Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 February 11

= February 11 =

Psychologist treating themselves
Can psychologists treat themselves? At least, perhaps some simple mental illnesses like phobias. Wikiweek (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they cannot. They lack objectivity in assessing their own conditions.  -- Jayron  32  01:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can they? Yes. Should they? No, especially in the case of something that requires an impartial doctor as psychology. Whats that old saying, a physician that treats himself has a fool for a doctor and an idiot for a patient? Something like that. Livewireo (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can smash myself in the face repeatedly with a hammer. Treating "can" that broadly doesn't really work.  -- Jayron  32  01:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly psychologists can treat themselves for phobias. One of the standard approaches, for example, uses gradually increasing levels of exposure to the feared object.  There's no reason psychologists who know how it works couldn't treat themselves that way -- it would require extra willpower, but there's nothing impossible about that. Looie496 (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cartainly not! How do they diagnose the phobia in the first place, without knowing for certain if the phobia is not a symptom of some underlying condition which may or may not need different treatment?  -- Jayron  32  01:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, concerning phobias in particular, there is currently a pretty widespread belief that they tend to be "hard-wired" to a large degree. In the modern world, for example, phobias for spiders and snakes are very common even though they are rarely dangerous, but phobias for guns are almost unheard of.  So a psychologist might feel safe in presuming that his own personal phobia is simply an exaggerated fear with no special secret underlying cause, and can be treated by straightforwardly extinguishing the fear.  That's how all the effective approaches work, anyway.  Freudian-type approaches are not nearly as effective. Looie496 (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the things psychs talk about in relation to their patients/clients is their insight into their conditions. I'd have thought psychs would generally have an above-average insight about what's going on with themselves, due to their training and knowledge.  But just because they have a greater capacity to identify their own condition, that's not to say that they're necessarily the best people to treat the condition.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  02:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You know what? We're just going around in circles here (and I am the most guilty party here).  What we need is a reliable source here.  Psychologists, like all professions, have professional standards and codes of conduct, and presumably this is something which is likely to be covered.  Lets all agree to recind what we have said, and withhold speculation in answering this question until someone can produce some definitive documents which can answer it one way or another.  Because I am quite sure that I am talking entirely out of my ass here, and I suspect that others are as well.  -- Jayron  32  02:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a fictional example, in which a non-qualified but knowlegeable protagonist hypnotises himself into self-conducting a classic psychoanalytical session. Given certain premises, it is hard to fault the logic involved, but a real world (or Roundworld) instance seems unlikely. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there's a confusion here between psychologists (those who study psychology) and psychiatrists (doctors who treat psychological conditions). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Some psychological techniques would certainly be capable of being self-administered. I know of one person that applied behavioral techniques to stop smoking (they weren't a clinical psychologist but did have some relevant coursework).  It would seem to be that it depends largely on what you mean by treatment.  Psychology is very different from any other field of medicine because there are multiple legitimate approaches.  For instance, the only accepted treatment for a bacterial infection is antibiotics (or sulfa drugs, but still), but there are many theories and modalities of psychotherapy that can be used in isolation or in conjunction.  Some, such as Psychoanalysis would require an outside input (analysis).  On the other hand behavior_modification could arguably be self-administered if you had means at your disposal for reinforcement, as I mentioned above.  In all cases it is a gross violation of medical ethics (and the law) to self-prescribe medication. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * See http://www.psychologicalselfhelp.org/.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me there are lots of things psychologists can do to optimise their own mental health. They can build up a supportive network of friends and family, and try and communicate their emotional needs well. They can use relaxation techniques, take regular exercise, eat well, sleep well. They can read self-help books. Also, they can learn from their reading about psychology, from discussions with colleagues, and even get insights from their patients. They must not "self-medicate" with prescription-only medication, but I'm sure some psychologists find that caffeine and alcohol in moderation are harmless or mildly beneficial. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It depends on what the psychologist is trying to accomplish. There are basic techniques for modifying behavior that people can use on themselves.  There are also ways to identify cognitive biases that may lead to anxiety and depression.  However, long-term change at a deeper level than this would require another person, because the transference between the therapist and patient is what gives rise to the change.  So if you want to stop eating sweets, you can start with behavior modification; but if the desire to eat sweets is at all deep-rooted in your psyche, it won't go away until you deal with the underlying cause of your behavior through a therapeutic relationship.
 * The expression "He who is his own doctor has a fool for a patient" exists for a reason. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 20:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Best book on the Louvre
I visited the Louvre a few years ago and was unable to take a great many pictures of the works of art there. I thought that there would be abundant books to choose from (in Chapters) when I returned - but I have not come across any so far. Can you recommend any that are on a more general scale? It just so happens that my daughter is heading to Paris on a class trip next week and could even get one for me from the museum store if necessary. I am not interested in one area specifically - but a book that touches several aspects would be very appealing. Any recommendations would be very much appreciated.24.89.210.71 (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * From your first sentence, it sounds like you are interested in the works of art there rather than the history of the palace. If so, you can get Louvre, the 300 Masterpieces from the museum shops, which is a pretty good, comprehensive introduction to the best known works in the museum. Have a look at this website for other choices. If you are interested in the history of the palace, you can also get a selection of books from the museum shops - see this selection. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

GMT + ? - Eastern U.S.
I am supposed to be Skyping with a fellow from Australia, but he needs to know my kilo time. I'm not sure what it is. I live in the U.S. state of Ohio. For some reason, GMT + 4 comes to mind. Is this correct? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Does Eastern Time Zone answer your question? -- Jayron  32  03:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, GMT refers to the the universal time from Greenwich. I need to know the offset time for the Eastern United states, plus or minus a number. For instance, my friend in Australia is GMT + 10. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As Jayron said, the second sentence of Eastern Time Zone contains your answer. GMT is, in this regard, identical to UTC, so you're currently at GMT – 5 (until you switch to daylight saving time next month).


 * What's "kilo time"? I've heard of heavy water, but heavy time ....?? --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  06:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Googling took me to this page, which seems to say that Kilo Time is military jargon, also known as K time, and is equivalent to AEST, i.e. GMT + 10. Perhaps Ghost's correspondent is in the military. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We have a page on everything - List of military time zones. It's apparently an American thing. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What a shame Quebec isn't in the Quebec time zone. Aaronite (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a NATO thing, just because WP uses USian examples for everything, doesn't mean everyting is USian. :)
 * GMT= Time zone Zulu, then working Eastward from Alpha.
 * ALR (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Being hopelessly over-educated, I always get simple arithmetic wrong. Hence I found this page very useful for scheduling across-the globe events. And I keep different virtual watches in my iPod Nano for all places I plan to visit... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Basically, your friend is likely to be in GMT+10, while you are in GMT-5. That's a difference of 15 hours; so, when it is 8am Friday where you are in Ohio, it is 11pm Friday in Australia.  You might need to adjust things for daylight savings time.  Astronaut (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In eastern Australian states (and territory) other than Queensland, Daylight Saving is in force and so they are on GMT + 11, but in Queensland, where there is no Daylight Saving, it is currently GMT + 10. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This page is very helpful. All you have to do is move your mouse. Oda Mari (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * See Metric time. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Err, what's the relevance of metric time? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition to the helpful answers above, Google is your friend. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

uncovenanted king
What is an "uncovenanted king"? What made James II an "uncovenanted king" (I read the article James II of England but I can't figure)? Could you help me please? Thank you--115.75.128.236 (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A covenant is a contract. In the context of governance, it is the (often implied) contract between the governed and their government; i.e. between a King and his people, whereby the rights and responsibilties of the king and the rights and responsibilities of the subjects are established.  This is also the clear meaning of the term in the Bible, for example, the covenant which establishes the roles and relationships between God (as spiritual king) and, say, the Jewish nation as his earthly subjects.  My guess is that, in this context, it refers to the fact that James II had lost the right to rule.  It provides a sort of justification for the Glorious Revolution, i.e. James's actions as King established that he was unfit to rule because he had not held up his end of the eternal covenant between a King and his Subjects.  Basically, he broke the "contract", which means that the people no longer had to keep up their end of the contract either, meaning they no longer had to accept him as king.  I am speculating here, but based on what I know of the term covenant and what I know of what happened to James II, it makes sense.  -- Jayron  32  04:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This actually refers to a specific covenant, I believe -- the so-called Solemn League and Covenant. Our article on the Covenanters covers the whole story. Looie496 (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looie is correct: the issue was that James and Charles before him had sworn allegiance to the Covenants (note plural: it was both the National and the Solemn League, not just the Solemn League) and later rejected them. One of the few things missing from the article on the Covenanters (I'm pleasantly surprised how good it is) is the idea of the "descending obligation of the Covenants" — they thought that the Covenants couldn't be un-sworn, even by generations such as James and Charles that were descended from the people who had sworn the Covenants decades later.  If they'd believed that they could be removed by later generations, it would have been much less of an issue.  Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Christian Nations of Europe
Does anybody know the first 15 nations that first converted to Roman Catholicism? I'm not talking about modern days. I'm talking from the beginning of France to the conversion of Lithuania. See this image.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Such a list probably depends on how you define both "nation" and "converted". Are we talking when the majority of the citizens of a nation became Roman Catholic, or are we talking when the first king converted to Catholicism?  -- Jayron  32  04:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Armenia is credited with being the first christian nation in 301 when the king adopted the religion. The Edict of Thessalonica in 380 christianised the roman empire which would include many modern countries such as france, italy, spain, britain, etc.  meltBanana  05:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And very importantly how do we count all the Duchies in the HRE? All independent? None of them? Some of them? --Lgriot (talk) 09:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And how do you define Roman Catholicism...no one really converted to that, they just kind of became "Roman" Catholic after the Roman and Greek churches split, which happened gradually in the Middle Ages. When people were originally converting, there were Catholics, not yet distinguished as "Roman", and other kinds of Christians, some of whom were later condemned as heretics. The Germanic tribes tended to follow Arianism, for example. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You can see part of the mural from St Pierre le Jeune on the church website (a smaller image ); there's about 10 countries of the 15 visible. I can't make out all of them but can see Aragon, Castile, Bulgaria, Poland, Oriens (possibly Diocese of the East), and Lithuania at the right.  According to the info on Wikimedia the far left, and first, is the Holy Roman Empire.  Historically this is pretty suspect, and the artist/patron seems to have used the names of contemporary countries, not historically accurate ones.  --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde story about Jesus
I remember reading a short story from a collection of Oscar Wilde's writing about a character who wanted to be crucified; he was the same as Jesus Christ (I seem to remember he performed miracles), but no one would crucify him. I can't seem to locate it now, though. Anyone recognize it? 129.3.151.117 (talk) 05:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's The Master from Poems in Prose. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  05:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Human eye colour
I am curious about children and their inheritance of eye colour. Let me use my own family as an example. My father, who was Irish, had grey eyes, and my mother green. Her own mother (my maternal grandmother), who was of English, Welsh, Scots-Irish, and southern German ancestry, had brown eyes. Now, my siblings and myself all have a similar eye colour, that is a dark green mixed with brown. What is odd is that my dad's family all had light eyes, and my maternal grandfather had vivid blue eyes, which an aunt inherited. With all the blue and grey eyes in our genetic makeup, why is it then that neither I or my siblings have light eyes? By Mendel's Law, should not at least one of us have inherited the recessive gene for blue or grey eyes? I should add that two of my children (whose dad has blue eyes) happen to have blue eyes, while my other two (of a different father) possess exactly my colour.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The article on eye color notes that color is determined by multiple genes. Even in a simple example, though, like the brown/blue one I heard in childhood (each parent carrying brown/blue eye color genes, bown dominant, blue recessive), the odds are that one child in four will have blue eyes.  That doesn't mean every fourth child will; the pattern emerges over large populations.  In smaller groups (like your children), you're less likely to see the average. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Visiting churches and cathedrals
Does anyone know of a good book that improves the quality of sightseeing when visiting churches and cathedrals? I don't mean any kind of academic treatise, just a book for sightseers illustrating the main architectural features, periods etc. Perhaps also (though this may be a separate book) the iconography that one sees in church carvings, paintings etc. The UK and Western Europe is my main interest in asking this question. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.148.149 (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a List of cathedrals. schyler (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't used any of them personally, but Amazon has a few well-reviewed ones for the UK here, here and here. --Viennese Waltz 15:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Those all refer to churches, which would probably not include cathedrals. If you have specific cathedrals in mind to visit, then searching for their names in Amazon co uk may produce results. I expect there are many books about cathedrals in general. 92.28.251.167 (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I volunteered at the Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine in NY. Many churches have commissioned guides that contain photos and text. Art books describe the religious art and architecture. I attended a very bad school system. When I was in juniour high, our French teacher spent weeks preparing us for a trip to the Cloisters, a specialized medieval art museum at the tip of Manhattan. We refused to get back on the bus to go home because we were enchanted by the place. A few years later, I attended with a Spanish class that had no prep. the kids were on the bus, chanting that they wanted to leave, in less than ten minutes. I don't know why they don't have those audio guides available in museums. Speaking of the Cloisters, access to a museum with a church collection should provide much information. The cathedral had tour guides, both commercial and volunteer. The tours varied depending on the interests of the guide. 75Janice (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)75Janice


 * The usual speedy and helpful response from the Wikipedians! Many thanks to you all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.148.149 (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In general, I have found that the Michelin Green Guides have pretty good coverage of cathedrals and significant churches, especially in France. Marco polo (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Those guides only give very brief details, which is not what I think the OP wants. 92.28.251.167 (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For a general concept that gives you an idea of what part is called what, and what you're looking at: David Macaulay, Cathedral: The Story of Its Construction 1981, can't be beat. It describes the building of a generic French cathedral in an imaginary French town. The meticulous line drawings are at least half of the story. Most cathedrals you'll visit have guidebooks: it helps to sit of the steps and thumb through, to get the story.--Wetman (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually tihnk Wikipedia's coverage of Cathedral and components linked from there is very helpful. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Spire is a novel about the building of a cathedral, which might be entertaining, although I've never read it. If the OP is going to travel from London to Edinburgh, then there is a whole series of ancient cathedrals on (or sometimes slight detours off) the main railway line between the two cities, for example Durham Cathedral. If interested, I could prepare a list. Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England goes into a lot of detail - well-done to whoever wrote it - and gives a bibliography of recommended books at the end. 92.28.251.167 (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As so often, I'm overwhelmed by the volume and quality of these suggestions. Many thanks to you all.


 * I have a lovely little book, The Beauty of English Churches by Lawrence E. Jones, first published 1978. It has sections for all the different parts of a church, explaining form and function, with examples from around the country. It's very well illustrated, and I would recommend it highly. DuncanHill (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * How to Read a Church (Amazon) by Richard Taylor. See the comment about different versions though.  Blakk   and ekka 14:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Colonial and State Establishments of Religion
I'm trying to gain greater understanding of the Establishment Clause in the US Constitution. Reading Supreme Court cases, reference is frequently made to the existence of colonial and state establishments of religion that existed and, since not federal, were not in conflict with the Establishment Clause. Such establishments would have been const'l until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. I've read that these establishments disappeared in the early 1800s. No source I've read explains what caused them to leave state constitutions. I would like to find out the reasons these estabishments were removed from state constitutions. Thank you.--75Janice (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)75Janice
 * Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution the Bill of Rights was taken to ONLY apply to actions of the Federal government, and did not apply to the states themselves. So, during the first 2/3rds of the 19th century, while "Congress could make no law..." state legislatures were free to do so.  State_religion mentions several states such as Massachusetts and Connecticut that had official state churches.  My guess is that the various state constitutions individually ended the practice before the 14th amendment for the same reason that the Bill of Rights was instituted in the first place; the States themselves saw a value in official seperation of Church and State and so amended their constitutions to include such provisions as well.  -- Jayron  32  18:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are some useful-looking references on this page. Marco polo (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of the concept of incorporation. Of course, Justice Thomas might not find the First Amendment sufficiently incorporated to apply the states. My hope is to find something that is beyond mere conjecture. The state establishments appear to be thriving at this point. Perhaps the const'n was a template and the const'ns were amended to conform to the federal one. I'm looking for an actual discussion to know the answer. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.66.191 (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "...appear to be thriving"? Far as I know, none of the U.S. states have a "state religion". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thriving in the Federalist period. The Fourteenth Amendment, incorporating First Amendment rights, bars any outright establishment. Establishment Clause law has increasingly allowed more and more accomodation with religion. A majortiy of the Justices are now Roman Catholic. This is a murky area and very politicized. The antifederalist debates in the U.S. Constitutional ratification conventions reflect animosity towards the proposed constitution. States rights were more important than today. There was no precedent. Several colonies were not formed for religious freedom per se but, rather, freedom to discriminate against others as they were discriminated against in England. There was no litigation challenging any practice as a federal establishment until almost the Civil War. It sounds curious. Now it is one of hottest areas in American law and a very favored topic of law review authors.--75Janice (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)75Janice.

What is the copyright status of books published by the Soviet state?
Are books published by the Soviet Government publishing houses such as Foreign Languages Publishing House and Progress Publishers copyrighted? --Gary123 (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably. It depends on the date of publication and some other factors. The country and name of the publisher is irrelevant. See our article on copyright.--Shantavira|feed me 17:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the country and whether the publisher is an organ of government is certainly relevant to copyright. Rmhermen (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oy, it seems very complicated: Copyright_law_of_the_Soviet_Union. The article in general does not make a distinction between state publishing houses and non-state houses, no doubt in part because in the USSR the distinction was not a terribly meaningful one. So I would lean towards thinking that the authorship claims do not have to do with the publisher. I see no reason to suspect that works of the Soviet state would not be today copyright protected. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Barry Bonds Steroids Trial
I just read this article which mentions Greg Anderson's refusal to testify in the grand jury investigation/trial of Barry Bonds. (for those not familiar with the case, Anderson is alleged to sold Bonds a ton of steroids and Bonds is being charged with lying about it: Legal problems of Barry Bonds).

What I don't understand is why Anderson would refuse to testify knowing that he would be sent straight to jail for Contempt of Court. Couldn't Anderson have taken the stand and claimed the Fifth Amendment when asked about his activities? I guess there is some restriction on doing that in a Grand Jury, but he's planning on refusing to testify for the trial as well. Or couldn't he have just tried to tell plausible lies while on the stand? I mean, I guess he could have been charged with perjury if he was caught in more lies. But isn't it less certain that he'd be sent convicted of perjury and sent to jail for that than for refusing to testify? Is there some explanation for why he took this strategy? Mark Geragos (his lawyer) usually seems to be a pretty good lawyer. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is selling the steroids is a crime in and of itself? If it is not, he might not be able to take the 5th because self incrimination would not apply to a legal act.  I am not a lawyer so do not consider this expert opinion, just my personal theory.  Googlemeister (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the U.S., anabolic steroids are under Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act since the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Greg Anderson can not plead the 5th because he already plead guilty and served his sentence for his involvement with BALCO. The deal he reached with the government would preclude them from trying him again for his involvement with BALCO or Barry Bonds.  Since he couldn't possibly put himself in legal danger by providing the testimony they ask for, he can not invoke protection from self-incrimination.  At least that's my understanding of his situation. Sperril (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I hadn't thought of that. So it sounds like he's refusing to testify out of fear of perjury/loyalty to Barry (which is pretty bizarre too IMHO). Qrsdogg (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Einstein's image
From Albert Einstein, "Einstein bequeathed the royalties from use of his image to The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Corbis, successor to The Roger Richman Agency, licenses the use of his name and associated imagery, as agent for the university". He died in April of 1955. How long will they be able to collect image license profits? 20.137.18.50 (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have added a section header to this question. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oy, personality rights are very complicated. Different states have different terms in the United States. It is such a mess of legal back-and-forth, contradictory cases, etc., that I'm not sure a straightforward answer is even give-able at this point, until someone tries to claim personality rights over someone who is LONG dead and the courts battle it out, and even then, the specifics of the case (where did the person die? where is the case being tried?) seem to matter. If it is treated as a strict trademark issue, then there are no limits, so long as the trademark is maintained. But it gets into very murky legal territory. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Roman Britain's importance
How important was Roman Britain to the Roman Empire over the ~375 years the Romans were there? When I read articles like Hadrian's Wall and Antonine Wall, I think: Hmm, these are pretty major projects; Britain must have been unusually important to the Romans. Or was Britain largely considered unimportant hinterlands? The Roman Britain article doesn't seem (upon my skimming) to place Britain within any larger context of the Empire. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This essay by the historian Peter Salway (especially the section on "Conquest and settlement") argues that Roman Britain was a pretty important place. He says that up to one eighth of the whole Roman army was garrisoned in Britain, that the province's population was comparable with the population of England in the High Middle Ages, that it could boast of "the largest mosaic (at Woodchester in Gloucestershire) and the largest city hall (London) yet discovered north of the Alps, and in Hadrian's Wall the most elaborate frontier work along the whole perimeter of the empire", and that Britain's overseas remoteness gave it an exotic glamour which added to the propaganda value of victories won there. --Antiquary (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And see also the section "Importance of Britain" in An Overview of Roman Britain by Dr. Mike Ibeji, which takes a similar line. It says, for example:
 * Throughout its history, Roman Britain acted as a proving ground for aspiring politicians and a powerbase for usurping emperors. Set aside arguments over whether Britain was 'profitable' or not (it certainly was when Julian used it to supply Germany in the 360s!), for such calculations never mattered to the empire. Britain was a frontier province, which contained three legions for most of its chequered history. As such, it was important.
 * --Antiquary (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Why though? Was it the silver mines or the opportunities to prove oneself in difficult circumstances or some key trading position? Fainites barley scribs 15:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed costs for airliners
I am trying to locate sources for the fixed costs of various airliners. For example, if I bought myself a Boeing 747-400, what would I pay on a monthly or yearly basis, besides the initial purchase and expenses incurred from flying/running the engines (i.e. anticipated maintenance/hour of flight time, fuel, and landing fees)? Obviously this would include insurance, scheduled maintenance, parking, etc. What would it cost for a smaller airliner, such as a Dehavilland Dash-8? I also am not concerned about paying the flight crew, that I can figure out separately. Thanks! And to answer the inevitable, I won't be buying myself a Boeing 747-400 anytime soon, this is purely academic). Falconus p  t   c 20:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This thread from Google Answers seems to answer most of your question, and contains many references. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I was actually looking more for the fixed costs, not the operating costs. Flying aside, what would it cost me to buy one, park it, and keep it insured and in airworthy condition? Falconus p  t   c 01:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Ah, I misread that as running the engines on the ground, not just being parked.  Thank you! Falconus p  t   c

Business = evil
Which type of businesses are considered evil or not-evil and why? Why do some people seem readier than others to consider that business is evil? Is it because they believe businesses make their money by cheating people? Thanks 92.15.0.67 (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Criticisms of corporations has several starting points for your latter questions. I think that concern about "cheating people" is minimal, if by "people" you mean "consumers of their products" &mdash; the more common concern that I read about is that corporations have all the rights of a person, but additionally are immortal and therefore can accumulate far more wealth than almost any person can; and in a world where politicians are essentially for sale, it seems inevitable that corporations' will is going to be foisted upon the people.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, when Google made their motto "Don't be evil", what they basically meant is don't try to make money by doing things that trick people or limit their freedom. Looie496 (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Generally, I believe, the bigger a business, the "eviler" is seems. This is because, it would seem, because there is one person or a small group of persons at the top, with power over a person who is lower down on the totem pole. Additionally: HOW can people be victimized even when big business stays within the law? Because the natural goal of business is to make profits. Many business[people] do not appear to view it as their job to make moral judgments about where the profits come from. It is true that many different people have many different moralities. They even have different moralities on what morality is; that is, if there are many right goods or just one good. Look at moral absolutism, amoralism, moral relativism, and moral universalism. Also, Business ethics is more than appropriate. schyler (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * See megacorporation, corporate social responsibility and Big Oil. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 02:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not clear if you are talking about business per se, or specific businesses. From our article on exploitation:


 * Organizational or "micro-level" exploitation: in the broad tradition of liberal economic thinking, most theories of exploitation center on the market power of economic organizations within a market setting. Some neoclassical theory points to exploitation not based on market power.
 * Structural or "macro-level" exploitation: "new liberal" theories focus on exploitation by large sections of society even (or especially) in the context of free markets. Marxist theory points to the entire capitalist class as an exploitative entity, and to capitalism as a system based on exploitation.
 * BrainyBabe (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I go with what the philosopher Frank Zappa said: "Communism doesn't work, because people like to own stuff." In any case, I think that generally speaking, businesses are a lot more responsible than they used to be. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Businesses in certain sectors may be seen as "evil" by some people -- tobacco, alcohol, firearms, etc. Others may not like businesses said to be responsible for a lot of pollution (oil companies, car companies) or that have had complaints over labor issues (Wal-Mart, Nike). All such companies will spend a lot of money trying to prove their "responsibility." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In my country, Australia, commercial current affairs TV programs seem to specialise in demonizing certain types of businesses. Regular targets seem to include car dealers, banks, building firms, supermarkets and landlords (although tenants are seen as a problem at times too). Given that our commercial TV is very derivative of the American model, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the same thing happens there. HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Businesses are only as responsible as they are made to be, unless they happen to have an idiosyncratic owner, as their prime duty is to their shareholders. They are only made to be responsible by either enforceable regulations or public pressure that may affect their profits.Fainites barley scribs 22:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Renew Chinese passport
It is about time to go down to Chicago and renew my passport. I note someone mentioned above that the consulate requires proof that you have not naturalized as a citizen of another country, but the Consulate website doesn't seem to mention anything about this, so I assume it goes under "六、领事官员根据情况要求的其他与申请事项有关的材料" (other documents as requested by the consulate). What kind of proof is required? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How on earth can anyone prove they have not been naturalized by another country? They might conceal the paperwork somehow.  There might not even be any paperwork.  They might not even know they've been naturalized.  Suppose Libya or Iceland or the Klingon Empire downloaded your name from the internet and naturalized you (put you in their citizen database) without telling you.  Could you get in trouble with the Chinese government for that?  I'd hope the Chinese consulate has to just go by what you tell them. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Call the consulate and ask them. The Masked Booby (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe, you just hae to prove that you did not become an American citizen (which would be the most probable case, in your situation). Anyway, ask them for a list of documents, and take exactly the docs in that list to renew your passport. Bureaucracies are not thinking anyway, they are just processing stuff. Quest09 (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought this was covered a couple of days ago - American authorities will issue you a letter or certificate certifying that you aren't naturalised in the US. Call the consulate to find out the correct contact to get that letter. -PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

King Tut Expedition
I am looking for the names of each expedition member of Dr Howard Carter's team that discovered the tomb of King Tut. Can anyone give me each of their names?Miamimason (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the ones who died from the "curse" were:
 * George Herbert, 5th Earl of Carnarvon
 * Sir William Garstin (cut down in his youth at a mere 77)
 * Arthur C. Mace
 * Mervyn Herbert
 * Richard Bethell
 * Sir Charles Cust
 * Clarityfiend (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The journalist H. V. Morton seems to have got himself unofficially attached to the team. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)