Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 June 25

= June 25 =

Birthdate of Ellen Watson

 * Watson Family Bible says July 2, 1860
 * Wikipedia claims July 2, 1861
 * Wikipedia's sidebar claims 1841, no date

Anyone have Ancestory.ca, to check out the 1861 Ontario census? -- Zanimum (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting: the 1861 England Census has an Ellen Liddy Watson, one month old in 1861, but her parents were not Thomas or Francis. (Are we sure Ellen's mother's name was "Francis" and not the more usual feminine form "Frances"?) Ancestry.ca shows on page 28 of the 1861 Canada West Census (there being no Ontario at the time) District #3 of the Township of Arran, County of Bruce (Entries 1 through 8), the only Watson family as:
 * John (50), Mary (48), Jane (25), Thomas (23), Georgiana (19) John Jr (16), James (13), Joseph (11).
 * Thomas shows as “single”. There is no Ellen Watson (or anything similar) shown as born in 1860 or 1861 in Arran County that I could find. There were an Andrew and a Fanny Close also in the County. (“Fanny” was sometimes short for “Frances”.) Fanny was 18 at the time, marital status not noted. This fits with the family story, noted in the refs for the article, that Ellen's parents were not married when she was born and that her mother was living with her brother Andrew at the time. Search the page as I might, there is no "Ellen" in that household, though. (Without street addresses, however, there is no certainty where one household begins and another ends, except by change of name.) Two entries below that of the brother and sister is one-year-old "Frances Close" (yes, with an "e"), who is said to be male. I looked also for "Ellen Close" as a child usually was given the mother's surname if she was not married at the time of the child's birth, but that came up empty, as did "Ellen Liddy".


 * And then I thought to look at the 1871 Census, which may have been the one you meant originally. Here, it appears the family has moved to Grey North in Ontario and that Fanny and Thomas are now married with five children, the oldest of whom is Ellen, and her age is given as "10" with her birth year as "abt 1861", with no month or day given. Is it safe to conclude that she was born in 1861 after the census records were taken for her mother's household? The really odd part is that, although her mother, Fanny, is shown as born in Scotland in the 1871 record, the 1861 Census shows her born in Ireland and Ellen is shown in the 1871 Record as being born in Scotland, not Canada. I am not sure there is much to trust here.
 * Sorry that I could not be more definitive. Bielle (talk) 03:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Census records are often wildly inaccurate, due to carelessness of the census recorder, or obtaining information from informants other than the enumerated persons, and many persons of the same or similar names are tabulated in a given census. Edison (talk) 05:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input, Bielle and Edison. For Wikipedia's purposes, would it be safest to go with the date listed in the family Bible? Or are we stuck with some random date that a "reliable source" decided on? --  Zanimum (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My view would be that neither is "safe". This should be discussed on the talk page of the article and perhaps footnoting the difficulties, whichever one is chosen. Bielle  (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If a birth date in a family bible was put there by the the family around the time of birth, it seems a pretty good primary source. In many denomination, churches keep baptismal registers which could confirm the family bible. As stated, census takers were often quite careless, and sometimes took information from a neighbor if they could not reach the family in question. Wikipedia itself has zero reliability absent some cited source. I suppose a family bible might be unreliable if a distant relative were filling in a family tree or if some distant descendant were putting in an ancestral family tree. If parents were writing down when family members were born and died, that seems like a good source to cite. Even a tombstone may have data provided by a relative without clear knowledge of a birthdate, or an adult might have lied about her age for whatever reason (like making herself younger on a marriage license, or making herself older when very elderly). Edison (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * More on the unreliability of census data: Here is a current NY Times story stating that 10000 census surveys were forged by the census workers in NY City, that is, filled in by workers without contacting the families. This was about 10% of the census returns that one office was supposed to do. I doubt that 2010 was the first time that happened. Edison (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

When something is "nationalized" like Chavez has been doing, what exactly happens?
News today says that Chavez's Venezuela will nationalize 11 oil rigs belonging to a U.S. company. I understand that this means they become state-controlled, but I've yet to see mention of how this sort of "acquisition" (theft) plays out on the ground. Are all the employees replaced with hand-picked personnel? Do they just install a "captain" and "persuade" people to remain at their posts? I'm very curious about the logistics of such an action... 218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know how Chavez does it, but usually it works much like any other hostile takeover (it may not even by hostile in all cases), except the shareholders don't get a say. The senior management will probably be replaced, everyone else will stay the same. Some of them may decide to quit, of course. --Tango (talk) 05:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is this article on Nationalization. AFAIK, employees below the senior management are not replaced, like Tango says; and they don't need to be pursuaded to stay, as I believe employee benefits are generally better in nationalized companies. --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 08:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was wondering how the country who wants to nationalize prevents sabotage before they get there. Honestly, if Venezuela wanted to nationalize my car, I would fill the oil reservoir with iron filings and replace the transmission fluid with water.  Googlemeister (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * and if you did so, you would be accused of a federal crime, and find yourself facing a long prison sentence. remember, the ostensible reasons for nationalization is that private ownership is irresponsible, inefficient and exploitive, and that larger corporations in particular are a persistent threat tocitizens of the nation.  sabotaging the facilities would do nothing for the corporation and effectively legitimize the nationalization.  -- Ludwigs 2  13:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be a crime, or if it is one, it would be a crime in Venezuela, who has no jurisdiction here in the US. Honestly, I see no reason why the oil companies should just roll over for this.  Googlemeister (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it's the law of the land? Why do you pay (assuming you do) income tax or sales tax? Or why do you drive on roads, nearly all of which at one time depended om eminent domain to be constructed? On a more practical note, because the companies may give in because they want to do future business with Venezuela. They may walkout with a profit even after nationalization since they will receive compensation (how much may well depend on the state of the rigs - fair market value for sabotaged rigs is almost certainly lower than for intact ones). And even after nationalization, it's quite possible that Venezuela will need to buy consulting services and maintenance - good for the previous owners, if they keep a foot in the door. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, nationalization worked exactly like that for US assets in Cuba when Castro took over. Googlemeister (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your point? Yes, there are different ways of nationalization, some more fair, some less fair. Of course, US interests in Cuba also were not exactly acquired in a free and honest market. Other examples of nationalizations include many of the recent bailouts of banks and car manufacturers. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is, that if the government is dictating what the "fair" market value is, then there is an obvious conflict of interest (the government wants to pay as little as they can get away with), and there is a good chance that the property owners will end up getting screwed, especially in situations with leaders like Chavez. Googlemeister (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In nationalization done honestly (it's a separate question whether that ever actually happens) the government is representing the people, and is nationalizing precisely because the current business owners do not have the interests of the people at heart. in that regard, there is no conflict of interest - the conflict of interest lay with the corporation, which was trying simultaneously to provide citizens with goods and exploit them for profit.  The government nationalizes to remove that conflict of interest and restructure the business so that it is wholly on the side of the citizens of the nation.  Fair market value, then, would be what the corporation would be worth in a non-exploitive context, which will always be much less than a corporation would be worth in an exploitive concept.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

What often happens in nationalizations is that the gov't pays a compensation to the owners of the company being nationalization. A tricky aspect is that many systematically lie about their real earnings, in order to avoid taxes. When the gov't issues the payment (based on the official tax records of the company), it is basically a price far below the real market value. --Soman (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The degree to which Chavez is responsible for Venezuela's decline during his tenure?
On a related note, it is objectively-evident that Venezuela's economy (among other things) has been in sharp decline during the years Chavez has been in power. However, at least outside of the editorial pages, I have not yet observed news articles (from AP, for example) linking this situation directly to his policies. I know how he feels about it ("parasitic bourgeoisie") but am curious if any academic sources have produced evaluations of Venezuela's current situation and the degree of responsibility of the current administration? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is Chavez an absolute dictator, or does he answer to someone? The answer to that question is the answer to your question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's really not a helpful response. For instance, the global value of oil has declined greatly over the past year or two, and the Venezuelan economy's extreme reliance on oil proceeds is a historical fact, not a Chavez invention. Surely, if oil values were up, he'd have more cash flow to work with. It's a lot more complicated than that though, which is why I'm asking for help. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And you didn't answer my question. Is his word law, or does he answer to someone else? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Yes, he does. Venezuela is far from a perfect democracy, but much better than many other states. Now explain how this answers the question. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If he were absolute dictator, then the country's economics would be totally his responsibility. If he's not, then they're his responsibility only to the degree that his policies have helped vs. hindered the economy. Good luck finding an objective source. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And who does he answer to? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "If he were absolute dictator, then the country's economics would be totally his responsibility" - no, that's wrong. First, even "absolute" dictators do not have absolute control over a state. And secondly, even if he had perfect control over the state, he still would have at best very limited control over outside economic forces like oil prices or Chinese factories. Chavez answers to the Venezuelan parliament, supreme court, and ultimately voters. Venezuela has reasonably functional elections - again, it's not perfect, but then few political systems are. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No he isn't, and yes he does. I fail to see how that in any way answers the question of The degree to which Chavez is responsible... Even if he was an absolute dictator, the question would still be relevant. Economics is a complex "science", and since Venezuela is trading its oil on the world market, there are plenty of factors that affect its economy far more than its president can control, or could control even with absolute power. Bugs, if you can't attempt to answer questions, but just make rude, snappy and irrelevant questions back to the OP, you should really just shut up!/Coffeeshivers (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Baseball Bugs has been behaving like that for a long time, but nobody seems to care about that at all. --Belchman (talk) 12:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There has been plenty of discussion of Bugs' behaviour on the RD talk page, but lack of agreement as to whether his behaviour is harmful precludes action being taken. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's interesting that you say the economy has sharply declined. The GDP per capita, adjusted for inflation, has increased since Chavez was first elected - and other indicators, such as inflation, have also seen an improvement.  Of course, high oil prices have a lot to do with that, and many other sectors of the economy have declined sharply, but it's far from clear that the economy as a whole has declined. Warofdreams talk 10:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Having something like oil can make a country uncompetitive industrially if it is not very carefully managed. Since Venzuela is a democracy rather than a dictatorship a decline in its economy is almost to be expected. They're doing very well to have controlled inflation is my opinion. Dmcq (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Recently I read the article on the resource curse. --Error (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Selective Service in the United States
I've got a few questions about the Selective Service System, and would appreciate it if anyone could answer:

(a) If you register while between 18-25, is it that you can be only drafted into the military while still within this age range, or can you still be drafted into the military after you turn 26 if you registered earlier in your life?

(b) If you're a male who changed sex, do you have to register? I know that if you're a female who changed sex you don't.

(c) If you're a professor or respected academic between the ages of 18-25, do you have to register?

(d) If you're a foreign citizen who goes to the United States for the sole purpose of attending university there (completing undergraduate degree or PhD), do you have to register?

(For (c) and (d), if the answer is yes, change the question to: can you be inducted into the military if the draft is implemented? It seems to me unfair if someone wants to puruse an education in US that he can be forced to go to war even if he's foreign.)

(e) What's the likelihood of a draft occuring in the near future? Or, how many males are currently in the volunteer military service? What are the chances of the draft being abolished (including selective service agency) in the near future?

(f) Is it that the president can just decide on the spot that he should enforce a draft, sign a document, and then recruit all males between 18-26? Or is the process more complex than that, such as, is there a vote within parliament deciding whether the draft will be enforced?

(g) How likely is a prosecution for failure to register currently? I know no one has been prosecuted since 1986, but how likely is it now?

Thanks everyone.
 * a) Current procedures would indicate only 18-25 year olds but a specific law would have to be written to authorize a draft and that law could change the procedure. b and c) All male citizens and permanent residents have to register - any exemptions would be the subject of later laws, executive orders, etc. Foreign students who were not permanent residents would not register. e) Not high. We have no shortage yet and these wars have been going on a while. According to United States armed forces, there are about 1.5 million active duty and 1.5 reserves but about 17.5 million men in the 18-25 age group (although Selective Service System mentions 14 million registered in 2008.) f) A specific law would be required from Congress (no Parliament here) No plans to abolish the Selective Service Act either - which would also require a new law. g) no crystal balls here. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Could you clarify: "Foreighn tudents who were not permanent residents would not register". If that's so, wouldn't it contradict what the selective service system emphasizes: "All males living in the US from 18-25 have to register. It's the law."


 * If you are concerned, you should contact the Selective Service Administration directly; my understanding is that being in the country on a student visa doesn't make you a "permanent resident" for most purposes. Since a student visa is expiring, it is generally treated that you are a "long term visitor" rather than a "resident".  However, the selective service themselves can answer your questions.  -- Jayron  32  05:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you really think there are any "respected professors" of ages 18 to 25? During WW2 through Vietnam, they would cheerfully draft you up to age 34 or so. The US drafted noncitizen residents during WW1 and WW2. An actual draft is unlikely under present circumstances. If the US were under attack such that its survival or vital interests were in question, a universal draft would be very likely, as in the Civil War, WW1, WW2, the Korean Conflict, and the Vietnam War, rather than the present "poverty draft" of persons who can't get jobs otherwise, and who, as "volunteers" are deployed many times to the war zones of Iraq or Afghanistan, in contrast to Vietnam era draftees who only had to endure one deployment to the war zone. Edison (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * For (e), I think a draft is extremely unlikely. Armed forces like the US's are very high-tech these days. They work on a basis of having a fairly small number of highly trained, highly equipped people. A draft doesn't make much sense with that kind of armed forces. --Tango (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

About the Vietnam war, how was that relevant to US? Why did they need to draft people into that war? It wasn't as if Vietnam was bombing them or anything so why did they need to draft people to go to that war zone? The US wasn't under any threat whatsoever; just a couple of murderous politicians wanted to stop communism and so choose to send innocent lives who wanted to do their own thing, to war. That's basically my question, it is impossible that the US would be under threat from any country really, except for Russia, China etc. so the fact that they have selective service indicates that they want to get involved with other countries and draft people. Would that be right?

Also, my initial perception was that people had moved on from the idea of drafting and conscription. I was schocked to learn that a country like the US still wants to make people go to war especially with their intellects and so on. Countries like Germany still do that but they seem to have an alternative to doing military service. Would it be fair to say that the very idea of drafting would be abolished by 2050 from all countries?

I can't talk with the selective service simply because I haven't been to the US, but do plan on going there in 5 years time to get a job there. I'm worried that I'll be conscripted into the army. If a draft is implemented, and you do hear about it, would it be possible to flee from the country? If you do so, and return later, can you be prosecuted? I would think not since there would be no way of telling whether you went away simply because of the draft.

Last question: suppose you are a citizen of some other country and go to the US to take up a job there. Do you have to register with the selective service?


 * See Vietnam War for information on that war. This is not a place to debate the (non)reasons for U.S. involvement.  If that makes no sense, see Cold War.  If that makes no sense, give up on understanding the U.S. foreign policies of the 20th century.  As for the selective service, U.S. citizens who are male and 18-25 must sign up.  If you are not a citizen, you are not required to sign up.  As for being drafted, the U.S. has been having a bomb-fest for many years and nobody has been drafted.  Nobody is likely to be drafted.  There are no plans to draft anyone.  Nobody is talking about drafting anybody.  Your fears of being drafted are wholly unfounded.  First, you aren't a citizen.  Second, there is no draft. --  k a i n a w &trade; 12:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. Unless there is a substantial and highly credible threat to the US itself, I see any politicians attempting to implement a draft (or even seriously discussing it) as signing their own career suicide note.  Googlemeister (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * One further reason why a draft is unlikely is that, unlike the period before 1980 or so, when a draft was required to mobilize enough men to fight the Vietnam and Korean wars and World War II, there are now relatively few opportunities for young men without a college education or technical training to make a livelihood. This all but forces a good number of them to join the military.  The worse the economy is, the stronger recruitment is for the military.  During the high point of the most recent period of job growth (2004–2005), when the United States was fighting deadly wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, recruitment fell to levels at which some politicians began to discuss the possibility of a draft.  The US military commitment in both Iraq and Afghanistan seems to be dropping now, even as indicators point to a likelihood of high (and perhaps worsening) unemployment for the next 5–10 years in the United States.  So I don't think there will be any need for a draft in the near future.  Marco polo (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The above answers are ignoring another reason why a draft could be implemented in America's next war: Some antiwar activists in the US always propose implementing the draft, because, quoting this page, "It would make the prospect of military hostilities repulsive to more people by supposedly spreading the sacrifice of military service "fairly" to the whole population." Gulf War I and Gulf War II were widely commented upon as wars that impacted the average American not at all.  The middle class went about their business and didn't change their activities at all from what they did the week before the wars started.  These activists believe that if the middle class knows their sons would eventually be drafted and sent to the front line to fight, then support for foreign wars would dwindle very quickly.  Another reason is to reduce the aspect by which America is relying on the poor (meaning, mostly disproportionately racial minorities) for their infantry forces, so there's a racial-equality reason as well to implement the draft during a war.  I certainly disagree with Googlemeister that advocating the draft would be career suicide; John Conyers continues to be the second longest serving current US Congressman.  This page has some thought provoking commentary from Conyers and from Charles B. Rangel on re-implementing universal military service.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is far to portray the military as "mostly racial minorities". Minorities make up 31% of the U.S. population and 39% of the military. The discrepancy isn't that large. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I've corrected "mostly" to "disproportionately" above. The class divide is much stronger, but people don't talk about that as much.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The well-known assertion that the poor and racial minorites disproportionately serve in the US military has not held up to close scrutiny. To quote myself from months earlier: "That's a common notion that dates back to the Civil War, when anti-war Democrats claimed that it was a 'rich man's war, but a poor man's fight'. As historian James M. McPherson demonstrated, the notion turns out to be false (poor immigrants were the most underrepresented group in that war), but it remained a powerful emotional argument against the war, however unrelated to the facts. The situation remains true today: whenever I see a study that actually looks at the numbers, like this one, it turns out that the poor are not overrepresented on the front lines, just as they were not in the Civil War. Southerners, as it turns out, are the overrepresented group today, while New Englanders are underrepresented." That study also found that the poor are slightly underrepresented, and that the high-income brackets have disproportionately provided recruits for the War on Terror. —Kevin Myers 12:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting but I am skeptical. The link you provided is to a writeup by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that I would always expect to deny any allegations like this; and the table they provide suspiciously compares the mean salary of one group to the median salary of another.  Why not compare apples to apples?  Better data is needed, at least for me.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * But the undocumented assertions by Congressmen Rangel and Conyers were okay? Beware of confirmation bias. —Kevin Myers 23:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No doubt; as I wrote, better data is needed; it appears that one problem is that the Pentagon doesn't really have access to (or, at least doesn't tabulate data based on) the household income of recruits, so the analyses I'm seeing use the average household income from the ZIP codes that recruits report, which is really questionable. This writeup from a liberal organization claims wealthy neighborhoods became "less represented" among recruits from 2004 to 2006, but it's super incomplete.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

But Kainaw, according to Selective Service System, it says all males living in the US from 18 to 25 must register and that includes foreign males. Could you clarify: "US citizens need to register only."?


 * It is U.S. citizens. Check the selective service site if you don't want to listen to reason.  If you still don't believe what they have to say, then there is little I can suggest.  You are basing your opinions on an irrational fear of an upcoming draft and an incorrect assumption that non-citizens must sign up with the selective service. --  k a i n a w &trade; 16:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, to be fair, his fears are based on the version of the article before you added "citizens" to the lead just now. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like aliens can register, but they will just be classed 4C and never get drafted. Googlemeister (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As others have pointed out, the political likelihood of a draft anytime soon is essentially zero. It really isn't worth worrying about. Anyway, on the question of academic deferments: yes, you had to register, of course, but my general memory, which is cobbled together from various sources that I don't have on the tip of my tongue, is that in WWII a deferment for being an academic was very unlikely unless you were doing really quite irreplaceable "war-related" research work or something otherwise considered essential, and even then it took some negotiations to get because draft boards were very suspicious of anything that looked like dodging activity. In Vietnam I think it was a bit easier to get a deferment in this way (my father went to law school in part to avoid going to war), though that is just anecdotal. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Kainaw, I'm sorry if I was rude. I didn't mean to be, I was only a bit confused about contradicting information between Wikipedia and the selective service website. Only my last question (I promise!), can you choose not to be a permanent resident of the US (but live in the US your whole life (say from age 20 or something)), or is that something that automatically happens if you live in the US long enough, against your will? Also, if you can become permanent resident, how long do you have to live in ths US for?


 * If you become a U.S. citizen and you are between 18 and 26, you must register with selective service. After digging and digging to find any reason at all for a non-citizen to register, I found out that there is a little loophole in the law which, in my opinion, is aimed at piling on violations for illegal citizens.  The result of this loophole is that if you apply for and receive full permanent residence without becoming a citizen (USCIS Form I-551) and you are not yet 26, you must register with selective service.  It is not clear if you can be drafted in this situation, but you must register.  The vagueness is in the definition of "citizen" by the Federal government.  Those with full permanent residency are referred to as citizens where it benefits the government and aliens where it doesn't benefit the government.  However, if you spend the maximum 6 years on a student/work visa, you don't have to register.  If you are 26 or older when you complete the I-551 for permanent residence (which is highly likely), you won't have to register.  So, if you giver the government the benefit of doubt, the deal is that making permanent residents register is actually going after the children of people applying for permanent residence since it is highly unlikely that someone will get permanent residence before turning 26 unless it is actually the person's parents who apply for residency. --  k a i n a w &trade; 00:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Common set of citations for portions of text
Hi. I am writing a kind of literature review for inclusion in a report on a project that I did at an organization. The review is meant more to be like a background than an account of scholarly literatre on the subject. In fact, it is the result of distillation of a wide amount of disparate literature and combines ideas from various sources and makes some inferences. As such it is neither feasible nor desirable to cite sources for individual sentences. Is there any way I can cite all the sources that contributed to development of individual sections/paragraphs in one place, without having to just dump the entire bibliography for the report in one place? I want the reader to go back and refer to the individual articles or books, without connecting them to individual statements (which is really not possible). Thanks a bunch. --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 04:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, you can create a "general references" section at the end of an article, however be careful of creating a novel synthesis of ideas when you take information from many sources and combine it in an article. When you use lots of sources, it can be tempting to generate connections between them or arrive at conclusions not directly supported in any of them directly.  However, if you are just interested in generating a general list of background texts for a topic, then creating a "general references" or a "further reading" section is perfectly acceptable.  An article I worked on extensively, History of American football does this; the article directly cites about a half dozen books, but it also includes a bunch more not directly cited, but which also cover the material in the article and support it.  -- Jayron  32  06:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Jayron  32 , for the answer. I may be wrong but you appear to think that I plan to write for a wikipedia article. As I said, it is for a business research report (although the information you provided is very important and something I wondered about when writing to Wikipedia; and I might later write for the WP article on the subject,it is extremely deficient righ now), and hence I have two further questions which I hope you will be so kind as to answer.
 * 1) I plan to include such general references for individual sections or even paragraphs. Is there a convention for citing such general references section-wise (for example as footnotes to the section heading)?
 * 2) I actually am drawing some basic inferences from the combination of information from different sources, and shall indicate this at the start of the report. I hope that's not a problem as long as the reader knows this, and I am using general references (in fact this is one reason I want to use such kind of references)


 * I will be obliged if you have any information regarding such a method and can share it with me. Thanks. --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 07:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many such conventions. I would suggest you select some style guide (MLA, APA, whatever) and go with that -- that way you'll have a reference that explicitly calls out how you ought to cite general references to be consistent with your specific references and the rest.  As for basic inference and synthesis from sources, that's generally expected outside of Wikipedia: for example, I'd characterize all good conclusions as being that sort of synthesis.  So yes, provided your literature review isn't intended strictly as a literature summary, I'd say that's fine. &mdash; Lomn 13:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, Lomn, for providing that helpful piece of information :-) --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Are "Class of "Graduation Year"" (class levels) organizations?
Are class levels really an organization of students? For the Class of 2013, we have "officers" that have the title President, Vice-president, and Treasurer. They are elected every year while in high school in the spring time. The "officers" control the fun activities for students and do fundraisers. They also have advisers which are teachers. They operate similar to a chartered NPO or a for-profit company. Are the "officers" also the Board of Directors of the class? Do class levels have non-profit status? Are they chartered? WJetChao (talk) 09:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * First, the obvious caveat that this can vary from school to school, and that you could easily get a definitive answer by asking the staff at the school in question. That all said, I could not describe class officers as a "board of directors" with a straight face.  It's way overstating the significance of the "class of X" as an organization.  Their tax status all but certainly derives from that of the school, and I can't think of any reason that one would be chartered as a legal entity -- particularly at the high school level.  Rather, class officers who preside over "fun activities for students" is simply a way for students to have a say in how the school's discretionary funds are allocated -- but it's still the school's fund in question, not some new independent legal thing. &mdash; Lomn 13:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A school class is often given a budget to manage for the purpose of class social activities (dances, pep rallies, end-of-year activities, etc.). They probably do not have much status outside of the authority given them directly by the school administration; but generally any group given a parcel of cash to manage needs a means to do just that: manage that cash.  Setting up an administration board (president, secretary, treasurer) is a standard means of doing it.  -- Jayron  32  19:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Identify a song
I have a tune in my head btu I don't know what it is. I know that it is a very famous song and has lyrics which may or may not be in English. I remember a fragment that is near the end of the song and goes something like B-A#-G#-A#-C#-B-G#-F#. The B's are probably A dboule sharps I haven't studied music for a long time. Thanks 76.229.149.7 (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The tune appears in either (or both?) "All Through the Night" or Men of Harlech. I don't know which title is correct, because I recognize it from this (see the Harlech WP article):  "A Monty Python sketch, 'Interesting People,' had the 'Rachel Toomey Bicycle Bell Choir' performing a bicycle-bell arrangement of 'Men of Harleich;' all its members were dressed in rain slickers and stood astride bicycles."  But that song ended with the words "all through the night," suggesting that the title given in the sketch was a joke, or else that the lyrics to "Harlech" were changed (the lyrics in a Google search don't include "all through the night").  Meanwhile, "All Through the Night" contains lines very similar to what the sketch has, which is: "KEEP, MY BABE, NO ILL BETIDE THEE / ALL THROUGH THE NIGHT."  The melody of the first seven words matches your post.  Both songs were originally in Welsh. 63.17.62.100 (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Er, no. Neither of those songs matches the specified sequence, though they are similar to it. In the corresponding key, they would be B A# G# B C# B A# F#: see for examples here. I don't recognise the sequence given, though it would help to have some indication of the rhythm, or even the stress (eg is the final note stressed or not?). --ColinFine (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Buddhists excelling in something
If Buddhists are not obsessed/don't cling to things, can they excel in something which requires a massive effort? Like a sport or entrepreneurship?--Quest09 (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Like golf? -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If Christians do not judge, can they be absolutely dispassionate arbiters/jurors/scientists? "Everyday" Buddhists probably try not to be obsessed or cling to things, but like "everyday" Christians trying not to judge people they don't always succeed. A Buddhist monk probably could muster the self-discipline but he or she wouldn't be interested in those things. In some spots it takes more than just effort. A similar question came up about a month ago. 76.229.149.7 (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Focus and commitment are not the same thing as attachment or obsession. Buddhist monks exercise focus and commitment in their efforts at meditation, chanting, and other religious or spiritual practices.  Given this focus, a Buddhist monk is unlikely to become a top athlete or entrepreneur.  However, there is no reason in principle why Buddhists (other than monks) cannot excel at sports or entrepreneurship.  Sports and entrepreneurship are not necessarily at odds with Buddhist principles.  (That is, assuming that their sport or entrepreneurship does not involve activities that bring harm to other sentient beings.)  As long as they focus their discipline and commitment on doing their best and remain unattached to outcomes and indifferent to failure (that is, act without craving for success), they can remain on the Noble Eightfold Path of the Buddha.  Marco polo (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * How about philosphy or diplomacy.. I really don't think being a buddhist would be incompatible with being dedicated though, obsessiveness is subtly different.77.86.115.159 (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Shaolin monks are a prime example of Buddhists excelling in something which requires a massive effort. Martial arts requires a great deal of practice to become proficient. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This very question has been addressed in different forms in various dharma talks by many Buddhist monks/teachers. It's mostly rooted in a misunderstanding of upādāna. Reading that page may provide the answer you are looking for here. See also: anatta. From that page: "The goal of the Buddhist contemplative is to develop freedom of the will/mind (citta) from entanglement with things as they seem; through the delusions of desire and consequential self-identity with events, resultant fear, aversion and projected hopes—to awaken to things as they are; coming home to a natural understanding of reality with one's given abilities at work in an ever changing evolution of experience." It's really nothing more than a form of psychology in which you are both the patient and the therapist. This is one reason why the Buddha is spoken of as a "physician" in many texts. So it's really all about "excelling in something which requires a massive effort". Ask yourself, what or who am I? In order to find the answer to this question, you need to undertake a massive effort, and it can take a lifetime. Viriditas (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Even though less than a quarter of South Koreans are actively Buddhist (Koreans are predominantly agnostic), a large number have become army generals or even President. So Buddhism and ambition are certainly not considered contradictory there.  In the USA, there have been a number of people who are both Buddhist and also notorious for being extremely ambitious, such as Phil Jackson, George Lucas, and Steve Jobs.  --M @ r ē ino 19:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't believe it matters what people like Steve Jobs or George Lucas, who claim to be Buddhists, are doing. It doesn't mean their are a role model. Reading the articles above I don't believe Buddhism is compatible with ambition (isn't it also a form of greed?), although there is nothing in it against putting all your efforts into something, but if you are realistic, you know you can fail and will have to accept the result, right?--Quest09 (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in any Buddhist text or teaching that says or implies that "Buddhism is not compatible with ambition", so I have no idea where you are getting that from. In fact, there is no greater work required or ambition needed than to become "enlightened", so perhaps you need to ask yourself why you cling to this belief. Viriditas (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a common misconception about Buddhists - that they somehow give up everything, entirely. In fact, what the Buddha taught is that people should give up attachments to things that aren't real, because such attachments are the source of suffering (this, of course, leads to the great buddhist quest: seeking out that which is real...). You do not need to give up skill, or competition, or ambition; you simply need to recognize that skill, competition, and ambition are illusory - they appear at one moment, and will disappear at another - and not allow yourslef to become attached to them or their (equally illusory) outcomes.    -- Ludwigs 2  22:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)