Humanities desk
< November 29	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	December 1 >

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.

November 30

Research on Social Interaction / Craving

Hi! I was wondering if someone could point me to the correct terms / things to research on this concept.

I feel that people have a craving for just "being" around people (whether or not there is any social interaction). Like someone who is self-employed who likes working in a coffee shop to be around people. I feel that being around people makes a person feel less lonely, if that makes sense.

Is there a concept in sociology to describe this phenomenon? Could anyone point me to what I can further research? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legolas52 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extraversion and introversion may be of interest. Extroverts tend to enjoy being around people. Pollinosisss (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In sociology the closest concept is socialisation, but specifically for what you described, the psychological concept of Extrovert personality is more suitable-as Pollinosisss suggested.--Gilisa (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roll/Role Credits

In TV and movie intro credits, most of the actors will have their name only (eg. Adam Alpha), but sometimes they get credited with a: AND Bob Bravo, or WITH Charles Charlie, or STARRING Daniel Delta. Is there a rule/informal convention that governs who gets a credit prefix and what they get? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.135.122 (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions similar to this one have been asked before. Basically, it boils down to A) the convention that the show uses and B) what the actors agree to in their contracts. The contract will often spell out how and in what order they should be billed. Dismas|^(talk) 06:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billing is definitely something that actors (or their agents) negotiate over. I don't have a citeable source, but I'd seen it stated than an "and" credit is seen as better than a regular one. This provides a way to resolve things when there are two actors who each think they deserve first billing -- one gets it and the other gets "and". An interesting example is The Longest Day, where the cast credits begin by saying that they will be in alphabetical order, but end with "and John Wayne" (and no, he wasn't alphabetically last). My impression is that "and" credits are more likely to be used if the part is relatively small, but important.

(Another solution to billing conflicts, by the way, is "diagonal equal billing", where one name is to the lower left and another is to the upper right. One case where this was used was The Towering Inferno, a movie made by merging two existing projects into one; the two male leads demanded exactly equal treatment. The opening credits for Key Largo, with three names on the first credit screen, may be interpreted as having two of them placed in similar fashion.)

--Anonymous, 08:18 UTC, November 30, 2009.

Interesting question -- for a long time, I've wondered why Hill Harper gets a "with HH" on CSI:NY. Never really thought of him as some kind of master actor? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And somewhat related, you may or may not have noticed that in the opening credits, the director is nearly always listed last. Whether that's due to convention or due to union rules, I'm not sure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A similar question, why do these "and" credits often also include the character's name? What's so special about that character? Adam Bishop (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's because they sometimes use an older actor who'd be known to older viewers but not to younger ones, who might constitute the majority of the audience. Maybe some of these younger ones have vaguely heard the actor's name before, but don't know anything about their career or even what their face looks like. So, when the character appears, it enables them to say (or go, if you prefer) "Oh, so that's Charlton Heston. I always wondered what God looked like". :) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For more, potentially unreliable, information, we have some mostly unreferenced articles on motion picture credits, billing (filmmaking), opening credits, and closing credits. Why those are four different articles is unclear—must be those union rules that everyone talks about. My favorite credit oddity is that in the WGA screenwriting credit system, an "and" and an "&" have different meanings. —Kevin Myers 22:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the director is listed last in the opening credits is because the Directors Guild of America negotiated that in their Basic Agreement. See [1], paragraph 8-201. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, that convention makes sense to me (and there is a need to differentiate between screenwriting teams and rewritings). Dirty Harry is a good example of a movie which has both & and and; Harry Fink & Rita Fink and Dean Riesner. FiggyBee (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens if not hundreds of examples. Fortunately, according to the WGA screenwriting credit system article, there's "a maximum of three teams of three" that can get screen credit. Otherwise, the writing credits would sometimes last longer than the movie, which actually might be a good thing, since movies with a boatload of writers are usually awful. Can anyone think of examples where the "maximum of three teams of three" has happened exactly, i.e. nine writers in three groups of three, such as "Written by Huey & Dewey & Louie and Tom & Dick & Harry and Harold & Maude & Barack"? —Kevin Myers 01:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, like with The Wizard of Oz. Whatever became of that movie? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 1939 Wizard of Oz is a classic example of a movie "made by committee" (collectively by the old Hollywood studio system, without any real "auteur" or one single strong deciding voice) which turned out reasonably well... AnonMoos (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used Dirty Harry as an example because it was on here last night FiggyBee (talk) 05:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an afterthought, yesterday I watched the 1954 movie Father Brown (a.k.a. "The Detective") on TCM, and it had credits in an older style where "and" had quite a different meaning, which I'd forgotten about when reading this thread before. In the opening credit sequence, the first screen or two of credits showed the two or three biggest stars, then it said "with" and the next screen had about three cast members with the main supporting roles; and then the next screen had "and" and about 10-12 cast members in much smaller type. In this case, obviously, an "and" credit is not the kind you'd prefer -- although it's still better than the still smaller parts identified only in the closing credits. --Anonymous, 05:08 UTC, December 6, 2009.

Sense of Time and Space when driving

I'm from Vancouver BC, Canada, and I think nothing of a 2 hour drive to go to other towns and such (Seattle, for example.) Even Portland Oregon at 6 hours away doesn't seem to much of a stretch, and Calgary or Edmonton at 12 hours isn't totally out of the question (though very unusual to drive). Ottawa, the national capital, is at least a couple of days non-stop, while Newfoundland is closer to Ireland than it is to me.

Nevertheless, given that Canada is so huge, these distances are pretty standard fare. What constitutes "too far" in Europe? Would 2 hours seem ridiculous? I mean, Canada is practically as big as Europe. I realize the question is subjective, but any thoughts?Aaronite (talk) 06:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer for Europe, but in Australia we also have long distances between places, and so many of us (myself included) think nothing of a two or three hour drive. --121.127.200.51 (talk) 08:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Malaysia a drive from Kuala Lumpur to Penang or Singapore (4-5 hours) or even Alor Setar (5-6 hours) or Kota Bharu (7+ partially due to the lack of good roads [2]) or for that matter even Penang to Singapore or Johor Baru (8 hours+) and similar things wouldn't be uncommon particularly given the Balik kampung that many Chinese and Malay Malaysians do every year (no wikilink sadly although discussed in Chinese New Year & Hari Raya Aidilfitri to some extent or see [3]). The rise of budget airlines like Air Asia has probably reduced the popularity of driving particularly since those who can't afford the price of air travel may not even own a car so will be taking a bus instead (or perhaps train but I think buses are much more popular because they're usually faster and not more expensive) but there's still a large number that do it as traffic jams at toll plazas will atest. Incidentally, I can say from personal experience many people drove for longer times in the past, before the North-South Expressway, Malaysia was completed Nil Einne (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it varies from person to person, but speaking as a UK resident, I get reluctant from 4 hours and up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prokhorovka (talk • contribs) 10:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from the UK - a 2-hour drive is nothing. That time might get you 1/3 way up the length of England if the traffic/roads are clear! In terms of a drive it's not considered 'too far' by anybody I know. Sure it's not my 'standard' driving time - I live in the north and the most I tend to do is trips of about an hour - that way I can get to Manchester, Newcastle, Whitby, The Yorkshire Dales, North York Moors etc. etc. so apart from visiting family/holidays there's really no 'need' for me to drive more than about an hour, but i'd certainly not consider >2 hour journeys to be 'ridiculous'. 10:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The UK is a crowded little island and even a short journey can turn into a major undertaking. My 15 mile commute (going out of London against the traffic) took an hour this morning; the worst ever for the same journey was 3 hours. Alansplodge (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where I live in south-east England, we have six or eight towns and two cities within one hour's travel by car or train, and they cover all day-to-day needs. I might be doing a longer 2-3 hour drive to see friends or family about once a month. A 4 hour-plus car journey is an occassional event for me - say once or twice a year. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As somebody said ^{[citation needed]}: in the UK, 200 miles is far; in the USA, 200 years is old. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many cities in New Jersey are 2 hours from Philadelphia, and most would think such a drive way out of the ordinary to make on a constant basis for no real reason, but a guy driving from NJ to the Five Towns on Long Island for a date with a really rich girl will see no problem with the journey, even if it takes more than 2 hours. Perhaps its because most of the travel time is consumed by traffic and not distance. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I live near Toronto, which is a much more densely populated part of Canada than where Aaronite lives, and 2 hours is pretty far for me. But then, everything you could need is in Toronto, which is 15 minutes away at best (in the worst traffic it has taken me 2 hours to drive 30 km, but that is pretty rare). My parents are 2 hours away, and that is far enough that visiting is a special occasion. Even driving an hour or less to the north is a special occasion, that's "up north" to "cottage country". Similarly to the US border, which is only an hour or less to the south. Ottawa is 4 or 5 hours and that might as well be another planet. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also near Toronto, and used to live near London (UK). I drive much further on average here than in England, because things are that much further apart. I drove 30 minutes last week to a nice restaurant for my wife's birthday. An hour to get to a good walking trail for the afternoon. Two hours to ski for a day. Those are not ridiculous things in England, but I do them much more frequently here. As Gandalf says, if I drove for half an hour in England I'd pass dozens of spectacular restaurants, so why would you do that? DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who moved from California to Massachusetts, I would just want to note that distance and time are not the same thing in such places. I am used to long drives that really get you over long distances—things are far apart but the roads are pretty clear in central California. In densely-populated regions, like the Northeast, it is not the case at all—you can spend an hour just trying to get twenty miles away depending on the route. Driving in the large, open spaces is a very different thing that driving on packed highways or through big cities, in my experience. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just waiting at a red light can take a long time. But there's a fix for that. Try to do something. Like reading a map or fiddling with some papers. The light will go green almost immediately. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand's a bit like the US in terms of distance and age -I used to like in a house in the UK which had one wall dating back to the 15th century. That was old. Here, any 19th century house is old. As for distances, a Kiwi will think nothing of going 150km to a "nearby" town - in Britain, a nearby town would be 15 km or less away. Longer drives, as pointed out above, aren't uncommon, but with a lot of things nearer at hand, why bother a lot of the time? Grutness...wha? 23:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some years ago I stayed with friends on Jersey (the original, not New Jersey). They took us to their favourite restaurant, to which they did not go often, because it was right at the other end of the Island - 10 miles away. I created a theory whereby the furthest distance you can possibly go is necessarily 'long', and other distances are 'short' and 'medium' in comparison. --ColinFine (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My original research agrees well with ColinFine. When I was a child, my family and I spent a summer in Dervock, a small community in northeastern Northern Ireland. We found that people in the church we attended thought a trip to Belfast — approximately 80 km, or slightly more than an hour's drive according to Google Maps — to be a long journey, and going to the other side of Northern Ireland they imagined to be a ridiculously long trip; and when we told them that we planned to drive from southwestern Scotland to Shropshire while holidaying on Great Britain, they thought we were crazy. As an American, I found this quite surprising, seeing that all of Northern Ireland is approximately the size of Connecticut, and drives around my native Ohio are very frequently longer than any of these drives — just today I rode for six hours without thinking it to be at all uncomfortably long. Nyttend (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might also depend on your expectations. I can find a 20-minute drive to be tedious. Yet I've also sometimes driven 750 miles in a single day. And I've known folks that have driven, by themselves or with others, from one coast of the USA to the other, some 2,700 miles. Not in one day, obviously. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used to live in a city in the UK with a population of about 250000, and I had little reason to travel away from it. I would sometimes travel to smaller towns ten miles away for tourism, and only rarely went to the capital which was about an hour away by train. As someone pointed out, in the UK there would be no point in driving two hours as you can find what you want within 10 or 20 minutes. Since the rail network is I expect more dense, then its more comfortable to go by train rather than drive. Now I live in a smaller town, and I do travel to the nearest city more frequently. 78.147.2.230 (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the person, obviously, but I suppose the size of the country counts as well. I live in this tiny country, Slovenia, where you can drive from one far end to the other (from the coast to Hungary) in something like three, three and a half hours. My parents live two hours away by car, and I find that far to drive, so I don't visit as much as I'd like to... TomorrowTime (talk) 07:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss judges/neutrality

List of judges of the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland All the judges have a political party listed after their names. Do they belong to those parties? Does this impact on their neutrality/independence? F (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article says it's the "party nominating that judge". Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland doesn't give much information, but the French version seems to say that the Federal Assembly tries to balance the various linguistic and cultural communities in the country, so presumably having a mix of political backgrounds is part of this. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just having the appearance of bias is enough to disqualify a judge in English systems, does this not matter in the Swiss system?F (talk) 03:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find information on Swiss law here on Wikipedia at the moment; but in the system used in France and many other countries, a judge in a trial courtroom should not be neutral, so I'd not be surprised if higher-up judges aren't required to be neutral either. Nyttend (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, supreme court nominations are fairly contested, and Judges are often classified as "nominated by a Democratic/Republican" president. The Swiss are simply more open about it... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S 2 hour drives can be stressful..... especially if the radio in the car isnt working :D

Epic battles in 16th and 17th centuries

which epic battle in 16th/17th century resulted in about 100,000 were killed or wounded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.99.207 (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of epic battles then (Battle of Mohacs? Battle of Lepanto? Battle of Vienna?) but I don't know if any were that big. There is a big list at List of battles 1401–1800. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Siege of Tenochtitlan. See List of battles by casualties.--Michael White^T·C 06:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for good fiction/non-fiction about female messiahs

I am looking to purchase a book (hopefully bestseller) in which the protagonist is a female messiah/chosen one/etc. Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.4.8.12 (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search for female messiah novel produces Ann the Word : The Story of Ann Lee, Female Messiah, Mother of the Shakers by Richard Francis, non-fiction. Daughter of God by Lewis Perdue, fiction. The Last Day by Glenn Kleier, fiction. There may be more. 89.242.99.245 (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may be in the minority, but I thoroughly enjoyed "The last day" by Glenn Kleier (fiction, a modern-day political/religious thriller). Grutness...wha? 23:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parable of the Sower/Parable of the Talents by Octavia Butler is precisely that, as is the Xenogenesis trilogy, also by Octavia Butler. Steewi (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try Valis by Philip K. Dick...Rhinoracer (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Importance of good grades after some years

How important are good grades after you have been working some years? I have the impression that whether the goods not the bad grades that I got have any influence... ProteanEd (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Working where, and for how long? Good grades at what level of education? (Without any further info, I'd have to guess that your grades in school are completely unimportant.) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's an impossible question to answer, as it infinitely varies according to what you're after in life. Some employers don't care a jot for any kinds of grades. Some are obsessed. FWIW, when I recruit, I pay little attention to them, but in a former job, my boss was an educational snob and pushed hard to get me to appoint candidates with the best educational background. --Dweller (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like everything in life, it depends, but here's the general view: in most professions, your actual grades decline in importance as you spend more time in the workforce. Grades are used as a rough proxy for various attributes (intelligence, personality traits, social class, etc) and the utility of that rough proxy matters less and less when there is more immediate information. This isn't true for all professions though, as I've been told that your class rank matters for longer in law than it does for other professional domains. Things like independent projects and actual experience seem to be more valued in computer science/IT-related fields.--droptone (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience in the Library field, good grades are totally irrelevant. Once you complete your Master's or Diploma in Library Science, it doesn't matter how well you did, so long as you have that piece of paper. I don't know too many employers who ask for a transcript. What really matters is quality of interview and/or CV. I suspect in many other fields this is true. Aaronite (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the OP. I meant after your bachelor, and not trying to get into a graduate program yet. If you have been working some years, apparently only what you did as an employee seems to be evaluated. Would that mean that good grades are useless after a while? (perhaps excluding fields like law or PhD candidates.).ProteanEd (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only entry on your resume that really matters is the last one, chronologically. If you have never held a job before, then your grades are very important. If you are going for a second job, your prospective employer is going to care most about how and what you did in your prior job, not what grade you got in French class back in 1995. --Jayron32 20:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:OR but what the heck... I recently got a promotion. When they were vetting me for this, the hiring managers asked if I had taken various classes in college. I've been out of college for about 12 years, so I had to refer to my transcript to even remember the classes. The managers didn't ask about grades at all. They only wanted to know what things were covered. I have the degree, so they assume I passed (which I did) but that was that. Dismas|^(talk) 21:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "not very" - but they can matter if you want to do something new, using skills which are related to those grades, and you more recent work and/or voluntary experience doesn't show that you have acquired them. That's particularly true in education - for example, at the university where I work, you will not be permitted to do an MA if you do not have at least a 2.1 in a degree, unless you have lots of relevant work experience. But you may get made an offer if you have a 2.1 but it is not in a directly relevant subject. Some companies require employees to have achieved an exam grade showing basic competence in English and maths. It usually doesn't matter to them if you failed such an exam, or received a poor grade, provided you have now got that qualification. Warofdreams talk 22:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your university seems rather severe - I've known several people who have done master's degrees when only having a diploma and not a degree. Another way around may be for example to take something like the GMAT which may override your other grades. I think you can re-take it any number of times. And another way around in the UK at least, would probably be to take an Open University degree or postgraduate course for which I imagine the entry conditions are probably lower, if they have any at all. There may be equivalent institutions in your country. Or you could go to evening classes/night school and get other qualifications, or even repeat the ones you have. I've noticed that entry to educational courses seems more based on self-selection now than it was in the past, without your past being asked about or having to be proved. I think what employers and educational institutions want is someone who shows evidence of being hard-working and dedicated. For jobs being too well qualified may be a disadvantage as they will think you may soon leave for another better job, and a lot of people would hate to have a subordinate better qualified than themselves. 89.242.99.245 (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article on and term for "reading to" (e.g. children)

The Dutch Wikipedia has an article on (actually "voorlezer"), meaning reading to someone (e.g. children). Is there a corresponding article in the English language Wikipedia? (Reading mentions it briefly, but there is probably more to say about this.

Secondly, is there an English term for this other than "reading to"? You could say "to recite" in some situations, but not when to children.

Thank you in advance. 83.81.42.44 (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is bedtime story (a rather short article). You can say "telling a story to" rather than "reading to" (telling a story includes telling stories from your head as well as from a book). --Tango (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ambassadorial appointments

In the US, are you required to accept an ambassadorial appointment if offered one? If not, how do you keep ambassadors in some of the less fun countries, like Nigeria, Sudan or Mongolia? Googlemeister (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fun isn't exactly the only reason someone takes a job. There's prestige (any ambasadorial appointment is likely to give you better future job propects than none), there's money, there's a sense of duty, there's personal fulfillment. After all, we can't all have Ron Jeremy's job... --Jayron32 21:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Jayron says, Ambassadorial jobs are highly prestigious and allow the holder to hobnob with the upper crust of whatever country he or she is being posted to. Countries that are difficult to live in often are extremely interesting in job terms (Nigeria would likely fit into that category for many persons). And there's no accounting for taste. You may think Mongolia sounds like the boringest place on the planet, but for someone else interested in - take you pick - nomads, deserts, mining, post-communist economic and social transition, it can be fascinating. --Xuxl (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention fantastic fly-fishing!DOR (HK) (talk) 06:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And to answer your original question, of course you can decline an appointment as Ambassador. There may be cases where the Head of State/Government or the Foreign Minister will twist your arm to accept, but it is not in the sending State's interest to post as an Ambassador someone who doesn't want to be in the receiving country. There are also often monetary incentives for serving in patricularly difficult locations. --Xuxl (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, being in a country with a very low cost of living but earning a first world salary gives you massive purchasing power. A friend of my dad had a job as a national head of operations (or something like that) for a big multinational. There is one for every country the company does business (which is most of the world), so it isn't really a top job, but because he was in Vietnam he was able to have a mansion with a cook, housekeeper and driver. He would never have had any of those things if he did the same job in a first world country. --Tango (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And for those monetary incentives, see hardship post (something that even Moscow used to be). Nanonic (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you really didn't want to go, and if for some reason you didn't decline the appointment or the President and the Senate went ahead and nominated/confirmed you despite your decline, you could always resign before you got on the plane. Nyttend (talk) 06:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While not exactly the same, I did have the privilege of turning down a deputy ambassador-rank job. Huge ego trip! DOR (HK) (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Indians and US Born Pacific Asians

Is Asian Indians count as white sometimes because they sometimes have dark brown skin tones, as well as Mexicans usually have brown skin tones. Do US Bron Asian counts as whites? Because [4] article 2006 census counts Asian indians and US Bron Asians as other race.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who's "counting"? ...My error, it's the US Census doing the counting.--Wetman (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The census forms ask the respondent to categorize him- or herself, and recently they've been accepting "Other" (for people who feel the categories don't fit them). There's no "official" categorizing procedure. In the not-so-distant past this was primarily an issue only in segregated areas: could subcontinent Indians ride in the Whites Only car, e.g. -- and results might vary, depending on whom you asked. Mercifully that's mostly a thing of the past. Elphion (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders used to be classified with Asians under "Asian/Pacific Islander", but are now a separate category. Asian includes all Asians, certainly including East, Southeast and South Asians, but also, I think, Southwest Asians, as well as Arabs and Israelis who don't consider themselves African, White or Other. It's not a classification by 19th-century racial groups (such as Aryan, Caucasoid, Semitic or Mongoloid), unless the respondents themselves choose to go by such classifications (e.g. an Iranian-American or a light-skinned Brahmin considering himself an Aryan or Indo-European and therefore White). As said above, it is a matter of self-classification, which makes sorting out Hispanics, e.g. in The Bronx, very tricky (many Hispanic-Americans consider themselves a separate racial group, but others count themselves among Whites or Blacks).—— Shakescene (talk) 05:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion on the definition of "other race", especially Hispanic/Latino-related confusion, is (if I remember rightly) the primary reason that "other race" won't be an option in the 2010 census. Nyttend (talk) 06:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Population of the U.S., 2000

Race	Population
aaTotal Asian	10,243,000
Asian Indian	1,679,000
Chinese	2,433,000
Filipino	1,850,000
Japanese	797,000
Korean	1,077,000
Vietnamese	1,123,000
wOther Asian†	1,295,000
yNative Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander	399,000
zNative Hawaiian	141,000
zGuamanian or Chamorro	58,000
zSamoan	91,000
zzOther Pacific Islander†	109,000
† [Either another subcategory or more than one within the same category] Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2003, Table No. 23

Also remember that the U.S. census relies solely on self-identification in its racial/national origin statistics. They don't show up at your door and say "Yup, you're white" and at your neighbor's door and say "Yup, you're not white". What they do is send a form to your house, and you fill in the little circle next to the group that you think you belong to. That's about it. --Jayron32 20:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do people even have to fill out that form when they get marry. On normal forms lapplication like DMV I see that form and I just color in what I belong. Do we have to do this when we get marry? I thought people just get marry in the church.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States most (maybe all) states require you to file for a Marriage licence with the state. I would imagine that because of the ugly history of Anti-miscegenation laws, many states have eliminated racial questions from the applications for these licences. However, every U.S. state handles such licences in a wildly different manner, so there are no general statements which can be made as to what each state requires in order to file for marriage. It's going to be very different from state to state. Of course, you could just get married without any licence at all, but most (all?) states and the Federal gov't offer priviliged status to married couples vs. single people, and in order to claim these benefits, you need to have a state-licenced marriage. You do get married in a church (or anywhere else you like), but a week or so before the wedding, you go down to some sort of civic office (town hall, city hall, county government complex) and file for a licence. I got married in Fairfax County, Virginia, and about a week before my wife and I were married (in a Southern Baptist church), we filled out an application for a licence. We filled out most of it in the County Government offices, it was then notarized, and we took the application with us to the wedding itself, where it was signed by the officiant (minister) and some witnesses. We then mailed in the application and received the actual licence a month or so later. We needed the official licence so my wife could change her name, etc. etc. --Jayron32 21:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about in other states, but in Ohio, it's illegal for a minister to perform a wedding for a couple who don't have a marriage license; shortly after he moved to Ohio from another state, my pastor was scheduled to marry a couple from his congregation but had to ask another minister to officiate, because he wasn't yet permitted. Nyttend (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Baebius Tamphilus (tribune of the plebs 103 BC)

What relation is Marcus Baebius Tamphilus (tribune of the plebs 103 BC) to Marcus Baebius Tamphilus (consul 181 BC)? There does not seem to be an article on the first.--64.138.237.101 (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Baebius#Late Republic, it states: "both praenomen and cognomen uncertain". Baebius a colleague of Saturninus is from the De viris illustribus of Aurelius Victor 73. Colleague would mean tribune in 103. It is presumed that this is the same Baebius as was torn to pieces B.C. 87 (Lucan II.119), see: Sulla's first civil war#Aftermath. If this is true, then Appian gives the praenomen 'Marcus' Appian B.C. I.72. 'Tamphilus' is then further speculation as that would be most likely for a tribune 'Marcus Baebius' around that time. If you're headed to the library there is a discussion in Rawson, Elizabeth. (1987). Sallust on the Eighties? The Classical Quarterly, 37, p. 166. doi:10.1017/S0009838800031748.—eric 18:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]