Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 March 7

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.

March 7

All Nippon Airways headquarters

I know that All Nippon Airways used to occupy the Kasumigaseki Building and put its headquarters there, and that it now occupies Shiodome City Center, where its headquarters is. It also used to have its headquarters on the grounds of Haneda Airport.

My question is: When did the headquarters move from Kasumigaseki Building to Haneda? I know when they moved from Haneda to Shiodome City Center. But I do not know the date when the headquarters moved to Haneda.

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• User:Oda Mari answered my question WhisperToMe (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Immediate family in the military

I'm interested in what percentage of the population of each country is "military or immediate family". If asked of an individual, the question would be "Have you, or at least one parent, sibling, spouse, or child, been in the military of your country for at least one year?" If I found the ideal piece of research on this, it would list every country, ranked by the percentage of its population who answered "yes" to the above question. Does anyone have any pointers? Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

While this would be very difficult in a lot of places, in some areas it's easy. In Israel, the answer is nearly 100%, because of the obligatory military service laws. The only exception, IIRC, is Orthodox Jews, who won't have any family members in military service. On the other hand, in Costa Rica, the number is 0%, or close to it, because Costa Rica has no standing army. Steewi (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you asserting that there are no Orthodox Jews in the IDF, or that Orthodox Jews do not join the army in, say, France, the US or Australia? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that Steewi is referring to the complicated situation in Israel regarding Ultra Orthadox Jews and compulsury service in the IDF. They are certainly permitted to enlist, but they can defer their service while they're in Yeshiva, and essentially get out of service all together, I think. Buddy431 (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That is correct, it should be noted however, that a good number of the Ultras do voluntarily sign up, as they are often highly patriotic. 130.88.162.46 (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Another point about Israel: Arab citizens are exempt from mandatory IDF service and few volunteer. They make up 20% of the country. —D. Monack ^talk 22:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you intend for this to be time-independent? Your great-grandfather was in WWII, so he and your gradfather count but not you father and yourself? Or do you mean currently/recently in service? Rmhermen (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Comet Tuttle, the stats I can find are all about the number of individuals in the armed forces, not families. An additional confounding factor in your question (as Rmhermen just pointed out) is that you also want statistics that apply over time - very difficult to pull together. Over the last 2-3 generations, many countries have significantly increased or decreased the size of their armed forces.

You might be able to rough calculate it for *current* service using these resources/rubric:

• This yahoo answer suggests about 2 per cent of the total world population is currently in military service (or 6 per cent if you count reservists as well).
• The world average fertility rate is about 2.5 births per woman, giving you an average family size of 4.5 people. So very very very roughly, 4.5 X 2% X 6.8 billion = 600 million people who are either currently in a military or have a family member currently in military service.

Resources to do this country by country: Military service, List of countries by number of troops, List of countries and territories by fertility rate, and List of countries by population. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A Google search using the technical term "military participation ratio" may help. —Kevin Myers 18:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Help identifying this person

I need to find the name of some guy years ago who did experiments on dreams. He was also religious and tried to prove god existed or something with science. Eventually he went mad and died alone and destitute. That's all the information I have on him. Anyone able to supply a name for this mysterious fellow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seventhoughts2 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Kurt Gödel was on QI last night; he tried to prove the existence of God by logic, and died because of intense paranoia about someone poisoning his food - his wife was hospitalised and thus couldn't test his food for him, so he refused to eat and starved to death. The article doesn't mention anything about researching dreams, though...And he didn't seem to be destitute, either. Maybe I'm completely wrong, heh. Vimescarrot (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So how did he get on QI then? I don't remember hearing Stephen Fry doing seances, and definitely not for special guests. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a composite of John William Dunne and Emanuel Swedenborg, from what I can tell.. AnonMoos (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

John Dee was a leading Renaissance chemist, physicist, astronomer and much besides, but blew it all away by trying to communicate with angels. Alansplodge (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't really match the last half of your question, but see Michael Persinger and his God helmet. I think that's who you're looking for. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Forbidden Books

Are there any books that are actually forbidden is the USA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chime444 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What about “Show Me!”? --88.76.18.70 (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

wow. absolutely. thank you for that excellent link. Does Wikipedia have an article about the current witch-hunt generally? 82.113.121.94 (talk) 12:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what the last two comments are referring to but getting back to the original question, no, not for the entire US. Certain libraries and school districts may not allow certain books in their library or to be taught in their schools but that's all determined at a lower level of gov't and only affects certain areas. Dismas|^(talk) 13:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I wl'd 18.70's book title, for those who have no idea. FiggyBee (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what "wl'd" means. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikilinked?  :) Antandrus (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Tks. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Child pornography laws in the United States is probably the best article about this specific issue - see also Obscenity for a general discussion of US law in this area, and Censorship in the United States for material that's illegal for non-sexual reasons. Tevildo (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(Joke warning): "The suicide instruction book, Final Exit has been banned by many librarians, not because they object to the content, but because nobody ever seems to return the book." :-) StuRat (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Deer species in the Bambi translation

In the Austrian original edition, Bambi is a roe deer, and very impressed by the much larger red deer. (Writing about this is aided by the fact that German has entirely different, not overlapping terms for these two species). Is the species of Bambi specified in the English translation? What about the larger deer species Bambi is impressed by? --KnightMove (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised they would specify a species in a children's book like that. It really wouldn't work in the US, as here kids just call them all "deer". The best guess you could make would be based on the illustrations, but you might find that, in different editions, different illustrators choose to model their pics on different species, probably ones they are most familiar with. (This reminds me of how the Renaissance painters all painted Jesus and pals to look Italian.) As for being impressed by a larger deer, wasn't it just an adult male (a buck), which was much larger than either him (a fawn) or his mother (a doe), and also had those impressive antlers ? StuRat (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This is explicitly not the case. Bambi is impressed (and, as a fawn, frightened) by the so much larger red deer. However, it is possible that this got lost in the translation. As I said, there is no clear German word for "deer". Instead, the term Hirsch may mean "any deer", "any red deer", "red deer stag" or "any deer stag", depending on context. In everyday speech, roe deers are not considered to be "Hirsche". Maybe the translator considered the term Hirsche to be male adults of the same (roe deer) species. This would be a major translation error... and if it remained unnoticed so far, this is almost sensational! --KnightMove (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a translation error. Often they may make some intentional minor changes when translating a work, to make it fit better into the new culture, including, in this case, slightly altering the type of deer. StuRat (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That's right - and in this case, it would have been perfectly the right thing to let Bambi be impressed by elks. --KnightMove (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The article Bambi mentions he's a white-tailed deer in the Walt Disney movie. White-tailed deer are the most common deer species in the US, especially in the eastern portion. Note that in the US, at least, the Disney movie *is* Bambi - most people probably aren't even aware that it was based on a book, let alone a non-US book. I do not know what the situation is in the UK, Australia, etc. -- 174.21.235.250 (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know, even though it is not entirely correct - actually the deers in the movie merge aspects of white-tailed deer and mule deer. See [1] --KnightMove (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There are no deers in Australia, except maybe a few in zoos that are native to Australia, but there is now a sizeable introduced population, enough for there to be an Australian Deer Association. Bambi was very popular here, as was The Deer Hunter , but we have little experience of deer aside from that. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

would someone modifying Mosaic Law today still be subject to the death penalty under it?

above, someone said of Jesus: "he modified Mosaic Law in contrivance of the law itself, thereby subject to the death penalty." If Jesus did that today instead of whenever he lived, would he still be subject to the death penalty under Mosaic law? Or has that part been abolished from it? 82.113.121.94 (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly clear what you're referring to, but the legal provisions of the Old Testament haven't been applied as a full autonomous legal code with enforceable criminal punishments since at least 63 B.C. (the date when the last independent Jewish state of ancient times came under Rome)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As AnonMoos has stated above, Jewish law is self-regulated (or perhaps, community-regulated). Since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE and the subsequent disbanding of the Sanhedrin roughly 300 years after that, there is no court authority to impose the death penalty. A false Messiah would be subject to the death penalty imposed on the zakein mamrei, (Deutoronomy 17:8-13) or someone who refutes the law as dictated by the Sanhedrin. That said, and as explained above, though, no one would actually kill the false Messiah today. In reality, it's no different than a Jewish person who violates any other law that is subject to the death penalty, such as desecrating the Sabbath or killing another person, who would also not be killed today because of lack of a unified judicial entity. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, isn't it the case nowadays that Jews take the view that Jewish law in general yields to legislation? For example, autopsies are normally not done with Jews, but if the legal system decides that a particular person needs to be autopsied, then it will be allowed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It depends upon the violation being violated; the violation of desecrating a corpse is certainly not one punishable by death. Even though it would not normally be allowed (such as for fun, or for learning anatomy), if the police refuses to release the body without performing an autopsy in order to collect forensic evidence of some sort, rabbinic leniency may very well be applicable in such circumstance. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't limiting it to capital crimes, but just in general terms. I'm assuming it has to do with the "greater sin" concept. Like it might be a sin to desecrate a body by doing an autopsy, but defying the law, and hence encouraging instability in society, would be a greater sin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

And did Dr. Laura ever answer that list of biblical punishments? -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this subject or at least a closely related subject is well addressed here (in archives) by DRosenbach (especially in his last post in that section, titled "Jewish law" of 19:47, 15 February 2010). Bus stop (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Deborah -- what is your purpose other than to mock Judaism? Certainly the author of such a letter either has such little understanding of Jewish law that he or she used a fundamentalist translation of the Hebrew text in error or used such a translation in an intended overextention so as to provide more humor for others who would read the letter and who similarly lack an understanding for Judaism. One can easily make fun of most anything given enough determination -- I hope you didn't take the letter in the way it was meant, either way the author meant it. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

My purpose was to post a well-known satirical spoof that referred to biblical passages citing O.T. transgressions and their associated severe punishments. Aside from my use of small font, the link clearly came from Snopes.com with ample discussion included. And perhaps you meant to direct this remark to me on my talk page rather than in the body of this query's thread? -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What part of satire do you think is proper in debating a serious issue of religion? From the satire article, it is meant "to censure by means of ridicule, derision...ideally with the intent to bring about improvement." Does your post and associated link have anything constructive to do with either the OP's question or the responses given? Your use of satire serves to undermine the validity of things that many hundreds of thousands of people would be willing to give their lives for...yet in one post, you succeed in denigrating that ideal. Satire may be fine in some contexts, but the satirist whose work you linked to is ill-informed at best. Your intentions may have been to provide a laugh, but it and the person who would post it contribute to anti-religous sentiment and perhaps may even influence people who do not possess such a derision for religion to contemplate ascribing to such a philosophy. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is the Icesave money now?

If you assume that money, like energy, never gets destroyed, but is simply transferred from person/company to person/company, then where is the money that savers paid into the Icelantic bank scheme Icesave now? 89.242.102.148 (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(Just spent the last five minutes reverting the vandalism of someone called "Telvido" who erased this question.) 89.242.102.148 (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This gets very theoretical. Essentially wealth is whatever you think it is. Most people would agree that they are wealthier if they have certain things, like a house, car, clothes, a stockpile of food, etc. But there are many forms of wealth which are more highly subjective. For example, are you wealthier if you have a sports stadium near your house ? Well, that does mean more access to sports games, but probably also mean regular traffic congestion. So, real estate values may go up or down when they add a sports stadium nearby, depending on how most people view it.

Now, you're probably wondering how all this relates to money invested in a company, stocks, bonds, etc. There, the value is also highly variable, depending on how much people think those items are worth now, and will be worth in the future. The term "paper profits" is often used to describe the case where the perceived value of stock has gone up, meaning the stock price rises. Those don't become actual profits until a sale is made, however. The same logic applies to "paper losses".

It might be helpful to compare stock prices with a fad. Let's say you were a collector of Cabbage Patch Kids. If you had more than everyone else you knew, and they were also into the fad, they would think of you as being rich (and, if you sold them all then, you might have made a lot of money). However, once the fad ended, most people probably just thought you had a bunch of worthles crap. So, you still owned the exact same amount of "stuff", but it was now valued at a far lower level. StuRat (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your reply is correct and interesting and falsifies the parent's assumption that "money (...) never gets destroyed". However, does that account for all the money in this case? I don't know much about this case, but it seems plausible that Landsbanki used some of the deposited money to buy shares in ACME Industries at 40 Euros. As the bubble burst, they would have had to sell these again, at, say, 20 Euros. If the buyer happens to be the original seller, which is not impossible, then the money has been transferred in a pretty real sense. 94.208.148.111 (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the question about money or about value? —Tamfang (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Value. StuRat (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

“A lot of money goes to money-heaven,” shrugged Björgólfur Thor Björgólfsson, the London-based investor who co-owned 41% of Icesave’s parent bank, Landsbanki. “They have evaporated. It’s a common misunderstanding to ask; where did the money go.” [2] BrainyBabe (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A variant of the question is to ask what the Icesave money was invested in. Was it stocks and currencies that collapsed? 89.243.176.196 (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory : I think they were buying their stock themselves through shell companies. And hedge funds were shortselling/betting against them. So some of that money went to hedge funds / speculators who either bought puts on them or short sold them. Also both parties could be the same. For eg, i know my bank is going to crash, but i convince my partners that if only we took some of our depositor's money and propped up our share price by buying them ourselves through offshore shell companies, confidence would return and all would be saved. But since i know better that my company is beyond redemption and will ultimately go down no matter what, i sell my own personal shares (which i might be owning initially through some other shell companies) to my partners while they are trying to prop up the share price through the depositors' money. So effectively i transfer the depositors' money into my pocket. The truth will only come out if someone goes through all the transactions of Icesave's shares for at least a couple of years before the fall and try to match the buyers and sellers --Sodabottle (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

So its a great mystery where the money went? I assume they lent the money to companies that could no longer pay their debt. 92.26.160.145 (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not, as I explained above. StuRat (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean that they bought stuff, such as shares in companies, that fell in value a lot? 78.149.193.118 (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Either that, or their own value could fall just due to the perceived likelihood of future losses, based on the bad economy. StuRat (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Creating and destroying money

On reflection money can be created (eg plant an apple tree sapling costing £10, sell its apples for £20, so £10 created) or destroyed (eg buy an expensive vintage car, leave it outside in the rain to rust away - money destroyed).

Is there an inclusive list anywhere of all the types of ways in which money can be created or destroyed please? 89.242.102.148 (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Money "destroyed" in what sense? That the car has lost its resale value? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in that example. 89.242.102.148 (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the concept you're looking for here is economic value, rather than "money". As you can see from the mess surrounding that article (the see also list, for example), it's an incredibly complex idea that people can't quite pin down. Almost everything everyone does has some economic impact, so no, there is no such list anywhere. FiggyBee (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Our Capital accumulation article is relevant but also doesn't seem to tackle the original question directly. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Figgy is on the right track here, and really when you get down to brass tacks, there's no solid notion of 'money' or 'economical value'. It all depends on what people are willing to do for what is on offer, and this may fluctuate like the wind. A cheeseburger may be worth $4.50 at noon, but when I've already eaten I'll give you a dollar just to take it away from me. Vranak (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a topic I've thought of often, particularly from the POV of increasing both national and global wealth. It seems we would do better in that regard if more effort went into creating wealth, and preventing it's destruction, while less went into moving existing wealth around.

A) Ways to create wealth:

1) Farming and herding.

2) Mining.

3) Manufacturing and construction.

4) Some services. This is interesting, since society moved from agricultural to manufacturing and now into the majority of people working in services. This can be bad for wealth creation, especially in more developed nations, as many services seem to involve moving existing wealth around, rather than creating new wealth. Advertising, marketing, and sales might be one example. Casino and lottery workers are another example, as are lawyers engaged in lawsuits. So, what services create wealth ? I'd put teaching right on top, as almost everyone considers themself wealthier when well educated, and they tend to make far more money over their lifetimes.

5) New technology. Most people would consider themselves wealthier with a modern cell phone than one of the first generation that looked like an army radio.

This might explain why the wealth of China in rapidly increasing, since they are still largely in a manufacturing economy, while we in the West have moved on to mostly services. India, on the other hand, while a provider of services, gets cash for them from other nations, while those other nations are often left with nothing of lasting value in exchange, thus increasing the wealth of India and decreasing the wealth of other nations (and hence just moving wealth around, on an international scale).

B) Ways to destroy wealth:

1) Fire (and thus fire departments help limit this destruction of wealth) and natural disasters, such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, etc. Disaster preparedness helps limit this destruction.

2) Vandalism and theft. You might think that something is worth the same once it's stolen, but it frequently loses much of it's value. An extreme example is when copper piping is ripped out of a building and sold as scrap metal, for far less than the cost to replace the pipes. But, even a stolen car has far less value than it had, as it can't be sold for much without valid papers. Chop shops often take just a few components off the stolen car and sell them for far less than the original car was worth. So, just like the fire department, the police have the power to limit the destruction of wealth.

3) War, and in particular, "total war", where everything is bombed to the ground, destroys vast amounts of wealth. Soldiers can either cause this destruction or prevent it, depending on whether they are the aggressors or defenders.

4) Decomposition. This includes the rust example you gave, but also food that rots, plastic that gets brittle and breaks, etc. In some cases this wealth destruction is due to planned obsolescence, where the object is designed to fail before it otherwise would.

5) Going out of fashion. If people feel that an otherwise functional product, like their clothes, car, etc., is no longer of much value because it's "last year's model", this leads to the item being discarded (often for little or nothing) and being replaced by a new one.

I really think that nations which build products to last, and don't change the styles each year, will, in the long run, have far more wealth than those with a "disposable society". So, how do we get there ? Perhaps higher sales taxes on initial purchases and lower taxes on maintenance activities, might be one step forward, encouraging us to keep up the items we have. A nice enviromentally responsible way to increase the sales price is to require that the eventual disposal/recycling fees for a new product be paid up front. This both encourages them to keep their old items, and takes away the incentive for them to dump stuff in a swap or the woods, to avoid paying the disposal costs. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Almost all money is created via the dual ledgers of lending institutions. This is an elementary fact of economics. When a bank makes a loan, the loaned money is created. Central banks encourage or discourage the creation of money by lowering or raising interest rates on the money they lend, which triggers increases in the interest rates of all lending. Higher interest rates increase the cost of money, so less money is borrowed, and therefore less is lent/created. 63.17.37.219 (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"When a bank makes a loan, the loaned money is created" ? Please explain. StuRat (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

See Money supply#Fractional-reserve banking. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

From Wikisource's "Modern Money Mechanics" by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Modern_Money_Mechanics/Introduction#Who_Creates_Money.3F (to name a random source -- as stated, this is a rudimentary fact of economics, and is axiomatic): "The actual process of money creation takes place primarily in banks. As noted earlier, checkable liabilities of banks are money. These liabilities are customers' accounts. They increase when customers deposit currency and checks and when the proceeds of loans made by the banks are credited to borrowers' accounts. In the absence of legal reserve requirements, banks can build up deposits by increasing loans and investments so long as they keep enough currency on hand to redeem whatever amounts the holders of deposits want to convert into currency." The crucial part is "They increase ... when the proceeds of loans made by the banks are credited to borrowers' accounts." In other words, whenever a lending institution makes a loan, it increases (hence creates) "checkable liabilities [which] are money."63.17.58.123 (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Leslie Salmon - Author

Arthur Leslie Salmon was born in 1865 but I cannot find the date/year that he died. Does anyone out there know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.24.12 (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've done an extensive google search and found nothing. Very strange. I suggest looking up his death certificate at city hall —Preceding unsigned comment added by Assembler45 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you give us more information about him please? I have a candidate found on Ancestry but need more information really. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

More info needed!? You mean there's more than one Arthur Leslie Salmon born in 1865? A quick Google search reveals that Salmon was a poet and an author of British travel books. His Library of Congress Subject Headings entry gives his birth year of 1865 but not his year of death. —Kevin Myers 22:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If he had a book published in Britain then the British Library should have them on its database - freely accessable on the internet - and which might gave his birth and death years. Edit: I looked him up, did not see his date of death. He published many books, so you could estimate when he was still alive by the last publication date. Although there were many editions of his book about Cornwall, which may have been revised by other people after his death. 92.26.160.145 (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

His name is probably unique enough that you could get his death certificate easily, after estimating when he died as suggested above. You might also be able to get his date of death from free geneological records perhaps, although I don't know much about that. 78.149.193.118 (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Where does Riyadh get its water?

Looking at the article for Riyadh, I can't see anything that explains how a city of 6 million could exist in a desert. The article says that it was famous for its orchards in ye olden days, so I would assume there are substantial springs that can support irrigation, but there's no mention of this. 71.70.143.134 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC).

Apparently from groundwater, but the supply from the aquifers is a diminishing resource (the same is true with Las Vegas, Nevada and Phoenix, Arizona in the U.S.). Here is the abstract of an article on the situation. Evidently the water needs some treatment to be usable. Antandrus (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know if I buy that. An aquifer under constant drainage for more than a thousand years is capable of supporting a population of 6 million for more than a couple months? Either I'm wildly underestimating the (water per human)/(capacity of an aquifer) ratio or the Riyadh aquifer extends under the entire Arabian penninsula. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.143.134 (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Remember that the sedimentary strata underlying Riyadh have been absorbing water for a lot longer than that. It doesn't have to rain a lot, on a highly porous surface (e.g. sand) to charge or recharge an aquifer, given sufficient time. If the surface is porous, water sinks in before it has a chance to evaporate -- and in hundreds of thousands of years, that's plenty of water. Unfortunately when you build a city not only are you draining it at an unsustainable rate, but you're covering the former porous surface with buildings and parking lots, further reducing recharge rate. There is often plenty of groundwater in the desert, though ironically they may be sucking it out faster than their oil. Antandrus (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Turns out they also get a fair portion of their water from desalination plants on the Persian Gulf -- see Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Saudi_Arabia#Water_resources for some more information. According to this abstract, Riyadh gets 35% of its water supply from its aquifers, the rest from desal. It's rather analogous to the situation in a place like Phoenix, which gets water from the Colorado River while simultaneously draining its groundwater. I suppose this could go on the science desk since it involves hydrology, but what the heck ... Antandrus (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Historical Chinese gender imbalance

A recent Twitter post by Hans Rosling pointed out that China and India have a male:female ratio much higher than 1, and if you look at Gapminder[3] the Chinese trend starts almost exactly at the introduction of the one-child policy. But if you keep going back, the ratio was also quite high in 1950 - about 113 males for every 100 females. Is there any reason why this might be so? Especially since wars historically dropped the sex ratio due to the large number of males in the armed forces getting killed; and while the Nanking Massacre did result in a large number of female deaths, that was about 15 years earlier and as far as I can tell shouldn't have resulted in such a large imbalance in the first place. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 21:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That was probably because the bride's family was expected to pay a dowry to the groom's family, making girls a financial liability. Unfortunately, this probably led to many poor families killing their female babies. StuRat (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

China (and most Asian countries) are very misogynistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Assembler45 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Er no... China, unlike India for example, is traditionally a bride price society. However the 'price' is clearly not enough to get around the cultural issues although it perhaps reduces the effect unlike in places like India were a bridal dowry was expected. Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

At different times and in different cultures within China, different systems have been used. I'm not sure what practices were in place in the years before 1950, which would effect the sex ratio then. StuRat (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

We discussed something quite similar a few weeks ago, you may want to search as many of the links would be of relevance. However the simple answer is for various cultural reasons there's a historical and ongoing preference for male children in China and a number of other countries Nil Einne (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see a cite, StuRat, for systematic killing of female babies in China. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, here's one: [4]. A relevant quote is "A tradition of infanticide and abandonment, especially of females, existed in China before the foundation of the People's Republic in 1949". StuRat (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

We have an article about this phenomenon: Missing women of Asia. Intelligentsium 23:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Chinese statistics, it is generally useful to identify poor data as the top reason why the numbers don't add up. In this case, it may well be that there was at various times (including today) a systematic under-registration of female births. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Etymology question: Ptah *ph₂tḗr

Ptah is described in ancient Egypt as the god who created the world (i.e. father of creation). Could there be any common etymology to PIE *ph₂tḗr meaning father? Si1965 (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(This would probably be better on the Langauge desk).

There could be. There could be a connection between any two words in different languages that happen to be similar. But in the absence of any linguistic or historical reason to think so, it is very unlikely. --ColinFine (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Si1965 -- To do such etymologies, you have to look at the earliest-attested or earliest-reconstructible form on each side, in the context of each language system as it existed at the time. "Th" in Indo-European was a single aspirated consonant sound, while "h" in Egyptian represented a separate consonant. Also, Egyptian etymologies are usually structured around abstract consonantal roots, while the "t" of the Indo-European form seems to be part of a -ter suffix which also occurred in the words for "mother" and "brother". When one pursues such points of analysis on each side, the two forms do not seem to grow more similar as we trace them back in time, so they do not seem to "meet in the middle". That's why such a proposed etymology is not listed in dictionaries and other standard reference works.. AnonMoos (talk) 05:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting, thank you very much. Si1965 (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Music

Is there a specific word for someone who translates musical notation from one instrument to another? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghoulygone (talk • contribs) 22:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Arrangement is the general term, and someone who does it is an "arranger". See List of music arrangers. Tevildo (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Transcription may be the term you are looking for. I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 23:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Single, Young African-American Moms and Fornication

Why many young African-American women are practicing fornication and raising their children by themselves? Why is this more common for African-American women than the White American women and Asian American women? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think they are? Please give sources for your tendentious claims. . --ColinFine (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I wouldn't use the word "fornication", in this context, as it implies a religious value judgment. The more neutral term would be "engaging in premarital sex". StuRat (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Now, as for why more black women are single mothers, I can think of several factors:

1) Higher death rate among black males than white males means the father is more likely to be dead.

2) Black men are more likely to be in the military, and thus absent while deployed (although this doesn't technically make the women single mothers).

3) Black men are more likely to be incarcerated.

4) There is less of a stigma in the black community for a mother raising a child alone, so more do. StuRat (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The question seems to be soap boxing based on unwarranted assumptions. Lots more women have sex outside marriage than have babies. Sexual activity is common among black , white and hispanic teenagers and young adults, and cohabitation is common as well among young adults past college age. There is a thing called "birth control." One online source of unproven reliability says that as of 2002 68% of U.S. black women who had babies were unmarried,, down from a peak of 70.4% in 1994. Overall 33.8% of U.S. new mothers were unmarried in 2002. The illigitimacy rate among non-Hispanic whites was 22.9% in 2002. The Wikipedia article Legitimacy (law) offered few statistics, except that 40% of babies born in the the US in 2007 were outside wedlock, with no racial or ethnic breakdown. A book has graphs of U.S. black and white illegitimacy 1960-1999, which shows the black rate levelling off at just under 70% while the white rate was around 20% and still rising. Edison (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how any of the data you presented demonstrates that the OP is working under incorrect assumptions. A decline of 2.4% is probably statistically insignificant, and a ratio of ~3:1 of unmarried black:white births suggests that there IS a statistically significant correlation between race and unwed births. 71.70.143.134 (talk)

Go back and read the part about having sex may not produce pregnancy if birth control is used, particularly the pill. Thus pregnancy rates or "unwed births" do not necessarily equate to "fornication" rates. Edison (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sudhir Venkatesh has explored this topic (I think in "Off the Books", but I'm not exactly sure). He basically found that motherhood was considered a rite of passage for black teenage girls in poor neighborhoods, which is why it's so prevalent compared to similar non-black populations. 71.70.143.134 (talk)

Fair enough. I hadn't ruminated on the difference between "fornication" and "sex what gets you pregnant". The OP should probably define fornication, because otherwise I and people like me assume fornication means non-generative sex. I would bet that unprotected sex correlates with pregnancy, bu that is an empirical question which the OP is potentially asking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.143.134 (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Unwanted pregnancy is prevalent among lower-income neighborhoods/cities/countries, regardless of race. It's just that in this country, minorities, particularly African-Americans and Hispanics, are the ones who are financially and socially disadvantaged more so than other ethnicities. So teenage and unwanted pregnancies are more prevalent among them, and therefore the stereotype is born that only black people and Latinos have kids outside of marriage and are unable to financially provide for their offspring. However, this is all just my personal observation, so don't ask me for references. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I take it by "this country" you mean the US ? I also assume that's what the original poster meant, because of the use of the term "African-American". However, it would be better if we listed the nation in question explicitly, to avoid confusion. StuRat (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read a published comparisons of attitudes of black and white teenage girls. A black teenage girl wanted to have a baby fathered by a popular high school athlete. White girls were into sex but planned to go to college and shunned any notion of bearing out of wedlock children. Edison (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Same Sex Marriage in the UK

Is same-sex marriage, specifically between females, legal in the UK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Assembler45 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not marriage, but same sex couples may form a civil partnership which is practically identical in legal form if not in terminology. See Civil partnership in the United Kingdom. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose, technically, the answer is that marriage other than between a man and a woman is not recognised at law, so a same-sex "marriage" is neither legal nor illegal; rather, it simply does not exist. I mean, if a minister or civil celebrant purported to marry two females in exactly the same way as they'd marry a man and a woman, then the two women would not be married, and the celebrant might well be in trouble with the law. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In the US, same-sex "marriages" have been conducted for (at least) decades by liberal-minded ministers. Those "marriages" are what I would "spiritual" marriages, i.e. they made the participants feel good but they had no legal standing. And much of the brouhaha in the US about same-sex marriage could have been avoided if the civil union approach was pursued. But the gay community took the bold approach of demanding it be called "marriage". As I recall, even the right-leaning George Bush supported the idea of civil unions. "Marriage" is a hot-button term in that context. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit like saying all the civil rights fuss could have been avoided if the slaves accepted they had no human rights and just got on with picking the cotton. If a straight couple can marry and call it marriage and have it fully recognised everywhere, why not a gay couple? (This isn't the place for this discussion, so you'd better not respond. I just couldn't let your statement pass without comment.) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the practical legal difference between marriage and civil union, other than words? Please note I am neither defending nor opposing same-sex "marriage". I personally don't think it matters. But many do care, at least in the US. Although it's obvious that (for the present, anyway), proponents of same-sex marriage have been making progress. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no difference other than words, but words are what counts. Separate is never equal; if it was, whither separation in the first place? FiggyBee (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. If the 2 things are essentially indistinguishable, what's the stumbling block in making them actually, legally indistinguishable? Until that happens, there's still just as yawning a gap, in principle, as there ever was. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(after EC with Jack)The difference, Bugs, is legal. Civil unions don't carry many of the rights that marriages do. In many places, Person A cannot be on Person B's insurance if they're in a civil union. Also, Person A cannot visit B in the hospital if there is a "family only" rule. If Person A dies, then Person B has very few (or none at all) options as to what they can get from A's estate. It's not just words, legally.

The "civil union approach" that I think many people have advocated, and which I personally think would be best, is for everyone (gay and straight) to be joined in a civil union which would be recognized by the gov't. Then, if you want and if you believe in such a thing, you can get married at the church of your choice. The marriage would have no legal meaning whatsoever. And yet the "sanctity of marriage" which the religious opponents of gay marriage cling to would be kept 'sacred'. Dismas|^(talk) 11:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There may be differences in partners' rights between marriage and civil partnerships in some jurisdictions, but there is practically no legal difference in the UK. Specifically regarding inheritance, section 71 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 says:

"Schedule 4 amends enactments relating to wills, administration of estates and family provision so that they apply in relation to civil partnerships as they apply in relation to marriage."

Civil partnership in the UK is a politician's fudge, allowing Labour, who introduced the Act, to say that they support the rights of same-sex partners while at the same time claiming that they have no plans to legalise "same-sex marriage". As FiggyBee says above, the difference between marriage and civil partnership in the UK is just in the labels, not the underlying rights, but the labels are important to some people on both sides of the debate. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What is one person's bug is another person's feature. By introducing something called 'civil partnership' which was marriage in all but name, the proposal was much more acceptable to religious institutions. Introducing it as actual marriage would have attracted a great deal more opposition and delayed (if not derailed entirely) the passage of the Act. Same sex couples got access to the rights and duties and legal recognition previously only available to opposite sex couples, and got them far earlier. One of the rules of politics is not to make any needless enemies. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What I'm seeing in the above thread is contradictory information/opinions on whether civil unions and marriages are legally equivalent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Liberal Judaism is the first religious organisation in the UK (or the world?) to produce a special liturgy for same-sex commitment ceremonies, and as the text notes at the beginning, it is expected that such a service will be preceded by the legal formality of civil partnership, which – as far as I know – offers almost identical legal rights as marriage, the only point to bear in mind being that some private contracts (eg. life insurance) may make specific reference to spouses or marriage partners, which would obviously make a difference. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 13:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage does not exist as a legal concept in the United Kingdom. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 created a new legal entity for two people of the same sex to gain rights and responsibilities like those of civil marriages. (See Civil partnership in the United Kingdom, and especially the talk pages of those two articles, which give interesting additional information, as is often the case.) Within the past couple of weeks, differences between civil partnerships and marriage have come into the public eye. Waheed Alli, Baron Alli introduced a bill into the House of Lords which passed on 2 March: Lords Hansard. Peter Tatchell, the human rights campaigner, has a section called Partnership on his website. He and others, including legal scholar Robert Wintemute and representatives of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement and Liberty (UK), spoke at a recent Marriage Equality Day. Not least is an issue of religious freedom: the law barred religious establishments from conducting civil partnerships on their premises. And CPs are limited to same-sex couples: one opposite-sex couple has decided to challenge this [5]. NB the term "civil union" is not used in the UK. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In the UK civil partnership and civil marriage clearly are legally equivalent - the opening sentence of Civil partnership in the United Kingdom says "Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage". In other jurisdictions your mileage may vary. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The debate in the House of Lords last week was instructive. I'll give just one example of a Lord Spiritual making a point which others reiterated. The Lord Bishop of Bradford said, if religious organisations want to conduct "civil partnership ceremonies within a religious context", why should they not be allowed to do so?

The fundamental difficulty that many churches and faiths will have with this argument is that we, like the Government and the courts, have been quite clear ever since civil partnerships were introduced, that they are not the same as marriages. It is true that they confer nearly all the same legal rights. <snip>At the moment, however, civil partnerships are not in substance or in form same-sex marriages. There are some countries that have already introduced the possibility of marriage between people of the same sex, and no doubt some of those sympathetic to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, favour that direction of travel. I do not, and neither do the majority of churches and faiths in this country. But if people want to argue for that, they are entitled to do so, and it is a debate that we can have. That debate ought to take place in the synods, the convocations, the councils and so on, and the churches as well. The point is simply that we should not muddle up a debate about civil partnerships with a debate on same-sex marriage.

(2 Mar 2010 : Column 1429. 10:15 pm) So no, civil partnership is not the same as marriage. Similar, yes, but identical, no. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The labels are different, but the legal rights and responsibilities are, for all practical purposes, the same. As I said, some folks on both sides of the debate choose to emphasise the difference in labels over the similarity in substance. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There is the little matter of religious freedom, and the state forbidding religious organisations (liberal Jews, Quakers, Unitarians) from conducting civil partnerships on their premises or by their clergy. These bodies and individuals can conduct marriage ceremonies for opposite-sex couples, but not CPs for same-sex ones. CPs are allowed everywhere that civil marriages are (stately homes licensed for the purpose, etc.) but not in church. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Civil marriage ceremonies can't be carried out in church, nor may they include religious elements. DuncanHill (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, carrying out civil partnership ceremonies on religious premises was legalised last week! ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 18:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about civil marriages, not civil partnerships. (And CPs on religious premises haven't been legalised yet - that won't happen until the bill passes all its stages in Parliament and then receives the Royal Assent). DuncanHill (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

? Well, obviously civil marriages take place outside religious premises, that's what the phrase means :/

And it's legalised inasumch as the House of Commons (if it hasn't already) will obviously be in favour, given that it doesn't contain the Bishops and is full of progressive-type people, unlike the Lords. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 19:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak to current procedures, but the text of my civil marriage had distinctly religious overtones. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)