, Queen Victoria has no "I" after her name. --Dweller (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't remember who it was, but someone (perhaps his parents) wanted him to be known as "Albert Edward". And there are actually examples of monarchs who were the first of their name who went by "I" — look at this image, which depicts "Umberto I Re D'Italia". Nyttend (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 3

In order to start an investment bank/security brokerage, does the entrepreneur have to be licensed as an individual?--LastLived 03:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In which country? The rules surely differ, and we are going to be unlikely to look up the rules in each of the 192 countries in the world. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the laws of the United States, the investment bank/brokerage must be registered as a broker-dealer and must be a member of FINRA. If the entrepreneur is to have a senior position with the broker-dealer, then he or she must be a registered principal. John M Baker (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to as I live in the United States. And by senior position, do you mean as an officer, or as a director? Or both? Do you need such a license to start any kind of financial institution, for that matter (in the US)?--LastLived 02:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banks are highly regulated in the U.S. (and pretty much everywhere else for that matter.) Banks can be registered either as state or national banks, depending on the laws of the state, but almost all state banks, and all federal banks, are FDIC insured, which essentially brings all banks under the umbrella of federal banking laws.

If you're trying to start some sort of finance business, it should be painfully obvious that you're going to have to talk to a lawyer; navigating these sorts of regulations would not be easy. Shadowjams (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both directors and officers of a broker-dealer must be registered principals, if they are actively involved in management. Other employees generally must be registered representatives, unless they have only clerical or ministerial responsibilities. Licensing requirements for financial institutions in the U.S. depend on the kind of financial institution, but most U.S. financial institutions are subject to some kind of licensing requirement. Hedge funds are not, but that may change under proposed legislation. John M Baker (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you removed the references you had on Fedel Castro that stated he was backed by the US Govt and after his take over proclaimed he was a communist and turned his back on the US? Did you bend to pressure by our Govt to remove the fact they helped a communist take power?70.157.230.88 (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above note is your only edit. Please provide a diff of what you're specifically referring to. And FYI, wikipedia does not censor publicly-available content. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can look for a diff in the page history of Fidel Castro. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is here:[7] Maybe the OP could point out the specific date and time the info was removed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content discussion needs to take place on the talk pages of the articles themselves—take this to Talk:Fidel Castro. As for why it was removed (if it was): controversial information must be cited to a reliable source. If it is not, it can be removed at any time. The U.S. government has occasionally edited Wikipedia, but never in a truly official capacity, and Wikipedia does not as a policy "bend to pressure" (and to my knowledge pressure has never really been put on it), though since "anyone can edit" that means that information can be added in and be removed by basically anyone. If the information is reliable and cited, though, it should stay in the article as long as people are watching over it. Wikipedia includes many things that are not favorable to the U.S. government, among other governments, which is why it is periodically banned in China, among other places. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know the specific date the material was removed. I just know sometime in the last year I was doing research on Castro and I know Wiki had a few paragraphs that talked about him wanting a Democratic process and that the US had helped him gain power in Jan and then around March he came out and stated he was a really a Communist.

Now there is no reference to either him having help from the US nor him proclaiming to want Democracy. NY times archive articles http://www.nytimes.com/ref/world/americas/CASTRO_ARCHIVE.html

I do thank you all for replying. 06:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Lisa

As I can not find a provision in the constitution or a law nor a presidental decree making New Delhi the capital, but there is reference in the constitution to Delhi, it seems to me that Delhi is the capital of India -- as it was of British India from 12.12.1911 on -- and New Delhi just happens to house all supreme institutions of the republic (president, parlament, prime minster, supreme court).

But my changes in the article are opposed because there are semi-offical sources stating that "the capital is New Delhi".

Could you please find a legal text to silence me (or suggest some wording that respects the LEGAL situation and the generally affirmed believe). --85.178.127.159 (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. My 2010 edition of The World Almanac states that the capital of India is just plain Delhi. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the Sixty-Ninth Amendment to the Indian constitution just establishes Delhi as the "National Capital District", and there's no other provision that makes New Delhi the capital city. Tevildo (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The question is interesting. I'm sure you noticed the current Constitution does officially name Delhi the National Capital Territory of Delhi, which is a pretty strong implication, but I, too, don't see the statement "New Delhi shall be the capital of India" in the current Constitution. I haven't attempted a search of the laws of India to look for this. To be clear, the "semi-official sources" you're citing are the website of the Government of India and the CIA World Factbook, which are considered reliable sources here on Wikipedia; and you can avoid accusations of original research by avoiding inserting this sort of material in the New Delhi article until you can find a secondary source, other than yourself, that states the same questions as above. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)This kind of gets to be hair-splitting. New Delhi is basically a "neighborhood" and is entirely within Delhi. It's a little bit like Washington, DC, is the U.S. capital. Washington itself used to be just a portion of the District of Columbia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, New Delhi is just a neighborhood. The whole of Delhi is divided geographically into nine areas of which New Delhi is one, and divided functionally into three municipalities, one for New Delhi, BUT the census of India attributs persons of ALL nine areas/districs to the Delhi municipality and persons of FOUR areas to the New Delhi municipality. So New Delhi does not even have a separate existence from Delhi.

Another parallel that comes to mind: there are a number of districts (Bezirke) in Berlin. ALL highest federal institutions are placed in Berlin-Mitte, but that does not make Berlin-Mitte the capital, nor is Whitehall the capital of the UK. --85.178.104.139 (talk) 07:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we must give some weight to the fact, that we do have a legal document. Emperor Georg declared Delhi the capital, not New Delhi. Since we do not have a legal text changing the capital, the capital is clearly Delhi. Between 1912 and 1931 the branches of government were physically in the Delhi Cantonment -- could one say "The seat of government was the Delhi Cantonment."? IF YES, we can speak of New Delhi being the seat of government, whereas Delhi is the capital. ??? --85.178.104.139 (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Government of India has published that New Delhi is the Capital, the CIA factbook states the same. Neither are semi-official sources. [8] explains how the capital and the capital territory were chosen during the British Raj. -SpacemanSpiff 08:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your source, the Common Law Abroad, is not correct, in the beginning there was no national district of Delhi, but the "Delhi Imperial Enclave", so much for its accuracy. "India at a glace" is a web site run by the Indian Government, not an legal text.

Please read Government of Delhi. As i see it, there is no city of New Delhi with clear borders, a mayor and ..., it can not be the the capital of anything. --85.178.104.139 (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this looks like splitting hairs. The question is whether New Delhi is a "city" or a district of a city. People have always said "London," not the City of Westminster, is the capital of the U.K., even when there was no Greater London municipal government. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's pure original research. No mayor, so it can't be a capital? Please show sources that say that New Delhi isn't the capital. The two sources showing that it is (one a Govt of India website, another the CIA factbook) are credible enough. -SpacemanSpiff 09:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I do not understand what the implication of saying "This looks like splitting hairs" is. Do you want to say: Both "Delhi is the capital of India" AND "NEW Delhi is the capital of India" are correct? Or do you suggest: only the first sentence can be correct, since New Delhi is not even a city -- no matter what people (and web sites) say? --85.178.104.139 (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, mayor is not the ONE and ONLY criteria, but one of many. From the point of you of the republic of India there is only Delhi, no Old Delhi, no New Delhi. --85.178.104.139 (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just an indication that something is wrong with "New Delhi, capital city":

In New_Delhi#Culture one can read: "The Qutub Festival is a cultural event during which performances of musicians and dancers from all over India are showcased at night, with the Qutub Minar as the chosen backdrop of the event." But the festival site is in an old part of South West Delhi.

An other one. Maybe enterprises give New Delhi as their seat, but the street given is in South, South West, or North Delhi. It's just that some people -- including government officials -- think that "New Delhi" sounds better than "Delhi". --85.178.104.139 (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or even better. In New_Delhi#Economy one can read: "The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi does not release any economic figures specifically for New Delhi but publishes an official economic report on the whole of Delhi annually." and the rest is about Delhi. --85.178.104.139 (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To make things clear: I do not say: Because New Delhi is not a local authority with well defined borders it can not be the capital. If there is a Indian law or presidential decree making New Delhi the capital, it IS the capital, but in the absence of a legal text -- and presence of government web sites -- the fact the New Delhi, is not a city, not a town and not a borough with the trapping of a proper local authority, is a strong indication that it is not the capital of India, but just a special part (seat of governemnt) of the National capital. --85.178.104.139 (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Lot of confusion here, which is understandable given how many entities in India are referred to (loosely) as Delhi, both historically and at present. Let me see if I can clarify the situation:

• Historical: The capital of British India was shifted from Calcutta to the Delhi (then part of Punjab Province) in 1911. A new city was designed and constructed in the area by Edwin Lutyens, and formally inaugurated as "New Delhi", the designated capital, in 1931. Following India's independence in 1947, New Delhi remained the capital of India, while Delhi became a Union Territory following the States Reorganization Act of 1956.
• Current: In 1991 the Government of India reorganized the administration of the region, creating a National Capital Territory of Delhi (National Capital Territory, or NCT, in short; or loosely Delhi), which is a Union Territory and consists of Delhi (bulk of the area), New Delhi (<5% of the area, and the capital of India), and some cantonment areas. The NCT Union Territory is governed by a Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi ("Delhi Government" in short), while its three components are administered by the Muncipal Corporation of Delhi, New Delhi Municipal Council and Delhi Cantonment Board (which falls under the Ministry of Defence of the Union Government), respectively.

As you can see, there are lots of Delhis floating around above. But, bottom line to the OP's question: New Delhi is certainly the capital of India, and has been so since 1931. Hope that helps! Abecedare (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Abecedare, I disagree, New Delhi was definitely not the capital of British India, and it is not the capital of India. It is just an illdefined part of the capital of India, i.e. of Delhi. New Delhi is at least three things:

• the new Delhi build by Edwin Lutyens
• the disctrict of Delhi that houses Rashtrapati Bhavan, parliament, secretariat and the Supreme Court of India...
• the new parts of Delhi, parts anyone chooses to call "New Delhi"

Your are wrong, when you state that the three municipal bodies (one called "corporation", one "council" and one "board") are components of the NCT and adminster distinct areas. When you study the census of India you will see that there is no geographical separation between these statutory towns, they are no local authorities; they just provide services to persons (no to its resp. inhabitants) --85.178.75.15 (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Union Territory does not consist of Delhi, New Delhi, and some cantonment areas. The NCT consists of Delhi full stop. If you go to the web site of the Muncipal Corporation of Delhi, you see there logo: it shows the whole area of the NCT (without a hole in the middle), and the Census of India states that persons from all nine disctricts (including New Delhi) are counted as somehow belonging to MCD. --85.178.75.15 (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare, allow me a question: What was the capital of India in 1930? --85.178.88.110 (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the assertions above that the confusion is about the borders of New Delhi or Delhi. I interpreted the OP's assertion as: New Delhi was made the capital before Indian independence, but upon independence, nowhere in the Indian constitution does it actually proclaim New Delhi as the capital, and therefore it is not. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OP: You misunderstand me. On 12.12.1911 DELHI was proclaimed the capital. Soon afterwards the viceroy and the administration moved to the Delhi Cantt, later to New Delhi. New Delhi was just an area within the "Delhi Imperial Enclave" -- just as the Delhi Cantt. New Delhi became the SEAT of government, but Delhi was and is the capital. It is not only the constitution (which refers several times to Delhi, but not to New Delhi) that is relevant, but the absence of ANY legal document (law, decree) that establishes that part of the center of Delhi as the capital. Excuse me for repeating this: Many inhabitants of South Delhi think New Delhi sounds more modern, richer, better, so they tell you -- in good faith -- that they live in New Delhi, but they do not. It's the same with the capital (unless someone comes up with a legal text proving me wrong). --85.178.88.110 (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Taj Mahal build by Shahjahan?

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/true_story_of_the_taj_mahal.htm

Are the points noted down by P. N. Oak has been taken into consideraton? Gurugsk (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find reliable sources that present a divergent view, then please begin a discussion on the talk page, preparatory to adding the view into the article in an unbiased way. But a self-published website is not considered a reliable source. Furthermore Exceptional claims require exceptional sources --ColinFine (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the nearest MRT to NUS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.62.196 (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please use a descriptive title in future questions. Heading added

If you gave us some hint of which MRT or NUS you meant, or even what country you are in, there might be some chance of answering you. --ColinFine (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user geolocates to Singapore, so the question could be "which is the nearest Mass Rapid Transit (station) to the National University of Singapore?" --NorwegianBlue ^talk 15:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To which the answer is Buona Vista MRT Station on the East-West line. Tevildo (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, if that interpretation of the question is correct, this page (which was the first google hit for MRT NUS) may be of interest. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 16:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only hope the OP isn't stuck on a mountain in Greenland waiting for an answer! Grutness...wha? 23:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of situations in which I turn to Wikipedia for an answer... I'm not sure stuck on a mountain in Greenland is one of them! :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading a memoir by someone who lived in Africa during the early 19th. century, and he says that people could commonly read and write. Besides reading the Koran, they were fond of writing things as well. Have any writings like these survived to today? And if so, where could I read them? From his description, an African town he visited was very similar in work and industry to a european town of the same time. 78.146.54.230 (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Africa's a big place...in some places literacy is completely normal. Where did this person live? Adam Bishop (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And which African languages were written in the earl 19th century?--Radh (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably quite a few West African languages were written using forms of Arabic script (see Ajami script). Also Amharic in Ethiopia. --ColinFine (talk)

(ec) I think the place you're looking for is Timbuktu, where a vast library of medieval texts is in the early stages of being preserved. See The manuscripts and libraries of Timbuktu --TammyMoet (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Hausa was almost never witten before the British asked the local leaders to correspond with them using "Ajami script". People spoke Hausa, but wrote Arabic. -- Similar to west-northern India, where many Muslims spoke Hindustani, but wrote Persian (sometimes even Arabic). --85.178.88.110 (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what country the man was in, but he lived at a place called Kambia at the mouth of the River Pongo, which was near Cape Verga. The town he visited was called Timbo. 78.146.54.230 (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Kambia, in North-West Sierra Leone near the border with Guinea. There appears to be a rivier Pongo in Guinea, as well as a town called Timbo, which "was formerly an important religious centre and is still known for its eighteenth century mosque". Whether there are any non-Arabic records there I do not know. --ColinFine (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any language will do, if there is a translation. The book-learning goes back a surprisingly long way "The tariks of Timbo (annals in the Peul language but written in Arabic script) noted that in the year 1105...." - perhaps more advanced than European culture. 78.147.11.181 (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an answer, but I may have some leads. Timbo was the capital of the Kingdom of Fouta Djallon, which, from the earth 18th century to the end of the 19th, was a bit of a Mecca (pun intended) for Muslim intellectuals in West Africa and beyond. The main local ethnic group was the Fula people, who developed Ajami script, seemingly a modified version of the Arabic alphabet, in order to write in their own language. Our Fouta Djallon article names Tierno Muhammadu Samba Mombeya, Tierno Saadu Dalen, Tierno Aliou Boubha Ndyan, and Tierno Jaawo Pellel as accomplished writers from this period. - Fullobeans (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After more Googling: this book has some good information, but mentions that most of the writing you're interested in is hard to get one's hands on, as it hasn't been published and/or is in private collections. The French Wikipedia has an article on Tierno Aliou Boubha Ndyan, if you know any French. - Fullobeans (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember hearing about this book many months ago and I looked it up on Wikipedia because of its interesting premise, I just don't know the title of it. It's premise is something like a character who has a broken spaceship creates or somehow uses our universe/earth to get a piece of scrap metal to fix his spaceship. I am dying to figure this out, so please post anything that comes to your mind, thank you very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.188.225 (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, although in a sense it's the same idea. Somehow I'm thinking it's a Vonnegut story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sirens of Titan --ColinFine (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Man Who Fell to Earth co-opted world technology to assemble his ride home.--Wetman (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think its Sirens of Titan; thanks to all three of you! --71.245.188.225 (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on the article The New Journalism, a would like the access this article The Review of Politics, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Apr., 1974), pp. 306-309. Also trying to find and access the article, The New Journalism, 1: Not Necessarily What is New in Journalism. By Don R. Pember in Journal of Communication Volume 25, Issue 3, Pages 185 - 189. 1975. Thanks in advance what.is.the.1404[at]gmail.com.

Do you think you could help me find when the article Gear by Richard Goldstein was published in the Village Voice, the article Timing and a Diversion: The Cocoa Game by George Goodman (under the pen name "Adam Smith") was published in New York World Journal Tribune, and when Beth Ann and Macrobioticism by Robert Christgau was published in New York Herald Tribune? Thanks in advance.The Ministry (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the first one, I was going to suggest you file a request on the resource request page, but I see you've already done that. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the rather unlikely event that you haven't done so already, have you tried searching the archives at the Village Voice? That might give you one date. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The online archive only goes back to 97. And I live in Sweden so I can't visit the archives at american libraries.The Ministry (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know the lyrics to, or where i can get the lyrics too "scottsboro boys" by leadbelly?? Its for a Project. I appreciate the help!! :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 21:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most modern song lyrics are still under copyright, and so cannot legally be posted anywhere on the web. Links to illegal sites are not permitted in Wikipedia, so I'm afraid we can't help you. You may be able to buy a copy of the song somewhere. --ColinFine (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Call me a rebel... Go to Google, type in [Lyrics Scottsboro Leadbelly] and you'll get dozens of sites that have the lyrics. Dismas|^(talk) 00:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leadbelly is sixty years dead, but a certain evil person, inspired by an inked rodent, got some really horrible copyright laws passed. Tread softly. PhGustaf (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes a "B flat" clarinet "B flat"? How does the clarinet player know what note to play when the conductor says "play Concert C"? thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.192.104 (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All explained at Transposing instrument. In brief, the basic scale of the instrument, that you get by uncovering the holes one by one, is the scale of Bb. Many instruments are conventionally written at concert pitch, so a C is written as a C; but some instruments, particularly those that come in families, are written as though their natural scale was C, even though it is actually Bb, or A or Eb. This has the advantage that a clarinet or saxophone player can switch to an instrument in a different key and play the written notes exactly the same, even though they sound different pitches. Contrast that with recorders, which are in different keys but are conventionally written at concert pitch (though sometimes at the wrong octave): if you change from a tenor recorder (in C) to an alto (in F) you have to change the fingering for the notes on the page. --ColinFine (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I just wasn't paying attention all those other times, but that's the clearest and simplest explanation of this hitherto baffling practice I've ever read, Colin, so thank you. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The king of transposing instruments was Adolphe Sax, who when he put a large single-reed mouthpiece on an ophicleide to make a saxophone planned them in a huge range of sizes and pitches: B-flat and E-flat intruments for bands, and F and C instruments for orchestras. (For some reason orchestras like instruments with sharps in them whilst bands like instruments with flats in them. The F horn is a modest anomaly, with only one flat in it. Orchestral trumpets and clarinets are more often in C or A than the bandish B-flat. The CC contrabass tuba is likelier to be in tune than the BB-flat model.) The F and C saxophones never caught on (though a few still play the C melody model). Adam Carse wrote one of the best books about this, but the reader should be aware he didn't like jazz much. PhGustaf (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So when the conductor says "Play concert C" the F horn player plays his G. Presumably the Bb clarinet player plays his D. This has never made any sense to me. Edison (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The conductor doesn't often say that. The players with transposing instruments just play the notes as written, and it more or less works out. Long ago I played parts written in E-flat on an F horn, which involved adding or subtracting three flats from the key signature. I forget which. I mostly got the note as close to right as one might expect from a horn. Musicians have to know how to shuffle keys around. PhGustaf (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It astounds me that the questions and answers in the post make any sense to anybody :) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I could have written a much longer bit about banjo tunings.PhGustaf (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the above answers are pretty much true from my experience in High School band, but the simplest answer to the How does the clarinet player know what note to play when the conductor says "play Concert C" part is, that's what they were taught as musicians.Aaronite (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 4

My understanding of an LBO is that an investment bank raises debt on ITS OWN balance sheet and invests it as equity in the acquired firm. the terms of the debt however require the acquired company's cashflows to be used for repayment of the debt which is TAKEN BY THE INVESTMENT BANK. therefore no debt exists on the acquired company's balance sheet. can anyone please clarify with a source.Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.88.34.195 (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that sort of practice you are describing, that is a larger firm taking out debt to acquire a smaller profitable firm, and counting on the smaller firm outperforming the debt in order to justify the merger, is basically what fucked the newspaper industry in the U.S. There's been a lot of arguements made that the changing media climate has killed the "small town paper", but I am pretty sure if you look at the numbers, truly independent small town papers are still surviving OK, in that they are profitable, just not as profitable in the past. The papers that are getting shut down are those which were acquired by huge media conglomerates like The McClatchy Company. McClatchy tried to consolidate the newspaper industry by acquiring huge numbers of papers from small-to-medium sized markets; they often leveraged their acquisition of these newspapers with debt which was not repayable based on the diminishing (but not negligible) profits made by those papers. I don't have print sources at my fingers now, but I have seen and heard several TV and radio reports which make the case that, based on the numbers, many of these papers which have since been shut down by groups like McClatchy and The Tribune Company would still be in operation had they not been bought out. In other words, the papers would have been self-sufficient, but not profitibale to justify the leverage that was used to purchase them. Supposedly, consolidation leads to decreased cost due to reduction in duplication of services, but in this case, it seems quite likely that consolidation actually was less profitable to the industry than had it not happened. --Jayron32 05:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the problem there is simply that the newspapers were overvalued. Had they realised the profits were going to reduce they wouldn't have paid as much for them and then would have been able to service the debt. Levering increases risk, so the slightly lower than expected profits had a massively increased effect (causing the companies to go under). It's not the profits diminishing that caused the problems, but the profits being lower than expected. --Tango (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the end result is undeniably that it was the buyouts that led to the closing of the newspapers, not their lack of profitability in general. --Jayron32 18:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read our article, Leveraged buyout? Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I've read the article, but there is no clear answer to my stated question.

LBOs can have a variety of structures, but they normally are financed in significant part through loans that are to be repaid by the target firm and, if secured, are secured by the target firm's assets. So, no, it typically is not the case that there is no debt on the acquired company's balance sheet. Also, it is not necessarily the case that there is any equity investment by an investment bank. John M Baker (talk) 13:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for an interactive fiction book which I read years ago involving Sherlock Holmes. In the book, one can solve the mystery with occassional help from Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson. The reader is provided choices at the end of each page so that he can make his/her own decisions. I tried searching the net but couldn't find the name of the book. Does someone know anything about it.-Shahab (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds broadly like either a Choose Your Own Adventure book or a knock off. There are over 200 official releases at List of Choose Your Own Adventure books, including 185 in the main series, and several in offshoot series. We have Wikipedia articles on several dozen of these, but it is hard to tell from the title alone if any of these may have had Holmes and Watson as protagonists. At least its a start! --Jayron32 06:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gamebook.org (which lists a number of gamebooks) show that many Holmes related books were available in English, French and Spanish including these three [9] [10] [11]. You might like to dig around that site further to see if you can find any books you remember. Nanonic (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the headline about the Norwegian superkid, congrats to him. It made me wonder - perhaps this is selection bias, but I really do feel that Chess success at the highest levels is disproportionately dominated by people from Russia, ex-Soviet countries, and Scandinavia. Even if we confine our geographic borders to places traditionally considered "Western" and thereby omit China, Japan, and India (who maintain excellence in other boardgames), there still seem to be distinct pockets of Chess Awesomeness for lack of a better word. I've skimmed the Chess article and didn't see anything immediately obvious about the historical development of intense Chess participation in particular cultures/nations. Can someone shed some light on this for me? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. has had its share of Chess grandmasters. Consider Bobby Fischer and Joshua Waitzkin. Fischer didn't go farther in Chess mainly due to his unmanagable personality rather than chess skill. Additionally, countries like Japan may not play "western" chess as much, but they certainly have their own versions which are similar, and thus they may be more likely to play a game like Shogi, which is a very similar game, than Western chess. Category:Chess grandmasters has its share of eastern europeans, but also has many people from other western countries. --Jayron32 06:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chess was reasonably popular among Russian intellectuals before the Bolshevik revolution, but not really more so than in comparable groups in other European countries at the time. Soviet thinkers, beginning with Lenin, felt that chess was ideologically compatible with socialism, improved the mind, and taught thinking that helped people with other modern activities like maths and engineering. So the Soviet Chess School was established, chess became part of the core school curriculum, and successful chess players were celebrated and rewarded (in the way that sports stars are today). This thinking was reflected in the greater sov-blok, which explains the relative chess power of eastern european and central asian countries. This article has a bit more. I'd guess that the soviet thinking was copied in turn in China and India, but I don't have a reference for that. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In his book À travers l'Afrique published by Fayard, in Paris, 1910, the French soldier Baratier wrote : « Pendant six mois nous allions toucher journellement 300 gr de ce conglomérat de viande rougeâtre coupé de filaments graisseux. À cette époque nous pouvions encore avoir l'illusion que le corned beef était du bœuf ! Depuis le fameux procès intenté à l'usine américaine, je me suis souvent demandé de quoi nous avions vécu et pour quelle proportion dans ces 54 kg, tous ceux qui se trouvaient à la colonne avaient droit au titre d'anthropophages sans le savoir ! »

He was speaking about a "famous trial" against a USA corned beef manufacturer. I think this trial became after the parution of The Jungle of Upton Sinclair, thus between 1906 and 1910. I am searching references about this trial but do not find. Can you help me please ? Many thanks in advance. --Égoïté (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this was the "Beef Court", a military commission of enquiry held in 1899, covered in United States Army beef scandal. Warofdreams talk 10:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic ! Thank you very much ! --Égoïté (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used this to create an article on the WP fr: fr:Scandale de la viande bovine dans l'armée des États-Unis but I need always information about a special trial against a precise manufacturer (" le fameux procès intenté à l'usine américaine"). So if you have an idea… Happy to read you again, --Égoïté (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How did Ireland get into the picture? Being a non-combatant, I can't imagine it suffered any significant wartime damage. I could see strengthening Turkey, another neutral, to stave off the Red Menace, but Ireland? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Germany bombed Dublin a few times, possibly by accident. This certainly wasn't as significant as their purposeful bombing of Belfast, which was part of the UK and certainly a combatant. There seems to be some literature on the subject, such as "Ireland and the Marshall Plan, 1947-57" by Bernadette Whelan, if you can find that. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Ireland probably fell victim to blockades intended for the UK. --Tango (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland was in a very poor way, there was the Anglo-Irish trade war before the war, then the war, then afterwards Britain had to pay back loans to the US and had rationing and charged imports from Ireland, meat from New Zealand which was part of the Commonwealth and been allied in the war became cheaper than meat from Ireland. The money went everywhere including Germany. Dmcq (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The genius of the Marshall Plan was that it was availible to all parts of Europe, even to the defeated nations of Germany and Italy. One of the problems with the end of WWI was the "screw the losers" mentality of the victors. There was an attitude of punitive retribution against Germany for starting and ultimately losing the Great War, and the act of isolating Germany economically and punishing them for the war was one of the prime causes of creating the atmosphere that would allow for the rise of Nazi power. Where the Marshall plan differed was an honest attempt to rebuild ALL of Europe, not just say France and England, with the recognition that an economically and socially stable Germany would actually be better for world security. The same could be said for all nations in Europe, even those that were officially "neutral" during the war. The Marshall Plan was not just about rebuilding the war torn areas, but about providing economic stability to every nation to reduce the likelyhood of future wars. Ireland, especially during most of first 3/4ths of the 20th century, was a poor and violent place, and I am sure that the Marshall Plan money was intended to stabilize it just as it was for the rest of Europe. --Jayron32 20:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, well. Britain finally paid off the loans from the US for the war in 2006. At the same time they were giving money to Germany they were dismantling its industry and took control of Germanys patents and methods. Dmcq (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where can find a list of nations by gender income gap? I would prefer the format be in ratio form eg 100:77 dollar earned by men relative to equivalent for women.

--Gary123 (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try Income gender gap? I'd think that would be a pretty obvious first step. It leads immediately to a UN source from 2005, too. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How could there be legitimate dispute regarding the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences given to John Forbes Nash, Jr. (portrayed in A Beautiful Mind) for his anti-semitic leanings if the prize is for "those who ... shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind"? Seems to me that, if politics is really left out of it, and Adolph Hitler had contributed something other than death and destruction, that he should have won a prize too in whatever realm he contributed. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Do you mean to ask "could there be?" or do you mean to imply there was a controversy surrounding Nash?
2. The will itself further delineated that the prizes are to be based (roughly) on the greatest advancement in each field - the "on mankind" bit is just a flowery way of describing them all - and not necessarily the net benefit.
3. Moreover, the Nobel in Economics is technically NOT an official Nobel award, as apportioned in Nobel's will; that is stated pretty clearly at the top of the article.
4. Godwin's Law aside, there is a disgustingly enormous difference between Hitler and "leanings," especially for a man who spent his life delusional. It's also worth mentioning that in the 50s, when Nash was particularly active, anti-semitism wasn't as unpopular as it is today.

~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amory -- I'm sort of surprised that a seasoned editor as yourself would have misinterpreted my question (then again, perhaps I wasn't clear). Each of your points target either an irrelevant issue or one that makes my question stronger:

1. Nash's article indicates that there was some controversy -- you can search for "anti-semitic" in his article to find it.
2. My point was that the greatest achievement in any particular field is blind to the greatest achiever's political or religious (or anti-politica/anti-religious) leanings
3. The article on the Economics Prize sort of suggests, if it does not state explicitly, that it was established with all of the rules and regulations (as close as it could have) similar to the actual, bona-fide Nobel Prizes. The easiest and simplest rule to follow (and certainly easier than getting the Royal Swedes to give it out for a multimillion dollar price) would be to give it to those who make the greatest contribution in economics.
4. Your assertion reinforces my question. I am not questioning Nash receipt of the prize -- rather, I am questioning why his anti-semitism created controversy, because the prize is awarded based on merit of contribution, not, as I said above, based on political or religious leanings. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nash's article just mentions that he made some anti-semitic remarks, and that they were left out of the movie. The Nobel article mentions it briefly, although if you actually read the sources it is a gross misinterpretation. The controversy surrounding Nash's prize was overwhelmingly focused on the idea of giving the Economics prize for game theory, with his mental history a fading second. His anti-semitism is barely even discussed (in fact, I hope to later re-read those chapters because my quick skimming just now didn't see any mention of it). Anyway, I think we're in agreement here mostly. Theoretically, the prize should be just based on a laureate's achievements, but it would be ignorant and irresponsible of the committee to turn a blind eye to other aspects of their life. Winning is considered an endorsement, so any controversy usually causes controversy. This tends to happen more often with the Peace Prize (for obvious reasons), but looking at Tookie, who was nominated (clearly didn't win), it seems relatively clear they were willing to take everything in as part of a whole picture (possibly utilitarian, as I mention above). It is, after all, a committee. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring my complete ignorance of this particular case...I agree entirely that awards should be awarded on the merit of what is being assessed (and not other things), but life is more political and complicated than that. By giving an award it is (in the eyes of many) tantamount to approving of that person and their ideas (relevant and irrelevant). The fact that this isn't what an awarding party are trying to say is largely irrelevant, what matters is how their decision is received...The awarding party has to consider the implications of their being associated with that individual. Does it tarnish their 'image' more to reward or ignore a specific (worthy) individual? Think of how others would view that award if it were to be given to Hitler (as in your example)? Do you think that it wouldn't lead to people questioning whether they approve of his views? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a celebrated dispute in the late 1940's between two democratic leftists, George Orwell and Murray Kempton, over whether the Bollingen Prize should be awarded to Ezra Pound, a giant in 20th-century poetry with vehement anti-Semitic and pro-Fascist sympathies (see Pisan Cantos), who had broadcast in wartime against the Allied war effort from Fascist-ruled Italy. (Pound narrowly escaped being tried for treason by being declared insane and confined for many years to St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Washington, D.C.) Orwell decried letting politics interfere with artistic decisions, while Kempton asserted that moral criteria were relevant to the Bollingen Prize. ¶ Shortly before his death, Pound had a cordial but rather strange visit at his Italian home from Allen Ginsberg, a major American poet of Jewish origin who followed an idiosyncratic variation of Buddhism. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A cry for help. I am from Denmark and trying to find out, when/if Cnut was in Flandern and when in Holland/Nijmegen. his daughter Gunhilde (later also called Kunigunde as Cnut's mother) was married to Conrad II's son, Henry, and that was in Nijmegen. In which church??? But the wedding took place after Cnut's death, so he did not participate. But did he go to Nijmegen??? I think he was in Flandern at a time, because it is said in some un/or/reliable source, that "he walked from Flandern to Rome." A long walk in my opinion, and I presume, he sailed some of the way, but don't know. All comments/answers on these questions to me, please: <email adress redacted> - thank you. Jan Eskildsen87.57.196.132 (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this book, the marriage was celebrated at the royal palace - perhaps this was at a royal chapel there. Cnut died in Shaftesbury, so he did not travel to Nijmegen on this occasion. This book covers Cnut's trip to Rome. The only detail comes from an Encomium, not a very reliable source. It states that he travelled via Flanders, Gaul and Italy, and visited St-Omer. If this is true, then he might plausibly have visited Nijmegen, but unless there are sources not covered by that book, there is no way of knowing. Warofdreams talk 16:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me on some queries about social class.

1. some examples of typical Lower middle class occupation?
2. does an inspector belong to lower middle class or working class?
3. does an elementary school teacher belong to lower middle class or working class? --Qoklp (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out that there is also an article on Working class. Bus stop (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lower middle class occupations tend to be White-collar worker, which means generally office jobs. I assume you are talking about the US, in which case an Inspector's position, and therefore wage and class can vary between law enforcement agencies. An elementary school teacher would be lower middle class, due to the level of education required and wage. Chaosandwalls (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching is graduate-entry in most places, which means it is definitely a middle class occupation. I would think a middle-to-high ranking police officer would be middle class, but the isn't a precise definition of the term. Background can be more important than occupation is determining class (more so in the UK than the US, I think) - if your parents are middle class then you'll probably be middle class, even if you have a less well-paid job. --Tango (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are really no sharp lines between classes; it is something of a continuum. Particularly between lower middle class and working class, it is difficult to know where to draw the line. Analytically, the clearest criteria for defining socioeconomic classes were those outlined by Marx: People who are dependent on selling their labor power to earn a living belong to the proletariat, or the working class broadly defined. (By this definition, most people are structurally working class.) People whose income comes mainly from investments, by contrast, belong to the bourgeoisie. There are of course gray areas, mainly consisting of entrepreneurial professionals, such as most lawyers and doctors, or the owners of small businesses (the petit bourgeoisie) who live from a combination of investment and labor. These Marxian criteria are out of fashion, but once you move away from them, it all becomes rather fuzzy and subjective. Marco polo (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many Americans would consider "lower middle class" and "working class" to be the same thing, especially as Americans tend to think of their country as having three classes (poor, middle class and rich) as opposed to four (poor, working, middle and rich). Rather than use these fuzzy terms, social scientists often talk about people in income "quintiles," that is, the poorest 20%, the next-poorest 20%, the middle 20%, the second-richest 20% and the richest 20%. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd second that. In America, middle class means "people with jobs" to most people; i.e. if you "work for a living", regardless of whether you are a manual laborer or office worker or doctor or lawyer, you'd be considered "middle class". In America, the attitude is that neither the poor class is the class that doesn't work, or only does so sporadically, while the rich don't work because they do not have to. That leaves just about everyone else middle class. It's been said before, "In America, everyone is middle class"... --Jayron32 04:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a video entitled BARACKA there is a scene about 14 minutes in of two groups of men all with black hair (some with gray and one or two partly bald) and lean, tanned bodies, a red flower behind the left ear, wearing no shirt (or it may be the black, white and red cloth down around their waists), black coolot slacks and bare feet siting in a half circle in about ten rows (which splits into two quarter circles which then face each other) doing a sort of monkey chatter ritual with their hands level and then above their heads and moving from left to right, with their chatter leader distinguished only by age and command and three white stripe marks on his face (one in the center and two down the cheeks) in the courtyard of what looks like an ancient Hindu temple. What is this ritual and where can I find more information about it and the participants? 71.100.1.76 (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

this scene? Kecak.—eric 21:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, amazing. Thanks. 71.100.1.76 (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Is John H Johnson's wife black or white. Since on Google image shows John H Johnson's wife as white.--69.226.43.41 (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have link to such a photograph? According to several bios, the only info on a wife I can find is a 1941 marriage to Eunice Walker. I have seen no images of Eunice Walker, so I don't know if a) she is the woman you are seeing b) she was his only wife or c) if the woman you are seeing is his wife... --Jayron32 21:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions like this are difficult if not impossible to answer, because different individuals and different cultures have different definitions (or possibly none) as to what "black" and "white" mean. For example, many people who would be categorised as "black" in current US culture would not be so categorised in current UK culture, which incidentally would categorise the large majority of the World's population as neither. Since we cannot know for sure what your, or any other questioner's, definitions are, we cannot give answers that are necessarily meaningful to you/them. The best we could do, sometimes, would be to confirm (if published evidence existed) whether or not a particular named person, or (if the circumstances are favourable) the majority opinion of a particular culture at a particular date, considered themselves or a third party to be "black/white/whatever." You might also, perhaps, bear in mind that many people consider such questions unimportant, and undue interest in them a little suspicious and distasteful. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have only a vague memory of it, so this question may be pointless, but anyway: years ago I saw an American Movie on TV, either from the late 40s or 50s, b/w, set in some vaguely military bureaucracy (possibly the allied administration in Germany). One of the protagonists, some James-Stewart-ish lady killer, in one scene finds himself alone with one of the Deborah-Kerr-ish typists in some office with an awful lot of filing cabinets in it. He starts making passes at her most insistently and manages to drive her into a corner. To avoid being kissed, the typist starts reciting some poem. I saw the movie dubbed in German, and I believe in that version she recited Schiller's "Die Glocke." At some point I started wondering which schoolmarmy poem she actually recited in the original version (Paul Revere's Ride? O Captain, my Captain?) but by then I couldn't remember anything else about that movie, or what it was called...--77.186.222.63 (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good guess there! It seems that the film was A Foreign Affair and the poem was indeed "Paul Revere's Ride"—see here (click on "Read full synopsis"). The "Deborah-Kerr-ish typist", however, was the desirable Jean Arthur; how could you forget that? Deor (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you so much, you just solved a qusetion that's been haunting me for years! As for Paul Revere, I guess no other American poem has been so often forcibly memorized in schools, ever ("Die Glocke" is the German equivalent, or possibly the "Zauberlehrling"). --77.186.222.63 (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Also, I do in fact remember Marlene Dietrich singing "The Ruins of Berlin", I just had no idea it was the same movie. --77.186.222.63 (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was Susan Fletcher in DIGITAL FORTRESS. I don't quiet remember, but the Protagonist of the novel was using a cognative tool where you 'IMAGINE KNOWING ALREADY' the answer or outcome to a problem. And then it comes to you. Dan Brown did reference the hindu term in the novel. I'm currently imagining knowing already. I imagine that you'll give me the heads up. Cheers, --i am the kwisatz haderach (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine this questions has been answered.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

::Ok!, I'll follow the wiki-question rules and ask the words flat, 'What was the hindi word describing this already-knowing-state-of-mind? --i am the kwisatz haderach (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 5

Lionel's second marriage was to Violante in 1368. At this wedding were Jean Froissart and Petrarch and Geoffrey Chaucer. Is there details how Chaucer might have met these other two and what kind of literary ideas they may have exchanged among themselves?--LordGorval (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not, and it is not 100% certain that they were all present together. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chaucer is said to have "passed at Dover" on 17th July 1368 and was out of the country for no more than 106 days. It is presumed that this means left the country but it could even mean arrived back. So it is considered possible that he may have attended or came upon the tail end of the celebrations but then again he may have gone no further than France. There are tantalising suggestions that Chaucer may have met either Petrarch or Boccaccio on his Italian journey of 1373 and the reference in the Clerk's prologue to learning the tale from Petrarch in Padua is sometimes seen as Chaucer's own history. As to what was learnt in those possible meanings, it was after this time that Chaucer began to write in a more Italian style rather than the imitations of the French style he had used before, he developed rhyme royal quite likely from Italian verse, and he drew inspiration from Italian literature. All of which could have been done without meeting the literary superstars and was likely in part learnt from the merchants in his home city before he even left the country. 14:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

how old would Lance Ito's wife Margie Ann York be. She is white, non-asian so looks like she is in the 50s, or she is about the same age as ito. One of my bus driver is japanese (FR US came over 1974) and he have a white wife born in New york and they both born in 1951.--69.226.34.161 (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she already had a son from a prior marriage before she married Ito, and they married in 1981, when he was 31. I would say she would likely be of similar age, though I have no reference, she may be a few years younger, but not decades younger... --Jayron32 04:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this bio she joined LAPD in 1968, and in this it says she retired as Chief of LA County Police in Jan 2009. 87.112.68.96 (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She may, of course, be older than him. It does happen. +Angr 22:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between Chairman and CEO of a corporation? Both the articles say they are the highest ranking administrator. Then where is the difference? For example the Chairman of Microsoft is Bill Gates and the CEO is Steve Ballmer. Does it mean that the owner of the corporation is called Chairman and the highest ranking officer employed by the owner is called CEO? --Qoklp (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how the corporate governance is structured, but broadly speaking the "Chairman of the Board" of a company is the chairman of its Board of directors, which is the group empowered by the shareholders to represent their interests. The Chief Executive Officer is the person whose primary role is to organize the running of the company. The CEO and Chairman of the Board are often combined into a single person, but this does not have to be so. Your idea that the "owner" is the chairman is almost right. The "owners" are the investors who own stock in the company, and the Chairman is the person who represents their interests (or presides over the body, the Board of Directors, who does). The CEO is an employee of the company whose job it is to run the company. If a company is a single-owner corporation, there is no need for a board of directors, since there is only one "interest". The owner would still be able to hire people to help him run his company. --Jayron32 06:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I would like to ask a follow-up question. Do the chairman and board of directors typically get paid a salary by the corporation for their work? If not a regular salary, then what kind of remuneration is typical? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 06:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be hard to imagine a "chairman of the board" who was NOT a major investor in the company. Indeed, in many cases, "The Board" is the top 5 or so biggest investors, and the Chairmen ends up being the biggest investor of all, since voting strength is based on share strength. Thus, the Chairman has it in his self interest to maximize his own share value. This is different from the CEO, who is an employee, and thus is earning a salary... I could be wrong, but I don't think that board members are typically "paid" for serving on the board, unless they also hold executive positions. There are many companies in the U.S. where the board is also the executives of the company (thus the CEO and Chairman are the same person, and the CFO and CTO also serve on the board), so they get paid as employees but not necessarily as board members. I believe that in Europe this is not allowed by coportate governance regulations, and that executives cannot serve on the board. --Jayron32 07:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is how it should be, of course. There is a very basic conflict of interest between the chairman and the CEO, since often the shareholders will want something that the executives don't. The European separation between the two is a good example of corporate governance as it should be. I'd love to hear the arguments that are put forward in the US for not keeping the two separate. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The chairman is not always a major investor - sometimes he can be someone appointed by the investors, especially if the investors don't acually have experience of running a company themselves. Historically a chairman was sometimes appointed as a figurehead to give the company credibility. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify some of this:

• The chief executive officer is the leader of the management team. He (or she) reports only to the board of directors, and all or virtually all of the other employees report, directly or indirectly, to him. The CEO title is usually combined with that of the chairman of the board or the president. If the chairman of the board is not also the CEO, he or she may be referred to as a "non-executive chairman," and monitoring the CEO and the rest of management is considered a major part of his duties.
• A corporation is owned by its stockholders. The chairman may or may not own stock. A corporation must have a board of directors even if it is owned by a single individual, in which case any other directors largely serve simply as advisers. In the case of a public company like General Electric, where the shares are owned by a large number of investors, the board of directors represents those public investors in monitoring management.
• Directors usually do get paid for their service as directors, although this may not be the case with, say, a small family corporation. However, if a director is also a member of management, he or she may not receive any additional compensation for serving as a director. John M Baker (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Median compensation for directors in the 200 biggest U.S. companies was $190,000 in 2007, not including compensation for work on board committees. Source: [12] -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's listing of the centuries and decades lists the first century AD as begining with the year 1 and going till the year 100. It notes that there was no year "0". This is correct. The listing for the first decade counts only nine years, 1 through 9, and the following decades and centuries begin with the year ending in "0" and ending in "9". What did you do with the missing year? Why are you now part of the herd mentality that miscounts decades, centuries and millennia? Do you just go along to get along or are you interested in accuracy?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.35.160 (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the ongoing discussion here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a question of accuracy, but of convention. Do you say "eleven" instead of "oneteen"? Why is it "fourteen", but "twenty-five"? Wikipedia documents the exiting conventions, it does not aim to right past wrongs. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this question... is 1990 in the eighties or the nineties? 87.112.68.96 (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Millennium#Counting years. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia usually counts centuries and millenia from 01 to 00 and decades from 0 to 9, but there may be exceptions in some articles. A decade is a period of ten years. Decades are usually not given an ordinal number, for example the 1990s are not called the 200th decade. It seems most sensible to follow the common convention that the 1990s are 1990 to 1999 and similar. Many of our readers would be confused if we didn't do what they are used to from everywhere else. The 10s have a note but it seems unneeded for modern time. Wikipedia is more interested in the terminology generally used by reliable sources than what a given individual considers most correct based on their preferred argument. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Common names. We don't rename the Hundred Years' War because it wasn't exactly 100 years, or millipede because it doesn't have 1000 legs, or Bill Clinton because it's not his given name, or North Korea because the official translation is Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or Rome because it's Roma in Italian, or Alzheimer's disease because others had described it earlier (see List of examples of Stigler's law), or Fermat's Last theorem because he (probably) didn't prove it (see List of misnamed theorems), and so on. The English Wikipedia is written in English which is a human language and not mathematics. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well-stated. As a parallel, consider someone's age. Once they hit 20, they are likely to say, "I'm in my twenties." The wouldn't feel the need to wait until they're 21. Yet we don't have a year 0 either, unless you want to count the time in the womb. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the same token, that person would not, and could not, say "I've entered my 3rd decade", until they complete their 20th year and reach their 21st birthday. (Which, ORly, may have something to do with why the 21st birthday and not the 20th was the age of adulthood in days gone by.)

Hold up a minute, I think everyone would call that their 20th birthday, not their 21st. (It is, of course, their 21st birthday counting the day of their birth as number one; but that's not what our species does). Until the day which we call the 20th birthday, the person will be called a 19-year-old, and no way would admit to being in their 3rd decade. The day after they turn 20, they are in that decade. Sussexonian (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is "everybody except 1.2 billion Chinese", or at least that's what learned from the very reliable juvenile adventure novel Big Tiger and Compass Mountain. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just on the absence of the year 0: that's usually cited as the fly in the ointment, but what person in their right mind who was devising a new era would start out with anything but Year 1? As Bugsy says, humans start with year 1, not year 0. Books start with page 1, not page 0. The first day of each month is not the 0th of the month. So, why would anyone expect the first year of an era to be year 0? The very mention of this supposed lack still baffles me. I understand that there's a discontinuity with the previous era: it finishes at 1 BC, not at 0, which is inconvenient for those who want to represent time periods spanning the era change on a continuous number line. But blame that (if blame there must be, which is dubious) on whoever came up with the BC system and called the last year of that era "1 BC" and counted backwards. If it was necessary to have continuity, the last year of the previous era should have been called "0 BC". Don't make it the fault of the Christian Era and pretend it was somehow supposed to have had a Year 0 and someone stuffed up, because that wasn't the case at all. (There was also a discontinuity of 10 days between the Julian and Gregorian calendars. The day after 4 October 1582 was 15 October 1582, and the dates 5-14 October 1582 simply do not exist, except in the proleptic Gregorian, which has only arcane and esoteric applications. That's never bothered anyone.) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that - surely it's high time the Give us back our eleven days campaign was revived. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in the Mayan calendar things often start with 0... AnonMoos (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely they aren't generating profits, so why are they often wound up due to the tax bill? Thanks. 67.243.1.21 (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VAT and employer's national insurance contributions. A well run business keeps money aside as the trading that incurs these happens, so that when the bill is due they've got the money in hand. But football clubs are often not very well run. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plus there are often cases where a business claims something is a valid business expense, but the tax man disagrees. Or the business thinks that, by clever bookkeeping, it can defer a tax liability into the subsequent year, but the tax man disagrees. And when the taxman disagrees (and particularly when their opinion is sustained by a court) this generally unravels several years of the now-shown-wrong accounting practice, which often means several years worth of taxes (the thing the club thought it could save but couldn't), interest, and penalties all become instantly due (with the interest continuing). A number of business owners claim the taxman is particularly intransigent when it comes to payment schedules. UK insolvency law, which treats the taxman as a special (first-come) case before other creditors, often makes it in the taxman's interest to petition to wind up a business in circumstances that other creditors wouldn't. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they really wanted to be anonymous, why didn't they use a pseudonym? --Quest09 (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image the media likes to give of them is "reclusive", not "anonymous". And when the media says they're "reclusive", that mostly just means they don't like talking to the media - there's no evidence that either lives in alone cabin in the forest, talking to no-one. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without speaking to these particular cases, It is not unlikely that some writers have begun by publishing under their real name, and only then discovered that they dislike some of the drawbacks of fame that they had not anticipated. Probably rather more writers begin their career under pseudonyms, for various reasons but sometimes to avoid their less accomplished journeyman works from adversely affecting their hoped-for mature reputation under their real name. Some writers become so renowned under a pseudonym that they adopt it as their legal name. Salvatore A. Lombino legally changed his name to one of his early pseudonyms "Evan Hunter" because he thought it more commercial and achieved some literary respect with it, but became even more successful under another of his noms de plume, Ed McBain. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In about 1956, as a Army Brat of five; I traveled from the US to Germany aboard an old passenger ship the SS BUTNER. In 1959 my family returned to the States aboard the SS Patch through "the worst hurricane in fifty years." From the pilot house I personally witnessed a mean sea state of 70' seas with many 90 footers present! At 8 1/2 years old my memory was indellably imprinted with memories of that voyage. After running with the storm, having abandoned course for many days; we put into drydock for a week at Liverpool England to check the ship over for damage before proceeding to NY,NY. I have often wondered about those two great old ships and particularly about that storm. What information is available to refresh my memory and fill in the blank spots. My dad was a Captain at the time and served as Provost Marshal aboard the SS Patch in charge of four prisoners He held in the ship's Brig (which was down in the hold on the lowest level - those four tough guys bawled like babies to get out of there - to no avail!). Dad's name was Capt. Alton T. Phipps. He was accompanied by my Mom, Eva B. Phipps; My sister Sharon and myself, Mark. What can you tell me of those two vessels and those voyages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.68.128.9 (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if your SS Butner is USS General H. W. Butner (AP-113). The profile fits fairly well; troop transport ship which in 1959 may well have been doing Europe - New York work. Can you give us dates for the 1959 return for the meteorological question? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Down in the "Later service" section, the article says that the General H. W. Butner plied a "regular schedule from Brooklyn, New York, to Southampton and Bremerhaven" from sometime in 1952 until 1960, so it does seem a likely candidate for a 1956 U.S.–Germany crossing. Deor (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Googling for "USS Patch" turns up many relevant hits, including mentions by servicemen who traveled on it to or from Germany in the '50s and '60s. For the hurricane, you may want to look at the article 1959 Atlantic hurricane season. (If the ship ran into the hurricane in the mid-Atlantic, as is suggested by its seeking port in Liverpool rather than continuing to the United States, Hurricane Hannah seems the most likely prospect. Was your crossing in late September – early October?) Deor (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could also be Hurricane Flora if it was earlier in September. Googlemeister (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah was much more intense, though—125 mph winds vs. Flora's 75 mph—which seems to fit the OP's description better. Deor (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but in the middle of the ocean, 75 mph winds would still be a sight to behold, although a learned person would not call it the strongest in 50 years I suppose. Googlemeister (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a picture of the USS Patch here. --Xuxl (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, we do not have Patch on List of United States Navy ships: P. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First commissioned as USS Admiral R. E. Coontz (AP-122)[13]?, it's a redlink.—eric 22:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When an appeal court takes a long time (past the extent of an injunction for instance) to render a decision is there a deadline or if not is there a motion which can remind the court of the need for a judgment to be rendered... or is this not the route to go? 71.100.15.198 (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

That would depend on the jurisdiction, of which there are literally thousands (and in the case of the USA alone, at least 51). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So then if it is jurisdictional related then can it be broken down into two groups... one group where a such motion is available and necessary and another group of jurisdictions where it is not? 71.100.15.198 (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

The traditional common-law remedy was the writ of mandamus, and it still exists in some jurisdictions. However, it would be unlikely to be available for an appellate (as opposed to first-instance) decision, as there's already been a legally-binding ruling on the issue; the courts have done their duty, even though the first-instance decision may be overturned. Of course, if your question is about a case that you're involved in, you'll have to consult a lawyer - we're not allowed to offer legal advice here. Tevildo (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a cultural anthropology teacher who told us that Iraq was the first British colony to gain independence from Britain. And they did so using force rather than peaceful means like India. I tried looking on wikipedia for this, but I didn't find anything. Is this true? ScienceApe (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty absurd. Our article British Empire states that Britain didn't gain control of Iraq until 1919, whereas the USA gained their independence at the conclusion of the American Revolutionary War, which was somewhat earlier. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although technically, The USA was 13 colonies, not just one. Googlemeister (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now before everybody jumps on the bandwagon, I believe that it is true that Iraq was the first EASTERN colony to gain independence, sometime around 1929-ish. Wrad (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The British Mandate of Mesopotamia (not strictly a _colony_) came to an end in 1932 - until 1920, the area which is now Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire. Your teacher may have been thinking of Afghanistan, which achieved independence from the British Empire following the Third Anglo-Afghan War in 1919. Tevildo (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) It should also be noted that Iraq wasn't independent before 1919 either. It was part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire from about 1350 or so, and before that as part of the Mongolian Ilkhanate from 1250 or so, and before that as part of the Arabic Abbasid Caliphate from 850 or so, and before that as part of the Iranian Sassanid Empire and other Iranian/Persian empires before that, and ancient states such as Assyria, Babylon, Sumeria, and Ur. Iraq has really only existed as an entity since the 1930's. when if was formed out of the British Mesopotamia, which was more properly a "Mandate" or a "Protectorate" than a "Colony" (the British didn't try to send people to populate it, they were given the responsibility of protecting it militarily). --Jayron32 20:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, the British made up the boundaries of Iraq, without taking proper account of the inhabitants, as mentioned in 20th century history of Iraq. Thanks a lot, guys. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt's status at different times has always been rather murky to me. Perhaps she could qualify as the first (or one of the first) eastern British possessions to gain independence. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 6

In most militaries/navies/etc., are the soldiers/sailors/etc. permitted to cough/sneeze/make other involuntary bodily noise while standing at attention? Or does this level of permission or lack thereof vary widely from service to service and country to country? Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidding involuntary actions would be the height of stupidity ("Soldiers are not allowed to hit the ground when stumbling"). Of course, for military organizations, that makes it a toss-up... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If "etc" may include the organisation Scientology, a training regime called TR-0 that is applied in that organisation forbids the trainee even to blink.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know if there is a picture of the statue of US Unknown soldier that is in the mall near the city park in Salerno. I went through there on a tour and there was no stop so I couldn't get a picture of it. I had a dear friend killed there and was never found and I would like the picture as a rememberance of him. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.14.21 (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]