Miscellaneous desk
< June 7	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 9 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

June 8

Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall

I have been given an assignment to get a couple of names from the wall. I have researched the sites that pretain to the wall and cant find the specifics I need. When you visit the wall, the very first name that you see when you enter the site with the wall to your left is what? Likewise, when exiting with the wall to your left, what is the last name on the wall? Please help me with this.

<email address removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.57.160.178 (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the email address. All replies to this question will be posted here. Please do not provide your email address to avoid becoming a target for spam. ~A H 1^(TCU) 00:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to www.viewthewall.com, the first name on the west end of the wall is John H. Anderson Jr., and the last name on the east end is Jessie C. Alba. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can view all the names, panel by panel, at The Virtual Wall. Although this wasn't the OP's question, I wanted to point out, as does the Vietnam Veterans Memorial article, that names on the Memorial begin and end at the apex: the first name (Dale R. Buis, died July 8, 1959) is at the top of panel 01E (first panel east of the apex), and the last name (Richard Vandegeer, died May 15, 1975) is on panel 01W (first panel west). --- OtherDave (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Britons also say "Queen of England"?

Most non-Britons rest assure that Elizabeth II is the Queen of England and refer to her like that. But do Britons also use the term "Queen of England" when referring to Elizabeth II?--Quest09 (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, we just say "The Queen". And "Queen of England" is wrong, of course. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 16:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and if we needed to be more precise we would use her name, rather than any country. Saying what Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of is very complicated, so it is best not to try! --Tango (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last Queen of England was Anne, who was the monarch at the time of the formation of the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707. Any Brits hearing the term "Queen of England" would generally assume that the speaker was American. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily American, but perhaps some other non-British nationality as well. It's not only Americans who have trouble distinguishing between the concepts of England and the United Kingdom, there might well be people all over the world who do that. I figure Europeans tend to have a better grasp at the distinction than non-Europeans, but that doesn't mean even they can never mistake the two concepts. JIP | Talk 21:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And likewise for past monarchs; even when a monarch is only the king of England, you'll mostly just say "William the Second" rather than William II of England. The only time you'd commonly hear the kingdom specified is where there's an relevant ambiguity, such as differentiating between James II of England and James II of Scotland. Monarchs before the Norman Conquest start to fall into very ambiguous territory, and so often get called after their nickname - so Æthelred the Unready, to differentiate him from the many Æthelreds. Note also that ER2 is queen of lots of places, so she's the Queen of Canada, Queen of Australia, and was even Queen of Pakistan for several years - so a sentence like "The Queen of England opened a new hospital in Vancouver" is doubly wronger. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 16:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Officially, of course, I believe that the upper echelons of society consider it unseemly for any of her subjects to refer to as "The Queen" - her official designation is "Her Majesty The Queen", or HM for short. She has various other nicknames among the common plebs, of course. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, she is either "the queen" (ie. she's the person currently fitting that description) or "HM The Queen" (her official short style). "The Queen" is wrong - by capitalising "Queen" you are using it as a title rather than a description, so you should use the correct style, which includes HM. Of course, that's a very pedantic "should", and is really only followed in formal circumstances. --Tango (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That appears not to be the case when used in the Loyal toast; it's hideous complexities like this that still sell royal etiquette books, long after you could realistically get your head cut off for getting it wrong. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 16:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, in fact, the official website that I linked to seems to be quite content to refer to her as "The Queen". Not "Betty Windsor" though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She can be, however, accurately called the Queen of Canada or the Queen of Australia. I guess it's just not a complete title... TastyCakes (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Queen of Canada" isn't really a title, it's an office she holds. Her style is "HM The Queen" or, in full in Canada, "Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith". --Tango (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should there not be a comma after "God" ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a subject of the Queen in Canada, I know that I and most of the people I know refer to her as "the Queen". Or, at least those who know how the constitutional monarchy we employ works. She is, after all, our Queen as much as she is the Queen of England, so to speak. Aaronite (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've never heard her called the Queen of Canada in common conversation except in a quiz game of some sort when I was a kid where it was expected to trip you up. It went something like, who is the Monarch in Canada?, "The Queen", The Queen of where? "The British Queen", No, the Queen of Canada!

It was a simpler time. TastyCakes (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<-She's also the Duke of Lancaster. That's not a mistake. If she was a Duchess it would be because she's married to the Duke. She is married to a Duke, but he's not the Duke of Lancaster. Confused yet? --Dweller (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why this would be any different than "the President" to Americans. There are plenty of countries with a President but Americans don't go around referring to Obama as "the President of America". We simply say "the President". Or is there some subtle distinction that the OP was getting at that I'm not picking up on? Dismas|^(talk) 01:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In some American situations he's given his full title. Such as, when he enters the Congress to make the State of the Union address, he's introduced grandly to the members and senators as "The President of the United States of America" (as if some of them were expecting the President of Kazakhstan, perhaps?). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or the president of BP Googlemeister (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's in specific ceremonial times. I got a more relaxed "every day" use context from the OP's question. Dismas|^(talk) 09:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a distinction though - Obama could accurately be called "The President of the USA" because he's not also the president of anything else. Calling the Queen "The Queen of England" is about as meaningful as calling her "The Queen of the wardobe in the back bedroom of Apt.11b, 112 Evergreen Terrace, Worthing, Sussex"...which, I suppose she also is. SteveBaker (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well we don't insist on Calling Obama, President of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona... Wisconsin and Wyoming, so Queen of the United Kingdom sounds accurate. Googlemeister (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wha??? Obama is not the President of any state; nor is he the President of all the states. (Nor is he, for that matter, the President of Congress; nor of the courts; nor the Commander in Chief of anything but the federal armed forces; and so on.) He is the head of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, a position titled "President." The Federal Government is "The United States of America," but it is not any state nor all the states. 63.17.62.133 (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but I think the point was he is president in the country were Alabama etc. are located. So he is their president even if he is not president "of" them. You see? The Great Cucumber (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a common ignorance around the world about the difference between England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, all of which are rather different. This is exemplified by the surprise people exhibit when they see this flag being waved by England fans during the World Cup, rather than this one. --Dweller (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me about it, I had a friend of mine try and convince me that GB was the one that included NI, and the UK was a sole island. When shown he was wrong, he insisted they are actually interchangeable. It bugs me that people are happy to live in the UK all their life but not learn basic facts about it, and that it doesn't bug them. But I'm fighting a futile battle on both fronts I suspect. Prokhorovka (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's relevant to remember that 83% of the population of the UK live in England, and in total 97% live on the island of Great Britain. So, it is relatively understandable (though I'm not defending it) that the terms UK / (Great) Britain / England are confused even by some people living here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that's without getting into 'Britain' and 'British' without the 'great' being generic terms referring to the whole UK, not just the island of Great Britain. I've lost count of the Americans who have told me I am 'wrong' about this, even when I give them links to various UK government websites doing just that. Of course, the same people tend to tell me The Troubles are simple, so I don't know why I try to reason with them. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually attributed to Ed Murrow talking about Vietnam, but I've also heard it attributed to "a Belfast housewife in the height of The Troubles" - "Anyone who isn't confused doesn't really understand the situation". DuncanHill (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to why Americans 'say it wrong' a partial answer is that "Queen of The United Kingdom" doesn't really roll off the tongue and "The Queen" also feels wrong because it feels like it's implying either "the queen who has jurisdiction over us" or "the one, single, universal queen", both of which are wrong.

I feel secure that if I say "Queen of England" people will understand that I mean the current queen of the United Kingdom, and not some historical queen with jurisdiction specifically over the nation of England. APL (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nablus and Hebron

Which city is the largest city in the West Bank? Both are described as such by wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalieb2 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well this [1] says Hebron, and this [2] says Nablus, and neither is desperately authoritative. So to summarise, the first page of Google on 'Largest City in the West Bank' isn't that helpful. Prokhorovka (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source, which I have found to be quite reliable, the answer is that neither of these two is the largest city in the West Bank, based on the internationally accepted definition of the region. The internationally accepted definition of the West Bank (according to, among others, United Nations Security Council Resolution 478) is the area formerly held by Jordan and occupied by Israel in 1967. The largest city in that area as of 2007 would be East Jerusalem (Al-Quds), with 225,416 inhabitants, not including Israeli settlers. If you accept the Israeli definition of the region, which excludes East Jerusalem on account of Israel's annexation of that area, the West Bank's largest city is Hebron (Al-Khalīl), with 163,146 people. Nablus (Nābulus) has only 126,132 people. My source cites the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. Marco polo (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That UNSC resolution doesn't define what the West Bank is. It does affirm that Israel occupies those territories but does not say that they are one entity (it infers they are not), does not use any term for the eastern territories apart from the coastal ones or even use the term "West Bank" at all. Instead it uses the cumbersome phrase "Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem" which presumably includes all occupied areas, including Gaza and Jaffa. They are vague perhaps because of the legal existence of the Jerusalem corpus separatum, which the European Union, among others, recognizes, as that article notes. As the Positions on Jerusalem article says, the UN also seems to agree that the Jerusalem corpus separatum is still the legal entity, though it is obviously pursuing the division of the territory between Israel and Palestine. Although I think the West Bank would include Jerusalem in the everyday speech of most people that I know but presumably not the OP. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nablus is c. twice as populous as Hebron, according to our articles. But perhaps the problem is the word "largest" - does that mean in area or in population? Ambiguous terms will give ambiguous answers. --Dweller (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our own article on the West Bank defines East Jerusalem (i.e., the part of Jerusalem occupied by Israel in violation of UNSCR 478) as part of the West Bank. I think that most observers outside of Israel see East Jerusalem as part of the West Bank. Certainly the Palestinian people of the West Bank consider East Jerusalem part of the West Bank. As for the population statistics, as of now, our article on Nablus gives the population of the governorate centered in Nablus, whereas our article on Hebron gives the population of that locality, according to the statistical agency of the Palestinian Authority. The population of the locality of Nablus is in fact lower than that of Hebron, as I have stated above. Our article on Nablus, at the moment, is wrong to cite the population of the Nablus Governorate, since that administrative division includes many other towns and rural areas that are not part of the locality or urban area of Nablus itself. Therefore, I will correct the population cited in Nablus and qualify the statement in Hebron about being the largest settlement in the West Bank. Marco polo (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now made these corrections. Marco polo (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

incentive recovery by a indian company from a emplyoee

I was given incentive by a indian company during my work and after leaving the job and after 3 years the company has send me a letter of final settlement showing recovery of incentive paid to me as a foreign trip on acheiving the said targets, Why I should pay it?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.242.248 (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a request for legal advice perhaps? Googlemeister (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it. You should consult a legal professional, not a bunch of random internet users. Legal advice can have serious consequences if it's incorrect and someone acts on it. That is why Wikipedia does not permit us to offer it. Good luck. Ka renjc 20:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(This is not legal advice, just a question ...) Does it say in your contract that incentive payments can be recovered, or was there a document sent with the payment that set out the circumstances under which you were entitled to keep the payment? (You will need to take any such documents to your legal adviser.) Dbfirs 06:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

trademarks

Are name of films or video games trademark,or registered trademark,or not?Thanks:)Ladsgroup^بحث 19:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, usually. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks:)Ladsgroup^بحث 21:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you can look up United States trademarks by going here and clicking "Search Marks", and then selecting "New User Form Search (Basic)". For example, typing in "How to Train Your Dragon" into the database brings up two live trademarks and one dead. One of the live ones, registered to DreamWorks Animation, covers "COMPUTER GAME CARTRIDGES; COMPUTER GAME CASSETTES, AND COMPUTER GAME TAPES; VIDEO GAME CARTRIDGES, VIDEO GAME CASSETTES; PRERECORDED AUDIO CASSETTES FEATURING MOTION PICTURE SOUNDTRACKS; PRERECORDED VIDEO CASSETTES FEATURING ANIMATED MOTION PICTURES; PRERECORDED AUDIO TAPES FEATURING MOTION PICTURE SOUNDTRACKS; PRERECORDED VIDEO TAPES FEATURING ANIMATED MOTION PICTURES; PRERECORDED DVDS FEATURING ANIMATED MOTION PICTURES; PRERECORDED CDS FEATURING MUSIC AND MOTION PICTURE SOUND TRACKS; MULTIMEDIA SOFTWARE RECORDED ON CD ROM FEATURING MUSIC, MOTION PICTURE SOUNDTRACKS AND ANIMATED MOTION PICTURES; AND PRERECORDED DVDS FEATURING MUSIC AND MOTION PICTURE SOUND TRACKS; PRERECORDED COMPUTER SOFTWARE PROGRAMS RECORDED ON CD ROM FEATURING MUSIC AND MOTION PICTURE SOUND TRACKS; INTERACTIVE MULTIMEDIA SOFTWARE PROGRAMS RECORDED ON CD ROM CONTAINING MOTION PICTURES FOR ENTERTAINMENT; INTERACTIVE MULTI-MEDIA SOFTWARE RECORDED ON CD ROM FOR PLAYING GAMES; MAGNETS AND SUNGLASSES", among other things! --Mr.98 (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There can be state registered marks too though, so the US Trademark site is not comprehensive. Shadowjams (talk) 06:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, though for films and video games, the odds are they will be in the main USPTO site, as they are generally intended for at least interstate trade, if not international. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook question

Facebook has recently started suggesting people that I share no mutual friends whatsoever with as potential friends. I make it a rule never to request Facebook friendship with people I don't even know. Now my question is, why is Facebook doing this? I see three possible reasons:

Facebook is broken.
I do have mutual friends with the person but because of some bizarre privacy settings, I don't know I have.
Facebook is doing this on purpose to try to entice me to request Facebook friendship with the entire world.

Does anyone have any idea which of these, if any, is correct? JIP | Talk 21:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but it's done that with me for months... ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 21:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With me, too, and at least one of those persons was a somewhat well known musician, so I have been assuming it's a paid advertisement. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you share a group membership (or several) with them? Or went to the same school/university? --Tango (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It did this with me, and since I've used Facebook less than a dozen times in total, it was easy to trace the source; the person it was suggesting shared a name with another friend who I'd found by using the search - presumably, it memorised my search results (I may even have clicked on this profile to check to see if it was the person I was looking for). So, it could be because of a previous search, or simply because you've looked at a profile. Vimescarrot (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had it make suggestions for me with people who live in completely different parts of the state, but have similar interests. I found it a little disturbing that Facebook would do that. Falconus^{p t c} 17:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see they're members of the same groups as I am, or I've liked the page for that musician in the past and they have their own page - that sort of thing. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if that's true, then it's a bloody stupid idea. I'm not going to request Facebook friendship with someone I have never met and don't even know just because we both like the same band, film, or other such thing. It's just like expecting me to feel a personal, intimate connection with everyone who likes to eat food. JIP | Talk 21:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The worrying fact is that lots of people are not as careful as you are, and they do request and accept Facebook friendship with total strangers. This is especially worrying in the case of children or other vulnerable people. Dbfirs 12:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SOX 404 Requirements - USA

I am looking for guidance with regard to acquisitions and divestitures with regard to having to include them in the annual assessment.

I'm particularly interested in knowing about a material divestiture occuring in the 3rd quarter. Am I required to perfom ICFR procedures on the divestiture up to the time it is sold? Meaning, do I have to do anything with regard to testing controls specifically related to the unit to be sold? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montreal2010gainy (talk • contribs) 21:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say right away that you need to speak to your SOX expert, whether it's an accountant or lawyer, and that you shouldn't be following advice from random people on the Internet about matters that, if we're wrong, will screw you up. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that there are very few if any RD regulars who would even take on such a question, be they right or wrong. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking to be pointed to the guidance - can't find the regulations - nothing further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montreal2010gainy (talk • contribs) 12:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a site [3]that gives come information on Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance. And here is (OMG) "SOX for Dummies" [4]. Ooh, look, here's one specifically for 404, it's a huge pdf [5]. There now that should be a start. I'm not a random person giving advice, I'm a random person pointing to where you might find some advice. I mean this whole question is a bit like a brain surgeon coming along and saying "I've got this little dangly bit at the bottom, do I tuck it in or cut it off." It worries me that you are having to do this stuff and come asking how! Richard Avery (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The operative rule is Rule 13a-15 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. It won't tell you much. The SEC has provided interpretive guidance, and the PCAOB has issued Auditing Standard No. 5. But, essentially, you need the services of an experienced U.S. accountant. John M Baker (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]