Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 November 26

= November 26 =

West Bengal November 2008 election
Where can I find the results of election that took place in West Bengal on November 21, 2008? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.191 (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I would try this site:  - 161.181.153.10 (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * ,, , . this was a by-election for one Rajya Sabha seat from West Bengal. Since there was no other candidate than Barun Mukherjee of the All India Forward Bloc, no poll was actually held and Mukherjee was declared winner on Nov 14. Mukherjee had been a RS MP 2006-early 2008, but was then pressured by the Left Front to resign and give way for a Communist Party of India candidate. Subsequently, AIFB general secretary Debrata Biswas resigned from RS, giving way for Mukherjee. --Soman (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Mythology
After Callisto was transformed, why didn't Zeus transform her back when he saw her? JCI (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * He just couldn't bear t(w)o? Seriously, you shouldn't expect these stories to make sense.... - Nunh-huh 05:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Because then there wouldn't be an etiological story to explain why Ursa Major looks like a bear. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You may as well ask, "If Zeus was king of the gods, why couldn't he just sleep with anybody he wanted to without going through endless subterfuges?" --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Unlike God in a monotheistic religion, who is omnipotent, Zeus was supposed to be powerful, perhaps a bit more powerful than the other gods, but not omnipotent. So, if he was too arrogant and careless towards the other gods (or people under their protection), they might rise up against him and defeat him. StuRat (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "So Zeus, I understand you went and impregnated a mortal woman ?"


 * "Yes, I saw her bathing, took the form of a bull, and surprised her while she was bathing."


 * "I'll bet you suprised her !" - Alas Smith and Jones


 * StuRat (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What do smart lottery ticket winners do with money?
What do most smart lottery ticket winners do with their money? What do they do to invest their jackpot money without getting taxed by the government? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 04:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The same thing all rich people do with their money. See Tax shelter.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  04:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First, they don't take the lump sum, they take the yearly payout. Except from anecdotal data they seem not to do this that often. zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And a lot depends upon the country in which the winners live. Lottery jackpots in Canada, for example, are tax free. We pay tax on any income earned on the jackpot, but not on the initial sum. Here, we would take the lump sum and run -to the nearest investment counsellor, I would hope. It's not a concern I have had personally, however. ៛ Bielle (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In the US, one should also run to the investment counselor (or, as we call it, a financial advisor). The fact is that most people who come into large sums of money don't use it well because they haven't the slightest idea how to do it. A good financial advisor (and a lawyer) are musts if you want to stay afloat in such a situation. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The question is impossible to answer due to it being based on a false assumption, that is that smart lottery ticket winners exist. Smart people don't play the lottery, there are far better ways of throwing your money away. --Tango (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a very dubious claim. There's nothing inherently stupid in buying lottery tickets. If, for example, you derive excitement and enjoyment (as most people do) from having a ticket, watching the draw, etc., then you are not 'throwing money away', you are spending money on something you enjoy; hardly a stupid think to do. Algebraist 17:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe what Tango means is that you can actually achieve similar odds of winning to playing the lottery by making a whole bunch of highly levered derivative investments in a row (or any other highly levered investment). Naturally, in the event of a win, your payoff would be higher with derivatives, because then you avoid the portion of the proceeds that go to towards tax revenue, charity (common in Canada) or administrative overhead.
 * As a side note, I always found it funny that, while directly gambling on certain events may be illegal in many countries, derivative (futures) exchanges like Intrade and the Iowa Electronic Markets can make a 'derivatives contract' that pays off in the event that an event occurs, that anyone can trade.NByz (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I can bet on my house burning down legally in pretty much any country (it's called "building insurance"). A lot of derivatives are a similar concept (although plenty of people use them speculatively as well). --Tango (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If Credit Default Swaps were treated as insurance, Lehman and others would have been required to actually maintain reserves to cover them if they failed! Imagine that... having enough money to pay off the people that insured their instruments with you in the event that the instrument actually did fail!NByz (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What if I sold derivative contracts that paid off some predetermined amount every period (that, oddly enough, happened to be proportional to the payoff of some national lottery...) if the 'contact' that you bought happened to have the same starting numbers as the winning lottery number...? hmmmmNByz (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know, ask a lawyer. Derivatives law is a very new and complicated area and I don't know that much about it. The law certainly recognises a difference between gambling and derivatives trading, but I don't know the details. --Tango (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Insurance companies don't keep total reserves, they could possibly, the risk is far too large (there isn't enough money in world to cover the cost of everyone's houses burning down at once). They keep enough reserves so that the chance of them not having enough is less than a certain very small amount. (Actually insurance companies take out insurance themselves to reduce their risk, it's the reinsurance companies that have the huge reserves.) --Tango (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is playing the lottery really the most fun thing you can think to do with 50p a week? I'd rather buy a chocolate bar... --Tango (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So would I, but having different preferences doesn't make you stupid. Algebraist 21:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's perfectly reasonable for someone to decide that the enjoyment they get from the lottery is worth 50p a week, but do you think many players have actually made that decision? I expect the vast majority just don't know what they're doing. --Tango (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

They donate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd stick it in the bank and live off the interest --RMFan1 (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Most lottery wins aren't big enough for that. --Tango (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * $1 million at 5% gives $50000 pa, enough for a middle-class lifestyle. 121.72.170.238 (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Do north american governments tax the interest that you made from your initial lottery money in your local bank? Do you think it is a good idea to buy some gold bars?72.136.111.205 (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe interest on lottery money is taxed the same as any other capital gains - it's just money in the bank. Gold bullion is a good store of wealth, but it does not provide income (at least, not reliably), which is what you need if you wish to live off the lottery win. --Tango (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In Canada, investment income is taxed the same no matter whether the principal is after-tax income (such as employment or business income) or tax-free (such as an inheritance or a lottery win). Interest is not the same as a capital gain; interest is taxed as ordinary taxable income, but capital gains (whether from stocks or gold bars) are taxed like half the amount of ordinary income.  (If you had a capital loss on some other transaction, you can deduct it from your capital gains.)  If you invest in stocks and receive dividends, the calculation is more complicated.  One exception to capital gains taxation in Canada is your principal residence.  If you sell your old house and spend your entire winnings of $2,000,000 on a new one and live there, and then you later sell that house for $3,000,000, you owe no tax on the $1,000,000 gain.  Note: this is a casual overview and certainly not tax or investment advice. --Anonymous, 03:29 UTC, December 3,m 2008.

please help
can someone please explain me the meaning of Fiduciary,fiduciary relationship and estoppel in a layman language..??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.79.210 (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Fiduciary means "held in trust". A fiduciary relationship is one in which one person (or company) holds something in trust for another.  An example would be the fiduciary relationship between a company that manages a pension or retirement account and the beneficiary of that account.  Estoppel is a legal ban on a person contradicting what he or she has already stated to be the truth.  Marco polo (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Punishment for Incest in 18th century
I wonder if anyone here knows about which method of execution would be used for someone sentenced to death for incest in 17th or 18th century France? I have heard that this was considered heresy and that the person would likley have been burned, but I do not know if this is true. Can anyone answer this? I would be most grateful! Thanks! --85.226.45.121 (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This seems to be an almost exact duplicate of the question "Incest, bigamy and homsexuality in L'ancien regime" asked 5 days ago... AnonMoos (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is, but I realised that perhaps it is the wrong way to ask three questions in one, so I thought it was better to split them. The homsexual part has already been answered. Perhaps it was better to split them? I don't know. Anywhay, I hope someone can answer, here or there! --85.226.45.121 (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Does really no one have an idea? --85.226.45.121 (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hardly any witches in Portugal - what about the exeptions?
I have heard, that only a mere handful of people was ever executed for sorcery in Portugal. This is odd. These few was to have been a group of women in Lissabon in 1599, and a few years later, and one wman in Evora in 1626. Can anyone tell me antything about these cases? The names perhaps, and why they were executed, as this was so unusual otherwise? I would be happy with a link. Thanks in advance!--85.226.45.121 (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The Portuguese Inquisition evidently concentrated nearly all of its efforts on Sephardic New Christians who were accused of only pretending to convert from Judaism. According to Rodney Stark in For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts, and the End of Slavery (Princeton University Press, 2003), "In Portugal, which had its own Inquisition... six witches were burned by secular officials in 1559. The Portuguese Inquisition burned a "witch" in Evora in 1626. And that was it! Hence Francisco Bethencourt's assertion that the "... witch craze which affected most central and western European countries... did not occur in Portugal"." And Stark goes on: "The reasons for the lack of witchcraft executions were precisely the same as in Spain." However, Steven T. Katz of Cornell University writes (see here) "In Italy, the Venetian Inquisition heard 500 witch cases between 1550 and 1650 and condemned no one to death; and in Portugal, between 1536 and 1821, there was only one conviction for witchcraft — in Evora in 1626". But here is the story of one Joana Baptista of Evora, a folk healer who was tried by the Portuguese Inquisition for witchcraft in 1737 and not executed at all, but merely banished, although that sentence seems to have followed two years of imprisonment and torture. Xn4  ( talk ) 04:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Turkey pardoning
Has any United States politician not currently President(besides of course Sarah Palin) performed the Thanksgiving turkey-pardoning ritual? And which offices' pardons be "valid" in the same way as the Presidential one, actually absolving the turkey from being killed? 69.224.113.5 (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What on earth is turkey pardoning? I gather from the original post it has something to do with Thankgiving. Apologies if this has an article (I searched and none came up). 82.35.193.236 (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7742689.stm, National Thanksgiving Turkey Presentation Algebraist 17:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * For the non-Americans out there, at Thanksgiving Americans eat Turkey. Its what we do.  For years (since Truman? I think?) American Presidents have "pardoned" a turkey a few days before Thanksgiving, supposedly saving it from certain death and digestion in the stomachs of some bickering American family.  Its just some goofy thing.  I am sure that other politicians (Governors, mayors, and the like) have done so as well.  It doesn't mean anything.  I don't even know if the "pardoned" turkey even survives slaughter in the end to die of a natural death, as the silly little ritual implies.  My guess is it is just some show, and the bird will eventually meet its maker at the hands of a big axe anyways, even if not for that year's Thanksgiving.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  17:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Scratch that. Just read the article.  Looks like they do survive.  And get a trip to Disneyland out of it to boot!!! --Jayron32. talk . contribs  17:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Has anyone tested the constitutionality of these pardons in the Supreme Court? :)  In all seriousness, the 'pardons' are purely symbolic.  It's a silly tradition and a photo op.  216.239.234.196 (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, for the good old days, when Benjamin Franklin would electrocute a turkey as a party trick! —Kevin Myers 19:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * On one condition, though. The turkey must be flawless in order to be pardoned (yes, it is a beauty contest). And they get to travel first-class and stay at a fancy hotel while they await their pardons. Then after they are pardoned, they spend the rest of their lives on a fancy farm that houses pardoned turkeys. I saw it on the Food Network last night, on an episode of "Unwrapped". --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I read this first and thought you were cleverly speaking of female celebrity brats, then I read the question... Now I see the turkey must not only be beautiful but impeckable. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * impeckable? &mdash; Sebastian 03:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's even worse form to explain a joke than to question it, so I'm not going there. But 10 marks, Julia.  Now run off and gobble your dinner before it gets cold.  --  JackofOz (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Unlike bird-brained Americans such as I, Julia, being an Aussie, doesn't have to worry about driving through a raging gizzard in search of the perfect turkey. Even worse, for those of us too far away to drive home, is the need to resort to a wing and a prayer over Thanksgiving. StuRat (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, though: There is a Buddhist tradition of bird freeing. As for the Turkey ritual, it would feel more sincere to me if whoever performs it didn't then just eat another turkey. You can't have your turkey and eat it too! &mdash; Sebastian 04:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation guys. I think this has to be filed under "those wacky Americans". 82.35.193.236 (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

TV listings of US war dead in Iraq and Afghanistan
In the early years of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, U.S. network TV shows would show pictures and names of those killed, either the day the information became available, or weekly as a collection. In April 2004, ABC "Nightline" read all 724 names of those killed to that date. The reading was controversial with the Sinclair Broadcasting Company calling it unpatriotic and an implied criticism of President Bush's policies and refusing to carry it on their 7 stations. I note that now the various news programs say when some have been killed, like "Three U.S. soldiers were killed by a suicide bomber in Iraq" but do not generally give the names or show the pictures. My question is, did any network explain why they stopped? Was it because they too decided it was unpatriotic to identify those killed, or just that it did not help ratings? And when did they stop? Do other countries in the coalition with soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan identify on the TV news those killed? Edison (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In Canada they do, because there is usually only one every couple of months. I think the biggest number killed all at once in Afghanistan was four. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW the News Hour on PBS shows names and pictures on Friday of each week. 161.222.160.8 (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * KXTV in Sacramento read a list of all soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan over the years, on Veterans Day, and showed photos and gave brief biographies.  Little Red Riding Hood  talk  00:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Kierkegaard quotation--Sealed orders
Can anyone find where in Kierkegaard's works he says something along the lines of "at birth we set sail with sealed orders." I have seen this thought in several psychology books but never with a proper source. Google and Google books were not helpful in my search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.99.62 (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't find the exact quote, but the same theme is mentioned in Stages on Life's Way:
 * "Then he sinks down, in all his desperate wretchedness, when that single word, that final, that ultimate, so ultimate that it is not within human language, is not forthcoming, when the testimony is not with him, when he cannot tear open the sealed dispatch that is only to be opened out there and that contains the orders from God" (Søren Kierkegaard, Howard Vincent Hong (translation) Stages on Life's Way : Kierkegaard's Writings, Vol 11 , Princeton University Press, 1988, p 181, ISBN 0691020493)


 * and in the following two excerpts from around the same time, out of Kierkegaards Journals and Papers (Papiren).
 * "Finally there is one thing to remember - that my original thought must still be subject to a certain control. How many times have I not said that a warship does not get its orders until it is out at sea, and thus it may be entirely in order for me to go farther as an author than I had originally intended ... " serial number *6356 in Journals and Papers (p 124)
 * "I ought to see that, as usual, I have received my orders out on the open sea, that things are laid out for me to go forward, ..." *6370 (p 131). (Soren Kierkegaard's Journals and Papers: Index and Composite Collation, Soren Kierkegaard, Howard Vincent Hong, Gregor Malantschuk, Nathaniel J. Hong, Charles M. Barker, Indiana University Press, 1978 ISBN 0253182468)
 * ---Sluzzelin talk  01:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ---Sluzzelin talk  01:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Crete
How did the location of Crete influence its cultural interaction and fortification system? What geographic features could facilitate or hinder the development and security of the Minoan and Mycenaean societies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.127 (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This sounds an awful lot like a homework question, so I'll just provide a quick hint. Think about what Crete is and how would one normally get there (apart from flying)? Matt Deres (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Also pay attention to where Crete is relative to other important places you have heard about in your History class, like Greece, Egypt, Phoenicia, etc. etc. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  01:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Czech party name
What would the Czech name of the Independent Socialist Workers Party have been? --Soman (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe "Nesubvencovaný Socialistický Dělník Osoba", but that's just a free online translation from [], not the real deal.NByz (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The party's name was "Nezávislá socialistická strana dělnická". Here is the article on the party from the Czech Wikipedia. Marco polo (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --Soman (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hudibrastic poet named Green
In a 1865 biography of Samuel Adams by William V. Wells, Wells mentions a "Hudibrastic poet" named "Green", who poked fun at Adams by calling him "Sam the maltster". (The Adams family business was malting.) Wells doesn't further identify "Green" or give a date when he wrote, but only says that Green wrote "at a later day" than when Adams was a maltster, which puts Green's poem somewhere between about 1765 and 1865.

Any idea who this poet named Green was? —Kevin Myers 19:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No proof, but it may have been Thomas Green Fessenden (1771–1837; who seems to lack a Wikipedia article). The Cambridge History of American Literature/Book I/Chapter IX mentions the Terrible Tractoration, "1800 lines of Hudibrastic verse, full of references to contemporary persons and scientific matters, form a fair example of a not very admirable type of satire." I searched the text on Google Books but couldn't find a reference to Sam there; however, it could have been in another work. Alternatively, it might have been another satirical poet, Fitz-Greene Halleck.  Googling "Sam the maltster" doesn't reveal a source. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for those leads—Thomas Green Fessenden in particular seems to be a very likely candidate. Adams biographers who wrote after Wells apparently didn't further identify Green either, which may mean they didn't know who he was. Perhaps one day Google Books will scan in some obscure work by one of these "Greens" that will finally reveal the poem Wells referred to. —Kevin Myers 15:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is Christianity considered monotheistic?
Why is Christianity considered monotheistic when they worship God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. That's three supernatural beings, not one. Shouldn't Christianity be considered a polytheistic or pagan religion? 216.239.234.196 (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In Christianity, God exists as three persons, but is one being. See our article on the Trinity. Thomprod (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you look at the little brain-bender called the Shield of the Trinity? AnonMoos (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * God has three "aspects" of his being; but is still one being. For example, I am all a father and a son and a husband at the same time, yet I am one person.  What determines how I am seen is my relationship with someone else.  God has different aspects in this way as well.  Insofar as He is the creator, He is God the Father.  Insofar as He became man in the person of Jesus Christ, He is God the Son.  Insofar as he guides our actions and is involved in daily communion with us through prayer, he is God the Spirit.  Its not God that is different; its the ways in which we can relate to him that is different.  The opening of the Gospel of John does its best to contain all of this in a single set of ideas "In the beginning was the Word" - Jesus is the word, and he has existed since creation "and the Word was with God and the Word was God" - Jesus is an aspect of God that is different from the Father aspect, but is still God. "through Him all things were made, without him nothing was made that has been made" reinforcing the idea that Jesus and God are one.  "In him was life" Jesus was God's aspect that became a living man.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  01:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm far from being a theological expert myself, but I think that some theologians might consider your "aspects" explanation to be coming close to the theory of "modalism" or Sabellianism... AnonMoos (talk) 08:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Shouldn't the lead sentence of this article clarify that this applies to Christianity (and not other religions)? 216.239.234.196 (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * But see also homoousian; Jayron's explanation holds for many modern Christians, but by no means all. The subtle differences in the manner of substance of god are hardly universally accepted among the faithful. The article I linked is small, but has several useful links explaining just how messy this point has been in the past and continues to be. Matt Deres (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is explained by the Athanasian Creed, the complete text (in English) of which is found at in Wikisource. It says "there are not thre almighty beings, but one." Edison (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

And see The Trinity Is One God Not Three Gods, by Boethius. Xn4 ( talk ) 03:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I quote a reliable source: Robbie Coltraine's character in Nuns on the run. When asked about the Trinity, he replied, "It's a bit of a bugger". --Dweller (talk) 09:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If you really want to throw this kind of question, you can lump in praying to Saints - and especially the Virgin Mary - together with statues and icons in certain parts of Christianity. It's been done before... with some fairly notable results on occasion. --Dweller (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Check out iconoclasm for example. --Dweller (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's called "veneration" or "(hyper)dulia", not "worship". Some ordinary believers may not be clear on the distinction, but mainstream Christian theologians have always been. AnonMoos (talk) 10:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Critics of the practice over the last millennium or haven't been mollified by the semantics, lol. --Dweller (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions about Martin Luther King article.
1. He was a Republican NOT a Democrat, you need to change this or else you are giving out false information.

2. I do not see anywhere in the article about him where he had many extramarital affairs and was somewhat a drunk.

I feel as though you are not making this information known because of who he is. This I find downright disgusting that you would allow many other great people in history to have their good deeds as well as flaws, but you revere this man. He did many good things, but why not show us all his flaws as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.138.38 (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Why tell us? Why don't YOU change it? I'm puzzled that you were apparently smart enough to find the reference desk, yet not quite bright enough to to read the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" tag on the front page. Matt Deres (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Who is "you". I guess he thinks we're all one person. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoa Matt, you must remember to be civil and not to make personal attacks. Instead, just direct him to the article's talk page. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And "you" is plural as well as singular. In the article, you might like to check out the FBI section. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, you're probably right. I just don't get how someone can confuse a reference desk with a complaints department. Apologies to the OP. Matt Deres (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please provide reliable sources that King was a Republican.  Little Red Riding Hood  talk  00:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)'
 * Looking at the talk page, it seems the absence of reliable sources is precisely why this factoid isn't in the article.... - Nunh-huh 00:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the questioner didn't even read the article; no reason to expect it read the talk page. As far as "anyone can edit", the article has long been semi-protected due to an unceasing stream of abuse from ignorant editors or those with ill intent. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Did those terms even have meaning back then? I’m no historian. --S.dedalus (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Republican party was founded in 1854, the Democratic Party in the 1830s, and King was born in 1929. It seems there are two problems according to his talk page: his party affiliation may have changed, and the lack of reliable sources regarding his party affiliation. - Nunh-huh 00:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I’m sorry. I miss read the question. I thought we were talking about Martin Luther so I was a bit confused. :) --S.dedalus (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The actual truth is that he avoided endorsing any political candidate or party, and was quite guarded about his political affiliations. That is why it is hard to find reliable sources.  King was willing to work with any political figure who endorsed the notions of civil rights; but as far as I know, he was not strongly affiliated with any party.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  01:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They had meaning, but not the same meaning they have today. In King's time, Eisenhower's civil rights moves were just as robust as Kennedy's, and the racist wing of the Democratic party was still very strong despite the turmoil that the 1948 Dixiecrat split had started.  --Sean 12:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

MLA style
Hello! For an MLA-style research paper, what is the best way to include a diagram or graph? I make specific reference to it in my paper, and even though I cite the article that contains the graphs, I would like to include a copy of them in my paper to make my writing clearer. I was thinking of copy-and-pasting the graphs alone on the last sheet and labeling them "Figure 1" "Figure 2" ... in the caption with the source, then parenthetically referencing them in part of the paper. Is this okay? Is there a better way? While the Internet seems to have directions for this in APA, the information for MLA is surprisingly lacking. Thanks!--el Aprel (facta-facienda) 23:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If MLA doesn't deal with the issue at all, then I would recommend following the APA guidelines instead. Also, be scrupulous to indicate exactly where you got your graph.  If you copy it from another source directly, say "copied from..." and give full details.  If you create your own version, say something like "based on a diagram at..." or something like that, also giving full details.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  01:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As another idea, you could also ask your teacher (assuming this isn't due tomorrow!). They really do want you to do it "right", and if you ask them directly, they will certainly give you a straight answer.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  01:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your way of doing it sounds fine to me. I say this as someone who has graded many research papers. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)