Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 July 16

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.

July 16

Elephants doing...painting !

Watch this, folks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He7Ge7Sogrk. Someone please tell me its fake.... Jon Ascton  (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Depends on how you define "real". See Elephant_intelligence#Art. There are some issues at play here. The major one in this video's case is likely that the elephant has been specifically trained to produce that exact picture. Elephants are very trainable, and quite adept at using their trunks for fine work, so it isn't inconceivable that an elephant can be trained to reproduce a specific set of strokes on a paper. That doesn't mean that the elephant is creatively painting, merely that it is capable of being trained to perform a set of very specific motions with its trunk. --Jayron32 05:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I know that, there's no way an elephant can have "creativity" for that needs highly developed brain that only humans have, (even apes don't). But even if the elephant is doing that on its own even without having a slightest hint of what (s)he's doing, even that's wonderful !

Well, they are known for their intelligence and good memory, and they've been trained to do all sorts of things for humans for centuries, if not millennia. (including gruesome tasks). Anyway, this FAQ may answer some of your questions. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that one can say that elephants and apes don't have "creativity". --Mr.98 (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Animals actually do have a fair amount of creativity, when driven by necessity (that being the mother of invention). They just don't sit around thinking about creating works of art, as finding food and not getting killed are usually much higher priorities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks real as hell, but seeing is no longer believing. I am not pronouncing it a fake, just saying that fakery cannot be ruled out on the basis of how real the video looks. Commercials today commonly show babies and animals doing amazing things that they did not do. Amazing things can be done with computer graphics, and the elephant painting the nice picture of an elephant holding a flower could have been faked with today's technology. Before computer graphics, ita film almost as impressive could have been faked with a long actual shot of an elephant walking into the scene holding a box with the paints and an actual shot of the elephant holding a brush and moving it toward the canvas. Then a fake elephant trunk holding a brush would have been manipulated by a human arm inside a fake elephant trunk, holding the brush and doing the drawing. Some flexible movements of the trunk could have been done by other humans manipulating mechanical, hydraulic or electronic controls to cause some realistic movement of the trunk and its tip which held the brush. Old movies commonly showed dogs or horses doing fake activities, but they did not look as convincing. An alternative way to fake an elephant painting a picture would be to have a real elephant hold a brush while the movements are controlled by a human moving a large unseen bow or frame which has an unseen thin wire attached to the brush, to control the brush movement. But things which argue for it not being done by pre-computer graphics camera trickery are that the camera zooms back periodically to show more of the elephant than just the end of the trunk, and showing that there is no space near the canvas for the hypothetical wire control frame or huuman operator thereof. If an animal could see a spot of light the camera did not pick up, such as a laser pointer, it could be trained to follow the spot with the brush. But that does not seem likely. There could be some faint lines on the canvas which the elephant, but not the camera, sees, so he just "follows the dots." The brush dos not seem to be controlled by a magnet behind the canvas, since the camera zooms out and shows the area behind the canvas. Today the entire footage of the trunk painting the picture could probably have been done by computer graphics and spliced into the scene of the elephant doing a typical sloppy painting. There are many slightly different versions of the painting in question, for sale for $700 each, so there is a monetary incentive for someone to create an interest in the elephants and the paintings. In Animal training, Operant conditioning, with shaping and chaining can get animals with far smaller brains and far less manipulative agility to do amazing sequences of skilled behaviors, so it is possible the trainer taught the elephant to produce a given painting over and over. For what it's worth, it is far more accurate representational art than anything the human cave painters produced thousands of years ago. I see no basis for assuming that the painting is the creative product of the elephant alone and represents the world as the elephant sees it. The elephant is just repeating a learned behavior over and over with little variation. In a carnival, a chicken in a coin operated machine who dances or plays a piano is not expressing its inner musicality. Edison (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If all the paintings are really almost exactly the same, then your laser pointer thing is probably the best way of thinking of it. Big deal, an elephant follows a laser pointer with its trunk. Big deal, after doing it 10,000 it can do it without the laser pointer. Biggest tip-off that this is what happened: after starting heavily/boldly, its first stroke runs out of paint very fast, but it doesn't stop for more paint! 92.229.14.179 (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Snopes claims it's for real, albeit a product of very exacting training.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Named defendant

Nitke v. Gonzales says: "Alberto Gonzalez was the Attorney General of the United States at the time, making him the named defendant in this case" What is the difference between "named defendant" and just plain "defendant"? Why are defendants, in US caselaw, named after the name of the natural person holding a public office, and not according to the name of the legal person in which this official serves, or the description of this office (e.g. Nitke v. Attorney General of the US, Nitke v. US, or Nitke v. US Congress because the US Congress is the author of the disputed act)? Apokrif (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Because the federal government and its officers are immune from law suits. However, under Ex parte Young's "stripping doctrine", you can sue an individual in the government when they are acting unconstitutionally. Same goes for state governments. --Sean 18:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

To answer your first question ... a lawsuit may have several defendants. As a hypothetical example, let's say that a lawsuit has five defendants. The "official" name of the lawsuit filed in court would be "John Smith versus Person A and Person B and Person C and Person D and Person E". But, for convenience, the lawsuit would be referred to as "Smith versus Person A". Thus, Person A is the named defendant; Persons B, C, D, and E are just "plain" defendants (as you say). Also, as to your other question, Sean is correct. The plaintiff is suing the individual (Alberto Gonzalez, in your example). The plaintiff is not suing the office itself (which isn't even a human being), but rather the holder of that office (Gonzalez) who did something illegal or unconstitutional while in office. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC))

Yet again, the answers to a legal question on this desk are just stuff the responders pulled out of their butts. Why is it that when the subject is THE LAW, RD writers think they can simply MAKE STUFF UP? No, the naming of an official as a defendant does not indicate anything about immunity, about "acting unconstitutionally," about the fact that the office "isn't even a human being," or about whether an official "did something illegal or unconstitutional." STOP MAKING THINGS UP WHEN THE QUESTION IS A LEGAL ONE. First, the government CAN be sued. Second, governments CAN be named as defendants. Third, the fact that an "official" individual is named does NOT mean that the individual is personally accused of doing anything wrong or that the individual is liable for damages, though he/she MIGHT be (more often than not, this isn't the case). Fourth, the naming of Gonzalez in the suit has NOTHING to do with Ex Parte Young (do you REALLY think Alberto Gonzalez is being PERSONALLY SUED by someone running a sex website?). Here's a clue (and much more could be said, from other angles), from a supreme court case: "[An official capacity suit] is not a suit against the official personally, for the real party in interest is the entity. Thus, while an award of damages against an official in his personal capacity can be executed only against the official's personal assets, a plaintiff seeking to recover on a damages judgment in an official-capacity suit must look to the government entity itself. On the merits, to establish personal liability in a § 1983 action, it is enough to show that the official, acting under color of state law, caused the deprivation of a federal right. More is required in an official-capacity action, however, for a governmental entity is liable under § 1983 only when the entity itself is a "moving force" behind the deprivation; thus, in an official-capacity suit the entity's "policy or custom" must have played a part in the violation of federal law. When it comes to defenses in liability, an official in a personal-capacity action may, depending on his position, be able to assert personal immunity defenses, such as objectively reasonable reliance on existing law. In an official-capacity action, these defenses are unavailable. The only immunities that can be claimed in an official-capacity action are forms of sovereign immunity that the entity, qua entity, may possess, such as the Eleventh Amendment. While not exhaustive, this list illustrates the basic distinction between personal- and official-capacity actions." STOP MAKING THINGS UP WHEN THE SUBJECT IS LAW. 63.17.58.227 (talk) 06:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, 63, you are acting very high and mighty here. Yet, I notice that you did not answer the OP's questions at all. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC))

Like real reference librarians, volunteers here do not know all things on all topics. We look things up and answer as best we can, in good faith. Needless to say, we are at times incorrect. I will happily strike out my answer if it's shown to be incorrect. Unfortunately, your screeching wall of text did not answer the question. Further, your unsupported assertion that I pulled my answer from betwixt my buttocks seems itself to have that origin, as the phrase Ex parte Young was not even in my colorectal phrasebook prior to this question. In short, and in your favored typography: ANSWER QUESTIONS; DON'T BE RUDE. --Sean 13:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Bravo, Sean! Well said! (64.252.34.115 (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC))

what are the arguments for and against Israel's right to exist?

I heard that Israel says countries like Iran don't acknowledge its right to exist. So, obviously, that means that in Israel's opinion it is possible for someone to acknowledge or to not acknowledge its right to exist. I have two questions: what does the second alternative mean, practically? For example, if someone in my extended network were to not acknowledge my right to exist, that doesn't mean anything at me. I am giving a blank stare in this case, trying to imagine what it means that I've just been told "Fred over in accounting doesn't acknowledge your right to exist": I have no idea what that sentence means, if I imagine hearing it, I am just giving a dumbfounded look like someone were reading me Chaucer. So, I have no idea what that means, and would like firstly to have it explained to me, and please do so in a way so that I can draw an analogy and understand what it means if Fred over in Accounting doesn't "acknowledge my right to exist". The best I can do is that Fred must be a hack of an existential philosopher, and probably his next statement will be one about having personally turned into an insect or something. Obviously Israel means something different. Secondly, since we've established that everyone has a choice, and either does or doesn't acknowledge Israel's right to exist. So, in this case, what are the arguments for and against each position? (though it will have to be based on what your answer is to my first question, since I don't understand the second one.) 84.153.219.234 (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You might find that you do care, if Fred also said, "Therefore I am going to destroy the editor soon-to-be-formerly known as 84.153.219.234." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Afterwards, I would not say: "That Fred! He doesn't even acknowledge my right to exist!" I would say: "Fred is threatening to murder me." I can't imagine, as hard as I try, using the former phrasing, it seems totally inappropriate. So, why does Israel say Iran "doesn't acknowledge its right to exist"??? Your proposed answer (because it is followed by threats to murder them) make it even more absurd to refer to the weaker statement instead of the strong murder threat! There must be an alternative explanation. 84.153.222.109 (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Iran supports the "murder" of Israel. Israel's comment about "right to exist" is simply understating the situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

All right, let's run with that. It's interesting that Israel would understate it - what are its reasons for doing so? For example, the United States never understated the Soviet threat during the Cold War, and as for the Iraq threat, specifically enlarged it. Maybe I don't know enough about other precedents, but I would like to. Can anyone explain why they mention this stuff in understated terms? 92.229.14.179 (talk) 07:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

See Zionism and Anti-Zionism. Iran claims that Israel's founding was illegal and, therefore, Israel does not have the right to exist as a separate country with a separate government and separate set of laws from Palestine. Most people label this as anti-Semitism, but technically it is a political stance, not a racial or religious stance. -- kainaw™ 15:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Please remember, the Reference Desk simply answers questions. It is not a discussion forum.Wetman (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, no discussion of specific, notoriously inflammatory, question welcome here, but a pointer or two may suffice. On OP's first question: the philosophical or existential questioning of the existence of a person is far different from the political questioning of the existence of a state. Questioning the existence, or rather the right to existence, of a nation state generally results from negative evaluations of the political legitimacy of its claims to sovereignty. On OP's second question: Relatively dispassionate sampling of pro and con positions on those issues vis-a-vis Israel may be seen at the studiously neutral ProCon.org at Does Israel have a right to exist? -- Paulscrawl (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I will read through your links to my second question. As for your answer to my first question: If I interpret it correctly you are saying that when Israel says "They don't acknowledge our right to exist", they mean "They don't acknowledge our right to exist [as a sovereign Nation]". But isn't this strictly equivalent to saying: "they don't acknowledge that we exist as a nation and they don't think we have the right to become one". Am I correct in saying that your interpretation, Paulscrawl, for my first question, is that my last sentence is exactly what Israel means by their words about acknowledging the right to exist?

I'm certainly not privy to what Israel, or its spokespersons, mean exactly. But several of those cited on the Con side, in the link above, explicitly challenge Israel's "right to exist." -- Paulscrawl (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

When they explicitly challenge Israel's "right to exist", does it mean they are explicitly questioning tnat it does exist? Or, are they saying, it does exist, but we want it to stop existing? 92.229.14.255 (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm also not privy to the exact meaning of various critics of Israel when they variously question Israel's right to exist. You would have to ask each individual precisely what they meant. However, in general, questioning the right to exist of a sovereign state is like questioning the right to exist of any other legal person, as a sovereign state is certainly a legal person -- the denial of a legal person's right to exist is generally, in this narrow legal sense, a denial of the supposed legal person's existence. Much more in the links above. I'm done here: suggest carefully reading the articles I've cited (see also links below in follow-up question) for more insight. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Another case of one country not acknowledging another's existence is found in Political status of Taiwan, which is a pretty good article. (PS: The related Legal status of Taiwan is actually probably more relevant to the original question.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe in theory - but has mainland China threatened anihilation of Taiwan recently? I rather doubt it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia article on one book in the Opposing Viewpoints series, widely used in American high school and college debate programs, includes hyperlinks to freely available source articles on pro and con answers to three versions of ch. 1 question: "should Israel exist?" -- see WP article on book, Israel: Opposing Viewpoints. Some broken links most likely easily fixed with a little digging. Check your public library: if not available in stacks, very likely that library subscribes to online version of the series -- if not, try interlibrary loan. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

follow-up question

what does it mean for a nation to "exist"? For example, I think that at some point in the civil war, the south had some diplomatic acknowledgment from at least certain european powers. So, to them, did it exist as a nation, whereas to others, it did not? If I personally were able to bribe enough people in the UN's 196 countries (or however many) into acknowleding me as a sovereign nation in the territory of my personal body, would I instantly begin to "exist" as a nation of 1? Or, to give another example, would the nation of Sealand, which doesn't exist, suddenly exist if all nations acknowledged it? What about all but one? Two thirds? It seems to me that this statement doesn't really mean anything at all... 84.153.222.109 (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sovereign existence is not a simple matter of voting, nor of any simple legal criterion, but is determined by a complex of legal criteria and practical considerations going back to 1648 at least. In your first example, such a simple recognition criterion would make the C.S.A. -- and the U.S.A. for that matter -- non-existent until the dates, long after their constitutional formation, that they achieved diplomatic recognition by some unspecified quorum of foreign powers. No such constitutive standard of sovereignty exists in practice. The dominant declarative theory of statehood explicitly does not require recognition by other states, but rather requires the existence of certain structural features of a sovereign state, such as, in one version, a permanent population, control of a specific occupied territory, a government, and at least the capability of entering into relations with other states. See Montevideo Convention for that, and opinion 1 of the Badinter Arbitration Committee, which drops the last criterion and neatly sums up long-existing practice of international law: "the state is commonly defined as a community which consists of a territory and a population subject to an organized political authority; that such a state is characterized by sovereignty" and that "the effects of recognition by other states are purely declaratory." Law aside, when in doubt, the capacity to wage a successful war against doubters generally fulfills these criteria to the more-or-less general satisfaction of those most concerned. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Israel

Why does America support Israel, when Israel is a fundamentally religious government? Wouldn't actively endorsing a religiously-based group violate the separation of church and state? --138.110.206.101 (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

For the answer, you must eliminate from your phrasing the words "America" and "support". Instead of "America", mention the specific people (by name) who you mean. Instead of "support", mention what they do. Then you will have your answer. 92.229.14.255 (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

One reason that is often given to answer this question (which is asked quite a bit) is that they are an ally in an area where the US doesn't have very many friends. Dismas|^(talk) 21:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

But doesn't separation of church and state prohibit the United States Federal Government from endorsing an inherently religious organization? --138.110.206.101 (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Israel is not a theocracy any more than the U.S. or Ireland is a theocracy because their governments are strongly influenced by religious lobbies. Israel has a president and a prime minister, not a high priest. Incidentally, it's not against the law for the U.S. government to fund a religious organization's secular activities, and it does so all the time. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Israel is not a fundamentally religious government. It recognizes numerous religions, has freedom of worship protections, and grants citizenship regardless of religion. There are Muslims and Christians in government positions, as well. The only "state religion" aspect is that it gives preferential treatment to all people of Jewish ancestry who want to emigrate (Law of Return), but even this is pretty wishy-washy when it comes down to defining what it means to be a "Jew" in this context. In any case, the state of Israel is sufficiently secular in its operations that it would certainly not run afoul of the Establishment clause, which I'm not sure can apply to foreign relations anyway, Constitutionally speaking. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

But Israel is a Jewish state, founded specifically for Jews; non-Jews are treated as second-class citizens. Therefore, it is a theocracy. --138.110.206.102 (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Refer to explanations in an earlier query on Marriage in Israel, above that includes links to Wikipedia pages you can read about the difference between the Jewish People and their historical religion Judaism, the basic definition of Zionism being a homeland for the Jewish people. Israel's Declaration of Independence assures freedom of religion for minorities. Israel doesn't have a Constitution or Bill of Rights, but it's a country, not an American "organization" obliged to obey the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights. I suggest you also consider the many foreign countries that differ from the United States in similar and even more fundamental ways, yet enjoy diplomatic ties with America and even receive its foreign aid and military troops. -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're incorrect -- a theocracy is where religious law enforcers or religious leaders have overriding authority over all other groups in society, so that the interpretation of religious texts by a small ruling clique is given far higher priority than anything resembling real democracy. Several countries in Europe have established state-recognized churches (including the Church of England), but they're not "theocracies". Furthermore, the Israeli Labor Party / Haganah grouping which played the strongest role in founding Israel included a number of people whose religious beliefs were fairly weak, and as a whole they were most definitely NOT motivated by Jewish religious fundamentalism (19th-century style European "Romantic" nationalism is more like it). AnonMoos (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The American policy -- not constitutionally mandated requirement, but mere policy -- of the separation of church and state is wholly domestic. The US retains diplomatic relations with the Vatican, for example. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Did Men Carry Pitchers of Water in Israel?

Did men carry pitchers of water in ancient Israel? Is it common or is it unheard of for men to do this job in those days? 192.75.118.46 (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I am guessing this question is related to biblical times? From the look of both the Old and New Testament, it could look as if this was mainly a woman's chore. But it would probably not be unlikely that young boys or male slaves would be found to carry it out as well. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As usual if they found themselves to be in a male only beduin train any such gender roles would be null and void and men would carry them out just the same (this is from personal experience of Arabic beduins, which would probably equate to the early nomadic period of Israel). --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The Bible mentions at least one instance. (http://multilingualbible.com/mark/14-13.htm, http://multilingualbible.com/mark/14-16.htm; http://multilingualbible.com/luke/22-10.htm, http://multilingualbible.com/luke/22-13.htm) —Wavelength (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

[Incidentally, the name of Aquarius (constellation) appears to mean "male water-bearer".—Wavelength (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)]

At the Wedding-feast at Cana, the water-pitchers were very large and would, no doubt, be filled be men. {John 2: 1-12}. Also, at the bidding of Elijah in 1 Kings 18: 33-37 was performed by men as the quantity was so large and the distance to water source was so long. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Puerto Rican flags in Bridgeport

I am currently killing a few hours in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Why are there Puerto Rican flags everywhere? The Hero of This Nation (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A lot of Puerto Ricans live there. I guess those are their flags. There was a Puerto Rican heritage day parade on July 11 (http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Parade-demonstrates-Puerto-Rican-heritage-pride-573228.php), maybe you're seeing some decorations that are left over. Staecker (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Help with what may be a potential scam.

I have just received a call from a staffing agency named "Straight Staffing Solutions" that has gotten me very suspicious. After asking me What kind of work I was looking for they said my old company, UPS, was interested in hiring me. That was the first red flag. I have never heard of UPS hiring through any staffing agencies, and when I applied before I was rejected because I've already worked there (apparently a UPS policy is not to rehire previous employees). I remained cautiously optimistic and said nothing about this, and she tells me about how I'll have to undergo a background check and a drug screening - the latter being something I didn't have to do the last time I worked at UPS (to my recollection).

The last thing she asked was for my date of birth and social security number, and that immediately raised multiple red flags. I told her politely that I wouldn't do that over the phone and she said that was alright, and we finished the call.

She sent me a lot of paperwork that she says I have to get done in order to be considered for the position and that she can get me to work starting next week (don't background checks take at least a week?). The e-mail has a link to their site: (www-dot-straightstaffing-dot-com), which is so rudimentary it is laughable, and makes me believe even MORE that this is a ruse.

However, I'd like to make SURE, 100%. Because I desperately need a job (the very hook the con artists use, I know) and if this is legit I'd like to continue with it. Otherwise, I'd like to shoot them down with confidence knowing their true nature.

Thanks again. Chris16447 (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right that it is a ruse. What I would do is contact UPS HR and tell them you were contacted by these people and give them all the laughable people's contact information, and ask them whether they are indeed utilizing this group. If I were the UPS HR person I'd jump right on that for bad-press reasons. While you're at it, you could mention that you'd prefer to work directly with UPS HR to get a job, but you're under the impression that UPS doesn't re-hire employees, and is that true? Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The 'president' apperas on linked-in (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jody-straight/5/971/42) but to be honest it does look a bit dubious. Their company address doesn't look like a business park (though obviously home-run businesses do exist) - http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=16111+Carlow+Cir,+Manhattan,+IL+60442&fb=1&gl=uk&hnear=York&cid=0,0,12533852484723720141&ei=KY9ATLmTGtjPjAfwsJQH&sa=X&oi=local_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQnwIwAA (address taken from http://www.yelp.com/biz/straight-staffing-solutions-inc-manhattan). On this website the address is different (http://www.allbusiness.com/companyprofile/Straight_Staffing_Solutions_Inc/055CEADB464C4D649A17AC170E90CA47-1.html) but still resolves to a non-business looking property. It's hard to say - certainly doesn't inspire confidence! ny156uk (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

DEFINITELY contact UPS HR and ask about this. There's a good chance they already know about it, but in case they don't, you'll be a hero. (That doesn't mean they'll rehire you, though.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Bunzlau / Boleslawiec Household Pottery

This is a suggestion for the managers and staff of the English edition.

Boleslawiec Pottery (Polish) also known as Bunzlau Pottery (German), which is very high grade kitchen ware, which has been around for 300+ years, and is now sold in yuppy stores, is now very popular in the United States, but nothing is written on it in English Wikipedia.

However, there is a great article on it in the German Wikipedia http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunzlauer_Keramik

To make the English Wikipedia as complete as possible, it might be nice to ask the German authors, or someone who can translate German-to-English to translate and post the German article in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.0.21.250 (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

There are no 'managers and staff', there are only volunteer editors. Thank you for your suggestion: please take it to Wikipedia:Translation. --ColinFine (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I notice advert and npov concerns on the talk page of the German article and that that article makes no mention of the U.S. (where it "is now very popular") 75.41.110.200 (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)