Humanities desk
< February 27	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	March 1 >

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.

February 28

Proportion of soldiers at the sharp end

During a state of war such as WW2, what proportion of military personnel (including soldiers) ever come into contact with the enemy? By "contact" I mean they could potentially see the enemy directly by sight, or they are able to fire a weapon at them, or they are out on patrol looking for them. In terms of the total amount of time served by military personnel, what proportion would be in the "contact" stage as previously described? Has the proportion of time spent at the sharp end changed much over recent history? Thanks 92.24.189.108 (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our article at Military logistics, and those linked from it, seem to be annoyingly short of actual numbers. For what little it's worth (being unreferenced), the rough rule of thumb I've seen quoted for 20th/21st century Western-style warfare is that it takes around 10 personnel 'behind the lines' to support one soldier in the field. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, in recent US wars, many of the "behind the scenes" duties have been done by contractors, leading to higher percentages of soldiers available for combat. In additional, asymmetrical warfare lacks a "visible front", so everybody in the region may be considered to be in a combat area. StuRat (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a similar question someone asked on a different website, with a fairly informative response. #4 on this Cracked article also covers the topic, though it doesn't get particularly specific. 90.195.179.167 (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth remembering that support troops sometimes end up in the firing line if things don't go to plan. The British Expeditionary Force (World War II) was in such dire straights in May 1940 that the line-of-battle of the 12th Territorial Division in the defence of Amiens included a mobile bath unit. A searchlight company led by Airey Neave fought as infantry in the Siege of Calais (1940) in the same month. More recently, a team of Royal Navy hydrographers found themselves helping to defend Government House in Stanley against Argentine Marines at the start of the Falklands War. Alansplodge (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

can private companies sell shares with restrictions that they not be resold within a time?

this isn't asking for legal advice, I'm just curiuos. I've heard that there can be options given out, even for companies that aren't public yet (?) - no ipo - but that you can't exercise them for a while (until a specified date). Can shares in a non-public company be sold in the same way? (No resale for ______ time). 109.128.222.233 (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I don't just mean sell them, I also mean giving them away, for example to employees as part of their compensation package.. I am interested in the answer to both questions (selling, givign away). 109.128.222.233 (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Privately held companies can have stock options, sometimes awarded as employee compensation. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking about direct shares, specifically whether they can award or sell them with terms that they cannot be resold within a certain time frame. 109.128.222.233 (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty common for private companies to issue shares with resale restrictions, although typically they do allow the possibility of at least some sales. John M Baker (talk) 05:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. could you elaborate? 109.128.222.233 (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are various reasons why resale restrictions may apply. Usually there will be a restriction intended to comply with the Securities Act of 1933: Resale of the shares must be registered under that act or exempt from registration. A holding period may apply, so that the shares will not go into the market too quickly and depress trading values. There may also be a restriction under which the company or other shareholders have a right of first offer or first refusal if you want to sell your shares. Other permutations are possible. John M Baker (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reason(s) for absence of Historical Buddha scholarship?

The study of Historical Jesus is rich with material and papers, but Wikipedia doesn't even have an article stub for Historical Buddha. All texts present the same basic story of a prince in such-and-such state who renounced his title and became an ascetic. Is there no interest in the historical Buddha? Are there no extant written histories from this period? The Masked Booby (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me return that question right back: what exactly are the reasons for the studies of the historicity of Jesus? If I were to venture a guess it would be that some people mistakenly think that if they can prove that Jesus never existed, that would somehow dispel the power of Christianity, and then there is people on the other side who take the opposite side of the debate. Both, however, miss the point entirely, IMO. So in an analogy, I would guess that there has just not been a movement trying to disarm Buddhism by proving that Buddha never existed, hence no movement to prove he did. Or maybe I am looking at this all too materialistically, all too Western-like, I don't know. TomorrowTime (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're looking at it all too sensitively, to be frank. I'm interested in historical Buddha for the same reasons I'm interested in historical Jesus, they are some of the most influential men in history and I'm quite curious about the non-theological particulars of their lives. The Buddha renounced his title. I'd love to know exactly what that meant -- how wealthy was he? was this sort of thing common or not? how did his family react? did that line of royalty continue for some time known as "the family from whom the Buddha emerged"? There are many interesting questions! I'm sorry you find the asking such a personal invasion/offense. The Masked Booby (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amused you'd read my comment as "being offended" - I'm an atheist, born and raised :) I just think the whole brouhaha on the historicity of Jesus is misguided, on both sides of the isle - some people find comfort in their belief, so why not just let it be at that? Why drag the sciences (such as history, for one) into it to reinforce/undermine the religious position? Both are wrong and are missing the fundamental point of religion, IMO. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Perhaps it is missing the point, but it's clearly been a concern of Christians since pretty much the beginning that the events really happened. The Gospels and Acts make a big deal about giving the names of people who witnessed things, pretty much saying 'you can ask them yourself', and Luke especially writes that he has 'carefully studied all these matters from their beginning' in order to write an 'orderly account': the earliest Christians clearly cared that these events were real, not that the theology was comforting. 86.162.69.210 (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and as Paul says, if there is no Historical Jesus then we are of all people most to be pitied. Marnanel (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(desmallifying, this branch of the answers has pertinent info as well) Erm, that doesn't say anything about believing whether Jesus was real or not - it talks about believing whether he was resurrected or not, which is an entirely different ballgame. For one, it does not start with the assumption that some people believe Jesus was historical and some do not, it starts out with the assumption that all know he was historical, but some are skeptical about his resurrection. Other than that, the IP gave some hints as to why Christians might have a more pronounced interest in proving Jesus was a real person than Buddhists. TomorrowTime (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Our article on Buddha suggests that there is some discussion of that point among at least Western scholars:

'The ancient Indians were generally unconcerned with chronologies, being more focused on philosophy. Buddhist texts reflect this tendency, providing a clearer picture of what Gautama may have taught than of the dates of the events in his life. These texts contain descriptions of the culture and daily life of ancient India which can be corroborated from the Jain scriptures, and make the Buddha's time the earliest period in Indian history for which significant accounts exist. Karen Armstrong writes that although there is very little information that can be considered historically sound, we can be reasonably confident that Siddhārtha Gautama did exist as a historical figure. Michael Carrithers goes a bit further by stating that the most general outline of "birth, maturity, renunciation, search, awakening and liberation, teaching, death" must be true.'

Karen Armstrong is probably worth reading on that point. WikiDao ☯ 02:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can also watch this pretty good recent biodoc at pbs.org if you're interested in the traditional answers to the questions you ask above. WikiDao ☯ 02:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Masked Booby -- Jesus's birth and death dates are known within 5 years or so, and his life can be placed within a rich historical context, filled with securely-known dates and names, by means of the historians of the Roman Empire and Josephus (supplemented by certain passages in Rabbinic writings). By contrast, there's a conventionally-used astrological birth-date for Buddha, but as a matter of pure history the dates of Buddha's life are uncertain by about a century (at least), and much less is known about the historical period in which he lived than about the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius in the Roman empire. In the case of Christianity, the lapse of time between the probable deaths of the last persons who had a clear living memory of Jesus and the date when we know that the books of the New Testament almost certainly existed in basically their current form is a little over a century and a half, while the analogous period for Buddhism would be at least twice that. Also, some tendencies of Mahayana Buddhism to some degree subordinate their interest in the person of the historical Gautama Sakyamuni to a whole series of saviors from past and future cosmological epochs. Unfortunately the phrase "the historical Jesus" (starting with Ernest Renan) was tarnished by a number of people using it to project their own personal preconceptions onto the figure of Jesus... AnonMoos (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, could you clarify what you meant by "the lapse of time between the probable deaths of the last persons who had a clear living memory of Jesus and the date when we know that the books of the New Testament almost certainly existed in basically their current form is a little over a century and a half". Do you mean the time until the date that the books of the New Testament were all gathered together as one canon? Or the time until the date of the first currently surviving original document? Or the date until the last book in the New Testament was written? I'd have thought the dates of the earliest writings in the New Testament were important (Gospel of Mark, Pauline Epistles) to claims of historicity of Jesus, but I can see the earliest surviving documents being important too, or the time until the entire body is assembled. 86.162.69.210 (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

86.162.69.210 -- I was completely avoiding the question of the dates when the books of the New Testament were written, not only because that's a semi-controversial issue in itself, but because it would be very difficult to come up with comparable data between Christianity and Buddhism. Instead I thought loosely somewhat along the following lines: Suppose hypothetically that Jesus died in 30 A.D., and the last prominent witness to Jesus' life was 15 years old in 30 A.D. and died at the age of 75, or in 90 A.D. This is somewhat plausible as pure guesswork (and I don't claim that it's anything more). Then a little more than a century and a half after 90 A.D. would take you to the mid 3rd century. We have very few New Testament manuscripts of mid-3rd-century date, but we have ample quotations from the Church Fathers, evidence of incipient efforts at canonization, etc. which together make it pretty clear that the texts of New Testament books were then in existence without major divergences from the texts we have today (though there was still some uncertainty as to whether to exclude or include a few books, such as the Shepherd of Hermas etc., which is a different matter). Some people might say that a century and a half is longer than necessary, but I was being a little on the conservative side. However you calculate the length of time between the probable deaths of the last persons who had a clear living memory of Jesus or/Buddha and the date when we know that the books of Christian/Buddhist scriptures almost certainly existed in basically their current form, it's clear that the elapsed period would be much longer for Buddhism than for Christianity... AnonMoos (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wasn't intended to stir controversy, I just wasn't sure which you meant. 86.162.69.210 (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

there's a difference in focus here as well. The Christian church focused heavily on Jesus being an incarnation of God, and much of their doctrine stems from the idea that God was born and died as a human (it's even in the Micean creed - "..Begotten [i.e. born], not made, one in being with the father...". The issue of Christ's existence as a real human being, thus, is a key point for both believers and skeptics. 'Buddha' on the other hand isn't a person, but a state - the term means 'awakened' - and so Śākyamuni as a person was pretty much irrelevant except that he was the first to reach that state (or at least the first who reached that state who tried to teach it to others). It's just not something that buddhists would worry too much about. --Ludwigs2 10:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's Nicene Creed, not "Micean". Pais (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that while you're correct about Christian doctrine emphasizing Christ's humanity and divinity, Christ's human birth is not what "Begotten, not made" is referencing -- that whole line ("God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.") is about the divine side of the matter; see the next two lines ("was incarnate, was made human,... truly and not in semblance") for the human side. — Lomn 16:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

sorry, you're right - the Micean creed is the one written for rodents.

but I'd quibble on your second point: The Nicene creed is not a statement about belief in the existence of God (which is presupposed) but an assertion of the belief that Christ and God are one in spirit. the verb 'begat' in the bible always refers to birth, so there's no other way to read 'begotten not made' except as 'born of a human mother with God as the father, not created by God out of dust'. but it's a minor point.--Ludwigs2 20:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...eternally begotten of the Father..., I'm don't see how 'begat' always means 'born of a human mother'. Eternally begotten (not made) of the Father, so he has always existed, always has been begotten, even before he 'became incarnate', but is not a creation. That section is all on the divinity of Christ. 86.162.69.210 (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

read the dictionary definition of 'beget', first, and then indulge in some philosophical musing over the logical truism that the only distinction between Christ and God is that Christ was born as human. plus, 'eternally begotten' seems to me to be a reference to the idea that it was always part of God's plan that Christ should be born, not that christ is eternally being born (which makes no sense, and sounds incredibly annoying). I'm just sayin' --Ludwigs2 17:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is why everything should be left in Latin or Greek, rather than leaving people arguing over English! ;) No matter what you think this should mean, that section of the Nicene Creed is specifically discussing the divinity of Christ, addressing the specific heresy that he was created by God the Father and was of a different substance to him. It is separate from him being made incarnate of the virgin Mary through the Holy Spirit, because this is him being begotten of the Father. Eternally begotten, to address the heresy that he came into existence only when he became incarnate of Mary. Et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sæcula. If the English words are not clear enough for you, choose different English words to translate this concept. 86.164.58.36 (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if you are unfamiliar with it, you will probably find Arianism an interesting read. 86.164.58.36 (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also also (sorry this is getting long!) you might want to compare the English translation of the Athanasian creed, which uses many of the same terms but goes out of its way to be explicit and hard to misunderstand. 86.164.58.36 (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to interrupt, I was just wondering if Karen Armstrong is actually worth reading for anything at all...Adam Bishop (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but, see, you're a professional historian I believe, Adam, so what's "worth reading" to you is generally going to be different from what's "worth reading" to the rest of us on that subject. I had thought Karen Armstrong was more-or-less reasonably well-respected among actual scholars, though, despite her popularity. I've read a couple of her books and found them worthwhile from a non-professional-historian perspective. WikiDao ☯ 15:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the one about the crusades? I hope not :) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's your particular area of professional interest, right? Stands to reason that you would have problems with a popular account of it. I did indeed read that one, a few years ago, and thought it was very interesting. Have I been outrageously misled? I also read, and found interesting, The Battle for God, but that was a while ago, too. WikiDao ☯ 21:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emerging from the small text... :-) I think there's also the fact that Buddha was a prince and widely notable even before he became the Buddha. It would be as if Prince Edward started a religion - people might debate the validity of the religion itself but they'd never think to debate his existence, because there would be copious evidence of it. Jesus was (and no disrespect is meant by this) a common, even poor man known to nobody outside his own circle until he entered into his mission. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright question

I have two questions: 1. I was browsing the British Library website and found an online image gallery. But I found those images are copyrighted by BL. For example, this image was published in 1848, means it should be in public domain now. So, how BL can claim copyright? 2. Are everything in LOC website in public domain? --Reference Desker (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the official Wikimedia view, see commons:Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#The_position_of_the_WMF ... AnonMoos (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is an area of some dispute. In the US, the relevant court case is Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. As the article points out, the UK courts do not agree, but they are also not very clear on the matter. At heart is not essentially (in my mind) a dispute about copyright principles (though there is some of that, but you either believe in the concept of the "public domain" or you don't), but really about the revenue streams of museums. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Practical upshot (from professional picture research experience) - One has to understand the distinction between the actual original image itself, and subsequent images made from it. When you stand in a museum, you see an original painting (say) which itself is out of copyright: when you see that painting online or in a catalogue, you are seeing a reproduction of a photo of that painting, probably made quite recently. Copyright in the photo still resides with the photographer or to whoever he/she has assigned it to (often the museum or other owner of the painting who has commissioned the photographer). If you went to the museum and took your own photo, you would own the copyright of your photo (unless you had agreed otherwise), but because museums or other art owners can and do make money from selling reproductions themselves - for example, postcards, or one-time reproduction rights for books about art - they may and often do prevent you from taking such photographs, which they have the legal right to do. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only in some countries. In the U.S. under the above-mentioned Bridgeman ruling there is no new copyright created by slavish reproductions. Rmhermen (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The argument against a photo-of-a-photo having a new copyright is that no new creativity is essentially introduced — especially if, as in the case of professional photos of paintings, there is an argument that the taking of the photo was hard because it had to match the original exactly. The argument for a photo-of-a-photo having a new copyright is essentially "it is hard to do well, and I want to be the owner of the product," or in more baser terms, "this is how I have made my money for a long time, how will I ever make any money again." Which is a serious enough question, but I (and many others) get very irritated when this is made into a matter of intellectual property law, and essentially obliterates the concept of the public domain in the process. (See also Feist v. Rural, of which Bridgeman is a specific application.) --Mr.98 (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I forgot to mention that I was referring specifically to the UK situation (which is where my experience lies) because Reference Desker referred specifically to the British Library. Had his/her question been Americocentric, I would not have ventured to define the US position. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a policy against giving legal advice. Copyright questions are the exception I suppose. The Sistine chapel is copyrighted because the restoration is a modern derivative work. If the British library claims a copyright, it probably has one. Someone did something either to the art work or to the photograph which they consider to be protectable subject matter. I am speaking only in generalities, however. As Justice Brennan once said, "Only rivers of confusion flow from lakes of generalities." Copyright questions are best when based on specific examples, and it is rare to have all the facts available from the internet. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing of Italian copyright law, but if it was under Anglo-American copyright law, the Sistine Chapel should not be copyright just because it has been restored in modern times. Clearly the restorers are aiming to reproduce the work of the original author, and any effor tthey have put into it is more the mechanical or technical effort of unmasking and reproducing the original work, than artistic or creative expression in and of itself. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Street Called Straight

This is a question copied from the talk page, that I couldn't find an answer to, and thought it was interesting. What's the origin of the rather odd phrasing of the street's name in English? Since the Latin can be translated rather straightforwardly as "Straight Street," I'm curious. Is this the name used in the King James Bible, perhaps? Thanks. Yazan (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. "And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus..." Acts of the Apostles Chapter 9, Verse 11[1]. Alansplodge (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original Greek says "την ρυμην την καλουμενην ευθειαν" which literally means "the street, the one called straight". Pais (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the Latin Vulgate says "vicum qui vocatur Rectus", which also means "the street called straight". The Latin name mentioned by the article is presumably found in other sources. Pais (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most important reason is of course fidelity to the original text. However, I have heard this passage read aloud during a lesson, from the New International Version, which does render it "Straight Street"[2], and the reader could hardly continue: it is a proper tongue-twister. Marnanel (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably it runs at a right angle to "Queer Street." (Latin and Greek translations unknown). Edison (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where they intersect must be an interesting place. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

The JB: ""..You must go to Straight Street ..."" Acts 9, v11. MacOfJesus (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Providinig reference to wikipedia article that is new

Please tell me how to provide a source for the article I have written in wikipedia. I am getting the instruction that a source is needed source is needed. but I am not able to understand how to provide a source for the new article. This is about an article on Sri. Venkannaiah TS which is absolutely genuine but I am unable to site a source for that because in the internet no source could be provided. But as for the books sited in the article they are all available in the market and publisher information can be given. kindly give reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.90.10.89 (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Wikipedia:Citing sources? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this is reference desk, you should ask this question in Wikipedia:Help desk. --Reference Desker (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Published books can be excellent sources: you don't need to find something online. Publisher information should indeed be given: Ghmyrtle's link explains how to include this information. You might also want to read wp:reliable sources, to reassure yourself. 86.162.69.210 (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alansplodge's Top Tip... if you're like me and sometimes struggle with these sorts of instructions, try going to another similar article - click on "edit" at the top and copy how it was done there. Good luck. Alansplodge (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Information regarding street in Belfast

Would anyone happen to know when Pakenham Street in the Shaftsbury Square district of south Belfast was demolished? It was there in 1981, but I have been told it has since been demolished. Here is an image of the street as it appeared in 1981. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Um, you didn't link to any image. Pais (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

According to Chronology of Provisional Irish Republican Army actions (1990-1999): "4 March 1992: The IRA detonated a massive car-bomb containing over 1,100 lb (500 kg) of explosive in Pakenham Street, Belfast." I don't know if the demolitions were connected to this explosion, but it might be something to explore. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had heard it was demolished before 1992. There was a UDA club in this street, that I know.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the photo all the windows appeared to be blocked up, so perhaps it was awaiting demolition even then? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, there were still people living there. I stayed in one of the houses in that street; in fact, I took the photo while I was half hanging out from my boyfriend's bedroom window. A few houses were occupied at the time, but they had been condemned as unfit for habitation. I believe it as I remember it was dangerous to even mount the stairs!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes in the UK, whole streets of houses remain semi-derilict and semi-inhabited for years - a condition known as Planning blight - we don't have an article but see Urban decay. Alansplodge (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not just in the UK — see the lower picture. The surrounding neighborhood isn't the best, but I wasn't afraid to walk around; however, I was nervous just driving past the block that's in the picture. Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Mann(s)

Was the American school reformer Horace Mann the same person who authored the report of the Education Census and Religious Census, an element of the UK 1851 Census? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Per these references [3][4][5], "The task of tabulating the returns was given to a young (28 year old) solicitor, Horace Mann, who published his report in 1854 as one volume of the overall census reports". But the education reformer Horace Mann was born in 1796, which means he was more than 50 years old at that time. --Reference Desker (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So it is two Horace Manns (Horace Men). Itsmejudith (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would be the four Horace Men. It is two Horace Manns.109.128.222.233 (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's Walpole's friend, Sir Horace Mann, 1st Baronet, and his nephew, Horace Mann.--Wetman (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! So we know the Four Horace Manns of the Apocalypse now! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anything like National Writing Month?

I'm interested in other "contests" like this one. I see there's a poetry one, but have you come across anything else? 129.3.179.86 (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean National Novel Writing Month? There's also Script Frenzy which is the same kind of thing for plays/screenplays. Shorter events in the same vein include 24-hour Comic Day, Three-Day Novel Contest and 48 Hour Film Project. the wub "?!" 15:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hitler in conversation

I heard that all recordoings of Hitler are of his speeches, with one exception, a single rare recording of him in conversation. Where can I listen to this online? (Prefereablya youtube link). Thanks. 109.128.222.233 (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably thinking of the 1942 Mannerheim conversation, see Carl_Gustaf_Emil_Mannerheim#Mannerheim_and_Adolf_Hitler and search youtube for 'hitler mannerheim'. Nanonic (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely written essay.... --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, that was fast. got what I wanted. 109.128.222.233 (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler's Table Talk may be relevant. 92.15.8.168 (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Western Canal - route through Taunton

I initially posted this question on the help desk for guidance on where best to post it. The help desk suggested I might get a better answer either at the reference desk or at the UK Waterways project, so I am posting this again at both (hopefully I am not breaching any cross-posting rules) I am trying to make sense of the route of the Taunton end of the Grand Western Canal. Old Ordnance Survey maps suggest it came into the town across Roughmoor and met the Tone in French Weir. The Wikipedia article on the Grand Western Canal suggests that the Grand Western actually linked direct to the Bridgwater and Taunton Canal. The article on the Bridgwater and Taunton Canal suggests that the link with the Grand Western was made by going up the Tone and building a short stretch of canal at French Weir. Both plans however show the link being made with the Bridgwater and Taunton Canal. In addition the Map reference given for the Taunton Boat Lift appears odd. It resolves to 81 St Augustine Street which is on the right bank of the Tone whereas all the other canal works are on the left bank of the Tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.222.192 (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although there's a possibility that an editor here may have the detailed knowledge you require, it's worth considering whether you could get more helpful leads through contacting the Somerset museum service or library service, who should be able to point you in the right direction. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PPF - proof that a point is productively inefficient.

Suppose an economy produces only apples and cars, subject to increasing marginal opportunity cost. The economy's maximum production of apples is 2000 tonnes and its maximum production of cars is 1000 cars. Suppose the economy is producing 500 cars and 1000 tonnes of apples - is this production point efficient?

The only proof that I can give that it is not efficient is a mathematical proof rather than an economic proof, i.e. with increasing marginal opportunity cost the graph of the production possibility frontier would be convex, but (500,1000) could only be a point on a linear curve (or a curve which is convex on some points and concave in others) when the intercepts are (1000,0) and (0,2000). Therefore, it must lie strictly inside the PPF. This is possibly not a satisfactory response; is there a way to explain why the point is inefficient in economic terms? Widener (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds similar to the problem of determining ideal firm size, which depends on both economy of scale and diseconomy of scale. However, you're example only cited "increasing marginal opportunity cost". In the real world, the cost per unit to produce either apples or cars would fall as production rose, up to a point, where wages would start to rise due to a tight labor market, land prices would also rise, due to scarcity, affecting apple prices, and the car component market would also tighten, leading to more expensive cars. On the demand side, a glut of apples or cars would reduce prices that could be charged for each, and thus cut into profit margins, along with increased production costs. So, there would be an ideal production number for both apples and cars.

Now, as to the question, there doesn't seem to be enough info to answer it, as you would need to know the precise cost structure for both apples and cars. I suspect they are looking for a "book answer", though, not a real world answer. Therefore, the answer is that they should be able to produce more cars, apples, or both, if we assume the curve has a shape similar to the one in the diagram. StuRat (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed the shape that the graph must assume because as stated, the production of apples or cars is subject to increasing marginal opportunity cost. Widener (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but something seems missing from that statement. Is there an increasing marginal opportunity cost both when you go from 1 car to 2 and when you go from 999 cars to 1000 ? And does it increase by the same amount in each case ? StuRat (talk) 05:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Draw the PPC and you will get your answer. Increasing marginal opportunity cost implies a curved PPC like the one in the image. The point in question would lie on a straight-line PPC between the two maximum production figures. It is clearly inefficient for ANY PPC drawn consistent with increasing marginal opportunity cost.124.148.59.228 (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where do Noahides worship?

Neither our article Noahidism nor some cursory googling has gotten me an answer to something I'm wondering: do practicing Noahides take part in any sort of weekly worship service, and if so, where? I don't mean just anyone who follows the seven Noahide laws, but people who explicitly identify as belonging to the Noahide movement. Are there specific Noahide places of worship, or do people go to synagogues and worship together with Jews on Friday nights and Saturday mornings? —Angr (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can http://www.asknoah.org/ and aside from sending questions, that site also has a lot of information. I didn't see anything about group worship though, but I do know that Noahides do not go to synagogues. (They could visit, but it wouldn't be appropriate to use the same prayers and rituals, which are specific to Jews and are not required by Gentiles). There doesn't seem to be any formal set of prayers, but rather each person makes their own (similar to how Jews did it during the time of the first temple). Ariel. (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I found this thread there, which suggests that (as with so many questions concerning Judaism) the answer is "some rabbis say it's okay, others say it isn't". —Angr (talk) 06:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Italian citizenship

Just a little curious: My parents emigrated from Naples, Italy to Toronto in 1977 (or something like that). I was born in Toronto in 1983. I am a holder of Canadian citizenship, my parents became naturalised Canucks in 1982. My parents gave up their Italian citizenships when they acquired the Canadian ones. I have now been living in Oslo, Norway for the last 6 years. I have never lived in Italy, I have only been on 3 or 4 family visits in Italy and I have only "decent" Italian skills. (My French is a little better)

What are my chances of obtaining an Italian citizenship? PaoloNapolitano (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read our article Italian nationality law? It says "For those of Italian origin up to the second degree, the applicant must have served in the Italian military or civil service or have resided for two years in Italy after reaching the age of majority." I don't know for sure what "up to the second degree" means, but I assume it would include your parents' children and grandchildren. —Angr (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should also research whether you really need Italian citizenship. If you are fairly satisfied with how you've been treated as a Canadian national in Norway, then at least in theory it should be no different in Italy -- even though Norway is not in the EU, it is in the Schengen Area. --M @r ē ino 16:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an American citizen, who holds Irish residency. I have been living in Italy for years and am married to an Italian national. I still require a permesso di soggiorno despite having an Italian husband and two children who were born here and hold full Italian citizenship. I have an Australian friend who was born in Sydney to Italain parents, spent his teenage years in Italy and even served with the Italian military. He was still required to obtain a permesso di soggiorno and the authorities had even threatened him with deportataion for not having one!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose your friend didn't have an indefinite permesso di soggiorno, so he would have to renew it if he wanted to stay for more than 90 days. A complete different situation would be if he obtained the Italian citizenship, to which he might be entitled. And EU citizens also have to apply to a Attestazione di Iscrizione. Quest09 (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did Attila die?

In the article on Attila, it says that he "returned to his palace across the Danube". It's not quite clear from the text whether Attila also died in that palace. Where was the palace, and where did Attila die? Thanks, AxelBoldt (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this helps, but: while the Attila article says he was buried under a diverted section of river, it's not clear which one. The Tisza article says "Attila the Hun is said to have been buried under a diverted section of the river Tisza." but doesn't cite a source. And the Tisza (Tisa) is nearly 1000km long, so that doesn't get you much further than saying "Southeast Slovakia, Eastern Hungary, or Northern Serbia". -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 20:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not really known. Based on the scant description of the journey Priscus took to visit Attila around 452 Attila palace at the time is often located either at modern day Tokaj or maybe Jászberény but as his palace was more a wooden village it could have moved anywhere in the region conceivably. The Jászberény article claims the rumour of his burial site. Also his burial was supposed to have taken place beneath the Tisza so it would be flooded and hidden, then his undertakers were killed to make it undiscoverable. I don't know of any more recent archeology that has been able to locate it with more precision. meltBanana 00:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Memorize music

Hey all. I am a piano student and I have a piece of music that I have to memorize for next week; it is not very long (just the first page of a Bach prelude) but it is hard for me to memorize in such a short span. I have memorized harder pieces before, but these have generally been from practicing for several months. My teacher has recommended that I listen to professional pianists play the piece I'm working on or research its background but that doesn't work for me. I know there's no "right way" to do music but does anyone have tips on how I can memorize this? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have specific tips on memorizing music, but perhaps a few general memorization tips might help:

1) It helps to do the task hands-on. So, in this case, play it rather than just listening to it.

2) Try memorizing a bit at a time. So, in your case, play and memorize the first note, then the first two notes, etc.

3) This could result in wasting too much time repeating early parts which you've already memorized. In this case, you can divide the task (piece of music, in your case) into segments, and go on to the next segment after the current one is memorized. Be sure to perform the entire piece, several times, once the segments are memorized, or you might have trouble with the transitions between the segments.

4) Take breaks. When you get fatigued, your ability to memorize may be reduced.

5) Reward yourself. It doesn't have to be much, just give yourself a grape after you memorize each segment, for example.

6) Make sure you have a good study environment. Silence and a lack of visual distractions is important.

7) Spend the time. Obviously, "practice makes perfect".

8) Sleep on it. There's some evidence that long term memories are constructed from the day's events as we sleep. StuRat (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably too late to try this for this particular task, but I believe some people find it a useful strategy to divide a musical passage (or a poem, speech, etc) into sections as in StuRat's Tip 3) above, and learn the last one first, then the penultimate one, etc. This makes the item as a whole, once learned, increasingly familiar as it progresses, countering the effects of performance stress. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it helps to work backwards: instead of beginning with the first bar, begin with the last. When you have that, start a little further back. This counters the usual pattern of knowing the beginning much better than the end, and also seems to help me make 'links' between the difficult bits in a more fluid way. Instead of starting with a known bit and moving on to unknown territory, you are contantly approaching better known bits. And, of course, put in the practical practice time with plenty of breaks. 86.162.69.210 (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC) (grrr, edit conflict. There's still time to do this, you just have to put in the hours)[reply]

As for your teacher's recommendation to do some background research, what I do emphatically recommend, is actually studying, picking apart and thinking about the segments mentioned above, segment by segment. Study and think about how each segment should sound rhythmically, agogically, dynamically, ..., about how you want to finger it, etc. Use your brain while you're playing, while you're practicing. Superficial memorizing (and relying too much on your fingers' and wrists' "muscle memory") can easily go haywire when you're nervous (and I'm always nervous when performing, to this day). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Play 1 measure while looking at the music, play the same measure not looking at the music. Play the next measure looking at the music then again not looking at the music. Play the first two measures looking at the music then again not looking at the music. Repeat with every measure.
Also, seeing the whole composition as one chord progression is enlightening. While the 8-bar phrases may have a progression of their own the whole piece is likely divisible by 8 and therefore is one long progression. Knowing Bach and how he wrote his pieces it is probably an ABA or a I-V-I progression throughout with maybe one or two IVths. Schyler! (one language) 02:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than memorize one measure at a time, I'd recommend memorizing one phrase (2 to 4 measures) at a time; and instead of starting at the beginning, start at the end. In other words, memorize the last phrase first, then the one before it, then the one before that, and so on until you reach the beginning. When you've got each phrase down, continue playing the previously learned phrases until you reach the end of the piece. That way, you're progressing from newly learned material to more familiar material rather than the other way around. (I see 86.162.69.210 has already recommended this procedure above.) —Angr (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite the piece in a simplified way. (E.g. replace notes with chord notation, and runs with just the first and last note. You can be creative there; the more idiosyncratic, the easier it will be for you to make it your own). Practice by just looking at that, and memorize your simplified version. — Sebastian 04:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get some blank music paper and copy out your page of score to it. Then do the same thing again, and again, and again. After a while you will remember it. Also, play the piece as well as you can with no keyboard. That is, just make all the finger motions on your desk, audiating the sounds while you "play". 71.141.88.54 (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]