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

February 8

Meaning of CDT 00120

This is in reference to the ADA (American Dental Association) CDT (Current Dental Terminology) coding system. Many online references describe this code as "Periodic oral examination." This article] in Dental Economics is the only source I could find that provides anything more than the name. I'm trying to find out whether this code describes a procedure which must be performed by a dentist, or whether it is permissible to charge for it when performed by a hygienist. Ma^t_chups 04:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I called my insurance carrier, Delta Dental of Missouri, and was told that this code requires a licensed dentist.Ma^t_chups 02:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Find relatives of Miguel Rebeiro in portugal

Am trying to find lost relatives of my great grandad in Portugal.His name was Miguel Rebeiro. He immigrated from Portugal(don't have the date) to Ghana where he married a local lady. He had children,one named Ama Mansama who he later took with him to Portugal. He never returned to Ghana. But I know I have relatives in Portugal. Can you kindly help me trace them. Am ever so grateful. Wishing all the best in this endevour —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.23.190 (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't something Wikipedia can help you with directly, but there are plenty of websites devoted to genealogy that may be useful. GenForum hosts a Portugal genealogy message board here where you can post queries, and there's a free Portugal mailing list at RootsWeb here. I am not familiar with where and how Portuguese national records are kept, but if you ask on one of those two sites you will probably find someone who can advise you where to look further for material about your great grandfather and his family. Good luck with your search, Karenjc 13:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Where do Mennonites live in Canada

Hello. I would like to find out which Canadian provinces have a Mennonite population and the size of the populations. There is an article here on Mennonite but it isn't specific. The Statistics Canada site is driving me mad. (http://www.statcan.gc.ca). Please help. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.250.140 (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a list from 1991; the numbers are probably different now but the relative sizes should be the same. As you can see, most of them live in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and BC. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Adam. I really appreciate it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.250.140 (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to make sure you realize that the article referenced above includes all Mennonites, not just the Old Order Mennonites, which is what some people mean when they say "Mennonite". If you are looking to be more specific there are large concentrations of Mennonites (both Old Order and others) round Waterloo, Ontario. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

bridges

In a design for a bridge crossing water through which small boats accoasionally travel, would a 1:10 slope up and back down work, or would that be too steep? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.197.114.158 (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean is a 10% grade ok for the road bed? Usually roads try to keep the grade lower then that, but having said that, I do know of smaller roads with grades of 25% or more. If it is a railroad bridge, that might be too much, since rails are more susceptible to large grades. A walking bridge would not be much of a problem for that grade. Googlemeister (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That depends on what kind of traffic, and what kind of speeds that traffic would be doing, over the bridge. At one extreme, Interstate Highway standards says that the maximum grade for an interstate highway in the US is 6%. This document (for New Zealand local governments) sets the limit for their roads at 1:8 (12.5%). This document talks about grade considerations for wheelchair users, which sets 8.33% as the maximum, and requires a handrail for anything steeper than 5%. Even if your proposed bridge isn't open to the public (or otherwise isn't subject to road or footpath legal requirements for your jurisdiction) you might consider what the capabilities of your projected users are. If it's a footbridge, and you successfully cater for wheelchair users, then surely you'll also be fine for walkers, cyclists, pram and pushchair shovers, and skaters. On the flipside, the Grade (slope) article shows some terrific grades. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps off topic, but as the data above indicates that 1:10 is a bit steep: I assume you've considered the option of a swing bridge or a bascule bridge? You do say the traffic is occasional. It is not uncommon here (the UK) for canals to utilise swing bridges, and the canal traffic is a bit more than occasional, I'd say. Maedin\^talk 17:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The UK at least has a lot of "humpback bridges" which have a very steep grade, but since they don't rise very high the length of grade is very short. It means vehicles don't have trouble climbing the grade, but long vehicles can ground. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As someone said above, it really depends on what sort of traffic is expected on the bridge. The grade isn't the only issue, either; you also have to consider the vertical curvature where the upgrade and downgrade meet. For high-speed traffic this would have to be pretty gentle, and as DJ said, even for low-speed traffic a sharp vertical curve can be a problem with long vehicles. --Anonymous, 23:59 UTC, February 8, 2010.

Marxism, communism, socialism, whatever it is called question

So I was thinking here, in the style of economy where basically everything is owned by everybody, how would some jobs get done? I mean to take a modern example, it might be quite easy to fill certain jobs because that kind of work would appeal to a great deal of people, but where would the janitors, and coal miners and toxic waste cleanup people come from without economic incentive to fill those jobs? Would people be forced into those jobs? But by who since true communism or whatever it is called would not have a government either? Googlemeister (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about true stateless communism, the endpoint of Marxism. If memory serves, Marx and Engels didn't discuss this subject rigorously, but only famously said that the state would "fade away". Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

restricting ourselves (for the moment) to 'true' or 'stateless' communism: where did you get the idea that there wouldn't be a government? The problem with government (in Marxist terms) is not that that it exists, but that it gets co-opted to serve the interests of a particular class (as an example, some modern Marxists have fun pointing out how the US government goes to the ends of the earth to protect the interests of major corporations, but can't even pass a health care bill that would protect average citizens). a pure marxist society would obviously have some system for making collective decisions - I have no idea what that would look like, but there's nothing in Marxism against it.

with respect to 'dirty, dangerous, difficult' jobs: again, Marxism would not be a system without remuneration, but any remuneration in pure Marxist society would be based on the value of the labor. in any socio-economic system sanitation work has a very, very high value (if you've ever been in a city during a garbage strike, you know what I mean). The reason sanitation work is avoided in capitalist societies is that it is constructed as 'menial' labor (a class based distinction), and no one wants to be classed as a menial if they can avoid it. In a class-free society that stigma wouldn't be there, and sanitation workers would get significant social rewards for doing a job that everyone in society recognizes as vital. --Ludwigs2 18:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In the Soviet Union I believe that you could be simply assigned to a job. I presume that is how essential but unwanted jobs would be done. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I heard an hour-long interview on NPR with a woman who lived in East Germany under Erich Honecker, and she explained at length how training and employment worked. When she was in her early teens, she took an aptitude test which gave her an array of training options for H.S./College. Based on her aptitude test, she had several options, of which she chose a "hopitality" track, where she trained to work in the hotel/travel industry. She had hoped for a job working in a hotel or travel agency. However, when she graduated, there were more trainees in that job pool than open jobs, so she ended up working as a janitor; essentially unskilled labor, since she had no other training for anything else. She ultimately had no say in her employment options; based on the results of her aptitude test, she was basically assigned a training track, and then once she was trained, the government assigned her a job she was expected to perform her whole life. Again, she had no say in that at all. Her biggest problem was the over-specificity of her training; she probably had the intelligence to do any number of jobs, but she was untrained for them because her training was very specific, and ultimately a dead-end when it came to her actual job prospects. In the end, she ended up working in a hotel as a desk clerk, but that came in the 1990s after reunification. --Jayron32 19:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Similar things happen in the west: you get a degree in Media Studies or something similar, fail to get a job, then have to do menial work you are over qualified for, and are too poor or too proud to get another degree in something else. 92.26.29.37 (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

yeah... the Soviet Union was a stalinist single-party system that's about as far from the ideal of pure Marxism as you can imagine. This is a bit like citing British colonialism as an example of Smith's free market economics. --Ludwigs2 19:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Much of the British Empire was acquired by private capitalism and in order to further trade, i.e. the free market. You might want to choose a different simile. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll choose a different simile when you show how the British interaction with native peoples in India, Africa, and elsewhere was a product of the free market. or are you suggesting that market forces convinced Africans to sell themselves into slavery? --Ludwigs2 21:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that your comment implies you don't know very much about the subject. I read "Memoirs Of A Slave Trader" by Theodore Canot recently, someone more American than any other nationality, and it described how the local Kings willingly cooperated with the slavers and sold enemies and people considered wrongdoers into slavery for money or goods. The continental-European or American slavers bought the slaves from the Kings, who readily delivered them to the coast themselves. The author also described how difficult it was to get past the British warships who, (with great bravery and risking their own lives) did everything they could to stop the slave trade and led to the author giving up his business. Extremely regretably and to our shame, the British did play a big part in the trade befoe it became illegal in the British juristriction (which included the Atlantic Ocean). See Triangular trade, Arab slave trade and Barbary corsairs. The articles say the figures are between 11 and 18 million people by Arab Slave Trader, 9.4 to 14 million in the Atlantic Slave Trade, and 0.8 to 1.25 million by Barbary Pirates. 89.240.202.189 (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Much of what became the British Empire was originally privately held by British companies. The East India Company, the Hudson's Bay Company, etc. And a company buying and selling slaves for profit is still free-market capitalism. They have a product and a market, don't they? Adam Bishop (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

lol - I cannot believe that you guys are actually justifying the trade in human beings as a valid form of free market interaction. are you going to start justifying the international trade in women as sex workers as a free market interaction as well? and note, please, that I didn't say anything about trading with kings - a free market assumes that all participants in the transaction enter into the engagement 'freely', which would seem to be precluded by the act of enslaving someone (or are you suggesting that slaves should be considered material objects rather than participants in the exchange?). silliness... The british colonials did not 'trade' with indigenous peoples for products: the enslaved them, coerced them militarily, subverted their governments, or displaced them through direct colonization. anything as egalitarian as actual 'trade' would have been uneconomical. please... --Ludwigs2 21:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

We're not "justifying the trade in human beings as a valid form of free market interaction" as you incorrectly and falsly assert. You also make other false incorrect unjustified assertions such as the "The british colonials....uneconomical." You also make unannounced changes in your definitions: previously you were writing about trading with "Africans", now you have altered this to mean "all Africans". Its impossible to have a sensible debate with someone who keeps chopping and changing like this. 89.243.182.24 (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you're asking about stateless communism, you might be interested in knowing how a bunch of anarchists have answered this question: it's section I.4.13 of the Anarchist FAQ. Marnanel (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

We had a very left wing teacher at our 1970s Comprehensive school; he argued that society could work like a Kibbutz with people rotating through jobs every few weeks. He couldn't explain what would happen when the street sweeper became the heart surgeon and I'm not sure he was serious. In WWII Britain, every tenth(?) man was concripted into the coal mines (the Bevin Boys) instead of the armed services. It wasn't very popular; most would have preferred to be shot at apparently[1]. Alansplodge (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Your suspicions that he was parodying have merit. But if he was serious, for that concept I have this to say in rebuttal: College of Coaches. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah! If only we'd had Wikipedia then (and a computer to read it from). Alansplodge (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs, you seem to have forgotten the motto of Communism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Peter jackson (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's always seemed to me that capitalism focuses on the first half of that, and socialism on the second half. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

hmmm... I don't see what makes you think I've forgotten that, unless you've misinterpreted that phrase to imply some kind of dysfunctional subservience to the state (a common misinterpretation among capitalists and socialists alike). All that phrase means is that people should give their best efforts for producing something (which every capitalist would agree with emphatically) and that people should receive what they need to lead a decent life (which most capitalists would complain about bitterly). where's the problem? --Ludwigs2 21:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Marx was very inspired by the improvements of technology in the Industrial Revolution and one of his ideas was that improvements in technology would make all jobs much easier and less time consuming. Hence low-status jobs like cleaning could be done by machines that would remove most of the unpleasantness.

It's also worth noting that many people are willing to clean their own homes, cars, etc, without renumeration, far beyond what is minimally necessary for hygiene, some people volunteer to pick up litter in public places, and some people even claim to enjoy cleaning (just not all day every day). --Normansmithy (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There are few Kibbutzim left that truly follow the original idea of Kibbutz, without deviation, but on them, yes the crappy jobs are happily shared out among the members on a variety of bases, whether taking turns or people specialising in them. As theoretically there is no social kudos from doing a better or worse job, it helps. In practice, most Kibbutzim will buy in local labourers to fill some horrid jobs, especially as there's often a seasonal shortage of hands. --Dweller (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In The Dispossessed the author suggests that in a society with no money for status,the willingness to do dirty,hard or dangerous jobs would confer status and I could see this.hotclaws 19:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed this on some kibbutzim, where the people who do "Gadash" (basically irrigation tasks) involving getting muddy and lugging very heavy pipes, are well-respected. --Dweller (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

that's a basic rule of human (social) nature. If you can force someone to do something unpleasant, you will think of them as corruptible and weak and treat them with disrespect. if you can't force them to do it, but they do it anyways, you will think of them as strong and generous, and treat them with respect. Unfortunately, capitalism has fixated on the belief that people must be forced to do unpleasant things, and so capitalists can't help but disrespect the people that do them. vicious little circle. --Ludwigs2 21:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs, what you said was "any remuneration in pure Marxist society would be based on the value of the labor". that clearly contradicts the motto I cited. Peter jackson (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your last remark doesn't seem to make much sense either. You seem to be using an odd sense of the word "forced". Slavery is forced labour. Capitalism isn't. Peter jackson (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

To answer the OP's question, see Stakhanovite, where a very hard working miner became a celebrity and was a role model for others. That would be a new twist on current celebrity culture - instead of becoming a celebrity duie to being on TV a lot, you become a celebrity due to doing something usefull for society - media editors please note. Also see Udarnik, Alija Sirotanović, and Socialist emulation. We do have many voluntary Subbotniks in the UK, doing charity work or nature conservation, or even just clearing litter, although nobody has heard of that term. The Corvée article surprisingly says that compulsory government-ordered unpaid work continued in the USA up until 1910. 89.243.182.24 (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

And Scottish miners were serfs until 1800. Peter jackson (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to be proud or ashamed?

If we are just a product of the circumstances - social, historical, whatever. If there is no free will, a criminal and a hero are the same, just in another circumstances.--ProteanEd (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

See our Determinism article, which mentions many philosophers through the ages that have discussed the subject. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

also, check out nihilism, which argues something fairly close to what you've stated here. --Ludwigs2 18:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Read both. And how do we escape the despair of nihilism? Or the indifference of determinism? Are criminals and heroes the same? --ProteanEd (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, there's also Fatalism. The answer to your last question will be answered "no" by those who don't believe in determinism, and either "yes" or "no" by those who do. There are determinists who aren't idle fatalists. I notice that, disappointingly, the "ethics" paragraph in our determinism article is too brief, and uncited. Anyway, you're going to have to go to the philosophers to get any satisfaction for your question, and they're probably a better source than us. Personally I recommend Slaughterhouse Five. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Escape? If you're asking for spiritual advice, I'll point out that the major failing of determinism and nihilism (and related philosophies like existentialism) is that they collapse physical experience into an intellectual abstraction. it's one thing to breathe, which we do most moments of every day. it's another thing entirely to think about breathing as an abstract concept: such thoughts will lead to the recognition that there's no 'reason' why we breathe or continue to breathe, which leads in turn to fears of death, angst about meaninglessness, paranoia about whether one is breathing 'correctly', philosophical meanderings about the relationship of breath to the greater cosmos... The only reason people do 'wrong' in the world is because they convince themselves (as a matter of intellectual abstraction) that they are doing 'right', and the only reason other people think it's wrong is that it violates their (intellectually abstract) preconceptions of what is right. when you see through your interpretation of the experience to the experience itself, the kind of despair you're talking about has no place to connect.

put another way, you have pretty much as much free will as you decide you have. If you decide you don't have very much (which is what most people do) you're a chump of circumstance, which may or may not work out well or you. If you decide you have a lot, then even bad times won't get you down because you'll make the best of them that you can. --Ludwigs2 19:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well-stated. Someone deciding they have no free will is a cop-out. It enables them to blame someone else for their failings, rather than taking responsibility. Want proof of free will? Decide which letter on the keyboard you're going to hit next. Is someone forcing you to hit a particular key? No, you're choosing to. That's not to say there won't be different effects from hitting different keys. But actually hitting the key is your own responsibility and decision. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

But see Laplace's demon. I recommend the thread end, before we replicate 3,000 years of philosophical debate. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

We need not concern ourselves about theoretical things for which there is no evidence of existence. Regarding replicating 3,000 years of philosophy... aw, c'mon, there's plenty of disk space. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you get it. The demon isn't a thing, it's a posited ability to predict the entirety of the future based on a complete knowledge of the situation right now. Mark Twain wrote: "When the first living atom found itself afloat on the great Laurentian sea the first act of that first atom led to the second act of that first atom, and so on down through the succeeding ages of all life, until, if the steps could be traced, it would be shown that the first act of that first atom has led inevitably to the act of my standing here in my dressing-gown at this instant talking to you." We are but slaves to the atoms of the moment, unable to perform any actions, or even generate any thoughts, that could not have been foreseen millions of years ago. I type here on the Humanities reference desk because the billiard balls making up the universe have collided in such a way that I type here on the Humanities reference desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

if that's what you choose to believe, then c'est la vie. I choose otherwise. of course, you'll feel obligated to say that I can't choose otherwise, and I'll feel a definite urge to laugh at you, which I may or may not choose to do. --Ludwigs2 00:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like just another concept of what God might be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That's why I suggested it was spiritual advice. people underestimate the extent to which ontological discussions are both physical and spiritual. for instance, both the random gene model in evolutionary theory and the clockwork universe idea in physics were advanced (at least in part) because they explicitly nullified religious assertions about the presence of God in the world. Nihilism did the same - it was originally an effort (following Hegel and Neitzche) to create a secular/philosophical conception of morality. intellectual history is a fascinating thing... --Ludwigs2 07:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Writer of book (or article) falsely reporting Iraq War atrocities by US troops

We once had an article about a US soldier, or claimed soldier, who wrote such a book or article. As I recall, his work was initially met with great acclaim by the media but was later debunked. Does anyone recall his name? Thanks, CliffC (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If it helps to jog anyone's memory, I recall there was at one point a photo of the writer in uniform – the photo was also debunked, due to some sort of mismatch (maybe the hat?) with the proper uniform for his claimed branch of service. --CliffC (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reposted this from the archives, perhaps someone thought my added comment was an answer. --CliffC (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, excellent -- that's the guy. I might have had him confused with someone else as far as the uniform oddities, but that's the name I remember. Thanks, CliffC (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

chinese lending

I am having trouble finding the exact date the U.S. first borrowed money from China. Will you please help me? Stu Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.76.35 (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't think there has ever been a "loan" in the sense of a direct government-to-government request for money, but China has bought a significant number of U.S. Treasury bonds (partly in pursuit of its own self-interest). AnonMoos (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"partly"? Why ever would Chinese investors (government or private) buy US T-bills for any reason other than their own self interest? Investors buy US bonds because there's a huge market in them, because they're AAA rated, and because the investors want to diversity their investments out of their own and related economies; all prudent investment goals. Beyond that buying US bonds helps shore up US demand for Chinese products. All entirely, and openly, their obvious self interest. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that AnonMoos meant "in pursuit of its own self-interest other than simply making money". DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've not found a reliable history of Chinese ownership of government T-bills, but China (where "China" means both the large government sovereign wealth fund and private owners) owned USD 790 billion in November 2009, up from 585 billion in September 2008; that latter article says "China’s ownership of U.S. government debt has doubled since July 2005", so you can put the July 2005 figure at around 290 billion. In general, this NY Times article says China has been increasing its ownership of US debt (which includes T-bills and mortgages from Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac) since the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis (the NT Times article says 1998 rather than 1997). -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

To expand on this a bit more. When we say that "China owns the U.S. debt" we don't mean that China and the U.S. made a direct dealing whereby China directly offered and the U.S. sought a loan like you would go to the bank and get a car loan. It doesn't really work that way. Instead, the U.S. offered United States Treasury securitys on the open bond market. These are no different than the bonds that any private company may offer to raise capital. Anyone could have bought those bonds, indeed many people and banks all over the world buy US Treasury securities; maybe your grandmother used to buy you U.S. Savings Bonds: its the exact same thing, but on a MUCH larger scale. Basically, China (meaning both the Chinese Government and individual and corporate investors based in China) purchased US Treasury Bonds as investment vehicles, just as individuals and corporations do in the U.S. --Jayron32 19:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

And to expand on that a bit more, the Chinese government may be buying these bonds at auction, or may be buying them on the open bond market from random people around the world who happen to want to sell them that day; if the latter, the US government doesn't actually receive any money from China at all. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the questioner understands by now that the United States does not go to China, hat in hand, asking for a loan. As for when China first bought U.S. debt securities, in effect lending money to the United States, I would think that this must have happened by the 1940s at the latest, though at nowhere near the scale of China's present-day holding of U.S. debt. I have not been able to find a reference to support my supposition, but the establishment of the Bretton Woods system in 1944 made the U.S. dollar the world's reserve currency. Even before 1944, but certainly after 1944, central banks held U.S. dollars or U.S. dollar securities as part of their foreign reserves. A key function of a central bank is to hold foreign reserves to help facilitate trade, among other reasons. Typically central banks, such as the Central Bank of China or the People's Bank of China, prefer to hold foreign-currency securities (i.e., debt) in their reserves rather than cash, because securities yield interest. It is hard to imagine that the central banks of China during the aftermath of World War II did not hold some U.S. debt. Marco polo (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

However, if that was the case, it would have been nationalist China. I assume the questioner had in mind mainly the PRC... AnonMoos (talk)

China (PRC) first purchased US T-bills in March 1985, and has been a regular buyer ever since. The total purchased as of Nov 2009 was $2,308 billion. However, that number does not include any purchase made through third parties (e.g., London dealers) or any sales. Over 25+ years, China has bought (same caveats as above) about 1% of all US T-bills and agency paper issued.

Why would the Chinese government buy T-bills? First, they are not our enemy; we’re not at war, not even a cold war, so there is no ideological disincentive. Second, T-bills are the most liquid high-rated financial instrument in the world. Third, once China’s purchase of T-bills (and, a whole lot of other stuff called agency paper) reached a volume where it was capable of moving the market, it was enormously discouraged from stopping (or even slowing) its purchases, as the knock-on effects would be devastating to China and the world economy. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

legal routing number on check

I received a check in the mail suppose to be a Grant check, but when I tryed to cash it they would not because of the name of the bank and then I took it to my bank and they could not find the bank name or routing number. How could I find out if this is a real check or not? The name of the bank is US Bank out of Minneapolis, MN 55480, routing number is "092005411", is there such a place or bank? Please let me know what I can do if anything.

Thank You, DuAnn Goode <email removed to prevent spam> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.61 (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Your bank would know this far better than anonymous people on the Internet like us. I googled "092005411" and what comes up is many pages of warnings about counterfeit money orders and checks. You will have to believe your bank on this one. Sorry you were scammed. How exactly did it occur? Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you have to send the "Grantor" money in order to get the suspect check? Edison (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If so, the scammers have probably cashed it by now, but it could be worth trying to stop the payment somehow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused by your question. Did this grant cheque arrive totally unexpectedly, like a random stranger just sent it to you? If so, it could easily be a scam or fraud. On the other hand, if you were expecting this cheque from a legitimate source of grants (ie. you made an application to the government or some charity), I would contact them for more information about their bank. Astronaut (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't know about routing numbers, but could there be a misprint on the cheque? I also found several US Banks in the Minneapolis area including their corporate headquarters. Visit http://www.usbank.com/ for more info. Astronaut (talk) 06:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It is unlikely to be a misprint, I'm afraid. It appears you have been scammed by the "Greendot grant aid scam". It works like this: you receieve a cheque, supposedly an advance on a grant, from someone claiming to be a grants administrator. You send them a "commission" (usually around $400) via the Greendot money transfer service, and they send you the balance of your grant (usually several thousand dollars). The cheque is a fraud and will bounce or be cancelled, the grant doesn't arrive, and your $400 has gone for good. The routing number 092005411 is linked repeatedly to this fraud, although the bank ID varies. The signatory on the cheque is often named Marilyn Ritchie. There's info out there on this scam, although some on forums Wikipedia doesn't like, so I won't link. Google "greendot marilyn ritchie grant scam". I'm sorry you've been targeted, and I hope you have not lost money. Karenjc 17:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't find that scam covered in wikipedia. Seems like it ought to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It would come under advance fee fraud, and particularly the subsection about fake cheques. Karenjc 22:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised anyone would fall for this. Isn't it obvious that to get a grant for something, you have to apply for it first and not just recieve a cheque unexpectedly in the mail? And who has ever heard of having to pay some middleman a "commission" to recieve a grant? Astronaut (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Because it offers hope. It targets those the scammers reckon are desperate enough to bite, like many other scams of this type, i.e. it preys directly on the vulnerable and needy. When the funds appear to clear into their account (see the explanation of the "float" at Advance_fee_fraud#Fake_cheques), the recipient is reassured that the cheque is valid, and believes it is safe to send the "commission". Those who don't need the money will be more likely to suspect a scam, but people in desperate straits may not be aware of the warnings and information out there, and may lack the means to access them easily before they are duped. It is a double whammy, because the recipient will usually spend the inital payment (perhaps to clear existing debts) once it has "cleared" into their account (not realising that it may be reclaimed if the cheque fails), as well as sending the commission. When the cheque is declined and the funds disappear from the recipient's account, they end up in debt to the bank as well as losing the commission. Yes, it's surprising that people fall for it, but it is carefully calculated to draw them in. Nice people, those who rob the poor. Karenjc 09:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible qualification to claim title of Emperor

Thinking in terms of qualifications required to hold a title would a good definition for Emperor be the person who within a specified period of time was the first person to reduce to minimum form the greatest number of valid logical equations, which had the greatest number of variables with the greatest number of states? (Similar to how one might define of the final winner in a Chess championship such as Big Blue, or whatever the last Chess playing computer winner was named, that had won against all other players.) 71.100.8.16 (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Emperor of what? Adam Bishop (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Universe, or at least as far in that direction as control over it from Earth might extend. 71.100.8.16 (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears that you don't need to rule over an empire to be called an emperor, as in the case of the Emperor of Japan. --Kvasir (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I reckon a monarch can call itself whatever it wants to. In any case, in 1941 it was an empire, as FDR referred to in his speech about having been attacked by "the Empire of Japan". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Japan is considered an empire because the Yamato (the imperial family) conquered lots of little kingdoms to unify the country. Nyttend (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Emperor of Japan is so titled because the title was directly chosen to emulate the Chinese title Huangdi, which is translated as Emperor because of the similarity in status of the Chines Emperor versus the predecessor Chinese kingdom and the subject kingdoms as that of the Roman Emperor.

By contrast, the title granted by the Chinese emperor to the ruler of Japan is merely Wang, or "king". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't this already been automated (at least for binary logic)? Besides, philosophers apparently only aspire to be kings, while mathematicians are satisfied with princes. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

...and for polyvalued ( Many-valued might be the better term since poly-valued could suggest that more than a single state of the same variable could be valid at the same time. You tell me. ) logic here? 71.100.8.16 (talk) 06:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

While Japan was indeed considered an empire, it is no longer considered so, even in Japanese parlance. 日本国 is the name of the country, whereas 大日本帝國 (Great Japanese Empire) dissolved after WWII following its defeat. See Empire of Japan. Emperor Hirohito was forced to renounce his divinity and took on a symbolic status. This has not change with the current Emperor Akihito. --Kvasir (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So here's the long and short of it. In English, the word "Emperor" has two contexts:

• In a European context, there is only one Emperor: the Roman Emperor. For most of history, every legitimate claimaint to the actual title of Emperor, or a varient thereof, has a connection to the Roman Emperor. This claim has been divided multiple times over history, but they all usually claim a thread back to Rome. Consider the following claimaint threads:
• When Rome divided into the Eastern Roman Empire and Western Roman Empire, it essentially created two Emperors, and all Emperors connect to one or the other. There was the Western/Latin/Catholic Emperor thread and the Eastern/Orthodox/Greek Emperor thread. Lets follow each of these:

• The Western claim basically disappeared after Odoacer deposed the last legitimate western emperor. The next realistic claimaint to that title was Charlemagne who established the Frankish Empire. Through him, the Holy Roman Empire gets its claim to the title of Emperor. When Napoleon officially disbanded the HRE, he got to claim himself as the head of the French Empire (since he was replacing the last legitimate Western empire with himself). Napoleon III based his claim on a French Empire through Napoleon I's claim, and then, via the results of the Franco-Prussian War, when Napoleon III was deposed, the Western claim passed on to the German Empire. Through all of this, the Hapsburgs maintained their claim to the Western title, so Austria and Austria/Hungary also maintained the title of Emperor, even after the HRE was officially ended by Napoleon. After WWI, the west finally decided to end the entire charade, and the Roman Empire in the West was put to an end.
• The Eastern claim evolved from the Eastern Roman Empire to the Byzantine Empire (which is a modern term, the Eastern Roman Empire never stopped calling itself that, so as far as they were concerned, there was no functional change). At various times, when Constantinople fell, the claim was divided or shifted to other claimants. For example, when the crusaders sacked the city, they established the Latin Empire. When the Ottoman Turks seized the city in 1453, the claim devolved to the Empire of Trebizond (as direct descendants of the Byzantine Emperors) and to Moscow, which seized the title of "Third Rome" as the last bastion of eastern orthodox christendom, the Dukes of Muscovy took the tile Tsar, from "Caesar" or "Emperor". So, the main eastern claimaint was the Tsar of Russia, which also basically expired during WWI (or more properly the Russian Revolution).
• By the 19th century, there occasionally sprung up some states with absolutely no claim to the Roman Empire title, but with European connections. The two off hand I can think of are the Empire of Brazil (basically a continuation of the Kingdom of Portugal-in-exile after the Napoleonic wars) and the two Mexican Empires.

• So that's the story for Europe. Elsewhere in the world, the term "Emperor" is more liberally applied to monarchs in other cultures whose states operate something like the Roman Empire did, or occupied the same sort of Hegemony over their part of the world. Thus, we have things like the Chinese Emperor, the Japanese Emperor, the Aztec Emperor, etc. etc. Since these cultures had absolutely zero connection to Rome, the term emperor is used somewhat poetically; the term has a different meaning in these contexts than it does in the European one, and isn't a direct translation of Emperor, instead its just the term we use in English as an analog to the local term of "Highest possible ranking monarch" for that culture. --Jayron32 04:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not so fast, Jayron32. Victoria also laid claim to be Empress of India, albeit iirc this was forced on her by one of her prime ministers. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As I stated, the title was occasionally used in the 19th century by European rulers over their non-European possessions. See my cites for the Empire of Brazil and Empire of Mexico above. Though I did not mentioned it specifically, the use of the "Empire of India" title by the British Monarchy certainly fits right in this category. I may have missed a few other such 19th cnetury usages, my naming of the Empire of Brazil and the Empire of Mexico was not intended to be comprehensive, merely representative, of the odd 19th century usage. --Jayron32 05:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Your response is excellent. Its reader friendly yet detailed enough to surpass Monarch Notes (tiny pun intended) but surely the Roman title is qualified on the basis of something like military power or gold reserves or legal system or some religious belief as grounds for making the claim which the title represents. What I am asking is whether the basis I have suggested would make a better basis for the title than anything, anywhere in the past, future or present and if not what that other thing might be. (Please consider writing a book if you have not already done so.) 71.100.8.16 (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Every title has an historical context; the term Emperor was not invented out of whole cloth to refer to just any ruler of a multinational state. It is used often that way in a modern context, as I stated above, somewhat poetically. But in terms of its historical context, the title Emperor has a very specific usage, just as do terms like King and Duke and Count and Sherrif and various other titles. Generally, even in a modern usage, these have retained some of their historical context (in the U.S. the Sherrif is the top law-enforcement officer in a County (Shire) and so, the term is very close to its original meaning from England, "Shire-reeve"). I mean, you can just to call anyone anything you want. LeBron James is "King James", Edward Kennedy Ellington was a "Duke", Joshua Abraham Norton was an "Emperor". --Jayron32 16:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Babe Ruth was a Sultan, Rogers Hornsby was a Rajah, Mr. Aaron was the King of Slam, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And Mr Bob Geldof is commonly but mistakenly referred to as Sir Bob Geldof. He's no more a real Sir than Count Basie was a real count or Duke Wayne was a real duke. . -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that's not quite true. Bob Geldof KBE would be a Sir if he were a Commonwealth citizen, it's not merely a nickname like the others. FiggyBee (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Except that he's not a Commonwealth citizen. He can certainly use the KBE, but as for Sir, well, that is just not on. Would anyone ever call Ronald Reagan or George HW Bush or Steven Spielberg "Sir Ronald" or "Sir George" or "Sir Steven"? Of course not; nobody has ever done that; that is almost a "non-existent concept". But they too had honorary knighthoods, just like Geldof. It's very stark: either one is entitled to "Sir", or one is not. Bob Geldof is not. The use of "Sir" for an honorary knight is absolutely a nickname. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Americans have been known to call their President "King [whoever]]", but that's very seldom intended to be a compliment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

See Imperator for the origins of the title. FiggyBee (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Jack is perfectly correct about knighthoods. However, even the British media habitually refer to someone as "Sir" as soon as his knighthood is announced, rather than wait till he's actually knighted, so how can poor benighted foreigners be expected to get it right? Peter jackson (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Now, I believe that that practice has been enshrined in the rules somewhere. It used to be the case that a knight was not a knight until they were physically dubbed with a sword by the monarch or their representative; what they were in between the gazettal/announcement and the conferral ceremony, I don't know; maybe "knight-designate"? But some years ago - quite some years ago now - it was recognised that the gazettal (i.e the formal announcement) effectively converted a Mr into a Sir in the eyes of the public, and formal approval was given to refer to new knights as Sir immediately, without waiting for the dubbing. Were this not the case, how would people like Henry Cotton get on? He accepted a knighthood, but died even before the official announcement was due to be made on New Year's Eve, let alone before any conferral ceremony; yet he is entitled to be known as "Sir Henry Cotton" because the official date of his knighthood was decreed to be the date of his death, i.e. he became a knight on the stroke of midnight, and died some time later that day. Or people who died between the announcement and the conferral ceremony? They are not permanently denied their "Sir" because of an accident of history over which they had no control. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That would certainly be interesting. Can you supply a citation for it? Peter jackson (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. From Debretts: The recipient is allowed to use his title and to attach the appropriate letters for Knights of Orders of Chivalry after his name from the date of the announcement in the London Gazette. He does not have to wait for the accolade to be officially conferred upon him. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have a look through some old editions to see when it changed, & perhaps how. Peter jackson (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You may have quite a search on your hands, Peter. We don't have knighthoods in Australia any more, but back in the days when we did (pre-1983), new knights and dames always used their Sirs and Dames immediately upon the public announcement (traditionally New Year's Day and Queen's Birthday, latterly Australia Day and QB). Same was true for other honours that came with postnominal letters. Whether the practice ever varied in the UK, I couldn't say for certain; but the notion that a new knight is announced in the media, but cannot be referred to as "Sir <name>" until such time as he goes to the Palace for the investiture, seems unsustainable. How would ordinary people know whether a particular knight has been invested yet or not? Alfred Hitchcock was Sir Alfred from the moment of his public announcement, but he never got to the Palace at all. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

follow-up

After looking up Imperator, watching a flick about the Last Emperor of China and a few episodes of the HBO series named ROME it is fairly clear that the historical basis is 1) the accumulation of many titles like merit badges in the Boy Scouts and 2) how many enemy's of the state you have sent to their death on the assumption that makes you the guy who can reduce the most variables, etc. What I was asking is whether or not perhaps say for instance just playing a sophisticated computer game against the computer if the person who last won the most games got to be crowned Emperor but of course for real not just his status in the computer game. 71.100.8.16 (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

February 9

Extant Mayan And Aztec People

We have extant mayan, incan, and aztec people, right?174.3.98.236 (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

People descended from them anyway (e.g. Maya peoples). "Only" their civilizations were wiped out. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The category "Maya" is still in use. There are various ethnic groups that are still called Maya, though they speak a variety of different languages. The terms Inca and Aztec are not used as labels for peoples today. In fact, neither term was used as a label for peoples at the times of the empires we describe as Aztec or Inca. The dominant ethnic group of the Aztec empire referred to itself as the Mexica people. They were a subgroup of the Nahua peoples. There is no longer a distinct group that identifies as Mexica, but there are people today who identify as Nahua. The Inca Empire was named after the title of its ruler, the Inca. Its people, and their descendants today, were/are the Quechuas. Marco polo (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Democratic socialist countries ranked at 2nd and 3rd highest GDPs in the world

According to List of countries by GDP (PPP) per hour worked. Does this mean that contemporary economic theory (that unbridled free-market capitalism is best) is wrong? 89.240.202.189 (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There are quite a few contemporary economic theories (Keynesianism, for example, which is now very much in vogue again, does not hold that unbridled free-market capitalism is best). But any economist would also quickly point out that GDP is not necessarily the best way to measure economic strength, and that the particular metric you've picked GDP per hour worked, gives very different results than, say, List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal), or List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. Picking the correct metric is pretty essential to drawing the right conclusions. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Picking the correct metric is pretty essential to proving whichever economic theory you like. DuncanHill (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ on the OP's assumptions. There are many contemporary economic theories, but if the simplified version of economic theory taught to school kids can be seen as broadly representing mainstream consensus, then that view is definitely not in favour of unbridled free-market capitalism, at least here in Australia. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

unbridled capitalism is seen as destructive in almost every context (the exceptions being some radical right-wing perspectives that tie it in with US economic hegemonization and the suppression of third world populations). General academic consensus is that capitalism needs to be moderated by various systems of regulation for he health of the greater society. the extent of such regulation varies across different perspectives, of course, but no scholars that I know of argue for a regulation-free system. --Ludwigs2 07:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If anyone ever gets around to actually practicing unbridled free-market capitalism, and somehow also manages to collect sufficient data over a useful period of time (how in the world would that work?) so as to enable economists to determine the relative strengths and weaknesses of such a system vis-à-vis 'real world economies, I’d be thrilled if someone would drop me a note on the subject. So far, the only candidate -- and, their data collection is crap -- is Somolia. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

as the old economics joke goes, capitalism is based on the idea that everyone will try to maximize profits and minimize costs. therefore, the ideal capitalist is a professional thief. --Ludwigs2 09:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that. Richard Armour once wrote that financier John Pierpont Morgan "was known by his initials, J.P., in order to distinguish him from Henry Morgan, the pirate." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

From an American perspective, it is considered a necessary admittance for individual liberty that the government holds constituted power through its departments, and that the federal government oversees and administers the states. In similar ways, the market under the influence of the same ideology, stemming in what I'd call individualistic liberalism, demands control. Keep in mind that economy and the nature of states is a fluent evolution, never still and not tomorrow what it was yesterday. Norway, ranking high in standard of living and GDP through work, is doing well in comparison to its contemporaries. My answer: There is no wrong or right, except for at a given time in a given situation. America may have functioned rather well early on, when it was a young republic and the laws were still crafted. Today, however, most will recognize there are legislative difficulties. It is not my intention to discuss American politics, but the parallel to the financial market is that today, Norway might do well. In a few decades, it may not at all, and its policies demand to be altered. Their contemporary economic theory is sufficient for today, but may not in the future. I beg attention to the fact that the future is uncertain, and what we see as a pinnacle of civilization (liberalism and free market, most notably) today may not at all be what we are evolving towards. If a country under one economic model is not doing well, then it should either alter its situation or alter its model; until then I guess it is "wrong". 77.18.3.47 (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at the data. The list is badly flawed by not representing the entire world. It omits a great many countries, including the entire Middle East. --Dweller (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, neither Norway nor France are "socialist" in any but the US talk radio sense. They have working market economies with a reasonable (larger than the US) state influence. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That is because Americans appear to define "socialism" as being what Eurpeans would call communism. 92.26.29.37 (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In that case, you definitely couldn't call France or Norway "socialist". --Dweller (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

They are democratic socialist - Americans can call them whatever they like. 89.240.210.183 (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

can, and will, and do, with what Yeats referred to (pejoratively) as 'passionate intensity'. Americans are idiots; I am one, so I know. --Ludwigs2 18:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I would also speculate that countries with lower numbers of hours worked per person would also have a higher GDP per hour worked due to the law of diminishing returns.--203.206.252.44 (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I would add that a "democratic socialist" country would, by definition, be a democratic country where most of the economy (large corporations, heavy industry and the like) is public/state property. To the best of my knowledge, such a country has never existed: while many successful enterprises have been and are state-owned, the fact remains that no democracy has ever nationalized all the major power centres of the economy. Perhaps a democracy has so many channels constantly open to corporate influence that it can never come close to violating corporate interests so drastically. In contrast, a dictatorship is more unstable and dependent on a few people's whim, so the state is more capable of acting unpredictably, even totally against corporate interests; though on the other hand, it doesn't normally act in the interests of the people for a long time either. But while democratic socialism can hardly arise, undemocratic socialism can hardly survive in the long run, because the ruling "socialist" elite is actually able to profit more from its power position by restoring capitalism on its own terms and by transforming its bureaucratic control of the economy into private possession, as has happened in many ex-Communist countries.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In European usage the term "socialist" tends not to be used in that literal sense. Peter jackson (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Admittedly, the self-designation "socialist party" has long referred to parties such as the French Socialist Party or the British Labour party that aren't really doing anything to "socialize" the economy (this is a result of socialist parties becoming more and more moderate with time). But the designation "socialist country" still refers to a country whose economic system is socialism as opposed to capitalism. Furthermore, the meaning (or, arguably, the near-meaninglessness) of the word "socialist" in the combination "socialist party" is more recent and arguably more of a historical misunderstanding, while the meaning of the word "socialist" in the combination "socialist country" is the original one. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

For example, Keynesian economics (whom someone mentioned above as an example of "sorta socialism") is as left as most modern socialist parties could even imagine getting, and indeed most of them have had as little to do with Keynes as with Lenin in the recent decades, because he has been too left-wing for them. Yet at the time when Keynes wrote, he did not see himself as a socialist, rather he was a moderate, an opponent of socialism and indeed did his best to save capitalism and class society. If a country that uses Keynesian policies is a "socialist country", then nearly all of the developed world was socialistic a few decades ago - except that everyone back then agreed that the Leninist countries were the socialist ones.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I wish Americans would stop misusing the word socialism to mean communism. 92.24.131.69 (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not American, and they are not misusing it in that way. Communism (by which most people mean Leninism) is a type of socialism, and this use is not American but universal. If anything, the misuse is the use of socialism to denote "somewhat restraining capitalism by means of regulating the economy, taxing the rich and providing free health care". That's not socialism, that is just humane capitalism.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that social democracies are neither pure socialist nor pure capitalist, those saying they have both aspects ofsocialism and capitalism is not unresonable. Alternatively calling them a mixed economy. And the policies many modern socialists advocate and are common in many countries considered social democracies are way more then restraining capitalism by regulating the economy, taxing the rich and providing free health care as mentioned in our socialism article. Nil Einne (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Explain the concept of music licensing for online broadcasting to me

I need to understand why Pandora Radio is not available in Canada. According to the company, this is because, "In the USA there is a well understood payment mechanism and fee structure for webcasters - one license and one set of rates for all webcasters and all rightsholders. In most of the rest of the world we are required to negotiate terms separately with each rightsholder."

I don't really know what they're talking about. Can someone take this back to square one and explain it to me in the "for dummies" version? Thanks. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that I've never heard of this before, so all I'm saying is my interpretation of their words; I'm not giving you anything based on a knowledge of music licensing. In other words: webcasters (online broadcasters, such as Pandora Radio) have negotiated with the rightholders (people who own the copyrights to the music you want to listen to) to create a system for paying royalties (fees for using their copyrighted material) that seems to apply to most or all US rightsholders. However, this has only been negotiated under US law; because it's not made to work under other countries' laws, it can only be used in the USA, so they have to make separate arrangements with the same rightsholders to use the music in other countries. Apparently Pandora hasn't made arrangements with rightsholders under Canadian law, so they can't make it listenable without infringing copyright. Does this make sense? Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That much I get. What I don't understand is what is meant by "a well understood payment mechanism and fee structure for webcasters - one license and one set of rates for all webcasters and all rightsholders." This seems to result from a particular piece of U.S. legislation, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. How does that law make Pandora Radio possible? How would Canada have to change its laws to make Pandora available there? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Canadians would have to pass legislation establishing a statutory license for the sort of content required by the webcasters. It probably has this sort of thing in place for traditional radio. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

See Copyright collective for the general situation which applies to ordinary broadcast radio (don't know how digital radio is different). AnonMoos (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here's the deal: it all started with the PERFORM Act, a bill passed to regulate the use of streaming internet services to play music. In early 2007, the Copyright Royalty Board in the USA decided that the fees for these services would not only increase, but be retroactive to 2006!. A consortium of music copyright holders called SoundExchange pushed the higher rates, and negotiations with 'net streaming services did not go well. Some congressfolk tried to overturn the decision, but failed. After some rather unpleasant negotiations, SoundExchange agreed to postpone the deadline. Pandora was one of the services having the most trouble, as they weren't a typical streaming service and had no "normal" music distribution off the Internet either. Right into late 2008, pure Internet streaming was still being negotiated. It took the Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008 to finally get negotiations on the ball. It wasn't until mid-2009 that an amicable decision was reached.

The upshot of this is, I'd say Pandora is waiting until Canada's media & government settle on fees before deciding to allow streaming there, to make sure they can afford it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, so here's what I gather so far: On radio, the stations pay a copyright collective like ASCAP or BMI a fee each time they play a song. Internet music broadcasters instead are governed under the statutory license provision established under the DMCA. There is a single collective called SoundExchange. In Canada, they haven't set up anything like the Copyright Royalty Board or SoundExchange yet, so an Internet broadcaster would have to make separate arrangements with every rightsholder, which is not realistic.

What I don't get: Why can't Pandora Radio just go through the same copyright collectives in Canada as radio stations? (ASCAP, BMI or their Canadian equivalents.) Also: Who sets the fees for Internet broadcasters in the U.S.? The Copyright Royalty Board or SoundExchange? This isn't clear from what I've read. Thanks -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you've got the gist of it. From what I can tell, SoundExchange "suggests" the rate and the CRB implements it. As for Canada... well, if I were Pandora, I wouldn't bother either. Until the Canadian government makes a legal decision, any agreement Pandora makes with the radio copyright collective could be challenged in court; since there's not a legal foundation for digital streaming (that I know of) in Canada, it would just take one artist who disagrees to bring the whole thing grinding to a halt. I'm sure their lawyers pointed out how expensive such a trial would be, especially if things go against Pandora. Mind you, IANAL, so this is just my opinion based on what I've read. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Transport with horses in China

What kinds of carriages or travois or similar implements drawn by horse did the Chinese use throughout history to transport goods or travel? Thanks for any help 87.111.102.157 (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This site is pretty useful. I found the most useful information was from the third paragraph down. Chevymontecarlo (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Prussian East India Company

Reading the tabloids this morning, I became aware that a plate on the Antiques Roadshow, valued at £100,000, was designed by the Prussian East India Company for their founder. The world/internet seems to have nothing on this insitution. Only a few German such firms exist, all for Africa and not the Indian subcontinent. Did it really exist, and was just very quiet? Or is somebody here mistaken? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Aha. Found the answer on Christie's, here, it seems they were only around for 6 years and had 7 ships. Explains the lack of information about them. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Our German colleagues have an article on the company: de:Emder Ostasiatische Handelskompanie. Marco polo (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

How much of the US's wealth due to its natural resources per capita?

America is about five times the population of for example Great Britain, yet it must be hundreds (?) of times the size, with consequently hundreds of times the natural resources. How much of the US's GDP is due to having much more natural resources per capita compared with smaller more crowded countries? 92.26.29.37 (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Do natural resources include forestry? Does the profit from oil refineries and steel works count?
Sleigh (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, why not. 92.26.29.37 (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)An interesting article to look at is List of countries by GDP sector composition. It doesn't list size of the economy from natural resources, but does include numbers for agriculture, industry, and services. Interestingly, a higher percentage of the UK's GDP is in agriculture and Industry (presumably where natural resource development is counted) than the US, suggesting that their natural resources are a proportionately bigger part of their economy than the U.S. economy (something that is surprising to me, for the reason you listed in your question). Based on that alone, I'd say the answer to your question is "not much, if any". I'm sure you can find a breakdown of different countries' GDPs by more specific sectors, which would probably give you a better idea. And of course, my answer doesn't take into account historical resource use, which probably has influenced the current sizes of the economies, even if it no longer makes up a significant portion of the economy. Buddy431 (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The figures for Agriculture are 1.0% and 0.9% - not a big difference. Makes me wonder what they do with all that land in the US. I suppose the answer is that agriculture must be more intensive in the UK - fertilisers and machinery - as a result of the higher cost of land. 92.26.29.37 (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the land in the US isn't suitable for farming. Out west you have the deserts of Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and California. Then there's quite a bit of mountainous land in the Rockies and the Appalachians. And let's not forget the swamps in Florida. Alaska, which is more than twice the size of Texas, doesn't have much of a growing season either. Dismas|^(talk) 21:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If you go to this page and click on "Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for OECD member countries," you can see how much of each OECD member's gross domestic product comes from agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing. However, GDP is not the same as "wealth." I suppose the questioner is suggesting the U.S. has historically benefited from its abundant natural resources and that may explain the U.S. advantage in GDP per capita now. The assumption may not be on target. I haven't researched this at all, but it seems the relationship between a country's natural gifts and its wealth is not clear-cut. Certainly, you have oil sheikdoms that owe all of their opulence to what's underneath the sand, but then you have countries like DR Congo and Russia that are tremendously blessed in natural resources yet have all kinds of problems and places like Japan and (famously) Hong Kong that are resource-poor but quite wealthy. See resource curse. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not just having it, it's knowing what to do with it, and being in a place that allows you to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

as Margret Thatcher once say the greatest natural resource is man (Dr hursday (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

Soylent Green.?.hotclaws 13:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

In contrast, in Dilbert's world, people are the 9th most important asset. Number 8 on the list is "carbon paper". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Some economic historians (sorry that I've forgotten which) have argued that the advanced economy of the United States was partly a consequence of its shortage of labor relative to its wealth of resources. According to this theory, it isn't the abundance of resources that accounts for the productivity and relative affluence. Rather, the shortage (and therefore expense) of labor in the United States favored the invention of labor-saving technologies that maximized productivity per hour of labor and therefore GDP per capita. Marco polo (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Where did the iron ore for battleships come from?

During World Wars I and II, Germany was still making lots of things like tanks, submarines, battleships perhaps. Where did the iron, and before that the iron ore, come from to make them? It would have been difficult to get from abroad then. And now, lots of metal things such as cars are manufactured, yet I've never seen any trainloads of iron ore moving about. They just magically appear as a finished product. 92.26.29.37 (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The article Swedish iron ore during World War II has some information on that. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: Some of the rest would have been mined at Eisenerz. The demographic figures given in the article would indicate its importance during the Third Reich. See also Noric steel for the place in Roman times. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So if the Swedes had stopped iron ore exports, then Germany would not have been able to continue with the war. That makes Sweden friends of the Nazis and not neutral. 89.240.205.46 (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of neutral nations did business with both sides; that's what 'neutral' means. DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There was significant pro-German & pro-Nazi sentiment in Sweden during the Second World War, the then king sharing such feelings. I've got a fascinating memoir by a member of the British Mission in Sweden at the time, which goes into some detail about the shenanigins both the Allies and the Axis got up to in getting neutrality to mean what they wanted it to mean. DuncanHill (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The book, which I highly recommend, is Touchlines of War by Sir Peter Tennant, Hull University Press 1992, ISBN 0859586030. Tennant was British Press Attache in Stockholm from 1939 to 1945, and an SOE agent. DuncanHill (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Was there also pro-Allies sentiment? Nil Einne (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

And anyway, the more likely conclusion is that "if the Swedes had stopped iron ore exports, then Germany would have invaded them too". Remember, it only took them two months to defeat Norway. Sure, occupying Sweden would have tied up German troops and hurt Germany in the long term, but nobody knew what was going to happen in the long term. --Anonymous, 05:00 UTC, 2010-02-10.

In terms of 'why you don't see it' things like Ore-bulk-oil carrier and Freight trains and the section on 'heavy duty ore traffic' give you an indication of what form of transport is used. Put simply unless you happen to know what's in a tanker or a freight-train (or for that matter a truck) you'll have little idea of the cargo inside. Iron-ore does appear, however, to be primarily transported by big carriers like oil-tankers and the like. ny156uk (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

oops and also Bulk cargo. ny156uk (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Didn't they also recycle stuff,like park railings and pans like they did in Britain?.hotclaws 13:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Germany also had substantial domestic sources of iron ore in the Siegerland. It may be that Swedish iron ore was more economical, but I am not convinced that a loss of access to Swedish iron ore would have crippled Germany during either war. Marco polo (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Swedish ores had a higher Fe content (around 60%) than German ores (I think around 30%), and a lower Pgosphorous content, which made them significantly more attractive. They were quicker to process, used less fuel in refining, and were suitable for alloys that higher Phosphorous ores were not suited for. Sweden also produced ball-bearings, and although SKF (the Swedish bearing company) had a subsidiary in Germany and another in the UK, the Swedish factory was able to produce specialised bearings that were unavailable elsewhere. Ball-bearings were one of the key factors in the Second World War, as in any technological conflict. DuncanHill (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

February 10

Where can I find information of people killed per person

Hello this is hursday. I was watching interview of Dr Richard Dawkins a UK professor and anti religious person in interview they asked him about the last hundred years being most secular or non religious and yet most people die in it i think attempting to tie less religion to more people dieing but I do not think this is correct as there are more people in earth now. what i would like is graph that shows number of people killed on a per person way that is if more are killed in last 100 years but because there are more people in last 100 years there would be less percentage of them being killed by violence including wars i think the trend would be down or that more percentage of people killed from violence in the past than now i have posted a link to the video where the question is asked (Dr hursday (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

http://www.youtube.com/user/dawkinschannel?blend=2&ob=1&rclk=cti#p/u/6/XdZ_iA8fP_A

EDIT: I forgot to ask question. Where can I find this data? (Dr hursday (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

I know of no such data, and worldwide it would be horribly difficult to calculate, especially since in many countries the number of people killed by violence is (or was) a state secret - the state having been responsible for much of it. Just look at the hugely varying estimates of World War II casualties there are around. If we can't get good estimates of deaths for a war that largely took place in industrialised countries and where the winning side (who is making the estimates) is likely to be fairly open about the results, what hope have we of estimating deaths in places where government is sketchy at best.

Incidentally in my personal opinion you shouldn't be interested in Dawkins opinions on this matter. This is where Dawkins scientific objectivity (which is excellent when applied to his own field of Biology) gets completely abandoned as he tries to 'stick it' to religion. In The God Delusion he assigns blame for any atrocity committed by any group calling itself religious to the religion itself, but then says that the fact that at least two of the three greatest genocides of last century (Mao, Stalin and Hitler) were carried out by atheists in the name of explicitly atheist ideologies is "no more relvant than Hitler and Saddam both having mustaches". If his students wrote stuff like that in Biology he would never let them get away with it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As the article on Adolf Hitler's religious views discusses, it really isn't accurate to describe him as an atheist, although it would be hard to ascribe any recognised religious faith to him, either. Warofdreams talk 15:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I said two of the three. Hitler is the one whose killings were not done in the name of an explicitly atheist regime. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins in that interview says that Hitler was a Roman Catholic, but that Hitler did not do his deeds in the name of that religion. Bus stop (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want statistics (and the difficulties in getting them), check out, for example, Democide. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think murder rate or homicide rate would be a start, but they won't include deaths in war or internal oppression, and as DJ pointed out, figures for those are both hard to get and unreliable. I do think the question of violent deaths as a proportion of population is an interesting and legitimate one. DuncanHill (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

For peace time numbers, you might be interested in actuarial tables. Here is a page with a lot of that sort of thing for the US. In general, most developed countries have experienced a steady decrease in violent crime per capita over the last few decades (see Crime in the United States for an example). As for wars, I agree getting casualties for those is difficult, especially since often many victims are killed indirectly, through starvation or disease, for example. You can see estimates for individual wars at War#List of wars by death toll. You could divide those tolls by the number of people thought to have lived at the time to get an approximation of their impact. At a glance, I would say the An Shi Rebellion is thought to be the most devastating war on a "per capita basis", killing (a disputed) 36 million people when the world population was less than 800 million. TastyCakes (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There was a British man some decades ago who did pioneer work on the mathematics of war, which included the number of people killed for various sizes of war over history. You could take his data and rearrange it according to date and compare that with population. I've been reading the Alexiad, written around 1148, and although you may imagine they were more religious then, the emperor seemed to be constantly fighting almost non-stop in various wars and battles. Update: it was Statistics Of Deadly Quarrels by Lewis Fry Richardson. 78.146.251.188 (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for being a latecomer, and hopefully not repetitious, but did everyone see this? - Selected Death Tolls for Wars, Massacres and Atrocities Before the 20th Century--152.3.128.163 (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

People were very religious in the Crusades, yet they had lots of fighting and killing. Perhaps the more religious people are, the more they fight, not the other way around. 89.243.177.67 (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The homicide statistics will vary enormously depending on your (non)religious views on abortion. Peter jackson (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Or vegetarianism. 89.243.182.24 (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"Homicide" is from Latin "homo", meaning "man", including human beings generally, not animals. However, you could certainly evaluate different cultures according to whatever criteria you wished. Peter jackson (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

religion questions

hello this is hursday. I have some religious questions or more specifically questions about non religion and the history of it should I put these questions on micelanious desk or humanities desk? or could we not set up a help desk for religion and sprituality i think the subjects are big enough to have own desk (Dr hursday (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

According to this new page, a Religion desk has been proposed and rejected four times. Here on the Humanities desk we do indeed take questions about religion (or the lack of it) and spirituality. As you can see from the above, this desk is not exactly drowning in religious questions that would require another desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That's why it is "not exactly drowning in religious questions" — because it is a Humanities desk. Bus stop (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

On the main reference desk page, it lists religion under humanities, similar to many academic institutions. —Akrabbim^talk 02:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

pacific island cult

Hello this is hursday. I watched documetnary on Aubrey degray and in it they talk about cult in pacific island where they built airports out of trees with towers and stuff in hopes that the gods would send plains from the sky with supplies. is this true? why did they do these things? (Dr hursday (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

Yes, it is true. See Cargo cult. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have always wished that some billionaire would hire an old DC-3, fill it with goodies, and fly it to such a cargo cult "airport," just so the long-suffering true believers could say to the doubters: "See! I told you they would come back if only we were faithful." By the way this is not hursday, this is uesday. Edison (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's uesday, this must be Elgium.  :) -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh no! That means we have to eat russels sprouts, and Russell won't like us taking his food! --Anonymous, 05:02 UTC, 2010-02-10.

Forgotten weapons of the Cold War

Hello, I've attempted researching these weapons on the web and using an older Jane's book but have not been having much luck. Does anyone know more about -- 1) the Heller antitank rocket launcher, reportedly used by Canadian forces in the 1950s and 1960s, 3.2" projectile, one web source says it was never fielded but in another web source a Canadian veteran recalls firing it while serving in Germany; 2) A 73-mm antitank rocket launcher used by the French in the 1950s, might have been called the "Strim" like the 89mm model which came later; 3) An 80-mm recoilless rifle called the APX-80 that was developed by France in the 1960s, not sure if it was fielded or not. Thanks for any comments. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't think this really a Humanities desk question, maybe RD/Miscellanous?
Anyway I found a mention of APX-80 on Wikipedia, but it was an American IFF reading device from Vietnam in this article/section. Mention of Heller Here, but appears no references. We have an article on the Strim, but it is called the LRAC F1 "sometime called STRIM ('Societe Techique de Recherches Industrielles et Mechanique) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I found was a 73mm ati-tank rifle grenade; "Grenade à fusil antichar de 73 mm modèle 1950"[2]. You can buy one from a French auction site apparently[3]. Alansplodge (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Suilliac

Suilliac Beach (?) appears in several late 1942 archival photos of a seashore locale in Mauritius. I'm trying to confirm this name with its correct spelling. Also of interest: its location in relation to Rose Hill/Beau Bassin and Port Louis. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a town called Souillac - is that the one? See also Google maps AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent - yes, that must be it! And the shoreline in the lower photo image looks very much like the photos we hold. Thank you! -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Selling owned office building and leasing it back

I was told that a company would sometimes sell an office building it owns and uses, and then lease it back from the new owner. Supposedly an arrangement like that improves the financial performance of the company. I can think of two ways that kind of arrangement may help:

• the financial metrics by which the company is judged count an office building on its books as capital used in its ongoing operations, but don't count cash in the bank the same way
• the rents paid to the new owner are deductible expenses while the money that company would have saved by owning the building is not

My questions: 1. Is it indeed true that selling your office building and leasing it back somehow can improve your financial performance? 2. If so, are the reasons as I stated? --173.49.16.103 (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The way assets (particularly real assets, which unlike most assets often appreciate) are valued for accounting purposes can be very complex (and will vary both by jurisdiction and circumstance). If the the market value of such an asset exceeds its nominal book value, then the sell-and-leaseback arrangement would allow the company to realise that, otherwise theoretical, gain, and that certainly would make the accounts look rosier. Whether the company had taken on debt to finance the building is another factor (and again debt's role in accounts is complex). Another factor is liquidity - many otherwise viable companies fail due to lack of liquidity, and the sell-and-leaseback arrangement could allow a company's cash reserves to increase, something that makes both their bank and often their owners (particularly for a publicly-held company) more comfortable. Whether the deductability of rent is a factor depends on the business, and again the tax jurisdiction. Some large companies have a real-estate holding company that then leases premises to other companies in the group, in an attempt to minimise the local tax liability and offshore the profit. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 13:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

On the qualitative level, it also gives a company flexibility. The company I work for used to own most of its buildings. Now it leases most of them. That allows them to simply walk away once the lease is up and/or if they have a change in strategic direction. In another example, the Chicago White Sox, who had built and owned Comiskey Park for generations, sold it in the early 80s and leased it back. That gave them leverage when they wanted a new stadium. And it worked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The university that I work for leases some buildings. It does so because the owner is responsible for repairs and upkeep. That removes the liability from the university. So, I can see it very reasonable that a company with an old building (which will need more repairs than a new one) will sell the building to someone else and lease it back. If the monthly lease is less than the cost of repairs and upkeep, the company profits. Of course, the company that now owns the building gets a raw deal unless they can do repairs and upkeep cheaper - which is usually the case. They are in the business of leasing buildings, so they have a crew that specifically goes around taking care of the property. -- kainaw™ 15:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

But a large organization like a university that doesn't lease all of its buildings will have to have its own crew that specifically goes around taking care of the property so it is hard to see any savings coming from renting only some of them. If you only had one or a few buildings in a particular city, I can see that working. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha! We have an article on this! Leaseback! Another reason some companies sell their property and lease it back is simply that this gives them a wad of cash they didn't formerly possess, and most companies believe they know how to get a good return on cash by expanding their current operations. If they forecast that the sale-and-leaseback will improve their return on assets in the short / medium / long term (whatever is important to the current management), then they'll usually do it. I would be remiss if I did not refer the original poster to this important reference, from 3:00 to 3:19. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia really lives up to its reputation! --173.49.16.103 (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Arab World university history

does anybody know about any universities in the Arab World that teaches History? like riyadh, doha, abu dhabi, kuwait, beirut and etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.116.14 (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The King Saud University in Riyadh has a History Department (http://colleges.ksu.edu.sa/Arts/DH/Pages/default.aspx) within the College of Arts. The Department offers BA's, MA's, and PhD's in History. This is just an example. I would think that most "general-scope" universities in the Arab World offer History programs and degrees. Rimush (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The American University of Beirut and the American University of Dubai do. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig Freiherr von und zu der Tann-Rathsamhausen

How would Ludwig Freiherr von und zu der Tann-Rathsamhausen have signed his name on a letter addressed to someone not too familiar (so "Ludwig" wouldn't have been enough), but also not to someone in whose case a formal letter would have been required? Rimush (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Initials? 89.240.210.183 (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Freiherr is a title and can be dropped pretty readily. The German Wikipedia has his title entry as "Ludwig von der Tann-Rathsamhausen" which is something of a contraction that maintains a modicum of formality (the "von der") but eliminates a lot of the just flowery stuff. If he were a guy on the street, he'd maybe just be Ludwig Tann-Rathsamhausen, but that would be too informal for a Bavarian baron-general. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, a ship named after him was called "Van der Tann" but why do we suppose that there was any level of formality such as this, requiring a different form of signature. Perhaps he always signed fully? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

In the UK aristocracy, the Duke of Norfolk signs himself simply "Norfolk" for instance. Perhaps old Ludwig would just write "Tann"? Alansplodge (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Worst electoral result for a sitting President

Sitting President Viktor Yushchenko was defeated in the Ukrainian presidential election, 2010, taking 5.45% of the votes. His article states "This score became the new world anti-record of an incumbent president's support, ahead of that of the Slovak presidential election, 2004." Is this really the worst electoral result ever for a sitting President? If so, what was the previous record - I can't believe it was the Slovak example given. Warofdreams talk 16:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't answer the question but "world anti-record" is just horrible English. --Dweller (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely - that's the first thing which attracted my eye to this passage. Warofdreams talk 17:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The worst US results I saw was the 1912 election where sitting president William H Taft got a mere 23% of the vote, and only 8 electoral votes. Googlemeister (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, "ahead of that of the Slovak presidential election, 2004" would to me mean 'before the Slovak presidential election, 2004' which wrong, because the Ukrainian presidential election was in 2010, six years later, as stated. I know what it's trying to say, but it's not saying that. --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 17:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a perfectly reasonable usage. Random House gives "be ahead" to mean "to be winning" and offers "superior to" as a meaning of "ahead".[4] Ahead does not always refer to relationships in time but also to positions in contests. --Normansmithy (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Warofdreams. If any head of state will do, not necessarily one called President, List of landslide victories may be a great place to start. Once you find the biggest landslide, look up who the loser was. In that list, btw, there is more than one example of an outgoing leader winning zero seats, starting with the 1935 election in Prince Edward Island, Canada, in which premier William J. P. MacMillan won no seats at all - every one was taken by his opponent Walter Lea. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the list of landslide victories, which I've not seen, although I was aware of most of the examples, also including the Alberta general election, 1935, where the governing party also lost all their seats, but took only 11% of the vote, and the Premier came third in his own seat. Warofdreams talk 09:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Rather, MacMillan's party won no seats. But that's clearly a different thing from winning 0% of the votes. In fact, according to the Wikipedia article, the party actually won 42% of the votes! But proportional representation was not in use and, to produce this result, the ratio of votes between the two parties must have been almost the same in all 30 seats. I think it is better to consider the original question was being limited to directly elected leaders. --Anonymous, 19:35 UTC, 2010-02-10.

The 1993 Canadian federal election was pretty bad for the Progressive Conservatives. They started out with 169 seats in Parliament and ended up with 2, an almost 99% drop. The actual popular vote only changed by about 27% but regional parties like the Reform and the Bloc Quebecois had sprung up in the meantime. The Prime Minister, Kim Campbell, did not even win her own seat back (although that's not as bad as it sounds, since she only won it by 200 votes in 1988 and only lost by 4000 in 1993). This actually pretty much killed the PC party entirely (now after various mergers and name changes it is just the Conservative Party). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

@KageTora - I don't agree. In the context of records, I certainly understand "ahead of" to mean "exceeding" rather than "preceding". Not that I'd write that myself ... --ColinFine (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

These are all good examples of very poor results for parties and, in some case, Prime Ministers, but I am particularly interested in results for President (or similar individually elected officials). Googlemeister's mention of William H Taft's poor result is useful - was that really the worst result for a sitting president anywhere until the Slovak election of 2004? Warofdreams talk 09:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Everything I can find about Taft's "record" doesn't specify if they are talking about American presidents or any president in any country. However, the google result description for this academic article (behind a paywall) says Jacques Chirac of France's first-round result of 19% in 2002 was the worst ever for an incumbent. However, Chirac went on to win in the final round by a landslide, so I don't know if you'd count it.

I'm moving on after googling these interesting facts that are still not your answer. Will you let us know if you find it?

• Saddam Hussein once got 100% of the vote, though in that case there was also no opposition candidate: Iraqi presidential referendum, 1995, Iraqi presidential referendum, 2002.
  
• The Guardian says the opposite of your question, the best result ever for an incumbent president, was William Tubman of Liberia's 1959 victory, where he won by 530,566 votes to 55.
  
• Here's a site you might consider searching – or emailing the archiver thereof – self-described as: The largest, most comprehensive and most up-to-date archive of electoral information in the world, with election statistics from 176 countries". Best, WikiJedits (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I read in an old edition of the Guinness Book of Records that in the Liberian presidential election of 1928 the winning candidate's majority over the runner-up was about 40 times the number of people on the electoral register. (At the other extreme there was the election for the Southern Irish Parliament in 1921, in which not a single vote was cast, everyone being elected unopposed.) Peter jackson (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Need help finding a couple pieces of provincial legislature from the Ontario archives / e-laws

The pieces I'm interested in are from 1951-52 and 1964-65. The first is the legislature passed to renumber the Toronto Bypass and similar highways as Highway 401, and the second is to additionally name it the Macdonald-Cartier Freeway. Not sure who did the first, but the second was called for by William Rowe and passed by premier Robarts. The archives website is here.[5] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You're looking for legislation, not a legislature. Are you looking for the text of the statutes as passed by the provincial parliament? If they were statutes, that is, laws passed by the parliament, you should be able to find them with little difficulty at any large library in the province. (I don't think they're online.) If, on the other hand, the freeways were named through regulation or administrative action, you may need to get in touch with the archives to find what you're looking for. So the first thing you need to do is find out whether the highways were actually named by parliament itself or by the Ministry of Transportation. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Betting on the underdog ... always

I'm interested in any analysis that anyone can point to of the betting strategy of betting on the underdog in every single game across an entire season in any organized sport in which bookmakers use a point spread. My half-ass speculation is that the mechanism of the moving spread (whose purpose is to equalize betting on both sides, not to produce a 50% likely outcome on both sides) is insufficient to dampen human enthusiasm for betting on the favorite. Does anyone know of a site that does analysis like this? Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the opposite tends to be true: people bet more than they should on the longshots. See the short Favorite-longshot bias article. Searching Google with that phrase pulls up a ton of sites that you might be interested in. A better strategy is to always bet on the favorite. Addendum: that term is usually applied to horse races, where it's the payout odds that are varied, not the point spread. This article (which requires a subscription) suggests that there is relatively little favorite-longshot bias in Australian Football, though there's a significant home team bias in certain areas, and that algorithms to take advantage of these biases yield modest profits. A better strategy than to bet on the underdog or the favorite is to bet against the home team, it seems. Buddy431 (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the Favourite-longshot bias. This has been shown to apply even more later in the day, or on the last race, as the punters take a long shot in the hope of getting back their losses. In the stock market, on the other hand, annually buying the shares of last year's worst performing companies in the FT30 or whatever has been often put forward as an investment strategy, but due to the efficient markets hypothesis I'm doubtful it would work. Regression to the mean however may occur in sports and the stock market. 89.243.177.67 (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Good Lord, we don't have an article on infracaninomania! I'm shocked! :) -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There was a website in the UK a while ago, perhaps it still exists, which found opportunities where by combining bets from different bookmakers (since they would offer different odds), you could win whatever the outcome of the event. 89.243.182.24 (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This last strategy is called arbitrage and also works for the stock market. It only consist in buying in one market and selling in other. You wouldn't be actually betting actually. ProteanEd (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. This is great; I had not heard of any of this before. The largest study linked to in Favourite-longshot bias says that, at least in horse racing, although the bias is definitely present, it doesn't present a profit potential. It's too bad for all of us, really; I was going to make a killing in Las Vegas and donate the proceeds to the Reference Desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

See also Arbitrage betting, Dutch book, and Advantage gambling. 89.243.182.24 (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

February 11

Who's the head of government

Question moved from Talk:United Kingdom:

Lately, I talked to people from the UK, who are quite knowledgeable in general. I was explained that the monarch (i.e., the Queen) is the de jure head of the government. I was very surprised to hear this and could not believe it. Of course, I was not provide proper references as you would expect on Wikipedia ;-)

Now, I see that this article clearly supports my initial understanding: "The position of Prime Minister, the UK's head of government, [...]". However, I have problems to believe that it was all utter nonsense what I was told.

To the people editing this article, I guess (and hope) this question is a piece of cake. Tomeasy _{T C} 08:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The queen is head of state. Parliament is her parliament, ministers are her ministers, etc. - ie they work on her behalf. The Prime Minister's role is what it says on the tin: the first/primary of the queen's ministers. He/she works more or less autonomously of course but does have to ask explicit permission from the queen to perform particular tasks, such as call a general election. Hope this helps! waggers (talk) 09:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The head of government is the Prime Minister - government meaning the practical job of governing the country. The monarch is the constitutional head of state. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

We, the ordinary people of the UK, quite like this ambiguity because we don't like anyone to have too much power. The monarch can dissolve parliament, and parliament can abolish the monarchy! :) Dbfirs 09:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I can see how Parliament could make the monarch's position untenable, or seize power unconstitutionally, but how could it alone abolish the monarchy, when all law requires the monarch's consent? Warofdreams talk 10:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

They couldn't do it legally without the monarch's consent. If there was a referendum that clearly showed the people wanted to get rid of the monarchy and the monarchy refused to comply, there would be a very short, bloodless coup and the monarchy would cease to be. (Although, even discussing such a referendum in parliament would require Queen's Consent (that article redirects to Royal Assent, but it is a different thing and is mentioned half way down the article), and holding the referendum would need Royal Assent, so there would probably be some questionable loopholes found to get as far as holding a referendum.) Of course, in reality it is very unlikely for the monarchy to stand in the way of abolishing the monarchy - they know the people would never stand for it. --Tango (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers, but you did not turn to my question (except for Ghmyrtle). Rather you assumed I need to be told another fact that I did not ask for. The term head of state, which I was repeatedly explained here, was clear to me before. This is actually why I came up asking if the queen was also head of government. There was no lack of understanding from my side that she is head of state.

Now, after explaining my basis, may I ask you again for your opinions. Who is the head of government in the UK? Ghmyrtle's answer is clear: It is the Prime Minister. And the UK article says so as well, and it is also what I always thought. Does this mean that these quite educated English people talked rubbish when naming the Queen de jure head of government? Tomeasy _{T C} 09:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The government is Her Majesty's Government, carries out its actions in the monarch's name, formally acting to advise her on the best course of action. The Queen selects the Prime Minister and carries various other actual or reserve powers. I can see how she could be described as the de jure head of government, but it wouldn't mean much, wouldn't meet the definition used in our head of government article, and clearly wouldn't reflect the de facto situation. Having no single constitution means the answers to a lot of questions like this are subject to debate. Warofdreams talk 10:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC) The earlier responses were IMHO fair. A lot of people, particularly those from countries were the head of government and head of state are the same such as the US don't understand the difference and it's an issue that often causes confusion here and elsewhere and could easily have been the cause of confusion in your case. In any case, it is important in any discussion that involves either that the difference is understood and you didn't mention that you understood the difference between the head of government and head of state before now (or even mention head of state at all). In terms of the more general question, it's difficult to say what the confusion was here without talking to these people. It's still possible that the difference between the head of government and head of state was the cause of confusion, undoutedly some people in the UK don't understand the difference. Similarly some may consider the queen the head of government since it's her government as are all the agencies of the government like Her Majesty's Civil Service but that doesn't tally with the normal accepted definitions or agreements surrounding the head of government. For example even the government itself says the PM is the head of government [6] and the Queen as the ceremonial head of the Commonwealth of Nations attends the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings where the UK will usually be represented by their head of government the PM. A more interesting and slightly related question is who is the head of state of a Commonwealth Realm other then the UK? The general accepted answer is the monarch however the alternative answer that it is the Governor General sometimes receives some serious consideration by scholars e.g. Monarchy of Canada#Head of state Nil Einne (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That very question came under national scrutiny during Australia's 1999 Referendum on whether or not to replace our monarchy with a republic, and the non-resident Queen with a home-grown President. Many of the advocates for the NO case argued that there was no need to change the arrangements because the Head of State was the Governor-General, who, since 1965, has always been an Australian. This was argued perhaps most strongly by Sir David Smith, a former Official Secretary to the Governor-General of Australia. He even wrote a book on the subject, called Head of State, which cited various documents that demonstrated conclusively, in his opinion, that our G-G is our head of state. It's not provable definitively one way or the other, as the term "Head of State" appears nowhere in our Constitution. However, most commentators disagree with Smith and his ilk, and say that the monarch is the Head of State; otherwise, it would make no sense to have a head of state (the Governor-General) appointed by a non-Australian (the Queen) to represent that non-Australian to Australians, which would make a mockery of the very notion of "head of state". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there even such a thing as a de jure head of government? I thought head of government was a purely practical distinction for the purpose of analysing constitutional monarchies, and I don't think any constitution makes explicit reference to such a role. If this is the case, the question posed in this section is meaningless. User:Krator (t c) 13:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all of you to the interesting discussion so far. It has really shaped my understanding. The role I wanted to see defined might really not have a clear definition, especially in a country without constitution. If someone knows even more, i am looking forward t hearing it.

Perhaps the link provided by Nil would be a good reference in the UK article to back up the statement that the Prime Minister can be called Head of Government. Otherwise, people reading it may think that Wikipedia made up this definition by itself, just for the sake of simplicity or lack of thinking. What do you think? Tomeasy _{T C} 14:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought I had learned somewhere that the term "government" in parliamentary countries refers to what the US would call the Executive Branch. So, the Parliament (the equivalent of Congress) is not part of the government. It instead passes laws telling the government what to do. The ministers of this and that, equivalent of the US Cabinet, are generally members of Parliament elected to their posts by the other MP's, including the chief of the ministers, also known the Prime Minister. The UK Queen similarly is not part of the government and is therefore not its head, even though the government in sense reports to her (the government and Parliament are theoretically subservient to the Crown). Again the comparable US situation is that Margaret Hamburg, not President Obama, is the head of the Food and Drug Administration, even though the FDA chief reports to the President. But then again again, I'm an ignorant USA-ian so maybe I have this all completely wrong. 66.127.55.192 (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I invite you to read the article government of the United Kingdom and the much more interesting articles cabinet of the United Kingdom and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Essentially, you're not going to be able to get a straight mapping between how the US government works and how the UK government works.

To give a brief sense of how different it is: the Prime Minister asks the Queen to dissolve parliament by Royal Proclamation, and a general election is held. MPs are elected to the House of Commons. The Queen invites the person she thinks will be able to command a majority in parliament to form a government: this is the prime minister, and he puts together a cabinet from members of either house (eg, they can be peers from the House of Lords. This goverment is Her Majesty's Government and the second largest group forms Her Majesty's loyal opposition with a shadow cabinet. 86.182.209.69 (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Finding what an LA Times article says

At the South Park, Houston article, I put:

• "Chuck Philips of the Los Angeles Times said in 1993 that South Park was "a tough Houston ghetto dominated by drug-dealing, prostitution and gang warfare-where automatic rifles can be..."" with the source: Philips, Chuck. "Rap Defense Doesn't Stop Death Penalty `The music affected me,' says Ronald Ray Howard. `That's how it was that night I shot the trooper.'" Los Angeles Times. July 15, 1993. Start page 1.

But I cannot use Google News to find the rest of the sentence. I tried to get it to show the rest of the sentence, but I could not. Who is an LA Times subscriber or can access the LA Times from a library database? Would someone mind finding out what the rest of the sentence says? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If this fails, of course, you're supposed to go to a physical library and use their microfiched back catalog of the entire LA Times corpus. No, I never have time to do this, either. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The rest of the article is online, but I believe only an LA Times subscriber can see it for free. Other people have to pay for it. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a wonderful but little-known page here called WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request - it exists exactly to fulfill this kind of need. I'm sure they will be able to help you. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

British royalty mostly descended from the fifth-century Saxon King Cerdic?

The Kings & Queens Of Britain, by GSP Freeman-Grenville, published in 1997, says that since 495AD, "In all that time there has been an almost unbroken family succession. Only five rulers - Sweyn, Canute I, Harold I, Harold II, and William I the Conqueror - have not descended from Cerdic, who led the West Saxons into England in 495. "

Is this true? Is Queen Elizabeth II descended from King Cerdic? According to the book, there have been a few changes since then - House Of Plantagenet, Lancaster, York, Tudor, Stewart, Hanover, Windsor - but the Hanover-Windsor change was simply a convenient name-change, do not know about the rest. 89.243.182.24 (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

See Genealogy of the British Royal Family. Remember, the aristocracy interbreed so much that even when the crown didn't pass to the heir of the last monarch it still passed to a reasonably close relative. --Tango (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this page would be more useful. --Tango (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You may also find Issue of Edward III of England interesting. It gives a specific example of my claim that the crown always moved to close relatives - Henry VII took the crown by force from Richard III, both were descended from Edward III (Henry was through an illegitimate line). --Tango (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I can beat that - they were both descended from Edward III's son, John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster. --Tango (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

In the Cerdic of Wessex article, there is a suggestion that he may have been an administrator for the Romans who siezed the opportunity and took power when they left. Well I never. 89.243.182.24 (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

...although since there was at least an 85 year gap between the Romans leaving and him becoming king, it seems impossible. 92.29.136.128 (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

List of monarchs of Wessex covers the Cerdic angle pretty well. Unfortunately, whenever I hear of King Egbert, I get a mental picture like this:[7] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The statement by The Kings and Queens of Britain is not reliable, if only because it fails to mention Harthacnut, the son of Cnut the Great (or Canute I). Harthacnut's ancestry was the same as Cnut's except obviously for the ancestry of his mother, Emma of Normandy, whose descent from Cerdic cannot be proved. Beyond this, if you look at the family tree of the house of Wessex, you can see that all of the rulers of Wessex could claim descent from Cerdic. William the Conqueror could not claim such descent, but all of the descendants of William the Conqueror could claim descent from Cerdic, because William married Matilda of Flanders. Matilda was a descendant of Arnulf I of Flanders, whose mother was Ælfthryth, daughter of Alfred the Great of the House of Wessex, and therefore a descendant of Cerdic. Every king and queen of England after William the Conqueror could claim descent from him, and therefore, through his wife Matilda, from Cerdic. Marco polo (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

So the Cerdic/Windsor family have owned/exploited us for over one and a half thousand years? Thats very impressive. 89.243.182.24 (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

How did the Cerdic descendants fasmily get back into power despite William the Conqueror taking over in 1066? 89.243.182.24 (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

First, I don't think it's fair to say that the Windsors are "the Cerdic family". Cerdic lived 1500 years ago, or about 60 generations ago. In theory, that means that each person alive today had more than a quintillion ancestors living at that time. Of course, there were nowhere near that many people living on Earth in 500 CE, so there has been some degree of inbreeding. Still, the ancestors of Queen Elizabeth II in 500 CE probably included much of the population of northwestern Europe at that time, including many peasants whose descendants rose through the social hierarchy to join the nobility in medieval or early modern times. For that matter, probably most people living in Britain today are descendants of Cerdic. So the house of Windsor is no more the family of Cerdic, King of Wessex, than it is of a long-forgotten drunken serf named Sebbi (for example). Also, the Windsors do not descend in a direct male line from Cerdic, so they are not part of his family in the usual patrilineal sense. As for how Cerdic's descendants occupied the throne of England after the rule of William the Conqueror, as I've said, it is because William married Matilda of Flanders, who happened to be an indirect descendant of Cerdic. Marco polo (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That is no defence. If my great great great.....great great grandfather passed his power wealth and privelidge down through the generations to me, we would only have an infinitesimal proportion of our genes in common. But that does not mean such nepotism would be fair or ethical. 89.243.182.24 (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's called a pedigree collapse. :) --Kvasir (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

What is an "indirect descendant"? --Tango (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who's not within a direct patrilineal line of descendants. --Kvasir (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't have to only exclude patrilineal. A direct descendant of any of my siblings would be an indirect descendant of me. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

So an indirect descendant is a relative that isn't a descendant? That can't be right... --Tango (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Some observations.

Firstly, Cerdic of Wessex may not have existed as such, and the line of descent given for subsequent monarchs is a theory, not an incontestable fact. The study of genealogies in the so-called 'Dark Ages' is an uncertain and tentative matter at best, even when dealing with the most privileged members of society.

Secondly, it was common for those taking power to marry into established dynasties. To take an example from Sweden, Jean Baptiste Bernadotte was the son of a laywer from Pau in southern France, but his descendants married into existing royal lines, so that the present Swedish royal family are related to the House of Vasa, and to their predecessors back to the viking age (again, assuming the records are tolerably accurate).

Thirdly, the UK has not been effectively ruled by its monarchs since about 1707. This is a parliamentary democracy.

Fourthly, the descent of the present British Royal family from Cerdic is an arbitrary choice; you can just as readily show their descent from Gorm the Old, Pepin the Short, or Walter the Steward.

Fifthly, and incidentally, the term 'indirect descent' does not mean anything useful. Either a person A descends from an ancestor B, or they do not. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't Harold II a descendant of one of king Alfred's brothers? 148.197.114.158 (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

origin of term "the good war"

What is the origin of the term "the good war" with regard to WWII? I'm familiar with the Studs Terkel book of that title that was published in 1984 (though I have not read it). Was he the first to use the term? If so, was he using the term ironically? If he was not the first to use it, who was and was the original use ironic? I'm having a hard time seeing how anyone could describe any war as "good"!--Eriastrum (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The alternative was to let Hitler take over Europe and Hirohito to take over much of the Pacific Rim. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily make it good though. I think it's mostly nostalgia by people who were alive during it or who have relatives who were alive then. In the next generation or two when all those people are dead maybe we can have a more sober understanding of it. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Charles Lindbergh was of the opinion that it was better to let Hitler take over Europe than to give the Soviet Union a foothold. Needless to say, that isolationist view did not hold much water after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and sucked us into the war. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a perception that we were fighting "forces of evil". Given the Holocaust, it's hard to argue with that. If it weren't for the American Civil War, we might still have slavery in the South. If it weren't for various wars, we would still be ruled by Rome. It goes on forever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible that Terkel was influenced by the idea of a just war? Adam Bishop (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

WW II was a transitional point in US politics. prior to WW II, the US was isolationist outside of the Americas: we'd interfere a bit in south and central american issues but largely ignored Europe. WW II, however, forced us into the role of a world power and made an ideologically clean case - the Germans and Japanese were clearly identifiable as evil (for German Imperialism and the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor initially, and for the human rights abuses later). WW II was the 'good war' because (unlike any military action that followed) it had an undeniable moral value that defined the American self-image as noble, powerful and self-sacrificing for an entire generation. --Ludwigs2 19:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute, no one has tried to answer my main questions: what is the origin of the term "the good war"? Studs Terkel or someone before him? And, was it first used ironically, or was it actually thought that any war could actually be "good"?--Eriastrum (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure it is a common term? I can't say I've heard it before, unlike "Fight the good fight", which is apparently from the bible. I doubt he was trying to be ironic - as pointed out above there was (and is) a general feeling that it was a "just war", a necessary war and overall a noble effort, as opposed to, for example, the Vietnam war where all those things were brought into question by large numbers of people. TastyCakes (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've heard it many times. (Often used ironically to mock people nostalgic for WWII or other warhawks.) I'd always assumed that it was supposed to be a contrast to Vietnam and Korea which were 'messier' in various ways. But I've got absolutely nothing to back that up, it's just always been my personal understanding of the phrase. APL (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Terkel attributed the title to Herbert Mitgang and stated: "...it is a phrase that has been frequently voiced by men of his and my generation, to distinguish the war from other wars, declared and undeclared. Quotation marks have been added, not as a matter of caprice or editorial comment, but simply because the adjective 'good' mated to the noun 'war' is so incongruous." [8].—eric 01:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It was not uncommon for people in Britain after WWII to say that they personally had "had a good war", meaning that the changes to their personal circumstances due to the War had been of benefit to them. (For example, many young men were recruited out of a likely destiny of humdrum or arduous manual work into the Services and experienced mind- and opportunity-broadening training, travel, experiences and education; many young women were, by recruitment for war work into traditionally masculine roles or simply by taking on previously male family responsibilities, able to embark on careers previously closed to them and enjoy greater autonomy. Both sexes were often taken out of traditional and regressive social circumstances into more liberal and sexually liberated situations.) The term is used in various memoirs of the period (and was doubtless orally current), usually accompanied by the implicit or explicit understanding that the user had been lucky compared to many others who had suffered personal tragedies or unpleasant experiences. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As an American, when I hear the Second World War being described as the "good war", I assume that the speaker believes somewhat of the following statements [forgive me for using "we"; it's simpler than saying "the USA" every time] — it was good because we got into it without meaning to (while our involvement in the Atlantic wasn't exactly neutral, we didn't do anything warlike to provoke Japan [especially a surprise attack; they weren't even fair enough to warn us!], and Germany declared war against the USA because Japan had, not because of our involvement in the Atlantic), and we generally saw the war as a clearly moral issue. Contrast that with most other wars of the century: in Korea and Viet Nam, we joined because we meant to (whether or not it was right to go there, it wasn't forced on us with a surprise attack on our navy), while World War I was more of a political war — we fought with countries that were somewhat like us against countries that were closer to some of our allies than we were (consider that we fought with monarchies such as Italy and Romania), and both the Germans and the British had been violating the rights of our merchant sailors as neutrals. Nyttend (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Overall, I'd say that the reasons are this: (1) Americans saw their reason for joining the war as entirely justified, (2) Americans saw the enemies as clearly evil, and (3) the war was concluded quite successfully for the USA. Nyttend (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you didn't do anything warlike to provoke Japan, but you did impose trade sanctions. There's a theory that Roosevelt intended this to provoke a war.

On the surprise attack. The Japanese plan was to deliver the declaration of war 1/2 an hour before the attack began. However, they left it to the last minute for security reasons, and the Japanese embassy typist was off sick so the ambassador had to type it himself. He wasn't much of a typist, so it took quite a long time & was delivered only after news of the attack was starting to come in. Peter jackson (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Average length of service for current US house of reps

I am interested in know the average service length that the current members of the US house of reps has served in that role. I also am interested in knowing the average number of times that they have been re-elected. Googlemeister (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

List of members of the United States Congress by longevity of service has a complete list; you could add the numbers and divide. And you could derive the number of times they have been re-elected by dividing that by 2 — won't be exact because some have presumably lost and come back; but it will be close. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Not seeing a complete list for the 111th US congress there, only the top 50 or 100 in all US history. Googlemeister (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops: try List of current members of the United States House of Representatives by seniority. Really, "Googlemeister", could you lift a finger to search for things instead of just automatically posting here? This took me all of 5 seconds to find. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The meister part of the name is ironic. I suck at google. Besides, I was hoping that there was something out there that would give me the answer without me needing to add up all 435 members time served and then divide to find the average. That would take far more then 5 sec. Googlemeister (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

German Empire education

Dominic Lieven, whom I trust to get his facts right, states that "Germany had the best schools, universities and research institutes on the European continent" (referring to the pre-First World War period), or words to that effect. Could you refdeskers find any additional supporting material to back up this claim, preferably (but not necessarily) containing comparison to Britain or other similar nations. I'm thinking statistics of some kind, but by all means throw anything at me. Thanks. 92.9.133.200 (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Our article History of European research universities quotes Walter Rüegg (a historian of education) stating that the German university system was responsible for the development of the modern research university. I have heard this elsewhere and think that it is a commonly accepted view. Tallying Nobel prizes awarded between 1901 and 1914 for physics, chemistry, and physiology/medicine (under the assumption that achievements in peace and literature are not as closely correlated with research or educational excellence), I find that the Germans won 12 prizes, the French won 11, the Dutch won 5, the British won 4, and no other people won more than 3. However, if I count each of the joint Nobel prizewinners as the equivalent of half of a sole Nobel prize winner, then I find that the Germans won 11 prizes (10 sole prizes and 2 shared prizes); the French won 8.5 (6 sole and 5 shared), the Dutch won 4 (3 sole, 2 shared), the British won 4 (all sole), and no other people won more than 3. By this count, the Germans were clearly the most accomplished scientists in the world, evidence of the excellence of their university system. Marco polo (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

During most of the 18th and 19th centuries, the university system in England was not really in all that great a shape. The only two officially recognized universities, Oxford and Cambridge, were open only to members of the Church of England, and mostly taught Classical languages (Greek and Latin). Their main purpose was generally considered to be to train Church of England clergymen, rather than to conduct research, and the sciences were rather weak (though there was a certain tradition of mathematics at Cambridge). Some of the academic positions required being an ordained Church of England clergyman, and many of the colleges were dominated by narrow involuted cliques of people who were tended to be more interested in receiving a salary and convivially drinking port and sherry than in either teaching or research. Oxford was a hotbed of Jacobitism. This situation was why in the nineteenth century higher education in the United States was influenced more by the Scottish and German systems than by the English system... AnonMoos (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A good point that the only two universities in England were not particularly intellectually stimulating in those centuries, and perhaps had not recovered by circa 1900. (It may not be evident to those outside the United Kingdom, but the Scottish education system has always been quite distinct.) On the other hand, England from the late C17 to early C19 had a whole slew of Dissenting academies, and many alumni went on to get either earned or awarded degrees from Scottish universities. If you are particularly looking for comparions between Germany and Britain, you may find some leads in History of education in England and History of education in Scotland. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

February 12

Guantanamo Terrorists

I was speaking to my friends and they alerted me to the fact that Terrorists released from Guantanamo Bay went on to rejoin Al-Qaeda. Is this entirely true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.148.193 (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There are a few people on the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees who later went and rejoined the Taliban, such as Sabi Jahn Abdul Ghafour. Whether this constitutes a serious security threat depends on your analysis. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Other than the side debate over whether they qualify as "terrorists", Mr. 98 has answered the question: Yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The OP specified terrorists, so it's hardly a "side issue". You seem to think that any and every Guantanamo detainee qualifies as an enemy of the state, simply because the US government put them in there. A touching faith, for sure. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

They didn't drop out of the sky into GTMO. If they're there, they were picked up for being enemy combatants in some way or another. You can debate all day long whether they should have been held this way. That's a different question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The article on Ghafour can't even decide who it is about, which named detainee he was, or if he was released before or after being killed in Afghanistan, so no he hasn't. And the Taleban is not the same as al Qaeda, as anyone who hasn't been asleep for the last ten years should know. DuncanHill (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

....and wether they were terrorists in the first place is questionable. They certainly were never convicted by a competent and fair court, and many were taken on flimsy grounds. That they are pissed off after the experience of several years of imprisonment with plenty of abuse is not really surprising. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Notice the IP said rejoin al-Qaeda. So they were enemies of the U.S. before GTMO. They can't use GTMO as their excuse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you ignore earlier posts? The one right above yours made the excellent point that whether or not any detainee at Guantanamo is or is not a terrorist or "enemy of the US" depends on whether or not they were convicted on a terrorism-related charge in a court of law. Who says they are "enemies of the US"? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You think al-Qaeda and the Taliban are not enemies of the U.S.??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What, every single person who has ever expressed sympathies for either of those groups? Or do you have to be holding a membership card to be considered an enemy? Wake up. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So you sympathize with the 9/11 bombers? Nice. In any case, if the OP had said "detainees" instead of "terrorists", this would be a much shorter section. Although I wouldn't rule out that the IP worded it that way for the purpose of fomenting this debate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that there's a possibility that not everyone in GITMO is a terrorist. There are a number of high-profile cases that look pretty clearly like cases of mistaken identity, e.g. Khalid El-Masri. It is not exactly a precise science as to who gets into GITMO—there have been reports, for example, that "friendly" locals in Afghanistan have alleged Taliban/al Qaeda affiliations to people whom they didn't like, or had reason to benefit from being removed, or simply because there were rewards involved. We should be wary about completely abandoning the presumption of innocence—there is a good reason we don't have that as part of our "normal" legal system, and it is not completely clear whether terrorism warrants such an extreme response (far more people die per year from other criminal activity than from terrorism, yet we rarely deign it worthwhile to throw out legal protections in such circumstances). --Mr.98 (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Have any terrorists been released from Guantanamo Bay? DuncanHill (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

According to Mr.98, GTMO detainees rejoined the Taliban. If you're asking were they "terrorists"?, I suppose that's a matter of opinion. There's no question they are enemies of the U.S. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The article linked by Mr.98 about a former detainee who is said to have rejoined the Taleban can't even decide who the article is about, whether he was released before or after he was killed in Afghanistan, and does not demonstrate that he was a member of al Qaeda or the Taleban before he was in Guantanamo. DuncanHill (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that even if you accept that the person in question was a member of the Taliban and then rejoined it again... that doesn't necessarily mean that his release was a bad idea. There are more factors involved than just "he was an enemy and he was released." Ditto even if someone was a member of al Qaeda. You can say that without sympathizing with the group or thinking that they are right. Low-level flunkies, or people whose primary concern is the localized conflict in Afghanistan, do not necessarily justify indefinite imprisonment without conviction. We should be careful not to simplify the issue into idiotic talking-heads positions (of whatever political stripe). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As with any inflammatory topic, sane people are easily pushed to extreme views in an attempt to get others to admit that there are exceptions to their extreme views. In reality, most people are actually centered between the extremes, even when pushed to make comments that are clearly not middle-ground. -- kainaw™ 15:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have gotten off track here. The list mentioned in the first answer lists some who have like Abdallah al-Ajmi who apparently died in a suicide bombing in Iraq. Typing Gitmo detainees into Google brought up the suggestion "Gitmo detainees return to terrorism". One of the first hits in the search shows Pentagon claims that "20% of released detainees returning to terrorism"[9]. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Which, if it was true in every respect (e.g., they were terrorists ahead of time, and then they went back), is kind of an interesting statistic. It could be interpreted to mean that 80% of those arrested were not terrorists to begin with (which is interesting), or it could mean that they assume all were terrorists or whatever to begin with, and the recidivism rate for those released is only 20%, which is probably better than most criminal recidivism. Of course, if you don't necessarily take them at face value that they were originally terrorists, or their metric, or whatever, then it gets more problematic. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Medellín v. Texas

Why hasn't this Supreme Court decision, which basically declared that America can ignore treaties if it feels like it, gotten the US kicked out of the United Nations? --76.211.88.21 (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm no expert but, according to List of United Nations member states#Suspension, expulsion, and withdrawal of members, it would require "the recommendation of the Security Council", and since the U.S., as a permanent member, has United Nations Security Council veto power, it looks to me that it could just block any such resolution (not that anybody would be silly enough to propose it anyway). BTW, no member has ever been expelled, not even a nasty state like Myanmar. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

But couldn't all the other countries simply decide that, while the US technically has veto power, they're just going to ignore it and expel America anyway? --76.211.88.21 (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In theory, maybe. However, the reason why the United States is able to ignore international law is the same reason why the other Security Council members will not expel it: It has the world's most powerful military, without which the United Nations would lack the power to enforce much of anything. Note that I am not defending the position of the United States, merely explaining it. Marco polo (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Plus, the UN was never intended as a governing body which compels member states to obey. it is a convention body that tries to get member states to commit to international norms. expelling a state would be counter-productive, since expulsion accomplishes nothing (except for a momentary pithy statement) and removes the possibility that the expelled state might in the future come to commit to international norms. --Ludwigs2 03:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Plus the US pays for a large portion of the UN's funding. Woogee (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The thing about that treaty (guaranteeing consular access to prisoners) is that it's the federal government which signed it, but in the vast majority of cases it's the 50 individual states which have to implement it -- and under the United States Constitution, the executive and legislative branches of the federal government can't really issue direct orders to state governments about how they conduct their law enforcement and judicial activities. At most, the Congress could decide to cut off certain supplemental funding to states (such as federal funds that used to be given to keep more cops on the beat in the Clinton years etc.), but the states actually obtain most of their funding from local taxes. AnonMoos (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, since then-President Bush was a clear supporter of Medellín, why didn't he simply issue a Presidential Pardon? --70.141.193.11 (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Bush probably used up all his "pardon this guy even though he's clearly guilty" cards. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Or, you just responded to a troll. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In practice the General Assembly could expel the USA by derecognizing its government, as they did with the old South Africa. Might I suggest the real reason is that the USA pays 1/4 of the budget? Peter jackson (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Since the U.S. plays such a major role in pretty much everything the UN does, it would be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Most UN actions without American involvement would be empty gestures. Money is not a primary consideration; the U.S. refused to pay its dues for a while as a protest and didn't receive anything more serious than a few complaints. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement powers of the European Union

As an American, I sometimes find the European Union baffling. Can someone who is more knowledgeable about it explain what powers the EU has to compel Greece to cut its budget deficit? EU leaders have said that 1) that they will not allow Greece to go bankrupt and that 2) their loan guarantees are conditional on Greece cutting its deficit sharply. What if the present Greek government tries to enforce sharp austerity measures but is forced from power by popular unrest and replaced with a government that refuses to make the cuts? What can the EU do, if anything, to enforce austerity measures if allowing Greece to fail is out of the question? If Greece is in fact able to blackmail the EU into funding a deficit over which the EU has no control, what is to stop Spain, Portugal, Italy, or Ireland from doing the same? Marco polo (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As per our article, EU laws supersede national laws, whether they are binding legislation, regulations, directives or decisions limited to a particular issue. According to the Maastricht Treaty Convergence criteria, members adopting the euro (which Greece did) should meet inflation, fiscal and interest rate targets. The fiscal target is a deficit-to-GDP ratio of no more than 3%; Greece’s is -13%. Enforcement comes from national parliaments passing national laws, regulations, etc. requiring compliance with EU laws, regulations, etc. Should the current government fall, and a subsequent one refuse to reduce the deficit (by whatever means), it would be in violation of its own laws. Those laws could be changed, but then the country would no longer meet the Maastricht Treaty requirements. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So the key question is, supposing an EU member absolutely, unequivocally refused to abide by that treaty, what would the EU's options be? Drop them from the EU? Initiate an embargo or other trade sanctions? Send an invading military force? Do nothing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Article 126, the consolidated version (the others are unreadable) provides for this. After a tour along all EU institutions (as usual), the actual enforcement powers come down to the following:

As long as a Member State fails to comply with a decision taken in accordance with paragraph 9, the Council may decide to apply or, as the case may be, intensify one or more of the following measures:

• to require the Member State concerned to publish additional information, to be specified by the Council, before issuing bonds and securities,
• to invite the European Investment Bank to reconsider its lending policy towards the Member State concerned,
• to require the Member State concerned to make a non-interest-bearing deposit of an appropriate size with the Union until the excessive deficit has, in the view of the Council, been corrected,
• to impose fines of an appropriate size.

The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the decisions taken.

User:Krator (t c) 14:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, so there are various penalties, all of them monetary. Makes sense. The EU has no army, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, kind of. It's called Eurocorps. Alansplodge (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Note, that in the above, it reads "the council may decide to apply." That can only happen with large majorities. The army question isn't really realistic, I believe, if you look at the possible majorities in the Council. User:Krator (t c) 14:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As a UK citizen, the way I see it is that the EU has become more or less a country. The old countries within it are like the States in the United States. Many laws are European wide, there is a European parliament, even a European president (big pity the first one wasnt British - it was really stupid of the opposition party leader to wreck that, or at least seem to be), and Europeans can live and work anywhere in the EU they like. Of course I'm using "European" as a shorthand to mean the EU - Switzerland is not a member. By the way, the EU GDP and population are higher than that of the USAs. 92.29.136.128 (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The EU lacks a police force, so it can't actually enforce any of its laws. They are enforced by the member states. If a member state decided to disobey an EU law, they couldn't be forced to do so. Throwing them out of the EU is as strong an action as they can take (the other members could take military action, but that isn't actually going to happen). --Tango (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The nations of the EU have effectively bartered away sovereignty for a few shekels (euros). --Nricardo (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's all well and good when many are making money. Beware the dark side, the simmering nationalism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As a UK citizen, I see the situation very differently from the view of 92.29.136.128. I see the EU as just an association of sovereign countries, with no power whatsoever except that which is agreed and formally ratified by the parliaments of constituent countries. Yes, BB, there is simmering nationalism throughout the EU! And to Nricardo I would say: some countries may have bartered shekels, but we retain solid (we hope) sterling along with our sovereignty! Dbfirs 11:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

2nd undefeated German commander in World War I?

As the article states, Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck "commanded one of only two German colonial forces of that war which were not defeated". I don't know about a second force; what/where was it, who was its commander? --KnightMove (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the edit summary provided by the editor who added the information, it was Hermann Detzner's force in German New Guinea. Apparently, Detzner was even celebrated as "Lettow-Vorbeck der deutschen Südsee" ("Lettow-Vorbeck of the German South Seas"), see Spiegel online. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That being said, I recommend reading the featured article on Detzner (or, if you read German, as KnightMove does, Jürgen Ritter's article I linked to). It is a stretch to lump the two together as "one of only two", and, as hinted in the article's title, the "Lettow-Vorbeck of the German South Sea" quickly became the "Münchhausen of the German South Sea", once the confabulating nature of his accounts was revealed. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking for a children's book that ...

... includes fungi that destroy buildings after having been accidentally released from a lab the father of the main characters works in (or so I remember). Might also include magic, less unspecifically a couple (wizards, perhaps) who's son was bewitched/gone. Possibly an english book. Sorry should I be wrong here. Any ideas? Thnx in advance, --G-41614 (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly The Fungus That Ate My School by Arthur Dorros? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sierra Leone painting

I'm looking for an image I've seen in many places in Sierra Leone. Usually its a painting, sometimes a mural. There is a man, hanging from a vine tied to a tree branch over the river. In the river, crocodiles. On the bank of the river, lion. Winding down the vine, is the snake. Gnawing on the vine is a rat. This guy has a pretty big problem, and no one to help him. I would like to have a link to the image, and if anyone knows the story that this popular painting depicts, that would be interesting too. Thanks if you can help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.134.43 (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It is likely based on a religious story. I heard it once and I don't remember it. There is a guy who God promised to protect. He ends up in what is certainly death, but he doesn't lose faith. The crocodile and the lion fight. The snake catches the rat. The guy walks away just fine. I wouldn't remember it at all if it didn't remind me of a joke my grandfather (a preacher) told me about a guy who is on top of his roof with flood waters rising. A big truck pulls by, but he says he will stay because God will save him. The waters rise. A boat pulls by, but he says he will stay because God will save him. Waters rise. A helicopter comes by, but he says he will stay because God will save him. Waters rise. He drowns. In Heaven, he asks God why he didn't save him. God complains that he sent a truck, a boat, and a helicopter. What more did he want? -- kainaw™ 14:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's like that cool picture of a guy who has a big snake wrapped around him and some other dangerous animal close by, and he's struggling with the snake on train tracks, and the train is approaching. Rimush (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Philosophers and translations

It is often said that many philosophers use words that have no analogue in languages they are translated into. For example, Hegel's Geist, which loosely indicates "mind", "spirit" or "soul". What I do not understand is why we, as English readers of Hegel's translation, suffer? Surely the word itself is irrelevant if it is attached to a specific idea or meaning that can be grasped by anyone with the ability to reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.255.225 (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If it is truly untranslatable (e.g. incommensurable), then that means the concepts won't translate, not just the definition. Whether that is the case in any given area is up for dispute. If an English speaker cannot really understand Geist in the sense that Hegel meant it, then how can they really understand Hegel? Such concepts are not just a one-to-one mapping of the world onto language (e.g. chair, table, dog), but involve complex abstractions that hypothetically take a lifetime of living in a culture to truly understand. (There is a lot of reason to doubt that language concepts are truly incommensurable, though. It might take some time to deeply understand it, but I do think a non-German speaker can eventually get the point of Geist if they are given some explication and examples. But so would go the argument.)

An example:It is often said that in Soviet Russia, the concept of "privacy" was almost impossible to explain to anyone living there, because it was truly alien to their experiences. If that is the case, how could a Soviet Russian truly understand a philosophy that used the concept of privacy as a central tenet?

Another example—even a concept like "honor" can be tricky, if we think we know what it means. Can an American really understand how another culture might consider a loss of "honor" to be sufficient for suicide, other than thinking that the other person is crazy (i.e. belittling the belief)? The difference of understanding in such a case is great enough for me to consider that one could not really understand the other in any meaningful sense—it reflects a profound difference in culture upbringing, potentially an unbridgeable one. It is not a case of just "defining" the word or even the behavior, but really be capable of living it. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In good translations the translator inserts a note when a word in the original language is problematic or are meant to have several meanings in the original text. However it is not always possible to discern when an author deliberately wants a word to indicate several terms, so no translation will be perfect. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Philosophers tend to use everyday words with special non-everyday meanings, and to understand their philosophy you need to understand the sense in which they are using that word: whether you are reading Hegel in German or English you need to understand what he means by the concept "Geist", which has a specific and distinctive meaning for Hegel that is distinct to what "Geist" means either for other philosophers or to ordinary Germans. As Saddhiyama says, it is important when translating philosophy to take account of the special meanings the philosopher attaches to different words, to be consistent, and to preserve distinctions in the original language. --Normansmithy (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think philosophers sometimes just make up words. Isn't Heidegger's dasein an example? Peter jackson (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No, "dasein" is a normal German word denoting (roughly) the state of being (as opposed to "not being"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Though he certainly does give it a more-than-standard definition. Philosophers don't "make up words" so much as take existing words and assign generally different definitions to them, e.g. paradigm, discourse, genealogy, etc. Of course, occasionally they do make up words, or make compound/complex words that didn't really exist before (e.g. biopower). --Mr.98 (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The Greek word Arete is often translated as virtue, and yet, in Greek, a knife can have arete. One for one translations rarely capture the whole meaning of words. -Pollinosisss (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This focus on 'words' is a bit misleading. Philosophy in any language is an attempt to explain a novel idea (i.e. an idea that is not already part of people's conventional understanding of the world), and so it usually has to use analogy to things people do know, or allegorical references to cultural tropes, and then reframe them to make the novel idea make sense. It's hard enough within the philosopher's language to understand the meaning, because you have to stretch your mind to use common knowledge in a different way. It's much more difficult in translation, because you have to relate the common knowledge in the original language to some equivalent common knowledge in the translated language. 'Geist', for instance, was an evocative word for 19th century Germans (who had a long history of devout christianity blended with a intellectual philosophy). for Americans, philosophy is almost entirely secular: they have no intellectual place to put the concept of 'Geist', and will reduce it either to new-agish spirituality or to some flat material psychology, neither of which can capture Hegel's original sense. --Ludwigs2 17:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Kennedy and his leg

Which Kennedy lost his leg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.200.138 (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Edward M. Kennedy, Jr. -- kainaw™ 15:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Everyone at least 50th cousin to everyone else

Reading the discussion about "British royalty mostly descended from the fifth-century Saxon King Cerdic?" posted yesterday led me to Pedigree collapse and its statement of "Some geneticists believe that everybody on Earth is at least 50th cousin to everybody else." As far as we know, the Native American inhabitants of the most isolated parts of the South American rainforests have been separated from the Andaman Islanders for much more time than is necessary to produce 50th cousins. Therefore, how could this be true? Nyttend (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

All it takes is one of the members of the isolated group to move out or someone else to move into the isolated tribe. After marriage or just sex, the entire isolated group is part of the current worldwide family. Therefore, it is hard to find an isolated group that is truly isolated and has been for, say, the past 25 years. -- kainaw™ 17:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Is a woman impregnated every time there is sex? Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The article Most recent common ancestor (interesting read!) has a discussion of this, as well as time estimates for the last common ancestor, and links to academic papers discussing the subject. Jørgen (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it is an interesting article. It puts the estimated MCRA for all humans at somewhere between 1BC and 6000BC. If we assume an average generation length (ie. average age of mothers when giving birth) of 20 years (it's more than that these days, but I think averaged over the last few millennia 20 years is plausible) then 2000 to 8000 years corresponds to 100 to 400 generations. That would make everyone at least 100th to 400th cousins. If we restrict ourselves to Western Europeans (and their colonies) then 50th cousins is about right. --Tango (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Suicide rates for various occupations and lifestyles

1) Which occupations have the lowest suicide rates? 2) How do the suicide rates among various social classes compare? 3) Is the suicide rate among celebrities truely higher than that among non-celebrities, or is that just an artefact of their passing away being considered more newsworthy? 92.29.82.48 (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

To answer question 1, President of the US has a suicide rate of exactly 0 (and has maintained that rate for the last 200+ years). Tough to get lower then that. Might not meet the definition of an occupation though rather then a specific job title. Googlemeister (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but I imagine the death-by-homicide rate is astronomically higher than any other job. Vranak (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

On that first item, for what it's worth, this link at the American Psychological Association website says, "Occupation is not a major predictor of suicide and it does not explain much about why the person commits suicide." Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

1) Pope. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but that job has a dreadful mortality rate :-) Alansplodge (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

According to our article Epidemiology of suicide, suicide levels are highest among the retired, unemployed, impoverished, divorced, the childless, urbanites, empty nesters, and other people who live alone. The article is silent about suicide rates among the employed. I can add to this, regarding employed people, that the highest suicide rates are found among physicians, see this study, which also finds high suicide rates among female nurses, intermediate suicide rates among police officers, and low suicide rates among theologians. There are more details from what appears to be the same study here. Although the article is in Norwegian, it should be possible to read the tables with this translation:

Translation to Norwegian of key words in tables
Lege=physician Tannlege=dentist Sykepleier=nurse Politi=police officer Andre akademikere=other academics Øvrig befolkning=rest of the population Antall=number selvmord=suicide personår=person year utdanning=education menn = men kvinner = women etter alder=by age tiårsperiode = ten years' period.

--NorwegianBlue ^talk 16:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

February 13

monopoly of physical force in a state

why should monopoly of physical force be with a state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.219.249.227 (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In a Democracy, use of physical force is (in theory at least) by consent of the majority of the people who might be subject to that force, and, even for those who don't support it, the force is carefully regulated and controlled with the (mainly successful?) aim of preventing abuse. The alternative is unregulated and uncontrolled force by ad-hoc local militias (I almost wrote malitias), which most people would not be happy about. In most countries, parents retain a right to limited physical force within their family, and occasionally, physical force outside the control of the state is permitted elsewhere, though there is the risk that such lack of control might lead to anarchy. Dbfirs 11:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That is often considered part of the definition of a state, so the reason is simply "by definition". --Tango (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Côte d’Ivoire Coat of Arms

The article about the Coat of arms of Côte d'Ivoire states that it was adopted in the current form in 2001. What did it look like before, and why was it changed? Caspian Rehbinder (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Flags of the World
Sleigh (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a nice clear depiction of the ca. 1964-2000 arms in the book Guide to the Flags of the World by Mauro Talocci, revised and updated by Whitney Smith (ISBN 0-688-01141-1). -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I was inspired by this to create image File:Coat of arms Ivory Coast ca 1964-2000.svg... -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Burma

Since we're on the topic, the article about the Coat of arms of Burma states that it had a previous form with three chinthe. What did it look like before? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Jewish law

I know the Jews have many laws and covenants, which for the most part are constants rather than variables, have no published exceptions. Some laws are variables, for instance, the laws which pertain to anything occurring on the Sabbath. Is there a list of exceptions published of not of Jewish laws and covenants that distinguish what constitutes theft or murder or other issues of concern? 71.100.8.16 (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Traditional post-Biblical Judaism is more given to extended debates about the fine points of religious law (as in the Talmud etc.) than to formulating a definitive static ultra-detailed casuistic legal code, but there is the famous list of 613 Mitzvot... -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

...but how does anyone argue the fine points of anything without first categorizing the criteria? For instance if I want to argue the fine points of murder I must start with the role death plays, whether someone can be considered "murdered" if they are not dead. Next variable might be the cause, means and perpetrator such that all these thing need to be delineated before a proper discussion or argument can know where to begin. 71.100.8.16 (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the rabbis generally took as their starting point the words of the Old Testament, rather than postponing all discussion until fully satisfactory philosophical metaphysical definitions of concepts in the abstract were found. AnonMoos (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

...that's great for historical reference but many synagogues are closing and one of the predominant reasons given by former Jews to join for instance the Seventh Day Adventist Church is failure to update the old to be understood or comprehended by the lay person of today. We see languages and cultures going extinct all of the time from failure to keep followers who find the lack of adaptation to modern life impossible to cope with in modern times. Surely Jewish clergy is not so self-centered or ignorant to fail to recognize the need to state the old in the context and means of the new. Someone must be updating the format of the law just as some Christians have done with the NIV (New International Version) of the Bible. Even secular law is being considered for publication in the form of a polychotomous key. Certainly there must be some clergy who recognize and responded to this opportunity to retain the fact of the laws while making them comprehensible for everyone in the modern age. 71.100.8.16 (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The Talmud says killing a gentile doesn't count as murder in the context of the 10 commandments. Peter jackson (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not know that. The Gentile would be a variable and Ten Commandments would be a variable and a Jew would be a variable (in the context of a perpetrator assuming a gentile killing a gentile might or might not be murder) such that if you asked the question was there a murder then you would have to answer "no" if the perpetrator was a Jew, if the context of the question was in reference to the Ten commandments and if the victim was a gentile. This makes the conditions and definition of murder more clear as it relates to Jewish law. 71.100.8.16 (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That's at least part of the reason Jesus said, "You have been told to love your neighbor and hate your enemy; I say love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you." Obviously a dangerous thinker, who had to be done away with. And, sadly, words that have been ignored as much by Christians as by anyone else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Such a teaching may seem to be what a wine bibbler would say but the practice of such a rule has accomplished goals far greater than physically putting an enemy to death ever could. Consider Sam Walton (I almost called him Sam Walmart). His return policy when practiced correctly and with a joyful spirit has turned buyers that return big screen TV's they bought to watch the Superbowl into regular customers that have spent far more on cloths and food and hardware and things they don't even need. The Golden Rule is so powerful not only did it single handily make Walton a Billionaire and get him a Presidential Medal of Freedom but show me a retail business that can afford not to simulate the president he set. 71.100.8.16 (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see who changing a system of religious laws based on "inspired" religious texts to a system based on a humanistic philosophical model can at all be compared to translating a group of Hebrew and Greek texts into modern English (NIV) instead of using an older translation of the same texts. Is there anyone besides you that thinks that the civil law is being or can be published as a polychotomous key? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Its not a matter of changing. The New International Version did not change the King James Version and the New Testament did not change the Old Testament. Its a matter of putting rules and laws into a format which anyone can follow and obey. 71.100.8.16 (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Also you might want to consider that the Mason have secret rules they refuse to publish in any form much less a polychotomous key. Not wanting to publish in the form of a polychotomous key makes suspicious the legitimacy of rules. 71.100.8.16 (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Also there are 30% more synagogues in the U.S. now than in 1936[10]. Does this count as a decline? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Has the whole population been limited to a 30% increase? What about the percent increase of other religions? 71.100.8.16 (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

British royal family

1) Queen Victoria is the great-great-grandmother of Queen Elizabeth. Queen Elizabeth had sixteen great-great-grandparents. What was the nationality at birth of each of them? What country were they born in? 2) Prince Philip changed his name from the one he was born with: Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark. Lord Mountbatten also changed his name from the one he was born with: His Serene Highness Prince Louis of Battenberg. Have any other recent royals changed their name or nationality? 92.29.55.65 (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) See Ancestry of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. I note the Bowes-Lyon side doesn't list the nationality of the ancestors, possibly because they were commoners. However, it is safe to assume they were all British. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

From the information given in the links from the Wikipedia article, the places of birth are as far as I can tell 16. Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Germany, 17. Victoria of the United Kingdom Britain, 18. Christian IX of Denmark Germany, 19. Louise of Hesse-Kassel (or Hesse-Cassel) Germany, 20. Duke Alexander of Württemberg Germany, 21. Countess Claudine Rhédey von Kis-Rhéde Transylvania, 22. Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge Britain, 23. Princess Augusta of Hesse-Cassel (or Hesse-Kassel) Germany, 24. Thomas George Lyon-Bowes, Lord Glamis Britain, 25. Charlotte Grimstead Britain, 26. Oswald Smith British?, 27. Henrietta Hodgson Britain?, 28. Lord Charles Bentinck Britain, 29. Anne Wellesley, former Lady Abdy Ireland?, 30. Edwyn Burnaby Britain, 31. Anne Caroline Salisbury Britain?

So the Queen is 5/16 German, probably 8/16 British, 1/16 Transylvanian, and 2/16 Irish. 92.24.131.69 (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This site [11] appears to confirm this, with the possible exception of the Burnaby/Salisbury marriage. The places of birth of each of her great-great-grand parents is given on this site.--TammyMoet (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear 92.29.55.65, from about 1688 to 1871 (the wedding year of Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll), the immediate members of the British royal family couldn't ordinarily marry Catholics (because of a long sequence of events culminating in the Succession Act of 1701) and it was disapproved of for them to marry non-royal subjects of the British crown (since this would be to show favoritism, and create possibly entangling relationships between non-royal families and the British royal family), so their only real remaining available marriage possibilities were members of Scandinavian and German royal families, and lesser German princely families, with an occasional eastern Orthodox royal family member thrown in. AnonMoos (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Monarchs often change their names when they assume the throne. Elizabeth II's father, George VI of the United Kingdom, was born Albert (George was one of his middle names). --Tango (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

From the British point of view Philip and Louis were already British nationals: Sophia Naturalization Act 1705. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Louis Mountbatten was born in Berkshire, so a British subject by birth anyway. DuncanHill (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

George VI wasn't so much a name change as a use of one of his other given names (he was christened Albert Frederick Arthur George). No British monarch has taken an entirely new name, afaik, upon accession; they're unlike popes in this respect. But his father George V did change the House name, from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, to Windsor. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Debunking JFK conspiracy theory

A friend sent me the following, which claims that a book called Ultimate Sacrifice solves the JFK assassination by blaming it on the Mafia, who co-opted a JFK/RFK anti-Castro plot and used some of its players to get rid of Bobby Kennedy (their enemy) by killing JFK. What are the best arguments against it?:

---

JFK was killed by the Mafia, who in November 1963 attempted to kill him in Chicago, Tampa, and finally Dallas.

(Oswald -- who may or may not have been involved, so what? -- is a red herring. All the hand-wringing about the magic bullet, and so on, is BS. If the Mafia had succeeded in Chicago or Tampa, we would never have heard of Oswald; and if Oswald hadn't existed, the Mafia would still have succeeded in Dallas.)

It's simple:

1) After Castro came to power in 1959, some of the USA's plots to overthrow him involved the Mafia and Mafia hangers-on.

2) After JFK was inaugurated in 1961, Bobby Kennedy attacked the Mafia (including certain "godfathers" ... such as Carlos Marcello, whom the justice department enormously humiliated); the Mafia therefore wanted to get rid of RFK.

3) The Mafia understood they could get rid of RFK by killing JFK.

4) The Kennedys wanted to overthrow Castro, but decided to do so without the Mafia's help. They eventually implemented a plan to overthrow (without apparent USA involvement) Castro, scheduled for December 1, 1963.

5) But the anti-Castro plans dating from 1959 -- some involving the Mafia -- continued to roll along in other branches of intelligence and their chaotic off-shoots.

6) As a result, the Mafia learned enough of the Kennedys' 12/1/1963 anti-Castro plans to entangle themselves with them.

Here's the point:

7a) By entangling themselves with the Kennedys' plotted coup against Castro, AND UTILIZING OR IMPLICATING SOME OF THE PEOPLE ENTANGLED IN THAT PLAN, the Mafia could kill JFK (RFK by proxy) ...

7b) ... AND ensure that no government investigation would reveal the truth. Any investigation into the plot would necessarily (eventually) also reveal the fact that the USA had been about to overthrow Castro -- a revelation which would be a huge headache, or even (it was feared, after the Cuban missile crisis) the source of a nuclear war.

(Note, the Mafia hated Castro, too. They hoped Castro would get blamed for the assassination, but it didn't work.)

Apparently, the relevant Mafia leaders were Carlos Marcello and Santo Trafficante, plus the lower-level Johnny Roselli.

It's very simple: The Mafia, severely screwed with by RFK (but also involved in remnants of USA plots against Castro), co-opted a Kennedy Administration coup against Castro and entangled/implicated some of its Mafia-connected players in killing JFK (RFK by proxy) ... and thus stifled any further investigation -- AND, indeed, enlisted unwilling co-conspirators (such as "the government") in the cover-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.17.36.206 (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This is about as coherent and as plausible as the alternative theory that the little green men did it to stop the Apollo program before the US hit onto their secret moon base... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Castro existed, USA plots against Castro existed, JFK had invaded Cuba, the Mafia was heavily involved in anti-Castro USA intelligence operations, and RFK (whose power derived from JFK) was overwhelmingly active in attacking the Mafia and sometimes humiliating mafia leaders. So, Steve, you're right -- it's JUST like blaming "little green men" and a "secret moon base." Because there's no such thing! Are you with me, people? It's just plain nuts! Great debunking, Steve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.17.36.206 (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the moon exists, the Apollo program exists, and if you doubt the official story in public, someone highly trained by the US military will sock you in the face. What more proof do you need? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Mafia#Plots_to_Assassinate_Fidel_Castro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.17.36.206 (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Debunking of such an argument is a matter of saying, "OK, so where is the evidence?" There's nothing inherently impossible about the accusation, but there's also nothing inherently impossible about saying that Jackie planned it. The only way you can sift out the silly speculation is through appeal to evidence... which is not an easy matter, even for people steeped in historical research. (Cf. the length of Vincent Bugiosi's book the JFK assassination, where he tries to debunk a number of theories... 1648 pages hardcover!) These conspiracy theories are "advanced" enough that the supporters of them will shove mountains of purported evidence in your face if asked, and then it will be your job to debunk every piece of it (or to show how it doesn't fit together to the whole they claim it to be). I don't know about you, but that's not actually how I want to spend my time.

I think we need to acknowledge, though, that unlike the Apollo moon landing theories, JFK ones are certainly within the realm of plausibility. The Mafia did hate RFK, they did come to hate JFK, they did hate Castro—these are all pretty easy to document from existing evidence. Were they able to pull off a complex assassination, or was it Osward the lone nut, or something else? Not the easiest questions to answer, not the sorts of questions that necessarily would have left behind evidence for us to check against. Debunking of such a thing is always going to be problematic, just as arguing for Oswald as the lone nut has always itself been problematic. I say this as an historian who finds this kind of stuff amusing when James Ellroy fictionalizes it, but as a professional I would prefer to stay pretty far away from it, because it seems like an endless black hole of work and speculation. (And I see no reason to a priori privilege the official account.) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The more complex the theory, the more difficult it is to analyze. That's why I prefer the theory that the mastermind was JFK. Paul Stansifer 14:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

My basic attitude to conspiracy theories is simply to observe closely how the world is run. It soon becomes rather painfully obvious that these people couldn't conspire their way out of a paper bag. Peter jackson (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Though it is not as if a very brilliant plot would be needed to explain the JFK assassination. Indeed, even the official version recognizes this—Oswald was no mastermind. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The Kennedys had plenty of enemies and there were any number of those enemies who might have wanted JFK and/or RFK dead, thus providing fuel for endless and contradictory conspiracy theories. The idea that one lone nut could change the world is unacceptable to a lot of people. Yet there's plenty of evidence that Oswald was involved and was capable of doing it alone, as the official reports concluded. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not honestly sure why people who don't "work" on this sort of thing feel compelled to either knee-jerk defend the Warren Commission conclusion or to knee-jerk attack it. The whole thing seems rather murky to me. Maybe Oswald acted alone. Maybe not. Maybe it was a mob thing. Maybe not. If you accept the possibility that there could be, say, murky FBI or CIA connections, then you get into a situation where the relevant evidence could easily have been destroyed, or falsified, or both. Personally I'm rather agnostic about the whole thing. A lot of things are plausible, and sorting out the actual truth from all of the strange evidence and individuals (Oswald, Jack Ruby, etc.) seems pretty difficult to me. I suspect it is not possible to have a full picture that one is fully confident in. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

And, while I'm going on and on... the reason I am agnostic about the JFK question, and not, say, the Apollo moon landings, is simply because 1. there actually were a good number of powerful people who would have benefitted from JFK being killed, 2. the number of people who would have to be involved in a potential assassination conspiracy is small, and 3. there is little way, after the fact, to get at the truth of the matter. By comparison, with Apollo the motivations for doing it are rather fleeting (yes, yes, Cold War space race, but things were already winding down a bit by then, and the chances of being found out a fake would have made it an extraordinarily risky gamble), the number of people involved would have to be massive, and there are various ways of confirming the moon landing long after the fact (which would make the chances of discovering the a hoax quite large, if it were one). All is just a way of saying, I don't think all conspiracy theories are anywhere nearly equal—almost all are quite loony and improbable and impossible—and the idea that the JFK assassination was more complicated than the Warren Commission report made it out to be is, in my judgment, perfectly possible by comparison.--Mr.98 (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Statistical data on career motivation

Are there any data quantifying what motivates people in the workplace (e.g., something like "36% of people list money as their biggest motivator, 20% list intellectual stimulation, etc.)? 71.161.49.106 (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Motivates people to do what? The primary motivation for working will almost certainly be money for most people (since most people can't live a comfortable life without a wage). The primary motivation for having a particular job as opposed to some other job is going to depend on the jobs. --Tango (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the studies quoted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation#Employee_Motivation, you should be able to find their original statistics. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any citations or references pertaining to the statements in that section.71.161.49.106 (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Or even any studies quoted... --Tango (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I take your point, but references 20 and 21 appear and these refer to textbooks. However, the Hawthorne effect does have some relevant references. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

References 20 and 21 are cited in a completely different section... --Tango (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

children of prostitutes

How are the children of prostitutes characterized, as bastards if the mother is unmarried and not if the mother is married, even where prostitution is not legal? 71.100.8.16 (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Characterized by whom? --Mr.98 (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

By traditional 19th century Common Law, I assume... AnonMoos (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If the mother is unmarried then the child is a bastard, by definition. Under UK law, a child of a married woman is assumed to be a child of her husband unless there is evidence otherwise (see Paternity (law) for some details). That she is a prostitute wouldn't be relevant. --Tango (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, was Jesus a bastard? AFAIK his mother wasn't married. Flamarande (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the Bible, she wasn't married when she conceived, but was betrothed to Joseph and married him before giving birth. I think he was considered Joseph's son by most people. --Tango (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

At the time he was born she was (which was what counted under traditional Common Law). AnonMoos (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course the typical stigma attached to being a bastard is that your mother was dirty enough to have sex out of wedlock, which in his case didn't really apply. —Akrabbim^talk 22:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Nicotine as a Schedule I

I am wondering if the DEA has ever offically explained why nicotine is not a schedule 1 drug. It seems to fit the definition of a schedule 1 better than some of the others on list. I would think that this has been brought up to them at some point.--76.123.226.199 (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if they have ever given an official reason, but the real reason is very simple - it was in very widespread usage when drug prohibition laws started coming into force and a lot of people would have opposed it being banned. --Tango (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel thats the real reason too. I just think it would be amusing to hear their cock and bull reason.--76.123.226.199 (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

From the Controlled Substance Act article, we see that "The term does not include distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco, as those terms are defined or used in subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986". You can hop over to Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for more information, or even check out Subtitle E itself to see how nicotine is regulated.

As an editorial comment, the nicotine article suggests that nicotine may have limited use in medicine, which would probably put it on schedule 2 or 3, rather than schedule 1 (although, under that rational, marijuana probably ought to go on schedule 2 or 3 as well). Nicotine has also historically been used as an insecticide. I'm not sure how the legitimate use of a substance outside of medicine affects its placement within the scheduling system. Buddy431 (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 -- speech by Indira Gandhi

Hello, reference deskers. I understand that Indira Gandhi made a speech on the evening of 3 December, 1971, declaring war on Pakistan, as part of the Bangladesh Liberation War. I find most of that speech here. But this link is full of elipses. I can't seem to find the entire speech listed anywhere at all. I would be happy to transcribe it myself, but I've looked at google video and youtube and can't find her speaking there, either. Could someone help me find the full text of this war declaration? Thank you. Llamabr (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)