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

September 22

Unknown Painting

What is the name of the painting on the cover of this book [1]?

Thanks in advance, 220.245.45.84 (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It is by Francisco de Goya, and is called "The Letter" or "The Young Women." It's at the Palais des Beaux Arts in Lille, France. --Cam (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! 220.245.45.84 (talk) 05:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Which philosopher has made the biggest personal difference to contemporary life?

a) For all time, b) active since 1800? For many philosophers, if they had not existed someone else would have come up with the same ideas, by analogy with the invention of the telephone or flying machine which had several people in various countries working on similar ideas. 78.144.255.50 (talk) 12:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

All philosophy is a confirmation of, rejection of, or some other kind of response to Aristotle! Adam Bishop (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha and others, far more than anyone else. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The philosopher who has made the most difference to people who don't ever read philosophy, such as myself or the questioner, is b) Karl Marx.--Wetman (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the definition of a philosopher? If you need post 1800, then perhaps Karl Marx since his ideas were the basis for the spread of communism throughout a good chunk of the world population during the 20th Century. Of course, it is not really feasible to quantify the impact a philosopher would have made, so take any answer with a few buckets of salt. Googlemeister (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Questions like this are ridiculous -- it's like asking which cranial bone is the most important. If any one was missing, terrible things would/could occur, most of them probably leading to eventual death. There can be no philosopher, nor US president, nor any one of anything, really, that is the most or best. There can be a group, and that group may be small, but any one without the others probably wouldn't have lead to anything worth speaking about. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, I think things would have been just fine if Karl Marx had ended up as a miscarriage. And although I mentioned Jesus and Muhammad, Moses and Abraham figure into it also. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please make note of the fact that this is a reference desk, and it is intended for asking questions which can be answered with a 'referral'. It is not intended as a place of discussion, and ideally all answers should be a bluelink with an explanation of why the link is relevant. It is certainly not intended for questions that are not only unanswerable by wikipedians, but that are completely unanswerable altogether. Following this I implore other wikipedians not to encourage misuse of the reference desk by responding to such non-questions with the discussion or debate that the OP seeks. But in keeping with my own advice to leave a bluelink, if you wish to pursue this question, you may find the company of this venue stimulating. Elocute (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yogi Berra? Bus stop (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, Yogi learned at the feet of the master, Casey Stengel. Regardless, I doubt there's any more profound statement in all of philosophy than, "If you come to a fork in the road, take it." →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know -- I don't think questions like this are that bad. Problems occur when people ask questions that are likely to lead to arguments. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

In terms of wide-spread influence still evident today, here’s my list:

17th century: Locke, Descartes, Hobbes, Spinoza

18th century: Adam Smith, Kant, Hume

19th century: Marx, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche

20th century: Lenin, Mao, Keynes

And, any question that sparks thinking is, in my opinion, a good question. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well unfortunately for you and anyone whose opinions on the use of the ref desk differ from those laid out by the guidlines you will find that this is not the place for such discussion. There is a greater than plentiful supply of places on the internet where you are able to hold such discussions, but here is not meant to be one of them. Elocute (talk) 10:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well since the original question is essentially unanswerable, what's the solution? Delete an unanswerable question as soon as it's posted? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

In my experience more time is wasted and love is lost by debating whether questions are appropriate than just answering them. I think one can, in fact, give educated and helpful opinions to questions like this, even if there is no "right" answer. I think DOR (HK)'s list is pretty good, and would give someone interested in "relevant philosophers" a great place to start reading and thinking. It's of note that with the exception of Mao, we're talking only about the Western world here. That's not necessarily a problem—Western philosophy is pretty influential to our modern world—but it's worth just keeping an eye out for the systemic bias here (I am sure people in Africa, the Middle East, and in Asia would have a few other names to put on that list in regards to whose philosophy ends up governing their lives). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, I think the unanswerability of this question has left an incredibly biased answer to be accepted. THis is why we should not respond to questions asking for opinion, as it leads to disagreement, and ultimately, the no-one any the wiser. The answers given (with exception to your brief mention that the rest of the world does exist) have all been very western-centric and have a disproportionate number of english speakers, and have all been oddly modern (I don't think many would exclude Socrates or Aristotle from such a list). However there is no need to respond to requests for opinion, and very little discussion is recquired to identify such questions. Elocute (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There may have been some book, academic paper, or intelligent webpage published which tries to identify or rank the greatest philosophers, in which case the answer could be to refer them to that. The OP is not to know if such a book etc does or does not exist. 92.24.119.215 (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Budda is the greatest of all, since he introduced altruism. Culture could so easily have gone the other way, with unrestrained power and selfishness being seen as the best thing, like some of the nastier cultures depicted in Star Trek. Jesus learnt ideas from Buddism I once read. 89.242.104.32 (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Buddha was known in the middle east in 30 A.D.??? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

See Buddhism and Christianity. A Buddhist statue was found in Denmark dating from around 900AD also. 92.24.119.215 (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not thinking of The Man from Earth? I'm fairly sure it's mostly fictional. TastyCakes (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think 78.144.255.50 needs to look into two separate issues. First, read about how ideas originate, are transmitted, and are influential (see articles such as history of ideas, evolution of an idea, meme and conceptual history) to get an idea about how difficult or impossible it's going to be to trace the origin or influence of any single philosophical idea.

Second, read about the earliest philosophers you can (while understanding that philosophy certainly predated written records; our article on History of philosophy says All cultures — be they prehistoric, ancient, medieval, or modern; Eastern, Western, religious or secular — have had their own unique schools of philosophy). So far the earliest thinker mentioned here is Buddha; here is a list of philosophies that predate him (in roughly chronological order according to the dates given in those articles): pre-modern African philosophy, Ptahhotep, Hindu philosophy, Rishi, Iranian philosophy, Babylonian philosophy, Chinese philosophy, Hundred Schools of Thought.

I think you will find that many concepts that are widespread today are found in all the earliest philosophers and philosophies and undoubtably predated them. In addition, the earliest philosophers are not identified in the historical record as individuals. That's why I agree with Elocute that you've asked an unanswerable question, but hope these references will either help you understand why, or to find your own candidate. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have un-"archived" this. There's no reason to lock it up all special and say people can't add to it. Just treat it like a normal thread and it'll be archived automatically in a few days like everything else. I don't see any problems here or any arguments or any soap-boxing. So just let it be. The responses have all been perfectly civil and pretty well thought-out. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The names on Ted Honderich's list (Oxford Companion to Philosophy, OUP, 1995, p. vii) are Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Hobbes, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Kant and Nietzsche. However, that's just in terms of their contribution to _philosophy_, not "contemporary life". The audience of In Our Time voted for Marx as the most important philosopher, and it's very arguable that he should be on the list as well. An addition I'd make personally is Al-Ghazali, as important a figure in Islamic philosophy as Aquinas is in Christian philosophy. Tevildo (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

JFK and the Légion d’honneur

Did JFK ever receive this award? He is not listed as having received it anywhere in Wikipedia, and Google brings nothing up. I'm working on a book that suggest he received the award and I'd like to be sure one way or the other. Ericoides (talk) 12:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, one Robert Foster Kennedy was awarded it. That's not the same RFK who was JFK's brother. Also, JFK's sister Eunice Kennedy Shriver got it, as did Jackie Kennedy's sister. But JFK himself? I see no evidence for it. There's no mention of it @ either his page or Légion d'honneur. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Jack. I wonder if there are any extra-Wiki sources that might confirm his non-receipt... Ericoides (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Asking, then doubting the answer is querulous, and, you may imagine, tiresome for the volunteers here. If you are actually working on a book, you already know how to research recipients of the Legion d'Honneur. And no doubt the French Consul General will be glad to help you. --Wetman (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I would let Jack speak for himself. I would doubt that he took offence. You will notice that I thanked him, and you will also notice that in my original post I stated that I had checked within Wikipedia. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't take any offence. But trying to prove definitively that something didn't happen is usually difficult if not impossible. You'd have to find a complete, official and authoritative list of all recipients to prove that JFK wasn't listed; I can't imagine an author would go to the trouble of mentioning that he didn't get it, unless it were in the context of naming the U.S. presidents who did get it. Afaik, only Eisenhower got the L d'h, and that was before he became president, for his wartime efforts as a military commander. You could scan List of Légion d'honneur recipients by name, but I could not guarantee it's complete. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

...and you'll find the Consulat générale de France at www.consulfrance-newyork.org/.--Wetman (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the info. Ericoides (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

querelle de la rose

Does anyone know of any e-text version, translated into English, of Christine de Pisan's Querelle de la rose?64.179.37.3 (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems unlikely...I don't think there is even a published translation. (I'm not even sure if there is a published French edition.) No one has paid much attention to that work, apparently. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I spent a few hours looking for one and found nothing. Which seems a shame - this is one of the seminal (so to speak) documents of feminism. Some of her other works are readily available. It appears there are some translations available in recent hardcopy anthologies. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The OP's wording seems to imply that Christine wrote a work titled Querelle de la rose, which is not the case. She did participate in an epistolary and literary debate that has come to be known as "the querelle de la rose", an English translation of which can be found in Baird, Joseph L., and John R. Kane, ed. and trans., The Querelle de la Rose: Letters and Documents, North Carolina Studies in the Romance Languages and Literatures 199 (Chapel Hill: U. of North Carolina Dept. of Romance Languages, 1978). A translation (I don't recall whether it's the same one or a new one) can also be found in this book, a limited preview—that is, one with great chunks missing—of which is available in Google Books; but I too am not seeing any full version of Christine's contributions to the debate online. Deor (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, cool, I didn't know if there was a translation in Baird and Kane (I was hoping someone would have "A Translation" in the title). Adam Bishop (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This is very useful; thanks. The Baird and Kane version routinely appears in anthologies of literary criticism, but a text that challenged the most popular work of its day should at least be in Gutenberg or Bartleby, eh? Dukesnyder1027 (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This might be a good project for Wikisource. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

possilbe to put back two-term limit rule

Is it possible for country like Uganda to bring the two term rule back. I'm confuse on which side decides a law, judicial, I thought it is up to voters to see like Yoweri Museveni should stay, and it is also up to incoming one, whom is next elect if qualify enough. --209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It is possible. Articles 259 to 263 of the constitution set out the circumstances under which the constitution may be amended. Depending on which section of the constitution is being changed, the requirements are that it may be changed by parliament if:

• supported at the second and third readings by the votes of not less than two-thirds of all members of Parliament
• supported at the second and third readings by the votes of not less than two-thirds of all members of Parliament and it has been referred to a decision of the people and approved by them in a referendum.
• supported at the second and third readings by the votes of not less than two-thirds of all members of Parliament and it has been ratified by at least two-thirds of the members of the district council in each of at least two-thirds of all the districts of Uganda. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Mamadou Tandja

Do Mamadou Tandja have any kids and child or no. Just him and his wife. They never mention about his family on the article. --209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The BBC describes him as having "two wives and is the father of many children." --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

September 23

Letter to Mr. Obama.

Hi, I am a kindergarten teacher in Argentina, and we want to send a letter to the United States President, Barack Obama. We just want to send a letter without caring about his response, we know he is a very busy man. My question is, where should we send the letter to?. Thank you very much. --190.50.108.74 (talk) 01:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Send it to the address of The White House, which is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, thank you very much, quick responde really. Thank you very very very very much. --190.50.108.74 (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

While there is not much chance the letter will get lost, here's the full postal address:

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, D.C. 20500

U.S.A.

// BL \\ (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if during the 2001-09 period a letter addressed "W, 20500" would have reached its destination? I'm guessing yes, if mailed from the U.S. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

And, just to preview, you probably will get a response, albeit of course not a personal one from him. If you write to the White House, you usually get a "thanks for writing, here's what I think about the issues you brought up" response that has an autopenned signature. It's kind of neat. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Further, you might get on the Christmas card list. I had to write to President Reagan when I was in school and then got a Christmas card from him (meaning, his administration with a photocopied signature inside). I've written to every President since and always got on the Christmas card list. Mainly, I just want to see what the cards look like each year and how much they try to avoid using anything remotely religious on them. Some (Clintons) go overboard by avoiding any mention of holidays and just having a photo of them in a room of the Whitehouse (later, they added a wish for a joyful holiday season). Other's (Papa Bush) blatantly wish "a merry Christmas". Hmmm... I fear I'm hijacking this topic so I'll shut up. -- kainaw™ 02:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the way it works, or at least how it worked during the Clinton administration, in case you are interested: Part of the White House staff is dedicated to answering letters. The responses are usually form letters geared toward particular issues: "Thank you for writing to me on the important issue of the affordability of higher education. My administration has made it a priority to" blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Here's a real-life example: [2]. The letters are signed with a machine that imitates the president's signature. But occasionally, some of the response letters will be taken to the president himself for approval, just to make sure the form letters being sent out on a particular issue are meeting the president's approval. Those letters are actually signed by the president. I was told that on one occasion, Bill Clinton kept forgetting to sign off on one of the response letters, so when he finally got around to it, he hand-wrote a personal note apologizing for the delay on the response letter. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You can also write to White House pets, and their staff will write a nice response with a few self-portraits. I still have a letter from Socks kicking around. --Sean 14:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That means if I write a letter to the white house somebody will actually read it and compose a reply? ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone (some sort of low-level staffer) will actually read it. They will probably send you one of many standard replies. E.g. if you say, "great job!" they have a "great job!" reply. If you have a "hey, I have an opinion on health care", they probably have one or two replies based on your opinion. If you say, "you're the Anti-christ!", they probably have an amusing reply as well (and probably put you on a nut list). --Mr.98 (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And don't be surprised if the letter ends up in your FBI file, regardless of what it says. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this that unusual? I've written letters (well e-mails) to MPs and once the leader of opposition in New Zealand before and usually get a reply (often after a long while). I wrote an email to a Malaysian (opposition) MP once and also got a reply. While I've heard other Malaysian (particularly government) MPs can be difficult to reach via e-mail, I would expect most would reply if you contact them via ordinary mail provided they there's a meaningful way to reply without causing problems and they don't think you're being sarcastic or annoying, even if their reply is useless. Have you ever written to your MP or perhaps the PM in India? Nil Einne (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't. Because I didn't expect a reply. I thougth they would be too busy to reply to whoever sends them a letter. May be I'll write a letter to my MP, to the PM, and to the White House too and see what happens. Thanks! ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Bullies and authoritarians

I'm interested in the fundamental dimensions that underlie our naming of these and similar concepts. What is the difference between a bully and an authoritarian, and what are the similarities? Not a homework question. 89.242.104.32 (talk) 09:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The difference is largely the pay scale. Authoritarians get paid. For bullies, it's a hobby. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

More like a calling. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

An Authoritarian is more largely used as a political term, and is used to describe differing levels of authorotarianism in terms of how the state regulate's people's powers and decision making abilities. A Bully is a generic term used to describe an individual that uses intimidation (physical or mental) / violence or black-mail for either purely their own pleasure or to achieve a desired outcome. I don't see them being as hugely similar - personally I think that one is a (99.9% of the time) negatively-viewed trait (bullying) and another is a term used to describe a series of practices that may get widespread approval, but which are on a certain plane in terms of organising society. 10:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm voting for Baseball Bugs' response! An authoritarian is an enforcer of a canonical received opinion or party line. In their common modus operandi, the threat of violence, actualized by the bully, who enforces popular opinion with justification by recourse to authority rather than fact, the two are inextricably linked, as Baseball Bugs succinctly observed.. --Wetman (talk) 11:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The adult bullies I've come across are more into humiliation and getting others to ostracise the victim than violence. Child bullies I recall were more into violence or threats of violence. 92.24.119.215 (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I was aware an authoritarian is primarily a description of a personality. The authoritarian personality described the early research, and the more methodolically (is that a real word?) consistent development of that is described in the article Right-wing authoritarianism. Of the three traits described in that article, numbers two and three correspond to a bully - so an authoritarian = bully + trait1. 78.149.171.105 (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Private Question

If this sounds like a silly question, I apologize. When a woman's vagina smells bad, it obviously means she didn't wash herself. But does it also mean she recently had sex? 199.219.187.29 (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither is necessarily true. "Smells bad" is quite subjective. — Lomn 15:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There are many possible causes for a change in smell. It could be due to new hormones that a woman may be producing at a certain stage in her menstrual cycle, or if her menstrual cycle has been interrupted by "the pill", or it could be due to a bacterial, yeast, or some other kind of infection. Women can get these infections in public restrooms and other places. A change in smell is certainly not proof of sexual activity, and the smell may be resistant to cleaning, so that isn't necessarily the cause either. The best way to determine the source of any problem would be to consult a physician, but it is likely to be something that resolves itself in time. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of causes for unusual vaginal smells, a few of them are listed in both Vaginitis and Bacterial vaginosis#Causes - these include STI's and wearing thongs amongst others. Nanonic (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

She may also have a condition where the breakdown products of a certain protein are passed out in the urine and sweat, and makes her smell strange. I'm used to this phenomenon, as my family have this reaction to eating fish. Blowed if I can remember the name though! --TammyMoet (talk) 12:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There a similar effect from eating asparagus. Apparently, while everyone gets "asparagus pee", only 22% of us have the capacity to smell it. Most of the 22% seem to be related to me. The smell affects the whole genito-urinary area of the body and lasts for several hours. // BL \\ (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

one of the reasons for the smell has to do with a girls PH ballance, like if a girl eats to many tomateos it messes with her PH and can make her....smell differnt down there User: DanielTrox

Gaddafi's tent

When Muammar al-Gaddafi has visited the UN before, where has he pitched his tent? Was it on the property in New Jersey where he was asked not to stay this time? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Our article on al-Gaddafi notes that this is his first visit to the UN. — Lomn 18:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't been aware of that. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Arts: Trying to learn more about a sculpture

There is a large public sculpture in Lake Mälaren in Stockholm Sweden that is simply a hand and the lower part of a face emerging from the water. The hand points to the Jupiter Hotel. I'm trying to find out more about this installation, specifically who the artist is, but any info is welcome. Thank you.216.148.231.67 (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The sculpture is by Lotta Hannerz, see more info about the artist here (http://www.angelikaknappergallery.com/LottaHannerz2007.htm) ny156uk (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the sculptor is Lotta Hannerz, the scuplture is located off one side of the Strömbron (steam bridge), which connects the old city Gamla Stan, to the Kungsträdgården (king's garden), in Stockholm. It also seemingly moves around or there are multiple copies as here is the nose and mouth in the Medici Fountain in the Jardin du Luxembourg in Paris.
Cynical and Skeptical (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you thank you thank you!75.189.210.132 (talk) 03:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

husbands and wifes over 30 years apart in age

Is this possible for a wife to be 40 years older than a men, or is this a rarity. Basically 40 year-gap is men is 40 years older (ex. Robert and Grace Mugabe, Paul and Chantal Biya. Ahmad Tejan Kabbah and his second wife) like?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly possible, and it is likely a rarity. — Lomn 20:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm racking my brain for an example that would fit your age gap. Elizabeth Taylor and Cher both had relationships where they were 20 years old than their respective significant other (although Cher didnt marry her bagel boy) but thats the furthest apart I can remember. My own original research would say women don't have much interest in having a trophy husband. Livewireo (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

...or could it possibly be that interested women don't have much success in acquiring a trophy husband, as men don't have much interest in being a trophy husband to a woman two or three decades older than they? Seriously, this F/M May-December couples may be more prevalent in cultures where male virility and fertility is prized by the numbers and so better served by taking much younger wives so that aging men can procreate for a prolonged period after an earlier wife is no longer fertile.-- Deborahjay (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a lot of complicating and intertwined factors. For example in nearly all cultures there are still fewer highly successful women then men. In many, the disparity is quite large (I noticed the Op's examples were all African). Even in places like Sweden where the gender gap is relatively low [3] I would expect the number of highly successful females to be quite a lot lower then males. And 40 years is quite a large gap, even for males. While there are plenty of examples, many are less extreme and quite a number of the examples are from places and cultures where the gender gap is relatively high. Quite a number are probably polygyny but of course polyandry is a lot rarer Nil Einne (talk) 11:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The record celebrity age disparity in marriage I found so far is 33 years for Martha Raye & Mark Harris. (I also thought of Harold and Maude :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 21:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Forsyths wife is 32 years younger than him, Michael Douglas is about 25 years older than his wife. I reckon out there there'll be a bigger gap, will have a bit more of a search (thought Brucie would be the winner but unfortunately not!!) ny156uk (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Tony Curtis's wife is 38 to his 84 - that makes for a 46 year gap. ny156uk (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I was only looking for younger man / older woman. Maybe I misread the question.---Sluzzelin talk 21:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There was a news article just recently about a woman over 100 years old whose husband is in his 30s, she wants a divorce so she can marry somebody who will appreciate her. But I can't find any keywords to bring up that article. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You're all forgetting the most highly publicized case of May-September romances in recent years. Anna Nicole Smith and whatshisname Marshall. Dismas|^(talk) 02:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No, we were asked for cases where the wife was much older. --Anonymous, 04:44 UTC, September 24, 2009.

I took the grammatically poor "is men is 40 years older" as a second question asking for the reverse of the first question. Dismas|^(talk) 06:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Celeste Holm was 85 years old when she married her fifth husband, Frank Basile, who was 41 years old at the time. So that's a gap of more than 40 years. - Nunh-huh 03:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

My grade school algebra teacher (a woman) introduced to the class the equation that the ideal age for a wife was 1/2 the husbands age plus 7 years. Some women have commented in recent decades that this equation is very favorable to the male of the species.

My grade school algebra teacher (a woman) told us of the equation that said the ideal age of a wife was 1/2 the man's age plus seven years, as described in Age disparity in sexual relationships. In other words, he should not date women younger than that. While in college, I dated a girl who was half a year too young by the formula, but it seemed to work pretty well. For a 20 year old, the girl should be 17 or older. For a 30 year old, 22. A 40 year old guy should not date a woman younger than 27. A 50 year old should stick to those 32 and up, and a 60 year old should not date those under 37. In recent decades, women have remarked that this seems to favor the male of the species. For a 30 year difference the unique solution is: He is 74, she is 44. Edison (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd only encountered the more generalised (and non-sexist) version - as detailed in Edison's second link above - that it's "officially creepy" for someone of either any sex to sleep with someone younger than the formula specifies; obviously this also defines a reciprocal upper age limit for the older of the two eldest in the relationship. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Size of the bourgeoisie

In Marxist economics, what determines the relative population sizes of the bourgeoisie and proletariat? NeonMerlin[4] 21:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The determination of the two classes is one of a Capitalist society's wealth. Although there would be no definite figure, the proletariat would probably be proportionately bigger. One way of looking at this is in the percentages given in the novel '1984' in which 90% of the population were members of the proletariat. However this is a typical 19th and early 20th century view of the economic climate as the working classes became amalgamated into the Middle Class and the lines between what was Bourgeoisie and what wasn't became blurred. However in answer to the question, the only thing that would determine such figures would be a society's wealth, population size etc. This is pre-revolution of course, after the revolution society would be classless and there would be neither bourgeoisie or proletariat.

Stonerwars 01:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Presumably Marx did not anticipate the rise of a large middle class. Regarding the presumed erasing of class lines in the Russian Revolution, I recall something Will Rogers said to Americans who complained about the income tax: "In Russia, they ain't got no income tax. But they ain't got no income!" →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Marx covered the middle class under the awkward description petite bourgeoisie. The Marxist and more general sociological definitions of class differ, and Marxists would argue that there remains a substantial working class (even though some of its members may define themselves as middle class). Warofdreams talk 10:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Historical person obsessed with synchronizing clocks - request for references

I asked this question a week or two ago:

I vaguely remember a story about a person, I think a historical person, possibly a king, who in his old age spent most of his time trying to keep all the clocks in his palace/residence in sync. The story fits nicely into a presentation that I'm working on, if only I were able to remember who this person was. Does the story ring a bell with anyone?

Thanks to everyone who responded!

I knew who my source was (my 89 years old dad, an amateur, aficionado historian throughout his life). But I was reluctant to ask him, because I believed that he would be unable to remember the details, and I wanted to spare him the pain of facing his age-related loss of memory. Nevertheless, when I saw that the google-fu of myself and the rest of the RD-regulars was insufficient to solve the problem, I asked him. He was unable to answer directly, but gave me enough information about the time period and location to do a more targeted search, and I found that the person was Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, after his abdication in 1556. When I called my dad to tell him that his information had been sufficient to identify the person, he had remembered who it was too. The only mention of the story that I've been able to locate on the web, is this one: this one. I've checked with the history books that I have, which confirm that Charles V indeed had an interest in clocks, but they do not mention the synchronization story.

My question: I realize that the story may be apocryphal, but nevertheless, I would very much like references to sources which mention the story. So to anyone who would take a look in their bookshelf, and check it out, I'd be very grateful. Thanks. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 21:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The story may well be apocryphal - it's also possible that you've conflated two charles V into one

From [5]

He spent much time, it is said, trying to make two clocks keep time with each other, and could not do it. At length, in despair, he cried out, "I cannot even make two clocks keep time together, and yet I set myself to force a million souls to conform to one belief." (Henrietta Elizabeth Marshall "History of Germany")

it might be worth researching Juanelo Turriano [6] "1535 - 1538 - Juanelo Torriano makes clocks for Emperor Charles V."

Just to confuse things there's a different Charles V

"In 1370, Charles V of France gave an order that all clocks were to be set by the magnificent clock in his palace; he was the ruler of lands and now would be ruler of time. " [7]

Also in another place the story is confirmed - it is said that Charles V tried to synchronise all clocks (of the realm presumably) the imperial clock, (also mentions may be a myth) [8] sources Jacques Le Goff, and Gerhard Dohrn-Van Rossum (rebuttal)

The potential for confusion is definately there...83.100.251.196 (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Mein gott! - here's another [9] quoted in non-historical paper

When Charles V retired in weariness from the greatest throne in the world to the solitude of the monastery at Yuste, he occupied his leisure for some weeks trying to regulate two clocks. It proved very difficult. One day, it is recorded, he turned to his assistant and said: “To think that I attempted to force the reason and conscience of thousands of men into one mould, and I cannot make two clocks agree!” (Havelock Ellis, The Task of Social Hygiene, Chapter 9)

83.100.251.196 (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It now seems clear that what we need to do is synchronize our Charles V's! --Anonymous, 09:10 UTC, September 24, 2009.

Thanks a lot, 83.100! I see that there is indeed a potential for confusion. We have two Charles V's with an interest in clocks. Nevertheless, there's no doubt that my dad was referring to Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, and not to Charles V of France aka Charles the wise, who lived two centuries earlier, at a time when mechanical clocks had hardly reached infancy. Maybe this coincidence could have affected secondary sources themselves? Your sources Henrietta Elizabeth Marshall, "History of Germany" and Paul Krzyzanowski tell stories that fit well with the point that I would like to make, and I think I'll be pragmatically selective about my sources for the purpose of this talk^a. If anyone has access to authoritative sources that mention the story (whether it be Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor or Charles the wise of France), I'd love to hear about it. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 23:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

^aI asked the original question because I wanted to use the story in a presentation that I'm working on. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 11:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"Statues" in the water in Lake Washington

This is a picture of a "statue" in Lake Washington; there is one off each side of the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge (the "520 bridge"), on the west side of the bridge, close to Husky Stadium, of the University of Washington. What are these statues, why are they there, and who's the artist? Googling did find me the picture, but no information about it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

See this. Deor (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

September 24

Romani Archaeology

Has an archaeological dig ever found evidence of Romani habitation on a site? Have archaeologicalsurveys ever found potential Romani occupation sites? 138.192.33.3 (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

History of the Romani people may have some info for you, and you may be able to follow internal and external links for more info. --Jayron32 02:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Romanes eunt domus! err.... I mean Romani ite Domum!--Zerozal (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

German-American relations

I am writing a report on a person or event that impacted German-American relations in the last 20 years, and I would like some help brainstorming ideas. Topics include political figures, cultural figures, and historical events. Examples are Reagan, Bush, Kohl, Schröder, reunification, and 9/11, but I want to have a more unique one. Thanks! Reywas92^Talk 01:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

David Hasselhof is a good one for the "cultural" thing. If we stretch it back a little farther than 20 years, Kraftwerk's influence on early American hip-hop should not be underestimated, and other German music like the Scorpions. Films like Europa Europa recieved good press in America. Articles like German American may have some good ideas as well. --Jayron32 02:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Nena's "99 Luftballons"?  :-) Dismas|^(talk) 14:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The Iraq War is probably the single most important event, and not included in your list. GW Bush and his advisors were irate that the Germans refused to get involved and criticized the US invasion. Joschka Fischer confronted Donald Rumsfeld about the lack of evidence for WMD in Iraq. Another interesting figure from this period is Herta Däubler-Gmelin. Marco polo (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

My vote will always go to Claudia Schiffer. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Boris Becker and other German tennis players...hotclaws 15:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

background check

in ny state in pittsford do i need a background check to buy a rifle or shotgun? -- Preceding unsigned query was added at 06:14 on September 24, 2009 by User 74.65.3.30

According to this, you don't need a license or a registration to purchase of own a rifle/shotgun anywhere in NYS other than in NYC. Pittsford, being in Monroe county, is not accessible by a link in the page, but perhaps a query to that district would reveal more detailed information. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

DRosenbach is an experienced editor, who I will not question. I would caution the OP that we do not give legal advice. 78.144.123.30 (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not legal advice, per kainaw's rubric. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You could always walk into a gun shop, go to the man at the counter and say "Oy! I'd like to buy a shotgun please." I bet you'd get your answer straight away. Dismas|^(talk) 17:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hispanic-American views on LGBT rights

hispanic american views on lgbt rights? -- Preceding unsigned query was added at 07:16 on September 24, 2009 by User 218.186.12.225

Your question is absurd. How could a non-cohesive, non-homogenous group united merely by their countries-of-origin/first-spoken-language have a view on the rights of those who either engage or entertain thoughts of homosexuality and the like? How about Hispanic-American views on animal rights? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet that Hispanics, as a group, have cultural views and values more closely associated with each other than with white Americans, as a group. How much weight is assigned to those similarities is up to the OP.--droptone (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. It's not "absurd" to ask about general demographics and political views, it's actually a standard practice in polling and sociology. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are the results from the GSS using the variables hispanic identification and the question "Is homosexual sex wrong?" (only those who identified as having Mexican heritage had sufficient numbers to draw conclusions from). Hispanics have slightly more intolerant views, but I'd imagine that difference would disappear (or reverse) if you controlled for education (reason for believing that to be true found here).--droptone (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Most Mexicans are Catholic, so that may have an effect on the average acceptance of LGBT rights. --Sean 12:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

At least in terms of white American Catholics, they tend to be more tolerant of homosexual sex. If you control for the race of the individual (white, black, other), the trend still holds (can't provide an easy image since it's a lot of data, you can run the stats yourself here, Row=RELIG, Column=HOMOSEX, Control=RACE). If you want to play with other variables of interest, MARHOMO = should homosexuals be allowed to marry and COLHOMO = should homosexuals be allowed to teach.--droptone (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Lets not forget those 'no on 8' ads run by the cast of ugly betty. They're on television, so they must be representative...82.132.139.184 (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Consent

In an episode of Stargate Atlantis, a main character attended some sort of conference where a potentially-dangerous scientific experiment was performed. When the main character objected, the person hosting the conference asked if he'd signed the non-disclosure agreement, saying that this meant he had given consent. I saw the document; it was about 200 pages long. Given that by the time the document had been fully read and signed, the conference would have been over, would this really stand up in court? Or are there parts of this scenario which wouldn't happen in the real world? (For reference, the episode in question is Brain Storm.) Vimescarrot (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody actually reads all the stuff they agree to (especially internet terms & conditions). --Nricardo (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I know, but that doesn't answer my question. Vimescarrot (talk) 11:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It depends. Check out standard form contract, non est factum, and Tilden Rent-A-Car Co. v. Clendenning. If you want a more specific answer, you'll have to give a jurisdiction. --Sean 12:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Nevada or Arizona. Vimescarrot (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Not Colorado? :P 80.123.210.172 (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the specific episode in question but Atlantis largely took place in another galaxy. Nil Einne (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Also Unconscionability I guess Nil Einne (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder: Stargate Atlantis is fiction. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And it's set in a mostly-realistic America, where there is always someone who will sue you. I would. Vimescarrot (talk) 05:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Er as I said above, it's set in mostly-unrealistic Atlantis. True the earth parts usually happen in mostly realistic America but that's only a tiny proportion. The question of what laws, if any, would apply to a secret international force in another galaxy is an interesting question perhaps, but not one we can answer Nil Einne (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This episode takes place in America. Nothing to do with Atlantis. Vimescarrot (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

But you said 'it's set in a mostly-realistic America' which I (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) took to mean 'Stargate Atlantis is set in mostly realistic America' as Stargate Atlantis was what DOR (HK) mentioned (and you were replying to DOR (HK), not the episode, since DOR (HK) didn't mention the episode at all. It's good to know now that this specific episode takes places in America but that wasn't clear to me until now. Nil Einne (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

...meh. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the references, guys. Interesting reading. Vimescarrot (talk) 05:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Moving to the country

Did any other countries move their children out to the country during WWII similar to the way that England did?

Evacuations of civilians in Britain during World War II says that some 30,000 people arrived into the UK from continental Europe, for one. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the OP is looking for evacuation of children from the cities. Googlemeister (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes [10]

I believe the dutch and danish did the same, also children from leningrad.

It would probably be easier to search for "nationality children evacu.. wWii" etc83.100.251.196 (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading some German novels (by Heinrich Böll and Siegfried Lenz) that both had children evacuated to the countryside as plot points. There are a lot of similar references in French writings and films about the occupation, but in that case, the evacuation appears to be the work of the parents, not some state-sponsored program.

Industry study

Hello clever people! You gotta help me out here. I need to:

1. Assess the damand-supply gap in an industry of my choice

2. Assess the structure of the industry and calculate the CR and H-indexn

3. Intelligently guess the direction of change in the industry structure with reasons.

I have no clue how to go about getting the required data - can you shove me in the right direction please? Oh, and I am located in India. Thanks --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The first step is to have a discussion with your professor about how to get started. As a teacher, he's supposed to help you with the basics. If you're interested in researching on your own, I'd start with Google first, of course. Just now I googled "steel industry data" and the first link is "Steel industry news and information portal". I clicked that, then clicked "NEWS & STEEL INFO", then saw a "Steel Statistics" section over on the left whose "Production Data" section has a precise report from this month discussing worldwide production of crude steel. (It turns out that China is, finally, making almost half the world's steel.) OK, we've got some production levels. Some more research of this sort should make it pretty easy for you to establish a history about the last few months. Then I googled "steel demand" and got many news stories that cite sources about where they got their data about decreased demand. In this way you could cite statistics about the decreasing demand and decreasing production, which is most of question #1. I don't know what "CR" and "H-indexn" mean; you will have to ask your professor. And then #3 will follow from #1. If you restrict your searches to India production, your paper will probably be more interesting, but the data may be harder to come by. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that was really helpful. The thing is I should have started on the project long ago and my teacher might not like it if she finds out that I waited until two days before the deadline to start wondering about how to do the assignment. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Nearest agnatic relative of Emperor Charles VI

The question is simple: who was the nearest (legitimate) male agnatic relative of Emperor Charles VI that outlived him? Unfortunatly, the answer is hard to find. I know that such person would've saved the House of Habsburg and it certainly would have made the War of the Austrian Succession more interesting. He certainly existed, but who was he? I started following legitimate male lines of descent from Rudolph I of Germany, but Wikipedia does not have articles about all his agnatic descendants. Surtsicna (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not have articles on all these people, but thepeerage.com really care about this sort of thing. I believe that all the legitimate male lines died out from at least Rudolph I's father Albrecht IV on - so the nearest living male relative may be so distant that there is no record or memory of the link. Warofdreams talk 01:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Who am I to blow against the wind?

Re title of question. It is a line from a Paul Simon song from the Graceland album. My question is whether it itself is a quote, or if it is the original well-known context in which this phrase first appeared, prepending "who am I?" to the concept of "blowing against the wind". Googling the exact phrase turns up nothing but the Paul Simon lyrics. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 23:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

G00gling "Blow against the Wind" also turns up references to a song of that title apparently by an artist called The Pedestrian, aka James Brandon Best (not the band Pedestrian), but this usage probably post-dates, and may ultimately derive from, Simon's <=1986 lyric. In the context of Simon's song ("I Know What I Know"), the line overtly (and humorously) carries a similar meaning to the traditional phrase "to blow/piss/spit into the wind", i.e. a futile defiance of inevitability or fate, and is probably a poetic variation of it. However - good poetry often being ambiguous and/or multi-levelled, and Simon being a good poet - he may well have intended also to evoke both Dylan's "Blowin' in the Wind", and the lines "Everybody sees/feels the wind blow" that occur in the album's immediately preceding titular song "Graceland". 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that was helpful. We have the same expression in Norwegian ("pisse i motvind"), but it was hardly suitable in the context where I'd like to use it. I wasn't aware that the idiomatic expression in English used the preposition "into" instead of "against", and hadn't thought of the other associations either. The idea I want to convey is the futility of fighting the ever increasing bureaucracy, when you are a professional who is trying to approach challenges in a rational way. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 11:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's another variation on the image, by William Blake:

Mock on, mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau,

Mock on, mock on, 'tis all in vain:

You but throw sand against the wind,

And the wind throws it back again.

Rhinoracer (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

In the specific context of the difficulty of struggling against bureaucracy, there is of course the well-known American aphorism, "You can't fight City Hall." 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks both! --NorwegianBlue ^talk 15:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of English Proverbs lists: "In such a world to oppose impiety, what is it but attempting to stop a torrent, to allay a storm, to gape against an oven, to blow against the wind, to kick against the pricks?" Isaac Barrow 1677 The Theological Works of Isaac Barrow; "Piss not against the wind. Chi piscia contra il vento si bagna la commiscia, Ital. He that pisseth against the wind, wets his shirt. It is to a man's own prejudice, to strive against the stream." John Ray's A Compleat Collection of English proverbs 1670; "Puff not against the wind" William Camden Remains concerning Britain 1870; and "As if a man should spit against the wind; The filth returns in's face." John Webster The White Devil 1612.—eric

Another book of proverbs cites Alexander Barclay's Ship of Fools 1509 for "Puff not against the wind".—eric 04:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

September 25

Interpol under the Nazis

I've just discovered to my suprise from browsing Wikipedia, that Interpol fell under the control of the Nazis after the Anschluss, and that the notorious Heydrich was its president.

Question 1: did Interpol actually operate as a proper international organisation during this period?

Question 2: were there any other major international organisations that this happened to, and what happened to them during WWII? --rossb (talk) 05:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I find nothing about Interpol in Google News archives for 1 1939-1945, and perhaps with the U.S. up to December 1941. Google Book search has some snippet views which suggest US connection with Interpol in 1939 and 1940, but the context implies that Google Book scanning has once again grossly misstated the year of the document, and they allow no view of the title page. Google books very often gets the year wrong on the documents they scan. The Wikipedia article on Interpol says little about their activities from Anschluss in 1938 through war's end. Most book (sadly, only snippet views) suggest that it was inactive during the war. Actual library research would be needed to see if the FBI sent information requested by the Nazi Interpol between 1938 and December 1941. Edison (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Web sites offer some more information, of uncertain reliability, so presented subject to confirmation: Trivia library says per "The People's Almanac (Wallechinsky and Wallace, 1975-91) that the US joined Interpol in 1938, after the Anschluss. This is confirmed by numerous book sources. The joining was recommended by Treasury Secretary Cummings 2 weeks after Anschluss, so it was not a matter of reluctantly continuing a long-standing cooperative effort. (The Final Solution was crafted in Wansee at Interpol headquarters in January 1942under the direction of Interpol head Heydrich). I could not find evidence of any US cooperation with Interpol from 1941 until 1947. An article in "The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World" (2008) says the organization was "dormant throughout World War 2." Conspiracy sites love to speculate about Interpol postwar sympathy for Nazis, and for secret blackmail files from Interpol HQ which disappeared at war's end. Edison (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Paul Dickopf, a former SS member, was President of Interpol from 1968 to 1972. [11] (although probably not a very reliable source). 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You might like reading: Deflem, Mathieu. 2002. "The Logic of Nazification: The Case of the International Criminal Police Commission." International Journal of Comparative Sociology 43(1):21-44 google cache version.—eric 03:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Interpol's own history page [12] indicates the organization ceased to function as an international organization in 1938 and began rebuilding in 1946. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Legal usage: "in witness whereof"

What is the literal meaning of "in witness whereof"? The phrase is explained in dictionaries as coming from the Latin phrase "in cujus rei testimonium". It often occurs as the beginning of the concluding clause in legal documents. Does it literally mean "as evidence of what (is stated above)" or "in the presence of witness" or something else?

A very literal translation of the Latin would be "this is evidence about the thing of which (details are given above)". The testimonium clause (as it's known) provides whatever information is necessary to prove that the document is authentic; this may just be the signatures of the parties, or it may include details of witnesses to the signature, corporate seals, etc. Tevildo (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

More literally perhaps is "in witness of which (thing/matter)" which is essentially the same as "in witness whereof". Adam Bishop (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"Evidence" is perhaps better than "witness" as a translation of "testimonium" in this particular case. Any legal document can have a testimonium clause; it doesn't imply that the signature has been attested by a third party, or that the person who signed it was on oath, or any other more formal procedure that "witness" might imply. Tevildo (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

German perspective on the bombing of Dresden

Why do Germans always give Dresden as an example when they want to be seen as victims of the II World war? It was doubtless a massive bombing, but so was the bombing of other German cities like Cologne or Hamburg - which even caused more casualties.--Quest09 (talk) 12:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Possibly because it was not seen as justified by military objectives-- it was a city pretty much devoid of industrial or military targets. An example of "terror bombing".Rhinoracer (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Dresden is a great example of "the Allies committed atrocities, too." Killing civilians was the primary goal. There are of course other instances of this, but Dresden sticks out in particular because it had been previously unbombed. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The Germans started the war. The bombing of Dresden was ill-advised. But not nearly as ill-advised as starting the war. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

How does that help to explain why the Germans cite Dresden as an example of Allied atrocities? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It has to do with them being in denial about being the ones who caused it. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As they say on the playground, two wrongs don't make a right. There is no question that Hitler was responsible for starting World War II (or that he was put into a position to do so because of the way the European powers wrapped up World War I). But whether that means the Allies had a right to commit war crimes is unrelated, as is the question as to whether the German people themselves weren't ultimately victims of the whole thing as well. One can, in fact, lose the moral high-ground, quite easily. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

When you start a war, you bear the consequences of it, and sometimes it can be bad. This reminds me a little bit of those who think we shouldn't have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They're wrong. Japan started that war, and our A-bombs ended it. Maybe we shouldn't have bombed Dresden. But these things can happen when you start a war. The cause of the bombing of Dresden was Herr Hitler himself. He is to blame for it. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no "right" answer to the question of whether Hiroshima and Nagasaki "should" have been obliterated or not - one either supports it or not. Once we start pointing fingers at the instigator and blaming them for all subsequent events in the war, that argument can be used to justify all manner of things; such as the outrageous incarceration of American citizens of Japanese origin in WW2, or the same thing that happened to Australian citizens (British subjects, actually, at that time) of German extraction in WW1. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Dropping the big ones on Japan was a good military decision. It ended the war. It saved the lives of many thousands of Allied forces who would have had to conduct a D-Day style invasion otherwise. Yes, America interred Japanese-Americans. They basically imprisoned them, and released them when the war was over. The internment was not a good thing. But they didn't send them to the gas chambers. Some guy named Adolf did that stuff. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

My point, Bugs, which you seem to have missed, is that one's judgement on the moral propriety of emphasising Dresden is not relevant to answering the question of why Germans like to emphasise Dresden, as opposed to other bombings. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

In the opinion of a number of terrorists, as their enemies started and continue a war against them their terrorism to oppose the war against them is justified. Most people don't agree with this view but I guess you're one of the few that does. Or to go back to the WW2 theme, in the opinion of some Nazis, their actions against Jewish and other people were justified for amongst other reasons, because these people were effectively at war on Germany and out to destroy Germany and the German people. While there's mostly unanimous agreement that these claims were false propaganda and it's unclear how many actually believed the propaganda, it's likely some did. Regardless, most people agree the horrific atrocities committed against Jewish and other people were not justified even if they were at war with Germany. Again I presume in your opinion this is wrong. If neither of these describe you view point then perhaps it's best that you concede that clearly most people including you agree that not every action in response to a war is justified. This doesn't mean that the events are comparable, that's irrelevant to my point. Nor that Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Dresden were wrong or right, as JoO says that's not something you can given definite answer for nor is it something relevant to this question or the RD. Nil Einne (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Further to what Rhinoracer said, Dresden was also seen as a beautiful, cultural city, while Cologne and Hamburg were much more industrial. I think along with the civilian casualties, the destruction of such a nice place for no apparent reason struck a chord. TastyCakes (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be contradictory evidence as to whether Dresden was really devoid of industrial or military targets. See Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II#Military_and_industrial_profile. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The article does provide some helpful stuff such as Bombing of Dresden in World War II#British (remember this was during the war) as well as of course Bombing of Dresden in World War II#Post-war debate. Nil Einne (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(I'm the OP). It is incredible how a question gets kidnapped. Yes, it being perceived as a cultural city and a non-military target could be an explanation. However, was is like that? Was n't Cologne also a cultural city? Was the devastation of Hamburg perceived by the Germans as "well, we deserved that, at least Dresden is intact?"--Quest09 (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

National Debt - someone is laughing somewhere

OK, so the UK national debt is the princely sum of £175 billion. And the US also has a massive national debt.

Why do supposedly rich nations such as these operate at such high debt levels? And if they are so rich, why are they in debt? Just who is all this debt owed to exactly? Are there countries out there with extemely healthy bank balance sucking us dry with interest payments?

As a rule I never spend what I can't afford, as in the long run you are just doing yourself out of money. Why do governments not apply the same logic?

Running at a loss is not necessarily a bad thing for governments. The reason governments don't operate like a household comes from the theories of John Maynard Keynes which put forward interventionist policies. The page on Keynesian economics explains it all better than I can here. Each countries national debt is owed to each other in a reciprocal system. Check out the page on United States public debt. A large proportion is also owed to the World Bank and private individuals etc.

Cynical and Skeptical (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Countries (or more specifically, governments) operate beyond their income because it is politically savvy to offer more services, but it is also politically savvy to offer less taxes. Taxing the hell out of everything is a great way to not get reelected, but so is slashing services (schools, health, pensions etc). Running deficits is usually justified by saying it's a recession or a downturn and that spending more than you have is temporary or even a good thing due to Keynesian economics. A structural deficit is more worrying, because it suggests a country is running a deficit despite the economy being in good shape, and if they can't balance the books then, what chance do they have in a downturn? National debts are usually bad because countries end up spending a good chunk of future generations' taxes on debt payments, rather than providing services. The debt is owed to anyone that buys it, largely private individuals and corporations but also nations. China, for example, owns a large (and, to many, worrying) amount of US T-Bills. TastyCakes (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Your example is questionable. Most Households have debt. Most home-owners have debt on their home by way of a mortgage. They may also have a personal-loan or other debts.

TastyCakes - if we are lending today on the future taxes of others, what were those in the past doing? Why won't the future just do the same? Lets not pretend national-debt is something new or unique, it is pretty standard and many many countries operate a level of national debt at differing times - potentially depending on where they are in economic cycle. People fear debt, and talk it up like it's the worst thing you can get into, but in reality well structure, well organised debt can be positive. As for "spending on debt rather than providing services" - this is again a gross simplification, it seems to suggests that all 'interest' is lost money without any benefit. The benefit could be early investment of that money into services, the reward could be that the services improve quicker.

I'm weary of those that try to reduce this to a simple debt is bad, balanced is good argument - it is far more complex than that. ny156uk (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Complicating matters in the US is that both Republicans and Democrats love to spend and don't think the debt matters. Their only disagreement is what to spend it on. So there ya are. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ny, obviously there are times when governments should borrow money in order to make large expenditures they could not make "in cash" alone. Large infrastructure projects, wars and so on. Likewise, running a deficit in lean years to protect investments expected to pay dividends in the future (education, health etc) is a good idea. But the whole idea behind making this kind of expenditure is that they are not constant - the idea of running a deficit year after year after year is not a good one no matter how you do the math. Obviously generations past ran debts, some of which we are still paying off. What is more worrying currently, in the US at least, is that the level of debt to GDP continues to rise after years of decline following World War 2, and unlike after World War 2 America is looking at unfavourable demographic factors, as it has to provide expensive services (namely medicaid and social security) to a rapidly aging population, and there's no real reason to expect an explosion of economic activity like the one that followed the war (see this article). So yes, the debt is likely to continue rising as a percentage of GDP, and payments are likely to consume larger and larger parts of the government's budget. If I were American I would think it all a worrying situation. Particularly since sooner or later it's likely the US will try to "inflate its way out" of the debt, which would have serious consequences for the real income of its citizens. TastyCakes (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

What the GOP found out was that "true" fiscal conservatism would get them defeated, so they adopted the Democratic approach of spending and running up a deficit - except they also cut taxes in the process. Hence the deficit ballooned out of control while the GOP ran the Congress. The current "tea party" folks are funny. It's their own beloved GOP that wrought this disaster. We were actually running a surplus in the late 90s, and then we got a monolithic Republican government, and now here we are. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like this discussion has gone a little afield of the OP. I've put the original questions in italics in this response.

Why do supposedly rich nations such as these operate at such high debt levels? And if they are so rich, why are they in debt? Economists have long recognized that a national debt is not such a bad thing, and may even be something to encourage. As Alexander Hamilton put it, "A national debt if it is not excessive will be to us a national blessing." A national debt gives investors a safe place to invest, and it provides the country with a cheap source of financing. It also makes it easier to a country to engage in countercyclical spending during recessions, when the need for government spending is greater but tax revenues are down, and it enables government investing in capital-intensive projects. There are also, of course, less commendable reasons for deficit spending, and those have already been mentioned.

Just who is all this debt owed to exactly? The U.S. Treasury releases ownership information in this table. (I realize that by "us" you probably mean the United Kingdom, but these are the data I have; maybe someone else can translate them to the UK. The principles should be much the same.) As of March 2009, there was $11,126.9 billion of United States federal debt, of which $4,785.2 billion was Federal Reserve and intragovernmental holdings and $6,341.7 billion was privately held. Of the privately held debt, $3,267.0 billion was held by foreign and international holders, with the remainder held by various institutional and individual domestic holders. The biggest foreign holders are China and Japan, which together own almost half of the foreign/international portion. (This includes private holdings in those countries, not just what is held by their governments.)

Are there countries out there with extemely healthy bank balance sucking us dry with interest payments? Well, there are countries that have relatively low national debts, and one of these is China, the single largest holder of U.S. national debt. On the other hand, Japan's national debt is very large, see List of countries by public debt. However, they're not really "sucking us dry," since the national debts of the US and the UK get the most favorable interest rates possible. It's by no means clear who is taking advantage of whom, or even if that's a meaningful question to ask.

As a rule I never spend what I can't afford, as in the long run you are just doing yourself out of money. Why do governments not apply the same logic? The standard answer to this is that governments and households are not the same, but I think they are alike in that they both shouldn't spend what they can't afford. Governments, of course, have much deeper pockets. But a large debt does not mean that it is unaffordable. For example, an individual buying a home typically enters into a mortgage that is much more than his or her annual income. John M Baker (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not so much about the debt as it is on what the debt was spent. If the government borrows and spends on infrastructure, this might be a good thing. This is not dissimilar from an individual borrowing to pay for an education -- the benefit from the education pays for the debt plus more. Wikiant (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It may be worth thinking about what happens if you go the opposite direction. What happens if you have big surpluses? Very likely there would be calls to cut taxes to 'stimulate the economy' and/or because the government is perceived as overtaxing as happened here in NZ for several years. Using the surplus to pay off public debt doesn't necessarily help [13] [14] [15]. Nil Einne (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think government debt and personal debt are very similar. They can be good, if you only borrow for good investments (like education or a home in the personal case, or education and infrastructure in the government case), provided there is a concrete, realistic plan and timetable for paying off the debt. What is bad, in both cases, is borrowing money for frivolous things (like vacations for families and, for governments, building a brand new stadium when the old one is just fine), and having no plan whatsoever for how to pay it off, but just saying "we'll worry about that later" (or future generations will). The problem with borrowing money in those cases is that it prevents a realistic assessment of the situation and the required belt-tightening. In the examples above, the family could have a "staycation" and the government could stick with the old stadium, perhaps with a few inexpensive renovations. StuRat (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Government debt is usually measured in terms of percentage of GDP, which means you can effectively reduce the debt by increase GDP more than you increase debt. That means that borrowing in order to spend on something that will increase productivity by more than the amount you borrow is usually a good thing (although you need to make sure you can afford to service the debt). Borrowing for something that doesn't increase productivity is usually a bad thing (but there are exceptions). It's important to note, though, that it is productivity, not net worth, that matters, so infrastructure isn't always a good investment and there are good investments that don't improve infrastructure (researching a swine flu vaccine, say, wouldn't usually be considered to be building infrastructure but could increase productivity by avoiding so many people taking time off work). --Tango (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Right. Stated another way, "free money" (money which somebody else will have to worry about paying off, not you) interferes with performing the required cost-benefit analysis. There is a cost to borrowing, whether that cost is borne by the borrower or following generations, and the benefits of borrowing must outweigh those costs for it to be a good choice. StuRat (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

R.I.P. Rosemary Stasek needs article

Former Mountain View, California mayor Rosemary Stasek died in Kabul, Afghanistan of a heart attack at age 46. 99.56.137.233 (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for creation. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Source: http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_13417205 99.56.137.233 (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

??? Nil Einne (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want an article about Rose, you might want to be bold and create it yourself. Otherwise it might not get created for quite a while. Googlemeister (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

A former mayor of Mountain View, California, who dedicated her short life to helping the women and girls of Afghanistan, was rejected at Wikipedia:Articles for creation for lack of notability. Since when are mayors of cities >70,000 population below the notability guidelines? I wish to appeal! Mr X 2010 (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:POLITICIAN - if you can provide references to reliable sources that demonstrate Ms Stasek meets those criteria, the article should survive a deletion request. Tevildo (talk) 11:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You're incorrect. The rejection clear says the problem is you failed to establish notability not that the person isn't notable. If you have any further questions you should seek help at WP:Help desk however in this case they will just tell you what Tevildo and Wikipedia:Articles for creation tells you which is that you need to establish notability Nil Einne (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Money transaction life cycle

What happened in the life cycle of a transaction when company "A" in country "X" make a purchase of let say $10 million from Company "B" in country "Y". I understand a line of credit is established between two banks one from each of the countries and an electronic transfer takes place. Are there any hard curency that exchange hands between the two banks. what roles does the CentralBank/Federal Reserve/Bank National for each of these countries plays if any.

In other words, I in the Cayman Island, purchase $10 million worth of wigets form a company in California, US. The funds were transfered, my account debited. Does my bank in turn trucked, shipped hard curency to the depossitor's bank?

Thank you

In most cases, no it would not. The amount of $ that exists electronically far surpasses that which exists physically. As an example, when the US government loaned Bank of America $45,000,000,000 in bailout money, they did not haul millions of $100 bills to their vaults. Googlemeister (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It is surprisingly hard to search for info on this, but i remember reading in an Economics textbook that most countries only have a few banks that actually deal with foreign transfers. The other banks then engage the services of these banks to transfer the money for them. If you only have a few banks in each country trading money it becomes very easy to manage the exchange of currency. If Bank A transfers $100 to bank B but bank B transfers $110 to bank A, they only have to move the $10. As Googlemeister points out modern banks use Fractional-reserve_banking which means that they only need to hold a small portion of the "money" on their books as deposits as hard currency. So this makes the process even smaller scale than what you might think. Finally, I believe that in the short term these international banks just use settlement accounts for these transfers. That is, the currency doesn't actually move, they just keep the information that some of the reserves in their vault are not actually theirs. In general I would imagine that currency moves fairly evenly in both ways. Of course there are flows in the long run, but these would be dwarfed by the movements in each direction.~~

Chinese Agriculture Propaganda Photo

I'm looking for a Chinese communist propaganda photo that I saw a few years ago in my high school history class. It was a black and white photo of a girl dancing on top of a wheat field. Apparently the wheat was grown so densely together that you could walk on top of the stalks of wheat. Obviously a little photoshop magic was used. Can anyone point me towards this piece of propaganda?

It is in a book by Jasper Becker.

A description of the photo, as Plate 3, is in above link. We still need the photo itself, however. StuRat (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I found that book in my university library. Here is a scan of the picture for anyone else interested.

2 questions

1.In which country did it originate and is it the most widespread name in the world? Saddam Hussein, Barack Hussein Obama, Hussein Bolt... Iraq, USA, Jamaica... Where did it originate and how come its present in so many countries?

2.Another question is more a medical advice then a question, but I would rather not go to the doctor because it might be embarassing. I swallowed an Orbit chewing gum few hours ago. Some of my friends that were there said its nothing and that I shoulndt worry. But another friend told me that I should go to the hospital and have my stomach pumped, because otherwise I could die.

I dont feel anything, but a little concerned because when I go to sleep I might not feel it chocking me. But Im ashamed to go to the hospital unless Im sure its dangerous, this friend might just be winding me up. So should I worry or not?

Thanks

1. Try our article Hussein (which is a redirect to Husayn), which discusses where it originated and who it's in honor of. 2. Sigh. At the top of the page, you'll see that we are all forbidden from answering medical advice questions. We are random Internet people and not doctors. If you are concerned, call a doctor or nurse. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

2. You might want to check out what snopes has to say, particularly the second paragraph. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

1. I know its arabic, but I was wondering how come its so present in countries like USA or Jamaica, that are christian and as far as I know Obama, Bolt and others named Hussein arent arabic or muslim.

You may find that Chen is the most common surname in the world.--Wetman (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And you may find that Muhammad in its various spellings is the most common given name. --Anonymous, 22:45 UTC, September 25, 2009.

Hmm how did you get that idea? Chen is only the fifth most popular in mainland China used by less then 7.1% of the population (dunno precise numbers but Chinese surname says the 3rd id 7.1%). It's more popular in some other places but the size of the mainland Chinese population and the fact that Li (李) is also quite popular in many of these places makes it difficult to make up for I suspect and our article does claim Li (李) is the most popular surname in the world Nil Einne (talk) 08:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama, Sr. did convert to Islam at one point, according to his article, which may have inspired the son's middle name. As for non-Arabs and non-Muslims having names that seem Arabic or Islamic, I feel the need to scold you for seeming to be surprised that the US is a melting pot. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but all people with surname Chan are chinese and all people named Muhammed are muslim. That doesnt explain how come both muslims and christians are named Hussein! p.s. Thanks for that info about Obama,I had no idea that his father was Muslim, I guess thats why Gadafi called him "my son" in UN yesterday.

I just want to point out, per #2, that if a food-like product doesn't say "don't eat this, it'll be really bad for you," it almost surely is not bad for you to eat it, owing to the fact that they can get sued to the dickens. Toothpaste, for example, clearly says "don't eat this, call poison control!" on the side of it, because you can't eat it even though it tastes pretty good. Chewing gum does not. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Husayn is a Muslim saint, sort of like Christians using the name John. Note also that the Jamaican runner is Usain, mot Hussein. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It took me several readings of Barack Obama Sr. to conclude that it was the President's grandfather, not his father, who converted to Islam and took the name Hussein at the front of his tribal name. The President's father was then given his father's name as his second given name (Barack Hussein). The President's father was raised a Muslim in a Muslim household. According to the article, quoting the president's memoirs, the President's father was an avowed atheist by the time he met the President's mother. Nothwithstanding that, he still gave the President his own full name -Barack Hussein Obama. The President has the name because it was his father's (and his grandfather's) name, and not because of the President's religion or upbringing. (That is awkwardly worded, and I apologize, but I kept confusing father, son and grandson when using pronoun referrents.) I hope I have it right. // BL \\ (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

As for Mr Bolt, the Jamaica Star interviewed his aunt who gave him his name, though she only remembers that it was "African" in origin but not what it meant. Although there is nothing in the article I could find about Usain's religious background, his second name is St. Leo, but his pet name is "Vijay" which the linked newspaper article says is Hindi for "victory". // BL \\ (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

All of that sounds about right for Jamaica. Jamaica is an astoundingly diverse melting pot, and it would not be unusual to find African, English, Chinese, Muslim, and Hindu influence at work in the same family. --Jayron32 06:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for answers on 1. question, thats clears it up a bit. As for question number 2, Im still alive :)

Wartime repatriation

A major plot element of The Captive Heart was the repatriation of prisoners of war during World War II. Did such things actually happen? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know it either, but yes, they did. See this page, for example. Note where it says that only prisoners who were sick or wounded were exchanged; presumably that would have applied to any such exchanges. --Anonymous, 22:52 UTC, September 25, 2009.

They weren't particularly unhealthy in the movie, which is why I was so confused. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Chocolate

What is the difference between warmed chocolate milk, hot chocolate and hot cocao?

Read this:Hot chocolate

Cynical and Skeptical (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

September 26

Chernyshevsky's opinion on Marx

Did Chernyshevsky ever write anything on Marx, what was his opinion of Marxism? --Gary123 (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It would seem that Marx was more appreciative of Chernyshevsky, than Chernyshevsky was of Marx, as seen here http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSchernyshevsky.htm. As he did not see himself as a Marxist it would seem that he had little opinion of Marx.

Stonerwars 10:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It may not be true. IIRC, Chernyshevski translated the first volume of Capital into Russian. 117.204.86.87 (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think my memory served me correctly. 117.204.86.87 (talk) 05:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

hi

where is i posted 2 dsays ago?

where you left it Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#background_check83.100.251.196 (talk) 09:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Who was the first woman swimmer in history?

Who was the first proffessional woman swimmer in history? I know its impossible to know about antiquity and such - I am rather asking about the first since the modern art of swimming was introduced in the 19th-century(?). --85.226.43.165 (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The earliest official female swimming record was set by Martha Gerstung of Germany (on whom we do not have an article) on 18 October 1908. See World record progression 100 metres freestyle. Tevildo (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

There is Nancy Edberg, who was a Swimming teacher and took part in official swimming events in the 1860s. I am not sure how that should be regarded in the context. --Aciram (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that "Who was the first professional woman swimmer?" and "Who was the first woman to swim in official competition?" likely have different answers. I'd imagine that amateur female competitive swimmers came long before the professionals, if there are in fact professional female swimmers. —Kevin Myers 18:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Economics question

Let's say I had a reason to suspect that Big Company X would buy Small Company Y in a number of years. How would one use stocks, bonds, whatever, to make money on that kind of suspicion, as an investor (with no connection to either company)? That is, how would you make a bet that would pay off? (This is not a homework question, just a naive question. And no, I'm not actually going to do this—I've got no money to wager!—but I was just curious.) --Mr.98 (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Depends. It depends on the circumstances of the buyout (distressed sale? merger? reverse merger?) and the relative positions of the company. One of your safest assumptions might be that Company X will likely pay a premium over the price of Company Y - that is, it will have to pay something extra over what Company Y is worth, in order to persuade Company Y's owners to sell.

However, note that this is a premium over what Company Y will be worth at the time of the acquisition (or, more realistically, just before a bid is announced). Whether that value will be higher or lower than its price now is difficult to predict. Typically, once the bid is announced, X's shares will fall slightly due to market apprehension of the risk of the acquisition (but not always!) and Y's shares will rise to take into account the anticipated premium to be paid by X.

If you time yourself correctly, you might (in most cases) short X's shares just before the merger announcement, and buy Y's shares, and then buy/sell as appropriate to reverse those positions after the merger announcement. The problem is knowing when that announcement would come. In an efficient market, and assuming that you don't have private information not available to the market, the price of the shares should already take into account the risk-weighted likely effect of the merger. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

With basic investments like stocks and bonds, I don't think there is a way that would work in general. You might be able to find (or, if you are a really big investor, invent) a derivative that does the job - a right to buy stock at a fixed price in the event of a change of control, or something. --Tango (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You need more information than what you have stated in order to make money. You know it will be purchased but you don't know the price. One can presume that the price would be at a premium to the value of the company on the day before the announcement, and if you do presume this then you would either purchase stock of Company Y, or you'd buy a lot of call options on Company Y with an appropriate expiration date — but that assumes you know the date of the purchase announcement. Tempshill (talk) 05:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• The answer is in Wall Street (film). This isn't an answer, but a relevant observation. Over the short term, most public acquisitions are at a public-market premium. Starbucks for instance has a market cap (as of Friday) of $14.62 B. I could buy up the float (718.01M, or about 5%) without increasing the price (unlikely), and then try to acquire the other 45.01% I need for control (assuming it's all common stock) without letting others know, I'll get the company for something close to the market cap. But as soon as shareholders realize what I'm doing, either because my buying drives up the price, or mandatory SEC disclosures make it obvious, I would expect higher prices. If you're a shareholder standing by watching, your shares increase in value during this time. So typically the share price of the acquired company goes up. There are some efficient market reasons that this seems absurd, and I am really interested to hear from some pure economics people about this, but in practice this is how it works. Shadowjams (talk) 06:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Who designed the IAEA flag?

IAEA flag: tres awesome

Who designed the flag of the IAEA? (By which I refer specifically to the atomic logo.) It reminds me a lot of Erik Nitsche's work from the 1950s, but I haven't found any direct statement that said he came up with it. Anyone know? --Mr.98 (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin Disraeli's and Benjamin Franklin's attituds to war?

Hi everyone,

I am desperate to find out what were the personal attitudes of those great men towards wars?

I would be immensely grateful if anyone could help me to find good evidences to back up the answers as well. Thanks in advance

Ben Franklin: "There never was a good war, or a bad peace."

Disraeli: "War is never a solution; it is an aggravation." Clarityfiend (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Richard Armour: "Peace is a short period of preparation for the next war." :) →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the Communist Party of China's current position on Stalin?

What is the Communist Party of China's current position on Stalin? --Gary123 (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not know the present position, but I would guess from this article Sino-Soviet split that it is not positive. --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

But I can assure you that Foreign Language Publishing House in Beijing pubished Stalin's works as late as in 1980's.117.204.86.87 (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The Sino-Soviet split doesn't really tell you much on this. Part of the split involved the fact that Beijing still thought Stalinism was OK while the new Soviet leaders did not. (Or, as the article more eloquently puts it, "These occurrences shocked Mao, who had supported Stalin ideologically and politically, because Khrushchev was dismantling Mao’s support of the USSR with public rejections of most of Stalin’s leadership and actions — such as announcing the end of the Cominform, and (most troubling to Mao), de-emphasising the core Marxist-Leninist thesis of inevitable war between capitalism and socialism.") Anyway, that was some time back, and I doubt the current position of the Chinese party is anywhere similar to Mao's... --Mr.98 (talk) 02:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this a pithy statement in literary criticism?

From time to time, every hundred years or so, it is desirable that some critic shall appear to review the past of our literature, and set the poets and the and the poems in a new order.

That's from T.S. Eliot. Is this a common enough statement in literary criticism or a wise statement with great literary gravitas? I can see that de Quincey said something to that effect:

EVERY great classic in our native language should from time to time be reviewed anew.

Can somebody point to similar ideas from other writers? --Ravindrakakkar (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Psychological immune system

Does psychology fit in here? Well, according to the wikipedia article Psychological immune system, each persons view of the world, or reality, is actually a set of lies and biases, and that in order to keep our ego healthy, we continue to view reality through biased eyes whenever we are confronted with adverse situations, that could potentially cause our ego harm. Is my interpretation correct? What really caught me by surprise is that, according to the article, each one of us has a biased view of the world, and our brains subconsciously deceive us in negative situations by transforming reality into a psychologically more comfortable state.

Have you had a look at cognitive dissonance? Vranak (talk) 23:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Our individual world view is sometimes called our "reality construct". More bluntly, in his book, The Way of the Weasel, Scott Adams concluded that we are not only weasels with each other, but with ourselves as well. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This same question was asked at the Science desk. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

September 27

Body building

This question clearly belongs on the Science reference desk, so I'm moving it over there now. --Anonymous, 05:28 UTC, September 27, 2009.

Nearly topped at Little Round Top

I recall reading somewhere that Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, long after the Civil War, received a letter from a former Confederate sniper who told him he had Chamberlain in his gun sights, but Something told him not to pull the trigger. I looked at the biography of this remarkable man, but saw nothing about it in there. Is the story true, and where would I find it ? In addition it is said that General Stonewall Jackson had two wives, but only one is mentioned. Who was his first wife, and where could I find details on both of them ? Lastly, my understanding is that the famous Bible scholar C.I. Scofield, although born I believe in Wisconsin, served in the Confederate Army, and was wounded at Antietam ( Sharpsburg - Sept. 17, 1862 ). Why would he fight for the other side ? The Russian, Christopher Lilly Christopherlilly (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard the Chamberlain story, but obviously Strong Vincent didn't have the same experience.

Our article on Stonewall Jackson is a bit of a mess, but his first wife (mentioned under "Early Military Career") was Elinor (sometimes spelled Eleanor) Junkin. His second wife was Mary Anna Morrison. Significantly, both were daughters of Presbyterian ministers. Read more about Stonewall and his wives in Sarah Gardner's essay in Intimate strategies of the Civil War: military commanders and their wives, if you can get ahold of it.

About the third question: although the Wikipedia article doesn't mention it, Cyrus Ingerson Scofield, though born in Michigan, was apparently living in Tennesse when the Civil War began. Thus it's not very surprising that he signed up for a one-year enlistment in a Tennessee regiment. —Kevin Myers 13:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Several of my ancestors lived in Tennessee, but crossed the state line to join a Kentucky Union regiment. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not very surprising either; see Tennessee in the American Civil War. —Kevin Myers 22:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This game: "telling objects from a collection"

A game in my chilhood was the following. Two (or more) players choose a subject, e.g. "capitals" or "basket players", then they tell names in that category in turn; looses the one who fail to find a new name to add to the list. Do or did you use to play this game, and how do you call it? --pma (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Categories (game)? Vimescarrot (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Where can I find the transcript of the recent Larry King Ahmadinejad interview online for free?

Hello, I have a very slow Internet connection and I tried to watch the video on youtube but it was too frustratingly slow. I just want the transcript. Any help?--12.48.220.130 (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see the interview and this seems pretty short to me but here is a transcript from cnn.com.

Cynical and Skeptical (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Muslims ruling over non-Muslims and Christians ruling over non-Christians

I've noticed that, throughout European history, Muslims who conquered a European country did not force the local Christians to convert to Islam (for example, when the Moors conquered Spain and when the Ottomans conquered the Balkans). Before the 19th century, Christian rulers were banishing, executing or forcibly converting all non-Christians in their lands and in the lands they conquered (for example, after Reconquista in Spain and during Austro-Ottoman wars). Christian rulers did the same to other Christians who didn't worship the way majority did (for example, persecution of Protestants by Catholics).

The Jews were persecuted by the Christian rulers of Portugal, Spain, Austria, Italy, etc., while they thrived in Spain during the Muslim rule and were received by the Ottoman Sultan after they were banished from Spain in 1492. Why did Muslim rulers tolerate Christians and Jews? It was as easy for them to expel them as it was for Christian rulers to expel non-Christians. Not only they tolerated, but they welcomed non-Muslims into their realms (eg. Bayezid II welcoming the Spanish Jews and threatning with death all Muslims who treated them badly) and guaranteed them freedom of religion (eg. Mehmed II's Firman). Why?

(I am aware of exceptions, but they are only exceptions.) Surtsicna (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Proselytizing is less important to Islam than it is to Christianity; it doesn't really matter if you haven't converted everyone to Islam. I don't think the Qur'an has an equivalent to the Bible's command to go out and preach. Muslims also had a better understanding of economics, and realized it was far more profitable to tax everyone heavily than to kill them or expel them. (One notable exception is the crusader states, of course.) Adam Bishop (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)