Revision as of 19:58, 3 August 2009

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

• WP:RD/H

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

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.

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages: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.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

July 28

The Brothers Karamazov

If Ivan Fydorovich states that "everything is permitted", why then does he 1) have a conversation with Alyosha on the subject of (unjust in the examples he uses) suffering perpetuated by people? (By his above statement, committing such acts would be permissible.), and 2) suffer from the idea that he was indirectly responsible for his father's murder? Or perhaps this is intended to be part of his faith struggle? Vltava 68 00:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this a homework assignment? DOR (HK) (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Democratic Factory and Business

During the Industrial Revolution, because living and working conditions were harsh and workers were exploited by capitalists, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels proposed a system called communism in which all the factories, businesses, industries, and means of production were owned by the state and the government. But why did they propose that they be owned by the state or the government? I mean, apart from that idea, here is another one.

The workers and employees own the factory and business collectively and democratically elect and vote for people to manage and administer them. The workers are employed by the business which they own collectively and they receive wages and a share of the business's profits. The factory and business is not owned and its workers are not employed by the state or the government, but it is not owned and they are not employed by a single person or a small group of few people either. In the past, countries were ruled by a single person, such as a king or a queen. Then, nowadays, countries are ruled by the people and citizens and they democratically elect and vote for a president or a prime minister to govern them. So it changes from an absolute monarchy and kingdom to a democratic republic. So if you can have a country ruled and its leaders democratically elected by it people, why can't you have a factory and business owned and its leaders democratically elected by its workers?

I have several questions to ask you:

1. Are there any such factories and businesses in the world?

2. Why hasn't this spread to become very common? Why haven't most businesses been like this?

3. Should factories and businesses be this way? If not, then why not?

4. Why did Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels propose that the state or the government own the factory or business? Why didn't they propose that the workers own it collectively and democratically elect its leaders?

5. Has anybody ever asked Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, or any communists or Marxists why should the factory be owned by the state or the government? Why not let the workers own it collectively and democratically elect its leaders? If so, then how did they respond?

Bowei Huang (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

To answer some of these:

• 1. See Nationalization and Government-owned corporation. It isn't even socialist or communist contries that do this. The United States Postal Service is a state-owned corporation. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are ostensibly private, but were created by the U.S. government, and were recently placed into conservatorship of the government, which is about as close to national ownership as you can get without calling it that. The Citgo gasoline (petrol) company is owned by the Venuzeulan government (via Petróleos de Venezuela S.A.), and does brisk business in the U.S.
• 2. They tried in many places. It failed miserably. See Soviet Union and Collectivization in the Soviet Union especially. Generally, some industries work well under state ownership or as heavily regulated, pseudo-private companies, like health care in many countries, or public utilities or even the BBC in the UK. However, for just about any business that produces a tangible, physical product (as opposed to a service), even life necessities like food and clothing and shelter, state ownership does a poor job of providing for the needs of the people.
• 3. Not really the purview of the ref desk. We can only say that where it has been tried, it failed miserably.
• 4. Actually, Marx and Engle only looked at the "communist state" as a temporary situation. Ultimately, the state would "wither away" (their words) and the ownership of production would be turned over to the workers. The only purpose of the communist government was to wrest the means of control away from the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie and to manage it while the proletariate got their shit together. Once the class structure had been obliterated, and all people were truly equal, then the government would become unneccessary and the means of production would be transferred to the workers themselves.
• 5 See #4. They did believe that ultimately, when ready, the workers would take actual control of the means of production. However, until economic class divisions could be eliminated, the state was necessary to manage the situation "for the good of the proletariate" until such a time as the social and economic environment was ready for true worker control of production. --Jayron32 03:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the original poster was asking about state socialism at all, but rather about such things as Worker's cooperatives, Workplace democracy, Industrial democracy, Employee ownership, and/or Economic democracy, etc.... AnonMoos (talk) 06:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Jayron, your answer to #1 did not actually answer Bowei Huang's question — your examples are all just state-owned corporations, whereas Bowei Huang is asking about a sort of corporation where all workers own part of the corporation (in a totally egalitarian system I suppose it would be (1 / (# of workers)) of the corporation) and are paid in some "just" proportion out of the profits. The question is very interesting and I'd like to see some examples of for-profit corporations with this model, as well. The idea reminds me of a credit union, which (in the US at least) is owned by its members. I believe that a person's ownership of a credit union is proportional to his deposits rather than just being a headcount, so the guy with US$100,000 in his savings account has 100,000 times the votes of the guy with US$1 in his account. What about a classic kibbutz? Or some communes in Western countries in the 1960s and 70s? I know there are some small- to medium-sized companies in the US where every employee owns some stock in the corporation, though this is only part of what you're asking about. By the way, you asked for specific examples, but I'd note that the answer "how many of these exist" is unknowable, because, at least in the US, private companies like LLCs don't have to disclose their internal rules, and they're flexible to arrange their ownership however they want. Tempshill (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

1. There are many Co-operatives in the Uk and beyond, there are also Mutual companys - it's worth a look at those (though Tempshill provided more links to look at.

2. Shareholders in PLCs (assuming they hold shares with voting rights) get the opportunity to vote in and out their executives, and they also get to vote on a few other key strategic pieces put forward by the board in their desire to be 're-elected'. All workers can be share-owners and often firms will give stock to employees (theoretically as a tax-saving benefit, but also to try to 'link' them to the company more - i.e. to improve output), so they may be able to vote on the re-election.

3. I think if that's the way the business wants to operate, yes. But businesses and factories are very different to governments. Your working in the business is optional - infact it's down to it being mutually-beneficial (you work there if it provides enough value, they employ you if they can get enough value from you - well the workforce in general). The 'owners' choose how they would like the business ran, but there's no reason why a business must be owned by its workers. You could suggest it drives staff to improve efficiency, or to work harder etc. but you could just as easily argue that it creates businesses that don't want to make short-term decisions which are negative (e.g. laying off staff) in the attempt to make the business better in the long-term (similarly you may find staff want the status quo rather than to develop into something new which could transform the business.

4. In essence if the state own the company then the workers have a large say (because they elect the state). I don't know their theories deep enough but I would be surprised if Marx wasn't in favour of co-operatives and other worker-owned-business arrangement.s ny156uk (talk) 10:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to add on, what Jayron refers to, the temporary stage, is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Remember that Marx's work is not even that prescriptive as you make it out: he claims he understands how history will progress, and dictatorship of the proletariat is one of the stages and finally it will end with true Communism. So far none of that has played out and quite a few people have tried to help history along by having revolutions and the like, none of which ever looked like they were transitioning out of the dictatorship stage anytime soon... --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Marx was enthusiastic about worker cooperatives of producers, and they are the best example of the arrangement which Bowei Huang describes. Our article on them describes various examples, some of which have proven highly successful; others have not. Other forms of cooperative, such as consumer cooperatives, do not usually enable the workers to democratically decide the organisation of labour.

2. Worker cooperatives can experience various difficulties. Firstly, as with any democratic organisation, there may be disputes over the best strategy, and this can lead to splits, resignations, or ineffective compromises. In particular, difficulties can arise in an economic downturn, where workers are unlikely to agree to lay some of their number off. Secondly, they are not set up to generate profit, so they can struggle to raise capital. Thirdly, in many jurisdictions, they must incorporate under legislation designed for other company structures, which may leave them vulnerable to takeover by capitalists.

3. It is, of course, a matter of opinion as to whether more business should be organised this way. Most Marxists (and anarchists, and many social democrats) would say that they should; other people might point to some of the problems I mention above, or other economic arguments that such organisations are less efficient than capitalist enterprises can be.

4. In addition to the answers previously given, Marx and Engels envisaged the co-ordination of production by the state, and that would be difficult if workers owned businesses and could veto state decisions. They also envisaged a state which was democratically controlled from below, meaning that this was a different prospect from state-owned enterprise in a capitalist state. Warofdreams talk 18:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Marx and Engels may have had all the right sentiments and wishes, but there surely can be no escape from the fact that Lenin's and Trotzki's (and all other so-called communist or "marxist" ruler's) policies were directed against all and any worker's council socialism with any real economic and political power. You must think this needs not be so, but why?--Radh (talk) 10:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

some information is missing on GEO TV page

Dear

I am graduate fellow of National University of Ireland, Galway working independently on the area of Corporate Social responisbility in pakistan. Last year i was writing a case study on GEO TV and mentioning some sources from[REDACTED] but now it is not available . Like in the 'Controvesries' section there were some material available that David Hseinki who provide the cooperation in the establishement of GEO TV.

I need that reference , would you please email me that material. My email is <redacted>

I'll acknowledge your cooperation.

Kind regards

Asim Jaffry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.163.18 (talk) 06:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't put your email here (see the top of the page) - it is very very public, and you will get spammed. Email removed. --ColinFine (talk) 07:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I have removed your email address. Any replies will be given here on the desks, not by email, and the address might just attract spam. This reference desks is not for[REDACTED] questions, for those you should use the Misplaced Pages Help Desk. You can find previous page content in the page history of the article. There are tools there to search the history. Gwinva (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(Further EC) To answer your question, if you pick the 'history' tab at the top of the GEO TV, you can go back to earlier versions of it, and you should be able to find a version which has the references you need. For future reference, you should not reference Misplaced Pages - or any other tertiary source - in an academic paper, but if you must do so, you should follow the instructions by picking 'Cite this page' on the page you want to cite. But it would have been better to cite the references directly. --ColinFine (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

anupama chopra

which school Anupama Chopra went to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.103.185 (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the first Google response, she received an MA in journalism from the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University; and has a BA in English literature from Bombay University. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What the hell does Natural Born Citizen even mean? (U.S.)

Reading the Misplaced Pages article did nothing to clear up the meaning for me.

I've lived in China for the past 2 years and will be here for the foreseeable future. My wife is Chinese and we plan to have a child in a year or two. I'm well aware of the consular procedure for gaining American citizenship for my future child, but I can find no definitive information as to whether that constitutes "natural born" or not.

For the record, I think children born to American parent(s) overseas being ineligible to be president - if that's the case - is bullshit.

Please provide sources to back your certainty, as I can't find anything concrete.

61.189.63.167 (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it may well be bullshit. Does natural-born citizen mean someone who was born an American citizen (as your child would be, since you're (presumably) an American citizen), or someone who's actually born on American soil? At a glance, there doesn't seem to be an entirely clear answer to this. That's because a lot of said bullshit was invented by people from another, more primitive era. That's kind of problematic, because back then very few people crossed the great oceans, and even fewer did so more than once in their lives. The U.S. Constitution wasn't really written with the modern mobility in mind. My point is, you're probably not going to get a definitive answer to this; it would probably require some kind of a strong legal precedent, and I don't think one exists yet. If you're concerned about this and really want to ensure that your child has a shot at the presidency, I suggest you and your wife make sure the child is born on American soil. That's probably the only way to be sure. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In general, "natural born" means "citizen from birth" which is to be distinct from a naturalized citizen, who was born as a citizen of another country, and later became a citizen of the U.S. Since the constitution does not actually elaborate on what qualifies a person to be a citizen from birth, we have to look at a combination of legislation and common law/case law to find the answer. As far as I have ever seen, to minimum qualification a citizen from birth, a person has to either A) Be born in the U.S. to a parent who are permament residents of the U.S. (i.e. vacationing parents who happen to give birth while visiting, and then return to their home country, probably don't transfer citizenship to their children) or B) Born abroad, but to a parent who is a U.S. citizen. There are lots of examples of people who meet one or the other of these categories, but not both. For example, John McCain's parents were both U.S. citizens, but he was not born in the U.S., while Andrew Jackson was born on U.S. soil to two recent immigrants, neither of whom were U.S. citizens. Both are considered to be "natural born". There are cases where someone can be born on U.S. soil but where they don't automatically receive U.S. citizenship; for example let's say a very pregnant Canadian woman from Windsor, Ontario came to Detroit to go shopping, went into labor, and gave birth in an American hospital; but never actually lived in the U.S. She returns to Windsor after her and her child are discharged from the hospital, and aside from an occasional visit, they two never actually "live" in the U.S. as permanent residents. That child likely is not a U.S. citizen, because of the ephemeral nature of his stay in the U.S. On the other hand, lets say that the same pregnant Canadian woman illegally moves to the U.S. and becomes an illegal alien. If she gives birth, and remains in the U.S. permamently until the child grows up; i.e. thet child is raised his whole life in the U.S., even though his mother is not a legal immigrant. THAT child is likely a citizen, since he was born on U.S. soil and remained a permament resident for his whole life. None of this is actual legal advice, if you have personal concerns about your own citizenship, contact an imigration lawyer. --Jayron32 13:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the ephemeral examples there are incorrect - (IANAL) - common perception at least seems to be that anyone born within US territory, whether they are born to tourists, illegal immigrants, or fifteenth-generationers in that village, are all citizens. See Birthright citizenship in the United States of America, which claims "Under the American system, any person born within the United States (including the overseas territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands) and subject to its jurisdiction is automatically granted U.S. citizenship". The article also specifically notes that if a Canadian mother has complications and is transferred to a US hospital, that child is automatically a US citizen. Children of diplomats, however, are not, as they are vaguely outside the law (diplomatic immunity), and subject to that of other countries --Saalstin (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to see a better source than is listed in our article. The ONLY citation for the "Canadians giving birth in the US section" which discusses dual citizenship is a throw-away sentance in a TV news website report, which is quoting the parents of the newborn, who claim that they look forward to their child enjoying dual citizenship. The opinion of two random Canadian citizens interviewed by a US television station is probably not sound jurisprudence. I'm not saying that you are wrong here, but that section is not a good one to base any opinion on the matter. --Jayron32 16:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's true - it is even a tourist industry now: Rmhermen (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want a real-live example of a woman who was born in the USA because her father just happened to be working there at the time but was not a permanent resident, and she has therefore been a U.S. citizen since birth, see Nicole Kidman. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered the discrimination Chinese face in the USA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.65.65 (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What would that have to do with anything? --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing. Nyttend (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"natural born" reminds me of how in Macbeth, Macduff was able to kill Macbeth, who was unable to be harmed by anyone of woman born, because Macduff was "from his mother's womb untimely ripp'd" — born via a Caesarean section. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

the doctrine of acquiescence when acquiescence is days/a month instead of years?

I've been researching the common law doctrine of acquiescence as I've been trying to improve its Misplaced Pages article. The article has had reference issues and until I spotted it, it was even missing from the List of legal doctrines.

I've been researching this subject a bit and usually acquiescence takes years. Has anyone ever heard of a case where acquiescence is considered to have happened in days or a month instead of years?

The most I've found as in http://supreme.justia.com/us/96/611/case.html where the court gives the opinion, "If the sale made by the bank was originally impeachable by him, the right to question its validity was lost by his acquiescence. He was in a condition, immediately after the sale, to enforce such rights as the law gave him, as he was fully apprised of their nature, and of all the material facts of the case." However, in the case the person did of course wait several years rather than say 3 months. Anyone know more about this acquiescence? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

stats racism

is there any site where I can find some stats about racism such as how many Muslims were victims of Islamophobia, How many black people became victims of racism and et cetera? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.49 (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust any statistics on a subjective thing such as racism, but I suspect that UNESCO attempts to keep some sort of statistics on the matter. -- kainaw™ 13:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not the kind of thing that is straightforward enough to keep stats of. Even numbers of "hate crimes" is something of an arbitrary definition. Complicated social phenomena like this have to be divined through other statistics, e.g. comparative wages for the same job, comparative sentences for the same crimes, etc. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

An anecdote I saw on TV last night will, I think, help explain why these statistics are difficult to compile... (note: I may not have the quotes exactly correct.) Mel Brooks was being interviewed and he was told, "You haven't been persecuted for being a Jew." He responded with, "I certainly have." The interviewer asked how he was persecuted. Mel explained that when he was in the Army, another soldier called him a "Jew boy." So, how do you quantify that persecution with the Jewish people who were being confined and killed? As I stated, racism is subjective. It isn't about the action. It is about how the action makes the person feel. So, you are asking for statistics about how people feel and, somehow, attempting to normalize those feelings into something useful. -- kainaw™ 14:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

He was called "Jew boy" by a fellow soldier and that in itself is considered to be persecution? There are reasons it seems why the rest of the world thinks USAmericans to be completely and utterly mad.--Radh (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

...Right. One person's comment (or, rather, one person's reportage of one person's comment) shows USAmericans to be completely and utterly mad. Note: this is one way actual pernicious bigotry is propagated and perpetuated: when people take the action of one person and project it to some class of people that person is a member of. --jpgordon 15:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Here, by the way, is the actual quote; he was asked about his experience with antisemitism, not with persecution:

Some of that pent-up animosity comes from his experience in the Army. "I was in the Army. 'Jewboy! Out of my way, out of my face, Jewboy,'" he recalls soldiers saying to him. Brooks, who served in World War II de-activating land mines, spent a short time in the stockade for getting even with one heckler. "I took his helmet off. I said, 'I don't want to hurt your helmet 'cause it's G.I. issue.' And I smashed him in the head with my mess kit," he says.

--jpgordon 15:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

He wasn't bothered about denting the mess kit? —Tamfang (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Mel Brooks would be fine with the categorization as "completely and utterly mad," in any case. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I was only using an anecdote. Mel Brooks has every right to feel persecuted, just as a black man can feel persecuted if a white man refers to him simply as "boy". Racism is about perception, not distinct action. An action that is acceptable in one place, such as one black man calling another black man "nigger" is considered racism when an identical action is used in another place, such as a white man calling a black man "nigger". The racism is created by the perception of the man being spoken to and how he feels about the person speaking. -- kainaw™ 18:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

But Mel Brooks didn't say anything about "feeling persecuted", so it's not really a relevant anecdote. --jpgordon 20:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

According to a 2006 CNN poll, "About half of black respondents said they had been a victim of discrimination because of their race. A little more than a quarter of whites said they had been victims of racial discrimination." () -- Mwalcoff (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Gibson. My astonishment may be in part a question a semantics. I just don't understand how someone without any power at all over someone else (a fellow soldier of the same rank) can persecute someone. In German at least persecution (Verfolgung) is not the same as mobbing.

Re: polls. How many people in the US think they have been a) abducted by aliens, b) been taken over by the Lord and his angels?--Radh (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Read the actual quote above, he doesn't use the word "persecute". --Tango (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

See User:Kainaw's 2nd statement, the one I answered.--Radh (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No one in the program said "persecuted". The Mike Wallace interview was included in the PBS series Make 'Em Laugh. Wallace said, "You've never suffered for being Jewish." Here's the YouTube video. (Relevant quote is at the 4:00 mark.) —D. Monack 02:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, this solidifies my point that racism is subjective. What does it mean to be "persecuted"? What does it mean to "suffer"? For some, they are the same. For others, it is important to scream and yell that persecution is not suffering. How then do you compare one person who suffers as a Jew and one person who is persecuted as a Jew when compiling statistics on racism? -- kainaw™ 03:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It can only be seen as subjective in a Democracy, a progressive state based on the rule of law and somehow even on human rights most of the time. Racism in South Africa, in the South before M L King, in Germany in the 1930s was not basically a subjective thing. Also, I would never have said, xyz did not suffer, because he was "only" mobbed in the army.--Radh (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Duke of Leuchtenberg

Why did the title of Duke of Leuchtenberg passed from Nicolas Maximilianovitch de Leuchtenberg to his brother Eugen Maximilianovich de Leuchtenberg when Nicolas already had a son to succeed him? And also are the House of Beauharnais still claimants to Napoleon's Kingdom of Italy?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Because both Nicholas's sons were illegitimate; the purported marriage of their parents seems never to have actually happened, though others say it happened but was unrecognized; in any case, his sons were - like other male line descendants - newly created Dukes von Leuchtenberg in 1890. - Nunh-huh 08:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I did a little research and I think instead of being illegitimate, Nicholas's sons were morganatic, their mother was a Russian commoner. So it passed to his brothers and then his nephews Alexander and Sergei (their mother are royals, one being a Duchess of Oldenburg and the other a Princess of Montenegro). But, then how is Nicholas de Leuchtenberg, the great-grandson of Duke Nicholas and his unequal union, able to succeed to the pretendership of the title? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the clue is in the word "pretendership" - if you're not really entitled to something does it matter if you've been disinherited? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, again, are the Beauharnais dynasts claimant to the Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Theories why people adore pop stars or royalty?

The adored person is much more successful than the fans will ever be - yet there seems to be no resentment or jealousy. Are there any psychological or sociological theories to explain why people get a satisfaction from being fans? Is it for example because belonging to their group gives them prestige? Or because they have an imaginary relationship with the star? 92.26.19.20 (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

See our article Fan (person). Tempshill (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, by adoring a person your powers of judgement and appreciation are exercised. The exercise of power is generally a positive experience for most people. Vranak (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a substitute for religion. Baseball Bugs carrots 11:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Tie in voting of the House of Representatives

I know that if the Senate has a tie vote, the Vice President (the President of the Senate) has the ability to cast the tie-breaking vote. What happens if the House of Representatives has a tie? How often does this happen? Jared (t)  18:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

According to our article United States House of Representatives, a tied vote results in the motion being defeated. Algebraist 18:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

When the other 434 members come to a tie, the speaker of the House, who usually doesn't vote on the floor, casts the deciding vote. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. From our article: The presiding officer may vote, like any other member. If a vote is tied, the presiding officer does not have a casting vote (unless he has not yet cast his vote). Instead, motions are decided in the negative when ties arise. --jpgordon 19:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Mwalcoff seems to be sort-of correct. The speaker has the right to vote at any time, but according to Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, "by custom ... he or she does so only in exceptional circumstances. Ordinarily, the Speaker votes only when his or her vote would be decisive, and on matters of great importance (such as constitutional amendments)". Algebraist 19:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that does not amount to a casting vote. The speaker may participate in any vote, but normally does not do so unless they know the result will be very close and their vote is needed to ensure the measure is either passed or defeated. If they have chosen not to participate, they do not then get a casting vote if the result is a tie. They either vote along with all the other members of the house, or not at all. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

As indicated above, the Speaker of the House has the same voting rights as any other Member. By tradition, the Speaker does not vote where his or her vote would not change the result. Some Speakers have varied this pattern in recent years, voting along with the other Members to signify their strong support for a measure (recall that in the United States, unlike the U.K. and other countries, the speakership is a partisan position), but this still remains the exception rather than the rule.

Where the Speaker has not already voted, but the result of a vote is very close, specifically including a tie (where one more affirmative vote would pass the measure) or a vote where there is one more yea than nay (where one more negative vote would defeat the measure), the Speaker will vote at the end after it has become clear that his or her vote is needed. Since this will occur after the time for ordinary voting using the electronic voting device has elapsed, if the Speaker is actually presiding over the House at the time, he or she will declare, "The Clerk will call the name of the Speaker." The reading clerk then calls the name of the Speaker, who announces his or her yea or nay (or aye or no) vote. If the Speaker is not presiding, he or she can appear in the well, whereupon the reading clerk calls his or her name and the Speaker votes.

As others have noted above, if the ultimate result of a vote is a tie, whether or not including the Speaker's vote, the proposal is lost. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example of how it works that I saw in person in Washington. A floor vote is called, bells ring and a timer of 15 minutes begins counting down on the wall. In this case, the "nays" led the "ayes" when the 15 minutes expired. However, the vote only ends when the speaker says it ends, and in this case, he (dating myself here) wanted the measure to pass, so he didn't immediately stop the vote. Instead, he began to cajole other members of his party to change their vote. For about 15 minutes, while the members of the minority were yelling "Regular order!" and the clock stood at 00:00, the number of "ayes" slowly increased and "nays" slowly decreased. When the number of "ayes" equaled the number of "nays," the speaker walked over to his desk, pushed his "aye" button and immediately declared the measure had passed. My account contradicts Newyorkbrad a little bit in that I think the speaker pressed a button rather than announced his vote verbally, but it was a while ago and my memory might not be 100% accurate on the details. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You were dating the Speaker of the House! Have the scandal sheets gotten wind of this tidbit? Edison (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What a travesty of democratic procedure. Algebraist 21:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

My student union president tried something similar once - he lost a vote by show of hands in a general meeting so demanded a secret ballot and while they were preparing it went and get a bunch of friends to come into the meeting from the bar and vote with him. He still lost. The union council then overruled the decision because it was inquorate (which meant the council had to ratify it) and then the steering committee overruled that on some technicality. The US is the epitome of a modern democracy by comparison! --Tango (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that a Speaker voted with his voting card rather than asked for his name to be called; it depends whether they were already in the segment of the vote when Members need to present themself at the rostrum to vote orally, rather than use the electronic device. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are Obama questions so popular?

The last few days I've seen loads of questions about Obama's legitimacy as President, and it even made its way onto today's Urbandictionary word of the day. Can someone fill me in as to what event caused all this? Vimescarrot (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A moron tv entertainer on CNN with more airtime than honesty. --jpgordon 18:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Please be specific. Who are you referring to, and what has that person said that would rekindle this question that was already done to death during the election campaign? --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Lou Dobbs has been promoting it. --jpgordon 19:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been in the news a bit lately. The White House once again issued a statement about it. There have been other stories about it. Slow news week, I guess. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Reuters chalks it up to silly season: - 128.104.112.87 (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Some claim that President Chester A. Arthur was born in Canada, so his presidency was invalid. Let's settle that issue before worrying about Obama. After all the establishment of civil service and standard time, which he signed into law, might not have been valid. The parallels are eerie:Per , Arthur's mother was said to be visiting her parents in Dunham, Quebec when Chester was born, and Obama's mother was Anne Dunham, claimed by the Birthers to have been visiting her inlaws in Kenya at the time of Obama's birth. Both Arthur and Obama received the oath of office twice. The country of their birth was brought up in the presidential campaigns of each. Neither produced a full original birth certificate to silence their critics. Arthur said his papers had been conveniently destroyed in a fire .Edison (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Diadem (personal wear)

Was this ever referred to as a Tiara in ancient Roman times, say BC? Would it be worn by a Roman king as a "tiara", the embroidered white silk ribbon? Was it white like the color of milk? Is there a Latin word for this and about when did such usage start?--Doug Coldwell 22:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

According to Fox-Davies' Complete Guide to Heraldry (1909):

The Roman royal diadem was originally a white ribbon, a wreath of laurel was the reward of distinguished citizens, while a circlet of golden leaves was given to successful generals. Caesar consistently refused the royal white diadem which Antony offered him, preferring to remain perpetual dictator. One of his partisans ventured to crown Caesar's bust with a coronet of laurel tied with royal white ribbon, but the tribunes quickly removed it and heavily punished the perpetrator of the offence. During the Roman Empire the prejudice against the white bandeau remained strong. The emperors dared not wear it. Caligula wished to do so, but was dissuaded on being told that such a proceeding might cost his life. Eliogabalus used to wear a diadem studded with precious stones, but it is not supposed to have indicated rank, but only to have been a rich lady's parure, this emperor being fond of dressing himself up as a woman. etc. -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, great answer.--Doug Coldwell 19:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Authors who started young

Do we have a list anywhere of famous authors who were first published (and I want to emphasize the word "published") as teenagers, or even younger? Failing that, can anyone think of a few notable examples? The more, the merrier--I'm trying to come up with a few examples to illustrate a point, and I'm drawing a blank. Thanks (for this, and for all you do)! User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 67.160.97.186 (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Great books written by teens has a list of 15 or so. Then there's Catherine Banner. And a (probably repetitive) amazon list. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I recommend The Young Visiters.--Wetman (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour Tristesse (1954) by Françoise Sagan

Chocolates for Breakfast (1956) by Pamela Moore

Pepsi-Cola Addict (1982) by June Gibbons ........Pepso2 (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate all of these suggestions, although it would be great if the authors were even more notable (even if the particular book they published young turns out to be kinda crummy). 67.160.97.186 (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If you don't find Mary Shelley, Anne Frank or Françoise Sagan sufficiently notable then.... --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Anne Frank's diary wasn't published in her lifetime, so you've overlooked the OP's emphasis on the word "published". Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No, merely interpreted in a different way than you. Until otherwise advised, I think the two cases of 1. Book published when author was a teenager and 2. Book by teenager published hold. YMMV. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Catherine Webb was published at fourteen, and has continued as a notable author. Christopher Paolini is the latest teen author wonderboy. Steewi (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot of science fiction writers were precocious twerps, e.g. Isaac Asimov, Frederik Pohl, Cyril Kornbluth, James Blish, probably most or all of the rest of the Futurians. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Tennessee Williams was 16 when his story "The Vengeance of Nitocris" was published in Weird Tales. Pepso2 (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

John Kennedy Tooles The Neon Bible was published written when he was 16. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Charles Dickens published under a pseudonym while he was a young apprentice at a printer's shop. Wrad (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Edgar Allan Poe's first volume of poems was published anonymously when he was 18 or 19. It did not, however, establish his literary career in any great degree. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright and Hansards

Has copyright law ever prevented a parliamentary Hansard from reprinting an MP's statements (e.g. when the MP was reading a book aloud as part of a filibuster)? NeonMerlin 22:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In the UK, this would be exempt from copyright as Parliamentary privilege extends to Hansard under the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840. Nanonic (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not directly germane to the question, but the shenanigans that led to the passing of that act are worth reading up. Stockdate vs Hansard only has a summary, but IIRC at one point in the proceedings the Sheriff of Middlesex was imprisoned in the Westminster Clock Tower. Both of him.--ColinFine (talk)

The above apparently refers to Hansard, generally unknown except on a very special island kingdom and related governments. Edison (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Unknown if you discount the Parliament of Canada and the Canadian provincial legislatures, the Parliament of Australia and the Australian state parliaments, the national Parliament of South Africa and South Africa's provincial legislatures, the East African Legislative Assembly, the Parliament of New Zealand, the Legislative Council of Hong Kong, the Parliament of Malaysia, the Parliament of Singapore, the Legislative Council of Brunei, the Parliament of Sri Lanka, the Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago, the National Assembly of Kenya, the National Assembly of Tanzania, the Parliament of Ghana, the Parliament of Uganda, the Parliament of Mauritius and the Parliament of Jamaica --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

In relation to this, when John Wilkes was campaigning for free speech and the right to publish these debates, did he ever set up a Booth? Edison (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

July 29

Death sentence

What are the advantages of a death sentence in our morden society?. Peaseacom (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a homework question to me. Go read Capital punishment debate, there is a lot of food for thought there. But the point is that you should be thinking up your own answers to this question. And by the way, it's "modern". --Richardrj 07:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps you should ask the good people of Morden.--Shantavira| 07:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean ask Mr. Morden of course ;). 67.117.147.249 (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A handy source of soylent green? --Jayron32 11:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the question itself is rather biased. Something like "advantages and disadvantages" or "arguments for and against" might be a little more neutral. Whose "modern society" it actually is might be worth asking (it's a "modern society" primarily made up of China, the United States, and various Islamic-law countries). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree it's biased. Are you so insecure about the question that you will not concede that it is possible that it lends a single advantage to society? Tempshill (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the question is biased - asking only for advantages, if only for the implicit assumption in the question that such advantages certainly exist. A question asking only "What are the disadvantages" would be equally biased, in the opposite direction. Noting those biases doesn't suggest insecurity, or personal belief one way or the other --Saalstin (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The main advantage of the death penalty would be if it had a significant deterrent effect against serious crimes, but research conducted in developed countries hasn't generally found much major direct deterrent effects of this kind. In a number of U.S. states, the death penalty very disproportionately affects members of ethnic/racial minorities who are too poor to hire good lawyers at the original trial, so the death penalty might have a minimal deterrent effect on anyone who doesn't fall into that category... AnonMoos (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Even if it's not really an effective "detergent to crime" (apologies to Archie Bunker), it serves the purpose of permanent removal. In the days when you would get a fair trial and be hanged shortly thereafter, it was rather cheaper than life imprisonment, and ensured the murderer would never harm anyone again. However, with the length of time nowadays between sentencing and execution, it is no longer cost-effective. And there are prisons that are virtually escape-proof, effecting the goal of permanent removal. So from the societal standpoint, there is really no longer any practical advantage to capital punishment. However, there are psychological benefits. One is the good feeling a lot of folks got when thoroughly evil characters like John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy were finally put to death. And there's the flip side of that, that it's arguably a mercy killing for someone beset with demons. Baseball Bugs carrots 11:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Even with ludicrous modern delays,it's cheaper than imprisonment for a true life sentence.hotclaws 00:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

how many members of the upper class are there?

Approximately how many members of the Upper Class are there total worldwide? (not "upper middle class"). I don't just mean the few hundred or thousand "ultrarich" as tracked by Forbes, but all of the "upper class" (but again not the "upper middle class").

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.234.207.120 (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It all depends on your definition of the upper class. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about the rich, there were 8,600,000 millionaires according to a 2008 study . Doing it on the basis of aristocracy or nobility is almost impossible: it might make some sense in western Europe (where the number of Counts, Dukes, Princes, etc, is more or less clearly defined, though counting their children and relatives might be more problematic), but would you count tribal chiefs in third-world countries as upper class, and do countries without a nobility (like the USA or as far as I know China) have no upper class? --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Counts and dukes aside, the upper class is the governing class, the privileged class who select which candidates will run for office in democracies are able to get the law made to favor their interests or bent in their favor, and do not depend on standing within a corporation for their clout. As a percentage of the population, the upper class varies culture to culture, rarely more than 5 to 10 per cent.--Wetman (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That is one definition, it isn't the only one. In the UK "upper class" and "rich and powerful" are not synonymous. Class depends on background, wealth and power are personal. There is often a strong correlation between the two, of course. The upper class in the UK is far less than 10%, probably less than 1%, and I think that is the case in most cultures that have something broadly equivalent to the Western European class system. --Tango (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Equivalent to unparliamentary language in US

Do the US House and Senate have equivalent rules to those on unparliamentary language? (e.g. a prohibition on calling people liars). I ask because I've seen some clips of the healthcare reform debate. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"Unparliamentary language" is forbidden in the House of Representatives. Although House rules don't spell out what constitutes unparliamentary language, this page of a GOP primer on House protocol gives some examples. I assume the Senate has a similar unwritten policy. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Humour in the Bible

Are there any examples of jokes or humour in the Bible? A passage or sentence that is intended to be amusing. Thanks, --Richardrj 09:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's what Uncle Cecil has to say on the matter. I got this through a simple google search. Feel free to check out some of these links, or alter the terms of the search to include words like "humor" (or "humour" if you have the british penchant for extraneous "u"s). --Jayron32 11:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Humour is highly dependent on culture and language. Any Biblical wit is likely to have been lost through generations of translators and editors. However, I have often seen God's treatment of Abraham and Adam and Eve interpreted in TV sketches as though they were cruel jokes. And Genesis 27:11 is sometimes quoted (Alan Bennett?) for laughs merely because it contains the words "hairy" and "smooth".--Shantavira| 12:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The start of 1 Samuel 24is one such case where, if interpreted the right way, is a very funny scene that gets totally lost in trasnlation. Saul is chasing David, then goes into a cave to cover his feet, at which time David cuts off the hem of his garment. Well, one interpretation of the phrase "cover his feet" is to go to the bathroom, specifically number two. It gives a comical image when seen that way, though more so to the teenage crowd.Somebody or his brother (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ecclesiastes is full of it with his own brand of sarcasm:

• The labour of the foolish wearieth every one of them, because he knoweth not how to go to the city. (10:15)
• If the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth: and if the tree fall toward the south, or toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth, there it shall be. (11:3)
• If the snake should bite before it is charmed, the snake charmer is in trouble. (10:11) --Olaf Simons (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This translation of the Ecclesiastes 10:11 is indeed hilarious, but possibly incorrect. The original
" אִם-יִשֹּׁךְ הַנָּחָשׁ, בְּלוֹא-לָחַשׁ; וְאֵין יִתְרוֹן, לְבַעַל הַלָּשׁוֹן"
may be interpreted in several different ways. What it literally says is "if the snake bites without whisper, there is no advantage for the capable-of-speech". --Dr Dima (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I envy you for being able to read the original text. --Olaf Simons (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

When Sarah overhears Abraham being assured that she'll have a child, she has a good laugh over the pleasure she'll get from sex with her decrepit hubby.

And there's a bitter piece of snark from Job, when confronted by his sanctimonious, know-it-all friends: "No doubt that ye are the people, and wisdom hath died with ye".

Plenty of wordplay in the Hebrew Bible. And Jesus was frequently quite witty. That 'render unto Caesar' comeback xas pretty snappy! Rhinoracer (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

In Genesis 18 Abraham's market-place haggling with God over how many righteous men it would take to save Sodom always seemed like a hoot. What if there are 50 good men? Then eventually he haggles God down to a mere 10. Perhaps the greater humor is God knowing that there are not even 10. Never haggle with the omniscient. Edison (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I got the impression that God was waiting for Abraham to talk him down to one. Oh well. —Tamfang (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Some scholars think that the Book of Jonah is satire and intentionally funny, especially the last chapter. Same with the Book of Esther. Wrad (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say so, but it's not exactly Richard Blackwoodesque. Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are riddled with biting irony. Many of the early biblical characters are given punning names by their parents. There's other irony too... Haman is hanged on the gallows he prepared for Mordechai or when the mocking soldier who disbelieves that the siege of Samaria will end in plenty is told he'll see it but not enjoy it. The closest I can think of to the kind of humour the OP was probably thinking of, ends rather badly, when Elisha is taunted for being bald - look it up and think twice the next time you heckle a divinely inspired person! --Dweller (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This one might be apocryphal: Moses comes down from the mountain. He says, I've got some good news and some bad news. The good news is, I got Him down to ten. The bad news is, adultery is still one of them. --jpgordon 20:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not exactly humor, but I like Judges Chapter 3, in which the Israelite Ehud, supposedly bearing gifts for the ruling king of Moab, tells the king, "I have a secret message for you." The king orders everyone else to leave, and then Ehud says, "I have a message from God" and stabs the king to death. Straight out of Hollywood. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The "camel/rope through the eye of the needle" pun was probably quite groanworthy in the early AD. Steewi (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

At the feeding of the multitude, there were 12 baskets full of scraps. Guess who'll carry them.--Lenticel 01:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

When Moses asked God what His name was, and God said, "I am that I am", that was His way of saying, "Wouldn't you like to know!" I expect God found that rather funnier than Moses did. Baseball Bugs carrots 11:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica Serapio

In the above article it talks of one Serapio, a dealer in sacrificial victims. Can you expand on this about a "dealer"? Is there further information on Serapio someplace? What else did he deal in? Suspect he was involved in the indigo trade in the ancient city of Thyatira. Cann't find him. Does Plutarch, Polybius, or Livy talk of him?--Doug Coldwell 21:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Since a sacrificial victim had to satisfy certain characteristics (it had to be "prefect"). of which the details are obscure to me, it makes sense that in Rome you could go to a specialist and ask for "a pig suitable to Ceres" or a cockerel for the auspex.--Wetman (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

When would frankincense be used? Does the name Serapio have a meaning?--Doug Coldwell 23:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A pinch of frankincense was the ordinary gesture of respect, the one that Christians were martyred for refusing. A sacrifical victim, commonly a piglet or lamb, was a gesture for those who could afford it on special occasions.--Wetman (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Associated Press flashes

Associated Press "flashes" are very rare. They put out one when Obama was elected and ones when each of the Twin Towers collapsed. Two went out on the day of JFK's assassination.

Does anyone know what other events have generated flashes from the AP? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Over what time span? Per "Breaking news"(2007) by David Halberstam and Reporters of the Associated Press and a Google Book search, the AP has issued flashes (5 bells on the Teletype or modern equivalent: advisories of ten words or less that break into other transmissions to warn that a breaking story is coming) for wins in prize fights, the resignation of baseball managers, the dynamiting of a newspaper office, Lindbergh crossing the Atlantic, any significant event in war or politics, state or or U.S. Supreme Court decisions, trial verdicts, arrests of criminals, an air raid alert in San Francisco in WW2, death of notable persons, natural disasters, even the arrest of a member of the Rolling Stones. Edison (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you have a flash confused with an AP NewsAlert. NewsAlerts are short advisories that let subscribers know of a breaking story. A flash is any story given an "f" priority code. (Other priority codes are "b" for bulletin, "u" for urgent, "r" for regular and so on.) All the flashes I've ever seen have been very short, like NewsAlerts. In fact, a NewsAlert can also be a flash. When Michael Jackson died, the NewsAlert was a flash, raising some eyebrows. NewsAlerts occur regularly, but according to the AP Stylebook, flashes are to be reserved for events of "transcendent importance."

The Halberstam book mentions the following flashes: WWI armistice, Lindbergh baby verdict, man on the moon, death of President Harding, bombing of Pearl Harbor, JFK shot, Korea armistice, Hindenburg explosion and some others not in the Google Books preview. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I cited a reference, and stand by how the Halberstam/AP book defined a "flash." The ones I cited were specifically listed as AP flashes. That is how they went out, despite any recent guide you may have found. Many that I cited preceded the first (1953) AP Stylebook. Go argue with Halberstam and the AP. "Transcendant importance?????" Per the Google Book search results, there was a "flash" when Casey Stengal resigned as a baseball coach and when Keith Richards was arrested. Not all that "transcendent." Edison (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to argue with you, but this is how "flash" is defined in the glossary of Halberstam's book (page 20): "News alert of transcendent importance, consisting of a few words and followed immediately by a publishable bulletin series. Very few flashes have been sent by AP; two were sent within two hours, however, on 9/11 -- one when each tower fell." The term "transcendent importance" comes right from the "filing practices" section of the AP Stylebook, which says under "FLASHES": "File a flash only to report a development of transcendent importance. A flash should followed immediately by a publishable bulletin." I searched the Google Books preview of Halberstam's book for the word "flash," and the list above is what I came up with. My guess is that the authors of the books mentioning Keith Richards and Casey Stengal were using the word "flash" loosely to mean "a breaking news story" and were not aware of the official AP definition of a flash, which is what I am referring to in my question. It's also possible that the AP moves flashes on its s-wire (sports) or f-wire (finance) in addition to it's a-wire (general news). I'd only be interested in flashes moving on the a-wire. Incidentally, this page says the AP invented the flash in 1906. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You are giving too much credence to a modern usage guide, and ignoring what were AP "flashes" in the past. If they only "invented the flash in 1906," then why does the AP Service Bulletin from September 15, 1904, listed in my Google Book Search above, say (page 10) about the blowing up of a newspaper office in 1904: "Time of explosion 1:07 A.M., Associated Press Flash 1:09, Bulletin 1:12." The recent AP book is incorrect, according to the earlier AP book. Also the Relief of Ladysmith in 1900 was announced by the AP with "a seven word flash" followed by a substantial advance written story story with the breaking news at the top per . From 1904 here is a description of a newspaper office getting ready to put the paper to bed at 2 am, and the editor says he needs a "flash for the front page," meaning some dramatic news event that will get people to buy the paper. The AP telegraph operator (no Teletype) is copying dreary news about Washington, when AP breaks with news of a train wreck. A bit later, wreck details come in. Still later the names of the dead. Then the transmission goes back to finishing the long political story which was interrupted by the wreck coverage. Apparently in 1904 "flash" literally meant that a short message broke into a long story to let the subscribers know a bulletin was coming, so they might delay printing the paper for a bit, to get a juicy front page item. Perhaps AP later codified past actual practice into the rule book. The Keith Richards "flash: . That one is not cited to AP so maybe it was really a lesser grade of alert. Circus fire flash: . Does the local paper decide it is an AP flash, as in the circus fire and the 1904 dynamiting of a newspaper office with fatalities, or some desk jockey in New York? Here is a 1913 discussion of wire service "flashes," buletins, etc. The Halberstam book says that December 7, 1941 the AP chief in Hawaii called the AP in California with the information that at least 5 Japanese planes were dropping bombs near Honolulu, then the military cut off phone communications. The information did not leave the office in California, and the news was delayed over an hour. Here is a report of the AP flash announcing Franklin Roosevelt's death: . says there were World War 2 flashes for the fall of Rome, then for the Germans announcing DDay. [http://books.google.com/books?id=Th71H3sIlbkC&am

White people by country

How do Germany and the Nordic countries compare to Canada in terms of the percentage of white people? NeonMerlin 23:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

We have articles like Demographics of Germany and Demographics of Canada which may be of use to you. It should be noted, however, that not all countries tabulate census data using such nebulous qualities as "race" and "skin color", so in countries where these are not significant social factors, the data may not exist. In the U.S., where they ARE significant social factors, that sort of information is tabulated, but there is no guarantee that a) such numbers are kept in every country and b) where they are kept, definitions such as what constitutes a "white person" may vary greatly from place to place. --Jayron32 23:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments removed. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

For an example, Immune, the US Census Bureau (see Race and ethnicity in the United States Census) counts Indians and Arabs as Asian and White respectively. Nyttend (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Which is why race is so nebulous a concept. Many south-asians are closer genetically related to Lithunians than are neighboring Estonians, and yet few people would say that Lithuanians and Estonians are not both "white" while they would also not classify most Indians as "white". Yet, there it is. Still, skin-color-based "races" are real 'social' constructs (even if they have no basis in genetics) in some countries, but not all. That's why the original question would likely be impossible to answer. --Jayron32 05:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

For my purposes, a white person is someone of mostly Germanic and/or Jewish ethnicity. (Weren't the Franks, Romans and Anglo-Saxons ultimately Germanic?) NeonMerlin 05:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That's kind of specific, and not all that great of a classification. I mean, aren't the Irish white people? They aren't in the least bit Germanic. What about Italians? And how can you lump Jews in with Germanic peoples; Jews aren't even indoeuropean; their a semitic group. Seriously, find a workable demographic category first, then decide how to research it. --Jayron32 05:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Nit: the red hair gene probably got to Ireland from Scandinavia. —Tamfang (talk) 03:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The Romans were Germanic? Mama mia! I've only ever heard that claim in Victorian literature and white supremacist sites of the Nordic flavour. Also, why exclude slavs? Fribbler (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. German and / or Jewish = White? One's a nationality, the second a religion (would you have considered Sammy Davis, Jr. 'white'?) and the third an ethnic classification. What's the point here? DOR (HK) (talk) 07:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

July 30

Identify this salesman

Last year I remember seeing a documentary about a salesman who had mental/physical health problems such that when he went to apply for traditional employment during the mid-20th century, he was written off, so he made a living by going door to door and selling products to people in the Northwestern US. He did this until he retired sometime during the 1990s or 2000s. Who was this salesman? 128.2.247.30 (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Bill Porter (salesman)? Nanonic (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

How many countries other than Canada have taxes on existing taxes

In Soviet Canuckistan, the provincial tax is applied AFTER the federal tax. For non-Canadians, let's say something cost 100$, the federal tax is 5 %, so it ends up being 105$. However, the provincial tax is applied on the 105$ rather than the 100$. How many other countries have such a system of goods taxation ? Rachmaninov Khan (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone may be making a mistake here. For all provinces except Quebec and Prince Edward Island, the PST is to be charged on the selling price of the item before GST. See here for the rule in Ontario. The GST is to be charged on the selling price of the item before PST. They are required to be two separate, independent calculations. // BL \\ (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's 13% (or whatever it is now) in Ontario in total, not 5% and then 8% on top of that. So something that costs $100 will be $113 with taxes. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No mistake, I'm from Quebec. I was assuming it was the same in the other Canadian provinces. I'l have to add this to my reasons to emigrate to Switzerland. Rachmaninov Khan (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well most people pay an Income tax on their earnings, they are then likely to pay Sales tax/Value added tax on their purchases, which will have already be costed to account for Corporation tax that the company pays as well as taking into account income-tax for setting wages for their employees. Tax on taxes in that regard is quite normal, but in the scenario you describe it appears to be 2 taxes charged together (rather than at different times/sources) but applied 1 after the other? That seems quite unusual, i'll rack my brain further but can't think of one that's the same off-hand. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In Australia, the price of petrol (gasoline) is higher than it needs to be. There's an excise added to the basic price, then the GST is calculated on the (price + excise), so we're being taxed twice. The previous government, which applied both the excise and the GST, always maintained they would have liked to do something about it, but couldn't. I never understood that. The present government has been silent about it, afaik, preferring to address the price issue by attempting to stimulate competition between sellers. It's had limited if any success. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

And your point is? We get taxed on income, then taxed on gst when we buy, which also has an excise tax, and built into the price as well is company taxes, and payroll tax, and when the import the oil there are import taxes and tarriffs. Infact for every dollar an Australian earns, 49% of it goes back to the goverment. An average of 25% in income tax and 24% already built in the price of anything we buy. Fuel would be one of the highest, but everything is on average 49% tax.--58.111.132.76 (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the OP was asking about goods which attract more than one direct tax levied by governments. The pre-tax price of goods is generally calculated to take into account all the producer/middleman/seller's overheads (including their own company taxes, FBT etc), which is understandable otherwise they might go out of business. But those are not taxes that are directly applied to goods by a government. We pay to withdraw cash from an ATM. That may be to recover some of the banks' costs (such as the taxes they have to pay), but the charge we pay is not a tax per se. A retailer can choose to mark down prices any day of the week, even to way below cost price if it suits their purposes. But there's still a GST payable by the buyer, and usually that's the only tax the buyer pays. With petrol, it's a double tax payable by the buyer - fuel excise, and GST. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I was more specifically asking about which other places in our lovely world tax taxes. In a logical Quebec they would tax the provincial AND federal tax on the base price of the product. But considering we recently abolished a long-standing law that prevented the selling of yellow margarine, because it was acknowledged that Quebecers were too much retarded to know the difference between butter and margarine; and that Microsoft's Windows 7 sweepstake is only unavailable to residents of Quebec, North Korea, Sudan, and Cuba, we can pretty much forget about something logical coming from the Quebec government. Rachmaninov Khan (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

To be fair to Quebecers, it seesm the margerine colour/butter-colour is to protect the pockets of those in the butter business rather than to stop unknowing Quebecers buying margarine when they're trying to buy butter. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

In America, your salary is taxed; if you save some of it, the interest is taxed; if you invest in equities, the dividends are taxed; if you buy property for later sale, the capital gains is taxed; and if you try to avoid all that by spending it, odds are you'll be in a local jurisdiction where sales are taxed. Here in Hong Kong, it is exactly the same, expect interest, dividends, capital gains and sales are not taxed. Just salary. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Prince and Duke of Girona

Who was Pedro: 1394 - 1410, Duque de Gerona? I can't find whose son he was. Also were female heiress Princess of Girona in their own right, same as they were Princess of Asturias. Aragon didn't seem to have the same view on woman taking the throne as Castile and Leon. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The Catalan Misplaced Pages says he was the son of John I of Aragon yet says he died in the same year as his birth. Our article agrees:Prince of Girona. Only the Spanish language article gives him till 1410. Fribbler (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

if I get an idea while using a prescription drug, do the rights belong to the Pharma company?

First of all, obviously the answer should be no, however, medical companies have "patented" sequences of DNA which are in everyone, as well as simply looking at certain metrics as part of a diagnosis, so that it's illegal for a doctor to look at those to make that diagnostic without paying them. It's not beyond possibility that drugs would be "licensed" to me, and that the ideas produced as a side effect of them would belong to the pharmaceutical company. In fact, does this happen? 82.234.207.120 (talk) 09:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I am not asking for legal advice. I am simply curious for entertainment purposes about what people's understandings of the law are.

No it doesn't happen and there is no way they could prove it until they know how the brain works exactally. If you get an idea to create something just patent it and it belongs to you.--58.111.132.76 (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

An analogous case would be if you designed something using a computer or software that was patented; in such a case, the computer company wouldn't own your invention. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The smallprint of some software claims they do own it in that case, though I don't think such an idea has ever been tested in court. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

A more specific example: if you write a book in Microsoft Word, that doesn't give Microsoft the rights to the book. (And don't go getting any ideas, Mr. Ballmer.) NeonMerlin 04:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I’m going to start by questioning some assumptions. Doctors break someone’s law (who? where?) by looking at something to make a diagnosis? Not looking sounds to me like malpractice. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Classical liberalism, liberalism and libertarianism

Is it right to equate classical liberalism with libertarianism? The impression I got from Classical_liberalism#.22Classical_liberalism.22_and_libertarianism is that several classical liberal philosophers supported welfare liberalism, thus they cannot be classified as libertarians. Then what is the diffenerce between classical liberalism and modern liberalism? And why some people say classical liberalism and libertarianism are same? --AquaticMonkey (talk) 09:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason why classical liberalists typically where less 'hardcore' is typically because in their times goverments were alot smaller - so having some welfare and tax was often thought of as almost insignificant. Even most libertarians are for some kind of minimum tax system. Classical liberalism is very close to hard-line libertarianism (or they are the same) in most cases. And both of those are very very far from modern liberalism, which really lacks the acceptance of natural laws of freedom. So classical is often tied to libertarianism but very rarely tied to modern liberalism.--58.111.132.76 (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Many liberals, such as Rousseau and John Locke, believed in the idea of a social contract, the idea that people could restrict their freedoms and enter into a society in order to enjoy the benefits of communal living. This is antithetical to the traditions of libertarianism (on both left and right) which oppose all rules and restrictions on human action.

Libertarians such as Ayn Rand believed that self-interest is the only way of judging if an action is right or wrong, but many of the figures of Enlightenment liberalism, such as Adam Smith, believed that human beings had a natural moral sense which would guide our judgment of what is right or wrong (see Moral sense theory).

Following from this, liberals such as Adam Smith believed in the free market because they thought it was the most efficient method of generating wealth, rather than taking an a priori view of its merits, and were willing to advocate state control in areas where this would be more useful to the population; classical liberals didn't share right-wing libertarians' fundamental belief in the sacredness of property. Classical liberalism was largely an economic theory, not an all-encompassing theory about human nature, politics, or morality. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Adam Smith was the one who said: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." etc. AnonMoos (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"the traditions of libertarianism ... oppose all rules and restrictions on human action" is rubbish: see Non-aggression principle. —Tamfang (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Tiberius Gracchus, section Tiberius' death

In the version of Plutarch's Lives I have it says, Tiberius tried to save himself by flight. As he was running, he was stopped by one who caught hold of him by the gown; but he threw it off, and fled in his under-garment only. I assume the "gown' he is referring to is a toga and the under-garment is the tunic. Was the toga he was wearing a toga praetexta, an ordinary white toga with a broad purple stripe on its border? Can not find anywhere where Plutarch says that Tiberius Gracchus appeared in the Roman senate with armed guards and in a mourning costume, implying that his defeat would mean his prosecution and death.--Doug Coldwell 11:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Did Confucius say?

"One hundred women are not worth a single testicle." Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any mention in Analects, are there any other sources to look in?83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I researched that a very long time ago. It is a Vietnamese phrase attributed to Confucius during the direct Chinese rule over Vietnam (around 111BC). As with most "Confucius says..." phrases, it has nothing to do with Confucius. Of course, you'll find millions of references that state it is quote from Confucius and maybe 3 that explain that it isn't. -- kainaw™ 13:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to do with Confucius, but there apparently was an authentic old Japanese saying something along the lines of "Never trust a woman, even after she has bore seven sons to you".... AnonMoos (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Was it Confucius who said, "A woman is just a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke"? Baseball Bugs carrots 23:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, just imagine the sort of trouble you'd get in if you lit a woman on fire and began sucking on her.

(Oh, there's no way to make that look good...) HalfShadow 02:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Moon Publicity

www.moonpublicity. com. Is this a hoax? Google is not helping. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.107.246.140 (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Almost certainly a scam. It might be possible to draw something on the Moon's surface, but it would be very small and invisible from Earth. To make it visible, the image would have to be hundreds or thousands of km in extent and therefore would be astronomically expensive to create. Also read moonpublicity's footnote:

Disclaimer: Investing involves risk. Licensing Shadow Shaping technology is no different. There are a number of identified challenges as well as unknown risks. Consult with professional advisers before registering to bid. The licensing offer is only available to accredited investors where permitted by law. Information provided is for educational purposes and is not guaranteed for accuracy or applicability. No warranties or guarantees, neither written nor oral, are provided with this offer.

IMHO, this seems to be a scam to separate the foolish from their money - you need to bid a minimum of $46,000 with full payment expected by Feb 2010, leaving the winning bidder with a massive financial outlay with no convincing prospect of a return on the investment for a very long time to come. Consider that after 10,000 years of civilization, humankind has made no impact on Earth this is visible from the moon. Astronaut (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This idea was a plot element in The Man Who Sold the Moon, by Robert Heinlien. the Novella was written in 1949. It was a scam then, too. -Arch dude (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone with 20/20 vision can (by definition) resolve something 1 arc minute in angular diameter. That means you would need pixels about 120km by 120km - that's slightly more than the area of Jamaica. As that site says under "economic challenges": "Distance – The Moon is nearly 400 thousand km away from Earth. In order to make images that can be seen from Earth with the naked eye, images would need to be millions of square kilometers in size." They consider that a challenge, I consider it completely infeasible. --Tango (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"No one ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American people." --Jayron32 02:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Send me a dollar and I'll tell you how I make money... Thanks for the dollar. This is how I make money." Baseball Bugs carrots 23:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine putting a commercial on the moon would give you by far more public outrage than positive publicity. Also, this reminds me of an old cold-war era joke (I wonder if this joke is Eastern bloc only, it sure feels like that):

An aide of the president of the USA comes storming into the president's office. "Sir, the Russians appear to have landed on the moon! What should we do?"

"Hmm, let's just wait and see."

A couple days later, the same aide rushes to the president again: "Sir, they seem to be... painting the moon red. "

"Is that so? Well, we'll see how far they get with that."

Yet another couple of days later: "Sir, they managed it. They actually painted the moon red."

"Did they? Tell you what. Give our boys some white paint, send them up there, and have them write Coca-Cola over the red color." TomorrowTime (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Eminent Victorians

How many people are there still alive who were born in the 19th century? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.52 (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

We list 76 living supercentenarians (that is, people of 110+ years of age), which covers all but 6 months of the 1800s (though lacks 18 months of the 19th century). Given that there are 13 living people born in the first half of 1899, I estimate there are about 120 living people who were born in the 19th century. — Lomn 16:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is subject to change at any given minute. cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The 1800s are the 19th century.--Wetman (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the 19th century includes 1900 and does not include 1800. Algebraist 19:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah we had all this at the end of the 1990s. Pedants like you popped up and said it wasn't the end of the millennium, because there was no year zero. We were supposed to wait until 1 January 2001 to celebrate the new millennium. To which I said then, and continue to say: phooey. I don't really care whether there was a year zero or not, it felt right to mark the turn of the millennium on that day and that's the end of the matter. Same goes for this. Which century is the year 1800 in? Well, obviously the 19th. --Richardrj 21:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and "Britain" is just another synonym for England. Algebraist is presenting encyclopedic information rather than popular misconception and should be praised for that. People come here for accurate and encyclopedic information. Which century is the year 1800 in? Well, obviously the 18th. Surtsicna (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yea, it felt right to party on Jan 1 2000. We all agree with you. You win. However, we don't redefine the terms to fit the most satisfying party date. APL (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What you mean is that you prefer to think in terms of the 2000s or the 1800s rather than the 21st or 19th century. You're free to prefer whichever you wish, but that doesn't change the meanings of the terms. Algebraist 22:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall where it was now, but I read an article around 2000/2001 that was from a newspaper, I think in Connecticut, which mentioned debate about when the century changed...in 1801! So, it's been around a long time. (Edit - I had to try :-) Didn't find the article, but this was interesting. Somebody or his brother (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem's just that the first century, like the first decade, etc., were all defective -- there was no year 0. Not our fault; the rest of the centuries, decades, etc. all start as any programmer will tell you they should, with zero. --jpgordon 05:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've heard that argument before, and I still 100% disagree with it. Programmers have been around rather less time than there have been centuries of this current era. Programmers don't get to dictate to the rest of the world how they should retrospectively (for over 2,000 years !!!) rename things. Programmers should start with what is, and go from there. If we decided the Common Era had had its day and we wanted to start a new era, would the first year of the new era be Year 0 or Year 1? Programmers might like it to be called Year 0, but the 99% of the rest of world would say "That's incredibly silly and counterintuitive and we're going to call it Year 1". Guess who'd win. Is the first page of a book or newspaper numbered "Page 0"? Is the first day of a month the 0th of the month? Are children taught to count to ten by starting at 0 and including not 10 but 11 digits? Rather than reinventing history by saying the first century was "defective" and only contained 99 years (but the remaining centuries contained the expected 100 years), why not say the first century started with the Year 1, and all subsequent centuries started with a year ending with the digit 1. It's very simple. It’s tempting to treat the calendar as part of a continuous algebraic number line going back to the Big Bang, because computers have an easier time of it when it’s treated that way. But the thing is, the calendar simply wasn’t set up that way. From an algebraic standpoint, there’s a discontinuity between the end of the pre-Christian era and the Common Era. You can’t just pretend that isn’t the case. It's also tempting to think "The group of 100 years that have four digits and start with the digits 1 and 8 must constitute the 18th century", but a second's thought tells you that's wrong - in two ways. It's not the first two digits that matter most, it's the last two. Just as the first "decade" of the natural numbers starts at 1 and ends at 10, the first decade of a calendar starts at the beginning of Year 1 and ends at the end of Year 10. The first century ends at the end of Year 100. The first millennium ends at the end of Year 1000. And so on. So the 19th century was the period 1801-1900. And there was absolutely nothing "defective" about the 1st century, which started at 1 CE and ended at the end of 100 CE. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, you seem to actually care about this. It's a lot more fun to consider when you notice that it doesn't matter at all. --jpgordon 16:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Your trite riposte betrays you, jp. You thought it was important enough to spend time claiming what you did, and it deserved a contrary view. Downplaying the importance of the issue is not generally an appropriate response to debunkation. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The 1800s are the 19th century. Can't say it often enough. --Wetman (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what you say. The experts, however, say that the 1800s are the 17th 18th century. That said, you can repeat your statement over and over again, but it will never matter. Surtsicna (talk) 08:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I think you meant to say that the year 1800 is in the 18th century, but I'm not sure. Besides, commonsense trumps accuracy. --Richardrj 08:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The 1800s, in general, refer to the 19th century. Except that 1801 was the first year of the 19th century, and 1900 was the last year of the 19th century. Just as 1 AD was the first year of the first century, and 100 AD was the last year of the first century. Baseball Bugs carrots 11:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Commonsense trumps accuracy." Inaccuracy is not commonsense. Surtsicna (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for answering the question, Lomn. To all the pedants, no thanks necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.52 (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could have defined your terms better. Which century do you consider 1900 to be in? Baseball Bugs carrots 16:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This conversation makes me feel like it's December 31st, 2000 again. 83.250.236.75 (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

To Richardrj and 80.254.147.52: Tarring anyone who happens to disagree with you with the epithet "pedant" is not helpful. If one is open only to arguments that support one's existing opinions, one will go around in ever-increasing circles, but not actually getting anywhere. I agree that it's common sense to loosely call the 1800s (i.e. 1800-1899) "the 19th century". But when it comes to the specific year 1800, you've got to be more careful. Same with 2000; 2000 did indeed mark the end of the millennium, but at the end of the year, not the beginning. When you start reading the last page of a book, you still haven't finished the book. You've got to read all the way to the end of the page to find out whodunnit. Saying that 1 January 2000 was the start of a new millennium (just because the numbers changed from 19 to 20) was like reading all but the last page of a book, turning over to the last page, stopping reading, and claiming you'd read the entire book. You would have been lying. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The original questioner is at fault for asking a vague question, and sniping about "pedantry" is off the mark. He needs to be clear, and indicate whether he's counting 1900 in his question. Baseball Bugs carrots 06:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps, in the OP's eyes, the 19th century ended on 22 January 1901? — Kpalion 07:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Edmund Burke and Terrorism

I have read that Edmund Burke was the first to use the word Terrorist or Terrorism in english but cannot find a detailed reference to this. Does anyone have this information please? Togcymru (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The exact cite by Burke is: "Thousands of those hell-hounds called Terrorists, whom they had shut up in prison, on their last Revolution, as the satellites of tyranny, are let loose on the people." In "Letter No. IV. To the Earl Futzwilliam." (1795) Select Works of Edmund Burke: Vol. 3 Letters on a Regicide Peace. Indiniapolis: Liberty Fund. 1999. p. 371. Print. --- by Juanjo Bermudez de Castro 11.16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This San Francisco Gate article says he was "one of the first" to use the term, in 1795. It doesn't give the specific source, and I'm unable to search further at this time; that should be a good starting point though. --LarryMac | Talk 17:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism and terrorist were originally used in English (in the 1790s) with reference to the tactics employed by the French revolutionary government during the Reign of Terror. The OED has a citation for Burke's using terrorist in that sense: "Thousands of those Hell-hounds called Terrorists … are let loose on the people" (Two letters … on the proposals for peace with the regicide directory of France, 1795). The earliest citation (of terrorism, in this case) for a sense that may or may not be more akin to the modern sense is from Thomas J. Mathias in 1798: "The causes of rebellion, insurrection, … terrorism, massacres, and revolutionary murders". (The earliest citation for terrorist in something like the modern sense is from 1866.) Deor (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The word terrorist relates to the Reign of Terror, which was known as such in its own time ("la Terreur" in French). You might want to read that article for how "terrorist tactics" were used by the revolutionary French and how the term got applied to it. --Jayron32 02:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

We have a little image File:Terrorism2 london times 1-30-1795.jpg... AnonMoos (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

July 31

Why universities are bad

I have been doing research on why universities on bad. I know that is completely a matter of opinion and I have no interest on why anyone here thinks they are good or bad. What I am looking for is research on how the fundamental structure of distinct courses with one professor and dozens of students fails to educate efficiently. I have a lot of papers and books I've been reading, but I've found that when people ask for references here, the users turn up a lot of stuff that isn't readily available on Google or the local library. The more I have to read, the more well-rounded my research in this topic will be. -- kainaw™ 01:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Define what you mean by "bad" and "fail to educate efficiently". By what standard or threshhold? Baseball Bugs carrots 16:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have already decided on the conclusion, why bother with the research? 67.117.147.249 (talk) 02:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It is normal to begin with a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, and then decide if the hypothesis is correct or not. My hypothesis is that having one professor and many students is not efficient. I can test it my creating my own university and having half the classes taught one way and the other half taught a different way. However, I do not have the income to create my own university. So, I am limited to reading about the work done by others on this topic. From there, I can decide if my hypothesis is correct enough to go further. Of course, you may disagree with this entire process and demand that the whole testing of the hypothesis is a waste of time. That is your opinion. I feel that a hypothesis is rather useless without further research. -- kainaw™ 03:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

However, it depends on your methodology and whether or not your hypothesis is truly testable. A hypothesis like "Does mixing these two chemicals produce this predicted third chemical" is easily testable. One like "Does XXXX suck" isn't really testable because it is subject to easy confirmation bias. If you go in assuming that Universities are bad from the outset, you are coloring your search for sources. You are more likely to find sources which confirm your bias than not, so you've basically poisoned the well in setting up your research. Asking a neutral question like "What are some factors that affect the quality of post-secondary education" or even "What are some alternatives to the standard University model and how well do they work?" would be far better starting points. Once you start with a question "Are all universities bad?", then you aren't remaining neutral in your research, and are not going to produce valid results. --Jayron32 04:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to interrogate the guy about his research methods. You don't even know what the end result of what he's trying to accomplish. APL (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"X is not efficient" isn't really a testable hypothesis. You need "X is less efficient than Y". --Tango (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"...a lot of stuff that isn't readily available on Google or the local library." Have you tried a university library? :-) APL (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

By "local library", I actually meant the University library. I work at two universities. One is medical, so nothing there is useful in this area. The other is an engineering university. I got a very good start there. I've spent the last three months reading studies on teaching methods that have been used as an alternative to lectures and grouping them by similarity - creating a sort of semantic graph of how the methods relate to one another and the results they produce. The graph is looking good, but I'd like to have more substance by including as many studies as I can find. -- kainaw™ 18:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A good starting point would be that if the university in question has no library, that's bad. Baseball Bugs carrots 23:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Try a cost-benefit analysis. Is the cost of any university education repaid by higher earnings during the course of a normal working career, or is the cost higher than the expected income differential with an equally competent person who did not attend any university? I suspect you’ll find that there is some university education, somewhere, that isn’t worth the money. Bachelor of Arts in underwater basket weaving, vs. a plumber or auto mechanic, perhaps? Of course, you may have to attend a university to be able to undertake said cost-benefit analysis. . . DOR (HK) (talk) 07:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Is the irukandji jellyfish so dangerous?

Some people consider them even worse than sharks. Are they really dangerous?. --190.50.71.175 (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

They can kill you (possibly if you're stung multiple times or are allergic) but the main problem is the extreme pain: being stung by one feels like a combination of pnemonia, having the shit beaten out of you and being set on fire. This can last for hours or days. HalfShadow 03:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The Irukandji Jellyfish article says they killed 2 people in Australia in 2002, whereas the shark attack article rather confusedly seems to be saying there are 4 or 5 human fatalities worldwide per year as a result of shark attacks. As for non-fatal injuries, looks like shark attacks on humans worldwide are 50-70 per year. Those jellyfish may sting more people per year than that, but, as the article points out, often a sting-ee doesn't identify the source of the sting. (Fixed your link in the section title. You might get better readership from experts over at the Science desk with this type of question, BTW.) Tempshill (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

plush toy idea

I feel there should be three Beagle Brigade plush toys available for purchase. Their names can be Phyto, Daisy and Jackpot. The money from the sales of each plush toy should go to animal shelters. I told the U.S. Department of Agriculture about my idea. They think it's ingenious, with the money going to animal shelters. I tried to contact Hartz Mountain about this matter. They never got back to me. Who else should I contact regarding this matter?69.203.157.50 (talk) 08:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is definitely one for Dragons' Den.--Shantavira| 08:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

How could Dragon's Den, which is based in the UK be of any help to my idea?69.203.157.50 (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It is trivial to get plush toys produced. You just have to decide how much you are willing to pay and how willing you are to ignore the conditions in which the toys are produced (as a rule, the cheaper the product, the worse the conditions for the workers). The "money from the sales" is the profit after paying the producer and very likely the shipping company. If you are suggesting that someone produce the toys for free so you can get credit for coming up with a great idea, you will likely find that nobody is willing to put hundreds of people to work with no pay. -- kainaw™ 18:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The American adaptation of Dragons' Den is Mark Burnett's Shark Tank. It premieres August 9 on ABC. Pepso2 (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

For your information, I have no intention of being a contestant on that reality show. How about a portion of the sales go to animal shelters? Is there anyone else I can turn to?69.203.157.50 (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It is very easy. That is why I used the phrase "It is trivial to get plush toys produced." In case you don't understand, "trivial" means "so easy that it is not worth explaining." Go to the store. I'm sure you have at least one store that sells plush toys. All those toys have little tags on them. On the tag is the distributor and/or manufacturer. Write them all down. Then, use Google or Bing to look up a phone number for each company. Call them. Tell them that you want to make, say, 100,000 plush toys. Ask how much it will cost. They will give you a ballpark quote. Some may hang up on you because they deal in millions of toys, not thousands. Sign a contract with one of the companies to produce the toys. Sell the toys. Give part of your profits to the animal shelter. As I stated, this is very easy. The only problem is laziness. If you are asking for someone else to find a company, call them, get a quote, sign the contract, and sell the toys ... it won't happen. Other people have their own ideas to work on. -- kainaw™ 17:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Earliest Parliamentary candidature by a living person

Michael Foot, who is still alive, stood for the British Parliament at the 1935 UK general election. I've been trying, unsuccessfully, to find out whether anyone else who stood in the election is still alive, and also wondered whether this is an international record, or whether there is someone out there who stood for election to their nation's parliament earlier. Any thoughts? Warofdreams talk 15:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Edward "Ned" Fenlon was elected to the Michigan state legislature in 1933. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

How do Germans feel about Jews and the Holocaust?

For example, are they still anti-Semitic? --59.189.56.132 (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That's 60 million people you're talking about. Wouldn't you figure it varies from person to person? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course it does, but are there statistics about the general sentiment? --218.186.10.247 (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a question in the same vein at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Please don't take offense -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

How do Japanese feel about Japanese actions in World War 2?

For example, do they think the invasions of Asian countries was an act of aggression or self-defence? --59.189.56.132 (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If your question is homework, show that you have attempted an answer first, and we will try to help you past the stuck point. If you don't show an effort, you probably won't get help. The reference desk will not do your homework for you. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether most ordinary Japanese under the age of 65 have strong opinions on the matter. However, there is a relatively small minority of right-wing nationalists in Japan who are extremely vocal -- and on a number of occasions, the Japanese government has taken actions in order to appease this ultra-nationalist fringe (for domestic political reasons) which have ended up having major negative foreign-relations repercussions (such as Yasukuni shrine visits, downplaying the Nanjing atrocities, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

How do Muslims feel about terrorism?

Do they support it? I think many Muslim communities, for example Singapore Muslims, would not. Are there any Muslim organisations that help fight terrorism and discourage Muslims from turning extremist? --59.189.56.132 (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There are certainly Muslim organization against terrorism. For instance, Council on American-Islamic Relations, British Muslims for Secular Democracy, etc. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

CAIR is actually not necessarily a very good example, since it seems to be surrounded in a continual cloud of controversy... AnonMoos (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Muslims in the UK are generally opposed to terrorism. It is only a few people on the fringes that support it. --Tango (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear 59.189.56.132 -- Your basic question is somewhat meaningless and unanswerable in the form in which you asked it, since there are hundreds of millions of Muslims with very diverse attitudes and diverse concerns. In many cases, the concrete specific details of local political or military events will be a lot more immediately relevant to people's lives than vaguely-defined and general terms such as "terrorism" considered philosophically in the abstract.

However, one little discrepancy which I find interesting is that during the middle ages, the mainstream consensus of Islamic legal interpretation was strongly in favor of regularized rules of war which would protect civilians in time of combat, etc. -- but nowadays there are extremely publicly prominent Muslim legal-religious scholars (such as Yusuf Qaradawi) who say that suicide attacks deliberately targeting Jewish women and children are fully acceptable according to Islamic law -- in fact, Qaradawi has said that the one and only reason that it can ever be permissible for a Muslim woman to go unveiled in public is if going unveiled helps her to kill Jews! In this particular case, the ethics and morality of Islamic legal interpretation by some professional scholars has certainly degenerated and gone backwards since the medieval period. However, Qaradawi doesn't speak for, and is not necessary typical of, the many hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world... AnonMoos (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The Muslims I've known have been peace-loving. Baseball Bugs carrots 23:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I know Muslims (and Japanese and Germans) are not monolithic blocs and even Muslim subcommunities are not monolithic blocs. But there are many surveys which show that "X% of Community Y support Z", so surely there are some for Muslim subcommunities and their views towards terrorism? For example, I think we can safely say that Singapore Muslims are less supportive of terrorism than Arab Muslims, but by how much? Try exploring the issues instead of calling me a troll. --59.189.61.197 (talk) 07:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless there is any authoritative study on political attitudes of Singaporean Muslim community, it would be difficult to give any exact answer. Talking about the Muslim word in general, I think it is safe to state the following (based on completly unscientific guesses):

• An overwhelming majority of the population in the Muslim world are not supporters of terrorism (unless one employs a definition ofn 'terrorism' produced by a pro-Israel think-tank).
• Large sections of the population in the Muslim world (a majority?) feel that Western countries employ double standards, branding Islamic organizations as 'terrorist' and stereotyping Muslims in general as 'terrorists' whilst turning a blind eye on Israeli war crimes in Gaza or US war crimes in Iraq.

--Soman (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

How do whites feel about slavery, colonialism and all their racist crimes?

Are most whites still racist today? --59.189.56.132 (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What planet are you from? Don't you know many white people? Why are you cluttering this page with your nonsense? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course I have met many white people online and many of them are racist. But I am looking for facts and statistics. --59.189.56.132 (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Note to admins-this section should be removed as race-baiting. Clearly the anon editor has an agenda to push. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

All sections made by the IP should be removed. Surtsicna (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, please don't feed the troll. TastyCakes (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm a numberist myself. Go away, you horrible digit. HalfShadow 17:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Has the OP read our article on loaded questions? Livewireo (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel the OP needs to make a strong attempt to comprehend that people are individuals. There is no such thing as "how whites feel" or "how Jews feel" or "how blacks feel" because the entire race doesn't feel anything. The individuals have feelings and there is never a case in which all of the individuals feel the same thing. By continually making the accusation that every individual in the race be treated as a whole, the OP is demonstrating how extremely racist he or she is. The only cure for racism is education. If the OP is willing to learn, we can teach. If the OP is a die-hard racist with no purpose but to try and get others into an argument, then ignore the racist troll. -- kainaw™ 18:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't committed any racist crimes, thank you very much. --Tango (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Q: How do whites feel about slavery, colonialism and all their racist crimes?
A: We're against them.

Any more questions? Baseball Bugs carrots 23:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that the issue could be summed up that easily. Yes, I agree that the anon IP's 4 questions at WP:RDH are highly trollish (as multiple-questions-posted-by-anon-ip queries usually are), but similar queries have been posted in the past (albeit better formulated) and answered through actual debate. It is wrong to assume that any whole ethnic/racial groups shares a single pov on any issue, but the question can easily be reformulated to "what is the general opinion in the country X about the issue Y".

I don't know if there is any consensus on condemnation of colonialism amongst white people today, as implied by User:Baseball Bugs. First of all, its extremly difficult to define 'white people', there are no objective delimitations. If we are employ a definition that roughly covers most people in Europe, Australia, Canada and New Zealand plus white population of USA (as defined in census as 'Caucasian'), then my own hunch feeling is that:

• There would extremly few persons arguing in favour of the reintroduction of slavery. However, I don't think there is any overwhelming feeling of collective guilt (as in the case of German collective trauma over Holocaust guilt).
• Generally, many Europeans (in several countries probably a broad majority) retain nostalgic feelings regarding the colonial era. The colonial ventures are often portrayed as 'spreading culture' rather than savage plundering. Colonial 'explorers' are celebrated as heros in histiography, whilst colonial atrocities are generally downplayed or outright excluded from history books in schools. Probably, rather few Europeans see any direct link between the colonial legacy of divide-and-conquer in colonies as defining factors of problems of Third World countries.
• I'm not saying that the solution is to institutionalize collective guilt, but at least it should be recognized that colonialism & slavery has contributed to severe socio-economic injustices and racist social order that persist till today.

--Soman (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Times when world population have decreased...

I was reading the article on the Black Death just now, and the intro states that "The Black Death is estimated to have killed 30% to 60% of Europe's population, reducing the world's population from an estimated 450 million to between 350 and 375 million in 1400". This is a pretty stunning statement, that the plauge was so horrible that it significantly decreased the number of living humans. Has there been other events (plauges, wars, famines, whatever) where something has had an impact world population?

I found this chart in the article on world population, and it seems to show that it has essentially only happened twice: a rather sustained fall beginning around 500 BCE and continuing for a few hundred years after that, and a few times in the years 1000-2000 CE. The second one I assume is different outbreaks of the plauge (would that be a correct assumption?) but what is the first? I would be most grateful if someone could enlighten me and direct me to the apropriate articles. 83.250.236.75 (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean an impact where the world population decreased, or simply where it was significantly effected? The demographics of Africa were (and are) significantly affected by AIDS, but absolute population hasn't gone down, it just hasn't increased as quickly. There were also many deaths in North America after European contact - Misplaced Pages's article on the subject gives estimates as high as 140 million, but after the various diseases and wars the number of "natives" in the Americas was down to a tiny portion of that. TastyCakes (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I was actually more interested in those events that where so catastrophic that world population actually decreased, but information on other events which have had a huge negative impact on demographics is certainly appriciated. 83.250.236.75 (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The 1918 flu pandemic killed 50 to 100 million of the 1.6 billion people in the world at the time. I don't know if births outweighed this at the time. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The Plague of Justinian may be part of the reason for the flat spot above "year 0" on the chart. What caused the decline before that though? One out of 38 people (2.6% of world population) were killed in the Second World War but it led to the Baby boom, not a decline. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, Jutinian was 500 years or so after the BC/AD line (the non-existant "year 0")... --Jayron32 18:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually starting to suspect that it may just have been a poorly drawn chart (well, a chart based on poor information at least). The image-page for the chart states that it uses the same information as this chart (only drawn logarithmically), and that chart uses the lower estimates from this page. But if you look at the table at the Census Bureau-page, you see that most of the lower estimates comes from "The Atlas of World History" by McEvedy and Jones, but they don't have a stat for 400 BCE, so instead the lowest estimate comes from "An Essay Concerning Mankind's Evolution" by Biraben. But Birabens stats are consistently higher than McEvedy and Jones's, which makes the lower estimate "jump up" slighly during that time. Maybe there was no population decrease at all between 200 and 400 BCE, just that the table where the information came from was exceedingly poorly constructed. 83.250.236.75 (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want go back far enough, the Toba catastrophe 70,000 to 75,000 years ago may have reduced the population to as few as 10,000. (The article doesn't mention what it was before the event. The discussion page asks, but there's no definite answer.) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, don't forget the Castastrophe on June 6th, 1996. A mysterious explosion destroyed the Chernolton research facility near Moscow. Lucifer Alpha, a powerful biological weapon under secret development there was released into the atmosphere, creating a deadly biohazard. Carried by the trade winds, Lucifer Alpha spread through out Eastern Europe and Eurasia, destroying 80% of the populace. Half of the world's people died. HalfShadow 18:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • And for those people who missed the oblique reference to a 20 year old video game, read Snatcher. --Jayron32 18:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    • What do you mean game? HalfShadow 18:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The last time there is a recorded decline in the world population, equal to a stunning 25%, was Genesis 4:1-16 (Qur’an 5:26-32). Since then, births have out-weighed deaths. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I forgot about Noah. My bad. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Now there's a story Ark.

Let's not forget World War II, which between the wonton slaughter of soldiers and the mass murders of civilians made a notable dent in the human population. Not like the Black Death, but significant still. Baseball Bugs carrots 07:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm, wonton slaughter. --Sean 13:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hitler's quote

Some time ago I red this quote in Wikiquote Anybody who sees and paints a sky green and pastures blue ought to be sterilized (in German it would be something like Wer sieht und malt ein Himmel grün und blau Felder müssen sterilisiert werden, just to guess). Now it's absent, I think because it was unsourced. Can someone verify if it's a real quote? It would be amazing if you could find the original German form and when it was actually said. --151.51.22.210 (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the first source given in the #1 Google hit for me is Dorothy Thompson, who attributed it to Hitler in the N.Y. Post, Jan 3, 1944. So apparently an unofficial (maybe even biased) source, then. - Jarry1250  18:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that Dorothy Thompson was very biased against Hitler, especially after being expelled from Germany. Her statements may be based in truth, but unless others make the same statements, I would assume she is exaggerating. -- kainaw™ 19:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The German seems very hard to track down, even just on the keywords (e.g. I would expect green and blue to equal grün and blau (with or without endings) regardless of the rest of the translation). So it probably didn't exist in that form, though Hitler's own views on modern art can be easily sourced. - Jarry1250  19:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Jedermann, das Blau sieht und malt ein Himmelgrün und auffängt, soll entkeimt werden." is the German apparently. Googling it now. - Jarry1250  19:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

2 hits? Maybe not. - Jarry1250  19:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone else reminded of the Blaues Gras cantata by P. D. Q. Bach? —Tamfang (talk) 04:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he did, that is a quote from Mein Kampf. Trust me I have read it many many times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, where? I CTRL-F'd Reynal And Hitchcock's translation and couldn't get any hits :( - Jarry1250  19:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any of them do. It doesn't actually sound like Mein Kampf, to me. His discussion of compulsory sterilization is much more reserved in the book, and clings very tightly to the medicalized language of eugenics, at least in the editions I have seen. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's an exaggerated paraphrase of something Hitler said in his speech at the opening of the first Große Deutsche Kunstausstellung (Great German Art Exhibition) in 1937, source. The quote is:

"Ich habe hier unter den eingeschickten Bildern manche Arbeiten beobachtet, bei denen tatsächlich angenommen werden muß, daß gewissen Menschen das Auge die Dinge anders zeigt als sie sind, d.h. daß es wirklich Männer gibt, die die heutigen Gestalten unseres Volkes nur als verkommene Kretins sehen, die grundsätzlich Wiesen blau, Himmel grün, Wolken schwefelgelb usw. empfinden oder, wie sie vielleicht sagen, erleben. Ich will mich nicht in einen Streit darüber einlassen, ob diese Betreffenden das nun wirklich so sehen und empfinden oder nicht, sondern ich möchte im Namen des deutschen Volkes es nur verbieten, daß so bedauerliche Unglückliche, die ersichtlich am Sehvermögen leiden, die Ergebnisse ihrer Fehlbetrachtungen der Mitwelt mit Gewalt als Wirklichkeit aufzuschwätzen versuchen, oder ihr gar als "Kunst" vorsetzen wollen. Nein, hier gibt es nur zwei Möglichkeiten: Entweder diese sogenannten "Künstler" sehen die Dinge wirklich so und glauben daher an das, was sie darstellen, dann wäre nur zu untersuchen, ob ihre Augenfehler entweder auf mechanische Weise oder durch Vererbung zustande gekommen sind. Im einen Fall tief bedauerlich für diese Unglücklichen, im zweiten wichtig für das Reichsinnenministerium, das sich dann mit der Frage zu beschäftigen hätte, wenigstens eine weitere Vererbung derartiger grauenhafter Sehstörungen zu unterbinden. Oder aber sie glauben selbst nicht an die Wirklichkeit solcher Eindrücke, sondern sie bemühen sich aus anderen Gründen, die Nation mit diesem Humbug zu belästigen, dann fällt so ein Vorgehen in das Gebiet der Strafrechtspflege."

Translation:

"I saw many works among the pictures submitted here for which it indeed has to be assumed that certain people's eyes show things differently than they are, this means that there are really men who see, or, as they may say, experience, the present-day body shapes of our Nation only as degenerate retards, who generally perceive meadows as blue, skies as green, clouds as sulphurous yellow, and so on. I do not want to argue whether the people concerned really see or perceive it like this, but I just want to prohibit in the name of the German Nation that these poor unfortunate people who clearly suffer with respect to their vision try to forcefully sell the results of their misconceptions to the public, or even declare it "art". No, there are only two possibilities: Either these so-called "artists" really see things in this way and hence believe in what they represent, then one just would have to investigate whether their eye problems were caused mechanically or through inheritance. In the former case very unfortunate for these poor people, in the latter case important for the Interior Department, which would then have to look at the issue of at least preventing a further inheritance of such dreadful vision problems. Or, they do not believe in the reality of these perceptions themselves but try for other reasons to harass the Nation with this nonsense, then this method of operation belongs into the area of criminal law."

It seems Dorothy Thompson is a rather more succint writer than Hitler... --Chl (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Information requested by sweepstake forms

Why do they often ask age and gender for sweepstakes ? Is it to prevent certain categories people from winning ? (ie: a 79 old woman registers in a contest aimed at a teenage male audience) ? Rachmaninov Khan (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's probably not for that reason, mainly because I am fairly sure they can't discriminate along the lines of gender and age (with the possible exception of minimum ages). It's probably because most sweepstakes are really ways to harvest addresses for advertising pitches, and knowing that kind of information (and often they ask what you household income is, as well) means they can sell targeted ad lists. Just my guess. (In reference to a US context in particular.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

One way to find out is, if you have to give your name, give a fake middle initial, and see where that starts turning up. Then you know who they sold their mailing list to. Baseball Bugs carrots 23:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Religion,biography of William Temple

I want to know the biography of William Temple,archbishop of Caanterbury —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.13.24.13 (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

See William Temple (archbishop). // BL \\ (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Third Punic War info request

Did the name of Byrsa hill, where Scipio Aemilianus Africanus besieged Carthage, have a meaning relating to Mars.--Doug Coldwell 21:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The article you linked to, Byrsa, says, "The name is derived from the Phoenician word for citadel." Do you have reason to doubt that? Deor (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I am sure that is correct. I have reason to believe that either that hill or another (apparently there were three additional blockades or "hills" protecting Byrsa) were referred to as Mar's hill. Citadel is correct as many ancient sources say this is the meaning for Byrsa. Perhaps one of Seven hills of Rome was referred to as the hill of Mars?--Doug Coldwell 11:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem solved. I found what I was looking for.--Doug Coldwell 12:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to share the solution you have found with the rest of us. // BL \\ (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Right now I am studying various aspects of ancient history. I am reading from Livy, Polybius, and Plutarch. Mars hill turns out to be Areopagus, nothing to do with Scipio it turns out. Areopagus was the council of elders of the city, similar to the Roman Senate. So I guess one could say Areopagus (Greece) is the counterpart of the Roman Senate. --Doug Coldwell 22:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Also I note that there is a reference to Mars in one of Seven hills of Rome, Palatine Hill.--Doug Coldwell 13:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Also I note that there is a reference to it in Unknown God, if the King James Version (1611) had been used for the Acts of Apostles reference for verse 22. Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

I see that in verse 19 Areopagus is referenced. Areopagus in the List of Biblical names means "the hill of Mars."

KJV verse 19 reads: And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?

Areopagus (Greece) is the counterpart of the Roman Senate? --Doug Coldwell 16:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Also apparently the Temple of Mars was at the location of Temple of Jupiter (Capitoline Hill) prior.--Doug Coldwell 18:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Also apparently Cato the Elder made reference to Mars as pointed out in Mars (mythology): For your cattle, for them to be healthy, make this sacrifice to Mars Silvanus you must make this sacrifice each year. Apparently it is believed that all Romans are descendants of Mars.

Also there seems to have been a Temple of Mars Ultor in Rome, that Misplaced Pages has an article on.--Doug Coldwell 18:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Pope Re Abortion

Is it true that the Pope refused to allow a 9 year old rape victon to have an abortion? Did a brazilian archbishop at the center of the controversey get excommunicated? ------- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.22.7 (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the abortion was long over before the Pope received word and commented. This recent article states that the doctor and the girl's parents are excommunicate. The girl herself is not as she is too young to have been responsible for the decision. As for the archbishop, why would he have been penalized at all? He was entirely on side with the official doctrine. // BL \\ (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be less worried about the current pope if he didn't look like the preacher from Poltergeist II... HalfShadow 00:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

To me, he looks more like Emperor Palpatine Llamabr (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Only the girl's mother, and not her father/rapist, was excommunicated (along with the doctors). I don't know anything about the Pope's involvement, but higher-ups including a cardinal for Latin America supported the archbishop's move, which was consistent with Catholic abortion doctrine. --Sean 13:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

August 1

Why didn't Europeans die from a lack of immunity to diseases in the new world?

Why didn't Europeans die from a lack of immunity to some diseases in the new world in the same way so many Native Americans died from diseases brought from Europe?

For example, it would seem that the same process that made Europeans able to survive smallpox in relatively large percentages while killing many Native Americans should have resulted in some disease in the new world being as fatal to the Europeans.

It seems reasonable that Europeans had developed some sort of immunity (antibodies or genetic selection) to smallpox through generations of exposure while Native Americans had no prior exposure, leaving them much more vulnerable. But why wasn't there some other disease in the New World to which Native American's had become immune that was just as devastating to the European immigrants as smallpox was to the Native Americans?

It just seems that each population, isolated from the other, might harbor diseases that they have developed immunity to, that would be fatal to the other population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treetilt (talk • contribs) 00:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Jared Diamond talks about this in Guns, Germs and Steel. He gives some good reasons, like the old world having a much larger population (Europe, Asia and to a degree Africa) and, crucially, population density in some parts, which increases the chances that pathogens will evolve. My opinion, in short, is that while it was entirely possible for some disease to rise in the America's that the rest of the world was very vulnerable after first contact, that simply didn't happen. For whatever reason, or maybe for no reason at all beyond chance, the diseases in the old world were more virulent than those in the new and the latter suffered for it. TastyCakes (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

ah I almost forgot, if I recall he also mentions living in close quarters with domestic animals (pigs etc) as a habit more common in the old world that encouraged the development of diseases. TastyCakes (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

While it does not discuss the disease factor directly, the more recent 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus has much higher population estimates for the New World based on some new research that was unavailible or ignored for GG&S. Also, you should read Alfred W. Crosby's book The Columbian Exchange (our article titled Columbian Exchange discusses his concepts, but not his book directly) which makes the case, often since repeated, that diseases DID move back to the old world, namely Syphilis, which may have been carried back to Europe by Columbus's crew themselves. Additionally, without potatoes, you would not have the potato famine, so you could easily consider the famous Irish potato blight to be another disease that came from the new world to the old. These three books (Guns, Germs, & Steel/The Columbian Exchange/1491) actually compliment each other well. They disagree on many points, but if you are looking for the three most important popular histories on the effect of colonialism on the New World, these three are probably the great triumverate. Also, another point not made about why diseases may have not been brought back to the old world; there was no large scale population migrations to the old world. The movement of people was largely one way (there was some movement in the reverse direction, but not a significant amount) and (the syphilis example notwithstanding) this probably goes a LONG way towards explaining why the diseases also seemed to travel only in one direction. --Jayron32 02:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Total speculation here, but consider this: A significant portion of the Europeans died from the Black Death. Those that didn't presumably had stronger immune systems. Maybe that helped in fending off diseases that the Indians might have carried (though not syphillis, obviously). Baseball Bugs carrots 04:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I found this Discover article ("The Arrow of Disease") pretty interesting. Basically, the author claims that a lethal disease needs a dense enough population to keep itself going; if say an isolated tribe caught it and was wiped out, the disease would have nobody left to infect and would die out. The Americas just didn't have enough people to sustain epidemics, and Europe did. As an example, he states that "Studies show that measles is likely to die out in any human population numbering less than half a million people." Clarityfiend (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Business question: Joint parenthood for companies?

I seem to have encountered a company that has two parent companies. How does that work? Did they get things wrong and should one be assigned to be the parent (maybe the one forming a taxable entity with the subsidiary) and the other company just be called s.th. else. (If yes, what?) 71.236.26.74 (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Could be some kind of joint venture. If not, which company are you looking at? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Formally, a company can only have one parent company, because a parent company owns >50% of the other (at least in Swedish legal defintions, which I work with). However, the parent company may itself have a parent company too, and then the owned company can be said to have more than one parentcompany, even if one of them is acctually a "grandparent". E.G. (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Pilgrimages, succession, infighting

What known connections exist between the Pilgrimage of Grace and the Pilgrim Fathers? Any common families, parishes or otherwise? How about the religious background combined with rebellion? Were the new Pilgrims mocking the Catholic ones, or were they heirs to their tradition, just having evolved into a Protestant movement of recusant and/or separatist Christian communities?

I doubt it extremely, since the two movements were on opposite sides of the western Christian religious fractures of the 16th and early 17th centuries, and the "Pilgimage of Grace" originated in the north of England, while the Pilgrims tended to come from East Anglia or the south of England... AnonMoos (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't the Pilgrimage an offshoot of the Lincolnshire Rising? That's where Boston is and the home of Anne Hutchinson as well as many of the other colonists, William Bradford being from Austerfield, West Riding of Yorkshire. For instance, the original Pilgrim church is at Scrooby, Notts just next to the West Riding and close enough to Lincolnshire as well.

English succession

How do we know that Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck were impostors for real and not that the Tudors used spin doctoring to claim otherwise, such as their suppression of the Titulus Regius and depiction of Richard III as a hunchback monster? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

How come during the Wars of the Roses, the rebels of Richard III chose a Tudor, rather than a Somerset aka Beaufort aka Plantagenet (or even a Stafford of Buckingam?) and have him marry Elizabeth of York, or have the Clarence Earl of Warwick marry a Somerset (etc)? What attempts were there to revive this dynasty during the Tudors or at the end of Elizabeth's reign, seeing as there were no more Tudors? What about the de la Pole family? Why not raise them to the throne at her death? What was the point of bringing the Howards into it, when the even older lines could have played a part in the conspiracies against the Tudors? Did the Somersets simply back the Tudors because of Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII?

It seems like there were three parties about the Tudor succession descended from Henry VII:

• Papist (via jointly Arthur & Henry Tudor, with the same wife): Philip Habsburg & Mary Tudor
• Puritan (via Mary Tudor): Guildford Dudley & Jane Grey
• Anglican (via Margaret Tudor): Francis Valois or Henry Stuart or James Hepburn & Mary Stuart

How come the Auld Alliance was allowed to succeed to the English throne (despite Henry VIII's restriction of Margaret's line and although not while the King of France was still living) and that it used the Anglican (Episcopalian) model, whereas the Puritan (Calvinist) faction of Northumberland and Suffolk, English as it was, had no luck? It seems odd that the rulers of England and Scotland were opposite of the national constitutions between them and I don't understand that.

Would it be safe to say, that Ireland held onto the Papist (Catholic) succession, until the time of the Infanta or later? How much coordination did the Irish and English Catholics have in their oppressive circumstances by Protestant persecution, or in pursuit of restoration for Philip and his family? I know that as late as the Spanish Match, Catholics still tried to influence national politics, but when did they give up? Was it because of Cromwell, or did they give up when William III invaded? Did they hold out as long as the Jacobite Risings, or was that merely Scotland? That's something I'm curious about, because all of the religious (and even republican) rebellions Ireland is known for, began in England (just like related Tudor rebellions spawned by exiled Yorkists) and yet, the English are not stereotyped as religious (despite their significant medieval history in that field).

I am wondering why Englishness, Protestantism and political freedom are said to be synonymous (it seems more true for the Dutch, almost all being of one stripe), but Protestantism was forced upon the Commons by a rapacious House of Lords whose sympathies were Lollard, being that the Lords at this time were not long ago of the mercantile crowd and all the "lesser people" than the armigerous and professional types were called ignorant papists who didn't know what was best for them. I find it hard to believe that stereotypes of the establishment can substitute for the common people, although the Establishment I am referencing, is completely Anglo-Saxonist and like to pretend anything Roman or "Celtic" has no business or place in Englishness. How do the people put up with this kind of propaganda and to what degree of brainwashing of this sort is legal? It doesn't sound populist, but the rabble-rousers seem to succeed in stirring the masses to this kind of hate. I wouldn't even say this is merely BNP, but both the Tories and the Liberal Dems, to whatever degree their descent is Whiggery, share this ideology.

The same thing with Scotland; they had nationalistic Catholic rebellions but the people are stereotyped as Calvinist. Why don't the Irish have a Jacobite or even Celtic Irish monarch? How much of Ireland's republicanism owes itself to Cromwell, Washington or Robespierre?

Don't feel like trying to follow through all your attempted connections, but as for why traditionally in England "Protestantism and political freedom are said to be synonymous", that's fairly easy: Starting in the mid-16th century, Catholic authorities and rulers committed a series of rather crude and heavy-handed maneuvers which ended up completely alienating the majority of literate urban dwellers in the south of England. During the reign of Mary, England's interests were subordinated to those of Spain, and "heretics" were burned at the stake. After Elizabeth came to the throne, the pope issued a declaration (Regnans in Excelsis) strictly requiring all English Catholics to be political traitors in order to be faithful to their religion; and the highest English Catholic leader, Cardinal Allen, schemed and plotted with England's enemies for an invasion of England, and issued amazing bloodthirsty ranting tirades which revealed him to be completely out of touch with the situation within England.

By contrast, Elizabeth disclaimed any ability or desire to make "windows to see into men's souls", and executed people only for treason, not for heresy. The result was that by the 1580's, many people in England identified Catholicism with plotting with England's enemies for an overthrow of the English government, with crude and heavy-handed religious persecutions, and with conniving amoral Jesuits and "Machiavels" (in late 16th-century English, the word "Machiavel" meant someone who, as a conscious choice, had absolutely no ethical inhibitions or concern with morality). Such people were firmly convinced that the coming to power of an openly Catholic ruler in England would be the start of a huge bloodbath in which many many thousands of "heretics" would be burned, and would also mean that England would become weak and subordinate in its foreign policies.

The idea of a Stuart monarchy in Ireland and a Hanoverian monarchy in Britain may sound nice in the abstract, but it ignores the geopolitical realities of the early 18th century, which meant Ireland could not be independent of England unless it was strongly allied with (an effective protectorate of) a major continental European power, while an England which was unable to prevent Ireland from becoming a hostile power base could only be a weak England without a strong navy... AnonMoos (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

That response in the first two paragraphs is straight out of a Whig textbook. No offence, but I was hoping to find something more intuitive than the usual statist, toeing-the-line propaganda. Catholic behavior at this time could have been no different than Protestant, except in how they deal with Church vs State issues. The Catholics were essentially into spiritualised politics (theocratic, Papist), whereas the Protestants were defined by political spirituality (secularist, Imperialist). In a sense, it was much like Guelphs and Ghibellines, mixed with Avignon Papacy, Lollard and Hussite (Anglican and Lutheran) and possible Cathar influences, among the Calvinists.

Anyways, it simply astounds me that for instance, whereas so many martyred themselves under Henry VIII, Edward VI and Elizabeth, Protestant propagandas use Mary alone to wipe out all favour for Catholicism, although John Foxe also included Sir Thomas Oldcastle as vitriol in his polemics, possibly also with Wat Tyler in mind. I've been reading about the Catholic restorationist revolts and the demography behind it. It seems striking that many of the former Catholic rebel families (e.g from Cumberland, Westmoreland, Lancashire, Cheshire, Derbyshire or the Dales) became Quaker under the Stuarts, rather than Puritan (but those in Lincoln apparently went this route), although many, especially the more well to do, either could pay off their recusancy fines or they decided to convert to Anglicanism, as it appears that the Nevilles and Percys had eventually done. In any case, it is far from as cut and dry as your reply would indicate. I'm looking for more insight and intuition than the stereotypical Tory celebration of the (Whig) Establishment (or is that Whig support for Toryism? What's the real difference between Episcopal and non-Episcopal Protestants, when the Catholics are treated like scum for not joining the liberal bandwagon?), but not some Labour nonsense either--not that you offered any of the latter.

About Ireland, I was referencing the transition to republicanism in the 20th century. Surely, by this time, the Irish could have possibly had a united island under a separate, more palatable monarchy with relations to that in London and be tolerated by the British establishment, as a peace settlement. It might invariably lead to a succession in British favour, which the Scots already experienced, so perhaps that is why they avoided the monarchy. But I don't see why they wouldn't elect a chief of the O'Neils or O'Briens or whatever, rather than even the Butlers or Fitzgeralds, considering all of their Gaelic worship. The Irish could even enact a no-British clause in the succession, much as the British monarchy is forbidden to Catholics, or how the succession acts of Henry VIII barred Margaret Tudor's Scottish line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Black Legend & Bloody Mary (folklore) bogeyman stories carry little weight with me and I wonder how the general populace of that time, either neutral or pro-Catholic, could be led by the nose from the dictations of the noveau riche "nobility", except through strong-arm, pogrom tactics by this new elite. How many thousands of Catholics need to die for a complete purge? The same with the blood of Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury. Yet, this is an "acceptable and enlightened" response, to gut the soft underbelly of Englishness, in favour of what..."Germanness"? Advancing foreign German nobodies is supposedly more nativist than retaining the established French dynasties, well integrated into the population?

You know, it's a catch-22 to be English and Catholic. To express pride in Englishness, it is invariably disconnected from the stereotypical Englishness the world has known since Victoria and any clash with the Protestant version, is considered unpatriotic. One could just as easily point to the Tudors' destruction of the old royal family, the nobility and church all as fifth columnists who were committing treason ever since Owen laid his head in Katherine's lap, then passed the Throne to the Auld Enemy in Edinburgh. All of this was treason and yet the Spanish Armada alone conjures up all kinds of hatred from Protestants, who pride on the Establishment's cutthroats such as Cromwell and Walsingham, feeling they are entitled to a blank check on the sufferings of Catholics and cornering the market on Englishness. I'm happy that Misplaced Pages usually takes both sides into account, but my early schooling made no distinction between deceptive bias and truth. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever -- Elizabeth I may not have been any more moral or virtuous than Philip II, Gregory XIII, or Cardinal Allen, but she was sure the hell a lot more politically astute than they were when it came to the domestic situation within England. The prominent Catholic leaders of the 1570's and 1580's seemed to place all their bets on a future invasion of England, and so had no real contingency plan B for what would happen if the invasion failed, and also no realistic consideration of what the repercussions of their actions would be if the invasion did not succeed. The result was that in 1603, English Catholicism was in much worse shape than it would have been if they had never made all their elaborate plans and menacing threats -- and I don't think one has to be a Whig historian to recognize this fact... AnonMoos (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, what about prior example of various factions seizing the throne? The Lancastrians and Yorkists did this habitually, in and out of England, sometimes in Ireland, Scotland or France, etc, so was the memory of domestic turmoil so vividly unsettling, that there was no willing native contender to take the Crown in the name of Catholicism, apart from Reginald de la Pole and his relative who died at Pavia in 1525? I'm wondering who else could have assumed power, apart from the vacillating Norfolk, with more claim to royal descent (e.g. pre-Tudor lineage) and Catholic beliefs? Was it Courtenay alone? Did all of the other Plantagenet heirs simply go along with the Tudors after the beheadings of Margaret Pole and Buckingham? What's the present status, or what was the prevailing religious sentiment for the Somersets of Beaufort? They seemed to have dropped off of the radar after Bosworth, only the latent Yorkist factions seeming to have problems. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

E.G. why didn't the Somersets assume the throne after Elizabeth? Wouldn't they have had a prior claim to the throne than the Stuarts, considering the heritage of the Queen Mother Margaret Beaufort and Henry Tudor's claim to power? 70.171.239.21 (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages or IRL fights these days

How come whenever it comes to reading about this kind of stuff on say, Misplaced Pages, there are conflicting accounts about the nature of customs and culture in these countries? I have found that I cannot discover anything about those "Anglo-Celtic" lands without some massive mutual hatreds between ethnic backgrounds, like separatisms...consequently, there is no room for tolerant discussions and if they even exist, they are under begrudging terms. This is immensely disturbing, because in the "colonial" world, people with these kinds of heritages more often stick together at almost all costs, whether it's the Commonwealth or America, although the Irish still like to go on about St. Paddy's Day and Fenian or IRA this or that. Obviously, the Scots celebrate Highland Games and tartans, but their amount of antipathy is an interest in Braveheart. The English and Welsh don't really have any bone to pick with anybody, other than the French, if at all and this usually comes down to arguments at most.

If you're basing your idea of what Scots think about stuff on Braveheart, a film made in Ireland by an American raised in Australia and written by someone from Tennessee, and decried by every historian who ever saw it as fictious Hollywood rubbish, then you've been abjectly misled. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 11:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to the British Isles diaspora. By the way, it is said that Braveheart influenced the clamour for devolution in Scotland. OMG,I laughed so hard at thishotclaws 00:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I read a bit from a 1906 newspaper a while ago where a British person was going around Ireland trying to find out why they wanted a republic. Doesn't Britain have fair laws and aren't people governed justly under the crown he was asking, and the main answer he got back was an agreement that that was so and very possibly their own rule would be worse, but it would be their own government and it would rule according to their own way and not Britain's and that's what they wanted. I think most of this 'mutual hatred' business comes from descendants of people who moved to America at the time of the famine. They set up a famine museum in Ireland so visitors could go and wallow in that sort of stuff just like they cater for blacks finding their roots in Ghana or Nigeria. The same applies to Northern Ireland, the problem there was mainly the lack of any power and self determination for a very large minority and that's what the agreement addressed. Luckily the Unionists in general also seem to have some desire for autonomy so it's all working out fairly well. Dmcq (talk) 10:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What mutual hatred? The Irish and the Brits get along pretty well, in my experience. Obviously there are disagreements in Northern Ireland, but they don't tend to spread anywhere else. --Tango (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It spreads like wildfire on Misplaced Pages! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Kronos's palace vs. Valhalla

In Greek mythology, to what extent if any was Kronos's palace in Elysium a parallel of Valhalla? NeonMerlin 06:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Both valhalla and elysium are where dead heroes and warriors go - in that respect they parallel each other. The comparison of different myths is called Comparative mythology which may be a useful search term when looking for articles.83.100.250.79 (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Greek, Germanic and Indic myths show other similarities (such as a world tree or equivalent), in the same way that middle eastern myths and religions show similarities (eg Flood story) - this suggests that they may have a common origin - however the stories are so different that it's impossible or difficult to link one motif with another between the myths, except to say that 'these seem similar'.83.100.250.79 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Charles I of England's "tyranny"?

How come Charles is said to be a "tyrant" over England, even though his occasion to "tyranny", was wishing to defeat "England's traditional enemies" of Spain and France, as well as enforce "Englishness" upon the Scots by Laud, as well as upon the Irish by Strafford? I wonder what more the Protestant partians could have wanted, except the massacres of Catholics all over England and a top-down suppression of the Catholics who were not beaten into submission by the Tudors, or who felt safe because James's parents were Catholics and they thought he would be more tolerant, until the Gunpowder Plot (in which, of course, Catholic commoners tried to massacre the Protestant Ascendancy). None of this is democratic, but the hateful ideology is promoted and promulgated in the educational system, as the ascent of "progress". Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what that rant is about, but one of the substantive issues people had with Charles I was his undermining of accepted legal norms acording to which Parliament had control over most taxes (and certainly all new taxes). Also, Laud was highly unpopular in England as well as Scotland, and the term "Protestant Ascendancy" generally refers to Ireland, not England. And I don't know that the "Whig historians" were enthusiastic proponents of the anti-Royalist side in the English civil war (though it's true that they were enthusiastic proponents of the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688...). AnonMoos (talk)

I have heard from some people that Stuart practices were hardly different to the Tudors', so what was the change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The winner writes the history, it is said. Any leader of a state who is overthrown, will usually get accused of being a tyrant by the successors, if not else so as to excuse their own seizure of the power by force. Even if the new regime does not last long (in this case, Charles I's son was restored to the throne later on) its propaganda can have set the mind of people for centuries to come, true or not. E.G. (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Flat caps & baseball (cricket too?) caps

Are American baseball caps an evolved form of flat cap? Would this explain the stereotype that each is a marker for the "common man" (or working class, in socialist parlance)? Are flat caps heirs of those late middle ages and renaissance caps worn by royalty and nobility? If so, what about Quaker use of broad brim hats, by commoners? Is it a sign of defiance to established deference, that they assume a station beyond their birth, by adopting a dandy outfit? I see that the Spaniards seem to have initiated this style of hat, but it was adopted by rulers and nobility across the board in the 17th and 18th centuries, even by pirates and then by cowboys on the American frontier. Do either the flat cap or broad brimmed hat indicate any social status these days, or is it simply well established as South & West European cultural expression? What about top-hats? Are they still worn by anybody? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 06:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

An important practical purpose of baseball caps (or sometimes brimmed hats, in the early years) was and is to shield the players' eyes (and presumably the tops of their heads as well) from the bright summer sun. I would assume likewise for cricket. As to any alleged social significance, I can't say, but both baseball and cricket were originally middle-to-upper class sports. Baseball was originally played as recreation by businessmen in the New York area. It later evolved into a profession. A lot of people wear baseball caps nowadays - even football players on the sidelines. They still serve the purpose of an eyeshade. Team colors also figure into it. Some people wear their team colors to represent fandom. Others wear them because they are the colors of their street gangs. So it ranges across the social spectrum, I guess you could say. Baseball Bugs carrots 07:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Farmers wear caps very like baseball caps, but with names of tractor manufacturers or seed companies. They provide less protection from the sun than cowboy (or Quaker) hats. Edison (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

True, but wearing cowboy hats on the ballfield is not very practical, as they would tend to fly off when running after a batted ball. Although I remember a Bill Veeck promotion at Comiskey Park, "Mexican Day", in which the White Sox took the field in the first inning wearing sombreros. That, along with their cute little shorts, made for an interesting sight on a supposedly major league ball club. Baseball Bugs carrots 17:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Tophats are still worn at Ascot,posh weddings,by dressage riders and people in full hunting pink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotclaws**== (talk • contribs) 00:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Why should baseball caps have any relationship to flat caps? The idea of a hat with some sort of eyeshade is a pretty obvious one, no?

On the other hand, I am intrigued by how the baseball cap seems to have ousted the school cap from England over the last fifty years. --ColinFine (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

They do look pretty similar. Most other hats with something to shield your eyes have a brim all the way around, flat caps and baseball caps both have just a peak at the front. --Tango (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There were two styles of baseball caps in the early years of the professional game. One was the rounded "school cap" that is similar to the cricket cap. The other is a flat-topped cylindrical or "cake-shaped" cap. Today's baseball cap evolved from the round-topped cap, and the cake-style went out of fashion except for a few teams that revived it in the 1970s (notably the Pirates). Baseball Bugs carrots 03:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Traditional cricket headgear is the short-brimmed cap, which isn't too distinct from a flat-cap, but is quite different from baseball cap. See these gents 100 years ago. The Australian cricket team to this day retains a traditional shape in their famous Baggy green. England has sadly gone "modern" in this respect, as with other elements of their flannels. --Dweller (talk) 12:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is Berkshire Hathaway stock so expensive and who buys it?

Berkshire Hathaway A stock currently trades at $97,000 and B stock trades at $3,180 . As far as I can tell the lowest that they have traded in the past 5 years is $73,000 and $2,300 respectively. Not only are these prices are substantially more than the majority of other stocks, they are arguably so high that they exclude many common investors from buying a single unit of either stock. I can imagine that some people would buy a few units of the B stock on the basis that it is a fund and therefore inherently diversified, and that institutional investors can buy large amounts of either stock - but wouldn't it be better if there was a stock split (say 1:1000, so that A stock was $73 and B stock was $3) which would potentially bring in more liquidity due to the higher number of people who can buy into it? I guess that people trade derivatives tied to these stocks too, with a lower entry cost, but there are a lot of people who only buy stock. No doubt, the guys at BH know what they are doing, but I just wonder why the high price serves them well. Does it provide a certain aura of a "serious" stock? I wonder if there has been any public discussion on the decision to keep the price so high, but I can't find any. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks Squashed Star (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

At one level, stock is "valued" by the market based on the assets of the company. A good means of approximating the value of a stock is to take the value of all of the assets of the company and divide by the number of shares of the stock. The "price" of the stock will sometimes vary some from this number, depending on how people "speculate" that the value of the companies assets will change in the future. However, insofar as a company is not expected to lose shitloads of money, the value of the company will not drasticly drop, so the price of the stock will not drasticly change. So, that is why the value of one share of B-H is $97,000. The answer to why it is not split is that there is no immediate benefit to existing shareholders to split the stock; so why do it? In fact, attracting more investors may have the effect of depressing the share value, or of diluting the voting power of the existing shareholders, so they may not want to do so. While $97,000 per share is out of reach of most of us, it serves the existing shareholders well, and so long as that is true, there will not be any reason to change that by splitting the stock. --Jayron32 13:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. You're right that "fundamental" view would value the stock based upon the assets (plus P/E etc) but a "technical" view would suggest that shareholder demand and psychology would set the price. This is why reverse splits can depress the price substantially without any underlying change in value (see AIG for a recent example), a split would typically increase the price, due to people feeling that the stock is "cheap" even though the value of the company hasn't changed. Performing a split would not dilute any holdings, only the issue of more shares could do that, but I do think that (as is said below) this is a plan to limit access to this stock by people who may speculate on it. I guess that BH do not want the volatility that comes with speculation and would rather have more "discerning" investors who are in it for the long term. When Buffet is no longer around I would suspect that there will be pressure to split the stock, to increase speculation and likely push the price up in the short term. Squashed Star (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that the important immediate cause of the stock not being split is that it obviously does not serve the purposes of the existing shareholders to do so. If it DID serve their purpose, they would have done so already. Even if my speculations as to WHY they don't split the stock are not correct, the fact remains that there must be some very good financial reasons why the existing shareholders don't see that it is split. Its not like they say "we could make a ton of money if we split the stock, but we're not going to just cuz". It must serve their purposes, financially, to keep the stock price at around $100,000 per share, perhaps for the reasons listed below. Plus, if you read our article on Berkshire Hathaway, it does actually explain why the stock has never split, from Warren Buffets point of view. He owns 38% of the company, and most of the rest of the board probably owns enough to give the existing board the 51% needed to basically run the company without any intereference from other shareholders. Plus, seeing as this is one of the most successful American companies in history, I don't think the existing shareholders are complaining about the financial practices all that much. --Jayron32 17:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

One effect is that the high price alters the type of investor. Assuming an investor wants a diversified portfolio, only investors whose portfolios are quite large will be able to purchase BH and remain diversified. For example, suppose you would like to invest 10% of your portfolio in BH. I your portfolio is worth $200,000, then it is impossible for you to hold 10% BH as the minimum number of shares you can buy is 1 and that would put 50% of your portfolio in BH. In fact, the only way you could put 10% of your portfolio in BH is if your portfolio was worth $1 million. Wikiant (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless you buy BRKB. --jpgordon 15:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Also note that BH is, as I understand it, a closed fund - they are not looking to raise any more money from offerings. The shares that are outstanding now are all that there ever will be, and if you buy them you buy them from the existing owners. From Buffet's point of view, why would he care if it's more convenient for the holders to divvy up and resell their portions? He has expressed on many occasions that he is not interested in short term investment, he is interested in people willing (indeed, happy) to trust their money with him for their entire life. Such devotion is encouraged by such a high price. He doesn't want a constant, high level of turnover from people buying and selling his fund trying to beat the market. TastyCakes (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

See for Warren Buffet's take on the matter. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thailand

(moving discussion from an article talk page)

I have a comment/question for experts in this discussion. As an expat in S.E. Asia I notice what appear to be extreme cognitive malfunctions in Thailand. Visiting Cambodia, one is immediately struck by the higher level of intellectual curiosity.

I do not believe this is a racial diifference, but it is too pervasive to even blame on poor education. Perhaps there is an idiosyncrasy of culture which affects cognition.

My question is: Are there studies available to confirm or explain the cognition defecit in Thailand?

Because this comment/question may offend some, I sign myself ... Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.128.1.64 (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The question smacks of stereotyping. You have some unfortunate experience in Place X and thereafter say "People in Place X are stupid." Just as Siam, without one plea. Edison (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This answer strikes me as a stereotyped answer! You may know nothing of Thailand, but are happy to chirp in! I've spent many years in Thailand and could give a number of examples of my point. From experience, however, I know that fewer than three examples would be dismissed as "anecdotal" and more than three would become "ranting". If you wish, I'll add exactly three examples to this section!

I will comment that Thai language, as it is actually used in rural areas, is remarkably ambiguous. Whether this is a cause or effect of a cognitive defecit I'll leave open. As one trivial example of the ambiguity, I overheard a conversation between a village official running for reelection and a visiting police chief. The chief asked "How many are running for the office?" The incumbent answered "as many as want to, but only two will be elected," telling the chief only what he already knew! They were speaking (ambiguous) Thai, obviously; I've rendered the intended English equivalent here, making a deduction the native-speaker incumbent did not.

I cannot find a proper reference for this, but I remember reading (probably two years ago), that Thailand was facing a severe problem of brain drain. Numerous highly educated Thais - at that time - were emigrating to greener pastures, particularly the USA and Australia. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I find your assumption that ambiguity must be connected with a cognitive defect (whether as a cause or an effect) bizarre in the extreme, particularly (as in your example) in the political arena. --ColinFine (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

My phrasing ("Whether this is a cause or effect ... I'll leave open") was intended to include "neither" as an option. (Language ambiguity!) Picking a conversation between "politicians" was done to demonstrate that ambiguity doesn't apply to just the least educated of rural Thais. The sentence I rendered in English could have been rendered word-by-word as "They apply how-many person". As a clearly non-political example, on a visit to the local clinic we were asked "15th inject medecine where"; my wife and nurse ended up both confused and it was while driving home that I realized nurse was speaking of next month, wife of last month. "Remarkably Ambiguous"? You decide.

I'm afraid that, after these examples, if you still deny rural Thai is more ambiguous than, say, English, then I can't help you. Whether the language ambiguity is related to the cognitive defecits is still an open question. That's why I'm posing the question here: I'd like information, not stereotyped reflexive responses that assume I'm a bigot or imbecile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.123.168.226 (talk) 10:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Bohemond I of Antioch

Hello, i have need of sources for these two phrases, written in the voice Bohemond I of Antioch: "he led the whole Crusader army until the conquest of Antioch" and "From Constantinople to Antioch, Bohemond was the real leader of the First Crusade", because in wiki.it there are people who not believe that Bohemond was the leader of the First Crusade. Thank you.--Nicolayvaluev (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You need the opinion of contemporaries: start with this brief translated bit from the Gesta francorum.--Wetman (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The Gesta was probably written by someone in Bohemond's camp though. Another source written by a follower of Raymond of St. Gilles would have him as leader of the crusade; the two frequently fought over who got to keep the cities they conquered, and since they were the wealthiest and most powerful of the leaders, and led two of the biggest armies, they both had some reason to claim overall leadership. Of course, there were other armies with other leaders, and if the pope was to be believed, his own legate was supposed to be the real leader. At Antioch things changed, because the papal legate died, and Bohemond remained there while everyone else continued to Jerusalem. At one point, they all elected the relatively less-known Stephen of Blois leader, and a few decades later, some authors claimed Godfrey of Bouillon was really in charge the whole time, since he ended up as the first ruler of Jerusalem. So, in short, the answer is, yes, Bohemond was a leader, and for awhile thought he should be the overall leader, but after conquering Antioch he seemed to think that was good enough and he certainly wasn't the leader after that. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both. Unlucky, i didn't find in the Gesta Francorum any reference for the two phrases, i'll looking the opinion of contemporaries.--Nicolayvaluev (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Asbridge's book on the First Crusade discusses why certain leaders could be considered, or considered themselves, overall leaders. This page has some info about Bohemond (there is more scattered throughout the book, but at one point before Antioch he was elected as overall commander for one particular battle). Those two sentences in the Bohemond article are remnants of the original article from many years ago, which was copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica (see here). As usual, the 1911 Britannica is inaccurate, and we know much more about the crusade than they did. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Adam Bishop, i found in Enciclopedia Britannica the reference for the sentence "From Constantinople to Antioch, Bohemond was the real leader of the First Crusade", now i will look for any reference for the sentence "he led the whole Crusader army until the conquest of Antioch".--Nicolayvaluev (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That was added by an anonymous contributor in this edit. I'm certain that it was inspired by Britannica, since it is part of the introductory summary. I don't think there will be a separate source for that. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Profit is not a four-letter word

In this video (I'm linking to the correct position), a button (is that what it's called?) appears that has "profit is not a four-letter word" printed on it. What does that mean? The button belongs to Grover Norquist, a neoconservative, if that is of any help. —Bromskloss (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"Four letter word" = profanity. The phrase is a reaction to the belief that transactions are zero sum games. That is, in a transaction between you and me, one of us gains and the other loses. Seen in this light, the profit gained by one side reflects an exploitation of the other side. In fact, in the absence of coercion, transactions are almost always positive sum games. So, the profit gained by one side reflects the benefit obtained by the other. A classic example is the billions of dollars that Bill Gates has made producing and selling Windows. He got those billions precisely because we who use Windows (despite its flaws) value it more than the money we gave him for the software. Hence, his profit reflects the benefit we obtain from the software. Wikiant (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Though in many ways Gates is a horrible example. He didn't just get his billions from simple transactions of positive sum games; he created and then exploited a near monopoly, to the point where many feel obligated to shell out a lot of money for an inferior product primarily to maintain compatibility with the monopolistic marketplace. There are far, far better examples out there of people who show that profit is not a four-letter word than Microsoft. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to defend Gates, but the idea... If you voluntarilly shelled out money for windows then, de facto, you received more value from windows than you did from the money you shelled out -- that's a positive sum game. The monopoly status (to the extent that it exists, and economists find this debatable) merely alters how the positive sum is split up. Wikiant (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I got the point anyway. (And as a happy Linux user, I stay away from Microsoft products.) :-) —Bromskloss (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

In English, for some reason unknown to me (probably coincidence), most swear words are four letters long, so "four letter word" is synonymous with "swear word". Saying that something isn't a four letter word means it isn't offensive or something to be ashamed of. --Tango (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Four letters is simply the most common word length in English. The reason swear word are called four-letter words is because their corresponding "polite" words are generally Latin, and Latin words tend to be longer. Compare: shit - feces, piss - urine, cunt - vagina, cock - penis. --Chl (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the above replies, it's knowingly comic, as it's perfectly obvious that "profit" isn't a four letter word. You'll even see this pattern used ironically, when people will say things like "porn isn't a four letter word", when obviously it is. Googling for "isn't a four letter word" finds a bunch more, wherein we learn that work, sell, and love aren't four letter words either. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

We have a four-letter word article, incidentally. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I've learnt something. —Bromskloss (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to google Google for a list four-letter swear words but couldn't find such a list! Anyone able to find such a list? (I also tried by just including the words I could come up with myself, but some of them, like ethnic slurs, I really had to look up to check... leading me to believe a real list would be better than I could come up with). Anyone? 82.234.207.120 (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wagner's Das Rheingold

So i watched this opera a few days ago (James Levine with the Met)

I'm wondering something---

Alberich loses the ring to Wotan and then places a curse upon it.

Can anybody just place curses (within the norse-mythology framework of Wagner's world) on anything? Does Alberich have the right to do it because he had the ring? Wotan is the chief of gods, can't he "un" curse it?

I understand that this is fiction, but i'm wondering if there is a logical consistency that audiences (familiar with the old Norse tales) would've understood way back when this was written.192.136.22.4 (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I can answer half - curses can't be undone - even by gods - they must run their coarse - it's to do with fate and the concept of living things having will of their own - otherwise we'd have a story about a bunch of gods and their 'robot slaves' :)

(Occasionally someone can undo a curse - in folk tales this often relates to romance - eg frog price etc)

Also noted that alberich has already cursed himself (renouncing love) to obtain the ring - thus it is his by right, and he can place a curse on it.83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Norse / Germanic mythology does not have the concept of divine omnipotence. Our article implies that this was an idea of monotheism. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Locating an old rail line

I just spent some time Livingstoning it up along an old abandoned rail line near Taunton, Somerset, England. After trawling through a hundred years of gorse bush I found myself on an old line flanked by about 60ft embankments, very steep, which keep it isolated. At the end I found the enterance to a tunnel which has been bricked up (though there is a locked steel door). It is also invisible from the air due to the canopy.

On google earth I can trace from hedgerows, discolourations and slopes in the soil, and what is now some footpath, the path of the old rail line from Chard to Ruishton, but I can't see any further.

Is there any resource that I could ask to work out what the line used to be? Some historical records that would be held by a county council? SGGH 21:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

If you ask on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject UK Railways talk page they could probably tell you very quickly, as well as being able to answer all your other questions.

In general your public library will have lots of books on "disused railways of Somerset" - there isn't a yard of disused track in the UK that hasn't been written about by the fans.83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Does Chard Branch Line say anything, also if you can give the coordinates on google maps that might help, there's a book listed at the end of that article which might cover it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This site has old Ordinance Survey maps (as should http://www.old-maps.co.uk/ , but that seems to be broken right now), which should show the routes of railways. If you'd been talking about Scotland or very-Northern England, I'd have directed you to http://www.railbrit.co.uk/ (which used to be called RailScot); he's got excellent info about disused railway lines, but for now it seems he's mostly got stuff about Scotland. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not order up the Ordnance Survey map for the area?--Wetman (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

If the railway was to the west of Taunton, then I think we're talking the Devon and Somerset Railway - the east-west railway showing on this map. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Divorce Rate among Christians and Atheists

Does anyone know the divorce rate for Christian protestants and atheists in Canada and U.S.? Which group have the highest divorce rate? Sonic99 (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This page gives some numbers which compares several species of Christians, jews, and atheists/agnostics. Two caveats: I'm probably wrong (and I have no evidence for this), but religioustolerance.org might just be operated by the Church of Scientology, and so might not be 100% neutral (I'm just going on a vague memory, and I apologise if I'm mistaken). Secondly, surely some of the effect shown is due to some groups marring more, or sooner, than others. So, even if the statistic shown is strictly correct, that doesn't necessarily elucidate the related question "are protestants' relationships more or less successful than atheists'?". -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Think first, what kind of document would link together divorce and religious self-identification? And then who would have access, to tot them all up for you? Tweaked "numbers" shouldn't be "proving" your pre-set expectations.--Wetman (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Religioustolerance.org isn't run by Scientologists; but nevertheless they aren't 100% neutral, and at least for Christianity, often have a childishly simplistic understanding of various controversies. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Marriage for Christians is habitual and customary, but for atheists...they really don't care either way, apart from the financial benefits, so it is rather more a mockery and asking the question is mockery of marriage, as much as infidelity in any Christian relationship. It is sort of like the effectiveness of deviant sexuality practitioners and the myth of "marriage" on that basis, or putting a European appliance plug into an American electrical outlet. Some people just don't know what is appropriate or fitting. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The institution of marriage predates christianity, and has meaning outside it. Marriage is an important part of the lives of many atheists. Algebraist 13:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand you correctly, 70.171.239.21. Are you claiming only Christians can appreciate marriage? Are you saying that infidelity is commonplace in non-Christian marriages? Are you equating non-Christian heterosexual marriages with homosexual marriages? Are you even aware of how ridiculously pompous you make yourself sound? TomorrowTime (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Countless church weddings end up in divorce. Christianity or atheism has nothing to do with it. Commitment and respect are the keys to success, not being a habit or being customary. And there's another factor: In the old days, people stayed in soured marriages because they felt like they had no choice. Now, they do. Women holding jobs and being able to survive without a male breadwinner has a lot to do with it. As Alan King once said, "Divorce was a luxury, that few could afford." Now, they can. Baseball Bugs carrots 19:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

To say that atheists don't care either way is inaccurate, and silly to the point of stupidity. There are plenty of atheists who are hopeless romantics and have a very idealized idea of marriage, for example. It's just that they don't think that an omnipotent imaginary friend cares about whether people stay married. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2

An earth without humans

Some days ago I have seen a documentary film at a science TV channel that started to analyze what would happen with the world if for some X reason the human race wasn't around anymore. The main topics were descriptons of how would cities, buildings and most structures deteriorate over time by being left without maintenance, how would nature start to destroy and erase all such things, the few things that would last longer (such as dams, plastics or stainless steel), the fate of most great landmarks like the statue of liberty or the Eiffel Tower, etc. In just a few hundred years, hardly any trace of the human race would remain, except for some things like exploration vehicles that were left on the moon.

Question is, is there an article about this topic here in Misplaced Pages? I have no idea of wich name would it have, or in wich category it may be located MBelgrano (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This same question was asked some time ago... Maybe a year ago at most? I don't have the time right now but while you're waiting for an answer, you could try searching through the archives (though I don't know what specific terms you'd search for to limit the number of results). I think it was either on Science or Misc. that it was asked. Dismas| 05:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It was Life After People. I thought it was rather melodramatic, but hey, it was made for TV after all. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so not the same question but the same documentary came up: Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2008_June_19#Last_surviving_human_artefacts.3F Dismas| 06:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This is also the subject of Alan Weisman's book The World Without Us and the (unrelated) documentary Aftermath: Population Zero. EALacey (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In fiction, the subject was explored by George R. Stewart in Earth Abides (1949). The Misplaced Pages article is lengthy, but I seem to recall much more in the novel about the collapse of machinery, electrical system, water pipes, etc. than indicated by that article. Pepso2 (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I expect that in a few decades routine maintenance will be automated or done by robots. Then if people disappeared, things might go on status quo for a very long time, until the robots arrive at a consensus that maintaining humanity's structures and facilities is pointless. Many of the explosions and failure on the series are of the nature of "With no human to mow the grass, turn on/off the pumps, refine the petroleum, operate the controls at the nuke plant, open/close the floodgates at the dam, refill the fuel tank, replace the battery, feed the dog, harvest the crop, fix the roof, tuckpoint the brick wall, replace the gasket, manufacture paint, mine minerals, etc., everything will fall to ruin." As soon as any of these jobs can be done by a robot cheaper than a human, the human will be laid off. Edison (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If we develop machines that are too efficient, watch out. We could turn into the Krell. Baseball Bugs carrots 03:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Cool! I wanna be an id monster! HalfShadow 03:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Ever notice how much the id monster resembles the orange monster in Hair-Raising Hare? Cousins, maybe? Baseball Bugs carrots 03:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Though not directly related to the question, we do have an article on human extinction --Thanks, Hadseys 10:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The name

I'm looking for the name of this symbol in english. Thanks. Lord Hidelan (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it's a type of Solomon's Knot. That article has no images (yet!), but compare with this google image search. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that article; I've done some cleanup there and added two images (more could be done...). AnonMoos (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Methodism = Puritanism?

Isn't Methodism a form of Puritanism, e.g. the Separatist and Independent types? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The article on puritanism answers this one - "the term "puritan" is not strictly used to describe any new religious group after the 17th century, although several groups might be called "puritan" because their origins lay in the Puritan movement." Methodism arose in the 18th century and its origins did not lie in the Puritan movement. You could certainly draw parallels, but don't forget that early Methodism was, using Puritan terminology, "non-separating". Warofdreams talk 13:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

So not all splinter, dissenting factions of the CoE, are "Puritan"? As far as I know, there's only three types of English Christianity: Catholic, Anglican and Puritan (as a broad term). 70.171.239.21 (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Your first sentence is the correct one. The broad term for British Protestants outside the Church of England is Non-Conformist; this includes those Puritan groups which survived long enough to be classified as such. Warofdreams talk 23:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that early Methodism was Evangelical, quite similar to many Pentecostal and some Baptist groups today, rather than Puritan, though none of these movements are really independent of one another. Methodists were involved in tent revivals a la Billy Graham, though Methodism as a whole has become more liberal in the past hundred years. 138.88.161.65 (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, so these "Non-Conformists" broadly continue the Edwardian, Lady Jane Grey and Dudley expression of Christianity from the Tudor period, resurrected under the Cromwells, rather than the Henrician-Elizabethan Anglicanism, or the Marian Catholicism? 70.171.239.21 (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's too simplistic. Non-Conformism is a very broad designation, including Quakers, whose ideals have never been promoted by any monarch, to Calvinist groups who could fit your description, to Methodists (some, but not all of whom, identify as Calvinists). Warofdreams talk 14:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Basically, all three forms of Christianity: Protestant, Anglican and Catholic, each have origins in royal patronage, but originally depending on the personality of the monarch, one of those three may be responsible for persecution of the other two, or preference of one and singling out the other? It would seem as though there had been no need for the Cromwellian usurpation of the government, when the monarchy had already been known for promoting "Non-Conformist" Protestantism. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition to my comment above, it would be difficult to argue that, just because a monarch has promoted a particular branch of Christianity, sooner or later another will do so, too. Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse encouraged the Cathars, but no later monarchs did. Even if there had been an expectation that this would eventually happen, it would have been highly unlikely to satisfy the Puritans, who were generally vehemently anti-Catholic but subject to increasing persecution from a monarch married to a Catholic and an archbishop who would not tolerate diversity within the church. Warofdreams talk 14:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

British Isles diaspora studies

Are there any studies of ethnic and shire distribution per colony across the former empire, to show which parts of the British Isles were more influential or important to each settlement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 08:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly shire by shire, but The Cousins' Wars by Kevin Phillips discusses what parts of England the colonists in the various American colonies came from. The contention of the book is that the American Revolution and the US Civil War were continuations of the Glorious Revolution. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

How much more precise is that study compared to Albion's Seed? 70.171.239.21 (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably less so, though there are maps.  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What is contained within the maps? 70.171.239.21 (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The parts of England where the various colonists came from. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I was more interested in knowing differences between separate colonial efforts, such as America, vs Canada, vs Australia and New Zealand or South Africa. I assume most colonists in India were from London, but that's just a guess. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 10:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Avignon Papacy & Counter-Reformation Catholicism

How come Catholicism became identified largely with those nations which held allegiance to Avignon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 08:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean, like Italy? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Spain, France, Sicily...e.g. the Latin Arch. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm speaking of the "great Catholic powers" and how they all seem to have been Avignonese in disposition, although I wonder about Austria. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Austria vs Prussia

How come Vienna isn't the capital of Germany and Berlin is? Why isn't Austria part of Germany, or even the focus, considering the imperial nature of that country, whereas Prussia was only a German colony of crusaders? I assume the fact that Prussia is the basis of modern Germany, that is an indication of a Protestant victory, seeing as how Catholic Austria is excluded? Please explain more than just: the last Holy Roman Emperor was deposed and left with the rump state of Austria. Even Austria, it seems, was merely a German colony of eastward expansion, so why doesn't Germany re-adopt a more "Frankish" identity and if they did focus more on West Germany in this sense, where would be the appropriate capital...Aachen or elsewhere? Are other German identities merely tied to Austria or Prussia? It would seem that Alemannic, Swabian, Frankish, Bavarian and Saxon cultures are just components of those two. Also, why doesn't the Czech Republic go by the name of Bohemia, or why doesn't Misplaced Pages use this name? Like Danzig, it is the English preference. "Czech" is almost way off the radar of my vocabulary, but Bohemia or Boehm is much more easily understood on cultural terms. I wonder why Bohemia didn't decide to stay with Germany, or why Germany and Italy and Austria, or even all with Prussia, couldn't be under the same federalism. But then, why not France and Germany stick together under the same government, based upon Charlemagne's people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The czech state is not called bohemia because bohmeia is only part of the czech state, there are other areas - see the map on Bohemia. Also see Moravia

As for your other questions - did you have a particular time in history to which your questions were addressed?83.100.250.79 (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of your questions are too speculative to answer here ie why isn't there a france/germany or germany/italy/austria state - but have you heard of the European Union - which to an extent satisfies local nationalist interests in the broader context of a european state. 83.100.250.79 (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As to why austria did not form part of Bismarck's germany see Kleindeutsche Lösung - austria was not willing to separate from hungary, but hungary could not be part of a germany as imagined at that time. Also see Großdeutschland quote: "This united Germany was attempted to be completed, but regional, religious, and monarchical rivalries between Prussia and Austria prevented such a unification from taking place." 83.100.250.79 (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't really covered your entire question. Factors affecting states makeup and boundaries include religion, ethnicity, rivers, mountains, wars, rival leaders, family history of kings, queens and emperors, and language as a non-complete list. It's very difficult to give a specific answer to such broad 'why?' questions.83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Your question acctually would demand much more text and time to answer than I or 83.100.250.79 can devote here, and while 83.100.250.79 gives good answers I'll give some too, to other aspects: Berlin became the capital of united Germany in 1871, because it was the capital of the leading state, Prussia. Also, if you look at a map showing the borders of the time, Berlin was somewhat close to the geographical centre of Germany by then, whereas it is not anymore since Germany lost so much land in the east following the Second world war. When Germany was reunited in 1990, it took some years of debate before Berlin once again formally became the capital of the country; some people would have prefered to stick with Bonn, which was the de facto capital of West Germany from its foundation in 1949. – As for the Czech Republic, in the Czech language, "Czechia" and "Bohemia" acctually have the same name, but the English word for the province has for centuries been the same as the Latinized form of the German name Böhmen, while the country as a whole, created in the 20th Century, has gotten a name based on the Czech name. E.G. (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As for the reason why Bohemia didn't stuck with Austria or Germany: it was part of the Austrian Emprie until 1918, when that empire desintegrated following the First world war. Still, there were many German speaking people living within the borders of the historical provinces of Bohemia and Moravia, but the founder and first president of the state of Czechoslovakia, Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk, was lucky in his dealings with the allied powers who had won the war and managed to secure that the even the almost fully German-speaking areas close to the border of Austria would become part of the new state. Acctually, I think there were more native German speakers in Czechoslovakia in the first decades, than there were Slovaks. The border areas to Austria and Germany where the German speaking people were in majority was called Sudetenland, and in 1939 (some months before the start of the Second world war) Hitler annexed Sudetenland to Germany and made the rest of Czechia a protectorate and Slovakia became formally independent but in practicality dependent on Germany. When Czechoslovakia was recreated after the war, including Sudetenland, the German speaking Czechoslovak citizens were expelled from the country. E.G. (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It could be said that the Sudeten Germans received a raw deal in 1919, but many Czechs weren't inclined to feel too sympathetic at that point, since they felt that they themselves had been receiving a raw deal pretty much for the last three hundred years since about 1619. And a more practical and immediate concern was that if Bohemia was divided along ethnic lines, then the borders of any Czech state would be completely indefensible (the German army would be perched in the mountains looking down at the Czechs in the valleys), while most of the industrial assets would also be lost to the Czech state. The reality was that any Czech state established along strictly ethnic lines would be a weak balkanized fragment strongly dependent on its neighbors, and any hope of a strong and truly independent Czech state had to be based on the traditional boundaries of Bohemia and Moravia... AnonMoos (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As regards the 'czech question' see Name of the Czech Republic for an explanation of why neither Bohemia nor 'czecho' are a perfect choice.83.100.250.79 (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's see.

• Why did Berlin and not Vienna become German capital, and why is Austria not part of Germany? -- It's quite simple really: because Prussia won the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, which led to the establishment of a new German Empire under Prussian leadership and exclusion of Austria within the next five years.
• Why did Prussia become a leading German state? -- By the 18th century, Austria and Prussia had become by far the two most powerful German states. The reason for this is the Ostsiedlung -- the colonization of eastern territories by Germans in the Middle Ages. Because of their location at the eastern border of medieval Germany, Austria and Brandenburg were the prime beneficiaries of this development. Austria expanded into what is today Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Slovenia, Croatia, Romania, and Bosnia. Brandenburg expanded into what is today Poland, Russia (Kaliningrad), and Lithuania. For political reasons, Brandenburg renamed itself to Prussia in the 18th century -- this was really just a name change, the center of Brandenburg/Prussia was always Berlin and never in the original Prussia (around present-day Kaliningrad); see King in Prussia.
• What about Frankish identity, Saxon, Bavarian identity? -- This is a very speculative question, but IMO wars decide the outcome of history, not people's identities... There was never any political reason for anyone to reestablish a Frankish identity in West Germany. OTOH, Bonn was capital for 50 years, and that's a Frankish city.
• Why didn't the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy all stay in one country like it was in the Middle Ages? -- The most important reason is probably 19th century nationalism. Many present-day European countries were founded between 1806 and 1919, when nationalism was all the rage. Germany, Italy and Czechoslovakia are all products of this ideology, which stated that countries should be based on common languages -- Germany the country of German-speakers, Italy the country of Italian-speakers, and so on. An additional reason is of course that the original Holy Roman Empire had slowly, but completely disintegrated and so it never seemed to people like a model that one would want to emulate.

Hope these answers help. --Chl (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all very much! Another set of questions: What is the present sense of German "ethnic" identity? Is the "Romanticist" take that Germany owes its character to the Frankish/French hegemony (as with France), or the Ostsiedlung, considering Berlin's primacy? What is the viability of restoring Prussia, or of Russia handing over Kaliningrad for a similar independent state as Austria? Would Poland make this impossible? Maybe I have it wrong, but the extinction of Prussia could have been seen as genocide, in the expulsion of Germans, yes or no? Livonia was a component of Prussia, right? What do the Italians think of their Germanic heritage, apart from the obvious Lombard presence? This is going on a limb here, but by extension, are there any cultural remnants of the Franks in the eastern Mediterranean, or Genoan and Venetian ties? 70.171.239.21 (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The Prussia revival thing...what is the prospect and the interest, the activism and legality of effecting it upon Kaliningrad, in respect of Russian-European relations and the expansion of the EU? 70.171.239.21 (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Livonia I don't think was ever part of Prussia - it fell out of control of the Teutonic knights before the expansion of Prussia, (being a little north of the easternmost extent of prussia)

What does "..or of Russia handing over Kaliningrad for a similar independent state as Austria" - you surely aren't suggesting a swap!? It's possible that Kalingrad might be returned to some other state (or become independent) at some time in the future, under different circumstances (such as the CIS somehow integrating with the EU..)

The 'extinction of Prussia' is not as far as I know anything like genocide - the term 'ethnic cleansing' is used to day, but it's worth noting that similar migrations have taken place in europe due to border changes many many times. - you meant the polish corridor and all that?

What do you mean 'restoring prussia'? it's not clear - however history as far as I know does not work backwards, it's possible that 'germans' may return to the eastern baltic in number in the future - in a similar fashion to the Ostsiedlung, made easier by the Schengen Agreement and other EU integration policies. But I can't imagine a state of prussia reappearing..

As for franks in the mediterraean I don't know, but I'm aware that there still are saxon germans in romania.83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with a 'prussian revival thing' - though I have heard it said that to some extent that the baltic (and to lesser extent north sea) was becoming more like it was during the times of the Hanseatic league (which is a vaguely similar thing) - due to the baltic states and poland leaving russian influence etc.83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, I was wondering about any movement to restore Prussia as an independent German state akin to Austria and if surrounding countries would even allow it. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean what is left of Prussia - a lot of it is in Poland now - which would be a problem.83.100.250.79 (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Just Kaliningrad, but I wonder if Moscow sees that as a wedge to control EU affairs by proxy and which would be a reason not to revive Prussia. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Revival of prussia seems too hypothetical to me to answer - there are lots of other states that used to exist - mercia, yugoslavia, the kingdom of burgundy etc . Why prussia.?

If you were asking about the legal status of Kalingrad/Kongisberg and it's future then somebody might be able to answer that - though we are not a very good crystal ball.

It's also worth noting that there were states in the area that predate prussia. 83.100.250.79 (talk) 10:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As for Prussian revivalism, in 1995 there was a referendum on whether to join the current German states of Brandenburg and Berlin together into one unified administrative entity, and this hypothetical entity was widely referred to in the media as "Prussia" (though the officially-proposed name was apparently "Berlin-Brandenburg"). This referendum failed, so the voters of Brandenburg and Berlin apparently are not very interested in Prussian revivalism. In any case, the term "Prussia" originally referred to territory now part of Poland and Russia, so using the name "Prussia" would have very negative agressive irredentist connotations... AnonMoos (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Present-day German ethnic identity is pretty much based on the Empire of 1871. That's when most institutions of the German state that exists today were founded. So everyone from Bavarians to Schleswigers is included. Why would anyone want to restore Prussia? The Kaliningrad area is now populated mostly by Russians, I doubt they'd be excited about joining Poland or even Germany. The expulsion of Germans from the territories lost in World War II was not a genocide, since most people weren't killed, but a forceful expulsion is pretty bad too. There are still plenty of people in Germany who (or whose parents or grandparents) were expelled from eastern Germany and are still mighty angry about it, see Heimatvertriebene, even though they all got reimbursed for their lost property by the German government and thanks to the EU they can now even go back if they want to. Livonia did not belong to Prussia AFAIK. --Chl (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it had seemed to me that they abolished a nation such as Prussia by evicting all of its people, whereas the Germans merely instituted a supersessionary state. Considering modern sentiments, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to have their own country on Kaliningrad, much as the Austrians have a separate country from Germany...then the capital of Germany doesn't have to be Berlin and Germany doesn't have to be defined as either Prussian or Austrian (being almost the equivalent of France being defined by an incorporation of Jerusalem, Constantinople, Antioch, Cyprus and other French crusader-colonist ventures), which are established East German types that have less to do with traditional West German relations in Switzerland and Holland. It also appears that the Russians did much the same as the Germans when it comes to having expanded to include an exclave population on the other side of a neighbouring country, such as Poland (e.g. Polish Corridor) and now it's the other Balts instead, which were all in the Livonian-controlled, United Baltic Duchy area. Were the Russians criticised for doing the same thing as the Germans? I'm not speaking of the Iron Curtain in general. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

relatively recent Japanese short-story collection with S&M themes

About 10 years ago, there was a collection of short stories translated from Japanese and published in the US - I don't remember the name of the author or the book's title, or even when the book was originally first published in Japan. All I recall for sure is that in one of the stories there is a moment when the man (husband ? boyfriend ?) gets out a fishing rod to whip the woman (wife ? girlfriend ?), who grows visibly excited at the idea. For information, and despite what the above might lead one to believe, it wasn't genre erotica or anything of the sort. I am fairly sure the book (hardback) was published by a university press or an small press of literary fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philippe Laurichesse (talk • contribs) 08:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Legislators mass resign and recontest?

Apart from the Northern Ireland by-elections, 1986, are there any more instances where a group of legislators resign en masse in order to contest the by-election? F (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

There was the occasion when four leading Labour members of the Greater London Council resigned to fight byelections on the issue of whether the GLC should be abolished. The resignation was 25 years ago this week, as it happens. The Conservatives had won all their constituencies the year before, but decided not to fight the byelections so all four were easily re-elected. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The simultaneous resignations in 1881 of U.S. Senators from New York Roscoe Conkling and Thomas C. Platt is vaguely analogous. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't really answer your question, but in Malaysia, that's not even possible from 1990 since anyone who resigns can't stand for re-election for 5 years Nil Einne (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Roman Senate assembly

Typically where would the Roman Senate assemble during the Roman Republic for debates as depicted in this color picture?

or this black & white picture of Gaius Gracchus debating as in the article Roman assemblies.--Doug Coldwell 21:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Cicero denounced Catiline before the Senate (the event shown in your color picture) at the Temple of Jupiter Stator. I don't know if that was a normal place for the Senate to meet, though. --Cam (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

These three links might answer everything :Comitium, Roman Forum and more specifically Curia Hostilia 83.100.250.79 (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Two questions:

• It was debated and decided by the Roman Senate to send Scipio Aemilianus Africanus to raze Carthage. Where would you image this debate took place? It had to be pretty important as in 147 BC he was still under the legal age and a subordinate officer.
• Is this temple the same as this temple. I understand the Temple of Jupiter (Capitoline Hill) was built on the remains of the ancient Temple of Mars. Is that correct? --Doug Coldwell 22:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Unless there is another reference in the literature, I would expect the debate to take place where other senate debates took place -see above.

2. a. No they are different. b. Don't know.83.100.250.79 (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. According to this source there was a temple to Mars on Capitoline Hill on the "hill to Mars." Also The Penny cyclopædia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge By George Long on page 269 makes reference to temples on Capitoline Hill built in the time of Romulus being "of Mars, of Venus, of Fortune." Other temples were raised successively on the Capitoline hill, such as that of Juno Alónela, with the mint annexed to it; of Jupiter Feretrius, said to have been built by Romulus ; of Mars, of Venus, of Fortune, and of Ims and Serapis. Apparently then Jupiter Feretrius consisted of the temples of Mars, Venus, Fortune. Can you explain further of the "hill to Mars?"--Doug Coldwell 15:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously "hill to mars" means the hill was specifically dedicated to mars, but why mars was chosen over the other two gods is not known to me. I've heard the phrase elsewhere (it has a certain ring to it) - but don't know the reasoning behind it.83.100.250.79 (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC) (Mars is an 'earthy' god compared to others.. eg jupiter - sky/cosmos, venus-water/groves maybe?)

Thanks again for your further detailed answer. Then perhaps Scipio (minor) could have been brought to the "hill of Mars" (or the area, which perhaps then was Jupiter Feretrius) to speak to the people of Rome concerning destroying Carthage? Wasn't Mars also the war god and perhaps the reason why Scipio would give such a speech to the people at this location?--Doug Coldwell 15:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

How would you analyze the meanings of these two hypothetically statements? Is "hill of Mars" symbolically used here?

• 1. Cato took Scipio, and brought him to the hill of Mars saying, "May you know what this old doctrine, whereof I speak, is."
• 2. Then Scipio stood in the midst of the hill of Mars and said, "Men of Rome, you do recognize that in all things we are convinced as to our belief that we will prevail." --Doug Coldwell 19:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Crusader military order ethnicities & the Reformation

So the Mediterranean crusader states were considered "Frankish", but the Baltic ones were "Teutonic". What about the Genoan & Venetian areas? Armenia?

Could differences between the Frankish Mediterranean and Teutonic Baltic lead to differences around the time of the Reformation, with their cultural communities becoming Catholic and Protestant respectively? If so, it can explain partly why Anglicanism is said to have both parts, with German principalities providing the governorship of the CoE, but having lands such as Malta, Gibraltar, Minorca, Cyprus, Ionia, Genoa, Elba and Corsica, as well as the Diocese of Gibraltar in Europe being the base of Anglicanism in Europe, rather than some Protestant area. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The term "Frank" was a broad generalization whereby the Muslim world during crusader times incorrectly labeled all Western European christians as "Franks"; likely because the first people who turned them back in Spain were the Franks (Charles Martel) and the earliest Kings of Jerusalem (i.e. Godfrey of Bouillon) were also Franks; however the Crusader movement was not confined to the "Franks" who, after all, where only one of the settled Germanic tribes. The Franks did establish a pretty sizable hegemony over modern France and Germany (Francia), but there were also other Germanic peoples who established similar hegemonies (the Lombards in Italy, the Visigoths in Spain, the Vandals in North Africa]]; and certainly many of these people also participated in Crusades as well, as well as many non-Germanic peoples.

Also, it is an incorrect statement that the former lands of the Teutonic Knights became largely protestant; much of these areas remained majority Catholic to this day (Poland, Lithuania, Estonia). Most of the "Protestant" areas of Northern Europe were those that had been long Catholic, and weren't part of the "crusader" lands of the Teutonic Knights. Other than England, Protestantism first took hold in places that lacked a strong national government, such as the Holy Roman Empire, where the multitudinous principalites were largely left to their own devices, and Switzerland, which was a weak confederation without any sort of strong national government as well. In states with a strong monarch and centralized government, such as France, Spain, and Austria; well, they remained largely Catholic. Italy is perhaps an exception, but the proximity to Rome goes a long way towards keeping the fragmented peninsula in line. --Jayron32 04:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

To clear up some other things, the Venetian crusader states were generally considered to be merchant colonies of Venice, independent of whatever Frankish state they happened to be attached to. Armenia was always separate, although it was heavily Latinized during the crusades. Not all the crusaders were "Franks" per se, and there were certainly "Teutonic" crusaders in the Holy Land; sometimes contemporary authors liked to show off their erudition by referring to contemporary nations with classical names, so Germans are often referred to as Teutons or Alemanni. The Teutonic Order itself was originally founded in Jerusalem, and was referred to there as the Ordo Teutonicorum just as it was everywhere else. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Jayron32, but the OP is correct and you are wrong; most of the territories in Prussia and Livonia ruled by the Teutonic Order and the Livonian Order respectively became Protestant after those orders were dissolved. By the terms of the Second Peace of Thorn that ended the Thirteen Years' War, the Teutonic State was divided into two parts; the western part, which became known as Royal Prussia, was ceded to the Kingdom of Poland. The rest became a Polish fief, with each newly elected grand master required to pay homage to the Polish king. Grand Master Albert of Hohenzollern refused to pay homage to King Sigismund I which resulted in another Polish–Teutonic War, again won by Poland. Albert, under personal influence of Martin Luther, converted to Lutheranism and, by the Treaty of Kraków in 1525, dissolved the Prussian branch of the Teutonic Order and established a secular, Protestant Duchy of Prussia with himself as a hereditary duke and a vassal of the Polish king.

In a similar development in Livonia, the Livonian Order sought Polish protection from the Muscovy in the Livonian War. By the terms of the Treaty of Vilna, the Livonian Order was dissolved in 1561, and Livonia became part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth except for a wedge-shaped territory in what is now Latvia, which became a Polish fief known as the Duchy of Courland and Semigallia. Gotthard Kettler, the last grand master of the Livonian Order, adopted Lutheranism and became the first duke of Courland. As a legacy of these events, East Prussia, Latvia and Estonia became mostly Protestant areas. After World War II, East Prussia was divided among Poland and the Russian SFSR while the Protestant German population was replaced with Catholic Poles and Orthodox Russians. Modern Latvia and Estonia are mostly atheist today, but Lutheranism is still the dominant denomination in both countries.

It is also incorrect to imply that Reformation didn't happen in Poland and Lithuania. Various Protestant movements were actually very popular in Poland and religious dissidents were able to win freedom of worship which for about a century made Poland a country of religious tolerance unparallelled elsewhere in Europe. Polish nobles' answer to St. Bartholomew's Day was the Act of the Warsaw Confederation in which they pledged to resolve religious disputes without resorting to violence. The Roman Catholic Church regained its foothold in Poland in the 17th century thanks to post-Trent Counter-Reformation and to numerous wars against non-Catholic enemies (Sweden, Russia, Ottoman Empire) which equated Catholicism with patriotism. The pacifist Polish Brethren were the first vicitms of this new attitude; they were expelled in 1658 for their refusal to fight during the Swedish occupation. — Kpalion 17:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

August 3

Henry VIII's dual titles and powers: precedent?

Henry as King, Defender of the Faith and Supreme Head and his heirs as Supreme Governor of the Church of England...could that be a parallel of Prince-Bishops and Cardinal-Dukes and Cardinal-Kings, or Grand Masters of a military order, such as the Templars and Hospitallers? 70.171.239.21 (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It could be. It depends upon one's opinion, and the Ref Desks aren't designed for people's opinions. --Dweller (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really: Henry and his actively-participating-in-government heirs (I say this because recent monarchs haven't played an important part in government) were always more along the lines of what was generally called Erastianism — the government attempting to rule the Church. The examples you cite are all of ordained men, but English monarchs haven't been ordained. For an example of this point: until recent years, women were not ordained as clergy in the Church of England, but I'm unaware of anyone who objected to a woman being the Supreme Governor but did not object to her being queen and would not have objected to a king being the supreme governor. Finally: military orders are quite different — even more than Prussia, the military orders were armies with states, quite unlike England or other "normal" countries. Nyttend (talk) 12:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget "His Royal Wideness". Although that might have been unofficial. Baseball Bugs carrots 13:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Should athletes taking Stimulant be banned from competition forever?

Should athletes taking Stimulant be banned from competition forever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylezhangxz (talk • contribs) 11:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read the notice at the top of the page: the reference desk is not a place to ask for opinions. Nyttend (talk) 11:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Nyttend and I will not answer with my opinion on the matter - although you may be interested in this consideration of the subject of drugs and sport by Malcolm Gladwell (http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/2008/01/war-on-drugs-co.html). We also have an article Use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport that is pretty indepth, has a lot of information and references that is well worth reading for more info on this issue. 15:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk)

Dover, Connecticut

Is anyone familiar with the location of Dover, Connecticut? This page from Bay Village, Ohio (in the Connecticut Western Reserve) and this article speak of such a location, and this USDA page discusses recent activities in Dover, Connecticut. However, searching the GNIS for "Dover" in Connecticut yields only the Bennie Dover Jackson Middle School and Webatuck Creek (also called the Dover River, but not the river mentioned in the USDA page), and I can't find such a location on Google Maps. Nyttend (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, only about a half mile of the Tenmile River ("which flows through Dover, Connecticut," according to the USDA page you cited) appears to flow through Connecticut before it joins the Housatonic, and I can see no settlements along that stretch in the Google map. On the New York side of the state line, however, there is the town of Dover, New York, which includes the communities of South Dover, Dover Furnace, and Dover Plains, all near the river. Could this be some sort of error? (According to the history section of the WP article on the New York town, it was formed from part of the town of Pawling, which was the locus of a boundary dispute between New York and Connecticut, so at the time referred to in your first two links, the town may have been considered to lie in Connecticut.) Deor (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The boundary dispute sounds like a real possibility. It could also have been a colloquial name for an area of an otherwise officially named town? Your links point to historical usage; this Google Books link to an encyclopedia entry for a Charles McLean Andrews lists his place of death as East Dover, CT, in 1943, which was the most recent use I could find. You might want to contact either the New Milford or Kent Historical Society to see if they have any information. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Connecticut Place Names by Arthur H. Hughes and Morse S. Allen, published by the Connecticut Historical Society in 1976 has this, under its main entry for Sharon, CT

The N.Y. township of Dover is now West of Kent. Early maps show Dover in Connecticut, often in Sharon. 'A New Accurate Map of the English Empire in North America...by a Society of Anti-Gallicans; 1775' shows the Western boundary of Connecticut bulging to the West, and names only 4 Connecticut towns: Seabrook, New London, New Haven, and Dover. A pre-Revolutionary map: Conn., I.R. with Long Island Sound, etc.' shows Dover in N.Y. (Lewis 1812 Conn.) shows Dover at the end of a road, Northwest from Kent, and east of the Oblong. (1816 Conn.) also places it in Sharon.

Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Himmler speech

I'm searching, if possible, for the complete text of a speech from Himmler dated 5 march 1943 (I'm not totally sure about the date). He talked about the future policy of Nazi Germany regarding the administation of Europe, languages, civil rights and the resettlement of populations. He also talked about the creation of a new germanic indipendent nation called Burgundy (it was to be carved from eastern France, Belgium and parts of Switzerland). This new state was to be lead by Léon Degrelle and its capital city was to be either Dijon or Ghent. --151.51.10.14 (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Slave owners after abolition

What were the economic effects on slave owners after the abolition of slavery after the American Civil War? Also what were the broader effects on the economy after abolition? According to the article Slavery in the British Virgin Islands, "the original slave owners suffered a huge capital loss. Although they received £72,940 from the British Government in compensation, this was only a fraction of the true economic value of the manumitted slaves. Equally, whilst they lost the right to "free" slave labour, the former slave owners now no longer had to pay to house, clothe and provide medical attention for their former slaves." But I cannot find any information on the US. --AquaticMonkey (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You should find plenty of information on the U.S. if you search for economic division between the north and south. The plantation owners were not paid for their slaves, the land they owned was taken away from them, the house they lives in was usually burned down, and they lost most of their own family in the Civil War. All in all, the plantation owner was ruined. Here and there, you will find exceptions - especially around Charleston, SC. Sharecropping eventually replaced the plantations, but it didn't do very well. To this day, the south is still very poor with a few (very few) spots of wealth. That is why searching for causes of the north/south economic division will turn up a lot of information on what happened after slavery. -- kainaw™ 18:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Might also want to look at Civil War reconstruction. Googlemeister (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget, however, that the loss of slaves was also tied in with the destruction of much of the Southern infrastructure, so it would be difficult to say how much of the economic loss would be due only to the loss of slaves, and how much was due to the destruction. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In one family I have studied, there were 16 slaves and a small plantation house or large farmhouse when the war started. At war's end, the owner still lived in the house, and the former slaves became sharecroppers, each in charge of a piece of land, and provided an allowance for tools and a mule.They were paid by a share of the eventual crop, or nothing if there was a crop failure, or little if prices dropped. Not all of the South was the scene of Sherman's Destructive March Through Georgia. The sharecroppers were free to leave but most did not. I do not know if they were held in place by newly acquired debt for food and supplies, but it is possible. Bank credit was short, and property taxes, though lower than prewar, had to be paid or the whole place could be sold for taxes. "Notes" were used in the same way credit cards are now for buying and selling things, such as horses or mules, seeds, or tools, due to a shortage of specie or U.S. currency. Things which had been sold to the Confederate government for their currency were a loss, as was any pay which had been issued to soldiers. Edison (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Acting as a national leader

How come sometimes a national leader only stays one year. The one between Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma only last one year. The Rose lady one who took over Omar Bongo's death is a temporairly one, would she be able to last for a long time. i found some only last for less than 15 month. The one in Togo born in 1966 only last for 8 month.--69.229.108.245 (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

One possible explanation is that they were slated to become leader if the original leader were to die or resign, and it happened when there was only 1 year left in the original term. Or they could have died or resigned 1 year into a term that was supposed to be longer, or they were the head of a provisional government that only lasted 1 year. There are a lot of reasons why a national leader would only be in charge for 1 year. Googlemeister (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Rosencratz and Guildenstern in Act 2 Scene 2 of Hamlet

In the part of Act 2 Scene 2 near the end, where Hamlet is talking to Rosencratz and Guildenstern, what part of their conversation does Hamlet start to suspect their not being truthful? This is not a school assignment, but for a fan fiction. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say that from the very beginning Hamlet suspects there's something fishy: right after they meet R. says "the world's grown honest" and H. answers (238-241) "Then is doomsday near. But your news is not true. Let me question more in particular: what have you, my good friends, deserved at the hands of Fortune, that she sends you to prison hither?". The way he asks them why they are there suggests to me that he expects them to lie (and therefore the news that "the world's grown honest" "is not true"). Then in 274-276 it's very clear he doesn't believe them: "Were you not sent for? Is it your own inclining? Is it a free visitation? Come, deal justly with me: come, come; nay, speak." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Mere opinion ... Before he speaks to them, he explains that he believes everything is lies. Therefore, he should expect what they say to be a lie as well. The deeper question is if he is being overly careful because he is sane and protecting himself or is he just crazy? -- kainaw™ 18:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Serbian shield identification

Image:-RepublicSrbska.jpg is somehow related to Serbia, but this is not the national shield. Can anyone identify it? Thanks, Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Boy scouts? --Soman (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's the logo of the Savez Izviđača Republike Srpske, which seems to be part of the Savjet izviđačkih organizacija u Bosni i Hercegovini — in English, the Scout Association of Republika Srpska, which seems to be part of the Council of Scout Associations in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Nyttend (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Army's traditional use of American Indian tribal names for its helicopters

How and why did this tradition begin? Are their more Native American name uses in the other US Armed Forces? How does Native American community feel about this practice? --Reticuli88 (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Royal veto in the UK

If I remember rightly, Queen Anne was the last British monarch to withhold Royal Assent; of course, with the modern constitutional system, this isn't likely, since the monarch always acts on the advice of the Prime Minister. However, what would happen if a private member's bill were somehow to pass Parliament over the opposition of the government? Would it be seen as unconstitutional/unorthodox/undemocratic/wrong/ for the Prime Minister to advise the monarch to withhold Royal Assent? Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill isn't quite what I mean, because the Commons never voted on it. Nyttend (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The government decides the schedule of parliamentary business, so I don't think a private member's bill can get as far as being voted on without the support of the government. Opposition days allow for subjects to get proper discussion and even a vote without government support, but I don't think an actual bill can get passed that way, just non-binding votes - a good example is the recent government defeat on the Gurkhas . That wasn't a binding vote so Royal Assent was never an issue, but it was enough to make it political suicide for the government to ignore it. --Tango (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages help forums
• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers