Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 April 9

= April 9 =

Death and the VC
I just read the main page article about the Victoria Cross and I wondered: which war had the most VCs awarded per death? A sort of ratio of deaths to Victoria Crosses. Thanks a lot. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I´d say the Zuluwar wins. See the pretty depressing Battle of Isandlwana. But wait for Clio. She knows better than I do.--Tresckow (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your meaning is not quite clear to me, 81.96, but the answer to your question is almost certainly the First World War, though I have not calculated just how many of the 634 Victoria Crosses awarded were given out posthumously, or the number of medals as a proportion of the total casualty list. Tresckow, the Zulu War saw the most medals awarded for a single action, the defence of Rorke's Drift, though I believe that all of the eleven recipients survived the battle.  Clio the Muse (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Zulu war had high fatalities but few VCs. I've thrown a table together, and am hunting through WP to fill it in; feel free to add in.  It might be worth looking at recent campaigns, such as Afghanistan: 2 VCs awarded, with fairly light losses in historical terms (don't know how many).  Only 14 VCs have been awarded since WWII.  Also check out List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign. nb. I've only considered Commonwealth/British Empire deaths, since VC are only awarded to these soldiers.  Gwinva (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC) I've filled a few more in, but some fatality lists are hard to come by.  It gives you an idea, anyway.  WWI is far down the list of VCs to deaths.  (I presume that was the ratio you wanted?)  Gwinva (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Gwinva, yeah that's exactly what I wanted. Sorry if it wasn't clear. Why were there many issued following the Crimean war then? 81.96.161.104 (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The medal was instituted during the Crimean War for "valour". There was no precendent, or tradition to regulate or temper its use. I suspect citations decreased over time as the medal became more prestigious: the "we can't hand it out to just anyone" idea. It would also be worth looking at when the other service medals were instituted.  Now there are a number of "lesser" medal options, such as the DSO. Only 181 VCs were awarded in the whole of WWII; but how many other medals were issued?  Gwinva (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting table. Anyone want to do the same for the US and the Medal of Honor? --Anon, 23:59 UTC, April9, 2008.


 * Here's an incomplete table for the Medal of Honor. Most of the statistics come from here and here. You can see how it was awarded pretty liberally for some conflicts before WWI, when the standards were tightened. jwillbur 22:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Anon, 23:05 UTC, April 15, 2008.

If I convert to Judaism and become a Jew, I'm still Asian and Thai American or not?
I don't want to convert to Judaism now. I'm Asian American, Thai American, and a Shia Muslim. If I convert to Judaism and become a Jew, I'm still Asian and Thai American or not? I know if I'm born Asian and Thai American, I will be Asian and Thai American forever in my life. Jet (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Umm, did your last sentence not answer your question? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The important thing to consider is the difference between ethnic identification and religious identification. The two are a bit confused in Judaism and Jewishness. You can be Jewish, but not believe in Judaism, and I think you can convert to Judaism, but not become a Jew (certainly not ethnically - it doesn't change your DNA). You can also have multiple ethnic identities. In fact, you already do. You're Thai, Asian, American and the combinations of those. I don't think it would be strange to add another identification in there, if it's merited. You could certainly take up Jewish traditions, and identify culturally with Jewishness. Steewi (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You can categorize yourself however you want to. Other people will categorize you however they want to. In general, you will be categorized in three ways: Ethinicity, religion, and nationality. All three are arbitrary and capricious, and frequently a term such as "Jew" will conflate the categories. It is very easy to find people that self-identify in multiple races, multiple nationalities, and multiple religions. The best course ot to avoid these ridiculous labels entirely. -Arch dude (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (Please correct me if I'm wrong) If you didn't know, to be an "ethnic Jew" your mother must be a Jew. To gain Isreali citizenship so that your a Isreali national (or your nationality is Jewish) one of your grandparents must have been Jewish. And to be religiously Jewish you must convert to Judaism (no idea what this involves other than a sharp knife) --Shniken1 (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To be accepted as a Jew in the religious sense, either your mother must be a Jew (possibly a convert!), or you yourself must convert to Judaism. The ethnic notion of Jewishness is much vaguer, and has more to do how people identify themselves and how they are seen by others – who may use other criteria than matrilineal descent. --Lambiam 12:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See also Who is a Jew?. --Lambiam 12:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What's Thai American? I'd be way more concerned over my citizenship. Are you Thai or are you American? Beekone (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See Thai American. Kultida Woods and her son, for example. ---Sluzzelin talk  14:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No I get the use, I don't get why it's accepted though. Were you born in America?  Do you pay taxes to America?  If Thailand went to war and instituted a draft, would you be eligible? Beekone (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh good lord Norman Tebbit, maybe it tells them something useful about their cultural upbringing. It's not always sensible, but it's no need to come over all National Front. 130.88.140.107 (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You have to hyphate your nationality to remember your heritage? I'm sorry, I can't believe anyone's that stupid.  Why don't you make it a point not to prefix "American" to help you remember to be loyal, patriotic, proud, any number of virtues that have nothing to do with snubbing your heritage?  I'm not a Dutch American, I'm an American with Dutch roots... and to be more topical, I would still be an American with Dutch roots even if I converted to Judaism.  I also apologize if I'm coming across as "National Front" but I think it's no less a ridiculous addition to this thread as the initial question.  Beekone (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You have your way of refering to yourself, they have theirs. Neither makes any more intrinsic sense. For example, it is quicker and easier to say they are Thai American than American-with-Thai-roots, and nobody except you seems to interpret it as meaning anything different. And why on Earth would where you put the 'Thai' or the 'Dutch' affect whether you 'remember' to be 'loyal, patriotic, proud'? The initial question strikes me as someone a little confused about the meanings of words and the difference between various labels trying to get some feedback and think something through; not ridiculous. You came across as rude and unpleasant, looking for a fight. 130.88.140.121 (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

would it be possible to do an IPO with shares that are worth 0% of the company?
Could a company start selling shares in an IPO each of which are for 0% of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.13.205 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What you mean is issue something that will pay dividends but not give voting rights or share of assets. I think, by definition this is not a share - I believe in the UK it is known as a bond issue. As you have no say in the country the payments you get are (usually/always?) fixed in advance. I am going from memory from a course I took decades ago so I would appreciate someone confirming this. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is possible for a company to issue preference shares, in which investors give up some or all of their voting rights in exchange for preferred treatment in dividend distributions or greater protection in case of liquidation or takeover. However, these types of shares are normally only issued by private companies - it would be unusual to see them offered in an IPO. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Our article Share (finance) gives the following definition:
 * A share is one of a finite number of equal portions in the capital of a company, ....
 * I've underlined the word finite, since it implies that the portions cannot be 0%. --Lambiam 12:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's why its called a share! Shares, even preference shares have a percentage of equity. A company can issue a bond, however, which does not have am equity share. From the Article:


 * Bonds and stocks are both securities, but the major difference between the two is that stock-holders are the owners of the company (i.e., they have an equity stake), whereas bond-holders are lenders to the issuing company.


 * I think that issuing bonds is different from an IPO, but has the same result in raising capital. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why Tuesday?
Why are so many of the elections in the United States held on a Tuesday? Is this done by The Man to minimise voter turnout? Surely you would get a higher turnout if they were held on a weekend when most people aren't at work.--Shniken1 (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think they are legally or constitutionally determined to be on Tuesdays. And you can be exempted from work to go vote. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Religion may be an issue with weekends. Jews and Seventh-day Adventists worship on Saturday. No one considers Tuesday a holy day. Wrad (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I worship the pancake and I do! hotclaws 05:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

see: Election Day (United States).&mdash;eric 06:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * mmm, pancakes...81.96.161.104 (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There's nothing in the US Constitution about it being on a Tuesday; the only constitional requirement is that all the presidential electors vote on the same day, along with permission to Congress to regulate when the electors are chosen. It must be a legal exercise of this permission.  Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Polygamy
Is there any way of a man living with 2 or more woman without legal problems if the man doesn't marry but live together with the women for life by not-marrying-but-living-together in US and Europe? Is there any other problems if all the women and the man have no problems in that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.138.38 (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's the legal marrying that's the problem, living plural isn't really anyone's concern afaik. Australian actor Jack Thompson's "unusual living arrangements" were well known. He lived with two sisters for 15 years until having children with one of them, so it seems to work up to a point if everyone agrees. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Fornication laws have been generally repealed in most legal jurisdictions in the developed countries, so the real legal problems would be if you attempt to formally legally marry two spouses (in which case you would be subject to bigamy laws), or if you want the formal legal rights which come with marriage to apply to both your spouses. AnonMoos (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * While I believe fairly rare, in some places such as Utah you could be charged with bigamy (check out the legal sitution section) even if you aren't actually legally married to both spouses if you are found to be in a common with multiple spouses. However even then, I believe this is still very rare (I think one of the only cases to actually be prosecuted was based on statements the person had made suggesting he was married to more then one person) and the trend is mostly to target things like welfare fraud, child abuse etc rather then people who are simply practicing polygamy. Having said that, particularly in places like Utah you may find many people would consider such an arrangement social unacceptably and so you may find you have other non-legal problems in your day to day interactions Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know why the above comments are, but the person clearly said "if the man doesn't marry." As far as living together, ever heard of roommates? Many people in the U.S. live in apartments where they have roommates. And they can be of opposite genders too. So I don't see a legality issue in it (and I'm no lawyer). Neal (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC).


 * Neal: Many jurisdictions (Canada for one) has a legal definition where people living together 'as if they were married' are considered to be married, even if they haven't gone through the ceremony. This applies to various areas including divorce and welfare. Whether it could be applied to bigamy is a question I wouldn't want to answer, but it's certainly not inconceivable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: 'as if they were married - that, right there, is the problem. How can we know if a bunch of college students sharing an apartment act or live as if they are married?If they act as if they were married but aren't, and a country like Canada considers them to be legally married, then is there any strong definition or standards of marriage? Of course, you make that claim, where I certainly doubt it, so I'd need faith in order to believe what you said was true. I obviously think a country like Canada has standards on their definition of marriage, but all you have to do is prove me wrong. *shrug* Neal (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Feel free to consult a lawyer if you don't believe me. Any divorce lawyer will give you the facts. And yes, it is often hard to know whether people are 'acting as if married'. The test is much more strict than "are they having sex", or "are they living in the same room", though, so most house-sharing students probably don't qualify. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I might do, just that. I have to meet up with my lawyer on something. Although, the original question was regarding the U.S. and Europe, and I can't answer for Europe, but I guess you meant Canada lawyer regarding Canada (which I don't have). But we seemingly threw in words like bigamy as a potential issue, but I don't see how a man living with 2 women could be charged with bigamy if neither 3 of them are married. That just makes no sense. *Sigh* ;\ Neal (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC).

See common-law marriage. --D. Monack | talk 21:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Tax definition
I am doing my US federal taxes (a few days early, go me!), and I have a 1099-MISC that says at the top of it that the money is a "non-qualified fellowship award". I've tried to figure out exactly what that means—I think it means it is taxable because it is not being used purely for tuition purposes, yes? Googling has only confused me because I know quite little about tax code definitions. (I'm not asking for tax advice. I'm doing it all in TurboTax anyway so there's not a lot of discretion on my behalf—I just enter the numbers in and pay whatever gobs of money they tell me to. I'm just curious.) --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Non-qualified" implies that the amount is taxable. See further here for how and where to report this. --Lambiam 12:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks! That's what I thought, but wanted to check. What a strange lexicon they use for these things—would kill them to just call it "taxable" or something. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Rochester the puritan
Is it true,as some of his biographers have suggested, that John Wilmont the poet was a closet puritan?English Teen (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't heard of a biography of Rochester which claims he was a closet puritan and reading his letters and poetry I find this hard to believe. But obviously it can't be ruled out. This shouldn't be confused with Rochester's becoming 'the greatest penitent' in 1679-1680 and finally almost evangelical in his burning of his obscene images and writings, and his persuading of his wife to rejoin the English church. (in fact at this stage of his illness he was probably mad) Lord Foppington (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to know which biographers, English Teen, because it is complete and utter tosh! John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester, is about as far removed from Puritanism as it is possible to imagine. More than that, he represents, it might be said, the Restoration's antithesis to the heavy and joyless hand that that had ruled England for over ten years. Wilmot was an atheist and a hedonist-No glory's vain which does from pleasure spring. His poetry is a celebration of pleasure in its many forms, especially sexual pleasure. He did not just practice debauchery, he advocated debauchery!


 * Her father gave her dildos six;
 * Her mother made 'em up a score,
 * But she loves nought but living pricks
 * And swears by God she'll frig no more.

Now, ask yourself: could John Milton ever have penned those lines?! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I never knew they had dildos back then.  bibliomaniac 1 5  Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 23:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed they did, Bibliomaniac, as you will discover if you ever read the poem whose title appears below! I'm just about to enlighten you still further on this delightful subject!  Clio the Muse (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dildos date back to the Upper Paleolithic, according to our article. I have seen an ivory object from Siberia, unmistakable to my eyes, but labelled "a shaman's implement". Alas, there is no cabinet in the Pitt Rivers Museum equivalent in intent to the Secret Museum, Naples. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Signior Dildo
Is there a latent political agenda to Rochester's bawdy poem? If so, what? I REALLY need help with this-SOON.English Teen (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is. During the Parliamentary session of 1673 objections were raised to the proposed marriage of James, Duke of York, brother of the King and heir to the throne, to Mary of Modena, an Italian Catholic Princess.  An address was presented to King Charles on 3 November, foreseeing the dangerous consequences of marriage to a Catholic, and urging him to put a stop to any planned wedding '...to the unspeakable Joy and Comfort of all Your loyal Subjects."  Wilmot's response was Signior Dildo (You ladies all of merry England), a mock address anticipating the 'solid' advantages of a Catholic marriage, namely the wholesale importation of Italian dildos, to the unspeakable joy and comfort of all the ladies of England!


 * You ladies all of merry England
 * Who have been to kiss the Duchess's hand,
 * Pray, did you not lately observe in the show
 * A noble Italian called Signior Dildo?...


 * A rabble of pricks who were welcomed before,
 * Now finding the porter denied them the door,
 * Maliciously waited his coming below
 * And inhumanly fell on Signior Dildo...


 * And so on and so forth! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Female hysteria on the loose, methinks.  bibliomaniac 1 5  Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 23:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I see that this answer has been added to the Dildo article, but the poem really warrants its own article (hint, hint, Clio). Does anyone read Rochester nowadays for anything other than this poem? --Major Bonkers (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do; I have the Yale edition of his complete poems. I simply love his sarcastic wit, a wonderful window into some of the attitudes of Restoration England.  Clio the Muse (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Islam god's Kingdom
What does Islam say about Christianity's God's Kingdom? Does it say in the Qur'an and is there a Friday sermon about this God's Kingdom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 13:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Mosque links to salah which is the practice of praying five times daily, but that article makes no mention of Jannah, which is the Islamic heaven. Jumu'ah is the communal Friday prayer, preceded by a Khutba, which seems to have as much freedom of scope for the preacher as any other religion. So I doubt they specifically address the Christian idea of heaven very often, they probably place more emphasis on follwing the five pillars of Islam in order to be rewarded with a place in Jannah. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Be aware that not all Christians equate 'The Kingdom of God' and 'heaven'. Many consider the Kingdom of God to be an earthly kingdom (as in Christendom) that transcends political boundaries. The realm of Islam may be analogous to this, but I'm not familiar enough with the Qur'an to be able to comment on that. Steewi (talk) 05:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See Kingdom of God and in particular Kingdom of God. --Lambiam 10:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, didn't think of that. I guess that the Islamic equivalent would be the caliphate then, at least for some denominations. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Evolution
What does Islam say about the Evolution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 13:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * From objections to evolution "Islam accepts the natural evolution of plants and animals, but the origin of man is contested and no consensus has emerged". So it's not a huge topic in Islam like it is in American Evangelical Christianity. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Except in Turkey, which is the country with the highest percentage of people rejecting evolution. (2nd place is United States).--Goon Noot (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Armageddon
What does Islam say about Armageddon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 13:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See Islamic eschatology, it seems pretty similar to both Judaism and Christianity, which isn't that suprising as they are all Abrahamic religions. So basically they think there will be a judgement day when all sinners will be cast into Jahannam and all devout souls will be rewarded with admittance to Jannah and the presence of Allah. 81.96.161.104 (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Princepality of Hut River passport holder
Dear Friends! I am a responsible person from the Principality of Hutt River. I want to ask you a few questions: 1. If PRH is the part of Australia, why PRH is exempted from the taxes levied on the Australian Nationals? 2. If PRH is the part of Australia, why HRH Prince Leonard is not convicted for issuing the currency and passports? 3. If PRH is the part of Australia, why we are receiving letters with the stamps of PRH? Is there any other state or province of Australia that is using its own postal stamps? 4. If PRH is not taken seriously in the world why and how we are traveling on the passports of PRH? I would like to upload the image of the letters (with stamps) sent by PRH to Spain to show to all of my friends. If permitted, I would also show the visas issued on my passport. I'll be thankful if anyone helps me uploading the images, please. I would be happy to see a healthy critic about our Principality. If we have not moved fast, it is not because of our legality, it is because of our lack of resources. But we are sure that we'll get the recognition in this decade. Thanks to all.

Move here by Cameron on behalf of anon.


 * Perhaps viewing the article Principality of Sealand would answer some of your questions? --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And then there is also the Principality of Hutt River. ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * He/she was already seen that one...he/she originally posted this comment on that talk page but I moved it here as I thought the questions were rather more likely to be answered here = )...--Cameron (t|p|c) 18:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And the answer to the actual questions are;
 * 1, It isn't.
 * 2, Because there are no laws in Australia against making your own coins or passports.
 * 3, Because you got lucky - it's not unusual for letters to be delivered despite not having legitimate postage, especially internationally.
 * 4, Because you're not traveling "on the passport", you're travelling on the visa that's inside it.
 * FiggyBee (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But what government would issue a visa when presented with an unrecognised passport? --Kvasir (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Visas are issued based on a whole range of identity documents and personal information, so you're right, no-one's going to get a visa based on a HR passport alone. A passport is merely an identity document, it doesn't provide any right to entry or travel in its own right. FiggyBee (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hutt River Province is ambiguous in its relationship to Australia. Its denizens (including Prince Leonard) do not consider it to be part of Australia, and therefore do not trouble themselves with taxes, etc. I suspect the Australian government is not worried about the status of HRP and prefers to lose some taxes rather than create a controversy over HRP's secession from the Commonwealth of Australia. Steewi (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The sovereignty of an entity does not depend on being recognised by just one other country. Even if Australia were to recognise the government of HRP (which is almost impossibly unlikely, since the Australian government is constitutionally prevented from unilaterally recognising a secession from within its borders; at a minimum, s.123 requires that for any state's borders to be changed in any way: the people of the state must agree at a referendum; the state parliament must agree; and the Federal parliament must agree) there's still the rest of the world to consider.  A few other countries might fall into line, but whether it would ever get the critical mass of countries necessary for it to be generally considered a separate country is ultra-hypothetical.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Murdoch and Canetti
Your page on Iris Murdoch says nothing about her relationship with Elias Canetti. I would like to know why he turned against her towards the end? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codliveroil (talk • contribs) 14:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A Google search turns up a number of reviews of Party in the Blitz.&mdash;eric 16:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You will find much of the detail in Iris Murdoch: A Life by P. J. Conrad (Harper Collins, 2001). Elias Canetti lived in England for nearly forty years, seemingly hating the experience. In his resentment he turned on Iris Murdoch, with whom he had had an affair, seeing in her all of the perceived faults of the country. She was, in his eyes, a 'complete Oxford parasite'. She dressed badly, her figure was wrong, she was promiscuous, bisexual and religious. She was a person who had enjoyed 'vulgar' success, in novels that were far too Oxonian, with characters who were merely caricatures of her friends and pupils. She was, unlike him, an illegitimate Poet or Master of Transformation. And so his memoir continues in this sour and silly tone. At one point he uses literally hundreds of words to criticise a revealing blouse she wore to attract Sir Aymer Maxwell, who, though homosexual, was grandson to a Duke of Cumberland.

It all reveals so much about Canetti's character. It also, perhaps, reveals some lack of judgement on Murdoch's part in ever entering into a relationship with such a shallow egoist. As far as I am concerned his writings, both his fiction and his non-fiction, are amongst the most grossly overrated of the last century. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

resemblance
erm, i was reading Innocent today, and i strongly feel that there is a resemblance. 82.43.201.36 (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll be the straight guy. (I was going to say, "I'll bite", but feared someone would draw an unwarranted conclusion from that expression about my attitude to this "newcomer.) So, "resemblance" to what? And what is your question? ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Somebody needs to suitly emphazi. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We can all merely guess, but in case you are referring to Innocent X, more specifically to Velázquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X, then the model himself agreed and noticed the resemblance too; he purportedly said his portrait was "troppo vero" (too truthful). Or did you mean the resemblance between Bacon's Study after Velazquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X and its model? ---Sluzzelin talk  00:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Feeling a semblance with the screaming popes? This sounds like 45 inquisitions for medical advice...    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk • contribs) 21:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

resembling
The above question made me think of one too: which things most resemble? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.13.205 (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (I feel more like I do now than I did before I read that question.) Edison (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The things that have most in common? From Resemblance there's analogy (this stands for that) and similarity is some degree of symmetry... in ... resemblance between two or more concepts or objects. You get to pick which objects and notice which qualities they share that brings them close to each other. There's also difference, sameness and equality. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A duck: one leg is both the same. --Lambiam 11:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Orley Farm
in what way does Anthony Trollope use his novel Orley Farm to examine the debates surrounding the emancipation of women in victorian society? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.191.236 (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but as our guidelines dictate: 'Do your own homework. The reference desk will not give you answers for your homework, although we will try to help you out if there is a specific part of your homework you do not understand. Make an effort to show that you have tried solving it first.' The best place to start is reading the book first and then our articles on Orley Farm, Anthony Trollope and Women in the Victorian era. If you're still stuck, come back to us... Lord Foppington (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Orley Farm, Trollope's first serialised novel, was published in the early 1860s, a time when the question of women's rights was becoming ever more topical. Four years before he started writing a woman had been refused permission to sit the examination for the University of London's medical, diploma. The debates issues like this engendered are reflected in the novel by the likes of Lady Stavely and Mrs Furnival, who take a conservative view. According to Mrs Furnival 'women ought not to have any spheres', an opinion attacked by her daughter and by Lucius Mason, who argues that the mind of a woman 'is equal to that of a man', and that 'they ought to make themselves careers as brilliant.' Clio the Muse (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've clearly been on the internet too long. I read that as ORLY? Farm and imagined that owl saying it.Snorgle (talk) 11:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Master Slave Dialectic
Could you please explain Hegel's master slave dialectic to me? I'm completely lost. P. S. Your article does not help.Caroline Finkel (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Master-slave dialectic is one of the central arguments of The Phenomenology of Spirit. Yes, I know it's not easy, Caroline, but it might help if you substitute 'individuals' for Hegel's somewhat perplexing usage of 'self-consciousnesses'.  Looking at it from this perspective, then the idea to hold on to is that each individual requires another to establish full self-awareness. What is required from the other is acknowledgement or recognition.  The integrity of my self-consciousness (not, I stress, to be mistaken with embarrassment in strict English usage) is threatened by the existence of another who refuses to acknowledge me as a person.


 * It is this mutual relationship that is complicated in the relationship between master and slave, a relationship of domination and dependence; it is the division, in other words, between the ruler and the ruled. In this relationship the master would seem to have everything: he has both the subservience of the slave and the fruits of his labour.  But what of his need for acknowledgement?  The master acknowledges the slave, true, but it is the acknowledgement only of a 'thing', not an independent consciousness.  In this unequal relationship the master has failed to achieve the acknowledgement he requires.  The slave, too, lacks adequate acknowledgment; but he transforms and shapes the external world by his labour.  He achieves permanence in labour, not the merely temporary gratification of the master.  In this process he becomes aware of his own consciousness; for he has created  before him something meaningful and objective.  In this he discovers the nature of his own mind.


 * I'm all too well aware that this might still sound horribly complicated, but it's almost impossible to make it any simpler. There are some good basic guides to Hegel I could recommend, if you wish to take the matter further.  Clio the Muse (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds to me like Hegel is trying to set up the labouring class as a slight variant of the noble savage, ennobled by his toil. Such a philosophical stance would certainly suit the interests of the nobleman, who can go on enjoying his elevated social status while holding the ludicrous idea that their peons are the lucky ones. Who says you can't have your cake and eat it too? Vranak (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Clio the Muse. Yes, I think I understand. Could you please tell me if Hegel offers any resolution to this problem? Caroline Finkel (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * His argument starts to become just a shade, just a shade, less abstruse, Caroline, as the Phenomenology starts to deal with real historical situations. There is a discussion of Stoicism, a philosophy that could embrace the master in the shape of Marcus Aurelius, on the one hand, and the slave in the shape of Epictetus, on the other.  It is in Stoicism that the slave, who has achieved self-awareness in work, can achieve a more complete type of freedom in withdrawal from the immediate conditions of existence into deeper forms of consciousness.  In other words, the Stoic in chains is free because the chains no longer matter to him.


 * The problem here is that thought, cut off from the real world, is ultimately barren of any real substance; so the spirit moves on, through successive stages of existence and experience. If you intend to read the Phenomenology, or are reading it, there are huge passages here that you could quite happily skip, though there is an interesting discussion of forms of society based on laissez-faire economics, where Hegel's critique comes very close to that of Karl Marx.  Just remember that the central idea to keep hold of is that the mind or the spirit, if you prefer, is moving towards ever higher forms of consciousness, with freedom as the ultimate goal.  The French Revolution, then, becomes the climax of history, the stage where the mind achieves a state of absolute freedom.


 * So, there you have it: history is simply the arena in which the spirit achieves full consciousness of itself. The whole thing is highly abstract, almost impossibly so.  There were those like Marx who were to turn Hegel's wordy speculations in a much more historically concrete direction, in concepts like alienation and class-struggle.  What do I think?  What can I say other than to offer you the following observations of a far greater thinker that dear old Georg;


 * If I were to say that the so-called philosophy of this fellow Hegel is a colossal piece of mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage, I should be quite right.


 * Further, if I were to say that this summus philosophus [...] scribbled nonsense quite unlike any mortal before him, so that whoever could read his most eulogized work, the so-called Phenomenology of the Mind, without feeling as if he were in a madhouse, would qualify as an inmate for Bedlam, I should be no less right. ''On the Basis of Morality


 * Stay clear of the madhouse! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Clio. I shall do my best!Caroline Finkel (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I must say that there are others with different evaluations of poor old Georg's works' worth and non-nonsensicality.  One that is probably unfamiliar to most (all?) in the humanities is this chap's repeated observation that Hegel "completely anticipated" his best buddy's greatest hit, for which I refer to Hao Wang's last  books.  At your own risk,  Enter the Madhouse!John Z (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Magda Goebbels II
Hey, Clio, thanks for your very full response to mt last Magda question. Can you tell me at what point in the war when she stopped believing in a German victory and confessed as much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yes, I believe it (talk • contribs) 18:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the first intimation that she knew what was coming was probably Christmas 1944, when she said to her secretary 'Next year there will definitely be peace.' The secretary later reported having a premonition that Magda was telling her that she would not be alive by the time Christmas came again.  The most open confession that it was all coming to an end was made on a visit to her friend Ello in February 1945.  Ello, full of concerns for the future, sought reassurance from Magda, who filled her with the usual comforting assurances about 'miracle weapons'.  However, later that day a care-worm Magda asked Ello to sit down beside her, saying;


 * I have to tell you something. I lied to you this afternoon, I told you about the miracle weapons that will be coming soon...it's all nonsense, just some fraudulent rubbish that Joseph has cooked up.  We have nothing left, Ello...total defeat is barely a matter of weeks away.-We're all going to die, Ello...but by our own hands, not by the force of others.  Clio the Muse (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Youngest age of legal marriage -- how real was this
What is the youngest age that individuals can or could marry? I will restrict this by saying: now, or in the latter half of the twentieth century, and not within Islamic marital jurisprudence. For example, I believe that before the Parti Quebecois came to power in 1976, the minimum age for matrimony in Quebec was very low (can anyone confirm that it was 12 for girls?), and one of the planks of the PQ's election was to reform all sorts of old laws relating to women's rights. (And, incidentally, our article says they were the first in North America to enact sexual orientation equality legislation.)

Secondly, a question for statisticians: taking any of these low-minimum-jurisdictions (once our legal historian friends come up with some), how many people actually got married that young? Was it one in a hundred or one in ten thousand marriages? How many years older was the other spouse on average? And is there any way of telling how many of these child-brides were pregnant? (ie how long between marriage certificate and birth certificate). I assume this is available in government records almost anywhere in the world -- this info will be on the various certificates. Whether it has ever been collated I have no idea. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There mention of 12 here if it helps. A world-wide table for age of consent here. cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Julia, thanks muchly for the parliamentary overview, which refers repeatedly to it having been an "indictable offence for any male person to have sexual intercourse with a female under 14 who was not his wife", which grammatically assures us that there must have been wives under 14. When this changed I am not clear. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Value added tax
I'm in the UK. If I buy a book from a bookseller in the UK I pay 17.5% VAT to HM Treasury. Well actually I pay the bookseller and the bookseller pays the treasury.

However, if I buy the same book from the USA I pay no UK VAT. But does the bookseller still have to pay VAT to the US Treasury? (and therefore is it included in the price I pay?)


 * If yes is this a different rate?
 * If not doesn't this mean that the US can undercut UK prices, and vice-versa?

what's the point in that? I am not a dog (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, in the UK books are zero-rated for VAT (ie VAT=0%). In the US, sales tax is applicable on a range of goods, with varying rates between states.  Taxes such as this can often be claimed back on exports.  For example, UK airports will provide desks to claim back VAT paid on goods being taken out of the country, but some of these might then be liable for customs import duties at the destination port.  The average individual is rarely bothered by such taxes when buying goods around the world, figuring that what they lose on the swings they gain on the roundabouts, but businesses employ tax accountants to work out the most cost-effective way to manage taxes on imports and exports.  Some retail companies are set up to make the most of tax undercutting, such as www.amazon.co.uk which sells and distributes DVDs from Amazon Jersey.   Gwinva (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In Canada, where VAT is called GST, you pay it on things you import into the country as well as on things you buy. I don't like mail-ordering stuff, but I have had it happen that I bought something from a US source, and the shipment was sent to a customs broker who notified me of the duty (if any), the GST, and a service charge (about $10) for collecting it. I made my payment and the package was delivered to me. If the UK does not have similar arrangements I would be surprised -- but this is not to say that every package on which tax could have been collected actually has it happen. --Anonymous, 00:14 UTC (edited 00:19), April 10, 2008.


 * US-based online retailers generally do not assess state sales taxes. Almost certainly, they don't assess VAT for the UK. It so happens that in my state (Massachusetts) buyers are legally liable for the state sales tax and are supposed to keep a record of online purchases and pay the cumulative tax at the end of the year.  I would think that if the UK does not collect customs duties or VAT on imports from online retailers, it may require purchasers to pay such duties on their own.  You might check with a tax accountant.  Marco polo (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The tax on out-of-state purchases that Marco refers to is called a use tax and is commonly on the books of states that have sales taxes. However, in practice, it's completely unenforceable as far as individuals are concerned, and few people report their use tax to their states. Online retailers are increasingly collecting sales taxes under voluntary agreements with states. As mentioned above, countries typically allow tourists to reclaim their VAT/GST when they leave the country under certain conditions; however, your home country may charge duty on the items you buy. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Imports to the UK via the postal system are indeed theoretically liable to VAT and/or various other duties. The value of a package is declared on the C100 customs label (previously the C1 label) fixed to the package by the sender, allowing HMRC to assess what is due without opening the package (although they retain the right to do so). However, when the declared value is below a certain value (last time I looked, a few years ago, it was £18) it is considered uneconomic to collect the VAT/duty and the package will be delivered as normal. When duty is payable, the carrier - Royal Mail, DHL, UPS, or whoever - will require payment of the tax (plus their own fees for collecting and processing the tax) before they will deliver. The moral of the story is to order lots of small packages rather than one big package, with the caveat that if HMRC open a package and discover an invoice that says it's "part x of y" of a delivery and quotes the overall price of the order, then they'll assess VAT on the value of the complete order (I know, it's happened to me!). For many years there was an anomaly where products physically delivered were VAT-chargeable, but products delivered intangibly over the Internet (e.g. software) was not; this was resolved a few years ago by EU directive, which required companies supplying over the net to register for VAT in at least one EU country (usually Luxembourg, since it has the lowest VAT rate). -- Arwel (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hence, if you order several DVDs through Amazon Jersey, they will each be processed, invoiced, and packaged as a separate order. Gwinva (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yorkshire Ridings
What exactly is the meaning of a riding and why was it applied to these historic areas? Simply south (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For starters see Riding (division). --Anonymous, 00:16 UTC, April 10, 2008.