Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 February 21

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 21

Directors of Turism for San Juan Puerto Rico

Hector E. Pineiro was the first "Director of Turism" for Puerto Rico under Governor Luis Munoz Marin.
Pesquera and Galliza were his asistant at the time. Later on they became directors. But the department was not created under Governor, Luis Ferrer. It was under Luis Munoz Marin.

Hector E. Piniero was my father.
Sincerely, Vanessa Pineiro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.42.198 (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If you would like to see an article about your father, make sure he meets the requirements. To see the article, you don't have to post here or wait. Be Bold! Go ahead and create it! Schyler! (one language) 03:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Please also read Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind it's spelled turismo in Spanish, but tourism in English, having come to us via French. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Omnivore's Dilemma

Does anyone know of similar books (about where food comes from and stuff) written in other countries? This one is mostly (although not exclusively) about the U.S. I am thinking particularly about China, but similar books about any country would be interesting... rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, Guns, Germs, and Steel talks about various food sources and how they influenced the course of multiple civilizations. StuRat (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Future Food by Colin Tudge. Long out of print, and dated, but available on Amazon. It was the first book I came across to cover the issue of food from farm to plate. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

peace and harmony

I'm thinking about what it would be like if I did something really nice for a group of ladies' singles figure skaters. Two are Japanese, two are French, one is Italian, one is South Korean, one is Chinese and one is Chinese Taipei. I've been imagining them living together in peace and harmony. A house I'd been imagining they were living in would be in Alameda, California. Is there anything wrong with all of that?24.90.204.234 (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

They might prefer to live in Europe or Asia, but if these are real people, you could try and contact them and ask them. If they are dream people, happy dreaming! Itsmejudith (talk) 10:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

They might even prefer to live at home with their families. At least you're not inviting Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Just curious, but what do you mean by "wrong"?

–Practically speaking, like maybe you don't have enough funds to make your fantasy a reality...?

–Emotionally speaking, like maybe they won't all actually get along too well if they had to live together...?

–Ethically speaking, like you want to exploit that situation by broadcasting it as a "Reality TV program" without consideration for what real-world effects that might have on the subjects...?

Or "wrong" in some other sense? WikiDao ☯ 12:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"Wrong" in some other sense.24.90.204.234 (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

"Wrong" like this? WikiDao ☯ 04:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

What you provided was too complicated. But is it wrong to have a dream about what my vision would be?24.90.204.234 (talk) 08:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to say it sounds really creepy and stalker-ish to me..Hotclaws (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No. I see no reason (given what is described by the OP here) to think it is a "creepy or stalker-ish" fantasy.

Except – only perhaps that you (OP) are asking in the first place whether anything is "wrong" with imagining several young women in athletic competition with each other all living in one house together in peace and harmony. (And in California, for whatever reason – aren't you yourself in Brooklyn?) Why would anything be "wrong" with that, the way you describe it?

In other words: the only thing really wrong with this question is that you have to ask it, you know...? ;) WikiDao ☯ 14:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason I say California is, because I lived most of my life in the San Francisco Bay Area, which I love. Yes, I'm in Brooklyn.24.90.204.234 (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC) In addition, my dream vision is neither creepy nor stalker-ish. It's, in a way following the message of Imagine. There are a great many ethnic groups, including European Americans and Asian Americans, living in the San Francisco Bay Area. If the eight young women I described lived together inside one house in peace and harmony, then they'd also be following the message of Imagine.24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

OP, try this: Instead of 8 young women, imagine (ha!) it to be 8 old men. Same results: living out your dream. But, not the same? That, my friend, is where the creepy factors in. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Please, my dream vision has now increased to nine young women. A North Korean ladies' singles figure skater has now come into the picture. She, like the rest of the eight others, would also follow the message of Imagine. Let's take the case of Gregory Pike and his menagerie. They were in San Francisco for a time. Then, they were driven out by the San Francisco Police Department, issuing Mr. Pike citations for something. He was only trying to make people smile with his menagerie while collecting donations for their living expenses. He may have been following the message of Imagine. Now, let's take my dream vision, along with Gregory Pike and his menagerie, and follow the vision of Sadako Sasaki, along with the message of Imagine. That way, it would be a creation for peace and harmony.24.90.204.234 (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Michael Grade

In the summary of 'The Lord Grade of Yarmouth', you state that he was married to Jane Levinson. That is a bit confusing as her first name is Penelope and she was always called Penny by friends and family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.195.36.115 (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed"Penelope" was left out when the infobox was created, though it was left in in personal life section. Corrected. Astronaut (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The ease of accessing each of the Mayan Ruins in Central America

I wish to visit many of the Mayan Ruins across Central America. However I am finding it difficult to gain an appreciation of what the relative ease/difficulty is to access each site. Is there a list of the ruins which shows this? For instance on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 was easy and 5 very difficult then Tulum would be a 1 and El Mirador a 5. I need some indication for all the other ruins86.151.211.208 (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikitravel has articles on many of them (e.g. El Mirador, Nakbé, Dos Pilas, etc.), most of which list the easiest way to get there, ranging from scheduled buses to mule rides. -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

And if you don't have specific sites in mind, several of the articles on Maya ruins-heavy regions like Petén, Yucatán, and Belize seem to have fairly long lists, most of which are linked and include access info. -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Missionaries and near-naked/naked tribes

How did Christians view the unclothed tribes they encountered? Did the lack of self-consciousness over human genitalia conflict with their interpretation of the story of the Garden of Eden? 66.108.223.179 (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

They viewed them as primitive, but they made no connection to the garden of eve whatsoever. A lack of clothes would have made them view them closer to animals if anything.AerobicFox (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The inclusion of "near-naked" does include the description of Adam and Eve found:

“ Then the eyes of both of them became opened and they began to realize that they were naked. Hence they sewed fig leaves together and made loin coverings for themselves. ” — Genesis 3:7

As far as fully naked peoples, this would be viewed as Popular Culture. Just like it is popular to wear something today in a certain place, it could very well be popular to not wear something in another place. Indeed it is becoming more and more popular to wear less and less. Schyler! (one language) 18:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The tendency was to try to put the men into full loincloths, and the women into so-called "Mother Hubbard" dresses. AnonMoos (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Has everyone given up on providing references, or citations, or any backing to their words altogether? (I know, I'm as bad as anyone.) Marnanel (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I linked Mother Hubbard dress... AnonMoos (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

True: that was the best we had here. On the other hand, that page makes no claim about its relevance to the question which isn't plastered with [citation needed]. Marnanel (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

On a related note, such encounters also inspired the idea of the noble savage, although the article unfortunately does not bring up the subject of missionaries specifically. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone told me not to "litter" the reference desk with citations from literature produced by Jehovah's Witnesses. If the OP asks fro a reference, I can give it. Schyler! (one language) 21:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that references from religious groups would be more than acceptable for a question asking about the views of religious groups :) -Elmer Clark (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's safe to say that references from Christian groups would be acceptable for a question asking about the views of Christians, as long as they are labelled as being the views of whichever specific group they are from. It wouldn't be acceptable to include an unlabelled link to the views of Jehovah's Witnesses for a question on the views on Buddhists, nor a link to Zoroastrian views in a question on what Christians believe. 86.163.4.148 (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

MLA

How does one cite, in the MLA style, a study that is not part of a journal but is not a book either? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This should help. Schyler! (one language) 18:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you give us a little more information about what specifically you are trying to cite? --Mr.98 (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't Egypt invading Libya?

Right now, invading Libya to depose Ghadafi and free Libya seems like an all-win situation for Egypt: they are seen by the Libyans as liberators, the world witness how they defeat yet another brutal dictator, they increase their geopolitical standing in the area by forming a united republic with Libya and they take the world's 9th biggest oil reserves to boot. What's stopping Egypt from "freeing" Libya?--Leptictidium (mt) 20:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You're trolling, right? Politics in the real world is not a gung-ho RTS style affair. On the off chance that you are being serious, here's at least two reasons: Egypt has its hands full with restoring some semblance of statehood back in its own backyard right now, and the immediate gains would be far outweighed by the international backlash such a dick move would generate. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to expand on that a little... I've not really been following Egypt's progress since Mubarak stood down, but I don't think the country is "free" in the sense of being run by "the people" just yet. So they're no freer than Libya is, just maybe moving in the right direction. Plus, "liberation" can easily be welcomed to begin with (remember the intial welcome when the West liberated Iraq?), and then end up being a resented occupation, in fact sometimes even to the extent that the entry of a foreign power is the one thing that gives a dictator some authority back and allows them to reconsolidate their rule. (Especially if one goes in with the intention of getting hold of the oil reserves.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trolling, TomorrowTime, are you? What backlash would "such a dick move generate"? Liberating an opressed people? Leptictidium (mt) 20:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If you think Egypt is now a liberal democracy just because Mubarak retired, you might investigate some of the things the Egyptian military has been up in the interim. Vranak (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Leptictidium, I agree that the Egyptian military now has its hands full, so a Libyan intervention is certainly out of the question for it. Even if it were in a position to intervene, I can think of three varieties of backlash against such a move: 1) It would violate the international principle of nonintervention and would generate condemnation by the international community and especially by Egypt's neighbor's, who might reasonably fear that they could be next. 2) It would very likely not be welcomed by Libyans, who would prefer to resolve this internally rather than through what they might well see as an aggressive move by a much more populous neighbor. Indeed, an Egyptian invasion might be Qaddafi's best hope of rallying patriotic Libyans behind him. 3) Egyptians would be likely to object to such an aggressive move, especially at a time of instability at home, both out of sympathy for Libyans and because such a move could signal a hunger for power on the part of the Egyptian military and a lack of commitment to a democratic transition in Egypt. Marco polo (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with most of the reasons given. Yeah, Egypt's military is maybe just a bit too busy on the home front right now to have much time to go around invading anyone...

Libya's UN diplomats have called for the imposition of a "no-fly zone" over Libya, though, which perhaps Egypt could spare a few aircraft to participate in along with other UN member states if that actually happens. (NYTimes: "He asked that the United Nations create a “no fly zone” [...and...] called upon the governments of neighboring Egypt and Tunisia allow medical supplies through the borders.")

One could imagine eg. UN peacekeepers going in on-the-ground if things got a lot worse, but that would likely involve a more "coalition"-style action. WikiDao ☯ 00:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't anyone invading it? The country, which is floating on oil, is getting so fucked up that maybe, (only maybe) there could be a 'peace' mission on the pipeline to save them (i.e. their oil, i.e. our oil). Quest09 (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Al-Jazeera has just now started reporting that Egypt is planning to go militarily evacuate Egyptian nationals from Libya. WikiDao ☯ 00:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand that it would violate the policy of non-intervention, but would that be a problem if one takes into account that Libyans are almost begging the world to go help them? Leptictidium (mt) 07:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Russians did much the same towards the end of the 1848 revolutions, though there they invaded Hungary to end the revolution and stop it spreading to their country, rather than supporting it. It was rather unpopular further west, where countries started to get a bit worried about the already huge and powerful empire, fearing it might try to invade somewhere else, leading eventually to the crimean war. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia which overthrew Pol Pot was unpopular in the west (particularly the USA). The American invasion of Iraq that removed Saddam Hussein wasn't entirely popular either. And the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan begun when the Afghan army overthrew a corrupt dictator and then called for Soviet assistance in the civil war that followed. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The thing about Afghanistan was that at the time the U.S. clearly recognized that Afghanistan was in the Soviet "sphere of influence", and would not have too greatly objected to the Soviets taking a hand in a discreet way in the common ordinary confusions and reversals of Afghan politics -- but the Soviets went over the line when they seemed to be trying to make Afghanistan over into a fully communized "satellite" state (like Mongolia) instead of just a "sphere of influence" state, and towards this goal heavy-handedly backed a "bezbozhniki" regime which had no respect for any of the cultural traditions of Afghanistan, and so created endless pointless turbulence. The low point came when the flag of Afghanistan was changed to be the banner of one faction of the Afghan communist party (note: not the general banner of the Afghan communist party, but the banner of one particular faction of the Afghan communist party!!!). As they say, "It was worse than criminal—it was stupid"... AnonMoos (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't Saudi Arabia invading all these revolutionary Arab countries? At least, the small ones like Yemen. 212.169.191.106 (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• There may be military intervention in Libya by the international community sometime soon if things get any worse. This issue is developing rapidly, though, so it just is not reasonably possible to say right now how exactly it is going to play out. Similarly (though somewhat less urgent and uncertain at the moment) with what is going on in the rest of the region. WikiDao ☯ 14:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Italy is Libya's principal trading partner, followed by China. I don't see China endorsing international action. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Calls for action from the Arab League or the Organization of African Unity could lead to something. Corvus cornix_talk 19:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Everyone seems to work on the assumption that (a) each of the possible savior nations has an offensive military capability; (b) each also has sufficient additional force to maintain a heightened level of defense (attacking your neighbors makes others more likely to attack you); (c) each of the candidate states views launching a war of aggression to be in its own best national interests; and (d) each also has nothing to worry from possible political divisions at home that might capitalize on such a bizarre policy decision. For the most part, none of these conditions is present. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Leptictidium, I do not recall Libyan "begging for help". Rather, they are quite proud for their accomplishments so far in the east and in some cities in the west, and they gained more drive to oust Qaddafi, while being quite aware of the hard road ahead. It is now becoming a stereotype that people living under a dictatorship are helpless, reserved, inactive people, with no awareness of their situation and with no aspiration, ambition and political thinking. And the only way, for them to discover the virtue of democracy is by having an external force making the choices for them. The events in Tunisia and Egypt did flush that view away. And by the way, historically, in this region, any attempt of invasion by any external force under the pretext of freedom and democracy, has always, and always, lead to another dictatorship installed. 89.82.190.163 (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

airport scanners

Do celebrities have to go through airport scanners, or are they exempt? K4t84g (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Why would they be exempt? While there are a number of ways for the very rich to get limited security (esp. depending on the airport), all people using airport terminals are required to go through security scanning, whether they are a celebrity, an elected official, the head of the FBI, what have you. Here's a nice set of paparazzi photos of Lindsay Lohan going through security like everyone else. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that if you want to imagine a model in which they would be exempt, you have to figure out how you'd define who was a "celebrity" or not, how you'd determine that the person at the gate was in fact a "celebrity" (and not an impersonator, or someone with the same name), and so on. The overhead would be enormous for zero social gain. There's also absolutely no reason to suspect that celebrities are any more "secure" than anyone else (and plenty of reason to suspect against it, when you consider the number who get arrested at airports for smuggling contraband, like drugs). --Mr.98 (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth II or Obama? Kittybrewster ☎ 22:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think politicians traveling with a Secret Service detail are exempt from screening. I seem to recall that John Boehner doesn't have to go through it. Lucky guy [1] Qrsdogg (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth II and Obama are not simply celebrities, but they also enjoy diplomatic immunity. Quest09 (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of which, there was a big controversy a few months back about the Indian Ambassador to the U.S. (Meera Shankar) being patted down by the TSA [2]. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that could happen to the Queen or to Obama. Quest09 (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but then again, I didn't believe that the TSA would ever do a lot of the things they are doing now. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Old news, but back in 2005, the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea and the Speaker of the Indian Parliament were outraged that they were treated the same as everybody else, security-wise, when arriving at an Australian airport. Their complaints fell on deaf ears. If anyone thinks "celebrities" should be accorded special treatment, then why not absolve them of having to pay income tax or abiding by any other laws? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall that you do not have to go through normal Airport security if you are flying in a private plane. Of course, if I am correct, this would apply to anyone, celebrity or not. (And as for the President and the Queen, since they fly privately, this would also apply to them) Blueboar (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the screening is to protect the other passengers. If Obama or Liz were actually to take a commercial flight, most likely everyone else would be carefully screened. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not only to protect other passengers. Airport screenings are not only for finding terrorists. They are also after drugs, stolen stuff, money above a certain threshold, ... . 212.169.191.106 (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right, security has several dimensions, however, what is the point of frisking prime ministers? (like New Zealand's Prime Minister Helen Clark, who was not recognized until the frisking began). They could smuggle all the drugs/weapons/diamonds that they wanted through other means, if they wanted. Quest09 (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

As pointed out above, security at airports has several dimensions. Richard Hatfield, then premier of New Brunswick, found out the hard way.

Hatfield's last years in office were plagued by personal scandal. In October 1984, he was charged with criminal possession of marijuana after thirty five grams of the drug was found in his suitcase during a routine inspection of luggage during that year's royal visit by Queen Elizabeth II. He was acquitted on the charges.

BrainyBabe (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Population of U.S. if there was no Civil War

I am trying to make an estimate as of how many more people there would be in the United States if there was no Civil War. I am not too sure how to go about it. Can someone help me out?--69.245.43.176 (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It strikes me that the number of counter-factual assumptions you'd have to make is rather huge. (Would slavery have gone away without it? If not, how would that have affected immigration?) But I imagine that the most simple spherical cow model would just say, take the number of people who died in the war, assume they reproduced at the same rate as survivors, and extrapolate what factor the current population would be multiplied by. But if you're looking for that kind of model, you'll probably get better results on the math desk. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to assume that the population would be higher if the Civil War had not happened. Any counterfactual speculation is no more than that, but if slavery had persisted in the South, the urbanization of the South would have been hindered, limiting the population growth of that region. The forces of capitalism would still have made small family farms relatively uncompetitive, and so the displaced small white farmers of the South would have migrated north rather than to growing southern cities. (In reality, such a migration did occur, but so did a probably larger migration by displaced southern farmers to southern industrial cities.) Migrating north, these displaced farmers would have suppressed wages and/or filled positions that otherwise would have been filled by immigrants, thereby discouraging immigration. Meanwhile, as the plantation system reached its geographic limits, southern planters would be forced either to enforce birth control among slaves or to free them. The former course would have further suppressed population growth, whereas the latter course would lead to further wage competition in the northern cities and a further suppression of immigration. No doubt, the urbanization of the South was inevitable, but it would have been delayed and suppressed if the Civil War had not happened, thereby slowing the population growth of the United States. Marco polo (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You have to factor in all deaths caused by the Great Slave Revolt of 1878 and the Second Mexican War in 1900 (Hey, if you are going to start a counter-factual, don't be surprised if others run with it.) Blueboar (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The number of men killed in the Civil War was about 620,000 soldiers plus innumerable civilians, out of an 1860 US population of 31 million. Over 2% of the population died from the war. It is very hard to swallow that somehow the social good achieved by the war caused population growth which overcame the loss of the children these war dead never produced. In addition, there was a population loss due to the absence from home of the soldiers during the war, even if they eventually made it back home. Edison (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Typically it's the women who produce children. :) The reality is that loss of men in war has little effect on the birthrate. (Which is one reason why women are usually not permitted to go to war, at least not to wars with intense fighting.) There may be some effect if there is a loss of income or food though. Also, I believe that most of the men who fought were pre-marriage, although I not sure of that. And again, that is the reason that most armies attempt to recruit 17 or 18 year olds. Ariel. (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that armies recruit young people for keeping the age demographics straight. Young people are healthier and easier to manipulate. 212.169.191.106 (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Marriage status was not a consideration in the Civil War draft and the draft age was 18-35 for the Union and 17-50 years old for the Confederates.[3] You could still get yourself out with money, though, by buying a substitute. Rmhermen (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

As pointed out - women produce children. If 75% of the men were killed in combat, we have no justification to assume a reduction in birth rate. We can only assume that to keep up the birth rate, the men must sleep with a lot more women. What we need is a reliable statistic about the birth rate before, during, and after the war. I expect it to follow the common trend of a decrease in birth rate when the war starts and a drastic increase after the war ends - resulting in an overall normal rate of change for the whole time. -- kainaw™ 15:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

These "Womyn produce children" arguments run contrary to French excuses for their WW2 debacle. French historians claimed that Frenchmen being away at war, without leave in WW1, as well as WW1 war deaths, produced a deficit of fighting age males 20 years later. How very insulting and demeaning is the suggestion that they would all flock to the surviving 25% of males as sperm donors! Female humans are not female dogs, which breed with any available male. The widows of soldiers, and the bereaved girlfriends do not necessarily turn to 4F's and draft dodgers as sperm sources so they can be single moms when the good men are away at war and do not flock to the supposed 25% survivors to get them pregnant when their loved ones do not return after the war. Also, female humans are not considered capable of Parthenogenesis, and miraculous virgin births are very rare. In sum, war deaths decrease the birth rate. Edison (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

They run contrary to, how'd you put it, "French excuses for their WW2 debacle." Indeed that may be a poor explanation, but so's your understanding of evolutionary populations. A decrease in the male population would lead to an expected increase in number of partners per male, all else being equal. On top of that, war deaths among males may decrease the match-making rate, but they don't necessarily decrease the aggregate number of children. Perhaps the loss of labor leads to higher salaries which leads to higher birth rates. Indeed, if you want to see reduced birth rates war doesn't seem to be the way to do it [if that's the goal]. Totalitarianistic birth control seems to be a good approach, as does good health care. Shadowjams (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

We are overlooking post-war baby booms not to mention all the babies conceived by randy soldiers/sailors on leave--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that war deaths decrease the birth rate. Looking at the U.S. birth rate here. Two things reduced the birth rate. First, the great depression. Second, contraception. The only possible argument can be that the great depression was followed quickly by WWII, so you can claim that deaths in WWII helped keep the birth rate low - but that ignores WWI's lack of change in the birth rate. Then, you have the Vietnam conflict coinciding with contraception. But, you'd have to ignore Korea to claim Vietnam was the cause of a lowered birthrate. I simply do not see statistical support for the claim that war deaths decrease birth rate. -- kainaw™ 13:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I finally found birth rates in the U.S. for the 1800s here. Birth rates were dropping throughout the 1800s and did not drop any further from 1860-1870 than any other decade. -- kainaw™ 13:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Women are not cats or dogs, breeding indiscriminately with the few males available. The French population curve "Two centuries of population growth" in the article Demographics of France from 1841-1911 shows steady growth, and absent WW1 the previous 60 year growth rate would have produced a far higher 1941 population. France had zero population growth from WW1 to WW2. The French birth rate had been around 20 per 1000 from 1901 to 1913, but dropped to 9.6 in 1914, rising slightly above 20 only in 1921 and 1922, then staying well below 20 until WW2. Edison (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

We are getting off track and into a debate that is not really relevant to the question that was asked. All we can really say for sure is that the population would be different without the Civil War. But there is no way to know how it would be different. My earlier comment about remembering to factor in the Great Slave Revolt and the Second Mexican War was made only partly in jest... If the Civil War had never occurred, that would have substantially changed subsequent history. Events that occured as a result of the Civil War might not have occurred, and events that did not occur might have. The Civil War impacted the way the US interacted with other nations... Without it, other wars might have occurred (wars that, in our real time line, were avoided). These would impact population figures. Without the Civil War, the US might not have entered WWI or WWII (assuming these events even occurred)... or, conversely, the US might have entered them earlier (both scenarios impacting population figures, but in different ways). There is simply no way to know what the population would be today, had the Civil War not taken place. Subsequent events... events that that impacted the population... would have occurred differently. Blueboar (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

1963 Mona Lisa visit

While reviewing events for 1962 I saw the Mona Lisa visit to U.S. National Gallery of Art listed for January 8 with accompanying illustration. I realized this was incorrect because I saw this work there in 1963 and was not in the Washington area at the time stated. Although innumerable sites repeat this misinformation, NGA site and contemporary news accounts confirm that correct date is January 8, 1963. I do not have a wiki account and have limited computer skills. When I looked at edit procedures a notice indicated that edits were suspended until July due to vandalism. Is there someone I can reach who is authorized to correct this either now or later this year or will this query in itself make it likely that someone will step in and prevent this inaccuracy from propagatig further? I would prefer a more experienced person to deal with this, especially as there is an illustration involved. Thanks64.122.208.145 (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That checks out. I've moved her. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Clarityfiend. L.H.O.O.Q. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.208.145 (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

How And where Thomas Ellis Hardee was Murdered?

I am doing some family research and would and have tried to find out about, How and where Thomas Ellis Hardee was Killed? I know he is buried in St Marys Ga at Oak grove Cemetary, Any help would be appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToddSurber (talk • contribs) 23:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Using Google Books, I find a reference in a book called General William J. Hardee: Old Reliable, by Nathaniel Cheairs Hughes, that says that T. E. Hardee was "murdered in the streets of St. Marys on August 30, and the assailant was never apprehended." According to the book this took place in 1839. The book Three Southern families: a history of connecting Hardee, Jones, and Davis families of coastal North Carolina, by Lewis Hardee, contains a full chapter about him including a detailed account of his murder, but I can only access a snippet of it. On the basis of that snippet I think Lewis says the murder was committed by somebody named Charles Rosignol, who was interested in Hardee's daughter. Looie496 (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Women musicians in antiquity

Where there proffesional female musicians and singers in ancient Rome, Greece, Egypt and among the Celts? I am speaking about the cultures in ancient Mediteranian and Europe. I do know that courtesans as well as priestesses (?) both sang and played music, but where there women who exclusively played music for a living? I vagely remember, that there where women musicians who played music for the men and the courtesans at parties in ancient Greece, without being courtesans themselwes, just musicians, but perhaps I remember wrong - I don't remember what they where called. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I googled for "Women musicians in antiquity" and got this. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

do freelance coders or graphics designers or translators who basically just "use" their laptop and sometimes phone ever travel the world while doing so?

It seems to me that there are a lot of kinds of work that the person just does on their laptop all day, like translating documents or coding. If that is the one thing that needs to be constant, does anyone ever just travel all the less expensive countries of the world (all the latin american countries, all of the asian countries, etc), and nmost of Europe, renting a cheap room for a few weeks, continuing to work, and then just moving out? It seems if your "base" (contact) are from a rich city like Bay Area, New York, Paris, London, etc, then your money should go a reeeealy long way. What is keeping these people anchored to their own (very expensive) city? If you're going to be in an apartment, and just use your laptop, why do you have to really be in that city, instead of anywhere in the world? 109.128.213.73 (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Networking is an essential part of any well-paid, interesting job and it's quite difficult to assess people (and be assessed, as a person) over the Internet. That makes being physically present in cities with a strong industry more of an asset than a liability. Quest09 (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I mean if they have started in a city and have enough clients and referrals (who might not even be aware that they do not live in the city full-time anymore) to take on as much work as they might want. Or, does it just make more sense to take on 120 hours of work for a few weeks from your real, original city, and then travel with that? I don't really get it... 109.128.213.73 (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this happens all the time. I used to work for a company that was based in a very poor area of New York that contracted with places inside New York City. The result was that New York City felt like it was getting a good deal (since the company in upstate was able to underbid local competitors significantly), and the company still made out like a bandit (because the local economy was so crap, so its rent and employee wages were extremely low by NYC standards). Same essential idea. What keeps you anchored in an expensive city is that you want to live in an expensive city. I'd prefer to be poorer in a world-class city than rich in a third-rate place, personally. Different people have different preferences on this issue (and indeed, one's preferences can change over the course of a single life). --Mr.98 (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure it happens. I used to work for a translation agency whose star translator got married and went on a year-long honeymoon trip around the world - all the time checking in over the Internet for work and basically paying for the trip as he went. I knew a guy who did freelance programming and came for a visit to Europe from the US and said the work he did while on the plane basically covered the cost of the plane ticket. I know a guy who does exactly what you say - he has built up enough contacts and clients to have a steady flow of translation work coming in, and is doing it from a beach house in Thailand - he got it dirt cheap, the only really (relatively) expensive thing is his high speed Internet connection. As I said, it happens all the time. I imagine what keeps most people like that based in one city is either lack of adventurous spirit or families. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily expect it to be cheaper, particularly if you move around a lot - you have to factor in so many costs like travel, accommodation (always more expensive if you're there a little time than a lot), dealing with clients, handling tax and legal matters back home, internet (free WiFi isn't going to cut it), mail forwarding, etc. It also depends if you can work happily in a hotel room/coffee bar/beach or would prefer a more controlled environment, and if you have a steady source of work - finding work while abroad will be much harder. But if you plan carefully, it could work. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

They may have a family, kids, friends, mortgage, pets, relations, that all relate to one place. Difficult to swap your kids schools every couple of months. By the way "most of europe" is not cheap compared with the USA (?), in actual fact most of the USA is cheap compared to Europe. I'm not sure if even the old former eastern europe iron-curtain counties would be cheaper than the US. 92.15.8.100 (talk) 11:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, cool places are necessarily expensive. (What did you expect?). If you want to save money, you will be no better off moving from NY to London or Madrid, or SF. Of course, you could move to the countryside, or to exotic places like India for a while. But, well-educated, employed persons normally want the perks of a big city, which comes at a higher price. 212.169.191.106 (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Not really, according to List_of_most_expensive_cities_for_expatriate_employees. The Economist survey says that London is the 4th. most expensive place in the world to live, New York is the 28th., Madrid is the 33rd., and San Francisco is the 41st. 92.28.241.15 (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if they related the cost of living to the salaries, but if they didn't you'll be more or less at the same situation. Salaries are higher in the UK than in Spain or the US. 77.231.17.82 (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not true that pay is higher in the UK than in the United States. See Median household income. Not too long ago, I looked into working in London and found that salaries there were a bit lower than here in Boston, USA (where the cost of living is much lower than in London). Salaries in New York are higher than in Boston, and considerably higher than in London (with the possible exception of investment bankers). Marco polo (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The figure quoted in your link is only for the UK as a whole. In London they would be much higher. It also depends on what the dollar/pound exchange rate was at the time. It has fluctuated quite a lot over the years. The UK figures in the link you gave are five years earlier than those in the US. In addition I think working part-time is much more common in the UK than in the US, which distorts the figures, plus you get free healthcare etc. 92.15.2.21 (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Healthcare comes with most jobs in the US, too. If you don't like my last link, try these links: According to this source, the median salary in New York is $68,288. In Boston, the median is $67,831. The number varies for other major cities, but the median is above $60,000 in all of them. Now, according to this source, the median salary in London, as you say, is the highest in the UK. London's median salary is £33,682. According to this source, that works out to just $54,591. So, the UK city with the highest pay has a median salary well below that of any major US city. As I said above. Marco polo (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

A lot of people in the UK only work part-time, which affects the stats. Don't you normally have to pay for health insurance in the US? Tell me, is New York city only a small part of the New York conurbation, or does New York city include New Jersey, Queens, and so on? The salaries in the City of London would be a lot higher than just in London as a whole. 2.97.221.215 (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

THe other thing to consider is that working hours are much less in europe than in the US. The last time I worked in an office I did 35 hours a week and had eight weeks holiday in total. From my calculation, that more than accounts for the reported difference in salary. 92.15.22.226 (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)