Humanities desk
< March 21	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 22

What happened to this house?

Unfortunately, the historic house in this picture is in severe disrepair, despite its designation as a historic site by the US federal government. While I can understand what's caused most of its problems, I'm puzzled by the darkness around the chimney: what could have caused it? Fire was my first thought, but I can't imagine fire coming out of the brickwork just below the chimney without being severe enough to scorch the walls around the windows and doors. I also considered that it might have been burned but that the other damage was repaired; however, given the state in which the house sits, I doubt that anything has been repaired anywhere near recently. Finally, please note that I'm somewhat colorblind, so I might be unable to see something that would be obvious to most people. Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that is obvious is that the chimney is a later addition to the building; the brickwork of the chimney is distinctly pink, while the rest of the house is orange brick. My guess is that the staining is from an older, long gone chimney that the current one replaced. Probably, the first chimney stained the wall, was removed, and the newer unstained chimney put on in its place. --Jayron32 04:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes sense. The staining on the wall below the chimney looks to me like damp penetration. Perhaps the original chimney had been so badly damaged it was replaced? There is a crack in the brickwork to the right of the chimney, but that looks more like settlement damage than anything related to the chimney. Actually, brick buildings have a surprising tolerance for settlement etc, if they stay reasonably watertight - I'm living in a 100+ year-old house with multiple cracks, and the roof held on solely by gravity, from what I can tell (and some dubious brickwork at the back of the house where it isn't so noticeable), but I don't think it is going to fall down any time soon - I'd be more worried about internal floors etc in the building shown. If the floors and/or roof trusses are rotten, that is likely to bring the building down more quickly than problems with brickwork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, is it possible that we're sharing the same house and haven't noticed? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.155 (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite possible to have a fire inside a chimney -- soot can build up and eventually ignite, sending flames all the way up the shaft. If it lasts long enough, the bricks can get pretty hot. Looie496 (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about a fire - I recall seeing old British houses with similar markings near the chimney. 92.15.6.157 (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my 1960s childhood in London, chimney fires were a common occurence. The fire brigade would put them out with a stirrup pump attached to a lomg tube (in sections I believe) which they would poke up the chimnety. Alansplodge (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the 1980s, my chimney in Dublin would often catch fire due to my bad habit of burning coal and peat together. Rather than risk the Fire Brigade flooding my house, I'd put it out myself by stuffing wet newspapers up the chimney.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a fire mark the chimney so far down from where the smoke comes from? It may be due to the volatile components of the smoke condensing on the comparatively cool inner surface of the chimmney and leaching through the brickwork. In other words, its tar. If it was damp or mildew from rainwater running down the side of the chimney, as speculated above, then wouldn't the lower part of the wall of the most exposed part of the house be like that?

The chimney bricks may be exactly the same as the other bricks, except they are much more weathered due to their exposed position, including being exposed on both sides of the brick. You can see some visible efflorescence on the chimney, and in addition the surface may have spalled off due to freezing while damp. There is likely to be mold or moss growing due to the unevenness of the surface, which needs repointing. You can see some partial repointing has been done. All of the preceeding things result in colour changes. 92.15.23.133 (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the chimney looks like it was rebuilt with different colored brick. It is very likely that the old chimney crumbled and there was water damage to the brickwork below it. What is obviously a big problem is the collapse at the left. The windows are broken, and the old copper roof might have leaked near the peak, allowing in rain, leading to collapse of rafters (causing roof collapse and allowing in more rain), leading to rot and collapse of floor joists and studwalls. The collapse of floor joists often brings down outer brick walls due to the joist end acting as a lever on the brickwork above it. Joist ends were sometimes tapered and set in pockets in the brick to allow them to collapse while sparing the wall. If cost were no object, it could probably be rebuilt. The White House, for instance, was gutted and rebuilt in 1949-1951, while preserving only the roof and outer walls. The walls in general look to need tuckpointing if the collapsed section were rebuilt. Once rain starts entering an old building due to bad windows or roof, ruin is only a few years away. Edison (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of an elaborate wedding

Why is the forthcoming marriage of William Windsor and his girlfriend being staged in such an elaborate manner? Wouldnt a quiet wedding at the Windsor chapel or registry office be better; and it could still be covered on tv? I am asking from a sociological point of view. Thanks 92.15.6.157 (talk) 11:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you think it's elaborate! Certainly compared to his father's first wedding it's not. From personal experience, the first wedding tends to be the most elaborate (I refer to mine as my "meringue moment" because of the white lacy dress I wore), whereas subsequent weddings tend to be less elaborate. As this is the first wedding for either party, it's more elaborate than, say, his father's second wedding. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's what we Brits call a royal wedding, which is a great opportunity for a PR exercise.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All royal weddings (Charles and Camilla notwithstanding) tend to be extravagant; the public would be disappointed if they were simple affairs, without pomp and ceremony.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For some of the UK public that's probably true - others just wish everyone would shut up about it. Although much of the pre-publicity is completely over the top and vomit-inducing, I'm still hopeful that attitudes have changed to the extent that there won't be quite as much obsequiousness and time wasted on this one as there was for his dad's first wedding, or for his granny's various "jubilees". Harrumph. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many anti-British monarchy posts do we get each week? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.114.190 (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough. It's still there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I can't imagine opinionated bores venting their spleen on the Wikipedia Reference Desk are likely to change the status quo anytime soon. But thanks for sharing. 87.114.246.141 (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Annoying thing is when it comes to these anti monarch posts it's nearly always the same OP who starts it Nil Einne (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The aame could be asked of any wedding, not just a royal one... 207.81.30.213 (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The more pomp and circumstance, the more souvenir videos they can sell. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to post the same thing: pomp and circumstance. Also, decadence. A decadent society loves a decadent spectacle. Vranak (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is its purpose from a sociological point of view please, compared with a normal wedding? 92.15.23.133 (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know it's sociologically different from a normal wedding? Weddings are often big extravaganzas. Just more so with a royal wedding. A wedding gala of any kind is supposed to be a celebration of a significant life event. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it is sociologically different all right. We don't get a day off work to celebrate most weddings. Is this question for your sociology homework? If so, you should mention the mass media, and popular culture, in particular celebrity culture. Why didn't Jordan and Peter Andre, or the Beckhams, have quiet weddings? But it seems that you are taking a functionalist viewpoint, assuming that the wedding must have one purpose. You might get further with an interpretivist perspective. Does the wedding have the same meaning for all social groups? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting question. I don't have the answer, but note that elaborate weddings seem to be far more important to women than to men. Perhaps it's a way of establishing a woman's social standing (while a man's comes primarily from his job) ? It might be interesting to compare with working women, to see if they choose less elaborate weddings. StuRat (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People seem to go back to more conservative gender roles in their wedding plans, compared to the roles they adopt in everyday life. Just basic things like a woman who wears jeans to work will wear a long dress for her wedding. There's something about a rite of passage that makes us want "all the trimmings". And of course it is a family occasion, so the couple want to be sure that the ceremony meets the expectations of both sets of parents. Within traditional values, women are supposed to care about their weddings. If they don't care, then the easy solution is not to bother with a wedding. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bread and circuses HiLo48 (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, except we give them the bread. 92.28.242.170 (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this would be easier to understand in a more traditional society. When you read news about people caught up in bombings or riots in the Middle East it sounds like they're always on the way to a wedding somewhere. I suppose it was the same way elsewhere at some time. It seems to be the way for a family to be known, for people to form a sort of tribal identity, maybe even something akin to a potlatch economy. I may be far off the mark, but still, look at a palace. A royal can't sleep in 87 beds, no matter how fancy they are. Their whole business involves surrounding themselves with a circle of associates. Wnt (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pomp vs. pompousness

The above is proof, if proof were ever needed, that many people absolutely love pomp. They can't get enough of it. They'll travel half way around the world to see some. But individuals who are pompous are at the extreme other end of the desirability scale. Why? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pomp and pompousness are two entirely different things. Pomp is a kind of public performance in which some are the principal performers, the majority both take minor roles and/or enjoy the spectacle as an audience, and everybody understands that they are all taking part in a kind of game. Pompousness/pomposity/pompous behaviour is merely the display of out-of-place and unwarranted arrogance. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.155 (talk) 11:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me rephrase the question. If pomp is generally considered a positive thing in its place, why was it used as the core of a word denoting a decidely negative quality? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To summarise extensive entries in the OED: "pomp" has nearly always been used both with reference to grand public spectacle and with implications of approval; "pompous" and other such derivatives have been used both in approving and in disapproving senses, going back to Chaucer, but the approving usages, now less common, generally also relate to public display, while the disapproving ones, now more common, more often relate to behaviour by an individual. Why this should be so is presumably down to the vagaries of language development, which emerge from mass usage rather than from being logically thought out. Behaviour performed en masse may have different overtones to the same behaviour performed by a single individual: a battalion of stormtroopers goose-stepping might in 1938 seemed grand and imposing, and now also sinister; John Cleese doing the same on his own just looks funny. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.155 (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks, 90. (I guess the word I probably should have used was "pomposity", but no mind.) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it, like similar spectacles, is mainly a PR stunt. We are being lead to think: "Wow, these must be really important people, so let's keep paying them lots of money". 92.15.14.45 (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the UK doesn't have a 4th July or Bastille Day; we have Coronations, Jubilees and Royal Weddings. Those who wish can go "Up West" and cheer with the masses, or you can have a street party with your neighbours or patronise your local boozer which will have the flags out too. The vocal minority get to winge about the expense of it all. Everybody's happy. Alansplodge (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe one day the scales will fall from your eyes. 92.28.242.170 (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, "Here's a Health unto Her Majesty". What's yours? Alansplodge (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign deaths in Japan earthquake/tsunami

The deaths of vacationers was a large story in the Indonesian earthquake/tsunami and deaths of foreigners made up 1% of the all deaths. So far I have heard of a single death in Japan of a foreigner (1% of 1%). Have there been more but the reporting buried in the other issues - or is this region of Japan too far off the tourist trail? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths of foreigners have been reported, usually of those who have been working in Japan. Here in the UK there has been 2 British deaths reported, both ex-pat workers. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One US citizen death was reported on the news last night. Corvus cornix_talk 17:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian government has declared that all Australians who they were aware of being in the danger area have been accounted for. HiLo48 (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found a report of two Filipino deaths[1] but can't find a story on any UK ones. Rmhermen (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I tried to find the BBC report I remembered seeing last weekend, but couldn't find it, only a reference to the number of UK casualties being unknown. Either the story's been pulled, or I misinterpreted a report. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go back to ... (China, Africa, Whatever)?

What kind of people hear that most? People who look foreigner or those who speak with a foreign accent? Quest09 (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Go back to Africa": certainly, you only hear that if you are black. "Go back to China": all that look oriental, including Korean and Japanese could hear that. No, also not accent related. In Germany, also not accent related, I also heard the "go live in Turkey if you don't like it here" applied to an Arab. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "if you don't like it here" part is interesting. There is plain old xenophobia, where people just don't like foreigners, which seems rather irrational, then's there's the objection to foreigners who then want to change the new land to be the same as where they came from. This is certain to cause resentment from natives, for quite rational reasons, and does bring up the question: "Why did you leave your homeland, if you prefer everything the way it was there ?". StuRat (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, that's a change for better. A Canadian living in the US could claim their health system is better, and that the US should catch up. An American living in Cuba could demand a right to free speech. (although it might not be very wise). Quest09 (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But doesn't it seem rather stupid of an American to move to Cuba and then complain about lack of free speech ? Why not just stay where he had it ? StuRat (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This quickly got off topic, but there are good and bad things about every place, and people like to think the grass is always greener, so the above behavior isn't unheard of — Lee Harvey Oswald defected to the Soviet Union, which made front page news in some places, since he was an ex-Marine; but then moved back, unfortunately, when he decided he didn't like it there. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Charleston, SC, there is a rather popular "Go back to Ohio" organization. The local minor league baseball team has even had "Go back to Ohio" nights. Mostly, you just see bumper stickers and an occasional ad in a local free paper. -- kainaw ™ 19:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia there is a low level debate about changing our flag. There is a class of people known as Bogans, who tend to drive overly large four wheel drive vehicles with lots of stickers, including one showing the current flag, and saying "If you don't love it, leave." On a more international level, I have to ask, has "Yankee go home" faded from popularity? HiLo48 (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I recently had a debate with a UK-based editor about British imperalism. His position was that if I had any objections, I should leave Australia. But I would not be welcome in his country. I'm still wondering where exactly it is I should be migrating to. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Not surprisingly, some of my Aboriginal friends are among those who would like to see a new flag. I'm really not sure where in the world they are expected to go if they leave. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You would be welcome here, Jack. Drop me an email if you're coming, and I will buy you a cup of tea. But I take your point and HiLo's. No-one ever said that xenophobia had to be logical. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Judith, I'll hold you to that cuppa. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LA as a place with beautiful buildings

I hardly thought as LA as a place with beautiful buildings. However, some (Hollywood) films challenged this assumption - (500) days of Summer and In Search of a Midnight Kiss, namely. How prevalent is worth-seeing architecture in LA? Quest09 (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The interior of the Bradbury Building is used frequently in movies. The Griffith Park Observatory is often used. There are actually quite a few unusual buildings in the LA area. Corvus cornix_talk 17:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For buildings older than 50 years, National Register of Historic Places listings in Los Angeles County, California and National Register of Historic Places listings in Los Angeles, California have a good selection. There's a good amount of Googie architecture in LA too, but it's fair to say that much of the LA area is an architectural wasteland. A big exception is Pasadena (National Register of Historic Places listings in Pasadena, California, with the Bungalow Heaven and the Gamble House. The hills contain a lot of California Modern architecture, a topic that WP apparently lacks. There's also some novelty architecture. Acroterion (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Venice, California has some interesting architecture, as well as canals!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest historic human

Who is the oldest person who we know really existed, for which we have a historic record ? I mean to exclude both unknown human bones we've dug up and "historical people" who may well be simply legends. StuRat (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Breuning is currently the world's oldest, at 114 or so, and Jeanne Calment was the oldest verified, at 122. In the "see also" there are lists of the oldest verified. Obviously, Biblical tales about guys like Methuselah can't be independently verified. One legend is that Methuselah was the reason Midas got out of the medical field. They had lifetime guarantees on their hip replacements, and he came back for his free replacement so often that they went bust. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I see a clarification is needed:

I mean the dead person born the most years ago, like Moses or Abraham, or whoever we are certain really existed. I don't care how about the age they lived to be. StuRat (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've had questions like this before, I'm sure there was one recently...all I can find is a question about the earliest recorded event, but there must be others... Adam Bishop (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Here's a thread from 2008 answering this. In it, Sluzzelin in turn invoked a 2006 thread. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Almost precisely the 3 year anniversary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)King Tut and his fam lived around 1300 BC, in their condo made of stone-a. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, if you'd read any of the previous threads, or even had a small amount of knowledge about ancient history, you would see how blatantly wrong your answer is. In ancient Egypt, kings are known are known by their name (or rather, inscription/heraldry) back to 3000 BCE (i.e. Hor-Aha) or so, about 1500 years before the start of the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt, during which Tutankhamen reigned. Sumarrien kings as early as Enmebaragesi have been verified to actuctually have existed, more than 1000 years before Tutankhamen. Please supply references for your assertians, as you are less likely to give such absurdly wrong answers. Buddy431 (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you channeling Comet Tuttle today??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you restricted yourself to answering questions you actually know something about, you wouldn't get snapped at like this. 87.114.246.141 (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Buggs' answer was intended to be taken seriously. It was pretty clearly an SNL reference.

APL (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was just starting to fish for information on the oldest, and King Tut was the first old guy that came to mind. There was discussion on the ref desk talk page the other day, that editors shouldn't take drive-by shots at other editors in front of the OP's, but rather should take such matters to the ref desk talk page, for example. I'm guessing Buddy, and for sure the IP-with-4-total-edits, didn't get that memo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting King Tut as the oldest known person is a gross error, and needed to be responded to here, so that people don't actually think that you have something worthwhile to say about this topic and believe your answer. I have posted my concerns on your talk page (because it's your issue, not the reference desk's), and you've made it disappear. If you don't want to discuss this there, where would you like to discuss it? I don't think the reference desk talk page is the best place (more drama than I like), but if you'd prefer, we could hash it out there. My talk page would also be acceptable, if you'd like to drop me a note. This answering with answers-pulled-out-of-your-butt business needs to stop. Buddy431 (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had quite enough of your personal attacks tonight. I expect it from certain others, but I had thought you were above that sort of thing. Until now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, you really haven't answered the OP's question. Since you're the freakin' expert, what is the oldest confirmed named person whose body or mummy has actually been located? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't care when I thought it was more of your trademarked deadpan humor, but I have to agree that just presenting some random name you thought of off the top of your head, without indicating that's what you're doing is very misleading.

It's clear that you didn't even glance at the article to confirm your guess. (The infobox clearly indicates predecessors.) APL (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that you enjoy making personal attacks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling there was an even more recent discussion on this, and here it is: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2010_June_13#First_Notable_Person. It seems Sumerian kings are good candidates. Jørgen (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alulim is recorded as ruling somewhere around 275,000BC, though chances are that date is entirely wrong, and even if he ruled only in 4700BC or whenever, there is no direct evidence he certainly existed. Archaeologists have tentatively identified certain graves in Egypt with the earliest known kings there, c3200BC, based on ancient inscriptions amongst the things buried with them. From there on, there is just no one point where it becomes clear that one person was exactly who they think he was, whilst the previous was possibly not. Then again, there is a theoretical possibility the entire universe was created at some impossible to determine point in the recent past, in such a way that it only seemed to have been around much longer. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest ruler on the Sumerian king list whose name is attested directly from archaeology isEnmebaragesi.--Wetman (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the earliest named human whose body has actually been found? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That could be tricky, because we don't necessarily know that an occupied tomb contains the body of the person named on the tomb. In the cases of saints, for example, there was a medieval industry at producing fake body parts and selling them to churches. Similar pressures could have led to providing fake bodies (real bodies, but not belonging to the person in question) for other historic characters, both real and fictional. StuRat (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles on Djedkare Isesi and Neferefre say (with sources) that their remains have been found. The oldest article in Category:Ancient Egyptian mummies is Qar (doctor). The article on Sanakht, who is older than any of these, says human remains were found in a tomb bearing his name. Hut 8.5 16:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supply of lawyers deliberately restricted

Lawyers are very expensive, but only a minority of people who hope to have careers as lawyers succeed. Particularly regarding barristers in the UK.

Is there any evidence that the supply of lawyers has been deliberately restricted by the profession so that their fees are kept high? The normal economic rules of supply and demand do not appear to be working. Thanks 92.15.23.133 (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes definitely. I can't speak directly to the situation in the U.K., but in the U.S. there's tremendous barriers to entry that keep the profession smaller than it otherwise would be. Prohibitions against unlicensed practice of law, law school cost and requirement, bar exams, bar fees, and conflict of interest ethical rules all work to increase the demand/reduce supply of legal services. I'm not saying those things aren't necessary to some degree, but they do increase prices.

Are you sure about this? I was amazed at the pages and pages of lawyers listed in the yellow pages of a major US city (maybe 60 or more pages!). Far more than I would expect in a similarly sized European city (perhaps 10-15 pages). Incidentally, I noticed the same thing with the doctors listings as well. Astronaut (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested, the ethical rules about conflicts of interest as barriers to entry are the subject of some scholarly debate.

On the flip side, it's expensive to be a lawyer (also for those things). Law school, malpractice insurance, time spent dealing with non-billable matters, long hours, lack of flexibility particularly for those in litigation practices... it's not a free lunch for anybody unfortunately. Shadowjams (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US lawyers I have discussed this with say there is a vast oversupply of lawyers rather than a "deliberate shortage" of lawyers. Law firms have no work to support the flood of applicants, and a new lawyer is likely to starve if he just opens an office as a sole practitioner, even if his prices are way under those of established firms. The new sole practitioner can't keep cutting his rates without limit, since he typically has a huge student loan debt to pay each month, as well as fixed very high cost for malpractice insurance. In large law firms, new associates slave away for several years to achieve ridiculously high totals for hours billed, in hopes of being one of the few who make partner and can then profit from the labor of new associates, while most get turned out and have to scrabble for continued employment or start their own firms or partnerships. Being in-house counsel for a business, or corporate council for a government unit, or a prosecutor or public defender are other career routes. One thing that helps the new lawyer in a storefront office is that the old need for shelves full of all sorts of lawbooks is greatly decreased by the ability to do legal research online from a PC (even though the subscription costs are high for the databases). Law schools keep cranking out fresh crops of lawyers, with many graduates unable to find employment practicing law. Here are refs on the US oversupply of lawyers:[2], [3], [4]. As for the UK, here is a news item discussing the oversupply there, where graduates are likely to have to work as paralegals: [5]. All in all. new graduates in the US or the UK will have a hard time paying off the loans most took out to pay for their legal schooling. A very fortunate few got scholarships to pay for law school, or had rich parents who just wrote checks. Edison (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking Account

Is there any reason why a person can not get a checking account (i.e. bad credit)?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, bad credit is the most common reason for banks denying someone a checking account; they think that a past history of poor money decisions makes it more likely the applicant will overdraw their account. A US bank or credit union would also turn down an application in which the person didn't have a government-issued photo ID or Social Security Number. (Here's a short article about the requirements to open an account at most places.) The services of credit unions, which are nonprofits, are cheaper than banks', and their requirements are possibly looser. PS: The applicant needs to be 18 years old or more in the US. Some banks have special "student" checking accounts for people aged 16 and up, but these accounts all need an adult co-signer who promises to be financially responsible in cases of overdrafts. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To add some detail to what Comet said... a primary reporter for depository institution is Chex Systems, which works much like the credit bureaus but with depository accounts. And yes, they do deny people accounts, although that's a bank-by-bank decision. Shadowjams (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, there are current accounts for children that don't allow you to become overdrawn (they simply won't let you withdraw more than you have), and often come with a debit card. You generally need a parent or guardian to cosign, but there's no question of them becoming responsible for your overdraft, because you can't get one. Is there no equivalent in the US? 212.183.128.73 (talk) 10:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but they don't come with checks. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OT: In Australia, fewer and fewer people have cheque (= checking) accounts because the numbers of businesses that accept cheques for payment have dwindled to the point that they're very much the exception rather than the rule now. It's so much easier to swipe a card; and even if that overdraws a credit account, that's a matter between you and your bank, not you and the vendor. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Same here in USA. The only thing I ever use my checkbook for is a particular monthly bill that has to be paid the old-fashioned way. Many people don't bother. APL (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Isn't a Checking Account what is known in the UK as a Current Account (typically the account into which your wages or benefits are paid and from which ATM withdrawals and Direct Debits are taken)? It probably doesn't matter whether you actually use a cheque/check book. --Frumpo (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added missing "close small" code after Frumpo's sig to prevent effect on following posts. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.155 (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

german-monaechy related

what happened to Luise of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel 13 other brothers & sisters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Routson (talk • contribs) 23:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles on her parents Antoinette and Ferdinand Albert list her (twelve) siblings, six of which have their own article: Charles I, Elisabeth Christine, Louis Ernest, Ferdinand, Sophie Antoinette, and Juliana Maria. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]