Humanities desk
< December 22	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 24 >

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.

December 23

how old was Paris Hilton in the sex videos?

how old wsa Paris Hilton in her sex videos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.234.207.120 (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Paris Hilton says she was born in 1981 and the tape was done in 2003. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christina of Denmark

Who was the first Danish monarch who was descended from Christina of Denmark?

Charles III, Duke of Lorraine. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles III, Duke of Lorraine wasn't a Danish monarch. Did any of the descendants of Christina children Charles and Renata married into the Danish Royal Family.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm sorry, you meant a monarch ruling Denmark, not merely a monarch of Danish extraction. No, it looks like there were no such descendants. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the default interpretation. Would you expect, for example, a list of "German monarchs" to include Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom? I doubt anyone would. "Monarchs of German extraction" - now, that would be an entirely different matter. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the health effects (and effects on mental alertness) of the following diet for an obese Chinese-Singaporean?

2 main meals per day, 1st around noon, 2nd around 6pm. 1st would be a Chinese soup dish, such as wet wonton mee, fish soup with rice, fish noodle soup or bee hoon soup. 2nd dish would be a Chinese rice dish, such as fried rice, Hainanese chicken rice or charsiew rice with roasted pork. Less healthy food (nasi lemak, Hokkien mee, Western fish/chicken with rice) would be one of the main meals up to twice per week. Unhealthy treats (KFC, zi cha seafood) once per week to once per fortnight.

Breakfast at 8am would be a bun, such as a hot dog bun, or bread with a filling such as jam, peanut butter or margarine. In each of 3 intervals (between breakfast & 1st main meal, between the main meals, after 2nd main meal) drink 1-2 glasses each of water, fresh milk and soya bean milk. On some days, have fruits (bananas, grapes or an apple) or snacks (biscuits/cookies) in between meals. Chocolate as snack is limited to once per week.

Lifestyle: apart from a 30-minute jog on some mornings (or a 45-minute light workout at a fitness corner) plus going out to buy food (or to meet friends, twice per week), mostly sedentary. Aspiring professional writer taking private A-Levels, must spend 4 hours per day studying & 3 hours per day writing. Main leisure activities (besides exercise & meeting friends mentioned above) are reading, listening to music and online time (up to 2-3 hours combined). Also breathing exercises, daily Christian prayers, reflection sessions, some Chinese relaxation techniques (like tai chi, still learning), combined 30-60 minutes per day.

Above diet plus lifestyle will last 2 months. Following that, need to start an 8am-5pm job (must travel far), balancing that plus studying for A-Levels plus writing aspirations will reduce leisure time and certain foods may not be available (e.g. can't bring fresh milk to work).

Any and all advice is greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.225 (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that we cannot give any advice regarding this sort of thing. Losing weight is the sort of thing that is best handled under the advice of a doctor or nutritionist. --Jayron32 03:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but Wikipedia is not the place for medical advice - perhaps you could ask for a referral to a dietitian from your family doctor? Royor (talk) 08:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Least famous US president

I realise that this question is rather sweeping and the answers will be largely based on personal opinion, but which American president has attracted less scholarly attention and is the least-known to average, reasonably educated people? Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your question brings to mind the "Mediocre presidents song" from The Simpsons episode "I Love Lisa" (see this video, about 3:45 in): "There's Taylor, there's Tyler, there's Fillmore and there's Hayes. There's William Henry Harrison, 'I died in thirty days!'." Gabbe (talk) 09:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sporcle has a quiz to name all US presidents. Rutherford B. Hayes was the least guessed, with 54.2% across over 3 million attempts. (28% named all presidents). Chester A. Arthur was the next lowest. (For full details, see here.) Some people game it, and there is to some extent a self-regulating (international although US-biased) sample, but I think it's a fair indicator. For people unaware of Sporcle, you merely have to name their surname; Andrew Johnson's figure is thus inflated by LBJ. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 11:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My top five would be Chester Arthur, Hayes, Van Buren, Fillmore, and Polk.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me, many of the earlier presidents (not Washington, Adams or Jefferson) are rather obscure, like Arthur, Hayes, Taylor, Tyler, Polk, Van Buren, Fillmore. Harrison is probably more famous for being the first US President to die in office than anything else... Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are really two parts to the question as asked: "least famous" and "attracted less scholarly attention". So the right answer has to be an obscure president of comparatively little interest to scholars. Some presidents are barely known to the public today but are still of scholarly interest, like Van Buren and Polk. So they're out. William Henry Harrison would still be of some significance had he never become president; a new scholarly biography of him came out in 2007. He's out. Maybe Benjamin Harrison, Fillmore, Arthur, and Hayes are the "winners". —Kevin Myers 14:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I was a freshman in high school, Millard Fillmore was kind of famous for being obscure (presumably the reason why the "Mallard Fillmore" comic strip was named after him), though I don't think that Fillmore's presidency was the most uneventful or do-nothing... AnonMoos (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone agree with me that the most boring president and First Lady were George and Martha Washington?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. At least, not until you define "boring" in relation to someone who's been dead for about 200 years. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

The answer is obviously David Rice Atchison. Greg Bard (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another candidate would be Cyrus Griffin, who was the final President of the United States in Congress Assembled. --Trovatore (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Ngram: 1 2 3 4 has a relevant opinion on this, and seems to agree with the above - can't get all in one picture, but Harrison (whom I'd never heard of) seems to be very low, at least. (of course spelling confuses the picture here - people with more names probably rank lower as sometimes names are abbreviated). The Ngram rankings (incidence in books written in English over the last centuries) is very interesting - particularly at the top. Jørgen (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly Franklin Pierce deserves some points in this category, as he is the only President to seek renomination in his party and be rejected. But every President has something going for him, or against him, one way or another. Check out the Pierce portrait and see if it reminds you of someone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't consider Theodore Roosevelt at the 1912 US presidential election in this category? (Not consecutively, though.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 09:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, although there are some similarities. He had already served two terms, and had stepped aside for Taft in the 1908 election, to his ultimate regret. He sought the GOP nomination in 1912, but they went with the incumbent, Taft. TR ran as a third-party candidate and did better than Taft did, but Wilson won the election. At that point, the GOP might have wondered what they were thinking when they went with Taft, who really didn't even like the job of President. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jørgen, that's brilliant. I heard about the Google tool but hadn't used it yet. I've narrowed down the "leading" candidates in the last 60 years here. (The end results are the same over a longer time period, but the graph is easier to read with a shorter time span.) If I haven't overlooked anyone (I did this too quickly to be sure), the "winner" is....drumroll...Chester Arthur. Second place goes to James Garfield, and third goes to Millard Fillmore. In fourth place is Franklin Pierce, since our fifth place winner, William Henry Harrison, has seen a slight increase in the last fifteen years. Benjamin Harrison, in sixth place, has been falling steadily for years. If you still have stock in B. Harrison, sell! —Kevin Myers 23:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this new Google tool doesn't yet handle middle initials very well. It's difficult to get an accurate reading on the graph for presidents who are almost always referred to with their middle initial, like James K. Polk. A graph with "James K Polk", "James Polk", or "James K. Polk" will show him below Millard Fillmore, but an advanced Google Books search reveals that this is not accurate. Polk is way down there, but not that low. This means that Chester A. Arthur and James A. Garfield are probably underrepresented in the graph I linked above. So, pending further anaylsis, my money is on Fillmore. —Kevin Myers 01:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Among many, Pierce is considered more of a failed or actively bad president than an obscure one, though Buchanan kind of overshadows Pierce, since the results of the political trend which Pierce and Buchanan represented didn't fully manifest themselves until Buchanan's term. AnonMoos (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More bad than obscure, possibly, but still pretty obscure. There's a wonderful little book called Barefoot Boy with Cheek that plays on this. The hero, Asa Hearthrug, is put up for freshman class president by his fraternity; they then sequester him and handle all his PR. The campus newspaper quotes him in a statement (actually given by the fraternity) as saying he was a "dark horse — like Franklin Pierce". The report continues "your reporter was unable to determine the identity of Franklin Shrdlu". --Trovatore (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The legal historian John Phillip Reid (that red link will be blue someday), in honor of the only president from his native state, puts completely spurious, joking references to Franklin Pierce in the "Acknowledgement" sections of his many books, such as quotes from non-existent monographs penned by Pierce. Other members of the "Franklin Pierce Society" apparently do the same, a playful nod to Pierce's obscurity and irrelevance. —Kevin Myers 02:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but some who think that Pierce was significantly motivated by pique or spite in making some poor decisions which ended up hastening the coming of the Civil War might not laugh as heartily... AnonMoos (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too soon? —Kevin Myers 15:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, just that there's a difference between an asshole with power and a harmless buffoon... AnonMoos (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fillmore seems to be the consensus. Benjamin Harrison was pretty much worthless as President, and only got the job because of the quirks of the electoral college, as Cleveland actually got more popular votes than Harrison. Ben Harrison might, in fact, be best known for being bookended by Cleveland's two terms in office. James Knox Polk would have been better known had he served more than one term. He was a pretty effective President, regarded as "near-great" by historians. He had the good sense to quit while he was ahead, and in fact he died only 3 months after leaving office. Taylor was pretty good in his short term also, but fate intervened and he died. His successors Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan collectively were disastrous, as their blinders-on approach helped to hasten the inevitability of the Civil War, which Lincoln was stuck with. Franklin Pierce and Barbara Pierce Bush had a common ancestor, and in some photos, Pierce looks startlingly like George W. Bush. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't go by what historians think. They tend to be cheerleaders for government and the power of the presidency. Why, some of them actually like Andrew Jackson, if you can believe that. --Trovatore (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polk was instrumental in expanding the borders of the USA significantly, and among his other accomplishments was the creation of the Department of the Interior, which eventually came to manage the national park system. Now, you may not agree with those things having been done, but he had significant impact in shaping the nation we know today. As far as Jackson is concerned, he was basically a rube; an interesting and highly flawed character; but I do like the story about the guy who failed in his attempt to assassinate Jackson, and then had to be protected from Jackson himself, as the old buzzard began whipping the would-be killer with his cane. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James K. Polk has an excellent They Might Be Giants song about him, which is disqualifying for this category. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chester A. Arthur gets my vote as having been the most forgettable, and historically neglected US President. I cannot even recall his First Lady's name!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a final note, any President that was in Die Hard with a Vengeance cannot be "most forgettable" to me. Jørgen (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have thought of Young Hickory (Polk) as in the running for least famous president. He's certainly of note in the Pacific Northwest. Also, Fillmore is well remembered among Buffalonians. Fame is at least partially dependent on location. Although it doesn't quite address the question head on, the page Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States might be of interest. According to the poll results shown on that page the least famous/important/remembered presidents--apart from the most recent two or three, who have not yet passed from "current events" to "history"--seem to be Harrison, Garfield, Harding, Buchanan, Pierce, Johnson, Tyler, and perhaps Van Buren (though those familiar with the history of the Cherokee Trail of Tears should definitely consider Van Buren as notable). And of course Harrison was famous--and still is to some degree--for his pre-presidential efforts to "clear Indian title" to much of the old Midwest, which earned him the nickname "Tippecanoe" as used in the slogan "Tippecanoe and Tyler too". His actual presidency was ended before it got anywhere of course. Also, I find it a bit sad that Garfield is so little remembered. He was after all the second president to be assassinated after, after Lincoln. Shouldn't that count for something? Buchanan is still well remembered for playing a role in the lead-up to the Civil War. Johnson is remembered for, if nothing else, becoming president after Lincoln's assassination. Plus there's all that weirdness about Lincoln-Johnson compared to Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. I'm sure there's a Wikipedia page about that somewhere around here. Pierce is remembered, somewhat, in Washington (the state), which was established during his presidency as Washington Territory. Pierce's administration had a significant effect on the early history of Washington. The counties home to Seattle and Tacoma, for example, were named for members of his administration (although King County, Washington decided, relatively recently, that its name would better honor Martin Luther King, Jr. instead of William R. King). I might suggest Zachary Taylor for the role of "least famous president". But he is notable for dying a mere 16 months after becoming president. Although outdone by Garfield and Harrison in terms of quickly dying in office, Taylor did not have the luxury of being a famous "Indian fighter" like Harrison, nor was he notably assassinated like Garfield. Death by stomach flu just doesn't compare. However! Taylor is remembered in relation to the Civil War, to some degree, like all other presidents who served during the unstoppable escalation toward the war. Considering all this, I would personally have to go with Arthur or perhaps Hayes. Pfly (talk) 11:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christian and Frederick

Did all the Kings of Denmark delibrately name all their eldest sons Christian or Frederick alternatively? Isn't it also interesting how even though sometimes eldest sons didn't always succeed a Frederick always followed a Christian and vice versa, for example Christian, Prince Elect of Denmark and Ferdinand, Hereditary Prince of Denmark died before they could break the tradition. Who was Frederick I named after? His maternal grandfather Frederick I, Elector of Brandenburg or a saint?

I am not sure that information is known. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK almond sugar cookie recipe

I'm trying to find a UK recipe for almond sugar cut-out cookies but haven't had any success yet. I'm not sure if they're done here in the UK or what they may be called. They are like [1] or [2] and are popular in the States. My mum (living in the States) has sent me her recipe, but I've tried baking without American "cups" and "sticks of butter" before and it's a nightmare. Any ideas on the UK equivalent and where I can find a recipe for them? 195.27.52.146 (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, if you want to convert an American recipe, you could use the tables at <http://www.tuscanrecipes.com/cooking-tips/measurement-conversions.html>, so the first recipe would be:

1 cup butter = 225 grams

1 1/2 cups sifted confectioners' sugar = 170 grams

1 egg

1 teaspoon vanilla extract = 5 ml

1/2 teaspoon almond extract = 2.5 ml

2 1/2 cups all-purpose flour = 280 grams

1 teaspoon baking soda = 5 ml

1 teaspoon cream of tartar = 5 ml

1/4 cup granulated sugar for decoration = 55 grams - Nunh-huh 13:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That site provides custom volume to mass conversions for specific items, taking their density into account. For items which have variable density, like whipped cream, they don't do the volume to mass conversion. StuRat (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those recipes didn't have a stick of butter listed, but you did ask about it. A stick is 1/4 pound, which is 4 ounces, or about 113.4 grams.

I have a simple suggestion. Why not ask you mum to send you a set of US measuring spoons and cups ? It would cost under £10, shipping included, and would allow you to cook following US recipes, without the requirement that you convert recipes and deal with round-off error. StuRat (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round-off error is much smaller than the error associated with measuring things like flour with volume measures like cups and spoons. In the list of pros and cons, round-off error doesn't really feature at all. Personally, I'd only go with the cups and spoons if I absolutely couldn't use scales, like if I were hiking: weighing is so much easier, more accurate, more reliable, and less messy. But then I have electronic scales I stick the bowl on, and have even taken to weighing sufficiently aqueous liquids: so much less hassle. Use the conversions people have given (all recipes has a feature that will do it for you, doesn't it?) then write it down or copy and paste it into a document so you don't have to look it up next time. If you desperately want to use the volume measures, you can buy measuring cups in the UK fairly cheaply in any appropriate shop (I'm pretty sure Lakeland sell them) even unto 'cup' measures. No need for shipping them across the ocean. 86.163.0.221 (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They've probably already crossed a couple oceans to get there from China. StuRat (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which country has some 30 odd cities/towns with the same name

I am just looking for a country which has some 30 odd towns/cities with the same name. Would appreciate any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.211.172 (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the United States might qualify, but it seems not: the commonest names are Salem and Georgetown, each of which occurs in 22 different states. (To confirm my results, use a database of zipcodes, and type

into a Unix prompt.) Marnanel (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newton is supposed to be the commonest place-name in ~~England~~ the UK - our article lists well over 30 (though some where it's only part of the name); I'd guess this is not a full list. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are 30 Franklins in the U.S. -- kainaw ™ 16:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See List of the most common U.S. place names.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every U.S. state has either a city or neighborhood named "Riverside."Greg Bard (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no memory of a Riverside in Hawaii. Google maps doesn't locate one either. -- kainaw ™ 16:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I googled [hawaii riverside] and several entries came up. It seems to be an informal reference to places along a river in Kauai, maybe not a "neighborhood" as such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dover could be one of the possibilties —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.211.172 (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I downloaded a copy of its database in 2004, the US Geographic Names Information System had 82 different names of "populated places" in the United States that either occurred at least 60 times or were used in at least 30 different states. Most of these would presumably be unincorporated villages or perhaps neighborhoods, rather than bona fide "cities and towns". In this table the first column of numbers is the number of instances of the place name and the second is the number of different states. The table is sorted on the product of the two numbers.

   217   39     Midway           |    60   30     Belmont
   208   39     Fairview         |    62   29     Edgewood
   125   46     Riverside        |    64   28     Harmony
   166   31     Oak Grove        |    61   29     Mount Vernon
   108   43     Centerville      |    68   26     Spring Hill
   149   28     Five Points      |    84   21     Forest Hills
   110   34     Bethel           |    56   31     Riverdale
   123   30     Pleasant Hill    |    51   34     Newport
   115   31     Mount Pleasant   |    50   34     Arlington
    96   36     Union            |    68   25     Green Acres
    98   35     Liberty          |    63   26     Buena Vista
    95   36     Pleasant Valley  |    51   32     Summit
    91   37     Greenwood        |    65   25     Woodlawn
    94   35     Oakland          |    60   27     Springdale
    91   36     Salem            |    47   34     Clinton
    79   37     Glendale         |    69   23     Hopewell
    81   34     Georgetown       |    48   33     Clifton
    83   33     Lakeview         |    52   30     Wilson
   108   25     New Hope         |    47   33     Hamilton
    80   32     Lakewood         |    47   33     Farmington
    85   29     Pine Grove       |    44   35     Lincoln
    79   31     Concord          |    61   25     Westwood
    84   29     Oak Hill         |    72   21     Antioch
    60   40     Franklin         |    41   36     Marion
    70   32     Sunnyside        |    47   31     Woodville
    66   33     Springfield      |    44   33     Kingston
    66   33     Lakeside         |    69   21     Friendship
    62   35     Fairfield        |    44   32     Ashland
    72   30     Highland Park    |    41   34     Florence
    93   23     Shady Grove      |    43   32     Jackson
    89   24     Pleasant Grove   |    41   33     Milton
    84   25     Shiloh           |    40   33     Eden
    68   30     Oakdale          |    39   31     Dover
    60   33     Glenwood         |    37   31     Vernon
    75   26     Cedar Grove      |    63   18     Stringtown
    66   29     Riverview        |    35   32     Troy
    67   28     Spring Valley    |    33   33     Chester
    66   28     Wildwood         |    64   17     Sherwood Forest
    66   28     Hillcrest        |    33   32     Auburn
    54   34     Greenville       |    34   31     Clayton
    63   29     Highland         |    32   31     Warren

--Anonymous, 21:00 UTC, December 23, 2010.

I understood that one of the reasons The Simpsons live in Springfield is that most states of America have a Springfield, so it meant that no-one could be sure that the jokes were aimed at them. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or the opposite, in the sense that there are references to various things that are near "a" Springfield (such as Lincoln's tomb, in one episode), allowing "their" Springfield to be all of them rolled into one. I'm kind of surprised not to see Washington in that list, as many states have a Washington (Ohio has two of them). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Washington lists around 40 locations in the US which have "Washington" in their name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Washington really makes his mark in townships and counties; sse Washington Township (241) and Washington County (30). —Kevin Myers 00:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Car wagon full of Iron Crosses

I have heard a story that during WW2 Russian captured German train and found out that it was full of Iron Crosses. Anyone heard more about this? 79.185.217.168 (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but what would be the least bit surprising about a shipment of medals from one location to another ? StuRat (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be fairly surprising if it was full of them... AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not if they took them of their dead, washed the blood off, and gave them to the next ~~sucker~~ hero. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Do you mean medals like these at the Russian Army Museum in Moscow?--Aspro (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

forgot to include website:[3]. Caption reads ...large showcase full of Iron Crosses and German small arms captured from a railroad truck ...--Aspro (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, a railroad "truck", that makes sense. A "train full" would be an awful lot of medals. According to the article (where the information is buried in the section on the "Grand Cross" variant), the Iron Cross would be 44 mm square. I don't know how thick it was; let's say 6 mm. If a freight train car had an available space of say 7 feet × 7 feet × 30 feet, that would hold about 3,600,000 medals if they were just tossed in loose -- a total close to the whole number of them given out during the whole war. Even with a sensible amount of protective packing, you could probably get several hundred thousand medals in one train car. Make it a whole trainload of medals and you're back to unreasonably large numbers. --Anonymous, 21:21 UTC, December 23, 2010.

Is a picture where my face is on my copyright or intellectual property?

i'am wondering if Is picture where my face is on my copyright or intellectual property? I have a problem with someone posting picture with my face on social network without my aproval and he doesn't want to remove it. So in case that picture is my copyright or intellectual property i can demand from social network to remove it, in other case i don't have any options left? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dedamraz123 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright belongs to the person who took the photo. Your face is your business if and only if you are in a business where your face is such. For example, celebrities can sue if their "likeness" is used - but not just any use. It is only in certain cases, such as using Brad Pitt's face on your store window to try and get people to think he likes your store. -- kainaw ™ 16:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't own copyright over your own face. You may own personality rights in some jurisdictions. You ought to look into the privacy policy of the social networking site, as they likely have some means of petitioning to get a photo removed. But your legal options are pretty limited. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And just some (unsolicited, possibly useless) advice - if some jerk is having fun with posting your picture around, he is much more likely to continue doing it if you huff and puff about it - I've seen that happen a gazzilion times. I realize it can be humiliating and infuriating, but the best thing might be to just let it go. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could be a case of stalking, which is a criminal offense in some parts of the world. Pressing charges might be an option here. If the poster is just a troll, believe me, they are not very diligent and get tired very quickly. If the latter is the case, wait a couple of weeks and inform the web-site admin that they should remove your pics. Normally it is against the ToS to post pics of other people. Quest09 (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your face has become an internet meme, it will probably be endlessly reposted all over the place forever, or at least for a number of years. On the positive side, this makes you into a kind of celebrity because of your funny face, and if you show up on forums and say "that's my face, you know" you're likely to be feted for owning it. 213.122.23.52 (talk) 06:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How money affects performance

For example, for being a good athlete you have to train, but the quality of your nutrition, your shoes and trainer also make a difference (so more money is an advantage, but not enough). In the academic field is the same story: you have to study by yourself, but money helps. Can we calculate how much does it help? Wikiweek (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is totally personal experience here, but I believe money does not help performance per se, it is just a condition for it, equally to air, water and many other resources. Sometimes too much can even be a drawback. But as a matter of fact, at some time you'll have it, and will be able to perform. Always having money only changes the timing of the performance, not its result. Quest09 (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, it's not long ago since I read an article on a recent research that proved that money vs. performance do not correlate equally (i.e., more money does not necessarily mean more performance), but I can't find it now. Anybody know what I'm talking about? TomorrowTime (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the lines of thought above, as an example, I can add that there are people in the field of photography that made amazing pictures with a quite cheap camera (namely the Holga). A good camera could cost several thousand dollars, but with this obviously flawed camera, some photographers were able not only to take amazing pictures but also to win prizes. Having a 10,000 SDLR on your hand would not have been an advantage. See more about it here: [4].Mr.K. (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geography question --

Which port city has same name as a capital city in some other country (not the capital of the country). Looks like lot (as many as 30) many cities in the "other country" have the same name

Any help will be appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.211.172 (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First one that comes to mind -- hope this isn't too much of a stretch -- is Cairo, Illinois, which is a river port (and of course Cairo is the capital of Egypt). Antandrus (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago de Cuba is a port city, and Santiago, Chile is a capital in another country. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two other possible candidates: Freetown (capital of Sierra Leone) and a couple of Freetowns, as well as Georgetown (capital of Guyana) and number of Georgetowns.

I'm guessing you'll be donating the 100$ to wikipedia? TomorrowTime (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"capital city in some other country (not the capital of the country)"? There must be a huge number of examples. How about the port city of Dover and Dover, Delaware? Or the port city of Salem, Massachusetts and the capital of Oregon, Salem, Oregon? And these are just examples from the United States. Apparently the most frequent town name is San Juan. There are certainly both ports and capitals listed on that page. Pfly (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the Supervisor's supervisor?

In a particular township of a county in Michigan I am trying to work with a Twonship Supervisor, however he is most uncooperative. It turns out this elected Township Supervisor is also the sexton for the cemetery where my mother will be buried. He says however, before my mother can have a gravestone, he has to move the existing family gravestones that have been in place for decades. The family cemetery Lot is broken up in 5 grave spaces. One is occupied by the cremains of my father, while the other two are occupied by my grandparents. He has agreed that my mother's cremains can be with my father's in space # 4. He says however the existing gravestones for my father and grandparents are on the wrong end of the grave and MUST be moved first (apparently at their feet instead of their head). He has asked for me to cover these expenses. I told him I had no control over the mis-placed gravestones and should NOT have to pay for the movement of the existing gravestones. My first question is concerning a possible conflict between his position as the Township Supervisor (where the cemetery is located) and him being the sexton. Is that valid and legal and right? He seems to be making up the Rules as he goes along to put money in his pocket. The second question would be: Who would HIS supervisor be and who does he report to?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say this, but this sounds like the sort of thing you would need a lawyer for. Lawyers (and not random strangers on the internet) are trained to handle grievences such as this. This doesn't mean you intend to sue the person or take him to court, but a lawyer can still advise you on how to properly proceed in this case. --Jayron32 20:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was my first reaction as well (lawyer), my understanding of townships in Michigan is that the Township Supervisor is the highest township authority. The Cemetery Sexton for the township cemetery is also an official township position--I expect yours must be a smaller township. I would assume there's a regularly scheduled meeting of the township board; I would get on the agenda of the next one to discuss/clarify the request--certainly you should not be financially liable for errors the township made prior in burying your family's remains. (I recall responding earlier--and you've now got more information.) If you then fail to reach resolution then you likely need to sue the township to correct the township's cemetery's error and reimburse your legal expenses provided you win the case. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect that legally the township is subordinate to the county. A bit of light reading, if a bit dated, here. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the county is subordinate to the state, which is subordinate to the federal government. I would expect to find some laws at the state level specifying what financial obligations, if any, relatives have for paying for such things. Also, if you can dig up any of the contracts from the original burials, those would be helpful. StuRat (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor correction. While the counties are always subordinate to the states, the states are NOT so to the federal government. There are certain things which are not the jurisdiction of the federal government at all, which the federal government is constitutionally restricted from interfering with on the state level. In other words, the states have a limited sovereignty on some matters, and is not "subordinate to" the federal government on these matters. On the other hand, counties and townships ARE subordinate to state governments, and are not sovereign in any way. The manner in which townships and counties relate to each other, and to the state government, is unique to each state. --Jayron32 05:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it didn't seem particularly relevant to this Q, so I simplified my answer. StuRat (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The implied question would almost warrant a separate section, as the concept may be confusing to non-Americans, and even to many Americans. The states are subject to the federal, where specified in the Constitution. This is why there was signfiicant controversy about the 14th Amendment, as it had the potential for allowing the federal government to get its mitts into a lot of areas where it previously had no jurisdiction. I think those who would oppose the 14th Amendment nowadays would be a much smaller percentage, as equal protection has come to be an American expectation. It not only helped fulfill the theoretical moral claims that America has always made about itself, but also has made us a stronger and better nation through diversity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, excellent advice.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, consult a lawyer for advice. Users above are correct that municipalities and counties are generally subject to Dillon's Rule - perhaps contact your state representative and state senator and see what they might be willing to do to assist you? Also note Article V § 10, Michigan Constitution: The governor shall have power and it shall be his duty to inquire into the condition and administration of any public office and the acts of any public officer, elective or appointive. He may remove or suspend from office for gross neglect of duty or for corrupt conduct in office, or for any other misfeasance or malfeasance therein, any elective or appointive state officer, except legislative or judicial, and shall report the reasons for such removal or suspension to the legislature. Neutrality^talk 03:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]