Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 July 28

= July 28 =

Morphological taxonomy of jokes
When you search online for a "joke database", what you find are relatively brief, haphazard lists of entries, in no particular order, organized (if you're lucky) according to broad thematic categories like "Irish" or "mother-in-law" which are usually irrelevant and inessential to the underlying humor. Folklorists have long organized stories into systematic taxonomies, according to shared features, motifs, etc. As a result, when you wish to look up a fairy tale, there's a straightforward way to do it. Why has the same sort of rigor never been applied to cataloguing jokes? L ANTZY T ALK 01:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it's impossible? As our Joke article implies, there is only one joke: that the universe always turns out to be different from what we expect it to be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Jokes are shorter in length. Their meaning is somewhat cryptic. You are pointing out above that "Irish" or "mother-in-law" as an organizing principle are "usually irrelevant and inessential to the underlying humor." Perhaps this disagreement as to their essential meaning frustrates "cataloguing" jokes. Bus stop (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There are people who study jokes in the same way that folklorists study tales; I'm not sure they've put their categorizations online, though. Google books turns up The Linguistic Analysis of Jokes which goes into some detail in providing a rigorous framework for talking about joke structure. There are lots of other things that come up when you Google Books search for "joke taxonomy" which implies there is a rather rich literature on jokes. It just might not be online. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is a breakdown of jokes by broad type (pun, practical joke, ethnic jokes, etc.) This page breaks down jokes into 7 types (page down about 2/3rds through the blog post) and also quotes a Scott Adams treatment of the subject as well.  Here is an actual scholarly article breaking down jokes taxonomically as Lantzy requested.  Here is an essay classifying jokes by their structure.  I typed "Types of jokes" into Google and got bored after the second page.  I'm sure anyone else could do that too.... -- Jayron  32  02:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems to be that you need multiple dimensions to classifying jokes. For example, a pun or slapstick could both be clean or both be blue.  You might also want to grade them on difficulty to understand.  Then there's the subject matter, like bosses, for example. StuRat (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that one could sort jokes in any way that suits one's fancy, as long as there is an underlying logic—an organizing principle. Bus stop (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * But that is the point: there is no ″organizing principle″ to jokes, other than that they fit into the category 'joke', as opposed to the category 'not-joke'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you even think to read some of the references supplied above before commenting, or is this itself an attempt at a joke? -- Jayron  32  02:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I did. None of them give any real indication of how you distinguish a 'joke' from a 'non-joke' as far as I can see, so they can be of little use for sub-categorisation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that distinguishing jokes from non-jokes isn't the issue here: as far as I can see, the issue is distinguishing some jokes from other jokes by identifying characteristics found throughout the first group but not at all in the second. Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would you have a "non-joke" in a taxonomy of jokes? APL (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as a joke someone might throw in one non-joke in a taxonomy of jokes. Bus stop (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but unless there is some means of separating 'jokes' from 'non-jokes', a taxonomy makes no sense. To quote from our taxonomy article: "Mathematically, a hierarchical taxonomy is a tree structure of classifications for a given set of objects. It is also named Containment hierarchy. At the top of this structure is a single classification, the root node, that applies to all objects". Until one can define the root ('Joke'), one cannot make further distinctions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong. We subdivide "information" many ways, but information scientists have never come up with a conclusive definition of "information" or a bright line to separate what is "information" from what is not "information".  Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ...As anyone who has ever had a debate with Bus stop will understand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My apologies to Andy for my impeccable logic on those rare occasions we've disagreed… Bus stop (talk) 10:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, but perhaps one could be both joke and not-joke at the same time. Like "AndyTheGrump is a joke" insofar as AndyTheGrump is worthy of ridicule.  However, since jokes are by definition a form of humor, and AndyTheGrump has no sense of humor, AndyTheGrump is also a not-joke.  Thus, simultaneously a joke and not-joke at the same time... -- Jayron  32  04:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We have a several articles on the classification and categorisation of humour - see Category:Humor research. A classic work is Freud's The Joke and Its Relation to the Unconscious. There is even an International Society for Humor Studies. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Another interesting article is In-joke as well as Category:In-jokes. Bus stop (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The book you need is Rationale of the Dirty Joke by Gershon Legman (and, with luck, the second book titled, No Laughing Matter, which is currently out of print (iirc). I do not doubt that it is the most thorough and scholarly (and heavy!) attempt at cataloguing jokes. Rather than developing an entirely new schema, Legman mostly makes use of the existing folkloric schemes to do the cataloguing. The one drawback to the volume(s) is that Legman was a capital "F" Freudian, so a lot of his analysis consists of strained attempts to link jokes to "penis envy", "the Oedipal complex" and other stuff you think about when you think of a stereotypical Freudian psychologist. I believe he mostly uses the Aarne system. Matt Deres (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine. I'll accept that is possible to compile a taxonomy of jokes. In fact, it is probably possible to compile many different taxonomies of jokes. Which then leads to the obvious question. How does one determine that one such taxonomy is any better than any other? How does one ascertain that any particular taxonomy isn't arbitrary? A taxonomy may be useful for the purposes of understanding the thought processes of the compiler, but I can see no way to determine if it has any particular relation to the subject matter. Still, taxoniomies can be fun, even if they are useless (and being fun is itself 'useful', presumably): I think we should leave the last word to Jorge Luis Borges, who revealed the Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge's Taxonomy, a list which divides animals into:

AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Those that belong to the emperor
 * Embalmed ones
 * Those that are trained
 * Suckling pigs
 * Mermaids (or Sirens)
 * Fabulous ones
 * Stray dogs
 * Those that are included in this classification
 * Those that tremble as if they were mad
 * Innumerable ones
 * Those drawn with a very fine Brush
 * Et cetera
 * Those that have just broken the flower vase
 * Those that, at a distance, resemble flies
 * All taxonomies are abitrary. They are not always useful.  Like you: arbitrarily not useful in answering the question for the OP.  However, merely because you choose to reference an unuseful taxonomy doesn't mean that all taxonomies aren't useful.  Like you again: Just because you as a single example of someone answering this question doesn't provide a useful answer doesn't mean that, by extension, no person could answer the OP's question.  Likewise, providing examples of bad taxonomies doesn't in itself deny the possibility of constructing a useful taxonomy.  -- Jayron  32  14:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Nobody is claiming that the taxonomy of jokes would be a "natural" category, e.g. one that presents itself as being made by nature itself. (Species, for example, might be a natural category, but that's debatable.) That doesn't mean having a taxonomy can't be useful. The first Linnean taxonomy for plants was totally self-consciously arbitrary, but it served the purpose of letting people in different places figure out a good way to tell each other, "hey, we have the same plant over here, but we call it XYZ rather than ZYX." Which aside from being really cool is also the first step in making any kind of systematic study. Saying "it can't be categorized at all" is just false, false, false. You can categorize anything. Whether the categorization is useful is generally the most important question. I see no reason to assume you can't make a useful categorization of jokes. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The most natural categorization of jokes would involve two basic categories: funny and not funny. The former then could be divided into subcategories such as: mildly funny, quite funny, very funny, hilarious... — Kpalion(talk) 05:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with that is that it's highly subjective (different people like different types of jokes). On the other hand, whether the joke is about some subject (say blondes, for example) is more objective. StuRat (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Citing the Federal Reporter
I'd like to cite a ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana from the Federal Reporter, a publication of which I'd never heard until looking around at http://ftp.resource.org, the source for the document. Since the text is also available from Lexis-Nexis, I tried getting a citation from there, but it would only export in a format that my computer can't accept. However, it did tell me that the opinion went from page 1112 to page 1117. Do I guess rightly that it would be <999 F.2d 1112-1117>? Nyttend (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Full citation including title (which can be omitted if given in text), and assuming no subsequent history (e.g., affirmed or reversed on appeal), would be United States v. Gerber, 999 F.2d 1112 (7th Cir. 1993). John M Baker (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And if you want to cite a certain page number (for a quote or a proposition of law), you'd say United States v. Gerber, 999 F.2d 1112, __ (7th Cir. 1993). [Filling in the blank with the page number.] Though the pagination of that version of the document is strange - don't know what was going on there. There is no subsequent history, so don't worry about that. (The Supreme Court denied certiorari, but it's far enough out that you are not required to put it in the citation.) And by the way, the "publication" of the Federal Reporter mainly exists in a virtual sense these days - basically all legal research is done online so it functions more as a database identifier than anything else. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

ICJ Statute again (article 54)
Sorry for asking for helps about ICJ Statute again. Article 54 of the Statute prescribes:

"'1.	When, subject to the control of the Court, the agents, counsel, and advocates have completed their presentation of the case, the President shall declare the hearing closed."

"'2.	The Court shall withdraw to consider the judgment."

"'3.	The deliberations of the Court shall take place in private and remain secret. '"

I don't understand that what shall be withdrawn by the Court or from what the Court shall withdraw? In procedural law, "withdrawal" is an act of removing certain pleading, such as motion, plaint, request etc., from consideration. Or does Article 54, paragraph 2, mean that the Court shall withdraw itself from everything in order to further make a judgment? Thank you so much. --Aristitleism (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely it just means that the Court (i.e. the relevant officials) move from a public space (the courtroom in which the case is publicly conducted) to a private one where their discussions cannot be overheard by anyone else? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.2 (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, one of the meanings for the verb "withdraw" given in a dictionary is to "retreat or retire", in this case to a private place of deliberation. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 12:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * And the ladies of the household used to withdraw to the (with)drawing room after dinner, leaving the gentlemen to port and cigars at the table. Bielle (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Withdraw is not a legal term. It means to change rooms. Sleigh (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

special needs/developmental delays
which conditions cause excessive, difficult to control drooling and release of mucus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.10.10 (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Whichever ones your doctor tells you do. -- Jayron  32  14:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia Reference Desk cannot provide medical advice. However, if you are just looking for general information, we have a articles on drooling and hypersalivation. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "release of mucus" from where? --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Calomel is a poisonous mercury compound which 19th century medical doctors loved to dose their patients with as a quack treatment for anything from cancer or heart disease to infections to broken limbs. They would dose the patient in increasing amounts until they saw excessive, difficult to control drooling. It also caused teeth to fall out, besides general poisoning. This is not medical advice, just a link to one historical cause of excessive drooling. Edison (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * any condition that increases parasympathetic nervous system activity will result in increased salivary and mucous production. So the use of certain cholinergic drugs would have the effects you describe. - Nunh-huh 19:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't this debt crisis "solution" cause massive inflation?
Over at CNN in this article, the guy says one theoretical (though admittedly extremely unlikely) thing the president could do, seeing as there are laws limiting the amount of new paper money that can be created, is get the treasury to make a couple $1 trillion platinum coins, deposit them in the federal reserve, and write checks on them. Wouldn't that cause an inflation mess just like making the paper money? 20.137.18.50 (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a joke. There is no such thing as a law limiting money made from a thin cellulose substance but allowing unregulated production of money made from a metallic substance. Regardless, adding money to a system decreases the value of money in the system. It doesn't how or why you add money to the system. -- k a i n a w &trade; 17:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Not such a joke, if a Constitutional law professor is to be believed: http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/28/balkin.obama.options/Edison (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The "little known statute" is here in section k. Note that section k is bound by the previous sections - especially section a which states what denominations are allowed. Taking statutes out of context is a common law joke. -- k a i n a w &trade; 20:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My favorite "law joke" made by taking statute out of context is the one that notes how the Constitution of the United States repeatedly says "Congress shall pass no law". Apparently, the current congress agrees. Blueboar (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Issuing a few trillion dollar platinum coins, or giving the Federal Reserve an "exploding option" or just announcing the debt ceiling law is unconstitutional are all on the table as tricks if Congress continues to be irresponsible. Having told Obama to spend money, now they refuse borrow to pay the bills. The 14th Amendment requires the government not to default on debt payments. Edison (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) Creation of physical coins/bills would surely be pointless, since nowadays most money is only represented by electronic records - about 90% currently in the USA according to that linked article. Arbitrarily increasing the numbers in those records is a recognised economic tactic, described as Quantitative easing (and in part is intended to cause slightly higher inflation, which can be a good thing), but to my limited, non Usaian understanding doing this would be irrelevant to the current problem, which is the need to increase the US Government's arbitrary ceiling on its public debt. I leave it to more knowledgable responders to address the point properly. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.2 (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)-
 * Are you aware that Usaian is derogative? Is that your intention?Quest09 (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Wut? Assuming you mean 'derogatory', who considers it so, on what basis, where, and since when? It's a pretty handy short adjective for specifying something from the USA, rather than all Americans, when there is likely to be confusion. It is also sometimes used as a noun to describe people from the USA, in similar circumstances, although here it was simply an adjective clarifying that the writer was not speaking from the perspective of or from the USA. Words certainly can turn out to have unexpected derogatory meanings, but I struggle to see how this one could. 86.164.73.187 (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Quest09, I was not intending to be derogative, was not aware that anyone would consider the term derogative, and question whether that is true. I have seen it used both self-referentially by US citizens and by non-USA citizens on other sites where no offense was evidently intended or taken, and not infrequently refer to myself as an Ukian or Brit on these Desks and elsewhere. I have always interpreted all such usages as being informally friendly and useful alternatives to the more formal, longer and sometimes ambiguous alternatives. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.43 (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I live in USA and have never heard the slightest suggestion that "USAian" is "derogative". (Or even derogatory.) I know many USA nationals who use that term or other close variants regularly without any hint of hidden meaning.  In fact, it's usually used in an attempt to be "Politically Correct" because, strictly speaking, "American" could include anybody living on either American continent. (This is especially true if you're speaking of non-humans. "American Plants", for example, need not grow in USA.)
 * Is this some right-wing anti-PC thing? Do you have a reference?  APL (talk) 09:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I got it wrong, my fault, sorry. Indeed, I had a ref, but, as I know now, not a reliable one. See anyway USAian and USian for two cases of Internet research gone wrong.Quest09 (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't find it derogatory per se, but it does suggest a chip on the shoulder of the speaker. The only common meaning of American in English, in most contexts, is of or pertaining to the United States.  In certain contexts, of or pertaining to the Americas is also available, but this meaning is clearly less common.  Speakers who decline to use the word in the commonly understood way give the impression that they object to the language as it stands, and it seems likely that they do so because of some sort of animus towards the United States or its citizens.  I'm sure that impression is not always correct, but in my experience it's a reasonably reliable inference in most cases. --Trovatore (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's surely paranoia. A language pedant may be concerned about the common way residents of the USA use the language, but may like every other aspect (or at least many other aspects) of American life. To read inferred criticism of language usage as "some sort of animus towards the United States or its citizens" is hardly sensible. It always intrigues me that so many people from the country with the most power act so defensively. HiLo48 (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is certainly possible, for an abstract hypothesized language pedant. It is not my experience that they are the most common people to talk like that. --Trovatore (talk) 02:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, In fairness, I've only seen it in typed, online writing, so it's popularity may have less to do with being a pedant, and more to do with saving a couple of characters.  I like the pedant explanation better though. Especially when the term is not being used to describe humans. APL (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If we did have massive inflation, then all the debt would shrink to nothing, problem solved. 92.29.124.70 (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

O. J. Simpson case
I still don't get how the case end up that way. Was he actually a murderer? If he is then why the jury found no guilty. If he is not then who actually killed the 2 victims?Trongphu (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems useful to answer here in generalities: US law (and that of many other nations) operates on the basis of the presumption of innocence; the legal burden of proof rests on the prosecution and not the defendant. From there, the legal system (at least in the US) has only two real possibilities: conviction, where the court finds the defendant guilty, and acquittal, where the court does not find the defendant guilty.  Note particularly that acquittal is not a statement that the court has positively found the defendant innocent: he is presumed such, not proven such.  Note also that the court verdict need not reflect reality; it merely represents the finding that the legal system will use.  So, back to specifics: Simpson was acquitted; therefore, in the eyes of the legal system, he is not a murderer.  As there has been no conviction for those murders, the legal system does not know who the killer is.  Personal beliefs and speculation vary widely. &mdash; Lomn 19:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The legal system does not know who the killer is beyond a reasonable doubt, but apparently does by a preponderance of the evidence, given that OJ lost the civil case. --Trovatore (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Right — it's worth remembering that there were two cases, but they had different standards of guilt based on the fact that one was a criminal case and one was a civil case. From a non-criminal court perspective, there is really no doubt that O.J. did it, something which the civil case verdict reaffirmed. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * O. J. Simpson murder case might be of interest. Albacore (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As i read the the whole case. The prosecutor has proven a lot of points that Simpson did it. How can he even be innocent?174.20.71.229 (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He does not have to be innocent in order to be acquitted.  The jurors themselves may have believed it was likely he was the murderer, but decided that there was reasonable doubt based on the information it received during the trial.  O.J. even wrote a book, long after the trial, titled If I Did It which discusses how he would have committed the crime, without actually admitting to doing it. -- Daniel  00:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also bear in mind the trial lasted over 8 months. Whatever you read, I somewhat doubt you really read the whole case as represented in the 8 month trial. (The jury only spent 4 hours delibirating suggesting they were already fairly convinced the case hadn't been proven beyond resonable doubt, either that or they just wanted it to end.) Another thing if you read anything which wasn't part of the original case, whether because it was excluded, not available at the time or simply considered irrelevent, you also clearly aren't considering the whole case but stuff beyond the case which the jury did not (or should not) have considered. Nil Einne (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There was plenty of evidence, if they took it at face value. They obviously thought the behavior of law enforcement was so suspicious, the chain of custody of physical evidence so sloppy (if not fraudulent), the testimony of some important law enforcement officers so hard to believe, that they didn't take it at face value, and as I recall I didn't think they were totally out of line on that point.
 * I remember one member of the public, interviewed later, saying "the police framed a guilty man". --Trovatore (talk) 02:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On that point, one more thing to bear in mind is reading probably doesn't have the same effect as seeing a police officer say one thing and then being presented with evidence suggesting he lied/committed perjury. More so if you're already aware of some details of the case. In other words, even if you did read the complete jury transcript for the 8+ month trial, it probably wouldn't have the same effect as having been on the jury during the trial Nil Einne (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The verdict was a result of poor instruction upon and application of the principle of reasonable doubt, as well as of Ito's allowing an implied positive defense (drug dealers did it) without requiring entering evidence in support of that supposition. Given the full context of the evidence it was unreasonable to conclude anything but that Simpson was guilty of first degree murder. The fact that one could, with a fertile faculty for fantasy, imagine how each bit of evidence could have been faked is not reasonable doubt--it is imaginary doubt. The problem is epistemological, and widespread in the modern judicial system. μηδείς (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Juries (in the US at least) don't need a reason to acquit. A judge can overturn a conviction on the grounds that the standard of proof wasn't met, but can't overturn an acquittal on the grounds that it was met. It could easily be that all the jurors agreed that OJ's guilt had been proven, which meant they had to choose between (a) jailing a proven murderer (and tacitly approving the actions of the LAPD) or (b) reprimanding the LAPD (and letting a proven murderer loose). They might have decided that (b) was the more socially responsible choice. -- BenRG (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Which would be an example of jury nullification. (not commenting on whether this was the case, just providing a link for the original poster.)Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not nullification as I ordinarily understand it, which has to do with a jury refusing to convict because they don't agree with the law, or sometimes because they sympathize with the defendant's actions in the particular circumstances even if they don't want to overturn the law in general. It's related, though. --Trovatore (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like the US need a Not proven verdict, like the Scots. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? That's what our not guilty verdict is, really, so it seems redundant.  What you could argue for is to allow juries to make a finding of factually innocent, in exceptional cases where it is clear that the defendant really did not do it.  Extending the speculation a little further, such a verdict could then forclose the possibility of a civil suit on the same facts.  But I don't think it would really work, because the rules of evidence are different in criminal cases, so a criminal jury could be misled into thinking there's nothing there when really some evidence had to be excluded. --Trovatore (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sulla
According to our article on Lucius Cornelius Sulla, he had a daughter I believed named Cornelia Fausta. Did she die young? Who might have sent Sulla a consolatory letter upon her death?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * She married the politician Titus Annius Milo, so she must have reached at least the teenage years (the average age for a Roman girl getting married was apparently 13 or 14). --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In the article it is even stated that she married Milo in 54 BC, and Sulla died in 78 BC, which means she must have lived to at least 24 years of age, and was most likely some years older since she was daughter of the third wife of Sulla, and he had four wives in all. So no, she did not die young and she died decades after Sulla. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Anybody or nobody may have sent him a consolatory letter. Do we even know if the Romans had such a custom? Their ideas about death were quite different from ours - see Roman funerals and burial. They might have written an epitaph? Anyway, my reading of it is that if anyone would have done, it would likely have been a member of the family. --Dweller (talk) 10:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It was a major literary genre in Roman times, see Consolatio Literary Genre. Seneca particularly excelled in it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The OP asked about people sending letters, not making eulogies. I didn't know that this had developed into letter-sending... and if it did, is there any evidence it developed as early in Roman history as Sulla's time? --Dweller (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * From the article "...its origins date back to the fifth century BC" and it "...is a broad literary genre encompassing various forms of consolatory speeches, essays, poems, and personal letters". It is not a clearly definable genre though, since the public sphere and publication is not easy to delineate in Roman times, so personal letters and literary genre tend to overlap. But perhaps one can compare them in some ways with the modern condolence card (not the content, which of course is quite simple compared to the ancient examples, many of which reads like philosophical essays, but rather in the intent of the medium), which is both a personal message but can also be meant for a wider audience. For example it is quite clear that many personal letters, like the those of Cicero, Pliny the Younger, Horatius and Seneca was also meant for a wider audience, but that doesn't mean that they didn't also function as personal letters in their own right. As you can see from many of the examples mentioned in the article, there are also numerous examples of persons outside of the close family sending consolation letters to friends or relatives of friends (Seneca, Pliny, Ovid, Plutarch etc.). --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Buckingham palace
What do the 450 staff at Buckpal actually do? 92.24.133.177 (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This site should help you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

So they are all looking after the Royal Family? 92.24.133.177 (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * According to the site above, there are 1,200 staff members (450 funded by UK taxpayers, who apparently have to vent their anger at the WK RD.)88.8.79.148 (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of my compatriots would be happier if visiting heads of state were taken to McDonalds for a Happy Meal. Alansplodge (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are they all UK based? They seemed to be so forthright in their views that I always got the impression they weren't (I meant enough republicans here, none prepared to burn the palace down, so to speak). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Yes, McDonalds, a hallowed British culinary institution. I'm sure Mrs Beeton would have recommended it.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  21:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Take them down to the local takeaways for some Fish and chips? Nil Einne (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, what do the 1200 or 750 staff actually do? Seems rather a lot to look after one family, albeit extended. 92.29.113.104 (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather than persisting with asking random people here the same question, why not look at the site that gives you the answers? For example, "The Master of the Household’s Department... is responsible for all hospitality, catering and housekeeping arrangements for official and private entertaining at all the Royal residences. Whether it is a lunch for two or a banquet for 800, the Master of the Household’s Department organises everything, from the guest lists and seating plans to the preparation and service of the meal on the day...."  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That only accounts for 250 staff. What about the other 950, 500, or 200 people? 92.29.113.104 (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Largest component is security and facilities management. The estate is quite large and given the age needs a fair amount of quite manual work to keep it going.  Other than that there is the usual element of running a business; finance, HR, commercial, ICT, admin.
 * From experience of a job I did with a client a couple of years ago that had some dealings with the household, they're woefully inefficient so there is some scope for rationalisation. Not as much as one might hope given the facilities management element.
 * Also worth noting that the facilities and security encompass the various other properties as well.
 * ALR (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

How do the staffing levels compare with up-market hotels? Which chains of hotels have similar numbers of staff? 92.29.113.104 (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

oldest website
What is the oldest website on the Internet? Neptunekh2 (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

See here (http://info.cern.ch/) "The first web page address was http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/TheProject.html, which centred on information regarding the WWW project." ny156uk (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Flashback
Hi. What are some classic books (novels, not plays) or short stories that handle flashbacks very well OR in an unexpected and remarkable way? I know this is an opinion-like uestion that you don't like having, but I just need some ideas to get myself going. :appreciation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.111.11.75 (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's a start at flashback. Bielle (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * TV Tropes has its characteristic cornucopia of examples at its main Flashback article. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 20:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Might I recommend The Sound and the Fury by Faulkner. Also Gravity's Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon.  Both are written in a sort of "stream of consciousness" style and make use of flashbacks as part of that style.  -- Jayron  32  06:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Use of Weapons by Iain M Banks uses an unusual chronological ordering to bring the story to it's climax. Astronaut (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Many novels by Kurt_Vonnegut tell the story of one person in different time frames. They are definitely more in the science fiction realm, however.  Amy Tan has also written several books that switch character and historical points of view: for example, in one chapter a woman will interact with her mother, and then in the next chapter we will see her mother's childhood from her own point of view.12.186.80.1 (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

13th century Scotland
I was wondering what the months were called during the high middle ages in Scotland, around 1226. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by McHell8 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Julian calendar was used throughout Europe in the middle ages. It had the same months as the current Gregorian calender but new year was at the end of March and there were no leap years. Some notes here about the pronunciation of months in the Scots language. Whether the spellings that they use are authentic, or relate to the Early Scots used in the 13th century, I'm not sure. Alansplodge (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There certainly are leap years in the Julian Calendar: slightly more (3/400 years) than in the Gregorian calendar, in fact. --ColinFine (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're quite right; I was just reading my own link and realised that I'd got it wrong. Also new year was at the Annunciation on 25 March - Scotland moved new year to 1 January in 1600. Alansplodge (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Me again; Medieval Scottish Calendar and Holidays might also help. Alansplodge (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)