Humanities desk
< July 19	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 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.

July 20

U.S. Legislative prayer.

In the U.S., is it true that prayer starts each day in the legislature? What are some resources I could find the answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanzerotree (talk • contribs) 01:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a bunch of info on this general topic: [1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, lots of countries do this, for example the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Gabbe (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The chaplains of the US Congress also have homepages: see House and Senate versions. Gabbe (talk) 06:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most legitimate complaint about it is that they are using tax dollars to pay those chaplains. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading U.S. Supreme Court decisions upholding the prayer against Establishment Clause challenges. From what I recall, the court found that the opening prayer is secular tradition rather than religious proselytization. The framers of the constitution never objected to legislative chaplains. It seems similar to public displays of the Ten Commandments. The U.S. Supreme Court has quite a nice depiction of the Ten Commandments, surrounded by ancient law givers. History is --75Janice (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)allowed. I believe early Courts would find Establishment Clause variations. There never was absolute separation of church and state in the United States. Indeed, several states had established religions after the ratification of the First Amendment. 75Janice (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)75Janice[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. Please cite references and not your poorly remembered impressions. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of like when the High Court declared that Christmas was a folk holiday and that therefore it was OK for the U.S. government to honor it as a paid holiday? And I have ultra-strict constructionist pals who've informed me in the past that some individual states did, at one time, have "state religions". They don't anymore, at least not officially, possibly thanks to the Equal Protection amendment and/or High Court rulings that rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights cannot be denied by individual states. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by the "High Court", Bugs? I thought the USA has a Supreme Court. Or is it colloquially referred to as the High Court over there? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. It's a media thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's something new I've learned today. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"High court" is often used in journalistic terms to describe to the highest court of the appropriate jurisdiction. In New York, the high court is the New York Court of Appeals, in the U.S. federal courts, it is the Supreme Court. I could be wrong, but I don't think the chaplains and prayer haven't been seriously challenged in modern jurisprudence. Modern establishment clause jurisprudence since Lemon doesn't address this issue directly. Shadowjams (talk) 06:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That bit of journalese doesn't apply everywhere. In Australia, the highest court in the states is their Supreme Courts, and the highest federal court is the High Court of Australia. I've never heard anyone interchange the terminology. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force One identification while in transit?

How does Air Force One identify itself when traveling outside the U.S.? Does it file flight plans in advance? It seems to me that there would be security concerns about being too open with that information, and safety concerns with being too secretive about the journey. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All flight management is done using the airframe number, the designation Air Force One is purely to indicate that elpresidente is on board.

ALR (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, to rephrase the question - do the air traffic controllers//aviation authorities of a country passed in transit know that the president is aboard? What's the balance between security and obscurity here? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 07:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a recording between Air Force One and Ottowa ATC. They call it "Air Force One", that being its call sign. Here's a quote from some FAA regs: When in radio communications with “Air Force One” or “Air Force Two,” do not add the heavy designator to the call sign. State only the call sign “Air Force One/Two” regardless of the type aircraft. --Sean 13:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All aircraft in civil aviation must file flight plans, and the Air Force One is no exception. There was, I vaguely recall, an instance when GW Bush went to Iraq, and the security was so tight that a fake flight plan was submitted. Apparently the FAA could not comment on this afterwards, and I do not immediately remember any aftermath. 88.90.16.109 (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would AF1 be a part of civil aviation? It is driven by USAF pilots, and I think the plane is part of the USAF as well. Wouldn't that make it military? Googlemeister (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Military aircraft still have to interface with civil flight controllers, else there could be embarassing collisions. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, we are not required to file flight plans except under certain circumstances. I, as a private pilot, can legally take off and fly an airplane from here (East coast USA) all the way out to the West coast without filing any flight plan (and for that matter, I don't even need to talk to anybody on the radio unless I choose to or am going to pass through controlled airspace). Generally, in the USA, only if you are flying under instrument conditions or above 18000 ft Mean Sea Level do you need to file a flight plan. Of course, the smart thing to do is to file a flight plan for any lengthy trip, but that's not remotely required, just encouraged. Falconus^{p t c} 20:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force One will, on occasion, act like a normal plane for top-secret trips. For example, when Bush visited Iraq for Thanksgiving they acted like a small to medium plane (saw it on National Geographic channel) --mboverload @ 01:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Wars in Antiquity

Wikipedia's page on Religious Wars refers to wars involving the Christian and Muslim worlds, as well as the Israelite conquests of neighbouring Canaanite kingdoms in the Bible (which may or may not be historically accurate). Are there any examples of religious wars occurring in the ancient world between non-monotheistic nations or cultures? How about civil religious wars? Paul Davidson (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are the Sacred Wars which took place between various city-states in Greece. You could probably argue that because religion and state were so interconnected in the ancient world, any war involving the Greeks and Romans (especially on a large scale, like the Persian Wars or the Punic Wars) were somewhat "religious" in nature. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though I was not familiar with these wars, there's nothing in Wikipedia's write-ups to suggest they were fought over religion, even as a pretext. The Third Sacred War appears to have involved some intra-religious disputes, but I'm more interested in wars motivated by religious differences. Any other suggestions? Paul Davidson (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In ancient times, each group had its own particular gods, which were often closely-tied to the specific culture and particular way of life of those who worshipped them. Some gods were said to be on the side of their own people in war, but there was no real proselytizing fervor (in the sense of later eras). If tribe A conquered tribe B, it was sometimes said that gods of tribe A were stronger than the gods of tribe B, but there was generally no specific odium theologicum. The first true religious war in anything like the modern meaning of the phrase was probably the Maccabee revolt against Antiochus Epiphanes ("Epimanes"). AnonMoos (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is really only the Abrahamic religions (all monotheistic) that justify warfare for their defense or advancement. So I don't think that you will find religious wars, in the usual sense of that term, between non-monotheistic religions. However, other wars have been waged for ostensibly religious reasons. An example is the flower wars waged by the Aztec Triple Alliance against its enemies. These wars were waged to obtain captives ostensibly needed for sacrifice to gods such as Huitzilopochtli. There is evidence of human sacrifice to gods in earlier Mesoamerican cultures, such as the Maya civilization, which dates back to antiquity, so Maya warfare may have had a similar religious justification. Marco polo (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm…so what you're suggesting is that, Abrahamic or monotheistic religions aside, you really don't see a lot of wars aimed at proselytization, conversion, or religious eradication. AnonMoos: Yes, "Odium theologicum" is exactly what I'm getting at, although I wasn't familiar with that term before. Paul Davidson (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that odium theologicum is specific to the Abrahamic religions. They are the only religions that claim that there exists only one god who is the source and epitome of righteousness (as defined by their sacred scriptures), such that any other religion is evil and odious. Non-Abrahamic religions generally view other religions as misguided or deluded at worst, not as offenses meriting their adherents' annihilation or forcible conversion. (Note that not all adherents of Abrahamic religions take such a view of other religions.) Marco polo (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mahayana Buddhism had a lot of "proselytizing fervor" in some historic contexts, and in periods of breakdown of order in medieval Japan, armed militant monks would often descend from hilltop monasteries and take a hand in factional fighting. Not sure that any of that would really be called a "religious war" though... AnonMoos (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Japan, there was a period during which Buddhism was the state religion and Christians were persecuted. Still, that was closer to modern times and not in antiquity. Paul Davidson (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and Hinduism were, and are, frequently in conflict in India. That's not really ancient, and the conflict isn't always strictly religious, but Hinduism isn't monotheistic, so maybe that counts. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The separation of "religion" and "national culture" is a fairly recent thing in most places. If your consider your king to be a god, as did some ancient cultures, it's hard to draw a distinction between your king sending you to war and your god sending you to war. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jurors taking notes

I am soon to be a member of a jury, for the first time in my life. It's spurred me to wonder why, in all the film/TV courtroom dramas I've seen over the years - and that's a lot - I've never seen jurors taking notes. There's often a lot of complex information presented to juries, yet they seem to be expected to remember it all; or maybe they're not expected to remember all the detail but instead they're required to form their impressions of the defendant's guilt or innocence based purely on the evidence they remember hearing and seeing, and not on their own interpretations of what they heard and saw, which is what their notes would be. Is this actually the case, or would it vary between jusrisdictions? And why would it be inappropriate or undesirable for jurors to take notes of what they're being told or shown? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is very appropriate. The average IQ is however astonishingly low. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the average IQ is precisely 100. ZigSaw 13:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above rather "wtf?" comment notwithstanding, the answer is that – in the UK at least – jurors can take notes. See page 5 of this document. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 09:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have sat on two juries at the Old Bailey. In both cases, each juror was equipped with stationery for note-taking. In both cases, I was the only juror to take advantage of this. --Dweller (talk) 09:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, in American juries where taking notes is permitted, the notes have to be given to the court once the trial is over. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This law blog entry and its comments by other lawyers has some interesting discussion of the pros and cons. --Sean 13:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The jurors do not need to take notes. A transcript is available to them during deliberations. Googlemeister (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A transcript is useful, but I don't see how it replaces notes. You would use notes to record your thoughts, impressions and conclusions when listening to the evidence. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You might have particular questions about particular testimony, and having only the massive transcript in front of you, plus our inherently faulty memory, might be insufficient. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many universities record their lectures, yet students still take notes. --Sean 16:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this passage from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Carroll has the jurors provided with slates in order to take notes. Their average IQ was however astonishingly low, as will be seen from the narrative. Sussexonian (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for the info. It turns out I still haven't been a member of a jury. I attended court along with 50-odd other potential jurors, and I was one of the people who were selected at random to be in the jury, but I was challenged by the prosecution (they didn't have to give any reasons), so back I went to the rear of the court room. We challengees and non-selectees could not leave until the empanelled jury chose a foreperson, which took at least 20 minutes, and when they came back into court for the trial to finally begin, I noticed many of them were carrying notepads. (JackofOz =) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who served on a jury for an Ohio criminal case told me she was not allowed to take notes, if I recall correctly. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I did jury duty, (In Massachusetts) I did not personally take notes, but I know that at least one of the other jurors did. Frankly, even though the case went on for three days, I felt perfectly confident that I was able to remember the facts of the case, which were not at all complex. (There were many witnesses called, but they had surprisingly little of value to say.) There were a couple of dates that were important, but the critical factor was the difference between the dates, not the absolute dates.

On the other hand, we were not given transcripts. The proceedings were tape recorded, but jurors did not have access to the tapes. So if the case had involved complicated details I pretty much would have been forced to take notes. APL (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the thing you decide sounds like a Peremptory challenge. I know someone in NZ who had a similar thing albeit from the defense, she was a young female and I think it was a rape or male assault female or something of that sort so it's probably not that surprising. Nil Einne (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's described as "the right in jury selection for the defense and prosecution to reject a certain number of potential jurors who appear to have an unfavorable bias without having to give any reason". This was all explained to us beforehand, and we were advised not to take it personally, because it's more likely to simply be about getting a better male/female balance, or age/youth balance, than any perception that an individual person is more or less likely to go the prosecution/defence's way. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified African masks

Hi there, I'm uploading photographs of African masks taken in Burkina Faso. The masks come from various origins, so I need help to identify them. Here they are : commons:User talk:Romanceor/Unidentified masks. Many thanks for your help. --Romanceor ^[parlons-en] 12:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You would need a specialist in West African art to identify these, and I doubt that we have such an expert on the reference desk. Your best bet might be to contact a museum with a good collection of West African masks and ask the curator for assistance. Marco polo (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you live in France, there would be the Musée du quai Branly and the Musée Dapper, both of which should have curators with the required knowledge. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really by Rush Limbaugh?

It reads like something his critics would love to hear him say, but if it were the case that someone else wrote it and put his name to it, it seems like he'd easily be able to sue them: http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-dont-even-want-to-be-alive-anymore,11521/ I don't like the guy, but even to me, it's a very strange article. 71.161.42.141 (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Onion is a satirical news source. — Lomn 15:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And to follow up on that, even our conservative-leaning Supreme Court ruled years ago that even extreme forms of satire are protected speech. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about a reference? Bugs is alluding to Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the one, yes. Regarding Onion, I thought everyone knew they were satirical. Do they have a disclaimer anywhere? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was obvious. You know, like their headlines about Soccer officially announcing it's gay. --mboverload @ 01:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got some bad news for you. --Sean 15:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information on Illuminati

Reading the article on Illuminati i faced a doubt that whatever was presented in the movie 'Angels and Demons', about the history of Illuminati, is that all truth or not? Was the great discoverer Galileo a part of Illuminati?? Were illuminati against the preachings of Bible and that of the church? And did they ever pursue hostile methods to prove themselves true? if possible please add few more details about Illuminati in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sid.cosmo (talk • contribs) 15:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A better place for this request would be Talk:Illuminati. Angels and Demons should not be misread as a documentary.--Wetman (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen or read Angels & Demons, but I can tell you with absolute certainty that Galileo was not part of the Illuminati, based on the simple fact that the Bavarian Illuminati was founded 1776, more than two centuries after the death of the man. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what they want you to think. Googlemeister (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I have read Dan Brown's books. They are fictional novels. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like the more speculative (read nonsense) side of the illuminati, David Icke is fascinating if not mind-boggling.Jabberwalkee (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does Mr Icke explain the fact that the "Illuminati" have not engineered a lethal accident to stop him revealing them? According to Icke they can and will do far bigger things than that. 92.29.122.159 (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Artist Robert Hickey

I have an oil painting of a Collie, Champion Fancycrest's Flash of Glory. It was painted in the early 60's on commission for my late father Joseph J. Williams who owned the dog, Flash. He also owned and operated Fancycrest Kennels from the mid 50's till it closed in the late 60's after the accidental death of the dog Flash. The painting is signed by Robert Hickey. I am interested in finding out information about this Artist and other works he may have done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.54.27 (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is his web site. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death

Hey again. I was watching a French movie, and one of the characters was Death (personified). But it was a woman! This reminded me of another movie (also French) I saw maaannnnnyyy years ago, and death was also personified as a woman. Why was death portrayed as a woman? In English movies he's always a man. Thanks. 76.229.207.213 (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I passed the first time off as a coincidence, the writers trying to be creative or add diversity or something but now I think there might be something behind it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.207.213 (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it was Hel? --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would call it artistic license. Women are normally associated with giving life rather than taking it away. So making the death angel female is a different take on the usual. And it got your attention, so it must have worked. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic license because in reality death is a man? It's just a different take than the (Western) usual. Staecker (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could also be a valkyrie. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's too trite to point out, but death is feminine noun in French. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 22:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death being male is, at least in part, a Judeo-Christian influence. Indeed, death (mawet) is a masculine noun in Hebrew. Some originally pre-Christian personifications of death such as Loviatar and Santa Muerte are female, and death is a feminine noun in a number of languages, e.g., in Russian (smert'). Plague is often personified as a female, too. --Dr Dima (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Neil Gaiman's The Sandman (Vertigo) series, Death is a particularly interesting female character, who has come to have her own series. Steewi (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a number of death goddesses (our article at death deity doesn't seem to mentioned sex statistics, though :-), such as the aforementioned Hel, as well as Ereshkigal. In Marvel comics, death is itself personified as a woman - to the point where the character Thanos falls in love with "her". Matt Deres (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was really just the Grim Reaper's Granddaughter? --Jayron32 02:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The French word for "death", which is mort, is a feminine noun. This might have had an influence on choosing the personified death's gender. For the same reason, in Bulgarian folk tales the fox is a "she", unlike English folk tales, where the fox is a "he". --Theurgist (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my world view, dogs are always males, regardless of their sex; and cats are always females, regardless of their sex. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Perrault probably didn't think so. --Theurgist (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, Jack, my English teacher taught me the same when I was at school in France, but when I arrived in England, and explained this, I was told "What nonsense, dogs can be he or she". So I thought this teacher was not quite as competent as I had thought, you are the first I hear to confirm the dog part, the cat part is more commonly accepted. --Lgriot (talk) 09:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you need to differentiate between the general and the specific. Dogs can, of course, be 'he' or 'she' depending on whether the particular dog is male or female. However, when people talk about a generic 'dog' or a generic 'cat', the dog is nearly always 'he' and the cat is nearly always 'she'. So when people talk about a dog they saw digging in their front garden, and they had to chase it away, they will generally call it 'he'. And if it's a cat, they're more likely to call it 'she' (although I think this is much less strong than the association for dogs). 86.164.66.83 (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason why a vulva is referred to as a pussy, and not as a puppy. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, though not entirely connected, in my native Slovene "death" is also a feminine noun, and death personified is usually called "the old lady with the scythe". As a translator, I sometimes bump into the dilemma of what to do with the idea of a male death personified... TomorrowTime (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alalakh, Mukis

Allegedly there has been a state around Alalakg between the 16th century and 1340. ITs names were allegedly Mukis or Amka. Can you show me some English language reference about this state? For further information have a look at Mukis in the Hungarian Wikipedia. --Ksanyi (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on Mitanni which may be of help. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quantitative easing and spending cuts

Why in the UK has the government been pumping money into the economy through quantitative easing, yet on the other hand is cutting back on putting money into the economy by reducing the amount of money the government spends? Just a secret plan to make bankers wealthy at the expense of government employees? 92.28.243.14 (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The government" changed on the 6th of May this year. The original bunch, the Labour Party, did quantitative easing. The new bunch, the Conservative-Liberal coalition, are making cuts. ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 21:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the Bank Of England did the quantitative easing, and that they are supposed to be independant of politicians and not under their control. 92.24.182.138 (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To an extent, yes. The Bank of England needs the permission of government to carry out quantitative easing, though. --Tango (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See fiscal policy and monetary policy. They work in different ways and on different scales. The biggest advantage of monetary policy is that the government doesn't have to take out a loan to expand the economy. Also, the inflation created by increasing the money supply helps reduce the value of the government debt. Also, as a country with flexible exchange rates and free capital movement it would be expected that monetary policy is far more effective than fiscal policy (see Mundell–Fleming model and Impossible trinity. Basically, the Mundell-Fleming model suggests that any increase in government spending will cause the local pound to appreciate until exports have reduced by an amount similar to the increase in government spending.Jabberwalkee (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Economic work'

UNICEF defines 'child labour' here in terms of hours of 'economic work' or 'domestic work'. I couldn't find a definition of what they meant by either. Does anyone here have an idea?

Thank you,

D aniel (‽) 22:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Schultz and Strauss (eds) Handbook of Development Economics, Volume 4: "economic work" refers to the "economically active, excluding the unemployed" (and 'economically active' means participating in the production of economic goods and services). "Domestic work" is non-economic work excluding community service or volunteering. 'Non-economic work' means participating in non-market household production. Hope this helps.--Pondle (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. D aniel (‽) 10:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

criticism of ceremonies and rituals

i was thinking of ceremonies and rituals as a whole and questioning their validity. i've convinced myself that they serve little purpose and are not very constructive. before going further and perhaps writing some kind of thesis or essay (in part to practice my writing skills), does anyone here know of anyone in particular who has spoken against ceremonies, rituals and traditionalism as a whole? any helpful wikipedia articles regarding the subject? i'm referring to things like graduation ceremonies, holiday shopping, holiday meals, national leader inaugurations, funerals and the purpose of the activities that occur when performing them. 74.58.149.102 (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd start, of course, with the articles ceremony and especially ritual; and each of those has many interesting links to related articles. Rituals are not efficient if you're analyzing society like an engineer would; they probably are a drag on economic output; but they are super-important for several hard-to-measure aspects of society like social cohesion (unfortunately not a good article), and making people feel important and valued. On the darker side, they also help create an "us" within a society, meaning there's a disfavored "them". Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The primary purpose of these things is to bring people together. Weddings, funerals, ball games, church services, holidays, conventions, class reunions, family reunions, all of that stuff. It's cultural. And it was especially important in generations past, when travel from one place to another was difficult and expensive. So these kinds of gatherings were special events that people looked forward to and which broke up the day-to-day grind. You might start with things like holiday and reunion, and see where they take you. I expect there are many wikipedia articles that get into these various things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not looking to start a whole debate (although i'm not stopping you) but to clarify, i am not questioning celebrations and events themselves, i am questioning the protocols involved. like eating turkey on thanksgiving, firing gunshots into the air at a leader's inauguration, wearing black square hats when graduating, that sort of thing. i will read and do research on the subjects using those links but i'm wondering if this topic has ever been dicussed in a critical point of view or if historically, anyone in particular shared such beliefs. thanks for the help. 74.58.149.102 (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rituals are a cultural thing. They're something familiar in a world of chaos. A simple example: Playing "Taps" when a soldier is buried. It can evoke tears, whether you knew the deceased or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying your points because I didn't see how User:Baseball Bugs' inclusion of "baseball games" fit under the umbrella of a ceremony or ritual. It's a process for determining the better of two teams and has a purpose whereas, as you contend, firing gunshots does nothing other than make a loud bang and symbolize something or other with no concrete result. Dismas|^(talk) 02:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I often have that same feeling while watching Cubs games. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ceremonies and rituals are unique to groups. Not all people observe funerals, weddings, births, "coming of age," and other of life's events in the same way. So — the ceremony and ritual is not just a marking of the ostensible event, but also a re-familiarization with the identity of a group with which one has ties. (Not neckwear.) "Generic" ceremonies and rituals of course also exist. I think they fulfill similar roles in the lives of individuals. They have their own "flavor." This is all just all of my own musings. Take it with a grain of salt, which should ease the blandness. Bus stop (talk) 04:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking out against the concept of ceremonies and rituals? That's a pretty broad thing to be condemning... every day at a certain time I play StarCraft and have a wank (not at the same time obviously). Is that a ritual, assuming it's done for the sole purpose of my own enjoyment? What separates that from a ceremonial meeting/luncheon of the local chapter of the Water Buffaloes? If it brings enjoyment to the people doing it, I don't see how it isn't "productive"... ZigSaw 13:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that is your personal routine and i'm all for it. you made the conscious choice to masturbate and play starcraft. if it were standard to masturbate only at 11:30 while wearing a red shirt and hat, just as one is required to wear matching hats and exit stage left when graduating, i would fail to see the point. i'm keeping ritual and routine separate and keeping ceremonies and celebrations separate. there's nothing wrong with celebrating one's commitment to be in a relationship forever but if it's standard to break dinner plates as a part of that celebration, then you're in the territory of pointlessness. as for enjoyment, there is no way nearly every person celebrating thanksgiving had an appetite for turkey that day but some people find they are almost required to eat it because "that's just what we eat on thanksgiving". i'd rather eat wonton soup on thanksgiving and be thankful for that. 74.58.149.102 (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about being thankful for being there with your family, and thankful for having something to eat and not being homeless or something? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some rituals do indeed have points. Such as, starting written sentences with capital letters. This makes the text easier to read; it really does. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity House

Is there any connection or not (historically) between the Trinity House and the Hull trinity house. [2] [3] It's not clear to me if these should be in the same or different articles? 77.86.76.212 (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All indications are that Trinity House Hull remains separate from the [London] Trinity House. The second document you link explains their separate histories, along with that of Trinity House Newcastle. The current Trinity House website FAQ gives a contact for Trinity House Hull alongside those for the Royal Navy, RNLI, etc, implying that it is not the same organisation. Warofdreams talk 13:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that's what I had gathered but wasn't sure - I was wondering about any formal or informal links between the "seamen's associations" prior to the actually formation of the different Trinity Houses, and whether they had close links as well (ie separate in legal terms, and in accounting terms - but nevertheless working together closely??) - this seems to be a difficult question to answer.77.86.76.212 (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of a Wikipedia page

Hello, i would like to translate the page about Byron Katie in Romanian, maybe even add more data. How should i contact, or how could i start translating it? This is the link of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_Katie Thank you very much.79.113.238.9 (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can translate it yourself if you want. This is quicker than requesting a translation (Wikipedia:Translation)

I assume you want to use it on http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagina_principal%C4%83 , once translated it's helpful if you place a template such as Template:Translated page or similar with a link to the original article on the talk page.

If you want to use a translation outside wikipedia the only requirement is that you follow the relevant licensing arrangements which include attributing the source.77.86.76.212 (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]