Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 April 5

= April 5 =

Quotation about vampires credited to "Rousseau"
In the novel Twilight (chapter 7), a quote

is credited to a "Rousseau" (Jean-Jacques Rousseau?) Is there a source for the citation, or is the citation purely fictional? --Bensin (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * According to this site it is "Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Lettre a l'Archeveque de Paris, quoted in: Voyslav M. Yovanovitch, "La Guzla" de Prosper Merimee (Paris, 1911), p. 316.". That's not the most direct citation, but hopefully it helps. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a start. Thanks! --Bensin (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * All this secondary quoting made me suspect it wasn't real, but here is a reference to an actual edition of his letters: Jean-Jacques Rousseau, “Letter to Beaumont” in Christopher Kelly and Eve Grace, ed., The Collected

Writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 2001), 9:68. (Not on Google Books, unfortunately.) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's on page 494 of "The Social Contract" (in French). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.127.52.47 (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice. (Of course that is actually an edition of the Social Contract with some letters appended to the end of it, just to be clear.) Adam Bishop (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help! I added the quote to Wikiquote here. --Bensin (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Experimental psychology effect - can't remember name
I'm trying to find the name of a psychological effect I remember reading about a while ago. (It might have been in SuperFreakonomics, a book I no longer have.) The effect was that people tend to prefer to work for free over working for a small amount of money, because working for free feels like charity but working for very little feels like devaluing your accomplishments. Anyone know what the name of this effect is, or a citation for the experiment? « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 00:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Never mind - answered at the science desk. « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 23:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Legal question
In a criminal case I read about, a judge told a police officer not to mention the defendant's prior criminal record when she testified. One of the lawyers asked her how she found out that the defendant had once lived near the site of the crime. She said she found out from reading the police report on one of his prior arrests. The defense lawyer made a big issue of this violation of the judge's order.

The witness was sworn to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth and apparently did so. Should she have objected to the question on the grounds that a truthful and responsive answer would violate the judge's order? (This took place in Minnesota.) Michael Hardy (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not legal advice, but I think the defense counsel should have immediately stood up and objected. The witness shouldn't have said anything, and talking about the prior arrest was definitely the wrong thing to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.155.65 (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question though. The witness was ordered to answer questions, and to tell the whole truth. Are you saying the defense lawyer should have objected to the question, which was not about the prior record, or to the answer? If the latter, specifically how should the witness have answered, consistently with telling the whole truth? Should the witness herself have objected to the question on the grounds that the answer would violate the judge's order? Michael Hardy (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if you could find a link so we could read more about the case. I would say, Yes, the defense attoreny should have objected immediately to the question. The policewoman probably should have hesitated before answering, and maybe looked toward the defense attorney, with a look like, "Well, are you going to object or not?" Since the defense attorney failed to object, the policewoman's comment presumably is on the record. I would also like to know under what circumstances the judge was advising the witness on what to say or not say. My guess is the judge was reminding the witness that such information is prejudicial. One rule of thumb when testifying is to only answer what you're asked. So in describing the arrest, she might not have said, "We knew about this guy from before." But the prosecutor, knowing facts the jury would not know, tried to open that door by raising the question. Since the defender didn't object, she was compelled by her oath to answer "Yes". Basically, it sounds like the defender messed up. But without having a link to the case, it's hard to tell for sure. For one thing, the prosecutor knows full well it's prejudicial. Possibly, the judge should have told the prosecutor not to ask a question like that, and then if he did anyway, he could be held in contempt. But there could be nuances to Minnesota law that are not clear here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * She wouldn't have looked at the defense attorney for guidance, obviously. She should have looked at the prosecutor with a look like, "Do you realize what you're asking me to say?" Easier to judge after the fact than in the heat of the moment, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure who asked the question. But the question, "How did you know he had formerly lived near the crime scene?" or something like that, didn't explicitly mention the prior arrests. Nor have I seen anything to indicate that the officer knew of the prior arrests at the time of the arrest. It seems the officer found out about the defendant's former address by reading a report on a prior arrest. It appeared that the defense lawyer objected to the answer by moving for a mistrial, but didn't object to the question until after hearing the answer. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then the prosecutor was a smart cookie. If the policewoman somehow volunteered that she knew the accused had formerly lived near the crime scene, she basically opened the door herself. It sounds more like the witness was not properly prepared. That's show biz. So was the accused found guilty or not guilty? And on appeal, was the prejudicial information considered? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ... "What's up", I'm puzzled by something you wrote. You said "Since the defender didn't object, she was compelled by her oath to answer 'Yes'."  But the question was not yes-or-no; the question was how she knew about the former address of the defendant.  Nothing in the question itself said anything about prior arrests.  That's the problem here: it may not be evident from the question alone that the answer will mention prior arrests.  How then can the witness answer and tell the whole truth without violating the judge's order?  One can imagine situations with the lawyers on both sides and the judge don't know, just from hearing the question, that the answer would mention prior arrests.  Should the witness object in such a circumstance? Michael Hardy (talk) 05:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, witnesses themselves are not allowed to object. That's the attorney's job. The judge might also jump in if necessary, but the lawyers are supposed to be vigilant. I would be interested to know what action, if any, was taken against the witness, beyond being "taken to task" as you note below. If the witness spoke the truth, I don't see how they could be in contempt. But I could certainly see how a mistrial could be declared, as it potentially "poisoned the well" for the jurors to hear about prior arrests in court. In general, a case has to be judged on its specific merits. Prior record is up to the judge to consider, at sentencing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

A mistrial was declared after the defense lawyer asked for it, but not immediately after. The judge said his declaring a mistrial was his own initiative rather than a response to the defense's request, and consequently new charges couldn't be filed. An appeals court took the officer to task for mentioning the prior arrests, and also said she violated a witness sequestration order by being present when the prosecutor talked to a witness. (The officer later said she showed up on that occasion simply because the prosecutor asked her to.) Bottom line: the defendant walked. But now he's doing a life term or two, for murders committed later. (So is that enough for you to figure out which case it was, using google?) Michael Hardy (talk) 05:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically the prosecutor and the prosecution witness messed up. So they weren't so smart after all. And the defendant later committed murder. I don't know the specific case you're referring to, but prosecutors do screw up cases from time to time. O.J. Simpson's murder trial is one example. Also the Duke Lacrosse Team case. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

So getting back to my question: How should the officer have responded when asked a question that didn't mention prior arrests, when a truthful answer was that she'd read a prior arrest report? Michael Hardy (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why I asked what action, if any, was taken against her. My guess is that she was told she messed up by introducing prejudicial information. But there's also an old axiom that an attorney should never ask a question he doesn't already know the answer to. If he knew she got the information from a prior arrest record, he shouldn't have asked the question at all, because he should have realized there was a risk she would tell the truth! If he didn't know the answer, he shouldn't have asked either, because who knows what she might say. I don't know the law, but if I'm on a witness stand, and I get asked a question, I'm going to answer it as best I can. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In short, ethically speaking, Yes, she had to answer the question. She had no grounds for pleading the 5th amendment, obviously. So morally and ethically she was right to answer the question honestly. Whether she was smart in the way she answered, is another story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Layman here &mdash; I note a conspicuous lack of citations above &mdash; but the witness could have told the judge "Your Honor, I have to ask a question of you privately, about how to answer this question while keeping in mind your instructions." The judge probably told the witness to do this if the witness was going to have to violate the judge's instructions.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, everything here is speculation, including your own question (which I should point out is certainly reasonable speculation on your part). If the judge failed to tell the witness what to do if asked a question of that nature, then the judge also messed up - because when you're on the witness stand, if you're a fundamentally honest person, you're going to try to answer a question - especially when you're a witness for the state, and the state is the one that just asked you the question. So we need to know more about what the judge told her to do or not do, if anything. The tragedy of the case, obviously, is that the accused went out and committed murder later. Bad things happen sometimes. Also, I get the sense that Mike is being coy, but if it's a well-known case that's already been concluded, I don't see any reason for keeping it "confidential" here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, maybe you can't find out from google plus what's above (I just tried it for a few seconds....). The defendant was Philander Jenkins. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Never heard of him. Is there a google link to an article that answers the various questions raised here, including possibly your own question? Because it's obvious that, at the moment, we know no more about this case than you do, and probably less. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's something on it. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC) ....and now I'm going to crash for the night, so anything I write in response to further comments here will not be immediate. Good night. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That makes for some interesting reading, and illustrates why speculation is risky. Summarizing the way I read it, the comment about "prosecutorial misconduct" explains why the judge dismissed the case and barred further prosecution of it. In effect, they're saying the prosecutor and the witness colluded to try to force a mistrial because they thought their case was going poorly. The judge saw through that shenanigan, and instead of following the defense's calls for mistrials, which would have resulted in a new trial, the judge effectively denied those motions and instead imposed a mistrial "against the wishes of the defendant", in order to foil the prosecution's game, as it meant he could not be retried due to double jeopardy rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And to try to address your original question, the general answer is, Yes, she should have answered, because she was bound by her oath. But according to document you found, the cop was not some innocent lamb in all this. It looks like the decision to throw out the case was fair, and it's unfortunate that the freed defendant didn't take that as a "gift from God", an opportunity to change his ways. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, for the moment I'm still here..... Not clear how innocent the cop was, but it seems to me more blame belongs to the prosecutor. He says to the cop: please show up while I talk to the witness.  He's the one who should know the rules.  He asks a question whose answer he knows involves the prior arrests even though the question itself doesn't mention those, so superficially the question seems innocent.  He provides no explanation that makes the cop look innocent because that would make him look like the one who should be blamed.  So maybe the cop passively played along and is not innocent.  Actually it looks to me as if Tuttle's suggestion above might be the way to solve the problem.  That's probably what I'd do if I were the witness. Michael Hardy (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ....oh, I see you're suggesting something similar to what Tuttle said: "She should have looked at the prosecutor with a look like, 'Do you realize what you're asking me to say?'". Except Tuttle was saying she should have been completely explicit.  I prefer explicitness under the circumstances. Michael Hardy (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I said that before I had read the case. Yes, she could have done that. But if they were colluding, there would have been no reason to. If they were colluding, logic would tell you that both of them probably should have been disciplined in some way. But I don't know what the Minnesota laws would have to say about that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem here is that the witness was not a disinterested party, she was an agent of the state, as opposed to a passerby who just happened to see a crime being committed. And I'm inclined to agree that the prosecutor should have been taken to task also, and possibly more severely. Because they both knew that such testimony would surely lead to a mistrial. And the court's opinion was that's exactly what they were trying to do. So that makes the answer to your question a little more complicated. I doubt a judge would tell a disinterested witness what to say or not say. But he would probably have no qualms about warning agents of the state not to bring up certain things. I don't think the document mentions anything about the witness having been told to attend those other hearings, so we don't know if it's the prosecutor's fault or if the cop was trying to save face. I tend to fall back on the Nifong case, because it illustrates the point that while the state may try to "defend its own", up to a point, there's hell to pay when you screw things up so badly that it makes the state look bad. The judge appears to have realized that this was a shenanigan, and he put a stop to it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Michael Hardy: There is a major, crucial error in your question.  You write: the "judge told a police officer not to mention the defendant's prior criminal record when she testified."  In the USA, the judge doesn't give prior warnings to witnesses.  As the case explains, the warning was given NOT to the witness but to the prosecutor (who, indeed, was told to pass along the warning to the witness -- but it was still the prosecutor's responsibility, in preparing the witness, and not the witness's responsibility, in answering the question).  So your question (as follows) is senseless:  "Should she have objected to the question on the grounds that a truthful and responsive answer would violate the judge's order?"  First, witnesses don't object -- the attorneys do.  Second, the witness had no obligation to anyone, and could say whatever she wanted to ... BUT, a prosecutor's witness, especially a cop, will be "prepped," so presumably she "should have" (as opposed to "was obligated to have") gone along with the prosecutor's instructions (the prosecutor WAS OBLIGATED to obey the judge's instruction in the sense that the judge had made clear what the result of disobedience would be; but not legally obligated).  In other words, to answer your specific question: the answer is, no, the witness had no legal obligation to truncate her answer; but the prosecutor had a practical responsibility to coach the witness (and form the proper questions) in accord with the judge's instructions, given that it was obvious that the result of doing otherwise would be bad for the prosecution. 63.17.74.63 (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No idea what case, or context this was, but looking at a retrospective case, the Federal Rules of Evidence rules you might be interested in are specifically 404(b), 609, and 803(8). Those are the likely relevant provisions, assuming it's a federal case, and even if it's not, many states have adopted very similar rules. Shadowjams (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As per 63.17.74... I know of nothing to support the claim that "In the USA, the judge doesn't give prior warnings to witnesses." The judge is well within his or her prerogative to warn the witness about any number of procedural issues, including this one. Shadowjams (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was on a Jury (In Salem, Massachusetts) where the judge absolutely gave warnings to some of the witnesses before they testified. He explained as much to the jury. At one point the witness violated one of these warnings, the trial was stopped, and the jury box was cleared for some period of time.  When we came back we were told that the witness had been told not to say the last thing he had said and that we should ignore it.
 * I was correct in stating "In the USA, the judge doesn't give prior warnings to witnesses" -- but I phrased it ambiguously. I meant the judge doesn't give "prior" warnings in the sense of "before the witness is called."  Yes, once the witness is called, the judge may warn the witness against inapproproate testimony, and can thereaten to hold the witness in contempt.  That didn't happen here.  All the warnings were given to the prosecutors and only the prosecutors. 63.17.63.219 (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, if I was put in the position described by the original question, barring any other instructions, I would have turned to the judge and tried to get some guidance from him (or her). I mean, the witness is often sitting right there next to him (or her). APL (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"63.17.74.63", I see that you're contradicted by someone who claims some experience as a juror. But I confess at this point I'm not actually sure whether the judge gave the instruction to the prosecutor or to the witness. "Shadowjams": It wasn't a federal case, as I thought the link I posted made clear. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"63.17.74.63": If it's the lawyer rather than the witness who is ordered by the judge to avoid the topic of prior arrests, then why does the appeals court seem to blame the cop who testified? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, the appeals court explicitly states that it has no ruling on whether the cop was deliberately provoking a mistrial (see the final lines of the judgment). The TRIAL court is, however, extremely outraged that an experienced policewoman would give such testimony.  Nevertheless, unless and until she was warned while on the stand or threatned with contempt (which she wasn't), the cop had no legal obligation to do anything but tell the truth. She obviously had a practical obligation to do as instructed by the prosecutors while being "buffed," and some would argue she had an ethical obligation not to testify as she did (the trial court believed she was deliberately forcing a mistrial, in the hope that a new trial would be called because the current trial was going badly for the prosecution; if so, double jeopardy prevented her strategy from working because, as a cop, she could be considered an agent of the state, and her misbehavior attributed to the state itself, thus preventing a retrial after the mistrial). 63.17.63.219 (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

"In every generation" quote
I can't seem to remember the rest of the quote, but I think there's a frequently-parodied quote from some play or poem or something that goes like "Once in every generation, a young poet.." or something like that. Does that ring a bell? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.155.65 (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a typical movie trailer (as read by Don Lafontaine), although that is also how the Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV show originally began ("into every generation a slayer is born"). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No it definitely wasn't a movie trailer. It's a famous quote from literature somewhere I think. And definitely not buffy :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.155.65 (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The first thing I thought of was the hymn "Once to every Man and Nation" by James Russell Lowell. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've thought about it some more and I think the quote is something like "once in a generation, at most, a great man is born who can alter the course of history". Does that help? 71.176.155.65 (talk) 04:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I tried a phrase search in Google Books on "once in * generation * a great" and got about 50 hits in different variations of the phrase (some referring to things like "a great ritual" that were clearly irrelevant). But one early use stood out because it showed up in multiple books and is fairly close to the "course of history" version -- although it actually describes a different kind of greatness.

This is George Frisbie Hoar's speech on the occasion of the death in 1900 of John Sherman, as included in Hoar's book An Autobiography of Seventy Years, and it reads in part:


 * It is rarely more than once or twice in a generation that a great figure passes from the earth who seems the very embodiment of the character and temper of his time. Such men are not always those who have held the highest places or been famous for great genius or even enjoyed great popularity.  They rather are men who represent the limitations as well as the accomplishments of the people around them.  They know what the people will bear.  They utter the best thought which their countrymen in their time are able to reach.  They are by no means mere thermometers.  They do not rise and fall with the temperature about them.

But they are powerful and prevailing forces, with a sound judgment and practical common sense that understands just how high the people can be lifted, and where the man who is looking not chiefly at the future but largely to see what is the best thing that can be done in the present should desist from unavailing effort. Such a man was John Sherman, for whom the open grave is now waiting at Mansfield.

Would that be it? --Anonymous, 07:57 UTC, April 5, 2010.
 * Yes thank you! I mean, I don't think I've ever seen that exact quote, but "once or twice in a generation" is the phrase I'm looking for. I must have seen it used somewhere (700,000+ google results) and been struck by the way it sounds (like it's a quote from something). Thanks. 71.176.155.65 (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Two writers, Same name.
What do you do if you are creating a page for a writer, but there is another writer who publishes under the same name? I currently have added the Writer A's middle initial, but the problem is that neither writer actually uses the middle initial on their publications. Will they both show up when people search that name?

Thanks.

Purplerabbit

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplerabbit13 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your email id has been deleted. Come back here to see responses. - manya (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Normally you disambiguate the authors by year of birth: Joe Smith (1957-) 66.127.52.47 (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This question is really better asked on the help desk; nevertheless, it would be a lot easier to answer if you just came out and said what articles you're talking about. If, for example, one author were Irish and the other were American, the titles might be best be rendered as "John Smith (Irish author)" and "John Smith (U.S. author)". However, if one is much more famous than the other, the article for that one should be named just "John Smith", with a parenthetical disambiguation phrase used for the article on the less-well-known one. Without knowing what articles you're talking about, no definitive answer can be offered. Deor (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh! You meant wikipedia pages.  Yes, using the author's birth year is a librarian thing, not a wiki thing. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * After checking Purplerabbit's contributions, the author in question is Dawn Atkins, and the article Purplerabbit wants to create is Dawn M. Atkins. The latter doesn't seem particularly notable, but neither does the former, and she has an article, so what do I know. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Welfare, race, and the drug war
I have heard it said that AFDC (or pre-reform Welfare in the U.S.) created a disincentive for impoverished African Americans to marry since the receipt of welfare benefits required that men and women live separately; presumably, this then created a number of unintended unfavorable sociocultural consequences. I have also heard that, because of the American criminal justice system's problematic treatment of race, a disproportionate amount of African Americans are imprisoned and family breakups occur with similar sociocultural effects. I would not be surprised if both were true, but I'm curious as to how much either has contributed to such family breakups. I'm not sure how where to go about searching for an answer to this question. Anyone know who or what I should look to? — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 07:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The book that started the whole debate on the topic was "The Negro Family: The Case For National Action" (also further discussion on the Daniel Patrick Moynihan article). AnonMoos (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That book was written in the 60s and more-or-less predicts what others now say has passed in regards to AFDC. This paper by Haney & Zimbardo (1998) argues that this sort of thing has already occurred from the criminal justice system's racial disparities.  I believe I'm familiar enough with the points of the arguments, but I'm curious about the statistics.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  19:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Another argument I've heard, is that slavery created an anti-marriage culture among blacks, as couples could be broken up at any time, when either person was sold. However, welfare certainly does seem to have been a disincentive to do anything productive, since you got more for being unmarried, unemployed, and having lots of kids.  StuRat (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * just as a pithy aside, please note that arguments like this begin from a logical contradiction, and once you assume a logical contradiction you can (literally) deduce anything. The contradiction is that the argument assumes (on one hand) that African Americans engage in sophisticated forms of economic rationality (making judgements about complex social interactions and evaluating their long-term economic impact for maximal profit) but it also assumes (on the other hand) that African Americans do not engage in the relatively simple calculations of economic rationality that would allow them to bypass these "unfavorable sociocultural consequences" (by which I assume you mean broken families, jail time, and etc.).  They can't be both rational and non-rational, so there is something deeply flawed in the analysis.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see why any long-term thought is required. "I won't get my check this month if we get married" isn't particularly long-term thinking.  This seems very similar to the short-term thought process behind buying things on credit: "It's only $99 a week, I can afford that", without any thought given to the total cost of the purchase. StuRat (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thomas Sowell has taken on the claim that "slavery created an anti-marriage culture among blacks", arguing that the black American marriage was in relatively good shape before the modern welfare state began doing damage. Walter E. Williams agrees, writing about "The Legacy of Slavery Hustle". —Kevin Myers 21:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm curious as to why "...and the drug war." is included in the title. Just wondering since it wasn't included in your question.Killanotha1 (talk) 05:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Drug law enforcement is one of the strongest aspects of the criminal justice system's racial disparities. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  04:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And the dope laws themselves began with fear of racial contamination (and/or as a handy tool of racial repression): cocaine, marijuana, opium are respectively symbols for Negro, Mexican, Chinese. —Tamfang (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

australian war medal/hat medal found

 * Moved from the Village Pump

hi we found a brass or copper medal withwhat looks like a belt or hat band holder on the back, on the front is a ausiie digger resting on a cricket bat the uniforma nd hat i think is 1st or 2nd war, does anyone know what it could be?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.71.12 (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

small wooden huts off Miami
On Miami Vice you would sometimes see these small wooden "huts" built on poles off the beach. What are they called? And are they for fishing or something else? Finally, what is their legal status? In particular, is the land beneath them private property? Thank you in advance. 83.81.42.44 (talk) 08:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you mean things like this, they're for life guards. They afford the life guard some shade, give them somewhere to keep rescue and first-aid equipment, and their height allows them overwatch over the foreshore. They're the property of the municipality that manages the beach (and may "own" the beach; ownership of beaches is often a slightly complex matter); ones I've seen have signs on them saying they're city property not open to the public. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 12:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Some are leggier, and simpler, than the one I linked to above, like this one. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 12:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your answer. The lifeguard huts were not what I meant, but I did some extra searching on Flickr and via that I arrived at Stiltsville. Eureka, as some Greek guy once said. 83.81.42.44 (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

10, downing street
Is it true the entrance door of 10, downing street, the official residence of the British PM can only be locked from the inside? Why would a door be made this way? Is it to convey the message the house is NEVER uninhabited and that there's always someone inside the house? Is it the same with residences of other Prime Ministers and Presidents? Are there any documented instances of 10, Downing Street being empty at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fragrantforever (talk • contribs) 12:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is true. Google will find you dozens of reliable sources in a second. The question I can't find an answer to is whether there is another door somewhere round the back. Do the servants go in and out the main entrance? Do lorries pull up there to make deliveries? It seems unlikely. If there is a back door, then that can probably be opened from the outside if necessary. I expect the building is completely evacuated following a fire alarm, just like any other building. Although, maybe some people stay inside in a fire-proof bunker. --Tango (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's true, though there are other entrances (inside, it's connected with all the other buildings in Downing Street, plus the Cabinet Office on Whitehall), so they'll never get locked out!! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► sundries ─╢ 13:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Who needs an outside lock when the place is guarded 24/7? This article asks this very question, alas without any better answer. Now I wonder, was it perhaps common for 1770s era doors not to have outside locks? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not the same door as it was in the 1770s. It was replaced with something more substantial after the Downing Street mortar attack. Alansplodge (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * An armed guard beats a locked door any day. Googlemeister (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just wondering, assuming that outside locks were uncommon back then, if they would have kept the same style for tradition's sake. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference letter vs. Recommendation letter compared to German system
As I come originally from Germany I have some problems to adopt the system of reference/ recommendation letters into the Anglo-Saxon areas. In Germany you have generally two types:

As far as I understood this seems comparable to a Recommendation letter.
 * “Empfehlungsschreiben”, can be drawn by everybody, still unusual in Germany, no binding form.

Can this be compared to a Reference letter (besides the legal obligation)? Are there different systems in the US and Britain? Can I request any kind of “Reference letter”, “confirmation of work” or similar from my employer in the US or Britain? Or can they just refuse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.149.9 (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * “Arbeitszeugnis”, must be drawn by the employer (statutory duty) at the end of working contract and includes his areas of work and responsibility, his performance and his social behaviour on the working place (the form, grammar, use of words, etc. is very strictly regulated to not discriminate the employee) and are not directed to somebody


 * I'm not aware of any legal obligation on a British employer to provide any kind of reference or confirmation (beyond the mandatory stuff with HMRC). It's common for employers to be asked to confirm employment, and sometimes salary, for purposes of the employee renting or buying a home, but every time I've seen this or done it it's been an ad-hoc form, not some kind of official document. When someone leaves an employer they're supposed to be given a P45, but this is intended only for continuation of PAYE code and not really as confirmation of employment or salary - and it's not uncommon for an employer to fail to issue a P45 or for the employee to not have it for some other reason (and the consequences for hiring someone without a P45 aren't very difficult).  It's not uncommon for someone to embiggen their current salary when negotiating compensation with a new employer. You can of course ask an employer for either a letter of recommendation or to act as a referee (which means a future employer writes to or phones the current one, and they discuss your performance); the times I've been a referee for someone I've never been asked, nor would I answer, a question about someone's pay level. The UK seems to be gradually following the US where it's common for someone to decline to give a reference rather than give a negative one, for fear of being sued by the unhappy candidate. A few years ago a junior British doctor was given a good reference by his health authority, despite that authority actually being very unhappy with his performance - when he went on to be found to be negligent, I think there were repercussions on the former employer (darn, I can't find the case in Google, although it was quite widely reported). -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 13:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone in the UK gives bad references these days. You would have to be able to prove in court that everything you said was true, which just isn't worth it. Either you give no reference (which is equivalent to saying you fired them, really - that's how it will be interpreted) or you give a very short reference which just states the facts about how long they worked for you and what their job was. You can tell how good an employee someone was by the length of their reference, you don't need to actually read it! --Tango (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They may not give a reference that says something like "XX is a poor employee who never does any work" since, as you say, that's a matter of opinion that could be challenged. However one that says "XX was dismissed for gross misconduct" could quite well be given, since it neutrally states a fact.  --Phil Holmes (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll confirm Finlay's assertion that a UK employer does not have to provide any kind of reference. For reasons given by Finlay, many employers don't provide any references beyond "I can confirm that Mrs X started work here on 1/1/01." For those who wish to provide more informative references, this site gives sample letters. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The situation is similar in the United States to the UK, except that I have never heard of a "P45" or anything similar in the United States. In the United States, I think that an employer or former employer is legally required to confirm whether a given person is or was an employee.  An employee can also request that his or her employer release his or her salary (typically to banks for mortgage approval, not to prospective employers).  There is certainly no standard letter or form documenting the employee's performance that would be released publicly.  Most employers have a policy of not releasing information about former employees beyond their dates of employment.  The reason, as Finlay has stated, is that this could be grounds for a lawsuit either by the new employer (if the letter was fraudulent) or by the former employee (if the letter unfairly harmed his or her employment prospects).  It is in fact difficult for employers to get impartial information about a prospective employee's past performance.  The prospective employer will ask for "references".  These are not written statements, but names and contact information (phone number and perhaps e-mail address) for former supervisors.  The prospective employer may try to have a phone conversation with the former supervisor, because the supervisor is more likely to be candid on the phone, especially if he or she is assured that the conversation is confidential and not being recorded.  Marco polo (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The P45 is basically to say how much you have earned so far this tax year so your new employer knows what tax rate to apply to your earnings under PAYE. --Tango (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. In the United States, a new employer does not take into account the employee's earlier earnings in withholding taxes.  It is the employee's responsibility to make sure that the government gets adequate tax payments.  If an employee took a job at higher pay, the new employer would withhold as if the employee had earned that amount all year.  This would result in excess withholding, and the employee would get a large tax refund the next year.  If an employee took a job at much lower pay well into the year, then he or she might be required to make quarterly tax payments in addition to the amounts withheld by the new employer.  In practice, though, it would be unusual for this to happen, since U.S. tax rates are relatively flat.  It would probably take going from an income above $373,000 to an income below $82,000 to push the difference in withholding above the threshold at which quarterly payments by the employee would be required.  Marco polo (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Marco polo's first comment here is partly correct. In the US, I am not aware of any duty that a former employer has to even confirm that a person has worked there in the past.  It is expected as a courtesy, surely, and it would, at least, be a "dick move" for a company to not even confirm employment dates.  What actually happens is that the hiring manager at the new job will ask for "references" meaning "the name, company, title, and phone number of a person you have worked for".  The hiring manager will then call these references on the phone and ask a lot of questions about the candidate.  (Many lazy hiring managers don't, which is amazing, but that's another topic.)  Obviously the candidate will not list anyone at his current job as a reference unless something weird is occurring (like the candidate having been given notice already).  Workers are paranoid that their current employer may find out that the worker is seeking employment elsewhere.  Now, at every company these days, the managers are endlessly exhorted by the Human Resources department to not give any information out whatsoever when contacted for a reference, except for the confirmation that the person worked there, and the dates of employment.  The fear of HR is that if a bad reference is given ("Oh, yeah, that guy &mdash; he was always late for work, never finished his projects, and I think he stole some laptops"), then in some states, the worker can sue the former employer for slander or under a special law such as the one in California that prohibits you from preventing someone from receiving an income.  In practice, people like to gossip, and it's usually not difficult to get good information about the candidate.  Some candidates do have pre-written letters addressed to "To Whom It May Concern", and extolling the virtues of the candidate; but I don't think these are usually considered very reliable or important.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

War of Attrition original speech by President Nasser
On 30 March 1969 President Nasser made a speech to the Arab Socialist Union Congress, in which he justified shelling on Israelis and the Suez Canal. I'm looking for the entire text of that speech. At mfa.gov.il I was able to find extracts of it, but not the full speech. I checked nytimes and bbc archives (usually good places for full texts) but can't find the speech. Any suggestions? I'd certainly appreciate if someone could put me back on the right track, which has recently gone cold. Thank you. Llamabr (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Baroque music
How do I make Baroque-style music? --Natrium-23 (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * At a first approximation (which means "pretending to be Bach") use lots of harmonic minor with the same short phrase repeated over and over, moved up and down by regular intervals, a few overly-ornate runs and arpeggios, and lots of banging on the tonic. You won't really succeed in sounding like Bach, who is a far subtler and more melodic stylist than he gets credit for, but you will sound like Yngwie Malmsteen, which is enough to fool a surprising large number of people. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 16:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are 5000 Bach-like midi files composed by a computer program written by David Cope. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

What happens ad the end of The Ax by Donald Westlake?
Does Burke Devore get caught or does he succeed in killing off all his competition?20.137.18.50 (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Loathing of the USA
Are there Wiki articles on the international loathing of the USA? Just finished reading an article on US broadcasters' mispronounciations of foreign cities/countries. Of course, there were numerous not-so-nice comments on US ignorance, etc and I, as a US citizen, is weary of all of this. --Reticuli88 (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone who writes "I...is weary..." complaining that they should not be called "ignorant". Hmmm...  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are all manner of articles about international relationships, both official and informal, across Wikipedia. However, I'm not aware of any single "what does the world think of the US" article (I suspect because the topic wouldn't really fit in one article).  Additionally, if you're already "weary of all this", why search for more?  Enjoy your Americaninity, gosh darn it, and remember that we've already beaten every other country by the time the World Series starts!  On a more serious note, our article on international public opinion on the war in Afghanistan looks well-referenced and should provide a good starting point for a current major issue. &mdash; Lomn 19:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We have the anti-Americanism article. It could do with a major overhaul though. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's all due to jealousy. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * British broadcasters aren't great at foreign place names either - it took a week or two after the earthquake for the correct pronunciation of "Port-au-Prince" to filter through (interesting, our article gives the incorrect pronunciation as the English one with the correct one as the French pronunciation, but everyone on British TV and radio now is using the French one). We have a fairly good article on the opposite topic than you ask for: American exceptionalism. (I think American exceptionalism is actually one of the major causes of anti-Americanism.) --Tango (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Shortly after the earthquake, I saw a Dominican news broadcast whose caption said that the reporter was reporting from "Puerto del Príncipe". At least English language broadcasts try to keep the city in its mother tongue.  Woogee (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's kind of pathetic that the "American exceptionalism" article doesn't even mention "Why there is no Socialism in America" by Werner Sombart, which was extremely influential at a scholarly level... AnonMoos (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Who says there isn't? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There clearly is. Medicaid, for instance. --Tango (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * First off, Sombart's essay was published in 1906. In any case, much of what Sombart referred to then is still valid -- e.g. in many European countries, one or more of the largest political parties is often a socialist party, while there's no major socialist party in the United States, and explicit socialist ideology is often viewed as either quaint Scandinavian exoticism or despotic Communistic tyranny, which in either case has no connection to American political traditions, and does not have any real solutions to offer to the problems America faces.  Creeping administrative welfare-statism does very little to counteract such political realities. AnonMoos (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There IS a major socialist party in the USA -- the Property Party, which has two wings (Republican and Democrat) and never ceases to champion socialism for the rich, and the "free market" for everyone else. In 1980 the upper 1% had less than 20% of the nation's wealth; now it is more than 40%.  (Thanks, Reagan; thanks, Bushes.  And an honorable mention to Clinton.)  If that's not socialism for the rich, redistributing wealth UPwards, what is?  What is the Pentagon but socialism for the rich?  No other form of government spending produces fewer jobs while transferring more wealth in a never-ending gush UPwards.  (Thank goodness we saved OUR FREE SPEECH by fighting Korea, Vietnam, Guatemala, Iran, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, Iraq ... feel free to add a few more examples of the Pentagon's protection of free speech since 1946). 63.17.74.63 (talk) 07:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet people from other countries keep trying to come to the USA to live and work. I wonder why that would be? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet . . . this tells us that there is net emigration to Canada, UK, Italy, and France from the US. Lots of immigrants from Somalia and lots of emigrants to France is a no-brainer, right?  Keeping in mind that the US doesn't collect any emigration figures, and that this estimation was made in 2006 from old census figures, used incomplete international data, and (mostly) didn't include dual citizens.  I think it's fair to say that emigration from the US is much higher than these statistics show and has probably increased quite a lot in the 10 (and more) years since emigration counts were extrapolated from the old census figures.  Also, to make the immigration statement really fair, one would have to analyse how many emigrants, of total emigrants from a country, chose the US.  The numbers are difficult to find, but I'd be willing to bet that the number of British people emigrating to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand is consistently higher than the number emigrating to the US.   Mae din \talk 09:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The U.S. has had exceptional immigration pressures for a lot of reasons, including liberal civil liberties (for those that make it in) and relatively widespread economic opportunity relative to other possible destinations. You mention "net" immigration, but I'm almost certain the numbers you cite are country-by-country national-to-national numbers, from developed countries with largely similar cultures. Where's the cite for the proposition that the U.S. doesn't keep emigration figures? That's an extrodinary claim that I'll be seriously amazed if you can produce a cite about. In any case, that's irrelevant. This isn't the place to flesh out offenses and defenses about particular countries. Shadowjams (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The net emigration from the US to developed countries with similar cultures was kind of the point. Asylum-seekers, for example, will take wherever will accept them; more discerning migrants with options might not be choosing the US and are quite possibly leaving in thousands, too.  I wasn't intending for it to be an offence/defence against or for the US, only attempting to balance the remark regarding immigration somehow indicating widespread "popularity" (which, granted, is only how I interpreted it and quite possibly not how it was meant).  The cite for that information is in the document that I linked to, which was produced by the statistics division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs for the United Nations.     Mae din \talk 09:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * IF the USA does not have numbers for emigrants (assuming that's true), it might be because the USA generally doesn't stop anyone from leaving unless they're evading the law. In general, our attitude is, "Don't let the door hit you on the way out." In contrast, just try to leave Cuba, for example, and see what happens. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, there's an implication here that people leave the USA to go to places where there's stronger socialism. They're in for some sticker shock when they see that socialism has a price... in taxes. As for the "asylum" part, I assume he's referring to those seeking asylum in the U.S. Seeking asylum from the U.S. would make no sense, as the U.S. does not hold its citizens hostage like some other countries do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was referring to those seeking asylum in the US, correct. Seeking asylum from the US is...only marginally unrealistic, ;-)  P.S. I'm a she.   Mae din \talk 08:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a remark I encounter quite often these days: "If we're so bad, why are so many people coming here?" Here are two hints: 1. because there are many even worse countries than you, and you have contributed greatly to making them worse by your interventions and right-wing foreign policies (hence the blue-collar immigration from the Third World); 2. because your education system is failing to produce all the experts you need, and experts are paid highly (hence the intellectual immigration from Europe). Nobody but a few extremely rich (and extremely greedy) people is coming to avoid "socialist" high taxes.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Free market for everyone else" presumably means the non-rich are free to enter any trade and operate any kind of business without political interference. Sounds great! —Tamfang (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess one of the obvious considerations is they did eventually learn. Did the American broadcasters learn? I don't know, perhaps not, perhaps that's why the article still has the English pronounciation. Having said that, it's rare to hear anyone pronounce Sepang right in Formula 1 broadcasts (most of the people involved being British) and Carrefour has a lot of odd pronounciations thorough the world including in the UK (in Malaysia they did seem to try to pronounce it close to the French at one stage but are not always consistent) Nil Einne (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the context, I should tell you that, even though the verb is "pronounce", the noun is "pro nun ciation" (not pro noun ciation), and is pronounced accordingly. :)  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   18:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the pronunciation of "pronunciation" is variable. Plenty of people do use the vowel from "cow" - enough people that you can't just dismiss it as a mistake. --Tango (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, many do speak and spell it "pronounciation". Which is logical, if you think about it, but English is not necessarily logical. For example, numbers with "four" in them, when written out, usually spell it "four-something"... except "forty". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the very popular game "bacebawl" or "bacebaul" (cf. lace, mace, awl, haul). :) --  202.142.129.66 (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * People around here are constantly making funny good-natured generalisations about Americans that they know aren't true. You all speak with some hastily invented southern sounding accent, or you're all fat, or you're all extremely guillible tourists etc. They do that about every other county and about people from other parts of this country.--92.251.159.250 (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For some good stereotypes about the British, watch any old Monty Python's Flying Circus episode. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't loathe the USA, I "loathe" (not really) "their" whining about "being loathed". It's wearisome, "americans" (i. e. US-americans) whining about why "we" (rest of the world) "hate" (their expression) "them" (see before) when all "they"'ve done was "help" us. An unbiased look into the history of US-american involvement abroad should answer that question. Unbiased here means to not concentrate all the good that has come to other places of this world (there has been plenty), but where things went wrong. People will give a damn wether they got help from anyone when that helper then proceeds to accidentally drop a bomb on their wedding. Also, of course there will be a lot of "hate" if everytime one feels criticized, or not as appreciated as one expects to be, one starts throwing the word "hate" around. As to american mispronouncements, well - considering the fun Westerwave and Oettinger just provided, an honest american newscaster certainly will be a credible example of well-pronounced names. Long as whoever uses the term understands that "Der Waffle House" is only vaguely related to German ... :) --G-41614 (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't there a real dichotomy between, on the one hand, all the countries in far-flung places that the Americans have helped (and there's no denying they have), and, on the other hand, the stereotype (not always untrue) of Americans having little knowledge of the rest of the world (e.g. Austria and Australia often being confused)?  The two things just don't hang together.   --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Forget Austria and Australia, too many Americans can't even find America on a world map. I don't think Americans whine that much, though. Don't take Fox News as being gospel. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It appears the answer to the original question is "no, but there ought to be a Wikipedia article on this topic; but it should probably be named something other than Loathing of the USA." Comet Tuttle (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Anti-Americanism already exists, as mentioned above. I assume it currently looks like a collage of rant posts from different forums, but it is supposed to be about the issues that the OP was asking about.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Rick Mercer Talking To Americans (7:13). :-D (1) Not all non-Americans are anti-Americans. (2) Half the reasons some people loathe America is why I like America. (example: Iggy Pop - Wild America). (3) America is a bully, or at least elements of it. United States and the Haitian Revolution and United States occupation of Haiti Philippine–American War 1953 Iranian coup d'état Contras United States invasion of Panama Gulf War Iraq War  Foreign relations of Azerbaijan "Azerbaijan has formal involvement with senior US government officials including James Baker and Henry Kissinger as they serve on the Honorary Council of Advisors for the U.S. Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce. The U.S. Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce is co-chaired by Tim Cejka, President of Exxon Mobil Corporation, and Reza Vaziri, President of R.V. Investment Group and Chairman of the Anglo Asian Mining Plc (LSE Ticker: AAZ)."  US says flights resumed at Kyrgyzstan base "The status of the base, which is key to supporting the international military campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan, has been a significant strategic question since the uprising Wednesday.  Opposition figures in the past have said they wanted the U.S. base, at the international airport serving the capital, to close."  I wonder if the US will allow that country to be truely democratic and independent.  Marc Emery's Marching Orders - Goodbye for now Tommy Chong: America's Most Wanted? Ann Coulter, Canada, & Vietnam Ann Coulter contradicts fact of Canadian TV host. The Fugs - CIA Man Rammstein-Amerika Ministry The Land Of Rape And Honey 70.54.181.70 (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

How managers are motivated?
People like Duncan Bannatyne own several large companies and employ managers to run them. How are such managers motivated? My fear/nightmare with employing managers, even for much more modest companies, is that they would simply not bother to do any work.

Perhaps they are motivated by wishing to avoid the sack, hence would do just enough to avoid that. But how do you motivate them beyond this? A business owner is motivated because they own the business. But a manager is just an employee. What are the actual methods used to motivate them? Thanks 89.240.59.32 (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Money. I think it is typical for a manager to work with his superior to define several objective measurements for his progress, and there's a bonus tied to hitting each objective.  "If your group can reach a revenue target of 1 million pounds this calendar year, you get a 10,000 pound bonus; and an additional pound for each 100 pounds of additional revenue."  That would be most common in the sales department, and would be less common in departments like engineering or customer service; but other metrics could be devised as objective measurements of how the manager's group is performing.  In the US, small companies often grant stock options to managers, so the company's overall profitability can benefit the manager at some point.  Googling "managing managers" seems to yield lots of hits.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You set expectations during the performance review, including defining goals that can be measured for the next review. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec x2) Performance related pay. The easiest way to do that is to make a portion of their compensation either shares in the company or options for shares in the company. --Tango (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As for how to evaluate the managers, it should be a combo of how productive their group is and how their employees rate them. Productivity alone could be misleading, as some groups may be productive despite a bad manager, and others may be unproductive for reasons having nothing to do with the manager.  And, to get true feedback from the manager's employees, those ratings must be anonymous.  Maybe do them online so they can't be tracked, in case the manager tries to figure out who "told on them" and then tries to get even. StuRat (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Our article on the latter is 360-degree feedback. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Also don't under-estimate the very common desire that people want to do a job well. I don't get paid a huge amount, but in all my jobs I have always wanted to do the job well. Why? Well it was probably instilled in me as a child, but it's pretty common to see people wanting to do a good job. Sure i'm hopeful of promotion, more pay and so on but that's not the only reason I do it. I wanted to do a good job when I was washing pots in a restaurant - it wasn't a career, I wasn't going to get a pay-rise, but if i'm doing something I want to do it right. Motivation comes in many guises - money/bonuses are among the most crude (and are effective) but they're not the only motivators by a long way. 09:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk)


 * It depends on how much they are already worth. Any good banker will inform you that in order to get poor people to work harder we pay them less; in order to get rich people to work harder we pay them more. As simple as that; as they are happy to prove to us – providing we pay them enough!--Aspro (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Christianity, Judaism, Islam
How would the hostility of the three pairings and six directional-links of the above be ranked? Which pair or link would have the greatest hostility and why? Thanks 89.240.59.32 (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The mainstreams of all three religions are entirely peaceful to each other. Apart from the situation in Israel, there isn't much conflict between religious groups and even that is more racial than religious, there just happens to be a strong correlation between the races and religions. --Tango (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of conflict between these religious groups, in different parts of the world, for different reasons. In many cases, it is often political/ethnic more than religious, but religion is certainly involved.  Just because Israel gets the most press doesn't mean it's the only place where conflict occurs.  Off the top of my head, I've got:
 * Nigerian sectarian violence: Muslim vs. Christian.
 * Former Yugoslavia. Lot's of conflict, some of it with religious overtones (Muslim vs. Christian).
 * Israel, as mentioned previously (Jews vs. Muslims, with some Christian interests to boot).
 * Copts in Egypt: Muslims vs. Christians.
 * Cyprus dispute: Muslim vs. Christian, but largely political causes.
 * That being said, many people of all of these religions manage to get along with each other. Buddy431 (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * All six directional links have been both hostile and friendly in various places and eras. Even today, there is both friendship and antagonism among the groups depending on the circumstances. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Theologically, Islam and Judaism have in common a simple monotheism (while Christian monotheism is somewhat complicated). Scripturally, Judaism and Christianity have in common revering a particular written text (the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible), while Islam has no scripture in common with the other two (and in fact, Muslims have traditionally insisted that Jewish and Christian scriptures are "corrupted" whenever they don't fully agree with Islam). In a broad historical perspective, Christianity and Islam have been two competing and often combative "civilizations" ever since the first Caliphs attacked the Byzantine empire (and reduced its size in half) in the 630s A.D., while there wasn't really any fully sovereign Jewish state between 63 B.C. and 1948 A.D... AnonMoos (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * actually, that's not true. Islam teaches that it is the successor to judaism and christianity, and in fact it explicitly includes many jewish and christian texts and teachings as part of its canon.  the 'corrupt' bit has more to do with the fact that the older faiths don't recognize the teachings of Mohammed (and other details, such as the christian claim that Jesus is god, where muslims see him as merely another prophet).  all three religions share a central core in (parts of) the old testament, all three have the same basic outlook and premises; the difference is in the details.  Believe me, from the perspective of a buddhist or hindu, islam, christianity and judaism are largely indistinguishable.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but Islam simply does not "explicitly include" any Jewish or Christian texts, in the sense that any canonical/authoritative Christian or Jewish scriptures would be recognized as canonical/authoritative Islamic scriptures. And some Hindus, at least, have seen analogies between the figure of Jesus and certain aspects of Hinduism, while there is much less in common between Hinduism and quasi-orthodox Islam (though there has been some commonality on the popular level between Hinduism and a kind of heavily Sufi-influenced and saint-"worshipping" form of Islam...). AnonMoos (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Compare them also at Proselytism and see Apostasy in Islam. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-04-06t10:21z


 * When tallying up your religious violence, don't forget Christian v. Christian (The Troubles), Muslim v. Muslim (Shia-Sunni tension) and Hindu v. Muslim v. Sikh v. Christan (Modern India). Also, the article on Religious persecution is good for a reminder that every group (even atheists) has skeletons in its closet.  --M @ r ē ino 21:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Every religious group? The Quakers, for instance? BrainyBabe (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "every group (even atheists)" um right. When exactly was the last atheist violence sponsored by the atheist organisation? --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Or put another way atheism isn't an organisation. It isn't a group. Sure there are atheist groups and atheist organisations but you simply can't categorise groups united by belief with people more or less (mostly less) united by a lack of belief. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)