Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 May 20

Humanities desk
< May 19	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 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.

May 20

Public school class size reduction advocacy organizations

Which organizations have been the most effective advocates for public school class size reduction over the past 20 years? I was able to find http://www.classsizematters.org/ for New York, but not much else. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I would assume that the teacher's unions play heavily in this issue ... possibly the National Education Association. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

Why would you assume that? Teachers' unions' #1 priority is "more pay for the teachers". This is not a slam, just a fact of the reason for their existence. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "assume" was the wrong word. Teachers and teacher unions have always advocated smaller class size. For one, it makes the teacher's job "easier". Two, it is more educationally sound to educate in smaller groups than larger. Why does your post make it seem so far-fetched that teacher unions would advocate smaller class size? That's actually exactly what they do ... along with better pay / working conditions for teachers. And, yes, one of those "working conditions" is smaller (as opposed to larger) class size. Why the surprise with my original comment above? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

How can individuals contribute specifically to their class-size reduction efforts, but not the unions' stance, for example, against merit pay? 71.198.176.22 (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't claim that teachers are against smaller classes; everyone is in favor of smaller classes, all other things being equal; but where I live, the teachers union recently agreed to larger class sizes, and the teachers got a raise. The priorities were clear. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In this particular instance, yes. But, I am sure that the larger class size was a concession on the part of the teachers and the union. You still did not answer my point above. Why did your prior post make it sound so surprising and unexpected that a teacher union would advocate smaller class size (which was the original question of the original poster)? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

Also, smaller classes = more teachers = dues-paying more union members. --Nricardo (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare scripts

I am a little confused about some issues with William Shakespeare. I basically understand that his plays were published, after his death, by other editors -- in the Folios and the Quartos. But, whatever became of the actual (hard-copy) written scripts that the actors used during Shakespeare's lifetime? Did none of these scripts survive? Or did they (the actors) not use scripts the way that we would use them today? In other words, was the performance of a live play back in Shakespeare's day somehow executed differently than it would be today (i.e., without each actor receiving his own copy of a written script)? Thanks! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

No, the actors did not receive a complete copy of the script, since there was no cheap, quick, or easy way to reproduce the script. The actors got just their lines (and their cues) on cheap paper, copied from the prompt book owned by the acting company. Besides, the company did not want complete copies of their play laying around, since it might be stolen by a rival company. No copies of the actor's lines apparently survive, unsurprisingly. Shakespeare's plays were printed using the prompt copy or his foul papers. —Kevin Myers 02:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I am sorry, but I don't quite understand. Are you saying that an actor got his lines only? If that is the case, how on earth would he know the context of what he himself is saying (without seeing the lines of the other actors, to which he must react)? After reading your post, this is the mental picture that I have. As an actor, I would get a copy of a regular normal-looking script (albeit on cheap paper) with everyone's lines excised except my own. Do I have that correct? Or am I mis-reading your post above? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

Yeah, the actor would get his lines only, plus the line right before his (the cue). Often, the story would be a familiar one, so he'd know the gist of the plot without the whole script. He'd memorize his lines, and then learn the complete context in rehearsal, where he'd work out how he will deliver the lines. (This may seem odd, but even today there are films made where actors do not get the whole script, and rehearsals in film are a rare luxury.) For more info, see the "acting" entries in The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare. —Kevin Myers 04:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. So, let's say that you have a very main character (like Hamlet or Othello or Romeo or Juliet, etc.). This main character would speak virtually every other line of the play. And it would seem a great deal of trouble / aggravation to tailor his script to excise every other line -- when he virtually appears on every page in the entire play. For the minor roles, this process makes sense. But, for the major roles that appear on every page of the play, this process of "redacting" lines seems to make no sense. It would seem just as easy to give that main actor a copy of the whole play ... since they practically are the whole play. And even none of these pared-down scripts have survived? Thank you! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

It'd be more trouble to write it ALL out by hand,every word saved would make a difference.It's common even now for people to get scripts like this just because it's easier to handle.Also,why would these scripts survive? No-one knew at the time how important they would be.hotclaws 19:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe this even happens today, much less that it is common. I can see, for example, that an actor might only get, say, pages 10 through 20 of the script. And he does not receive pages 1 through 9. But, I cannot imagine that he gets, say, pages 10 through 20, with all lines redacted/excised except for his own lines and the cue immediately preceding. That makes no sense whatsoever. What purpose would this serve? And why would this be commonly done (nowadays)? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

Also, here is another point about these scripts "surviving". Since this was such a laborious process, wouldn't they save and recycle the scripts for the next performance of that play? Why would they "throw it out" at all? Especially considering what a labor it was to create and knowing that the play would need to be performed again at some point in the future. No? (64.252.65.146 (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

There is a modern parallel, though in a slightly different medium. If you hire performing materials for an operetta or an older musical comedy you will normally get a vocal score with all the music (but the instrumental parts reduced to a piano accompaniment); and the libretto (the spoken dialogue) will either be in a separate booklet, or interspersed between the numbers of the score. But recent musical theatre scripts tend to have the full vocal music and the spoken script in one book - but the vocal music is printed without any accompaniment. As a singer I dislike this approach intensely, particularly for things like Sondheim's shows, where it can be difficult to pitch the notes even with the accompaniment visible. --ColinFine (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The manuscript of Shakespeare's section of Sir Thomas More survived, in part because the play was never produced and therefore never published (after authorized publication, there would be no reason to keep handwritten scripts). The handwritten copies would not have been considered "valuable" at the time, except as sources for printed copies; thus, once copies were in print, the handwritten copies could be discarded unless the printed version was pirated and of low quality, or for sentimental reasons or convenience. Of course, handwritten copies were not necessarily just "thrown out"; rather, they simply didn't "survive" the subsequent decades and centuries. The first folio shows signs of being copied both from prior printed sources as well as handwritten copies, even if an apparently authorized version had already been published. Of course, for those plays that first appeared in the first folio, the presumption is that handwritten copies were the sole source. These issues are especially interesting for King Lear, whose different versions suggest different drafts by Shakespeare; a similar argument is made for Hamlet, though the argument is weaker than that for Lear. 63.17.51.102 (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to all for the above input. It was very helpful ... and is much appreciated. Thanks! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC))

Correct way to ask permission from Author for making use of instrument

Hello good people. Can you tell me what is the right way to ask permission from an author of a scholarly work if I want to make use of a psychometric instrument devised by them and communicate the results to the people on whom it was used. This may seem like a silly question but I do not want to waste the author's time either by including too much information or by necessitating too many back and forth emails. Any other guidelines (style, convention) would also be much appreciated. (The instrument has been widely used previously, and I am using it in a commercial setting. ) --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ask direct and to the point. Include information about how the author will be attributed, whether any money will be changing hands, and to whom the results will be available. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) --202.45.7.162 (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Israel losing a war question

I had a cultural anthropology professor who told us that there was a war between Israel and Egypt, and that at one point Egypt was winning until America intervened and sailed an aircraft carrier into the region. Then an Egyptian leader (can't remember who he said it was) said something along the lines of "I can fight a war against Israel, but I can't fight it against America". I believe Nixon was the president during this time. I'm not entirely sure what war this was, but since Nixon was president I'm thinking it's the Yom Kippur War. But no where in the article does it describe Israel losing until America intervened. Is my professor accurate in what he said? ScienceApe (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh and he also said that Egypt captured Israeli territory. ScienceApe (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Our Yom Kippur War says that there were early Egyptian (and Syrian) successes, such as taking back some of the occupied territory lost in the Six Days War. US support for Israel, in both recon and resupply, was critical in their eventual victory, so your prof wasn't that far off. See Yom_Kippur_War#Aid_to_Israel and Operation Nickel Grass. StuRat (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You probably misheard what the professor said. Either that, or he was just wrong. On October 6, 1973, President Anwar el-Sadat of Egypt and President Hafez al-Assad of Syria both attacked Israel. It was Yom Kippur, and Prime Minister Golda Meir of Israel did not discover the impending offensive until the morning of October 6. (It takes Israel several days to mobilize its army.) Both Egypt and Syria captured a narrow sliver of territory at Israel's border. The Egyptians stopped right there to stay under their anti-aircraft defenses. Whenever Syrian and Egyptian forces tried to advance beyond their air-defense umbrella, they were annihilated.

Right after the war began, the Soviet Union began airlifting supplies to Egypt and Syria. The U.S. waited six days after the war began to airlift supplies to Israel. Golda Meir pleaded with Nixon for supplies because the Israelis were running short of ammunition.

Israel eventually advanced into Egyptian and Syrian territory. They actually cut off an army of Egyptians (the Third Army), stranding them on the Israeli side of the Suez Canal. Without water, they would have died. The U.S.S.R. then threatened to deploy its own ground troops in Egypt to enforce a cease fire on October 24th. Nixon then responded by putting U.S. forces on DEFCON alert. In the end, Israel lost 2,522 men; Egypt lost 12,000 men; Syria lost 3,500; and Egypt would have lost many more if the U.S.S.R. hadn't forced a cease fire. Sadat may have tried to explain his acceptance of a cease fire by blaming the Americans, but the fact remains that Egypt would have suffered dearly if he has not done so.

If you would like to learn more, I would recommend reading The Yom Kippur War published by Osprey. It's actually two books -- one on the Sinai campaign and another about the war with Syria. I read both books cover-to-cover. Very entertaining story, in my opinion.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC) --Best Dog Ever (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no way that the U.S. would have gotten itself involved militarily in that war, and I think everybody knew it. The country was still embroiled in Vietnam. I don't recall reading anything about an aircraft carrier ever being sent. What good would it have done? After getting over its initial shock, the Israeli Air Force wasn't in dire trouble. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think he's really talking about the Soviets. They did sail some vessels toward Egypt with some Soviet marines on board. Nixon did little more than put U.S. forces on DEFCON alert.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The part about Egypt winning sounds like '73 but I think the Prof. was probably thinking of this episode from the '67 war. Perhaps mashing the two together. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In one of the wars, I forget which one at the moment, the arabs did claim that the American and British aircraft carriers had arrived and helped Israel out in the fighting, but there was never any proof of this. 148.197.114.158 (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the bare minimum to give a 2010 Census worker?

A census worker just left a message on my door 15 minutes ago and drove off. He left his phone number and name. I don't live here, I have an apartment elsewhere, but since I missed the census, I figured I may as well open the door to him tomorrow. However, I've heard tell that there are all sorts of questions they will ask me, and to be honest, I'm an extremely, extremely private person. I would like to tell him how many are in the household, and the address of my permanent residence, and refuse to answer anything else. Is this possible? Has anyone done this? Are these people rude?Reflectionsinglass (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

[1] addresses preparing for the visit, [2] shows the questions you will be asked, and [3] discusses privacy concerns. Since government representation is apportioned by the census, answering it is in your self interest to a similar extent as voting. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I worked for the Census in 2000. You are required by law to answer all questions they give you. If you do not co-operate, their supervisor will come back. Things will only get worse if you don't co-operate. Answer all of their questions. They will not share the information with anyone else. No other agency, besides the Census Bureau, will have access to your personal information. The questions are mostly harmless, like whether you're a veteran, etc. They aren't too personal.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that's the procedure this year? I think they switch to telephone calls if in-person visits aren't answered; up to three of each if I remember correctly. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently a census worker. Ref. 26 above contains all the questions you'll be asked. It's true that you're required by law to respond to the census questions, but the consequences cited above for failure to do so are wildly exaggerated. --Halcatalyst (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I worked for the 2010 census. I did the enumeration of group quarters (nursing homes, homeless shelters, etc) but am not working on the private residence followups. However, the form that we used for the group quarters had ten questions. Only three needed answers to consider the form "complete". The most basic of these were your name, birth date/age, and sex. Other questions included national origin, race, and address. Dismas|^(talk) 04:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually that's not so bad. Since some of you work/have worked for the census, is it ok if I give a different address? I mean, I am in a completely different zip code at the moment. Reflectionsinglass (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

They would like your actual physical address. This is because the information is used in part to sort out congressional districts. Those districts are based on population figures, so by deceiving them about where you live, you're skewing the numbers. Granted, not by that much, but still the information has a purpose. Dismas|^(talk) 05:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I'll have to explain it to him without going too deeply into my private life. I live in another town and have an apartment there, but I only just got it; meanwhile, I'm staying here, and have been traveling to and from here and another state. I'm only here for a little while longer before going back to my apartment, where I've lived for the last four years. The timing is just... bad, really.Reflectionsinglass (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Given what you've just said, remember that a census is not a statement of what you normally do: rather it is a snapshot of a moment in time, similar to Google StreetView's pictures of streets with people in them. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Your snapshot theory is really interesting, thanks for putting it that way. I read through the link above that gives the questions (read them thoroughly this time) and saw the use of "staying" instead of "living" as an option. This seems fair to me and now I'm actually not bothered by any of the questions. Well, except for one, which is, staying elsewhere "for another reason." If they were to call me regarding that little bit, then I would have to draw the line at privacy. Reflectionsinglass (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that the questions asked are as of April 1st. So if you were living somewhere else, that's the address that you want to answer questions about. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 20:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Chill out. There are people far more interesting than you to spy on so you don't have to worry about your privacy. As long as you tell the census workers where you live, pay your taxes, and don't hang out with terrorists, the government will leave you alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.50.170 (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If you answer the questions, then they won't call you. They aren't going to read every one and then call certain people asking "What did you mean by this?" If they wanted explanations, it wouldn't be multiple choice alone, it would also include fields for short answers. As someone said, it's supposed to be a "snapshot" of America. So where you were living on April 1 is what they want. And finally, if the government was going to snoop on you, they'd do it a lot more quietly than by sending someone who admits to working for the government around to your house. Dismas|^(talk) 20:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Remember that many different countries conduct censuses, the laws probably vary between countries, and Wikipedia is used and editted by people in different countries. For questions like this, it might be useful to mention what country you're talking about. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Shakespearean actors

In Shakespeare's time period, all actors in his plays would have been male -- so that even female roles were performed by male actors -- is that correct? In Romeo and Juliet, for example, a male actor (as Romeo) would be acting opposite a male actor (as Juliet). This would also occur for other strong lead female roles (e.g., Portia in The Merchant of Venice). Wasn't this extremely implausible for the audience to swallow? I can't imagine watching a love story like Romeo and Juliet, where Juliet is played by a male. It would seem to "ruin" the whole point of the play, I would imagine. Did it not strain credulity and destroy any "realistic" features of the story line? How did this work? How did they get this to be effective? The casting of male actors in female roles would seem to turn any serious play into a farce. How did they prevent that from happening? I just don't get it ... so I may be missing something. Any insights? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 04:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

There is nothing particularly plausible about any of Shakespeare's plays in general, so I don't think that would have been the dealbreaker. If all the female roles were played by men, the audience would have expected it, so it wouldn't have been a problem. (And those roles were played by adolescents, if I remember correctly - not fat old men.) Adam Bishop (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha, I figured we would have an article - boy player (and Elizabethan theatre for more background). Adam Bishop (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the first time women appeared on the stage in England was in the reign of Charles II, hence the wild popularity of actresses like Nell Gwynne, Moll Davis, Margaret Hughes and Beck Marshall.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I should think that anyone with a cursory knowledge of Shakespeare would be aware that one does not attend one of The Bard's plays for plausibility. Vranak (talk) 10:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Suspension of disbelief comes to mind. Anyway, one doesn't go to the theatre for a plausible night out, one goes to be entertained. DuncanHill (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You'll enjoy Shakespeare in Love, which will give you a feeling for the theater of Shakespeare.--Wetman (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all. But, I don't understand all of the comments above about plausibility and implausibility. The general story of Romeo and Juliet is a love story between two teenagers, one male and one female. I would think that audiences expect plausibility from this general plot, yes. Granted, Shakespeare's plays have many twists and turns and plot devices that may be implausible. But, as to the general story-line and plot of two teens falling in love (against their parents' wishes), what is implausible about that? That issue was at the heart of my original question (of a male actor playing Juliet). I was referring to the plausibility of the basic story premise, not the implausible plot devices that the playwright may have used to execute the story. So, I am confused as to why several replies posted above are insinuating that the audience expects implausibility from the general plot line of, say, Romeo and Juliet. Any insights? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

To refer again to our Suspension of disbelief article, that term has been used to mean the "willingness of the audience to overlook the limitations of a medium". All-maleness was certainly the limitation of the medium at the time. The audiences must have decided that plays at the time were so good that the audience was willing to overlook the glaring problem you describe. I mean, it's not much of a stretch to make a similar complaint about a radio drama. "This isn't at all plausible! I can't even see anything!" Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Must have made As You Like It confusing - a boy pretending to be a girl, pretends to be a boy :-) Alansplodge (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of keeping things in perspective:

• Sarah Bernhardt (female) played Hamlet (male) only 110 years ago.
• Have you seen the Romeo and Juliet (1968 film) where the Nurse (claiming to have only four teeth) has 32 pearly whites shining in her mouth, where Juliet's mother (who is, at most, 26-27 years of age, according to the dialogue) appears to be in her late 30's or early 40's, and where the Prince loses "a brace of kinsmen" despite only really losing one on-screen?
• We have now accumulated several years' worth of so-called live-action films using computer-generated actors for difficult stunts and shots, and even now it is often glaringly obvious when a live human isn't being used.
• How many American-made films are there where the characters aren't supposed to be speaking English, but since the American actors are speaking English, they fake a British accent to communicate to the audience that they're not speaking English? Take Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (film), for example...
• Don't even get me started on Jake Gyllenhaal playing the Prince of Persia. Really, are there no young, fit Iranian actors willing to take the role? Heck, I'm an American (and therefore not too discriminating); I'd take anyone of Middle-Eastern descent in that role.

The bottom line is, we're expected to overlook a lot of implausible actors and actresses, in Shakespeare and in other performances, no matter the era. Audiences back then were as willing to suspend their disbelief as we are today, and it apparently worked out as well for them as it does for us. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 18:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

See also kabuki. Remember that even realism demands that the audience accept some fictions. The characters are on a stage. The sets are not overly realistic. Audiences always understand that theatre is a representation, not an accurate reproduction.--Jabberwalkee (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The boys were small, high-voiced, covered with make-up, and wearing women's clothes. It was a convention that had been around for the lifetimes of all the audience. What would have really jarred the audience would have been to see a girl or woman on stage. A boy whose voice has not "changed," if suitably made-up and dressed, resembles a woman strongly enough to permit dramatic realism. Shakespeare occasionally played with the conceit -- in one of the last comedies (I'm blanking on which one -- I'll remember as soon as I post), after the play ends the boy-woman comes on stage and jokes with the audience about the gender issue. According to "1599: a year in the life of Shakespeare" (title may be wrong), evidence suggests that an extremely gifted boy-actor joined the company midway through Shakespeare's career, allowing him to create, e.g., Desdemona, whereas previously he'd had to give somewhat less dramatic range to the tragedies' female characters due to the boys' lesser experience as actors. (Similarly, once Will Kempe left, the new "clown" actor was far subtler and less slapsticky and show-offy; hence, e.g., the Fool in King Lear became a possible character for Shakespeare to create.) Portia in Merchant of Venice is a wise-cracking clever gal, but it doesn't take as much skill to play that as to play, say, Cleopatra or Desdemona, both created a decade later. 63.17.51.102 (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the input and the above discussion. This was very helpful. Much appreciated. Thank you! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC))

Not legal advice, just curiosity

If a man serves a woman food containing his semen, without disclosing this to her, and then she eats it and later finds out, has the man committed a crime? What crime would it be? It can't be assault or rape or anything because nobody forced her to eat it, right? Would it be fraud? Is there a special category of crime for this kind of thing? Answers should ideally pertain to the state of California, but answers for any jurisdiction would be appreciated. 98.207.62.60 (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

California Health and Safety code section 110560 states, "Any food is adulterated if it consists in whole or in part of any diseased, contaminated, filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance, or if it is otherwise unfit for food." (emphasis added.) Section 110625 makes adulteration illegal. I have no idea what the penalty would be, but this might be a sex offense too. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This is still legal advice, regardless if you are asking just out of curiosity. I would not assume it isn't assault, "eating the sandwich willingly" is not a mitigating factor to the crime. Vespine (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If you do something clearly stupid that isn't covered by a specific law, I think they can often get you with some general-purpose mischief law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.50.170 (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say this is not necessarily a request for legal advice; I think we're allowed to discuss this kind of question hypothetically, as in "I'm writing a novel and need to know what would likely happen". So I'll offer my modest contribution to this, again, entirely hypothetical discussion.

This kind of thing has certainly come up in U.S. courts, and the most delicious example I came across during my quick googling and skimming was a case from Florida. I simply cannot resist quoting from an amicus curiae brief filed by The Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers:

The defendant’s argument that the item in the Coca-Cola really wasn’t a condom oozing semen after all, but a similarly sized piece of mold, does not effect the Academy’s impact rule analysis. A piece of mold, even when mixed with Coke, is foreseeably revolting to the reasonable consumer.

This has to do with the question of what constitutes an "impact" sufficient to merit compensation for emotional distress, and the Supreme Court of Florida has found that "ingestion of a food or beverage containing a foreign substance constitutes an ‘impact’"

So it would appear, and again I am not a lawyer, that just because there is no (physical) harm done, it's not OK to feed someone a sandwich laced with semen. Any more than it's OK to spit in an obnoxious customer's hamburger. As to what kind of crime it would be, I'm not sure. Might be more of a tort.--Rallette (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Or a torte? Karenjc 09:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"Traditionally made with ground nuts" - whether that makes for a tort or a torte would depend on your cuisine as well as your jurisdiction, I think.--Rallette (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In any restaurant there are going to be food safety laws that would prohibit this type of thing. In a private setting, I imaging that it depends on the situation and jurisdiction. Buddy431 (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is an article about an Illinois high school student who in 2006 was accused of "putting" his semen into the school cafeteria's salad dressing. The police are quoted as saying they were going to arrest him for "attempted aggravated battery". This page also mentions a Denny's Restaurant manager in Missouri who in 2004 was accused of semenizing some dressing, and he was charged with "aggravated battery". Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking of the man serving the food at a restaurant where he works, but just at his house or something, so restaurant health codes don't apply. Should have made that clear I guess. 98.207.62.60 (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, now that I read our article on battery as a tort, I noticed the following: "...a person who mixes something offensive in food that he knows another will eat, has committed a battery against that other when the other ... eats the offensive matter." So battery it is, either a crime or a tort.--Rallette (talk) 10:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ancient music

What is the oldest music tune that we know toady, whether written in ancient musical notation or reliably passed down through the generations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.50.170 (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried googling [oldest song] and some things came up that might be worth checking. The Psalms are many hundreds of years old, and I think were originally sung, or at least chanted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

We have remnants of music from the Greeks as well as the Romans, in notation. In India, they have hyms or Samaveda which are very ancient as well, but I don't know how much they may have changed over the centuries.--Rallette (talk) 08:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

One of the most recent articles on Cracked.com (I can't link to the website directly from this network; it's blocked) might be of interest to you. It claims that we know virtually nothing of ancient music when compared to, say, ancient literature, as almost nothing has survived. As has been pointed out to me before, it's not a particularly reliable source, but it does usually reference other sources. 212.219.39.146 (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

We have articles on Prehistoric music, Ancient music, Early music and Medieval music which may help or be of interest, though they don't give a definite answer to the question. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Our article on the history of classical music traditions claims that "the "oldest known song" was written in cuneiform, dating to 4,000 years ago from Ur". Warofdreams talk 11:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

For tunes that have survived independently of printed scores, Greensleeves is often said to be the oldest known. 63.17.51.102 (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The oldest complete notated musical composition from anywhere in the world is the Seikilos epitaph. It was engraved on a burial marker near Ephesus, and variously dated between about 200 BC and 100 AD. It's beautiful and poignant, by the way; probably a lament by a man for his deceased wife, buried near there. Antandrus (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

lonely hearts club

What is lonely hearts club?174.3.123.220 (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the false link. I'm sure you know that a lonely hearts club is a place for single people to meet others. --Phil Holmes (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

?? If the OP knew that, why would they have asked? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the link to lonely hearts killer (as it was when first posted) because the OP seems to be using it to create context for their question. Plus, removing it makes the response confusing. 212.219.39.146 (talk) 09:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Learning artificial languages

I do not understand the draw of learning artificial languages like Klingon, Sindarin, and Na'vi. There are plenty of living languages that have more practical uses in the real world. I realize it has to do with Escapism, but it just seems like a waste of time and energy to learn a language that you will never be able to use on a regular basis. Do the people who learn these think they are special just because they can say a few words or, at most, broken sentences of a language that no one else knows? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Many skills that are involved in a pastime are useless. When will my ability to headshot a sniper using a rocket launcher come in handy? Some people (not necessarily all) will do it just because they find it fun. This can be expanded too...what's the point of being at the top of Everest? And even if there is a point, I imagine most of the people who go there don't go for that reason. It's just what they enjoy. 212.219.39.146 (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can think of it as a hobby. Hobbies don't have to be practical. And believe it or not, a lot of what people choose to do is not based on whether it will make them look cool or special.--Cam (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It also has to do with inclusion. People don't learn these languages on their own. They do it with others who share a similar interest. Then, they have something that their group shares that others outside their group does not share. It is no different than the goth kids I saw at the zoo last weekend who want to be unique by ensuring that they all dress the same, walk the same, talk the same, and listen to the same music. They are not unique from one another, but their group is unique from those outside the group. -- kainaw™ 13:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's the liberation from a sense of duty which makes impractical activities appealing. Similarly, computer games often mimic tasks which people might be paid to do - and as soon as the player moved the tasks into the real world, and was doing the tasks for money, and was invested in them and had a sense of obligation, the tasks would become substantially less fun. There is a common anxiety over achievement, since attempting to achieve things raises moral issues - it makes us vulnerable to opinions about what we should be doing. (I was going to link to performance anxiety, but that is in fact completely the wrong article for what I am trying to express.) A friend of mine is interested in learning Old English; she has mentioned feeling lame for being interested in learning a language of limited usefulness, but also confessed that the uselessness makes the ambition less daunting, increasing the feeling that the subject is within her personal domain. Come to think of it, answering questions on the ref desks also mimics a task people might be paid to do. Idle pleasures, eh. 81.131.0.25 (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the fact that Klingon speakers can interact with other Klingon speakers (or writers, for that matter) is the crux of the issue, near as I can tell. Vranak (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it? The can interact with those "others" just as easily in their native tongue. What leads you to that conclusion? I've never heard of anyone learning to speak Klingon in order to actually use the thing, I'd be interested to hear otherwise. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. It's a social thing, plainly. Also, if that doesn't satisfy you, we can talk about the dignity and poise of Klingon culture. It's less childlike and neurotic than contemporary Western culture, although it's rather more dramatic, violent, and capricious as well. It lets people explore themes of confident, uninhibited self-expression, I think. Vranak (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This from the guy who thinks Shakespeare was a hack! Such a sense of aesthetic taste! 63.17.51.222 (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

...What are you talking about? Sounds more like you're exploring a Star Trek convention or a cosplay event...Does learning a language mean people are exploring the culture? (Not a language man, I wouldn't know) And why is it "plainly" a social thing? You can learn a language from your bedroom easily. In fact, stereotypically, the Star Trek fandom would be the ones most likely to do something like that. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Forget it Vimes. If you don't understand the points that I'm making, I will just facepalm and leave it at that. Vranak (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

See Sense of community. Some people get a warm glow from speaking Klingon to each other, others get a similar glow from belonging to the warm and supportive community of Wikipedians. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It may be that most people who study languages are motivated by a desire to communicate, or be part of a community. I can tell you that for me neither of those are particularly high on the list. I study languages (both natural and artificial) for their own sake: to understand how they are put together, how they are like and unlike each other, what interesting new features can I find in this or that language. I have been involved in Loglan/Lojban on and off since the late 70's, and for most of that time I have not had other people to talk the language to. Equally, when I have studied Georgian or Amharic I have not looked for other people to speak them to, or even books to read. --ColinFine (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think some people find learning natural languages unappealing in that native speakers will always be better at it than you. It's virtually impossible to pass as a native speaker.

The artificial language Esperanto does have several practical applications: with a single language you can travel around the world and communicate with people from a wide variety of places. When doing so, you are on equal footing with other Esperanto speakers in that you're both speaking a second language. Esperanto has a small but not insignificant body of original literature. As with other artificial languages, Esperanto has its own unique culture that many find appealing. Using Esperanto emphasizes your "world citizenship" and rejection of nationalism and ethnic chauvinism.

Other artificial languages are constructed not to facilitate communication but to test a linguistic hypothesis. I'm thinking specifically of Lojban, a notoriously difficult if not impossible artificial language, that some claim helps them think in a more logical way. Toki Pona is at the other extreme in that it is aggressively minimal. —D. Monack ^talk 18:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Double Cross double agents

The Double Cross System article claims that "all the agents Germany sent to Britain had given themselves up or been captured". Why would an agent give himself up? Also, 100% seems like a high number...how does it compare with other, similar circumstances? I know nothing about espionage. 212.219.39.146 (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Because (s)he can't stand the stress. Because (s)he recognises the Nazis were evil assholes. Because the British offered privileges and/or money. Because they only worked for the axis under duress to begin with. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Because (s)he realised Germany wasn't going to win the war, or at least wasn't going to invade Britain (making those enticements Stephan mentions seem like a good deal). Because the very danger-seeking, duplicitous personality that makes someone an effective agent also makes them an unreliable one (read: they did it for fun, because they're the kind of people who do stuff like that for fun). Or maybe they just discovered they liked Britain - I heard an interview with Bert Trautmann (not a spy, but a German POW who wouldn't go back to Germany after the war) - he said his upbringing in Nazi Germany had been unremittingly harsh and brutal, and contrasted that to how nice everyone was to him in England, even while the war continued. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 14:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You'd need to look at the reference to establish the analysis process that led to that conclusion, but I don't see it as that extreme. Once the system has turned a small handful it becomes very easy to then interdict any follow on.

The issue around why anyone would turn themselves in is a whole different issue and it's difficult to determine in an impartial and rational way. The example above makes value judgements and imposes a contemporary value framework on someone from another era and culture. There has been a fair amount of academic work done on agents and agent handling and the characteristics desired for recruitment do tend to reduce reliability, as discussed by Finlay. Kings College London and Warwick University are places to look at.

The other aspect from the source might be at what point in an operation did the agent give themselves up. There were examples where that happened straightaway, but others where the agent in question operated for some time.

ALR (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There are reasons to be suspicious of any explanation which relies specifically on how the agents knew the Nazis were bad and the British were great (or that the Nazis would necessarily lose the war, which wasn't at all clear in 1941-42). It's an awfully convenient explanation and one that really doesn't take into account the fact that 1. the British weren't all that great from many points of view, and 2. the Nazis weren't all that bad from certain points of view, and 3. anybody sent over to be a spy against Britain would presumably have been screened a bit first, and presumably they had family members in Germany that they might have been a bit worried about, should the Nazis have ever found out about their duplicity. Plus we know that there were plenty of successful espionage networks for awful countries (think of the great success the Soviet Union had in the West, even after it became pretty well known how awful Stalin et al were). I am much more convinced by the argument that the British might have used a few successful catches as a means of detecting who all the others might be, and once they know who the spies were, either arrest and execute them, or turn them. Not all German agents sent to Britain became double-agents—some were simply imprisoned. It may be the case that all were caught. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The story of one rather useless Irish spy, who was sent over by the Germans but gave himself up is here[4]. Alansplodge (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

And another useless spy (to the enemy), this time a German, who was captured[5]. Alansplodge (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! 212.219.39.146 (talk) 08:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

St. Louis vs. Saint Louis

Here's a question I asked in 2008 at Talk:Saint Louis Symphony Orchestra but have yet to receive any response whatsoever.

• If the name of the city is always spelt St. Louis and never 'Saint Louis', why is the name of the orchestra 'Saint Louis Symphony Orchestra' and not 'St. Louis Symphony Orchestra'. Unless it's named directly after St. Louis IX of France or some other saint named Louis, rather than after the city per se.

Maybe a wider audience here can shed some light on this.

Are there other examples of eponyms being spelt differently than the thing after which they were named? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that at the time it got its present name, there were still some people spelling out the word "Saint" when referring to the city. An example of odd eponym spelling is the name of the New-York Historical Society (they insist on the hyphen).--Cam (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well they are a historical society Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the article on St. Louis, the city's institutions follow both spellings. Saint Louis University, e.g., is also always spelled out according to their own site [6]. Some sports teams abbreviate it (St. Louis Blues or the St. Louis Cardinals) while the Saint Louis Billikens don't (because they are part of SLU, I guess). This doesn't answer your question, but it looks like the orchestra is not alone. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

With regards to other eponyms, a number of things named after the Royal Institute of Technology (Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan) in Stockholm have omitted the word "Royal" (Kungliga). For example, there's the Tekniska högskolan metro station and the Student Union (Tekniska Högskolans Studentkår). Gabbe (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not "always spelt St. Louis"; it's just that the "Saint" is usually abbreviated. Indeed, the official name of the city would seem to be "The City of Saint Louis". Deor (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that's what it seems to be saying, Deor. But I've looked all over the city's official site in vain for any confirmation of this. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In the orchestra's history page,[7] they refer to their organization as "Saint Louis ..." and the city itself as "St. Louis". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Likewise with the university:[8] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

And likewise with the zoo:[9] There is sort of a pattern emerging here - that the city itself is "St." and the invidual institutions are "Saint". An exception is the professional sports world, in which "St. Louis" was on the ballplayers' shirts starting at least in the 1880s. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I get it. Since St. is an abbreviation for Saint, there's nothing stopping anyone from spelling it out if they want to. Same goes for Saint/St. Petersburg and all the rest. There are some contexts where a word is spelt out even though it's normally abbreviated: They Call Me MISTER Tibbs! would not be They Call Me MR. Tibbs!. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It seems like it's mostly just how someone felt like doing it. It's kind of like "Mount" vs. "Mt.", as with Mount Hood. The oddity about "St." is that it also means "Street" in English, so a "Saint Louis Street" could be "St. Louis St." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

As a St. Louisan, "Saint Louis" comes off much more formal (*too* formal) in comparison to "St. Louis." When one refers to the city and *just* the city, it would come off odd to use "Saint Louis" and not "St. Louis." But because "St." is, of course merely short for "Saint," you see "Saint Louis" every so often, such as the examples mentioned above. The idea that "the name of the city is always spelt St. Louis and never 'Saint Louis'" is a little strong. I would advise against trying to draw a fixed rule with regard to institutions being the ones to use "Saint," however; it's all idiosyncratic. (See, for example St. Louis Shakespeare, any of St. Louis's newspapers, etc.) zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

when was the pop-up box (of tissues) invented?

when was the pop-up box of kleenex invented? 82.113.104.242 (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Judging by the external link I followed from this article: Facial tissue, it appears it was invented in 1929.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

How timely; perfect for those suffering from Depression to wipe their tears. StuRat (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Remember Lily Tomlin's pop-up box of lace handkerchiefs in All of Me?--Wetman (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Jasmine Macdonnell

Is Jasmine MacDonnell the only press secretary to one of the Cabinet Ministers of Canada who is a woman? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.13 (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No, there are currently several female press secretaries to Canadian cabinet ministers and there have been others in the past. --Cam (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Eric Illsley

What happens if he is imprisoned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.63.242 (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you asking about the actual process of imprisonment and what that entails or are you asking us to speculate on what that would do to the country? If the former, then you may want to look at our article on Imprisonment. If the latter, however, then you have come to the wrong place - this is an encyclopaedia, not a forum, so we do not speculate. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Horatio Bottomley was expelled from Parliament. But it may well be that Illsley has a good defence, such as that he regarded his allegedly excessive claims as money to which he was properly entitled. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're asking "can he remain an MP even if he's convicted", I'm not aware of any law that would force a by-election. John Stonehouse continued to be an MP (at least in theory; in practice all MPs do is vote and you have to do that in person); Stonehouse was eventually persuaded to resign. There certainly isn't such a rule for members of the house of lords - convictions of peers such as Jeffrey Archer have led to calls for such a law. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, there is something. Following the 1981 election of Bobby Sands as MP for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, parliament passed the Representation of the People Act 1981. That reads (in part) "A person ... sentenced ... for more than one year, shall be disqualified for membership of the House of Commons" and "If a member of the House of Commons becomes disqualified by this Act for membership of that House his seat shall be vacated." -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, most of an MP's job involves sitting on committees. The actual votes are just a formality mostly - the government's bills get passed, everything else is rejected (there are exceptions, but they are very rare). --Tango (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Parliament can vote to expel a member, as happened with Horatio Bottomley and, most recently, with Peter Baker. Arthur Alfred Lynch is another case. If an MP was sentenced to less than one year's imprisonment, the House could choose to use the same procedure but, as suggested above, my guess is that various people would attempt to convince them to resign before that could happen. Warofdreams talk 09:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, British MPs don't resign, they apply for the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds. Alansplodge (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that and the Manor of Northstead are the current legal fictions used to enable resignation from the British House of Commons. Warofdreams talk 14:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Citable Charlottetown Accord

Are there any government, university, or other citable websites that have the full text of the Charlottetown Accord or are the only copies of it on some random dude's website? 24.68.50.170 (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on it, which has a link to "The Canadian Encyclopedia" with the full text. Google Books [[10]] has some books which cover it. Perhaps the text is in some of them. Any college library in Canada is likely to have the text in some resource. Edison (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I found that one, but the whole site looks suspect. The article should use something else for the full text. 142.104.139.242 (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want a governement site, the Government of Quebec has the text in both languages on the Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat's website. Here's the English text: [11] --Xuxl (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! 142.104.139.242 (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with The Canadian Encyclopedia? Adam Bishop (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the OP didn't find The Canadian Encyclopedia when searching before posting this thread? Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Arahabaki

Apparently, Arahabaki should be an ancient Japanese deity. I've seen pictures of it (expecially in sites about archaeoastronomy) and it should be somehow reminiscent of dogū figurines. The strange thing is: I can't find any serious information about it in the omniscient Wikipedia. How is it possible? Do I spell it right? Is there a place where I can find something about it? Using Google only led me to some strange sites about manga/videogames/... --151.51.20.38 (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this is http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%A2%E3%83%A9%E3%83%8F%E3%83%90%E3%82%AD no english interwiki link I can see.77.86.115.45 (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2010

Blog about arahbaki shrine [12] apologies if I'm completely wrong , another shrine [13] apparently common for shrines - no idea if my translate tool is producing false results/// also [14] has limited info on 2 shrines if the same.77.86.115.45 (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that the clay figures are actually known to represent this deity (I though shinto deitys were in general not represented sculpturally - though it does vaguely look like this particular deity is from a slightly different scheme.) - is it possible that the association of dogu figures and arahabaki is a conceit which video game developers are responsible for??77.86.115.45 (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia? Omniscient? Ha! It's good, but for Japanese deities, one should not be so surprised at a marked deficit of information. Vranak (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Attorney in the United States.

Hi, my question is, if I am a graduated attorney in Argentina and I want to go to America to study American laws and graduate as an attorney in American law just because I always wanted to be a lawyer in American laws. Do I need to study 5 another years? or with my college degree in law here in Argentina is enough to study less years... Well, thanks all. --190.178.167.201 (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone may practice in a US jurisdiction if he has passed the bar exam for that jurisdiction; one must meet basic requirements before they can take that exam. Jurisdictions vary in the requirements they impose; in general they require that a person be a graduate of a law school that is compatible with the US legal system. By way of example (which I don't claim to be representative) the rules for the California bar are here; they do admit foreign law-school graduates, but they say "Law study completed in a foreign state or country where the common law of England is not the basis of jurisprudence can only be recognized towards the general education requirement and will not be considered as credit toward satisfying the legal education requirements". If Argentinian law is derived from Roman law (which I'd guess it is) then that would not be an adequate qualification. I do seem to recall (I'll go looking in a second) that US law schools offer a fast-track conversion course intended to prepare legal graduates such as yourself for an English system (which I think is a year). -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Here it is: Bachelor of Laws#Eligibility to practice law in the U.S. with foreign credentials says "American law schools typically offer one-year LL.M. programs for foreign attorneys", after which you'd study for the bar exam. I should note that being qualified to practice law doesn't mean you can work as a lawyer in the US - you're still subject to the same working visa restrictions as any other non-citizen. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course! thank you Finlay... I don't expect to work there as an attorney I just want to graduate as an attorney in American law. And it seems to be 1 year more. That's nice, thank you very much. And Argentine law is Westernized. --190.178.167.201 (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not a question of Westernization. It's about civil law vs. common law. See List of country legal systems. --Nricardo (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

LLM would be what you want to look at. Shadowjams (talk) 07:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Which British Prime Ministers belonged to Dissenting Non-Conformist Churches?

Which British Prime Ministers belonged to Dissenting Non-Conformist Churches?--Gary123 (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If you mean those denominations listed at English Dissenters#Present-day Dissenting groups, David Lloyd George is listed as "nonconformist" and seems to have mostly attended Baptist churches. Ramsay MacDonald, Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and Gordon Brown are / were Presbyterian. Arthur Balfour is listed as attending both the Presbyterian CofS and the Anglican CofE. Curiously I don't think any Prime Ministers have been Muggletonians. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Are Scotsmen who attend the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland still considered "dissenting" or "nonconformist" in the UK? Marco polo (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No (insofar as "nonconformist" is a category used any more) because the CoS is the established church. Marnanel (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that these issues are of minimal interest to the overwhelming majority of residents of the UK, which is now a predominantly secular society. Politicians' religious views are only of interest when they become more overt, or change, as they did with Tony Blair. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Who was the 1st non-Anglican PM, and what sect did he belong to? --Gary123 (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Henry Campbell-Bannerman, who was Church of Scotland. However, the Church of Scotland is also an established Church; the first PM who didn't belong to the established Church was John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute, who was a Scottish Episcopalian, but of course this is a kind of Anglican. I believe the first PM who was neither an Anglican nor a member of the established Church was David Lloyd George, who was apparently Church of Christ. Marnanel (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think he was a Particular Baptist, a British sect similar to the American Disciples of Christ/Church of Christ. DuncanHill (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Benjamin Disraeli is an interesting case; he was Anglican, but from a Jewish background and, until the age of 13 had been raised within the Jewish religion. Warofdreams talk 09:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The Church of Scotland is not, and never was, an established church and guarded its independence from state fiercely. That it is not to say that the Scottish government didn't try to impose its will on the Scottish Church after the Scottish Reformation but the Church refused to accept this. The UK government recognised this state of affairs with the passing of the Church of Scotland Act 1921. However the Church of Scotland is regarded as the National Church of Scotland but without Establishment. --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Act 1707 [15] describes the Church of Scotland as being "by law established", and the special constitutional protection afforded to it suggest to me that it is proper to call it an established church. DuncanHill (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

During the Reformation period and immediately afterward, the Kirk most definitely was established. In later years, the majority of the Kirk definitely didn't fight fiercely for independence from the state; that's why the Free Church of Scotland was founded. Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Bubba

Where can I learn more about "Tom Varn" and his character "Bubba," who was supposedly an inspiration for the character Yosemite Sam, as mentioned in that article? The Hero of This Nation (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me as though you may have uncovered a piece of ancient vandalism, in this edit from 2006. According to this, Tom "Bubba" Varn was a teacher at a Florida school - he could have got his nickname from an earlier personality of the same name, but I can't find anything to support it. I'll delete it from the article and raise it on the article talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Beaten to it! Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I found the same info you did! All of that IP's edits appear to have been vandalistic. Deor (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! The Hero of This Nation (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)