Humanities desk
< January 19	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 21 >

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 20

two CNN specials

It's understood Larry King raised money through his two "How You Can Help" specials. One was for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. The other was for the victims of the 2010 Haiti earthquake. Who knows exactly how much money was raised through the two different specials?24.90.204.234 (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a "ticker tape" on the CNN channel saying he raised $7 million for Haiti, but his Facebook page says "just under 9 million". Bielle (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

strong sexual urges

im almost 20 and i have very strong sexual urges. when do they go away? i though they would have ended with puberty but i still have strong urges for sex and masturbation, its disgusting. surely in a few years they would be gone? or would they stay with me depending on what i think on and stuff?--Mightybrick99 (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to diagnose your mental condition and provide a prognosis over the Internet. If you are concerned, see a medical professional. -- kainaw ™ 04:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

>:( im gonna go look at porn.--Mightybrick99 (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the time you're 30, you'll be bored with sex and your primary focus will be money. In any case, if you want to stop, you can't taper off. You've got to quit cold jerky. [That bit of wisdom courtesy of Lenny Bruce]. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's probably right about going cold turkey...--71.111.194.50 (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny's exact word was jerky as in jerking. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Get married. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Men and sex: Age 20: Tri-weekly. Age 40: Try weekly. Age 60: Try weakly. Edison (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From my own experience, I'll say about 22. And totally tempered by 30. Vranak (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR and TMI. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of answering the OP here instead of referring him to a more appropriate venue[1], which I was chastised for last time, I thought I'd reveal possibly TMI and just give him the best answer I know how. Vranak (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Please do not feed the trolls. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously tho, ok this might be a troll or not a good question for the ref desk and I don't mean to prolong it here. But the OP is "nearly 20" and has "strong sexual urges" and feels "disgusting" about it! I'm going to go out on a limb here and don't take this as "medical advice" but there is absolutely NOTHING disgusting or wrong about what the OP describes. I'd be more worried if they DIDN'T have strong sexual urges. It is perfectly normal to have strong sexual urges and to masturbate, there is nothing wrong with it, except maybe, like anything, in excess. In fact, what IS wrong is feeling guilty about it or thinking it's "disgusting". That to me reeks of religious indoctrination, if you've been taught by your parents or your religion that sexual feelings are wrong and disgusting then I believe you should re-examine the evidence for those claims because they are based on fear, guilt and submission and have absolutely no foundation in psychology, physiology or morality as I'm almost certain they'd "claim". Vespine (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOAP.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, my post is on topic and presents an arguable point. I don't think what I wrote fits into any of the 5 definitions of your link, maybe loosely into point 2 but it's on topic, half of the posts on the ref desk are people's opinions, so i don't see that is an issue in this context. Vespine (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American education quality: University of (state name) vs. (state name) State University

(warning: sweeping generalization) Why are American universities titled University of (state name) better than those titled (state name) State University? Example: University of Florida vs Florida State University 218.25.32.210 (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not endorsing your sweeping generalization, but many (most?) of the places named "X State University" began as land-grant universities, whose mission was "to focus on the teaching of agriculture, science and engineering as a response to the industrial revolution and changing social class rather than higher education's historic core of classical studies". Draw what conclusions you will. Deor (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the ridiculously sweeping generalization, let's just change the question to "are 'U of X' universities better than their 'X State U' counterparts?" I don't think it's worth addressing the "why" in any fashion until some semblance of evidence (and a definition of "better") is presented. That said, Deor's explanation of the naming disparity is excellent. — Lomn 14:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's true in California, where the University of California is the top tier public university system, and the California State University is the second-tier system. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looked like data was needed, so I checked through the U.S. News rankings[2] comparing schools with names of the form "University of X" and "X State University" for each state, excluding all other forms and only looking at public schools (so U Penn excluded). 32 states had schools with names of both forms listed. Of those, in 29 cases the "University of X" was ranked higher, and 2 were unclear (MS and ND). The only clear exception was Louisiana. Of course US News ranking is not the ultimate authority on what schools are best, and that's not always an objectively answerable question, but I would guess most of the cases would not be disputed. Rckrone (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing the legwork on data collection. I knew it was true, to a startling degree, which is why I asked. I also knew people would jump on me for making such a seemingly ridiculous statement, but I didn't have time to gather the necessary evidence when I posted the original question. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't quote me, but I believe a large number of the original land grant universities (University of ...) were established as doctoral-degree granting institutions, whereas the (... State University) schools evolved from teachers' colleges which were not originally designed to issue doctorates. Woogee (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. If true, that would certainly seem to support the current situation. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended sentences

What proportion of suspended prison sentences end up getting served? I can't find any statistics on it. I'm interested in any jurisdiction, but particularly the UK. Thanks. --Tango (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried the Ministry of Justice website? A search shows a few promising-looking documents. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts_health_care_reform and federal reform in house+senate

(Personal curiosity), what are the major differences/similarities between the health reform in 2006 in Mass and the current federal reforms being voted on in congress? Thanks Chris M. (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two plans are very similar. See Massachusetts health care reform for starters. One main difference, I think, has to do with cost control. The federal compromise proposal aims to control costs by imposing a punitive tax on plans it deems too "generous" to workers. The Massachusetts plan aims to control costs mainly by negotiating to minimize premiums for low- to moderate-income individuals obtaining insurance through the state's subsidized (but privately insured) insurance scheme. Marco polo (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain

Is it possible to release works containing copyrighted works in the public domain? --84.61.165.65 (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're the copyright owner, you can effectively license your work to be in the public domain. As for whether you can truly release your work into the public domain—a question that comes up because the Berne convention treats everything as copyrighted by default—there is some discussion in Public domain on this point that implies that you should be able to do this given a liberal reading of the convention, though it is not spelled out explicitly. Regardless, you certainly can license your work in a way that makes it public domain: "This work has no restrictions on its use" would do that pretty easily, as a one-sentence license (and would be the equivalent of saying "this work is in the public domain"). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think I misread the question. You are asking if a work containing copyrighted works—i.e. a derivative work—into the public domain. The answer is rather unambiguously "no," if it is truly a derivative work of something that is still in copyright. Determining whether something is a derivative work or not is not necessarily straightforward, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Far be it from me to give legal advice, but I believe that it IS possible to release derivative works, and works containing other works, into the public domain. However such a release would NOT give people the right to reproduce the works contained in the derivative, and therefore NOT give them the right to reproduce the entire derivative work. It would only be useful to people who were already allowed to reproduce the contained works, giving them the right to also reproduce the derivative. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The parts of it which are derivative are still copyrighted, so it isn't really in the public domain as a whole. If there are restrictions on use (in a copyright sense), then it is not really in the public domain. If it's a derivative work, by definition, it is not in the public domain. There are other ways to have multi-licensed or mixed-licensed works, of course, but that's not the same thing as releasing it into the public domain. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with that. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the File:Flag of Australia with Aboriginal flag replacing Union flag.svg? --84.61.165.65 (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As we said to your earlier query, this is not the place to take your copyright dispute on Commons. Some advice: Repeatedly spamming your messages does not convince anyone of anything. Making legal threats or attempting to rush a process will cause people to resist. If you want to argue that the Australian Aboriginal Flag is considered copyrighted in Australia (which seems to be unambiguously the case), and thus the derivative flag is copyrighted and not in the public domain, and thus is incompatible with Commons' copyright policy, then say so. (Personally, I think the argument that the flag contains no artistic creativity and is just a "shape" is blatantly false.) That will work a lot more effectively. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the legal status of the File:Flag of Australia with Aboriginal flag replacing Union flag.svg? --84.61.165.65 (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can't give you legal advice. You're still in the wrong place. PhGustaf (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the Australian Aboriginal flag is copyrighted in Australia. The File:Flag of Australia with Aboriginal flag replacing Union flag.svg contains the Australian Aboriginal flag, and must therefore be deleted from Wikimedia Commons. --84.61.165.65 (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask how this is relevant to us? Vimescarrot (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No you may not. 84.61 needs no more feeding ;) en.wikipedia is not the commons. You are wasting your time and ours by arguing this point here. We do not care. If and when we meet you on the commons, we might care. Please take the hint ... it is just not an en.wikipedia deal. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use in Australia

Is fair use allowed under Australian copyright law? --84.61.165.65 (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The equivalent in Commonweath countries to fair use is known as fair dealing. Note that while fair use/fair dealing media is not allowed on Commons, it is allowed on Wikipedia. If your goal is to completely delete that flag from Wikipedia, it probably won't be successful. The best you will get is having it removed from Commons and put on Wikipedia instead. (Commons and Wikipedia may look the same to you, but they are not, and have very different copyright policies.) Legal threats will be ignored unless you are the copyright holder, which I imagine you aren't. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that for better or worse, wikipedia (unlike the commons) does not care about any other countries copyright laws other then the US (or Florida in particular). In other words, even if a country lacks any sort of fair use or fair dealing provisions (I've heard South Korea is one) or the usage isn't covered under that countries laws and even if it's an article concerning, image originating and both article and image only likely to be of significant interest to people from such a country, it would still likely be acceptable on wikipedia provided it meets our WP:NFCC (which are significantly stricter then US fair use law). Nil Einne (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

zits

when do zits stop appearing? does it depend on health/diet, age, etc.? im 20 and i still get zits, very annoying.--Traa6 (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It varies by person. See a skin doctor, i.e. dermitologist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A dermatologist would be the best person to advise you on what causes zits. I got them when I was 20, too, but they gradually stopped appearing by my late 20s. (That said, every now and then, like less than once a year, a tiny and very minor pimple will appear even now, 20 years later.) 192.251.134.5 (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on acne is a great place to start for general research. It is not at all uncommon for acne to continue well into adulthood. (I know, it sucks.) For your own specific situation, a specialist diagnosis would be necessary. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are almost guaranteed to get ameteur medical advice for getting rid of them from random people here - it's a popular question for that kind of thing. Ignore them. Your doctor will know the reliable methods. I didn't need a specialist; my GP gave me a prescription two minutes after I'd walked in. Vimescarrot (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FRANCE - IN RIGHT OF ENGLAND VS NAVARRE

Has the English government ever referred to the Bourbons as Kings of Navarre rather than of France, considering that recognising the Bourbon rule over France would be denying their own? Alternatively, would the Bourbons laugh at the suggestion that the Stuarts as Kings of England and Ireland via Scotland, could likewise also claim France? 70.171.236.188 (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the British government has actively pursued any claim to French territory for a very long time. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In diplomatic parlance was all I mentioned, such as forms of address. Did the Stuarts ever mention their French title to the Bourbons, the way that the Tudors did to the Valois? How about the Hanoverians? Are there any records of their full titulary being used in formal documents dealing with the French government? That's all I meant. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly don't know but English claims to the French throne#Ending the claim tells the end of the story.Alansplodge (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NAPOLEON & NAVARRE

What was the Revolutionary French position on Navarre? Did it belong to France and how was Navarre referred to in relation to France during the Bonapartist regimes? 70.171.236.188 (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US Court case nomenclature

Is there any reason why the LGBT marriage case is called 'Perry v. Schwarzenegger' and not 'Perry v California'? What is the usual reason for naming a party in case after a state or a person in this kind of case? Sam 21:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs)

Read the article: "The couples sued the two county clerks and several state officials: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Jerry Brown, and two officials in the Department of Public Health". The case was brought against several individuals, of whom Schwarzenegger was the first named, not against the state. --ColinFine (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question is why you bring it against individuals and not the state itself (which is also possible). I don't know the answer, but Googling around leads me to believe that determining whether to bring the case against officials or the state itself is a legal tactic and has implications for standing, liability, etc. You'd probably need someone who has studied this topic in law school to really answer, but it doesn't seem arbitrary. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It likely has to do with issues surrounding sovereign immunity. -- 174.21.213.12 (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hinda Deby

is Chad first lady born in sus-saharan black Africa or is she born in Morocco, or brown Arabs place. Since the leader of Chad is black like John Kufuor ::That is bizarre to learn interracial marriage actually take place in Africa. Is Camerronians black or Camerronians could be white. Since Chantal Biya's mom is Camerronian so would Chantal's mom be black, brown?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange that the subject of the age and origins of African first ladies comes up with surprising frequency here. I find it odd that you think it "bizzare ... interracial marriage actually take place in Africa" - why on Earth wouldn't it take place? Anyway, to answer the questions:

According to Idriss Déby#Family, the president has been married several times including to Hinda in 2005. The article goes on to say the marriage was thought to be "strategic" and cites this Washington Post article as evidence. The Washington Post says Hinda is a "Chadian beauty" and "hails from one of Chad's Arab tribes". It also says: "Educated in Morocco, France and a college in Montreal... the capital is abuzz with reports of Hinda's beauty -- she has clear coffee-colored skin and almond-shaped eyes -- the marriage may be strategic".

The Chantal Biya article explains about her origins but doesn't go into detail about her parents; nor do any of the external links or searches I've done. Demographics of Cameroon might help you decide whether most Cameroonians are black or white. Of course, it is quite possible for someone to be a citizen of Cameroon but have a different coloured skin from the majority. Astronaut (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THE QUEEN'S RELIGIOUS TIES

What relationship does the Queen have with the Welsh and Scottish episcopal churches? If there is no official relation, then what kind of legislation removed the relationship between Sovereign and Church? After all, the Monarchy has had official relations with both the English and Scottish Episcopate, whilst the Welsh one descends sequentially from the English. I understand that the Queen partakes in the Presbyterian Kirk, but I know of no acts or whatever which meant this took precedence over the Episcopalian Church, which was already Royal in nature. Please don't say that the Church in Wales has a separate origin from the English, because that is ahistorical; it would be like stating that Cardiff was always the capital, when both the Church and State of Wales only received its present body from the 20th century. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Scottish Episcopal Church has been independent of the state since 1689 (there was some upset over the Glorious Revolution). The Church in Wales has been independent of the state since 1920. I believe the relevant pieces of legislation were the Comprehension Act 1690 and the Welsh Church Act 1914. Marnanel (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x 2)The established church in Scotland is the Church of Scotland, and in Scotland the Queen is a member of it. I think her Accession Oath requires her to defend its integrity. The Church of Wales is disestablished, so I doubt she has any constitutional ties to it, though of course as a member of the Church of England, with which the Church of Wales is in communion, she would be able to participate fully in acts of worship in it. DuncanHill (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a difference between the Parliamentary integrity of the national church and the relationship of the Monarch with the national church? Also, considering the fact that the Church of Ireland was conjoined to the Church of England, much like how the Kingdom of Ireland was conjoined to the Kingdom of England, how does this fare today with respect of the Monarch's position, regardless of any Parliamentary division? 70.171.236.188 (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of Ireland {motto "Qui Seperambit?" - "Who Shall Seperate Us?") was disestablished by the Irish Church Disestablishment Act 1869. As far as I know neither the Queen nor Parliament now has any formal ties with the disestablished churches. I've heard it said that the Queen becomes a Presbyterian as soon as she crosses the Scottish border. Alansplodge (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what is she when crossing into Wales and (Northern) Ireland? 70.171.236.188 (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As she has no constitutional religious role in those parts of the Kingdom, it's a matter for her own concience - but I suspect she stays Anglican. Alansplodge (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DUAL CHRISTIANITY

Queen Elizabeth is both Episcopalian and Presbyterian; I don't know of any controversy about her dual status from anybody...so what precludes other people from having a similar interfaith choice and it being taken seriously? What's wrong about people who have more than one Christian path in their community and finding worth in them, rather than making a choice?

I am examining this after reading about the issues in the Holy Roman Empire in the 16th & 17th centuries between faith establishment and the temporal governments. Surely, similar convention was adopted in England at these times, that we could read historical developments this way. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Bible, the main thing God cares about, is that a person is born again. The Bible does instruct about post salvation behaviour, but people differ on what is still relevant. One is only born again by accepting Christ according to the Scriptures - no church membership bars them from that, nor assists them, either. God will not save a person any more for being in one denomination or another. But according to the Bible, Christ is the only way to salvation. Naturally, other faiths will disagree. God gives all a free will to do that. The Russian Christopher Lilly 12:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP asks about historical attitudes to coexisting denominations and not for your exegesis. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happily, I think it's much less of a problem than it used to be. Not long ago, an Italian student turned-up at our Anglican church in London and happily joined-in with parish worship and social life during his 6 month stay in London. He either didn't know or didn't care that we weren't Catholics and we were too polite to bring the issue up.Alansplodge (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the Kirk is concerned, I understand it's very inclusive, and will happily bury members of pretty much any Christian denomination, as well as allowing them to partake of communion. DuncanHill (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I really miss Clio the Muse. She would have sorted this all out quickly, with erudition and wit. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get the feeling that having dual church membership is like having dual citizenship; some parties to this may approve and the others will not recognise this. I assume since the Supreme Governor does this sort of thing, that the Anglican Communion finds Presbyterianism acceptable...although why they have no concordat otherwise, I must assume is connected to bad historical experiences between them. On the other hand, I wonder what the situation would be for those who have a dual Anglo-Catholic conviction, with respect to the magisteriums between them. That is primarily my concern, but I simply noted how odd the situation looks with the United Kingdom of Anglo-Irish Episcopalianism and Scottish Presbyterianism grafted onto one another. Despite significant Catholic sentiment, it would appear that the Establishment is fine with recognition of only Protestantism, despite claiming Via Media, thus shutting out the masses who feel otherwise. At an earlier period, before William III invaded, the only legitimate slant was towards Catholicism, on the part of Anglicanism. When I see the ECUSA flag having St. Andrew in the canton, it seems to me to confirm the Protestant bias stated in the Protestant nature of that body as declared in its official name of incorporation. This all belies, of course, the fact that the Scottish monarchy is more predisposed to Catholicism and one would wonder why the Queen does not rather observe Romish rites on behalf of her Scottish lineage, even though accepting the Anglican model in England and Ireland and therefore, considering Presbyterianism a private matter of her subjects in Scotland, or at least in those who find champions in the Cromwellian Parliament. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 08:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Open table#Position of the Roman Catholic Church. Your hypothetical member of both the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches would be able to receive communion in the RC church only if they were officially a member of that body, and in that case would be forbidden by the RC church from receiving communion in the Anglican church. On the other hand, the Anglican church is generally happy with members of other churches receiving communion, and with its members receiving communion in other churches. The ECUSA flag has St Andrew's saltire in the canton not because of some Protestant bias (I'm not sure where you get from St Andrew to Protestantism) but because its apostolic succession is traced through the bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church, since the Church of England would not consecrate any bishops for the colonial church. Marnanel (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Germans in France,1945 to 1947

In early 1947 the U.S. - after having been pressured by public opinion at home since late 1946 - was working on getting the German prisoners of war captured by the U.S. released. A problem with this was that large numbers of these prisoners under US responsibility had been handed over to liberated nations in mid 1945 to be used as forced labor as a form of reparations (although I don't think Germany was ever credited for the value of this "reparations" labor). Some of them were given very dangerous work(such as this), bust most were used in agriculture, coal/iron mines and other industry.

Even though the French also had large numbers of prisoners captured by French forces, the French were for economic reasons reluctant to release the prisoners given to them by the US. In the end France and the US agreed on a fairly slow release so that the French economy would have time to adapt and non-coerced replacements found, e.g. from displaced persons in camps in Germany. When discussing with the US the French declared that of the 740,000 German prisoners that the U.S. had given them in June 1945, 290,000 were already gone, i.e. "stricken of the rolls".

General Marshall wanted to know what this meant, i.e. a breakdown of the fate of these prisoners. ([see this)

In March 1947, in in a treaty with France the US mandated: "The French authorities will also furnish to USFET a report of individual losses accruing prior to 1 January, 1947, that is, deaths, desertions, and any already repatriated or released."

I expect that many ended up in the French Foreign Legion, but with 290,000+ German troops the French would surely have won in Vietnam?

My real question: Does anyone have any idea of where the resulting breakdown for the missing 290,000 can be found? --Stor stark7 ^Speak 22:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. National Archives Marco polo (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere in the 22 volume report of the Maschke Commission: Maschke, E., & Böhme, K. W. (1962-83). Zur Geschichte der deutschen Kriegsgefangenen des Zweiten Weltkrieges. OCLC 2339878?—eric 05:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

_{::(not answering the real question): The Americans had 500,000 troops in Vietnam, but still couldn't defeat the Vietnamese. It's not just about numbers. --Soman (talk) 09:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

chords over standard musical notation

Often the name of chords can be seen above standard musical notation so that it can be played on the guitar, while the lower part (the standard notation) is sung or played on another instrument. As I understand, for example, when I see an A, that chord has to be played over and over until another is reached. However, what happens with a situation like "C A/e D " ? I start playing the C, but when I reach the A/e part, what has to be done, and for how long? It seems to be a question impossible to be found on Google. A second minor question is, what happens if the first note does not have a chord on top of it, so the chords start only 2, 3 or even more notes later? --131.188.3.20 (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of notation is telling you to play an A chord with an E as the root. In other words, say you are at the piano. An A chord would be the A, C# and E keys. They are asking you to go E, A, C#. It's a little more complicated on the guitar, but if it's too hard, just play an A chord, and it won't make too much of a difference, usually. It will sound less sophisticated or nuanced, but it will work.

Do you mean by this to play only A, all the way until I have to switch to D, ignoring e completely? Or is it still better to switch to e somewhere in the middle? This question is mainly for the guitar playing along a singing voice, as I only used to play only classical pieces before : medieval, renaissance, etc. so using just the standard notation + some improvisation. Chord notation is something nearly completely new to me, that's why the "/" is confusing me). --131.188.3.21 (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The /e is just a hint that the bassest note you should play in that Amaj chord should be an E natural; it's ~~a note~~ an observation about the chord voicing, and one that you can probably ignore (and just play an Amaj any old way you like) without issue. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) --131.188.3.20 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second question is asking you to play or sing a lead-in, which means that the melody starts before the accompanyment. You can usually play the chord sequence at the end of either the verse or chorus if you don't want to start right off the bat without chords. This usually happens when the musical phrase starts on a beat other than the first of a bar. I would really recommend reading a book on music theory like Music Theory for Dummies. The title sounds bad, but even for the amateur musician it really comes in handy. I loved it.72.2.54.36 (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar chords written over a score in this way are generally descriptive, rather than prescriptive. That is they denote the basic tonality, but don't really give enough information to actually play the song exactly. They (usually) don't describe the guitar rhythm, damping or strumming pattern, and often don't have any notation for periods when the guitar shouldn't play. It's just a rough informal description, and really assumes the guitarist has either heard the music (a recording or someone playing the score), is just banging out a basic rhythm, or is improvising something based on those chords. Proper guitar music is formally written out with a staff written for guitar, sometimes with guitar tablature as well. So the short answer to both your questions is really "it doesn't say, so make something up that sounds good". -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or of course the guitarist can read the staff notes and figure out what to play (notes and rhythm) from that. Such things are very often written for the piano (with both a treble and base staff) and as such is often to rich to be played verbatim on the guitar; in that case a guitarist can still make an arrangement for guitar based on the piano score, picking out what they feel are the important elements of the piano score. Naturally anyone with the skill to do this doesn't need the box chords at all. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Living people on UK postage stamps

Apart from the Queen, which living people have been on UK postage stamps? I understand this is only two or three people who were in the artwork shown on the stamps. 92.29.57.199 (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the opening paras of List of people on stamps of the United Kingdom. Nanonic (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Roger Taylor from Queen is one. DuncanHill (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand one has to be dead to get on stamps or money in the US, which is why there was a bit of a to do about Elvis Presley, since people think he faked his death to join witness protection, based on the late Bill Bixby's documentary on it back in the early nineties. I don't believe someone like Elvis, who had bodyguards, would fade away into obscurity like that. But as for images, Australia has Olympic Gold Medallist Alisa Camplin - lovely girl - and New Zealand puts living people on our stamps and money also. I suspect Canada does also. The Russian Christopher Lilly 12:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canada indeed puts the likenesses of some living people on stamps, mainly hockey players and entertainers as gathered from our list. It's a fairly recent (i.e. 21st century) phenomenon however. And I'm sure Elvis is considered dead for the purpose of US stamp issuance. --Xuxl (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has derailed a little from the original question, but I wanted to provide links to verify The Russian's point, which is still correct about US money, even with the Presidential $1 Coin Program, which is scheduled to end after portraying Ronald W. Reagan. Oddly, the U.S. Code about this seems a little fragmented; the ban on portraying living persons looks to me to be only for the 25-cent coin (presumably to prevent a state from putting its governor on the reverse of that state's 50 State Quarters quarter) and also for the US$1 coin; and that law also specifies that the 5-cent piece has to have Thomas Jefferson on the front and Monticello on the reverse; but other than that, I don't see the actual law requiring that no living person be portrayed on other U.S. coins. (Or having somebody else share the nickel with Jefferson.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until 1997, Australia adopted the traditional approach and had only dead people on stamps, apart from the Queen and other royals. In that year we put The Don, then very much alive, on a stamp, and since then the living have just about been more popular than the dead on our stamps. For every country's list of people on their stamps, see Category:Lists of people on stamps. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]