Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 March 2

= March 2 =

Sheriff's house an official residence?
I'm currently writing an article on the building in the foreground of the picture: it was built as the jail and the home of the county sheriff for Henry County, Ohio. Since the sheriffs of old lived in this house while they were in office because they were in office, would it qualify as an official residence? Official residence seems to say no, but it has no sources discussing what is an official residence and what isn't. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see that the article (well, list really) has a definition which would exclude it. Sheriff is a high office. Mayor's residences are listed, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Given no contrary sources, I can't see calling a residence provided by a county to its sheriff an "official residence" as a major violation of WP:OR. You might even add your building to the parent article.
 * Nice house. PhGustaf (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This was one of the first instances of houses featuring bars in the basements. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can understand a chap having a bar in the basement for when his chums come around for a snifter, but to have bars in the basement make it look like the sheriffs were a bunch of old soaks. DuncanHill (talk) 09:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe your eyes can see it, but I can't see the border where the courthouse ends and the sheriff's house begins. Thanks for the input.  Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My guess is that the structure in the foreground with the mostly solid brick walls is the jailhouse, with its passageway to the ornate courthouse background right. The more fenestrated part of the building background left is the sheriff's posh digs.  (after a look at the full-size pic) with the big windows and the fireplace chimney is the house, with the small-windowed jailhouse behind it.  There's apparently a covered passageway connected to the ornate courthouse behind.  Are you close enough to the building to check it out yourself? PhGustaf (talk) 06:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not close enough; Google Maps says that the trip from my home should take about two hours, and the day I took this picture was the only time I've ever been to this city. Nyttend (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * An official residence is a residence made available to whoever the current occupant of a particular office is. This seems to fit that definition. --Tango (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As I Lay Dying
What is the climax of As I Lay Dying (Faulkner)? It's not homework or anything, I'm just curious (it used to be, but I already turned my report in--any answer can't help me now :) 76.230.227.178 (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Bill


 * This question is a fish. SDY (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A fish that lay dying, at that. As I Lay Dying (novel) doesn't shed much light on it in the plot summary, but here's a tip: Read the book. Reading a given book will often answer questions one might have about the book. Or at least read the Cliff Notes version. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * never recommend Cliff Notes as a primary source. Cliff Notes are great if you're cramming for an exam and need a review, but there's nothing quite like reading for developing your mind.  Honestly, the people I meet I can class into groups by their reading habits, because their reading habits dictate their thinking habits: average people, who read magazines or other 'light' reading, and who reason almost exclusively in emotional/interpersonal terms (what does it say about person A that they went to to party X with person B, wearing clothes by Q); smart people, who read history, news, and science books or other 'serious/factual' material, who reason in hard nosed and generally pugnaciously factual manner (this is factually true, and that is poppycock, so don't be an idiot); brilliant people, who read philosophy and 'heavy' fiction, and reason with depth and nuance.  Faulkner makes you think, but Cliff Notes on Faulkner do not make you think, and that makes a huge difference.


 * don't get me wrong, I have no objection to people relying on cliff notes if that's what they decide to do; janitors are just important to society as doctors. but I don't think we should recommend it to people as though it were an equally viable alternative.  -- Ludwigs 2  07:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As for bibliophile janitors, or concierges rather, I recommend reading The Elegance of the Hedgehog (ad not just to our resident hedgehog expert). ---Sluzzelin talk  08:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Might I take the opportunity to refer to a cartoon from one of my favourite artists (no longer active, I'm afraid)? Tevildo (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * NOTE - Possibly NSFW if your boss has _extremely_ uptight views on the issue of lack-of-clothedness. Tevildo (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The OP asked what the climax of the story is. It's not our place to lecture him about the "right" or "wrong" way to do that. If Cliff Notes provides the answer, then he's got the answer. If he's really in a cheating mood, he could take a quick look in the bookstore. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

BMX?
What sport is portrayed? It doesn't look like bicycle motocross because there are brakes on the bike.174.3.99.176 (talk) 05:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It may be a BMX stunt bike, which may have brakes - depending on what the rider wants. It is more likely that the photographer and model just grabbed a bike from WalMart for the photo shoot. --  k a i n a w &trade; 06:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Fake Snake Loop Earring
I am looking for earrings; where can I get pierceless earrings?

Specifically, there are those earrings that are worn at the pinna on the top. This loop earring has like a spiral around the loop. I think it is colored blue. (do you guys know what I'm talking about? You guys can give me a picture.)174.3.99.176 (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And worn by males.174.3.99.176 (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be precise (as this is an encyclopedia), a spiral is a planar shape -- perhaps you meant a helix :)  DRosenbach  ( Talk 13:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, oops, I did mean helix.174.3.99.176 (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Incest among animals
As we all know incest i.e. making love to one's mother or sister or daughter is taboo among almsot all cultures. But what about animals ? I mean dogs, cats, cows, horses etc. For example a pup becomes sexually mature in a few months, while its mothers is still ready...what happens normally, does it do it with her if offerd ? Is there any biological/psychological barrier...?


 * This is a very good question, that I never thought about.


 * Some species, such as elephants, or polygynous species, probably don't practice incest. For example, bull elephants have to leave the family when they reach maturity, so they can't mate with their family.174.3.99.176 (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Dogs and cats certainly do. "Taboo" is a human concept. Animals don't have "moral laws". That's a human thing. Animals do what they're "programmed" to do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It does happen, but usually only if they don't have much choice of mates (eg. due to being kept in captivity by humans in small numbers). Most animals have an instinct to mate outside their group. This usually works by either the males or the females leaving the group when they reach sexual maturity and joining a new group (in some species it is the males that leave and in some the females - I think males is more common, though). Obviously, that only applies to social animals - solitary ones have similar instincts, though. --Tango (talk) 06:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Presumably natural selection would favor those that instinctively seek genetic diversity (not that they have any conscious understanding of that fact). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Incest article seems to be primarily about humans. The Inbreeding article has some information about animals. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would note that while avoiding excessive inbreeding, it doesn't prevent it. If the males usually leave, the females who stay behind will potentially be the daughters of the remaining males. Presuming the males remain breeding with the same group long enough and the female start breeding soon enough enough, I would guess it's likely at least single generational if not multiple generational (e.g. daughters of daughters) inbreeding occurs. Of course if there is more then one breeding male in the group, the chances are reduced. Some/most may have evolved additional mechanisms to reduce inbreeding. Some refs that may be of interest.     Nil Einne (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * From a genetic perspective, incest is a multi-generational problem, not an immediate problem (i.e., the probability of non-advantageous mutations expressing themselves is small in a single generation, but increases significantly if incest continues over several generations). Humans have a relatively small gene pool, so the issue is a bit more pronounced in human breeding, but is still not a significant issue until two or three generations have passed.


 * That being said, humans are incredibly social animals, and the social/psychological problems caused by inbreeding are much more pronounced. Think of it as a cultural form of heritability - what we learn as children is passed on to our own children through experience and education, and mixing across different family groups is important to neutralize unhealthy family/social dynamics.  Note that cults almost invariably insist on in-group marriages: this is to prevent outside influences from influencing child development, and thus give the cult leader greater influence over family dynamics.


 * Incidentally, incest is not gendered - sex or marriage with a father, brother, or son is just as much incest as with a female relative. -- Ludwigs 2  06:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The small gene pool is an important issue with all species. Apparently, humans were close to being wiped out at some point. Kind of like with the American bison, which was driven close enough to extinction that a number of varieties disappeared and bison basically all look alike now. But that was artificial selection. In general, natural selection would tend to weed out the genetically weak over the course of time, and (possibly) retain genes that would make an animal less inclined toward incest. Animals are very diverse, though, and we sometimes have a tendency to ascribe human moral standards. Such as those who think animal species that mate for life are somehow "better" than animal species that are "promiscuous". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * . Please use references and not half-remembered claims.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought I was summarizing common knowledge. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Toba catastrophe theory. 86.177.121.239 (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Incestuous breeding of animals is not uncommon to achieve desirable traits (like in the pet industry). Desirable traits often come from recessive genes that can only be achieved through breeding close relatives. In the aquarium trade for example, many species have been bred to the point they are weaker (genetically and in immunity) than their wild ancestors. --Kvasir (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly. In my industry, which is agriculture, field corn is inbred to produce "pure" lines that all exhibit pretty much the same traits. They are also rather weak in a sense. But when you cross them the right way, you get an 8-foot corn plant with a huge ear. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Animals when young have sensitive periods and critical periods during which they undergo filial imprinting and sexual imprinting. Broadly, the result is that animals seek mates that are quite different but not extremely different from their filial "type."  Therefore, incest with very close "relatives" -- as opposed to, say, third cousins or whatever -- is likely to be repellant to their imprinting and therefore unlikely to occur.  I believe this is very nearly universal.  See, e.g., Bateson. 63.17.35.207 (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I remember, this is not true, because it has been attested that very similar people are often attracted to each other - in fact that even a brother and sister who don't know each other are often strongly attracted to each other (it's a common topic in stories and legends, too). They need to have been raised together for the instinctive mechanism of "sexual repelling" to be triggered. That is, the "anti-sexual imprinting" only makes you recognize a specific individual as "non-sexual", but it doesn't give you a general principle whereby to recognize the degree of relatedness in any individual you meet. We had an article about this (I don't remember the term in the title). And even that mechanism doesn't seem to be universal. Many house animals don't seem to have developed it, since they do occasionally copulate with close relatives (presumably, other behavioural traits such as "leaving home" offset this lack of instinctive inhibitions). Finally, the instinctive mechanism seems a little unstable and half-baked even in humans, otherwise it wouldn't have to be reinforced socially with a taboo, and there wouldn't be so many cases of incest.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See Imprinting_(psychology).
 * Reverse sexual imprinting is also seen: when two people live in close domestic proximity during the first few years in the life of either one, both are desensitized to later close sexual attraction. This phenomenon, known as the Westermarck effect, was first formally described by Finnish anthropologist Edvard Westermarck.  The Westermarck effect has since been observed in many places and cultures, including in the Israeli kibbutz system, and the Chinese Shim-pua marriage customs, as well as in biological-related families.


 * In the case of the Israeli kibbutzim (collective farms), children were reared somewhat communally in peer groups—based on age, not biological relation. A study of the marriage patterns of these children later in life revealed that out of the nearly 3,000 marriages that occurred across the kibbutz system, only fourteen were between children from the same peer group. Of those fourteen, none had been reared together during the first six years of life. This result provides evidence not only that the Westermarck effect is demonstrable, but that it operates during the critical period from birth to the age of six.


 * When close proximity during this critical period does not occur—for example, where a brother and sister are brought up separately, never meeting one another—they may find one another highly sexually attractive when they meet as adults. This phenomenon is known as genetic sexual attraction. This observation is consistent with the hypothesis that the Westermarck effect evolved because it suppressed inbreeding.  This attraction may also be seen with cousin couples.
 * BrainyBabe (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are you refuting my point about ANIMALS (and imprinting) by referring to PEOPLE? The OP's question was unambiguously about animals (and yes, for the pedants, I know that people are animals).  What I said above is correct. 63.17.65.254 (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @63.17, I was responding to the editor immediately before me, 91.148, who was writing of things half-remembered and related to humans. Often, on the Reference Desks, someone will pose a question, and the volunteer Wikipedians will respons, answering the question, but developing the ideas in new directions as well. Tangents are welcome, within reason.  Also, indenting matters. I won't correct yours, but I took it to mean you were addressing me in particular. You are welcome to ask more questions, but please realise that the answer may go in different directions. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OR, but my male cat loves to climb atop and hump his daughter. Fortunately, he's been neutered! 218.25.32.210 (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Incest becomes a problem when genetic vulnerabilities are compounded. If there are no vulnerabilities to begin with, incest is simply not an issue. So animals which are more inclined to close-relation mating than humans, have less vulnerabilities. If they didn't, natural selection takes care of them rather quickly, while caring human society may allow for incest-induced issues to linger a little longer. Vranak (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Real estate bubble effect on the larger economy
I've gathered that a real estate bubble can have a devastating effect on other stronger parts of the economy. But why is this the case? Even if a real estate bubble burst, wouldn't the value of the stronger parts of the economy still be recognized?

Illaskquestions (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * When a real estate bubble bursts, many home owners are in trouble because their houses are worth less than their mortgages (bubbles are usually debt-fuelled). So people will cut spending and that means trouble for the rest of the economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As well as the above, when people start defaulting on their mortgages, financial institutions that thought they had plenty of money suddenly find they don't. Worse, when mortgage debt is parcelled up and sold off as investments, those investments suddenly become worth a lot less than they were. Institutions that didn't even realise they were buying doubtful mortgages find themselves without as much money as they thought.
 * It's also important to realise how small a shift it takes to turn from growth to recession. The 'catastrophic' times we are in are caused by a shift from a couple of percent growth to shrinkage - i.e. if only three percent of the economy stopped working that would do it. Likewise the 'terrible' increase in unemployment was maybe three percent of the population. The economy is a fragile thing. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because of its scale and momentum, a nationwide real-estate bubble tends to affect other parts of the economy. For example, the construction industry, the financial sector, and even the retail sector (supplying new homeowners with paint, furnishings, etc, etc) all experience booms during a real-estate bubble. Tradesmen such as plumbers and electricians have lots of work. Highway construction and the development of commercial real estate (to meet the needs of newly developed residential areas) also take off.  When the bubble bursts, all of these areas experience severe contractions. Many thousands of people are thrown out of work.  They are no longer able to purchase goods and services produced by other sectors of the economy, which accordingly suffer as well.  Homeowners may be laid off from jobs as a result or may find that their house is worth less than they owe on their mortgage.  As a result, they, too, cut back on spending, with unhappy results for productive sectors of the economy.  More layoffs result.  At the same time, lower income and consumption (sales, VAT) tax receipts mean that government revenues fall too.  Either governments have to lay people off, or they have to go into debt to maintain their funding.  Government debt can ultimately lead to a sovereign debt crisis (such as Greece has narrowly avoided for the time being) which would have very dire effects on the whole economy that I don't have time to describe.  Finally, the collapse of the bubble, as DJ Clayworth has pointed out, leaves banks' money tied up in bad loans. As a result, they have much less money to lend to businesses.  Without money to fund expansion, businesses are unable to hire people.  Businesses with existing high debt burdens and unable to refinance that debt may have to lay off more workers to free up cash for debt service or to maintain profitability. This all feeds into a vicious cycle affecting virtually every economic sector.  Marco polo (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure its correct to blame problems with the economy entirely on real-estate. You can see it the other way: unemployment rises due to the business cycle, people are less able to buy new houses or more cautious about doing so, and thus the real estate market declines. So it could be more of a symptom rather than a cause. I'd be interested to read any academic research about the direction of causality.


 * And its incorrect to just assume that the non-real-estate economy is "stronger". I've always wondered what "strong" is supposed to mean in this type of use, as it is often used as an explaination, yet it is a very vague word. Edit: it is used like a synonym for effective, with the sub-text that aggression is good. 92.29.76.9 (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Monopoly game used during WWII
Howdy folks, I recently saw a news report regarding the use of the game of Monopoly during WWII. They said that a special group of people assembled sets of Monopoly for the Red Cross to send to POW's behind enemy lines that had maps and currency along with contact information for escape routes. I would like to see more information about these incredible people, there names and there contributions. Thanks for your time, Calvin Starritt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.16.193 (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In the UK I imagine it would have been the Special Operations Executive - see Special Operations Executive. Hopefully someone will give you better links soon - I'm sure there are some internet resources in this area, although I doubt that you'll get many names. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The recent book "A genius for deception" by Nicholas Rankin (Oxford University Press, 2008, ISBN 978-0-19-538704-9) discusses spying, camouflage, black ops, impersonation, propaganda, etc by Britain in World Wars 1 and 2. It discusses the things hidden in packages sent to prisoners of war held by Germany on pages 354-355. The trick goods were not in official Red Cross packages, but in those sent by other "voluntary and charitable" organizations" such as the "Licensed Victuallers' Sports Association" or the "Welsh Provident Fund." Waddington's manufactured the special Monopoly sets. Silk maps of Germany useful for escape, created by Clayton Hutton of MI9, were concealed under the London streets shown on the board. Hutton wrote "Official Secret : The Incredible story of Escape Aids Used During World War II Told Here for the First Time" Crown Publishers (1961), ASIN: B0018B5JQ0, which is apparently hard to find. Concealed in innocent looking games, sports equipment, puzzles, books, and records Hutton sent batteries, crystal sets, wire cutters, maps, German money, and blankets made from carefully selected fabrics which could be tailored into civilian clothing or German uniforms. Escape movies in the 1950's kept secret these practices, in case they needed to be used in a later war. I wonder if these practices were violations of the rules of war? Would a history of such contraband shipments justify captors in future wars from refusing to pass along packages from home to POWs? Edison (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a recent Snopes article about the issue. It contains additional info and a reference at the bottom. --Xuxl (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to know whether any of these materials ever aided in an actual escape. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite probably. Having devoured very many escape memoirs when I was younger, the abundance of silk maps, compasses, money, materials for making clothes, etc was astonishing...and usually accounted for in the books by vague comments of "being smuggled in" or "we had our sources". Of course, monopoly games weren't the only source: Lakeland pencils held maps and compasses; sports equipment was hollowed out, gramophone records had maps inside.... Gwinva (talk)
 * See this. The special games were made by John Waddington Ltd.  They specifically did not ask the Red Cross to smuggle the special games into the POW camps, because they didn't want the Red Cross to get blackballed if the Germans ever discovered what was going on.  Woogee (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Gregorian Calendar
When did Poland go to the Gregorian calendar? Googlemeister (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See here. Deor (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)I googled ["gregorian calendar" poland] and many entries turned up placing it at 1582, such as this one. It's implied that when they became part of Russia, they reverted to the Julian calendar, presumably until Russia adopted the Gregorian calendar. Poland was largely Roman Catholic, and it stands to reason they would go along with the Pope. Russia would have been Eastern Orthodox, so it stands to reason they would have ignored the Pope, until international pressures (and the revolution) impelled them to switch. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Poland was actually one of the first countries to adopt the Gregorian calendar. According to our Wikipedia article, Gregorian calendar, "Spain, Portugal, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and most of Italy implemented the new calendar on Friday, 15 October 1582, following Julian Thursday, 4 October 1582." The Julian calendar was imposed in the parts of Poland under Russian rule (in official use at least), but in the Austrian and Prussian partitions, the Gregorian calendar continued to be used. Central Powers brought the Gregorian calendar back to Russian Poland when they occupied it in 1915. — Kpalion(talk) 16:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't find more reliable sources at the moment, but according to a Polish history forum, the "Congress" Kingdom of Poland (created in 1815, in personal union with Russia) used the Gregorian calendar which was gradually replaced with the Julian one after the failed January Uprising of 1863–64. — Kpalion(talk) 16:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that Poland ceased to exist as an independant state in 1793, when it was fully partitioned between Austria, Prussia and Russia. Alansplodge (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So in Warsaw during the time period I am most interested in, (1800-1820), it looks like it used Gregorian, and in the 1860s switched back to Julian for a few decades? Googlemeister (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. In 1795, Warsaw fell under the Prussian partition and Prussia had already switched to the Gregorian calendar in 1700. In 1806, Napoleon created the Duchy of Warsaw, which also used the Gregorian calendar. In 1815, Warsaw became the capital of the "Congress" Kingdom of Poland, which also continued to use the Gregorian calendar. Even after 1864, the changeover was gradual; initially it was restricted to double dating of newspaper editions. I suppose it was pretty much complete by the outbreak of World War I. — Kpalion(talk) 17:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Status of E.E. Cummings Poetry
What is the copyright status of the E.E. Cummings poem "I Thank You God For Most This Amazing"? Specifically the use of it as lyrics set to music, to be sold for profit in the UK. As far as I can ascertain, it was first published in 1958. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.123.144 (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Almost certainly life + 70, so the work of E. E. Cummings will remain copyrighted until 2032. FiggyBee (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In that case, who should one contact for permission to use his work? The U.S. Copyright Office? It is unclear who manages his estate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.123.144 (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Almost certainly not the U.S. Copyright Office. Why not look in the front pages of a recently-published edition of his works, and see if there's any acknowledgement there? AnonMoos (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This page, which provides an existing arrangement for the poem, says that the copyright is held by the Trustees for the E.E. Cummings Trust. The publisher of any in-copyright book by Cummings should be able to provide contact information.  John M Baker (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Disputation.jpg
Does anyone know where (paid or free online service) I could find a high-resolution version of this picture? Thanks! ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Regent  ─╢ 16:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Searched and all copies I found come from the Wikipedia source. -- k a i n a w &trade; 18:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Could write to the "B. M. Ansbacher Collection" (whatever that is, apparently in Jerusalem). AnonMoos (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Legal status of embassy-related building


According to the image description, the building in this picture is the official residence of the ambassador from Guinea to the USA, but it's not the Guinean embassy; presumably the two buildings are not physically connected. Is it reasonable to expect that this building is included in the extraterritoriality provisions discussed at Diplomatic mission? Or does that apply only to embassies and consulates themselves, not the residences of the people who work in the embassies and consulates? Nyttend (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I note that the section refers to the Japanese embassy hostage crisis as an example of violation of extraterritoriality, even though it took place at a building such as this rather than at the embassy. However, I'm not so sure that this is a good example, since those who took over the residence were rebels, not the Peruvian government, and (unlike with the Iran hostage crisis) the government definitely wasn't encouraging those who took over the residence.  Nyttend (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Article 30.1 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) states: "The private residence of a diplomatic agent shall enjoy the same inviolability and protection as the premises of the mission." In fact, the Ambassador's official residence is considered equal in status to the chancery itself: "The “premises of the mission” are the buildings or parts of buildings and the land ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used for the purposes of the mission including the residence of the head of the mission." (article 1.i). --Xuxl (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that answers that question then, well done! --Tango (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

man-in-the-waiting-room theory
What do they mean by " man-in-the-waiting-room"?

I took it from the New Yorker: "There is little agreement about what causes depression and no consensus about what cures it. Virtually no scientist subscribes to the man-in-the-waiting-room theory, which is that depression is caused by a lack of serotonin, but many people report that they feel better when they take drugs that affect serotonin and other brain chemicals." ProteanEd (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems likely that they mean it in the same sense as "man-in-the-street," a layperson's view. While anyone you ask might say that depression is caused by a serotonin deficiency, experts in the field would disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.123.144 (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think he is trying to take "laymen's view" one step further and using "man-in-the-waiting-room" to refer to a patient's self-diagnosis. The problem with this particular author is that he puts too much effort into trying to sound witty.  In the end, he sounds confusing. --  k a i n a w &trade; 18:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If that is what he meant, "man-in-the-waiting-room's theory" (with a possessive apostrophe) would have been clearer. --Tango (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * the sad thing is that the lay theory is almost entirely derived from advertisements by pharmaceutical companies that distribute serotonin reuptake inhibitors - basically a commercial effort to dictate scientific opinion through public pressure, all in the name of profit. disturbing trend, that...  -- Ludwigs 2  19:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In the US, maybe. The rest of the world is baffled by the idea of advertising prescription drugs to the public. --Tango (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The rest of the world is baffled by most things to do with US healthcare. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So is most of the population of the US for what it is worth. Googlemeister (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * and therein lies the great fubar of America. the people in power have figured out that the easiest way to control an ostensibly democratic regime is to foster ignorance and confusion as much as possible, thereby reducing 'public opinion' to a statistically predictable random function.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, prescription drugs are advertised to the public here in Canada too; it's not just a US thing. --Anonymous, 04:37 UTC, March 3, 2010.

Conjoined twins and the law
What would happen in the most unlikely circumstance that one half a set of conjoined twins murdered somebody, against the wishes/consent of the other twin? How would the law function in this situation to penalize the twin who committed murder without penalizing the second twin at the same time? (This question was inspired by this.) Ks0stm (T•C•G) 19:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We had this exact question about a week or two ago. I don't have time to check the archives now, but I suggest you look for it. The answer was, essentially, "there is no way to know until it happens", but there were some links to examples of times it has happened (there was no consistency in how it was dealt with). --Tango (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks...I was rushed by the end of class and didn't have time to check the archives...I'll check them now though. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 19:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems to be unlikely to occur, psychologically. If one twin were so aggrieved as to commit murder, surely the other would have borne witness to all injury, real or imagined. He would either comfort his twin and help resolve his anger, or he would be A-Ok with the murder, in which case he may be prosecuted with aiding and abetting. And besides, if you are the angry twin, how much success can you have in carrying out a murder if there is someone joined to you that has other ideas? SortedButter (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is assuming mental sanity. Granted, mental sanity is generally needed to be fully prosecuted by law anyways.  Googlemeister (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The origin of knee-slapping
What is the reason and origin of hitting one's thigh as a reaction to something funny? How recent and global is the phenomenon? Ruhtinas routa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC).
 * I have never done this, nor have I seen anyone do this. However I think there is a traditional German dance similar to this that they do in leiderhosen. And that reminds me that Prince Charming reportedly slaps her bare thighs a lot, often in hotpants, to draw attention to them, in pantomime. 84.13.29.241 (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, thighs are temptingly within slapping range of dangling palms. That might play a part. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I know when I'm laughing at something I find hilarious, I laugh so hard that I convulse slightly, and sometimes I do actually slap my knee. It's been a while though, I think I'm getting jaded.198.161.203.6 (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (OR) If people are holding a drink in one hand and wish to applaud, they sometimes slap their thigh in order to make a clapping sound.--Frumpo (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Oxford English Dictionary, which is usually great for etymology, gives only this:
 * thigh-slapper colloq., an exceptionally funny joke, description, or the like.
 * It gives one example from 150 years ago, suggesting that the sound was a cultural given:
 * 1853 MARKHAM Skoda's Auscult. 10 The completely empty percussion-sound -- the *thigh-percussion-sound -- heard at any yielding part of the walls of the thorax, or the abdomen.
 * and an example I can't quite understand from 50 years ago:
 * 1965 Wall St. Jrnl. 13 Sept. 14/4 The *thigh-slapper..the President got off to reporters when Lynda Bird showed up in a billowy muu-muu dress.
 * BrainyBabe (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Makes me think of the Buddist "sound of one hand clapping" - perhaps they meant slapping or beating a novice monk. 92.29.76.9 (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Media regulation during elections in the U.S.A.
Hi! I can't find an article about media regulation during elections in the U.S.A. in Wikipedia and elsewhere in the web. Can anyone help me, please? Thank you! --62.98.46.232 (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure there are many of them. This document states only that stations must provide "reasonable access" to advertising for candidates, and that it must do so equally. There are no restrictions on neutrality, on limits of advertising, or any of the things a European might expect to find regulated. This article might also be helpful. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I had already found the second article (aceproject.org). Anyway, your sentence "There are no restrictions on neutrality, on limits of advertising, or any of the things a European might expect to find regulated." is clear enough. I'll take a look at the first link (fcc.gov). Thanks, again! --62.98.46.232 (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the above should be 'as far as I've been able to determine'. Please don't quote me in a journal. On the other hand a quick look at what is broadcast in a US election should be enough to convince you that regulation is minimal. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One self-imposed regulation of the TV networks is that they don't broadcast their forecast of the winner of the U.S. presidential election until the polls have closed in the lower 48 states. This section of our Exit Poll article says this began after the 1980 U.S. Presidential election, when NBC called it for Ronald Reagan while the polls were still open on the West Coast, which probably disincentivized people from bothering to go out and vote.  Again, though, this is self-imposed and voluntary (although I think there would have been legislation prohibiting it if the policy hadn't been adopted).  More generally, I would expect political advertising regulation to be in the bailiwick of the FEC, not the FCC.  Our Campaign finance in the United States article will be of interest.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So Alaska and Hawaii are deemed, too small to matter then? Googlemeister (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that "equally" is the usually contentious part of US media regulations, in my observation. If I recall, there was a big bruhaha during the 2008 elections about whether a negative TV "special" on Hillary Clinton counted as a political ad, for example, and thus would require the network to give equal time to a response. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't about equal-time laws, which don't exist. It was about campaign financing, and recently led to the Supreme Court's controversial decision about political contributions and the first amendment.  (If I remember correctly, it wasn't on TV but meant for theaters and DVDs, etc.) 63.17.35.207 (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * See equal-time rule. For historical interest, see also Fairness Doctrine.  -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * See also Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a recent relevant case decided in the U.S. Supreme Court. —D. Monack talk 22:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Tiny countries' defense
I'd like, for instance, if the Republic of Kiribati, the Federated States of Micronesia or Tuvalu just to name a few were attacked. Who would defend them?. They have no military :S. --190.178.155.8 (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You would like it if they were attacked? What did they ever do to you?  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No no no sorry, that was a mistake, I would never wish any of the 203 independent countries of the World to be attacked, that was a mistake. --190.178.155.8 (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It says on the articles for some, I imagine its the case for all countries without armed forced that they have protection treaties and agreements with larger countries. Kiribati- "Security assistance would be provided if necessary by Australia and New Zealand", Micronesia - "...the United States, which is wholly responsible for its defense", etc.-- Jac 16888 Talk 20:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably, the best answer would be "The nations in whose economic/political interests it would be to defend them." Qatar Kuwait doesn't have much of an army, but it was more-than-adequately defended when the situation demanded. Tevildo (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If it is true that they have no military, it does not take much pondering to imagine why that would be the case. A small island or archipeligo hundreds if not thousands of miles from any imperialistic power has so little strategic value in the modern era that it would profit no one to invade. Moreover, imperialism has largely been succeeded by a more respectful practice of not invading other countries for no good reason. Leaving aside the Iraq issue. SortedButter (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Should have informed Japan of that a few decades ago. Googlemeister (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Six decades ago if I am not mistaken. And that was a different zeitgeist. SortedButter (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See conscription for a possible solution to this problem. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would think you would already need a military force to conscript, otherwise who would force them to join up, keep them there and train them?-- Jac 16888 Talk 20:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Training might be a problem, but they'll have a police force of some description that can do the rest. --Tango (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Conscription isn't very effective these days. With the prevalence of high-tech warfare, it takes quite a long time to train someone to a decent standard. A country may have no choice but to use a large number of poorly trained soldiers, but they wouldn't stand much chance against a modern army even a fraction of the size. The only way such forces can hold out against a modern army is to hide behind civilians the army aren't willing to kill (this is how the Taliban work in Afghanistan) - if the modern army is willing to kill the civilians, then you have no chance. --Tango (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Costa Rica has no military (although it is admittedly not tiny). It does however have an armed police and coastguard, who are trained in at least counter-terrorism operations and may well have some training in military operations. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would guess that those small-island nations are more worried about annihilation by rise in sea level than by invasion.   D b f i r s   00:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The first response would probably be from some country with an aircraft carrier or two or three in the area.DOR (HK) (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Footballers good, bankers bad
Why does nobody criticise "fat cat" footballers (note to our American chums: I'm talking about soccer) in the same way they do bankers? Footballers probably earn more money than bankers, and their salaries may have driven at least one club out of business and put others under strain.

Bankers on the other hand could be said to do a lot for the economy of Britain's "insivible earnings" as it used to be called by earning foriegn revenues and helping the balance of trade.

Now I think of it, why could not the same be said of film stars? They can earn many millions for just a few days light work on a film set - many people would do the same for free just for the pampering and adulation they get as a bonus. (Hmmn...film stars who act for free just for the advertising deals they can get - now that's an idea!)

You cannot say that bankers do not have "talent" while the other two do. To become a banker requires years of study and passing a lot of banker's exams. The working condition of bankers that I've seen on tv look unendurable - they are squeezed in on rows of desks like battery hens. 84.13.29.241 (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Supply and demand. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The premise of your question is rotten. People do criticise "fat cat" footballers. Here's one such criticism. If you care to look, you'll find plenty more. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I call BS, because you cannot honestly tell me that you've seen anywhere near the same amount of criticism of each group in the media. As to why?  The One True Answer is simple. The reason why the media does not show much criticism of footballers is because if George Clooney made a film on a pro bono basis, but to Hollywood standards, then ticket prices would NOT go down as a result.  But the same does not apply to bankers: there are just a few super-high-paid footballers and Hollywood celebrities, but literally tens of thousands of ultra-high-paid bankers and brokers, if not hundreds of thousands.  These people literally leech off of the wealth that accrues even by itself by means of the stock market.  I mean they suck its blood and ingest it, and grow fat and muscle using the calories and nutrients in it.  They literally leech off of real growth.  Are they too highly paid?  Let me put it to you this way: I am attracted by the oligarchic/cartel wages the bankers ensure for one another, and seriously consider doing a few years of training to be able to join their ranks (which I can because I have the requisite high IQ - the only factor, other than years and years of training, which it takes to join the cartel).  Would someone in my position, but instead of IQ say have the requisite basic physique, be equally attracted to pro sports?  Not on a rational basis, no: the average profits of a pro athlete just don't come anywhere near matching, in oligarchic/cartel surplus, what I've just been talking about.  Therefore, nobody cares: the public is not being robbed, unlike by the bankers.  It's quite simple really: if there is a huge windfall that is protected by means such as maximum-hours laws; by decades of time-investment made in terms of pieces of paper (not ability; there is no way to skip it even if you know three times as much as the graduating bankers, since the point of the training is not to acquire skill, but rather to artificially restrict supply); and other such nonesense.  None of this outrageous economic reality is present in the pro football arena.  If tomorrow I woke up with by far the greatest skill at football on the face of the Earth, then all I would need to do is show it to a coach and I could get signed within 2 days.  On the other other hand, if tomorrow I woke up with by far the greatest broker accumen on the face of the Earth, then I would have to put in four months of on-the-job training to even be able to take the  General Securities Representative Exam, which itself costs $265.  Four months and $265?  That is a simple ploy to raise a barrier of entry, much like medical school (4 years and $266,400, above an already reduced pool of applicants having a BA).  If you want to know if a professional is employing shady market-chokeholds it's very easy to see.  Just imagine what your position is if you woke up tomorrow with by far (say, by many times) the greatest acumen in that profession on the face of the planet.  If you woke up tomorrow by far the most skilled doctor on the face of the planet, it would take you until 2018, and an investment of some $400,000, to be in a position to get 'signed'.  That is why people are outraged.  If you wake up tomorrow by far the best football player, you'll be on international TV in a few weeks, and be balling.  No reason for outrage; public not getting robbed blind.  It's That Simple.84.153.249.56 (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Very simple, indeed. SortedButter (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The RefDesk in not a soapbox. Please take this to a nearby streetcorner or something. Matt Deres (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If I may state the obvious, footballers are generally not fat. For better or for worse, we tend to give a free pass to healthy specimens that get their paychecks from entertaining others. It may have something to do with the great lengths people go to to avoid boredom. SortedButter (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But bankers arrange the money for various big projects that the public use - eg transport, utlities, many others. 84.13.29.241 (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is very true, and a good point, but generally speaking, no one cares about bridges or hospitals unless they are closed, falling apart, or decrepit. They are taken for granted. While a John Terry goal in the 91st minute is not. Again, this is all highly dubious prioritization, but that's how it is. People are emotional creatures, and there's little to get excited about when it comes to public works projects. SortedButter (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In simple terms, footballers provide entertainment (not to me, but that's not the point...) whereas bankers are boring. Also, bankers are dragging the world's economies into ruins while stuffing themselves with our money, while footballers simply earn – normally corporate money, not directly consumers' – without messing up other people's lives as well. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  person of reasonable firmness  ─╢ 21:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To add to the above points, bankers are largely viewed as being responsible for a large portion of the current economic troubles. Wouldn't you be annoyed if your highest paid footballer messed up the entire sport, and still got a "performance bonus" ?  Googlemeister (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In addition to all of the above, footballers are not asking for government handouts in order to support their bonuses. Also footballers' salaries don't affect you much if you never pay to see football, whereas bankers' salaries are paid for out of bank fees that almost everyone contributes to in some way. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The thing is, most people wouldn't think that far. I think it's really just as simple as people liking footballers because they like football. Who likes banks? Logical explanations are certainly possible, but I'd be surprised if they carried the majority opinion. Vimescarrot (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * They may not think along these lines consciously, but there's a lot going on behind the scenes, so to speak. SortedButter (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting idea - a 'tabloid'-style logic that people who are liked are therefore morally good, and vice versa. This rule seems commonplace in everyday life. 78.149.176.122 (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Regrettably, VimesCarrot, you are probably right. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the U.K., but in the U.S., there has traditionally as much or more public complaining about the salaries of athletes (sportspeople) than about those of executives, and perhaps for good reason. The salary for the average Major League Baseball player in 2008 was $3.15 million, almost as much as the average salary and bonus of a CEO at one of America's 500 largest companies. When things like executive stock options are figured in, the CEOs' numbers may go much higher, but you can say the same thing about athletes and endorsements. While labor unions and left-of-center people have been complaining about executive compensation for years, only the bailouts of recent years has made it a hot-button political issue. On the other hand, "overpaid" athletes have been a popular subject in the media for decades. Last year, Nick Swisher made as much as 100 teachers to hit .249-- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Mother-son marriage in South Korea
Was mother-son marriage formerly legal in South Korea? --88.76.18.70 (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Formerly" meaning how long ago? The reference to SOUTH Korea suggests the past six decades.  South Korea had a very strict law against members of the same "clan" marrying, even if they were very distantly related.  A mother and son would have the same surname but not necessarily be of the same clan, so this law might not literally apply.  But given the stringency of the clan law, it seems impossible to believe that mother-son marriage was legal; blodd relatives are only one "chon" apart.  After the clan law was amended, the new law makes it clear that parents and children can't marry (and the old law might have, also, but it's much harder to find old law than current law, so I don't have a citation).  See Article 809 of the Korean Civil Code and Marriage in South Korea. 63.17.35.207 (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to take this on too much of a tangent, but the north-south division in Korea actually predates the current political situation by hundreds of years. In classical antiquity there was the Three Kingdoms of Korea, which maintained a clear north-south divide.  This time was followed by the North South States Period.  While Korea was a unified state for the next thousand years or so, there were constant differences between the north and south; marked by the North's connections to the Jurchen/Manchuria and the south's connections to Japan.  While both the Goryeo and Joseon maintained the southern Hanseong (Seoul) as the official capital, the northern Pyongyang was a maintained as a northern capital, maintaining the historical divide.  -- Jayron  32  16:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Divorce and Credit Card Debt
My mother is having her wages garnished from a judgment because my father stopped paying for a joint credit card they had together when they were married, but was supposed to be paid-off by him (according to the court) when they were divorced.

The attorney's office NEVER served us correctly, they always served all the documents that were supposed to go to my mother to my fathers address because they did not know about the divorce. Its very clear that they did not know about it based on the paperwork (the documents still say "MRS" before my mom's name. I told the attorney that we are not responsible unless they set aside the judgment and refile it because we were never served correctly so we had no way to fight it (someone suggested saying that). But the attorney said that she does not care, they served who they had to (they didn't), etc... All the addresses were my father's addresses (like his business addresses or his home addresses) and my father never told my mother.

Also, the "division of property" section of the divorce says all debts belong to my father, but he never paid them. The attorney just said that the family court said that and what they say has nothing to do with civil court and my mother still has to pay. Is there any way out of this? I mean this is like 19 years later.

Sorry for the long post and thanks for your time and for the help!! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.30.156 (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We cannot give legal advice. You need to ask a lawyer. --Tango (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's the page saying so. It's for ethical reasons &mdash; we are random people on the Internet, and not your lawyer &mdash; what if we gave you advice and you acted on it and we were wrong, because we're random people on the Internet? See a lawyer.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Your mother's situation is complex, and she really does need to consult a lawyer. If she cannot afford a lawyer, your local legal aid society may be able to give her advice or refer her to a lawyer who will take her case on a pro bono basis (i.e., for free).  John M Baker (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)