Humanities desk
< May 13	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 15 >

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 14

Gemstone rings

Do American males wear ring with gemstone studded on it? How common is it in the United States? And how common is it in Europe? --Radical Wikipedian 10 (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And can anyone please name some famous people (preferably male) who have gemstone rings? Thanks! --Radical Wikipedian 10 (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If by gemstones you mean stones such as carnelian, onyx and jasper, it's quite common over here in the UK. The practice comes (I believe) from the use of carved gemstones in a signet ring. Before literacy was common, men used to signify assent to things like deeds by affixing their seals to the document: an impression was made in melted sealing wax by a seal (emblem). This seal was carved into a gemstone and put in a ring, so that the seal was available at all times. Signet rings are quite popular today. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A common enough ring worn by males in the U.S. is the class ring, which many males wear, and which often feature gemstones. --Jayron32 08:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from that, the only person I can think of is Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is sort of American I guess. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another Judaism question

It seems there are several questions about Judaism recently. I have another: would it be fair to say that from an Orthodox point of view it is sufficient to practice all the precepts of Judaism even if one does not believe in God? I.e. if someone is Jewish, does not believe in God, but acts in all ways as a Jew should, e.g. says the Shema because one should, but not because he believes in it, is this sufficient? --99.113.32.198 (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are asking whether the Orthodox community would accept a non-believer as a Jew? The question of "Who is a Jew?" is a widely discussed and debated topic among all denominations. From the article:

All Jewish religious movements agree that a person may be a Jew either by birth or through conversion. According to halakha a Jew by birth must be born to a Jewish mother. Halakha states that the mere acceptance of the principles and practices of Judaism does not make a person a Jew. However, those born Jewish do not lose that status because they cease to be observant Jews, even if they adopt the practices of another religion.

So, a person born of a Jewish mother would be considered a Jew by the Orthodox, even if they don't believe. Hope that helps. ^Avic _ennasis @ 04:33, 10 Iyar 5771 / 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Although this question is not debated in modern times because of modes of societal and educational conformation, etc., the topic was debated heavily many years ago by the likes of Maimonides and others. You can see Menachem Kellner's work "Must a Jew Believe Anything?" for further discussion. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the Orthodox are concerned, one cannot lose one's Jewish status no matter what. Even if somebody went through a formal Islamic conversion ceremony, say, they might be formally shunned from their Jewish community but would still be considered Jewish and entitled to a Jewish burial. Simple non-belief is obviously way less of a problem than apostasy, and is generally tolerated (in fact, many Orthodox Jews are actually known as 'park round the corner people' based on vaguely concealed non-observance of Jewish law).
Progressive movements such as Liberal Judaism would require apostates to re-convert to Judaism should they wish to return, but is equally tolerant of non-belief. There's a good section on the subject of Jewish atheism in Progressive Judaism in Faith and Practice: A Guide to Reform Judaism Today – ISBN0947884084. ╟─Treasury Tag►international waters─╢ 14:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on Menachem Kellner. Bus stop (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As DRosenbach began to explain, you're actually asking a classic question: do mitzvot need intention? The Hebrew term for intention is Kavana (or similar spelling) - we don't seem to have an article about it yet, which is a serious shortcoming. Anyway, the orthodox answer is "no", it's not sufficient. If you happen to be reading from a bible and come across the text of the Shema, reading it as part of your study does not fulfil your obligation to read the Shema, unless you had intent to fulfil the command. I intend to fix that redlink imminently. --Dweller (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Illiterate Americans

I'm interested in knowing the percentage of Americans that are literate. I've heard before the following about Americans and wondering whether they are true, and if not, how far away they are from being true:

50% of Americans think that America is the only country in the world
60% of Americans don't know where Canada is
60% of Americans are functional illiterates
60% of Americans don't know who Barack Obama is

etc.

Also, it would be interesting to know about other such facts about Americans that make them look stupid. For example, what percent of them don't know arithmetic, what percent of them don't know that there is more than one state in America, what percent of them don't know the name of the President etc. Please include as many such facts as you can PROVIDED that they are true.

It seems pretty unbelievable to me that these facts are true (Americans are dumb but not this dumb ...) but I have heard from highly educated people (who wouldn't make jokes about this kind of thing) that these are not far from the truth. (But they don't know the exact numbers.) Moreover, Americans only seem to love guns, burgers, sex and baseball anyway so it's not hard to believe that they would be clueless about IMPORTANT things. But then that's just my opinion :)

I know some intelligent Americans but they are in their substantial minority. (1% say.) I'm not saying all Americans are dumb. All I'm saying is that America as a country is dumb IF these facts are true.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.4.186 (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Literacy in the United States, a U.S. Government study issued in 2002 said:

that 21% to 23% of adult Americans were not "able to locate information in text", could not "make low-level inferences using printed materials", and were unable to "integrate easily identifiable pieces of information."

The rest of your numbers are likely equally poorly co-related with reality. Bielle (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And many, if not most, of those 21 to 23% would likely be the types of people doing jobs (an arborist or a low-level deckhand on a ship) that wouldn't require reading. And just as an aside, since your IP geolocates to Australia; your experience with Americans is probably severely distorted because you've probably met mostly tourists. You have to meet Americans on their own turf; you'll be rather surprised. I can't say I've ever met someone who didn't know who Obama is, and there's no way 60% of Americans don't know where Canada is. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have met quite a few Americans. But that's besides the point. I also heard that the average vocabulary of an American (other than nouns and propositions) consists of 500 words. Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.4.186 (talk) 06:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any study of English vocabulary that excludes "nouns and propositions". You might find Vocabulary of interest. Bielle (talk) 06:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basic English consists of 850 words - however, this is in no way related to Americans specifically. As for the other facts you listed, I would not believe them without a reliable, verifiable source for said statements. "I've heard someone say 75% of Australians don't know who Julia Gillard is, and since someone said it, it must be true," is not a good way to get your facts lined up. furthermore, statements like "Americans only seem to love guns, burgers, sex and baseball anyway" show a severe lack of research into Americans and their concerns. Net Neutrality, Education, Health Care, Terrorism, et cetera are just a few items from a long list of things Americans care about, as evidenced by even a quick glance through some American news sources. Research is your friend, especially before making overly-broad statements. ^Avic _ennasis @ 06:55, 10 Iyar 5771 / 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Haha. I think you're the one who needs to go back to school. Haven't you heard of verbs and adjectives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.4.186 (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would my response be clearer if I said I don't know of any study of English vocabulary that limits itself to (to use your examples) "verbs and adjectives", and excludes "nouns and propositions"? Bielle (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the OP is referring to prepositions, but cryptically and intentionally employing the same lack of knowledge about language he/she attributes to Americans. That's the charitable interpretation. But maybe, just maybe, there's another explanation ............................... -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. I've certainly learnt foreign languages by concentrating only on learning verbs and adjectives after learning nouns and propositions. For example, have you heard of The big red book of Spanish verbs? It's certainly possible to focus only on learning verbs because verbs are by far the most important aspect of a new language. You can make sentences using only verbs (e.g. I am speaking is "hablo" in Spanish, a conjagation of "Hablar" (to speak)) but you cannot make a coherent sentence without nouns. But this is totally irrelevant to the discussion and I advise you to stick to the main point when commenting here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.4.186 (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First "propositions" [sic], and now "conjagations" [sic]. What was that you were saying about illiteracy, OP? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 07:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read somewhere once that 75% of Australians misremember statistics, and then create inaccurate and bigotted stereotypes based on those statistics. A further 63% of them then refuse to back down from their preconceived notions when confronted with actual facts. --Jayron32 06:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you. Yeah I agree Australians aren't that intelligent either. BTW, in case it wasn't obvious, I'm not Australian. I only live in Australia but I actually don't care for the country any more than I care for the fly in my living room which is about to be squished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.4.186 (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I can't find references to prove my claim, but I think I am on safe ground in stating categorically that the OP's so-called "facts" are falsehoods. I would expect the percentages to be lower even if "America" included "South America". Dbfirs 06:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I quickly looked through the source that the 21-23% figure came from which Bielle quoted above. It doesn't look like the study included retarded adults who would obviously not score well due to their handicaps. So, that figure may be low. Dismas|^(talk) 07:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of the adjective "retarded" before "adults" is redundant since we're obviously talking about Americans and thus no confusion can arise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.4.186 (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to imply all Americans are retarded? Just asking for clarification here, since that's how I'm reading it. Also, I properly indented your reply - no need to thank me. ^Avic _ennasis @ 07:23, 10 Iyar 5771 / 14 May 2011 (UTC)

That is consistent with the IP's contribution history. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the superior quality of the OP's writing and his undeniable prowess with the English language, I would describe him as the epitome of erudition and literacy, therefore qualifying him to adequately judge American intelligence.As me late granny from Crossmolina, County Mayo would have said: "Jesus wept!!!"--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure of that? I've heard that the average IQ for Americans is 98, whereas for Australians it's 73. It must be true - I read it in a book! ^Avic _ennasis @ 07:45, 10 Iyar 5771 / 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Judging from the OP's contribution history, it seems like they are very angry over the fact that Americans killed one of the world's most dangerous terrorist. --Reference Desker (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the OP couldn't care less about either of these subjects but are simply trolling the ref desk. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this discussion has diverged from its purpose. I simply asked whether or not certain facts I heard about Americans were true. I never claimed them to be true although I did say that I did not think highly about the average intelligence of Americans. However, that had little to do with my actual question. I'd appreciate it if the people here took the time to read the question and understand what it's asking before jumping to conclusions. Also, before you direct insults at me, take the time to remember that you do not know who I am and that I am considered a very knowledgeable person (in mathematics). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.4.186 (talk) 07:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Americans are all illiterate dumb bunnies how can they be expected to read and sufficiently comprehend your question, IP49? BTW, nobody would dream of disputing your claim to be "a very knowledgeable person".Just where IS Canada?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the "facts" listed, the only one that seems the least but plausible is 60% not knowing where Canada is. Americans do seem to be quite bad at geography, in general. I, for example, never had a single class on it. What I learned I had to learn on my own. I'm curious, have other Americans had classes where they memorized the nations of the world ? StuRat (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I memorized the Canadian territories from West to East by staring at a map behind my incredibly boring economics teacher, does that count? Seriously though, to answer your question, the most geography I ever got was a small map of a particular region (see the top of the Middle East article for example) when our history teachers would teach us about some era or events. It was up to us to figure out where on the planet that particular section of earth was in relation to everything else. Though, in the teacher's defense, there was generally a world map on the wall somewhere.

Getting back to the OP's original question though, I suspect that some of those figures are either taken out of context or not quoted quite right. The first one about America being the only country could have been cut short. "...the only country in the world... where you can get XXXX" Or the 'where Canada is' stat. I can see some questioner showing some kid in Texas a map of North America and asking him things about Canada. To which the kid might reply by pointing out maybe Montreal or Ottawa but not realizing that Canada is actually a lot larger than he thought. At which point the questioner, having only a couple choices on his test sheet to choose from, checks off the "doesn't know" box instead of the "familiar with" box. Dismas|^(talk) 08:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is something I also agree. Wondering how many Americans, even those posting here is this reference desk, are aware of the fact that Funafuti is the capital of Tuvalu? --Reference Desker (talk) 08:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or that Libreville is the capital of Gabon, or Victoria is the capital of Seychelles? --Reference Desker (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I knew all of those, but I don't provide a useful service for society. The guy who fixes my sink may not, but then again, he knows how to fix my sink. Ditto for the surgeon who fixes my broken hand, or the athletes who provide me with entertainment, or the fireman putting out the fire on my neighbor's house. Given the human mind's limited capacity for knowledge, I would much prefer that people who I live around use their minds for tasks which are relevent to their daily lives. If it's all the same to you, I'd rather my physician has his mind on things other than world capital cities... --Jayron32 09:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I am using Humour. --Reference Desker (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I studied geography at elementary school. I also owned a globe and good set of encyclopedias. I did not know that Funafuti is the capital of Tuvalu. I'm sure this lack of knowledge on my part does not inhibit me from contributing to the project as I have never edited the article on Tuvalu. It's not really within the sphere of my interest.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of these comments rather miss the point. It's not things like knowing the capital of Tuvalu that matter (sorry, Tuvalu), it's having a rough idea of where different parts of the world are in relation to each other, and their cultural relationships. Like, knowing the differences between Iran and Iraq, or where Afghanistan is in the world, or that Scotland is not part of England. What irritates the rest of the world most about many Americans is that they take, or endorse, decisions affecting other parts of the world without having the first idea about what those places are like, or even where they are, or caring about it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your last comment, Ghmyrtle hits the nail on the head: "caring about it". Lack of interest or curiosity is not peculiar to Americans, however. Far from it. Where I live (small town in Sicily), most people are not aware, nor do they care, that there IS a world beyond the Strait of Messina. In fact, most people in the village where I live have never read a single book in their lives. Even the most remote places in America aren't that bad--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll offer Mineola on Long Island as a counterexample - the only place in the world where I had to explain American Express traveller's cheques to a native store (boasting a big "American Express traveller's cheques accepted here" sign), and also, when they insisted on seeing my driver's license instead of my passport as an id, that it's written in a funky foreign language and no, it does not have an expiration date. Of course, we were also informed that no, they did not know where the light rail left to Manhattan, since they never went to dangerous foreign countries. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the article on Mineola says that there are relatively few people below the poverty line, so obviously the place's affluence does not encompass basic education. It must be noted that the UD educational system has altered drastically since I attended elementary school in the 1960s. And while my parents were not intellectuals, they were both avid readers and my dad had the benefit of an Irish education in a parrochial school.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's always the often quoted "x% of Americans cannot locate America on a map" or "Americans are geographically illiterate". That said, almost all the Americans I've met haven't been that dumb; many had managed to find their way to another part of the world and some even apologised for the dumbness of their fellow Americans. Perhaps travel really does broaden the mind. Astronaut (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between literacy and functional literacy can be an eye-opener. Widen the question beyond the United States: there was a time when all rich countries boasted a literacy rate of 99% of adults; that was never true, unless you lower the barrier to "able to sign own name". Nonetheless, the level of literacy required to function -- particularly, to find and hold a job -- in 2011 are higher than 1961 or 1911. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, the original question here was about whether "50% of Americans think that America is the only country in the world", "60% of Americans don't know where Canada is", 60% of Americans are functional illiterates", and "60% of Americans don't know who Barack Obama is", and nicely vague "etc". And "also", "what percent of them don't know arithmetic" and "what percent of them don't know that there is more than one state in America" and "what percent of them don't know the name of the President", and again, "etc." There are lots of so-called "surveys" that claim to measure such things, but they are mostly poorly-defined and badly-measured, so I wouldn't put much weight on even those that claim some kind of "objectivity". The original poster's "I heard from someone that..." criterion is far below that, and barely worth responding to. I know of no rigorous study that measure these things, but it is preposterous that 50% of Americans think America is the only country in the world, and even more preposterous that 60% don't know where Canada is (a particuarly absurd claim), or that 60% don't know who their own president is, and "etc". Even less believable is that any Americans at all think there is only one state in the USA—here we veer strongly into troll territory. As for what percentage don't know the name of the president, didn't you already say you heard it was 60%? As for arithmetic, what does that mean? Being able to add 8 and 6? I try to assume good faith, but this seems like either a troll or someone desperately naive. All that said, I do think geography is woefully lacking in American education. Though I daresay it is woefully lacking in the education of most countries. How many of you can picture in the map of your mind's eye, right now immediately, where Paraguay is? Albania? Syria? The Ganges River? Translyvania? Now tell me, quickly, what nations border each of those nations, what nations are in the Ganges watershed, what nation is Translyvania in, and which does it border? These are all famous geographical places, you should be ashamed to not answer these questions right away, American or not. While you're at it, the president of the USA is world famous, but tell me the PM of Canada, of Australia? Of China and Japan and India? If you don't know without having to look it up you shouldn't be throwing stones. I get really tired of this American bashing. There might be some small reality to it, relative to a few other rich nations, but too often it is blown way out of proportion in sensationalist ways. Pfly (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on. This IP enjoys trolling. But being good at geography wouldn't define a high IQ and agree that the difference in IQ of the richest countries in the world would be so close as to make it difficult to differentiate between them. The most recent controversial attempt (2006) is by Richard Lynn of University of Ulster and Tatu Vanhanen of the University of Tampere in their study IQ and Global Inequality. To cherry-pick just a few of their findings of international IQs--Hong Kong - 107, Japan - 105, Germany - 102, Italy - 102, China - 100, UK - 100, New Zealand - 100, Australia - 99, Spain - 99, United States - 98, France - 98, Canada - 97, Israel - 94, Ireland 93, etc. --Bill Reid | (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will not hesitate to report you to the moderators if you accuse me falsely of "trolling" (i.e., "This IP enjoys trolling."). You should consider yourself lucky that I will not report you now. However, if you accuse me again I will certainly report you immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.4.186 (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, can I pull this thread back here. Regardless of the OP's motivation, these are the sort of made up statistics we get where I am in the UK if you're a satirist doing a bit on America. Of course we don't believe them offhand, but I for one would be interested in the truth. Geography is on the national curriculum here in the UK, for example, and much to my former teacher's dismay will contain more "where places are" stuff in the future (a Tory thing, I think). Now, I know the answers to all the questions Pfly poses, but I do not expect my countrymen to. I wouldn't be surprised if 10% of the British don't know who the Prime Minister is (not holding in such a high esteem as in the US), whilst Obama's popular here, I'd expect maybe 60% to know the President of France (and maybe 10% the PM). Surely there are studies on this? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, Grandiose, I'd expect fellow ref deskers to be able to answer those questions fairly well. I've seen plenty of studies on this topic, of geographic knowledge/ignorance, but nearly all of them strike me as poorly designed and, in many cases, specifically designed in the way they are worded and so on, to sensationalize ignorance. In fact, I can't think offhand of a well designed, non-biased study of geographic knowledge among Americas--and I'm a geographer! Again, I don't doubt that America rates fairly low on geography education (relative to "developed nations" at least). I wonder, however, when comparing the UK to the US, how much emphasis on geographical education stems from the Brtish Empire, on one hand, and the old American isolationism on the other (despite the fact that American isolationism is a obsolete by at least a century). Put another way, America has a centuries old tradition of self-introspection--which isn't surprising given the size of the country, while the UK has a centuries old tradition of globalism, no? Not to mention the fact that the US is *huge*, and it takes a lot of work just to get a sense of the geographical layout of the US itself. Anyway, there were recently federal elections in Canada, and I daresay at least 10% of Americans could name the Canadian PM and know that he was reelected with a majority government (to the disillusionment of many Americans who look to Canada whenever elections here fall too far too the right, causing more left-leaning Americans to say things like "time to move to Canada!" Apparently that no longer means what it used to).

I am shocked that no one here has linked to the infamous American geography scandal yet. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now for some facts:

In a March 2011 Pew poll of 1,525 adults, none said he/she had not heard of Barack Obama. This compares to August 2007, when 13% said that ([1]). In a July 2010 Gallup Poll, 7% said they had not heard of Joe Biden.
21% of American adults are "functionally illiterate" ([2]).
In a 2002 survey of 18- to 24-year-old Americans, 11% were unable to locate the U.S. on a blank world map. ([3]) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page, the OP said he will never post again on Wikipedia. I left him or her a note there, but it seems there is a history. As for literacy, how many people think that Osama is president of the US? There is at least one. He or she happens to be the OP. Falconus^{p t c} 02:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems pertinent to the thread, though perhaps technically off-topic. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 04:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice they left out their own Pacific state of Hawaii and bunch of other Pacific nations, and called Papua New Guinea "Paupa" New Guinea. Otherwise, not bad for supposed ingeographates (I hereby claim this coining unless it already exists). 8 out of 10. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Two jokes about map projections! The xkcd dude is such a geek! In the best way... Pfly (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Over 75% of Trolls on the Ref Desk are willing to make up provocative statistics to launch a soap box thread. But consider, for a moment, what percentage of the people in the US are suffering from senile dementia, are or are otherwise of diminished consciousness; what percentage are pre-schoolers; what percentage are illegal aliens or other non-speakers of English who don't understand a question asked in English. The premise did not say "what percentage of healthy adult US legal residents and citizens think the US is the only country in the world. If the premise is true, I wonder why I have never met any of those disoriented people outside of nursing homes or nurseries. Edison (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Austen by G.F.Maine

Reference : G.F.Maine( Editor)wrote about the famous novel ' Pride and prejudice 'by Jane Austen was born in DECEMBER 19th.1775.

The austens were an old Kentish family......Jane ,their seventh child was......

The book Printed in Great Britain in 1952(edited version)by COLLINS CLEAR-TYPE PRESS.( It is a carefully edited version of the TEXTS 1813 and in 1817 .)

In 1796 she wrote 'First Impressions' which she later developed into 'Pride and Prejudice' ...

.....Your confirmation is solicited ..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pradip.m (talk • contribs) 05:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Jane Austen gives her birth date as December 16, 1775 (not December 19) and, by inference (counting the siblings born prior to that date) confirms she was the 7th child. Pride and Prejudice has more information about its beginnings as "First Impressions". Bielle (talk) 06:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ODNB has 16th December 1775 as her birthdate, and her as the seventh child. It has this to say about First Impressions: "In August 1796 Jane visited her brother Edward and his wife, Elizabeth, at their first home, a large farmhouse at Rowling in Kent. It was while there, or immediately after returning home that October, that she began Pride and Prejudice under the title ‘First Impressions’, perhaps as an instinctive reaction against Kent hauteur. The author was the same age as her heroine Elizabeth Bennet at the start of composition (‘not one and twenty’). This, the first of her novels to be completed, was finished in August 1797, and offered by her father to the publisher Thomas Cadell on 1 November 1797 as a novel in three volumes ‘about the length of Miss Burney's Evelina’ (Austen-Leigh, Memoir, chap. 8). The publisher declined without asking to see the manuscript. ‘First Impressions’ remained a family favourite, a fact confirmed by regular rereadings by Cassandra and Jane's close friend Martha Lloyd (Letters, 35, 44). The title had to be changed, however, after the publication of Margaret Holford's novel First Impressions, or, The Portrait in 1801. Austen replaced it with Pride and Prejudice, taking a phrase from Burney's Cecilia (1782) as her new title." DuncanHill (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

London Gazette search

Please would somebody tell me when Sir George Gough Arbuthnot was appointed a knight bachelor. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did find a date for when he was made a knight bachelor - I've added it as a reference to the article. ^Avic _ennasis @ 12:37, 10 Iyar 5771 / 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Which philosopher or scientist?

I remember reading about a story, I don't know if it is apocyphal, about a philosopher or scientist claiming in the 18th or 19th century, that there would soon be an end to the quest of knowledge, since every [I believe it referenced in particular physics] unresolved questions would be fulfilled in the near future. Any ideas? Raskolkhan (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name is lingering in my forehead, but I can't get it out right now. One of the major figures of 19th century physics was told not to go into physics, because all the big problems had been solved and there were only niches to fill. Then Einstein and Bohr and Heisenberg came along... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Kelvin is supposed to have said that "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement," but apparently there is little evidence for him actually having said that. Albert Michelson did say in 1894 that "An eminent physicist [by which he apparently meant Kelvin] has remarked that the future truths of Physical Science are to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals," and other statements saying that they seem to have figured out all of the big things. (Not the same thing about the end of the quest for knowledge, mind you.) But there is much historical work to indicate that if there was a feeling like this, it was fairly limited — the late 19th century was a period of great revolution in physics, even before the revolutions that we call "modern physics" (relativity and quantum). The aether theory that relativity displaced, for example, was itself a very recent "revolution". --Mr.98 (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Max Planck] famously was advised against going into physics by the Munich physics professor Philipp von Jolly, who claimed, "in this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few holes." — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A video series like Zimbardo's "Discovering psychology" (1990)

Greetings,

I look for an Educational-for-student's video-series who explains\teaches Psychology both basic and progressive (similar to the way a book would explain it) but rather in an expamplarist way, with visualisations just like a well-done educational documentary series...

that's what Zimbardo's "Discovering Psychology" does, but the copy my university uses is in very bad video&sound-quality and i already watch it some times.

therefore i need somethings extra, i don't mind paying off coruse!, i just need you guys kind recommendations.

Look forward to your recommendations., Best blessings!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.26.79 (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]