Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 March 7

= March 7 =

god
if theres a god who says earth is 6000 years old, then why are dinosaurs 100+ millions old? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.130.217 (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe God is a dinosaur. My son asked me that question when he was young based on the premise that we are created in God's image, and seeing as dinosaurs pre-dated man..... It's possible if one thinks about it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Whether a god exists and has said so, and whether dinosaurs are 100+ million years old, is disputed. People who believe in religious claims usually dismiss scientific evidence going against their religious beliefs. See Young Earth creationism. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * God doesn't say the Earth is 6,000 years old. Some people interpret the Bible (which was not written by God himself and includes no such chronology) that way. Those people generally believe dinosaurs are no older than people. But that surely isn't the only interpretation of the Bible. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Those who accept the scientific evidence that dinosaurs existed 100 million years don't accept that any god would be silly enough to declare that earth is only 6,000 years old. HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Man has been recording his death for about 6,000 years. Schyler!  ( one language ) 02:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There isn't a god that says the Earth is 6,000 years old.AerobicFox (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * People always talk about Dinosaurs, but what about light from distant stars? But there is room for a theory that allows both a 6,000 year old earth, and 100 million year old animals or starlight. Just like God created Adam fully grown, God created the universe and Earth, fully grown 6000 years ago, but with a back-story. I read an article on wikipedia that discusses this, but I can't find it now. Ariel. (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As for dinosaur bones, yes, there are many other sciences which also show that the Earth is far older than 6000 years, but the difference is that bones are tangible. It's relatively easy for a non-scientist to say that astronomers or geologists or anybody else is just wrong, but, when presented with a T-Rex skull, and no mention of anything like that in the Bible, that's something that should bother even Creationists.  At that point they can no longer say that the scientist are just wrong, they have to either say that it's fake (and so are the thousands of similar fossils) or find some way to make it fit with the Bible. StuRat (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Omphalos hypothesis? PrimeHunter (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That's the one - needs a better name though, because that is not easy to remember. Ariel. (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The redirects include Last Thursday. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * More like a god who likes to play dirty tricks. DuncanHill (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Presumably the universe would look identical if it actually existed for a few billion years, or if God directly calculated the end result 6000 years ago. Ariel. (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Like I said, a dirty trick - create a rational animal, and put it in a universe designed to fool it. Not the behaviour of a loving (or indeed sane) god. DuncanHill (talk) 03:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm trying but I don't understand how you feel that way. I don't see any trick, the same way that an author having a backstory for a character is not a trick. To me it's the only course of action that makes sense. (Unless you want to compel your creations to believe in you.) Ariel. (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * By definition, humans lack the capacity to create universes. Try as they may, they do not and never will comprehend what forces are required to achieve this, or how to harness them.  Just as supposing a human being could ever achieve divine thought is crazy, so is ascribing to the creator of the universe the sort of imperfect thinking that humans indulge in.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  04:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any reason to believe that humans couldn't, at some point, comprehend, harness and indeed use the forces necessary to create universes. And I don't see the need for a divinity to be incomprehensible. Most of my favourite gods have very easily understandable motivations. DuncanHill (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your optimism is .... I can't find the right word, Duncan. "Commendable" is not it, because I actually think it's closer to colossal arrogance to make such statements.  I see you didn't disagree with Ariel's use of the term "end result".  The current state of play is the "end result" of the past 6 billion years of evolution, is it?  Only in a very temporary sense, because the universe has hardly started to evolve.  And humans have quite some way to go, too, by the looks of things.  :)  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  19:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

God does not exist outside the imagination of some people, see The God Delusion, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, God Is Not Great, Atheism: The Case Against God, ''[http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591026520/ref=pd_sim_b_14 God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist], The God Virus''. YEC is a pseudoscience because it does not follow scientific method. See, --Reference Desker (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not a discussion on the existence of God. Desist or this will be closed.AerobicFox (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the entire question rests on whether or not God exists. Don't be so quick to slam the door. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. The question explicitly assumes that God exists. Staecker (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * God made the World, I believe.  How He did it: I'm not going to tell Him!  St. Thomas Aquinas, as a philosopher/Scientist can prove the existence of God, he said.  But, he said, that is not the God I believe in!  MacOfJesus (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have a lot of respect for Aquinas as a philosopher, but I don't believe you can call him a scientist in any recognisable sense. Marnanel (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The OP's question neither asserts nor refutes the existence of God. It merely asks, IF there is a god who says the earth is 6,000 years old, THEN why do dinosaurs (and a lot of other things, for that matter) date to way much longer ago than that? There are multiple possible answers. One is that God deceives, which would mean there's no way to know. Another is that God never said the earth was 6,000 years old. Another is that there is no God around to make such a claim. Another is that current scientific estimates are way off. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Another way to look at it is that the lower case god is significant in the question (although bad grammar is possibly more likely), and we could/should look beyond the Christian God. All those who have used the upper case God after the start of the thread have been assuming one particular god. HiLo48 (talk) 06:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bugs, strictly speaking only your first and fourth options answer the question. The second and third simply deny the premise of the question. That's not to say that denying the premise of a question is inappropriate when the premise of the question is wrong. My personal belief is that your second option ("God never said the earth was 6000 years old") is the correct one; but then my personal belief as a Christian is also that Young Earth Creationism is blasphemy. —Angr (talk) 07:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The OP said IF. He didn't assert that God (or any particular god) actually said that. The simplest way I know how to put it is to quote a devout friend who's also a scientist who accepts conventional wisdom as to the age of things and accepts the evolutionary process. He would answer the OP's question simply this way: (1) God does not deceive; and (2) evolution is how God works. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I know the OP said "if". But if someone asks a question of the form "If A is the case, why is B the case?" and you say "A isn't the case", you are, strictly speaking, not answering the question, but denying the premise of the question; you're saying the question is invalid. So when the OP asked "if theres a god who says earth is 6000 years old...", it's denying the premise of the question to say "There is no God" and to say "God doesn't say Earth is 6000 years old". In this particular case, I agree that the question is invalid and the premise needs to be denied, but I know that's a matter of faith. —Angr (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The OP said: "if thers a god who says....". Now we are introducing two new questions: God does not deceive, and: Evolution is how God works.  If the OP is thinking of the Book of Genesis and trying to reconcile the 7day account of creation with our knowledge of how long the earth took to create, to keep to "The Holy Book": Saint Paul said: We must remember that a thousand years, to God, is like a day....  OP does this help?   MacOfJesus (talk) 13:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there are term on how listening to something affects your productivity?
Is there are term on being more or less productive at work when listening to something? For example, while listening to John Maxwell messages I'm more productive than say, when listening to classical music. Of course Eye of the Tiger also works in a pinch :) -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There are always the good old standbys, "focused" and "distracted," although I would venture my results might be the opposite of yours, then again, who knows. Sometimes, also, we only think we're more productive. I knew a programmer who thought he did his best work after sniffing cocaine--trust me, his code wasn't actually any better when he was high. :-) P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * haha good point. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean "Is there any term"? "Busy music" perhaps. Music While You Work was said to play music at a fast tempo to make the workers work faster. Searching for Music While You Work on Google Scholar produces a lot of relevant results. 92.29.124.221 (talk) 11:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Egalitarianism - who invented the idea?
I need to shortly describe history of the idea for school paper. I`m hitting dead end - I have a feeling it is relatively new (I`m thinking French enlightenment), my best find for know is blaming Greeks Xil  (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * there are good grounds (from the anthropology of hunter-gatherer societies) to suggest that 'egalitarianism' has been the norm for most of humanity's existence, which might in turn suggest that nobody 'invented' the idea, though people may well have discovered the need to have such term relatively recently. Certainly 'egalitarianism' as a modern philosophical concept has links with the enlightenment - the ancient Greek concept of 'democracy' is perhaps egalitarian in a sense, but this is in a slave-owning society. I don't think you'll get far looking for an 'inventor', so perhaps you should describe how the concept has evolved over time, and what it is that it is countering. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That is not my point. In need to know who observed and described it first, not who started practising it. There is a big diffrence between seeing a distinct idea in some process and just doing something Xil  (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * See Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, for theory rather than practice. Robert H. Horwitz, The Moral Foundations of the American Republic, might give you some context. L. Pojman, R. Westmoreland, eds. Equality: Selected Readings might interest you.--Wetman (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Most of the time, ancient Greeks who believed in egalitarianism only did so for adult male fellow-citizens of one's own polis... AnonMoos (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd have to go for the Athenians; they've inspired those interested in true equal rights for humanity as well as those advocating for equality of rights amongst the privileged (I'd say governing) class. Potential source here. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't believe Athenians used French, which didn't exist at the time, so they couldn't have come up with the term and described it. So all we can say is that they practised something similar, not that they had a theory on it Xil  (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Athenians were so liberal that they weren't allowed to hit other people's slaves. At least the Revolutionary French emancipated their colonial slaves, but did have the unfortunate habit of removing the head of anyone who they suspected was a threat to the state. Alansplodge (talk) 09:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sure it's all very fun to bash the Greeks and their slave-owning elite, but they did in fact have a concept of egalitarianism, and a name for it, isonomia. That article gives some other names they used as well. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes - quite right. You'd struggle to find a truly egalitarian society even today. You might also want to look at medieval Iceland which had no government at all, but had an annual gathering called the Althing which every free man could attend - it acted as a parliament and supreme court. BUT you couldn't go if you were a woman or a slave and a lot of cases were settled out of court with the aid of a battleaxe or two. Alansplodge (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * French Wikitionary claims that the closely related French term "égalitaire" was coined in 1836, although there's no reference or explanation. Unsurprisingly, the term appears to have originated as an ideal, rather than as an observation on actual practice.  The Société des Travailleurs égalitaires, described as a Babeufian organisation, was founded in January 1840 - an early usage of the term. Warofdreams talk 14:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You might want to mention the Levellers. Historians have recently paid more attention to the crossflow of ideas between Britain and France in the Enlightenment, so you just might find a discussion of whether the Levellers had an influence on French political debate. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman? From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men. For if God would have had any bondmen from the beginning, he would have appointed who should be bond, and who free. And therefore I exhort you to consider that now the time is come, appointed to us by God, in which ye may (if ye will) cast off the yoke of bondage, and recover liberty." John Ball, 1381. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking for a while that Wikipedia should have a separate article on the "When Adam delved and Eve span / Who was then the gentleman?" couplet (see Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2010_January_23), especially since it seems to have attained currency in several medieval Germanic languages, but I'm not sure how to start... AnonMoos (talk)


 * Of course! Preceded by the Revolt of the Ciompi. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Between 1381 and 1640s was the Reformation. There was an egalitarian dimension to Protestantism with its emphasis on direct communication with God rather than going through priests. Later Protestantism was favourable to the development of liberalism, which broadly speaking, proposes political equality through citizenship and rights, together with economic inequality through individual striving and accumulation. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Honestly, the idea of egalitarianism has been around since before written history - you can see it play out in ancient texts: for instance, the baghavad gita has some broadly egalitarian philosophy, the greek city states practices it within the polis, and the first incarnation of the nation of israel after the exodus was supposed to be entirely egalitarian (judges and kings came later). The modern concept started sometime just before or during the enlightenment, partly as a function of protestantism, as Judith notes, and partly as a function of the struggle by the wealthy middle-class property owners to get on some equal footing with the aristocracies of the time.  The concept has been gradually expanding: it got a huge boost from Marxism at the beginning of the 20th century, but didn't really reach it's full philosophical/universal form (outside of some religious ideology) until the mid 20th century, with the entry of women into the workforce, the civil rights movements, and the sexual revolution.   It's still an ongoing project - most people now recognize egalitarianism as an ideal - you see it pop up in political speeches everywhere - but there are still very few arenas of life where it gets more than lip service.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Robert Owen and the Cooperative movement may also be of interest. Unless it's a very long paper you're writing, your outline's basically there now in the ideas above and the links you can follow. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that the concept appears to predate humans. A couple cases:


 * 1) Individuals in social species often will sacrifice themselves for the good of the colony. This is explained by helping to pass on the genes of the colony, which are presumably related to their own.  This is especially common in the case of bees and insects, where "workers" don't breed, and thus have no other way to pass on their genes.


 * 2) Sometimes an individual will help another which is clearly not related to it in any way. In such cases:


 * 2a) There may be a symbiosis. That is, they help each other, like people providing a cat with a home and the cat killing mice that might otherwise spread disease and eat their food.


 * 2b) A brain "malfunction". People often treat animals which feature neotany like babies, for example. StuRat (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Online UK petitions offline until?
The Downing Street online petitions website says that the petitions have been transferred to the DirectGov website. The DirectGov website says that petitions will be resumed "later in 2011".

Does anyone know when it will be possible to start an online petition again?

The cynic in me wonders if it is an attempt to gag criticism of cutbacks on the one hand and on the other the wodge of (tens of, hundreds of?) millions that the Government is giving Liz to pay for her grandson's wedding. Edit: Sorry, I mean just giving Liz; under the "reverse Robin Hood" rule. 92.29.124.221 (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The ever reliable Daily Mail says that the Prince of Wales is paying for William and Kate's wedding but the taxpayer is paying £20m for security. Considering the general boost to the economy that the wedding will bring, it's probably not too bad a deal. The VAT receipts from the foreign media alone will be quite substantial. Anyhow, on the Petition the Prime Minister page there's a message box, so you could try asking them to be more specific. It does say "This is for comments only and you will not receive a response." Otherwise, you could email your MP and ask him or her to find out for you. It's what they're paid for. Alansplodge (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Who did the Prince get his money from? And from whom did she get it from? 92.29.127.85 (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that most of the Prince of Wales's income is from the Duchy of Cornwall. Proteus (Talk) 23:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And where did the money for that come from? And from the taxpayers of which nation did she take it from? 92.15.0.66 (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ? What do you think the Duchy of Cornwall is for that question to make sense? As can be found with the tiny effort of clicking on the link provided, the Duchy was set up over 600 years ago, and is profitable. Lands are sold, lands are bought, profits are made through rents and agriculture, etc. It earns money in the usual way of an estate. No taxpayer money is involved. Oh, I tell a lie, much money is earnt by taxpayers and non-taxpayers choosing to buy Duchy of Cornwall biscuits and organic milk. 86.163.4.134 (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Although the Duke owns the income from the estate, he does not own the estate outright and does not have the right to sell capital assets for his own benefit". We own it, but he pockets the money. It's a kind of Transfer pricing or cash-flow swapping - instead of the honest and transparant method of 1) paying the money from public property to the public/government, and 2) paying the royals from government money ie taxation; instead the money flowing from public property is swapped with money that would otherwise be more obviously from taxation. An analogy: I'm on the dole. But instead of the government paying me dole-money, I pocket the rent from a public-owned building instead. Thus the fact that I'm getting dole is covered-up. 92.15.2.144 (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely MPs are paid to sit/vote in the House of Commons? They may find it politically necessary to assist their constituents and address/voice their concerns, but I don't think that's what they're paid to do. They certainly couldn't be disciplined (well, except by their parties) if they didn't. (In fact, it's arguable that they're not paid to do anything, and that their salaries are merely a device to ensure that rich people aren't the only people able to become MPs.) Proteus (Talk) 23:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You may be right on a technical point, but I've never heard of an MP who didn't hold constituency "surgeries" or answer letters from constituents. Alansplodge (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The DirectGov page says: "Online petitions You'll be able to petition the government via Directgov later in 2011". The comment box appears to be only for the benefit of the webmaster. 92.29.127.85 (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If you wanted to bet on a price jump of oil...
...for example, from $150 to $100/ barrel, or from $100 to $150. How much would you earn if it really happened? Do you always have to set a time frame for speculating?
 * Derivatives are a complex field. Our articles suggest that you must always set a time frame.  Clearly, how much you would earn would depend on how much you invested, and what margins were offered.  Alternatively, depending on where you live, it may be legal to simply place a bet on changes in the price of oil, and you could take whatever terms you could negotiate with the bookmaker.  Finally, if you have sufficient funds and expect the price of oil to rise, you could buy oil and then sell it at any time you like, taking the profit without having to set a time frame. Warofdreams talk 17:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * See our futures contract article, and google oil futures if you want to read a bunch of articles out there about oil futures. A weird thing about them is that they are contracts to deliver a certain amount of oil to a certain place on a certain date.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

See also spread betting --Dweller (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You can simply buy or sell a barrel of oil and wait. That's the simplest way to bet on the price of something. There is no time limit and the amount you gain is the change in the price multiplied by the number of barrels you buy. --Tango (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I disagree strongly that this is the "simplest" way. You have to locate a seller, arrange for transport, weigh and/or test the oil to make sure you didn't get shortchanged by getting the wrong grade of oil, arrange for permits for storing the barrels of oil &mdash; I'm pretty sure most communities in the First World regulate the storage of bulk oil in residential areas &mdash; and then when it's time to sell, you have to locate a buyer who's ready to pay your price, and arrange for transport again.  No thanks!  I'd rather start a brokerage account with two phone calls and a paper form and then hit keys on my keyboard here to do my oil trades.  (If I were so risk-tolerant as to gamble on oil futures these days.)  Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * From the point of view of the small investor wanting to dabble in commodities but unwilling to get into complexities, the best approach would be to buy into an exchange-traded fund - in effect, buying a small share of someone else's futures contract. Shimgray | talk | 20:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

We cannot should not give professional investment advice. Read the articles cited above, pay for professional advice and make your own decision. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

How to be the master of political science?
How to be the master of political science? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missionias (talk • contribs) 14:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Masters' degrees in political science are widely available. You will generally need a relevant bachelor's degree, or any bachelor's degree and relevant experience, in order to gain admittance. Warofdreams talk 16:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * How to master Political Science? Study, Study, Study.
 * How to be a Master of Political Science? Follow Warofdreams's advice... enroll in a Master's degree program.
 * How to be the master of political science? That has been debated ever since politics was invented.  Machiavelli's advice is probably the most famous answer (see: The Prince)... but others have given different answers. Blueboar (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * But hopefully you will stop short of some of the more immoral methods proposed in that book. StuRat (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Rogue traders in the UK - who deals with them now?
Now that Trading Standards has been closed down, how will rogue traders who habitually rip people off etc, such as cowboy builders, get dealt with and stopped? Thanks 92.29.124.221 (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What gives you the idea that it has been closed down? Their website  is very much live. --Viennese Waltz 15:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Consumer Direct and Consumer Focus are being closed, but the Trading Standards Institute will take on parts of their role, with other parts supposedly being covered by local councils or Citizens Advice Bureaux. Warofdreams talk 16:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Trading Standards Institute will not deal with consumers. News to me the about Consumer Direct being closed (but it consisted of just a confusing website and a call centre fobbing you off with another phone number to ring for "advice"). Never heard of Consumer Focus before. 92.29.127.85 (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever tried to telephone them recently? Trading Standards will not deal with consumers any more (weird, but true). If you try to ring them you are told to telephone "Consumers Direct". When I rang Consumers Direct I was told to telephone "Community Legal Advice". When I rang Community Legal Advice the advice they gave me was to ring Trading Standards BUT the telephone number they gave me for Trading Standards was the same telephone number as that of Consumers Direct.

You get repeatedly told to ring another number and then another and another so that you go around in a circle with nobody doing anything. The problem is while you might have various volunteer organisations suggesting your telephone some other volunteer organisation for "advice" (and the "advice" consists of giving you another or previous telephone number to ring, ie perpetual buck passing), so that you go around in a circle, there is nobody to actually take action or apply the law.

Rogue traders will be having a fiesta once they realise that all the sheriffs in the Wild West have been sacked to pay for the royal wedding.

Stuff the "advice", what about some policing of the bad guys/guyesses? 92.29.127.85 (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I found Consumers Direct to be unhelpful, but never mind, they are being abolished. People will go to Citizens Advice, where they will get help with their own individual problem, but the rogue companies will continue to trade. Local authorities still do have a duty of care in this area, so keep trying to contact your local authority, by letter if there is no helpline or email address. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's one instance of David Cameron's Big Society: part of the work of Trading Standards and all the work of Consumer Focus has been transferred to the charitable Citizens Advice Bureaux. Meanwhile the Office of Fair Trading is also closing.  Some of the problems with getting through on the phone may be due to teething problems as organisations take on different responsibilities without new staff.  Essentially, the UK government has decided it's not the role of government to protect the consumer except via the civil courts, and your best bet is probably to consult a lawyer. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you tried contacting "Rogue Traders", a B.B.C. programme. Look-up BBC web-page; there should be a no. to contact.  They have helped many in the past, and there may be information valuable to you.   Also, "Rip-off Britain" another programme dealing with the same.    MacOfJesus (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Also your MP at his/her surgery, will be the best help.   MacOfJesus (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Missing References Tag
Dear Wikipedia-Admins,

the article about Torsten Oltmanns is still having the tags "Missing references" and that the article "may not meet the general notibility guidelines". I've tried to optimize the article after the wikipedia-guidelines. I've added some sources many weeks ago but the article has still the missing references tag. I wanted to ask if you can tell me what is missing in the article for removing this tag. The german article about Torsten Oltmanns http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsten_Oltmanns has similar references as the english version but doesn't have this tag.

I hope you can tell me, what I can do that the article doesn't have this tags anymore.

Thank you!

Regards,

Klaus Bells — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klaus Bells (talk • contribs) 15:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not a matter for the Ref Desk - but the simple answer is probably that most of the references seem to be from organisations affiliated with the subject of the article, such as his employers' website. Sites like those are not appropriate for articles, which should be based on references from independent sources.  Having said that, the tags were added on the basis of a much earlier draft (here), and if you feel you have substantially addressed the issues since then, you can remove the tag yourself, leaving a comment on the article talk page.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Like the people who came back from Provence (when it was Provence)
This is a line from Failing and Flying by Jack Gilbert. Why is Provence no longer Provence? Marnanel (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a line from me, wondering if there's a question I'm not seeing. --- OtherDave (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The poem has the words "Provence (when it was Provence). Presumably it means that Provence isn't what it was, with all the tourist development. I don't think it means that Provence is no longer the Roman Provincia, or even that Provence is now part of the region Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OtherDave: The title is a line from that poem. My question was the last sentence of my original comment. Marnanel (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So, out of my provenance. Thanks for the explanation.  I agree with Itsmejudith; it sounds like a variation on "nostalgia isn't what it used to be."  (I had something of this feeling when I used Google street view to find the two-star hotel I stayed at in Paris; changing the view, I saw the bistro across the street is now a McDonald's.) --- OtherDave (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As the strains of The Girl Who Used to be Me wafted in through the open window ...  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  09:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

coma queen paliament
so what happens if the queen of england (god forbid) got knocked on the head and went into a coma but she was still alive, whould she still be the head of state and would parliament still be able to do things without her? like for example if she got comaed just during a general election would she be able to open parliament or appoint a prime minister and could anyone be appointed ?

and also if she went mental and over-ruled parliament and there was a civil war, as she is also the head of the army, would the army fight on her side? so if she told general of the army to go shoot david cameron in the face would they? and if the people revolted after she dissolve parliament and or shot cameron would the soldiers fight on her side and kill the people??

I know it is unrealistic that some of this might happen but you have to agree It is Possible! Sally james langley (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I suspect in such cases the heir to the throne (that's currently Prince Charles) would become regent. This happened when King George III went mad: his son (later King George IV) became Prince Regent and took over all the royal duties. —Angr (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe that if the Queen were to go comatose or crazy, that Prince Charles would be bound by honor and by the Regency Acts to declare her unfit and assume the British throne as Regent. Perhaps Parliament might even be able to force out the Queen.  However, someone with a better understanding of British law could give a better answer.  --M @ r ē ino 19:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * See Regency Acts. Currently, if any three people from among The Duke of Edinburgh, Kenneth Clarke, John Bercow, Lord Judge, and Lord Neuberger "declare in writing that they are satisfied by evidence which shall include the evidence of physicians that the Sovereign is by reason of infirmity of mind or body incapable", then a Regent would be appointed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Would the Regent be regent in all the Commonwealth realms, or do the other realms have laws of their own to deal with this kind of thing? Marnanel (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The last time this happened, when Edward VIII abdicated, Canada passed the Succession to the Throne Act 1937 which basically said "we'll do whatever the UK does here". But the UK could already pass legislation on behalf of the Canadian Parliament for international affairs like this, per the Statute of Westminster 1931. I'm not sure if the Succession act would still apply after Canada created its own constitution in 1982, but in the interest of simplicity I'm pretty certain we would once again just do whatever the UK does. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The British Monarch is separately the monarch of each of her realms; During the Edward VIII abdication crisis, each realm had to pass a law recognizing the abdication, I'd imagine it'd be the same in the event of a regency. CS Miller (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's right. Under the Statute of Westminster, which is a separate law in each of the Realms, any change to the succession has to be promulgated in all the Realms, otherwise it is of no effect in any of them.  Thus, each of the 16 Realms would need to pass their own separate but identical law about the Regency.  If only 15 did so, it would be null and void in all 15 realms.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  23:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not what our article says - it says rather that that is a convention set out in an unenforceable preamble. Conventions don't overrule laws (well, not in the UK, in any event). (In any case, in my view it's debatable whether a Regency would be covered by "the law touching the Succession to the Throne" - it would only affect the powers of the monarch (which are different in each realm anyway), not who the monarch is.) Proteus (Talk) 00:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that what Westminster says? Even so, is it still in effect (in Canada for example; I don't know about Australia)? I suppose in Canada, if the Queen was overthrown, she could just rule there instead. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't make sense, Adam. If the Queen was overthrown in Canada, how could she rule reign there?  Westminster says, in effect, that the same monarch must simultaneously reign in all 16 realms.  You can't have Elizabeth II reigning in some, but someone else (Charles III/George VII?) in the others.  If the monarchy itself was overthrown in one of the realms, the remaining 15 would carry on regardless.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  11:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, yes, that was stupidly worded...I mean if she was overthrown in the UK, she could still rule in Canada, assuming there was no good reason to overthrow her, and Canada was willing not to immediately adopt whatever legislation was adopted on the matter in Britain. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, still not. Unless (a) Canada abolished its act adopting the Statute of Westminster, thus ceasing to be a Commonwealth realm, and (b) Canada created its own constitutional monarchy that had no connection with that of the 15 Commonwealth realms that remained, and (c) the Queen was invited to become the new Queen of Canada, and (d) she accepted - all extremely unlikely events, in my view - then there's no way she could remain Queen of Canada but not of the UK.  Or of any of the other Commonwealth Realms.  The Statute of Westminster provides that the same person must at all times simultaneously be the monarch of all 16 Realms; not most, but all .  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  09:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If the Queen was clinically sane and tried to seize absolute control, it would be a constitutional crisis. I suspect the United Kingdom would end up being the United Republic. --Tango (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If, as the OP suggests, Her Majesty "went mental" (the very suggestion may be Lèse majesté - she would surely be merely "emotionally overwrought" :-) ) she would doubtless be gently restrained and a Regency would probably be acceded to by all.
 * If however as Tango posits HM made a bid to overrule Parliament while sane, she would presumably have arguably good reason(s) to do so - Malfeasance by the current Government, for example - and some hope of success. It seems to me likely that a significant though probably not dominant proportion of the general population might let agreement with and loyalty to her override their support of the existing constitution, and that a larger and possibly dominant proportion of the Armed Forces would do so - my experience is that most British Army personnel, at any rate, despise nearly all politicians, have no great regard for civilians in general, and direct their loyalty to their immediate comrades, to their Regiment or Corps, and to The Queen in that order.
 * Depending, therefore, on the actual circumstances, a Civil War of sorts might ensue, and some senior officers (we have a great many Generals, the one in overall charge is the Chief of the General Staff) might well carry out such orders. Most of this is admittedly personal opinion. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're basing the above upon an extremely unpopular government, a very weak parliament, a non-existing judiciary and a incredibly popular monarch. Last time I checked the British parliament won the English Civil War over a weak ruler and in the end cut of his head. A couple of generations later the parliament replaced another monarch with a wiser one (Glorious Revolution). IMHO a British monarch foolish enough to confront the parliament (which controls the money and the wages of the military) will lose his throne (and perhaps his head). Flamarande (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For "wiser" read "non-Catholic," though it's a complex topic. My point was that Queen Elizabeth II specifically is a) unusually popular generally, b) enjoys the loyalty of the Armed Forces more than does Parliament, and c) is one smart cookie, so if, sane as Tango proposed, she overruled Parliament etc, she would only be doing so in just such extreme circumstances, and that she might bring it off. I agree that her Heir Apparent, for example, does now and will in future likely command less personal loyalty etc, and that in the case of her own mental incompetence as the OP originally proposed she would not be blindly followed by anyone. Anyway, it's my country and I'll revolt if I want to :-) . 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While the OP's scenario isn't particularly realistic, it's not actually terribly unlikely that the Queen, who is almost 85 years old, may succumb to senile dementia at some point in the next few years. If that were to happen, the mechanism described above would presumably kick in and Charles would presumably become Prince Regent. Pais (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Follow up question... If we assume a situation where a Regency is declared, who chooses the Regent? I would assume the choice would fall to Parliament, but I may be incorrect. And while the most obvious choice for a Regent may be Prince Charles, could someone else be chosen? Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Regency Act 1937, according to our article, stipulates that "the regent should be the next person in the line of succession who was:
 * over the age of 21,
 * a British subject domiciled in the United Kingdom, and
 * capable of succeeding to the Crown under the terms of the Act of Settlement 1701."
 * That's Prince Charles, so it seems that the law has already decided it's him, without Parliament or anyone else doing any choosing. Pais (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I notice, though, that list of requirements has nothing to say about his being both conscious and sane at the time. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 08:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Did the people who drafted this ever read a history book? Perhaps not. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

guide to laws on publishing a website
Would you know where I can find a guide to laws on publishing a website, because I have a website and I have a reference section like Wiki, but I would like to know if I have the rights to put other's site link on my website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnguye48 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This depends on what country you live in, but you can get started with our Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing and our Deep linking articles. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Napoleonic wars postwar economic depression
Is there an article for the economic depression that followed the end Napoleonic wars?Smallman12q (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * List of economic crises doesn't have anything for that time period. Which doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, just that that list article doesn't list anything.  -- Jayron  32  02:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure that there was a general Europe-wide depression (economies weren't internationally integrated enough yet to make that very likely), but there was an agricultural depression in England, when farmers were newly exposed to the competition of food imports. This led to the passage of the Corn Laws which polarized British politics into Corn Law and Anti Corn Law groupings for decades...  The agricultural depression also placed great strain on the system of poor relief inherited from Elizabethan times, and (after another crisis in 1829-1830) led to the Poor Law "reforms" which had rather horrific results. AnonMoos (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There does not appear to be an article, but four articles use the term "post-Napoleonic depression", which could form the basis of an interesting article. The phrase appears in various books and some academic papers.  The Panic of 1819 article is also relevant. Warofdreams talk 12:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about it...but I created a stub. There's also no article for post-war depression.Smallman12q (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Armand Hammer biography
You state that Mr. Hammer's pardon by George H. W. Bush needs a citation. The Wikipedia article on presidential pardons lists the date. In addition, the government site referenced in that article also lists the date. These references (especially the government site reference) should remove any confusion about this fact.50.37.97.137 (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a matter for the reference desk. It sounds like someone has asked you to provide a source for something you added to that article... WP:CITE will tell you how to do this (and if another editor is challenging the reliability of your reference, you can ask about them at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard). Blueboar (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Forest of Pencils
What does it mean ?


 * What makes you think it means anything? The only reference I can find for it is the name of a Chinese library, which I guess makes sense. 130.88.162.13 (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you searched Google before asking this question in reference desk? Per this reference, it was a Chinese literary degree. --Reference Desker (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In a completely different context, you can toss pencils up into a soft tile suspended ceiling, where they may lodge, point first. I've heard of a ceiling full of such pencils called an inverted "forest of pencils". StuRat (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

FTSE 100
I know WP is not a crystal ball, so I'll phrase this carefully. I'm thinking of investing in the FTSE 100, probably a tracker system so I'm basically betting on the overall performance. Obviously no-one, including you guys, can tell me what will happen to the FTSE over the next 5 years, so I'll ask this. What sort of indicators tend to be linked to good and bad FTSE performance, in other words, if I wanted to try and work out what would happen, what sorts of things would I look at? 130.88.162.13 (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If anyone knew that, they'd be too busy sipping Bolly on their private island to bother to answer. 92.29.127.85 (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'm not asking what will happen, but where I should look to form my own opinion of the answer to that question. 130.88.162.13 (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "The economy improves" or "The economy worsens". These are all giant companies that, in the grand sweep of things, are broadly more profitable when people buy more stuff.  However, the performance of "the economy" in the UK and in China and in Brazil are not in lockstep, and these companies all do business in many, many different countries; so even this elementary indicator is really complex to figure out.  FTSE 100 Index is our article, for what it's worth.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless you have information the rest of the market doesn't have, you should expect the FTSE 100 to grow at the current yield on gilts plus a risk premium. If the market has information that suggests it will grow faster than that then people will buy and the growth will happen immeadiately (and you'll be too late). Likewise, if the market expects that it will grow slower, people will sell and the index will drop now. (See efficient market hypothesis.) --Tango (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Depending on how much you already know, the article stock selection criterion might be a good starting point. 130.188.8.10 (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

We cannot should not give professional investment advice ( particularly on how fast a stock market might move, or in what direction ). Read the articles cited above, pay for professional advice and make your own decision. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That all seems fair enough Tango, Comet and 130. As for DOR and 92, I fear you didn't read the whole question. 130.88.162.13 (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You are saying that because you don't understand enough about the market. When you've lost money, you'll learn. 92.15.0.66 (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I agree with the OP. Tango, Comet and 130 are all absolutely right but they didn't answer your question. The point is that essentially there is little difference between the level of difficulty in predicting the performance of the FTSE and the level of difficulty in finding a good indicator of it's possible performance. They are in many ways one and the same thing. It sounds like you wish to know what indicators or measures are most commonly used or cited by financial advisors or commentators. Sorry, I don't know. But I suggest buying the Financial Times or equivalent as a starter. 213.120.209.248 (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The OP could try becoming proficient with R (programming language), could read Granger causality, Vector autoregression, and other econometrics texts about the dangers of over-fitting, could obtain a wide set of financial and economic time series, and then could put them all together and reach some conclusion. The most likely conclusion is that nothing really predicts the future enough to be worthwhile, as the efficient markets hypothesis suggests. 92.15.20.212 (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to come to that conclusion, that there either are no sources even of decent information or that they require so much prior knowledge to utilise that they are indeed no more useful than just trying to learn to be a stock broker (at which point a small investment becomes a job application). I might try the FT idea, that seems nifty, or I might just decide upon an amount of money I could afford to lose and stick it on the most elaborate roulette wheel around. 130.88.162.13 (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A stock broker is just a salesperson, they do not know that much about the statistical nitty gritty of the markets. Lots of people or companies try to suggest that they can see into the future or have some system for beating the market, but they are wrong and are saying that to get you to buy what they sell. If you investigate various systems from a few years ago they always produce at best disapointing results. 92.28.254.54 (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is either accurate or fair to say that all people or companies that offer stock advice are wrong. The point is that it is very difficult to tell which are the good ones and which are the bad ones. Also, the same ones that are sometimes right will sometimes be wrong - hopefully more the former than the latter. There are plenty of people on the planet who have done very nicely after acting on the advice of others - which may simply be what NOT to invest in. I would proposition that it is virtually impossible to speculate WITHOUT consciously or unconciously following the advice of someone somewhere. Everybody is influenced by others to some degree. 213.120.209.248 (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Statistics have shown that random selections of many stocks, bought and held, do better than managed funds. The latter suffer the costs of churning and management fees. So on the contrary, it is easy to speculate without following other people's advice. Index trackers have become popular in recent years as this has become known. One memorable example of a fund was Long-Term Capital Management which was set up and run by Nobel prize winners in economics - and they still lost everything. 92.24.186.163 (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The statistics of academic studies of investment- or unit-trust managers contradict that. They might have runs of good or bad luck of varying lengths, but there is nothing to suggest that there is anything beyond that. With a large number of managers a few will have very long runs of good luck and make a name for themselves, but that should not suggest they have special ability. Sorry I cannot remember the authors or the titles of the academic papers I read. You might quote Warren Buffet as a counter-example, but with such a large number of fund managers, then one of them is going to seem the best fund manager; and it is my impression that WB buys companies rather than speculating in the stock market, and I expect he gets a lot of his income from (lucky?) legacy investments made decades ago. Also remember things like Survivorship bias. 92.28.241.148 (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See also A Random Walk Down Wall Street. 92.15.24.90 (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)