Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

May 12

Frederick, Hereditary Prince of Denmark

How was Frederick, Hereditary Prince of Denmark physically disabled or is never described in history?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Was he? When I feed the Danish Wikipedia version of his article through Google Translate, I find nothing to indicate he was injured or disabled in any way, and the statement in the English Wikipedia article has no source. Given that, I would slap a "cn" tag on it or remove it unless and until someone comes up with a source. --Jayron32 03:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

In Danish sources he is often characterised as being "skrutrygget" (round-shouldered), short of growth and generally of a weak physical condition (for example Ulrik Langen, Den afmægtige - en biografi om Christian 7., 2008, p. 72). He was definitely not a pillar of health, in 1784 he was twice in a direct physical confrontation with the also smallish and frail teenage crownprince Frederik (6), and he lost both times (Langen, p. 425 and 442). He died in a relatively young age as well, but it does seem that characterising him as being disabled is taking it a bit far. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

"Sound evidence for the existence of human differences in intelligence that parallel human differences in technology is lacking."

I'm reading Guns, Germs, and Steel, and in the preface Diamond states that "[s]ound evidence for the existence of human differences in intelligence that parallel human differences in technology is lacking." He supports this claim by 1) arguing that psychologists have been unable to convincingly establish that, say, whites are genetically more intelligent than blacks, and 2) appealing to his personal experience in Papua New Guinea.

Well, argument 2) is just anecdotal evidence, so I can't really take it seriously. As for 1), my understanding is that most psychologists acknowledge that the observed IQ disparity between blacks and whites is partly genetic in origin. I'll find a quote from the APA if you want. So given this, what is the current status of Diamond's claim? 65.92.6.9 (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I for one would appreciate the quote. My understanding from general browsing/ limited scholarly reading is that this debate is far from settled, and a claim about "most psychologists" should be qualified rather carefully. If you search Google scholar for "racial differences intelligence", you will find plenty to go on. IBE (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

After digging around, I realized that I strongly overstated the consensus of psychologists on this matter, and as you said the debate is still controversial. 65.92.6.9 (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

65.92.6.9 -- There are whole long convoluted articles History of the race and intelligence controversy and Race and intelligence if you feel like looking at them. I don't think that Diamond actually cared about "race" in the conventional sense too much; it was enough for his argument that plenty of high-intelligence people existed over time in all the main quasi-continental regions relevant to the thesis of his book (the Americas, Eurasia + North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, Australia + New Guinea etc.). In any case, conventional IQ tests do not have much validity when applied to people of strongly-diverging cultures (illiterate hunter-gatherers vs. modern city dwellers, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not whether there are broad differences in human populations in the area of intelligence. There may be, though finding ways to test for this which take into account class, prejudice, and whatnot has proven to be pretty tricky. There is no a priori reason to assume that on average there aren't some slight differences (as there are with lots of genetic traits), though we also know that a huge, significant portion of actual observed intelligence has to do with development as well as the genetics, and since what we're talking about are development disparities, this quickly becomes a case of begging the question over and over again. But hey, it's not crazy to wonder if there aren't some differences between populations in this area, since it would be kind of strange if there weren't a few, since there are so many others.

But that's not really Diamond's argument. His argument is that there is no evidence that these small, population-based differences (that is, slight differences in the population averages or outliers) translates into the massive differences in technological aptitude. Another way to say this is, even if one wanted to believe that Native Americans (or New Guineans, or whomever) were, on average, 2% less smart as Europeans (something there isn't really any evidence of to my knowledge, but whatever), why would that translate into the major technological disparities? Keep in mind that every population is going to have dullards, geniuses, and "mostly average" people, and, again, that we're talking about tiny statistical differences for the population as a whole, not for individuals within the population. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Good answer, thanks.65.92.6.9 (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll endorse Mr. 98's summary, though I might have used "technological development" instead of "technological aptitude"; I would be concerned that the latter formulation could be misunderstood to mean that these populations were somehow inherently less competent at applying technology. (A core principle in Diamond's book is that these less-technologically-advanced societies were held back by restrictions imposed by their environments—a society, no matter how intelligent, cannot gain the advantages of domesticated crops and animals – agricultural surpluses which allow concentration of populations into cities – if there are few or no domesticable species in the first place.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Good point! --Mr.98 (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Subspecies of homo sapiens

Are there any Scientific studies conducted by muslim scientists in (books or any sources) past or present which classified muslims and non muslims as separate Subspecies of Homo sapiens. I am not asking about religious views but scientific study like searching for genetic differences between muslims and non muslims and thereby claiming that muslims and non muslims are separate Subspecies of homo sapiens. Solomon7968 (talk) 07:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that Islam is one of the proselytizing religions, that one can convert to Islam simply by "sincerely" stating that "There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God", and that as a result the vast majority of Muslims are not Arab in origin, any serious research into this direction would be very surprising. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Solomon7968 -- Why would anyone think that made sense? In any case, sub-species status usually means a trinomial Linnean name (Felis silvestris lybica for the African wildcat as opposed to Felis silvestris silvestris for the European wildcat etc.), but such trinomial names are not generally currently used by scientists to refer to human races... AnonMoos (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I am asking of Pseudo-scientific research. Like I saw in a documentary of a artwork Hitler used to justify that Jews and aryans are different. I do not remember the exact details. But are there this type of scientific justifications of difference between muslims and non muslims. Solomon7968 (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure crackpots could believe almost anything (including polygenesis), but I'm not sure why a person even minimally in touch with historic reality would try to posit that Muslims are a sub-species... AnonMoos (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Unlike Islam, Judaism is not a religion spread by conversion, so the idea that many Jews may have common inherited characteristics is not wholly ridiculous. The idea that Muslims would is absurd, unless one a adopts some form of radical neo-Lamarkian model of inheritance according to which "Muslimness" could be passed on physically in some way. In the early 20th century the idea that different "races" were like subspecies was far more widespread (it was even argued that racially mixed couples had lower fertility, and were more likely to produce infertile children!), so the claim that one could identify differences between 'Semites' and 'Aryans' was not considered wholly beyond the bounds of scientific possibility. But that was long ago, and even in the 1930s such views were marginal. Paul B (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Binomial nomenclature came in with Linnaeus in the 1700's. That's not a time when the Muslim world was known for scientific innovation or commentary on Western science. There are other terms like dhimmi, or kafir and the Dar al-Harb by which Muslims divide themselves from humanity as a whole. μηδείς (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, I am by the way not a Muslim (a Hindu from India) but your logic is very absurd. Infact in 1700 India held 25% of Global economy. And there was nothing called western science then (Even Newton's Gravitation was anticipated by Bhāskara II 500 years ago) It largely started by the Industrial Revolution. You are right Binomial nomenclature came in with Linnaeus but that was only a systemic study. Mankind has the basic knowledge of it since time immemorial. Solomon7968 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I do not excuse you. Name any important Indian evolutionary biologists of the 1700's you wish. Link to them, even. μηδείς (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

In 1700 all Indian centres of learning were being destroyed (In Europe opposite was happening at that time) by a mad man Muslim fanatic king called Aurangzeb. In that point it was not possible for any Indian to study evolutionary biology. Solomon7968 (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Modern man is Homo sapiens sapiens (H. s. idaltu, the only other subspecies went extinct circa 160,000 years ago). Also, 'Muslim' is a religion, not a race. Did you mean 'Arabic'? However, not all Muslims are Arabic (Malaysia is majority Muslim), and not all Arabic-peoples are Muslims. Are you trying to characterise all the human races as different sub-species? CS Miller (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to know if such a Muslim Scientific point of view exists. I am no scholar or expert that is it. Solomon7968 (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

In that this would be incompatible with both science and Islam, as has been shown above, it would seem unlikely that such a point of view is widespread. It is of course possible that someone believes it. People can believe all sorts of nonsense... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Solomon7968 -- Linnaeus published from about 1735-1768, a time when western science was in fact strongly advancing (though not as professionalized and institutionalized as it would later become). There was relatively little advance in scientific knowledge in the Muslim mideast after the 13th century (Ibn Khaldun being the last strikingly-original and lastingly-influential non-theologian Arab intellectual for many centuries). The vast majority of Muslims were strikingly uninterested in European Christian societies until consistent European military victories started to change this, starting in the late 18th century. I don't know what Bhāskara did, but unless he explained both cannonball trajectories on earth and the orbits of the planets with a single unified mathematical equation, he did not rival Isaac Newton's work on gravity. AnonMoos (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Bhāskara anticipated some aspects of calculus. Solomon7968 appears to be confusing that with the theory of gravity. Though frankly, what this "we came first/no you didn't" playground stuff has to do with the question is beyond me. Paul B (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Detail of history behind the Vilakithala Nair ?

Detail of history behind the Vilakithala Nair ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilakithalanair (talk • contribs) 09:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

We have an article at Velakkathala Nayar, but it's not very detailed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

details of job description about the job of vilakithala nair / barber community in each country and religious base

Details of job description about the job of vilakithala nair / barber community in each country ( all world ) and in all religious base. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilakithalanair (talk • contribs) 10:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be a question. Even if it was a question, I'm not sure it would have a sensible answer. Just because a community worked mainly as barbers in the 19th century or whatever, doesn't mean their descendants still do so in the modern day. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

We have a brief (four lines) article on Velakkathala Nayar. The two references in this article may be of help. --178.191.52.193 (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Whoops, --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Jewish people not trying to gain new converts (contrary to Christians and Muslims)

How does it come that Jewish people do not try to gain new converts to their faith? Who, when and why took this decision? OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Not entirely true, see Proselytism#Judaism. Answering the question will also get into the problem of defining Judaism. For example, when Saul of Tarsus was converting people to Christianity he had competitors who tried to convince gentiles to follow the Torah, including undergoing circumcision. Was this Judaism that they preached? Judaism and Christianity was not so very distinct in the first century after Jesus. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

When one reads at Proselytism#Judaism that "Some groups, however, will encourage nonobservant Jews to be observant, such as Aish HaTorah or Chabad", is that really "trying to gain new converts"? Bus stop (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so, no. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

That's correct, yes. For further info on that, see Teshuva (hmm, that's a redirect; shouldn't be) and Baal Teshuva (that should be a redirect). It falls well outside the scope of conversion to Judaism. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's an interesting read: [1] --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

See also: Calls for Increased Effort to Convert Non-Jews --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is all rather basic biblical "history". Jews are the descendants of Jacob. Their god made a special, in Christian terms, Old Covenant with them as his chosen people. There was no law passed by the Knesset deciding this. There are an endless number of illustrated children's bibles at Amazon, and must be at least one at a local library. The Apostle Paul was the one who came up with the idea of bringing the New Covenant to the gentiles. μηδείς (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This is an excellent non-fiction work: Essential Judaism: A Complete Guide to Beliefs, Customs & Rituals. μηδείς (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

And, as I'm sure someone might have guessed by now, it's not quite as simple as "Judaism is not a proselytizing religion." There were the God-fearers, gentiles around the turn of the common era who sought out the unique religious practices of the Jews and became attached to synagogues, without full conversion. There's little evidence that there was much hostility towards these non-converts from Jewish leaders, and many of the earliest gentile Christians likely came from this group. If you're interested in full-on attempts to convert gentiles en masse, you'd probably be interested in reading up on the Himyarite Kingdom, a nation whose royals, for complex political reasons, attempted to convert their citizens to Judaism during the fifth century AD. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, however, Jews are not fond of proselytizing gentiles, especially in comtemporary practice. I believe the rabbinic maxim "קשים גרים לישראל כספחת" explains the sentiment behind this: converts (at least insincere converts) are considered to be dangerous to Judaism, so every attempt is made to dissuade all but the most sincere applicants. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Can those of us who don't read Hebrew get a translation of that better than they offer at google? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"Converts are as hard on Israel [i.e. the Jewish nation] as a blight" is one common translation. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The quote, incidentally, is from the Talmud (Yevamot 47b). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

That word (גר ger) has a very interesting (and slippery!) history. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the use of ger in the above-mentioned quote corresponds to the subject discussed here, as is obvious in its Talmudical context. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 20:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

May 13

Most powerful country in WW2

Which was the most powerful country, in terms of military power? Germany, USSR, US, Britain or Japan? --Yoglti (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

In terms of trimmers, or shavers -- 01:58, 13 May 2013‎ User:Medeis

As far as the ability to crank out the largest numbers of technologically-advanced fighter planes, tanks, aircraft carriers, etc., it was unquestionably the United States (once the production lines got fully going). If you want to know who had an immediate advantage in any theatre of combat at any point, examine the detailed articles about the war... AnonMoos (talk) 07:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Although in terms of sheer numbers (combined with reasonable technology) the Soviet Union far exceeded the other Allies, and bore the brunt of the fighting against Germany. They were rather weak at sea however, where the US Navy overtook the Royal Navy sometime in 1944. At the start of World War II, France was usually acknowledged to have the world's most powerful army, which is why the Battle of France took everyone by surprise, even the Germans. Alansplodge (talk) 07:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually the United States had a comparable population during WWII (see World War II casualties), whereas the British Empire had a larger population than any other country. Of course, the Soviet Union was willing to conscript millions of men, women, and children and send them to their deaths for small gains. None of the other countries, including Germany, was quite as callous about sacrificing human lives. --Bowlhover (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The only flaw in that statement is that the British Empire is not a single country. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Republic of China. Empire of Japan. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not a direct answer to your question but after the war Churchill wrote in The Grand Alliance about the situation after the attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941. He said "but now at this very moment I knew the United States was in the war up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all. . . . We should not be wiped out. Our history would not come to an end. We might not even have to die as individuals", and then "Being saturated and satiated with emotion and sensation, I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful".[2] Thincat (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You'll need to stipulate when. For the first several years of WW2, the answer would unquestionably be Germany because their military was large, industrially-based, efficient, modernised, well led and had the advantage of a tactical innovation. And the proof of the pudding is that they were very successful. The Allied and Russian war machines took quite some time to play catch-up, even once the USA formally entered the war. However, in (say) 1945, to answer "Germany" would be patently ludicrous. --Dweller (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The Situation Room Photo

Was the famous "Situation Room Photo" of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and others during the Bin Laden assassination staged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.45.86 (talk) 05:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the article "Situation Room"? Gabbe (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

An article which does not actually answer the OP's question. --Viennese Waltz 08:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, if it were staged, one would expect a well-rounded article to mention that. But, of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of... uh, something. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Google informs me that Alex Jones says it was staged. Taking that into account, I'm going to assume that it's 100% legit. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

How do you define staged? There a wide range from "the photographer just walked in the room, saw them, and took the shot" to "they all sat in a studio pretending to look at a screen adopting poses of anxious fascination". Clearly it was a pre-planned photo-opportunity, but that does not make it fake. Paul B (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I remember hearing some reliable reports that there had been an issue with the video feed around the time the photo was taken, so while they are looking intensely at a screen, they may be waiting for the signal to be regained, rather than watching an intense firefight. I'm unable to find anything substantive on that, however, in the sea of reptoid-Jewish conspiracy theories. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Guys, we don't need to be speculating. Our article has a quote from the photographer saying that the shot wasn't pre-planned: "During the mission itself, I made approximately 100 photographs, almost all from this cramped spot in the corner." The article also makes clear that nobody could see the firefight, and that "President Obama later said he believed the picture was taken about the time the room's occupants were informed or realized that one of the raid's helicopters had crashed." --Bowlhover (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not evidence that it wasn't "pre-planned". Do you think the photographer hid there hoping to get a shot, like a paparazzo lurking behind a sand-dune waiting for a starlet to take her top off on the beach? The photographer was part of the planned scenario to record events in the room, later to be released to the press. Paul B (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that the shot was staged, though. Having a photographer present to record the event (after all, if they didn't want any pictures taken, he wouldn't have been there) doesn't mean that the positioning of the people, their facial expressions, or any other aspect of the photo was "staged", which would mean "arranged just for the photograph itself" as opposed to "would have happened pretty much exactly like this even if the photographer hadn't taken this photo". We have zero evidence that anything was done differently for the photograph in question, nor do we have any evidence that this was posturing, pretense, or posing. --Jayron32 16:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course. "Staged" can mean many many different things. Obviously the official white house photographer can't just wander in and out of any meetings at will. There will be a specific management of the process of recording events, which I imagine is quite detailed. Many of the photographs produced by Souza are clearly intended to have an informal snap-shoty look. See for example this photo of Obama's arrival at the Oval office. He has to have been stationed there waiting, while Obama was outside and enters at a designated moment. In that sense it is both "staged" and "authentic". Paul B (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me it was somewhat less "staged" than your typical happy family snap of everybody saying "cheese" and smiling unnaturally and standing together in a pose that NEVER occurs by chance. Nobody ever criticises that institution as involving any "staging", because it became a tradition a long time ago - but staged it most definitely is. The Situation Room photo - does anyone imagine the photographer said "Now, all put on your most serious faces"? Under the circumstances they were there for, they didn't need any prompting for that. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a different issue. All those photos of people lined up smiling at the camera - whether in schools, family events, or summit meetings - conform to a recognised convention. We know people are arranging themselves for the camera. We don't call those "staged" because there is no pretence involved. The question is about photos that appear to be "innocent" records of a moment, but are not. There are many such examples. This kissing couple were asked to do a public snog by the photographer. These two were not; in fact I believe the girl was none-too happy to be grabbed in the street by a random stranger. The photo under discussion was evidently to some degree planned, but of course there is no evidence that people were posed. Paul B (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden dead: Blackout during raid on bin Laden compound:

Leon Panetta, director of the CIA, revealed there was a 25 minute blackout during which the live feed from cameras mounted on the helmets of the US special forces was cut off. A photograph released by the White House appeared to show the President and his aides in the situation room watching the action as it unfolded. In fact they had little knowledge of what was happening in the compound. Mr Panetta said: “Once those teams went into the compound I can tell you that there was a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes where we really didn’t know just exactly what was going on. And there were some very tense moments as we were waiting for information. We had some observation of the approach there, but we did not have direct flow of information as to the actual conduct of the operation itself as they were going through the compound.”

So, not staged, but not quite what initial reports made it out to be either. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Seriously? We have here what is made to look like a candid photograph, while the sources say it isn't. Yet we are supposed to pretend that family lineups are the "real" staged photographs, when no one thinks they are candid? How stupid are we supposed to be? μηδείς (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Family lineups would be called "posed" rather than "staged". As regards the famous photo, it looks like Hillary is gasping in astonishment or something. When asked about that, she said she was merely covering her mouth, as she was coughing. I wonder why someone would "stage" a cough as opposed to trying to look dramatic? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Every source posted by me and others suggests that it's a candid photograph. It is not reasonable to assume that everyone was trying to maintain a serious look for all of the photographer's 100 shots. --Bowlhover (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Pity we cannot access the EXIF data for the photo. Hayttom 17:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs)

Except that this is a reference desk, not a forensic image lab where they conduct original research. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The picture has plenty of metadata listed, and it's important to note that the picture was reportedly altered to blur an image of a confidential document. So presumably only the White House has access to the original anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The blur is not concealed. You can see the distortion effect clearly (the document is on the table in front of Hillary Clinton). It has also been claimed that the monitor screens on the walls have been "whited out" (they can be clearly seen in other photos of the room) but it looks to me as though protective blinds have been dropped in front of them. Paul B (talk) 11:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Gubernatorial term limits California

G'day. California has - as other US states as well - a term limit for the Governor. No person shall serve more than two terms. Now, what about gubernatorial succession? May someone who succeeds to the governorship (from the office of Lt. Gov.) be elected twice to office? Could Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom run for governor in 2014 and 2018 should he become governor now? The states constitution does not answer this question. For example the Vice President may run twice for the presidency, if there remain less than two years of the remaining term. Maybe there is the same rule in California and other states. Or is this question unsettled and had to be ruled by courts should this case ever happen. Cheers --91.103.112.54 (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Arnold Schwartzeneggar only served two years of his first term and a full four year term. He could have run for re-election, but he chose not. So it may depend on how much of a term the partial term consists of. RNealK (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I believe the typical application of term limits allows an unelected office-holder to be elected twice (after taking office) so long as he or she did not serve more than half of a term prior to first being elected to the office. I know this is explicitly spelled out in the US Constitution for presidents. For example, since Gerald Ford became president just a little over a year into Richard Nixon's second term, he was allowed to run for re-election in 1976, but could not have done so in 1980. Conversely Lyndon B. Johnson, who took office near the end of the term to which JFK had been elected, theoretically could have served until January 1973, had he run for re-election and won in 1968. An ironic aside — Johnson actually died two days after his second elected term would have ended. Jerry Brown is currently serving a third term as governor of California, due to the fact that his first two terms took place before term limits were established (see ex post facto). Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Arnold Schwarzenegger served three and an half year (first term Nov. 2003 to Jan. 2007). As far as I know, he was term limited in 2010. --91.103.112.54 (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Native American cultures

Hello,

what are the characteristics of the Southwest culture, the Great Basin culture, the Plateau culture and the Subarctic culture? I ask because of this image.

Thank you for your answers!

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You might find some of the articles in Category:Archaeological cultures of North America helpful. --ColinFine (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

See:

• Indigenous peoples of the Great Basin
• Indigenous peoples of the Northwest Plateau
• Indigenous peoples of the Subarctic

We don't seem to have a specific article about the Southwest group. Looie496 (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

There is. It's at Oasisamerica and Prehistoric Southwestern Cultural Divisions, and covers the Anasazi, Mogollon culture, Hohokam, and Patayan. --Jayron32 01:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Our lead article on this topic seems to be Classification of indigenous peoples of the Americas, though it is little more than a collection of lists of ethnic groups. We seem to be lacking substantive articles on many of the cultural regions. Marco polo (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

We also have Plains Indians. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This sounds a bit like a typical textbook homework question, the above classifications are typically seen in most U.S. History textbooks these days, just FYI. On one hand, we would do well to have articles on all of these groups for that reason, but on the other hand, I suspect that the answer is already contained within the textbook and I don't think we are a homework-finishing service? (smile) Montanabw^(talk) 22:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

May 14

Regime Change Successfully Implemented by the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. During the Cold War

In which countries did the U.S. successfully implement regime change during the Cold War? Also, I'm asking the same question, but for the U.S.S.R.

For the U.S., I can think of:

• Iran (1953)
• Guatemala (1954)
• Chile (1973)
• Grenada (1983)
• Panama (1989)
• Arguably Afghanistan (1992, but the process was begun during the Cold War)

For the U.S.S.R., I can think of:

• Hungary (1956)
• Czechoslovakia (1968)

Which countries am I missing for the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 03:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Is there some reason why you are arguing that the restoral of constitutional rule after the murderous overthrow of the Grenadan government, or the support of Afghan natives versus military invaders counts as "regime change"? Do you really expect us to list every government behind the Iron Wall, and Korea, China, and Vietnam, etc., etc., in response to this nonsense? Have you never heard of the Berlin Wall? This is yet another provocative POV pushing piece of sh*t on your part, Futurist. Ask some simple requests for references please, rather than these debate inciting diatribes. μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard of the Berlin Wall, but I don't see what this has to do with U.S. and Soviet involvement in regime change. And please, no profanity. Thankfully I was able to find a Wikipedia article right now about the part of my question regarding the U.S.--Covert United States foreign regime change actions. Are you suggesting that this article should be deleted? In regards to your question about Grenada, I'm not sure now that I know more details about it. In regards to Afghanistan, it is worth noting that the Communists came to power there before the U.S.S.R. intervened and that the Najibullah government there collapsed three years after the U.S.S.R. left Afghanistan. Futurist110 (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

For the US, the 1963 coup in South Vietnam. Henry^Flower 05:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I previously knew about that one but I forgot it when making this poll. Futurist110 (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know that regime change had such massive negative connotations. From memory, it was one of my country's goals as announced by our Prime Minister when we invaded Iraq this century. HiLo48 (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Neither did I. Futurist110 (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You should also look at United States occupation of the Dominican Republic (1965–66); I believe it fits your criteria. Just outside your time period, the military intervention to restore President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti in 1994 constituted a form of regime change (like your Afghanistan example, the crisis began earlier, in September of 1991; while the USSR was still barely standing at that time, the Cold War was for all intents and purposes already over, however). --Xuxl (talk) 09:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

As for the Soviet Union, most of the regime changes that I can think of happened before or shortly after the beginning of Cold War. The regimes in the Baltic States were overthrown in 1940 shortly before the newly installed governments "joined" the Soviet Union Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1940). Polish government in exile was replaced by the pro-Soviet provisional government at the end of WWII. 1948 Czechoslovak coup d'état (during Cold War) would also qualify. Otherwise the Soviets seem to have preferred supporting local communist forces, as opposed to more direct CIA-style intervention (e.g., China).129.178.88.84 (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Cuba? Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

At the start of the Cold War, the Soviets engineered (or at least strongly supported) the establishment of Communist rule in all of the countries that later formed Comecon, often under the guise of "free" elections. See Polish legislative election, 1947, Soviet occupation of Romania and the 1948 Czechoslovak coup d'état for the most blatant examples. Alansplodge (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Soviet assistance was crucial to the success of the Derg in seizing power in Ethiopia in 1974. Marco polo (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

El Salvador? See the article "Salvadoran Civil War."198.190.231.15 (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The charts here may be useful: Polity IV Individual Country Regime Trends, 1946-2010. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The USSR did not implement regime change in Hungary. This was a people's revolution, against the USSR's occupation. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I expect that you are thinking of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. I was referring to the way in which the Soviet occupiers manipulated the democratic apparatus in Hungary to turn a 17% vote for the communists in 1945 into an election in 1949 where there were only communist candidates. Tactics included persuading the prime minister, Ferenc Nagy, to resign by kidnapping his son. The secretary of the majority Independent Smallholders, Agrarian Workers and Civic Party was deported to Siberia for several years. See Republic of Hungary (1946–1949) for the sordid details. Alansplodge (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Alan, I was responding to the OP's question, which said 'Hungary 1956'. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean now. Alansplodge (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that the Soviets hanged the guy who was Prime Minister in '56, I think it might be said that they implemented regime change, even if there was formal continuity. --Trovatore (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Career

Are there any websites out there that aid one in making a career choice if one is unsure of what employment path to take? I mean like questionaires and then a breakdown. Pass a Method talk 13:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Where are you located? This will help us give you location-specific websites. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Currently the UK Pass a Method talk 15:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

While we're waiting for Tammy to return, I see a bunch of those tools at careers@bath, University of Kent and Prospects UK. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The UK has recently seen the launch of the National Careers Advice service, their website may have what you are looking for (but I have to say, it seems to be more a second-level site, rather than the sort of first-level stuff you're looking for). --TammyMoet (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

How fast is a horse?

I can't stop thinking about something I came across while researching an answer to the Paul the Apostle question above. In the article Roman roads, we are told, without a source given, that along the roads, official horse-changing stations:

were located every 20 to 30 km (12 to 18 miles). . . . Using these stations in chariot relays, the emperor Tiberius hastened 800 km (500 mi) in 24 hours to join his brother, Drusus Germanicus, who was dying of gangrene as a result of a fall from a horse.

This breaks down into a speed of about 20 miles an hour - maybe just possible for a supremely motivated young man in excellent physical condition. If the story is true - if I've done my math right, Tiberius was 51 at the time. I also note that the 19th-century Pony Express covered 1900 miles in 10 days or maybe 7 or 8 miles an hour, on average, with many changes of horses and riders. Which makes me wonder two things: 1) How fast can a horse go while pulling a chariot? 2) Are there any other known stories from later times or recent times of a single rider or charioteer covering that much distance in a day? Textorus (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Secretariat ran the 1973 Belmont Stakes in 2 minutes and 24 seconds, the fastest mile and a half in the history of the race. That works out to 1 mile in 96 seconds, or around 37.5 miles per hour. Running a horse or series of horses at such a pace would take about 14 hours to travel 500 miles. So it could be done, but you'd need a lot of very fast horses. Also, the 7 to 8 miles per hour assumes riding 24 hours a day for 10 straight days. Is that how the Pony Express was done, or did they take breaks? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No single rider went all the way from St. Joseph, Mo., to San Francisco; the company had about 80 riders, the article says, horses were changed every 10 miles or so, and the riders changed every 70-100 miles. Presumably, they were going non-stop while "on duty" but could relax and eat, etc., when their segment was completed. Textorus (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Some corrections re the Tiberius story:

1. When Drusus died in 9 BC, Tiberius was 33, not 51 :)

2. The distance claimed was 200 Roman miles (296 km/184 miles), not 500 - I'll go fix the article on that.

The source is Pliny's Natural History; I'll go put it in the article. Wikisource has the original Latin: [3] (paragraph 84). 184.147.137.171 (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, I confused BC with AD on the year of Drusus's death. And appreciate your correcting the article - although 300 miles is still a helluva long ride for a solitary Tiberius to make, even at 33 - or so it seems to me. Textorus (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

He said 184 modern miles, not 300. StuRat (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I do that all the time too! And 184 (modern) miles in 24 hours (which could easily have been something like 30 hours and still thought of as a day) is about the same speed as the pony express, 7-8 mph. I agree though, quite an endurance feat. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected again; must need glasses. Yes, quite a feat: even a leisurely 20-mile ride in one day on horseback will leave you buttsore and weary, but I suppose the early emperors lived on horseback for much of their lives. Textorus (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

24-hour run says the record for a person running is 188 miles, so I don't see there would be too much of a problem doing it with new relay horses every few miles pulling a chariot - that's easier than having someone riding. Dmcq (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Denmark's Failure

Why does it seem that Denmark's history since the Kalmar War is largely a story of failure? First they lost the position as the hope of being the champions of Protestantism during the Thirty Year's War then they lost Scania and many Norwegian provinces to the Swedes in multiple Dano-Swedish war and the March across the Belts. Then in the Napoleonic War, the British annihilated their entire navy and in the end they had to cede all of Norway to the Swedes. Finally in the Second Schleswig War, they lost all of Schleswig-Holstein. Obviously there will no direct answers to this, but historians must have noted the string of defeat and territorial losses that Denmark endured since the 17th century. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the long reply, but it is a very long and complicated process. It seems one of the main reasons, as proposed recently by Danish historians (citation below), is that Denmark in early modern times found itself in a position that was suddenly extremely vital to outside powers, namely the possession of the Strait of Øresund. Earlier this was no big problem, in fact quite the opposite - it was quite lucrative, but with the increasing importance of overseas trade, especially by the rising powers of England and the Netherlands this became a problem because the Baltic trade was vital as the main source of naval supplies, and Denmark was in no respect able to match the strength posed by those powers. And it became the main policy of these naval powers from the late 16th century and onwards to counter this Danish control of the Sound by siding with the enemies of Denmark (in this period mainly Sweden) in their effort to break it.

To this should be added the facts that 1) Sweden in the same period proved extraordinary adept in converting their society into a very efficient military-complex, arguably the most efficient in the world at the time and 2) the rulers of Denmark proved far less efficient in turning the medieval society into an early modern nationstate, it seems the major reforms and revolutions only occurred during crises, that is when it was already too late. And that the rulers were evidently not entirely aware that they had lost out in the scale of balance, and still behaved as if it was the old times when Denmark was the leading nation in Scandinavia. Not to mention that with a few notable exceptions, the Danish government was extremely inept when it came to choosing allies and continuosly seemed to end up consorting with reluctant or simply no allies. In general the branch of the House of Oldenburg that made up the Danish monarchy at the time doesn't seem to have bred the finest exemplars of the human race, most of the Danish kings in the period were mediocre, the rest were downright useless.

But while Denmark was dismembered in the following treaties, especially the Treaty of Roskilde, it actually still posed a hindrance to traffic in the strait, collecting the so-called Sound tax of every wessel crossing it, but with decreasing power to back up that threat. So as historian Lars Bangert Struve says about Danish foreign policy in the 18th century ("Allieret eller neutral - Dansk sikkerhedspolitik 1740-1807", p. 17-32 in: Danmark og Napoleon, Hovedland, 2007), it was only a question of time until it came to a showdown where Denmark would have to concede the fact that it had become a minor league player and abandon claims on the Sound traffic. This occurred in 1801-7.

1864 is somewhat different as it is tied up with the ethnic conflicts of a mixed nationality area (a civil war had occurred between Denmark and the German duchies in 1848-51), the rise of nationalism in Europe (both in Denmark and in Germany) as well as the politics of Bismarck and the emergence of Germany as a Great Power in Europe. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Another factor is simply Denmark's size. With a small land area (excluding Greenland, which is mostly covered by glaciers) and population, it simply couldn't match the resources to compete with larger nations. Small nations and city-states can be quite powerful, for a time, but the numbers eventually turn against them. For example, we have ancient Athens, then, much later, Venice. And, although ancient Rome also started out as just a city, they had a better model where they made the captured people into Romans (at least those near Rome), and thus where able to expand their base, and last longer than most empires. (Their eventual failure might be because they stopped doing this in the outer provinces, treating those people more like slaves than citizens. When you get to a point where far more people hate you than support you, then you have a problem.) StuRat (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Saddhiyama and would add that Denmark's decline began with Sweden's rise. During the late middle ages, Denmark had dominated Scandinavia in the Kalmar Union mainly because of its control over trade between the Baltic and North seas. When the Kalmar Union ended, Gustav I of Sweden succeeded in forming a strong monarchy in Sweden, with crown control over 60% of the farmland in both Sweden and Finland. He also strengthened Sweden's tax regime. These both generated large amounts of income to pay for military adventures, including the defeat of Denmark and the taking of some of its best agricultural land in Scania. From there it was downhill for Denmark, which next lost Norway to Sweden. Prior to the 19th century, the division of Germany had allowed Denmark to continue to assert some power in northern Germany, but the rise of a strong Prussia and German unification created a giant on Denmark's southern border that it could not hope to defeat. Denmark's survival in the face of Prussia's rise is what really needs to be explained. Ultimately the explanation is that Prussia and Germany knew that neither Russia nor Britain would have allowed Germany to threaten Baltic shipping by conquering Denmark. Indeed, freeing Denmark and the Baltic was one of the more important stakes for the Allies in World War II. Marco polo (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Denmark was also a victim of economy: It really didn't have an abundance of natural resources, nor did it have a particularly large population, so it didn't have a really large native economic base to support itself. Consider that the Sound Dues accounted for a significant portion of the Danish national treasury, as much as 2/3rds of the state income in the 16th century!!! To place literally all of your eggs in one basket like that is a recipe for disaster, and Denmark's slow slide from it's peak during the Hanseatic era, when Baltic Trade was a HUGE economic engine for Denmark's economy, via the Sound Dues, through all of the events noted above, can be tied to the shift of European trade away from the Baltic. If you want to look at the major events leading to this, the Age of Exploration and the Trade routes it opened up around the world which depended not one iota on access to the Baltic, as well as successful means to bypass the Baltic altogether, such as the opening of Archangelsk to the Muscovy Company, Richard Chancellor, and Hugh Willoughby which allowed Britain to trade directly with Russia and points east, completely bypassing the Oresund. So, with all of the competition from Atlantic trade, and a significant portion of the Baltic trade now bypassing the Baltic altogether via the White Sea and Archangelsk, Denmark, whose entire economy depended solely on the Baltic trade, lost out huge. None of this really has much to do with the competence of the rulers from the House of Oldenburg or not; some of them may have been very good rulers, and some maybe not so much, but you can't squeeze blood from a turnip, and it's hard to fund armies when you only have a single source of income, and it dries up. --Jayron32 20:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree to the first part, but one has to remember that initially Sweden was largely in the same situation. Small population, largely agricultural and backwards, yet through intelligent administrative reforms managed to turn that situation into a completely different beast in terms of efficiency. With such a comparison you can't but point the finger on the rulers as having at least a part in the disaster for not seeing a need for reforms themselves (that one was certifiable insane, another a hopeless drunkard doesn't help, but of course they didn't de facto govern either). Denmark proper didn't have a lot of natural resources, but Norway did, and Schleswig-Holstein was relatively densely populated (more than one third of the entire population of the kingdom). There was a lot of unused potential in Denmark-Norway of early modern times.

And regarding the dependance on Baltic trade, it actually did remain quite crucial for British trade, even the one they carried out on the other side of the globe, because most of the crucial naval supplies used on those routes did come from the Baltic trade. And the Øresund route remained the most important route to that trade for the duration of the 18th century, as the northern routes simply was too treacherous to rely on for any great amount of traffic. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Every single European monarchy has had their fair share of insane and incompetent monarchs. England survived the rule of Edward II and George III, France managed to survive the rule of Henry III, Spain became a world empire following the madness of Joanna of Castile. What those countries had that Denmark didn't was an economic power base to exploit. --Jayron32 23:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Britain was a constitutional monarchy by that point and could function as well with or without a monarch while Joanna's madness was countered by her son's effective rule. Denmark and Sweden had the same potentials but the kings of Sweden were better able to lead their countries than the Danish. I agree the Danish kings around this time were mediocre (the best, the more competent rulers could do were to defend against further losses or implement modernizing reforms that Sweden had already experienced). Also Denmark lacked any military kings like the Sweidsh Gustavus Adolphu and Charles X-XII. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

does The Economist have a (relatively) new Editor?

does The Economist have a (relatively) new Editor or Editor in Chief of some kind? It was literally unreadable on a textual level (as in, complete rubbish, worse than blog comments in terms of a coherent sentence or thought) as of about a year ago, and had been for some time (maybe going back 2-3 years, meaning 2010-2012, during which it plain sucked.) I know because during that interval I kept picking it up and it was always rubbish.

Now I picked up an issue, because it's relatively good again (as it was until 2007). What - or more probably who - has changed? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The Economist has never been "literally unreadable on a textual level" or "complete rubbish". You're putting forward your own, demonstrably incorrect, opinions as objective fact. --Viennese Waltz 21:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Your typical personal attack, combined with no effort to actually answer the question, also qualifies as "complete rubbish". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack. But equally, there's no such thing as an incorrect opinion. Opinions by their very nature have no truth value. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that Volkswagen is a nanny and proud of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

What's the point of calling Viennese Waltz Volkswagen? OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Because he gets called VW from time to time. Nicknames are used with affection. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Because he has a strange sense of "humour". --Viennese Waltz 13:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I see, that's like calling Baseball Bugs > BB > BlackBerry, or Big Brother or Be Back. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Soytenly. And I've been called a lot worse. But I don't care what they call me, as long as they call me to supper. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that I mean myself personally. If I wrote the same thing about a band, I would also consider it obvious and "needless to say" (so I didn't) that it is just my opinion. Regardless of my subjective opinion, you can tell me whether the editorship has changed recently (in the past year). 178.48.114.143 (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Our article says the editor-in-chief has been the same person since 2006, and indeed his name is still on the masthead. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It's strange - what else do you think would explain that I have several issues next to me, and I can open some of them (from a certain period) and be unable to read any of the articles through even if I'm really interested in the subject-matter, the writing being so bad, and then there are issues, including any of the recent ones, where the articles are uniformly really well-written and engaging, regardless of whether I have any interest whatsoever in the subject? It's a puzzle to me. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have some representative examples of both "unreadable" and "readable" text from the Economist during the time periods you are interested it? You've asserted that there was a difference, but unless we can read the text ourselves, we really have no means to make a comparison. Just an article or two displaying "complete rubbish, worse than blog comments in terms of a coherent sentence or thought" and then one or two that are of a better quality. That would really help your cause. --Jayron32 23:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You can find any, literally every article was bad. Can't you do a search by date and give me the first paragraph of the first hit you find for a random article in 2007 and in 2011? The difference is obvious and this methodology is sound. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it's like Jayron32 says. It's up to you to provide evidence for your assertion. Without any such evidence, your accusations are just so much hot air. --Viennese Waltz 05:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be good if the OP could provide an example. And it would be good if you could curb your own hot air. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Another theory - did it have a dwindling readership/budget due to the Internet, but then recently tablet readership has picked up again? If so this would clearly be visible on some chart showing readership (or budget/revenue/whatever) between the years 2005- present. Can anyone find such a chart? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

We are not here to entertain your theories, especially because you've been incapable of producing any evidence supporting your premise ("It was literally unreadable on a textual level"). Nobody can explain why the Economist suddenly improved if it did not, in fact, suddenly improve. --Bowlhover (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The closer explanation that I can give to the OP's point of view, assuming good faith and all, is that he read one blog hosted at The Economist. Those blogs can be from all sorts of contributor, often some think tank pushing for a point, and I suppose they are not reviewed by The Economist, and don't meet the same quality criteria as the rest of the magazine, which is far from being at the level of blog comments. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe they started employing better staff. Magazines are not written by one person. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

No, they don't employ just one person, but a whole staff. However ,that would imply that they won't have big breaks in quality standards. Maybe you get one journalist inventing stories at a descent magazine, but not a drop to blog-comment level and then back to correctly written articles. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe they received a lot of complaints about the standards of their prose, decided to address the issue, and employed new staff as a result. We don't know. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid he's not making even that much sense. He talks about "picking it up", which would seem to imply the involvement of paper. Henry^Flower 12:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it requires a lot of will-power to assume good faith in this question. Either the OP quotes a couple of bad paragraphs (that should be easy since "literally every article was bad") and good ones or I think this is not worth dealing with further. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems like a totally reasonable question to ask. And it appears to have been answered. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Any question is reasonable to ask, but sometimes the OP starts with the wrong premises, which need to be questioned in turn.. Definitely, a couple of examples would have made the question meaningful. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, examples would have been good in supporting his complaints about the mag. But the actual question was, "Does The Economist have a new editor?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Well I think the 178 challenge. I went to the Current and Previous issues page [4] and choose one of the years in the OP earlier suggested range. First choosing one in 2009 [5]. Hmm that didn't work, it's definitely not 'complete rubbish, worse than blog comments in terms of a coherent sentence or thought'. Okay let's try again this time with 2010 [6] in case either it's a bad year or a fluke. Okay still not seeing what the OP is seeing. But wait, the default seems to be North America. The OP's IP looks up to Hungary. Okay so let's try selecting European Union. Hmm that didn't seem to actually change anything, at least not the links to the issues, but nevermind let's another [7]. Okay fail again. Okay let's change year again [8]. Damn.

Reread the OP's challenge. Ooops while earlier they suggested the problem was at least from 2008 (inclusive) to 2012, they actual challenge is for 2011. Okay that must be it, the OP was wrong on the range. Okay choosing 2011. [9]. Damn still not working. Okay let's try another month and topic [10]. Well nevermind third time's the charm. [11]. Or not.... Here's a story I saw linked on the main page earlier for comparison BTW [12].

I didn't go back to 2007 or earlier to see the wondrous prose and thought allegedly shown then. It was a moot point since none of the results from 2008 - 2011 are unreadable on a textual level, worse than a blog etc.

Incidentally the OP said they picked up 'issues' which I take to mean physical copies of the magazine so this would seem to rule out the OP being confused by some random blog. Being generous, perhaps their neighbourhood magazine seller or doctor's office or wherever they were reading the magazine had a Economist clone which used the trademarks but not the copyrighted content to reduce the risk of legal problems (although one wonders if it may actually increase it given the risk of confusion as possibly experience by the OP).

P.S. Trying to view more than a few of these may not work because of the Economists paywall model where they only give a few free results before they start forcing you to register or pay. I did personally have a look and quick read of the text of all to see if I could see a sign of the what the OP was saying but I'll leave others to figure out for themselves if they want to check all the articles and aren't a subscriber.)

Nil Einne (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Colonel Sam Genius

In Jim Webb's novel The Emperor's General, which is largely about Douglas MacArthur's career immediately following World War II, one of the characters is named Colonel Sam Genius, who was initially responsible for conducting the anti-Japanese war crimes trials until he refused to follow MacArthur's orders and was dismissed. Was Sam Genius a real person? RNealK (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The International Military Tribunal for the Far East was responsible for trying Japanese war criminals. The U.S. representative on the Tribunal was first John Patrick Higgins who resigned in 1946, but he resigned (according to our article) to be with his family back in Massachusetts. The chief prosecutor was Joseph B. Keenan, but he served the duration. I have no idea if Sam Genius was a) a lesser official b) a real person whom Webb changed the name of c) a composite of several real people or d) wholly his own creation. But you can read the relevant Wikipedia articles to get some background on the actual historical events. --Jayron32 23:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of Mr Higgins, but "spending more time with the family" is a common euphemism for "jumping before you get pushed" (in British politics at least). Alansplodge (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It is in America as well. --Jayron32 14:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The only Google results (that I could find) for Sam Genius relate to the novel. Alansplodge (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

May 15

How did Shakespeare die?

Our article on him mentions nothing about his death cause, it seems, only his death date. Not even a single speculation. Is there any widely believed reason for how he died? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe it was recorded anywhere. His death was not given any public attention or any outpourings of homage such as those that followed hard upon the deaths of Spenser, Beaumont, Bacon, Jonson, Drayton and Burbage. About 50 years after he died, someone said he died of a fever, but how would they know? Besides, fever is a symptom of many conditions, so that's not telling us anything much. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, JackofOz is referring to Vicar Ward's account: "Shakespeare, Drayton, and Ben Jonson had a merrie meeting, and it seems drank too hard, for Shakespeare died of a feavour ther contracted." ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Jack is taking the opportunity to trot out anti-Stratfordian canards which are wholly beside the point and also wholly false. There was a famous poem by William Basse that circulated after his death and there were several other tributes, which are comparable in number to those for other deaceased poets and playwrights at the time. They don't say how he died, but that was normal. Unless someone died in dramatic circumstances, like Marlowe, it would not normally be mentioned. And that's on the assumption that it was known at all. People died of undiagnosed natural causes all the time of course. Paul B (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The fever theory Jack mentions comes from the diary of John Ward, a Stratford vicar, who in around 1661 said the late bard had a drinking bout with Drayton and Ben Jonson at which he caught the fatal illness (see here). But that was indeed written half a century after Shakespeare's death and no proof is offered. People have drawn inferences from the fact that Shakespeare's will is dated only a month before his burial (transcript here) suggesting that he knew he was terminally ill when he made it. Some also point to the alleged shakiness of his signature on the will as evidence that he was indeed ill when he signed it. A Google search on "shakespeare death" will provide plenty of speculation, but no harder evidence than this. - Karenjc 10:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

As you say, there is endless speculation, but little real evidence. He may have had a progressive illness of some sort, which would explain his retirement from the stage in 1613. Something like Parkinsons would have forced him to give up performing, but left him in charge of his faculties. He may had a sexually transmitted disease such as syphilis (Katherine Duncan-Jones thought he had syphilis) as there are many references to the effects of syphilis in the sonnets. In the 2005 film A Waste of Shame he is depicted as syphilitic. Or it could have been something sudden. Or cancer. Or anything. In the 1973 play Bingo he kills himself with suicide pills in despair at the pointlessness of worldly success. Paul B (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Paul B: Basse's elegy may have been written up to 7 years (1623) after S's death (1616). And that would be consistent with S's passing being little noted at the time. And that would be consistent with no record of how he died ever having been kept. My opening response is quite correct. Not even slightly false, let alone "wholly false". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 13:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The following statement is wholly false: "His death was not given any public attention or any outpourings of homage such as those that followed hard upon the deaths of Spenser, Beaumont, Bacon, Jonson, Drayton and Burbage." It would serve no purpose to go into the details here, but you can read Stanley Wells' essay "Allusions to Shakespeare to 1642" in which the comparisons to the other writers you mention are analysed. There are in fact 27 manuscript copies of the Basse poem known to exist, so the assertion "not given any public attention or any outpourings of homage" is clearly untrue. Yes, it's first commented on in print in 1623, but only someone who is blinding themselves to common sense would think that's supposed to prove it was only written in that year. Paul B (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not say it "was written in 1623". I said it "may" have been written "up to 7 years" after Shakespeare's death. All we know for sure is that it was extant by 1623, and that's what our article on William Basse says. My opening sentence ("I don't believe [the cause of his death] was recorded anywhere") is still correct, and that is the primary element of my response to the OP's question. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I find it surprising nobody cared that he died... Wasn't he supposed to be popular during his time? I think of him as the Michael Jackson of stage. Shakespeare is most probably the most famous historic playwright ever... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

While Shakespeare was well-known and liked during his life-time, he didn't have the rock-star image and profile of his friend Ben Jonson; he also didn't die in London, so news (and details) travelled that much more slowly. At home in Stratford, he was just a moderately successful local businessman, and heaven knows we have few enough details about the causes of (non-violent) death of most people of that class in that era. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Jonson died many years later, by which time he had built up followers known as the Tribe of Ben. Shakespeare does not seem to have been interested in that kind of self-promotion. Almost all his money was ploughed back into his family in Stratford. But there were indeed as many comments on him as one would expect given the cultural norms of the time. Paul B (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The OP also needs to consider that the modern-day obsession with celebrities simply did not exist then, nor was there a profit-driven mass media to report every tiny detail of people's lives. What very few proto-newspapers there were in Europe at that time printed stories about political events, wars, dynastic changes (like death of one king and accession of his heir), and natural disasters, very rarely the doings of private persons like Shakespeare. The comparison with someone like Michael Jackson in this media-crazed age of ours just doesn't apply. Textorus (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

All the evidence around only ever hints at anything, we know, for example, roughly when he retired from working in London and returned to his family, when he wrote and rewrote his will, just days before his death, if I remember right, surviving samples of his handwriting suggest that his health deteriorated sharply in the last few days, as with any part of his life all we have to go on are tiny fragments, that you can make any sort of theory fit, with a little effort. 213.104.128.16 (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

That Shakespeare signed his will shortly before death is strong evidence that his death was natural. It was customary then for men to have a will prepared when death was expected, so the timing is not coincidental. His will shows that he was giving careful consideration to protecting his daughter Susanna, so he must have still had considerable presence of mind. He seems to have begun preparation of his will in January, signed it in March, and died on April 23, so he likely died of some natural cause over a period of at least several months. John M Baker (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Oak Bay-Gordon Head

Is newly-elected Green Party Member of Legislative Assembly Andrew J. Weaver the first scientist to be elected to provincial legislature in Canada? Either way, I would like to see a source. Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 11:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have definitive proof for you at the provincial level, but it's not very likely. Here is a list of the occupations of all the members of federal parliament, and a quick skim finds at least three in the first few names: medical geographer Kirsty Duncan, former astronaut Marc Garneau and physicist Ted Hsu. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

William Fraser Tolmie, surgeon, fur trader, scientist, and member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia from 1874 to 1878. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Non-unified Germanic people

How did it happen that most Germanic kingdoms unified into Germany, but not all? I understand that the Austria–Prussia rivalry would explain Austria being an independent country, but what about the Dutch and the Swiss-German? Had they had their chance to unity with the rest? Were they rejected or did they rejected the idea? How did they developed an independent identity? OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Religion, culture, history, and geography. Religion, because the Swiss and Dutch were Calvinist, the Austrians Roman Catholic and the northern Germans Lutheran. Culture because both the Swiss and Dutch had become, either de facto or de jure independent from the other Germanic states for a very long time. Part of that was geography: the Swiss had been essentially independent from the time of the founding of the Old Swiss Confederacy in 1291 which was an alliance between several small states in the Alps. Being in the Alps, they were essentially cut off from the rest of lowland Germany, which meant they were left to provide for their own affairs, even if (nominally) they were subject to the Holy Roman Empire. Over time, other Alpine polities joined up, gradually forming the modern federation. The Dutch people and language had arisen from the same group of Germans that established both France and the Holy Roman Empire (the Franks), but had historically been distinct from either of them; the establishment of Lotharingia had created a distinct political entity separate from France and Germany, and while it did not survive very long, the area of the Low Countries has always been a sort of "buffer region" between the two large powers, sometimes ruled by one or the other, but often having a fair degree of autonomy. While formally incorporated into the Holy Roman Empire, the HRE itself was fairly disunified, and the Dutch developed their own distinct culture and language distinct from the eastern Germans. The various Dutch petty states (County of Holland, Duchy of Gelre, Bishopric of Utrecht, etc.) These lands were eventually inherited by the Duke of Burgundy, who had aspirations to re-establish the "Middle Kingdom" of Lothairingia. The Dukes of Burgundy never did so, but what they did do was provide the various petty Dutch states political unity and autonomy that then passed to the Spanish Hapsburgs via the division of the Hapsburg Empire after Charles V. This is quite important, as the Austrian Hapsburgs got control of the HRE, thus Germany and the Netherlands became effectively separated. The Dutch, being not Spanish, not Catholic, and not particularly happy being ruled from Madrid, revolted, and established the Dutch Republic. By this point, they weren't really Germans any more, as 500 years as a distinct culture and language will do that. After all, the English, Swedish, Danish, Norwegians, and Icelanders aren't Germans either, though they all have common roots in the same Germanic Peoples that spread over Europe during the first millenium AD. Germany itself was the last of the major European powers to unify, only doing so in 1871. See Unification of Germany. --Jayron32 13:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the short version of this is basically that the Low Countries and Switzerland had developed separately and independently from the rest of Germany for hundreds of years by the time Germany was unified. john k (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that. --Jayron32 16:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Would it not also be at least partly simply because they were not assimilated by the emerging German Empire, or in cases when they were, had been forcibly separated from that state at some point, a major part of European politics of the time, of course, was attempting to maintain the 'Balance of Power' by preventing one country from becoming too big and powerful, looking for example at the redrawing of national boundaries after major wars, the Netherlands were deliberately created as an independent buffer state between old enemies France and Germany back in 1814, and with Austria having remained too much for Prussia to consider conquering prior to 1918, they were assimilated into the new German state soon after that, an arrangement that was only able to last until 1945. 213.104.128.16 (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

No, the issue was explained concisely by John K. above. The concept of Balance of Power is a 19th century one, dating from Metternich's conservative view of Europe, and resulting after the post-Napoleonic Congress of Vienna. By that late of a date, both the Netherlands and Switzerland were well established and accepted as independent states in their own right, with as much historical right to an independent existence as any other state. No 19th century European would have thought of The Netherlands as a "German state" as it would have been a de facto independent and unified state for 3 centuries (and de jure independent for two) by that point. And Switzerland had been so for almost 600 years by then. The Netherlands wasn't created as a buffer state in 1814. It was merely re-established (as a Monarchy rather than a Republic because of the attitudes of Metternich et. al.; though the Dutch Republic ran like a Monarchy in every way but name, so much so that one Stadtholder was even invited to be King of England). No one considered the Netherlands as under the influence or belonging to any other country. The whole point of the Congress of Vienna was to wipe away the results of the French Revolution/Napoleonic era and re-establish the old European order, and to insure that such an event never happened again. Balance of power issues had some bit to play in the separation of Austria from Germany, though mostly the events that controlled that were internal to the German-Austrian politics at the time, and not manipulated by the Concert of Europe. See German question for some background. --Jayron32 18:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to quibble a bit over a tangential issue, the idea of the Balance of Power was considerably older than the Concert of Europe. I believe it dates back to the late seventeenth century, and that, at the very least, "Balance of Power" conceptions informed William III's anti-French coalition building. The Wikipedia article Balance of power (international relations) gives some historical context, although not particularly well sourced. But, yeah, balance of power conceptions didn't have too much to do with Switzerland and the Netherlands not becoming part of Germany. I think it's really worth understanding that "Germany" was not a new concept in 1871 - Bismarck's actions transformed what "Germany" meant in a political context, but, unlike with Italy, there was almost always some sort of political entity that was designed to encompass and define "Germany" in a political sense - first the Holy Roman Empire, and then the German Confederation. Neither of these polities was a strong state - they were instead confederations of numerous states or quasi-states. It wouldn't have made any sense to create buffer states against "Germany" at the Congress of Vienna, because "Germany" itself (i.e., the German Confederation) was essentially a buffer - its purposes were to sublimate the rivalry between Prussia and Austria into a mutual concern for the welfare of the German lands as a whole, to contain French expansionism, and to preserve monarchical government within Germany itself. There was no interest in 1814 in containing or balancing against "Germany". Nor was there any interest in containing or balancing against Prussia, which was seen to be by a considerable margin the smallest and weakest of the five great powers. john k (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

What was the year and decade that had most amount number ones albums and songs?

I want to know the year and also the decade, that had the most amount of songs or albums on its list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.132.99 (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Your IP address geolocates to Brazil but my guess is that you're asking about the UK charts. If so, List of UK Singles Chart number ones has the answers for singles. The table in that article is sortable by clicking on the column headers. It looks like the year 2000 had the most number 1s with 42 and I'm pretty sure the 2000s had more number ones than any other decade as well. --Viennese Waltz 15:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

My guess is that they are more likely to be talking about the US charts. It depends which particular versions of the charts are used, but, just doing a quick count from our articles on no.1 singles, it seems that the figures for Billboard for the last six decades are: 1950s - 117; 1960s - 206; 1970s - 254; 1980s - 233; 1990s - 142; 2000s - 130. So, the most US chart-toppers were in the 1970s. I believe that the peak years were 1974 and 1975, which each had 35 different no.1s. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I was talking about worldwide and about sales. But if a worlwide chart is not possible, it can be USA one.177.179.72.193 (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The Life and Death of George C. Parker

Greetings! I'm looking for the birth/death dates and locations of George C. Parker. I tried to access the SSDI but links seem to go in circles and I can't find the online search. Any suggestions / help? For the one who comes up with the answers I'll make a reasonable price offer for the Brandenburger Tor... GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 15:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Call the New York State Archives? They have detailed Sing Sing records. Research Assistance: 518) 474-8955. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

That seems to be a reasonable approach. I have contacted them in writing. Thx! GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 06:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Got an automated answer. Although I did not mention it, they tell me, they they do not do "genealogic research" for the public. I am NOT related to this guy (although I admire his chuzpe...). <sigh> GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 08:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Meet the Press

Is Meet the Press broadcast live or taped? I'm talking about the 9-10 AM Eastern Time slot, since the Wikipedia article says that it's shown at the same local time in other time zones and rebroadcast on other days. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32105890/ns/meet_the_press-about_us/t/meet-press-frequently-asked-questions and the article don't mention this. 2001:18E8:2:1020:245D:B4E8:59EF:BB91 (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it is broadcast "live" (few of the "Sunday news shows" are). But I am not sure when it is taped. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I found this with McCain enroute to a taping timestamped 5:04 so safe to say its taped about an hour or two before the show runs. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 17:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yahoo! Answers is not a reliable source, but someone who purports to be a control-room operator at an NBC affiliate station says the show is indeed broadcast live in the Eastern Time zone. Textorus (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

That's my impression, too. David Gregory, the host, usually makes clear when a full-length interview with someone like Sen. McCain, the President, a prominent educator or a foreign visitor has been taped (and often edited) and shown either at the beginning or at the end of the show. There's also often an invitation to see the full interview at NBC's Meet the Press website. The rest of the show, when not pre-empted by sports or a special event, usually seems to be live East Coast time, with occasional references to breaking news. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Found some pictures of Lee H. Hamilton on the set while I was at work; the broadcast date was included, and I wasn't sure whether or not to put that down as a possible date for when the pictures were taken. 2001:18E8:2:1020:CDCA:8938:1F9F:A938 (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Aboriginal Australians populations in the USA

Is there any Aboriginal Australians populations in the USA. Because In California I have never heard of Aboriginal Australians populations, if they are Indigenous Australians populations in the USA where are they likely to be concentrated? In Wyoming? Rocky Mountain Areas. Is there likely Indigenous Australian populations in Northeastern states or southeastern states?--69.233.254.115 (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

These sorts of questions can be answered using the "American Fact Finder" portion of the U.S. Census website, www.census.gov, directly accessible here. It takes some playing around with, and I'm a but short on time myself, but if the question is at all answerable, you can do so via that site. --Jayron32 23:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

So, All I do on American Fact Finder is [13] or should I just type in American Fact Finder/census.gov on Google or Bing toolbar, just key in like Los Angeles Area, California or San Francisco, California, when I do more practice,should it be pretty easy. Most, often I save websites on Bookmark, so next time I can just click it on popup.--69.233.254.115 (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Be aware that many Aboriginal Australians do not have physical characteristics that make them stand out from Europeans with exclusively (or mostly) European ancestry. In Australia it is mostly a matter of self-identification to be defined as one. Roughly 2.5% of the Australian population identifies as Aboriginal. They are active in all walks of life. A lot of Australians visit the USA. You might be close to one (or several) right now. HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

In the U.S., such matters are also purely self-identification. The data of this sort is collected by the American Community Survey, an ongoing comprehensive survey of demographics in the U.S. by the Census Bureau, and there's not genetic test or proof required for questions of ethnicity and race and ancestral origin. They just ask you what you consider yourself, and you check a box. That's it. --Jayron32 00:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Can you explain what you mean by populations, or why you would expect there to be Australian aboriginals in places where American aboriginals are found? μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, assuming (like everyone's recent ancestors except the Native Americans) they emigrated here. It is not beyond the realm of possibility than someone who is an ethnic Australian Aborigine would emigrate to the U.S. The question is completely and totally understandable, and also completely and totally answerable with the references I provided, so I have no idea at all what your objection is. --Jayron32 03:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    • • There's no "objection". It's just that words like population (reread the OP) are usually used to mean something collective or tribal in an ethnological context, and the OP specifically mentions geographical areas of the US like the Rockies where indigenous tribes are found, but Australian emigrees would not particularly be expected. You'll note, Jayron, I didn't indent under you, and so as not objecting to what you said. μηδείς (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Some more numbers... (I teach Mathematics. I like numbers) There's at least 5% of Australians outside the country at any given time. (Yeah, we go Walkabout a lot.) That's over a million wanderers. Let's say 100,000 are in the USA. (I have no formal basis for that guess.) If 2.5% of them are Aboriginal, that's 2,500 Australian Aboriginal people in the USA right now. Not sure exactly where though. HiLo48 (talk) 03:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Demographic data is based on permanent residence, and doesn't count people temporarily in a country as tourists. john k (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
      • The American Fact Finder lists 61,000 Australians in the U.S. (first reported ancestry list). That would be about 1,500 Aboriginal Australians - if they migrate at the same rate as other Australian populations do. Rmhermen (talk) 05:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The OP's question seems to imply that he thinks Aboriginal Australians in the USA (as visitors or residents) would choose to gather in some specific locations. I don't know why that would be an assumption worth making; certainly when I have been some other country as a tourist or lived in another country as an ex-pat, I have not specifically sought out fellow Britons. Astronaut (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The phenomenon of immigrants gathering into tight-knit communities is easily observable in most western nations. A quick Google reveals that "The Los Angeles suburb of Santa Monica is sometimes called "Little Britain." That's because of the number of British expats living there."[14] So although there may be many who are happy to immerse themselves in a new culture, there are also many who prefer to live amongst their fellow countrymen. Alansplodge (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Because overseas travel is somewhat expensive, economically disadvantaged groups are much less likely to engage in it. Likewise, economically and socially disadvantaged groups in any country are less likely to obtain the advanced educational credentials needed to secure employment and resident visas overseas. For these reasons, I think it is fair to assume that the proportion of Australian Aborigines among the Australian emigré population is much lower than their proportion in the population of Australia. It is unlikely that there are even 1,000 Australian Aborigines in the United States. I've lived here for half a century (in different metropolitan areas, all relatively cosmopolitan) and don't think I've ever seen an Australian Aborigine with recognizable physical features. Perhaps there are 100-500 in the whole United States, if that many. There is no reason to suppose that these individuals are clustered in any one part of the country. Marco polo (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Your thinking and mine are identical, Sr Polo. Economic and social disadvantage has been the lot of Australian Aborigines since 1788, and there's no reason to believe that wouldn't have translated to their propensity for overseas travel. We'd have to factor down HiLo's raw numbers based on their proportion of the general Australian population, but by how much I could not say. Certainly many have gone o/s; some have studied o/s and would have had to assume temporary residency like anyone else. There may be examples of groups of Aboriginal students who have travelled and lived together. But as for any significant sustained population of them in discrete locations overseas, I rather doubt that. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

May 16

The name of Madame de Pompadours fortune teller

I know of the story, that Madame de Pompadour was taken by her mother to a fortune teller at the age of nine (1730), who told her that she would be the mistress of the king. This fortune teller was to have been the most popular of her profession at that time. My question is: who was the this fortune teller, what was her name? Who was the leading fortune teller of Paris in the 1730s? Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

This book, page 22, is the source for Wikipedia's statement. It also does not name the fortune teller, but states that "In her accounts twenty years later, there is an item of six hundred livres" paid to a specific woman. Presumably, if the writer of that source had access to those account books, then the woman must have been named somewhere, though that book doesn't name her. It's a start, tho. --Jayron32 01:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

This site names her "Madame le Bon". Neither English Wikipedia nor French Wikipedia has any article on a Madame le Bon. But it's another lead. --Jayron32 01:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

This site also names her as such. However, I think the best source, which would perhaps be a good one for a Wikipedia article source, would be this book from 1853. It's in French, and my French is a tad rusty, but on page 200 starts an article called "Livre de dépense de Madame de Pompadour" (basically "accounts of Madame de Pompadour") which describes the event, the payment of 600 livres and the name "Madame le Bon". The author of the article is the "Bibliothécaire de Versailles" or "Librarian of Versailles" which I would take to be a fairly unimpeachable source on the topic. --Jayron32 01:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

From there: "The first pension [money given for a purpose] on this list, and the most remarcable one, is that for Mme. Lebon, who predicted her, at age of 9, that one day she would be the maitresse of Louis XV (600 l.) This prediction, which the biographers do not mention, and which, as we see, Mme. de Pompadour always remembered, must have had an important influence on her destiny, and was probably one of the reasons that pushed her mother to go to all means to bring her in contact with Louis XV with the beautiful and young Madame d'Etoilles. The remembrance which Mme. de Pompadour kept for Mme. Lebon became without doubt the reason why she always had a weakness for witches and sorcerers. Mme. Duhausset tells in her Mémoires a story, which prouves this. [Le Rot]"

Service! (give and take). Anybody else hearing this eerie music ..? No - sorry - just tinnitus ... ;-) GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 06:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You too, eh. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

This story and the source should be added to the wikiarticle, at least in a footnote. Textorus (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The cry of the Belfast Telegraph seller (extinct)

When I went to Nottingham to study at the beginning of the 1990s, I was quite startled to find that the guys selling newspapers on the street shouted out nothing more unusual than "papers!" Back home in Belfast, the street sellers of the Belfast Telegraph had an extraordinarily elaborate cry, which I'm given to understand may once have been "sixth - late - Tele", the sixth edition of the paper being the evening one once upon a time, but it had undergone much evolution and mutation as it was passed down over generations, so no two sellers had a cry that was quite the same, and none of them said anything intelligible.

I haven't heard one of these guys in years, and it seems the cry of the Belfast Telegraph seller is now extinct. Does anyone know if any of these cries are recorded and preserved anywhere on the internet? I've tried google and youtube but haven't turned up anything. It would be a shame if the memory of this peculiar phenomenon were consigned to oblivion when the last of those of us who remember it die. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Not online, but one may be preserved in a 1972 BBC Northern Ireland TV documentary called In the Name of God. If you look at the synopsis here on the Northern Ireland digitalfilmarchive.net website, there's a 20-second shot of a Belfast Telegraph seller listed at 3.21 into the programme. I don't know if he's shouting, but with a whole 20 seconds of him in the film it's a possibility. The site expains on this page how to contact them,and the various locations you can visit to view material from the archive. - Karenjc 18:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Good one! Getting to Belfast Central Library will not be a problem for m--Nicknack009 (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)e.

Somewhat off topic but in a similar vein, Morecambe and Wise did a sketch where the paper seller (Morecambe) was shouting "Morny Stannit". A posh businessman (Wise) has difficulty educating the paper seller to say "Morning Standard", but he eventually gets it. When the businessman is satisfied, he buys the newspaper only to find the name of the paper is "Morny Stannit". Astronaut (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Whenever I see the cyclist Ian Stannard's name I remember that sketch... --TammyMoet (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Dukes of Oldenburg

When did the two sons of Peter I, Grand Duke of Oldenburg ceased being Princes of Holstein-Gottorp and became Dukes of Oldenburg (not reigning dukes just a courtesy title)? Was it in 1785 when Peter (at the time Prince Peter of Holstein-Gottorp) became regent to Duke William or in 1823 when he succeeded William?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

There was never any official title of "Prince (Prinz) of Holstein-Gottorp": both the senior male by primogeniture, cadet males and all females of the patrilineal dynasty held and used the title "Duke/Duchess" not "Prince/Princess", according to L'Allemagne Dynastique's meticulously footnoted, 768 page Tome VII on the Oldenburgs. That source also notes discontinuation of use of the "Schleswig" prefix (as in "Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp") from the end of the Nordic War in 1721, when the Duke ceded to his senior kinsman, the King of Denmark, possession of the duchy of Schleswig and moved his capital from Gottorp to Kiel in Holstein. This branch did not formally renounce its claim to Schleswig until Catherine the Great did so on behalf of her son, Tsarevich Paul Petrovich Romanov in his capacity as Duke of Holstein-Gottorp, in 1769 (confirmed 1773). Catherine completed the exchange of what was left of Holstein-Gottorp for the new duchy of Oldenburg (which combined the counties of Oldenburg and Delmenhorst, inherited from an extinct branch of junior Oldenburgs) on 1 August 1773, effective as of 16 November 1773. She and Paul immediately (14 December 1773) donated Oldenburg to the so-called "episcopal branch" of the family, which was an agnatic cadet branch of the Holstein-Gottorps who held the Princely Bishopric of Lubeck. On 29 December 1774 Emperor Joseph II recognized the transfer and erected Oldenburg-Delmenhorst into the Duchy of Oldenburg, investing Duke Friedrich August, Prince Bishop of Lubeck with the title on 22 March 1777. From that date forward, members of that branch of the Holstein-Gottorps all became Dukes of Oldenburg, the head of the line becoming Grand Duke by grace of the Congress of Vienna in 1815. Henceforth the "Holstein-Gottorp" title was borne as a subsidiary title both by the Romanov Emperors of Russia and by the Grand Dukes of Oldenburg. In the obscure dispute over current use of "Duke of Holstein-Gottorp" as a title, remember two facts: 1. the title never descended according to primogeniture, but to all agnates, and 2. The original duchy was an altfürstliche state of the Holy Roman Empire, which means that it was a semi-sovereign state whose transmission had to abide by Imperial laws -- and all of the altfurstliche dynasties were required by German Princely Law (Privatfürstenrecht) to comply with Ebenburtigkeit marital standards, both in the Holy Roman Empire and the subsequent German Confederation, until abolished in 1918.FactStraight (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

May 17

Accuarcy of a story about anti-Vietnam War protest at White House

There is a quite popular story in Chinese forums saying that a man named Moseti (or pronounced similar to that) protested near White House during the Vietnam War to illustrate that "I can not change this country, but the country can not change me as well." I find it hard to believe, because some variations of this story even say that he did it every day. And I tried to search for some English sources about it but found nothing. Therefore, is this story an exaggeration of a real one? Or a hoax made up by someone? --Makecat 09:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably A. J. Muste. See the penultimate paragraph under "Return to pacifism" in the article. Deor (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

What's so difficult to believe here? Lots of one-man protesters abound, for the most diverse reasons, for a pretty long time period. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. For one long-term protest at the White House, see White House Peace Vigil, in which Concepcion Picciotto has been protesting continuously for nearly 32 years. Deor (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. --Makecat 13:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Global Employment in Driving?

Are there any estimates for the number of people employed as drivers in the US, UK or preferably globally? This would include all taxi drivers, bus drivers, UPS delivery men, private limo, etc. This exclude those for whom driving is an essential element but not the main purpose of their jobs, such as travelling sales representatives, Mobile/cell phone antenna riggers/repairers, etc. --213.86.80.228 (talk) 09:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Presumably truck drivers as well, which you did not mention. This page [15] gives an unsourced figure of 3.5 million truck drivers in the USA, so that's a start. --Viennese Waltz 09:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Truck driving is more common in the US, that has lots of manufacturing industry (still), lots of miles, but no good railroad network, than in other places. So, expect the global proportional number to be much lower than in the US. OsmanRF34 (talk) 10:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

They all will lose their jobs, when the time is ready for the driverless vehicle. Humans are getting deprecated. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)