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

March 19

What is the average number of romantic interests a person has in their lifetime?

dlempa (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify your question (although either way I doubt it's answerable): by "romantic interests" does this include people you have a "crush" or "interest" in but never entered into a romantic relationship with? Or is it limited to people with whom you have had a romantic relationship? I also think that "romantic interpersonal relationship" is subjective to the person, in other words a couple that holds hands and hugs (but doesn't even kiss -- first base) could still be considered a romantic interpersonal relationship because there was mutual romantic intent. Rfwoolf (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone's probably done a paper on this somewhere. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

How could you ever find out? You'd have to catch people at the end of their lives (how would you know when that was?) and ask. And even then, (if for some inexplicable reason, they were in the right frame of mind to answer you and to hear your definition of "romantic interests") they'd probably have forgotten many of them. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to. We can estimate average life expectancy by surveying people on the street without them dying (after taking into account sample selection bias). Similarly, we can catch people midway through their love lives and get a good idea of the overall distribution. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

How is surverying people at the middle of their lives going to help? It's most likely the the number of new partners drop off over time in general but that it will increase near the end (as partners die off, kids leave etc) but it's liable to be a lot more complicated then that (e.g. perhaps small increases around the time people have mid life crises etc). And we obviously can't just guess plus it's would be even more dumb to presume it's linear so that if you catch people at 40 years old and the average life span is 80 you just double the figure. Furthermore, this is surely going to vary from culture to culture and from country to country. Nil Einne (talk) 07:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I read somewhere the proportion of people with n different partners per year seems to go down approximately as the power law 1/n^2.3 so in any large country there's people who have one a day or even more. Makes the average and variance not such good measures Dmcq (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I figured that surely there must be some page in Kinsey Reports with a dry chart dealing with this issue. There is indeed a section on the Kinsey institutes FAQ dealing with this issue here: [1]. Apparently males aged 30-44 have had an average of 6-8 partners in their lifetime and females about 4. Belisarius (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Men have eight partners and women only have four? Either someone isn't kissing and telling or the 10% figure for homosexuality is much, much too low. ;-) Matt Deres (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily - lots of women could be having relationships with the same men. Or, probably more likely, social expectations mean the the women responding to the survey could be "rounding down", and the men "rounding up". --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the difference is too great to be predominantly caused by inaccurate reports. A small number of women having lots of relationships seems like the more likely cause to me. (Those averages are, presumably, medians - the means should be equal.) --Tango (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure another study I saw said basically that women tend to deny affairs far more than men no matter how much one assures of secrecy or puts in computers to make it less personal or anything like that. Dmcq (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That depends whether we're talking about a median or the mean (or something else). If it's the (arthimetic) mean, which is what people often mean by average then unless I'm mistaken the number does have to be equal (ignoring homosexuality et al), regardless of the distribution of the partners. That of course is the nature of means and why they are sometimes considered pointless in situations like this. If you have one woman with 1 million partners and the other 999,999 with 4 partners you still end up with a mean of nearly 15 per woman. Edit: Didn't notice Tango had already addressed this point Nil Einne (talk) 07:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the accuracy of the figures, I would note it specific that this is at age 30-44. As I've mentioned above, trying to estimate a lifetime figure from this is IMHO clearly flawed. Also I don't think the Kinsey figures are that relevant to the original question anyway unless romantic interests was a euphemism as it's likely a resonable percentage of sex partners were not romantic interests and resonable number of romantic interests didn't result in sex but we have no reason to presume these balance out. Nil Einne (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The humourist Jerome K Jerome said in one of his essays that people only fall in love a maximum of two times in their lifetimes, and that matches my experience. This topic makes me wonder if modern media is downplaying falling in love compared with earlier decades. 78.146.178.204 (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

East Prussia

What was the area, in square kilometres, of East Prussia between the 1st & 2nd world wars (1920s and 1930s)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RKramp (talk • contribs) 08:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, an infobox on the German Wikipedia page on East Prussia says 36,993.9 km². But the box also gives the dates 1773-1829 and 1878-1945. Since the Memel territory was trasferred to Lithuania, the area can't have been the same over all that time, so that can't be entirely right. --Anonymous, 09:56 UTC, March 19, 2009.

An old WP mirror has "Im Mai 1939 umfasste Ostpreußen, einschließlich des Memellandes 39.840 km² mit 2.649.017 Einwohnern", which means "in May 1939 East Prussia, including the Memel territory, covered 39.840 km² and had a population of 2.649.017. Further Googling gives: "OP hatte 1939 eine Fläche von 36 996 km² und 2,5 Mio. Einwohner", which translates as "in 1939 the area of EP was 36 996km2, the population was 2.5 mio". As the two areas of the Memel territory and around Soldau, the Polish corridor, were transferred (to Lithuania and Poland, respectively) at the end of WWI in the Treaty of Versailles, the latter would seem to be the area in the years between the two wars. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ubi sunt

The Norton Anthology of Poetry (Fourth Edition, 1996) has a chapter on "Anonymous Lyrics of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries" where it features a poem of sixty-one lines in Middle English titled "Ubi Sunt Qui Ante Nos Fuerunt". Unfortunately, the footnotes make no further reference to specifics regarding its provenance. The first six lines read:

"Were beth they biforen us weren,

Houndes ladden and hauekes beren

And hadden feld and wode?

The riche levedies in hoere bour,

That wereden gold in hoere tressour,

With hoere brightte rode."

The last line is:

"Amen."

The article on Ubi sunt doesn't mention it, I thought it might be worth a sentence, but I don't even know how to refer to it, let alone any other information. TNA does have 20 pages of "Permissions Acknowledgements", but they are sorted alphabetically by author/editor, and I gave up on looking. Can anyone find something about this poem and its provenance? Or should it just be referred to as "The anonymous 13th century (?) poem "Ubi Sunt Qui Ante Nos Fuerunt"? (I currently cannot access google books. My browser crashes.) ---Sluzzelin talk 11:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It does appear to be a fairly well-known, oft-anthologized poem, and it is anonymous. Here's a source dating it c. 1350: <ref>{{cite book|last=Manly|first=John Matthews|title=''English Prose and Poetry''|publisher=Harvard University|year=1916|pages=23|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=UtQQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA23|accessdate=2008-03-19}}</ref> --Fullobeans (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The usual way to reference the source of the poem would be to give the shelf mark of the manuscript in which it's found, along with the folios on which it appears—in this case, "Oxford MS Digby 86, ff. 126v–127." (The stanzas actually seem to be part of a longer poem [see Carleton Brown and Rossell Hope Robbins, The Index of Middle English Verse (1943), no. 3310] that appears in other manuscripts as well, but the Digby MS is the one cited as the source for the printings of the poem in both Brown's English Lyrics of the XIIIth Century and Silverstein's English Lyrics Before 1500.) Deor (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

MS Digby 86 is usually dated between 1271 and 1283 while part of the poem also forms "The Sayings of St Bernard" in the Auchinleck manuscript which was most likely compiled in the 1340s. The ascription to Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153) is almost certainly spurious but it shares the sentiments of Meditationes piissimae de conditione humana which is usually attributed to Bernard so Ubi sunt is often believed to be part of a longer reworking of Bernard's philosophy. For a detailed study of this see J.E. Cross The Sayings of St Bernard and Ubi sount qui ante nos fueront. Review of English Studies NS 9 (1958): 1-7. meltBanana 14:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, all. I'm a bit overwhelmed by the fluidity in dating and text overlap you've revealed to me. I did want to add it as an example of Middle English following the medieval tradition of Ubi sunt, but I can't view those books and am far outside my scope here anyway. I should read more about Ubi sunt, Oxford MS Digby 86, and the art of referencing anonymous manuscripts. Thanks again! ---Sluzzelin talk 17:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You could cite Carleton Brown, ed., English Lyrics of the XIIIth Century (Oxford: Clarendon, 1932), pp. 85–87, as that's still frequently used by scholars; but if you want to give a quotation, the text and orthography would have to match that in the book (where the first line appears, for example, as "Uuere beþ þey biforen vs weren"). If you want me to transcribe part of the poem from that edition for you, let me know on my talk page. You could also just cite the Norton Anthology as your source, of course. Deor (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Why wasnt the Commonwealth better than joining the European Union?

Why did Britain join the EU rather than creating something similar with the British Commonwealth? The 53 states of the Commonwealth would have provided both the raw materials and an export market for British manufacturing, plus (ignoring the ethical aspects) potentially cheap labour. Before we joined the EU I remember we had, for example, lots of cheap New Zealand lamb and butter which we no longer have. We used to have bananas from the Commonwealth, these now seem to have been replaced by bananas from other countries. I imagine that if you opened up the borders in the Commonwealth as they are in the EU, then Britain would have a huge amount of economic immigration, but this could be restrained by imposing strict educational and skills criteria. It would be great to be able to move freely (if you have the education and skills) between Britain, Australasia, Canada, India, Kenya, and so on. 78.146.26.220 (talk) 12:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

For a start, the EU is far more compact than the commonwealth. Large amounts of intra-EU trade is transported by road and rail, which is far cheaper than sea or air which would be necessary for intra-Commonwealth trade. Also, the original EU countries were far more alike economically than Commonwealth countries, so it ends up being a fairer deal for all - you list several advantages for Britain in a free trade/free movement Commonwealth, but I'm not sure the other countries would get such a good deal out of it. It would probably result in all the most skilled people leaving their home countries and moving to Britain. Great for Britain, devastating for the rest of the Commonwealth. --Tango (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the chief differences between Europe and the Commonwealth is the obvious one that it is close together. It's a lot easier to ship things from France to Britain than Australia to Britain. I also doubt that the other countries involved would be as interested in a Commonwealth Market as they are in their own local free trade areas - NAFTA is a lot more significant to Canada than any pact with Britain, Kenya or Australia would be. India definitely has its own concerns.

A second issue is that the Commonwealth countries are in very different places economically. It would be very hard to persuade Britain, India and Kenya to follow similar economic policies, as the EU has done; what is right for one might be very wrong for the other. The EU countries are, mostly, in similar economic stages.

Thirdly, if you think ahead fifty or a hundred years, a country like India is going to become a superpower, economically and in other ways. Do tiny little countries like Britain and Canada really want to be in a treaty with a power ten times their size, so big that their interests will eventually dominate in the way that the US dominates all North American commerce?

Fourthly you've spotted the 'immigration' issue. You say you could prevent mass economic migration by imposing educational standards, but that would undoubtedly be perceived as unfair. A limit like "you must have a high school level education to migrate" (say GCSE equivalents if you're British) may sound fair; but that criterion allows 95% of Brits to migrate freely while excluding 95% of Kenyans; how do you think the Kenyans will feel about that? And is it really necessary to have that education to be a street sweeper, construction worker, or any of the jobs that would pay the Kenyan equivalent of a fortune.

There are probably other reasons too. Maybe you could look at some of the things written during the various referenda the UK had on joining the EU? (And sorry if the above read like I was picking on Kenyans - nothing personal. You have a great country.) DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Great for vacations but I guess, but most of us wouldn't like to live there. Flamarande (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to let you into a open secret. The main purpose of the UK joining the UE is to delay everything for as long as it can, and if possible to destroy it from the inside. That's why the UK is outside of the Schengen Agreement, Euro, etc. As far as I can judge this matter way too many ppl in the UK truly believe that the country should never had joined in the 1st place (you may even be one of them). In a democratic system politicians have to be truly careful and brave in going against the wishes of the voters for the future good. Most politicians in the UK aren't gutsy enough to honestly explain to the ppl of the UK that the centuries-old policy of "supporting the weaker power in continental Europe against the stronger one in order to be left alone and rule the seas" is simply out-dated. Now let me be blunt; if the ppl of the UK can barely stand being in the UE you truly believe that they would like being a part of an open-trade and open-travel Commonwealth? As economic and political masters of an empire OK, as benevolent advisers of former colonies fine, but as equal partners in an open-trade and open-travel political entity? I honestly don't think so (but then I'm not British).

On the other hand to create a open-market but not open-travel British Commonwealth wouldn't have worked. The democratic credentials of many of these countries are dubious to say the least. No one wants to live in a country oppressed by dictators and prone to war, famine, and disease. Many countries of the Commonwealth suffer from these problems, which create wave of refugees. On the other hand none wants too many foreigners emigrating into one's country. To believe that by "imposing strict educational and skills criteria" for immigration is going to solve the problem is a child's dream. The ppl of the 21 century are highly mobile and there is a huge number of air planes, ships, and cars entering the UK (and every other other country) every single day. The borders are porous and illegal immigration is way too easy. Flamarande (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC) PS: I believe that the "cheap lamb, butter, and bananas from the Commonwealth" that you fondly remember were replaced by lamb, butter, and bananas from other countries as prices increased with the passing of time. Rest assured that the "Brussels-run EU" isn't interested or even able to impose what you or can't buy in your local supermarket. It's the international market with its rules of supply and demand.

I believe the typical British calculation as for what trade orgs work best for them, are as follows, in descending order:

1) In an ideal world (with no EU), the Commonwealth would be best.

2) Membership in the EU is next best.

3) Membership in the Commonwealth, and exclusion from the EU, is worst.

So, they want to avoid the third situation, as exclusion from the EU would cost them a lot of trade. They would really prefer that there was no EU, but can't prevent it. So, their policy has been to drag their feet as long as possible, to prevent the EU from gaining full control, but to ultimately join it as a better alternative to exclusion. StuRat (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There are non-economic benefits to the EU that should be taken into account. The interconnectedness of EU economies, politics, even foreign relations means that any wars within Europe are pretty much impossible. That is a significant benefit. --Tango (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The Commonwealth countries, believe it or not, are often a lot less keen on their former colonial overlord than she is on them. Commonwealth citizens are all regarded as "British subjects" and can vote in British elections and enjoy British health care while resident in the UK. The reverse is, generally, not true. Ironic, but actual British people are not counted as "British subjects" for the purposes of, for example, the Australian constitution's provisions on voting. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The Constitution as applying in 1901 makes no direct reference to voters needing to be British subjects, as far as I can see. S. 30 says "Unless the Parliament otherwise provides, the qualifications of electors ... shall be in each State that which is prescribed by the law of the State ...". The first election in 1901 was conducted under a variety of different state-based qualifications (women could vote in some states but not others; the voting ages probably differed; and some states required voters to be landowners, while others didn't.) Back then, we were all British subjects, Australian citizenship not being created until 1949. But voting qualifications for federal elections have been uniform throughout Australia for a long, long time, probably since the first Parliament 1901-03, so the Parliament has certainly exercised its right to make laws about this. Australian citizenship has been the primary voting qualification ever since 1949. I believe citizens of other Commonwealth countries have been entitled to vote in Australian elections at various times since then, and may even be entitled today for all I know, but the electoral laws have changed many times. Such largesse is at the whim of the parliament. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right. I was confusing British laws on the matter with Australian ones. The actual phrase in question in Sue v Hill before the High Court of Australia was "foreign powers" - the issue being whether Britain was one. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Australia removed the 'British subject' category from its citizenship laws (and the privileges previously attached to this ctegory) in 1987. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think most Commonwealth countries are interested in being seen as being a source of "raw materials and an export market for British manufacturing"? Or to give Britain a license to cherry pick their best (which many developed countries including the UK are already doing to some extent)? For that matter how exactly is it a open border when you "this could be restrained by imposing strict educational and skills criteria" and what is the difference you envision from such a situation then the current system of skills based immigration? Nil Einne (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Refugee status

Ms. Ann has fled from her country because of civil strife, she has come to Zambia because there are better jobs and conditions of living and she claims she is being threatended by the opposition and they are pointing guns at her. According to her, her husband fled 2 years ago from Zimbabwe because he was in the opposition group and she believes he has found a good job in Zambia and is settled so she is seeking asylum on these grounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katux (talk • contribs) 12:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Per your description, her husband "was in the opposition" himself and is now located in Zambia. If he's formally received asylum status, perhaps Zambia has a policy of "family reunification" for first-degree relatives (i.e. the persecuted refugee's spouse and children, possibly also parents and siblings). On the other hand, there might be an extradition policy between the two countries regarding illegal immigrants (i.e. not holding a valid visa or residence permit). This information might be obtained from a Zambian embassy in a neutral country if not from the Zambian government itself. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the question? - BanyanTree 05:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

cant give legal advice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.240.66 (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Großdeutschland

I'd like to find informations about the plans regarding the destiny of Western nations like Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Scandinavia if Axis Powers won the war. I red all wikipedia's pages about the occupied lands of Western Europe (Reichskommissariat Niederlande, Militärverwaltung in Belgien und Nordfrankreich, Reichskommissariat Norwegen) but I wasn't able to find long term plans of the Nazis. Were them to be annexed (partially or totally) thus germanized? Or maybe they were to be satellite nations of Nazi Germany? Did Hitler ever talk about this matter? In particular, I red that Himmler aimed to recreate a new Burgundy carving it from Belgium and France and I'd like to find some more informations about it. I'm also searching information about Mussolini's plans about Southern France (like annexing Savoy, Nice...) --151.51.12.169 (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This book might help if you can lay your hands on a copy. Otherwise, you caould always try contacting the author about the subject. Couldn't find much else though. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In his conclusion to volume two of Hitler's War Aims, Norman Rich lists the following territories which would have become integral parts of the German empire:

In the north: Denmark, Norway, and almost certainly Sweden, with Finland as an ally to guard Germany's flank in the northeast.

In the west: the Low Countries, Alsace, Lorraine, and Luxembourg, together with a broad strip of territory from the mouth of the Somme to Lake Geneva, fortifications along the French Channel coast, and the British Channel islands.

In the south: Austria, Switzerland (almost certainly), and northwestern Yugoslovia; and, after the Italian surrender, all Italian territory north of the Po, as well as a broad strip of territory along the Adriatic littoral.

In the east: Memelland, Danzig, all of Poland, the Sudetenland, and the Czech provinces of Bohemia and Moravia; the Baltic states, White Russia, and the Ukraine, with territorial claims staked out to the Urals and beyond.

In the regions of Central and Southeastern Europe there would have been a bloc of allied satellite states from Slovakia to Greece, where Germany would have made every provision to safeguard its strategic and economic interests. The future of Serbia remained indefinite. It might have been turned over to the Croatians, but more probably it would have been left under some form of German administration to ensure German dominion in the Danube area. Germany's flank in Southeastern Europe was to be guarded by another ally, Turkey.

Until the Italian surrender in September 1943, the task of safeguarding Axis interests in the south had been assigned to Italy, which was conceded supremacy over the Mediterranean region, including the greater part of North Africa, the Adriatic littoral, and the Arab Near East. After the Italian surrender, a large part of Northern Italy was scheduled for annexation to the Reich, while the Italy left under Mussolini's Fascist Republican government was relegated to the role of a satellite-ally. What was to become of rump Italy in the future was uncertain.

Also uncertain was the future fate of rump France, as well as those countries which did not fall under direct German dominion in the course of the Second World War: Spain, Portugal, Britain, and Ireland.

Rich, Norman. (1974). Hitler's War Aims. 2, The establishment of the new order. p. 421. OCLC 186797483.

—eric 20:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

A question on relgion

I've recently started a course on the nature of Christianity and my supervisors claim that there is hard evidence to confirm that the gospels are factual. Does any scientific proof exist on the factual basis of the gospels? In other words, what other sources confirm what is written in the gospels? Is it even possible to verify the claims that are being made in the gospels to begin with? PvT (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you want our article Historicity of Jesus. Algebraist 16:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

On a related matter I don't think you are looking for scientific proof. You are probably looking for historical proof, or historical evidence. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes. My mistake. I meant " historical proof. I've got a new question though. How did historians determine the original date of writing of the gospels? Are there any full intact passages left from the first/second century? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.224.239.78 (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Our Gospel article says "Estimates for the dates when the canonical Gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the Gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the consensus or majority view as follows:". There is likely further info in the article and elsewhere. Also see Dead Sea scrolls Nil Einne (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)

It would seem that you are thinking of physical/chemical dating, e.g. radio-carbon or ink analysis. Only manuscripts are dated that way, not texts themselves. As you might imagine, texts such as the gospels have been copied and recopied many times, so -- even if original manuscript fragments existed (as they sometimes do) -- physical dating will not give you a reliable date for anything but the material on/with which the text was rendered.

Instead, philologists use methods collectively known as "linguistic dating". The methods employed include:

• semantic changes: through comparative philology between texts, it is possible to determine when a certain word that means X actually came to mean X. So, if the tested text uses that word in that sense, one can tell that the text was composed at some time after the word came to mean X, but before the time the word came to mean Y.
• phonetic changes: as languages evolve, the words in it undergo changes in pronunciation. So, from the way a word is written, it is possible to determine which changes in pronunciation had already occurred, and which had not yet occurred, and so identify the period in which the text was composed.
• "self-clocking": when texts refer to events that have occurred, one can assume that the text must have been composed after that event occurred. Sometimes they even tell us (in a reliable fashion) how long previously that event occurred.
• "external-clocking": this consists of looking at key phrases that appear in two or more texts. The oldest of the texts then identifies the earliest possible date of coinage.

With the exception of self-clocking, all these techniques rely on the fact that languages evolve as long as they are spoken (i.e. don't become extinct). Its an inexact science, since it only works in comparison to other texts in the same language, and the less there are of these, the more inexact the outcome is. A now-defunct theory that attempted to address the need for texts to compare to postulated that all languages in a language group evolve as the same rate. But, as I said, that theory is today deader than a doornail. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

[addendum] Here is an article that summarizes how compositions are dated, and what the problems with the methods are. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

History can never really "prove" the Gospels, but can only ascertain whether the historical references contained in the Gospels are consistent with the historical references in non-Christian literature. As for the manuscript basis of the New Testament, it's on a much firmer footing than many other works of ancient literature -- for example, there are a number of works from Classical Greece (i.e. dating about 4 or 5 centuries before the New Testament) which have only survived in a very small number of manuscripts of the Late Byzantine period (often about 1500 years later than their date of composiition).

As for the "historical Jesus", the evidence for the existence of Jesus as a person is about as solid as the evidence for just about any other individual who was not a ruler or high government official, and who is not mentioned in contemporary inscriptions. However, this does very little to "prove" Christianity... AnonMoos (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There is very little in the Gospels that can be confirmed from external sources. The existence of Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist, Herod, Quirinius the governor of Syria, and a few others is attested elsewhere, but not what they are have said to have done in the Gospels - with the exception of Quirinius' census. And even that leads to problems with chronology, as Quirius' census took place ten years after Herod died. Paul's letters were written earlier than the Gospels, but contain very little about Jesus' life and deeds to corroborate the Gospel accounts. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Paul never met Jesus... AnonMoos (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

True, but he associated with people who did, so if he had written anything significant about Jesus' life, it would have been valuable. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly. He associated with people who the Gospels say knew Jesus. That fact that Paul didn't write anything significant about Jesus' life (other than insisting that he was crucified, unlike some other Christian missionaries) may indicate that he didn't know anything about Jesus of Nazareth, as distinguished from Christ Jesus in heaven. Thus such information might not have been passed on by his associates who, themselves, may not actually have known him.

Remember that the question related to the historical reliabilty of the Gospels. Thus one can hardly use them as 'outside' evidence for their own validity.

As we are dealing with an issue that impacts directly on many people's confessional interests, it is best to be as precise as possible. B00P (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Paul could have both met a lot of people who knew Jesus, and also felt that the mission he was qualified and called upon to undertake did not include writing a biography. For that matter, no part of the New Testament is a full biography of Jesus in the conventional sense (e.g. one of Plutarch's Lives etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily - Dr Richard Burrage, dean of King's College London, has often advanced the theory that the Gospels are classical biographies by genre. He emphasises their extensive treatment of the subject's teachings, and the large section of the text dedicated to the subject's manner of death. According to Dr Burrage, it was popularly believed in the classical era that the manner of death disclosed a great deal about someone's character - hence the attention given to Socrates' demise, for example. Plutarch was a trend-setter in biographical writing, so he's not necessarily a good example of prior practice. Classical biographies were never big on exact dates, places and narrative - the idea was to illustrate character, not develop 'plot'. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

General strikes

I've just read that the French are having yet another general strike ([2]). Does anyone know what these kind of strikes end up costing the economy? It seems to me that a general strike is one of the worst things you could possibly do during a recession. --Tango (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Be cautious of all "estimated" costs to an economy and wary of the essayists who make points by quoting such "figures".--Wetman (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Such estimates aren't entirely meaningless, though, you just need to check the methodology used before you start trying to draw conclusions from them. --Tango (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Without answering the question, I guess it depends who your referring to. Since one of the biggest problems during a recession is that quite a lot of people aren't actually working because no one wants their services/products, and it may therefore be possible to make up for a fair amount of the time lost simple by working when you might not actually have been working much I wonder whether the effect would actually be rather small in comparison to a time of growth. Of course the size of the economy is smaller so even a smaller effect would have a big result it still seems to me it's not necessarily as bad as it seems. Obviously it'll also depend on how long the strike lasts. Nil Einne (talk) 07:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

why not use 600 pound fatsos for the goalie in hockey?

I don't get it, if you can have super-tall freaks of nature play in the NBA, why can't you have 600 pound fatsos (or 800 pounds, or whatever -- a quick google shows there might even be 1200 pound fatsos) completely fill the goal, which is pretty small, and thereby be this impenetrable wall guaranteeing 0 points for the other team for the duration of their career? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.233.190 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 19 March 2009

While it is difficult to assume good faith of an editor who uses expressions like "fatso" and "freaks of nature", I suppose I can try. A hockey goal is 1.83 metres wide and 1.22 metres high, or about six feet by four feet. I imagine you'd have a harder time than you think finding someone of the necessary dimensions to fill that gap. Even if you did, you'd probably find it difficult to convince them to sit in goal as some sort of "impenetrable wall" based solely on their girth. Even the morbidly obese have dignity. (You might also run foul of the IIHF rules for hockey, which specify maximum dimensions for the goalkeepers jersey - 76.2 cm at the widest point, which wouldn't cover your hypothetical giant goalie.) Read up on Eddie Gaedel for a similar experiment in a different sport. - Eron^Talk 20:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I've wondered the same thing and am curiously awaiting the answer. — gogobera (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There's an answer on Yahoo answers. It seems the NHL has no limit on goalie size, but rather, they do have a limit on goalie pad size! The answer also claims that the teams and coaches care about physical fitness and health liability; however, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't care so much if a person could guarantee them consistent shutouts.

Moreover, when and if any team tried it, rules would be immediately put in place to stop them -- they are selling entertainment :::after all. And a team that did it would be forever remembered as trying to "get away with" essentially cheating. How embarrassing! — gogobera (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I once saw a cartoon to this effect with the caption: "Pavarotti: the man, the myth, the hockey-goalie" (I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to imagine the picture).

It's not because of rules. The truth is that a hockey goal is much bigger than you think it is. A standard goal measures 1.2 meters in height and 1.8 meters in width (approximately 4 feet and 6 feet respectively). This means that the goal is actually wider than the average man is tall, so even the fattest of the fattest people couldn't cover the whole thing, and the players could easily score on him. There would be huge gaps. Better to go with a fit person with lightning-fast reaction speed. Belisarius (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

One misplaced hockey puck and Pavarotti might be able to sing soprano. StuRat (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, Pavarotti's boyhood dream was actually to be a football goalie. Algebraist 20:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the ice would break, or the goalie would get frostbite because he has to lay down. Can you see a 800 lb dude standing up for 60 mins? 65.167.146.130 (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually Todd Gallagher tested that.[[3]] And I should say the NHL has its own goalie sweater size rules[4] (PDF p. 22). Unfortunately they didn't scan the image very well and the specific numbers are completely unreadable. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You could probably get around the sweater issue, since if you had a 800lb guy, they would rather he wore a shirt then not. And worst case scenario, just paint his sweater on. 65.167.146.130 (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Did Soviet Union honor Russian debt?

Did the Soviet Union honor the sovereign debt of the Russian Empire? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Found my own answer: apparently, not really. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

more ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This job is getting rather easy! ;) --Tango (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

StuRat (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Microsoft business model

Am I right in thinking that the Microsoft business model has been designed to screw the maximum amount of money out of the public? Would it be possible for MS to provide its products for much lower prices if it desired to do so, and still make a modest profit as a business? Are newer versions of Windows all they are suppossed to be, or do they include a lot of bloatware? Are not the newer versions of Windows far in excess of those revisions and extensions required to make use of "better" hardware? Are MS and computer manufactuers in a tacit cartel, where MS increases the technical hardware spec for its newest versions (causing people to buy new computers) in return for having its product included in them? If the very latest computers are essential, why does the Space Shuttle use 1970s computers? If bankers are getting a lot of stick for big bonuses, why isnt Mr. Gates getting caned? 89.240.42.6 (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course Microsoft's business model is designed to screw the maximum amount of money out of the public. That is the purpose of Microsoft, and of most corporations. Why do you imagine they would do anything else? Algebraist 20:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Seven questions for the price of one:

• Am I right in thinking that the Microsoft business model has been designed to screw the maximum amount of money out of the public?

• Yes. Their price model almost certainly directed at the point where price and demand meet to yield maximum profit.

• Would it be possible for MS to provide its products for much lower prices if it desired to do so, and still make a modest profit as a business?

• Yes, but shareholders would be unhappy at modest profit as compared with, for instance, grossly excessive profit.

• Are newer versions of Windows all they are suppossed to be, or do they include a lot of bloatware?

• They are a combination of "all they are supposed to be", "oops, not quite all they are supposed to be" and bloatware.

• Are not the newer versions of Windows far in excess of those revisions and extensions required to make use of "better" hardware?

• Yes, but that's not the main point. By way of example, increased security within the product is fairly hardware independent.

• Are MS and computer manufactuers in a tacit cartel, where MS increases the technical hardware spec for its newest versions (causing people to buy new computers) in return for having its product included in them?

• Pretty much. Although MS has used other carrots & sticks to keep manufacturers in line, allegedly.

• If the very latest computers are essential, why does the Space Shuttle use 1970s computers?

• Contemporary computers are not essential. Does the Space Shuttle use 1970s computers? Presumably these are sufficient for the application.

• If bankers are getting a lot of stick for big bonuses, why isnt Mr. Gates getting caned?

• He does, regularly. The difference is that bankers have richly rewarded themselves yet seen the capital values of their organisations plummet. Mr. Bill has consistently made fairly handsome profits and is not yapping at the Fed's door for a bail-out. --Tagishsimon (talk)

(e/c)Almost every business gets what it can for what it sells. I mean, even if you sold lemonade, you'd charge the most you could while selling a lot. Now, answering your other non-opinion questions, clearly there is a drive for better software to match hardware and vice-versa, but operating a cartel would be impossible. I'm sure that sales of top-computers go up when ther is a new version of Windows, but I don't think there's much in that deal for Microsoft. I don't know about the Space Shuttle. Lastly, the bankers are being 'caned' because they are percieved to have failed - for example, Fred Goodwin's £690,000-a-year pension only looks bad because the governements had to bailout the bank of which he was chairman. There's no way a middle-class capatalist country could ever support taking money away from people simply because they'd done well. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd also note that setting up something like this with a few drops from the buckets of money that one earns can go a long way to help avoid public canings. - Eron^Talk 20:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

An endowment of US$35.1 billion as of October 1, 2008 seems a little large to characterise as "a few drops from the buckets"; your comment exceeds the unfair by a substantial margin. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he meant to be unfair - I don't think anyone doubts that the Gates a) have donated the money and b) would rather it went to good causes. The point is it doesn't matter: it still does a lot of good for you PR. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well that will certainly teach me not to try any light-hearted hyperbole. Just the facts from now on! - Eron^Talk 21:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, the directors and managers of public companies are legally obliged to try and make as much money as possible for their shareholders (while staying within the law, of course). If they did anything else, the shareholders could sue them. --Tango (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What law would that be, then? Malcolm XIV (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

They have a fiduciary relationship, yes. But it is possible for shareholders to agree other principles apart from profit maximisation, and the fact of the relationship, and the specific responsibilities it lays on the director, are not one & the same thing. That said, in most cases you are correct in implying that shareholders wish to maximise returns, wither through profit maximisation or share price escalation or a combination of the two. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

To Malcolm: Companies have documents such as the Articles of Association (UK), Articles of incorporation (US) and the memorandum of association which define the regulations governing the relationships between the shareholders and directors of the company, and are a requirement for the establishment of a company under the law. Acts such as Companies Act 1985 require such documentation. Thus we have a chain of law, from the statute to the implementation. None of the laws say "you must maximise profit" but rather they say "you must do what your shareholders wish"; failure to do what the shareholder wishes puts the director in jeopardy of one sort or another.--Tagishsimon (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In the UK it is the Companies Act 2006 Section 172 [5]. I don't know about US law, but I'm sure a similar rule exists somewhere. As Tagishsimon says, there is a little more to it than just maximising profit (what it actually says is "promote the success of the company"), but that is what it boils to in the vast majority of cases. --Tango (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The Companies Act doesn't come into effect until October of this year, by the way. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Some parts of it don't come into effect until October. Large portions of it are already in effect, although I don't actually know if Section 172 is one of them. There is a similar clause in the 1985 Act anyway, I'm sure. --Tango (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, on further investigation it isn't in the 1985 Act, it was just common law. The common law was actually much closer to my original description than Section 172 of the new Act and, of course, we have an article: Corporate benefit. --Tango (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I largely agree with Tango and would point out at a more complicated level it ultimately comes down to what makes a successful company. In a normal economic climate a successful company is one that is growing (increase your profit). A company that maintains their profit is seen as a failure not a success. Growing a company means you have to do one or more of the following 1) Expand the market 2) Charge more for the same thing 3) Expand your company in to different areas 4) Reduce cost. The fact that Microsoft has been a very successful company for a long time doesn't mean shareholders would have thought it okay for them to stagnate. Whether you agree with these sort of market dynamics or not, it is the reality of the world. It's also worth remembering many (not all) of Microsoft's (semi-)competitors who have embraced open source often only appear to have done it largely because they had to or at best, because it was the best option for them. Nil Einne (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

A few answers:

1. Of course Microsoft is in this to make as much money as possible; I'll bet you would be too if you were actually in the business.
2. Bloatware is really a bit of a myth. I suggest reading this article explaining why nobody should be worried about it.
3. The reason why the space shuttle uses 1970 computers is that computers that go into space must be absolutely 100% non-negotiably unarguably reliable. 1970s computers have been tested a lot more than 2008 computers, and pretty much every bug in them is known about. The effort in putting new computers through the testing required to fly through space is immense, and effectively rules out an upgrade.
4. The same cannot be said for your home computer. If you are a game player, your 1970 computer (or even your 2001 computer) simply does not have the capability to do what your 2008 games requires at the necessary speed, no matter how much effort is put into making it run efficiently. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The main reason the shuttle still uses 1970's computers is because it is still doing the same task as it was in the 1970's. If you don't need any new features, why upgrade? --Tango (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

---

The aspect of Microsoft's long-term way of doing business which really makes some tech types nervous is the infamous Embrace, Extend, Extinguish... AnonMoos (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That article on bloatware is amusing, but nonsensical. The strides made in speeding up computers and compressing more and more storage onto smaller and smaller media is nothing short of a technological marvel. The fact that MS hasn't been able to bloat their Office suite quite quickly enough to catch up is not a valid excuse for their shoddy workmanship, it's a testament to how well the hardware folks have done over the last decade or two. Matt Deres (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Generally I agree with the bloatware article. Most bloat happens for good reasons, and bloat as such is not much of a problem (unless you're using a solid-state drive, I suppose). I don't know why you're focusing on Microsoft—all commercial software is like this. Unices and open source may be slightly behind the curve but they're catching up. Software that needs to be fast (Photoshop filters, games, data compression, scientific simulation) is still optimized; you're not losing any CPU performance to "bloat" in situations where it matters. Also, hardware is bloating as badly as software, and for similar reasons. It's not fair to blame the software guys just because there's no software equivalent to shrinking the feature size. -- BenRG (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Bill of Rights and Minors

Are the Bill of Rights completely applicable in the same fashion to minors as well as adults? If not, what are the differences? Links to articles or web pages would be very appreciative. Thank You 66.229.68.235 (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about the United States Bill of Rights? There are lots of things described as "bill of rights". --Tango (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Pardon, I did mean the United States Bill of Rights. I'll elaborate next time. 66.229.68.235 (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The Supreme Court has established on several occasions that young people do have constitutional rights:

• In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (393 U.S. 503), the court ruled that juveniles have a First Amendment right to free speech, even in school.

• In the case In re Gault (387 U.S. 1), the court confirmed that juveniles have a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, a Sixth Amendment right to counsel and Fourteenth Amendment due-process rights.

• In New Jersey v. TLO (439 U.S. 325), the court's ruling assumes juveniles have Fourth Amendment rights, although in that case, a search conducted by school officials was considered reasonable.

• In Breed v. Jones (421 U.S. 519), the court overturned a juvenile's conviction on grounds that his Fourteenth Amendment double-jeopardy protection had been violated.

• In the 2003 case of Roper v. Simmons (543 U.S. 551), the court outlawed the death penalty for juvenile defendants on Eighth Amendment grounds.

• Of course, a juvenile tried as an adult has a right to a jury trial.

It is true that under certain circumstances, constitutional rights may be of different scope for adults and juveniles. Notably, juveniles cannot purchase pornography, a material that has less First Amendment protection than political speech. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

How about in the case of the Thirteenth Amendment rights? Are they barred from involuntary servitude? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.68.235 (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not they are, they still have to take out the trash. I think that's in the little-known but extensively followed Amendment 13A. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, you can't enslave someone no matter what their age. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I would figure that no one can be enslaved, but a provision in the new Service law, that's pending a vote in the house of representatives, requires that children in Middle School and High School be forced to volunteer for a set amount of hours? How does that apply to the Thirteenth Amendment? Wouldn't that be an infringement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.68.235 (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It could be argued either way. You'd need to take it court to establish a decision. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not slavery, that's civil conscription. Which raises a whole different kettle of constitutional fish. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That would seem to stretch the definition of "volunteer"! --Tango (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

They have had similar requirements in various jurisdictions in Canada for some time now. High school students in Ontario have to complete 40 hours of volunteer work to graduate. I believe the requirement is treated like any other high school credit course; it is no more slavery than the requirement to study algebra is. - Eron^Talk 00:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Do they actually call it "volunteer work"? If you have to do it, it isn't voluntary. I would call it "community service". --Tango (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the official term is "community involvement activities". - Eron^Talk 01:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• The OP may want to read our article on In loco parentis. Parents have the responsibility and the obligation to regulate their children's behavior until the age of majority, and in certain cases, these obligations can be transfered to others, usually taken as schools. In the U.S., the Supreme Court has in general come down in the middle on extending full freedoms of adults to students. Basically, insofar as a students behavior is not disruptive to the educational mission of the school, the school is considered a governmental agency, and is thus an extension of the "congress shall pass no laws..." part of the Bill of Rights. There is, however, a BIG however, and that stems from in loco parentis. Schools have an obligation to protect the rights of all students in their trust, and they also have a public trust to provide a positive educational environment for those students. Insofar as a student is engaged in behavior which is deemed disruptive to the educational enviornment, schools may act as a parent would in disciplining a disruptive student, even where such discipline may, if it were applied to an adult, be adjudged to be a violation of an adult's basic consitutional rights; but ONLY so far as is required to maintain order and a positive educational environment within the school. The cases noted above are not as simple and clear cut as noted.
  • Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District notes that students DO have a right to freedom of speech, however that right does NOT allow them to disrupt the educational mission of the school, and if it does, their rights to such activity in the school may be stopped.
  • Likewise, New Jersey v. T.L.O. upheld that while students still have the right of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, that since it was reasonable for a parent to search any personal space of his/her child, a school acting in loco parentis had the same rights.
  • Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, not noted above, upheld that in some cases, schools had the right to restrict student's free expression in school-sponsored student publications.
• Basically, schools cannot tell you what you can and cannot say, but they can stop you from standing up in the middle of class and shouting and carrying on and disrupting class. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Which is the same, really, as with adults. Adults have the right to freedom of speech but if you choose to exercise that right during, for example, a court hearing, you will be found in contempt and thrown in a cell. --Tango (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Except that there ARE certain expressions which adults in the general public which are allowed which students in a school building are not, even if its not akin to screaming and yelling in a classroom. For example, in many schools students may not generally use profane language, or wear clothing which displays beer and cigarette ads. Also, students backpacks and lockers may be searched with impunity by school officials inside the school building, even without reasonable suspicion of actual criminal activity; such unreasonable searches may not be allowed in the general public towards adults. The point is that students rights may be curtailed by the schools insofar as a parent may curtail their own child's rights. Courts have upheld that non-disruptive symbolic expression, such as in Tinker, where students were wearing black armbands to protest a war, are protected forms of speech even for students, but they also expressly stated, in Tinker and other cases, that adult expectations of protection of freedoms are not generally accorded to students in school. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Are the managers of federal offices not allowed to impose dress codes on their staff? Or search staff lockers and bags? Or impose standards of conduct, including not swearing? I expect they can, and do, do all those things. --Tango (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It is likely that in the hiring process, there was a paper that they signed saying they would abide by the office standards, ie dress code, swearing, conduct etc. There are also practical considerations, such as it might be a disadvantage to allow everyone 2nd ammendment rights at work or worse, school. 65.167.146.130 (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You exchange away some of your freedoms in return for your pay packet. Same with most other things you sign up to. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

March 20

The reference desk takes Manhattan

Whenever anybody does anything at all in Manhattan, the headline is always "so-and-so takes Manhattan". What's the origin of this phrase? --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The ovious reference is to First We Take Manhattan. I don't know if there's an earlier meme Cohen was referencing. Algebraist 13:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It certainly goes back much farther than that (1987). There's a 1925 Rogers and Hart song commonly called "I'll Take Manhattan" [6]. Could that be the source ? StuRat (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

According to that link, that wasn't the original title (it doesn't say when it become the commonly used title) and the lyrics don't include the phrase "take Manhattan", so I'm not convinced. --Tango (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Muppets Take Manhattan? Duomillia (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

At 1984 that's the earliest conclusive usage yet, and I'd say it's more obvious that Algebraist's guess (which I'd never heard of!). --Tango (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And I'd never heard of the Muppets version. So it goes. It's the earliest we've got, but it seems very likely that it's referencing something earlier, such as StuRat's suggestion. Algebraist 15:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a song from 1925 that is often, but erroneously, called "I'll Take Manhattan" (link). Alternative lyrics (here) which actually include the line, "I'll take Manhattan, the Bronx and Staten Island, too." Incidentally, this was one of the answers on Johnny Carson's old Carnac the Magnificent bit. The question was "What are Dave Winfield's current contract demands?" ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

StuRat already suggested that one and gave the exact same link! Can you date the alternative lyrics? The original doesn't mention taking Manhattan at all, so almost certainly isn't the origin of the meme, is the alternative from the same time? --Tango (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd think there's something in the phrase that suggests that making it in New York City is harder than other places. So, if you, as an artist, for example, succeed in New York City, it's a particular achievement. I'd compare it to phrases such as Big in Japan (though that, from the link, appears to have the opposite connotation). No idea when the phrase was first used, sorry. Jørgen (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You could be thinking of Theme from New York, New York. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) All glory to StuRat, then! I can't give you a date, but the alternative version is probably most associated with Frank Sinatra and was pretty popular back in the day. The link is to a website called Spirit of Sinatra. I'd bet the "... takes Manhattan" snowclone could be traced to the Sinatra version of the song. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sure the song must be the origin but with the original have, meaning choose, being replaced with take at some time, possibly very early on. Perhaps with the idea of taking by storm or a more hostile takeover, here is a 1967 reference the earliest I have found [7] meltBanana 19:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The earliest explicit link between the song and the snowclone that I could find is Jake Takes Manhattan, a 1976 album by jazz drummer Jake Hanna. The first track on the album is the Rogers and Hart song. —Kevin Myers 04:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I found a lot of references in Google News archive to "take Manhattan" as referring to "take Manhattan Bridge", if that was a common enough phrase, it could have influenced the change to the lyric. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

IMDb has a 1967 TV pilot We'll Take Manhattan[8]. Plot: "An inexperienced lawyer attempts to help a 140 year-old Native American and his tribe regain their property in downtown Manhattan." --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

community development

I there organizations or individuals or links that offer free community development degree? I n other word how can i be helped if i want to study this faculty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrows45 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Degree courses are very rarely free, and those that are free are not worth having. In some countries you might be able to find some sort of sponsorship or scholarship, from a government or some other organization. Start with colleges in your local area. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

(Some free courses are worth having. It depends on your geographical location. Probably not much help for the original poster though - other than as a lesson to specify one's geographical location in questions) Jørgen (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Not that this is likely to help the original poster, but a little correction on DJ Clayworth's answer: in numerous countries, you can absolutely get a degree worth having for essentially free. Here in Finland, for example, a degree from the University of Helsinki will cost you some administrative fees, which probably isn't even a three-digit figure per school year, and of course you may need to buy some books -- if you can't get them from the library. The same goes for most schools, pretty much, regardless of whether you want to become a doctor or a plumber. There are some private establishments, of course, which are more expensive, but they are definitely the exception. Of course, we pay for it in taxes, and you're still going to have to take care of your upkeep during your studies (though the guv'mint does provide student benefits, such as rent support). I believe at least Sweden has an essentially identical system. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; even in the UK bursaries are provided for socially-important qualifications that are currently undersubscribed like teacher training (PGCE), so you are effectively paid (a small sum) to study.[9] Per the original question, Arrows really needs to indicate where in the world he/she is. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Small claims need for summons

I have a small claims court case approaching, trying to get money out of a client who wouldn't pay for design work that was deliver, accepted, and used as mass marketing.

During the process, we called upon two ad industry people, asking for advice on a technical matter. Their procedural advice was simply "try this, but otherwise, that's a hard situation to fix". They've stated in a letter that we contacted them, they tried to help, but really couldn't, because the procedure was hard.

My lawyer is saying that we should have them in court, as witnesses, and if they don't want to come voluntarily, issue a summons. Is it of any benefit what-so-ever for them to appear in court, when they didn't really have any impact on the case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.114.20 (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a request for legal advice, which we do not provide here at the RefDesk. Please seek the advice of your lawyer. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As I stated, my lawyer is who I'm trying to disprove.

Is there anywhere else on the internet that I can take this question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.114.20 (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is anywhere else you should take this question. You are asking for legal advice, and the best source for that is a lawyer. If you disagree with your current lawyer, you should get an opinion from another lawyer. That won't be free, but the best advice rarely is. - Eron^Talk 16:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Google "Wank Solicitors".--88.109.127.55 (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If your lawyer says to do it, I suggest you do it - you hired a lawyer because he knows more about how to win court cases than you do. If you doubt your lawyer, you need to get another lawyer. Asking random people on the internet won't help. --Tango (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Your current lawyer may be of poor quality, but I can just about guarantee that he has more training on the matter and is more likely to know what he is talking about then most of us. Even if we were allowed to give legal advice that is. 65.167.146.130 (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are unhappy about your current lawyer, you should either approach a different lawyer for a second opinion, or approach the local legal professional regulatory authority.

We say we don't give out legal advice, and litigation strategy is probably the last thing you want random know-it-alls from the internet giving you advice on. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You say, we called upon two ad industry people, asking for advice on a technical matter. Was that the extent of their involvement -- being asked for advice? Did they have any knowledge that there was a contractual obligation between the design company and the buyer? Questions, not advice . . . DOR (HK) (talk) 03:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ship question

How many ships were there in the Royal Navy on the eve of WWI? --140.232.10.139 (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a rather vague question. All ships, including auxiliaries and liners that could be taken over and converted to troopships? Just fighting ships? Just capital ships?

If it's any help, our Grand Fleet article gives a number of ~150 ships for just that detachment (although this was most of the strength of the Royal Navy). —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

what parts of American life do antisemites claim Jews control?

I am phrasing my question very narrowly and so hope that no one considers that these are my opinions or in any way fuel antisemtisim. However, I have been unable to find answers in reading our articles on antisemitism. My question is, according to antisemitic claims, what parts of American life do Jews control? I'm thinking: financial systems (banks, stock and bonds markets), higher education (college and university), the system of laws (legislatures, courts), health and medicine (doctors, etc), research/engineering/sciences, literature and publishing, etc. I'm not sure if some or all of these are claimed to be in Jewish hands by antisemtics. Where can I read about what parts of American life/institutions/etc are claimed by antisemites to be in Jewish hands. Thanks!

OR, but, I would say the most prevalent accusations are that Jews control the media (both news and entertainment) and the financial sector. Tomdobb (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

what part of entertainment (according to the claims), hollywood, or music or radio or all of the above or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.85.244 (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

google sets for finance, media has a long list, any else of these claimed to be (by antisemties) under jewish control?79.122.85.244 (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Finance has always been the big one historically - and with good reason, lots of Jews were (perhaps still are?) very successful bankers. --Tango (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Growing up in an extremely racist area (see "Tiny Town" lyrics by the Dead Milkmen), a common claim was that the Jews controlled the black population. Therefore, hating blacks was not anything against blacks, it was an extension of anti-Semitism. -- kainaw™ 20:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

what what what?? antisemites claim Jews control the BLACKS?? That's what, 15% of the population outright, isn't it... do the claims say jews control any other groups outright (hispanics, italians, etc)? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.85.244 (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that over time some idiot has claimed that Jews control other races. If you want to see more about some sort of "secret relationship" between Jews and blacks (and, hopefully, you have enough education to survive the nonsense), see http://www.blacksandjews.com -- kainaw™ 20:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget ZOG. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Niall Ferguson's The Ascent of Money discusses how the rise of the Rothschilds in the 16th/17th century helped "reinforce" the already widespread belief that Jews controlled finance. This belief is allegedly based in the establishment of Jewish banking (merchant banking and/or exchange banking) in Italy during the 14th century. At the time, usury laws prevented Christians from charging interest. Charging interest was the only way to reimburse financiers for backing the long trading journeys from places like Venice. Jews were allowed into the cities (in the first "ghetto" at a former iron casting plant (the word "ghetto" actually means "casting")) to provide these banking services. NByz (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked up casting in the appropriate bilingual dictionary and, to my lack of amazement, found getto (soft 'g'; evidently related to such words as inject), not ghetto (hard 'g'). – I once dreamed that someone asked me where ghetto comes from and I said "It's short for borghetto, little walled city" (from borgo). On waking I looked it up and found "Of obscure origin." —Tamfang (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

OP, since you ask for something that is so vague (can you define "Jews" or "control" ?) as to be unanswerable, the place to look is to those who are themselves unreasonable. Find yourself some KKK website and you'll probably find all sorts of unsubstantiated, irrational and just plain wrong perspectives on what idiotic anti-semites claim. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Typical infantryman's ammunition load in WWII

How many rounds/clips/magazines of ammunition would a typical WWII rifleman carry (for their personal weapon, some armies would have riflemen also carrying support weapon ammunition)? From looking around at various articles on modern loads and carrying equipment, it looks like a typical US soldier carries ~200 (the Combat medic article cites 180-210), but that is of a much smaller caliber and thus allows the soldier to carry more. 76.254.29.171 (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

My father, who was a WWII rifleman, says 9 clips of 8 rounds each, if you had a bandolier, which most of them did. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Would your father know how much someone would carry if they were using a submachine gun or automatic rifle (ie, a Thompson or BAR)? 76.254.29.171 (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The standard US Army load for the M16 is a total 7 magazines (1 in the gun), which is 210 rounds. 24.6.46.177 (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The M16 is not a WWII weapon. My father carried an M1. 76, he says he didn't carry a Thompson or a BAR, so he doesn't know. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, I was referring to the modern combat medic article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.46.177 (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This very detailed website may give you the information you require.--KageTora (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Los Compañeros de Zapata

I am looking for the book "Los Compañeros de Zapata", by López González. I tried searching for it on multiple browsers, but apparently it's either the rarest book out of Mexico, or I'm bad at using search engines. An interesting side note is that, despite the fact it's near-impossible to find, it is a widely referenced source on the Mexican Revolution... 68.116.189.197 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I found this, though i'm not sure how much it helps you out. Grsz¹¹ 00:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw that earlier. I found the page useful, but I need the book for it's reference values, and for a certain reason that would, if told to you, make this entire post seem (to the most logical minds) a complete waste of Wikipedian resources. the publication date of the book was 1980, and either the book was banned on publication, or never existed in the first place.68.116.189.197 (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of it is available on Google books at [10], though I don't know how many pages. Who then was a gentleman? There is a copy for sale here for $355 (I'm thinking Mexican pesos?) (talk) 04:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

abebooks.com lists one copy in Mexico. —Tamfang (talk) 05:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The book is available in 18 libraries listed at Worldcat. Perhaps you can get it via interlibrary loan? -Arch dude (talk) 09:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

March 21

Apartment houses

"Apartment houses"

What exactly is an apartment house? The term redirects to apartment building, but "apartment house" only appears in the gallery, where the picture to the side is so labelled. Meanwhile, over at Commons, Commons:Category:Apartment houses in the United States is a collection of pictures of little apartment buildings that might be houses split into apartments, plus at least one picture of rowhouses. If it means simply "a house that has been split into apartments", I'll not be surprised, but if that's it, why are these other buildings being so labelled? Nyttend (talk) 05:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't say for certain but it's easily possible the label in the gallery originated from the image name and the image name was given by a native German speaker and the name is simply a result of an translation that is a bit unusual in English. See for example [11], [12] and especially [13]. In other words, is apartment house (in the instance in apartment building) is probably just a German English name for an apartment building Nil Einne (talk) 08:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"Apartment house" is just a synonym for "apartment building"; I'll fix the article to mention it. See this dictionary entry and this encyclopedia page. --Anonymous, 23:08 UTC, March 21, 2009.

When I was in Japan, on CNN there was an advert for what they called 'apartment houses' either for rent or to buy, and I took this to mean mean very large apartments (perhaps multi-storey) within an apartment building. Maybe this is what it means?--KageTora (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"Apartment houses" is the term used in Death of a Salesman. I always figured it was New York dialect. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Very large and luxurious apartments, in purpose-built buildings, were known as mansion flats and mansion blocks. They were a feature particularly of Victorian architecture. These flats have in many cases been subdivided. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

aspie chess grandmasters

many aspies are good at chess. how many aspie chess grandmasters are there? their names and proof they are aspie? heard navara is aspie but would like a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.60.89 (talk) 07:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This would require a medical diagnosis of living people which may contradict WP policy. There are web sites which engage in such speculation and list a few famous names. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think unless someone has specifically said that they have been diagnosed with Aspergers, it is pointless to speculate. It's not an easy condition to diagnose - it requires a proper psychological examination. --Tango (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Henry VI of England

Is it right to mention henry as a king of france because he consiliitated the double-monarchy of england and france and was the supreme legal body king from 1422-1429 by the estates-general{parliament of paris} and the regency government and Henry VI was the legal or de jure king of france from 1422-1429.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

List of kings of France has a discussion of this issue. Rmhermen (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The French certainly did not think he was ever anything more than a claimant to the French throne by way of the Treaty of Troyes made with England by Charles VI of France after France's loss in the Hundred Years' War. Upon the death of Charles VI, his son, the Dauphin so famously named by God himself as the true King of France in a vision given to the Maid, became Charles VII. Charles VII had repudiated the Treaty of Troyes, and thus any claim of the England's king, on the grounds of the well-documented mental incapacity of his father. (See[14] and Charles VI of France.) According to [15] this page in the French Wikipedia, Charles VII immediately succeded Charles VI (Numbers 52 and 53). This is, however, a content dispute, and should be resolved on the appropriate article pages. // BL \\ (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The French do not count him themselves, nor do they count the dozens of later English kings that included the title "King of France" among their appelations. The issue is not whether he claimed the title, or whether he signed a treaty, or whatever, the question is how do most reliable historians treat the issue. No mainstream historian seriously considers him a "real" king of France, and the "official" chronology does not number him among the Henrys of France. His claim is a historical curiousity, and one could make the case that he had a valid claim to the title; however as the French ultimately prevailed in the Hundred Years War, they get to decide who their kings were. They don't count him as a King of France, but most importantly, no respected historian does either... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

My wording above was sloppy. Jayron32 is correct that the French prevailed over the English ultimately. At the time of the Treaty of Troyes, however, the English-backed forces held the whip hand. I am curious as to what the "official chronology" might be, if not France's list of the kings of France (though not necessarily, it should be said, fr.wikipedia's list of the kings of France).// BL \\ (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my impertinence, dear Bielle, but if a country's own official list of their monarchs does not trump any other "official lists", I think there's something wrong. It's one thing to say that Henry VI or whoever might have had a valid claim to the throne, but if it never got past the claim stage, then he was never actually King of France in any meaningful way, despite including that in his list of titles. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Assur the first dentist?

Was Amalia Assur the first female dentist in Europe?--85.226.45.47 (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read Rosalie Fougelberg, it's unclear who was even the first female dentist in Sweden. Both articles are unclear, and give few dates. Flamarande (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have now read the Swedish versions of these articles. It seems, that Amalia Assur was the first woman dentist in Sweden, but that she was given a personal, special permission to practice the proffession, despite of the fact that it was banned for women in general, so she is regarded as an "exception" case. One date is missing: when Assur was given her license. The date is not mentioned, but it is clear that it was before Fougelberg, as it was before the profession was opened to women, which was in 1861, and Rosalie was licensed after; in 1866. Rosalie Fougelberg was the first woman to be licensed after the proffession was legally opened to women in general, and therefore, she is regarded as the first official woman dentist, after the proffession was opened to women. I do not know how to make this clear enough in the English language. Anyhow; are there anyone before them, in any other country? --85.226.45.47 (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have did my best to clearify the distinction between them from the refs: Assur was the first, but only as a speciall permission case, before the profession was opened to women; and Fougelberg as the first after the profession was opened to women. I hope that is clear now. But: was there any cases in other countries? --85.226.45.47 (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'dentist'? If you mean someone accredited by a modern professional body, then these might perhaps be the first. If you just mean someone who provides specifically dental-related healthcare, then there must be female dentists far back into prehistory. Algebraist 00:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, am interested in someone accredited by a modern professional body. Assur may be the first, as Swedish articles give the impression that she was licensed in the 1820/30s, even if the do not mention the date. I have not find anything about the first woman dentist in England, France, Germany, the Netherlands etc, so perhaps they had earlier cases?--Aciram (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I ment someone accredited by a modern professional body. --85.226.45.47 (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Lebanese Election 2005 candidates

By any chance did Daily Star newspaper of Lebanon have a section where they have a list of candidates of each political parties participating for each riding?, such as List of candidates of Amal Movement, List of candidates of Hezbollah and List of candidates of Future Movement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.170 (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Aide for editors - a Riding is word (usually Canadian) for a Constituency, or Electoral district --Saalstin (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Micro- and macro policies

What macroeconomic and microeconomic policy changes would you recommend to increase South Africa's export potential?Elize Hurter (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The reference desk doesn't make economic recommendations. We can probably help you find reports written by economists making such recommendations, though, if you like. What is this for? --Tango (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It's for an essay on SA's export policy. Recommendations would be nice, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elize Hurter (talk • contribs) 18:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

---

What micro- and macro policies can be changed to increase SA's export potential? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elize Hurter (talk • contribs) 14:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You could try the article on SA, but a quick look through wasn't very enlightening. --KageTora (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

SA's main exports are gold, diamonds, and platinum. These are items which are far more valuable once changed into final products, such as jewelery. Thus, I would recommend funding a large jewelry production industry. The jewelry items could also be sold worldwide, via the Internet, to bypass retailer mark-ups. (They would need to insure the items in case they are damaged during delivery.) In the long term, SA could aim to establish brick-and-mortar retailers around the world. This is similar to the idea of Q8 gas stations used to sell Kuwaiti petroleum. SA also needs to improve their infrastructure, and doing so now (with borrowed money) will help to improve the economy as well. StuRat (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest reviewing infant industry argument (not a very good article), subsidy and tarriff (remembering that there are plenty of ways to create an indirect subsidy or tariff). Also remember that many export industries tend to be capital intensive (even large scale farming), so policies that encourage capital accumulation would be effective.

The most important thing in determining net exports, however, is domestic savings. The higher the proportion of income that is saved (the lower the proportion that is consumed), the lower will be imports and the higher will be exports. The less a country consumes, all else (production) being equal, the more it exports. The higher savings rate would also support capital accumulation and production by lowering domestic interest rates. NByz (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I’m going to go ahead and try to answer this one, for two reasons. First, I am a macroeconomist; and second, we don’t have a policy (despite what is cited above) about not offering economic advice. Happens all the time. So, . . . One area South Africa has successfully increased its exports is adding value to raw materials. In Economy of South Africa, we state that processing iron and other minerals to produce ferroalloys and other higher value-added products has been an important source of growth. So, 1st answer: add more value. 2nd answer: improve the quality of the labor force. This includes everything from literacy to HIV/AIDS. 3rd: continue (perhaps more quickly) lifting controls on capital flows. If people (companies) aren’t sure they can take their money out, they will be more reluctant to bring it into the country. 4th: reconsider if reverse “affirmative action” is such a good idea. Reducing opportunities for the most educated, richest people in society on the basis of race is pretty dumb. 5th: crank up the infrastructure development. Electricity, clean water, sewage and education are all below par. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That's either "reverse discrimination" or regular "affirmative action". (Since "affirmative action" is already "reverse discrimination", adding a redundant "reverse" would switch it back to normal discrimination.) StuRat (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless, of course, the opposite of the common use of the term had been practiced for decades. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Freud

I need a quick guide to Freuds psychology 16:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Val Baldam (talk • contribs)

Do you mean Freud's own psychology (that is to say, his personality and so forth) or psychology as practiced by Freud? Our articles on Sigmund Freud, psychosexual development and id, ego, and super-ego are probably good places to begin, at least for the latter. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

There is also a lengthy article on psychoanalysis, which has a multitude of links and references, if you do any further research. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Freud taught various radically different and incompatible things about human psychology during his career, so don't make the mistake of thinking that any one thing can be called "Freud's psychology". He was initially content to explain things neurologically, deriving many of his crucial hypotheses from contemporary biological theories; he later developed a theory focus on mental energy (in one incarnation libido vs. thanatos in a dyadic system, later dropping the "thanatos", and retaining only the libido. Yet another of his systems was structural, postulating that behavior was determined on the basis of the inter-relationships of various levels of consciousness (id, ego, superego). After a patient suggested a "talking cure" he developed it. Initially he gave credence to his patients' stories of childhood abuse, deeming hysteria was caused by such abuse; later he denied his patients' stories of childhood abuse - the same stories he had an obsessive need to find in his patient's vocalizations. So one can study [1] Freud under the influence of Fleiss (the infantile sexuality stage); [2] Freud under the influence of Charcot (the hysteria theory of pre-sexual sexual shock); [3] theories about the unconscious mind (Oedipal stages, dreams as wish fulfillment); [4] Freud's messianic stage in which he promulgated his own personal myth of greatness (psychoanalysis), and various other stages of his thought's development, as he answered critics, annointed successors, and (throughout his life) applied his doctrines to various non-psychological subjects. (Moses & Monotheism; Da Vinci, etc.) - Nunh-huh 04:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What you want is 'squashed' Freud. http://www.sqapo.com/freud.htm You can get these sorts of things for many classical works/items and they're quite a good thing for those with little time. Squashed Philosophers is quite good. ny156uk (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Turn of the Century French Ultra Conservatism

Where can I find details of caused the rise of strong right wing conservatism in France under theird republic in the period between the Franco-Prussian War and WW1. Thank you.

Indian mythology/legend question

I have a vague memory that some sage or hero in Indian legend was said to be so great that Krishna bowed to him when he was received after death. Does anyone know who this was? Vultur (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like Yudhisthira (see the last sentence of the article). Deor (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

exact location of Kennedy speech in Berlin

I'd like to find out the exact location (on a street) where President Kennedy gave his famous "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech in Berlin. Jawed (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise. The address is John-F.-Kennedy-Platz. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

More particularly, as our article Ich bin ein Berliner states, he was speaking from the balcony of the Rathaus Schöneberg to an audience assembled in the square. Deor (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Coronations of Queen consorts of Jerusalem

I only found one Queen consort who was coronated as queen and that was Morphia of Melitene, who was coronated in 1120. I was wondering if I missed any? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Found where? In Wikipedia's own articles? In that case, Morphia is the only one where a coronation is mentioned...but some of the others must have been crowned as well. The Byzantine princesses were, I'm sure. I'll see what I can find tomorrow. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, William of Tyre doesn't say anything about Arda of Armenia or Adelaide del Vasto (in any case, Arda was not present at Baldwin I's coronation, and Baldwin married Adelaide bigamously). He doesn't say that Morphia was crowned, only that Baldwin II sent for her after he became king (she was still in his old county of Edessa). I assume she was crowned at some point. William says Theodora Comnena "was consecrated at Jerusalem as the custom of the realm decreed and crowned with the royal diadem" when she married Baldwin III in 1158 (ch. 18.22-23, pp. 274-75 in the Babcock/Krey translation). Maria Comnena was also crowned and consecrated when she married Amalric I (ch. 19.1, pp. 344-345). There may be other sources that mention coronations but William is the most obvious place to look (and the only one I have at hand!). I'll have to find some other source for the thirteenth century queens, but by then there was so much pomp and ceremony that I imagine they must have all been crowned. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it's Fulcher of Chartres who says Morphia and Baldwin II were crowned together (book 3, ch. 7, pg. 232 in the translation by Frances Rita Ryan). A good place for info about the queens in general is Bernard Hamilton's article "Women in the Crusader states: The queens of Jerusalem (1100-1190)", but he only confirms that there is not enough information in the primary sources about Arda and Adelaide to know if they were crowned or not. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean only those who actually reigned in Jerusalem, not just claiming it? I would guess that Queen Sofía of Spain was crowned that, since the Spanish royal family claims the title. Nyttend (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

March 22

Arab nation number of seats

I know that Lebanon has 128 electoral seats. So, what about Syria, Iraq, Algeria, Comoros, Libya, Egypt, Morocco, Mauritania, Sudan, Djibouti, Yemen, Oman, Tunisia, Jordan, Palestine, Somalia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and U.A.E.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.54 (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Electoral seats in what?!? What body are we asking about? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps 74 wants to know if those countries have elected goverment assemblies of some sort (parliaments etc)? Nil Einne (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he wants to know if they have local electoral districts (as opposed to nation-wide proportional representation without electoral districts practiced in Israel). AnonMoos (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Majority Arab Shi'a

Like Iran, Iraq's Shi'a population are the majority while Sunni population are minority. So, does it mean that Iraq is the only Arab nation with a Shi'a majority? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.54 (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Shia Islam, the majority Shia countries are Iran, Iraq, Bahrain and Azerbaijan. Of these, Iraq and Bahrain are mostly peopled by Arabs. Algebraist 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"English is the hardest language to learn"

Is that a true statement? That would implied that English speaker believe all languages are easier than their own language, and then how come Americans today barely know more than one languages. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really. All children aquire their native language at the same rate, regardless of whether that native language is English, Mandarin or Klingon. It's a little "old wive's tale" about English being particularly "tricky". Noam Chomsky's work on language aquisition is seminal in answering this question, and Syntactic Structures is as good a place as any to start on his work. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(I suggest asking this question at the Language Desk.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Similar questions have been asked there before. One example from Dec '07 which prompted the creation of the article on hardest language. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

And to answer your second question. Many Americans only know one language because that's all they need to know. Sure, a year of a second language is generally required to get a high school diploma but after that, the language skill that they've learned goes unused. It's not like in Europe where there are so many local dialects and so many languages grouped so closely together. Take any random American who has never left their continent, which is quite a few of us, and look at who they have to deal with on a day to day basis. Most of the time, they're just other random Americans. As for those who have left the continent, it's generally not a significant amount of the population that stays wherever they go long enough to need to learn any of the language for where they're travelling to.

Also, it doesn't help our language skills that one of our only two neighbors is Canada where, again, the predominant language is also English. Even the French Canadians in Quebec generally know English. It's just a lack of need really... Dismas|^(talk) 04:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The American economy, and thus commerce and intercourse, is mostly domestically driven. Even in the outward-looking aspect of the economy, the US has vastly stronger economic and cultural power, so that the interaction is invariably conducted in English. This is different to European countries, even the English-speaking one, where 1) they are not vastly economically and culturally more powerful than their neighbours and trading partners, and 2) their economies are more trade-orientated.

A limited analogy could be given with other countries with large populations, such as China, whose economy is (despite what you might hear) largely domestically driven, at least for the vast majority of the population, and which is in an economically and culturally more powerful position compared to some of its neighbours - there, just as in the US, foreign language ability is much less widespread than it is in many other countries around the world. The analogy is limited, of course, because the Chinese still need to trade (etc) with the Americans (and other countries), and they inevitably use English, not Chinese, as the medium in those cases. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The English-speaking one? 209.251.196.62 (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, they like to think they speak Gaelic. =D --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Do they, or do they just like the rest of us to think they speak Gaelic? (If any Irish people are reading this - we're not fooled! ;)) --Tango (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As you'd see if you bothered to read the Gaelic article, "in Ireland people rarely call the Irish language Gaelic". They call it Irish. Malcolm XIV (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The only unusually difficult thing about English is the spelling. Most other languages have a more phonemically consistent spelling system. Haukur (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

English also distinguishes more vowel phonemes than most languages (that I've encountered); that is, a list analogous to bait bat beet bet bit bite boat boot bought but would be shorter in most other languages. Mood and aspect can trip people up, but I guess any language has comparable quirks. —Tamfang (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Swedish Communities

Which is the most northerly Swedish Community? Excluding Samii Communities. Which latitude is it at?68.148.145.190 (talk) 07:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Kiruna municipality, specifically the township of Kiruna. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Kurravaara is more north.68.148.145.190 (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops: BTW, the en:WP says the population is 266 (end 2006), the Swedish and Dutch WP has 57 for 2005. I guess, it´s them dark and stormy knights (and damsels) up north. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

is it true that woodwind instruments can be learned to a master level at a comparatively very late age (late 20s, versus like 7 for a piano)

if someone is in their late twenties, they have way way missed being a concert pianist, or anywhere close -- they should have started when they were like 7, if not 3. (A few concert pianists started, really intensely, as late as 19 -- they're not too good though).

is it true the same is not true of woodwind instruments, and someone in their late twenties could still learn the instruments to the level I have in mind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.132.205 (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the 10,000 hours theory is what matters here? It's discussed a little in Malcolm Gladwell's book 'Outliers'. (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23588962-details/The+secret+of+your+success+10,000+hours/article.do). I don't really buy into the idea that you'd have to start a 7 (or younger) to be a really good pianist I can see it being a factor but don't see how starting late would necessarily exclude you from becoming equally as talented/able. You might also be interested in his book Blink, which looks at biases in selection of orchestral performers. ny156uk (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the book, by Malcolm Gladwell: Blink (book). Bus stop (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the brain is far more adaptive and quicker to learn things at an early age. Also that book is just total speculation, I found it a very aggrevating read as Gladwell leads you to the conclusion he wants to reach with inconsistent (and sometimes without any) evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.47.250 (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've heard of someone famous who took up the flute at age 40, but have forgotten who. —Tamfang (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

on an 'eye for an eye' basis (if it doesn't matter whose eye), if Israel were wanting to make up for Jewish holocaust deaths, how long could it keep up MAXIMUM "rate" of palestinian losses reached?

The New York Times recently ran a bunch of articles about how Israeli soldiers were told or given the impression that they should be killing Palestinians indescriminately (one supposedly got a t-shirt reading "one shot, two kills" as a reward for killing a pregnant woman).

My question is, since Israel positions itself as the "Jewish" state (which I disagree with, being a Jew), if they were somehow going on the "eye for an eye" theory (and it doesn't matter whose eye) and starting with a net -6,000,000 lost Jewish lives (those lost in the Holocaust), how long would it take them to make up that figure in Palestinian losses, going at the maximum rate they have reached so far?

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.132.205 (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I should add that obviously it is impossible to reach anywhere near that number - I am only interested in the rate which I am having trouble finding or calculating! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.132.205 (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

A somewhat approximate result seems to be 1.5 millennia. You may find the Mathematics reference desk more suitable for further enquiries on arithmetics. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks - will you tell me which rate you used and how you found it (or did you just use your impression) thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.132.205 (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some people seem to believe that the fact of being the descendants of the victims of the biggest and most horrible genocide of the human history is something that gives a kind of bonus to commit atrocities for free. And the horrible, unbearable doubt is that a people that suffered such a violence may have been infected by the evil virus itself of this violence. Primo Levi, one of the greatest writers of the last century, survivor and witness of Auschwitz, suggested this idea in The Drowned and the Saved, 1986 (few years after the massacre of Sabra and Shatila (1982); he committed suicide in 1987).--pma (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I've followed the news from Israel quite closely for a long time, and I've never heard anyone suggest that it's OK for Israelis to "commit atrocities" because of the Holocaust. On the contrary, Israelis perhaps feel a stronger commitment to human rights because of their experience, which is why revelations such as the ones recently reported generate such attention and revulsion among the Israeli public. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It must be pointed out that this has become a matter of grave concern in Israel itself. The NY Times [16] you are mentioning in your original query (but also the British Guardian [17] and other respected media) speak of a "religious war" between factions of the army, where - simplified - secular liberals have lost ground to religious nationalists. As Mwalcoff above, I feel that some of the arguments are questionable and may be misplaced on the reference desk.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The entire premise is wrong. The people with whom Israel is in conflict had nothing to do with the Nazi Holocaust. Moreover, it is . . . deeply offensive to suggest that committing genocide would some how “make up for” an earlier atrocity. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah well, the OP did not ask for a moral judgment... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that there has been nothing comparable with the Holocaust in human history, but if we want to answer the OP, answer is not 1000 years, nor 100, nor 10. The numbers of victims in persecutions never follow a well behaved constant rule, as the OP assumes. There is something named escalation, in all stories of genocides. Kristallnacht, 9-10 november 1938, less than one hundred Jewish people killed in Germany. Europe watched that without moving, and there were who minimized, making computations and comparisons with the number of victims of WWI.--84.220.118.44 (talk) 06:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at... you're saying that the rate is not constant, that it always starts small... you're saying if I had asked the reference desk in 1938 when fewer than 100 Jewish people were killed how long, at that rate, it would take for that number to reach 6,000,000 the answer would have been 164 years...clearly not what happened. Okay, so my arithmetic assumptions are wrong. However I'm not sure how to phrase the correct question then. What do you suggest is a more correct figure than 1.5 millennia? (based on what you suggest is more appropriate than a "well behaved constant rule"). What is the curve "the numbers of victims in persecutions" really follow then, as a rule? Thank you! again, I am not asking whether Israel is really trying to make up for 6 million victims of the holocaust on the "eye for an eye" principle (if it doesn't matter whose eye) -- I am only asking, if this were what were happening, how long could they keep up the maximum rate (or, in light of the above, rate of change), before they reached 6million...even if that number could not actually be reached because of size constraints in the area, etc....I'm just asking about fitting a curve, and wondering how long extrapolation, even if after a while the curve is no longer appropriate for that area, would take to reach 6 million, given the appropriate curve in such historical cases. Thank you! 79.122.48.154 (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you see exactly what I mean. It's not a captious argument though. Excuse me, but I am reluctant to do such a computation as you are asking, with numbers that are not numbers, but represent killed lives. I can't help imagining Eichmann summing ciphres over ciphres with neat and ordered hand-writing. Still, we must count, and remember the numbers of all victims of the Shoa and of all genocides, but respect and memory has to be our only end; this is what I think. What's the scope of this extrapolation you are looking for? You may wish to recall that 6,000,000 is so enormous that escapes our faculty of imagination. It's true, and in this case I agree that your intention is right... I was never able to go beyond the idea of 100 individuals murdered. But then, what is the point of making a comparison. This I can't understand. If we use the past tragedy to minimize the present one we are betraying the memory of the dead people. How many pregnant women did the israeli soldiers kill, compared to the number of those killed by nazi. An unbelievably small ratio, and unbelievably enormous. --pma (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the link to the original article in the English edition of Haaretz from which the New York Times and other media picked up the story. Read the article, and then see what of the above makes sense. The original query poses a speculative and unfounded (and highly offensive to all parties) "connection" between mass killings in the Holocaust of European Jewry and the army of the State of Israel conducting warfare against hostile forces, whether neighboring states (since the day the state declared its independence and five of them attacked; only two of the original five have made peace with Israel in the intervening 60 years) or organizations (notably Hamas and Hizbollah) dedicated to Israel's destruction. The article relates to a serious problem within Israeli society; read about the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict if you want to know what real issues are pertinent. The above question is grotesque. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

good article. unbelievable. whoever wear those t-shirts is sick. --pma (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What's grotesque about it, Deborahjay? When a government (or rather, to be fair, its foreign supporters), harp on about a past injustice and yet commits its own injustices, amost every day, how can you blame people for drawing a connection between them?

If I go around bashing my neighbours every night, and my "friends" defend me on the basis that I was, years ago, stabbed in the street once by a robber - it is not beyond rationality for casual observers to think I'm just taking it out on the world because I can't get over what happened a long time ago?

Recall that the Arab states have existed on this piece of land for centuries. If a descendant of one of the indigenous owners of your land* turned up at your house one day and just started squatting in your living room, would you welcome them with open arms? Clearly they have a moral "right" to the land. Does that make things any easier for you?

*: that was a culturally specific reference that probably works best in North America and Australia. If you are not at one of those locations, you'll have to use your imagination. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't intend to make a debate forum of this so shall answer the above questions (most of which I already stated above and you apparently ignored) and no more: Simply, claiming that the Israelis kill Palestinians because of the Nazi Holocaust is specious and superficial, beside the point of a great deal of well-documented history. You seem either highly selective in your arguments or badly informed: do you not acknowledge the history of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel as told in the Bible? To the best of my knowledge, Israel does not justify its military actions based on the Holocaust; anyone who believes that has mixed up a lot of disparate facts to concoct a libel. Israel has to maintain an army of defense as it's been under constant attack since its founding (and before), and among the terrible costs is the moral damage to the generations of young people who must serve in combat (plus the civilians like myself who are occasional targets of rockets). Some, even many, on both sides of the conflict do agree that Israeli Jews (Zionists) and the Palestinian people each have aspirations for national identity and a national homeland. The situation is bad enough for all those affected - which means myself as much and quite likely more than all the above respondents put together, as I'm a Jew, an Israeli (naturalized), a professional Holocaust archivist, and mother of two IDF soldiers (noncombat, serving in the Education and Youth Corps). With all due respect to the comments above, the people directly affected in this conflict and aiming for objective presentation of facts—that may be contradictory but nevertheless true—have more credibility in discussion than do opinionated bystanders and those such as yourself who are openly hostile to Israel. -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

whoawhoawhoawhoa Deborahjay, nobody, including me, the original poster, who asked the original question, is suggesting "the Israelis kill Palestinians because of the Nazi Holocaust". We are talking about what the situation would look like if the Israelis were killing Palestinians on an eye-for-an-eye principle (if it doesn't matter whose eye) and how long they could keep the rate up (my original question), others have raised, under this hypothetical situation why they WOULD do it, but if you read the above very carefully no one except you is saying anything like "the Israelis kill Palestinians because of the Nazi Holocaust". Besides you everyone else is talking about what would happen IF THEY WERE DOING THAT. Or what we could understand in their psyche IF THEY WERE DOING THAT. You're the only one raising the idea that they're doing that. 79.122.31.69 (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is that your question is stupid, and since it refers to this particular situation, which is already controversial enough when it isn't hypothetical, it sounds a lot like a successful troll post. Congratulations, I guess? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe now is a good time to point out that at the top of this (and every other) Wikipedia Reference Desk page, it states:

"If you need advice or opinions, it's better to ask elsewhere... The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead."

I think that hypothetical questions like this are really unsuitable for the reference desk as they almost invariably lead to debate. We can deal in hypotheticals, of course - "If the Earth were made of cotton candy, how much would I weigh?" - but questions that put a hypothetical spin on real-world controversies are inevitably, well, controversial.

I don't think this question or answers to it can be expected to make a positive contribution to this encyclopedia. There are forums all over the Internet where this sort of thing can be discussed. Why do we need to discuss it here? - Eron^Talk 00:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding the Field of the Cloth of Gold

Why were Henry and Francis on such good terms when Henry had fought against Francis at the Battle of the Spurs. Henry had peviously become part of a Holy League against France. I don't see why they were both so ready to show their "brotherly love" again, after all that had happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.227.123.171 (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the article? It explains it pretty well. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

House of Hesse-Darmstadt

The Grand Ducal House of Hesse went extinct in 1968 and was passed to Hesse-Kassel, but was the junior Darmstadt line of Hesse-Homburg still living at that time? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The article on Hesse-Homburg suggests that all parts of Hesse-Homburg were part of other states by 1880 odd- i.e. it no longer existed - so the title presumably didn't exist. But since you wiki-linked the page, I'm gussing I've misunderstood something here? Some off-shoot or other entity perhaps? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

March 23

prayer of George VI

I have tried searchng the internet and wikipedia to obtain the text of the Prayer of George VI. I think he parayed it just before D Day. Some of the words are I said to the man who stood at the gate of the year: Give me light that I may tread into the unknown. He replied put your hand in the hand of God. That will be to you something better than light and better than a known path.Can you help me find the rest of the text?203.110.156.190 (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

See http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=400561, http://www.geocities.com/piers_clement/gate.html, and The Gate of the Year. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The poetess was Minnie Louise Haskins, and the poem is called The Gate of the Year, but you have to rely on an outside source for the text, because our article doesn't quote it. How odd. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

shooting an elephant

do you think his purpose in this essay is to explore something about himself or something about the nature of british colonialism or both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.29.56 (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, we don't answer homework questions here at the RefDesk. It may behoove you, however, to take a look at Shooting an Elephant. bibliomaniac15 04:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

don't use "it may behavoove you" (or anyone else)....seriously. 79.122.48.154 (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You are the only person here to have used that curious misspelling. Algebraist 13:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And did he shoot an elephant wearing his pajamas ? :-) StuRat (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I love multiple choice questions! The answer is C. both - 161.181.53.10 (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I vote D, "he made it up to impress his English teacher", myself. But then I suppose we shouldn't put it to a vote, as we all know Polls are evil. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 01:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Fate of US after a bankruptcy

If the United States is declared bankrupt, who are the creditors that will gain ownership of the country? NeonMerlin 06:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

For the latest breakdown, see Treasury Bulletin for Dec 2008. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And for foreign ownership stats: Major Foreign Holders of Treasury Securities. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

First off all, the US is not going to go bankrupt. It just ain't gonna happen, there's no way. However, if we were to entertain the notion for a second, it doesn't work the same way when a country defaults on it's national debt as when companies do. The US is a sovereign country, and other countries don't just "take it over" when it can't pay it's debt. No one "gains ownership" (nobody "owns" the US today, so how could you transfer "ownership").

Two things happen when a country defaults on its national debt: the people that lent it money gets screwed (they have no way of collecting), and no one will ever loan them money again, which is why it almost never happens (though it is not unheard of, Argentina did it in 2002). Even poor third world countries do everything they can to pay every cent they own in interest, because a national debt-default is a catastropic event.

Also, in addition to those two things, if the US specifically were to default on its debt, a third thing would also happen: people would start watching Mad Max as an instructional video. 195.58.125.75 (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a country declaring bankruptcy, that's just rhetoric. Countries have no legal obligation to pay back their debt since there is no jurisdiction that has power over them. As 195.58 says, all that happens when countries default on debt is that creditors lose their money and the interest the government has to pay to borrow money (which almost all governments need to do) shoots up (if they can borrow money at all). There are no legal proceedings - the sovereign debt market is a purely free market (probably the only one), everything is governed by market forces. That said, if the US, or another major government, defaulted on its debt it would mean the complete collapse of the world economy. Pretty much the whole of economics is based on the assumption that these treasury bonds are risk-free (see risk-free interest rate) - if that assumption doesn't hold then everything goes wrong. --Tango (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me be the devil's advocate and argue for defaulting on the US national debt:

1) When a nation, just like a corporation or family, can't possibly ever pay off its debt, then it's time to consider bankruptcy, or, in the case of a nation, going into default. The US seems to be close to the point of no return here, where it can't possibly ever pay off the debt.

2) The result of not being able to borrow money might, just like in the case of a family, actually be a good thing, as it would force the US to live within its means. If nothing else can accomplish this goal, then, by default, default may be the only way. StuRat (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Like any country that issues debt in its own currency, the U.S. can inflate its way out of debt (which has adverse consequences of its own of course). The deterioration in the U.S. government's finances is alarming, but the debt burden as a proportion of GDP is not yet anything remarkable compared with other developed countries. Mowsbury (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't meant to be a discussion forum, so I'll only comment to the extent it may be responsive to the OP. The U.S. is by no means close to a point of no return. As of 2007, the national debt was only 65.5% of gross domestic product (GDP), and that includes intragovernmental obligations such as Social Security Trust Fund holdings. Although the percentage has increased since 2007, it is still well short of the levels experienced in the late 1940s. While it is true that the government probably will never pay the national debt down to zero, that is not necessary or even desirable. It is sufficient that each individual governmental security will be timely repaid.

Of all of the ideas to make the U.S. live within its means, a debt default must be the worst. A default would result in the failure of the large majority of financial institutions worldwide and the collapse of the global economy. It would be much more serious than the Great Depression and would have political and social ramifications that at present can only be the subject of speculation. Because these facts are well-known to policy-makers, a U.S. governmental default is not under even passing consideration. John M Baker (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You are working under the flawed assumption that paying off the debt is desirable. There is no reason to pay it off. As long as the country can afford the interest payments and people are willing to keep lending it money when old debt comes due, then the debt doesn't need to be paid off. Ideally, you want to make sure that the economy grows at least as fast as the debt, so debt as a percentage of GDP doesn't rise. There will be time when it increases, but on average you want to keep it at reasonable levels - the US is managing that pretty well overall. --Tango (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's do some calculations here. Say the US goes from owing 65.5% of it's GDP to 100%, by the time the current financial mess is ironed out. And suppose that the interest on this is a mere 5% per year, after inflation. That would mean 5% of the GDP would need to be paid every year just to service the debt. I suppose that would be manageable if that was all taxes were used for, but obviously they need to also be used to do everything else government is expected to do. So, then, could we ever get an additional 5% of the GDP (which is probably more like 25% of the taxes collected) to be set aside to pay interest ? And this isn't even starting to pay down the debt, but just keeping up with interest. I can't see it happening. So, like the family in too much credit card debt, the options are to continue to rack up more and more debt, until we can no longer make the minimum interest rate payments, or to default. StuRat (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If we look at history, rather than made-up numbers, we see that the US has in the past had a debt of well over 100% of GDP without having to default. Algebraist 21:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

But that was right before the record growth of the 1950's, which was only possible because the economies of Europe and Asia were destroyed by WW2, and the US was basically without competition in the export market. I don't think anyone sees that situation happening again. StuRat (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

A country is only going to default on debt if it can't borrow enough to pay off debt that comes due, which will only happen if people think the country is going to default. As with most of economics, it's all self-fulfilling prophecies. There is only a problem if people lose confidence in the economy, and that isn't going to happen purely because of high debt. Inflation is more of a concern than debt - if inflation gets out of control, people aren't going to want to invest in anything denominated in that currency, which includes government bonds. High debt can, of course, lead to high inflation if the interest payments become so high printing money is the only option left (there is only so much money people can lend to the government, regardless of how confident they may be in it). --Tango (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think printing money to pay off debts ever works, as it leads to hyperinflation and creditors who will refuse to loan any more money unless it's paid back in a more stable currency. If a country must borrow money just to pay off earlier debts, that's going to lead to an ever increasing spiral of debt. Once it begins to spiral up at a rate faster than the growth of the GDP, it's just a matter of time before nobody will be willing (or able) to loan the amount of money required any more, leading to default. StuRat (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Borrowing money to pay off debt that comes due is standard practice - if you have a consistent budget deficit (which most countries do), you have no choice. It's known as "rolling over" the debt. If you get to the point where you can either hyperinflate your way out of debt or default, you don't have a good option - whichever you choose, your country is in serious trouble. I think the main benefit to default is that it gets it out of the way quicker - you know where you stand and you just get on with it. Make the necessary reforms, behave yourself for a few years, and you're back on track - it hurts, but you know you'll get through it. If you go into hyperinflation it is anybody's guess what will happen. Eventually you will come out the other side, countries always do, but it could be years of chaos and suffering to get there. I think countries that hyperinflate to get out of debt either don't understand economics at all or are falling victim of wishful thinking ("We just need to print a little bit to tide us over, we can stop before it starts to spiral out of control"). In my (extremely non-expert) opinion, default is the better choice. --Tango (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It is possible to create new money without automatically triggering hyperinflation. The UK government is doing so at present. Of course, one has to be careful, but failure is by no means inevitable. Algebraist 00:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The UK government is doing it (at least partially) in order to create inflation. We're at very real risk of deflation without it. The money isn't being printed because the government wants to spend it, it's being created because it has been deemed in the best interest of the country to increase the money supply. --Tango (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you believe it, just after posting that I head over the BBC News (as I often do) and there is an article posted less than an hour ago about the UK being at risk of deflation: [18]. The BBC are (with the aid of foresight) creating references specially for me! --Tango (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think, maybe, that a better example may be the Republic of Ireland; they are said to be closer to bankruptcy - and other countries could stop lending to it, there are few Irish banks with sufficient capital and/or onus to provide money. Basically, IMHO, the US have infinitely deep pockets, but time could be called on Ireland. Are none of the debts secured? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has infinitely deep pockets (although that might explain how I keep losing my comb). :-) StuRat (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget Iceland. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Worth noting: The US economy has a GDP of approximately $13.5 trillion (give or take a few hundred recessionary billions). IF the total national debt were to become equal to the GDP and IF the interest payments on the debt were 5%, that would still only be $675B annually. FY 2007 interest was $237 billion (via wiki page on 2007 United States Federal Budget). Despite the spending for stimulus and other recession-driven expenses, we are still a long way from a National Debt equaling GDP and a long way from interest expenses being unmanageable. (For one thing, interest expenses are nowhere near 5% and despite the massive increase in spending, the debt offerings by the Treasury sell quickly and at relative low cost). Lastly...most of the "bailouts" that have been completed to support the financial system have been done by effectively (but not quite literally) printing money, rather than by issuing debt.Brewfangrb (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The US national debt clock shows over $11 trillion in debt right now: [19], and the deficit this year is expected to be around $2 trillion, which would bring us almost up to the GDP this year (or, if this year has already been added to the clock, then next year). If the GDP declines slightly, or if we wait an additional year, we will be sure to top 100% of GDP. Even if we can get the deficit down to $1 trillion a year, that's still 7.4% of the GDP, and the economy is unlikely to grow at such a high rate, on average, over the long haul. Thus, the US will go deeper and deeper in debt as a percentage of GDP, until it must default. StuRat (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Once we're through this recession, the US will probably have to raise taxes and cut spending in order to pay back some of the debt being built up at the moment. A long term deficit isn't a big problem as long as it isn't too great on average - that means when it gets too great at some point you need to have a very low deficit (even a surplus) for a time afterwards to pay back the extra and get it all to average out. If the US continues with a 7.4% GDP budget deficit once this recession is over, it will soon find itself in very big trouble. --Tango (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Continues" isn't the right word, as that's a much lower level than the present $2 trillion deficit, which is closer to 15% of GDP. StuRat (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

---

What's the largest percentage of GDP which any nation has owed and yet been able to recover from without defaulting (excluding "debt forgiveness", which is just another form of default, IMHO) ? StuRat (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well over 100%. I'll see if I can find some examples. --Tango (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Japan's debt in 2006 was 176.2% of GDP. I don't think they have "recovered" from that yet, but I haven't heard anyone suggest they are at risk of default. --Tango (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Just what percentage of GDP do you think a nation can recover from ? And, if Japan hasn't yet recovered, what's the maximum from which a recovery has occurred ? StuRat (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I tried to find historical debt figures for some major economies and couldn't - I know they are out there somewhere, but I would need to spend longer searching. You don't really need to recover from high debt, you need to recover from a high deficit. If you can get to a surplus (or a deficit lower than your economic growth) then the debt will gradually come down, but it could take a very long time. (I wouldn't expect Japan to get under 100% for decades, at best.) A better question might be: what is the highest (sustained) budget deficit (as a percentage of GDP) a country has recovered from without defaulting on debt or issuing a new currency? I don't know the answer to that, either, but I'd be very interested to find out... (Define "sustained" in whatever way makes the answer easier to find out! We may wish separate answer for deficits due to war and deficits during peacetime.) --Tango (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

But the debt and deficit aren't independent. If the debt is high enough, the interest alone will ensure that there is always a deficit, and, when combined with the bare minimum the government needs to spend to prevent it's collapse, can easily exceed the meager growth rate which such a heavily indebted nation can sustain (since there will be very little capital left to invest, after most is borrowed to service the debt and pay for government essentials). StuRat (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it not foolish to compare long-term debt against short-term income? The debt is not a 1-year debt, it is a long-term debt so why would we compare it to a 1-year GDP amount? 194.221.133.226 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC).

Yeah, I think the same thing sometimes when people insist on comparing everything to GDP. GDP is used as a measure of the "size of economy". It makes sense to compare debt to the size of the economy, the question is whether it makes sense to use GDP as a measure of that (although I don't really have a good alternative to propose, so it may be out best option). --Tango (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the total wealth of a nation is also highly subjective, since things like real estate fluctuate dramatically. And being near the point of default may cause many such assets to plummet in value. StuRat (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wealth is really difficult to determine because there isn't a market for most of a country's assets (at least, not one that involves regular enough similar sales to determine an expected price for something about to go on sale). For example, how would you put a value on a country's road network? When was the last time somebody bought a road network? There just isn't a price for such things. A good road network clearly contributes a significant amount to the value of a country, though. --Tango (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

An important note on this side discussion is that a country without strong rule of law, effective property rights or a credible system of taxation will be able to support a much smaller national debt ("...as a percentage of GDP.") The most important factor in a country's ability to sustain debt is the country's ability to service it through it's tax base. If that is put into question, bond prices will drop and, implicitly, credit spreads on the yield will widen until the country no longer has the practical ability to roll over one year's debt with the next. That is when a default or "debt reorganization" becomes the rational choice.NByz (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI: I just watched Frontline: "Ten Trillion and Counting", which put the US national debt at 89.2% of GDP, after this year's deficit is factored in. StuRat (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Fuente Ovejuna

analysis of fuente ovejuna —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.33.82 (talk) 10:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't recognize this as a question until just now, as it lacked a question mark, a "Please provide" in front, or even a heading (which I've now added). See our Fuente Ovejuna article and come back here with any unanswered questions, please. StuRat (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

WWII "zeroes"?

Resolved

I was just watching the latest episode of Dollhouse (which was quite excellent), and there was a reference in there which I didn't quite catch (this isn't a spoiler btw, just a stray line). Could someone please explain it. The piece of dialogue goes like this:

• Dotcom-billionaire: "My first check, it had more zeroes than the Luftwaffe"

• FBI agent: "The Japanese. They had the Zeroes, not the Germans"

Pray tell, what "zeroes" are these two fellas talking about? 195.58.125.75 (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The Mitsubishi. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, sweet, thanks! 195.58.125.75 (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And in case you missed it in the article, the name Zero comes from the year in the Japanese calendar when it was introduced. Same idea as [crosses self] Windows 2000. --Anonymous, 20:13 UTC, March 23, 2009.

UNRESOLVED! Way unresolved - because you guys have given me an earworm. What song is it from? "Mitsubishi zero, dum-dum dum-dum dah-dah" BrainyBabe (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, all the top Google hits on a search for "lyrics" and "Mitsubishi Zero" all on Sexuality (Billy Bragg song), in which Zero is rhymed with (Robert De) Niro. Would that be the one, Babe? --Anonymous, 21:33 UTC, March 23, 2009.

Bordell Makejewka

A one-line caption for these archival documents describes them as tickets for a bordello for WWII German army officers "in Makejewka in the Stalingrad region." I doubt it's Makiivka (in the Ukraine), but I haven't found a suitable locale. Is there such a place, or is the name likely to be merely a surname or a word in Polish? (I'm posting here rather than on the Language RD as this might indeed be a geography query after all :-) -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"Makejewka" is how the Russian name of Makiivka, "Макеевка", is transliterated to German. Makiivka lies in the South-East part of the Ukraine, and Stalingrad doesn't look that far away, from a German geographical perspective of the Soviet Union. I think it is in fact likely that the caption refers to Makiivka. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

christodoulou tzigane

In Greek language χριστοδουλου Τσιγανε (χριστοστομο maybe)is our streetname and we cannot find any information about this person. Arounding streets are marathonanmachi street so we think he had something to do with it. Searches in google and other searchprograms give only the translation of gypsi. Who was this person and what did he do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manolis gr (talk • contribs) 14:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean he had something to do with the Battle of Marathon? That is unlikely for someone named Christodoulou. Are you in Cyprus? We have Christodoulos and Christodoulou articles, do they help? Adam Bishop (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Is no information available through your municipal offices, city library, or other local or regional government source? -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Could χριστοστομο be a misreading of Χρυσόστομος? —Tamfang (talk) 05:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-Somali African Muslims in Arab Gulf nations

What is the history of Non-Somali-speaking African Muslims in United Arab Emirates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.250 (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried looking at articles connected to United Arab Emirates? Admittedly, Demographics of the United Arab Emirates and Islam in the United Arab Emirates are not terribly helpful, but they do have useful-looking links. If you have a country in mind, you could look for its emigrants, as opposed to the UAE's immigrants. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Depression and higher IQ

I know that there is no true measurement of IQ, however, was/is there a study done regarding incidences of high IQ and likelyhood of being depressed? --Emyn ned (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

IQ tests are, by definition, a true measure of IQ. Do you mean "intelligence" rather than "IQ"? --Tango (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"...and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow." Not a scientific study, but probably the first to address the issue :) --Dr Dima (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This study claims a link between depression and gifted children, while this one links it to low childhood IQ. Acck! Clarityfiend (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not as if those are contradictory results. It could be that if you plot the incidence of depression against IQ, you get a bathtub curve. --Anon, 05:21 UTC, March 24, 2009.

Didn't say it was. It makes sense that you'd be most likely to be happy by being average. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe higher IQ people spend more time indoors, get less sunshine, and thus get less Vitamin D, which is linked to depression. 89.243.177.130 (talk) 11:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

News website

I'm looking for a news website that I can read to keep up with the "important" stories all over the world. I find that the paper from home (NZ Herald) is not the greatest, and often the front page stories are not the most important stories, but the most recent. I don't usually spend much time looking at the news, so I'd like a nice site that just has the important stuff so I'm not completely out of touch. Any suggestions? Thanks 77.12.54.219 (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the BBC's website, here - you'll need to select 'International version' by pressing edit near news (but I would be suprised if this weren't set by default for people physically outside the UK). Important stories - yes; worldwide coverage - yes; neutrality - mostly (there have been accusations of slight liberal bias). - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia English home page does a good job of summarizing the news, with less of a recency bias than other sources: [20], and hopefully won't have any coverage of Paris Hilton until somebody gets around to killing her. There's also Wikinews, if you want more than just a summary of each story: [21]. And, like Wikipedia, Wikinews allows you to make a correction if you find an error. StuRat (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Could we avoid calling for people's assassinations? I know it's Paris Hilton, but still... --Tango (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not calling for her assassination, I'm just saying I never want to hear from or about her until and unless she's killed. Besides, to be assassinated, don't you have to be of some actual importance ? StuRat (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The "gets around to" part read like you were saying she should be killed. I think the importance point is just another point in favour of not calling for her assassination! --Tango (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

We have the same problem here! The local paper of record is a broadsheet pretending to be a tabloid.

The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com) and the Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk) are two I like to check regularly (despite the very different editorial standpoints). If you are interested in economic/financial/industrial news, either the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/) or the Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/) are great - though some online contents require subscription.

Even though these papers have very different editorial agendas, all of them are intelligent and globally sensitive. What I mean is that, in their reporting of world events, they are not quick to succumb to stereotyping and sloganeering - problems which some papers in our more provincial end of the world suffer from.

In our own (regional) backyard, the South China Morning Post is a quality paper, but is very stingy with its website (http://www.scmp.com/). The Straits Times (http://www.straitstimes) is also nice. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with Google News? It's a compendium from news websites from all over the world, and is divided into different areas of interest. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's another vote for Google News [22]. Dismas|^(talk) 01:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's one that has been around for quite some time that always posts some interesting headlines and updates frequently: [23] cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no, one should never go to the Drudge Report looking for neutral news reports. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I also have to vote for Google News. I asked a similar question on the Misc desk about a month ago. I have been using Google News for several years. My only complaint is around local or area-specific coverage. You can set up your own news screens, but you'll often just get the most popular stories that contain the words you've screened for, not the most relevant stories to that screen. That's what you get from an editor-free source though. No bias, but also little perspective. NByz (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Additionally I've been getting the Economist's weekly audio version. It's great if you have a long commute. NByz (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

March 24

Same-Sex marriage against nature

What do they mean that same-sex marriage is against nature, in what terms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.205 (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What do who mean? Algebraist 01:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

People who don't know much about nature, presumably. Nature is full of examples of same-sex relationships - notably among birds, but some species of dolphin and bonobos are also notorious. FWIW, the only "abberant sexual practice" that seems to be performed by humans and few if any other species is voluntary lifelong celibacy (as practiced in several religious orders...:) Grutness...wha? 01:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There are other species which do that, such as social insects. Algebraist 01:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not all members of those species do - drones & queens mate. Exxolon (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And not all humans join those religious orders, so the comparison is a good one. --Tango (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The original statement is also inaccurate because the concept of marriage isn't a natural thing. Staying with one mate for life is somewhat common. I want to say that geese remain with one mate for life. But "marriage" is an invented concept. Dismas|^(talk) 01:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

They mean they've decided an ideal "nature" and they don't think the practice conforms with it. That's it. It has little to nothing to do with "nature" in the scientific sense (which even in the scientific sense is a problematic concept—see naturalistic fallacy, for example). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

None of these is what they mean, it is what people who disagree with them think they mean. What they mean is that same-sex marriage cannot, by nature, lead to children. If enough people were gay, then we would all go extinct because neither woman + woman nor man + man = babies. That's what they mean. It's that simple. Wrad (talk) 05:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come on. That's the rationale, sure, but when they call someone unnatural, they're not merely making a biological assessment, they're expressing profound disgust over them. They don't call infertile people unnatural, or people who've been in accidents that have left them unable to procreate, or people who have themselves sterilized... but if you're gay, suddenly you're unnatural, even though that doesn't actually prevent you from procreating. It's hateful bullshit. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me like you're doing a lot of reading between the lines. You're re-saying what they actually say in order to make it something you can despise more easily. That isn't to say that your arguments about sterilization aren't good points, its just to say that it might be more useful to you not to add things to their argument which they didn't say. Wrad (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to discuss the precise meaning of what 'they' say, it would be helpful to know who 'they' are and what exactly it is that 'they' say. Algebraist 17:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The argument comes from religous, conservative people in favor of traditional marriage, mostly. They say exactly what the questioner says they do: "same-sex marriage is against nature". Wrad (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well. Uh. If you honestly believe that you need to read between the lines in order to come to the conclusion that conservative Christians who strongly object to homosexual marriages by calling them unnatural do so in order to denigrate homosexuals and homosexuality in general, I'm not sure how to respond to that. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If you make assumptions like that about the people who disagree with you, then you will never be effective at changing their minds. They aren't all trying to denigrate homosexuals. That's just one argument that some pro-gay folks use to distract from the real argument being made. Wrad (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You just need to make sure you're not defeating a strawman. None of the examples you give are similar at all to homosexuals because of the supposed "choice" homosexual people make in being homosexual. Someone who's maimed or infertile or whatever are sufferers of accidents and are hardly in control of their reproductive choices in the same way. A better analogue might be people who decide to not marry, let alone have children. And, while I don't have a specific cite at hand, I'd bet those folks, especially females, were predominantly the ones to be accused of witchcraft in centuries past. Again, there's a perception of that group behaving in an unnatural way. Using a very narrow definition, the label is, well, not correct, but it does have a point. Whether it's some god telling you to "go forth and multiply" or evolutionary pressure to increase the incidence of your genes, it would seem that having kids (and a good number of them) is the "natural" thing to do. The trouble comes in when someone decides that what's natural must be what's right and anything unnatural (according to their version, of course) needs to eliminated. To me, the fact that homosexual unions typically can't lead to children means that there must be some very interesting evolutionary pressure or side-effect or something at work to overcome the simple truth that people who have many kids leave more of their genes behind and homosexuals obviously can't do that in a direct way. As a personal aside, I tend to accept what I find in nature as being natural - homosexuality included; it's just as simple as that. I don't have a supernatural concept of moral descent decline, which is what many folks choose to apply when they see things that differ from the way they "ought" to be. Matt Deres (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, in practical terms, whether homosexuals can reproduce among themselves is largely irrelevant. There are plenty of gay people with children, some of whom are the product of actual intercourse, whereas others involved a coffee mug and a turkey baster, so to speak. The reproductive urge is still there, and gay people parent children all the time. (The evolutionary pressure aspect is another thing, sure.)

As for straw men, that was specifically in response to the idea that a marriage that cannot lead to children is unnatural. Clearly, not all marriages that cannot lead to children are considered to be unnatural; whether that's an actual conservative religious position can be argued, but strikes me as kind of pointless: a couple of minutes of Googling will turn up all sorts of lovely sources for what "unnatural" tends to mean in the context of religious views and homosexuality. Obviously, that doesn't necessarily represent the majority of conservative religious people, and it's even possible that some religious people are dim-witted and uneducated enough to use the word purely in a completely neutral biological context, but nonetheless, I think it's pretty telling. In the vast majority of cases, that terminology is intentionally derogatory towards homosexuals and homosexuality. It's a beard -- it lets people put down gay people while pretending that they're just being neutral, even objective about the whole thing, when they're actually nothing of the sort. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

For someone who gets up in arms about people putting down gay people you sure are good at putting down religious people. And you do it just as bad or worse. Here in this very post you called them "dimwits" and "uneducated" and you are absolutely determined to have them found guilty of denigrating a group without the slightest inkling of a desire to actually understand where they're coming from. That, my friend, is called hypocrisy. Wrad (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There are entire species of lizards composed of only females. Yes, the famale lizards have sex with each other and produce exact genetic copies of the mother. [24] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If two human females could produce a child alone, that would be relevant to the argument, but since they can't, the argument remains that, naturally, two human males or two human females can't make another human alone. What other species can do is irrelevant. Pro-gay folks always bring up homosexual tendencies of other species, and they're usually right, but that argument doesn't connect with traditional marriage folks because they see humans as fundamentally different from other species. Wrad (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You can have children without a marriage and a marriage without children. Please disregard my last comment. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Pro-gay folks always bring up homosexual tendencies of other species, and they're usually right, but that argument doesn't connect with traditional marriage folks because they see humans as fundamentally different from other species. " This is really the nub of the problem. The question is always framed by "traditional marriage folks" in an unwinnable "have you stopped beating your wife" way:

• 1:It's not natural
• 2:But animals also do it, so it is "natural"
• 1:Humans are different from animals - it's not natural for "us"

You can't have it both ways. Either what's natural for humans must be judged against the rest of nature, or humans are "different from other animals" - in which case what's natural for them can't be judged by anything other than individual subjectivity, and it's impossible to say what is "natural". Grutness...wha? 21:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I always felt that it had two meanings, that a same-sex relationship couldn't produce children and was against the principle of population increase but also like Mel Gibson said, "this (pointing to his buttocks) is only for taking a shit." --JGGardiner (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If the argument is simply a pragmatic one about avoiding extinction then claiming that same sex marriage is "against nature" or "unnatural" (Which is what the questioner was asking about.) is a weird way of saying that. It requires a lot of creative interpretation. If that is truly what is meant by "unnatural" in this context, then it's very poor communication, if you ask me. APL (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I always thought "natural" is being misused for (the speaker's understanding of) "normal" in a pronouncement like this. Clearly homosexuality is "natural" in the sense that it is not artificial (unless you use special tools for the task...) What the speaker means is that same-sex marriage (or sex) is different to what they understand as "normal". Thus they project their subjective understandings onto a seemingly objective "nature", and pronounce it unnatural.

I wonder what the same folks would say (as to "naturalness") about other "non-standard" (to varying degrees) sexual behaviour? Shoe fetish? Masturbation? Paedophilia? Oral sex? Inter-racial marriages? Polygamy (or, depending on your perspective, monogamy)? What about sexless marriages, like (apparently) a significant portion of the Japanese population? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Everyone, religious people don't apply the same meaning to the word "natural" as you do. When pro-gay folks hear it, they think it must be biological...Darwin-related. This is not the case. "Natural" to a religious person is something that follows the parameters of life which God set for it. For religious people, since in their view God said that homosexuality is wrong, it is by extension unnatural. Therefore, anytime anyone does anything with their bodies which is against God's design, that act is, under this definition, unnatural. This isn't necessarily meant to be degrading (though some who say it mean it that way), and it isn't at all connected to evolution (why would an evangelical use a Darwin analogy?), it is just is another way of saying "Homosexuality is an act against God's design for nature." In this case, pedophilia, lying, stealing, whatever...they're all unnatural. Wrad (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrad, why do you assume the speaker is religious? And if they were religious, why do you assume they are Christian? There are many gods out there who are perfectly fine with deviant sexual behaviour (Leda and the swan, anyone?), and conversely there are many secular people who are just as homophobic (or at least find it "unnatural") as the next religious fanatic. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Most people who use that phrase are evangelical Christians, and I am presenting the argument as they would. It only seems fair. I assume that the person asking the question was not religious, and was curious as to why someone might say homosexuality was unnatural. Mine is a very valid answer, and answering questions is our business here at the refdesk, isn't it? Wrad (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Marriage" per se is not natural, no matter how many sexes are involved. It's not found in nature; other animals may pair-bond, but only humans marry. It's the distinction between a legitimate child and a bastard that is memorialized in the term "natural child": a child born to unmarried parents is "natural", in the sense that they are born outside the man-made institution of marriage, and therefore in a "natural" state. - Nunh-huh 23:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, though, with Christians, "natural" has nothing to do with what animals do or don't do. A "natural" act is, to these Christians, an act sanctioned by God. Since in their view marriage is sanctioned by God, it is a natural act. Wrad (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

So the problem is that the people making this claim (or at least some of them) are using the word 'natural' to mean something entirely different from what it in fact means. Algebraist 23:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit of a biased view. Everybody uses words in the way it means for them. 'Natural' does not mean anything "in fact" in anything outside a subjective sense. It has no solid meaning except as people see it, and people see words differently in different cultures. The problem is a difference in culture causing misinterpretation and cases of bigotry on both sides which results in people being completely unable to communicate because they are too busy talking about how stupid/evil/whatever the other side is. Wrad (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I really don't buy the idea that Christians who talk about homosexuality and gay marriage as unnatural don't do it to denigrate gay people -- and that's not because I'm biased, that's because the facts don't back that up. I mean, the frickin' Pope called gay marriage not only unnatural, but also evil. See for yourself. (That was the previous pope, of course, but happily enough, it was signed by the current pope, then-cardinal Joseph Ratzinger -- who's been busily keeping up the campaign after the passing of the torch.) The Catholic Church certainly isn't all of Christianity, of course, but it's probably a fairly decent point of comparison for motivations among those Christians who make it a point to refer to homosexuality and homosexual relationships as unnatural. When the head of the Catholic Church makes proclamations like this, I think it's kind of deluded at best to claim that the Christians who talk about gay marriage and homosexuality in general as unnatural are merely making some kind of a non-judgmental biological assessment. This really isn't about people just misinterpreting the meaning of the word "unnatural" in this context. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please notice that the Pope did not say that gay people were evil. He said that gay marriage was evil. Gay marriage is an act, not a person. That is a huge difference which I don't think you're seeing. Wrad (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That kind of disingenuous semantic trickery makes very little difference to a gay person is what I'm kinda shocked to realize that you just don't see. Or really don't want to see, I don't know. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is that some people want the word "natural" to mean "approved of by me", which is, of course, not what the word means. If they doubt this, suggest they consult a dictionary. - Nunh-huh 23:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Dictionaries are not where words get their meaning. Words get their meaning from their use in societies, the dictionary-writers observe how society uses them, and attempt to write it down, but of course it is different from culture to culture. To say that someone is wrong because they aren't part of your culture and aren't conforming to your culture is just the kind of bigotry pro-gay people ironically claim is on the religious side. The bigotry is thick and it flies both ways on this issue. Wrad (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Dictionaries are most certainly where you look to find out what words mean to other people. If you're going to use a word in an idiosyncratic manner, you are obliged to state the meaning you've assigned to it, or risk being misunderstood. If the purpose of using the word is clear communication, you will state the sense in which you are using it; if the purpose of using the term is to obscure what you actually mean, you won't. - Nunh-huh 09:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And again, what does religion have to do with anything? When a person projects their own subjective view of what is "natural" onto external nature, it matters not at all whether that subjective view of nature comes from their faith or their prejudices. It's still subjective. Being inspired by a holy book does not make one's views any more universal. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Religion has everything to do with understanding what religious people mean when they say what they say. Your view of natural is just as subjective as theirs, and they have to learn what you mean when you say it just as much as you have to learn what they mean. Wrad (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Except, of course, for the fact that - objectively - their definition of "nature" doesn't appear in the dictionary. The two cases are just not "equally subjective". - Nunh-huh 09:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if you read all the links I'm giving below, 76.64, you still won't be satisfied as to what they mean exactly, but at least it will be easier to identify who "they" are, and to read where and in which context "they" use the phrase "against nature", "discard the laws of nature", etc, so here are the links to articles on Wikipedia:

Religion and homosexuality with an entire box of links to various "Relgion X and homosexuality" articles. The Bible and homosexuality might be of particular interest. For a secular "they", see also crime against nature. Typing "Against Nature" into the search box took me to Against Nature?, and to homosexual behavior in animals, summing up some of the counter-evidence mentioned above. Biology and sexual orientation is another article you might wish to read. Then, I suggest you ask "them" directly; one thing this discussion has shown is that is not always easy to explain views one does not share. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Finally, another person actually interested in understanding the other side and answering the question rather than making snide remarks about it. I don't myself even agree with the statement, but that's irrelevant. Wrad (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am pointing out the narrow geographical and social focus of your answer. You simply assume that the person stating homosexuals are unnatural are "religious", and that "religious" equals Christian fanatics. This is not true at all. Plenty of people hold the view referred to by the OP without being religious at all, and most religious people are neither "evangelical" nor fanatical in any way. Plus, most religious people in the world are not Christians. It is both imprecise and misleading to analyse this from the perspective of a very narrow segment of the world population, or even the English-speaking population around the world. I also object to the appeal to religion as if a religious understanding of what is "natural" is fundamentally different to, even privileged above, any other perspective on what is "natural". Every person has their own view, and some are informed by religion, others by their non-religious, ethical codes, still others by only science. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This was the reason for my first response, which alas has yet to be answered. Algebraist 23:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, so far, I'm the only one who's actually answered the question rather than just ridiculed and belittled the statement, so why don't you turn your criticism elsewhere. Or, even better, you could explain what it means when people who aren't Christian say it. I personally don't know of any such people, so I can't help you there. I don't see what the point of your statement that most religious people are not Christians I never said that they were. You can either sit on your buttocks and ask the IP what he meant again and again like a parrot, never getting an answer, or you can attempt the best answer you can. That's what I did, so don't attack me for actually trying to answer the question, which is what this whole refdesk is for, anyway. It's supposedly not a forum for debate. Most of the people on this thread seem very, very confused on that point. Wrad (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No. You assumed that "they" are christians and then answered that christians define "natural" based on an ability to procreate. Firstly, whether "they" are christians is not entirely clear - if the OP wants a clear answer, he/she should ask a clear question. Secondly, even if "they" are christians, we would be doing the OP a disservice by not pointing out that the christian definition of "natural" is stupid. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Anti-LGBT slogans has a small section which says the "idea dates back to Plato, who argued in the Laws I 636c and VIII 841d that homosexual sex was 'out of nature' (para phusin)." --JGGardiner (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The original post is from an IP who posted this question with no signature and who has precisely one edit to his credit. I'd surmise that he accomplished exactly what he set out to do and sees no need to expand on his original question. Maybe we should stop feeding him now. - Eron^Talk 00:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

As if we needed help. We do well enough on this page on our own even without trolls. Wrad (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm reflecting that if something has been labelled as "wrong/sinful" in a religious way, that doesn't necessarily make it "unnatural". I've never heard anyone describe murder, theft, bigamy, or taking the Lord's name in vain as "unnatural", but they're all contrary to the Christian commandments. (Oh, wait, the murder of Hamlet's father was described as "most foul and unnatural".) Conversely, homosexuality is supposedly outlawed in the Bible, and stoning prostitutes to death is also supported there, but they're not mentioned in the commandments. So, if someone says same-sex matters are both sinful and unnatural, they're using two separate arguments against it. Not that it makes a whit of difference to most gay people, of course. It's no more a choice to be this way than it is to be born with black hair or left-handed. The sooner people stop talking about homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice", the happier I'll be. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Are these good Chinese names for me?

Are "Zhao Chengyong" or "Zhao Chengli" good Chinese names for me? I want a Chinese name that is strength and success. "Zhao Chengli" means success and strength and "Zhao Chenyong" means success and brave. I don't care about the Chinese surname. I just care about the Chinese given name right now. Which Chinese names are the best for me? I prefer "Zhao Chengli" because it means success and strength. Jet123 (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't want a tattoo. Jet123 (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't help you with the actual question (the Language desk might be better suited for this, anyway), but on the off chance that you are planning to have this tattooed on yourself or apply it in some other permanent manner, you may wish to have a long and hard think about it, and perhaps check out some cautionary tales. It may not think what you think it means, and just because someone convincing tells you it's okay, that might not be the case. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL that's not what the OP asked for, but it could well be what he or she needs!

OP: each of your chosen pronunciations can mean a myriad of things, depending on the characters chosen. I presume that when you say "chengli" meaning "success and strength" you are talking about cheng as one part of chenggong (success). Together, they could be taken to mean "accomplishing strenght" or perhaps "becoming power". (The cheng character in question by itself can mean accomplish or become, among other things). Two things to be aware of: 1. both characters are fairly simple, could be viewed as a tad lacking in literary sophistication (but of course you may be going for the "Wolf" or "Bruce" effect); 2. "chengli" is also the pronunciation of "valid" (with the exact same tones), as in "this argument is valid" or "this equation is valid"; the same word can also mean "established", as in "this shop was established in 1882". Are you comfortable with those connotations? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Map of Greece and Anatolia, circa 600 BC

For the last few years I've been producing a comic set in Anatolia/Turkey, around 600 BC. Something I've always wanted to do, but never quite succeeded at, is create a political map of Anatolia, Greece and their environs as they existed in this time period. Wikipedia has been quite helpful in determining some of the borders, especially in Anatolia, but almost all of the political maps I've been able to dig up for Greece are based on the Classical Greek period, around 200 years after the time I'm interested in.

I realise what I'm doing may be very difficult due to a scarcity of sources, but I was hoping the reference desk might be able to point me to some useful resources - or even, in the best case scenario, some actual maps for this period. Thanks, chaps. Dooky (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a map [25], entitled, "The Beginnings of Historial Greece", 700 to 600 BC, from The Historical Atlas by William R. Shepherd, 1923. It shows the coast of Asia Minor, but not much more. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC) PS: There may be a copy in the library of Coventry, maybe it contains other maps of use to you. PS2: This one [26] shows Lydia, Phrygia and Cappadocia. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd come across those maps before, but it's useful to be reminded of them. The second is pretty useful, although I remember being (and still am) baffled by some of the borders on the first map. I'm especially interested in what was going on in that north eastern corner of Anatolia at the time, as it happens to be close to the setting of my story. Hmm... Thanks again for pointing me to those. Dooky (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

History repeating itself

I used the phrase in a reply and found I don't know/can't recall who said it first "History is repeating itself." Does anyone know who deserves credit for it? 76.97.245.5 (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The idea itself has, I think, been around since Biblical times; certainly Karl Marx said specifically that History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. which may be useful as a starting point at least. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Plutarch's Parallel Lives are another ancient version of the same idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In Ecclesiastes, King Solomon says "There is nothing new under the sun", which is a similar concept, even if it is worded differently. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 18:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't so snappy but Thucydides said his History of the Peloponnesian War was useful for "those who want to understand clearly the events which happened in the past and which (human nature being what it is) will at some time or other and in much the same ways, be repeated in the future." That's from the Rex Warner translation. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

My favorite take on this was "History doesn't repeat itself, historians merely repeat each other's words." StuRat (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

and my favorite is Mark Twain: ""History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme." (though the Marx quote too is a good one). "History rhymes" led me to the article on historic recurrence, which led me to cliodynamics ... ---Sluzzelin talk 23:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The recurrence of history is of course a recurrent idea among historians... let's quote also Giambattista Vico, with his theory of "corsi e ricorsi". --pma (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Macho ranking of countries

If countries were ranked by how macho they are, what sort of position would the UK (for example) have compared with other western or european countries? I speculate that high-macho countries are less pleasant places to live. 78.146.178.204 (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This question is unanswerable. "Macho" is an incredibly subjective term not subject to stastistical analysis. The only plausible answer I can come up with is Qatar - with an average of 1.87 men to every 1 woman in their population you could at least argue that it is. Exxolon (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean how macho the country itself is (as in threatening it's neighbors), or how macho the men in the country are (as in dominating the women) ? In the later category, I'd go with the Arab nations, where women are legally prevented from doing many of the things men can do. Saudi Arabia is one of the worst. I don't believe that this is due to Islam, but rather due to the Arab culture, which predated Islam (although some of the Arab values are enshrined in Islam, since the religion originated there). StuRat (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought of that when OP mentioned that it probably wouldn't be a nice place to live But, also, it could mean how macho the country forces one to be as far as rugged independence, which implies a lesser developed mation, or maybe Russia, given Siberia, the harsh winters, etc.Somebody or his brother (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And Canadia? Lumberjacks and all that... Or the Congo? Swiss Alps? Texas? (... while we are playing stereotypes...) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet, Pakistan, a predominantly Muslim nation, and Sri Lanka and India, which have large but not majority Muslim populations, have had women heads of government/state, when many of the countries who criticise the Muslim nations for their blinkered attitudes have not done so, and seem as far from that achievement as they have ever been. Australia and the US are in that category, although Julia Gillard is only a heartbeat away from the prime ministership and she's first woman to have acted as Australian PM. For once, New Zealand has beaten Australia hands down in this regard. Canada experimented with a woman PM but I don't get that they're particularly excited about repeating it. Margaret Thatcher probably spoiled it for any future female UK PM, as they'll inevitably be compared with her. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan had a female head of government because of feudalism and nepotism, not because of any particularly enlightened form of Islam. Also, do you ever get the feeling that even the OPs know that these questions are stupid, and that we are being trolled? Adam Bishop (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Fiction Type

Hello all! I have a question on what the heck kind of a...thing...I'm writing. It's set up almost like a screenplay or scriptment, where everything is presented in detail, save for the dialogue, which is largely paraphrased, and the inclusion of italicized, stream-of-consciousness thoughts. Some of the descriptions also tend to use very odd metaphors. So, what IS this thing? It's like a weird blend of scriptment, poetry, and novel, but whenever I try to pull it one way or the other, it just seems to lose its honesty and the message I'm trying to convey. Is this a funky new fiction type, or am I pretty much in a sinking boat? Because I really do enjoy writing it... Thanks!

74.46.148.173 (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Makrous (?), Saratov Oblast, 1943/45

From the testimony, written in 1946, of a Jewish girl from Poland whose family had fled eastward early in WWII: in around 1943 the family was permitted to relocate to "Makrous in the region of Saratov" where her widowed mother worked in a kolkhoz (and her two brothers were drafted and subsequently killed at the front in '44 and '45, the fate of their father in '41). I haven't succeeed in identifying a locale of this name; perhaps it's misspelled? (I don't have access to the original Russian-language document.) Suggestions welcome. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

genocide curves

Where can I find genocide curves (graphs)? I mean by number of deaths (ie time would be x, deaths y), starting with the first deaths on the way to snowballing to the larger genocide? Thank you.