Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 January 29

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 29

Nigerian women

I've been talking to this Nigerian girl I know at work. She's about the same age as me (23). She introduced me to one of her friends who is also from Nigeria and she went to the same school as her in Nigeria at the same time, and she's interested in me very much so in recent weeks, and I'm a white Britsh male. I wouldn't mind trying it on with a black girl, but not to be politically incorrect or anything, but apparently AIDS is rife in Africa; I know it's more so in Southern Africa, but it remains an issue at the back of my mind that I really don't want to bring up. I went out for a drink with her last weekend and went back to her flat and kissed her, but I'm unsure about sex, although she did give me a blowjob without a condom one night... I dunno, it's really plaguing my mind right now.--Nope, try Again (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We can't give medical advice, but you might take a look at our article on safe sex. Africans do not have a monopoly on AIDS or any other sexually transmitted disease, and it would be wise to adopt safe practices if you are involved in non-monogamous sexual relationships, regardless of your partner's race. That said, according to our article on AIDS, the prevalence of HIV among Nigerian adults is 2%–5%. This is higher than in any European country, but only slightly higher than in Russia and lower than in many other African countries. Marco polo (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I've already had sex with a few Eastern European women but they always abandon me, despite the fact that I'd love them as my wife, so thanks.--Nope, try Again (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As Dr. Phil (I think it is) might say, "how's that working for you?" Seems a good indication, through trial and error, that the idea of dating them for months, then sex after marriage - or at least after knowing them for many months! - would be the way to go, doesn't it?209.244.187.155 (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it indicates that at all. There is no reason to believe there is any connection between the sex and the relationships not working out. --Tango (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The areas of Africa with extremely high AIDS rates are mainly in the south and east of the continent (especially in the south). Botswana was kind of a model progressing developing country before AIDS... AnonMoos (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The worst human being ever (pre-Hitler)?

Okay, so if you took a random selection of people in the West and asked them who they considered to be The Worst Human Being Of All Time, Ever (excluding people that they knew personally), I'd hypothesize that the majority of them would answer 'Adolf Hitler'. Some might say that Stalin was worse - but yes, most of them would probably say it was Hitler.

So - supposing I were to travel back in time and ask a random selection of people in the West from 100 (or maybe 200 years) ago whom *they* considered to be Worst Human Being Of All Time, Ever. Whose name would they be most likely to give in reply? In other words, before Hitler's image and exploits were indelibly inked upon the mass consciousness, who was the person that was generally reviled (rightly or wrongly) in public as the absolute nadir of humanity? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Napoleon maybe?--Nope, try Again (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Countess Elizabeth Báthory. Any Person (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Judas Iscariot? Vlad Tepes? --84.69.145.92 (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you took a random selection of people in the East they might go with Timur. In the West, perhaps Attila the Hun? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Not quite a hundred years ago, but the Kaiser was fairly widely detested. DuncanHill (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought Genghis Khan was better known in the west than Timur.-gadfium 02:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

How about Caligula? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.145.92 (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you'd asked people in the West -- i.e. Christians -- more than a couple hundred years ago, before the Enlightenment, as jarring as it is to us in the present day, I think you'd get a large group that would answer Eve, since it was through the woman that sin, suffering, and death came into the world. A secondary group may answer Judas Iscariot, as 84. above suggested, although without Judas, there could have been no Christ dying, therefore no Savior. (See the brilliant Three Versions of Judas by Jorge Luis Borges for an analysis of the full theological consequence of this; it's worth reading -- the story, not our tiny article). Christ sacrificed only his earthly body, but Judas sacrificed everything, even his immortal soul, so that mankind could be saved. (Didn't think of that, did you?) Antandrus (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That begs an interesting question. If Christ hadn't died on the cross (or by any violent means), would people even know about him today? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Christian beliefs, probably; he would still be the Christ. Jonathan ^talk 16:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think some of the responses are on who the responhiders think should be regarded as the most evil as of the 1900s. Would the average person walking around in 1909 (in the glow of the recent Cubs world championship no doubt) know about Elizabeth Bathory or Vlad Tepes? The OP is asking for a name that would be as ready to the lips of the people of that time as Hitler is to ours. This is a question that has a chance of a good answer, rather than speculation, as someone well-versed in the media and literature of that time might be able to come up with someone. I don't know where you would find it in academia though, as it is kind of a popular culture question. Maybe quiz a social historian? TresÁrboles (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Like some of the above commentators I'd go with Judas. He's the one right in the center of the Ninth Circle of Dante's Hell. Some medieval writers also really had a bee in their bonnet about Emperor Julian and, now that I think about it, perhaps that is because he was essentially guilty of the same thing as Judas. He was baptized and intimately familiar with Christianity and then he turned against it. That really got their goat. Haukur (talk) 07:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

For me, it's Joseph Stalin: we can call him "pre-Hitler" as he came to power first, and his reign of terror lasted a lot longer. If we overlook the OP's "pre-Hitler" qualification (a bit arbitrary, perhaps?) then Pol Pot should be added to the list of nominations. Xn4 (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Stalin is more or less a contemporary of Hitler, though he did get off to a quicker start and could arguably be called "first." Pol Pot is clearly later. SDY (talk) 07:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I see I added to my comment just as yours was arriving, SDY. Xn4 (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's one 18th century view: "Among the detestable villains that in any period of the world have disgraced the name of man, it is impossible to find a greater than Moses, if this account be true." - Thomas Paine [1] Interesting that even a non-Christian at the time would come up with a Biblical character as the answer to this question. I think that tends to confirm our hunch that the Bible is the right place to look. Haukur (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's much the same as the rhetoric the English-speaking Protestants of the 17th and 18th centuries aimed at Popery and all its diabolic machinations. They were sadly tempestuous when it came to the leaders of other religions, in those days. Xn4 (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Noted criminals like Gilles de Rais and Jack the Ripper might be in with a chance (other criminals like Dick Turpin and many pirates might have had more popular sympathy). Random use of Google books for the late 19th century gives a few references for the Zulu leader Shaka, known for his brutality and his opposition to the British Empire. Madhi Muhammad Ahmad would have been similarly unpopular in the British Empire at a similar time. With the popularity of classics and histories of ancient Rome, Nero and Caligula would be bywords for villainy. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Not Jack, IMO - he only killed like four people. Killed brutally, yes, but I'd wager that Nero, etc. are worse...more deaths caused. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that the average 'man in the street' back then would be far, far more familiar with JtR's crimes than the actions of Nero or Caligula and far more likely to have a strong opinion on them, in the same way that the 'man in the street' would today, if Myra Hindley, Ian Brady, Peter Sutcliffe or Fred West were mentioned. Sure, people might know who N and C *were* and that they were considered to be evil men who did cruel things - but Ancient Roman emperors didn't and don't tend to have their actions described in lurid detail in the newspapers and 'popular crime' books. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the Middle Ages as Haukurth mentioned, some medieval writers might say Muhammad. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it would also depend on the country that you were asking the question in. Oliver Cromwell still to this day stirs up people in Ireland. BigDunc^Talk 17:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Among the Rastamen in Jamaica (where I'm from originally), Henry Morgan is seen as one of the worst men who ever lived. If not the worst. Infact, they sometimes refer to other 'bad men from history' as "The Pirate <Whoever>" (even Hitler) in his honor. It amused me a bit to come to England and see that people here drink the guy's rum. --81.76.82.108 (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Atila the hun ?

Diocletian – see also Diocletianic Persecution (303–311). About Henry Morgan -- the article says he was the most dangerous pirate etc, but a referenced note about his lasting reputation would be nice added extra. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone said Moses but surprisingly no one has said that going by the bible particularly the old testament I would say God. Okay perhaps God is not a person but his son was and according to Christian doctrine they're all the same person anyway. In more general terms, I find slavery and the genocide (which I believe was at least partially intentional) of the native Americans abhorent although it's difficult to fault one particular person there. Nil Einne (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Children's book identification

I'm looking for a book I had when I was quite young (<5), so probably late 80s. I think it was a book with three short stories in, the first of which featured two boys playing in the front garden of a terraced house. They hear a fire-engine approach (I loved fire engines at that age), and it pulls up outside one of the boys' homes down the road – to cut a long story short, his mother has caused a chip pan fire. Second story is VERY vague, something to do with a derelict building (I can only picture the illustrations) which is being torn down; the whole side wall is gone. As for the third story, I can't remember anything – perhaps there were only two?

I know this is a bit of a stab-in-the-dark, perhaps one of the regulars here has a penchant for children's books? Cheers. Cycle~ (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

United States Supreme Court building and police

I've just translated both articles United States Supreme Court building and Supreme Court Police on the French Wikipedia but I remarked a date mismatch :

• the United States Supreme Court building article said the building construction completed in 1935, and the police established the same year
• the Supreme Court Police said 1949 for the building and the police.

What's the correct year ? Thanks. TCY (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The court naturally has its own web site, at www.supremecourt.gov, and a page about the building says it was completed in 1935. I've fixed the Supreme Court Police article. --Anonymous, 07:40 & 07:45 UTC, January 29, 2009.

How many people did Hitler kill personally?

Did he ever actually kill anyone with his own hands (or gun) while he was Fuhrer? I guess that he might've shot some enemy soldiers in WWI. --84.69.145.92 (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, although his main role as a soldier was actually as a messenger, wasn't it? In any case, you can sort of say he killed Eva Braun. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There is, at least, one. Date: 30.04.1945, 15:30. Weapon: Walther PPK 7.65 mm pistol. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hitler killed himself with the same weapon favoured by James Bond!! Astronaut (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a well-known fact that James Bond is, in fact, just a rip-off of Good Hitler. --140.247.243.29 (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've wondered the same thing myself. AFAIK:

- He might have killed enemy soldiers during WWI but I've never heard any confirmation of this.

- He might have killed his neice Geli Raubal but it was ruled a suicide.

- Four policemen were killed in the Beer Hall Putsch but I don't know if Hitler even fired his gun.

- I don't think he ever personally killed anyone while in power or during his rise to power.

- He did kill himself. And a dog. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Didn't he kill a couple of dogs, testing the cyanide? --140.247.243.29 (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was wrong. According to Blondi, Hitler ordered a doctor to kill his dog. And it wasn't just one dog. Blondi's 4 puppies were killed, along with Eva Braun's two dogs and the doctor's dog. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly hard to imagine Hitler ever getting his hands dirty once he had people to do it for him; that would rule out everything post ~1925 (apart from the bunker incidient, obviously). - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Its hard to imagine any head of state actually going out and ending lives when you have millions of loyal citizens to do it for you.Livewireo (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't suppose that the "Bring the prisoner before me - I'll deal with this one personally!" thing ever really happens that much outside of the movies... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What about Iraq Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's reported cold-blooded shooting of six prisoners in the head in 2004, according to journalist Paul McGeough[2] [3]? (Allawi's office denied the truth of the news reports). Edison (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the book "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William L. Shirer, there was an incident in the immediate aftermath of the Beer Hall Putsch, when Hitler, Ludendorff and their detachment were making their way through the Residenzstraße towards the Feldherrnhalle, and found their way blocked by about a hundred police armed with carbines. Having attempted, unsuccessfully, to talk their way through, shooting broke out, and Hitler subsequently fled the scene in a car. The book states that, according to an eye-witness, Hitler fired the first shot on that occasion, although another onlooker attributed that act to Julius Streicher. There were casualties in that exchange, but the confusion would make it difficult to lay the blame with any certainty. Pavel (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

How many nonwhite minority heads of government have there been?

A similar question was asked earlier, but most of those people mentioned there are not correct answers for my particular question. I am looking for people of a minority group (so not just black as in the earlier question), but also nonwhite (as there are many examples, due to 19th century European imperialism). I already knew about Alberto Fujimori. The jury is still out on Toussaint Louverture as there is a question if whites were the majority in Haiti at the time. The only other person I can think of is Mahendra Chaudhry, the Indo-Fijian prime minister of Fiji who was deposed in a coup a year later. And now of course, the newest member of this elite club. (I have to say... Chaudhry, deposed in coup; Fujimori, in jail in Peru; Obama better keep on his toes!) TresÁrboles (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Evo Morales is from a minority ethnic group in Bolivia, although indigenous people as a whole are a majority there (and incidentally I suppose that would make any white president a minority head of government). How about Philip the Arab? Adam Bishop (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Flag of the Aymara

I didn't know that about Morales, but going by the "newspaper standard" (see below), his being Aymara as opposed to Quechua obviously hasn't been as a big a deal as just his being of Indian descent.

But I want to thank you for indirectly leading me to their nifty flag! TresÁrboles (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

What the hey?! That image shows up in preview, but not when I save! TresÁrboles (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The question is unclear as to whether it refers to racial or ethnic groups, so I don't know if what follows is relevant. Burundi and Rwanda have both had Tutsi heads of government (Paul Kagame in Rwanda, Louis Rwagasore in Burundi) despite both countries being around 85% Hutu. I imagine many other African countries made up of different ethnic groups will have had similar situations. For example, Ethiopia was traditionally ruled by the Christian Amhara people who made up about 1/4 of the population, Haile Selassie was of this group; I can't find much on Mengistu Haile Mariam's ethnic background but he is described as looking different to most Ethiopians. Under the constitution of Lebanon, the president is always a Maronite Christian, despite the nation now having a Muslim majority (you can argue about whether Maronite Christians are white). --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that many countries have no majority population, whereby all individuals (including politicians) are from minorities. Also, how to define ethnic/racial groups differ widely in different countries. --Soman (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely yes: If you want a precise answer, TresÁrboles, you should start by explaining what you mean with "white people". Are you referring to the degrees of skin pigmentation by individuals (and if so, how do you consider the Ainu people); or do you mean someone completely descendant only from dwellers in Europe (put like that, an empty set), or what? JoergenB (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Race is one of those things that seems apparent to most people, but then eludes definition the closer you look into it. I added that "nonwhite" criterion because of course there have been any number of people of European descent who have headed countries in Asia, Africa, the Americas... Of course you could say Obama, for example, wouldn't count because he is also of European descent. Maybe there is no way of asking what I thought I was asking. :) But let's face it, all those newspaper headlines that say "U.S. elects first Black president!" could just as legitimately say "U.S. elects another white guy!" But of course they don't. We might have to resort to saying what that Supreme Court justice said in another context, "I know it when I see it." TresÁrboles (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Septimius Severus was from a mixed-race Berber background at a time when most of the Roman Empire's citizens were southern European, Arab, or assorted kinds of Semitic peoples. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Moors ruled part of what is now Spain for quite a while and the Mongols ruled over a couple of areas with different ethnicities. Egypt had a couple of Nubian leaders our article mentions Taharqa. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

My question was partly motivated by the "fuzzyness" in applying "races" to the Roman empire. Actually, I have read claims that the Romans were not making any sort of theoretical or practical distinction between people of "European race", "Asian race", or "African race" (nota bene, referring to the parts of Southern Europe, Western Asia, and Northen Africa within their empire). They also moved around quite a lot, (inter alia since the legions did). This was also a fact before the time of the Roman empire. Recall that Carthage was founded as a Phoenician colony, and Marseille as a Carthagian one!) Therefore, there is no great idea to make some kind of race distinction between, say, North Africans and South Europeans in the first centuries of the present era. A distnction of "gens", yes; distinctions between Roman citizens, free non-citzens, and slaves, definitely; but "race", in itself, no; neither conceptually nor (clear-cut) genetically.

I think that the later brandishing of the Moors as of another race was largely a political thing. Recall that it also included numerous Spanish-speaking people, of mainly or fully Spanish decent (back to the time of the Roman empire), but having converted to Islam.

Thor Heyerdahl got famous (or in some circles infamous) not only for his tavels with ancient vessels, but also for his speculation of "white people" forming many of the ancient sea-faring people. He claimed e.g. that "white people" arrived to America from the East, as told by Aztec and similar legends (interpreted by Heyerdahl). However, I saw him in a TV documentary, where he clarified that these "white people" quite possibly - and quite likely - in fact belonged to the Berbers or some closely related group. JoergenB (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(PS: Possibly, you might want to consider "the firt known monotheist in world history", Pharaoh Akhenaten. I once read an amusing story about infurious reactions from some African dignitaries visiting an exhibition about him and his time. Now, in most of the Pharaonic time, Egyptian art was rather symbolic when representing the rulers; but among Akhenaten's innovation was a "naturalistic" art. He and his family were presumably depicted as they really appeared. In the exhibition, there was the usual comments about these distorted rulers; not very different from this quotation from our own wp article to-day: "Artistic representations of Akhenaten give him a strikingly bizarre appearance, with an elongated face, slender limbs, a protruding belly, wide hips, and an overall pear-shaped body." The dignitaries protested that what they saw was a perfectly well-shaped black man.

The book suggested that the 18'th dynasty was of Nubian origin. This is not mentioned in our wp article, however, and thus would at least be controversial, possibly rejected by a scolarly consensus. You absolutely should not use this example, unless you do find some corrobation. JoergenB (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC))

Dilbert

I'm looking for a strip from Dilbert. Where is it from and where can I find it? I's is a picture of Dilbert in his cubicle with a wastebin, and the text is: "This is my magic box. I put my work there, and by morning, it's gone." prefix:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.241.207.221 (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Dilbert.com is the place to go. Astronaut (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Some Googling found a text page (possibly copyright violation and no images) where a conversation included "it's a magic cylinder. I put my work in there and by morning it's gone". PrimeHunter (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I found the quoted strip at http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/1998-08-30/ but it doesn't match your image description. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Desert´s son

Is calling an Arab ´Desert´s son´ insulting? Is it like saying he comes from the woods?--Mr.K. (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure calling any person something he doesn't call himself should be thought of as insulting; and even then one should be careful in the terms one uses. Groups of people often have terms used internally amongst themselves which are highly insulting when used by outsiders. You're best off using whatever term a person prefers to be called by you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if Arabs call themselves "desert's people", so I still don't know if it is offending. I have never heard it, but it doesn't mean that they don't it. Mr.K. (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The phrase was actually usually "sons of the Desert"; I don't know if it's really insulting, but it's more associated with Rudolph Valentino Sheik movies and Lawrence of Arabia than with the contemporary usage of any recent decade... There's also a 1933 movie by that name: Sons of the Desert (film).

By the way, you should be aware that a significant proportion of Arabs are urban dwellers, who may have never seen a camel outside a zoo, and the majority of whose ancestors in 631 A.D. were probably Monophysite Hellenized Syriac-speaking or Coptic-speaking settled inhabitants of the Byzantine or Persian empires (not Arabic-speaking nomads or bedouin), and who may not particularly consider themselves to be "sons of the desert"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

STARVATION

Hi Everybody, Does anybody know the stages and effects on the body of starvation? I presume that death will eventually occur when the heart fails.

Our article starvation may be useful. Algebraist 15:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Origin of Half-Breeds and Stalwarts

Where did the Half-Breeds and Stalwarts (factions of the Republican Party in late 19th cent) get their names? For some reason, I can't find this information anywhere. - Hargrimm | ^Θ 15:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary has both names:

• From The Nation (N.Y.) XXXII, page 415: "The epithet ‘Stalwart’ as applied to a class of politicians was first used by Mr. Blaine in 1877 to designate those Republicans who were unwilling to give up hostility and distrust of the South as a political motive." That Mr. Blaine was undoubtedly James G. Blaine. It seems ironical.
• The OED says only that "Half-breed" was "applied in derision to certain Republicans of New York who in 1881 wavered in their party allegiance", without saying who first applied it. The implication of the name is clear enough, meaning that they were only half Republican in ideology. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

How do you pronounce Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, likely first openly gay PM of Iceland?

She is likely to become Iceland's next prime minister,[4] but I can't find any reference on how to pronounce her name. Revelian (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Don;t know. But here's a link to her article (which also does not know): Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Which article also states: "Jóhanna's spouse is the author and playwright Jónína Leósdóttir (born 1954). The couple have three adult children". I rather appreciate that, particularly in the context of the above thread. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for looking (and I agree with the opinion). I'll continue to monitor this section if anyone finds or knows the pronounciation. Revelian (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can read IPA, her name is pronounced 'jouːhanːa 'sɪːɣʏrðartouhtɪr. This is very difficult to render with a "phonetic English" transcription, because it includes several sounds that just don't occur in English. Marco polo (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me a rough-and-ready transcription, please? Like Yoh-HANN-ah Sig-ur-WAR-doh-teer? (My guess.) I found Help:IPA, but it's literally a foreign alphabet to me, which makes it difficult to grasp and decode the symbols. By the way, did you find that IPA pronunciation somewhere or are you fluent in it? Revelian (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Using sounds from English will result in a mispronunciation, but here is about the closest you can get: YOE hahn nah SIH gur thar dough deer. In each part of her name, the accent is on the first syllable. "YOE" rhymes with Joe. "SIH" uses the same vowel sound as the first syllable of signature. The g in "gur" is softer than an English g and actually closer to a French guttural r. The syllable "thar" is pronounced with a voiced th, as in them thar hills. The syllable "dough" is pronounced almost like the English word dough might have been pronounced in the Middle Ages, ending with a sound somewhere between a heavy h sound and the ch sound at the end of the Scots word loch. The vowel in this syllable is the same as the (diphthong) vowel in the modern English "dough". The d in both "dough" and "deer" is actually unvoiced (like English t) but unaspirated (like English d). Marco polo (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to answer your last question. I didn't find the IPA transcription, I composed it. I would not say that I am "fluent" in IPA, but I am comfortable with it and recognize most of the symbols. I have done some amateur study of Icelandic in the past, and I confirmed the pronunciation that I thought would be right by checking our article Icelandic phonology. Marco polo (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very, very much for what I asked for and more! Revelian (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Psychology of Fightclub

Is there any psychological movement that endorses the attitude of Fightclub? Is that a kind of positive psychology on steroids?--Mr.K. (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nihilism? That seems to drive a lot of Tyler's motivations, although maybe I just dont understand your question. Livewireo (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you ask about the philosophy of Fightclub, nihilism could be the answer. So as existentialism or any other kind of individualist self-liberating philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.0.97.125 (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the principle "Lex superior derogat legi inferiori" used under this or another name in anglophonic countries?

I've been searching for the juridical expression Lex superior derogat legi inferiori ("a higher law beats lower ones"). There are articles about this principle in the Norwegian wp's; seemingly, the Norwegian Supreme Court explicitly applied it in a number of cases. I found either articles or references in a few other languages, e.g., an Italian article and a short German explanation. The Norwegian items examplify with constitutional rules invalidating (common) law, and the German with federal law invalidating state law ("Landesrecht"), in the Federal German Republic.

Now, I found no reference to this principle in the English wp, neither in List of legal Latin terms, nor in article titles; and a search mainly gave a number of references to Lex Luthor claiming to be superior to Superman... On the other hand, it is common knowledge that similar principles are applied in US jurisdiction, e.g., numerous laws considered void if they contradict statues in the federal constitution (or the appropriate state constitution, for state laws). So, what I'd like to know is if the same or a rather similar principle is invoced under another name in e.g. the US, or if instead a principle named "Lex superior derogat legi inferiori" indeed is invoced in some English-speaking countries, but for some reason no one got around to mention it yet.

Sorry if this sounds complicated; it really boils down to the simple question To what English sibling shall I link the handful of "Lex superior derogat legi inferiori" artticles in other languages? JoergenB (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The phrase in the U.S. constitution is "supreme law of the land"... AnonMoos (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at Preemption (law) (which is linked in the "See also" section of the article linked by AnonMoos). But I was under the impression that, in general, interwiki links shouldn't be created unless the linked articles are on exactly the same topic. Deor (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What does "exactly the same topic" mean? The trouble is, (a), that sometimes a word or expression is translated to another language; is it then about "exactly the same topic"? Moreover, (b), often the articles in different languages are more "on different topics" than they IMHO should be, according to our global view policy. The en:wp article will be concrete only about examples from English-speaking countries, the no:wp and nn:wp only from Norway, et cetera. Does this make it to "not exactly the same topic", or not?

Apart from that, thanks! JoergenB (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know; I'm not really familiar with the intricacies of interwiki links (or the intricacies of the law). But I'd personally be reluctant to link an article titled "Lex superior" (with or without "derogat legi inferiori") to an article not so titled. I may be being too fastidious, however. Deor (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I notice that Supreme law of the land (since yesterday) is a link to Supremacy Clause, while Supreme law (more or less an English translation of "Lex superior"?) links to Constitution. Preemption is somewhat closer to the general subject, but very much limited to US legislation.

I discern a conflict between the "Principle of Least Surprise" and the "Global Principle"; I'm not sure which of them is the superior one:-). I'm afraid these articles indeed may be too specialised. I would like to know what the corresponding "Lex superior" applications are called in e.g. Engish, Scottish, or Australian legal tradition. Ideally, either an expanded "preemption (law)" or a new article (perhaps "Lex superior" or "Supreme law") would deal with the general concept, and refer to the US law articles as examples. The general article would be apt for iw linking. Since I don't have an education in law, I don't think I'm up to this, however. JoergenB (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The UK situation is complicated; matters for devolved administrations are explicitly delegated, and I'm not sure how issues of conflict between jurisdictions work out, especially as Scottish law has always been distinct. Moreover, there's the issue of EU law; again, I'm not sure of the details, but EU law doesn't automatically win - it has to be enacted into UK law, as was the case with the Human Rights Act. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The status fo EU vz. national law is one reason why this is interesting. There is some similar rule in Sweden, I think; however, if I've understood this correctly, when the law or charter has been ratisfied by our parliament, then it will be "lex superior" with respect to (ordinary) Swedish law. (As I wrote before, I'm not scooled in this, and may have misunderstood it.) JoergenB (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Zahrani seat in Lebanon

Which Lebanese governorate is the parliament seat Zahrani situated in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.201 (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Switching between Google maps and WP makes it seem that it is in Nabatieh District / Nabatieh Governorate, a few km N of Nabatieh itself. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: List of cities and towns in Lebanon lists it there, as well. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the disposition of Tom Delay's charges?

The main Wiki article still says that "He is still awaiting trial." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.69.36 (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

About Ian Brady's quote.

Last year, British serial killer Ian Brady said "The other patients get paid more than me".

My question is: How dare this scum to say that?. Is it freedom of speech?, why is he allowed to say that if he is in solitary confinement? --201.254.74.152 (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Offenders lose some but not all of their liberties. They're as free to say things as the rest of society. They're constrained as to the audience to which they can address their remarks directly. Even in solitary confinement, they have access to legal representation if required. Brady being "scum" does not further constrain him any more than it helps your question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

And on a point of fact, Brady is in a secure mental hospital, not a prison. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of him being kept in solitary confinement either (which is only a temporary punishment in British jails, not a permanent sentence[5], though he may be segregated from other prisoners for his own safety or due to his weak physical condition). In recent years he's been in Ashworth Hospital, a high security mental hospital in Liverpool, but has been petitioning to be returned to a normal prison (he was found guilty of murder and only later showed signs of mental illness); such a transfer would allow him to refuse food and not be force-fed. This article contains more detail of his recent protest. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record I would say that "How dare this scum to say that? Is it freedom of speech?, why is he allowed to say that?" are not really questions, despite sounding like them and having a question mark at the end. They are really rants. Please desist. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Paypal in Contradiction of UK Law?

Paypal has a new policy, introduced in January, that (under direction from e-bay's servers) payments for goods can be held by themselves; paypal(for up to three weeks) until either positive feedback is received or 21 days pass without a dispute being filed. The seller is still required to immediately send on the goods bought. Doesn't this assume that the seller is guilty (of something such as misrepresenting good or fruadulant activity) which would seem to go against the foundation of all UK law that someone is innocent of a charge until proved otherwise. Apparantly, Paypal will automatically hold payment on any item if the seller feedback is less that 100% positive or their detailed seller rating is 4.4 or less. The money with help can be anything from 0.01p (sterling) and on any item from any category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.79.175 (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I would very much doubt that it directly contravenes UK law - after all, they've probably got very well paid lawyers who can draw up the right contract. Anyhow, most things need to make it to court to be contested. Whether it should be, I don't know. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle of the justice system, not a rule the public have to follow. Sellers using paypal agree to a contract in order to use it, that contract can say pretty much whatever it likes (there are a few restrictions, but I know of none that would apply to this). --Tango (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Innocence, and the presumption thereof, are matters of criminal law. This is a civil, commercial matter, and thus is subject to contract law. Lots of contracts involve partial payments, retention of final payments until some completion criterion, escrow, and so forth. As you say, Paypal has published this policy, and it will surely form part of the contract you enter into with them when you perform a transaction. One of the chief tests a court applies when assessing the lawfulness of any contract is "were the parties properly informed of its terms when entering into it" - this is clearly the case here. So if you don't like the contract, don't enter into it. 87.113.74.22 (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

But how does that relate to people who have joined pay pal goodness knows how many years ago and paypal or ebay or any other company change their terms and conditions at a later date. I don't see how comapanies can change their T&C's so freely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.79.175 (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the original agreement allows them to vary their terms and conditions:

This Agreement is subject to change by PayPal without prior notice (unless prior notice is required by law), by posting of the revised Agreement on the PayPal website. Descriptions of material amendments to this Agreement will be posted in advance on the PayPal website in the "Policy Updates" section that is displayed to you when you log in to your account. You can also set your Preferences to receive e-mail notification of all policy updates.[6]

If you don't read the terms and conditions, you only have yourself to blame. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

One thing that is of concern with regard to payment services (be they Western Union, credit cards, banks, Paypal, or whatever) is "how is this company regulated?". That affects the degree to which your money is bonded or protected by some guarantee, what regulations (and regulator) apply, and what forms of dispute resolution apply (for example some may require binding arbitration). In particular, services like Paypal are regulated as banks in some jurisdictions, and not regulated more than regular companies in others (I honestly don't know what the case is for Paypal in the various UK jurisdictions). Frankly, while such procedures are surely legal, you're not wrong in finding their methods of dispute resolution both a bit summary and arbitrary; but given the small amounts of most eBay transations, and the cost and bother of litigation, you're likely to see such rough-and-ready dispute resolution pertain. 87.113.74.22 (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

How to address an Imam?

Hi, I am doing a lot of work nowadays with the local Muslim community, and in particular the Mosque Committee and the local Imam. Apart from the obvious (hello, how are you?) is there a polite or correct way of addressing the Imam? Also what do I call him in polite company? I know his first name is Abdul, but I wouldn't dare call my local vicar by his first name. So what do I say? -- role^player 21:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you ask him? Algebraist 21:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Because I don't wish to show up how ignorant I am. -- role^player 21:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Think of it this way - you won't be shewing ignorance, you'll be shewing respect and a desire to behave appropriately. DuncanHill (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing ignorant about asking someone how to address them, if you're not sure, or indeed about any point of etiquette. As Duncan says, it's a sign of respect -- not only for the person, but for his customs. It shows that you're not dumb enough to just assume something, and consider your manners and the prospect of getting along with others more important than your ego. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with "Sir" initially, and then ask how he prefers to be addressed. Nobody knows everything - the key feature in intelligent people is that they make the effort to find out something when they don't know it. --Tango (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I love the "just be nice and I'm sure he'll be fine with that" responses, but frankly, cross-cultural exchanges can be a bit more complicated than that, especially with people of authority. Insult someone in a way that you can't quite understand and you might never get off on the right foot. I know nothing about Imams but I know that, for example, even good intentions might get you in the wrong with a Russian professor if you don't perform the necessary verbal bowing and thanking. Much less things like American military etiquette, which is totally bizarre to a civilian but so core to the way their entire organization and ethos operate. If said Imam is an jerk (anyone can be), that won't put you in the wrong, except you've still got to work with a jerk. Better to have some clue what you are getting into rather than relying on good faith and intelligence alone.

My recommendation: ask someone in the aforementioned "local Muslim community." They'll be able to point you in the right direction better than the people on here seem to be able to do. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

When in doubt, ask. I did that when I started working with the imam in my community for the interfaith coalition, and he told me to call him by his first name. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Imam is a title, like Mr or Dr or Professor. In Western appellations, it's usually used with the family name, eg. Imam Abdurrahman. The local use is something you would have to determine. I second DuncanHill, in that you can use a polite form of address, like Sir, until you have an opportunity to ask. As you are not part of the Muslim community, there's no shame in not knowing and lots to gain from a polite question - it shows interest, willingness to learn and willingness to adapt. Kudos for making an effort. Steewi (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that sentiment, but it can sometimes be very tricky, though. Years ago, a friend of mine became engaged to a girl whose parents were Serbian immigrants (Yugoslav at that time, but they identified as Serbs). I was introduced to her, and a short time later I was invited to her parents' house for dinner. I went to the house, was welcomed by my friend and his fiancée, and was ushered in to the lounge room, where her parents were. My friend told them who I was, and I went over to the father, extending my hand, saying "pleased to meet you" or words to that effect. He looked at me rather oddly, and somewhat hesitatingly shook my hand. I also shook the mother's hand. All was OK during the dinner, but later I asked my friend whether I'd done something to offend the father. He told me that in Serbian society, a younger man never extends his hand first, but always waits for the older man to do so. I asked him how I could possibly have been expected to know this, and he agreed that I could not have. Even he didn't know at the time, but his fiancée had taken him aside during the evening and explained it to him. With that experience in mind, I'd be very cautious about asking someone from a different culture how they like to be addressed, because it just might be considered offensive. I'd exhaust all other sources of information first. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

But surely in this instance the mistake was not that your question was offensive (since you didn't ask one until afterwards), but rather that you didn't ask beforehand if there was any etiquette you should be aware of? Or, more to the point, that your friend -- or his fiancée -- didn't inform you of what is clearly a basic point of etiquette for these people, precisely because they should've known that you wouldn't know about it beforehand. I mean, if you'd walked in and right away very politely apologized for not knowing the the proper Serbian customs and asked if there's etiquette you should observe, is there any reason to assume that the father would've been upset or offended? (Maybe he would've been, of course! Some people are dumb like that. But frankly, I think that would've been on him, not you.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

My point is that etiquette issues are rarely resolved by reason. If someone greatly offends you, there's a strong emotional response associated with that. Even if you've been told they don't know better, that doesn't always dampen the effect. Again, if you have the luxury of hoping the person you might inadvertently offend will be reasonable and personable, go for it. If it's someone who you've got to work with regularly, who you need something from, who you will need support from in the future, who will give you a job, whatever, then better to be safe than sorry. Again, asking someone within the same community is probably an easy, sure-fire bet, as they'll know better than an outsider what the rules of the game are.

Just as an example, in the USA the "okay" gesture is totally normal, fine, friendly thing to do. Do that in Brazil in a bar and you'll get punched in the face. Apologize profusely and explain it was a common cultural mix-up, and you'll probably get punched in the face again. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes, and in some parts of the world, you're an asshole if you don't burp after a meal or leave a little on your plate. Sure. But let's put this in context: we're not talking about a guy who's likely to smash your teeth in with a bar stool at the slightest provocation here. We can reasonably expect an imam in this kind of a position to have some experience and interest in dealing with stupid infidels who don't know the customs and a vested interest in educating them. Personally, I'd take my chances.

As for Brazil, I'm sure there are bars where everyone is on a hair trigger, always looking for a reason to throw a punch, especially if you open a conversation with the okay sign, but I'm still pretty sure that if a foreigner drops the, uh, O-bomb in the middle of an otherwise friendly discussion, it'll most likely result in awkwardness rather than a knuckle sandwich... but perhaps I'm underestimating the savage and combative nature of the average Brazilian watering hole. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

@Captain Disdain: The odd thing was that the parents were not recently arrived migrants. They had lived in Australia for about 25 years at that stage and they had worked mainly as hostel managers, where surely they would have been introduced to thousands of people who would also have inadvertently breached this unspoken Serbian custom. I can't imagine the father got put out of joint every time this ever happened; but maybe, because I was his precious only daughter's fiancé's best friend, he reserved the right to be a little sensitive about these sorts of things. Who knows. Just on the general question, when it comes to religious leaders, they also meet thousands of people all the time, and they'd be very used to being addressed in not strictly correct ways (e.g. bishops would be used to being called "Bishop" rather than "Your Grace"), so if they get upset about it every time, there's not much hope for them. Imams might be different, though. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there are two questions rolled into one here: (1) what is the formal style of address of an imam (which seems to be ‘Imam + surname’, as discussed above); and (2) how to address an imam in an informal situation. The first one should be fed back to a Wikipedia article. – Kaihsu (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do some businesses offer 'senior discounts'?

Seems it can't be to promote customer loyalty, since these customers are unlikely to become long-term customers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.165.180 (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you think too short-term. Seniors not only live longer than you think (in business terms, 10-20 years is a long time, and most put the cutoff of "senior" around 65), but they have senior friends, and families, and so forth. They also are often retired and have more disposable time (and fewer expenses like mortgages and kids in college) than "non-seniors". In my experience they also are very big believers in brand loyalty as well. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

However, a lot of seniors are non-working and are relying on a fixed income (pension, retirement plan or social security). Companies often offer senior discounts as a curtousy, and like the poster above me said, many are very, very brand loyal. Livewireo (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, a lot of businesses classify "senior" to start at a pretty low threshhold- 50 or 55 sometimes. Secondly, customer loyalty isn't the reason most discounts are given - the business is simply trying to generate revenue (or grab it from a competitor) that he might otherwise not get. For businesses with a relatively high fixed cost (just the costs of being in business, even if you don't sell anything) then such discounts are generally a good idea. If you run a restaurant then much of your costs are fixed (rent, staff salaries, heat and light) then fallow times like wednesday afternoon are unlikely to be profitable. But if you can incentivise people to come in (such as a seniors special between 2.15 and 5pm) then you'll get business at a time you wouldn't otherwise, and make money to cover those fixed costs. You have to be careful that the discount doesn't cannibalise your regular business (where seniors who would have come anyway at 5.30 instead come at 4:45), but in general for service-oriented businesses such demand leveling is often a wise strategy. It's less clearly advantageous for retail, where the product is transferable and thus the risk of cannibalism worse (I'm not the only person who has sent granny to B&Q on Wednesday to buy me a powerdrill with her senior card). 87.113.74.22 (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

businesses offer senior discounts for exactly the same reason as they offer student discounts: to practice price discrimination. Remember, a business's job is to make sure that every single potential customer they have leaves as much money with them as they can possibly be convinced to so. Why do you think Apple has macbook "pros"? Because these machines are professional-strength? Nonesense! They're the same as the normal mac books. It's because these machines are priced for professionals —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.157 (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I second this. Everybody values every product slightly differently. Total gross profit for a firm is maximized when every customer (who is willing to pay more than marginal cost, that is) is charged EXACTLY the most that they are willing to pay for a product. If they are charged more, they won't buy, and if they are charged less, the firm misses out on profit. But purchasers have an incentive to hide their true preferences. No one will honestly bid the highest price they are willing to pay for a product, if they know they can get it cheaper. So firms make broad generalizations about customer types (That they CAN discriminate between) and set prices accordingly. An example is: Booking a "next-day" flight with an airline. The airline knows that anyone who is booking a flight in a hurry probably needs to get where they are going, and is more willing to pay. NByz (talk) 08:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Read price discrimination. Basically if you can charge $10 to young people but old people will only pay $7, you would be missing out on customers by charging a uniform price. Obviously it is more complicated because different old people will have different reserve prices, but between that simple explaination and the article you should get the idea.--Jabberwalkee (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Guinea pig vs England

Hi,

Can I go from Europe to the UK with my guinea pig? Thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.200.31.64 (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

DEFRA's rules for rodents is here. 87.113.74.22 (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I read the title of the question, and imagined a very strange boxing match ... ColinFine (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Or a very one-sided football match. Poor England would have no chance... DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Music

How can you describe the music to have evolved over from the 18th century, say Baroque Period, to what it is today? in terms of people, terms of instruments, in terms of what was music look as...etc. also post a few articles on the same if possible!...thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.240.36 (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a few things you might want to look at. Apart from the changes in the structure of music (i.e. from concertos, sonatas and courantes to twelve tone composition and the works of Philip Glass), there are other things to take notice of. Big changes are things like the amount of improvisation and ornamentation (music) that are acceptable in classical music. Another change is in the use of stylistic parts of playing such as vibrato, musical phrasing, rubato and dynamics. The instruments have changed a lot. There were instruments played in the Baroque era that aren't played anymore, and the instruments that are still played aren't necessarily the same - a Baroque violin and bow sound quite different to a modern violin and bow.

This is just an overview. I've kept it within classical music. If you include popular music, then of course the differences are much greater. Steewi (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Another thing that has changed is musical temperament, that is, tuning. Today's common equal temperament did not really become the norm until the mid-1800s. In earlier times meantone temperament was common, and Bach's famous Well-Tempered Clavier was composed to demonstrate well temperament. The effect of this is still present in the notion that different keys have different moods. This doesn't make a lot of sense in modern equal temperament, but it does in older systems, in which different keys really did have slightly different pitch relationships. So when one hears that Beethoven found the key of C to be "heroic", for example, it can be confusing until one remembers that in Beethoven's day equal temperament was not yet established, and the key of C really did sound different from other keys. Pfly (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That notion extended way past the time when equal temperament became the norm. Transposing a piece into a different key might not be noticed by the great bulk of people, but to some people it's virtually a different piece. Composers of the 19th and 20th centuries chose the keys for their works very deliberately, sometimes for reasons such as orchestral music in E flat minor or C sharp major is difficult for many instruments to grapple with (and even good old C major is one of the most difficult keys for violins to play), but sometimes for mood-related reasons. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(Random tangent) Singing in amateur choirs, I've found there are some keys people find very difficult to stay in; they 'drift' into a more comfortable key. It isn't that the notes are too high or too low, but that there still seems to be some different feel to the keys. Not really sure where that comes from. 79.66.71.197 (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither of these things has really changed since the Baroque era though. Excepting of course the evolution of instruments, which has changed to some degree (horns have changed, violins haven't really). That certain instruments sound different is certain keys is definitely true--but is true today more or less like it was a couple centuries ago--for those instruments still in use anyway. I'm not sure about choirs, but if true the same idea ought to hold there too. Pfly (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

We're drifting off the OPs question here, but the "mood" of keys has always interested me. Because I can't detect it at all. I found the musical temperament article and discussion by Pfly very interesting, and could see how that effect would result in a pretty clear distinction between the moods of each key. I suppose I can also see where Jack is coming from on the classical side. Considering the limited optimal ranges of orchestral instruments, I suppose I could see how the key would have to influence the assigning of parts to each instrument, and the passing back and forth of melodies. But, for example, I sometimes make orchestral songs using MIDI. Maybe I'm just spoiled by the fact that the MIDI voices that I use sound pretty great playing nearly any note (on a "strings" voice, the lower the note, the more the feeling of the bassy instruments or Cello comes out, for example). Is is just that I am spoiled by the wide range of the electric guitar and modern synth voices? NByz (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think part of it has to do with how an instrument makes sound. Take a guitar for example. If you want chords with that full round sound that comes with lots of open strings you will find it easier to do in keys like A and D rather than Bb and Eb. Wind instruments tend to have distinctive qualities over their ranges. Clarinet comes to mind, with its chalumeau register, throat tones, etc. And yes, these things don't matter when using synths--although other similar things might enter into it. A synth I have has a nice "choir" patch that I like quite a lot. But it sounds increasingly fake and shrill as you approach and pass a high C. Another synth I used to have had complex filters that sometimes made individual notes sound quite wrong compared to the rest of a patch. So if composing for that patch one would want to avoid keys that made heavy use of such notes. But in general--yea I'm spoiled too. :-) On the other hand, synth sounds, no matter how nice, have to be sent to an electronic amplifier and loudspeakers--probably using some kind of paper-like cone pushed by magnets. This, plus other things, limits the sound. Although the piano-like synth I have is more enjoyable to play than a lot of real pianos, it can never come close to the sound of big pieces of wood resonating, as in a real piano. Naturally the difference between a real instrument and a synth is lost when one listens to recordings of real instruments through loudspeakers. Pfly (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The process is the punishment

My exposure to marijuana-related news items has exposed me to the idea of the DEA/law enforcement/whoever entangling marijuana users and dispensers into complicated and expensive legal procedures that they know will end in acquittal. In other words, they are using the legal process as a punishment and to disuade the citizenry from involving themselves in illegal marijuana. My question is: what sort of protections are there in place to prevent/punish this sort of abuse of power? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Malicious prosecution might be a starting point, offering civil remedies. In most countries you can complain to authorities over police misconduct e.g. police harassment. The press/media also play an important role in combatting abuses of power. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you. With marijuana, it seems like it's a little different from the strict set of qualifications because it's technically illegal (so probable cause is present) but it's still an abuse of process because there is "an improper purpose that is collateral to the proper object of the process". — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 16:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Explaining death to a child.

My wife's mother recently passed and we now have the unfortunate task of explaining 'where grandma has gone' to our 2 year old daughter. We are not religious and don't believe in an afterlife so we don't want to use words/phrases like 'heaven' or 'a better place'. Our dilemma is that although we believe that life just ends when you die, it seems a little harsh to tell someone who is just getting to grips with existence, that someone she is very fond of has simply stopped being here.

I'm sure Richard Dawkins had some suggestions in his God Delusion book but can't remember any of the phrases he put forward. Any suggestions welcome.91.109.221.91 (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

With great respect for your beliefs and great empathy with your current situation - for which I have no immediate suggestion - I noticed you said your wife's mother "passed". Passing usually refers to going from one place to another place. I know it's a common euphemism for dying; but maybe, somewhere in your psyche, there's a little voice that's telling you she's not just ceased to exist period, but has in some sense gone somewhere, where in some sense she still exists. Maybe? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry about your loss, and I don't envy you the task of breaking the news to your daughter. However, to be honest, I would just bite the bullet and explain her that her grandma has died, and then tell her what that means -- if she's not familiar with the concept, you may have to break it down for her in pretty simple terms, like "she got very sick and her body doesn't work anymore." You're absolutely right to not use euphemisms, I think; if you just say that she's "gone away", for example, she's going to ask if you can visit her -- or worse, start worrying that when someone else who goes away, that might also mean that they die. And when she has questions about all this, you answer them gently, but truthfully: grandma is dead, she's not coming back, and it's all right to feel sad about that and miss her, and it's nothing to be scared about. At two years, she's probably not going to grasp these things right off the bat, but that's all right. She'll get it. One of the most fundamental facts of life is that it ends, and there's no getting around that, but what you don't want to do is make it into some kind of a secret and scary thing. I really don't think you have a lot of choice but to talk about it fairly openly, if you're going to break the news to her. (The alternativly would be to just kind of keep her in the dark, which is probably doable, but I really wouldn't recommend that.)

Also: you find it hard to talk about this with her, which is understandable. You may want to consider, however, if your apprehension comes not only from the thought that this might distress her, but from your own reluctance to go through the ordeal of explaining this to such a young child, because you don't want to get it wrong or simply because you'd like to avoid dealing with it? If so, I certainly wouldn't blame you. I mean, that's exactly what I would be feeling. But kids are pretty tough, and they can deal with this kind of stuff. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We were in your position when our oldest daughter turned three and my husband's father died suddenly. Our daughter was sad when told that Grandad was dead, but children are very good at accepting things (better than adults, in my experience). Once told that it was OK to be sad, and we were all sad too, but that we didn't have to stop loving Grandad just because he was dead, she coped just fine. And yes, we used the word "dead" - I don't like euphemisms and my own experience is that they tend to confuse children. When my mother, who was religious, attempted to discuss another relative's death with our younger daughter some years later, she nobly avoided the "gone to heaven with Baby Jesus" theme because she knew we'd prefer her to, but the mixture of bodily burial and hints of vague spiritual resurrection she provided instead got our daughter so confused that she apparently worried for some time that Auntie Eileen had been composted at the bottom of the garden and would come back with the snowdrops in the spring. Which isn't such a bad image, I suppose, but not helpful for the very literal, as children are at that age. I'm sure your daughter will be fine, and my best wishes to your family at this sad time. Karenjc 15:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

A similar question was asked before. See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008_March_25#Need_help. 132.206.22.11 (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We've had rather quite a few instances of the same kind. My daughter is six and her family tree has been pruned four times since she was born - and both mama and I have fairly small families! I am an atheist and wanted to give my girl the straight story without traumatizing her, so I greatly sympathize with your situation. My experience is that telling the child honestly and candidly what has happened is the best thing; the trauma a child can feel is only enhanced by trying to sugar-coat the situation. My wife's mother died when my daughter was about two (synchronicity?) and to be honest at that age their conception of things is much more plastic than ours is. I'd like to say that she accepted the loss well, but in truth I'm not sure she really grasped that something had been lost at all; not because we didn't let her experience the situation, but rather because she just wasn't socially or psychologically developed enough to really appreciate what had happened.

Since you've asked for advice and we seem to have a common background in some things, I'll give it: tell her honestly but compassionately and pay close attention to how she reacts to what you say. You know your child as well as anybody; try to read what she's feeling (she won't be able to express herself verbally) and deal with what she wants to deal with. At a more neutral time, you may also want to sit her down and ask her plainly whether she has any questions about death or dying. I found myself in that situation and was somewhat surprised at the range of questions and concerns even a young child can have, from "what happens to my toys when the sun explodes?" (actual question) to "what do you see when you're dead?" (also real) to "who will look after me if you and mommy die?" (again, real). Stay calm, be reassuring, but plain-spoken. Kids hate being lied to. Matt Deres (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on the Golden Rule of fiscal policy

The article about the Golden Rule of fiscal policy states that "the Government will borrow only to invest and not to fund current spending". My question is about the extent to which spending can be considered as 'investment'.

Would spending money to build a new road or school be an 'investment'? What about disaster relief? These both seem to be investments in a way. But are welfare payments? Is there any rigid guidance?

Any help appreciated, cheers. 77.99.21.181 (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The definition of "investment" is in the mind of the politicians finagling preparing the budget. As U.S. Senator Richard Russell (among many others) said, "Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax the fellow behind that tree." By the same token, you'll find people talking seriously about protecting their investment in their car, which lost 20% or so of its value when they drove it new from the dealership.

A road might seem like a good, long-term idea (the payoff being the service it provides, and possibly an increase in commerce or quality of life). The bridge to nowhere was touted (endlessly) as an investment, though most non-Alaskans saw it as the biggest pig Ted Stevens ever tried to bring home. --- OtherDave (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

As per GAAP, IFRS and economic thinking (the latter, IMHO) investment is a use of capital designed to "produce a long term benefit." Usually this is interpreted as > one year. For example, under GAAP and IFRS, with certain exceptions, capital investments of this nature are capitalized (turned into an "asset") then depreciated over their useful life. If the benefit is deemed to last less than one year (again, with certain explicit exceptions, but generally speaking), it's an "expense." I think that this one-year rule approximates economic thinking about what constitutes an investment vs. spending.

It should be noted, that this "golden rule" certainly isn't universal. You'll notice that the Fiscal Policy article doesn't link to it. Traditional, Keynesian fiscal policy is just designed to stimulate short-run aggregate demand to artificially flatten the wild swings in the business cycle by encouraging companies to maintain inventories and production throughout. Keynes, famously (because it was mentioned on Colbert last night), said something to the effect that, during a recession, government ought to borrow money (or actually he said "pay from savings..." savings... yeah right...) to pay people to dig holes and fill them in if needs be. Naturally, something that actually generates utility would be better, but the point is, that government has the power to take a hit to its' balance sheet and keep people spending money during recessions. The flip side of this, of course, is that the government needs to be accumulating savings (or paying down debt) during times of expansion. I'm proud to say that Canada has been doing this, and can best afford to use this sort of fiscal stimulus now. NByz (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so by that "one-year" definition, roads and schools, done correctly, would have obvious one-year+ benefits to discount to present value. Disaster relief would have a pretty strong argument too, especially if it's in the form of capital goods. It would also count if, by providing water and food, you're saving lives, and those people are going to do something productive in the next year+ range. Welfare payments are a little tougher to justify as an investment, but it's possible: Firstly, not having an income sufficient to maintain health (food, medicine etc.) may result in a long-term loss (and providing them, a long-term benefit). Also, having no welfare payments forces people to take jobs that may not be commiserate with their skills. If a person has the resources to wait for a fitting job to come around, they will produce more long-term value for society.

Again though, traditional fiscal policy ideas just tell us to increase spending or decrease taxes (make the "G - T" term in the macroeconomic identity as big as possible) to stimulate short-run aggregate demand as much as possible during a recession. In my view, all things considered, tax breaks are the best option because they maintain what economists call "allocative efficiency." By releasing the same value of funds that would otherwise go into a spending stimulus to the public, the public will naturally allocate the funds where they see the most personal (present value) benefit. Bureaucracies - especially political ones - don't tend to be very efficient allocators.NByz (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)