Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 January 13

= January 13 =

Alcohol laws in France
What are the laws regarding alcohol in France? Specifically, what is the minimum legal drinking age? --70.244.235.220 (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Check out Minimum drinking age. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 02:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you can read French: [] — AldoSyrt (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you can't read French, Google translate is your friend. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The second page of the above-linked text says: Il est interdit de proposer des boissons alcoolisées aux mineurs de moins de 16 ans. Seuls les vins bières et cidres peuvent être proposés aux mineurs de 16 à 18 ans. While there are some qualifiers that follow, the gist of it all is that alcohol of any nature cannot be "proposed" (say "offered" until a better translation comes along) to anyone under the age of 16. For those between the ages of 16 and 18, beer, wine and (hard) cider may be offered. Bielle (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Dick Cheney - Go f yourself
I was wondering where the whole "Go fuck yourself" thing involving Dick Cheney originates. I've been trying to figure it out, but all I can seem to find are either people yelling it at him or people claiming he said it. Can anyone provide me with information on whether or not he ever said this, and if he did say this where it originates. --Anthonysenn (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Cheney famously told Senator Patrick J. Leahy on the senate floor to fuck himself. I imagine the yells are echos of that. - Nunh-huh 03:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

arthur vellosy
i had doubt that was arthur vellossy and duke of vellington is the same man? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.121.171 (talk) 07:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * See Duke of Wellington. His name was Arthur Wellesley. --ColinFine (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to be confused with the Duke of Ellington. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. His family name was Arthur Ellesley.  :) --  Jack of Oz   ... speak! ...   11:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

How many UK taxpayers?
What is the total number of UK taxpayers? Excluding people who pay the majority of their tax to some other government. Thanks. 92.24.99.218 (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Presumably, you're referring to income tax, but bear in mind that many purchases are subject to VAT, meaning that roughly 60 million British people pay tax (babies don't tend to buy things, so I reduced the number slightly to reflect this).
 * Here's a handy pie chart illustrating the breakdown of tax payments: not all income tax by a long chalk. Malcolm XIV (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I did mean income tax payers. 92.24.99.218 (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * These recent figures suggest that 28.9 million people were in work in the third quarter of 2009, the vast majority of whom will be paying income tax. Malcolm XIV (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some retired people, or other people living off their investments, will also be paying income tax. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm I think there are problems with that estimate, since some people were unemployed for the third quarter but not for the entire year, or they may have other taxable income, namely capital gains. It also ignores the people that are employed but make less than the "personal allowance" over the year and so have no income tax.  The personal allowance was £5,435 in 2008, according to the article, and I think the number of people making that much or less isn't huge but it isn't negligible either, especially if you consider some won't have worked a full year.  There are probably data somewhere showing the exact number of UK tax payers measured directly.  TastyCakes (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * According to Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs, in the last actual survey year (2006-07), there were 31,800,000 individuals who paid income tax in some form (and 3,770,000 of these paid tax at the higher rate of 40%). These taxpayers included 4,520,000 over-65s, some of whom would still be working and some of whom would be paying income-tax on their pensions and savings income.  Figures for subsequent years are estimated, and recent changes in legislation is likely to increase the number of taxpayers through fiscal drag.    D b f i r s   12:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Earliest legislation regarding public footpaths in the UK?
What is the earliest legislation regarding public footpaths anywhere in the UK? Unlike other countries the UK has a network of public footpaths through the countryside - an under-regarded national treasure in my opinion. See Rights of way in England and Wales. 92.24.99.218 (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably Roman road. Nanonic (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but a Roman road is a road - not the same as a public footpath. If you are not from the UK then you may not be aware what a public footpath actually is. 92.24.99.218 (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * From that response I take it you didn't read the article linked then, or know that a footpath is a type of road. Nanonic (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I did indeed look at the Roman road article, but a public footpath is definately not a road. Nor would the various things described in that article have corresponded to what we would now call a public footpath. If you are North American then a public footpath looks like the most primitive kind of trail in the Trail article, but with no vehicle, horse, or bicycle access. (However there are types of public footpaths, called bridleways, that do allow horse and cycle access.) Usually they are barely wide enough for one person to walk along (although quite often the footpath may follow the same route as a farm track) and have a bare earth or mud surface formed from the wear of feet, which is never maintained. 92.24.99.218 (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of information at the Green Lane Association web site. For example, its Glossary entry on "Footpath" says that "Footpaths were first legally defined by The National Parks & Access to the Countryside Act 1949". Click on "Library" in the menu, then "Legislation" to see a list of relevant legislation. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, although to avoid further confusion I should point out that a green lane is not the same as a public footpath. 92.24.99.218 (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am a North American, but I fully understand what is meant by public footpath in England and Wales. What you need to understand is that the earliest laws having to do with these footpaths date to a time when they were considered equivalent to roads—that is, a time before motor vehicles existed when most travel was on foot or horseback.  Very likely the earliest "legislation" relating to these footpaths was not laws passed by any parliament but the result of court decisions under common law.  For example, the common law concept of adverse possession is one of the building blocks of current laws on public footpaths, but the original legal judgments regarding adverse possession probably date back to medieval times, and the earliest recorded judgment may not be the earliest judgment rendered.  Finding the earliest judgments contributing to these modern laws would be a time-consuming research project.  Likewise, statutes pertaining to rights of way date back to premodern times.  It would be a daunting legal project to find the earliest statute referenced, perhaps indirectly, by a modern statute on this subject.  (For example, a current statute could reference a partly superceded statute from 1980, which could in turn reference a statute from 1880, and so on back to premodern times.)  For a better understanding of the subject, take a look at Freedom to roam and Rights of way in England and Wales. Also, you might want to contact The Ramblers, part of whose work is legal advocacy around public footpaths.  It could be that one of their staff or volunteers has done the research and could answer your questions.  Marco polo (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your responce but speculation and generalities like that does not answer the question. And as I wrote previously, a Roman road was not a public footpath. Another way of putting the question would be: what is the earliest piece of legislation within the UK that mentions a "public footpath" by name? 92.24.99.218 (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Although it doesn't answer the specific question, there is a lot of information on public rights of way on this site - the Institute of Public Rights of Way Management. There is also information on sources of evidence on the Ramblers Association site here.  Do either of those sites help?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My anti-virus software says that Iprow is a malicious site and blocks it. 92.24.99.218 (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The IPROW site states:
 * What are the differences between the different types of public right of way? The following types exist:
 * Footpaths: on which there is a right of way on foot.
 * Bridleways: on which there is a right of way on foot, on horseback and leading a horse, with an additional right for bicyclists provided that they give way to other users; in some cases also with a right to lead or drive animals.
 * Roads Used as Public Paths (RUPPs, superseded term): highways mainly used by the public for the purposes that footpaths or bridleways are used, but which may or may not carry vehicular rights. In some parts of the country RUPPs were reclassified individually as byway, bridleway or footpath and those remaining in 2006 became restricted byways.
 * Restricted Byways: a new category created by CROWA2000 with rights for all traffic except mechanically propelled vehicles.
 * Byways Open to All Traffic (BOATs): highways that are mainly used for the purposes that footpaths and bridleways are used, but on which there is a right of way for all traffic.
 * Cycle Tracks: paths with a right of way for all types of pedal cycles (not mopeds), including electrically-assisted cycles, with or without a right of access on foot.
 * They do not define "public footpaths" - "footpaths" are a subset of "public rights of way". Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong, but I doubt that we have a Reference Desk editor with sufficient knowledge of English legal history or enough time to research it to answer this specific question. Again, I recommend that you contact The Ramblers, where someone may have such specific expertise. Marco polo (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Two of the relevant laws regarding public footpaths in England and Wales are the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949 and the Highways Act, 1980. Both of them contain the term footpath, but neither of them contains the phrase public footpath.  The same is true of the most recent law pertaining to public footpaths, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000.  It mentions footpaths but not public footpaths.  So it is possible that the term public footpath has not yet been mentioned by name in an English law.  Marco polo (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any legislation prior to the 1949 Act that mentions public footpaths? I would have imagined that the Victorians had some. Perhaps they were just described as pedestrian rights of way without the use of the phrase "public footpath" or even "footpath". 92.24.99.218 (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been looking at what comes up on "rights of way legislation" + "history" and "rights of way legislation" "pre-1949". It looks pretty clear that the first codification of the law was in 1949. See also Mass trespass of Kinder Scout, where it says that that event led "eventually" to legislation - eventually probably means 1949. Before then various provisions of common law would have applied. Obviously freeholders and leaseholders of land usually had the right to fence of their land with a view to excluding strangers. The Enclosure Acts were relevant in that regard. But there were then (and still are) many private rights of way, for example when land was sold with a covenant saying that the previous owner retained the right to use a road on the land. There were commoners' rights too. There may be books on the history of the British countryside that have more information. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There was a "National Footpaths Preservation Society" formed in 1884 - it merged to become part of what is now the Open Spaces Society. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The Local Government Act 1858 briefly mentions public footpaths, although it doesn't give a clear definition. Warofdreams talk 21:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Somewhat tangentially — I gather from the IPROW quote that some cycle tracks don't permit pedestrians. What happens if you get a flat tyre and can't repair it: would it be considered trespassing to walk your disabled bicycle?  Nyttend (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are general principles in law that protect people that have no reasonable choice but to break the law. "Necessity", "Duress of circumstance", that sort of thing. --Tango (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What I am trying to understand is how public footpaths continued over the centuries, and what are the earliest records of them. I cannot imagine that they suddenly sprang up after 1949. There are often dense networks of footpaths in the countryside (probably most "townies" are not aware of this) that are unlikely to be systematically planned in modern times, and I expect originate from centuries ago. I'm wondering why 19th century landowners for example didnt simply block them and close them. I assume that there was some laws that prevented this - I'm wondering what it was. Perhaps it operated at the local parish or council level. 89.243.186.173 (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This work of 1877 deals with the situation at the time in considerable detail, and given your interest in this issue, it may well be worth reading the first twenty pages or so. Basically, if it a route had been used as a common way or highway for a few years without interruption, it was a public right of way, and could not legally be closed.  If a landowner wanted to stop up a route legally, this could usually only be done as part of an Inclosure Act. Warofdreams talk 12:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See Rights of way in England and Wales. Legally, a public footpath is a highway, in exactly the same way as the A6 is.  The first legislation to deal specifically with footpaths (as opposed to highways in general, irrespective of the type of traffic that can use them) was the 1949 act referred to above. Tevildo (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Legally, a public footpath is a highway, in exactly the same way as the A6 is." Very doubtful - I'm sure it would be illegal to drive a vehicle down a public footpath. Although if you are one of the crowd who likes to drive 4x4s and motorcycles along 'green lanes' then you would like it to be so. 92.29.80.215 (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

General knowledge questions
I have tried various sources including Wikipedia but did not succeed. Would appreciate any help in sourcing answers:

1. What is Noodles with a NO 2. Which company’s advertising jingle,is  “Stuck at the site of you" It was used as caller tune by most of its employees  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.66.246 (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you try putting those phrases into Google? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I tried the first one, and got every single page on the internet with the words 'noodles' and 'no' on. I then tried the second one, and found someone (presumably the OP here) had asked the question on Yahoo Answers about 2 hours ago. Can't help more than that, I'm afraid. -- KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 16:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It might help if we had a clue what "Noodles with a NO" is supposed to be about. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

'Stuck at the SIGHT of you', however, was used by FIAT in an advertising campaign. YouTube video here. -- KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 16:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps "Noodles with a NO" is "antipasta"? --LarryMac  | Talk  19:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Score one for the inter-lingual pun! :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Noodles without the 'no' is 'oodles' which is a word ny156uk (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * More like "odles". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ...which could be a kind of short poem, I guess. DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's interesting to google ["noodles with a no"] and see where the copycats are. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What? -- KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 20:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Connie Chung
Is Connie Chung Chinese or korean? The article have a Chinese version but no Korean version. Her husband is white is he Russian, Irish, UK? Does Connie Chung have any kids?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to save you the embarassment of quoting her Wikipedia article and let you find the answers yourself. Its located at Connie Chung and answers to every one of your questions is there.  -- Jayron  32  21:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it doesn't answer all of the OP's questions.
 * The article has several "Chinese..." categories but doesn't actually have a sourced statement saying that she's of Chinese descent. Her husband, Maury Povich, is barely mentioned and his ethnicity isn't mentioned at all.  Nor is it mentioned in his own article.  And finally, just because an article has a Chinese, Korean, German, Polish, etc etc version, that doesn't say anything about where the person or their ancestors came from.  That just means that someone who speaks that language went through the trouble of writing an article about that person/article.  Dismas |(talk) 05:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * According to this Connie's parents were born in China, and came to the U.S. before she was born. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * According to this Maury Povich came from a Jewish family, and I've seen plenty of references to Connie having converted to Judaism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The OP is asking about her husband's nationality, not religion. It is possible to be both Jewish and Russian, Irish or British. Or indeed, Jewish and of more than one nationality. --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It certainly is. And according to this (which references a SABR link), Maury's grandparents were Jewish immigrants from Lithuania. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, in first half-1900s in Eastern/Central Europe, Jews were often considered a national community apart from other populations, i.e. being Jewish or Lithuanian would have been mutually exclusive identities. There were endless debates within the Jewish community between Zionists, Bundists, autonomists, assimiliationists, etc. on whether being Jewish was primarily a national, ethnic, communal or religious identity. Shirley Povich was born when Lithuania wasn't an independent state, so her parents would have probably been Jews, citizens of the Russian Empire living in the area that is today the Republic of Lithuania. --Soman (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * His parents. Shirley Povich was Maury Povich's father. This link explains why his parents named him Shirley, and points out that it wasn't predominantly a girl's name until Shirley Booth and Shirley Temple became famous. (BTW, Lithuanian Jews don't just come from the area of modern Lithuania, but from the territory of the entire Grand Duchy of Lithuania, including Belarus and parts of Poland and Ukraine.) +Angr 15:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)