Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 April 4

= April 4 =

V-shaped job creation diagram
The office of the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives just posted a beautiful V-shaped diagram, which shows that we've safely arrived at the other end of the gorge of job losses. But if that were a Wikipedia article, it wouldn't meet our criteria, because it cites no sources whatsoever. I tried to find the data at http://www.bls.gov/data (green "one-screen" button after "Labor Force Statistics"), but when I use their numbers of employed people (seasonally corrected), I get a different table, namely the following: year	month	employed	diff to previous 2007	12	146173		-310 2008	1	146421		248 2008	2	146165		-256 2008	3	146173		8 2008	4	146306		133 2008	5	146023		-283 2008	6	145768		-255 2008	7	145515		-253 2008	8	145187		-328 2008	9	145021		-166 2008	10	144677		-344 2008	11	143907		-770 2008	12	143188		-719 2009	1	142221		-967 2009	2	141687		-534 2009	3	140854		-833 2009	4	140902		48 2009	5	140438		-464 2009	6	140038		-400 2009	7	139817		-221 2009	8	139433		-384 2009	9	138768		-665 2009	10	138242		-526 2009	11	138381		139 2009	12	137792		-589 2010	1	138333		541 2010	2	138641		308 2010	3	138905		264 (Numbers in 1000s.) Does anyone know how the Speaker got her numbers, and why the official employment data are so different? &mdash; Sebastian 00:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that graph may have originated with Steve Benen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.127.52.47 (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks; his "homemade chart" is indeed similar, but it is different, too. (See in particular the almost even rate between Feb and July 08.) In his articles, he refers the NYT; most recently to this, which says "Employers added 162,000 nonfarm jobs last month", citing [this page http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm] by the Labor Department. But that doesn't have the monthly data for the diagram. The diagram, though, is displayed in the sidebar with the note "Source: Bloomberg", but a search for "Change number jobs site:Bloomberg.com" (for the past week) doesn't yield that diagram, either. It remains mysterious. &mdash; Sebastian 04:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You could probably send Benen an email asking details. Or call Pelosi's office. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I submitted a request for Pelosi's office via their website, but I haven't heard back. &mdash; Sebastian 00:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

major convention deadlock in the U.S. - provisions?
Inspired by an interesting alternate history I'm reading on an online forum (though it deals with a deadlock for months and months in the House over who is elected President), I got to thinking. Especially at the 1924 Democratic National Convention, there have been times when both parties have had major problems nominating someone. However, there is obviously a deadline in each state for filing a name for election.

So, have there ever been discussions about what to do if a convention is deadlocked till, say, late September? Did they ever discuss it in 1924? I imagine one could argue that one side would just walk out, as happened a few times anyway. Or, they would just agree to each run their respective candidate.But, it seems like that would be a sure admission of defeat - unless, of course, the other party was having the same problem.

Oh, one other short question I'm pretty sure I know the answer to: The House can only vote for the top 3 candidates of nobody gets a majority of electoral votes. But, I presume that if 2 candidates are tied for 3rd, the House gets to pick from 4?

Thanks in advance.209.244.187.155 (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Look up the 1860 Democratic National Convention... AnonMoos (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks; I'd always thought the sides split apart before the convention even convened the first time..209.244.187.155 (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

satyagraha
is satyagraha applicable in 21st century? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.80.50 (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Certainly! Satyagraha spawned a wide range of Nonviolent resistance movements across the word, continuing in our century; while few of the movements listed on that page would fit a strict definition according to the principles laid out by Gandhi, they all build on Gandhi's ideas. &mdash; Sebastian 06:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Rabindranath Tagore and canvassing for Noble Award
Rabindranath tagore asked many for canvassing for his noble award including dr.radhakrishnan. If this is true then furnish documentary evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yugalkumar (talk • contribs) 08:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't find any suggestion in our current article Rabindranath Tagore that he canvassed anyone in order to gain his Nobel Prize in Literature. If you believe he did so, and you want to add information about it to the article, then you'll have to find your own reliable sources to support such an assertion - volunteers here are unlikely to have access to any sources unavailable to you.  You're probably better off asking about this at the article's talk page.  Ka renjc 16:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The word 'Robotics'.
Is the word 'Robotics', that is, in reference to the study of robots, at all copyrighted in any way?-- Editor510  drop us a line, mate  13:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Words don't have copyright. A written work has to be of non-trivial length to be eligible for copyright. A single word is definitely trivial. --Tango (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ...that is, unless the word is a copyright name for a unique product: Coca-Cola, for instance.--Wetman (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've never seen any qualification attached to "robotics", so if it's copyrighted, the copyright holder isn't protecting it very well. "Coca-Cola" is a brand name. "Robotics" is a normal English word. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Copyrights and trademarks are completely different thing although both may be called intellectual property in modern parlance. You can't copyright a name, you can trademark one.
 * In the US, there appear to be 3 trademarks for robotics by itself, all dead  . In the Canadian database (couldn't work out how to have a permanent link) TMA306456 is an abandoned trademark (although you seem to have to search all abandoned rather then all to find it). Can't find anything in the UK database although there seems to be none that are withdrawn, dead etc whether that's true or I'm having problems with the database I don't know (I'm also having problems viewing the trademarks). Also can't find anything in the NZ database. The Indian database evidentally requires payment.
 * In all cases when I can search, there are numerous trademarks including the word robotics. Note that the fact the word is already in widespread use doesn't necessarily prevent someone from trademarking it for a specific purpose (although trying to trademark the word robotics to refer to anything commonly understood by the word robotics nowadays is likely to be difficult to say the least). Otherwise we wouldn't have Apple (at least two of them!), Windows, Sun, Java, Oracle, Mini (or MINI for SB's sake), Virgin...
 * Also note this isn't legal advice, I'm not an attorney of any sort and don't have much experience or knowledge about trademark searches so most likely missed a lot of relevant stuff. For example TMA628116 in the Canadian database may or may not trademark the word robotics by itself (M770824 is a similar trademark in the UK but as I said, I can't actually view it).
 * Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no copyright protection on "Coca-Cola". It is a registered trademark, but that is a very different thing. You can't do anything with a copyrighted work without permission except within the very narrow exception of fair use. With trademarks, you are only forbidden from using them for trading and even then only if it your product is sufficiently similar for there to be a significant chance of confusion in the market. (I have just summarised the whole of copyright and trademark law into two sentences, so obviously I have over simplified it. If you want to actually use this information for anything then you need to talk to a lawyer and get the details.) --Tango (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * according to robotics The term "robotics" was coined by Isaac Asimov in his 1941 science fiction short-story "Liar!". As such it is not a trademarked or licensable phrase, and can be used however you like (short of spray-painting it on other people's property).  -- Ludwigs 2  17:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * When and how it was coined in completely irrelevant. "Apple" has been an everyday word for centuries but it is still a registered trademark (both in relation to music and to computers - owned by different companies). --Tango (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tango is correct, and it's particularly easy to trademark it if it's applied to a different field and therefore not even arguably "descriptive" in nature, like if I start a company called "Robotics" that harvests oranges. Certainly trademarkable.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks alot!-- Editor510  drop us a line, mate  19:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

the history of massage and prayer and ritual
i am in massge school and am writing a paper on how massage has been integrated in ritual a prayer. where it started, the different cultures who have used and what the ritual were. can you help me?

many thanks, eva —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baphometk (talk • contribs) 15:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Massage is used in Tantra and if you want to learn or write about ritual techniques that would be the best place to read. The Tarahumara Indians also perform ritual massage as part of shamanism. Shii (tock) 17:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd look up ayurvedic medicine, which is traditional indian, yogic medicine and has a specific style of massage that integrates with their mind-body theory of health and spirituality. I don't know of any specific prayer rituals that involve massage, but it ayurveda medicine and prayer are not always distinct.


 * You might also, along the lines of shamanism, look up native american rituals, as I have a hunch that some touch was incorporated therein.


 * Lastly, though not strictly massage, some religions practice the laying on of hands whereby the spirit of their god is transmitted by touch. Its not massage but still suggestive of the importance of touch for spirituality. 68.171.233.151 (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reiki has a connection with the laying on of hands as well, and is more likely to include a massage component. Steewi (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably more true to say that Reiki practitioners usually offer a range of different modalities, including massage, to help keep themselves in business; but that Reiki itself is not massage, just laying on of hands. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

How was Ulric of Denmark murdered in 1633?
The page on Anne Catherine of Brandenburg states that she had six children with Christian IV of Denmark and that the son, Ulric, was murdered in 1633. This son is not mentioned on Christian IV's page and I could find no reference to him in general internet searches. Does anyone know how he was murdered or know of any resource that might tell the story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cozarth (talk • contribs) 20:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently shot in the back by the bodyguard of General Piccolomini, while visiting Wallenstein's camp during a truce.&mdash;eric 20:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want to know more about him then the Danish Wikipedia has a biography at da:Hertug Ulrik (søn af Christian 4.). If you don't know Danish then you can try a free machine translation service like http://translate.google.com/. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)