Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Sprache
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

October 3

Mombasa History

I'm currently working on the Mombasa article, and have not been able to find good history and culture resources by which to find and verify information. Does anybody have some recommendations with regard to sources? I'd also appreciate some "keywords" which I could use to search online, and get started. Thanks everybody! Van Gulik (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I was going to point you to the history on the official city website, but then realized it is identical to Wikipedia's text. [1]. How about these books instead: Lonely Planet guide, Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century African History, Kenya: A History Since Independence, Kenya: Identity of a Nation. And for some really old stuff (I don't know whether this counts as primary sources or not), Universal history, ancient and modern: from the earliest records of time, to the general peace of 1802, A general history and collection of voyages and travels (1812), Through Masai land (1887). All of these have at least a section on the "history of Mombasa" (which was all I googled; I just used books instead of regular web search). Taknaran (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Much obliged. Thank you, these look like good resources.Van Gulik (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Muslim nations mizrahi and sephardi jews

Which Muslim nations formerly had Jewish population that they are called as Sephardi Jews in Israel? Which Muslim nations formerly had Jewish population that they are called as Mizrahi Jews in Israel?--70.29.32.229 (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa

See Mizrahi Jews for the answer. Specifically, the opening paragraph (bold is mine):

Mizrahi Jews or Mizrahim (Hebrew: מזרחים‎), also referred to as Adot HaMizrach (עֲדוֹת-הַמִּזְרָח) (Communities of the East; Mizrahi Hebrew: ʿAdot(h) Ha(m)Mizraḥ), are Jews descended from the Jewish communities of the Middle East, North Africa and the Caucasus. The term Mizrahi is used in Israel in the language of politics, media and some social scientists for Jews from mostly Arab-ruled geographies and adjacent, primarily Muslim-majority countries. This includes Jews from Iraq, Syria, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen, Azerbaijan, Iran/Persia, Afghanistan, India, Uzbekistan, Kurdish areas, Northern and Eastern Sudan, as well as Ethiopia, and within and nearby Israel. Sometimes, Sephardi Jews such as Jews from Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya or Turkey are erroneously grouped into the Mizrahi category for some historical reasons.

Hope it helps. --Jethro B 01:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes Jews descended from ca. 1492 emigrants from Spain and/or who spoke Ladino are described as "Sephardi", while Jews who are neither Central-European influenced (Ashkenazi) nor Spanish influenced are called "Mizrachi". However, sometimes the distinction between Sephardi and Mizrachi is ignored. Yemen had a large Jewish community without any meaningful Spanish influences... AnonMoos (talk) 08:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Mizrahi and sephardi jews languages

Besides Hebrew, Arabic and Persian, what other languages do Mizrahi Jews speak? Other than Arabic, Hebrew and Turkish, what other languages do Sephardi Jews speak? --65.95.106.38 (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa

Sephardi Jews also speak Spanish. 83.49.195.42 (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Our articles on Mizrahi Jews and Sephardi Jews have sections on the respective languages spoken. You may want to use the search box (top right) to locate similar entries in the WP. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The question is a bit vague. People can speak any language that they learn. I'm sure there are plenty of Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews who speak sign langugage, having learned it in their life. There isn't anything that prevents people from learning a langugage. If you're asking about the traditional languages spoken, it depends on a degree which country they're from. If they're from Morocco or Italy, many will speak Italian. If they're from Syria or Egypt or Iraq, many will speak Arabic. If they're from Spain, many will speak Spanish. etc --Jethro B 20:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

See Ladino. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much by definition, Sephardi Jews are those whose ancestors spoke Ladino... AnonMoos (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I am glad we agree for once. μηδείς (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Jews in Bangladesh

Which city of Bangladesh have historically had Jewish population? Someone told me it was Rajshahi but I didn't believe it. --70.29.32.229 (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.32.229 (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Typing "Jewish people in Bangladesh" into Google (you should try this sometime. Type exactly the question you want answered there first. It's a wealth of good information) turns up this article which states that there are between 175-3500 Jewish people in Bangladesh, depending on who you ask. At either end of that spectrum, that's a fairly tiny number. The article notes that many Jewish people in Bangladesh disguise their faith as they fear social retribution, so teasing out where most live may be difficult to do. --Jayron32 03:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

A good answer, but I believe the OP was referring to a few decades ago, when Bangladesh had a larger Jewish population. I could be wrong, but that's what I got from the OP writing "historically." I don't know the answer to that though. --Jethro B 03:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah. In which case, a google search on History of judaism in bangladesh turns up some interesting stuff. Just this year, a former Jewish-Bangladeshi military officer was honored as a liberator of the country: [2]. Another source which looks promising to answer the OP's historical question is this one. --Jayron32 03:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

What Wikipedia has seems to be at Baghdadi Jews... AnonMoos (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Baghdad isn't in Bangladesh, though! Bangladeshi Jews is a redlink. --Tango (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

If you had looked at the article, "Baghdadi Jews" is a term for Jews who migrated from Baghdad at some point, apparently including a substantial fraction of former Bangladeshi Jews. In India, Baghdadi Jews are contrasted with Cochin Jews etc. AnonMoos (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Republic of Georgia building

What is the building at 3:09 of this video? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The maker of the video wrote in the comments, "That is from Batumi city at the Black Sea shore." --Jethro B 03:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but they didn't know what the building was. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this the building you mean: [3] ? Unfortunately, the only caption I see is "Divlek C. at Batumi City, Added June 19, 2012", which I take to be the name of the photographer. Here's the site where I found it: [4]. You might want to contact the blogger. StuRat (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It's the Batumi Justice House. They are apparently dancing on the roof.--Cam (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Seriously??? That's their justice house!! It's amazing... --Jethro B 23:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Notorious lawyer known for defending war criminals, drug lords, terrorists, etc..

Not Giovanni Di Stefano or Jacques Vergès. It's Ludwig, Ludger something (I'm pretty confident on the "L") and he has a von or van attached to his name, but it was added for cosmetic reasons. He might have died recently. Eisenikov (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Edward von Kloberg III Found it by searching for "added "von" to his name" surprisingly it's a common practice. Eisenikov (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

According to the article, he was a lobbyist, not a lawyer. Rmhermen (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure "notorious" is really the right description? Everyone, even suspected drug bosses and terrorists have a right to be defended properly. Alansplodge (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

"Notorious" simply means famous. It carries no negative denotation whatsoever. A8875 (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Not according to wiktionary (and two others I checked):"Widely known, especially for something bad; infamous." [5]. Interestingly, you would be right, if we were speaking medieval Latin :) SemanticMantis (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Not according to 50 years of my usage - "notorious" has a strongly negative connotation; if you just mean "famous", say "famous"! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Notorious sounds rather negative to me. My point is that a perfectly respectable lawyer has a duty to defend their clients to the best of their ability, no matter how odious the crimes that they are charged with. If they (the lawyer) fail to do that, then the whole adversarial system is flawed. Alansplodge (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

A peculiarity of English, as "notorious" acquired negative connotations a few centuries ago,[6] while "notoriety" is pretty much neutral.[7] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'd query that last statement – [8], [9]. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Red, yellow, and green lights on the UN General Assembly podium

On the UN General Assembly podium there is a set of red, yellow, and green lights[10]. Is there an official statement from UN indicating its purpose? Most commentators assume it's a speech timer, but there are many flaws in that theory:

1. Contrary to the commonly used green, yellow, red, flashing red sequence[11], the UN one goes from green to flashing red[12] directly. The yellow blub is never used as far as I can tell.
2. In the above video the speaker goes on for 18 more minutes after the red light starts flashing. He essentially used more than double of his allotted time.
3. The light is not used at all for some speakers[13].
4. Speech timers are generally not visible to the audience, since it can be distracting. (Hence the question. During a boring speech all I can focus on is the blinking light.)

I'm looking for official UN documents describing the purpose of these indicator lights, or barring that, an authoritative source that describe it as a speech timer.A8875 (talk) 07:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I found some references to the light system (the link goes to one example of a search, I tried others too with other results). Sometimes the "orange" light is referred to and sometimes not. The time limits seem to vary by event.--Cam (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Thank you very much.A8875 (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I am glad this was answered, because all I could think of was, you will find out next time The Master leads a Sontaran invasion fleet. μηδείς (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Dates of LaSalle's 1st (Ohio River) expedition

La Salle Expeditions I have done extensive searching for dates or even "three weeks later" and such of any of his 1669 voyage south of Western New York (specifically on the Allegheny River and upper Ohio River. I have searched all the links and references on the wiki articles for any specific dates south of western New York and even found this but alas no dates or time references. Anyone have a document or journal link to the complete journey? Marketdiamond (talk) 08:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen this? Starting at "In what regions" the author discusses the problem, including chronology issues and sources. He seems to conclude that there is no reliable evidence that La Salle explored the Ohio at that time. --Cam (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that link! However from what I see it mostly centers on years after 1670 (1681 etc.) how far he went on the Ohio and that he didn't really discover what we now know as the Mississippi until later. I get the point though, La Salle may have been a hoaxster, for balance (and with a grain of salt) is there any similar source that by date allows for LaSalle's perspective (daily journal etc.) something that may key in the exact date he reached modern day Louisville (the falls as he calls them) and also Pittsburgh specifically in 1669-70? Thanks and that was a great read learned a lot but now I have more questions than answers now lol. Marketdiamond (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I found another skeptic here with more details. Basically there is no firsthand information by La Salle or any co-travelers about the first expedition; all we have is general secondhand info that La Salle discovered the Ohio and traveled to falls on the river, which, later readers guessed, referred to the Louisville rapids. There are no journals, and according to the skeptics it's because the first expedition never happened, at least not beyond the area near the western shores of Lake Ontario.--Cam (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

US presidential TV-debates

Good day all together. I am very interested in watching the TV-debates between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. I would like to watch them live but that's impossible because I live in Germany. So the debates take place in the middle of the night, therefore I have to watch it the next day. Does anyone know where I can watch them immedialtely? I doubt that someone will have uploaded it at youtube the same say. Perhaps CNN or CBS? Thanks in advance for the answers. --Jerchel (talk) 08:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

C-SPAN will live stream it here[14].A8875 (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

C-span will probably have videos online afterwards. There will also be transcripts, which are much faster to read than actually watching the videos. It might be worth watching a minute or two of video to get a look at the candidates, but watching the whole thing is in my experience a big waste of time. You get the info much faster from the transcripts. 67.117.130.72 (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Paramilitary education institutes in US

Hello guys! I tried to search here and on other wikis to find a list of paramilitary education institutes in US but I could not find. Could you give me a list? - Prücsök (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The really depends on how you define "paramilitary education institutes". If you're looking for places that will teach you how to shoot a gun, most ranges will offer that. If you're looking for PMC type companies that will offer the whole training package, then take a look at Category:Security_consulting_firms and Category:Private_military_contractors.A8875 (talk) 09:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean something like a List of United States military schools and academies? 67.117.130.72 (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This is what I though to. Thank you so much! - Prücsök (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Maria Francisca of Portugal

Infanta Maria Francisca of Portugal's article says "A crowd of several thousand were known to have visited the village to pay their respects as her body lay at the rectory awaiting burial at the Royal Pantheon of the Braganza Dynasty...Although initially interred in Gosport Catholic Church, Maria Francisca's remains were later transferred to Trieste Cathedral in Italy, next to those of her husband and children." Where exactly was she buried? How could she be transferred from the prestigious Braganza tombs to a church in Gosport, England, then to a Church in Italy? Was she ever buried in the Braganza tombs?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• She was never buried in "the prestigious Braganza tombs". She was interred in Gosport, then her "remains were transferred to Trieste Cathedral in Italy, next to those of her husband and children". --Ghirla^-трёп- 05:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Which part of the paperclip product chain is, on average, the most profitable?

On average, when normalized to a per-paperclip figure, which has the highest profit margin, paperclip manufacturers who spend money on machines (amortized over life of machine, and maintenance), materials, and energy to actually make them and then sell them to wholesalers (or directly to retailers), paperclip wholesalers who spend money to buy them from manufacturers and then sell them to retailers, or retailers who spend money to get them and then sell them to customers? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

For low-priced items like this, the retailer typically makes the most profit. This is because the average customer is not going to do Internet research and compare prices at several stores before making a purchase, unlike, say, with a car. So, the retailer could sell them at a 100% markup, while, with a car dealership, this would be quite difficult. Both retailers do have the resources to compare manufacturers and choose the cheapest product. StuRat (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Shadowjams (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Why does your signature require a citation? μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Either because he likes it that way, OR he's commenting on the edit just above while not modifying it.[15] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I agree Stu. Yeah high-street retailer don't have to worry so much about product comparison on low price Items, but I imagine high street sales is a very low fraction of the total compared to the amount made from bulk sales to large businesses and offices, and if you're buying 50 million of the things, I'd bet you would want to shop around--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean to include an exception for large businesses, although many of them buy from wholesalers. And small businesses, like the corner bakery, are just as likely to buy the first box of paperclips they see at the local retailer as individual customers are. BTW, what does "high-street" mean here ? StuRat (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The low street is down by the docks where the working class lives and works. The high street is up the hill and out of the pollution and grime, where the nicer houses are. Shops on the high street are cleaner, have higher-quality merchandise with staff who don't spit tobacco juice on the floor, and charge more money, not least to keep the rabble away. If you are going to the high street to shop, you don't care about the price or at least are willing to pay more. In modern times, the stationery store near higher-end offices (lawyers, architects, etc.) would tend to be pricier than one in a commercial strip mall. Franamax (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, high street is Brit-speak for everyday retail sales, referring to shops in town centres. Rojomoke (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Rojo gets the points, I was simply referring to the idea of going to a shop for small amounts as opposed to going to suppliers for bulk amounts, with bulk amounts being where the majority of money will be coming from--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Stu is basically right, the retailers make the most profits when they make them, but they also engage in the highest risk, while manufacturers make a small but more dependable margin. This is basic economics, but I haven't been able to find an article that addresses it directly. μηδείς (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the OP is being led up the garden path by the simple and speculative answers above. So, first things first: I don't think any of us have ready access the the data we would need to answer the question. Not least, here will be a great deal of variation in profits made across different sectors of the paperclip supply chain, between different actors in each sector, and across different timescales for consideration of profit, such that there is no hard-and-fast answer. We can hypothesise that each link in the chain - manufacturer, wholesaler and retailer - in general cover their costs and make a profit. That means that each manages to cover their fixed and variable costs: these differ significantly in form between the three, but not in substance. The manufacturers bears the cost of materials, manufacture, overhead recovery, and repayment of investment in plant and machinery. The wholesaler bears the cost of inventory, warehousing, distribution overhead recovery and cost of sales. And the retailer bears the cost of inventory, store space, overhead recovery and the cost of sale. And although it is the case that the retailer's mark-up is likely to be way in excess of the wholesaler's mark-up, it's likely that the retailer's cost of sales and recovery of store rents is way in excess of corresponding costs for the wholesaler. In the long term, it's likely that each industry sector (manufacturing, wholeselling and retailing) has pretty much the same sort of profit to capital invested ratios, since if otherwise, one would expect the market to correct the disparity by investing more capital in the higher profit sector of the chain. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Alternatives to devaluation in the euro zone

In the past, when a national economy got in trouble, the government would devalue it. Nowadays the alternative would be reducing the wages, and put up with the outcry. But when the euro was established, did the EU thought that this would be needed? Were they aware that they were eliminating the financial instrument of devaluation and introducing something so prone to generate conflicts? OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This information was available to them. But they were also aware that there is no possibility for currency devaluation within large nations like the USA. So the more they were thinking along the lines of a United States of Europe, the more a single currency looked appropriate. What happens in the USA when the economy of one part of the country is booming and the economy in another part is in decline? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The USA is a different case. They are a monetary and fiscal unity, the EU is only a monetary one. If the economy in one part of the US is depressed, which is often the case, just compare NYC with New Mexico, you can ignore it, or compensate it a little through governmental programs, tax relieves, or grants. 83.49.195.42 (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The euro often seems to be talked about as though it is unique, but there have been many examples of fixed exchange-rate systems (such as the Bretton Woods system, which fixed the exchange rates between lots of major currencies from 1945 until 1971) and currency unions (such as the CFA franc used by many West and Central African countries). Devaluation has not been feasible for many governments, and as with everything in economics, I don't think there is any consensus on whether it is actually a useful tool. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It's clear to me that fixed exchange-rate systems have some pretty tough drawbacks. Fiat money is the way to go for modern economies, that have to adapt, contract and expand rapidly. Comparing the euro to such system is comparing it to the Titanic, impressive but a complete disaster. Some European countries would love to use this tool of devaluation right now, even if there is no consensus as you claim. 83.49.195.42 (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

While fiat money may deal better with minor problems, it can also suffer a total collapse during a depression. StuRat (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Has it ever happened? I know that hyperinflation is a natural consequence of making money just because you need it. 83.49.195.42 (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but also if people lose faith in it. At some point, such a currency may need to be abandoned, pegged to a more reliable currency, etc. StuRat (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Has it ever happened? Excluding the case where the government printed money to pay their debt, and not to manage the inflation and growth, have any single nation lost faith in their currency? Also excluding wars, where people tend to lose faith in government actually, and all its institutions. 83.49.195.42 (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

If you exclude all the conditions under which fiat currency has collapsed, you will eventually get to the conclusion that it has never collapsed. :-)

Therefore, I will concede that, in a world without war and without incompetent and/or corrupt politicians, fiat money is the best choice. StuRat (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The Zimbabwe dollar is a recent example. Roger (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It has been suggested (in my view correctly) that the Euro was primarily a political project and economic concerns were played down. A mismatch between economic and political union could have been seen as pushing more political union in the future and in the EU that is seen as an unquestionable good. The EU is rather good at dismissing criticism as nationalist and then ignoring it. It seems to me the Euro has been a classic example of groupthink and hubris. 90.212.157.32 (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that before they moved to a shared currency, they needed to align their economies more closely, such as having comparable (actual) tax rates, retirement ages, benefits, proportional national debts, etc. StuRat (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Examples of universities confronting the media

Hi all, I was having a discussion with a friend about "what would happen if.." and the scenario was basically this: a student researcher does some dangerous research, and goes missing in a foreign country. Who do the media confront? I thought the supervisor would be first in the firing line. She thought the vice chancellor. Does anyone know of cases involving universities facing this kind of unwanted attention, and what was the role the media played? I'd be interested in cases from anywhere, pref first world countries, where the university was in some kind of media storm, and the issue was something like negligence. As far as I understand it, in most countries, any lawsuit would be against the institution, but wherever the media frenzy is directed, that is where heads are most likely to roll. IBE (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't most universities (at least larger ones) have some kind of press officer to deal with the media? Beyond that, it would depend on the circumstances: for example, the media might blame the vice-chancellor if the problem was caused by university-wide policies, or somebody more junior if they appeared to be personally responsible for what happened. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It's sad how many google hits there are for "missing university student". In lieu of a news story of the kind you are looking for (until someone else turns one up), here is some more general info similar to 130.88.99.231's point: The university will have codes both for relations with student researchers and for fieldwork. Here are two examples from the University of Edinburgh: Code of practice for supervising grad students, Health and safety code, fieldwork section. Presumably before blame is assigned the media would check whether the university had policies and if they were followed.Taknaran (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone does dangerous research in a dangerous country, ignoring any travel advisories, and something happens. Would that really be a big media thing, let alone a firing/liability issue for a university (assuming they didn't pretend it was a safe trip?) Unilynx (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Everything I can find with missing students no one blames the university. American student missing in Spain, Iranian-American student missing in Iran, American student arrested in Syria, American student missing in Syria. Everything I can find with criticism of universities is for controversial course content, lab practices (usually involving animals) or anti-discrimination policies on campus. Universities sued for negligence are usually for sports safety, hazing incidents or medical treatment. Perhaps your scenario is uncommon or has not happened.--184.147.123.169 (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

"...would that be a big media thing?" Maybe, since research has to be approved by the supervisors, and an ethics committee. The question might arise about their culpability, and by implication, that of the university. If it is just someone going there as a visiting student, different story, but it seems possible that there would be questions about others allowing it. I agree it's strange, but somehow duty of care seems to pop up quite often. A case does not have to be watertight for the issue to cause problems, since the threat of a lawsuit is enough to scare a lot of people. IBE (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Despite ever more detailed procedures, minor problems with fieldwork crop up all the time and major ones from time to time. The answer to your question is that press queries are directed through the press office. Individual members of staff may be instructed not to speak to journalists on that question. (They can carry on talking to journalists about unrelated research.) Then an internal investigation, kept strictly at arm's length from the press, will try to work out who, if anyone, messed up. It's not the case that if some journalist opines that "the supervisor must be to blame" the university will share that assessment. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you've pretty much summed it up, although there's quite a difference between "some journalist opines" and a real media frenzy directed at some particular target. So presumably we (me and my friend in the discussion) were both wrong, at least in that the media wouldn't get to do much "confronting", regardless of who they thought was at fault. IBE (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Are fewer people selling their homes because of the financial/housing crisis?

See above. If you wanna post a paragraph on it make sure you put 'yes' or 'no' first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.113.87 (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if we consider the difference before and after the housing bubble. See: here, the last graph titled "Existing Home Sales (NSA)" (as in "not seasonally adjusted", so the raw numbers). You'll see the sharp drop between 2006 and 2007, and then it stays at that same comparatively low rate for all years following. --Jayron32 17:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. You'd think that such a simple question would be easy to track down the answer to, but for somebody like myself with only a very basic grasp of the subject... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.113.87 (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a rethink of the question is in order. If you have only a very basic grasp of the subject, how do you know it can even be answered with a simplistic "yes/no" answer. It may be yes in some places and no in others - you didn't specify what part of the world you're interested in. It may vary over time - you didn't specify any time period. And what's your definition of "selling"? Is it an actual sale as evidenced by an exchange of contracts, or is it merely a desire to sell as evidenced by a "For Sale" sign. Are you talking about just investment properties, just the family home, or both? And what does "fewer people" mean? Fewer than what, and compared to when? What if it's fewer in some places but more in others? Is the sale of a house counted as 1 for the house, or 6 for the family of six people who are all moving? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No, more people are offering their house for sale, but that doesn't mean they are indeed selling it. 83.49.195.42 (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Where? (See Jack's post above.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Bingo. μηδείς (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, "indeed selling houses" is exactly what Jayron's source says (for the US market, per Jack's comments re: clarification). There are far fewer sales now (2011-2012) than during the peak of the bubble (2005-2006), though today's sales are comparable to levels a decade ago. Conversely, there are far fewer houses on the market now than at any point post-bubble (though levels are comparable to before and during the bubble), so there are not demonstrably more houses being offered for sale. — Lomn 21:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

My experience is anecdotal, but since 2011 my family has sold property, and my neighbors to my left have sold, and my right have offered, and my biggest client offered their properties. That's a lot of selling and not so much closing. I can't make any rational sense of the fact that home values have collapsed unless one figures that demand has fallen far below supply. μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Where? (See Jack's post above.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

NJ & NY. (Also MA, sold, in 2009 at a good price.) μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

October 4

Would "Howl" have been known if it hadn't been subject to a court action?

In 1955, according to our article, no one had heard of Allen Ginsberg. In 1957 Howl became the object of a court case for obscenity, defended by the ACLU, brought to national attention. Question: is this court case the only reason why this became known? Would anyone otherwise have been aware of Ginsberg, or Jack Kerouac (whose first work was bought in 1957), or William S. Burroughs (according to the article Ginsberg was "instrumental" in getting his first work published), or anyone in the "Beat Generation"? And if so, does this illustrate some general law or principle of historical development (beyond the Streisand Effect?) and if so what? Wnt (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,

dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix, . . .

I don't see much point in speculative questions of this sort. Looie496 (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Pretty pointless waste of time. OK for chatting over a cup of coffee or a mug of beer, but not really appropriate for the RD. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand that a true "alternative history" can go anywhere - maybe the 60s never happen and we all go up in nuclear war; maybe some other dissidents come to prominence with a more reasoned philosophy, etc. But I think you can analyze the situation in a very narrow way, simply asking whether some people in this group were making it into the public eye independently at the time when the court case began. Wnt (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to crucify Wnt for the question, although it is speculative as worded. He could have asked which contemporaries are there of Ginsberg who were compared to him without being accused of obscenity, etc. He did ask whether Kerouac's and Burrough's fame is seen as derivative of theirs. Referring to critics of these authors might be helpful. And next time he might do better by asking what reviewers of and works about these writers might help me research the question whether.... μηδείς (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That kind of question can be asked about anything in history. Would the Kennedys still have had a lot of impact if JFK had died on PT-109? Would Regis Philbin still be nationally known if he had never worked on the Joey Bishop Show? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There are many questions one can ask about history; I just happened to ask this one. Though nothing good can come of trying to justify a question, I think I should disclose my underlying motivations. You see, I am a very strong believer in freedom of speech. And I have regarded some of the Beat Generations works as a good thing, contributing to social progress e.g. gay rights that are a better thing. So I have to deal with the inconvenient question of how is it that censorship, a bad thing, can bring about a good result? And so I can warm up the 'dialectical engine' and postulate that it didn't really bring it about, or that the poets and writers would have done even better without it, or that someone else better would have come to the limelight and so forth, but such an engine delivers more meaningful results from more precise contradictions. If the people who contemplated the prosecution had a moral choice between doing the right thing and the wrong, and if doing the right thing would have led to some phenomenon causing even better social progress which, being just, is nonetheless fated to occur, then that insight must still remain somewhere and must still be fated to be revealed. Wnt (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think counterfactual historical questions are necessarily a bad thing; they can highlight the highly contingent nature of history, and separating out events of random chance from broader historical forces is well within the range of academic discussion (see, e.g., Carr's famous What Is History?, which is entirely devoted to thinking about such things). Out of curiosity I did a search on Ginsberg's name across the newspapers in ProQuest's historical archives (which includes a number of national newspapers in their entirety, like the New York Times and the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times). What sticks out immediately is that even though Ginsberg's 1957 trial was covered, his real name-recognition period — where he's showing up in the papers more than 20 times a year) is in the mid-to-late 1960s, with a peak in 1969 (where his named showed up 170 times). This leads me to think that while the Howl trial may have put him on the map in some circles, much of his fame as Allen Ginsberg derived from a much later period.

On the question of Kerouac and Burroughs, I suspect that they'd have found a route into the "Beat" scene (which was quite independent of Ginsberg) one way or another. Whether Beat would have taken off without Ginsberg is an open question, but it strikes me that it was a movement larger than Ginsberg himself, and while the Howl trial may have brought it some new attention, I suspect that the San Francisco scene would have largely gone on the way it was already going at the time that happened. I don't think that Beat became enormously popular in the 1950s anyway; like many "scenes", it had its circles of devotees at the time but it lives on much larger in the nostalgia of later eras than it ever did when it was contemporary. (Compare also hippies, disco, etc., both of which were relatively small scenes compared to the population as a whole, but when people think back to "1960s" or "1970s" they make it seem like that was all there was.) --Mr.98 (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

¶ There is a nub to this question that isn't counter-factual, alternative or speculative history, perhaps better expressed as something vaguely like "how much importance did the San Francisco case against the publisher and distributor of Howl have for Allen Ginsberg's future career and renown?" Allen Ginsberg was the son of two prominent poets, he was able to get William Carlos Williams to write a foreword to Howl, and the City Lights Press of Lawrence Ferlinghetti was his publisher. Many of his close literary associates like Burroughs and Kerouac achieved some place on their own merits (or demerits). None of this of course automatically makes Howl important, although it indicates that Allen Ginsberg was no nobody. But Howl in my highly-inexpert and antique opinion is, for all its eccentricities, by far the most important (perhaps the only really important) American poem written since 1950. What's more difficult to assess is how important the Beat Generation (a small though significant group with a small though significant following even in its time) will seem in fifty years. Everyone's heard of Impressionism, but it's far harder to judge how lasting and how important were the respective contributions of the Pre-Raphaelites, Futurism, Vorticism, the Ashcan School, Socialist Realism, the Bloomsbury Group, or Op Art. —— Shakescene (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

An interesting answer. Hmmm... I like parts of the first part, but find it too burdened by private references, I dislike the third, but the second deeply expresses one of those emotions I've had to name myself because I feel it relatively often yet know no word for it in English or any other language. Even so - is it really that important? Surely someone can name some other poem to rival it?! But if its quality is truly so superior then I suppose it would not matter what was done to try to suppress it. Wnt (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Bangladeshi diaspora North America

Why Bangladeshis tend to migrate more to America than Canada? What does America have that Canada doesn't that Bangladeshis like about? Education system? health system? lifestyle? --70.31.19.100 (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa

More people. --Jayron32 04:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

And more stuff. Futurist110 (talk) 05:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Warmer weather?-85.119.27.27 (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

More Bangladeshis. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

To illustrate Jayron's point: Using the estimates given in our article on Bangladeshi diaspora, the number of Bangladeshis per 100,000 people in Canada is actually greater than the corresponding number in the US by a factor of about 1.48 (there are about 70.4 Bangladeshis per 100,000 people living in Canada, and about 47.7 Bangladeshis per 100,000 people living in the US). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a false analysis. When considering whether more Bangladeshis have migrated to the USA or Canada, it's the absolute numbers that matter. The question was not which country has the higher proportion of Bangladeshis in its overall population. We could probably find a country whose proportion of Bangladeshis to the total population dwarfs 70.4 per 100,000, but its raw numbers of Bangladeshis is quite low compared to the raw numbers in either the USA or Canada. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the percentage of Bangladeshis within a given population is more likely to reflect the presence of established Bangladeshi communities, infrastructure, cultural programs, media etc than absolute numbers. We are talking about two huge countries of similar distance from Bangladesh, both geographically and culturally. The country you suggest "we could probably find" might be the Maldives for example, where there exist a possible 10,000 Bangladeshis per 100,000 inhabitants. A dwarfing figure indeed, but not really comparable in this context, for many reasons. You wrote "More Bangladeshis" as a possible answer to this question, but I think it's more relevant how many people of an immigrant's culture might be found near where they live, not how many live within the entire country's long borders. YMMV. (By the way, I do not think the factor of 1.48 is really that significant either; if anything, it puts both countries, Canada and the US, in the same league of attractivity. I just don't think the question "what does America have that Canada doesn't" is a question than can be derived from the fact that there are more Bangladeshi immigrants to the US than to Canada in terms of absolute numbers). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Bangladesh recognition map

Is there a map where it shows the nations and the date of recognizing Bangladesh?--70.31.19.100 (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.19.100 (talk) 03:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It’s an interesting idea. I couldn’t even find a list, let alone a map, but if you wanted to make one, there are a number of dates in Foreign relations of Bangladesh (some even have sources). There’s also an interesting account of the four-year process by a former senior Bangladeshi diplomat here that gives specific dates for India (6 Dec 1971), East Germany (11 Jan 1972), Bulgaria (12 Jan 1972), Soviet Union (25 Jan 1972), Malaysia (31 Jan 1972), UK (4 Feb 1972), Canada (14 Feb 1972), Iraq (8 July 1972), Pakistan (22 Feb 1974) and China (8 Oct 1975) and ranges for other countries that could help your research. Taknaran (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

historic flag lapel pin

I'm trying to find a lapel pin depicting the Grand Union Flag. Where's a good place to begin?142.255.103.121 (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I googled [grand union flag lapel pins] and a number of entries came up. This particular one is on the blacklist for some reason, but I would think there are others: www aliexpress com / wholesale / wholesale-united-states-grand-union-flag-lapel-pins.html ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Blacklist?142.255.103.121 (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The "Blacklist" is a list of websites that are banned on Wikipedia for one reason or another... in the case of a blacklisted commercial website, the reason is usually because some idiot tried to turn Wikipedia into a platform for advertising... by, for example, spamming a link to the website into lots and lots of articles. Don't know if that's what happened with the one that Bugs is talking about, but it would not surprise me. Blueboar (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not the first time I've seen this kind of thing, where I cited some website and it rejected the post after I hit "save". You're probably right that someone tried to spam it here at some point. That's a recurrent problem. And the way around it, in this situation, is to state the text of the link without linking to it, and then the reader can decide what to do with it, if anything. I recommend the OP google the subject and look for it. I would think there would be a number of sites that would feature historical US Flag pins of various kinds. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there another good place to find what I'm looking for?142.255.103.121 (talk) 04:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean besides the internet? Well, are there any historical sites or museums near you? You could see if they have something like that and/or if they have any idea how to find such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

German (Nazi) Army 3-finger salute

In the first episode of The World at War there is a clip showing members of the German Army swearing a personal oath of allegiance to Hitler. They are shown making a 3-fingered salute with the thumb and first two fingers of the right hand held in front of the chest at shoulder level with the elbow bent. It looks similar to the Serbian salute. What are the origins and symbolism of this salute, and why was it used in preference to the German military salute, or the Hitler salute? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean this gesture? Neither out Hitler oath or Nazi salute article mention it. A quick look at Google didn't bring anything to light either. Alansplodge (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not unusual to raise only three fingers when swearing an oath in Germany and it isn't a "Nazi salute". See for example this picture of federal president Gustav Heinemann's oath of office in 1969: [16] -- Bgfx (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at Category:Oaths on Commons. You'll see some two finger oaths; here is a 1700 exposition on the meaning of the two-finger oath. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The article Nazi salute does contain a brief mention of this alternate gesture, called the Kühnen salute. The de:WP interprets this as the symbol for the letter W, meaning Widerstand = resistance. Details, if you can read the language, can be found in the German entry Hitlergruß--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit strange that it's named after a post-war neo-Nazi, and what exactly were the Wermacht of 1933 resisting? The mystery deepens. A reference to the salute (but no explanation) is in A Child of Hitler: Germany in the Days When God Wore a Swastika, By Alfons Heck who describes joining the Hitler Youth; "..the oath we swore with our left hand gripping the flag and three fingers of our right extended to the sky..." (p.8). Alansplodge (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Here we go... The swearing in of 32 the new Swiss Guards at the Vatican; "Each of the recruits puts their left hand on the flag and takes the oath with 3 fingers raised, representing the Trinity." So not a specifically Nazi gesture at all. See also the Vatican website which says that the custom dates back to 06 May 1527; "Then one by one the new recruits are called by name. Each one advances alone, and with his left hand he grasps the Guarďs standard, holding high his right hand with three fingers open, as a symbol of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he confirms the oath:..." Alansplodge (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The answers deal with different gestures. The soldiers and the Hitler youth swore using the middle-European oath gesture, see de:Schwurhand. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense, but the Swiss Guard gesture seems identical[17]. And here's William Tell doing the same thing.[18]]. Alansplodge (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)]. Alansplodge (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have created an English language article Schwurhand. Thanks to Pp.paul.4 for pointing me in the right direction. Alansplodge (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that article, which is surprisingly original. A more conservative approach might cite sources like Ferdinand Schuster: Die Civilprocessordnungen für die Königreiche Ungarn, Croatien und Slavonien. § 247. Wien 1854, S. 535. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, my grasp of German is very cursory. Would you be so kind as to translate the salient points, or better still, add them to the article yourself please? I am also more than happy to accept any corrections to the article - I freely admit to having no prior knowledge of the subject. Perhaps the talk page would be a better place for further discussion. Vielen Dank. Alansplodge (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Roosevelt's quote

Could someone remind the phrase where Franklin Roosevelt (or possibly Theodore) said that the country where the citizens have their own houses is invincible? Don't know the exact wording though. Thanks. 176.241.247.17 (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It was FDR in a speech to the United States Savings and Loan League in 1942. The full quotation appears to be "[A] nation of homeowners, of people who own a real share in their own land, is unconquerable." See here. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way, since the first mention I could find of this quote is from a book published in 1950, it's possible the quote is apocryphal, or at least synthesised. It's also frequently misquoted, especially by Realtors as "A nation of homeowners is unconquerable". - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

this dates it precisely on page 408 and cites it in the next day's NY Times. meltBanana 15:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, so 1942. Follow-up question from a curious non-American: Was the US a nation of homeowners back then? Or was it a goal? HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The Federal Housing Administration was devoted to increasing homeownership among Americans at that time (though it also got the U.S. federal government involved in encouraging economic racial discrimination in a whole new way...). AnonMoos (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's from a message sent by the President to a special war conference of the League in Chicago and read (apparently by someone else) to the opening session on Nov. 16, 1942. Here's a contemporary news report [19] --Cam (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Naming discretion in academic publishing

I was just looking at Arvind Mithal's Wikipedia article, and see that he goes by just the name Arvind to the point that all of his published works that I can see cite him only as Arvind, without including his last name, which he has, which is Mithal (if the Wikipedia article is correct). What he wants to do is not at all my question, but I just wonder about the majority of peer-reviewed publications, at least in the field of computer science, if they have stated policy regarding the procedure of applying an author's desired name to the article written. Obviously, they're letting Arvind go by simply Arvind. Is this an exception? If some computer scientist named Peter Sanders (I just made that up) wrote a paper that was reviewed as highly relevant and well-written and by all degrees was determined "this needs to be in the next issue of Communications of the ACM!" And Mr. Sanders adamantly wanted to go by only "Pete," is it likely (not invitation to speculation, cite policy) it could show up on the page "[Article Title] By Pete, University of [whatever]"? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Why shouldn't anyone call a person what they wish to be called? --Jayron32 14:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not asking why or why not, I'm asking if the publishers have policy on this and Arvind is a granted exception or not. What if someone, despite any assumption of such professionals by default being absolutely not frivolous, were one whose papers were undeniably deemed of the highest importance and needed to be published, but he was a weird person and demanded to go by "#apofijawpeoi5rj"? What if thirty computer scientists all wanted to go by only "Pete"? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a blog, but it has some relevent information on the topic. Skimming that and a few other things I found in some google searches, it appears that a person has some latitude in choosing their "publishing name" in terms of which form (Nicknames, initials, middle names, etc.) they use, with the expectation that the name is unique to them and that they will use the same name for their whole career. I'm sure there are exceptions to both, but I don't think your hypothetical has any need to be dealt with. Do you have evidence that there is a rash of "Petes" who all publish only under that name? So far you've presented a single author who uses a name unique to him. That seems to be all that academic publishing requires. --Jayron32 14:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, and your statements are fair enough. But how common is the "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it, and absolutely not wonder about quite unlikely scenarios." attitude when attempting to structure policy in large organizations? I don't have experience being on teams developing policies for humans, but I do know that with computer programs, people still worry about things that might happen once in a million times (granted, computers are quicker than humans, so maybe there's that). 20.137.18.53 (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it relates only to Wikipedia, but there are principles here like Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Which is not to say that, in general, there aren't lots of organizations which invent rules on unlikely scenarios; there's a lot of people who invent lots of stuff just to justify their own jobs, not because what they create is valuable or useful (i.e. the entire mission statement industry). So yeah, I wouldn't discount that such rules may exist with the caveats that a) they aren't necessary and b) after a good-faith Google search using a wide variety of search terms, I turned up bubkis. --Jayron32 15:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

While probably ideal, "unique ... and ... will use the same name for their whole career" certainly isn't a requirement, isn't necessarily expected, but it certainly makes things easier for everyone involved. There are many cases where there are multiple people publishing under the same name. Name changes are also seen, frequently with women using both their maiden name early in the career (while they're single), then switching to their married name. I can't think of examples off-hand, but I'd imagine the reverse (going from married name to maiden name) happens occasionally on divorce. The other typical variation you see is middle name issues. The same person may publish as "John Jacob Smith", "John J. Smith", or "John Smith", depending on the article. Of course, it behooves a researcher to pick a single distinct name and stick with it, as it makes matching articles to researchers much easier. There have been some efforts to establish a unique identifier for academic publishing (see, for example, ORCID, ResearcherID, etc.), though those haven't yet gained traction. -- 205.175.124.30 (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The case of Perri 6 may be worth looking at here. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I worked at an academic journal for a number of years. We had no pre-ordained policy on such things — people could pretty much call themselves what they wanted. We never had anyone try to call themselves something unusual, though. We wouldn't have bothered making up a policy ahead of time, though, since this is very unusual in academic publishing.

Separately, one might be interested in the case of Nicolas Bourbaki. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Unsolved problems

According to this Hilbert's problems. The DARPA has shown 23 unsolved math problems (not the same 23 problems as of Hilbert). Where can I see them?65.128.190.136 (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Googling "DARPA 23 problems" produced this. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The article gives two references for this, the first of which lists all the problems (the second was a broken link to the official announcement, which doesn't seem to be on DARPA's website any more, but you can see it here). Though it does seem a bit odd for them to compare these to Hilbert's problems: most of them are very applied (in some cases, like "what are the fundamental laws of biology?", they aren't really about maths at all) and are very vague, whereas most of Hilbert's problems are about pure maths and ask specific questions (or at least there were intended to be specific). 81.98.43.107 (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Alan Watts Audio Recording

I was wondering where I could find the audio from this video and other speeches like it minus the music. I have found a few sites that have archives of Alan Watts' lectures but none with this specific one. The video description is misleading and has no information and searching any variation of the speech yields no results. --67.86.147.91 (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

No luck with that audio but I found a Watts talk very similar to this one here (starting 7:49).--Cam (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Secret self-haters

Are there any other cases similar to those of Csanad Szegedi and Ola and Pawel here (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/23/poland.jewish/index.html) where someone is prejudiced against a certain ethnic group or race and then discovers that he/she himself/herself is actually a member of this ethnic group or race? Futurist110 (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler.
Sleigh (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope. The claims that Hitler was of Jewish ancestry (which I assume you are referring to) are dubious, to say the least. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, I don't think that Hitler had any Roma or Slavic ancestry either. Futurist110 (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

However, he was anything but the ideal "Aryan" model (tall, blond, blue-eyed, healthy, and mentally sound). StuRat (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer somewhat fits the premise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Vladimir Zhirinovsky whom I remember having said "My mother was Russian, my father was a lawyer". (His father was Jewish) Another gem, quoted in the article: "Why should I reject Russian blood, Russian culture, Russian land, and fall in love with the Jewish people only because of that single drop of blood that my father left in my mother's body?" ---Sluzzelin talk 00:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

(Note: Sorry, this is perhaps not what you're asking, since I suspect Zhirinovsky knew all along and didn't discover his ancestry after having formed his prejudice. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC))

Yeah, I meant that one needs to be unaware of his/her ethnic or racial heritage at the time of his/her prejudice towards this ethnicity/or race being formed. Bobby Fischer and Vladimir Zhirinovsky were always aware that they were ethnically Jewish. Also, Béla Imrédy might or might not fit this bill. He had some Jewish ancestry, but I don't know whether or not he was aware of it before forming his prejudice towards Jews. Futurist110 (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Just curious, but what was the race of the first humans? If they were all black (due to being from Sub-Saharan Africa), then every white supremacist would be an example of this if you'd go far enough back due to the one drop rule. Futurist110 (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest you read Race (human classification)? I have seen no evidence that white supremacy has ever limited its beliefs to the constraints of science or logic. YMMV. Bielle (talk) 01:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Then you're obviously unfamiliar with the subject. See scientific racism and eugenics. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Then you're obviously unfamiliar with science. Well, maybe not you, but them. Just sayin'. --Jayron32 03:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"Scientific racism" is, at best, pseudoscience; the article you have linked is quite clear on that. As for eugenics, the concept that any given race is inherently superior to any other has been debunked; the other article you have linked is quite clear on that. My points stand. Bielle (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. If the established science was racist (which it was), and the average Joe was racist because they believed in the established science, then the average Joe could have constrained himself to "the constraints of science or logic" and still been racist. Don't believe that you're inherently superior to your ancestors. You can't possibly independently verify every scientific belief you hold about the world; you have to trust scientists to be truthful and objective, and if they're not, you'd be just as clueless as the eugenics proponents from 100 years ago. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting point by the OP about the race of the first humans, but I think the simplest answer, as Bielle's link shows, is that they had no "race" as such, because race involves classification into distinct categories. Since the term includes cultural factors and a concept of ancestry, there is no way of saying how we would classify them if they existed today. It depends a little too much on history and circumstance. Races have emerged since the first humans, and whatever the term represents, it is usually accepted as meaningful. An Arab, for example, is different from a Persian (or a Westerner), regardless of whether you use culture, language, or mitochondrial DNA. For this reason, I don't think stuff about the first humans is terribly relevant to the original question, and we risk getting lost in argument about this detail. IBE (talk) 05:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Several films, notably Blade Runner, Gattaca and The Conformist, spring to mind. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• • The Blade Runner thing (that Deckard was really a Replicant) is basically a fan-fic invention. AFAIK, both Philip K. Dick (the original author) and Ridley Scott (the film director) have denied that there was any intent to imply that Deckard was a Replicant. --Jayron32 12:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• • • That's not quite right Jayron: According to Themes_in_Blade_Runner#Deckard:_human_or_replicant in the book he's explicitly human, and in the movie his status is ambiguous. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• My favorite case is Norman Spinrad's The Iron Dream, though I don't think he ever explicitly explicitly says it, merely explicitly. ;) Wnt (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Barney Stinson is one quarter canadian ^^. 203.112.82.128 (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

So what's the 3/4 he hates being? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, he mocks robin for being canadian.203.112.82.128 (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• TV Tropes calls this Boomerang bigot and has some real life examples.--90.165.121.56 (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps this is off-topic, certainly it is unsourced speculation, but it is my belief that prejudice against an ethic or sexual group is as prevalent within the group as outside it. When minority kids join gangs or fall victim to drugs, when gay kids attempt suicide or engage uncaringly in risky sexual practices, this is the same demon that turns those outside the group into bigots and bashers, just as the legendary incubus and succubus are the same creature. Wnt (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Not an ethnic or religious prejudice (well, possibly religious), but homophobic repressed homosexuals are a general fit for the pattern. StuRat (talk) 05:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

October 5

Presidential debate myth

I have seen many references to the Kennedy and Nixon debate and the contrasting attitudes of the radio and television audiences. Yet, I recall seeing this conclusion described as a myth without foundation. Are there any proper studies that debunk this notion and if so, why does it continue to be propagated by mainstream press? Ankh.Morpork 00:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That's been conventional wisdom for decades. There's no question that JFK looked a lot better on camera that night than Nixon did. How they would know for sure what the radio audience thought is hard to say, but maybe they did some polling. Googling [jfk nixon debate radio] brings up many items that parrot the conventional wisdom, but some of them seem to be hedging, at best. For what it's worth, Nixon had a deeper voice and lacked any discernible regiona accent, so people unfamiliar with them might have thought Nixon sounded better than JFK did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually there were four separate televised debates in fall 1960 between Nixon and Kennedy so it does depend which one your speaking of, but after his presidency Nixon did state to the affect that "more then what you say it matters how you look on television". Also anyone know when and where the very very first non-televised JFK v Nixon debate was held. (hint: the fall of 1960 was debates 2,3,4 and 5 for them). Marketdiamond (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This is usually a reference to the first debate, when "Radio listeners polled after the debate generally thought that Nixon had bested Kennedy. But the story with television viewers was different, polling almost two-to-one in favor of Kennedy as the "victor" in the debate." The debates in general correlated with an improvement in Kennedy's poll ratings, cum hoc ergo propter hoc. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 16:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Gender neutral for John Doe and Jane Roe

Not asking for legal advice, just asking if there is a standard practice in a complaint or other legal document to make gender neutral the John Doe and Jane Roe examples when a subjects gender is in question (not known not going into the whole LGBT thing), and yes I understand it is very very rare, I have done some extensive googling nothing yet. Thanks. Marketdiamond (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think such persons are refered to as "Doe" without first name, as in a Doe subpoena, which is filed against persons whose identity are unknown. This used to be very rare, but in the past 20 years because of the internet, Doe subpoenas are common, as a person can often be identified by their IP address and user agents (as Checkusers at Wikipedia do) so one could identify a particular perpetrator of a cyber crime uniquely by those means, but the gender of that person would be entirely unknown. --Jayron32 03:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

See also Dendrite International, Inc. v. Doe No. 3 where an unknown defendant was identified without a gendered first name; just as "Doe No. 3" --Jayron32 03:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, Doe is a deer - a female deer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

And a Ray is a drop of golden sun. --Jayron32 12:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Although the sun has set on their season. In a further irony, consider the Roe of a Ray. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok good to know, and yes funny at the end . . . at least I'm not like my 30 something cousin who has tons of opinions all about abortion but heard a talk show debate "Roe v Wade" and thought they were talking about something involving a "Mrs. Roe V.(middle initial) Wade" (who names their daughter Roe anyway?) lol. Marketdiamond (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's another angle on it:[20] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Papa and Mama Yurbote? Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Citation for Advance Directives

I would like to learn more about the topic by going to the original source but could not find it with this citation: Choice in Dying (now: Partnership in Caring). Choice in Dying: an historical perspective. CID 1035-30th Street, N.W. Washington, DC. 2007

Can someone help me find the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.59.158 (talk) 06:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Near as I can tell with several google searches, "Choice in Dying" was an organization that advocated for patients dealing with end-of-life care issues. It later merged with an organization called "Partnership for Caring", which is hard to find any information on (except the merger); though I think a few links lead me to believe that the the organization is now called "Caring Connections" and its home page is at http://www.caringinfo.org . Their history page is here, which shows the various permutations of the organization. Presumably the document titled "Choice in Dying: an historical perspective" was published a long time ago by the now several-times defunct organization "Choice in Dying", as the "Caring Connections" organization seems to be the modern successor to that, you would probably need to contact that organization to try to locate that document. Their website has a "contact us" page here. I hope that helps. --Jayron32 06:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Speaking English in America

I got told a story that in the early day of America, they (not sure if it was the whole population of the time or just the government) had a vote to decide what language to speak because alot of the early settlers where from different countries (ie France, Germany, Italy, etc) and English was supposed to have won the vote by a small margin. Is this true in any way ? --80.254.146.140 (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Without taking the time to look it up, I seem to remember that it was more of one colony, state or commonwealth (I think Pennsylvania) choosing English over German by the narrowest of margins. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Not English. German lost the vote to be the second official language of Congress.
Sleigh (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

See German language in the United States#German as the official US language myth and Muhlenberg legend. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Even nowadays the US still doesn't have a federal official language, only a de facto language. "I got told a story" says it all, BTW. It's just an urban legend. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Not in the US as a whole, but in several states. See Languages_of_the_United_States#Official_language_status. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about official status, but English and French were both used in many official documents in Louisiana, e.g. her 1861 Declaration of Secession from the United States. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Some say that in America they haven't used English for years. HiLo48 (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Whats it like to be a beautifull woman?

Yo refdeskers. Surely im not the only unnatractive, sexually and socially incompetent strait[ish] man who's wondered rather enviously what it's like to be a really hot chick? I mean they never have to chat-up anyone, they merely select from a long line of prospective suitors, and select the one who most meets their sexual, emotional or intellectual needs. Sounds a hell of a lot easier and more pleasant than being us, doesnt it guys? So what i'm looking for is a piece of high-quality, intelligent, "high-brow" writing on what its like to be a hot woman, presumably but not necessarily written by said woman, which is available online for free. When I say not necessarily, perhaps there is some academic writing on the subject, based on interviews or focus groups? Of course im aware that it probably isnt as utopian as i initially suggested, for instance constantly being stared at by all men, or having to fend off neanderthalls when on a night out, could be very tiresome or distressing. Theres a popular notion that average-looking women dislike really hot women out of jealousy; is this the case? Cos I would guess that other girls might actually want to be friends with the hot girl, as it would give them entry to the "popular"-clique, and give them access to the hot girl's rejected suitors. Are very attractive women happier than other people? Finally, whilst not wishing to set off the pedo-alarm*, im also interested in what its like for a girl when it first dawns on her that all men think shes really hot. Please remember that i'm not interested in your own personal views, i'm merely looking to be directed to the aforementioned online sources. And i guess these topics have been covered in fiction, but if possible could we avoid all that Mr Darcy, Crinoline stuff, unless it was written by a smoking-hot chick and is considered to be quasi-autobiographical
*If only one of these trusty devices had been fitted in Jimmy Saville's dressing room. Willy turner (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of questionable premises here. Aside from very famous, wealthy and/or powerful people (I imagine), is there really anyone who can "select from a long line of prospective suitors"? Attractiveness is subjective, so I doubt there are any girls for whom "all men think shes really hot", even if we limit it to straight and bi men. Also, what makes you think that the experiences of an extremely attractive woman would be very different from the experiences of an extremely attractive man? Anyway, you might be interested in body image: people who are considered attractive by others don't necessarily consider themselves to be attractive. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

See Samantha Brick Rojomoke (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Well it doesn't just go 1 way, it goes both ways. The question should be more like "what it likes to be an attractive person?" A good example of a boy who benefit A LOT from his good looking is Justin Bieber, even though his talent is at mediocre level compare to other singers. The only reason that made him so success is his good looking that attracted so many teenager girls, who acting crazy because of him. As you can see like 99% of his fans are girls, immature girls as some people may say. So as my conclusion: no matter of gender you are, attractive always work. However there are downsides for being hot, especially for women.65.128.190.136 (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

(Intercom) "Paging Rob Schneider . . . Rob Schneider To The Ref Desk" . . . see The Hot Chick.

• • • But seriously all, we should allow the OP to tell us what his girlfriend (fiancé?) has commented on this already. Didn't you know all women are the really beautiful ones! :-) P.S. I am waiting for the inevitable "I asked my mom this and she said that she . . . ." response lol.Marketdiamond (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Being an attractive woman can be a hindrance in a couple other ways not mentioned previously:

1) In jobs where being attractive isn't a pre-req (so not models, etc.), attractive women may not be taken seriously. Dressing conservatively can help.

2) Potentially good mates may find attractive women "out of their league" and not approach them. This leaves confident men, and perhaps brash, overly confident mean. StuRat (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Since all that answers are supositions (except the Samantha Brick bit), either there are not beautiful female wikipedians reading the reference desk or they are all very modest.--90.165.121.56 (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're an attractive women, you experience more general harrassment from men in your day to day life, although being "unattractive" doesn't keep you actually safe from that. Attractive women are propositioned by random, aggressive men with no respect for their wishes and privacy on a regular basis, and generally insulted when they are neither flattered nor receptive. It becomes difficult to do basic things like read a book on a bus, because various men assume that you should be paying attention to them rather than the book you want to read. The thing about men seeing them as "out of their league" and leaving them alone basically never happens: men pretty much always ask out the women who are out of their league. Perhaps this is because too many men do not know what their league is?

More attractive women also tend to get called sluts more often, and so on. I've been more and less attractive over my life: looking less attractive makes many aspects of my life easier, makes for fewer threatening experiences from random men and less curb crawling, but also means people listen to you less than when you are more attractive. 86.159.77.170 (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

How do you know the "out of their league" thing never happens ? Certainly every man you meet doesn't come on to you, so, for those who don't, that may be the reason for many. StuRat (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a fairly attractive woman in her late 20s; I'm also intelligent, and dress well, and look after my body. But I'm also a nerd and a little shy and never go out to do the "dancing and clubbing" thing, which is where a lot of attractive young ladies meet both their one-night stands and their longer-term mates. The result? I've been single for a long time, ever since university basically, because the majority of men who are of interest to me (good-natured, good-humoured, intelligent, and geeky), don't even dare to approach me. For one thing, they think they're out of my league, but the major reason is that they assume, wrongly, that I simply must already be attached. I work in a fairly isolated laboratory so I have to rely on things like the library, the gym, and wikimeets, in order to meet people, and it's not a very successful strategy for aforementioned reasons. When I join dating sites and put up honest pictures of myself, I get messages like, "what are you doing on here, why are you single, I bet you're psycho" and "damn u hot gurl wanna chat xx" which I instantly delete, of course, and eventually get fed up and leave said dating sites. So being attractive isn't all it's cracked up to be. I get random whistles, rude comments, intense stares, and most recently, a group of men while stopped at traffic lights shouted from their car, "show us yer arse, luv!", while ogling. On the rare occasions that I do go out on the dancing and drinking scene, I get the usual invitations from louts who think women worship them, and they're just not my type. Being beautiful and smart works out for some lucky women but it's not working for me. (from an experienced Wikipedian using a different account) Ma moitié (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried dressing down ? StuRat (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

By dressing well, I meant that I'm neat and presentable, but I'm usually a fairly casual, one might even say unadventurous, dresser, and I value comfort over style. So no, I don't do the high heels and short skirts thing! Sorry if that's the impression I gave. I only mentioned the dressing in order to exclude the possibility that I don't get approached because I wear sweatpants and baggy t-shirts or something; I look like a young woman with a professional job, not a street urchin or a frequenter of nightclubs. Ma moitié (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

There are ways to dress down which obscure your form without making you look like a bag lady. Loose turtle-neck sweaters, for example, and pant-suits instead of dresses (I doubt if Hillary Clinton get's much unwanted romantic attention). StuRat (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Granted, but I think it's more about the face first. There are solutions to that, as well. Bag over my head comes to mind. Ma moitié (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

How about glasses (preferably horned rim with chains), no makeup, and your hair in a bun ? Only men hot for librarians will bother you then. StuRat (talk) 08:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

And then I wonder at which point I should tell the newly attracted guy that I'm actually a jeans, jumper, and ponytail kind of girl, and that I only changed my style to attract men. It's always a tricky affair to be someone you're not, no matter how well-intentioned, and I'm just not that desperate.  :) And I don't wear makeup anyway, except for special occasions. Thank you for the advice though! Ma moitié (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Ma moitié has these predicaments because she lives as she wikis [21], when I imagine CIA spooks they aren't this covert, and then the complaint about "intimidated", there are ghosts and then there are ghosts. Just sayin :-). Marketdiamond (talk) 07:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd be the laughing stock of Wikipedia and forever considered conceited if I showed up here with my admin account and 10000+ edits and said, "oooh oooh I'm a single, beautiful woman! *flutter eyelashes*" And actually, I'd probably be blocked on the assumption that my account had been hijacked by a joker, as to most Wikipedians, it would seem fundamentally unlikely to be truth.  ;) I think the secrecy is warranted. Ma moitié (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Did read your first post to its final brilliant conclusion so apologies (didn't realize your explained that yes you were being more private than usual) Just perplexed that finding your "type" and lamenting that your not one of the "lucky women" with the need to shield that probably on the one forum you might find that type. Funny that wikipedia has evolved to such a degree that we need to be private from our "private" usernames, not knocking you for that since on a few ethical non-talk page or admin board occasions I too have used that. Just something about your post struck a nerve with me since I get tired of the status of modern dating and matching, and yet your very valid complaint of your experiences on dating sites and the street and not having your "type" "approach" but then displaying that same hesitation on wikipedia, not saying your wrong for it, sounds like you have some very valid points. Thought about adding this earlier and it is to your point that all the wrong guys are coming at you and all of your "type" (which I am making the educated guess are stable responsible long range types) this may be super instructive. You make me curious. Marketdiamond (talk) 07:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• P.S. I doubt any editor who actually wants to contribute to wikipedia over the long range would laugh at a sincere RefDesk answer, banned b/c you answered a direct RefDesk question directly I think all of us regulars on here would fight that, but I can appreciate you feeling cautious about a personal subject. Marketdiamond (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

One has to be careful not to undermine one's hard work; as I primarily am a writer on WP, the last thing I want is to attract the negative attention of peers by appearing to use WP as a dating site or by being unprofessionally flirtatious. Which is why, although my account is obviously 'female', I don't state that I'm single and never would. I never solicit it but of course I'm open to being approached privately if my Wikipedia work rouses curiosity; actually that would be cool, because I have the problem of suspecting that most people who show an interest (dating sites or otherwise) are doing so because I'm physically attractive, at the expense of caring for/about the hobbies, interests, books, intellect that drives me. Anyway, I didn't mean to hijack this thread and I also didn't quite intend all of the pathos in my original post. I'm fairly happy alone as I'm never bored and relationships take time that I instead spend on (mostly ^^) meaningful pursuits. So one needn't call it a 'predicament'! Maybe when I'm mid-thirties I'll start panicking. :) Ma moitié (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

left-wing party ideologies

Which political ideologies are mostly fall on the left of the political spectrum? So far, I know that Social Democracy is a left-wing ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.153 (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That depends on where you set the center. In Europe, Social Democracy is centrist, and typically embraced not only by "Social Democratic" parties, but also by most moderate conservative parties. Have you read Left–right politics? Originally, of course, "The Right" supported the right of the Bourbon kings to run France into the ground at the expense of the Third estate, while "The Left" was happy to call the King "citoyen Capet" and to leave the aristocracy separated from their heads. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

left-wing parties Europe

I remember that there was a question about Liberal Party of Canada counterparts in Europe. My question is quite similar. My question is that in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Italy, Spain and Portugal, is there any political parties that are left wing and not communism? and I don't want to know green politics in those nations.--174.89.43.153 (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.153 (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Liberal is an odd word, and it doesn't fit neatly into the "left-right" political spectrum consistently across all political systems. Classical liberalism is an ideology that began as a progressive reaction to oppressive monarchies in Europe, so being progressive and forward looking in that context it could be looked at as a "leftist" ideology. If a political system uses "liberal" to mean "forward looking and progressive" then the term in that context refers to leftist political ideals. In some political systems, the ideals of classical liberalism (limited government, strict rule-of-law) are traditionalist and strongly connected with nationalism; in those systems the word "liberal" is often is associated with traditionalist/right wing politics. In the U.S., the word is a synonym of "progressive" or "leftist". In Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada is the center-left party. In Australia, the Liberal Party of Australia is a center-right party, whereas the main left-leaning opposition is the Australian Labor Party. Even concepts like "leftist" and "rightist" are contextual: policies considered "leftist" in one political context (being, for that system, forward thinking and radical) would be considered "rightist" in another (being for a different system, reactionary and traditionalist). You really need to explore each political system seperately, and the best way to do that using Wikipedia is to start at an article titled "Politics of XXXX" where XXXX is the name of a country. Politics of Denmark, for example, for Denmark. From there, you can follow links to other articles that let you explore what you want to know. --Jayron32 16:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

political rivals Denmark, UK, France, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium Spain and Portugal

Is there any main political rivalry in the following nations that I mentioned above? --174.89.43.153 (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa

See, for example, our list of political parties in Denmark. There will be similar lists for each of the other countries that you mention. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Does the questioner mean political rivalry between those countries? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

normative but absolute scales of left and right

It is possible to establish a purely normative scale of "left" and "right", one that differs based on the fundamental taxonomy. Speaking from my own political perspective, one could define the "left" as supporting collective workers control over economic institutions as the core value, and define "right" as the fulfilment of an economics designed to remove any power from labour within capital. This scale is good for, say, the UK from Peterloo onwards. It is not good for bourgeois revolutions against feudalism, generally, unless one is willing to recognise a difference in control over labour between the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy (the difference between "conservative" and "reactionary"). In this manner one could suggest that communist socialist fabian labourite green social democrat and anarchist ideologies fall between the centre-right and the left depending on the concessions to capitalism a particular strand of ideology makes in theory or in practice. social liberals tend to fall from the centre-rightwards. The right tends to lack solidly formed ideologies, compared to the left, and many of these are post-hoc classifications. Broadly, in such a scale, liberalism conservatism social conservatism christian liberalism and christian democracy reactionaries and various flavours of fascist fall from the centre rightwards. Other such normative scales exist, but this one is designed to maximise understanding of ideological difference within the left, and within the right; and designed to account for systems of politics where conservatism coheres as an "anti-labour" movement such as is clear in Australia or New Zealand. It isn't a scale designed to allow bourgeois parties to think about how to win elections, nor is it a scale designed to form coalitions in the management of capitalism. All such normative scales will be in someway politically instrumental—they are political instruments. In society, people pick up bits and pieces of such instruments and internalise them, reflect on them through their social and working life, and form a gestalt mixed up out of the dominant social ideology and strains of resistance they've encountered. Most left-right scales are generally compatible, though occasionally on some issues become incompatible. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It is possible to do a great many things. It isn't always wise to do them, though. Politics involves an enormous number of issues and someone's position on a given issue may only be very loosely correlated, if at all, with their positions on other issues. A left-right spectrum is really only useful if there is a very strong correlation between positions on different issues, so that you can account for most of someone's political views with just a position on one linear scale. In reality, you can't (certainly not if you want to include more than one country). There are been some attempts to put together two dimensional scales, which are a little more useful, but even they over simplify things.

The other big problem is with the centre. You gave definitions for "left" and "right" but never defined "centre". The centre is in a very different place in, say, the US than it is in France (the US centre would be considered very right-wing in France, and the French centre would be consider very left-wing in the US, even if you are using the same basic scale). --Tango (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

"Left" and "right" are pretty much complete bullshit, and should just be abandoned by anyone seriously trying to describe political philosophies. Note as just one example that Fifelfoo's scheme has no place at all for anyone trying to remove power from collectives altogether, and restore it to individuals over their own lives. --Trovatore (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The instrumental purpose of the scale that I discussed relates to the mobilisation of proletarian class interest. It is supremely useful for doing so. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Lesbians and short hair

Why is there this correlation? Does this stem from a desire to identify with an established social image or from an innate urge to appear more masculine? Why would this be the case? Ankh.Morpork 15:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd question the premise. Do you have any sources? If anything, short hair seems to go with modern, less traditional views, but that is hardly indicative of sexual orientation (there probably is a correlation in the other direction - LGBT people are less likely to have a very traditional understanding of gender roles). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I would think that some lesbians would try looking more masculine, and thus make their hair short. However, this isn't a general rule--some lesbians have longer hair, while some straight women have shorter hair. Futurist110 (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

My wife's mother keeps her hair short. She's not a lesbian, last I knew. My father-in-law doesn't appear to believe she is. --Jayron32 15:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

And I know people against gun control that aren't Republican. Ankh.Morpork 16:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

There's an article Lipstick lesbian... AnonMoos (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

In a very crude way, one can say that within the American (and probably other Western) lesbian communities, there are those who identify more as "femmes" and others who are more "butch." (We have an article: Butch and femme.) The "femme" lesbians are generally indistinguishable from the heterosexual norm of femininity. The "butch" lesbians generally dress and comport themselves in a way that conveys more overtones of masculinity. There is a wide spectrum in between these poles — most lesbians I have known are neither extreme, though their lack of adherence to heterosexual expectations of femininity are often apparent after you know them well (less makeup and lipstick, lack of dresses, fairly conservative clothes), though if you didn't know they were lesbians, you wouldn't be quite right in assuming it based on their appearance alone. Nearly all of the "butch" lesbians have short hair of one sort or another, in my experience, but there are also plenty of those on the "femme" side with short hair, and plenty of those in the middle of that spectrum with short hair. Short hair on women in general is common enough regardless of sexuality (see, e.g. crop), so I'm not sure one can draw many conclusions from the hair alone. I do think one can say that long hair on women does correspond with part of the heterosexual expectation of femininity, and thus its relative absence in "butch" communities is meaningful, but that's probably as far as I'd go. All of the above is a big generalization, of course; the actual practice of individual sexuality and masculinity/femininity is as varied as there are people. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

An example of the failure of that model is the regrettable frequency of short hair on gay men. There's something else at play here... Wnt (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think your comment "the regrettable frequency of short hair on gay men" is not only a personal judgement ("regrettable") but an off-topic non-sequiter. What does the hair length of gay men have to do with that of lesbian women? One would be equally off topic with comments on the hair length of straight men, regrettable or otherwise. Bielle (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Didn't you read the model above that lesbians are trying to copy the stereotypically short hair of men? Then wouldn't gays be trying to copy the stereotypically long hair of women? It would appear that some other model, exposing both to more frequent shearings, must be in play. Wnt (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

No, because gays are not lesbians, and they can therefore have different cultures. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That will come as a shock to my lesbian friends who also refer to themselves as "gay". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Mr. 98 deserves a gold star for providing the correct answer including references. See also the books "Female Masculinity" by Judith Halberstam and "Persistent Desire" by Joan Nestle for discussions of butch (and femme) identities. Wnt, attempting to draw parallels between the identities and styles of gay men and lesbians is inaccurate because they each have their own subcultures, and sub-subcultures. Personal anecdote: at gay & lesbian bars and events, butch women and "effeminate" gay men are the minority. Most have heteronormative appearances, and the average straight person meeting them casually would assume they are heterosexual. The perception that all or most lesbians have short hair or are butch is confirmation bias- they are "visibly" lesbian, while the more common feminine lesbian is "invisible." The same perception error applies to identifying gay men. 71.175.230.45 (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I am reminded of a radio discussion, possibly over 40 years ago in the hippy era, when some retired-colonel type asked why young men were so effeminate these days, having such long hair? Desmond Morris, author of The Naked Ape, was on the panel and replied that having long hair wasn't effeminate since length of hair is not a secondary sexual characteristic. However, what was definitely a male characteristic was to have facial hair so perhaps shaving should be considered effeminate. I wish I could have seen the colonel's face! Thincat (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It might be greek to me but not all of the inhabitants of the fine island of Lesbos have short hair . . . some have no hair at all! There is a rumor that they all have a certain "lifestyle" choice though I don't know if there is truth to that as of yet. Marketdiamond (talk) 06:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you are asking the wrong question. A short, simple hairstyle is demonstrably more practical- it is easier and less time-consuming to take care of, and less expensive to have cut and styled. Most men choose such hairstyles, because they are practical and socially acceptable. Some women choose them, too. So the question is... why do so many straight women choose hairstyles that are more expensive and high-maintenance? Answer: to be attractive to men. Lesbians are less likely to have 'being attractive to men' as a priority, and thus are more likely to wear practical hair. Of course, this just leads to the question, 'Why do men find impractical hairstyles attractive?' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Not just impractical hairstyles. Also impractical shoes, clothes, fingernails, and cosmetics. I believe the evolutionary concept is that anyone who can do such impractical things and still survive must have abundant resources to bring to the table. This is similar to a peacock's feathers or a bower bird's bower. It is a bit of mystery why it's the females who "put on the display" in our species, though. StuRat (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It's known as the handicap principle (or as "conspicuous consumption" in Thorstein Veblen's original terminology). In species where the males have elaborate displays while females are drab (e.g. peacocks vs. peahens), there's no long-term male-female pair bonding, and fathers do not contribute to childcare. The much greater "paternal investment" typical in humans creates a somewhat different dynamic... (The Guérewol is a famous example of mating customs resembling those of some non-human species.) -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Most things about women are a complete mystery to me. My mother, my ex-wife and my two sisters are all women, and I never understood any of them. Mind you, I don't understand most men, either. Or children. Or animals.

But words: now there's something you can have a real and enduring relationship with. They never desert you; never sleep around; never say one thing and mean another; never grow old, fat, or diseased; never get jealous when I choose another. And they're great in bed, too. Always up for it, never have headaches. True friends and noble companions indeed. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

But if long hair is generally considered more attractive, why should it matter whether one is trying to attract male or female attentions? Ankh.Morpork 16:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not generally considered more attractive. In our culture it's feminine, so is only attractive to those who like feminine things. Some lesbians prefer masculine looking women, and/or to look masculine themselves. StuRat (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Federal language vs national language

What is the difference?65.128.190.136 (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, "federal language" is not an established phrase in English, so your question has no answer. Particular federations round the world may have defined "federal languages" for themselves: if so, the answer will lie in what their definition says. --ColinFine (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

To expand on ColinFine's point: "federal" means something entirely different than "national". There are federations that are not nations (the European Union), there are federations that ARE nations (Switzerland, the United States), there are nations that are not federations (France, Japan), so it depends on the context. As Colin notes, the term "federal language" isn't an idiom in English, and if forced to create a definition for what it may mean, I would say it would be something of a "lingua franca" spoken when the various constituent parts of a federation come together. For example, if there was a Federation where each part spoke a different language, there may be some other language that they all speak when doing business with each other, something akin to the status of English in India or Swahili in many parts of East Africa. I've never heard such a term used in those ways, but I suppose it could be. --Jayron32 16:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that "federal official language" is an acceptable phrase, in contrast to 'state official language'. From the article multiculturalism, an example: "Hindi (spoken in the form of Hindi-Urdu) is the federal official language". OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That only works in countries with a federal government, where the constituent territories are called "states". In countries which are not federations, the term "state" tends to refer to the central national government, while the term "federal" is rather meaningless. Alansplodge (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

No Presidential debate in 1964

Dear everyone. The first presidential debate on TV in the U.S. was held in 1960 between JFK and Richard Nixon. But why was there no debate until 1976 again? I am especially interested why there was none in 1964 between President Johnson and Republican Barry Goldwater although both had very different plans (for example Goldwater was far more right than Richard Nixon was in his 1968 campaign). Some time ago I heard (but no idea if it's true) that Lyndon Johnson refused a debate. Is that true? And why did he so? Or did Goldwater also show no intention? The specific article provides no information upon the reason. --85.176.225.22 (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It says here (http://www.american.com:8080/archive/2008/september-09-08/a-brief-history-of-the-modern-presidential-debate) that LBJ refused to debate Goldwater since a debate wouldn't provide any benefit to him and since he was already leading Goldwater in the polls by huge margins. As for 1968 and 1972, I know that Nixon refused to debate after 1960 due to his election loss that year, which some people attributed to his debate performance. Futurist110 (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

One must remember that the election in 1964 was less than a year after the JFK assassination and although campaigning went on Goldwater later admitted to the affect that to ask the American people to focus on pure politics just 9-10-11 months after that horror was a lost cause. Marketdiamond (talk) 06:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Afghanistan and Terrorism

How come the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan never got put onto the U.S. State Sponsors of Terrorism list while other countries such as Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, Sudan, Syria, et cetera were put on this list at some time throughout history? Futurist110 (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Because at the time it was not politically expedient to do so. Remember that, at the time, the Taliban began during the context of the Soviet occupation and withdrawal from Afghanistan, among groups that were expressly anti-Soviet. So during the early 1980s, when the U.S. list was developed, it wasn't clear that the Taliban was a threat to the U.S.; on the contrary there is some speculation that the Taliban may have, early on, received indirect support from the U.S., through the proxy of Pakistan's ISI. See Taliban's rise to power. During the years when the Taliban directly ruled Afganistan, from 1996-Oct 2001, it also wasn't considered to be a big deal. The state sponsors of terrorism list has always been about more than just "states that sponsor terrorism", it has ALWAYS been "states that sponsor terrorism that the U.S. has an interest in caring about. Prior to 9/11 Afghanistan was considered a state of marginal interest to the U.S., not unlike Chad or Somalia or any of a number of other states with oppressive regimes but with no natural resources to exploit or business interests of the U.S. present in that country. The U.S. was quite content to let the Taliban oppress Afghanistan because the U.S. had no interests there. That changed after 9/11 when it was clear that the Taliban had sponsored the 9/11 attacks, and a swift U.S. military response removed them from power in less about a month. --Jayron32 16:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I meant explicitly in the late 1990s and early 2000s, after the Taliban captured power in Afghanistan and after the Cold War ended. Obviously I am aware of why the U.S. funded Islamic extremists in Afghanistan during the Cold War. In regards to Chad, the government there wasn't actively sponsoring al-Qaeda and providing them a safe haven. I'm pretty sure that the U.S. knew that the Taliban were sponsoring and harboring al-Qaeda way before 9/11--just look at the missile strikes that Clinton ordered on Afghanistan in 1998. Futurist110 (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the US did know that the Taliban was actively supporting al Qaeda. They knew al Qaeda had bases there, but that alone doesn't mean much. If you recall, Bush even gave the Taliban an out in the form of an ultimatum to turn over al Qaeda. Presumably, had they done so, the Taliban would have remained off the terrorist list, just as Pakistan's ISI has. Instead, the Taliban spokesman replied with something to the effect of "As Muslims, the Koran instructs us to be good hosts to our guests" (somehow I doubt if those passages in the Koran are meant to apply to mass murderers). That's when Bush brought out "If you're not with us, you're against us" (prone to misunderstanding as it was), and attacked. StuRat (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I thought that the U.S. did know but as you said, offered the Taliban an opportunity to clean up its act right after 9/11, which the Taliban refused to do (in time, anyway). Futurist110 (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Note that StuRat's memory of the Taliban's response seems faulty here, see Responsibility for the September 11 attacks#Taliban. This can easily be confirmed from sources of the time, e.g. [22] Nil Einne (talk) 07:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you link to the wrong section ? The section after that is on the Taliban. You've now corrected your link. Also, what specifically are you saying I remembered incorrectly ? StuRat (talk) 07:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

If you read either link it's fairly obvious but in any case you only gave one Taliban response so you don't even have to read the links to know which part I'm referring to. It's possible some random Taliban spokesperson gave the response you referred to, but it clearly wasn't their primary response. Nil Einne (talk) 08:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Our article doesn't go far enough. The Taliban made multiple offers to turn over Bin Laden, the one that got the most press - which was however very scant - was in the UK's Telegraph I believe. Chomsky analyzed it some. There were others, reported in Counterpunch for instance, which came to light in the subsequent years. The US refused to make a formal extradition request. I do seem to recall some spokesman saying what Stu said though, can't remember where.John Z (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I just want to make sure--did the Taliban ever offer to turn bin Laden in to the U.S., rather than to some Islamic country? Also, even if they did offer this at a particular point (or several points) in time, the U.S. demanded that the Taliban kick out all al-Qaeda members from Afghanistan, not just bin Laden. I don't think that the Taliban ever agreed to kick out all of al-Qaeda from Afghanistan, though if someone has a source to correct me, please post it here. Futurist110 (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe the Taliban also demanded to see evidence before they would consider turning over bin Laden. This may well have been a delaying tactic, with them determined to (eventually) reject any evidence presented. Revealing such evidence to the Taliban would expose US intelligence methods and operatives, while providing al Qaeda with time to escape or prepare for an attack. StuRat (talk) 04:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember that part as well. Did the U.S. try giving the Taliban any evidence at all? I mean, obviously they shouldn't have revealed any intelligence methods and operatives, but the U.S. should have perhaps provided some evidence to the Taliban, considering how suspicious Muslim extremists are of the "Great Satan". However, even if the Taliban was serious about turning over bin Laden (and they might certainly not have been), it would have been a moot point if the Taliban didn't agree to give up other al-Qaeda leaders and expel all of al-Qaeda from Afghanistan as well. Futurist110 (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I believe at this point, Bush decided "we're not going to play their game" and decided to attack. StuRat (talk) 05:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

What about before 9/11? Futurist110 (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bush Administration claimed it was "developing it's anti-terrorism policy". So, despite having been in office for 9 months, they hadn't yet decided what to do about terrorism. To me, they should have all this figured out at the inauguration, if not before. That was an unforgivable delay. Before Bush, Clinton seemed to favor a limited response, trying not to incite the situation further. StuRat (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

In regards to before 9/11, I was asking if the U.S. presented any evidence to the Taliban about bin Laden and al-Qaeda before 9/11. Futurist110 (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It's also the case that the point of the list is not just to say "we don't like you", but to impose specific sanctions and controls. I suspect that there would have been no point to doing such a thing before invading Afghanistan in 2001. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You might have a point on this. Afghanistan's economy was near the point of collapse under the Taliban, so any more sanctions would have hurt Afghanistan's population even further. Of course, the same could have arguably been said about several other countries on the state sponsors of terrorism list and an even worse lifestyle for the people might theoretically cause more of them to try rebelling/revolting. Futurist110 (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, rogue nations tend to have little trade with the outside world to begin with, especially the US and Europe, so are minimally affected by sanctions. StuRat (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true of a lot of rogue nations (though not of all of them--Iran and Syria are notable exceptions). Futurist110 (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if the U.S. was still hoping that the Taliban would eventually change their ways in regards to al-Qaeda, and that putting Afghanistan on the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism would have undermined any efforts to engage the Taliban in regards to this. For the record, considering that al-Qaeda conducted the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenys and Tanzania and the 2000 U.S.S. Cole bombing, I'm pretty sure that the U.S. government was aware of the threat posed by al-Qaeda and from Afghanistan, which was al-Qaeda's safe haven back then. Futurist110 (talk) 05:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Does predestination (calvinism) explain why some people are just naturally more religious than others?

According to this article, I am getting the impression that some people are chosen by God and therefore are predestined to go to heaven or be saved, regardless of the person's choice. Does this explain that some people are just naturally more religious than others or have a tendency to become religious than others? Is there a psychological basis for greater religiosity among certain individuals? Is religiosity fixed within an individual? Are some people just born with a greater propensity to become religious than other people and so they are "predestined" to be saved? Wouldn't that render proselytism useless? 18:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.188.155 (talk)

I think you are confusing two things, namely predestination in Calvinism and people's propensity to being religious. Surely, the dogma of Calvinism wouldn't affect people's religiosity if they are Moslem, Hindu, or even Lutheran. As for religiosity being 'predetermined' (e.g. by genetics), there have been studies on this, see, for instance Religiosity#Genes and environment or God gene. V85 (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I went the two links and read them, and also went to Religiosity's bottom of the page and read some of those pages as well. When comparing religiosity, I do not think it is fair to say or suggest that the opposite of religiosity is atheism. Confucianism is an ethical-philosophical system, sometimes regarded as a religion. It has no personal god, but it nevertheless counts as a religion, and this religion has a deep influence on Far Eastern cultures like China, Korea, and Japan. I suspect that article is biased toward religion that deals with a personal god or supernatural phenomenon. Therefore, the opposite of religiosity is not atheism. It is presumably irreligiosity. Irreligiosity is not the same thing as atheism, because atheists can be very religious. See Unitarian Universalist. 20:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.188.155 (talk)

164.107: please sign your comments with --~~~~. Obviously if predestination is true, then it explains all characteristics of all humans, including their religiosity. That argument suffers only from a false premise. As for factors affecting religiosity, there are plenty of strong correlations but fewer definite causations. The less intelligent, less educated, less scientifically knowledgeable, and poor are more religious. Women are more religious than men. Children of heavily religious parents are more likely to be heavily religious, and if so, they almost certainly hold the same religious beliefs as their parents. People living in countries where apostasy is punishable by death or worse--including many Muslim countries today and Christian countries in the past--are more religious. People in liberal democracies with freedom of thought and speech are less religious. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

To the OP: In the Calvinist system, not only the salvation of people is predetermined, but also the means of bringing people to salvation. So Calvinists do believe that proselytism brings people to faith, and just as importantly, that proselytism is a command. So the fact that all things are predetermined does not negate the usefulness of the means. For example, if I decide to travel to a certain nearby town, I may use public transportation, a car, a bicycle or I may walk. If I choose to travel by bus, then the bus is a useful means of transportation, despite the fact that I had already 'predetermined' that I would go, and I could also have chosen a different method. - Lindert (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Count of Barcelona

Why did Infante Juan, Count of Barcelona used the title Count of Barcelona during his pretension as the Spanish monarch? I understand that it was one the sovereign titles of the Kings of Spain and the Kings of Aragon before that, but why that title and not the other or simply styling himself as with the title of the heir apparent, Prince of Asturias, or even just Prince of Spain? Was he trying to convince the Catalan factions to support his cause by choosing a title associated with that region? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure it was a self-assumed title? I know our article says so, but he was the third son of the former King, and his older brothers were Prince of Asturias and Duke of Segovia respectively. Have you tried looking for sources outside of Wikipedia to see if he might have been assigned the title by his father? --Jayron32 00:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It is definitely a self-assumed title until his son granted him the use of it in 1977. I tried finding some other information but nothing I searched spoke about the title itself just Juan as a person. Prince of Asturias and Duke of Segovia weren't sovereign titles of the Spanish crown like Count of Barcelona which was one of the many titles of the King of Spain. And it looks like initially none of the younger sons of Alfonso XIII had courtesy titles other than Infante; Jaime only got the title Duke of Segovia when he renounced his claim in 1933, Gonzalo had no other title besides Infante, and Juan was suppose to be the next Prince of Asturias since his both his older brothers renounced his rights to the succession. It was only after Alfonso XIII's death that Juan took the title Count of Barcelona. My question is why he chose that title over other titles in the Crown or assuming the title of Asturias or simply Prince of the nation, like many pretenders during the period and today. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe analogous to Count of Paris? -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

"The title was given by Louis-Philippe I to his grandson Philippe, as show of gratitude towards the City of Paris and in reference to the early ancestors of the Capetian dynasty." This wasn't a sovereign title, like Count of Barcelona.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

According to List of titles and honours of the Spanish Crown "Count of Barcelona" is a subsidiary title held by whoever is the King of Spain (similar to the way Duke of Lancaster is a subsidiary title of the King of England) So... up to 1941 the "Count of Barcelona" would have been Alfonso (even if Alfonso never used it). The title would have then passed to Juan upon Alfonso's death. As to why he chose that title over all the other one's he was entitled to... interesting question, but possibly unanswerable. Maybe he just liked it. Blueboar (talk) 02:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe also analogous to the Duc d'Anjou (a formerly sovereign title in France) or the Duc d'Orleans (which was never sovereign). It seems to be bad form to claim to be king of a country which legally has no monarchy. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It has no legal monarchy right now. There's no accounting for the future. Spain, France, the Netherlands, and the UK have all seen, at various points in their history, republics replaced by monarchies. Since monarchies are often based on strict interpretation of inheritance law, when monarchies are re-established, they are often granted to the best legal heir still alive (see Charles II of England, Louis XVIII of France). I agree it isn't likely, but these pretenders are just biding their time (likely indefinitely) until the tides of history change in their favor. --Jayron32 18:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Logically I can explain all those other titles you mention, maybe a bit of original thinking on my part but probably supported by other historians. Duke of Anjou was the title of Philip IV of Spain, the ancestor of the Spanish Bourbon when he was a Prince of France, so it would make sense to be link to the senior male of Philip IV in his pretension to the French side of his heritage. The Duke of Orleans was the head of the house that ruled during the July Monarchy, but the Orleanist pretender today actually use the title Count of Paris after the last heir before the July Monarchy. Choosing Count of Barcelona, to me anyway, seems like a big slap on the face to the other former historical Spanish kingdoms of Castile, Leon, Galicia and etc. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think his choice was intended as a slap at the former Spanish Kingdoms. Lets look again at the List of titles and honours of the Spanish Crown, ignoring all the titles that are either purely historic or no longer associated with places in Spain... here is what he had to choose from:

• King of Spain
• King of Castile
• King of León
• King of Aragón
• King of Navarre
• King of Granada
• King of Mallorca
• King of Toledo
• King of Seville
• King of Valencia
• King of Galicia
• King of Cordoba
• King of Menorca
• King of Murcia
• King of Jaen
• King of Algeciras
• King of the Canary Islands
• Count of Cerdanya
• Count of Barcelona
• Count of Girona
• Count of Osona
• Count of Besalú
• Count of Covadonga
• Lord of Biscay
• Lord of Molina

Now, in 1941 it was politically impossible for Juan to style himself "King of Spain" (or "King" of any region in Spain) ... which left him with his various "Count of " titles (which, by the way, are all of Aragónese origin). "Count of Barcelona" was the only title he was entitled to that named a major city in Spain. Is it any wonder that he chose that one? Blueboar (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess that could be an explanation but he could have easily taken a more neutral title like Prince of Asturias or Prince of Spain. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Except, to my guess: a) there is no Historical title "Prince of Spain", and if monarchies are anything it is slavishly committed to historical precedent and legitimacy and b) the title "Prince of Asturias" is historically limited to the eldest son and heir apparent to the sitting King. With no sitting King, there's no Prince of Asturias. Remember here, you're posing questions of a counterfactual nature, which depend on us deciding why people didn't do something. Unless you have a documented quote where someone directly asked them the same question, there's no meaningful way to provide a reference satisfactorily explaining why. If you like my, or any others answers, as being logical, fine, but there's no reason to particularly favor them over any other, nor is there any reason to refute them. It's an entertaining, but pointless, exercise. --Jayron32 12:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly... Once Alphonso died, Juan was no longer entitled to call himself "Prince of Asturias" (Just as Prince Charles will not be entitled to call himself "Prince of Wales" or "Duke of Cornwall" the second Queen Elizabeth dies). If anyone was entitled to call himself "Prince of Asturias" (from 1941 to the restoration of the Monarchy) it would have been his son, Juan-Carlos (the current King). Sure, Juan could have invented a fancy title for himself ... but why make something up when you already have titles that you are legitimately entitled to use? Blueboar (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Railways in Ireland: two questions

• Rail transport in Ireland
• File:Ireland rail network sb.svg

Southwestern Ulster

Do I understand this rightly to mean that there's absolutely no railway service currently in the southwestern half of Ulster? If so, how do facilities with large freight shipment needs (e.g. grain elevators) operate — do they just ship it all by road? Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the answers are: "Yes, there really isn't a rail service there" and "There's no rail freight service at all in NI anyway". I found this article that talks about "the passenger-only railway network of Northern Ireland", and this one, from 2011, which says "Another exciting development is the possibility of the introduction of a long haul service from Londonderry to Waterford ... If this Londonderry flow does start, it will be the first time freight traffic of any nature has operated on Northern Ireland Railways tracks for many years." (my italics). It also says that this traffic flow is currently moved by sea. - Karenjc 09:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Changes of trains

As a child, I spent a summer in Northern Ireland, near Ballymoney. During a family trip to Belfast, we had to go through a change of trains; where does this typically happen? Or is there no particular location? Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the present timetable it looks as though all trains that stop at Ballymoney also stop at Belfast. The situation may have been different in the past - I'm afraid that I've never been to NI and so have no local knowledge. Alansplodge (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Might help if I specified a date — this was the summer of 1995. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any stations or lines that have opened or closed between Belfast and Ballymoney since 1995. According to this diagram of the NIR rail network, the only station between Ballymoney and Belfast that has more than one line running through it is Whiteabbey, so that seems the most likely place you would have changed trains. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

A little more digging. There used to be a Lisburn–Antrim railway line, which was closed in 2003. Some trains from Ballymoney would have joined that line at Antrim, so you might have had to get off there to change for Belfast. Seems more likely than changing at Whiteabbey, as all trains going through Whiteabbey go to Belfast. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

October 6

NYT & Blair

Did the New York Times retract each and every Jayson Blair story and contribution or just offer a blanket mia culpa? Marketdiamond (talk) 06:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

They didn't retract the articles, but identified errors and added corrections and editors' notes to all of his articles. The originals can still be viewed (along with the appendages) For example: "Making Sniper Suspect Talk Puts Detective in Spotlight" from March 2003. See also the NYT's "Witnesses and Documents Unveil Deceptions in a Reporter's Work", "Corrections to Articles by Jayson Blair", and "Articles by Jayson Blair Since June 1998". They did apologize too ("Editors' Note"). ---Sluzzelin talk 16:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sluzzelin. Marketdiamond (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Linking Jayson Blair for convenience. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes OsmanRF34, maybe subconsciously I didn't want to give him any more credibility. lol. Marketdiamond (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

AM

Is there an online list of members of the Order of Australia? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Depending on whether you mean Members in a particular sense or members in a generic sense, we have Category:Companions of the Order of Australia, Category:Officers of the Order of Australia, Category:Members of the Order of Australia, and Category:Recipients of the Medal of the Order of Australia. None of these are complete lists. There are also Category:Knights of the Order of Australia and Category:Dames of the Order of Australia, which are complete but these categories have been abolished.

There's also List of Companions of the Order of Australia, which I believe is complete, but no corresponding lists for the other categories of membership. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Here you go. That's a list of all 29,469 Knights, Dames, Companions, Officers and Members of the Order, along with recipients of the Medal of the Order of Australia, including honorary recipients, up to and including Australia Day 2012. You can refine the results here. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you may have meant this list, Mr Mike. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you're probably right, Mr Ofoz, but it seems both your link and mine give a blank page. There doesn't seem to be a way to link to a partially completed search filter. Basically I was trying to say 'go to the It's an Honour site and search for the awards and/or people you're interested in. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Study for a Caricature by Leonardo da Vinci

Anyone know anything about the "Caricature features an old servant woman who has cabbage leaf ears, is toothless and grimacing" drawing by Leonardo da Vinci and now being discussed at Study for a Caricature (Leonardo, Milan) AfD. The only thing I could find that might even be remotely close is this. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Black Forest ham and PDO

I'm in the US, and I recently purchased some Black Forest ham from a discount grocery (yeah, yeah). It's a German product from Edewecht, which I was a little dismayed to learn, since that's pretty far from the Black Forest. From my understanding of PDO and the information in our article on the ham, that's not right. I see three possibilities:

• No wrongdoing or foul play; the ham was properly made in the Black Forest and just marketed or exported by an Edewecht-based company
• The company skirted PDO law by marketing it as "Black Forest prosciutto" (for what it's worth, this particular product doesn't have the PDO seal)
• The company ignored PDO law and no one cares because it was exported outside the EU

If it's the latter, is this an illegal practice? I'm not going to take legal action, so this isn't a request for legal advice. I'm just curious. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia Black Forest ham article (2nd paragraph); "Since 1997 the term "Black Forest ham" is a Protected Designation of Origin in the European Union, which means that anything sold in the EU as "Black Forest ham" must come from the Black Forest region in Germany. However, this appellation is not recognized in non-EU countries, particularly in United States and Canada, where various commercially produced hams of varying degrees of quality are marketed and sold as "Black Forest ham"." So there you have it. Alansplodge (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes. Don't get me started on Subway's "Black Forest" ham. But does that also mean EU countries can ignore the law? Or more precisely, does the law apply only to products sold in the EU or to all products made there? --BDD (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It's possible the label wasn't added until after it was exported, in which case, the manufacturer would bear no responsibility for mislabeling done elsewhere, by another company. StuRat (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Edewecht is the seat of at least two large meat-processing companies. I'm fairly sure they sell proper Schwarzwälder Schinken in Germany, so you may have got the real deal. However, even for real Black Forrest ham, there is a large quality range. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good to know. As I ended up devouring the entire package in close to one sitting, I'd say the taste was pretty authentic! --BDD (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

This booklet, European Policy For Quality Agricultural Products (p.6) says (my emboldening); "Products carrying the PGI logo have a specific characteristic or reputation associating them with a given area, and at least one stage in the production process must be carried out in that area, while the raw materials used in production may come from another region." So your ham may well have been sliced and packed at a plant some distance from where it was cured. The booklet also goes into some detail about how these regulations are enforced within the EU, but a footnote mentions that sales outside of the EU are protected by the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS Agreement). Alansplodge (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Right, but according to us, Black Forest ham is a PDO, not a PGI. The former is stricter; I believe the entire production process is supposed to take place in the area. --BDD (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

So they wouldn't be able to send cured ham an hour down the road to be wrapped in plastic? Would that make it inauthentic? Alansplodge (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I checked my fridge down here (in Saarland) and my black forest ham package has a PGI logo and no other indication of origin (aside from made for Kaufland in Neckarsulm). Considering the fact that a zillion pigs are raised in Lower Saxony and presumably none in Black Forest, the pork is most likely to come from Lower Saxony. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

First royal to visit US

Who was the first royal person to visit the US? I know that Queen Emma of Hawaii was the first queen to set foot in the White House (not sure if it was the first in the entire country) in 1866 and King Kalākaua was the first reigning monarch to visit the country in 1874, but who was the first royal below the rank of queen or king to visit the US? I know Queen Emma's husband Kamehameha IV and his brother visited the US in 1850 when they were still Princes, were there any royals who set foot in the US before the year 1850? Please don't count Native American chiefs who were called Queens of Kings by Americans. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Louis Philippe I visited the U.S. ca. 1796... AnonMoos (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Louis Philippe I was likely one of the first, if not the first. He visited the US "as far south as Nashville and as far north as Maine" as early as 1797. A prince at the time, he went on to become king in 1830. --BDD (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

My money would be on Prince William Henry, later William IV of the United Kingdom, who was in British-occupied New York around 1780 and 1781 as a teenage naval officer. Washington approved a plan to kidnap him which did not come off.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your final sentence; I just almost pointed you to people such as King Philip. Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Nyttend, your indentation suggests you're replying to Wehwalt, and "your final sentence" refers to "Washington approved a plan ...". After some brain gymnastics, I think I've worked out that you're actually replying to the OP, and the final sentence in question is "Please don't count Native American chiefs ...". No? If so, one colon rather than three would have been better. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... Prince William Henry visited New York in 1780-81 -- but would that technically count as "visiting the United States", since the US Constitution had not yet been drafted or signed (much less ratified) at the time, and under the Articles of Confederation in effect at that time, each state was in effect a separate nation in all but name? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Even before the Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781, there was a well-defined alliance of states that used the name "United States of America". —Tamfang (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. A DECLARATION By the REPRESENTATIVES of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, In GENERAL CONGRESS assembled. There has been a lot of historical dickering as to how strong the "national" nature of the U.S. was under the Second Continental Congress, but the statement is right there, in unambiguous terms. --Jayron32 19:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Our article on Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn claims he was "the first prince to enter the United States after independence, in 1794". That statement isn't referenced, but [23] confirms he entered the country. Hut 8.5 21:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It would depend on how one defined "independence", i.e. by the Declaration of Independence (1776) or by the Treaty of Paris (1783). As noted above, the future William IV had him beat by more than a decade. --Jayron32 01:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to say on what precise date the United States became independent. Was it:

• the declaration of independence (4 July 1776)?
• the signing of the Treaty of Paris (3 September 1783)?
• the American ratification thereof (14 January 1784)?
• the British ratification (9 April 1784)?
• the exchange of ratifications in Paris (12 May 1784)?

Luckily, we don't need to go into this question here. We're talking about the United States as a well-defined entity, as Tamfang says, not necessarily as an independent republic. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

In that case, William IV seems to be it. --Jayron32 02:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well... we also have to ask about the word "visit"... would we really say that Prince Harry "visited" Afghanistan when he fought there in 2007 and 2011? If not, then I don't think we can say that Prince William Henry "visited" New York in 1780 in similar circumstances. Also, does anyone know the circumstances of the Duke of Kent's entry in 1794? (the article does not say). Blueboar (talk) 02:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You caused me to get out my William references. It was entirely in 1781, by the way, he was not there in 1780. New York was loyalist, he was given a large crowd on welcome, and was pushed on a frozen pond on some sort of sled. He did a lot of walking on his own near the outskirts of town (which is what gave the rebels the idea of kidnapping him), was given the benefit of what society there was, and did a lot of hoping for a West Indies cruise instead, New York not being much in those days. I doubt Prince Harry will be wandering around local villages on his own. I suspect the present rebels may be thinking along similar lines though. William saw the place in a way Harry will not. See Ziegler, William IV, pp. 38 and 39; Fulford Royal Dukes, pages 86 to 88. Fulford mentions the Duke of Kent's brief visit to the U.S. at page 160, the Duke had been Commander in Chief of British forces in Canada and was ordered mid-winter to join British forces in the West Indies. He sought to take with him a most princely train of equipment, which was lost through the ice on Lake Champlain. According to Fulford, the apparent frugality with which a British prince went to the wars without equipment so impressed Bostonians that they treated him with great respect. He then took ship from Boston to Guadeloupe --Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

And a followup question from me: Who was the first British Monarch to visit the United States after its independence? Someguy1221 (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

George VI was the first reigning monarch to visit, in June 1939. Others probably visited before they ascended the throne. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

As Monarch? Yes... it was George VI in 1939. Edward VII and Edward VIII both had visited as Prince of Wales... but not as Monarch. The current Queen has visited multiple times (she often comes over "unofficially" to buy horses or to visit American friends.) Blueboar (talk) 02:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, George VI of the UK's historic visit to the US was immediately preceded by the first visit to Canada by a reigning King of Canada, who was also a George VI. What an amazing coincidence.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

And what of Queen Alliquippa? She never left! ;-) Marketdiamond (talk) 08:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

October 7

Paul Guilfoyle

Would anyone mind digging up a reference to verify Paul Guilfoyle's date of birth? I've tried, but I don't have any access to some of the sites that would provide me with that information. Kurtis (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The Miami Herald says he was 63 this past April 28th, so it looks like he was born in 1949, not 1955 as a few places claim. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Crap... I guess we need to narrow it down and figure out which sources have it right, don't we? Kurtis (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian thinks he was born in 1951, but since the writer also believes he is the son of Paul Guilfoyle (actor born in 1902), I think we can dismiss that idea. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't follow your reasoning there. It's perfectly believable that a 49-year old man could father a son. Rojomoke (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The article says that they're not related. Now the thing that makes me believe that 1949 is correct is that the article also says he enrolled at Lehigh University in 1968. That fits well with 1949, but if he were born in 1955, he'd have to have been around 13 years old. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

And Lehigh says his grad year was 1972. [24]--184.147.123.169 (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Mental institutions

What steps/criteria must be met (in the United States) to have someone involuntarily committed to a mental institution? (Note: This is NOT a request for advice on any current legal case.) 24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Note that, in the US, being mentally unbalanced is not, in itself, sufficient reason for committal. They must also prove the person presents a danger to themself or others (and even those who are a danger to themself aren't always committed). It's going to vary by state, but here are some general steps:

1) You have to take them into custody. If they are posing an obvious threat to themself or others, say by brandishing a weapon and threatening to kill people, the police can do so immediately. If the danger is less obvious, a court hearing would be required where evidence of their behavior would be considered.

2) Once in temporary custody, psychiatrists would evaluate them and recommend to the court if they should be committed long-term, or released.

3) Another hearing is then held to rule on this evidence.

4) Once committed, periodic reviews are conducted to determine if they need to remain committed.

An alternative method is when somebody is found to have committed a crime, but to be insane (here the terminology differs, with some states calling this "innocent by reason of insanity" and others calling it "guilty, but insane"). In this case the sentencing phase covers the committal. StuRat (talk) 06:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Is a ruling by a court of law always required or can a health authority order such incarceration? Roger (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Depends on the jurisdiction. See Involuntary commitment for some details. Marnanel (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, that more or less covers it. Thanks! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll mark this resolved. StuRat (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Also see getting Baker Act'd, or as it is also known Flori-DUH ;-). Marketdiamond (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Green Card Lottery

Hey, I signed up for the annual Green Card Lottery of the United States. My question is, if I win the lottery while I'm studying at university in another country, Can I finish my studies in that country or should I move to the U.S. immediately? Or I could finish school and then move? Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.244.213 (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Look at question #25 in the instructions PDF linked on this State Department page. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but can I go to the U.S. and get the green card, and then go back to my country until I graduated? Levanagr56 (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

That's, for me, already a legal question. You'll have to ask a lawyer about the details. BTW, the chances of winning are not very high, so, probably you won't need to worry about it. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Read the instructions. The instruction for DV-2014 says that if you enter the lottery now and win, the immigrant visa should be issued during the 2014 fiscal year, i.e. at some point between October 1, 2013, and September 30, 2014. I understand that immigrant visas are usually valid for 6 months, i.e. you'd have to enter the USA within 6 months since the visa is issued. Once you enter the country with the immigrant visa, you're a US permanent resident and are supposed to reside in the United States, and not stay abroad too much; otherwise, you may be deemed to have forfeited your permanent resident status. However, a permanent resident can apply for a re-entry permit, which (normally) would allow him to stay abroad for up to 2 years. (A re-entry permit cannot be extended, but one can come back to the US and apply for a new permit). That hopefully should be enough to finish one's education! -- Vmenkov (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Bob Hoover anecdote - urban legend?

An anecdote is cited in a newspaper article about Dale Carnegie's book How to win friends and influence people: (in Norwegian)

Rough translation:

The famous test pilot and show pilot Bob Hoover was once mid-air air between Los Angeles and San Diego, when both engines suddenly stopped. He managed to make an emergency landing. Both Hoover and his crew survived, but the aircraft was destroyed. The first thing he did after landing was to examine the fuel tank, and sure enough: his plane had been filled with the wrong fuel.

When Hoover returned to the airport, he promptly requested to speak to the mechanic who had had filled his tank. The young mechanic was filled with grief and anxiety over the blunder that had destroyed an aircraft and almost cost three people their lives. Tears were running down his face when Hoover approached him. Then Hoover held his big arm around the young mechanic's shoulder, and said: "To prove that I am absolutely confident that you have learned from this, I want you to prepare my F-51 plane for tomorrow."

The accident is mentioned here in the article, but it appears Hoover was seriously injured, and thus would not be in a position to speak to the technician, and also states that the discovery of the wrong fuel having been used was a result of an investigation, not of a casual inspection by Hoover. From the context of the article I linked to, the anecdote probably appears in the book. This smells of bogus/urban legend to me. Does anyone here have more information? --NorwegianBlue ^talk 13:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right. I can't find any information on the incident from Snopes oder The Straight Dope. --BDD (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I found the book (edit: Dale Carnegie's book) in full-text online. Lots of sites. Not sure about the copyright status and won't link directly, but googling "Bob Hoover, a famous test pilot and frequent per-former" [sic] will locate it. The anecdote is in the book, and claims that everyone aboard was unhurt in the crash, and that Hoover personally inspected the tank. It mentions a source for the accident (the magazine "Flight Operations"), none for what happened afterwards. The moral of the story, of course, is "never criticize anybody". The story struck me as too good to be true. Maybe Carnegie was practicing his own philosophy, "When dealing with people, let us remember we are not dealing with creatures of logic. We are dealing with creatures of emotion...", and adapted the facts? --NorwegianBlue ^talk 21:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If Hoover's aircraft was refuelled with inappropriate fuel, how would he have made it to somewhere between LA and SD? A much more credible version of the accident is to be found at Bob Hoover#Hoover Nozzle and Hoover Ring where it explains that the aircraft crashed on take-off.Dolphin (t) 11:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Assuming it's true, how would Hoover have been able to tell (without using a lab) whether the "wrong" fuel was used? --Dweller (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not that improbable that they smell differently, and that Hoover would have been able to tell them apart. Our article cites his book "Forever flying" as source about the accident, so if anyone happens to have a copy: how badly was he hurt, and does he describe the talk with the mechanic? --NorwegianBlue ^talk 19:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

According to page 276 of Forever Flying, the accident occurred shortly after take off from Brown Field in San Diego. The instrument panel of the Shrike Commander was torn out of its mounts and fell on Hoover's shins. Apparently, he was not injured as he was able to walk around the aircraft, open the drain valve, and identify the jet fuel by its smell. The two passengers were not hurt. Hoover's talk with the line boy who serviced the Shrike is described on page 277 and references a newspaper article that quoted him as saying: There isn't a man alive who hasn't made a mistake. But I'm positive you'll never make this mistake again. That's why I want to make sure that you're the only one to refuel my plane tomorrow. I won't let anyone else on the field touch it. Skeet Shooter (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a million! --NorwegianBlue ^talk 07:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Inhibitions and intelligence

Is there a correlation between the two? Ankh.Morpork 14:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd say so. Being inhibited implies that you have thought of the negative consequences that can result. Less intelligent species can't do this. Of course, they do have fears which are more instinctual, but I wouldn't call those "inhibitions". StuRat (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

That would go a long way towards explaining the people on the Jerry Springer Show! Roger (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, how do you quantify the properties of "intelligence" and "inhibition" such that one could draw a correlation. There are, of course, intelligence "tests" which purport to quantify it, but Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views shows how many of these such tests are generally met with some bit of skepticism. --Jayron32 19:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I can think of simple ways to test for level of inhibition (other than asking people to self-report). For example, ask randomly selected students to report to a room, one at a time, at various times, for a (fake) test, and ask them not to bring anything with them other than a number 2 pencil (and their clothes, of course). Have the room be devoid of anything to do or read, except for a newspaper on the instructor's desk. Tell the student the copier is broken and there will be a 10 minute delay until the test is printed out. Then observe and record whether they grab the newspaper to read (and how long they wait) while they wait. Yes, some people enjoy reading a newspaper far more than others, but almost everyone would prefer a paper to doing nothing at all. StuRat (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The word 'intelligence' is the problem here. Some people have a high degrees of social intelligence and academic intelligence who are very, very uninhibited (like film stars with degrees and things --Hedy Lamarr springs instantly to mind). No. there is no connection other than a poplar stereotype. Declaration of conflicting interests: I do not fall into either category so I feel well placed to comments without fear or favour.--Aspro (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Claiming that there is no connection requires as much evidence as claiming that there is a connection, and you haven't offered any evidence for either view. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, to support what 140.180 is saying; this may or may not be an answerable question, but either way Aspro's answer isn't it. Every meaningful categorization or explanation of human behavior is going to have a significant number of outliers, cherry picking those outliers does not amount to a refutation of the principle. I happen to have no faith that there has been an established connection, but not because of Hedy Lamarr. --Jayron32 04:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Poplar stereotype: "Those trees all have ugly bark !". :-) StuRat (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Poplar stereotype: "East London is a dump!" Marnanel (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• To make this question concrete, we could frame it as asking whether there is a correlation between IQ and the dimension of personality called introversion. The literature on that is pretty sparse, but as far as I can see there is no evidence for a strong relationship. There does however seem to be a relationship between introversion and persistence, which plays a role in academic success. In other words, introverted people may do better in academia, but because of their habits, not because they are more intelligent. Looie496 (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Aesop had it right a very long time ago. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  

Inhibition has several meanings. Are we talking

• inhibition: the conscious or unconscious constraint or curtailment of a process or behaviour, especially of impulses or desires, .. enabling the delay of gratification from pleasurable activities.
• Social inhibition: a conscious or subconscious constraint by a person of behaviour of a social nature. The constraint may be in relation to behavior, appearance, or a subject matter for discussion, besides other matters,
• inhibition as a feeling that makes one self-conscious and unable to act in a relaxed and natural way.?
• Cognitive inhibition, memory inhibition ...
• latent inhibition

Searching for intelligence and inhibitions returns results like:

• Working memory, inhibition, and fluid intelligence as predictors of performance on Tower of Hanoi and London tasks.
• The Nature of Intelligence: Chapter 8. Inhibition and Intelligence (L.L. Thurstone): not exactly easy reading. Reminds me of Nick Bostrom (it would probably be inappropriate to tell you what I think of him).
• Differential effects of cognitive inhibition and intelligence on creativity.
• Low Latent Inhibition Plus High Intelligence Leads To High Creativity?
• Prepulse inhibition of startle, intelligence and familial primary nocturnal enuresis.

Enough "research" it seems, but an answer... woops, I notice I'm in RD/Humanities, how did I get here? Ssscienccce (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to social inhibitions. Based on my experience during a lecture, I was curious if there was any relationship between the intelligence of a question and the likelihood of it being asked. I was wondering if the more competent members of the audience were affected by some form of Dunning–Kruger effect or perhaps, were more likely to be introverted and inhibited in their general social intercourse. Ankh.Morpork 23:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

John Merbecke memorial?

I have been trying to flesh-out our article John Merbecke, the English musician and religious reformer. His music almost universally accompanied the Anglican Communion Service around the world from the 1850s to the 1970s, and was used by many other denominations too. However, I can't find anywhere where there is any sort of monument or memorial to him; not so much as a plaque or stained glass window. The only commemoration of him seems to be the Merbecke Choir. Can anybody find anything? Alansplodge (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

He's depicted in a window in Washington National Cathedral: http://www.flickr.com/photos/hilton_photos/1220135413/ Marnanel (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Also at Wistow and at Kilham. Marnanel (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, kind sir. Perhaps one day, someone will give him a window of his very own. Alansplodge (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Record number of dowagers in Europe

When was there a record number of royal dowagers in European history? Dowagers as in widows of Sovereign Princes or Crown Princes, Sovereign/Peerage Dukes, Kings, Emperors etc, so they could be mothers, stepmothers, aunts, cousin-in-laws of the then present title holder. How would each dowager be referred if let say there are three dowager queens from three childless kings are still living in court? I will mention the commonly known case of Mary of Teck and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, so someone doesn't bring it up. Don't mention of Asian polygamous monarchs like China, where the dead emperor can leave hundred or thousands of dowager consorts. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, from 1485 to 1492 there were three living Queen Mothers in England

• Cecily Nevil (1415 – 1495) - mother of Edward VI and Richard III, and Grandmother of Edward V
• Elizabeth Woodville (1437 - 1492) - wife of Edward VI and mother of Edward V
• Margaret Beaufort (c 1441 – 1509) - Mother of Henry VII

Not sure if Cecily Nevil was styled as "Queen" however. (our article on her hedges... saying that when Edward VI became King, she "became an effective Queen Mother"). Blueboar (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Cecily and Margaret weren't Queens though and each held a different title. They would be respectively, the Dowager Duchess of York, the Queen Dowager, and "My Lady the King's Mother" or just the Dowager Countess of Richmond. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean for a single European monarchy, or do you mean in total across all of Europe? Because the first question should be answerable, but the second may be quite difficult to calculate if it hasn't already been done. For example, from 1574 - 1587 France had 3 living dowagers: Mary, Queen of Scots, Catherine de' Medici and Elisabeth of Austria, likewise again for about 8 months in 1589, with Catherine de' Medici, Elisabeth of Austria, and Louise of Lorraine. What you'd need to do to compile a list for any country is to search through the "lists of consorts" articles, like List of French consorts. See Category:Lists of queens to get yourself started. --Jayron32 17:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar - I presume you mean Edward IV, not Edward VI. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Note that in British peerage system, cousins-in-law, sisters-in-law, etc, are not styled as dowagers. A widow of a peer may be called dowager only if (a) her husband bore the title and (b) the current peer is a direct descendant of her deceased husband. Surtsicna (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

October 8

Follow-ups on Suaad Mohamud

In 2009, I read about the interesting case of Suaad Mohamud. Canada prevented her from re-entering the country after her visit to Kenya, because she didn't look like her passport photo, was 6-7 cm shorter than the height on her driver's license, couldn't name Lake Ontario, didn't know Canada's current or former prime ministers, couldn't describe what she did at work, couldn't name any of the subway stops she encountered every day, didn't know her only son's birthdate or birthplace, and claimed to attend 2 different colleges while being unable to name professors from either. Then DNA tests proved she was really Suaad, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Then she filed a lawsuit, the obligatory ending of all modern tragedies. You can go here to read more about it: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/28/lawsuit-mohamud.html

I tried to follow up on this, but couldn't find anything. What happened to the lawsuit? What happened to the Canadian government's internal investigation? Did anyone care to interview her or her family members and ask why she didn't know anything? I know it's quite likely that after she came home safely, nobody bothered to follow up on the story. But just in case somebody did, I'm very curious to know what they discovered. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Per you own source, it appears to be somewhat disputed what she did and didn't say. What you have described appears to be the government's explaination. Nil Einne (talk) 07:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The source says the lawyer claims the government didn't give the full story. He didn't say that the story the government did give is inaccurate. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

In December 2010, federal court judge Sean Harrington ordered the federal government to pay her $13,500 in legal costs. “They (embassy officials) were arrogant, dismissive, refused to come to her aid and circled the wagons when cracks in their case began to appear,” he said. Four interviews and being put under pressure will result in inconsistent statements, not being able to remember some basic facts etc. It's easy to confuse people, and a list of all these inconsistencies may look more convincing than a complete transcript or a recording would. As for people ignorant of basic facts about a country, a few years ago when a reporter asked our (Belgian) prime minister to sing the national anthem, he sang the French one instead. Ssscienccce (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

But he didn't say it was 100% accurate either. As Ssscienccce has emphasised, we have no way of knowing what she did get right. Nil Einne (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The Federal Court's decision is [here]. Zoonoses (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Boni & Liveright : cowled monk ? soviet posters ?

Hello L.O. (Learned Ones) ! I’m translating Boni & Liveright for WP french, and

1° I can’t find its logo : "a cowled monk" (quite a witty logo, given the kind of B&L’s publications !) . Is someone able to show it ?

2° I don’t see in the WP english article any mention of the soviet posters I stumbled upon on Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Boni+%26+Liveright&title=Special%3Asearch) . Were they really issued by B&L ? Any commentary on that surprising production ? Thanks a lot beforehand for your answers . T.y. Arapaima (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

See the Liveright logo here, and an earlier 1922 version here. Alansplodge (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Re 2°: See Through the Russian Revolution, as explained in File:Soviet Poster 5.jpg. -- Vmenkov (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot to both ! "cowled monk" : I thought he was hooded, but actually he is not, and seems quite open to the world...I discover Albert Rhys Williams , & am fascinated...Thanks again , t.y. Arapaima (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, he is wearing a cowl, but not on his head! Alansplodge (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Does this have a name?

Towns that have a name like Oklahoma, Pennsylvania or Paris, Kentucky or Poland, Ohio? Do you call towns like that something, an encyclopedic term? Thanks!Marketdiamond (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Other than toponym? Probably not. I don't know that there has been devised a specific term for "places that share a name with another place". --Jayron32 12:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron32, to be very clear though it wouldn't be the proverbial "Springfield" so places that share name with another place isn't what I'm exactly asking its more like small one or two stoplight hamlets that share a name with a megopolis, nation, state or cultural center (Hollywood, Greenwich Village etc.), more the culture shock of a small small rustic town in Kentucky verses the world center that is Paris or the entire state of Oklahoma confused with a one stoplight burg in Pennsylvania, that kind of thing, not looking for the 1,000s of Glendales or Springfields etc. Marketdiamond (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the term in reverse (ignoring size, which for some reason you seem to feel is important here) is eponym, an eponym is the source of the name, so Paris, Frankreich is the eponym for Paris, Kentucky. Also, it does happen often enough the reverse as you describe; many American cities are considerably larger than their eponymous sources: Boston, Massachusetts is much larger than Boston, Lincolnshire after which it was named. Likewise, I think Memphis, Tennessee is larger than Memphis, Egypt ever was. And compare Philadelphia, Pennsylvania with Alaşehir, or the ancient Philadelphia. --Jayron32 16:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Or for that matter Portland, Oregon, which was named after Portland, Maine. Pais (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Which was itself named after Portland. Alansplodge (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't always move west: Pasadena, Texas is named after Pasadena, California. --Trovatore (talk) 08:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it has a specific name, but check out List of places named after places in the United States. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

In that light, we should have List of U.S. places named for European cities.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 16:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I for one would like to see that article, but if someone creates it, please provide an inline cite to a reliable source to show the town was "named for a European city" and not just "Named for a US city which was named for a European city," such as some little US Boston, Memphis or Philadelphia which was named after the well known US city rather than the less well known (to frontiersmen) non-US city. (Also note that we would need similar lists for every name-source continent). Many articles about small towns have no discussion of the name origin, or declare, without a ref, what the town is named for. Edison (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. For example, New Boston, New Hampshire was named for Boston, Massachusetts, which was in turn named for Boston, Lincolnshire. There are many places like that, where there's a chain of inspiration. Such lists probably aren't a wise idea, because there are many folk etymologies for place names, and really, of the millions of named places in the world, you could likely come up with some unwieldy number of articles of arbitrarily organized lists of cities. --Jayron32 02:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for all these great insights, sincerely I am learning a lot, alas no solution to the problem at hand though (is the mark of genius asking lots of questions on RefDesk that just truly have escaped human intelligence for the ages lol? Watch for it everyone I might invent a word ala Stephen Colbert lol. Thanks again for all the insightful responses! Marketdiamond (talk) 06:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

And for another response that doesn't answer the question, but warns folks to not always assume that names come from Europe, Melbourne, Florida got its name because the first postmaster came from Melbourne, Australien. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trovatore (talk • contribs) 08:24, 9 October 2012‎

But Melbourne, Australien, was named after William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne, whose title came from Melbourne, Derbyshire. Which is in Europe.  :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

True, but I'm really surprised to see a Brit writing that final sentence.  ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

In an extreme case, Cartagena, Colombia was named after Cartagena, Spain, which was named after Carthage, which means "New City" - implicitly, "New Tyre". So Cartagena, Colombia, is effectively New New New Tyre. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, four continents in once chain! An extreme case indeed. Can anyone find a better one? — Kpalion^(talk) 10:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Four I counted 3 but yes that is impressive. Marketdiamond (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Tyre -- Asia; Carthage -- Africa; Cartagena, Spain -- Europe; Cartagena, Colombia -- South America. AnonMoos (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, but I call translation foul on that Tyre one! Impressive none the less! Marketdiamond (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"your mind is always on your music"!

there is a comic/caricature with a woman being played like a cello (you know, she looks like this - http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lcIyObjNdyc/TxB9qmQIysI/AAAAAAAABds/FZXMtLTIcYM/s1600/man-ray-cello-woman.jpg - but since it's a caricature/comic she looks even more like a cello), as she says something like "Your mind is always on your music!"

can someone find a link to this comic for me? thanks. --91.120.48.242 (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I found Cello Woman by Hara Reita. Close but no cigar, I suppose. Alansplodge (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

According to this site, it's a photo by Man Ray of Alice Prin, aka Kiki, Queen of Montparnasse. This site concurs and states the title is Le Violon d’Ingres. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The only cartoon I can find of it isn't very close to your description. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the OP was looking for a caricature "like this" but "even more like a cello". I've drawn a blank so far. Alansplodge (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Voter registration requirements in New York in 1864

Last night's episode of Copper (TV series) took place on the 1864 Presidential election day. The show mainly concerns Irish-American immigrants living in the Five Points area of Manhattan. It showed Irish voters being given free whiskey in order to vote for the Boss Tweed/Tammany Hall machine. It got me to wondering, what were the voter requirements during that period? Were there citizenship requirements for these Irish immigrants to vote, or could any male over the age of 21 vote, regardless of how long they had lived in the US? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a solid question, and I don't begrudge you for asking it. It would be worthwhile to find an answer, but I will note that I don't think Tammany Hall was particularly concerned about the legality of what it was doing in any other aspect of its hold on power, so I'm not sure it would have mattered much what local voting laws were at the time. Tammany Hall operated on the "Golden Rule": he who has the gold, rules. It was a fantastically corrupt organization. --Jayron32 18:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The book "Boss Tweed"" by Ackerman, 2011, describes New York City vote fraud techniques in 1868 (things were likely much the same in 1864 so far as the letter of the law).. A voter's name and address needed to be on the voting rolls for him to be able to vote. Tammany Hall would make up lists of fake names and addresses, and groups of paid fraudsters would go and register to vote under those names, often accompanied by naturalization papers with real signatures of the proper judges, but filled out in false names or by persons who had not been resident in the US for a sufficient time. The Naturalization Law of 1802 was the applicable law in the 1860's. The applicant had to be a "free white person," and present a certificate from a court, recorded when he arrived, showing when he arrived and from where, and swear allegiance, and show that he had resided in the US for 5 years and in the state or territory for 1 year. Here is a "Petition for Naturalization" from that era. The applicant had to say that he renounced loyalty to his former ruler, and state when and where he arrived and on what ship. So it was not a simple matter of an Irishman getting off the boat and voting; he needed naturalization papers to register, but they could be bought cheap or provided free by political functionaries. Then the party bosses followed up by sending people to vote multiple times under various names not their own. Soldiers from New York who were away from home could also file a form to allow someone else to vote for them, an obvious method of possible vote buying. In addition, they got telegraph reports from areas of New York state where the other party was strong, then added just enough fake votes to win statewide contests. This same process of finding out how many votes were needed was used in Kentucky at least through the Roosevelt administration and was known as "counting in" the election. Slow returns were a signature of vote fraud. In Memphis Tennessee, "Boss Crump" was also known for finding as many votes as were needed and providing them. This was more precise than just throwing in a bunch of fake votes and failing to win on the one hand, or bringing down a Congressional investigation through overkill. Going beyond proof of residence or of naturalization, some states required proof that a "poll tax" had been paid, making it harder for poor people, including African-Americans and recent immigrants, to vote. It was sometimes waived if a "Grandfather Clause" was satisfied, with a voter bringing in sworn proof that his grandfather had been eligible to vote before the American Civil War. Edison (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"Sleepy suburb"

Does anyone know what the origin of this term is? For example Sleepy suburb lives through nightmare. Having lived in suburban and urban areas, I can't say I was generally more tired in one than the other. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Our article Commuter town says: A commuter town may also be known as a bedroom community or bedroom suburb (Canada and U.S. usage), a dormitory town or dormitory suburb (UK Commonwealth and Ireland usage), or less commonly a dormitory village (UK Commonwealth and Ireland). These terms suggest that residents sleep in these neighborhoods, but normally work elsewhere; they also suggest that these communities have little commercial or industrial activity beyond a small amount of retail, oriented toward serving the residents. Maybe this is part of the reason that the two words have stuck together? --NorwegianBlue ^talk 21:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

That, and particular people are always fantastically fond of all alliteration. StuRat (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I always thought it had to do with the fact "they roll up the sidewalk at dusk" in the suburbs and anyone desiring a nightlife had to go into the big city. Rmhermen (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the statement has origins in all of the above. Suburbs are bedrooms communities (places where people sleep and do little else), but they are also noted (by many, not just me) as places of such mind-numbing boredom that it lulls people to perpetual drowsiness. Compare to The City That Never Sleeps, an epithet applied so several decidedly unsurbuban places. --Jayron32 22:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

From Collins American English Dictionary: sleepy: not very active; dull; quiet ⇒ "a sleepy little town". I come across the expression "sleepy little town" quite often (seems almost a cliché for some writers, when the main character reminisces about his youth), so maybe sleepy suburb is simply a variation on that theme? Ssscienccce (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Google's "n-Grams" site is your friend for the study of the history of cliches: http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=sleepy+suburb&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=2 , and, specifically for the early history. The earliest quote known to Google Books is from 1871: "... A river- boat soon brought us to that interesting but sleepy suburb of London".-- Vmenkov (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

So the original "sleepy suburb" was Chelsea. Interesting. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Chelsea was apparently also the earliest [model of a] shady suburb. -- Vmenkov (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

How about Sleepy Hollow? Best-Story-Ever, Washington Irving was a genius, imagine how much $ all those films made! Marketdiamond (talk) 08:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Who could sleep in a place like that ? :-) StuRat (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Lodging and Visitor board persons (Historic Hudson Valley) sleep real well especially during November after all those tourism $$s are counted. BTW, wasn't it originally "Greensburg"? Marketdiamond (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting answers, thanks everyone. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

British Marines' right to search US cities and arrest British deserters after the Revolutionary War

I certainly don't take old TV dramas as reliable sources for history, but I recently watched an old episode of the Daniel Boone TV show, episode 106 "Then Who Will They Hang from the Yardarm If Willy Gets Away?" Original Air Date: 02-08-68, and was puzzled. In it, British Marines, sometime after the American Revolution is over, are in Charleston South Carolina, searching for Willy, a young British sailor who deserted his ship. They announce to all that under "the treaty" they have the right to search buildings and wagons for the deserter.The deserter moves to Kentucky, but another British sailor goes there and blackmails him with threats of turning him over to the British, who would likely hang him. Did the writers make this up completely, or was there some provision for foreign powers to search for and capture deserters in a US port city? Edison (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The British certainly claimed a privilege to stop U.S. ships in international waters and search them for deserters; see War of 1812#Impressment... -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. One episode of the Daniel Boone TV show had an Aztec prince in full pre-Columbian regalia turning up in Kentucky! AnonMoos (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the writer of that episode must have thought he was putting on a coon-skin cap, but actually put a live raccoon on his head, which then attacked him, causing brain damage. StuRat (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't laugh about the Aztec thing in Kentucky . . . check out Meadowcroft Rockshelter . . . 16,000 years ago and there are tons more "sites" up and down the Ohio Valley, in fact the largest settlement in North America was in present day Illinois near the Mississippi and Ohio junction. Marketdiamond (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That was 16,000 years ago. By the time of Daniel Boone, the Aztecs were gone. StuRat (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

They were "mound builders" etc., not Aztecs... AnonMoos (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Meadowcroft and Moundbuilders, we do have a Champ article, so if a pea sized brained reptile could survive 16,000 years a tribe that resembled "Aztecs" could conceivably . . . btw never saw that episode but could the average U.S. college graduate differentiate an Aztec vs. a Ohio Valley 18th century Indian chief in full regalia? And if not how was Boone to call him anything different given no schooling . . . Columbus after all called them Indians because they looked the part of Asian sub-continentals, also see American Pepper vs. Black Pepper the Indian vine--the other Indian not Aztec Indian. Confused? So may have been Daniel Boone ;-). Marketdiamond (talk) 08:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Whatever -- if you had seen the actual TV episode in question, you would have probably found it rather laughable, as I did, since it showed a self-identifying Aztec prince (dressed suitably according to Hollywood ideas) traveling a long way to seek out Daniel Boone. In any case, the Aztecs did not actually become politically prominent until ca. 1428, and Kentucky is far out of the range of the Uto-Aztecan languages... AnonMoos (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything about deserters in "the treaty". Jay intended for Jay's Treaty to include a negotiated end to this practice, but was unsuccessful, according to our article. The legal argument the British used was that the empire did not recognize the right of its own subjects to become citizens of another country. Therefore, anyone who was ever a British subject was always a subject to British law, including those born in the Colonies prior to the Treaty of Paris (but yes, they did have an awful false positive rate, and impressed many sailors who had never been British subjects). The issue was ignored even in the Treaty of Ghent (wikisource:Treaty of Ghent). The British never officially reversed their legal opinion on the matter, but the practice stopped after the War of 1812, or so says this unreferenced section. Anyway, on that basis, the TV show made it up. The United States never endorsed the practice of impressment (be it as a matter of drafting subjects or recovering deserters). The British believed they had a legal argument, but it was not based on any treaty. And their legal argument didn't extend to invading sovereign territory to recover deserters. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful links. Maybe I missed in my haphazard viewing some allegation of murder, if for instance the fugitive was accused of participation in a mutiny, which might require turning the offender over, per article 27 of Jay's Treaty, approved 1796, as opposed to simply deserting peacefully from a ship. Edison (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

At the time of the U.S. Civil War, it was pointed out that the British position with respect to the Trent Affair was 180° diametrically opposed to the British position in 1812... AnonMoos (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

As was the American position. It should not surprise us that this change in position occurred... opinions about stopping and searching neutral shipping during wars usually depend on who is the searcher and who is the searchee (the searcher feels it is justified, the searchee does not). Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

October 9

Yongle Encyclopedia online

Is there an online version of the Yongle Encyclopedia. I tried to find one to add, as an external link, to the article, but I couldn't find one. Is there one and if so where is it. Please respond at Talk:Yongle_Encyclopedia#Yongle_Encyclopedia_online. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Only about 4% of the Yongle Encyclopaedia is extant. The National Library of China has published a 164-volume facsimile re-print of the majority of the surviving volumes, priced at 250,000 yuan (around US$40,000 or £25,000). Some publishers have made electronic versions, but these come in multi-CD/DVD sets and are not avilable as an online version. Some websites claim to offer e-book versions, but if you inspect them closely, not only are these huge, they are also only about a quarter or so of the extant volumes. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Arveprins

When did the Danish heir stop being called Hereditary Prince and became Crown Prince?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

They are two distinct titles. Arveprins ("hereditary prince") is the Danish equivalent of heir presumptive. Kronprins ("crown prince") is the Danish equivalent of heir apparent. Gabbe (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh I totally forgot about Knud. Then how is Prince-Elect, the title of the heir before absolute hereditary monarchy, translated to in Danish.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The Danish for Prince-Elect is udvalgt prins. Gabbe (talk) 11:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is Angela Merkel visiting Greece?

Isn't that too obvious that it will trigger anti-German protests? OsmanRF34 (talk) 10:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes... but according to this article the visit is intended, among other things, to show that, within limits, she is willing to help the Greek people out of the present position. No doubt the security situation has been taken into account. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a roman triumph, or germanic triumph, to celebrate their victory over Greece. Amazingly, she is even wearing the same jacket as when Germany won in soccer against Greece. From a diplomatic point of view, it is a faux-pas. Gorgeop (talk) 12:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

(Bad joke time - and apologies in advance. Angela Merkel arrives at Greek immigration control - "Name?" "Angela Merkel." "Nationality?" "German." "Occupation?" "No, I'm just here for a visit...") AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Omggg I actually laughed! Nice one (seriously). --Jethro B 00:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The visit could be intended to show Merkel towards German domestic public as tough in negotiations with Greece. --Soman (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

"It'll trigger protests" is hardly a reason to avoid diplomacy. In fact, if a simple visit would trigger protests, that's a good sign that diplomacy is needed. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Really folks, feel free to reopen if you have something to offer better than a joke. μηδείς (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle already did. StuRat (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This article in the Guardian suggests that the main purpose is to show that Germany really does want Greece to stay in the Union. The protests are not going to shake her resolve. Bielle (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The 4 top dogs are ladies

As of an hour ago, Australia has females in all the following roles:

• Queen of Australia – Elizabeth II
• Governor-General of Australia – Quentin Bryce
• Prime Minister of Australia – Julia Gillard
• Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives – Anna Burke.

Is this a first for a Commonwealth realm?

I know New Zealand and Canada have both had female governors-general, prime ministers and lower house speakers, but I don't know if all the terms overlapped. Other realms may have pipped Australia if these 2 countries haven't. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand beat you to it, I'm afraid - for around a year in 2005-6 Margaret Wilson was Speaker, Silvia Cartwright Governor-General, and Helen Clark PM. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

...and, come to think of it, Sian Elias was the Chief Justice of New Zealand throughout that period, so you had the judiciary led by a woman as well. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention Theresa Gattung being the CEO of Telecom New Zealand, the largest (by market capitalisation) company on the NZX (by quite a big margin at the time). Nil Einne (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh and at one stage Jenny Shipley was opposition leader [25]. Albeit with the speaker seat occupied by Jonathan Hunt at the time, so Australia simply has to kick out Tony Abbott and replace him with a woman (Julie Bishop perhaps?) and get a new female Chief Justice and Attorney-General and you can take a new arguably significant record. For added bonus (the ASX and NZX are quite different so perhaps it's not a fair comparison) get a female CEO of BHP Billiton too. Nil Einne (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I should have checked (or thought carefully) about this earlier as I suspected it but wasn't sure. At the time of Silvia Cartwright's swearing in, Christine Fletcher was mayor of Auckland (NZ's most populous city [26] but since this was pre supercity days, not really accurate to say 'by far') [27] so you can add another to the record I mentioned above (which just to re-emphasise does not include the speaker). The source also mentions Marie Shroff being Secretary of Cabinet and Clerk of the Executive Council. (If you're wondering Jenny Shipley losing the leader role to Bill English brought this record to the end, followed soon after by John Banks taking over as mayor. At least if my suspicions of the laters date are right.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Very good answers, folks. And NZ was the first nation to allow women to vote, too. Must be something about the cool southern air. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

A little off-topic, but NZ was the first nation to allow all women to vote in national elections. Other countries allowed some women to vote, or to vote in local elections only, earlier. See Timeline of women's suffrage for details. --Tango (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned about Jack's wisdom(?) in describing those four ladies in his original question as dogs. HiLo48 (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't describe the ladies as dogs. I described the top dogs as ladies. That's what I call " a huge difference".

If the occupants of these four positions were all males, nobody would have objected to them being called "top dogs". It would be sexist to raise an objection to the use of that expression only when they're all females.

Some may see connections (female dog = bitch) that were never there and never intended. That's for them to resolve. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Oliver Cromwell and malaria

How did the first catch malaria? Gorgeop (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're asking how he caught malaria — the banal answer is "from a mosquito." Malaria was still extent in 17th century England, though if I recall correctly, it was significantly less than in 16th century England on account of marsh drainage projects. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Cromwell suffered from, but may not have died from, what was called "ague" - a rather general term for febrile diseases and similar ailments. It's a modern interpretation that this was, in fact, malaria; "malaria" is an Italian term which didn't come into use in English for centuries after that. A (generally non-fatal) strain of malaria was endemic to coastal England, marshy and boggy places, and fenland areas like East Anglia and Cambridgeshire, from the 1400s or earlier. Cromwell had every opportunity to be bitten by an infected mosquito during his many visits to these places. In some patients malaria can be recrudescent, in that it comes back periodically, sometimes decades after infection. Refs for this: The Death of Oliver Cromwell By H.F. McMain, pp 85-90 ISBN 0813121337, and the Wellcome Trust's The history of malaria in England. The former ref says malaria remained endemic until the 19th century when modern drainage removed much of the mosquito breeding habitat. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

There are credible claims that not only did Oliver Cromwell die of malaria - but that he refused the "Jesuit bark" medicine, quinine, which might have saved him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that it was not until shortly before 1900 that the association between malaria and mosquitoes was demonstrated. Before that, people knew that it was associated with swamps and marshes, but they didn't know why. The most common belief was that it was caused by some sort of gas or vapor that effused from swamps. Looie496 (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hence "mal-aria" or "bad air" --Jayron32 16:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

See Cromwell's health & death which suggests that Cromwell (like many of his soldiers) contracted malaria in Ireland in 1649. Alansplodge (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Recognize a track

moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment

How did Charles Darwin earn a living?

What did he do? How did he earn a living? Nothing much is said about his professional life, other than the fact he discovered the foundation of modern biology. What did he do BEFORE he published his famous theory and AFTER he sailed on the HMS Beagle? Become a public speaker of science? Write science books? Work as an Anglican country clergyman in a small parish? 140.254.226.212 (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Read our article Charles Darwin and come back to us if you have any further questions. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I did. It mainly describes what he contributed to science, not what he did for a living. 140.254.226.212 (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

According to this site, Darwin was independently wealthy - his father was a successful doctor and inventor, and his wife was a member of the Wedgewood crockery family - so he didn't need to earn a living, which gave him plenty of time to do his research. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I see. I suppose being a wealthy person or an aristocrat or nobleman/woman may mean higher education, and that means more time for intellectual and academic pursuits back in those days. Another example would be Lady Ada Lovelace. 140.254.226.212 (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Members of the upper classes definitely had the inner track on becoming scientists in those days. Regarding Darwin, he must have made some money on The Voyage of the Beagle, which was a bestseller, and of course a few of his later books were huge bestsellers; but that income probably wasn't all that significant to him. Looie496 (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed. The term "Idle rich" is a common English idiom to refer to people who have enough money that they never have to earn another cent for the rest of their lives. The modern, vulgar idiom for this is "fuck you money", i.e. so much money that you can tell any person in the world "fuck you" without consequences. Many people who are that wealthy still continue to work, because you have to do something with your time. Darwin had "fuck you money", he used it to fund his intellectual pursuits. Lots of intellectuals prior to the twentieth century were independently wealthy, many probably because they were independently wealthy. There was also the "Royal Society" and other similar agencies available at the time: it pooled resources and distributed it to fund various scientific pursuits, so even people who weren't financially independent could do science with a grant. The same system exists today, via government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health or independent agencies like the National Geographic Society. --Jayron32 20:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Lots of intellectuals prior to the twentieth century were independently wealthy, many probably because they were independently wealthy. - What does this mean, Jayron? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That is, lots of people were employed as intellectuals because they otherwise didn't have to work 18 hours a day, seven days a week digging coal out of the ground or dragging a plow across the earth. That is, it is likely that many (not 100%, so go ahead and present counterexamples, because it won't disprove this point) people involved in intellectual pursuits were only able to do so because they had the means to provide themselves with enough leisure time to devote to studying a topic in detail. I agree, my phrasing was awkward, but what I meant to say was something along the lines of "Most intellectuals were employed as intellectuals because they had the wealth to do so". --Jayron32 21:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above)Compare Darwin to Alfred Russel Wallace, who independently theorized natural selection as a mechanism by which evolution could occur. Wallace supported himself by selling specimens from his explorations (and his writings), but was for a period during his middle-age pretty financially insecure, and never wealthy like Darwin was. It's hard to generalize too much, but the mid 19th century can perhaps be seen as the transitional period from the gentleman scientist to the professional scientist. Buddy431 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

There's still a distinction to be made, however, here because (with apologies to Fifelfoo who usually brings these things up), Wallace wasn't strictly "working class". He's middle class; the same class broadly that Darwin was: Darwin's family was more successful at being middle class, but as Wallace's biography notes, his father had "received a law degree" and Wallace himself " inherited some income-generating property". Neither was a member of the inherited Aristocratic class (i.e. neither was of the Nobility). Being the son of a Lawyer (even a non-practicing one) and being involved in land ownership and investment are hallmarks of a middle-class lifestyle and upbringing and outlook on life. The actual amount of wealth is important, but cannot be overstated here: Wallace and Darwin probably shared a lot more in value because they were both part of the Middle Class than either would have with a member of either the aristocracy or of the working or peasant classes. That is, Darwin has more in common with Wallace than he would a titled Duke of similar means has himself, and Wallace has more in common with Darwin than he would with someone from a long line of unskilled, uneducated laborers. Class standing (not just wealth) comes with inherent training and skills and worldview that open up certain types of lifestyle, regardless of wealth. It cannot be looked at solely as a function of cash in hand. Take a look from a different socioeconomic system: The early U.S.: Thomas Jefferson spent his whole adult life essentially broke, all the time. He was never not in debt, and severely, and yet (what would seem paradoxical) he lived the life of a landed aristocrat, spent money like it was in infinite supply, and generally lived like an aristocrat despite never having any actual money. How? Because he knew how to live like an aristocrat, and had access to the sort of networks and skills that made the money issue irrelevent. Looking at his balance sheet, he should have been living in the gutter begging for hand-outs. Why wasn't he? Because he came from a certain class that lived a certain lifestyle, and he knew how to work the system (inherently) to maintain that lifestyle without cash. Likewise, with Wallace and Darwin, it isn't the difference in actual cash-on-hand at any one time that defines and explains their shared pursuit of intellectualism: it's their status as belonging to the middle class, and not the working class. I think I may have overstated the wealth issue above a bit too strongly, wealth is certainly a factor, but it is also important to look at a person's entire social situation, which includes the values and worldview imparted by one's standing in a specific social class. --Jayron32 22:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron32 for the coverage, I agree with your class analysis on this point. History of Science does go into the difference between an era of scientists whose profession was leisure, and scientists for whom it was "just a job" even if it was a feted and well paid job that consumed years and required the liquidation of the meagre advances on rent or mortgages that labour aristocrats accumulate. David Philip Miller does a fair bit of work here ('The Paradoxes of Patenting at General Electric: Isador Ladoff's Journey from Siberian Exile to the Heart of Corporate Capitalism', Isis 102 (2011): 634–658. ; 'Was Matthew Boulton a Scientist? Operating between the Abstract and the Entrepreneurial', in Malcolm Dick, Kenneth Quickenden and Sally Baggott (eds), Matthew Boulton: Enterprising Industrialist of the Enlightenment (Ashgate, forthcoming, 2012)). By the time you get to thoroughly 20th century science, the majority of employees are either workers or some new and undiscovered class; both reliant upon the capitalist firm and payment for exertion for their subsistence. In fact, you may enjoy DP Miller & P.H. Reill (eds), Visions of Empire: Voyages, Botany and Representations of Nature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). The current term for the mechanisation of scientific inquiry under wage labour is technoscience last time I checked, but I'm not an expert here. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Technoscience is an imprecisely used term usually to just mean "I don't think science and technology are separate things." I've never seen it used in a specifically labor context by practitioners of the history of science or science studies. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Bugger, I thought I was reading the vague research programme thingies I've seen right; bugger all academic fads. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I took it to mean "they became intellectuals because they could afford to be". A look at 19th-century censuses shows "Living on own means" in the Occupation column against a surprising number of names. Estate taxes did exist but did not really begin to bite until the late 19th and early 20th century; before this, invested capital or property that yielded a reliable income was passed down from to generation to generation without seriously aggressive depletion on each transfer. If it did get depleted, or if the eldest son got the lion's share, you could always enter the Church, use your social connections to secure a parish or parishes that yielded a healthy annual sum, pay a pittance to a poor curate for doing the actual work, and shazam! You're a respectable gentleman with enough leisure for intellectual pursuits and enough money to pay for them. - Karenjc 22:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

And on that point, a substantial number of British scientists, naturalists, archaeologists, historians etc etc in the 18th and 19th centuries, were indeed Anglican clergymen. Alansplodge (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Ordination as a minister was the normal condition of residency for a lecturer in English universities and I'd guess elsewhere. Dmcq (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that in the late 19th century, when Darwin was really came into his scientific greatness, was when science was actually becoming a profession more broadly in England. Prior to the period, science was still primarily an endeavor to be pursued by classes that could afford not to have "real" jobs. By the end of the 19th century, you could have middle class and even working class scientists (and they called themselves "scientists," not "natural philosophers"). Darwin was a member of the older guard; his class situation was considerably different than Wallace's or Huxley's. (And it was mentioned once, earlier, but Darwin's multi/inbred-membership in the Darwin–Wedgwood family was responsible for most of his income.)

One point that Janet Browne makes in her biographies of Darwin is that the vast majority of the "data" that Darwin used in formulating and defending his theories was obtained by sending letters to correspondents all over the world. His postage bills were, by mid-19th standards, a veritable fortune. The money matters not just for the idle time it gave him. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to put this snippet, so I'll put it here. As our article says, "Darwin's father organised investments, enabling his son to be a self-funded gentleman scientist". The answer was, as I implied, there in our article. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

latch-hooking

A search in Wikipedia.org for "latch-hooking" information will only bring the user to information about "rug hooking". I was hoping to find information about how the yarn strips are precut for the latch-hook kits for making bath rugs, (though I am not personally interested in bath rugs), which can be purchased in craft supply stores. I am hoping to be able to purchase a home version electric machine for cutting yarn into strips the length I want, so I can stop cutting them by hand. Other types of INTERNET SEARCHES elsewhere bring me to various types of machines with little information, leaving me without confidence that it is what I need, if it even exists. If it does not exist, I will request a local university have an engineering student invent it.173.216.80.111 (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

While I'm certain that such a machine must exist, the question is whether there's a version for home use. In theory it sounds fairly simple: a device to pull yarn a set distance, cut it, push the cut yarn into a collection basket, then grab the new end, pull it the set distance again, and repeat until the set number is reached or the yarn is exhausted. An industrial version might be designed to do 100 pieces of yarn at a time, though. StuRat (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Searching Google under pre cut lengths of yarn, I found the following: 1) a homemade tool at www.ehow.com/how_5576880_cut-latch-hook-yarn.html (that's a blacklisted site, but I don't know why) for cutting multiple strands at a time; and 2) a U.S. Patent application (with drawings) for a hand-held device that seems to load and cut from a continuous length of yarn. Bielle (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

That blacklisted site just says to wrap it around a piece of cardboard to get the length right, then cut it manually. That probably is the most sensible method for home use, unless you intend to sell the electric device to others. It's similar to the "Cricut", which cuts pieces of paper following patterns, and apparently there's a market for that. StuRat (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The point of the home-made cardboard is that you can cut multiple pieces at once and they are all of equal length. It's the "multiple" that the OP seemed most interested to find. Bielle (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how good that cardboard would be at guaranteeing a common length. The cardboard can bend, and the yarn can stretch. A piece of wood should solve the bending issue. As for stretching, you just have to be careful to apply the same amount of force to each piece of yarn. StuRat (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I've used ehow and a number of similar sites like associated content before, I don't think I ever actually looked in to the reasons for the blocklist, but it isn't surprising. These are sites which accept content from random people and pay them a small percentage of the advertising revenue, therefore there's strong incentive for people who don't care much about being considered spammers, to spam their content which is almost definitely not WP:RS so unsuitable for references and generally not suitable for external links either anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

October 10

Französisch-Guayana

What is French Guiana's status relative to the rest of France? Is it like a colony, or is it more analogous to Hawaii? --168.7.237.39 (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

See Politics of French Guiana. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 03:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

To be more explicit, French Guina is both an Overseas_department and a Regions of France. They are not analagous to a U.S. state like Hawaii, in that they cannot pass statutory laws (they can levy taxes and have discretionary power over a lot of spending in the region, just like all regions of France). They are like Hawaii in that they are governed pretty much identically to regions and departments in Metropolitan France. They have proportional representation in the National Assembly (France) and French Senate. The phrase "An Integral Part of France" is often used with the overseas departments and regions. Contrast this to Französisch-Polynesien, an "Overseas country of France", or St. Pierre und Miquelon, an "Overseas collectivity". Buddy431 (talk) 05:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

To expand and clarify on Buddy's excellent answer, France is not organized like the United States. It has nothing like U.S. states. France does have "Regions" and "Departments" and "Municipalities", but these are more like "counties" and "civil townships" in the United States: they are administrative divisions which have highly limited powers on their own; the actual power to govern France and to pass laws lies solely with the French government in Paris, France is a unitary state, where as the U.S. is a federation, so comparisons to U.S. States aren't entirely useful in trying to understand France. That being said, French Guiana is a Department. It is often called an "overseas department", but that qualification is one of description and not of quality: French Guiana is no less part of France than any other Department. In that way it is like Hawaii. --Jayron32 06:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Most people think of France as being a European country. It is that, but it's also a North American country, a South American country, and an African country. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Very true; but as a percentage of population, by culture, by hegemony, and by the general social and economic spheres, it is basically a European country. It's not inaccurate to call it a European country except in the most pedantic, technical manner. --Jayron32 06:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course. I would never describe France as other than a European country, unless the context demanded it, as it did above. It is overwhelmingly European in all the ways that matter to most people. But geographers are people too. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

--Jayron32 13:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I tried in vain to convince other editors that French Guiana technically speaking is an integral part of France at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_20#Category:Brazil_.E2.80.93_French_Guiana_border, but somehow the supposition/misconception that any place in the tropics has to be a colony is quite strong. If anyone is up for reopening a CfD again, I'm up for it. --Soman (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Just remind them that Alaska, Hawaii and Texas are all part of the same country. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Reopening a CFD from 2.5 years ago about an issue that was later resolved by other means Yeah, you have fun with that. --Jayron32 12:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

How was it resolved? --Soman (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson's views on government

When Jefferson was writing the Declaration of Independence, what did he believe an ideal government should provide for its citizens? --Jethro B 04:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

See Thomas_Jefferson#Political_philosophy_and_views --Jayron32 04:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I've seen that. I was wondering when he was writing the Dec of Indep himself, and how it's reflected in the Dec. --Jethro B 04:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It's actually a bit tough to understand Jefferson's political philosophy because, paradoxically, he didn't write much aside from that. Much of what we know about his political philosophy comes from copies of his speeches, what others have written about him, etc. Unlike many of his contemporaries, like John Adams oder James Madison oder Alexander Hamilton, all of whom wrote extensive and detailed works on the nature and organization of government, Jefferson's only proper "book" written in his lifetime for publication was Notes on the State of Virginia, which does contain some of his political philsophy, but meanders into lots of other issues and isn't really a focused work of political thought like the Federalist Papers (Madison/Hamilton/Jay) or Adams's Thoughts on Government. Jefferson wrote a handful of other pamphlets, tracts, and short articles but wasn't a big writer. If you want to get to know him best, then Notes on the State of Virginia is going to be your best shot; but you're going to have to slog through some rather boring and unrelated stuff on navigability of rivers and descriptions of native animals. Also rather inconsistently, Jefferson's practice of politics ran rather counter to his professed philosophy: For example, he claimed that he favored a republic founded on the agrarian life of the simple gentlemen farmer as the ideal citizen, yet he spent most of his political life criticizing Adams as a "monarchist" and elitist, Adams the gentleman farmer and Jefferson the Aristocrat. He's a complex fellow. --Jayron32 05:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify something I said which may be taken the wrong way: Jefferson was an extensive writer. He wrote constantly, but most of his writings are personal letters and were not works intended for publication. He didn't write works of political philosophy specifically; he wrote lots of stuff from which one can extract his political philosophy. But I don't know that he had as many concrete ideas on the minutia of government the way that Madison or Adams did; he was more of a "big idea" guy, from my impressions of reading his works and from reading analyses of his works. --Jayron32 05:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

In his Notes on the State of Virginia, he states "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others." See here page 285. So that may, perhaps be a statement of his opinion as to the legitimate ends of government. Its a pithy quote, but it doesn't amount to a whole lot. --Jayron32 05:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Jayron32 is mostly correct, unfortunately the U.S. Supreme Court never got that memo . . . ala Separation of church and state, as Jayron32 puts it "personal letters and were not works intended for publication", but that is a whole other discussion on how some will force themselves to see a unified political theory in what may have simply been the daydream musing spitballing of a founding father. Marketdiamond (talk) 08:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has Other official documents written by people who aren't Thomas Jefferson to help them resolve the issue of Church and State. --Jayron32 12:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, Jefferson wrote most of his more political letters with the expectation and understanding that they were not really "private", but that they would be read and repeated by many people. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The answer to your question depends on who you ask. People have usually characterized Jefferson's view of government as expressed in the Declaration as what we would today call "libertarianism" or "classical liberalism", that is, a limited government with emphasis on individual rights. In the 1970s, Garry Wills controversially challenged this view. Start with this essay to learn more. —Kevin Myers 16:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Occurrence of Demonic Possession

After watching a television show about demonic possession, I was curious to know, have their been any cases of possession where the victim was a non-believer? It seems to me that possession seems to occur amongst people that believe it's possible in the first place.70.171.18.234 (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Even more significantly: diagnosis is often performed by people predisposed to belief in its possibility. So is treatment, which can be lethally dangerous to the subject. Some of the victims are too young to have informed beliefs on the subject. (I went to a school where we were taught that illness was a physical manifestation of evil - not quite the same thing, but closely related. I am a Christian, but I didn't believe the claim then and I don't believe it now.) I am unaware of any cases of demonic possession occurring where the people responsible for diagnosis (whether including the victim or not) did not already believe that such a thing can happen. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no sympathy for claims of demonic possession or any other religious nonsense, but your first sentence is a tautology. How can diagnosis be performed by people who don't believe in its possibility? If you don't believe demonic possession is possible, why would you ever diagnose it? The same goes for treatment: if you don't believe in demonic possession, why would you treat it? What could "treatment" possibly mean you don't think the thing you're treating exists? --140.180.242.9 (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a truism rather than a tautology, and that was rather my point, as well as (I suspect) the point of the original question. The (fallacious) diagnosis is only made by people who believe in it. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It's unlikely, largely because of selection bias. When someone displays unusual behaviour and/or an apparent personality change, the people around them are the first to notice the problem. If the sufferer believes in demonic possession, they are likely to be part of a network (family, friends, church) that believes in demonic possession. Possession is therefore one possible diagnosis. If the sufferer does not believe in possession then they are less likely to surround themselves in their personal life by people who accept it as an article of faith. Possession is therefore unlikely to be considered as a possibility by those who are concerned for them, who are more likely to seek a medical or psychological diagnosis, which will not (in most countries) include demonic possession. It is perfectly possible that believers could diagnose possession in a nonbeliever, with potentially dangerous consequences if the sufferer is prevented from, or incapable of, getting a second opinion or access to mainstream medical care. Googling "learning difficulties demonic possession", for example, while writing this answer, was quite a disturbing experience. - Karenjc 12:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The Demonic possession article has something to say about this in general. In the UK there has been some concern about alleged cases of possession leading to serious crime including child abuse and murder (see this report from the BBC) and it seems to involve people "from Africa, South Asia and Europe". For a particular example see the rather distressing case of Victoria Climbié. In that particular case, I am unsure whether an 8 year old child is capable of understanding or actually believing in demonic possession, although she might believe whatever an adult tells her. Astronaut (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Domestic Twinning

I notice in List of twin towns and sister cities in Italy that some places are linked to others also in Italy. For example, Busto Arsizio is twinned with Domodossola, and Cagliari has three Italian twins (quadruplets?).
As promotion of international relationships was, I thought, pretty central to the whole twinning idea, what's the point of this, and do any other countries do likewise? I've checked a few of the other entries in Category:Lists of twin towns and sister cities and can't see any. Rojomoke (talk) 06:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not necessarily a promotion of international relationships. Germany still has a number of cities which are twinned with other German cities. This, of course, is because Germany was virtually cut in half for a while. Italy has historically been a nation with a number of states for most of its history. This is possibly why. In Italian, it is called 'comune gemellato' or 'gemellaggio'. As for whether other countries do this, I cannot answer that. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

In China, there are some more affluent cities or towns on the eastern seaboard who are twinned with poorer cities or towns in the west, via a central government program designed to help boost development in the interior. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly how does Rebecca Black get to maintain composure better than Jason Russell?

As you know, Jason suffered an epic breakdown on the streets of San Diego after a mix of success and acerbic criticism of his Kony 2012 campaign, and was hospitalized for about 6 1/2 months.

However, Rebecca Black received more acerbic criticism in her Friday music video and was more of a one-hit wonder (though her hit was due to the derideable qualities of her song(s)), and yet, over 18 months later, she remained sane, calm and composed. Not to mention that Rebecca Black is 19 years Jason's junior.

So how is it that when Rebecca is so much younger, hence presumably quite a bit more delicate, she never broke down amidst and in reaction to the negative responses to her songs? What's her secret? What did she have that Jason didn't? What did she not have that Jason had, that (may have) directly caused Jason's breakdown? --70.179.167.78 (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, differences in handling stress have been noted in people, and must have both genetic and environmental causes, but I don't believe we know the details of exactly what makes one person handle stress better than another. This would be valuable info, though, so we could know who can handle high stress jobs, and who will cave under the pressure. StuRat (talk) 09:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the highly serious intent of Kony 2012 may be relevant. Other factors certainly come into play, but I wouldn't wish to speculate on them in a way which might breach our policy on biographies of living people. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You're talking about n=2. Two people are not trends. Whether Black or Russell are more "indicative" of trends of stress is unestablished. They are individuals with different pasts, and their situations are not comparable, either. I'm not sure any reasonable comparison can be made on this front. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, much (all, IMO) of the flak Rebecca Black got was bullying by young men butthurt that she got attention that should have been theirs by right of birth. The Kony 2011 flak, on the other hand, was based on substantive criticism of the issues at hand. What's easier to shrug off: the wholly irrational, wildly overblown hatred of random spoiled, entitled strangers, or thoughtful criticism and plausible allegations of fraud? --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of people around the world who have been through much worse than either Rebecca or Jason, but didn't break down and run around naked in public. Think about people in criminal courts, facing death penalties or life in prison. Remember Casey Anthony, whom half the country thought was guilty of murder? What about Jerry Sandusky, O.J. Simpson, or Ted Bundy? How about people who get shipwrecked, tortured, put in North Korean labor camps, or forced to fight in a trench in WWI? How about people who live in besieged cities, go through famines, get cystic fibrosis (and slowly drown from the inside), get persecuted for religious reasons, get marched to death in a genocide, get lost in a desert, are captured as child soldiers and forced to beat their relatives to death? Billions of humans and other animals--including both our heroes and our villains--have endured tremendous adversity and overcome it or died trying. You only heard about Jason's breakdown on the news because it was highly abnormal--if people usually broke down in that kind of situation, you wouldn't have heard about it, because everyone would have already known that he would break down. Similar, you never heard the news proclaim "NEWSFLASH: REBECCA BLACK DID NOT RUN AROUND ON THE STREET NAKED!!!" because we expect teenage girls to be capable of enduring that kind of humiliation without having a complete breakdown, at least not in public, so it's not newsworthy that she did exactly that. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Israeli PM's red line for Iran

"The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events" - and see WP:NOTFORUM. There are no encyclopaedic answers to the OP's original question
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What did he mean with that? That if it's crossed there will be war? or what? thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 11:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC) In the context of a dictator who the Israelis are convinced is "close" to a nuclear weapon and giving speeches multiple times a year on how Israel must cease to exist or be pushed into the sea etc. then yes the red line would be war, the alternative to hear the Israelis tell it would be their eventual destruction. Forgetting the politics of it for a moment if someone with a weapon kept threating you, many juries would aquit if you hit back or even killed the person making those threats with the weapon, many police departments see their officers hitting back or even shooting dead a perp making threats while branishing a weapon as an acceptable use of force as well, humans are humans despite the scale. Marketdiamond (talk) 11:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC) This is both misleading about the "red line" (Netanyahu has not said it will be "war"), as well as about Iran. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not a dictator — his will is not absolute, he does not have the ability to dictate policies. He is elected, and he's just about at the end of his term, at that. Iran isn't completely free, but calling it a dictatorship is misleading . They have a complicated civil society, balances of powers, and Ahmadinejad, for all of his rhetoric and attention, is actually comparatively weak within the Iranian political ecosystem. (It also isn't the case that he has ever advocated Israel being pushed into the sea or anything that strong. Most of his famous anti-Israeli state statements have been mistranslated, but that doesn't stop people from repeating them, even after correction multiple times. He makes inflammatory comments, to be sure, but his rhetoric is not as bellicose as that.) The comparison with individuals and juries is not germane and likely not legally correct, either. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Yeah, Ahmadinejad's a peace-loving democratically-elected (2009 rigged elections and Green Revolution, say what?) bunny rabbit whose vision of peace consists of transforming Israel/West Bank/Gaza into one big amusement park for everyone to have fun! The proof is one controversy regarding a speech he gave? We could just as easily cite tens of other explicit speeches he gave calling for Israel's destruction, such as these recent ones ([28], [29], [30], etc). No surprise that Secretary General of the United Nations Ban ki-Moon has called on Ahmadinejad explicitly to stop threatening Israel. --Jethro B 23:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC) I'm no lover of Ahmadinejad — don't make a straw man out of what I said. He's not a dictator, though. There were 2009 election irregularities, but typically we view things on that level as a spectrum of corruption rather than "dictatorship vs. democracy." The "wipe off the map" speech is the most famous speech of his, and is constantly brought up as proof of his allegedly genocidal intentions. His speeches, when not accidentally or purposefully mistranslated, generally call for an end of the specific Zionist regime in Israel, not Jewish people. His audience for that is obvious — his own domestic base, and like many in the Middle East he gets a lot of domestic capital by subscribing in a vague way to the Palestinian cause. He's never said anything though that would imply that he intends to nuke Israel, and there is exactly zero reason to suspect that's his goal. That doesn't mean Israel should be happy about the idea of a nuclear Iran, but there are facts and then there is just hyperbole. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC) I never said he's a dictator - just that it's likely his rule is illegitimate. At either rate, I (and most analysts will agree) view him as more of a "puppet" of the Supreme Leader. I don't know if that speech is used the most often, I do not care. If I wanted to make a case of explicit statements calling explicitly for Israel's destruction, I'd use the numerous times he has said this explicitly without dispute - even Ban ki-Moon has condemned him for this explicitly. As for using the nukes on a country (be it Israel, Saudi Arabia, American bases, etc)... I don't read crystal balls, so I don't know what'd happen. The possibility certainly exists, and is not one anyone would like to live under. You have a fanatical enough regime and fanatical enough leaders, believing in a radical interpretation of their religion, you don't know what could happen, if they're willing to make that sacrifice. Even if not, Iran still supports terror organizations (yeah, this isn't an article so I'm going to say that) like Hamas and Hezbollah (let alone their own IRGC), so imagine if they do get nukes what could happen. It's not about using them. If they would get it, that would be a significant deterrent to responding to any terrorist attacks by these organizations. Or the prospects of setting off a nuclear arms race (Saudi Arabia has confirmed they'd seek nukes) in a volatile Middle East isn't too good either... All of this without actually using the nukes. Even just attaining the capability to produce nuclear weapons is scary enough - in just a few weeks, in some underground new facility that no one knows about, with just a few top scientists, a nuke can be producd at any time. North Korea all over. But it's like what I always say - is this something we want to risk? Should we turn a blind eye to it, give the benefit of the doubt, and be naive and hope for peace? I wish we could. I don't think it's realistic though. --Jethro B 02:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC) I think that by dictator he means Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, rather than Ahmadinejad. Futurist110 (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Khamenei is a theological leader, but he's not a dictator, either. (I think of the Iranian mullahs as being roughly equivalent to the US Supreme Court — they are not democratically elected, they are not subject to very much representative power, they have certain abilities to make very big decisions, but they are not completely unlimited in their abilities, nor can they totally disregard the reality of things.) Iran's political system is more complicated than that. Abstracting it down to "one guy must be in charge, they're backwards and cruel" is just a reflection of ignorance. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC) Ironically that metaphor applies to both sides. Israel is a nuclear power who is constantly threatening to attack Iran.A8875 (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC) However, Israel doesn't refuse to acknowledge Iran's existence ("the Persian entity ?"), set it's destruction as a goal, and specifically fund groups dedicated to that goal. StuRat (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Yeah, and also the main reason that Israel is threatening to attack Iran is because Iran was threatening Israel first (such as by sponsoring terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians and as StuRat said, to set the destruction of Israel as its goal). To be honest I think it's very stupid for Iran to alienate Israel and the West this much. Iran is close to some hostile Sunni Arab states, and if the Iranian leadership was more rational an alliance with Israel might have been much smarter than threatening to eliminate Israel. Futurist110 (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Israel does directly fund groups that commit acts of terrorism and assassination in Iran — that is pretty well known. They do certainly desire to destabilize the Iranian regime; "regime change" and "regime annihilation" are fairly synonymous in this context. Iran does not set the killing of the Israeli population as its goal; it's goal is to end the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory and its establishment as a specifically Jewish (as opposed to pluralistic) state. You can disagree with that pretty solidly; my point is that viewing this as a simple "Iran wants to kill Israel, who has never done anything to anybody" is a really naive approach to it. I don't favor Iran's intentions, but I'm pretty wary of Netayahu's intentions as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC) What wonderful goals! Guess there must be some Freudian slips there, with the few diffs I provided above as just recent examples of explicitly saying "destroy Israel." And burning the American, British, and Israeli flags, while chanting "Death to Israel! Death to America! Death to England!" Btw, elections are coming up in Israel in January, like they do every 3/4 years. It's called a democracy, where the people elect their own regime. No one needs to tell them who to elect or to wish for 30 years for some "regime change," regardless of whether the "regime" is left or right on the political spectrum, always that same "wish." --Jethro B 02:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC) Regarding "end the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory", since all of Israel is defined by Iran as "occupied Palestinian territory", this means that Israel must cease to exist to satisfy Iran. Israel has no such goal for Iran. StuRat (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC) One point that should be clarified is the difference between attacking a country and fighting its people and attacking nuclear facilities of a country (or at least, having the intention of only this, who knows what would develop). Tragically, I don't think this has really been stressed by world leaders advocating this (even as a last resort, as all do), although judging by Operation Opera, Israel's miraculous raid on the Iraqi nuclear reactor that helped Operation Desert Storm significantly and to liberate Kuwait, which targeted only the Osirak reactor. --Jethro B 23:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC) The main question being debated by the people who actually make decisions about this is whether attacking the nuclear facilities would lead to a wider conflict, and whether it would slow, rather than hasten, Iranian nuclear ambitions. It's a thorny problem and there are different types of examples. It is not quite the same thing as the Iraqi situation; the Iranian nuclear complex is far more robust and spread out. (Another point of comparison is the Israeli bombing of the Syrian reactor a few years back.) There have been some excellent articles on all of this in the New Yorker not too far back; it's clear that Netayahu thinks that they can bomb in a contained way, but it's also clear that most other Israeli defense analysts are dubious of this. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC) There are definitely risks and any military option should obviously be a last final doomsday resort, something that everyone agrees on. You gotta assess the risks, assess the consequences, and compare it to the consequences of not doing such an action, and then make a choice. Luckily, I'm not the one making that choice. --Jethro B 02:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC) Netayahu's invocation of the "red line" was as a threat in and of itself. ("At this late hour, there is only one way to peacefully prevent Iran from getting atomic bombs. That's by placing a clear red line on Iran's nuclear weapons program. Red lines don't lead to war; red lines prevent war.") In the context of his speech, he said that in the past, making firm stands against certain outcomes has led to positive diplomatic success in the past. (He specifically invoked the Cuban Missile Crisis as an example of this, though it is misleading — JFK did take a hard stand, but he also bargained and compromised to get the outcome he wanted.) He didn't actually say he was drawing a red line, just that a red line should be drawn (specifically at the place in which Iran had enough HEU separated for a single bomb). It's commonly interpreted that Netayahu is supportive of conventional bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, and that he would like US commitment to supporting Israel in this endeavor. But he's been deliberately vague about this. There is also significant technical uncertainty about where the "red line" would be or how you would know if it had been crossed, as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC) I viewed the remark as saying an ultimatum should be set, which threatens an attack (not necessarily war) if Iran does not stop. StuRat (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Yes, that's exactly right. "Don't pass this line, lest you shall NOT pass GO, you shall NOT collect $200." If Iran is willing to compromise, that's great, but this is exactly what the IAEA has been trying to do, and each time they try and attempt to gain accessd to an underground site like Parchin, they're smiled at but turned away at the door. --Jethro B 23:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC) The IAEA has actually been able to get plenty of access to Iranian sites — Iran is probably the most inspected country in the world right now. The difficulties hinge on how much access has to be given, and how to establish exactly when the IAEA has access to any given site. The IAEA is not allowed to just inspect anything it wants, willy nilly, because it would compromise other military research. Iran is allowed to keep secrets — it just isn't allowed to violate the NPT. There are practical difficulties in enforcing such a thing, and the details are somewhat boring and esoteric aspects of international law (e.g. did Iran accede to the NPT's Additional Protocol because the Shah approved of it?). --Mr.98 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC) Interesting discussion per the response to my post you can parse it all you want but Iran is a dictatorship, technically the Soviet Union Premier was "elected" (and even Hitler was) but no one had any doubts it was an iron ruled dictatorship. Also you may parse the red line thing all you want as well, the effect of the speech was clear, submit or risk war, who's right and who's wrong, StuRat made some excellent points in that analysis but the OP's question was what was meant by the speech, not how to resolve the conflict or which nation is more guilty. I have other thoughts on the domino effect of this if it does occur but I'll leave at that. Marketdiamond (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC) The situation is Iran is nothing like the situation in the USSR. Democracy is a spectrum, it is not an all-or-nothing thing. There are actual Presidential elections in Iran, and the results of them actually matter when it comes to things like nuclear policy. That is a real difference from the USSR, Nazi Germany, or any other totalitarian regimes you want to mention. It does not mean that Iran is a free and open society. Ahmadinejad will be gone in 2013, which is more than you can say for, say, Mr. Putin. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC) He'll be gone, definitely, especially after his fallout with the Supreme Leader... --Jethro B 02:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC) You clearly know nothing about Iran's constitution if you think it's similar to the Soviet Union's. If Iran is a dictatorship, who's the dictator? Surely you're not under the impression that Ahmadinejad has any room to maneuver to the left on the nuclear issue, considering that both Khamenei and his electoral opponents (particularly Mousavi) are against him? The most that can be said is that Iran is an ideological dictatorship, for the reason that only candidates with a certain set of beliefs are allowed to run for public office. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC) In response to the OP question... It doesn't necessarily imply war. You'll have analysts saying, "Yeah, they're 100% prepared and ready to go to war or launch a strike if necessary, no doubt about it." Then you'll have other analysts saying, "There aren't any actual intentions to go to war, all of these are just rhetoric and threats to prevent a nuclear-Iran." The red line, in and of itself (which Netanyahu drew at 90% uranium enrichment at the United Nations), is meant to convey a message that that line would be the last straw. Go up to it, you're good. Concerned, but good. Pass it, and that's unacceptable. --Jethro B 23:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Don't see anything there I would disagree with Jethro B, only thing is I would caution anyone from paying too much attention to "analysts" especially ones that publicize their findings/conclusions. Even the best CIA ones were still advising the Berlin Wall would not fall as it was on CNN falling, and then there was that whole Yellow Cake/nuclear devices thing with Iraq but those are discussions for another topic. Marketdiamond (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC) Yes, I'm merely showing that there are 2 completely different ways of thinking - both possibilities seem like the only possibilities to me. If there are more, I am unaware of them. --Jethro B 00:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC) The most interesting stuff has been that which has come out about internal Israeli defense thinking on the matter. There's considerable dissent within the ranks, which is itself an interesting datapoint. One of the reasons we know this is because whenever there is internal dissent, both parts of that argument start leaking things to the press. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC) In democracies, people have opinions and that should be respected and taken into account when considering any action. Having a different opinion though isn't the same as dissent. --Jethro B 02:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC) Huh? Dissent means "having a different opinion". As far as I know, it usually has a positive connotation: dissenting opinion (in the Supreme Court), suppression of dissent, etc. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Could I buy Greek debt?

We hear a lot in the news these days about the amount of trouble Greece is in. A major issue is that they need to borrow huge amounts, but are also seen as unstable, so that the interest rates they must pay to borrow are extremely high. Say I, a private citizen from the UK, decided that I thought the risks were worth the rewards, and I wanted to lend Greece some money at the market rate. Could I, and if so how? Also, is there a minimum amount I'd have to 'invest' in this or is it very fluid? 86.166.186.159 (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, you can: you buy Greek bonds. This is basically the same as saying, "I will give you some money, and I expect to get it back, with some return, after a certain amount of time." Know, of course, that doing so entails significant risk — you may not get your money back. How you go about buying actual bonds as an individual, I don't know, but a financial advisor or broker can probably set it up. My understanding is that for many bonds there are minimum investments for it to be worth a broker's time to set up — on the order of a few thousand dollars USD, in the USA. I don't know about buying Greek bonds in the UK, though. But this is a fairly standard sort of transaction. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This suggests that the vast majority of Greek debt is held by institutional buyers, including banks, insurance companies, pensions and mutual funds. You could find out which mutual funds have invested in it, and buy shares in them. Again, you'd want to talk to a broker about it, but it may or may not be possible for an individual to buy bonds on a small scale (but it might be, I don't really know). Buddy431 (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not buy National Bank of Greece (NBG NYSE) or a like institution, although bonds offer more safety, at this point with Greece's economy bonds may be as unsafe as stocks (you may be first in line to be paid with bonds but if the country goes under no one is getting paid bondholders or stockholders). I doubt Greece will actually go under this or next year but the bonds may have as much risk as the stocks. Marketdiamond (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The National Bank of Greece is not the same as the Greek state bank; that's the Bank of Greece. Andrew Gray (talk) 05:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Federal Penitentiry Service (Russian prison) death rate

A lot of you probably have recieved an email asking to sign a petition to release Pussy Riot from prison and the one I got from care2 today says the Russian Prosecutor General has claimed that 2,000 people have died in or en route to Russian prisons in the last six months. I am not so interested in Pussy Riot (they do stuff like perform sex acts with dead chickens for publicity and I'd have give them two years in a mental home rather than a prison) but the Russian prison thing picqued my interest and lo and behold I searched the internet and found practically nothing that didn't say "Pussy Riot" on it or reword the email I got. So, I am thinking what a load of lies, but Russia is notoriously tough on its people so, is there anything to it? It could do with a note on the article here at least if it is true. Any references worthy enough for WP? ~ R.T.G 15:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a sex act with a chicken, it was stealing a chicken by shoving it up a woman's vagina. And it wasn't Pussy Riot, it was Voina. 109.99.71.97 (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Technically it was a protester that was with Voina, kind of unclear if it was actually one of the groups members, though Voina seemingly celebrated the act. I would seriously doubt the 2,000 in last 6 months statistic. Just doing the quick math that seems to approach a Stalinst death count and the smell test would dictate we would be hearing about that tons more in the media today. Plus from what I've read of Putin he may govern in Stalinst ways but he is not a fan of Stalins gulag or killings, there have been stories where Putin and his ilk have done some very creative things to increase population and for lack of a better term "babymaking" with some observers remarking that the vast expanse of the eastern frontier is bordered by the exploding populations of China, India and the like . . . I'd doubt that thousands are dying under Russian incarceration every 6 months but then again Putin has never been known for his unified logic. Marketdiamond (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Russia has about 700,000 people in prison. Assuming the age distribution of prisoners reflects that of the general public (it probably doesn't), you could reasonably expect about 10,000 of them to die of old age every year. --Carnildo (talk) 01:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

"В 2010 году в исправительных учреждениях умерли 4423 человека.... более 90 процентов из примерно 830 тысяч заключенных больны." - "In 2010, 4423 persons died in [Russia's] correctional institutions. ... Over 90% of some 830,000 prisoners are sick", according to the Federal Penitentiry Service's officials. -- Vmenkov (talk) 04:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Who were the 2 Mass. House members who voted against Romney Care?

I have read your page on Mass. health care reform. Romney has said there were only 2 votes against it by the time they were done drafting the bill. I have been able to determine that those votes were in the house. I am curious who the nay votes belonged to, what party they were members of, and what their reasoning was for voting against the bill. I have looked for records on the Mass. house site but they don't seem to have vote records. I tried calling them but got no answer. Thanks for your help!71.54.146.92 (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Did a search on the MA House site but only goes back to 2009, also did several different Google News searches around April 2006 and then Spring 2006, several sources do cite that "2" voted against never with names (NPR, Bloomberg, etc.) also searched just general google searches for "2 against Romneycare" and derivations, nothing. You may want to try Spring 2006 resources on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request. Marketdiamond (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Question about copyright notice wordings by publishers

Hope this won't be considered legal advice, as I'm merely asking for observations. I'm also not sure if this should belong here or in the language reference desk since this is a question about wording. However, I've noticed that there are several websites which provide web content which state that "reproduction of this material in any form is prohibited". This is normal. What is not normal is that it seems that they seemed to have intentionally left out either the words "unauthorized" or "without permission". Does this literally mean that they do not allow any copying of their material with or without permission, or do they assume that the readers already know that they can copy if they first seek permission? If it is the former, what is the rationale? Are there really people or media companies that do not want their published works to be copied for any use at all with or without permission even if it would be covered by fair use or fair dealing? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

This is skirting the legal advice prohibition, but talking very generally when in doubt contact the source of the material directly. Each law firm has their own specially tailored way of writing notices for these clients and some states may have unique areas of law either directly about copyright or in areas that could be implicated by copyright laws or vice versa. Also a lot of this is because of court decisions and precedence, because at the end of the day copyright law is whatever the judge and especially the appeals judge says it is (or the lower courts instructions to the jury). Since there are 11 different precedence in U.S. Federal Courts (some even directly contradict each other) you may find copyright notices in say California very different then those in Boston because of the differences between not only CA and MA laws but the 9th and 1st U.S. District Court precedence. Marketdiamond (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

My reading of it is that such language is meant to be as strong as possible. It's stronger than the actual law allows, frankly — it doesn't say, "except as allowed by fair use," for example. But there's no disadvantage to them wording it as strongly as possible; they are not fined for it or anything like that. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

And if they ever "change their mind" in a particular situation, making an absolute statement like that does not prevent them from then contracting with another person to allow them to reproduce the material. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

proportional representation

Is there a website or a document of how open-list party-list proportional representation, closed-list party-list proportional representation works and mixed-member proportional representation works? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.230.254 (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia. See Category:Proportional representation electoral systems for some articles at Wikipedia that covers this topic. --Jayron32 01:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

looking for japanese communities in thailand, northern thailand and southern china and throughout china

im looking for significant numbers (1000 or more?) of japanese people in thailand and china-- besides bangkok--but also info on that area -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve1mm (talk • contribs) 01:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi (please remember to always sign your posts with four ~, thanks!) just browsing the old google machine brings up the wikipedia articles Japanese people in China and Japanese migration to Thailand and they seem pretty extensive articles, hope that helps! Marketdiamond (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

October 11

RMS Titanic

Hi!, how are you?, I'd like to know how many Canadians were on board the Titanic. Thank you and have a nice morning! Mark. Iowafromiowa (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Our own Passengers of the RMS Titanic has all of them, but doesn't separate them by nationality (although it is possible to sort them and count them). The Encyclopedia Titanica however does list them - there were only 5 who were born in Canada, but 35 who lived there, and 81 who were travelling there. I suppose these numbers overlap though. You can use that site to look for other nationalities too. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Iowafromiowa (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You can also press the CNTRL and F keys and put in "Canada" that way you can count off the key presses to retain accuracy (instead of trying to remember your placement on the screen). Marketdiamond (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Calculate risk of variable-rate interest loan/mortgage

How do you calculate the risk of variable interests? How do you know the value of an asset (like a house) which has a liability like a mortgage of 25 years with variable-rate mortgage on it? For the bank it's clear that they can charge the basic index + a margin and cover their back. As a borrower, you know that the interest rate can be as high as in the past, but that the past doesn't have to determine the future (thus, the rate can also be much higher than in the past). So, how much reserves should someone plan to cover any contingency? OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You need to make some assumptions about the probability distribution of the future interest rates. Coming up with good assumptions for that kind of thing is very difficult and there have been hundreds of books and papers written on the subject. For most purposes, people just value loans as the current amount outstanding, which essentially means you are using the interest rate on the loan as your discount rate. I don't think many people intentionally hold reserves again their mortage - it would be more efficient to just pay off part of the mortgage. What people actually do is make an estimate of how high their mortage payments could go and make sure their income would be able to cover them (so you don't borrow so much that an increase in the rate would mean you no longer had enough money each month). Those estimates aren't easy to make for the long-term, though. --Tango (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Holding reserves can be a good idea, if the mortgage has low interests (which is the case at the moment) but you are investing the deposit in a higher rate fund or higher paying bond, although this extra margin implies some additional risks. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

When interest rates are low, isn't that the ideal time to get a fixed interest rate loan ? StuRat (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Since the decision fixed or variable depends on the expectation up or down I suppose that you are right. The interest cannot get lower, so go for the fixed interest. But in a real-life scenario that's not always the case. Some banks won't offer fixed interest, some people are already into the mortgage and some people still want to know how do we evaluate variable interest loans. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It will be rare to be able to find something giving low-risk investment returns higher than the mortage interest rate (unless it's a fixed rate mortgage and rates have gone up since you took it out, but obviously that isn't relevant to your question). All returns and interest rates are essentially the risk-free rate plus a premium. The premium on your mortage is going to include an allowance for the risk of you defaulting and a profit margin. To find an investment product with a higher premium, you would need to take on significant risk. --Tango (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

But if someone gets extra unexpected cash, like a bonus, he can decide: will I cancel a part of the mortgage or will I take the risk of some bond (corporate or governmental) and cancel the mortgage next year with the proceedings? But that's only possible if he had some rule of thumb to evaluate the risk of the variable-rate mortgage. For the gov and corporate bond you already have several ratings of credit worthiness.

But maybe the answer is as simple as 'it's just speculation. (a gamble).'OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said at the start, you have to come up with some model of interest rates, which is a problem far too difficult to answer here. As I said, there are many books written on the subject. You will generally have to take on very high risk to get an investment return higher than mortgage rates, though, so I doubt it is really worth worrying about, especially with a time horizon as short as one year. Just pay off the mortgage. (I am, of course, talking in general terms. If you are actually trying to make a decision about your own finances, you should speak to an independant financial advisor - they will be able to take your personal circumstances into account, which I cannot do.) --Tango (talk) 11:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to come up with a model, you could look at what others with models think. Market expectations of future interest rates can be gauged by looking at, for example, forward interest rate and interest rate swap.90.212.157.32 (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Party registration in the United States

I was trying to find out information about the system of party registration (i.e., where a voter rather than an elected official is described as a "Registered Democrat/Republican"). In the UK the concept simply doesn't exist. You might choose to join a political party, paying dues and possibly having a say on internal matters, but that's a private matter between you and the party just like joining any other private club. There is no concept of "registering" as a supporter of a particular party - or even odder, registering as an Independent - in the way that there is in the US.

Unless I'm missing something, information on Wikipedia seems to be scarce. I found one paragraph here, which at least told me how this happens (at the point when you register to vote), and that it's not the same for every state. But I can't find much more about it. I'd just be intrigued to know stuff like how this system first came about; what the perceived benefit is; why it's used in some states but not others; is it unique to the US or do other countries work the same way; and so on. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Well to answer for the U.S. it seems that this will answer how and where it came about and some additional musings from the academic here and here. The simple answer is that in many jurisdictions and states you can't vote in the Spring primaries without being registered with a party affiliation, big whoop you might say but for the 2012 Republican presidential field it was a big deal and in 2008 you had the primaries almost go into the summer with McCain v. Romney and Obama v. Clinton . . . not to mention some jurisdictions that are basically one party dominate so that the general election isn't really relevant but the party primary in Spring is the election (again in most you may not primary vote unless you are registered with that party). As far as registering Independent there are on occasion Independent candidates and even in the mega cities some sitting mayors have broken away from their party for one election cycle to run for the general election in the fall after losing a party primary or knowing they would lose it like here. Also some states allow Independents to vote in either party primary. Marketdiamond (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

it's not an all US thing, some states have this voter registration system and others don't. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The OP said that in their final sentence. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To add to some of that: Very broadly speaking, the point of registering in the U.S. is that it grants the registree (is that a word? I'm going with it) the right to vote in primary elections, and thus have a say in which candidates appear on the ballot in the general election. The primary elections are basically the time when the parties choose their candidates. When you get a ballot in a primary, there are multiple ballots. Each party has a ballot where you choose from among that party's candidates for various offices. When you vote, you're choosing which candidates from that party will run in the general election later in the year. The specific practice varies greatly from state-to-state. Some states have a closed primary, which means you MUST be pre-registered as a member of that party in order to vote on that party's slate of candidates. You can still vote on non-partisan races (many Judgeships and other offices are officially non-partisan) and ballot initiatives/referenda but you don't get to vote on the party lists if you are officially "unaffiliated". Some states have open primaries, which means that registration is entirely meaningless: you still only get to vote in one party's primary or the other, but you simply pick which party when you show up at the polling station, and they give you a ballot. Other states have a hybrid of the two: basically, if you are registered as "unaffiliated" you get to choose which ballot you want, if you are registered for a party, you get that party's ballot. And, there are states which don't use primary elections but rather operate on what is called the caucus model (they all used to do this a century or two ago, but I think there's only 3 or so that do it now), Iowa_caucuses#Process covers how the caucus usually runs. So you can see, it is a complex system. Ah, the joys of federalism. --Jayron32 13:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks folks. Some really interesting stuff there, especially the links that Marketdiamond posted to the history of how it all first came about in Crawford County, Pennsylvania (and it really ought to get a mention in that article). It looks as if the concept of a Primary election, open or closed, isn't unique to the US (though it may have started there. But possibly, the concept of party registration, as opposed to party membership, is. I certainly can't find any evidence of that happening anywhere else. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

No, in the U.S., party registration is a nearly perfect synonym of party membership. People generally need to be registered members of a party in order to get that party's sponsorship to run for office to represent party, or to participate in party conventions, or anything else like that. You don't have to pay dues to join a political party, all you have to do is register for it, but I think (and I am just speculating here) that if a party collected dues from its members it would amount to a Poll tax (United States) on voting in primaries (poll tax means a fee charged to vote in the U.S. It has a different meaning elsewhere). See Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which expressly forbids the charging of fees for ballot access. If it cost money to join a party, then that would mean that the parties could control ballot access unfairly in primary elections. The parties already do control ballot access in the primaries, but how they do so is carefully designed to be equitable under the Constitution. Using a fee to control that access would be (IMHO) a clear violation of the 24th amendment. --Jayron32 15:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Like the OP, I also am not quite understanding this concept. After reading this thread, I still don't quite understand what the reasoning is for the US Government, or local governmen,t being part of handling the membership rolls of the parties. In most other situations, the US takes separation of state and private organisations much further than most of Europe, but in this case it seems to be the opposite. Why aren't parties seen as any independent organizations that can handle their internal affairs as they like? (Such as the Boy Scouts of America, who are apparently allowed to exclude gay people just because they want to.) Since you are mentioning the 24th amendment, Jayron, are you implying that the dominance of the two current main parties means that you can't get on the ballot without them? Because if I am not mistaken, there are plenty of people running for offices without being part of any of them. Doesn't that mean anybody can get on any ballog? How could e.g. the Republican party (who aren't a government of any level, or an agency thereof) be violating a rule against a "tax"? Aren't they allowed to (like the BSA) accept or reject anybody they like, and charge whatever fees they like? /Coffeeshivers (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• "are you implying that the dominance of the two current main parties means that you can't get on the ballot without them?" I won't just imply it. I'll state it right out: Unless you belong to one of the two main parties, you stand almost no chance of getting on the ballot, and significantly less chance of being elected even if you do. The proof is in the pudding: In the United States, there have been three or four significant "third parties" that have made any national impact: the Constitution, Reform, Libertarian and Green parties. None of them has "automatic access" to run candidates in any state. And in all of history, do you know how many candidates from these three parties collectively have been elected to National Office (President, Senator, or House of Rep.)? Zero. I've never seen an election anywhere for any national office where someone from any of these parties polled in the double digits, and commonly, even where they are on the ballot, they get less than 1% of the vote. There are "independent" candidates that occasionally win elections, but in the past 30 years the only one who has done so is Bernie Sanders from Vermont, and that's only because it's Vermont. Sanders also has the broad endorsement of the National Democratic Party, and caucuses with them in the Senate. Other so-called "independent" candidates have all been ones who were originally elected with support of one of the two major parties, but "left the party" at some point after gaining national recognition (see Joe Lieberman). Unless you belong to either one of the two major parties, you couldn't be elected "Dog Catcher" anywhere in the U.S. Third_party_(United_States)#Barriers_to_third_party_success has some background on the myriad ways in which the two major parties maintain a stranglehold on elections in the U.S. But what it comes down to is that neither of the two major parties has anything to gain by making it easier for smaller parties to have access to getting candidates on the ballot, so they make it as hard as possible. --Jayron32 20:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  More: List of third party performances in United States elections shows that, since 1990, "any elections where a candidate that wasn't a Republican or Democrat obtained at least 5.0% of the vote" and shows how completely rare it is for a third-party candidate to get even that small amount of votes. Since 1990, in any senatorial, gubernatorial, or presidential poll, someone from outside the two major parties has won their election 7 times:

  Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. was an ex-Republican who ran as an independent after gaining national fame as a Republican.

  Wally Hickel was the same.

  Angus King was a true indepedent, with no party affiliation

  Jesse Ventura was a member of the Reform party with no prior political experience

  Lincoln Chafee is an ex-Republican who later ran as an independent after gaining national exposure as a Republican

  Joe Lieberman is an ex-Democrat and one time Democratic Vice Presidential nominee.

  Bernie Sanders is a true Independent, with no prior party affiliation

  That's it: 5 governors and 2 senators and never since 1990 has a Presidential candidate from third party won a single Electoral College vote, meaning no such candidate has ever carried a state. And of those 5 governors and 2 senators, only 3 won their elections with no prior party affiliation, that is everyone else had to use the party system to build up enough exposure to strike out on their own. By my math, that's 302 gubernatorial elections, 300 senatorial elections, and 5 presidential elections over that time frame: so in 607 tries, a third party candidate with no prior party affiliation to work from has won an election 3 times, or 0.494% of the time. I can't think of another Western democracy where two parties have won 99.506% of every election of the past 18 years. --Jayron32 20:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the info. However, while the two dominant parties de facto have a complete stronghold on high level politics, they don't have any de jure special status. Or do they? And if they don't, how can any membership fees or rules they would (hypothetically) make, be affected by a law against taxes? And how can the government at different levels be involved in their membership management? Maybe not expecting answers that I'll understand to that, a more concrete follow up question would be: Is Green Party, Libertarian Party etc. membership also done by voter registration? Or are those parties, dwarves in size compared to the main two, completely different? (And I don't mean in practice, that I know that they are, but from a legal perspective?) /Coffeeshivers (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

No, those parties do not run in the Primaries. They nominate their candidates at conventions/caucuses run by their parties in various state and national conventions/caucuses. So if you are a Libertarian, and want to help select the Libertarian Candidate for an office, you need to go to the local, state, or national Libertarian Convention where the candidate is chosen. The deal is that in the U.S., there is literally no national election. Even the President is technically elected by the Electoral College, the members of which are elected by the individual states on state-wide elections according to state laws, with no input from the national government. There are very few restrictions placed on how states choose to run their elections, so effectively the two parties needn't have any permission or legal allowances at the federal level to maintain their de jure and de facto stranglehold on national politics. The states are not subject to Federal laws except in a VERY limited number of cases, so machine politics can run rampant in the states and localities. The federal government just does not get involved in state election laws, so the Parties are allowed to enact election laws which not just set up de facto barriers to third parties, but which de jure deliberately exclude (or set such giant hurdles as to practically exclude) anyone except themselves. --Jayron32 21:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to see the case overstated. The Republican and Democratic Parties have no special legal status. If another party wants to have a primary ballot, I see no reason why they could not do it if they meet some minimal threshold of support as demonstrated by a petition. I'm no lawyer, but I find it implausible that any state could get away with treating another party according to different rules than those applying to the Democrats and Republicans (the federal courts would slap that down). The fact is that it's simply part of US culture that third parties are not generally all that popular.

The purpose of having the state government handle the list of party registrants is simply one of practicality: when you show up at the polling place on primary election day, the poll workers need to know from their records which ballot to give you (if only registered party members can vote in its primary) or which ballots you can choose from (if independents are allowed to vote in any party's primary).

Party registration is a concept that refers to registration at the polls: when you register as a voter in most states, you state a party or none (="independent"). In some states this is meaningless, while in others it signifies what party's primary you can or cannot vote in, as explained above. But party membership is a vague concept in the US, seldom referred to. If someone says that he is a member of a particular party, maybe he means he is registered with the polling authorities that way, or maybe he means he's "a card-carrying member" of that party, probably implying he has contributed money to them and possibly received some sort of certificate in return. But "party membership" is just a vague and unimportant concept. (One exception: back in the 1950s during the paranoia about communism, Joe McCarthy used to haul people before Congress and ask them "Are you or have you ever been a card-carrying member of the Communist Party?" Duoduoduo (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Secularization

Can someone provide for me an example or illustrate for me what this quote means from this article secularization?

• Complete Secularization: this definition is not limited to the partial definition, but exceeds it to "The separation between all (religion, moral, and human) values, and (not just the state) but also to (the human nature in its public and private sides), so that the holiness is removed from the world, and this world is transformed into a usable matter that can be employed for the sake of the strong".

What on earth does the author mean by that? 140.254.227.67 (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, but it sounds like the author of that quote, Abdel Wahab El-Messiri, is using terms that recall the philosophical tradition of nihilism, the idea that life has no inherent meaning or value. In his opinion, because "complete" secularization removes all external sources of value (religious, moral, etc.) from a person, they become vulnerable to being "usable matter that can be employed for the sake of the strong", meaning that they can easily be influenced by people who want to use them. I read him as saying "without some sort of externally-given values, people lack any means by which to resist becoming pawns of the powerful". I don't agree or disagree with what he is saying, but that seems to be what he is saying. --Jayron32 14:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. I'll take it as a negative/pejorative connotation of secularization then. 140.254.227.67 (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the brackets in that sentence don't make sense. Parenthetical material should be capable of being removed, but if you remove the contents of the sets of parentheses, there's nothing left of the second part of the 'separation'. I also noticed that the sentence prefacing this quotation in the article body refers to "the secularization term" instead of to "the term 'secularization'". I wonder if something has been lost in translation?

Nevertheless, the concept of complete secularization that El-Messiri is articulating here seems to be one of strict naturalism or materialism - a world-view in which not just religious concepts such as 'faith', 'god', 'dharma', 'tawhid', 'avatara' are meaningless, but also ethical concepts such as 'proper', 'good', 'lawful', 'cruel'. Whether anyone actually holds such a view is questionable, but it is clear he wishes to distinguish the simple separation of religion and nation from the abandonment of the full range of religious and philosophical inquiry and action. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

"He's a Nihilist" . . . "aw that must be exhausting!" Marketdiamond (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

So, that would imply that religious and philosophical inquiry and action have some purpose, do they? Religious and philosophical traditions do have value, do they? 140.254.227.67 (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what he's saying. What he's doing in that quote appears to be a reductio ad absurdum argument. He's framing secularism as to its inevitable end: if people lack any sort of ethical values at all, then they have no means by which to judge for themselves which people to give their allegiance to, and which to not. Thus they are reduced from independent actors of their own to tools "be employed for the sake of the strong". It is a careful warning to not take secularism too strongly, because the sorts of values that religion and things like religion like philosophy and morality and ethicism gives us is itself important for us. He's not necessarily advocating for a religious world view, but he is also advocating against the sort of extreme nihilism that he equates "complete secularism" to. --Jayron32 15:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

That reminds me of continental philosophy. I once knew a continental philosopher/English teacher who would agree with that attitude, and I am pretty much influenced with that sort of thinking. She claimed she was a humanist, or specifically a Christian humanist, but it appears that she frames the pitfalls of secularism in its implications in King Lear or the Enlightenment. 140.254.227.67 (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

This strikes me as not unlike Heidegger's The Question Concerning Technology. Basically Heidegger argues that technology is not a thing but a way of mind, a way of rendering everything into utility and purpose, including (ultimately) man himself, who is in the end just seen as another form of reserve resources for exploitation by the technological worldview. I've never thought of it as a critique on "complete secularism" but there's definitely that to it. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the quoted text makes any sense because it groups "moral values" and "human values" with "religion" when "moral values" and "human values" bear just as much affinity to the secular sphere as to the religious sphere. Bus stop (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it depends on what you mean by "secular". That's the distinction he's making, between the common definition of "secular" which just means "not religious" and a new term he's coining called "Complete secularism" which takes it an extreme end. --Jayron32 17:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Right; the guy is arguing that secularism means the separation of all values from the activities of the state, which is not most people's definition of secularism. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The creation of the Hebrew calendar

When was the Hebrew calendar created? I know it was a gradual process, but when did the main events in its creation occur? Is it true that it's the oldest calender known? Thanks, Oh, well (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The history seems to be covered in some detail in the Change to a calculated calendar section of the article that you linked. Is there something in particular you wanted to know that's not covered there? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes – I want to compare its creation date with other calenders to see it it's really the oldest, but the article focuses on changes to different versions of the Hebrew calender rather than prospects to the title "the first version of the Hebrew calender". I wish it had explained in more details its originations, especially with comparisons to other calenders that may have influenced it (similarly to how the Julian calendar influenced the Gregorian one). Oh, well (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You've just about exhausted my ability to give any substantial help, but I would note that in looking into this it occurs to me that you really cannot answer the question you're answering without determining a set of criteria by which to determine what "creation" means, so as to distinguish between minor changes to a calendar scheme, which leave it being the same calendar, and more major changes which would cause it to be the creation of a new calendar. If you set those criteria as being the first time humans began to group days into larger and smaller cycles, then calendars which evolved in the same region are all likely to be of the same age. If on the other hand you set those criteria by choosing some particular subset of:

• number of days,
• number of months,
• existence and number of days in the week,
• number of months,
• names of days,
• names of months,
• whether months have fixed numbers of days or correspond to the lunar month,
• whether the calendar is a solar annual calendar always beginning on the same solar day or a lunar calendar which is or is not occasionally corrected to match the solar month,
• how and if years are numbered,
• and I could probably think of additional criteria if I tried,

then the particular criteria that you choose and the importance that you assign to them are going to determine whether a particular change in a calendar creates a new calendar or merely a new version of the same calendar. If you're playing a game of "mine's the oldest" (and I'm not saying that you are, but if you were) then that game is inevitably destined to devolve into a argument over whose criteria are the right ones rather than a real determination of which calendar is older and the oldest, like beauty, will largely be in the eye of the beholder. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "creation" is a bit vague. For example, during certain periods of ancient history, Jews in Israel would assign special watchers who at the end of every month would observe a full moon in the sky and light a bonfire on a hill. This bonfire would be seen by people on other hills, who would light a bonfire as well. The bonfire would spread. This was the form of communication - the way to say "it's a new month." So that essentially was a way to keep track of time and when a new month was, even without setting it in stone. Indeed, the same is true for holidays during the year, as we know that they had (have) set holidays on specific dates to be observed then. There were many calculations involved, and it's likely there was some form of a written calendar, even if not like the final one today. Certainly, the version of their calendar used (and still used) is a lunar calendar, not a solar calendar. --Jethro B 23:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The full moon does not occur at the start, but halfway through a Jewish month. You probably mean the observation of a new moon. -09:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

"Sound the trumpet at the new moon." 86.159.77.170 (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The creation of the Hebrew calendar is traditionally ascribed by Jews to the moment that this was said. If you want to know when that was, you'll need to take a deep breath and dive into the cesspit of Exodus dating, because it took place about a fortnight before the Exodus. Modern scholarly consensus seems to place it at earlier than 1440 BCE. --Dweller (talk) 08:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Luka Magnotta

Why isn't he categorized as "Necrophiles" and "Canadian cannibals"?. I can't edit the article because I'm not yet autoconfirmed, but for those who saw the video, it's clear that he practises both things. Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You should be able to ask that question at the article's talk page. Be careful not to call him names or assert that he is indeed guilty of certain crimes, see WP:BLP for policy. μηδείς (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Until he's convicted of something, such labels are BLP violations and are subject to immediate removal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Luxury retailers profit protection

I was in a Chanel boutique the other day with my sister and we were browsing the suits, handbags, gowns, jewellery etc. While there I couldn't help but wonder how they protected their merchandise, it seemed very exposed. There was one of each handbag displayed impeccably, with seemingly nothing to stop you from just walking out with it; no security tag or anything. Fair enough, there was a security guard but if the store was ambushed by several thieves, doesn't look as though it'd be particularly effective. --Jewboy 20:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The items usually have a significant markup (>3x) so the brand is worth more than the physical bag. Additionally, such venues usually don't attract theft.Smallman12q (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably not a professional thief who wants to quickly turn around stolen items for maximum profit at minimal risk. A kleptomaniac, on the other hand, might steal it. StuRat (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

There will have been security cameras as well, so the police can identify the thief and get the product back. And are you sure there were no tags? They may well be hidden inside. --Tango (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Danish throne in 1863

Why didn't Prince Frederick of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg contend for the Danish throne in 1863? He was the senior male in the Oldenburg line and was therefore the first in line heir to the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein. He was also an heir according to agnatic primogeniture to King Frederick III of Denmark, the first absolute monarch in Denmark, that is after the childless daughters of Frederick VI, Princess Caroline of Denmark, Princess Vilhelmine Marie of Denmark and his elderly father (agnatic primogeniture was the alternative option to the Salic law after the end of Frederick III's line in 1863). Also most of his ancestors were Danish, which in an age of nationalism should count for something. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

His father's cession of claims associated with the London Protocol of 1852 seem to have taken him and his descendants out of the running for the Danish throne.--Cam (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

But that renunciation doesn't apply to Frederick, or so he claims by the time of the Second Schleswig War in 1864.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is marginalism such a big improvement over subjectivism in economics?

It is my understanding that the subjective theory of value, has a long history before Adam Smith that can be traced from Aristotle to certain Scholastics and then Turgot and the physiocrats. So the idea that subjective utility, psychological preferences and supply and demand determines prices was advocated long before the Marginal Revolution of Jevons, Walras, Menger.

So my question is what was the big deal about marginal utility? From the wikipedia article it seems that the main thing is that you look at the individual units at the margins instead of the product as a whole. Why is this so much more useful than just saying subjective utility determines prices? Whats the big deal about the "marginal unit"? And why did this change economics so much?

Well, I notice economics becomes much more mathematical after Jevons, so is the main thing that it becomes easier to apply concrete mathematical calculus and quantification to economics?

Can someone explain why subjective marginal utility of the late 1800s was so revolutionary and transformative to the field of economics, compared to old fashioned subjectivism? --Gary123 (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Marginal utility doesn't discuss the problem of value and subjective preference for utility, but discusses the problem of price through the price of the final unit realisable in an effective demand. It had immediate instrumental benefits for attempts to price commodities in finance capital and was widely adopted. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

As Joseph Schumpeter noted in his History of Economic Analysis:

It is not too much to say that analytic economics took a century to get where it could have got in twenty years after the publication of Turgot's treatise had its content been properly understood and absorbed by an alert profession.

The greater influence of the marginal revolution has to do with the paradox of value. The basic gist of the argument is as follows: Since you cannot live long without water, but could go a lifetime without diamonds, surely the subjective value of water should be much greater than the subjective value of diamonds in the mind of any reasonable person. But in the typical marketplace, a bucket of diamonds will carry a greater price tag than a bucket of water. This empirical fact is difficult to reconcile with a naive formulation of the subjective theory of value. So this is where the "subjective marginal utility" enters the explanation. The subjective theory of value is more readily accepted when we frame the above situation in terms of "the subjective value of one additional bucket of water" versus "the subjective value of one additional bucket of diamonds", rather than simply "the subjective value of a bucket of water". Since the typical marketplace actor will have an adequate water supply, but perhaps not a great deal of diamonds, the subjective value of more diamonds could well be greater to him than that of more water, thus explaining why diamonds are more expensive than water. Gabbe (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

American railroads in WWII

Besides Union Pacific, what other railroads were involved in the war effort during WWII?142.255.103.121 (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify your Q please ? I doubt if there was any American railroad which didn't contribute to the war effort by delivering troops, ammunition, weapons, vehicles, and/or supplies. StuRat (talk) 04:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

One of the largest corporations on earth up until the early 1970's was the Pennsylvania Railroad and they were the dominant transport for the "arsenal of democracy" Pittsburgh and among the top in the other "arsenal of democracy" Detroit. But StuRat is correct everything from the Santa Fe to the Atlantic Coast Line in Florida played major roles in the war efforts. Marketdiamond (talk) 06:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Which other railroads, besides Union Pacific and Pennsylvania Railroad, were involved the the war effort?142.255.103.121 (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Start with List of common carrier freight railroads in the United States and see which ones existed at the time. I picked Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range Railway at random; it states "Ore movement was nearly 45 million tons in 1942 and the War Production Board allowed the Missabe to order ten more Yellowstones, delivered in 1943." Clarityfiend (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Every single solitary one in existence at the time. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

October 12

RMS Titanic and American Civil War veterans question

I've seen that there were several Titanic's passengers who were in a way or another, involved in the American Civil War. Can anybody tell me if they were all Confederates or Unionists? Thank you. For instance, Isidor Straus was Confederate. And how old did they have to be to lie within the range of born before or during the Civil War? Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Titanic sank in 1912, which is 47 years after the end of the US Civil War (1861-1865). If you figure they had to be, say, 15-65 to fight in it, that means they would have to be 62-112 on the Titanic. People born before the Civil War would be approximately 51 or older, and those born during the Civil War would be approximately 47-51 (I say approximately because those events didn't all occur on the same day of the year, but they were all in April or May, so it's close enough for our purposes). StuRat (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand it now. Thank you StuRat. Isidor Straus was 14 by 1859, so he fought in the Civil War for the Confederates. Francis Davis Millet was also involved in the American Civil War by helping his father and taking part himself in the war. I was surprised to find so many US Civil War veterans on board the Titanic. I didn't know there were so many on board. Thank you again. Iowafromiowa (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It would have been quite unlikely if there weren't both Union and Confederate veterans, due to the large number of Americans in that age group on board. May I mark this Q resolved ? StuRat (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean I shouldn't have been surprised to find American Civil War veterans on board? hahaha. Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Consider the case of John Clem, the "Drummer Boy of Chickamauga" who was promoted to Sergeant in 1863 at the age of 12. He would have been 60 when the Titanic sank. "Over 100,000 boys younger than 15 enlisted in the Union Army, there were even 300 boys younger than 13."[31] Alansplodge (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

big face rock

I want to know the name of a location (a city) that has many big rocks with the face shapes. I think it is somewhere in America continent but not sure. Thanks!Pendragon5 (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean man-made faces like Mount Rushmore or natural formations that some claim look like faces like the (now deceased) Old Man of the Mountains? --Jayron32 12:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Rushmore is the most famous/visited but there are many in America and the world, you may want to check this out (all world locations) Category:Mountain monuments and memorials. Marketdiamond (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems that of all the memorials on that list only the Crazy Horse Memorial features a huge carved face like Mount Rushmore. The rest are either full statues or various kinds of structures. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure it's on the American continent? The moai of Eastern Island would fit your description. 2001:18E8:2:1020:749C:5B76:1D8E:3D22 (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Moai, that's it! That's what I'm looking for. Thanks everyone for suggestions!Pendragon5 (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Those are the carved statues. The location you asked for is Easter Island (not Eastern Island). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Re:Saddhiyama actually found that category by going to Stone Mountain so that's also on the list. Marketdiamond (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

History:The recall of Colonel Amherst and smallpox

Hi, I'm wondering whether the reason Amherst was removed from command was because the Brits found out about his plan for killing Native Americans using smallpox.--I'd like to think that at least some of the higher ups had scruples, and "fired" Amherst for that reason.Thanks198.189.194.129 (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if it was considered here, but even if one has no concern about the genocide of Native Americans, spreading smallpox among them may very well lead to the disease jumping from them to people they did care about. StuRat (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Our article on Amherst says that he was recalled because his policies provoked the war that the smallpox gambit was intended to stop. If part of the criticism levied against him was his attempt at genocide, the honors that he subsequently received very shortly after his return to England and continued to receive thereafter would suggest that the objection certainly wasn't very strong. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure whether it's really known that Amherst in fact distributed smallpox-tainted blankets -- in several letters he said it would be a good thing to do, but didn't say that he had done it. AnonMoos (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Soldiers in Amherst's army did try the smallpox-blanket tactic at Fort Pitt, probably without success, but the surviving documents indicate that they thought of it and tried it before Amherst even mentioned it. This is such a striking coincidence that it might mean the idea had been bandied about before then. I've never seen any evidence that Amherst's superiors learned about the idea. Some would have no doubt been horrified, though in the next war, the American colonists were sure the Bristish were deliberately trying to infect them, and in 1777, a British officer once again suggesting doing just that. See http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring04/warfare.cfm. —Kevin Myers 01:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Kevin Myers is correct for the location, and just for clarity that is Fort Pitt (Pennsylvania) since naming things after Prime Minister (and State Secretary) Pitt was actually quite popular in Pre-Revolutionary North America and quite a number of forts and towns were named Pitt or derivations.

• June 24, 1763: Fort Pitt: Captain Simeon Ecuyer gifts the Delawares two blankets and a handkerchief from the small pox ward "out of regard to them" after the tribe pledges to renew their friendship. While the exact meaning of his phrase is unclear, a later invoice appears to establish the purpose was transmittal of small pox, the world's first use of bio weapons.
• July 13, 1763: Col. Bouquet writes back to Amherst: "I will try to inoculate the bastards with some blankets that may fall into their hands, and take care not to get the disease myself."
• July 16, 1763: Amherst replys to Bouquet: "You will do well to inoculate the Indians by means of blankets, as well as every other method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race."
• Not my words and also remember that the Siege of Fort Pitt was at its height with nothing less than the American continent at stake. Marketdiamond (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"remember that the Siege of Fort Pitt was at its height with nothing less than the American continent at stake" What do you mean? Do you mean that the Siege of Fort Pitt was a battle the Native Americans had to win? Best wishes, Rich Peterson216.86.177.36 (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Not the first use - I think I remember reading the Mongols catapulted bubonic plague corpses before the great European outbreak. (The article says that also but doesn't give a source) Wnt (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

EU Nobel Peace Prize

What did the EU do that they got the Nobel Peace Prize this year? --Jethro B 18:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Basically, it came into being after World War 2 and there hasn't been a war in Europe since. Here's the award citation. Why this year in particular? Maybe the Nobel committee wanted to try and remind us Europeans what we have achieved before we tear ourselves apart ;) --TammyMoet (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

There hasn't been a war on the North American continent since WWII either - are Canada, America, and Mexico entitled to the Nobel Peace Prize as well?? The EU deals with other regions as well and gets involved in some conflicts, but a lot of these conflicts have not been solved and still remain. I don't have anything against the EU, I'm just trying to understand why they got the Nobel Peace Prize, as it's not so clear to me. --Jethro B 18:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I think a better way of looking at it would be that Europe has been in a state of intermittent war between nation-states more or less continually for the past fifteen hundred years (or more). It's not simply that the EU hasn't had a war among its member states for sixty years, but that they haven't even come close - this system has apparently managed to break a cycle that lasted for most of recorded history, which is quite a feat. The North American context isn't quite the same...

It's also worth noting that "peace" isn't simply, in the Nobel context, a matter of not having wars. The award talks about the EU promoting "peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights" - it's remarkable the effect that the carrot of EU membership has had on some states in ensuring the Copenhagen criteria are adhered to. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

And there was in fact a major genocide in Europe about two decades ago... --Jethro B 18:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Not in the EU, however. Even today, from the successor states of Yugoslavia, only Slovenia has joined the EU, and Slovenia had peacefully seceded.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

That is not correct, Stephan. Slovenia'a secession was not "peaceful", see Ten-Day War. Only the Serbes could not afford to do to much to them, as they had to deal with the Croatian right away after the Slovenian secession (and Serbia has a border with Croatia, which made it more urgent). --Lgriot (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Ooops. I did check before I wrote that, but apparently not carefully enough. I've struck it. Thanks! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, the Kosovo War is only an example of why the prize was wrongly awarded to the European Union. Iowafromiowa (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It's all a matter of the politicization of the Nobel committee. Look at the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. I am not sure what further references we can provide here, other than debate and opinion. μηδείς (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I've noticed that the way to get a Nobel Peace Prize seems to be to kill lots of people, then kill fewer people. Thus, since the death toll relative to WW1 and WW2 has been considerably reduced, they are as worthy of the prize as Arafat was for reducing the number of civilians he had murdered, in his later years. Then there was the case of Obama getting one for "not starting the US invasion of Iraq". StuRat (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

"Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel peace prize." [32] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

According to the Nobel Peace Prize page, "Unlike the scientific and literary Nobel Prizes, usually issued in retrospect often two or three decades after the awarded achievement, the Peace Prize has been awarded for more recent or immediate achievements, or with the intention of encouraging future achievements." Of course right after that is . Livewireo (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Then why not award the Nobel Prize in Chemistry to chemists who've never done anything noteworthy, to encourage them to do so ? :-) StuRat (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't call 67 years of peace between the members a "recent or immediate" achievement. And in any case, I am French living in Britain, and I assure you that I very thankful to the EU that in all the 40 years of my life I never had to travel to a frontline for the defense of the homeland against an invading army, unlike my grandfather. --Lgriot (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

67 years of peace happened very recently. 66 years of peace was a little less recent, but apparently that wasn't enough! --Tango (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The European Union is not 67 years old, so you cannot prize them for that. Furthermore: the EU is not the only European pan-national institution, the NATO seems more responsible for the peace in Europe, both among NATO members and between West/Central Europe and Eastern Block. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

American Civil War veterans' families benefits

I'm quite interested in the American Civil War because my grandfather served in the Union Army (yes, I'm old and my father was already old when he had me born) and I would like to know if there are further benefits for veterans' families now and if my grandfather can be taken to the Arlington Cemetery. Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

My grandfather (1845 – 1940). My father (1895 – 1955). Iowafromiowa (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I found this [33] at the Department of Veteran Affairs. There is a pdf you may want to read on survivor's benefits. The social security administration pays out benefits to surviving family, but it has a list of who qualifies, and grandchildren are not eligible. There is a contact link at the bottom of the page if you wish to contact the VA, I would definitely suggest trying that. Livewireo (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me, I will read that. Iowafromiowa (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Living children of both Union and Confederate soldiers

This is my third question regarding the American Civil War, hope you understand since my grandfather fought for the Union Army. But I've come to know that there are living CHILDREN and WIDOWS of Civil War veterans. I would like to know how many children and widows of veterans from both sides are still alive today. Thank you indeed. Iowafromiowa (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The last widow of a Civil War veteran died in either 2004 or 2008, depending on how you count it. this story and Alberta Martin for the 2004 death, and this story and Maudie Hopkins for the 2008 death. For living Children of civil war veterans here is the list for the Union, last updated yesterday. I can't find a similarly comprehensive list for confederate veterans, but this google search turns up several stories of living children of Confederate veterans. --Jayron32 23:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Peerage: pregnant widow of a childless peer

Has it ever happened that a British peer died childless leaving a pregnant widow or leaving a daughter and a pregnant widow? Did the title descend to the next-in-line (the daughter or a brother of the peer) and then revert to the posthumous child (son)? Surtsicna (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It happened to Edmund Tudor, 1st Earl of Richmond, who died several months before the birth of his son the future Henry VII of England. I'm not exactly sure what happened to Richmond in the meantime, but it doesn't seem to have passed to anyone else. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a good example, as Edmund Tudor was a prisoner at the time of his death, and his peerage was forfeit. But our article on posthumous children lists several British peers. I believe (although I haven't a reference to hand) that peerages are kept pending the birth of any child en ventre sa mere; the succession would be backdated to the death of the previous holder if the child was female (if thus ineligible to inherit), or conferred immediately on the child (if eligible). AlexTiefling (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of the posthumously born peers listed there inherited the title from their father. I assumed that succession is automatic and that the next-in-line would succeed, with the title devolving upon the posthumous child if born alive and eligible to succeed. So, the 4th Marquess of London dies leaving the Marchioness pregnant and his brother becomes the 5th Marquess; however, the widowed marchioness gives birth to a son who immediately becomes the 6th Marquess. Similarly, the 8th Baron Windsor dies leaving a daughter (or two) and a pregnant widow; the daughter becomes the 9th Baroness (or the title goes into abeyancy if she's got a sister), but a brother is born and becomes the 10th (or, in case of abeyancy, the 9th) Baron. The only basis for this assumption is the arrangement made for Victoria's accession to the throne (Victoria would succeed William IV even if Adelaide was left pregnant, but the posthumous child would ascend upon birth as if Victoria had died, as the throne can never be vacant). Surtsicna (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

An actual example occurs in the succession of the Petre Barony. The 7th Baron, Robert Petre, died in 1713, leaving a pregnant widow (Catherine, née Walmsley), who gave birth to the 8th Baron three months later. The Complete Peerage says of such sons that they "succeeded to the peerage at their birth". The 7th Baron inspired Pope's Rape of the Lock- Nunh-huh 03:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that's a very good example! However, upon the 7th Baron's death, there was nobody in line to succeed to the barony; had the child been female, the title would've become extinct. Therefore, the only option in that case was to wait for the child to be born, as there was nobody to hold the title in meantime. Surtsicna (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Not England, I know, but the case of John I of France bears some interest for this question. --Jayron32 23:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • As does the much more recent case of Alphonse XIII of Spain. Surtsicna (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

And the appropriately named Ladislaus the Posthumous, who succeeded to some, but not all, of his father's titles. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Queen Victoria's youngest son Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany died in 1884, leaving a pregnant wife and daughter. The son succeeded to the title at birth. (Coincidentally, I just read that article a few minutes ago.) --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Denmark in Second Schleswig War

Did all of Europe seriously abandoned Denmark to fight out the Second Schleswig War by themselves against Prussia and Austria? In the background section of the article it states the reason why the other nations of Europe didn't help and Sweden promised to help but never came with reinforcement, but did no nation in Europe protest the seizure of 40% of Denmark's territories and the enlargement of the Prussia threat in Europe after the war. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem, I believe, isn't that the rest of Europe merrily allowed Prussia to seize what had been unambiguous Danish National Land since time immemorial. You're looking at the situation through the modern understanding of the nation state and of sovereignty, two concepts that really didn't reach maturity until well into the 20th century. One thing to remember here is the complexity of the Schleswig-Holstein Question, which came to a head in that series of wars in the 19th century, but which had really existed for hundreds of years. The lands of Schelswig and Holstein had a sui generis sort of status for much of history, being simultaneously lands that were part of the Holy Roman Empire with imperial immediacy, and the hereditary homeland of the Danish kings since Christian I. The issue was simply which was more important: the relationship of the lands to the King of Denmark (as hereditary Danish lands) or to the German Confederation (as the successor state to the Holy Roman Empire). The same sort of confusing status had existed in the United Kingdom until the ascension of Queen Victoria allowed the Kingdom of Hanover to split off under Ernest Augustus I. The Schleswig-Holstein question stubbornly refused to resolve itself with a convenient succession crisis, and so as the various nation-states of Europe began to coalesce into their "natural" and "legal" limits in the 19th century, the Schleswig-Holstein question flared up into war. The rest of Europe didn't see the issue as one of Prussia violating Danish sovereignty, they saw it as a convoluted clusterfuck of a mess that they didn't want to get involved in. And I quote "Only three people...have ever really understood the Schleswig-Holstein business—the Prince Consort, who is dead—a German professor, who has gone mad—and I, who have forgotten all about it." --Jayron32 20:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand Schleswig-Holstein Question, but the rest of Europe saw the First Schleswig War as Prussia's violation of Danish sovereignty and the status quo of the region in 1848, during the beginning of the whole nationalism spirit of the Revolutions of 1848. In the first war, Britain was openly against Prussia's invasion and was going to send her Navy to assist Denmark but the Danish refused at the time, Austria, France and Russia were all against Prussia in the first war and spoke out against the war, although no one actually send any forces to assist since Denmark could deal with it at the time. The reasons why these countries didn't support Denmark militarily in the second war like they tried to in the first war is explained, but what prevented them from protesting Prussia's takeover, and the fact that no nation came the aid of Denmark is really awkward since so many European wars involved the intervention of multiple nations. It doesn't make sense that no opposition to Prussia's takeover was ever made by the other nations after the war especially since no new independent Schleswig-Hostein state was ever created and Prussia just gain more territory when the purpose of the first war and the second war was to liberate the people of the region from Danish oppression. Also saying Prussia was somehow supporting nationalism and the whole idea that later became known as the self-determination, that Germans should rule Germans, is a bit ironic since a large amount of Prussia's population was Polish. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The Danish government did actually hope that France or Great Britain would eventually intervene in favour of their cause as they had done in 1850. However it does not excuse the actions of the Danish government in this conflict in any way, since this hope was completely spurious. They actually acted on largely unfounded and unrealistic premises, and played right into Bismarcks hand. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the first Schelswig war, I'm pretty sure that the intervention of other European powers was not necessarily to defend Danish sovereignty, but rather to preserve the Balance of power in Europe; that and NOT issues of sovereignty of nation-states, was the main engine of diplomacy and international relations in Europe throughout the 19th century. Indeed, on the issue of Sovereignty, the majority of residents of the areas seemed to favor unity with Germany rather than Denmark, as they were ethnic Germans. The issue is confounded by the Revolutions of 1848, not explained by it. That complicates, rather than simplifies, any understanding of the causes of that war. --Jayron32 23:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Was Britain even pro-German in 1864? The article Second Schleswig War said Queen Victoria was because Prince Albert died, but wasn't Queen Victoria: A. a figurehead with no actual power over the foreign and military affair of the country, and B. didn't she withdraw from politics and court completely after Prince Albert's death and didn't come out of her mourning until the Golden Jubilee. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Britain was pro-Danish in this, but couldn't agree to act on the issue; see Henry_John_Temple,_3rd_Viscount_Palmerston#Denmark. Palmerston is sometimes blamed for provoking the war; "In actuality, Palmerston’s attitude during the Second Schleswig War in 1864 considerably helped the German decisive victory in that war, by letting the Danes get the wrong impression that Britain would fight on their side and thus emboldening them to embark on a war they had no chance of winning alone."[34] Alansplodge (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

What was Christian IX's view on his daughter Alexandra's position in this, was their any strain in the two's relationship? Was there some hostility between the Danish Royal Family and the British Royal Family for not coming to Denmark's aid in 1864?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The U.K. couldn't save Hannover (which had been under the UK monarch from 1714-1837) in the Austro-Prussian war, so why should it have been expected to save Schleswig? (And Holstein was inhabited by Germans.) AnonMoos (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Conflation of totalitarianism with collectivism.

If I have a midlife crisis, then it will be around philosophy. Until I had Anthem in tenth grade, I never saw the individualism-collectivism scale as having a correlation with freed-totalitarianism. Objectivism has done an effective job at making me doubt things. Yet, I cannot help but think that ¬(◻(collectivism⇔totalitarianism)), ¬(◻(individualism⇔freedom)) and that ¬(◻(collectivism⇔freedom)) or ¬(◻(individualism⇔totalitarianism)). I am not sure what sort of question I should ask. Can a totalitarian society not be collectivist? --Melab±1 ☎ 22:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I think of collectivism as being related to socialism and communism, with individualism being related to capitalism. You can get totalitarianism at either end of the spectrum, from Stalin to the French kings before the French Revolution. StuRat (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

What in the world did the French kings have to do with individualism? Or capitalism, for that matter? --Trovatore (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

See bourgeoisie. That they allowed such a class to exist shows they allowed a certain degree of individualism and capitalism. StuRat (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"Allowed to exist" does not show that there's any relation between that and their, what shall we say, "partial totalitarianism"? It was a check on their power, not an aspect of it. --Trovatore (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

When I was younger and smarter, I was wholly convinced of the near perfectness of Ayn Rand's philosophy on the world and its stress on individuality over collectivism. I was an earnest disciple, and bought in to every word she said. As I have gotten older and stupider, I have come to see more nuance in the world, and have adopted a more pragmatic view on humans with regard to the issue of collectivization vs. individuality. I think Rand's conflation of the difference between power relationships with free association is a key flaw in her philosophy. The issue is not whether people are dealt with as groups or as individuals, it is whether or not any aspect of their behavior is controlled by coersion or free choice. The great paradox of Rand's philosophy is that it denies the possibility that free-thinking individuals would, of their own choice and volition, establish collectivities for their own interests, and that these collectivities can be benign, or from the other direction that an individual, acting in their own rational self interest, could oppress others. Experience in the breadth of history clearly shows that both happen all the time, so the key issue shouldn't be whether people exist as self-interested individuals or in collectives (which are not mutually exclusive states) but rather on the level of control people have over the course of their own lives, and on how they relate to the power structures in their lives. In simpler terms: Rand's conflation of totalitarianism with collectivism breaks down in the face of actual historical examples. The world does not exist on a strictly two-dimensional axis, with all things evil on one pole and all things good on the other. --Jayron32 23:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

For me, what I always wondered about is why collectivism doesn't seem to scale up. We can have small groups who share everything equally, and everything works well. But, when nations try to do that, we end up with Stalin or Mao in charge. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that, on the small scale, if somebody tries to take over and run things for his own benefit, everyone can just leave and form a new group without that leader. Not so on a national scale. StuRat (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't find it now, but look into something called the "rule of 150". I heard someone talk on it once, and it made a lot of sense. 150 is about the maximum number of people that can exist in a collective before everyone can't fully "keep track of" everyone else. In small enough groups, everyone knows everyone else well enough that we can interact as equals, and we can all take active ownership in the group because we all know exactly how each individual group member relates to each other group member and the group as a whole. So that's why small groups work. In larger groups, more than about 150 people, it becomes impossible for the human mind to make enough rational connections to keep the group all together in our heads, so the small group dynamic breaks down, and it becomes a VERY different entity; people stop interacting with each other and the group in the same way, and that's why big groups don't work like small groups. --Jayron32 01:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Here it is: Dunbar's number. --Jayron32 01:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. But it seems to me that collectivism can work on somewhat larger scales than that. My limit of "when people are free to leave if they want to" could be highly variable in terms of size. Even a tiny cult might threaten people who attempt to leave, while an entire nation could allow dissatisfied people to leave (and many do), but the particular difficulties of finding a new nation willing to accept you, selling all your possessions, moving thousands of miles, trying to find new employment, and leaving friends and family behind, all make it unlikely that everybody in a seriously mismanaged nation will just pick-up and leave. Too bad, it would make for an effective way to get rid of dictators (there would be little point in remaining a dictator, with no subjects to tax and abuse). StuRat (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hm, ditto interesting. I wonder if there's even been a place where the policy was "If you want to leave, not only are you welcome to do so, but the state will happily pay for all your expenses, because we don't want anyone here who doesn't want to be here, and it's in the national interest to ensure that those who want to leave do so as quickly and painlessly as possible". Probably not. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

October 13

Does the Queen own Canada?

In a recent issue of Fortune magazine, there is an article on a man who owns the most amount of land in the United States. In that article there is this sentence: "The largest landowner in the world is Queen Elizabeth II, because technically she owns places like Australia and Canada". Is this true? Does the Queen own entire countries? (The article is in the October 8 issue, volume 166, No 6. It doesn't seem to be online yet) RudolfRed (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Not in any real way. If she tried to sell it, for example, that wouldn't happen. StuRat (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Land tenure is a relevent article here for the OP to read. --Jayron32 01:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Also Fee simple: "In English common law, the Crown has radical title or the allodium of all land in England, meaning that it is the ultimate "owner" of all land." Not sure how this relates to states of the Crown other than England directly, or even how it relates even practically to England. --Jayron32 01:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The Tenure Abolition Act 1660 discontinued various forms of tenure and after the Law of Property Act 1925, almost all vestiges of this system had been removed. Although there are a few extant property rights relating to the Crown that have been imputed to the doctrine of tenure, e.g. the reversion of land to the state when no owner can be identified, the connection is vague and there are usually other sources to explain them. The main practical impact of tenure has been the development of the doctrine of estates (such as fee simple), a natural consequence of the tenure feudal system in which tenants owned an interest in the land as opposed to owning the land itself which all belonged to the Crown. Ankh.Morpork 19:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

A much smaller sub-set of all the land in England is the Crown Estate. It "belongs to" the monarch but is not "the private property of the monarch and cannot be sold by him/her". If she doesn't even own the Crown Estate, there's no way she owns all land in England, let alone elsewhere.

The queen does indeed have personal property that she can sell or bequeath to whomsoever she likes, just like any other person. Such as Balmoral Castle. This has been personally owned by members of the Royal Family since being purchased by Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. I guess the general expectation is that she would keep it in the Family and will it to her heir, Prince Charles, but I don’t think she’s under any legal restriction.

She may also own personal property in Australia, Canada and other places, but as for owning the entire nations, forget it. In some abstruse arcane legal sense the Crown may own all the land, but the Queen is not the Crown. She is the embodiment of the Crown. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone.

Resolved

RudolfRed (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments despite the "resolved" tag: There's more at Crown land, which begins by baldly stating "Crown land is an area belonging to the monarch", but goes on to say it is entailed and cannot be alienated from the monarchy. This makes is sound like the Queen does "technically" own vast amounts of land, but not in the fee simple sense of "own". As for Canada there is Crown land#Canada. This section likewise says that "the Canadian monarch owns all Crown Land in the country", but not in the normal sense of "owns". Since 89% of Canada is Crown Land you could say that the Queen owns 8,886,356 km² of land in Canada alone, if you're willing to stretch the normal sense of the word "own". Still, the statements in the Crown land article are pretty clear in saying that the monarch—the Queen—"owns" all the Crown Land; that the Crown Land "belongs" to "the monarch". The OP's quote reads "The largest landowner in the world is Queen Elizabeth II, because technically she owns places like Australia and Canada". One may say "yes but not really", but then the quote does say "technically", which implies "not really but yes". No? Pfly (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Imho, the opening sentence of Crown land is inaccurate in equating the Crown with the monarch. From The Crown:

• "The Crown is a corporation sole that in the Commonwealth realms and any provincial or state sub-divisions thereof represents the legal embodiment of governance, whether executive, legislative, or judicial. It evolved first in the United Kingdom as a separation of the literal crown and property of the nation state from the person and personal property of the monarch, a concept which then spread via British colonisation and is now rooted in the legal lexicon of the other 15 independent realms." (my highlighting).

This supports what I said above: Crown land is owned by the Crown, not by the Queen. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe the Crown land page ought to be copyedited and improved.... Pfly (talk) 05:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be my strong suggestion. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The US equivalent of Canada's Crown land is Federal lands - which is not the personal property of Barack Obama, but the land is under the control of various departments and agencies which are ultimately the responsibility of the president. Roger (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The Queen and other Royals also own several properties in the United States and have a few "ventures" here as well. Marketdiamond (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

See, for example, [35] which reads:

'"Crown" means Her Majesty the Queen in right of the province; (« Couronne »)

"Crown lands" includes land, whether within or without the province, vested in the Crown, and includes "provincial lands" wherever that expression is used in an Act of the Legislature; (« terres domaniales »)'

I would say the distinction to be made is that she does not own it as personal property but she does own it in the sense of it being hers while under the constraints of the constitution and other legislation. In a similar fashion she is the head of state, i.e, she is the head of state as proscribed by the relevant legislation, i.e, de jure but not de facto. So she does not own the land at all in the sense that John Malone oder Ted Turner own their land. First of all, they are not even in the same jurisdictions, so they are not entitled according to the same legislation or policies, but they are not even entitled according to analogous legislation or rights. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

There must be some standard for ownership that applies to entailed land, which is clearer. For example, if the Queen decides that she doesn't like cigarette smoking, what lands can she ban people from doing it on as a condition of their visit, rent, or conduct as a customer? Wnt (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Balmoral Castle, for one. Assuming the law permits private land owners to ban smoking on their land - and I'm not sure that it does - she could ban smoking there, because she owns it personally. WHAAOE, but I don't know whether we have a list of all land and other property personally owned by the Queen. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

People on the image

As seen on the picture, there's several soldiers/men-at-arms etc wearing these curious coat-of-arms i havn't found anywhere(!)

1)Are the persons all (or atleast some) known by name, where they came from, like "duchy of Burgundy" etc or is it jus an image of a completely or partly fictional ppl/coat of arms?

2) If they are known, any idea where those black/white & black/yellow "rampart lion" coat of arms and the Red/white fleur-de-lis coat of arms are from?

Im guessing the White/Black coat of arm is from somewhere in Duchy of Brabant or Duchy of Jülich, but that's just a guessimate.

allsow, why isn't this feference-desk page archived more often? It's huge and laggs allot :(

--Byzantios (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you look at the Battle of Worringen article? The infobox lists the belligerents and shows the coat of arms for each of them. (Regarding archiving, the system is broken at the moment, but people are working on it.) Looie496 (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

left: ?, mid: Duke John of Brabant, right: knights of Duke John of Brabant (Zangemeister 1892, p.2)

(thru ec) See for a suggestion of where the red/silver and gold/black lions rampants might come from (John I, Duke of Brabant) - Nunh-huh 03:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

BTW, what's with that border on the 2nd illustration ? It looks like it was colored by a kindergartner having trouble staying inside the lines. Is this another case of an incompetent art restorer ? StuRat (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect to recognize all the arms in such a scene; the armigers are likely to include dukes and obscure knights. —Tamfang (talk) 05:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The participants and their coats of arms are identified in Werner Schäfke (ed.): "Der Name der Freiheit 1288-1988", Cologne 1988. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Duchy of Cornwall and changes to the British succession law

What will happen to the Duchy of Cornwall if male-preferance primogeniture is replaced with absolute primogeniture? Per Edward III's royal charter of 1421, which created the duchy, it can only pass to the Sovereign's eldest son. What if the succession law is changed? What if William has a daughter first and then a son? The daughter cannot possibly be Duchess of Cornwall, as the title is not conferred to the heir apparent, but strictly to the eldest son. Would the royal family then consist of "HM The King, HM The Queen, HRH The Princess of Wales and HRH The Duke of Cornwall"? If so, what would happen when that Princess of Wales ascends the throne and has a son of her own while her brother is still alive? This is intriguing because the duchy is not merely a title, but also a significant source of the heir apparent's income. Surtsicna (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

That's only because the monarch's eldest son, if a son exists, and the heir apparent have always been one and the same person. The whole point of the proposed change is to no longer have that automatic linkage. There's no reason why the eldest son couldn't still become the Duke of Cornwall, regardless of whether he's also the heir apparent. Is there? Or, the Queen could issue new Letters Patent in respect of the Duchy of Cornwall. There'll need to be a very large amount of paperwork to put this conceptually very simple change into effect, because it's these sorts of ramifications that will be the really tricky bits. That's why they're taking their time to consider all these issues in great detail before rushing in.

I think you're assuming a lot when you refer to the eldest-born daughter as the Princess of Wales. True, the title Prince of Wales is only bestowed on the heir apparent, that is, someone who cannot be displaced in the line of succession by any later births; and after the proposed changes go through, an eldest-born daughter will be the heiress apparent, not merely heiress presumptive. But the title has only ever been given to males, and their wives are called Princess of Wales. There have been no announcements about how this aspect of the set-up will be organised in future.

On your last point: The Queen was never Princess of Wales or Duchess of Cornwall, but she seems to be getting on ok finacially. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

As I read it, we already have the answer. From our Duchy of Cornwall article, If the monarch has no son, the estates of the duchy are held by the crown, and there is no duke and Since the passing into law of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall will pass to the heir to the throne, regardless of whether that heir is the Duke of Cornwall. In the event that the heir is a minor, 10% of the revenues will pass to the heir, with the balance passing to the Crown. To me, this seems to cover the eventualities you're asking about. If Wills has a daughter whilst the Queen is still on the throne, on William's accession the daughter will NOT become Duchess (or, indeed, Duke) of Cornwall, but she WILL get the benefit of the estate. The duchy itself will be vested in the Crown. Once a further male heir apparent to the throne is available, he will get both the title and the money. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

JackofoZ, the eldest son and the heir apparent have not always been the same person. King George III was Prince of Wales prior to his accession but never Duke of Cornwall because he was heir apparent to his grandfather, King George II, his father Frederick having predeceased George II. There is a reason why the eldest son couldn't still become Duke of Cornwall if his older sister is heiress apparent - if she were to succeed to the throne during his lifetime, as would be expected, her son would have to become Duke of Cornwall according to the charter, but two people cannot possibly hold the same title at the same time and enjoy the duchy's revenues. Furthermore, I am not sure letters patent could amend the charter; is it possible? I also believe that you underestimate the importance of the Duchy of Cornwall, ignoring both its financial ([36], [37]) and political significance. For example, the Duke of Cornwall has a right to veto government bills (as Charles himself has done 12 times). Surtsicna (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said, "it's these sorts of ramifications that will be the really tricky bits".  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Evidently. It's just that I don't see how exactly they'll sort this out. Surtsicna (talk) 11:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"New Zealand will chair a working group to consider the best way of accomplishing this reform in all the countries concerned. In the United Kingdom, the government is examining what legislation needs to be amended."

That last sentence encompasses this issue and, I'm sure, many others. We could speculate all day about what they might do to resolve the issue; but what they actually decide to do is all that matters, and nobody knows that yet. We may be pleasantly surprised by their creativity. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Cucumber Mike, that's an interesting observation. However, the charter does not say that the duchy is held by the "eldest son who is also heir apparent". It only says that it's held by the eldest son. Some evidence suggests that James Francis Edward Stuart remained Duke of Cornwall after ceasing to be heir apparent; his half-sister Anne was heiress apparent between 1694 (death of her sister Mary II) and 1702 (death of her brother-in-law William III), the same year James finally lost the duchy having been attainted. That's according to our article Duke of Cornwall and some sources I came cross after a quick search (e.g. [38]). Surtsicna (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, so you're saying that if the heir apparent was a girl with a younger brother, the brother would be Duke? Yes, I can see how that would work. Note, though, that it would be the heir apparent who would be getting the money, as per the Succession Act referred to above. I would strongly suspect that, were this actually to come about, some piece of legislation would be drawn up sharpish to remove the anomaly. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I too can see how that would work until that girl ascends the throne. On her accession, her own eldest son (if any) would have to become Duke of Cornwall though her brother, already Duke of Cornwall, is still alive. Two persons cannot hold the same title and enjoy all its privileges. What occured to me is that the brother would cease being Duke of Cornwall, now being brother of the Sovereign rather than eldest son, but there's an unofficial rule that says that individuals cannot lose their title due to something that isn't their own fault (i.e. they can normally lose the title only if they get attainted). That's why heirs presumptive are not created Princes of Wales; that's why the eldest daughter of the Sovereign is not created Princess Royal if her aunt already holds the title (e.g. Princess Anne and Mary, Countess of Harewood), etc. Surtsicna (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

No-one's mentioned WP:WHAAOE: 2011 proposals to change the rules of royal succession in the Commonwealth realms. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the article doesn't seem to mention this issue. Surtsicna (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Quite possibly because no-one but a Wikipedia editor would have thought of it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If only people would listen to us! Perhaps WP:OR should be amended... Surtsicna (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a very simple question to answer. What will happen is whatever it says will happen in whatever new law changes the order of succession (and any associated letters patent which may be issued at the same time to tidy up the details). The reference desk's repeated requisitions for a new crystal ball have all been refused, however, so we have no way to know what that will be. --Tango (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete information

This article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_longevity_of_service

Tells us nothing about currency. When did this actually occur?... between xx/xx/xx and xx/xx/xx or from xx/xx/xx or ???

You cannot combine this type of information and expect it to have meaning. What you have done is similar to telling me how many Bronze, Silver and Gold Olympic Medals have been won by a particular country without the years or span of years in which they were won.

How about completing the information ?

Regards,

Connolly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.121.151.38 (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If you have suggestions for improving an article, you can raise it on the article's talk page. Or you can be bold and start working on it. RudolfRed (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, as you may already know we are all, like you -- unpaid volunteers -- and although the article is much more interactive and descriptive than other unnamed online encyclopedias because of the uniqueness of allowing all to edit it also empowers us all, including you and me to encyclopedically improve wikiarticles! If you have information you feel is important but are not comfortable with how to format it into a Wikipedia article you can always seek assistance at the Village Pump for technical help, or WP:HELPDESK, happy editing! Marketdiamond (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

October 14

Electoral College - United States

In the a article Electoral college it says, "The United States is the only current example of an indirectly elected executive president, with an electoral college comprising electors representing the 50 states and the federal district". My question is how is this true? I look at systems in Pakistan and India for example and it seems to be the same to me. People vote for electors and then those electors choose the president. The only difference I see is that the electors in the American, ONLY vote for the president and then their job is done. In India and Pakistan you have the two houses and others choosing the president, in addition to other various duties. But it still is indirect, isn't it? An average citizen in Pakistan doesn't choose who the president will be. He chooses people who will choose on his behalf.75.166.140.82 (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought: In the US, some members of the Electoral College can vote as they please (although, for various reasons, unfaithful electors are rare). Is this also the case in those other nations ? StuRat (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

An unfaithful elector, however, has never impacted the results of an election. --Jethro B 04:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

But, theoretically, they could. StuRat (talk) 04:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Even if that would technically be true, India and Pakistan's presidents are only figureheads. Obama is both head of state and head of government. So it's possible that the US is the only example, or one of the few examples, of a country with a Presidential system with an indirectly elected president. And even then, the results of the popular vote are usually the same as the electoral college vote, with a handful of notable exceptions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, even the "only example of an indirectly elected executive president" part is flawed, since I think the presidents of Suriname and Burundi are indirectly elected as well (elected by parliament), and at least in Burundi they are a presidential system. Indonesia's president was also elected by parliament until about 10 years ago when they switched to direct elections. In my country, the Philippines, the President has always been directly elected from the start. South Africa also has a system where the President is elected by parliament and is technically a prime minister but is both head of state and head of government. The same system is used in Botswana and the Marshall Islands. Correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge, the electoral college system where people vote for electors who elect the President is unique to the United States; the closest equivalent would probably be Hong Kong's Election Committee, and even then I'm not sure if it is a true parallel to the Electoral College. But it's true that almost all countries with a presidential system directly elect their president. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, America may be the only presidential system that uses an electoral college to elect its president. But America is not the only system that uses an electoral college to elect its president. Correct? So now we are just haggling over what the president does in various systems. But this process of electing a president is not unique to the USA.75.166.140.82 (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Wild Lands Project Corridor system

I have been reading up on the wild lands project and I have some questions about some of their planning. From what I have been able to find out, they want to implement a corridor system in the U.S. that would restrict certain areas of land from certain types of human development, but I haven't been able to find any documents put out by the Wild Lands Project on exactly what kinds of human development would be restricted in the corridors they recommend implementing. Can anyone give me any links to documents explaining what they plan on restricting?

Jjhodgson (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about this particular proposal, but the general idea of wildlife corridors is to allow animals to move between wilderness areas, so they can migrate, find food, find mates, etc. Therefore, anything which blocks such movement is a problem. In some cases the animals can be accommodated by making special provisions for them. So, for example, if a highway separates two wilderness areas, an occasional tunnel underneath can be constructed to allow them to cross under it safely. StuRat (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)