Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 March 12

= March 12 =

How binding is an agreement to sell a house?
Now that the whole situation is safely hypothetical...

Suppose you (as the buyer) have signed an agreement to buy a house, but the seller dies before closing. Is the agreement to sell legally binding on the seller's executor/heirs/whoever? --Carnildo (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In what legal jurisdiction does your hypothetical take place? Edison (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hypothetically, the United States, but I'd be interested in other jurisdictions as well. --Carnildo (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You would need to consult the contract itself (for such clauses as "successors and assigns") and a local real-property expert. The only answer we can give here is "it depends." Bielle (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This is fundamentally a legal question. We can't answer these. Note too that "in the United States" means 51+ jurisdictions... there's no way we can provide any semblance of a reasonable or legal answer. Shadowjams (talk) 09:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You should look at the Contract law article as it addresses this sort of question in a general sense. That said, a particular jurisdiction may have different rules that override the general common law rule, which is again why we can't make generalizations about the law or answer legal-fact questions like this. Shadowjams (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In the UK; Scotland does have very different regulations than the rest of the UK, on this subject. You may find that the answer is yes, there; but maybe no in the rest of the UK!  MacOfJesus (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Museums, Libraries, and Zoos
I've looking for a word to go in the blank: Ministry of _________. The word is preferably a single-word, and encompasses Museums, Libraries, Zoos, etc. but NOT general education such as schools and colleges, and should not sound too Orwellian. I thought "Culture" but I decided it doesn't really fit. This is for an hypothetical government game. Thank you. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ministry of Field Trips ? :-) StuRat (talk) 06:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Cultural Record? Royor (talk) 07:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ministry of Preservation? Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ministry of Heritage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.2.26.146 (talk) 08:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ministry of GLAM -- galleries, libraries, archives, museums. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, why have you decided that "Ministry of Culture" doesn't fit? We even have an article "Ministry of Culture", which lists some alternative names, if you need one. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I would expect the "Ministry of Culture" to exclude zoos and include things like opera houses. StuRat (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I could be mistaken, but, given the list in the original post, I would expect that opera houses would be counted in "etc."... After all, only education was explicitly excluded... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So, OP, what's the common thread in museums, libraries and zoos? What other places would belong in that grouping - and why? Museums and zoos are places you go to and, for the most part, just look at what's on offer.  Libraries are not; you go there to either browse or select a pre-identified book, then either read it there or take it home to read.  What connects libraries to museums and zoos?  They're all places of learning, I guess.  You can also learn things at an airport, a shopping mall, a brothel, at work, on the bus ..., so this is about a particular kind of learning.  But you don't want any reference to education.  Hmmm.   --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  22:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not the OP, but I'm guessing that they all have a mission of preservation (hence my suggestion above). It's true that libraries may also lend out, but not all do, so I see that as an orthogonal property. Some zoos are for entertainment only, but I'm assuming that zoos in this context would concentrate on conservation/preservation (our article on zoos has some discussion about this). Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ministry of Snakes, Sonnets, and Sculpture. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think one common thread is that these are places where people of all ages go voluntarily to learn more... as opposed to schools, which are not voluntary and are open only to children. I vote for "Ministry of Lifelong Learning."
 * They also tend to be underheated. I'm thinking, "Ministry of Chilly Walks". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Next door to the "Ministry of Silly Walks", right? Bluefist  talk  13:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Many nations have a ministry of tourism. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ministry of Recreation? Ministry of Leisure? --DI (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

NSDAP POW's
What happened to all the Nazi soldiers during the end of World War II? Were they taken as prisoners, and if so, where to, and when were they released? Were they not captured at all? Were they gassed as revenge? Were they put on trial? Did it depend on their acceptance of denazification? And any other related info. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.2.26.146 (talk) 08:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally take a look at Prisoner of war. More specifically look at the many offshoot articles that are linked in the WW2 section of that article. Classically the POW classification was akin to slavery; since the 1600s that view has generally evolved to require the release of soldiers after the end of hostilities. The Geneva Convention is the more modern version of this understanding. That said, the Nuremberg trials dealt with officers and other culpable individuals in the German military at the end of World War 2. It should also be mentioned that there were similar atrocities on all sides, particularly in Russia and Japan (Unit 731). Undoubtedly there are issues with the western allied powers too... I believe that article's listed in the POW article. But none of that should undermine the sheer barbarity of the Axis' treatment of POWs, in comparison to the western allied powers. Shadowjams (talk) 09:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Barbarity? That's a funny word. A barbarian is held to be a rude, crude, unwashed and disorganized person (who will burn, rape and plunder for his own particular profit). Say what you want but none of the Axis suffered of these flaws. They (Germans in particular) were (more-or-less) organized, radical, fanatical (Japanese in particular), merciless, ruthless, cruel, etc. 'Barbarity' may be an unwise description. Flamarande (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't consider that treatment barbaric I'm not sure what you would. Shadowjams (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I consider that treatment cruel, criminal, ruthless and merciless (etc) but not barbaric. These crimes were not done by a horde of screaming unwashed of barbarians, who fought for their personal glory and raped and burned for their own individual pleasure. These crimes were largely planned by high spheres of power, well-organized by the bureaucracy and mercilessly carried out by ruthless organizations. There was nothing barbaric about it, it was way crueller than that. Flamarande (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You have perhaps not noticed, Flamarande, that words are capable of having more than one meaning. The OED s.v "Barbarity" (2.a) says "Barbarous or savage cruelty, such as is alien to civilization; inhumanity. (The usual sense.)", with citations from 1685. --ColinFine (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Calling Germans "barbaric" has a long tradition of about 2,000 years. What they did during the first half of the XX century just confirmed this stereotype. Moral lesson learnt: don't behave like a barbarian if you don't want to be called barbarian. 212.169.178.229 (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The first sentence seems to be an unproven mistake. Flamarande (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Millions of German and Austrian soldiers were taken POW by the U.S., Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union. The POWs taken by the western powers were held for awhile but not that long unless they were senior officers.  The Soviet Union held onto their German POWs until the mid-1950s and many German POWs perished during captivity in the USSR.  After release, the former POWs tended to return to their homes, although many opted not to return to areas under Soviet occupation. W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, many of the ordinary soldiers (as opposed to those in the SS and certain other special units) were not "Nazis" at all.. AnonMoos (talk) 10:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you asked them after the war, hardly anyone was a Nazi, or if they were it was just because they had to join the party to keep their job or to go to college. Edison (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Oskar Schindler was certainly a member of the Nazi party. Why do you think he joined the party? Because it was simply advantageous. If you wanted to be promoted (or get government contracts) in Nazi Germany it was advantageous to be a member. It's the same story in all single-party coutries. How many members do you believe the Communist Part of North Korea has? A couple of millions? Do you really believe that the majority of them are fierce communists? Flamarande (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was simply advantageous to be a Nazi, to seize Jewish properties, and to plunder the conquered countries. And that's the problem: this lack of moral thinking, of pretending that they are not guilty. 212.169.178.229 (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It was highly advantageous to be a member of the Nazi party in Nazi Germany for a lot of reasons be it professional, economical or political (notice that Oskar Schindler is a fine example of someone who joined the party for the advantages but then went against its ideology). But the true problem is to believe that Germans were somehow exceptional. One should learn the background and circumstances of Hitler's rise and fall. It serves of no purpose to simply believe that it couldn't happen "here" (wherever 'here' is). The truth is that Hitler and his ideology can happen anywhere and at any time. It's only a matter of gathering the right circumstances: a desperate majority, a wide disbelief in democracy which pushes the voter to the extreme parties and huge amounts of propaganda. Afterwards you get the ppl drunk with jobs and later on with victories. Flamarande (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * More information at Forced labor of Germans after World War II and Forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union and German prisoners of war in the Soviet Union. Apparently 1,300,000 thought to have been taken prisoner by the Soviets are still unaccounted for. On the other hand, 24,000 German POWs in the UK wouldn't go home and settled here instead, most famously the ex-Fallschirmjäger and Manchester City goalkeeper Bert Trautmann, who played to the end of the 1956 FA Cup Final, despite having suffered a broken neck 17 minutes earlier. 109.170.169.29 (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Obafemi Awolowo and the man-made Biafra famine
I just blundered onto the topic, and I'm seeing wildly different accounts of this Obafemi Awolowo. The Wikipedia article offers a very rosy picture, matched by a glowing Kofi Annan eulogy. Yet I also see several sites such as:


 * "Nigeria had launched a blockade on Biafra and Chief Obafemi Awolowo declared "All is fair in war, and starvation is one of the weapons of war. I don't see why we should feed our enemies fat in order for them to fight us harder" (Chief Obafemi Awolowo, Financial Timesï»¿ London, 6/26/1969; Daily Telegraph, 6/27/69). Awolowo was the Vice Chairman of the Federal Military Executive Council of the Nigerian state when he made this statement.


 * Obafemi Awolowo fanatically championed Nigeria's notorious "Starvation as a legitimate weapon/quick kill" war strategy on Biafra, which resulted in a huge percent of the total Biafran casualty, especially the death of children in their millions."

I haven't tracked down the original microfilm articles, however, and the online sources I've seen wouldn't pass Wikipedia standards.

Now I don't think there's any dispute that Awolowo was in a position of power in Nigeria at a time when Senator Kennedy said that there 10,000 children starving per day in Biafra, after these people were displaced from food-producing areas and (bureaucratically) denied aid by the Nigeria which refused the Red Cross permission. However, the starvation quote seems usually attributed to "the Nigerian government", "Nigerian officials", etc.

Can anyone clarify whether Awolowo actually delivered the starvation quote, and point toward the most reliable sources for his role in the starvation itself? Previously asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa 18:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC) Wnt (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

How are proposed changes to pension contracts legal, UK?
Not a request for legal advice, but I am just curious. I thought that the pension retirement age and the final-salary status of a pension would be something that formed part of the contract between the employee and the employer. So by what mechanism will the proposed changes take place? Will there be an Act Of Parliament that says that these contracts are over-ruled by the Act, or what? Its rathjer like an employer suddenly deciding to pay you less or make you work longer hours, both different from what you had agreed to. Thanks 92.24.181.168 (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * When the Government is said to be changing "the retirement age" that just means the age at which someone becomes eligible for the state pension. That doesn't affect private pensions. Similarly the Government doesn't influence the final-salary status of private pensions either.  There is also the matter of the entitlement of government workers (direct employees of HMG; mostly civil servants), both for final-salary and retirement-age matters; that is a contract, and the extent to which the government can vary that is limited by the terms of that contract; they can impose terms on new employees, and negotiate with existing workers (often collectively, with unions or similar groups) to get an agreement for a change. HMG doesn't directly dictate the terms and conditions of the employees of its contractors or of local government, but as funding flows from HMG to both, it has some influence over them. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 14:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A caveat to the above: there may be complexities due to how HMRC treats payouts from private pensions, and I don't know whether any age-related thresholds apply (and whether these vary in line with the state retirement age). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 15:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is an "annual allowance" on how much pension you can accrue in a year (£50,000 lump sum equivalent) before getting taxed on it and a "lifetime allowance" on how much pension you can accrue in your lifetime (£1.8m life time equivalent). I don't believe they are connected with the state pension age in any way. --Tango (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As Finlay says, the changes in the state pension age don't affect occupational pensions (except perhaps for "bridging pensions" which some schemes with normal retirment ages below the state pension age pay to people before their state pension kicks in). However, even if it did affect occupational pensions it wouldn't break any contracts because, generally, when there are big changes in pensions legislation it only applies to pension accrued after the act comes into force. For example, in 1997 there was a change in the law that required pensions in payment to increase by at least the lesser of inflation and 5% each year (previously there was no requirement to increase pensions in payment, other than Guaranteed Minimum Pensions). If, for example, you worked for a company from 1990 to 2004 then half your pension would be under the old rules and half under the new rules (a lot of schemes provide benefits that are more generous than the statutory minimums, of course). --Tango (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

So will a) none of these proposals make any difference to the pension t&c that an employee has already, but only apply to new employment contracts for future employees, or will b) the terms and conditions of existing pension contracts change but only from the date the proposals come into effect, or c) the terms and conditions will be back dated to the date when the employee started work? Thanks 92.15.8.206 (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They won't make any difference at all to anyone as far as occupational pensions are concerned. The change to the state pension age is just that, a change to the age you can start claiming your state pension. It makes no difference to other pensions. (There have been some recent changes from using RPI to CPI as the measure of inflation - that change does affect some occupational pensions, but only increases and revaluations that happen after the change, past increases and revaluations are unaffected.) --Tango (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm still confused, but never mind. 92.15.26.91 (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

nudity vs clothing
If humans are born nude, why clothing is considered the social norm? Why public nudity is outlawed and not accepted by the society? --Naturist soldier (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Which society? The norms vary greatly. See our article on nudity for some examples. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Clothes are functional, they offer protection, warmth, they have pockets to carry things, they look nice. The reason they are the norm is due to modesty; do you really want to live in a society where boners are visible?AerobicFox (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Protection" can be broken down to protection from sunburn and injury. There's also a protection from disease aspect, as one naked person sitting where another sat can spread pinworms, for example.  Loose fitting, thin, white clothing can also protect from heat due to sunlight.  In a dry environment, clothes can also help to prevent drying of the skin.  In a moist environment, sitting on certain surfaces nude, like vinyl, can damage the skin.


 * Clothes also help to tell us who is what. How would you identify a nude police officer or store clerk ?


 * I believe that people's lack of body hair evolved in conjunction with us starting to wear clothes. There are advantages to being relatively hairless, like some protection from certain parasites, and not staying wet as long after you swim, but these are outweighed by the disadvantages (like a lack of effective temperature control), unless you wear clothes to fix those.


 * Also note that "clothes" aren't unique to humans. A snail's shell serves many of the same purposes (although it compares more precisely with body armor).  StuRat (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * We're also born covered in blood and attached to an umbilical cord. Not exactly the way anybody would want to spend the rest of his or her life. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "If God had meant for us to be nudists, we all would have been born buck naked." StuRat (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure our OP is comfortable with the idea of clothes for safety purposes. The interesting aspect is the clothes for modesty purposes. Clothes don't assist one's safety when swimming casually in a public place. In fact, they get in the way. As a high school teacher, it depresses me every year at the school swimming sports watching boys trying to swim fast in baggy board shorts. But most jurisdictions outlaw nudity there. Why? HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nudity is a taboo. Every society has taboos on things like sex (no homosexuality), language (no swearing by women), food (no eating fish) and so on. Taboos often don't make much objective sense. Nudity is one of the most-common taboos. Almost every society, excluding the extremely primative and the post-modern, has nudity taboos, even if they only require a penis sheath for men. Not being an anthropologist, I can't hazard a guess why nudity is such a common taboo around the world. But it being so common, I don't think we can brush it off as weird. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Clothing can do a lot of things, but it is primarily designed to be a class distinction. In an office, clothing designates your job level. In a restaurant, clothing defines your lifestyle, income, and education. All in all, clothing divides people into groups. That is why so many schools require uniforms. The best alternative would be a completely nude school - which would only be exciting to the students for a few days. But, people can't handle the idea of naked students, so a uniform is required to try and remove ideas of social strata. Of course, it fails. Students are not stupid enough to think everyone wearing the same uniform is equal. -- k a i n a w &trade; 01:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The radical Summerhill School, founded by educational pioneer A. S. Neill. used to be famous for taking a relaxed view of clothing or the lack thereof. Whether they continue in today's "child protection" obsessed world, I don't know. Alansplodge (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Do they really wear board shorts for competitive swimming? That's bizarre.  Are Speedos not allowed then?  Students who wore them would have a noticeable advantage. --Trovatore (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * These aren't wealthy kids. Usually the only swimwear they own is boardies. That's the preferred choice if only one is possible. Which brings me to the obvious aspect of clothing - Fashion. Right now, round these parts, speedos are out, board shorts are in. And there is no way the fashion industry is going to encourage nudity. HiLo48 (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society." --Mark Twain. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mark Twain never met Madonna. (For the younger crowd, think Lady Gaga, except nakeder.) --Trovatore (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Pity. According to this, they'd have been 89% intellectually compatible.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  10:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Somebody told me this morning that the way to ensure you are cooking bacon and eggs at the right temperature is to do it naked. (I felt this critical information just had to be added to this discussion.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Because Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. --Dweller (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact it was the clothes that gave them away, god asks them "who told you that you were naked?"

Mental state of writers
What sort of mental state do writers of great literature tend to be in when writing? Would they typically be concentrating perfectly, with the words flowing in a sort of trance, or would they more likely come up with some ok stuff and gradually perfect it? If they wrote a paragraph in their heads, would they be able to remember it, considering it the one "right" way to express the thought, or would they just as likely get confused when trying to put it down on paper? It&#39;s been emotional (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It will, of course, vary, but I suspect that most write down a first draft, then revise it many times, until they are happy with it. They may revise it as they write it, or go back when finished.  There are many rough drafts available of works of literature which show this process, giving us an insight into the writing process. StuRat (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

"Would not your butt, by any other name, stink as bad ?" - WS           a rose                       smell as sweet  StuRat (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It varies all the way across the gamut. Some writers think it all out ahead and never revise; others start by outlining and then build the final product by increments. Thomas Aquinas had such a strong memory that he is said to have compensated for the slow speed of scribes in his day by dictating multiple books at the same time. Vladimir Nabokov, on the other hand, wrote each sentence on a note card and then continually rearranged them until he was satisfied. Looie496 (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * ...by dictating multiple books at the same time...? Wouldn't that just make it harder for the scribes, if they were already struggling with the first book? --  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  02:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * He had a whole team of scribes, each working on a different thing. The problem is that using medieval techniques it could take a few minutes to write down a single sentence. Looie496 (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Why is that ? Did they actually write it down directly as calligraphy, rather than scribble it down, then later rewrite it in fancy form ? StuRat (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the help. I wasn't surprised to find a lot of variety, but it helps to know something of the range of it. Stu, I don't know the exact answer to your question, but paper (or whatever they used) was always expensive, so I wouldn't be surprised if the main consideration was capital rather than labour. It&#39;s been emotional (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Elitism of oxbridge
How elite are Oxford and Cambridge universities in selecting students, and recruiting professors? I've heard that they take the cream of the crop for their academic staff, which is why they produce so many Nobel Prizes, but is this true, and do they attract them with money or the prestige of the campus? As for the students, what percentile of school-leavers would you typically have to be in to get accepted? I know there is more to it than just your marks, but it seems to be the most important starting point. I was roughly in the top half a percent, all those years ago, so would I have stood a chance? It&#39;sbeen emotional (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is true that Oxbridge is very elite. I think the main attraction for academics is that there are already lots of top academics there that they want to work with. We don't normally think in terms of percentiles. We don't have anything like the American SAT that you can get a percentile from. By what measure are you saying you were in the top half a percent? The most important thing is A-level grades. To get into Oxbridge now you essentially need 3 A's, if not better. It didn't used to be quite that high. If you tell us when you left school then we might be able to find out what the typical entry requirements were then. It will probably depend on what subject you would have wanted to study. --Tango (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Percentiles in Western Australia work like this. If there are exactly 100 people your age in the state, regardless of how many complete year 12 (final year of school), and your overall mark (out of 510) is ranked third, you would be in the 97th percentile, since you beat that percentage of people. For most things, and with only a handful of complications, that is your spot in the pecking order for universities. It has less significance for Medicine, Dentistry, Fine Art, Performing Arts and Music, but is otherwise pretty important. I'm not worried about the exact answer that would depend on when I graduated (1980s, if you must know my age :) ); I'm giving myself as a reference just for general personal curiosity. I could get into most things here, at the time, so I'm wondering if that would translate into the British experience at all. I take your point that you do not have a strict ranking system, so an approximate guide would be enough. Thanks again, and in advance for any further comments. It&#39;s been emotional (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In case any of these figures are useful: in 2006, approximately 10% of students sitting A-levels gained three As or above: about 60,000 people. The basic offer at Cambridge in 2008 was three As. About 4,000 new people gain a place at Cambridge every year, which is about a quarter of applicants. You cannot apply to both Cambridge and Oxford as an undergraduate in the same year. Marnanel (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This article claims that 300,000 people took A-levels in 2010 (well, it says "took their exams", but the context suggests A-levels, and the figure is surely far too low to include GCSEs). Similarly, this article claims that 300,000 graduated last year (I'd imagine that most people who do A-levels go to university). So would 10% not be about 30,000 people? (If this is correct, and if 16,000 people apply to Cambridge, and presumably a similar amount to Oxford, it would suggest that roughly the top 10% of A-level students - those getting three As or similar - are applying to Oxbridge and roughly the top 2.5% are getting in.) In any event, if about 8,000 students are getting into Oxbridge each year, and if I'm correct in reading our article on the demography of the United Kingdom as implying that there would be about 750,000 people in a school year, it would seem that about 1% of the population get into Oxbridge. (This is probably a bit too high, as it ignores the large number of overseas students at those universities, but I'm not even going to try to factor that in!) Proteus (Talk) 23:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, and the prestige of the campus-- neither is a campus university. Marnanel (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Getting statistics for this that mean anything, is very difficult. The above statistics about the basic offer for Cambridge in 2008 are correct, but it needs to be explained that the basic offer being three A's does not mean that anyone getting three A's could gain admission to the university. When I was offered a place at Oxford, the basic offer made to me and about half the other successful applicants that year, was two E's. Oxford and Cambridge are regularly criticised for rejecting individual applicants who gain four or even six A's at A level. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The main method for sifting prospective students applying to Cambridge (and I believe Oxford as well, though I have no personal experience of it) is the interview, which in the early 1990s typically involved a general interview and then a subject specific interview. It would be for the student to impress the Dons that they had particularly inquiring minds, not just the ability to pass exams. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If that is the main method, Sam, does it follow that they are rejecting a large percentage of otherwise-worthy applicants, just on the basis of the interview? If so, it does sound fairly tough. It&#39;s been emotional (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the interviews are the main filter. Some subjects do involve other factors besides A-level results, see List of admission tests to colleges and universities. For example applicants for medicine have to earn a certain BMAT score to stand a chance of getting to the interview stage. On the day of my Cambridge interviews, I also had a Thinking Skills Assessment (kind of a logical reasoning test) although they claimed to not put much weight on that because it was something of a novelty. The interviews themselves were gruelling though. I had three: one in physics, one in maths/chemistry, and one general interview (with a bit of materials science thrown in, because that was the interviewer's speciality). Of course the interview procedure varies from subject-to-subject and college-to-college.
 * If you were in the top half a percent of marks, then I certainly think you would have stood a good chance. But it really does all depend on the interviews. the wub "?!"  00:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all for a quality answer. By all means add more, since I don't think the discussion is finished, but it satisfies my initial burning curiosity. It&#39;s been emotional (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * One think I do know first-hand from an Oxford admissions person was that the average applicant who gets in has 7A* GCSEs (last year's applicants), with a 'minimum' (i.e. in reality) of 3 or 4. Can't find any data on how many people that this, though. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The demographic approach already applied above can be refined a little. The age cohort is less than 750,000, between 600,000 and 700,000, varying from year to year, can be looked up somewhere, somehow at wwww.statistics.gov.uk. About half start A Levels, so the 300,000 is about right, although some of those won't have full passes, let alone the As and A*s for Oxbridge application. Then if the 8,000 entry is right and you want to factor in for international students, say 75% are UK entrants = 6,000 UK entrants. 1% of the cohort. So someone in the top half percent might well be OK, but you never know. They have people working on admissions whose job it is to understand the Australian and other systems, so you should have got an interview. It also depends a lot on what subject you apply for. They are saying at the moment that young people from poorer and ethnic minority backgrounds are applying for the "wrong" courses, i.e things like PPE rather than science and engineering (but those are only relatively less competitive). Itsmejudith (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Forgotten verses of La Marseillaise
Where can I find a vocal performance of (any) of these verses of La Marseillase which are very rarely sung? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You asked a similar question a couple of months ago, didn't you? Wasn't your current question answered then?  WikiDao    &#9775;  00:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not ask that question but seeing as I attend the same college it is quite possible one of my classmates (in the same French history class) did. Furthermore that question concerns the couplet des enfants which is one of the often-sung verses. Please see the link I gave for the non-frequently sung verses I'm referring to. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That verse is at the end of the section you link to. But in that case:


 * (But asking can be helpful too with that sort of thing;).   WikiDao    &#9775;  02:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (But asking can be helpful too with that sort of thing;).   WikiDao    &#9775;  02:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That verse is not at the end, there are two couplets des enfants, each with different lyrics (although it's a forgivable mistake if you only speak English), and this is not homework (how could it be?), more of an interest in going deeper with the material presented in class. Google hasn't helped me at all here because these verses are not part of the "full version", and should be distinguished from those verses that while not usually used (Que veut cet horde...; Quoi des cohortes étrangères...; Tremblez, tyrans..., etc) are part of the full version. Please read the article before jumping to conclusions, thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's true that another verse of the same name is listed as the seventh verse of the standard text, and that I hadn't seen that.
 * So you want a performance of the "couplets supplémentaires", then, right?  still doesn't turn up too much on that either (it does give this video, but won't let me watch it).
 * BTW, do you by any chance have a reliable source that can be cited in our article to the effect that those supplementary verses even actually exist?
 * Also, if you speak French, you might want to consider asking this question at French Wikipedia's "L'Oracle", too. WikiDao    &#9775;  17:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Tried notifying L'Oracle about this question just to see if cross-posting at other-language-wps might be useful). WikiDao    &#9775;  18:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, if you speak French, you might want to consider asking this question at French Wikipedia's "L'Oracle", yes it's the right way, because this person speaks french, we have some questions from the same IP 72.128.95.0 at the Oracle. Regards --Doalex (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Film genre generic plots/formulas
I stumbled upon this Slasher_film which gives quite a detailed generic plot or formula for that type of film.

Where can I find similar generic plots/formulas for different genres, not just horror?

I know that there exist many different lists of the "n" basic plots, so no need to tell me about those, but they are not linked to different film genres. I'm looking for the plots/formulas for specific film genres. Thanks 92.15.8.206 (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Is TVtropes.org something you're interested in? Dismas |(talk) 00:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That is about notable highlights in films/tv rather than the whole plot. It is also organised by the highlights rather than the genre. But thanks for trying. 92.15.8.206 (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It does have a Genres section, though. 90.195.179.167 (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Slasher films are very rigidly structured I imagine it would be difficult to construct that sort of generic plot formula for a less rigidly defined genre. Romantic Comedy and Sports Movie are about as plot-rigid though. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)