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 28

carrier

Do you have any job in pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdsr md (talk • contribs) 05:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. We are a reference desk, staffed by volunteers all over the world, and we don't have any inside information on jobs in Pakistan, sorry. To look for jobs in Pakistan on the Internet, I would use a search engine. This link claims to list Pakistan-specific search engines, where you can type things like jobs Karachi and it'll come up with web pages about this. Comet Tuttle (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation, which is based in the USA. It employs a small number of people at its headquarters, and current job vacancies are listed here. The Foundation has no base in Pakistan. There is the possibility of remote working in some limited cases, apparently. Karenjc 11:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not have any job in Pakistan. More's the pity. Edison (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thankfully, I don't have a job in Paksitan!DOR (HK) (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

New police in Spain

I've recently noticed a new type of police officer walking around the cities of Spain, wearing all black and quite a heavy, authoritative appearance. Their job, as far as I can tell, is to go around picking out anyone who looks remotely foreign and demand papers and documents to prove legality. What has spurred these new officers and how long are they expected to stay around? Because they are certainly out of the norm and I'd like to get as much information as possible. Thanks for any help 87.111.102.76 (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly the Cuerpo Nacional de Policía (Spain). Maybe just a new uniform like this[1]? Alansplodge (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your reply. It's definitely not your ordinary Policia Nacional, the uniforms are different and their sole purpose seems to be to check the legality of visas and papers for foreigners. It's a very heavy and persistent new force and they've been around since the start of the new year. 87.111.102.76 (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

NAACP/NAAWP

Has there ever been a group that was like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People but for whites? I'm not talking about an organization built on white supremacy or segregation. Just something that tries to give scholarships and whatever else to whites. Basically nothing hateful. I thought it might be the NAAWP but that seems to have taught segregation and such. Dismas|^(talk) 13:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of one in North America. It seems to me that the most likely not-quite answer would come in the form of a more specific ethnic or nationality. For example, here in Canada there are German clubs and Newfoundland clubs (and Portuguese clubs, etc.) that are completely non-racist, but they're really not the same thing. The NAACP functions as a political organization and I don't think there's terribly much call or need for advancing white people politically. The people interested in whites having more political clout are probably looking for a "final solution" kind of thing, which would obviously be pretty heavily steeped in various kinds of race hatred. It's kind of like how you can get t-shirts that say "Gay Pride" or "Black Pride" or even "Irish Pride", but the "White Pride" ones only come free with the purchase of a hood. Matt Deres (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree when you say that "I don't think there's terribly much call or need for advancing white people politically". Reverse racism does exist, also. There was a recent high-profile US Supreme Court case (Ricci v. DeStefano) where several employees were denied promotions simply because they were white (i.e., not minorities). As such, I disgree with your statement ... at least, the part that I quoted. Thanks. (64.252.68.102 (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC))

If a promotion is denied on account of race, that's against the law. Hence it was struck down. Reverse racism exists here and there, anecdotally. Not enough to justify an entire organization devoted to fighting specifically about discrimination against whites. In a country that's dominated by another race, and if whites were a small minority, I could see it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

All people (yes, whites included) have interests (political and otherwise) that need to be protected. Being white or being a majority does not negate that. You state that reverse racism occurs only anecdotally, "here and there". (Really?) I would argue that it is much more systemic than a mere blip on the radar screen. Indeed, the Supreme Court needed to intervene on this very issue! You claim that "[there is] not enough [reverse racism] to justify an entire organization devoted to fighting specifically about discrimination against whites". Yet there is "enough" to require Supreme Court intervention? That seems odd. Also, when is "enough" enough? In today's climate, it is very "PC" to hire / promote minorities over whites, despite qualifications (the very definition of reverse racism and the foundation of affirmative action). So, the Supreme Court had to intervene to say that what is politically correct (PC) is in fact illegal. Why can't a private organization promote similarly? Just as racism against Blacks is illegal (and countered by the NAACP), racism against a majority is no different. Just my opinion. Well ... and the opinion of the US Supreme Court, too. Thanks. (64.252.68.102 (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC))

Wow, we have a dubious article angry white male. Why do we have that? Anyway, you might want to look at this section, although the article could do with improving White_privilege#Employment_and_economics. White privilege is not your fault, but it is pervasive and part of privilege is being able to know nothing about it. Just like men can be completely blind to male privilege, because it doesn't seem to affect their lives: they think their experience is 'normal'. Not the fault of anyone living, but something everyone needs to be consciously aware of, to an extent. If you read nothing else, read this article, although page 3 onwards of this one from the '80s is what completely changed how I thought. 86.177.121.239 (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right, white males were used to getting everything their way, and when that default advantage began to be eroded, "white pride" stuff started to turn up. White males were spoiled, and you know how spoiled kids are: they always want things their way. Sharing is not in their vocabulary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So, the answer is to discriminate against white males? The very act that minorities (purportedly) find offensive to begin with (i.e., the discrimination). So, two wrongs make a right? Or the minorities only find discrimination to be offensive when they are on the receiving end of it? If they are on the giving end, it's now somehow OK? An interesting double standard. Come now. (64.252.68.102 (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC))

No, the answer is for whites not to presume that they are a privileged race that should get everything their way all the time nowadays, the way they once did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous comment which does not merit a response ... and which completely avoids / sidesteps all of the meritorious issued raised above. (64.252.68.102 (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC))

"White Pride" is basically code for "White Supremacy". My pals Sven and Ole wear T-shirts that read "White Pride". The problem is, the lettering is also in white, so it's invisible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If I were to channel someone from the NAACP, my response to the question would be that "any scholarship program" in the United States already favors whites because of their already-dominant place in the culture. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

They may well say that. It doesn't make any sense, though. --Tango (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain in what way it doesn't make sense, or would that be soapboxing? 86.177.121.239 (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be a rather warped definition of "favour" if more whites getting scholarships simply because there are more whites counted as favouring whites. (Assuming that is what is meant by "dominant" - any other meaning would need to be backed up. Even the president is black (well, mixed-race) now!) --Tango (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I can see how if that was what it was saying, it would make no sense. But dominant culture is not the same as majority of people. It is not that there should not be more white people at university if there are more white people in the general population, it's that the proportion of white people at university should be proportional to the proportion in the general population. And, given that white people in many cultures (including the US, the UK, etc) have White Privilege, they are going to end up being disproportionately represented at university, in good jobs, in leadership positions, unless people do things to actively counteract that privilege. One way of doing that might be by targeting a scholarship programme at an ethnic group who are disproportionately under-represented at university, to try to correct for the various nudges that keep them down.

Incidentally, you might want to read the studies linked in this article. I remember reading them at the time: Obama being president leads many white people to make more racist decisions, on the same principle as McDonald's listing salads made people eat more burgers: people see the 'progress', and that lets them off the hook. 86.177.121.239 (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you get in touch for counsel in the most recent case and for Bakkee v. U.C., Davis. My field is civil rights law. Some people were so interested in litigating the issue that they parted with funds to subsidize the suits. Frankly, my perception was antiBakkee until I read all the amicus briefs in the case for a U.S. Senator. There were no answers then and I doubt they exist now.75Janice (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)75Janice

75Janice is referring to Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So, I guess the answer to my original question is "no". Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 03:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Over a period of 40 years (1967-2007), the ratio of black university students as a share of all blacks aged 18-24 rose from 18% to 31.7%. Among whites, the ratio rose from 27.1% to 40.9% during the same period. Hence, the share of age appropriate blacks vis-à-vis whites increased from 66.4% to 77.5%. In other words, the period under which affirmative action was the norm reduced the under-representation of black students in (US) universities from one-third to one-quarter. Source: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/xls/tabn204.xls. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There was the Delaware-based National Association for the Advancement of White People, an incorporated organization whose charter was revoked by the state of Delaware. As our article on this group notes, David Duke tried to revive the name in the 1980s. He no longer uses the term on his web site. On WhiteCivilRights.com, he's the head of EURO: "the European-American Unity and Rights Organization. It defends White interests and rights in the same fashion that the NAACP works for the advancement of Colored People'.'" The apparent scare quotes are bolstered in the next paragraph, in which he says that the NAACP promotes racial discrimination while EURO "seeks equal opportunity for all, with preference for the hardest working, most talented, and best qualified." --- OtherDave (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sand art

My question is about the sand art work that is shown in the following You Tube video: [2]. I watched the video and it was beautiful. But, the video and background sounds (music / lyrics) are not in the English language. As a result, the story or plot line went completely over my head. (Though, I think that I did get some small bits and pieces here and there.) Can someone explain the general story / plot line of what the woman is drawing pictures of? Also, what is the English translation for the few words that she inscribes in the sand at the very end of the video? And, by the way, in what language is this done? Thank you. (64.252.68.102 (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC))

The language sounds like Russian. But sorry, I don't understand. Oda Mari (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

From a friend:

• it's the history of ukraine, specifically WW2, and from the perspective of a woman, gets married, her soldier goes off to fight, she has a baby, and possibly never sees him again (but possibly does)

Vimescarrot (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's Ukrainian. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

According to our article it's about the Ukrainian Great Patriotic War. Matt Deres (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Another friend:

• Words at the end loosely translate to "You're always nearby"

Vimescarrot (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The language is Russian, not Ukrainian. The performance may have taken place in Ukraine, but most, if not all, Ukrainians understand Russian, and many of them are native Russian speakers. Besides, the the story of the Great Patriotic War – which is what the Soviets called the part of World War II when they were no longer allied with Germany – is probably more appealing to Russians and Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainians, especially in Western Ukraine, are more likely to support Ukrainian nationalists who opposed the Soviets during WW2 and even sided with the Germans as long as it helped them get rid of Soviets, Jews and Poles. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh and WHAAOE: Kseniya Simonova. — Kpalion^(talk) 00:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC) P.S. Just noticed that Matt had already provided a link, albeit in an Easter egg fashion. Still, "Ukrainian Great Patriotic War" bewilders me. There was one GPW for the whole Soviet Union, althogh it's true that the Ukrainian and Byelorussian SSRs bore the brunt of it. — Kpalion^(talk) 00:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. This is the OP. I now somewhat "get" the plot about "a woman, [who] gets married, her soldier goes off to fight, she has a baby, and possibly never sees him again (but possibly does)" as explained in a posting above. But what then exactly is happening in that last scene? It almost appears as if the woman and the baby are looking at the man through a window or touching through a glass? I am still confused. Is that the woman merely having a dream? Thanks. (64.252.68.102 (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC))

It being art, the interpretation is up to you. — Kpalion^(talk) 08:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much to all for the input ... it was very helpful. Thanks! (64.252.68.102 (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC))

Achievement seen as insubordination

I am very interested in Ludwig2's comment from above: "...from a SD viewpoint, 'achievement' looks like 'insubordination' and suggests competition for status or position." Does anyone know where I could read more about this particular aspect of bullying? I have heard this idea before. What particularly interests me is the bully seeing working hard and taking the initiative as a kind of cheating, and being disloyal. Thanks 89.242.47.252 (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just discovered Social dominance orientation and Social Dominance Theory which are relevant. Perhaps it would also explain criminality and people prone to jealousy. 89.242.47.252 (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Obama and Palin dancing photo

A few hours back, I just came across a photo in flickr which shows Obama and Palin dancing together. I want to know if the image real or fake? --Toutuolog (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a fake, very obviously. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 17:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? You can't tell if that is fake. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks fake to me ... it seems like the heads (of Obama and Palin) are pasted onto bodies of other people. Just my opinion. (64.252.68.102 (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC))

Completely fake. The above IP is right, it being their heads on others' bodies. It's done pretty well, but the lighting is still wrong, and Palin looks rather muscular, all things considered. Besides, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I'm yet to see it. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like that extraordinary a claim. They are both politicians, I wouldn't be surprised if they have been to the same social events numerous times. Just because you are in different parties doesn't mean you can't share a dance. Politicians often get along very well with their opponents personally even if professionally they are always arguing. (Of course, that doesn't change the fact that this particular photo is fake.) --Tango (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be a PR disaster, no doubt (unless they could do it well). I don't think I need to remind you of the baseball cap incident, and many others. Prime ministers and Presidents generally go down better if they stick to what they're best at. Appearing in Strictly Come Dancing, or its American counterpart, is pretty unusual in my book. You'd expect it to make the news both sides of the Atlantic, i.e. we'd know about it. (I know the phrase I used is more theological than that really.)- Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I hadn't actually followed the link - dancing on stage like that would be unusual. I was thinking more of social dancing. --Tango (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Fake. It even says it's fake. There's a link on the photo's flickr page that takes you to an iphonesavior site, which explains the fakery thus:

"The original "Dancing With The Stars" photo was skillfully remixed by a Tampa Bay graphic designer named Martin Rice. Rice sent over his Photoshop image to three friends featuring Obama dancing with Palin. Days later the photo has traveled electronically around the globe and back." Karenjc 18:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

All other considerations aside, you'd never wear glasses like that on Dancing with the Stars, duh. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a pity that you cannot be president and a dancer if you want to - convention forces you to choose one or the other. 89.242.47.252 (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If there's been an [ex-]actor, why not a dancer? There's nothing stopping them. More dancers to stand, methinks.- Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

George Murphy, earlier best known as a song-and-dance man, served as a US Senator from California from 1965 to 1971. Not quite president, but pretty good for a man of his talents. PhGustaf (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, George Murphy... a Tom Lehrer song is echoing in my head now (there's nothing to stop it). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Pretty good for a man of his talents - what does that mean? Are actors and dancers somehow inherently less equipped to be politicians than lawyers, used car salesmen, astronauts, evangelists, wrestlers and serial adulterers? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think he meant getting to be a Senator was pretty good for a song-and-dance man. Although it does remind me of this one: In Israel there's a Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. A Jewish tourist visits it, and on it says the man's name as plain as day. He asks the guard, "What's this about?" The guard says, "Ah, as a tailor, he was known. As a soldier? Mneh!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

But what does that mean - "getting to be a Senator was pretty good for a song-and-dance man"? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There aren't that many entertainers who become public officials. Most of the major ones seem to be lawyers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who saw Obama attempting to dance on the night of his inauguration would know that this photo is a fake. The question is, whose bodies did they paste the head-shots onto? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the source photo of the dancers, which I found on Google images by entering ["dancing with the stars"]. I don't watch the show, so I don't know who they are.[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Mario (entertainer) and Karina Smirnoff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's another photo from that set. It was in Season 6: [4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

March 1

Matt Morrison

Is the signature in the top left "Matt Morrison"?174.3.99.176 (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

At 500%, that's what it looks like, but I have no source. Bielle (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It is Matt Morison (Canadian snowboarder). [5] --Cam (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Article about a London park with a "protected" view

I am trying to find a article about a park, which I believe is somewhere on the outer edges of London, that has a hill were the view from that hill cannot be obstructed or changed so that it looks the same as it did in a painting that was made quite a long time ago. The hill also overlooks a river from what I remember. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.22.112.106 (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite possibly Richmond Park where it is bordered by the River Thames. "The view from the top of Richmond Hill, a source of inspiration for artists and poets throughout the years, has been protected by an Act of Parliament since 1902." [6] Our article on Richmond Hill, London gives more info. Is this what you were looking for? BrainyBabe (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Other candidates are Parliament Hill on Hampstead Heath, and Greenwich Park which is a World Heritage Site. Planning laws are very strict in the UK and any well known view will have legal protection from development. Alansplodge (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Also see the article on Protected view. Alansplodge (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe thats the one. And I can't believe I didn't try searching for Protected View earlier. Thank you for your help BrainyBabe and Alansplodge. Its greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.19.20.211 (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that has to be Greenwich Park, which, from the hill, the view overlooks the Thames, The Queen's House & The Royal Naval College & The Maratime Meuseum. Also time is taken from the Royal Observitory Clock on the hill, for Ocean-going shipping, if this view is obstructed then shipping cannot see the Clock. (I can investigate.) In the Article page: Greenwich Park, you can see the panoramic view from the hill and also the Observitory and The Clock,(next photo). The Shipping Clock is the object on the top / roof of the Observitory. The "ball" falls down at a precise time daily.

The Article page: Greenwich Park, says that the view overlooks also Greenwich Hospital. That is not true. It overlooks The (Old) Seamen's Hospital, not used any more but is part of Greenwich University. Greenwich Hospital has moved to: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woolwich. The building "Greenwich Hospital", is disused, it used to be the old work-house site. (In the panoramic view, it is located on the extreme left hidden from view behind the trees.). In the park there is a lot of gray squirrils and the green parrot,(flocks).

It doesn't mean Greenwich Hospital, it means Sir Christopher Wren's Royal Hospital for Seamen which became the Royal Naval College after the hospital closed in 1869.

{{No. No. Looking at the plaque on the hill, (places numbered, and indicated), that is not so. They mean Greenwich Hospital, not the Seamens' Hospital. The Seamens' Hospital closed 15 to 20 years ago approx.(Post Script).MacOfJesus (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)}}

Richmond Hill park may also be a protected view.

MacOfJesus (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Restaurant Laws in Western Australia

Is it true that a BYO restaurant DOES NOT have to supply you with tap water while dining in their establishment? I was in a restaurant last night with my friend who is pregnant. She asked for a glass of water but was refused saying that they were not required to supply customers with tap water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.208.198.141 (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about Western Australia, but there is no such requirement in the UK (despite many people thinking otherwise). Some licensed premises (mainly clubs, I think) have it written into their licenses that they must supply free water as a precaution against ecstasy users getting dehydrated (the main cause of death from ecstasy), but I doubt many restaurants do. Certainly one that didn't serve alcohol wouldn't. --Tango (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that responsible service of alcohol laws in QLD dictate that you must serve non-alcoholic beverages but I don't think they have to be free. As for WA I don't know.203.217.33.23 (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, this rumour first gainer credence after the moral panic caused by the death of a teenager who had drunk too much water, not too little. See Leah Betts. 130.88.162.46 (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This matches up with what is said about ACT clubs, but I can't find any legislation from a cursory search. Steewi (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the law, the correct way of handling that would be to stand up and walk out. "Due to the lack of simple tap water, which traditionally accompanies every meal, I refuse to pay for what I've ordered so far and am leaving now. Unless you rectify this situation." They have a tap. The have glasses. They dislike customers making a scene that will be seen by other customers. --203.22.236.14 (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

US Politics - Definition of "top tier candidate" or "first tier candidate"

In US Politics, what is meant by the concept "top tier" candidate or "first tier" candidate for offices such as State Legislator (Senate, Assembly, etc) and US Congress? I assume that this is some kind of rating system. I've heard the terms "top tier" "first tier" and "lower tier" candidates but I have no idea who creates these ratings or how the ratings are arrived at. I've used wikipedia many times, but this is the first time I've ever tried to ask a question using this reference desk. I'm not even sure if this is the right place to ask my question. Is there a way to create a page with this question and ask people to provide answers? What is the best approach?

Thanks for all you do.

Sincerely, William Cerf WilliamCerf (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You are in exactly the right place and you asked the question correctly, by just creating a new section on this page. There isn't any legal basis for the judgment that someone is a "top tier" candidate. This is just an opinion that someone has offered, presumably for candidates who are well-known enough to be electable. If you have a web link to demonstrate an example, we might be able to offer more specific comments. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a subjective judgement, usually taken by media outlets as to which candidates have the sufficient combination of money, recognition, support (typically in polls) and other factors to be considered reasonably likely to win the election in question. 130.88.162.46 (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that the only time this concept is used with actually consequence is in regard to providing Secret Service protection to the top level candidates during the Presidential campaign. Rmhermen (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I never heard the term in Political Science classes. Recently, I've heard it discussed within party circles as the highest office the party is sponsoring. Obama was the top tier candidate. A state rep would be low tier in comparison. A dog catcher would be lower tier. They want the top tier to be a big enough draw so people continue to vote along party lines. A very popular lower tier candidate might increase the turnout for a Presidential or gubentorial candidate.75Janice (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)75Janice

Figure Skating

I've seen elements done in figure skating done on roller skates (i.e.: salcow on roller skates). Is this possible with inline (in line) skates?174.3.99.176 (talk) 05:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. There are even several how-to books! Best, WikiJedits (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

How does inline skating differ from roller skating?174.3.99.176 (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sexuality images in Wikipedia

Why sexuality related images in Wikipedia are computer generated images instead of showing real humans? For example, the images in Oral stimulation of nipples and Mammary intercourse do not show real humans. Why? --DogNoDog (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC) — DogNoDog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Could be a free-content issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's likely because nobody has uploaded a free image, as Bugs suggests. If you look at Pearl necklace (sexuality), you'll see that not all the sexuality articles only have line drawings. Dismas|^(talk) 07:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And while the OP could upload a PD-self image, I wonder what it would tell us (other than TMI about the OP) that the current illustration does not? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The current images are more tasteful as well, I think. -Pollinosisss (talk) 07:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The illustrations in the articles you cite seem to demonstrate the ideas involved adequately. In what way would photographs improve the clarity of the articles? wikipedia is not censored, but it's not here to provide pictures you find pleasing, either. PhGustaf (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a free-content issue—you'd be surprised how many professional and amateur pornographers are willing to contribute their nudity pix. I think it is more a compromise over trying to provide "encyclopedic" images on a controversial subject. Many people (myself included) find a drawing of sexual intercourse far less problematic than a photograph of it, when we are trying to explain rather than titillate. Obviously opinions vary quite a bit, and there are many who are die-hard "no censorship, no matter what!" who would disagree just for the sake of disagreeing. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the difference between a photograph and a computer generated image? How can an image show real humans? Are they going climb inside my computer? Bus stop (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Come now, don't play daft, adults are trying to have real discussions about encyclopedic content around here. Surely whatever anti-censorship argument you want doesn't have to rest on the ridiculous notion that people perceive drawings and photographs to be exactly the same thing, especially when it comes to medical/sexual subjects. Google "penis cancer" and try to tell me that the photographs do not generate a radically different emotional response than the diagrams. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) A photograph usually conveys authenticity (though not always, see Obama-Palin question above :-). A line drawing is immediately perceived as an artefact, before we even know what we are looking at. In addition to the ick-effect, a line drawing is also often a clearer way to communicate structure and functional relationships within the depicted object(s). I remember when I had to study and memorize hundres of plant species for exams, I found the books showing (coloured) illustrations much easier to process and much more helpful than photographs of the various plant species in their natural habitat. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The reference desk is not a place for discussing Wikipedia policy. If anyone wants to continue this, take it to WP:VPM or something. Algebraist 14:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Roller Skates

The title of the video says Gold Coast. Was this competition held in gold coast? 174.3.99.176 (talk) 06:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As there is a reference on a 'banner' to Australia, do you mean 'Gold Coast', Australia?, as gold coast goes to a dis-ambiguation page. Googling "2007 rollerskating championships" (text inserted) gets "2007 Artistic Roller Skating World Championships LOCATION: Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia VENUE: Carrera Indoor Sports Stadium". The answer seems to be yes.220.101.28.25 (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Robert Service books

The wikipedia article Robert Service (historian) mentions he has written a book named Comrades: A World History of Communism. But in amazon, I found two books: Comrades!: A History of World Communism and Comrades: Communism: A World History. I want to know if the two books I linked are same (just paperback and hardbound) or different? And why the wikipedia article mentions a false title? --Compuhog (talk) 10:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Both titles are listed in paperback and hardbound(but not currently available in both). From the similarity of names I would hazard a guess that they are the same book with slightly different titles. Possibly "Comrades: Communism: A World History" is a later edition as it also says "the international best seller" on the cover. The other is available as a collectible adding weight to my assertion. The published date Amazon gives for both is May 2007. Therefore it does seem it is the same book.
It's a bit harsh to assume "a false title" for what could well be a mere mistake! It seems to be a combination of the two titles. 220.101.28.25 (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A simple Google search shows the exact Robert Service title, Comrades: A World History of Communism on Amazon.--220.101.28.25 (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I did a Google Books search on the word "communism" with author "Service". The first hit was on Comrades!: A History of World Communism and provided a limited preview which included the full table of contents. This is a US paperback edition from Macmillan. The second hit was on Comrades: A World History of Communism. This is a UK edition from Macmillan. This hit showed me three chapter titles (that contained the word "communism") with chapter and page numbers, and they exactly matched the table of contents. So these two titles refer to the same book. After a few irrelevant hits, there was one on Comrades: Communism: A World History. This is a UK edition from Pan. Google Books would not display any content from this book but it gave the number of pages as being the same as the other two. Also, the front covers of all three books are displayed and those of the two British editions are very similar. Conclusion: they are all the same book (the Pan edition might have minor changes since it is dated a year later), and it has been published under three different titles. (Note: The amount of content that Google Books shows you may depend on what country you're in.) --Anonymous, edited 08:09 UTC, March 2, 2010.

what caused the 1962 Burmese coup in the first place?

The article Burmese Way to Socialism does not explain it at all, but Burma prior to 1962 was on its way to becoming prosperous and stable, something akin to Malaysia, or Thailand on a good day. It seems there were a lot of little things, but no real kicker that caused the coup. What keeps the momentum so long? The ideology doesn't seem to be coherent, is it just power for power's sake, like African coups? Anyone? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at this result on Google Books[7]. Alansplodge (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Econ question

I've begun a new disambiguation page, Congruence principle, which could use some feedback, particularly under the Economics entry. My last Econ class was a hundred years ago, and I no longer recall the terminology that criticises economic theories that operate only within a theoretical closed system and don't translate to real-world economies. Help? -- TheEditrix2 17:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"creative accounting"

Is this a common or known fraud otherwise called "creative accounting"?

• The seller knows that an item will not work with 60hz and that for all practical purposes is defective when used with 60hz.
• The seller sells an item anyway to buyers without warning of the 60 hz issue and under terms that buyer pays return postage to have the seller verify the item has a factory defect. The seller assures the buyer a refund of purchase price and postage upon verification.
• The seller stipulates that in absence of a factory defect at sellers determination buyer will not be refunded postage and will be charged a 15% restocking fee.
• Seller's goal is to make 30% profit on sale of any item that is returned as defective.
• The item price is $27.99 including $3.29 real postage and undeclared handling fee of ~20% of price minus postage or $5.82. A total of $9.10 is then declared as postage.
• The buyer finds that the item does not work and returns it to the seller at a cost of $3.29. The seller plugs the item into 50hz and declares that it is not defective.
• The seller then deducts the postage fee of $9.10 to get $18,89 and then applies the 15% restocking fee to get $2.83 which he deducts leaving $16.05 as the refund.
• The seller's initial income is $27.99 from which he deducts $3.29 for postage and $16.05 for the refund costing him $19.34 in expenses and leaving him $8.65 or 30% profit.

71.100.5.197 (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

In other words, you wonder whether a guy who Ebays defective crap and charges large "restocking" and "handling" fees, can be held legally liable, or forced to provide a full refund?

Nope. Not if he disclosed all his terms up front, and you fell for it. That's why the term Caveat Emptor was invented. Check the feedback ratings before you buy. -- TheEditrix2 17:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

We had a neighbor who is now in prison because he was sort of obsessive compulsive like that female astronaut that went bonkers. He tracked down the seller that did something similar to him and that's why he is in prison. The seller, unfortunately despite his disclosed terms is now enjoying eternal rest at Forest Lawn. 71.100.5.197 (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That isn't creative accounting. As for whether it is illegal or not, you'll need to ask a lawyer. We can't give legal advice. --Tango (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The question has nothing to do with law but with morality and in this case the lack of morality resulting in mortality. 71.100.5.197 (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As for checking feedback ratings, have you ever visited eBay lately? Feedback is not handled like it was at the beginning of eBay because it hampered sales. Now its just a guise that's part of the disguise that eBay has become. 71.100.5.197 (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup, just bought a couple of cell phones on ebay last week. But not 'til I'd very carefully examined the seller's feedback ratings. I begin by assuming sellers are crooks, so I would NEVER do business with someone who charged "restocking" or "handling" fees, or who had a rating of less than 97 percent positive. Just my own rule of thumb. -- TheEditrix2 18:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

One day then you will probably make a purchase from a guy who has the restocking fee posted on his web site but not on eBay and when it comes time to ask for a refund he will point to that. What are you going to say then? Gee I didn't look on your web site or that his restocking fee does not apply whether declared or not if you the customer can not use the item because the item does not work. In other words the emphasis has to be on the morality of the transaction rather than on some small print. 71.100.5.197 (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is sort of getting into the uncomfortable area of "legal advice", which we do not allow ourselves to give; but I am going to say that when you state "the emphasis has to be on the morality of the transaction rather than on some small print", it would be nice if that were the case, but it's not true. When you agree to a contract, you're agreeing to all its terms. Now, if the "fine print" you are objecting to is over on his web site, then you may have an argument, in court, that you never agreed to those terms; but as a practical matter, when you buy stuff on eBay, you never want to go to court. For what it's worth, from what you have said above, I think this guy should give you a refund; but I don't know if he's legally obliged to. If you're really angry and you have a lot of time on your hands, you may be able to sue him in small claims court, even if he is out of state (depends on the rules for small claims courts in your locality). Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I never look at the ratings, I look at the actual feedback. If there are any negative responses, I find them (which ebay doesn't make easy) and see what actually happened. --Tango (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

To the very first question, we have an article called creative accounting. A telling line at the top says that "Cooking the books" redirects to "creative accounting". Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Caveat Emptor. As they say in most places except Texas and maybe Tennessee, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me [8]. One would have thought that the Windows CD key fiasco was enough to learn to be careful with eBay sellers... Nil Einne (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to mention that my comment that I made here yesterday has disapearred. The comment briefly said that the OP previous question with responces from others, which I guess the OP did not like, on the Science desk had (also) disapeared, but you can find it here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=347004838&oldid=347001486 I think its against etiquette to delete other people's comments. I've kept a copy of this paragraph in case it disapears again. 78.149.112.209 (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Last U.S. Vice President to rule from the Chair of the Senate

Which was the last U.S. Vice President to overrule the Senate Parliamentarian from the Chair of the Senate? Logoth (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the answer but wanted to save other editors time by writing that the constitutionality of this sounded doubtful to me, but I looked into it and it's definitely constitutional and plausible. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Senate procedure and practice (publ. 2008) by Martin Gold says, "It is often misstated that the parliamentarian makes rulings. The presiding officer rules after having received the parliamentarian's counsel. Although the presiding officer has the power to ignore the parliamentarian's advice and simply rule on his own, it would be extraordinary for him to do so" (emphasis added). That suggests that hasn't happened since the Senate parliamentarian office was created in 1937. Abecedare (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: It did happen in 1949 when Alben Barkley disregarded the parliamentarian's advice. However the Senate overruled Barkley's ruling 41-46. See the article The Constitutional Option to Change Senate Rules and Procedures: A Majoritarian Means to over Come the Filibuster (pages 24-25) for details. Abecedare (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Also, in 2001, the Senate Parliamentarian got the ultimate overruling: the Republicans fired him when he made a couple of rulings that benefitted the (then-minority) Democrats. --M@rēino 14:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Art

I have an original oil painting of a hunting scene and I am not sure of the artist. I believe it reads either A or Q Folquet or maybe Falquet. I am not sure of the date of the painting and was wondering if anyone has come across the artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.152.65 (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't find a "Folquet" of any initial on Artprice and the only "Falquet" is a "Joseph". There were no auction photos available and the one work listed for "Joseph Falquet" had not sold, so I have no prices for you either. One "Alexander Falquet" did live in Cincinnati about 1820 and is listed here. I could find no examples of his art or any prices. Sorry; that's a lot of negative by way of an answer. Perhaps someone else will have better luck. Bielle (talk) 02:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you maybe take a closeup photo of a portion of the painting containing the signature? That might help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

A. Falquet
Born in Lyon, France in 1900.He distinguished himself at the artistical Lyceum by winning school prizes, which encouraged his love for painting.
His political exile in England influenced his painting.
Each of his paintings is anedoctical in defining types and customs of that country, but however they are full of grace and quickness.
Prizes: "Manchester" one-man show in several pubs of the Latin Quarter. source --Saippuakauppias ⇄ 11:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Coffe With Puree

Are the any drinks with coffee and fruit puree (so with these 2 ingredients mixed together)?174.3.99.176 (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I know we can make these ourselves, but are there restaurants (these include starbucks type establisments) that sell these? How about retail (such as grocers).?174.3.99.176 (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think fruit puree (as opposed to syrup) reacts well to being heated. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've never tried it, but apparently you can make a powder out of the berries that coffee beans grow in, and then mix or bake that fruit. These guys are selling it as a juice drink, mixed with some other fruit. Again, never tried it, but it seems up your alley. --M@rēino 14:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks, how about other fruits?174.3.99.176 (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2

Sheriff's house an official residence?

Henry County sheriff's residence, with the county courthouse in the background

I'm currently writing an article on the building in the foreground of the picture: it was built as the jail and the home of the county sheriff for Henry County, Ohio. Since the sheriffs of old lived in this house while they were in office because they were in office, would it qualify as an official residence? Official residence seems to say no, but it has no sources discussing what is an official residence and what isn't. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that the article (well, list really) has a definition which would exclude it. Sheriff is a high office. Mayor's residences are listed, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Given no contrary sources, I can't see calling a residence provided by a county to its sheriff an "official residence" as a major violation of WP:OR. You might even add your building to the parent article.

Nice house. PhGustaf (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This was one of the first instances of houses featuring bars in the basements. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I can understand a chap having a bar in the basement for when his chums come around for a snifter, but to have bars in the basement make it look like the sheriffs were a bunch of old soaks. DuncanHill (talk) 09:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe your eyes can see it, but I can't see the border where the courthouse ends and the sheriff's house begins. Thanks for the input. Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that the structure in the foreground with the mostly solid brick walls is the jailhouse, with its passageway to the ornate courthouse background right. The more fenestrated part of the building background left is the sheriff's posh digs. (after a look at the full-size pic) with the big windows and the fireplace chimney is the house, with the small-windowed jailhouse behind it. There's apparently a covered passageway connected to the ornate courthouse behind. Are you close enough to the building to check it out yourself? PhGustaf (talk) 06:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not close enough; Google Maps says that the trip from my home should take about two hours, and the day I took this picture was the only time I've ever been to this city. Nyttend (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

An official residence is a residence made available to whoever the current occupant of a particular office is. This seems to fit that definition. --Tango (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As I Lay Dying

What is the climax of As I Lay Dying (Faulkner)? It's not homework or anything, I'm just curious (it used to be, but I already turned my report in--any answer can't help me now :) 76.230.227.178 (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Bill

This question is a fish. SDY (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

A fish that lay dying, at that. As I Lay Dying (novel) doesn't shed much light on it in the plot summary, but here's a tip: Read the book. Reading a given book will often answer questions one might have about the book. Or at least read the Cliff Notes version. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

never recommend Cliff Notes as a primary source. Cliff Notes are great if you're cramming for an exam and need a review, but there's nothing quite like reading for developing your mind. Honestly, the people I meet I can class into groups by their reading habits, because their reading habits dictate their thinking habits: average people, who read magazines or other 'light' reading, and who reason almost exclusively in emotional/interpersonal terms (what does it say about person A that they went to to party X with person B, wearing clothes by Q); smart people, who read history, news, and science books or other 'serious/factual' material, who reason in hard nosed and generally pugnaciously factual manner (this is factually true, and that is poppycock, so don't be an idiot); brilliant people, who read philosophy and 'heavy' fiction, and reason with depth and nuance. Faulkner makes you think, but Cliff Notes on Faulkner do not make you think, and that makes a huge difference.

don't get me wrong, I have no objection to people relying on cliff notes if that's what they decide to do; janitors are just important to society as doctors. but I don't think we should recommend it to people as though it were an equally viable alternative. --Ludwigs2 07:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As for bibliophile janitors, or concierges rather, I recommend reading The Elegance of the Hedgehog (ad not just to our resident hedgehog expert). ---Sluzzelin talk 08:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Might I take the opportunity to refer to a cartoon ([9]) from one of my favourite artists (no longer active, I'm afraid)? Tevildo (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

NOTE - Possibly NSFW if your boss has _extremely_ uptight views on the issue of lack-of-clothedness. Tevildo (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The OP asked what the climax of the story is. It's not our place to lecture him about the "right" or "wrong" way to do that. If Cliff Notes provides the answer, then he's got the answer. If he's really in a cheating mood, he could take a quick look in the bookstore. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

BMX?

What sport is portrayed? It doesn't look like bicycle motocross because there are brakes on the bike.174.3.99.176 (talk) 05:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be a BMX stunt bike, which may have brakes - depending on what the rider wants. It is more likely that the photographer and model just grabbed a bike from WalMart for the photo shoot. -- kainaw™ 06:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Fake Snake Loop Earring

I am looking for earrings; where can I get pierceless earrings?

Specifically, there are those earrings that are worn at the pinna on the top. This loop earring has like a spiral around the loop. I think it is colored blue. (do you guys know what I'm talking about? You guys can give me a picture.)174.3.99.176 (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And worn by males.174.3.99.176 (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to be precise (as this is an encyclopedia), a spiral is a planar shape -- perhaps you meant a helix :) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, oops, I did mean helix.174.3.99.176 (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Incest among animals

As we all know incest i.e. making love to one's mother or sister or daughter is taboo among almsot all cultures. But what about animals ? I mean dogs, cats, cows, horses etc. For example a pup becomes sexually mature in a few months, while its mothers is still ready...what happens normally , does it do it with her if offerd ? Is there any biological/psychological barrier...?

This is a very good question, that I never thought about.

Some species, such as elephants, or polygynous species, probably don't practice incest. For example, bull elephants have to leave the family when they reach maturity, so they can't mate with their family.174.3.99.176 (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Dogs and cats certainly do. "Taboo" is a human concept. Animals don't have "moral laws". That's a human thing. Animals do what they're "programmed" to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It does happen, but usually only if they don't have much choice of mates (eg. due to being kept in captivity by humans in small numbers). Most animals have an instinct to mate outside their group. This usually works by either the males or the females leaving the group when they reach sexual maturity and joining a new group (in some species it is the males that leave and in some the females - I think males is more common, though). Obviously, that only applies to social animals - solitary ones have similar instincts, though. --Tango (talk) 06:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Presumably natural selection would favor those that instinctively seek genetic diversity (not that they have any conscious understanding of that fact). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Incest article seems to be primarily about humans. The Inbreeding article has some information about animals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I would note that while avoiding excessive inbreeding, it doesn't prevent it. If the males usually leave, the females who stay behind will potentially be the daughters of the remaining males. Presuming the males remain breeding with the same group long enough and the female start breeding soon enough enough, I would guess it's likely at least single generational if not multiple generational (e.g. daughters of daughters) inbreeding occurs. Of course if there is more then one breeding male in the group, the chances are reduced. Some/most may have evolved additional mechanisms to reduce inbreeding. Some refs that may be of interest. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Nil Einne (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

From a genetic perspective, incest is a multi-generational problem, not an immediate problem (i.e., the probability of non-advantageous mutations expressing themselves is small in a single generation, but increases significantly if incest continues over several generations). Humans have a relatively small gene pool, so the issue is a bit more pronounced in human breeding, but is still not a significant issue until two or three generations have passed.

That being said, humans are incredibly social animals, and the social/psychological problems caused by inbreeding are much more pronounced. Think of it as a cultural form of heritability - what we learn as children is passed on to our own children through experience and education, and mixing across different family groups is important to neutralize unhealthy family/social dynamics. Note that cults almost invariably insist on in-group marriages: this is to prevent outside influences from influencing child development, and thus give the cult leader greater influence over family dynamics.

Incidentally, incest is not gendered - sex or marriage with a father, brother, or son is just as much incest as with a female relative. --Ludwigs2 06:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The small gene pool is an important issue with all species. Apparently, humans were close to being wiped out at some point. Kind of like with the American bison, which was driven close enough to extinction that a number of varieties disappeared and bison basically all look alike now. But that was artificial selection. In general, natural selection would tend to weed out the genetically weak over the course of time, and (possibly) retain genes that would make an animal less inclined toward incest. Animals are very diverse, though, and we sometimes have a tendency to ascribe human moral standards. Such as those who think animal species that mate for life are somehow "better" than animal species that are "promiscuous". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

. Please use references and not half-remembered claims. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was summarizing common knowledge. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Toba catastrophe theory. 86.177.121.239 (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Incestuous breeding of animals is not uncommon to achieve desirable traits (like in the pet industry). Desirable traits often come from recessive genes that can only be achieved through breeding close relatives. In the aquarium trade for example, many species have been bred to the point they are weaker (genetically and in immunity) than their wild ancestors. --Kvasir (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. In my industry, which is agriculture, field corn is inbred to produce "pure" lines that all exhibit pretty much the same traits. They are also rather weak in a sense. But when you cross them the right way, you get an 8-foot corn plant with a huge ear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Animals when young have sensitive periods and critical periods during which they undergo filial imprinting and sexual imprinting. Broadly, the result is that animals seek mates that are quite different but not extremely different from their filial "type." Therefore, incest with very close "relatives" -- as opposed to, say, third cousins or whatever -- is likely to be repellant to their imprinting and therefore unlikely to occur. I believe this is very nearly universal. See, e.g., Bateson. 63.17.35.207 (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I remember, this is not true, because it has been attested that very similar people are often attracted to each other - in fact that even a brother and sister who don't know each other are often strongly attracted to each other (it's a common topic in stories and legends, too). They need to have been raised together for the instinctive mechanism of "sexual repelling" to be triggered. That is, the "anti-sexual imprinting" only makes you recognize a specific individual as "non-sexual", but it doesn't give you a general principle whereby to recognize the degree of relatedness in any individual you meet. We had an article about this (I don't remember the term in the title). And even that mechanism doesn't seem to be universal. Many house animals don't seem to have developed it, since they do occasionally copulate with close relatives (presumably, other behavioural traits such as "leaving home" offset this lack of instinctive inhibitions). Finally, the instinctive mechanism seems a little unstable and half-baked even in humans, otherwise it wouldn't have to be reinforced socially with a taboo, and there wouldn't be so many cases of incest.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

See Imprinting_(psychology)#Westermarck_effect.

Reverse sexual imprinting is also seen: when two people live in close domestic proximity during the first few years in the life of either one, both are desensitized to later close sexual attraction. This phenomenon, known as the Westermarck effect, was first formally described by Finnish anthropologist Edvard Westermarck. The Westermarck effect has since been observed in many places and cultures, including in the Israeli kibbutz system, and the Chinese Shim-pua marriage customs, as well as in biological-related families.

In the case of the Israeli kibbutzim (collective farms), children were reared somewhat communally in peer groups—based on age, not biological relation. A study of the marriage patterns of these children later in life revealed that out of the nearly 3,000 marriages that occurred across the kibbutz system, only fourteen were between children from the same peer group. Of those fourteen, none had been reared together during the first six years of life. This result provides evidence not only that the Westermarck effect is demonstrable, but that it operates during the critical period from birth to the age of six.

When close proximity during this critical period does not occur—for example, where a brother and sister are brought up separately, never meeting one another—they may find one another highly sexually attractive when they meet as adults. This phenomenon is known as genetic sexual attraction. This observation is consistent with the hypothesis that the Westermarck effect evolved because it suppressed inbreeding. This attraction may also be seen with cousin couples.

BrainyBabe (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Why are you refuting my point about ANIMALS (and imprinting) by referring to PEOPLE? The OP's question was unambiguously about animals (and yes, for the pedants, I know that people are animals). What I said above is correct. 63.17.65.254 (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

@63.17, I was responding to the editor immediately before me, 91.148, who was writing of things half-remembered and related to humans. Often, on the Reference Desks, someone will pose a question, and the volunteer Wikipedians will respons, answering the question, but developing the ideas in new directions as well. Tangents are welcome, within reason. Also, indenting matters. I won't correct yours, but I took it to mean you were addressing me in particular. You are welcome to ask more questions, but please realise that the answer may go in different directions. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

OR, but my male cat loves to climb atop and hump his daughter. Fortunately, he's been neutered! 218.25.32.210 (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Incest becomes a problem when genetic vulnerabilities are compounded. If there are no vulnerabilities to begin with, incest is simply not an issue. So animals which are more inclined to close-relation mating than humans, have less vulnerabilities. If they didn't, natural selection takes care of them rather quickly, while caring human society may allow for incest-induced issues to linger a little longer. Vranak (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Real estate bubble effect on the larger economy

I've gathered that a real estate bubble can have a devastating effect on other stronger parts of the economy. But why is this the case? Even if a real estate bubble burst, wouldn't the value of the stronger parts of the economy still be recognized?

Illaskquestions (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

When a real estate bubble bursts, many home owners are in trouble because their houses are worth less than their mortgages (bubbles are usually debt-fuelled). So people will cut spending and that means trouble for the rest of the economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As well as the above, when people start defaulting on their mortgages, financial institutions that thought they had plenty of money suddenly find they don't. Worse, when mortgage debt is parcelled up and sold off as investments, those investments suddenly become worth a lot less than they were. Institutions that didn't even realise they were buying doubtful mortgages find themselves without as much money as they thought.

It's also important to realise how small a shift it takes to turn from growth to recession. The 'catastrophic' times we are in are caused by a shift from a couple of percent growth to shrinkage - i.e. if only three percent of the economy stopped working that would do it. Likewise the 'terrible' increase in unemployment was maybe three percent of the population. The economy is a fragile thing. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Because of its scale and momentum, a nationwide real-estate bubble tends to affect other parts of the economy. For example, the construction industry, the financial sector, and even the retail sector (supplying new homeowners with paint, furnishings, etc, etc) all experience booms during a real-estate bubble. Tradesmen such as plumbers and electricians have lots of work. Highway construction and the development of commercial real estate (to meet the needs of newly developed residential areas) also take off. When the bubble bursts, all of these areas experience severe contractions. Many thousands of people are thrown out of work. They are no longer able to purchase goods and services produced by other sectors of the economy, which accordingly suffer as well. Homeowners may be laid off from jobs as a result or may find that their house is worth less than they owe on their mortgage. As a result, they, too, cut back on spending, with unhappy results for productive sectors of the economy. More layoffs result. At the same time, lower income and consumption (sales, VAT) tax receipts mean that government revenues fall too. Either governments have to lay people off, or they have to go into debt to maintain their funding. Government debt can ultimately lead to a sovereign debt crisis (such as Greece has narrowly avoided for the time being) which would have very dire effects on the whole economy that I don't have time to describe. Finally, the collapse of the bubble, as DJ Clayworth has pointed out, leaves banks' money tied up in bad loans. As a result, they have much less money to lend to businesses. Without money to fund expansion, businesses are unable to hire people. Businesses with existing high debt burdens and unable to refinance that debt may have to lay off more workers to free up cash for debt service or to maintain profitability. This all feeds into a vicious cycle affecting virtually every economic sector. Marco polo (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure its correct to blame problems with the economy entirely on real-estate. You can see it the other way: unemployment rises due to the business cycle, people are less able to buy new houses or more cautious about doing so, and thus the real estate market declines. So it could be more of a symptom rather than a cause. I'd be interested to read any academic research about the direction of causality.

And its incorrect to just assume that the non-real-estate economy is "stronger". I've always wondered what "strong" is supposed to mean in this type of use, as it is often used as an explaination, yet it is a very vague word. Edit: it is used like a synonym for effective, with the sub-text that aggression is good. 92.29.76.9 (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Monopoly game used during WWII

Howdy folks,

I recently saw a news report regarding the use of the game of Monopoly during WWII. They said that a special group of people assembled sets of Monopoly for the Red Cross to send to POW's behind enemy lines that had maps and currency along with contact information for escape routes. I would like to see more information about these incredible people, there names and there contributions.

Thanks for your time,

Calvin Starritt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.16.193 (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In the UK I imagine it would have been the Special Operations Executive - see Special Operations Executive#Equipment. Hopefully someone will give you better links soon - I'm sure there are some internet resources in this area, although I doubt that you'll get many names. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The recent book "A genius for deception" by Nicholas Rankin (Oxford University Press, 2008, ISBN 978-0-19-538704-9) discusses spying, camouflage, black ops, impersonation, propaganda, etc by Britain in World Wars 1 and 2. It discusses the things hidden in packages sent to prisoners of war held by Germany on pages 354-355. The trick goods were not in official Red Cross packages, but in those sent by other "voluntary and charitable" organizations" such as the "Licensed Victuallers' Sports Association" or the "Welsh Provident Fund." Waddington's manufactured the special Monopoly sets. Silk maps of Germany useful for escape, created by Clayton Hutton of MI9, were concealed under the London streets shown on the board. Hutton wrote "Official Secret : The Incredible story of Escape Aids Used During World War II Told Here for the First Time" Crown Publishers (1961), ASIN: B0018B5JQ0, which is apparently hard to find. Concealed in innocent looking games, sports equipment, puzzles, books, and records Hutton sent batteries, crystal sets, wire cutters, maps, German money, and blankets made from carefully selected fabrics which could be tailored into civilian clothing or German uniforms. Escape movies in the 1950's kept secret these practices, in case they needed to be used in a later war. I wonder if these practices were violations of the rules of war? Would a history of such contraband shipments justify captors in future wars from refusing to pass along packages from home to POWs? Edison (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's a recent Snopes article about the issue. It contains additional info and a reference at the bottom. --Xuxl (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know whether any of these materials ever aided in an actual escape. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite probably. Having devoured very many escape memoirs when I was younger, the abundance of silk maps, compasses, money, materials for making clothes, etc was astonishing...and usually accounted for in the books by vague comments of "being smuggled in" or "we had our sources". Of course, monopoly games weren't the only source: Lakeland pencils held maps and compasses; sports equipment was hollowed out, gramophone records had maps inside.... Gwinva (talk)

See this. The special games were made by John Waddington Ltd. They specifically did not ask the Red Cross to smuggle the special games into the POW camps, because they didn't want the Red Cross to get blackballed if the Germans ever discovered what was going on. Woogee (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Gregorian Calendar

When did Poland go to the Gregorian calendar? Googlemeister (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

See here. Deor (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I googled ["gregorian calendar" poland] and many entries turned up placing it at 1582, such as this one.[15] It's implied that when they became part of Russia, they reverted to the Julian calendar, presumably until Russia adopted the Gregorian calendar. Poland was largely Roman Catholic, and it stands to reason they would go along with the Pope. Russia would have been Eastern Orthodox, so it stands to reason they would have ignored the Pope, until international pressures (and the revolution) impelled them to switch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Poland was actually one of the first countries to adopt the Gregorian calendar. According to our Wikipedia article, Gregorian calendar #Adoption in Europe, "Spain, Portugal, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and most of Italy implemented the new calendar on Friday, 15 October 1582, following Julian Thursday, 4 October 1582." The Julian calendar was imposed in the parts of Poland under Russian rule (in official use at least), but in the Austrian and Prussian partitions, the Gregorian calendar continued to be used. Central Powers brought the Gregorian calendar back to Russian Poland when they occupied it in 1915. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't find more reliable sources at the moment, but according to a Polish history forum, the "Congress" Kingdom of Poland (created in 1815, in personal union with Russia) used the Gregorian calendar which was gradually replaced with the Julian one after the failed January Uprising of 1863–64. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that Poland ceased to exist as an independant state in 1793, when it was fully partitioned between Austria, Prussia and Russia. Alansplodge (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

So in Warsaw during the time period I am most interested in, (1800-1820), it looks like it used Gregorian, and in the 1860s switched back to Julian for a few decades? Googlemeister (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. In 1795, Warsaw fell under the Prussian partition and Prussia had already switched to the Gregorian calendar in 1700. In 1806, Napoleon created the Duchy of Warsaw, which also used the Gregorian calendar. In 1815, Warsaw became the capital of the "Congress" Kingdom of Poland, which also continued to use the Gregorian calendar. Even after 1864, the changeover was gradual; initially it was restricted to double dating of newspaper editions. I suppose it was pretty much complete by the outbreak of World War I. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Status of E.E. Cummings Poetry

What is the copyright status of the E.E. Cummings poem "I Thank You God For Most This Amazing"? Specifically the use of it as lyrics set to music, to be sold for profit in the UK. As far as I can ascertain, it was first published in 1958. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.123.144 (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Almost certainly life + 70, so the work of E. E. Cummings will remain copyrighted until 2032. FiggyBee (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In that case, who should one contact for permission to use his work? The U.S. Copyright Office? It is unclear who manages his estate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.123.144 (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Almost certainly not the U.S. Copyright Office. Why not look in the front pages of a recently-published edition of his works, and see if there's any acknowledgement there? AnonMoos (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This page, which provides an existing arrangement for the poem, says that the copyright is held by the Trustees for the E.E. Cummings Trust. The publisher of any in-copyright book by Cummings should be able to provide contact information. John M Baker (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Disputation.jpg

Does anyone know where (paid or free online service) I could find a high-resolution version of this picture? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 16:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Searched and all copies I found come from the Wikipedia source. -- kainaw™ 18:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Could write to the "B. M. Ansbacher Collection" (whatever that is, apparently in Jerusalem). AnonMoos (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Legal status of embassy-related building

Official residence of the ambassador from Guinea to the USA

According to the image description, the building in this picture is the official residence of the ambassador from Guinea to the USA, but it's not the Guinean embassy; presumably the two buildings are not physically connected. Is it reasonable to expect that this building is included in the extraterritoriality provisions discussed at Diplomatic mission? Or does that apply only to embassies and consulates themselves, not the residences of the people who work in the embassies and consulates? Nyttend (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I note that the section refers to the Japanese embassy hostage crisis as an example of violation of extraterritoriality, even though it took place at a building such as this rather than at the embassy. However, I'm not so sure that this is a good example, since those who took over the residence were rebels, not the Peruvian government, and (unlike with the Iran hostage crisis) the government definitely wasn't encouraging those who took over the residence. Nyttend (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Article 30.1 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) [16] states: "The private residence of a diplomatic agent shall enjoy the same inviolability and protection as the premises of the mission." In fact, the Ambassador's official residence is considered equal in status to the chancery itself: "The “premises of the mission” are the buildings or parts of buildings and the land ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used for the purposes of the mission including the residence of the head of the mission." (article 1.i). --Xuxl (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that answers that question then, well done! --Tango (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

man-in-the-waiting-room theory

What do they mean by " man-in-the-waiting-room"?

I took it from the New Yorker: "There is little agreement about what causes depression and no consensus about what cures it. Virtually no scientist subscribes to the man-in-the-waiting-room theory, which is that depression is caused by a lack of serotonin, but many people report that they feel better when they take drugs that affect serotonin and other brain chemicals." ProteanEd (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems likely that they mean it in the same sense as "man-in-the-street," a layperson's view. While anyone you ask might say that depression is caused by a serotonin deficiency, experts in the field would disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.123.144 (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think he is trying to take "laymen's view" one step further and using "man-in-the-waiting-room" to refer to a patient's self-diagnosis. The problem with this particular author is that he puts too much effort into trying to sound witty. In the end, he sounds confusing. -- kainaw™ 18:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If that is what he meant, "man-in-the-waiting-room's theory" (with a possessive apostrophe) would have been clearer. --Tango (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

the sad thing is that the lay theory is almost entirely derived from advertisements by pharmaceutical companies that distribute serotonin reuptake inhibitors - basically a commercial effort to dictate scientific opinion through public pressure, all in the name of profit. disturbing trend, that... --Ludwigs2 19:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In the US, maybe. The rest of the world is baffled by the idea of advertising prescription drugs to the public. --Tango (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The rest of the world is baffled by most things to do with US healthcare. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

So is most of the population of the US for what it is worth. Googlemeister (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

and therein lies the great fubar of America. the people in power have figured out that the easiest way to control an ostensibly democratic regime is to foster ignorance and confusion as much as possible, thereby reducing 'public opinion' to a statistically predictable random function. --Ludwigs2 00:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, prescription drugs are advertised to the public here in Canada too; it's not just a US thing. --Anonymous, 04:37 UTC, March 3, 2010.

Conjoined twins and the law

What would happen in the most unlikely circumstance that one half a set of conjoined twins murdered somebody, against the wishes/consent of the other twin? How would the law function in this situation to penalize the twin who committed murder without penalizing the second twin at the same time? (This question was inspired by this.) Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

We had this exact question about a week or two ago. I don't have time to check the archives now, but I suggest you look for it. The answer was, essentially, "there is no way to know until it happens", but there were some links to examples of times it has happened (there was no consistency in how it was dealt with). --Tango (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks...I was rushed by the end of class and didn't have time to check the archives...I'll check them now though. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be unlikely to occur, psychologically. If one twin were so aggrieved as to commit murder, surely the other would have borne witness to all injury, real or imagined. He would either comfort his twin and help resolve his anger, or he would be A-Ok with the murder, in which case he may be prosecuted with aiding and abetting. And besides, if you are the angry twin, how much success can you have in carrying out a murder if there is someone joined to you that has other ideas? SortedButter (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is assuming mental sanity. Granted, mental sanity is generally needed to be fully prosecuted by law anyways. Googlemeister (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The origin of knee-slapping

What is the reason and origin of hitting one's thigh as a reaction to something funny? How recent and global is the phenomenon? Ruhtinas routa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC).

I have never done this, nor have I seen anyone do this. However I think there is a traditional German dance similar to this that they do in leiderhosen. And that reminds me that Prince Charming reportedly slaps her bare thighs a lot, often in hotpants, to draw attention to them, in pantomime. 84.13.29.241 (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, thighs are temptingly within slapping range of dangling palms. That might play a part. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I know when I'm laughing at something I find hilarious, I laugh so hard that I convulse slightly, and sometimes I do actually slap my knee. It's been a while though, I think I'm getting jaded.198.161.203.6 (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(OR) If people are holding a drink in one hand and wish to applaud, they sometimes slap their thigh in order to make a clapping sound.--Frumpo (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary, which is usually great for etymology, gives only this:

thigh-slapper colloq., an exceptionally funny joke, description, or the like.

It gives one example from 150 years ago, suggesting that the sound was a cultural given:

1853 MARKHAM Skoda's Auscult. 10 The completely empty percussion-sound -- the *thigh-percussion-sound -- heard at any yielding part of the walls of the thorax, or the abdomen.

and an example I can't quite understand from 50 years ago:

1965 Wall St. Jrnl. 13 Sept. 14/4 The *thigh-slapper..the President got off to reporters when Lynda Bird showed up in a billowy muu-muu dress.

BrainyBabe (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Makes me think of the Buddist "sound of one hand clapping" - perhaps they meant slapping or beating a novice monk. 92.29.76.9 (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Media regulation during elections in the U.S.A.

Hi! I can't find an article about media regulation during elections in the U.S.A. in Wikipedia and elsewhere in the web. Can anyone help me, please? Thank you! --62.98.46.232 (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure there are many of them. This document states only that stations must provide "reasonable access" to advertising for candidates, and that it must do so equally. There are no restrictions on neutrality, on limits of advertising, or any of the things a European might expect to find regulated. This article might also be helpful. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I had already found the second article (aceproject.org). Anyway, your sentence "There are no restrictions on neutrality, on limits of advertising, or any of the things a European might expect to find regulated." is clear enough. I'll take a look at the first link (fcc.gov). Thanks, again! --62.98.46.232 (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, the above should be 'as far as I've been able to determine'. Please don't quote me in a journal. On the other hand a quick look at what is broadcast in a US election should be enough to convince you that regulation is minimal. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

One self-imposed regulation of the TV networks is that they don't broadcast their forecast of the winner of the U.S. presidential election until the polls have closed in the lower 48 states. This section of our Exit Poll article says this began after the 1980 U.S. Presidential election, when NBC called it for Ronald Reagan while the polls were still open on the West Coast, which probably disincentivized people from bothering to go out and vote. Again, though, this is self-imposed and voluntary (although I think there would have been legislation prohibiting it if the policy hadn't been adopted). More generally, I would expect political advertising regulation to be in the bailiwick of the FEC, not the FCC. Our Campaign finance in the United States article will be of interest. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

So Alaska and Hawaii are deemed, too small to matter then? Googlemeister (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that "equally" is the usually contentious part of US media regulations, in my observation. If I recall, there was a big bruhaha during the 2008 elections about whether a negative TV "special" on Hillary Clinton counted as a political ad, for example, and thus would require the network to give equal time to a response. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't about equal-time laws, which don't exist. It was about campaign financing, and recently led to the Supreme Court's controversial decision about political contributions and the first amendment. (If I remember correctly, it wasn't on TV but meant for theaters and DVDs, etc.) 63.17.35.207 (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

See equal-time rule. For historical interest, see also Fairness Doctrine. -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

See also Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a recent relevant case decided in the U.S. Supreme Court. —D. Monack ^talk 22:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Tiny countries' defense

I'd like, for instance, if the Republic of Kiribati, the Federated States of Micronesia or Tuvalu just to name a few were attacked. Who would defend them?. They have no military :S. --190.178.155.8 (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You would like it if they were attacked? What did they ever do to you? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No no no sorry, that was a mistake, I would never wish any of the 203 independent countries of the World to be attacked, that was a mistake. --190.178.155.8 (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It says on the articles for some, I imagine its the case for all countries without armed forced that they have protection treaties and agreements with larger countries. Kiribati- "Security assistance would be provided if necessary by Australia and New Zealand", Micronesia - "...the United States, which is wholly responsible for its defense", etc.--Jac16888^Talk 20:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably, the best answer would be "The nations in whose economic/political interests it would be to defend them." Qatar Kuwait doesn't have much of an army, but it was more-than-adequately defended when the situation demanded. Tevildo (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If it is true that they have no military, it does not take much pondering to imagine why that would be the case. A small island or archipeligo hundreds if not thousands of miles from any imperialistic power has so little strategic value in the modern era that it would profit no one to invade. Moreover, imperialism has largely been succeeded by a more respectful practice of not invading other countries for no good reason. Leaving aside the Iraq issue. SortedButter (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Should have informed Japan of that a few decades ago. Googlemeister (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Six decades ago if I am not mistaken. And that was a different zeitgeist. SortedButter (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

See conscription for a possible solution to this problem. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I would think you would already need a military force to conscript, otherwise who would force them to join up, keep them there and train them?--Jac16888^Talk 20:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Training might be a problem, but they'll have a police force of some description that can do the rest. --Tango (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Conscription isn't very effective these days. With the prevalence of high-tech warfare, it takes quite a long time to train someone to a decent standard. A country may have no choice but to use a large number of poorly trained soldiers, but they wouldn't stand much chance against a modern army even a fraction of the size. The only way such forces can hold out against a modern army is to hide behind civilians the army aren't willing to kill (this is how the Taliban work in Afghanistan) - if the modern army is willing to kill the civilians, then you have no chance. --Tango (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Costa Rica has no military (although it is admittedly not tiny). It does however have an armed police and coastguard, who are trained in at least counter-terrorism operations and may well have some training in military operations. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I would guess that those small-island nations are more worried about annihilation by rise in sea level than by invasion. Dbfirs 00:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The first response would probably be from some country with an aircraft carrier or two or three in the area.DOR (HK) (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Footballers good, bankers bad

Why does nobody criticise "fat cat" footballers (note to our American chums: I'm talking about soccer) in the same way they do bankers? Footballers probably earn more money than bankers, and their salaries may have driven at least one club out of business and put others under strain.

Bankers on the other hand could be said to do a lot for the economy of Britain's "insivible earnings" as it used to be called by earning foriegn revenues and helping the balance of trade.

Now I think of it, why could not the same be said of film stars? They can earn many millions for just a few days light work on a film set - many people would do the same for free just for the pampering and adulation they get as a bonus. (Hmmn...film stars who act for free just for the advertising deals they can get - now that's an idea!)

You cannot say that bankers do not have "talent" while the other two do. To become a banker requires years of study and passing a lot of banker's exams. The working condition of bankers that I've seen on tv look unendurable - they are squeezed in on rows of desks like battery hens. 84.13.29.241 (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Supply and demand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The premise of your question is rotten. People do criticise "fat cat" footballers. Here's one such criticism. If you care to look, you'll find plenty more. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I call BS, because you cannot honestly tell me that you've seen anywhere near the same amount of criticism of each group in the media. As to why? The One True Answer is simple. The reason why the media does not show much criticism of footballers is because if George Clooney made a film on a pro bono basis, but to Hollywood standards, then ticket prices would NOT go down as a result. But the same does not apply to bankers: there are just a few super-high-paid footballers and Hollywood celebrities, but literally tens of thousands of ultra-high-paid bankers and brokers, if not hundreds of thousands. These people literally leech off of the wealth that accrues even by itself by means of the stock market. I mean they suck its blood and ingest it, and grow fat and muscle using the calories and nutrients in it. They literally leech off of real growth. Are they too highly paid? Let me put it to you this way: I am attracted by the oligarchic/cartel wages the bankers ensure for one another, and seriously consider doing a few years of training to be able to join their ranks (which I can because I have the requisite high IQ - the only factor, other than years and years of training, which it takes to join the cartel). Would someone in my position, but instead of IQ say have the requisite basic physique, be equally attracted to pro sports? Not on a rational basis, no: the average profits of a pro athlete just don't come anywhere near matching, in oligarchic/cartel surplus, what I've just been talking about. Therefore, nobody cares: the public is not being robbed, unlike by the bankers. It's quite simple really: if there is a huge windfall that is protected by means such as maximum-hours laws; by decades of time-investment made in terms of pieces of paper (not ability; there is no way to skip it even if you know three times as much as the graduating bankers, since the point of the training is not to acquire skill, but rather to artificially restrict supply); and other such nonesense. None of this outrageous economic reality is present in the pro football arena. If tomorrow I woke up with by far the greatest skill at football on the face of the Earth, then all I would need to do is show it to a coach and I could get signed within 2 days. On the other other hand, if tomorrow I woke up with by far the greatest broker accumen on the face of the Earth, then I would have to put in four months of on-the-job training to even be able to take the General Securities Representative Exam, which itself costs $265. Four months and $265? That is a simple ploy to raise a barrier of entry, much like medical school (4 years and $266,400, above an already reduced pool of applicants having a BA). If you want to know if a professional is employing shady market-chokeholds it's very easy to see. Just imagine what your position is if you woke up tomorrow with by far (say, by many times) the greatest acumen in that profession on the face of the planet. If you woke up tomorrow by far the most skilled doctor on the face of the planet, it would take you until 2018, and an investment of some $400,000, to be in a position to get 'signed'. That is why people are outraged. If you wake up tomorrow by far the best football player, you'll be on international TV in a few weeks, and be balling. No reason for outrage; public not getting robbed blind. It's That Simple.84.153.249.56 (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Very simple, indeed. SortedButter (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The RefDesk in not a soapbox. Please take this to a nearby streetcorner or something. Matt Deres (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If I may state the obvious, footballers are generally not fat. For better or for worse, we tend to give a free pass to healthy specimens that get their paychecks from entertaining others. It may have something to do with the great lengths people go to to avoid boredom. SortedButter (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

But bankers arrange the money for various big projects that the public use - eg transport, utlities, many others. 84.13.29.241 (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is very true, and a good point, but generally speaking, no one cares about bridges or hospitals unless they are closed, falling apart, or decrepit. They are taken for granted. While a John Terry goal in the 91st minute is not. Again, this is all highly dubious prioritization, but that's how it is. People are emotional creatures, and there's little to get excited about when it comes to public works projects. SortedButter (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In simple terms, footballers provide entertainment (not to me, but that's not the point...) whereas bankers are boring. Also, bankers are dragging the world's economies into ruins while stuffing themselves with our money, while footballers simply earn – normally corporate money, not directly consumers' – without messing up other people's lives as well. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 21:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

To add to the above points, bankers are largely viewed as being responsible for a large portion of the current economic troubles. Wouldn't you be annoyed if your highest paid footballer messed up the entire sport, and still got a "performance bonus" ? Googlemeister (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition to all of the above, footballers are not asking for government handouts in order to support their bonuses. Also footballers' salaries don't affect you much if you never pay to see football, whereas bankers' salaries are paid for out of bank fees that almost everyone contributes to in some way. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, most people wouldn't think that far. I think it's really just as simple as people liking footballers because they like football. Who likes banks? Logical explanations are certainly possible, but I'd be surprised if they carried the majority opinion. Vimescarrot (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

They may not think along these lines consciously, but there's a lot going on behind the scenes, so to speak. SortedButter (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting idea - a 'tabloid'-style logic that people who are liked are therefore morally good, and vice versa. This rule seems commonplace in everyday life. 78.149.176.122 (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Regrettably, VimesCarrot, you are probably right. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the U.K., but in the U.S., there has traditionally as much or more public complaining about the salaries of athletes (sportspeople) than about those of executives, and perhaps for good reason. The salary for the average Major League Baseball player in 2008 was $3.15 million, almost as much as the average salary and bonus of a CEO at one of America's 500 largest companies. When things like executive stock options are figured in, the CEOs' numbers may go much higher, but you can say the same thing about athletes and endorsements. While labor unions and left-of-center people have been complaining about executive compensation for years, only the bailouts of recent years has made it a hot-button political issue. On the other hand, "overpaid" athletes have been a popular subject in the media for decades. ^{Last year, Nick Swisher made as much as 100 teachers to hit .249}-- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Mother-son marriage in South Korea

Was mother-son marriage formerly legal in South Korea? --88.76.18.70 (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"Formerly" meaning how long ago? The reference to SOUTH Korea suggests the past six decades. South Korea had a very strict law against members of the same "clan" marrying, even if they were very distantly related. A mother and son would have the same surname but not necessarily be of the same clan, so this law might not literally apply. But given the stringency of the clan law, it seems impossible to believe that mother-son marriage was legal; blodd relatives are only one "chon" apart. After the clan law was amended, the new law makes it clear that parents and children can't marry (and the old law might have, also, but it's much harder to find old law than current law, so I don't have a citation). See Article 809 of the Korean Civil Code and Marriage in South Korea. 63.17.35.207 (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Not to take this on too much of a tangent, but the north-south division in Korea actually predates the current political situation by hundreds of years. In classical antiquity there was the Three Kingdoms of Korea, which maintained a clear north-south divide. This time was followed by the North South States Period. While Korea was a unified state for the next thousand years or so, there were constant differences between the north and south; marked by the North's connections to the Jurchen/Manchuria and the south's connections to Japan. While both the Goryeo and Joseon maintained the southern Hanseong (Seoul) as the official capital, the northern Pyongyang was a maintained as a northern capital, maintaining the historical divide. --Jayron32 16:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Divorce and Credit Card Debt

My mother is having her wages garnished from a judgment because my father stopped paying for a joint credit card they had together when they were married, but was supposed to be paid-off by him (according to the court) when they were divorced.

The attorney's office NEVER served us correctly, they always served all the documents that were supposed to go to my mother to my fathers address because they did not know about the divorce. Its very clear that they did not know about it based on the paperwork (the documents still say "MRS" before my mom's name. I told the attorney that we are not responsible unless they set aside the judgment and refile it because we were never served correctly so we had no way to fight it (someone suggested saying that). But the attorney said that she does not care, they served who they had to (they didn't), etc... All the addresses were my father's addresses (like his business addresses or his home addresses) and my father never told my mother.

Also, the "division of property" section of the divorce says all debts belong to my father, but he never paid them. The attorney just said that the family court said that and what they say has nothing to do with civil court and my mother still has to pay. Is there any way out of this? I mean this is like 19 years later.

Sorry for the long post and thanks for your time and for the help!!  :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.30.156 (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

We cannot give legal advice. You need to ask a lawyer. --Tango (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's the page saying so. It's for ethical reasons — we are random people on the Internet, and not your lawyer — what if we gave you advice and you acted on it and we were wrong, because we're random people on the Internet? See a lawyer. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Your mother's situation is complex, and she really does need to consult a lawyer. If she cannot afford a lawyer, your local legal aid society may be able to give her advice or refer her to a lawyer who will take her case on a pro bono basis (i.e., for free). John M Baker (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

March 3

Prussian regiment in painting

Attack of Prussian Infantry, June 4th, 1745. Painting by Carl Röchling (1855-1920)

Me and my friend are having an argument over this painting showing some Prussian troops in action. I am trying to say that they are just grenadiers, (as even the page Grenadier features the painting). He is suggesting due to the title that they are different type of infantry, such as Royal Guards, who wore similar hats. I am having difficulty finding information regarding the painting however, the flag especially might be helpful. Anything would be appreciated.

The painting is here: [17]

67.86.248.43 (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Some better information here, though it does not answer the question: File:Hohenfriedeberg.Attack.of.Prussian.Infantry.1745.jpg. Attack of Prussian Infantry, June 4th, 1745. Painting by Carl Röchling (1855-1920). --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Which in turn takes us to Battle of Hohenfriedberg --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

And I wonder if they are the Prussian Dragoon Regiment Number 5 Bayreuth Dragoons - the essentials of the standard in the picture match that shown in the Dragoon's article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There were certainly grenadiers present at Hohenfriedberg, according to this order of battle. (Prussian Grenadier regiemnst were named after their CO). The uniforms in the painting match this plate by Richard Knoetel of the 6th Grenadier Guard Regiment. This source has poor reproductions of the regimental colours (flag); it's possible one of the grenadier colours is similar. Gwinva (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The 6th Grenadiers seems a good bet, given this miniature enthusiast's post here. Gwinva (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

and here we have an article on the grenadier guards: [18], complete with uniforms, flags, and Rochling's painting. No reference to the "6th" designation, though. Perhaps the "6th" I noted on Knoetel's painting is a plate number, not a regimental number??? Gwinva (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This German site[19] lists the INFANTERIE-REGIMENT NR. 6 Grenadier-Garde and says of them; "4.6. 1745 Hohenfriedberg machte es in der Garde-Brigade im ersten Treffen links den letzten Infanterie-Angriff mit bei 184 Mann Ausfällen". Perhaps someone with better German than me could translate please? Alansplodge (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Succesful towns that look horrible?

In the UK, at least, the towns or cities that look unattractive are the ones that have high unemployment and high crime. Whereas the places that look attractive invariably have low unemployment and low crime.

Are there any examples of exceptions to this rule?

I'm wondering if a town that looks unattractive leads to the educated job-makers moving somewhere else. So the best way to lower unemployment and crime in the long-run would be to spend money on making it look nicer. 78.151.146.204 (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect you have that backwards: places that have high crime and unemployemnt have no tax base and thus no money to spend on keeping things attractive. Bielle (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's often even more direct than that - crime makes things ugly. Graffiti, boarded up windows where a burglar has smashed them, drug paraphernalia scattered about, etc.. Even unemployment makes things ugly - you have groups of people with nothing to do hanging out in the streets dropping litter, etc.. --Tango (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It is often the case in economies such as the United Kingdom that have lost much of their industrial base that the successful towns are the pretty towns (or vice versa), but historically the success of towns such as Birmingham rested on some very dirty industry and the cheap labor of impoverished workers. Birmingham was notoriously unpretty in the 19th century. Today, there are some very successful places in other parts of the world that owe their success to manufacturing, such as Dongguan, China. See this image. Marco polo (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

For a further example of Bille's point, see Aliquippa, Pennsylvania, which some time ago stopped using its streetlights because the city couldn't afford the electric bills. Nyttend (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there are elements of confirmation bias and what you might call "disparagement by association". One hundred years ago Bradford was a very prosperous city, and had many fine buildings (it also had many slums). Since the middle of the 20th century, much of Bradford's prosperity slipped away (mainly because textile manufacture moved to other countries. It still has some of its fine buildings, but its popular image includes a number of negative features, but ignores its architecture. --ColinFine (talk) 08:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Obligatory link to Broken window theory. Is what you are seeing some form of (positive?) Feedback loop? As alluded to above if your town is boarded-up, got broken glass everywhere, grafitti etc. is that as tempting a place to open a new business as say somewhere that looks prosperous and clean/tidy? So more businesses (job creation) leave the area or fail to setup in the area, leading to more boarded-up shops, more likelihood of grafitti (I assume a maintained building has a much lower chance of being grafitti'd than an abandoned one) and again less desire for a new business to come in and setup its business. That said it'd be difficult to separate Cause and effect for something like this. 09:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk)

Supporting Bielle's argument. Industries invest where they can make most profit - for whatever reason, and those reasons change over time. For example, access to supplies of coal and iron was vital to industrial development in the 19th century, when many UK cities developed, but now is not - steel production, and heavy industry generally, has moved to other parts of the world where costs of materials and labour are lower. Those original cities still exist - but in many cases have high unemployment, low investment in their city centres and environmental improvements, and many of the most skilled people have moved away elsewhere. Many large businesses now locate where there are good educational skills available, and an attractive environment - in terms of urban landscape, cultural environment, attractive countryside and so forth. But that only presents a very broad picture - there are many examples of highly attractive places in relatively deprived areas of the country, and equally many examples of unattractive places in relatively prosperous areas - particularly where there has been very large scale and rapid suburban development in areas of high housing demand (such as, from personal experience, Yate near Bristol- "the 45th worst place to live in the UK", according to the Idler book of Crap Towns). Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely with Ghmyrtle, and I want to highlight the work of academics such as Edward Glaeser, who says that the key factors determining the success of a modern city are its skills base, urban amenities and availability of housing. Glaeser blogged about the impact of the recession on cities here[20] He wrote about British cities in Prospect magazine[21]--Pondle (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I would guess we have a lot of comments from our American chums above. But in Britain the effect may be more marked because 1) some places have pretty historic architecture, and other places don't. 2) The UK is a smaller place - its easier to move from one town or city to another. Thanks for the one counter-example given so far. This has wandered off topic - I asked about any connection between attractiveness and success for towns and cities, not what factors are associated with local economies. 78.146.198.226 (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's "for religious reasons"

Seeks and other people of religious faith ofetn get special dispensation to do things others can not, like ride a motocycle without a helmet or ware hats in school etc etc. Now imagine I "make up" my own faith with some clause that I have to ware a hat on wednesdays. I'm told by the school that I have to take the hat off and the polieve tell me I have to ware a crash helmet on my mototcylce. I claim it's my religious. Would would this be considered as a valid reason? What requremests are needed to your religion to be acted upon by the wider societe?> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delvenore (talk • contribs) 02:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Historically, it's been important to brainwash enough people into thinking you have special powers enabling you to talk to an invisible man who lives in the sky. Once a certain quantity of believers is reached, your actions stop being signs of psychosis and start being signs of literally being better than the folks who don't hear voices. At that point, you'll be a spokesperson for an "established" religion and be able to get away with all kinds of neat stuff. Matt Deres (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Matt, if you can't give a polite answer that doesn't ridicule everyone who disagrees with you, maybe you should consider not answering reference desk questions. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh... I also think it is stupid that people can use their religion to bypass things that are normally required of people for safety reasons... but to group everyone who believes in a god as unreasonable nutjobs is pretty ignorant of you. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Who said theists were unreasonable nutjobs? Nobody seems to have said that except you. That said, while "nutjob" is clearly a subjective term, "unreasonable" is entirely accurate. Religion is not based on reason, it is based on faith. It is entirely unreasonable. --Tango (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, every religion that receives serious consideration has an ancient history. You can't just make stuff up. Not plausibly, anyway. -- SortedButter (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Your questions are unanswerable unless you specify a jurisdiction. (And, no, heaven has no power here ...) 63.17.41.138 (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"Unreasonable" depends on the person. Believe it or not, some people who believe in a higher power can function as normal, reasonable human beings who have a grasp on reality and who don't believe they are superior to others who don't follow their beliefs. Oh, and just because it wasn't directly said doesn't mean it wasn't implied. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, anyway, all of the above aside, different legal systems have different requirements for being designated as an officially sanctioned religion. An example of some of the differences in jurisdictional ruling on this for "arbitrary"/"modern"/"non-traditional" religions can be seen in our article on Scientology status by country, which is basically the situation described in the original post. As for what counts in each country towards its decisions, I think a more in-depth investigation would be needed to answer that, with a list of countries to know about indicated. In the US it is governed by part of the tax code which indicates what the IRS considers "a religion", which is then ruled upon by the IRS. Claiming it is your religion without your religion and its practices formally recognized by the state would probably not work, and even if the practices are recognized, it does not give you arbitrary leeway (in the US, for example, you still have to obey the law). --Mr.98 (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr.98, the IRS code applies only to tax issues -- it is far from dispositive as to religious status in all areas of U.S. law. Anyway, to the OP: you don't name a jurisdiction. In the U.S., there have been many Supreme Court cases dealing with your questions. See Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), just for one example. As for not wearing a motorcycle helmet (or whatever), the courts have often upheld laws that apply equally to all people but incidentally criminalize behavior dictated by a religion. As for someone just making up a religion to claim exemption from the law, see Theriault v. Silber, 495 F.2d 390 (5th Cir. 1974). You refer to wearing a hat in school; in the unlikely event that you were to sue the school, claiming a 1st Amendment right to wear the hat, your claim to belong to a religion that demands the wearing of the hat would be evaluated as a factual matter -- i.e., are you lying, or does your faith really demand that you wear the hat? The courts have found some such claims to be obvious BS; if that were true for you, your 1st Amendment claim would fail. Needless to say, it is entirely possible that you do, in fact, observe a religion that requires you to wear the hat, in which case your 1st Amendment claim would be much stronger. For the record, one source (Richard R. Hammar, J.D., LL.M., CPA, who is apparently a pro-religion legal advocate) states the following, with ample citations: "The courts have concluded that the following beliefs and practices are not religious: a federal law that prohibits the use of federal funds for nontherapeutic abortions; beliefs and practices that tend to mock established institutions and that are obviously shams and absurdities and whose members are patently devoid of religious sincerity; refusal to accept a social security number as a precondition to the receipt of government aid; the use of marijuana by an individual who claimed that marijuana “was the fire with which baptism were conducted by John the Baptist”; the consumption of marijuana by an individual who claimed that it extended and intensified his “ability to engage in meditative communication with the Supreme Being, to attain spiritual peace through union with God the Father and to search out the ultimate meaning of life and nature”; the consumption of cat food by an individual who claimed that the food was “contributing significantly to [his] state of well--being”; the sale of golden eagle feathers by an Indian in violation of the Bald Eagle Protection Act; deeply rooted convictions of Indian heritage; the promotion of a homosexual life--style; racist and antisemitic ideology; publishing and distributing the Bible by an organization without any church affiliation; a foundation engaged in the dissemination of religious and philosophical teachings of a Swedish theologian and philosopher; a church that denied the existence of God and totally relied on human reason; and a foster home controlled by two presbyteries." So the answer to your questions is complex and requires much more factual information. 63.17.41.138 (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hang on - it's illegal to eat catfood in the States? I can understand that eating catfood may not be admissible as a religious practice, but why would this come before the courts? Does Hammar give a reference? I think we should have an article on this case, if it's genuine. :) Tevildo (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, there is a related current issue as to to whether Sikh children should be allowed to wear a ceremonial dagger or kirpan under their school uniform, which they claim is necessary for religious observance - see the views of one Sikh here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem lies in 'the right to practice your religion', since 'religion' is a placeholder term, and could be used to describe a any kind of rituals and whatnot, therefore, that sentence actually reads: 'the right to do anything we consider religion'.200.144.37.3 (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

For the most part, no matter where in the world we are talking, your religion would probably have to have a few million backers to get any kind of serious consideration. If you just want to wear a hat in school, convert to Judaism, where covering your head is a Jewish law. -Avicennasis @ 20:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

200.144, I refer again to Theriault v. Silber, 495 F.2d 390 (5th Cir. 1974). The word "religion" is not legally equivalent to "anything we consider religion." Avicennasis, the number of people in a "religion" does not affect the religious protection provided in the U.S., as shown e.g. by "conscientious objector" cases which often involve no religion at all but still may be decided in favor of the defendant via 1st Amendment precedents. 63.17.80.223 (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Tevildo, I know you're kidding, but see "The legal definition of religion: From eating cat food to white supremacy," (2004), Touro Law. Review, 20(3), 751–801, by JM Ritter. The case is Brown v. Pena, 441 F. Supp. 1382 (D.C. Fla. 1977). 63.17.80.223 (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I'll look it up. It'll be interesting to see the precise point at issue. :) Tevildo (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, for those interested (possibly including the OP) - Mr Brown was fired for indulging in odd behaviour at work (including eating catfood), and tried to sue his boss for religious discrimination. He failed. The court came up with a definition of "religion" in this context - "the 'religious' nature of a belief depends on (1) whether the belief is based on a theory of 'man's nature or his place in the Universe,' (2) which is not merely a personal preference but has an institutional quality about it, and (3) which is sincere." Brown failed the test because eating catfood is a matter of personal preference rather than having an "institutional quality" - if there was a larger group of people who ate catfood for religious reasons, then he might have had a case. See [22]. I would imagine that a Muslim who was fired for insisting on eating halal meat would have a better chance, although there was a recent UK case where the dismissal of a Muslim chef who refused to cook bacon was held to be fair. These things are very jurisdiction-sensitive, of course. Tevildo (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

63, my understanding of the question was not how it was viewed from a legal standpoint, but how society at large would interpret the situation. Given OP's last sentence, which I interpret as "What requirements are needed to your religion to be acted upon by the wider society?" I would assume (from my limited experience} that people would more readily accept a "non-legal" religion with millions of followers over a "legal" religion with 3 followers. Unless a disagreement arose in which one party decided to take the other to court over it, I don't think the legal standing holds much sway over the average person. This is only my opinion, of course, and I could be wrong. -Avicennasis @ 05:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Iranian surnames

Is there a website where it shows all surnames from different religions and ethnic groups of Iran? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.116.81 (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This was interesting to look into. Our article Persian name says surnames are a relatively recent phenomenon in Iran and most are borrowed from other cultures - though apparently some people use the name of their town. That article also says that the same surnames are used across religious lines. You might check out the links here [23] (although some may be for given names). But my real suggestion is that you repost your question in a part of Wikipedia where editors active on Iran topics hang out - not only may they already know of such a resource, but they may also be able to direct you should the resource be in Persian or Arabic - which seems likely. You could try the talk page for WikiProject Iran or one of the Expert Wikipedians in Iran-related issues. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the subject, but I wanted to point out that many surnames were derived from a person's place of residence. For instance, the modern day surname Shustar is a derivative of al-Tustari, which is, of course, Tustar, Iran. Sahl al-Tustari is an example of this. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

hijab summer olympics

How female Muslim olympians wore the hijab? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.116.81 (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This seeems to be one example. For others, it is a matter of keeping the hair covered. Bielle (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed your link - you don't need a pipe (|) in external links, just internal ones. Don't ask me why! Could you not find a version of that story that wasn't on such a racist website? --Tango (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Roqaya Al-Gassra is one of the more internationally-successful athletes to wear some version of the Hijab; the race she ran in at the Olympics was shown during the NBC coverage of the games in the U.S. Don't remember exactly what she wore, but you could probably find a photo... AnonMoos (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Less racist sources with pictures here and here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for answering the question, but I agree with Tango about the site of Jihad Watch. There were too many racist and bad comments about Ruqaya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.208 (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In respect of the site being racist: I didn't know. My "research" extended solely to finding a photo of a woman in hijab in an Olympic sport. I read the caption; that was it. If the question had been about the validity of same as a religious matter, I would have read more about the source for its reliability on the topic. A photo, however, either is, or is not, relevant. Bielle (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

And to Tango: thanks for fixing the link and especially thanks for explaining the problem. Bielle (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the working definition of racism?--Dpr (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Debt and Countries

I was reading about national debt, and how staggering they tend to be. I was wondering what would happen to that debt, if a portion of a country decided to leave. Would they have to take their share of the national debt with them, or would a state declaring itself a brand new entity try to start with a blank slate?

Also, how is debt resolved in the case of a revolution or invasion? Would the uprising parties, which are new political entities inherit the debt of the state they overthrow? Or if a country is conquored would the conquoring country generally inherit their debt? Thanks 198.161.203.6 (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Usually parts of a country can't just "decide to leave". They need the permission of the parent country and part of getting that permission would be working out details like that. Regions that unilaterally declare independence will usually face military action. If they do succeed in becoming a sovereign state it will be because of some extraordinary circumstances and there is no standard rule on what happens to the assets and liabilities of the two nations. For revolutions, you should probably read successor state. If the new government wants to be considered a successor state (which they usually would) they would have to accept the debt of their predecessor. In the case of invasion, I suppose the conqueror would be expected to take on the debt, but it is actually rather unusual to invade a country and merge it with your own. You usually install a puppet government or something. --Tango (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that your question must be considered in the context that a sovereign state, being sovereign, has the option of unilaterally negating its debt, though likely not without diplomatic and economic consequences. Though rare, this is not without precedent. See Government debt#Risk for more information.

In the case of secession by agreement, the matter of splitting or not splitting debt would be determined by the conditions of the agreement. In the case of secession by force, I know of no instance where the new state has assumed or been expected to assume the debt obligations of its parent. In the case of a failed revolution, the surviving parent state has no obligation to pay the debt of the rebel party. In the case of a successful revolution or some other systemic change in governance, the situation is somewhat more murky: for instance, Russia inherited and paid off all of the foreign debt of the Soviet Union after its collapse (source), yet Vladimir Lenin negated the debt of the Russian Empire after the Russian Revolution (source). In the case of invasion, the conqueror usually does not assume the debt of the conquered state, presumably because (as Tango points out above) occupation rather than integration is the norm. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear, Canada has no plans to bail the U.S. out of its national debt, although we do seem to have some spare gold laying around. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Though our article on the Quebec independence referendum, 1995 doesn't mention how debt would have been specifically allocated between the consequent entities, it should still serve as a recent and relevant example. This[24] article makes some guesses.NByz (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

See National bankruptcy for more info on this topic in general. Historically, the national bankruptcy of Hapsburg Spain was actually an instrumental event in the independance of the Dutch Republic from Spanish Hapsburg rule. --Jayron32 16:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Countries usually "borrow" money by issuing government bonds, which people around the world buy as a form of investment (and fund managers buy on behalf of their customers). These are generally considered one of the safest form of investment, since their security is tied to that of the country itself. However, in your scenario, the issuer of the bond has ceased to exist; the new country would not legally be liable for redeeming them. Depending on this new country's political aims, it may or may not choose to recognise the original bonds. Gwinva (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Age of Enlightenment in Russia and Scandinavia

From my knowledge of history, here's my analysis: Russia has been known as the sleeping giant, given that there the Industrial Revolution began only in the late 19th century, and was backward until Soviet reforms (like the change from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar). Also, if I'm not mistaken, Scandinavia is part of Western Europe where the Renaissance appears to have been the most popular, so where did reform come in if during the Enlightenment? I'm not too sure about Scandinavia. Classicalfan2 (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your analysis, but the Reference Desk is a place for asking questions. Do you have one? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not able to follow your question. Please rephrase it? It's unclear to me what connection if any you are suggesting between Scandinavia and Russia. Russia was certainly influenced by the Enlightenment (see, e.g., Peter the Great and all of the Great stuff he did), but the economic and political inequalities that are generally implied by discussions of its "backwardness" (which is, before people go crazy, even the way that academics talk about it a lot of the time) persisted for a very long time (and were arguably not really addressed in a major way until the Soviet period—for better or worse). So you do get an Academy of Sciences and eventually a reformed officer class and things of that nature which are generally considered hallmarks of an Enlightenment-influenced nation, and you get some forms of participatory ruling (e.g. zemstvo) and the abolition of serfdom, but even most of these reforms come very late (e.g. 19th century), and the country itself is more characterized by its various "backwards" institutions, economic arrangements, the vast number of bitterly poor agrarians amongst the population, etc., than the tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of the population that is actively participating in anything that would look like the Enlightenment. So yeah, I would basically agree with your quick analysis, at least based in my limited knowledge of Russian history. Of course in all things historical there are exceptions, ways that you can claim they were never "really" backwards or never "really" became modern, but as a general heuristic, I think this model works fine. I don't know anything about Scandinavia and the Enlightenment, sorry. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Peter the Great imported Enlightenment thinking into Russia during the early 18th century. He moved the capital of the Russian empire from Moscow to the newly founded city of St. Petersburg mostly because the old, established boyar class in Moscow fought Enlightenment reforms tooth-and-nail. In Scandanavia, the Peter's contemporary Enlightenment ruler was Charles XII of Sweden, against whom Peter fought the Great Northern War. Charles XII was known to hob-nob with Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire and sponsored such native Swedish Enlightenment thinkers as the mathematician and theologian Emanuel Swedenborg. Charles ended up on the wrong end of the Northern War, which marked the transition in Baltic hegemony from Sweden (which has been the dominant force in the area since the Thirty Years War) to the formerly weak Russia. Charles spent some extended time in exile Ottoman Turkey before making a Napoleon-like return in an abortive attempt to lead a Swedish move to annex Norway. In the Baltic region (Scandanavia and Russia) the Age of Enlightenment was marked mostly with the fall of Sweden and the rise of Russia. --Jayron32 16:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know Charles never met Voltaire. And even if Voltaire does very much admire him for being a hero, he also states that he the king is not a philosopher, he is a warrior-king. I think it would probably be more proper to use the Age of Liberty in Sweden as a good example of how the enlightenment ideas was ingrained in Swedish government a relatively early period, and that to an even bigger degree than most other countries. It was period of relatively high political freedom for most classes and a relatively extended freedom of press. In Denmark-Norway Frederick IV of Denmark did establish country schools on all the Crown land, and he also issued laws that eased the burden on the tenant farmers. But like with Charles XII it was only bits of pieces that showed some influence from enlightenment ideas, though enough to show that they had reached Scandinavia by this time. The real impact of the period however, both in Sweden and Denmark-Norway, did not occur until mid-century and onwards, where the enlightenment ideas had been absorbed to such a degree that they can be said to have been influential on all parts of government and everyday thinking.--Saddhiyama (talk) 09:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The OP question is too incoherent to understand. Both the Renaissance and the Enlightenment were primarily cultural movements that concerned the elite of society; neither was directly associated with any serious reform anywhere in the world (the rationalism of the Enlightenment did inspire some revolutions, though). Still, comparing Sweden and Russia, I'd venture some kind of quick and irreverent overview. One common feature is that modernization and "Europeanization" was accompanied by the import of huge amounts of foreigners - German, Dutch, French, English and Scottish.

• Neither country felt the Renaissance very much in the 16th century; instead, Sweden was busy with Gustav Vasa's Lutheran Reformation and Russia was busy with Ivan the Terrible's Orthodox terribleness. Both were nasty, but had a certain centralizing and nation-building effect.

• In the 17th century, both countries were despotic and militaristic; Sweden fit in the Western Baroque culturally, whereas Russia didn't, but the Baroque period is hard to describe as modernization anyway. Something less visible, but perhaps decisive in the long run, was that Russia also managed to develop the so-called "second edition of serfdom" along with other Eastern countries, whereas Sweden managed to stay out of this trend.

• In the 18th century both countries had their enlightened absolute monarchs and some cultural rationalism, but the difference became obvious: Sweden also had a long period of parliamentary rule, where rationalism flourished and truly fit in the picture, while Russia couldn't dream of such a thing because the Europeanization was only on the surface and the cultural rationalist trends had no connection with the majority of the population.

• In the 19th century Sweden was gradually liberalized and modernized, and so was Russia; but Russia's initial condition had been much more backward and the pace of change was also a lot slower: e.g. Sweden grew more and more parliamentary, while Russia finally abolished serfdom. Since Russian intellectuals were about as progressive and "European" as Swedish ones, if not more, the gap between intellectuals' progressive ideas and the real social conditions was much more dramatic in Russia. Also, the Napoleonic wars were the end of warring for Sweden, while Russia spent the century in constant wars. Sweden lost its possession Norway peacefully, Russia had to collapse militarily and socially in order to lose (some) of hers.

• In the 20th century Sweden stayed out of the wars and became social-democratic, and Russia was in both wars and became communistic. In the 60s, Sweden became culturally hippie, while Russia only saw a certain thaw and a wave of optimistic free-thinking. Just as welfare statism declined in Sweden, so communism fell in Russia. However, Sweden is still relatively socially mild, orderly, democratic and peaceful, while Russia is socially severe, chaotic, authoritarian and engaged in military conflicts. Intellectuals are inconspicuous and modest in Sweden, and something between a priest caste and an exile colony in Russia. But both countries are still cold and have the letter "s" in their names.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Should mention that Catherine the Great of Russia was attracted to certain aspects of Enlightenment thought, yet also presided over the final tightening down of Russian serfdom... AnonMoos (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

About 19 century churches

Abuses of 19 Century Churches in England Lal Mani (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What particularly do you want to know? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of them have been shockingly neglected, and have roofs in desperate need of repair. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

During rainstorms, the congregation looks heavenward and sings "Holy, Holy, Holy". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Those of any architectural merit get Listed building status, which gives them legal protection and access to funding. Alansplodge (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

On a hunch, this is one of the things the BNP get het up about, particularly when obsolete churches are sold to "non-indigenous" persons. Their website probably has lots of information on the subject. Tevildo (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe the OP wants to know about abuses done in the name of the church such as witch trials etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Helen Duncan and Jane Rebecca Yorke were the last people convicted under the Witchcraft Acts, in the mid-twentieth century, but that had nothing to do with the Church of England. Witch-hunts continue around the world, but not, in the literal sense, in England. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The last person executed in Great Britain due to religion was Thomas Aikenhead (but that was in Scotland, not England). AnonMoos (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

War

I read that during the war some guy flew to england to make peace and was disowned by germany, then he spend his entire life in prison. Why did they treat him so bad when he trieded to make peace? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lirvaerif (talk • contribs) 14:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That was Rudolf Hess, Hitler's deputy. He didn't want peace - he wanted Britain to join Nazi Germany in the war against Soviet Russia. He thought he could persuade Douglas Douglas-Hamilton to overthrow Churchill's government. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Instead, he became a guest at the Tower of London. Alansplodge (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

...and at Maindiff Court, Abergavenny. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, he may have just been in the early stages of madness. A few years later he was clearly in the late stages.130.88.162.46 (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This article[25] says that Hess was put on trial at the insistance of the Soviets. He was the Deputy Fuhrer, so it's not surprising that he wasn't going to get away scott free. Alansplodge (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Stalin had a real paranoid obsession with Hess, considering him to be a limb of some multifarious deep-reaching conspiracy to establish a separate peace between the UK and Germany, leaving the Soviet Union to face the Nazis alone. If not for the legacy of Stalin's suspicions, there would have been no reason for Hess to be locked up for so long... AnonMoos (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

He was kept isolated in a prison with a population of one until he supposedly strangled himself with an electric cord at age 93. There are of course conspiracy theories about his death. Edison (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

And there's a theory that it wasn't even Hess who died in Spandau, but a look-alike. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a conspiracy theory for everything. Although, coming up on what would be his 116th birthday, there's a good chance he's expired by now anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The curious might explore the works of the late radio personality Mae Brussell. Brussell believed that nobody whose name had ever appeared in the media ever died a natural death. If she had lived long enough, she'd have written an exposé about the suspicious death of Jeanne Calment. PhGustaf (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

130.88, Speer's prison memoirs strongly suggest that Hess was not insane or delusional, at least as of the early 1960s. Speer does mention examples of Hess's apparent malingering; and like many Nazis he was paranoid and thus "delusional" in that sense. To the OP: Whatever "peace" Hess was or wasn't promoting, his activities in Germany included crimes AGAINST peace: signing decrees persecuting Jews (so "treat[ing] him so bad" is not a sympathy-inducing complaint) and willingly participating in German aggression against Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. The latter involved "planning, preparation, initiation, or waging a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing." The charge of "Crimes against Peace" was meant to "pin-point those people who were responsible for the intentional planning of inhumane actions. It describes actions considered to be those of aggressive war." (Source: http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/projects/nurembg/NurembergCrimes.htm) Claiming to want to broker peace did not absolve him of his crimes. As for the length of his imprisonment, if in fact it was unjust the USSR (according to all reliable sources) was responsible. 63.17.80.223 (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

novels

A few years ago I came across a website in which you could find novels by adjusting a lever according to the content or genre of the fiction, like adventure story, love story, etc. Does someone know this site, or the likes? Thanks in advance. --Omidinist (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the specific site you're looking for, but there are many sites that will suggest books. Swiss Army Librarian has a good list of these. Gobonobo ^{T C} 17:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I might add that by adjusting the lever, you could determine the percentage of, say, adventure, or love, in the story. Thanks anyway, Gobonobo. More help, please. --Omidinist (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

looking for artist/painting name

I do not have an image of the painting, but it involved a woman in a white dress playing a piano or perhaps an organ, and an older woman sitting on a bench or pew and sewing or knitting. Perhaps it was in a church, but not sure. I saw it on the internet, but I do not remember where. Any ideas? Googlemeister (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly The Concert by Johannes Vermeer (although the second woman is standing rather than sitting) ? If not, there are other similar paintings featuring keyboards in the list of paintings by Johannes Vermeer. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think it was a Vermeer. It seemed a more modern style, maybe post-impressionist. Googlemeister (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I recall seeing an Italian painting like that, but I think the woman was standing, perhaps singing. 92.29.76.9 (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... reminds me of the Delacroix portrait(s) of Chopin and George Sand. Except Chopin wasn't a women nor wore a white dress. --Kvasir (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Style was closer to Gauguin then Delacroix. Googlemeister (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've never answered a question at the reference desk before, so I hope I'm doing it properly, apologies if not, but I think the answer is 'Overture to Tannhauser', aka 'Young Girl at the Piano', aka 'Portrait of the Artist's Mother and Sister', by Cezanne. An image of the painting: http://www.paul-cezanne.org/Young-Girl-At-The-Piano---Overture-To-Tannhauser.html 81.154.75.229 (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the OP, but it looks like you got it right. Congratulations, and we hope you stick around :) --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's the one! Props to 81. Googlemeister (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

finance: Surrogate debt definition

O Wiki gods
Here I stand again
at your altar
seeking thy wisdom
pray, o merciful ones
what is this surrogate debt
whose definition the interwebs contain not?

'tis not in the books
it eludes journals too
perhaps i could find it in the annual report
if you gave me a clue!

--ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)`

I'm no finance expert, just a general all-around genius, but if I had to guess I would say "surrogate" debt is debt a group will answer for that did they not sign. For example, perhaps a company has been acquired by a bigger one, which as part of the acquisition process takes on all the daughter company's debts, continuing to honor its new "surrogate" debt. Is this what the context implies? 82.113.106.103 (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually one example my classmates told me is of is a company taking a piece of property on lease, and agreeing to make payments in the subsequent years. But I can't wrap my head around what kind of debt is it, and how is it different from regular debt. And I can't find any proper definition. I should have asked my prof before but i thought it was a minor thing - it's 2:00 am now and my assignment submission is due at 8:00 am :/ ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, can anyone tell me how non-interest bearing liabilities - both current and non current - should be treated while calculating LongTermDebt-to-Equity ratio and TotalDebt-to-Equity ratio? thx --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"Non-interest bearing liabilities" are probably not "debt" at all (for example, paychecks due tomorrow are not "debt"), and so wouldn't figure into D/E of any kind. If by chance they are in fact 0%-interest loans, then they would be included a) in total debt, and b) in long-term debt if long-term. 63.17.80.223 (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think he's talking about pure discount liabilities (although, if a firm has any truly non-interest bearing debt, it's important to consider it in D/E measures, and that would be done at face value = market value = book value! Easy.) I'm pretty sure that most analysts would use the discounted debt figure when calculating either Total or Long Term D/E for current or non-current pure discount liabilies (The one netted with the contra "discount on..." account).NByz (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I expect that "surrogate" is just being used here in its ordinary sense of a thing that acts for or takes the place of another; a substitute. John M Baker (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

what on one's person counts as a status symbol in Southern Germany? (man's)

I mean things like shoes, watches, designer bags, etc. What, in order of importance, counts as man's status symbols in Bavaria (Southern Germany). Be as detailed as you can, with respect especially to any specific brands of special importance. This is not homework, but thank you for any help you may have. 82.113.106.103 (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Having shoes would definitely be a status symbol, or at least not having shoes would tend to lower your social status. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I am an American who lived in Neu-Ulm for several years. Your IP indicates you are from Germany. I can't think of anything that would differ from the rest of Germany. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

And what would those things be? 84.153.250.71 (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

In southern Germany your status is determined by the size of your Lederhosen. ;-) DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

its not the size of the lederhosen on the man, its the size of the man in the lederhosen. --Jayron32 20:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Typesetting in the 1960s

The typesetting. It appears too perfect for its day.

This document is a 1966 letter from US Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, written to Chief Justice Earl Warren. I ran across it at our Miranda v. Arizona article. What surprises me about the letter is that, although it is a piece of essentially routine correspondence, it appears to have been professionally typeset. I think I recognize New Century Schoolbook font. And this was in 1966, twenty years before people had LaserWriters and Macintosh 512Ke computers on their desktops. How was this document created? Did they really have and use typewriters with proportional letter spacing and nice fonts? Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The letter was apparently done on an IBM "Executive" model typewriter. Unlike most typewriters, the Executive offered proportional spacing. It even had a split space bar that provided both em and en spaces. PhGustaf (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

With this type of typewriter, the characters were on a rotating ball, not on individual keys. It was simple to change the ball to get a different font - for example to type with characters recognizable by optical character readers. One was not stuck with having to use Courier 10. --Xuxl (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the one with the ball was the Selectric. The Executive used good old swingy type arms. This[26] is an entertaining first-person report concerning the operation of this typewriter. PhGustaf (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the Selectric and its rotating ball, which you'd switch to italicize; but surely the Executive used a single font. Were different fonts available? "Here's the Century Schoolbook model, and here's the Garamond model for only $40 additional." Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere in my Googling to answer above I found references to interchangeable keys for the Executive and proportional spacing for the Selectric, but decided they were peripheral to the discussion. I don't know what set of fonts were available to an Executive user. I do know that an Executive with a carbon ribbon could produce the sort of copy in the illustration above, and that the things were buggers to work with. PhGustaf (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Just speaking anecdotally as someone who has gone through a lot of old government documents — in the files I have seen, this kind of text/font/whatever pops up most predominantly in the mid-1950s, whereas before this you have much more commonly the chunkier, poorer-spaced typewriters. I'm not sure how well that synchs with when these particular models were developed or not, or is just a question of adoption, but definitely by the late-1950s you have basically this exact typeface and style in very, very common use throughout the US government. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If you look more closely at the letter, you'll see that although the characters are not all the same width as on a conventional typewriter, there are only a small number of different widths. As I recall, the Executive had just two widths of character -- most lower-case letters were narrow (but "m" and "w" were wide) while most upper-case letters were wide (but "I" and "J" were narrow). And the narrow characters are 2/3 the width of the wide ones. In other words, the carriage moved with a rack and pinion just like a conventional typewriter, only it moved either 2 or 3 steps at a time, depending on the character. --Anonymous, 03:07 UTC, March 4, 2010.

private detectives

Are private detectives actually legal? Basically they stalk people right? Can anyone be a private detective or do you need a license? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 701-DENT-SSU (talk • contribs) 21:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You may find our Private detective article informative. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing illegal about "stalking" in the colloquial sense of that word. "Stalking" is a crime only if it matches the elements of whatever statute defines "stalking," and presumably private detectives would know how to avoid being culpable for ALL (as opposed to some) of the elements (which is necessary for behavior to be criminal). A person being harrassed but not legally "stalked" could seek a restraining order (or its jurisdictional equivalent), which again would depend on the elements of the statute establishing the authority for the court to issue the order. 63.17.80.223 (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings

In Lord of the Rings, why Gandalf ask the eagles to fly Frodo to Mount Doom? CaptainKoranger (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Because then the journey would have been incredibly easy. See our article plot hole Googlemeister (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

And because Swiss Air had cancelled their usual commuter flight to Mount Doom. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I would guess it is because Sauron would have seen them coming if they were riding on eagles, and the hobbits would have a better chance sneaking in on foot. —Akrabbim^talk 22:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember the story, but I'm thinking I'm reading something wrong here. Don't the previous three answers all assume that the OP's question was "why didn't...." rather than "why [did]...."? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, because in the story, the eagles did not fly them to mount doom, so from the context, didn't makes sense and did does not. Googlemeister (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Well, in that case, the answer would just be "he didn't". The two standard answers (from when I was active in the fandom, many years ago now) are (a) Gwaihir would have been too vulnerable to the temptation to seize the ring for himself - the same reason that Gandalf couldn't have taken it. It's debatable whether or not Gwaihir was a Maia, but, even as a mortal Eagle, he could certainly have wielded the power of the ring. (b) Sauron would have detected the Eagles approaching, and set up some proper defences to Mount Doom. (_This_ is the real plot-hole - there wasn't even a sentry post on the access road?). The essential point of The Quest was _secrecy_ - there was no hope of anything more conspicuous than Frodo and Sam getting into Mordor unobserved. Tevildo (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

According to Kevin Smith, walking was the theme of the movie. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The movie, perhaps. Don't get me started on that heap of excrement. Tevildo (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily a plot hole that the road to Mount Doom was unguarded. Sauron was so fixated on wielding the Ring that it never entered his darkest dreams that someone would actually choose to destroy the Ring. Sauron had a failure of imagination. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

True, of course. Supervillains have always liked big, red, unguarded SELF-DESTRUCT buttons in the public areas of their lairs - I suppose Sauron was just beginning a trend. :) Tevildo (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read an interesting article on Sauron and his strategies which discusses, among other things, the destruction of the One Ring. (I cannot include the link here, though.) The Ring, which is always trying to return to Sauron and has betrayed many masters—including Frodo—in order to do that, "actually achieves its objective in the end: it prevents Frodo from tossing it into the Fire. A pity that Gollum just happened to be around the corner when Frodo finally claimed the Ring for himself." Indeed, the Ring's power increases steadily with its proximity to Mordor, and reaches its peak in the Sammath Naur, its birth place. Guarding the volcano was unnecessary, because it would be impossible for anyone to muster the will power to destroy the Ring once there, and it is only by accident that the Dark Lord was ruined. Yes, it is true that only Sauron can be blamed for his own downfall, but this is not because of a stupid cliché. He pushed his own luck too much, and he was guilty of bad construction practices: "If he'd had a guard rail in there, he'd be ruling Middle-earth right now." Waltham, The Duke of 05:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Tolkien makes it clear that Orodruin was an active volcano at that time, with frequent minor eruptions and lava-flows, so a guard-rail wouldn't have done much good. AnonMoos (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition, I don't think Sauron expected anyone to try to destroy the Ring. I think I remember reading something (during the Council of Elrond?) to the effect that he judged others based on his own motives, such as his desire for power. Thus, he would expect someone who found the Ring to keep it and use it against him, setting himself up as a new dark lord. The idea that someone might actually want to destroy the Ring was inconceivable to him, so he wouldn't bother guarding the Mount Doom (although if he did think of it, he probably thought the massive armies of orcs would be enough). – Psyche825 (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

In 'The Hobbit' (following the storyline) Gandalf had no idea that the ring was 'the one ring' - he didn't learn that until fairly late in the first book of the trilogy, and by that time Sauron was mobilizing and the Nazgul were flying around, and simply winging it to Mount Doom (even assuming the eagles would have agreed) would have been a bit of a turkey-shoot - they'd have arrived to find every inch of MD covered in grumpy orcs. plus, no telling what influence the ring would have had on the eagles, the wizard, and anyone else as they got closer and closer to the source. speaking in literary terms, it would have mucked up the Norse questing-hero-saga mood of the story. Heros need to take risks and prevail against odds - the only difference between a hero and a bully is that a bully wins his battles too easily. --Ludwigs2 23:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

*growls* It's not a trilogy. It's one narrative, divided into six books, published in three volumes. It should also be noted that Frodo did _not_ succeed in his mission - Gollum (accidentally, as Men say, as Gandalf would say) did the deed. Apart from that, I agree with you. :) Tevildo (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe I read an explanation some time ago, by Tolkien himself, on this very matter. It is not at the first place I looked -- Eagle (Middle-earth) -- but further hunting may turn it up. Anyway, I believe Tolkien said that the Eagles were not overly concerned in the affairs of men. Which raises the question, why would they then help out Sam and Frodo later? My best guess is that the threat of Sauron would be much more apparent at that later juncture, than when Frodo was safe in Rivendell, and they would be more willing to aid those who had already undergone such hardship and self-sacrifice. Plus, Gandalf the White was a more potent individual than Gandalf the Grey, and would hold more sway over the Eagles in his reincarnated form. Vranak (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahh -- [27]. Vranak (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if Frodo wasn't capable to toss the Ring into the lava, and Gollum wasn't there to fall by accident, it would have still been possible to destroy it: Sam would have had to jump to Frodo and toss him, Ring included, into the fire. Or, for more dramatic effect, have both of them jump. Can the Ring influence more than one person at the same time? And even worse, what if the fellowship hadn't broken, and Frodo had 8 people with him in there, aiming to destroy the Ring? MBelgrano (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering Sam's loyalty to Frodo exemplifies the very word, the prospect of tossing his great friend into a hellish pit of lava seems distinctly improbable. What use is saving the world from Sauron if you do something like that? Vranak (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Victor Hugo said something along the lines of "What evil good can be". Googlemeister (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What use is there for saving the world, if you must make a sacrifice for it? None, of course; unless you are a heroe MBelgrano (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Tit fucking, scholars, and doctors

I assure you, despite the headline, this is a serious question. Many of you are hopefully aware of a sexual act, predominantly heterosexual, called "tit fucking". Wikipedia has an article on this, of course, which was apparently created under the name "tit wank" (a British term for it) around 2005. In the time since, some "Mrs. Grundy" renamed the article to its current title, mammary intercourse, presumably because "tit fucking" sounds vulgar, while "mammary intercourse" sounds positively erudite. The trouble is, "mammary intercourse" is not really a term. It is obviously a word-for-word euphemism for "tit fucking". It gets around 3,000 Google hits, as opposed to the ~800,000 Google hits for "tit fucking" and ~110,000 Google hits for "tit wank". There is a Wikipedia policy (or guideline; I don't remember and have not found it in the last couple of minutes of searching) that an article ought to be given the name by which the subject is most commonly known; to me this means the article should be moved to tit fucking. However, if there is a scholarly or legal term for tit fucking then I would lean toward using it. The mammary intercourse talk page includes a thread indicating one editor was not able to find one. "Mammary intercourse" is not it. "Outercourse" is another euphemism and too overly general. Does anybody know what the tweed-jacketed scholars and the white-coated doctors call tit fucking? TimesYork (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a question for the reference desk. Ask it on the articles talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crockadoc (talk • contribs) 22:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's usually advertized (so I'm given to understand) as "breast relief", if that helps. The problem is, as it's not a paraphilia, it's unlikely to have involved the medical profession - I don't think Krafft-Ebing mentions it specficially, and he covers most of the bases as it were. I agree that this is probably better for the talk page or WP:RM, though. Tevildo (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Religion

What religions were the pilgrims and the puritans? I think I remember that one of them was congregationalists, but I can't remember which one and I'm not sure about the other at all. --70.250.214.164 (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

See our Puritan article. And, more to the point, our Pilgrim (Plymouth Colony) article. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

March 4

Historic US census reports

Where can I find a list of historic US census information, for example, a list of the largest cities in the US following the 1790 census, etc.? Woogee (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This list covers some of it, links to more detailed lists appear at the bottom of the page. AlexiusHoratius 02:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you. Woogee (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

350000 Allied POW escapes in WW2

How many of the 350000 escapees succeeded in returning to Britain or other Allied territory? The number was 350000 according to this http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflife/12/05/mf.waropoly/index.html but it seems like too big a number - perhaps it was the total number of POWs. 78.146.198.226 (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Conquered subsuming conquerers

Are there any examples of a society or empire conquering other cultures, but ultimately becoming ruled by the conquered? If not actually ruled, utterly absorbed into the dominated cultured would also qualify in an answer. I don't mean conquerers overthrown, though.

I'm thinking that the Khans in China might qualify, but I'm not really clear there. Aaronite (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The assimilation of Greek culture into Roman society comes immediately to mind - Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit (Horace). See Roman Greece. Tevildo (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Though I'm no expert, I'd say the History of Great Britain could be seen in this light. The islands were repeatedly invaded and conquered by various outside forces, which invariably ended up separating from their mother nations/cultures/what have you. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Both the Mongols and the Manchus became much more sinified after overthrowing their respective enemies, and eventually did lose power. As they were then conquored by the Han, that would certainly qualify as being "conquered" by their former subjects. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There is also Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In its later history many of the highest offices (Hetman, Chancellor etc.) were filled by Ruthenian nobles (for example, the ones from Sapieha and Chodkiewicz families). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There's the Kievan Rus, a state formed by germanic Scandanavian people (the Rus' (people)) but which very soon became the nucleus of a slavic state from which modern Russian/Ruthenian states such as Russia, Belorussia, and Ukraine all decended. Also, during the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, many of the germanic states that were set up in former roman lands took on significant Roman character. Thus the Franks that settled in Gaul came to speak a form of Latin (French) as did the Lombards in Italy (Italian) and the Visigoths in Iberia (Spanish). So, as the Western Empire was conquered, the conquering peoples often quickly assumed significant "Roman" character (though often, with their own particular "germanic" spin). --Jayron32 20:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Who coined "wild west"

Wednesday's edition of BBC Radio 4's literary quiz The Write Stuff claimed that the first recorded use of the phrase "wild west" was in Charlotte Brontë's 1849 novel Shirley. That phrase is indeed used in the novel, and with the present meaning. Can anyone find a reliable source that supports this claim of primacy? -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 01:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a reference from the Jan 29, 1842 New-Orleans Commercial Bulletin. Woogee (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Try reading the article wild west —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditreaium (talk • contribs) 11:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That article does not contain the information requested. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that in the New-Orleans article linked above, "the Wild West" appears in italics, making it appear that it is the title of a play. I suspect the actor referred to is James Henry Hackett, but the article on him does not mention any titles that occur in the New Orleans article. (I had hoped I might find more about The Wild West if I found an article about "Mr Hackett"). I shall email The Write Stuff--ColinFine (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Shirley is the earliest citation for "Wild West" in the Oxford English Dictionary, undoubtedly the source of the quiz's assertion, but there are earlier examples available, so it isn't really true that this is the first recorded use. Google Books, for example, has it back to 1823. John M Baker (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Trans-Atlantic Telegraph Cables in World War Two

Why didn't the Nazis try to cut the transatlantic telegraph cables in the Second World War (specifically, the ones between the UK and North America)? (If they did, I've been unable to find an article on it.) It seems that since submarine cables break on their own often enough breaking one on purpose couldn't be that hard, and certainly the Germans must have known where the cables were -- it was common knowledge before the war (I assume). It seems to me that depriving the Allies of the ability to communicate via telegraph would have hampered their coordination and any attempt to re-lay a cable would have involved large, expensive, slow-moving ships in an ocean crawling with U-boats. The logic of this seems so clear to me that I can only imagine attempts were made and I didn't see the article (or it doesn't exist, or is part of a larger article) or I've missed something that made this much less enticing. 71.70.143.134 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC).

I don't know any specifics about WW2, but you're right to say that cutting cables was important in wartime. In WW1 the British cut the Germans' telegraph cables early in the war, and reaped the benefit three years later when this led indirectly to the US joining the war on their side. See Zimmermann Telegram or, for more detail, the book by Barbara Tuchman of the same title. --Anonymous, 02:56 UT (copyedited later), March 4, 2010.

By WWII, perhaps because of the WWI experience, that might not have been practical. First, the locations that were known were the onshore cable terminals. These were very well defended. See our article, for example, on Porthcurno, or this article on Rye, New Hampshire. Away from the well-defended coastal waters around these terminals, it would have been difficult to find the cable on the murky bottom. Also, the exact course of the cable was probably not known. Remember that they did not have GPS. Speculative underwater bombing or torpedoing offshore would have drawn attention. We have to assume that even the offshore waters in the vicinity of these terminals were well patrolled. Beyond the continental shelf, the cable would quickly descend into waters too deep for any German U-Boot, and bombing or torpedoing would be so random and ineffective as to be a waste of ordnance. Finally, cutting the cables would not necessarily have been crippling, since coded wireless (radio) communications were possible. Marco polo (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, diving—the only thing capable of taking out the cable short of taking out the cable terminals—wasn't exactly a perfected art at that time, and submarines wouldn't have been capable of deploying divers that deep. It might have been crippling though; could wireless communications reach across the Atlantic? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

A depth charge dropped onto the cable would sever it just fine. Googlemeister (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

According to Shortwave, the first transatlantic radio communication occurred in 1921, so I would think the answer to your last question is "Yes". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I should have known that already. I feel a little stupid here. :P —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I had no idea that wireless could reliably transmit on that distance! Okay, so question answered then. (Let me point out, however, that the Great Eastern was able to find a cable on the seafloor twice in 1865, so it was definitely possible, and probably easier, in the 40's.) 71.70.143.134 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC).

You also should consider things such as bandwidth and communications security though. The cable probably would be better for both of those. Googlemeister (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There were some cable disruption activities, about the Atlantic cable wasn't a target, for a range of reasons. For those that were successful the activity that did it was attacking the shore terminal, not the cable. There were a number of reasons for that, but the ability of the Axis forces to operate at will in the Atlantic was limited. The area was far from crawling with U-Boats, which were very limited in their ability at the time anyway, and they were far more beneficially engaged in convoy disruption.

Noting the discussion above, the wireless and cable were complementary, not exclusive. Whilst loss of one or other could have been managed, it would have been a significant loss in capability. A lot of logistical information was conveyed, as well as other significant data.

Military operations are always a trade off, there are never enough assets to do everything one wants to do, so there has to be some cost/ benefit analysis around how best to use what's available.

ALR (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Humanities

I wonder how popular the various humanties fields are compared to each other in North American universities. Does anyone know where I could find this information? -Pollinosisss (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Best I can find is a ranking of the top ten college majors from '06. [28] Vranak (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Pornstar

Just trying to keep questions together, there is a question that I am posting here just broadening my query or answer base.174.3.110.108 (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not canvas responses from other areas of Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditreaium (talk • contribs) 11:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Second time the Sacred Cod went missing

I have been looking for more information on the second time the Sacred Cod of Massachusetts went missing to add to its page on wiki. My problem is I can only find one newspaper article about it, and there is nothing in EBSCO host from the time period. It went missing on about November 15, 1968 and was found about 3 days later behind a door in the state house. The Fish was also stolen in 1933 and that is what most of the information i have found is about. any help, articles, or more information on the second Cod-napping would be great. Thank you in advance!--Found5dollar (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I found this very brief AP article about the cod's return, from the Rock Hill Herald of November 19, 1968 (Google incorrectly dates it as Nov. 16). Also this slightly longer one from the Owosso Argus-Press of Nov. 18. There is also this article from the Hartford Courant of Nov. 16 which one has to pay to see. --Cam (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see from the article that you found the same AP story. Sorry I couldn't be of help.--Cam (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this "the piece of cod that passeth all understanding"? Alansplodge (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

two articles declined

When I tried to create two articles, they were declined. The first one was about the "I Love the Islands" concert series which benefitted the clean-up efforts following the earthquake and tsunami in Samoa. The other one was about the "Help Haiti Live" concerts which benefitted the relief efforts in Haiti. I got the needed information from all the reliable sources I could find. Now I feel hated.24.90.204.234 (talk) 06:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Making an article isn't simply a matter of finding three websites that mention an event (with one of them being the event's homepage). You need to find citations in respectable resources that make the claim that the event is notable. Work on notability. The rest is easy. I had a very similar problem with the article Nude Bowl. Initially, many people did not feel it was notable in any way. I had to work - real hard - to find any references at all that demonstrated the notability of an empty swimming pool in the middle of the desert that was destroyed before the web was every popular. -- kainaw™ 07:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Why wouldn't they accept I Love the Islands? I see plenty of reliable sources.[29][30][31]/ Clarityfiend (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The reference desk is not the place to be asking about Wikipedia. Try the Wikipedia:Help desk. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to go through the AfC process. If you're interested in writing it yourself you can just sign up for a Wikipedia account, (It's free, spam-free, etc.) and create the page yourself. See here : Wikipedia:Your_first_article APL (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

life of himba tribal women

hi there i was reading the article on himba tribe.my question is if their women generally wera no clothings,how do they manage their menstural cycle?

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.133.55 (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There is an article on Himba, conveniently located at Himba. I strongly suggest you read that article for all your questions, and return only if there is a specific part you still do not understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditreaium (talk • contribs) 10:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in Culture_and_menstruation#Social_Anthropology. That article says that hunter-gatherers rarely menstruate, but does not explain this assertion. My understanding is that this refers to late menarche and lengthy breastfeeding, which suppresses ovulation. In addition, menstruation (i.e. fertility) stops when a woman's percentage of body fat drops below a certain level. This can be either because of muscular athleticism or borderline starvation, both of which are more common among hunter-gatherers than in the sedentary Western world. Some of these factors may feature in the lives of the Himba. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Although it is not a scholarly article, Malcolm Gladwell of the New Yorker wrote an acclaimed (and i would say brilliant) article in 2000 about the fascinating and complex relationship between contemporary society, menstruation and a woman's life-cycle. The article is available online here. hfeatherina (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2010

toothpaste

Why is Adult toothpaste always mint flavored? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kandorko (talk • contribs) 10:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not always mint flavored: there is cinnamon[32], clove[33] and many more. Mint seems to be the most popular, maybe because it gives a clean feeling and doesn't leave your breath or mouth with an unpleasant smell or taste (discussion). --Normansmithy (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a better question is, why do we consider mint such a pleasant flavour?--71.111.229.19 (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I expect it has to do with the cool sensation which mint provides. If your mouth tastes hot, as from eating chiles, the cool sensation of mint would be expecially welcome. StuRat (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

what influenced hitler (esp when hes young) to be so anti semtic?

--59.189.218.53 (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

he was responding to market forces. He really wanted power, probably due to the powerlessness he felt as his father beat him to within an inch of his life in his youth. His racism was just one expression, but he would have abandoned it pretty fast if it had not so happened that his German compatriots, though he had to move to Munich for it, responded quite nicely to it. There is shocking racism in Germany to this day, and if the German state and young people who have internalized the 12 years of education on this subject that they receive in state schools, didn't squash it with extreme excesses of force and rhetoric, it would be trivial for a person of Hitler's mentality to gain adherents to this day. In fact, despite the crushing repression of and counter-education against it by the govenrment and in schools, it is nevertheless extremely easy for a neo-Nazi leader to gain adherents. Just search Google News for Germany neo-Nazi. Naturally this is only just my opinion, and others here can give a differing opinion. In my humble opinion the others ones are underinformed, but they are free to be made below. 84.153.250.71 (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of blue-skying (see below), supposing Hitler's father had gone that extra inch, isn't there a good chance someone else would have taken Hitler's place as a hatemonger and warmonger? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

probably not. 84.153.250.71 (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not? He found a ready audience for his scapegoating. Someone else could have done likewise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I would think so. After all, Hitler wasn't the founder of the Nazi party, it already existed. He brought some excellent public speaking skills to the Party, but also made some epic military blunders. Another leader might have avoided those. StuRat (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The question of "Would the Nazis have come to power and would WWII have happened if Hitler had never been born?" extremely deep and ultimately unknowable question, and versions of it has been debated for centuries in the philosophy of history. It's called the Great Man theory, and it applies to lots of other things besides Hitler. Would Macedonia have conquered as much territory if it hadn't been for Alexander? Would the Roman Empire have lived longer if it had better emperors? Would it have survived at all if there had been no Augustus? Is the Great Man the product of the society he's in, or is the society changed by the Great Man? Ultimately, it's impossible to answer such questions because we don't have the ability to experiment with history. Belisarius (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A passage from our article reveals this bit of information, which I find compelling and formative:

After Alois' [his mother] sudden death on 3 January 1903, Hitler's behavior at the technical school became even more disruptive, and he was asked to leave. He enrolled at the Realschule in Steyr in 1904, but upon completing his second year, he and his friends went out for a night of celebration and drinking, and an intoxicated Hitler tore his school certificate into four pieces and used it as toilet paper. When someone turned the stained certificate in to the school's director, he "... gave him such a dressing-down that the boy was reduced to shivering jelly. It was probably the most painful and humiliating experience of his life

Adolf is now angry at the world at looking for a scapegoat. Vranak (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Having thought about this more over breakfast, the crucial factor, I believe, is lack of compassion. Right when young Adolf would benefit from some benevolent, fatherly treatment from his school's director, he instead receives the sort of harsh upbraiding that no one young person can benefit from. Of course we are talking nearly a century ago, so this sort of retrospective analysis misses out on the general climate of the times, where perhaps everyone is walking wounded and not able to muster much compassion. Vranak (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hitler came of age in a profoundly anti-Semitic environment. Anti-Semitism was pervasive in Germany and Austria during the early 20th century. See Antisemitism in Europe and Dolchstosslegende, for example. Whether by nurture or by nature, Hitler had a resentful, vindictive personality. People with such personalities coming of age in Germany or Austria at that time found in anti-Semitism an object and scapegoat for their resentment and anger and a way to give it political expression. Given the wide appeal of Nazi anti-Semitism, Hitler was not unusual in his hatred. Hitler's unique talents were his charisma and his ability to harness that hatred as a vehicle for gaining political power. Marco polo (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

People also forget that there were violent communist and anti-communist riots in Germany after WWI. Rightly or wrongly, people associated communists with Jews, and if you hate communists, it's not such a large step to hate all Jews. (It's not that simple of course, but that's another aspect of what was going on.) Adam Bishop (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but if the issue was that some Germans were violently opposed to communists, then the response would be to persecute communists regardless of their religion. Certainly, the Nazis did persecute communists. But they also persecuted Jews, regardless of their political orientation. This cannot be explained by anti-communism. It can only be explained by anti-Semitism. Marco polo (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly there was something wildly pathological about Hitler's obsession with "blood." And "purity." And "race." To the simple-minded street brawlers Hitler initially attracted (and the sophisticated scum urging them on), Jews became a metaphor for contamination of blood and purity. Racist Americans are notoriously obsessed with the same concepts, as shown in their paranoia about so-called "miscegenation" and the "mongrelization" of the (idiotically defined) "white race." Looking for a culprit who had somehow prevented the "Aryan" "master race" from achieving world domination (or winning world war I, or not going broke afterwards), Hitler and his ilk could not blame "Germans" as a group; thus they defined Jewish Germans as "non-German" ... and non-EVERYTHING, as the metaphorical agent of contamination in all supposed "pure" racial groups during the diaspora. Somehow Jews (historically middle eastern) were seen as different from every other group of immigrants during the preceding 1900 years -- perhaps because they had a great tradition of education and responsibility, which meant that they were disproportionately successful, and thus suspect to to the often ignorant and irresponsible "pure Aryan" masses. That's my conclusion after 20-plus years of reading about it, anyway: a megolomaniacal demagogue's pathology about blood and purity merges with the need for a scapegoat (following The Economic Consequences of the Peace) among ignorant and violent nationalists. 63.17.65.254 (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hitler was heavily influenced by Martin Luther. Almost everything the Nazis did was suggested or discussed by Luther in his work On the Jews and their Lies. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 06:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Was it because he was rejected from art school by someone Jewish? Or wasnt the guy Jewish? 89.243.198.135 (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"Blue-skying"

What is blue-skying? 84.153.250.71 (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Engaging in speculation that comes "from out of the clear blue sky". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Or a reference to Blue sky thinking? That is thinking about things in a 'perfect world' mindset where you don't stop constraints preventing you thinking through an idea. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You may also want to try blue sky law -- in that context, it means "verifying whether an investment transaction or securities issue complies with the blue sky laws" --71.111.229.19 (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

aerocraft

What is 477 in boing 477? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mianurag (talk • contribs) 19:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the Boeing 747 or Boeing 474? Rmhermen (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Assuming you mean the 747 in Boeing 747, its part of Boeing's numbering system for its jumbo jet series, known as the Boeing 7x7 series. Boeing does not actually make a jet with the 477 designation, so I will assume you meant the more famous 747. The first jet in the series was the Boeing 707, and they are basically numbered sequentially in order they were developed. It has no other, deeper meaning than that. --Jayron32 19:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This Boeing page goes into detail about why the 7x7 numbering scheme exists. Some engineers (figures!) picked different numbering segments for different types of aircraft; the commercial jets would be named starting with the number 700; but the marketing department decided "707" was catchier than "700". Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I just added a corresponding section to the Boeing 7x7 series article. Thanks for asking the question. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Henry Darger

Are there any published books or other sources where I can read some of the artist's fiction? I know there are books about him (I just watched the movie about him), but I'm very interested in his actual prose, particularly about the Vivian Girls. Thanks!  ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 19:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What is "vulgar Marxism?"

What is "vulgar Marxism?" What does that term mean, or refer to? Thanks in advance. Bus stop (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Vulgar Marxism is an existing redirect to an article which will answer your questions. --Jayron32 20:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I didn't see that. Bus stop (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Marxist philosophy might be a better resource. the 'vulgar' in vulgar marxism implies a kind of less theoretical marxism based in pure economic determinism. western philosophical Marxists (and arguably Marx himself) tend to dismiss it as overly simplistic, in favor of more strongly psychological or sociological formulations. --Ludwigs2 21:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The word "vulgar" is probably being used in the sense of being frequent, rather than low-class. 89.243.198.135 (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

LGBT issues in Iran and Saudi Arabia

I cannot understand something, in those countries where homosexuality is highly illegal, I mean, is it illegal to be gay or to practice homosexuality?. Example, if someone says "I am gay" in any of those countries, is that illegal and punishable by death or that person must have been engaged in homo sex? --SouthAmerican (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

See LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia and LGBT rights in Iran. Over-generalizing a little, in both countries, engaging in "immoral behaviour" (such as attending a meeting of gay men) will earn you a flogging - only engaging in sodomy itself carries the risk of a capital sentence, although an unsubstantiated confession is sufficient evidence; and the authorities of both countries have been known to employ fairly - direct - methods to obtain confessions when they want to. The main difference is that transsexuality is legal (if socially condemned) in Iran, but not in Saudi. Tevildo (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I always thought that "LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia" should be a blank article AnonMoos (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Educating Esme

I need to read part of a book called "Educating Esme: Diary Of A Teachers First Year" for a class. However my book has not arrived yet because the teacher is making us all order it from Amazon.com.

I thought there was a place where you could read an overview of different books online? I found a thing called sparknotes, but all sites which have it force you to pay. Does anyone know where i can read a summary of the book for free? I just need to know the general content for the first 70 or so pages, since my book will arrive from amazon this weekend. Thanks!

137.81.112.201 (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Why cant you wait till the weekend? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.242.68 (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That's really none of your business. The OP wants to know how to find it now. That's what we're here for - to help him do that, not quibble or challenge his very question. Sheesh. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Your teacher should not make you buy it from Amazon. You should be free to buy wherever you want or to borrow it from the library. Your teacher probably provided a link that ensured they make money. This is unethical. Report the teacher to your school's administrators (or have your parents do so or send an anonymous note). --Nricardo (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to know if the student knows why the teacher had them order it from Amazon. It's unclear who's paying. If it's the student, it's not the teacher's concern where it's coming from. But if it's being ordered on behalf of the school, it's possible the school has a special rate - which they might anyway, even if the kids are paying. More info is needed before filing an ethics complaint. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It is simply that if i purchase it from amazon it would be cheaper than through the university book store. However, it is a stupid thing because i cant even get the book in time for our first assignment.

Back on the topic please. Does anyone know where i can get an overview of the book?

137.81.112.201 (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Amazon lets you read some of the pages here. You can read lots of reviews of and articles about the book here. Also, have you tried the college library (someone else may have gotten there first) as well as the town public library? My public library also indexes books in all the neighboring communities, and could tell me that a library 10 miles away had the book on the shelf available for checkout, even if the local copy is checked out. Edison (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to popular opinion (at least among students) teachers are rarely either dumb or cruel. If you did what you were asked by your teacher, and are unable to complete your assignment on time for reasons outside your control, then I would simply tell your teacher that. Tell them ahead of time so it doesn't look like you are making an excuse. They will probably give you an extension. On the other hand if your reason of "because the teacher is making us all order it from Amazon.com" includes an element of "and because I waited several days before doing that" then you've learned an important life lesson. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

March 5

Tort

The law of torts may be described as an area that seeks to regulate individual conduct within society discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shimpundu84 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Right up there at the top it says, "If your question is homework, show that you have attempted an answer first, and we will try to help you past the stuck point. If you don't show an effort, you probably won't get help. The reference desk will not do your homework for you." Discuss. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The reference desk does not answer requests for legal advice. Ask a lawyer instead. R12IIIeloip (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC).

Whilst that is true, this is not a request for legal advice, merely an invitation to do someone's homework; and DIR (HK) has already dealt with that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It saddens me to see a person studying something to do with the law, who not only goes to anonymous people on the internet for basic information, but also insults them by using a run-on sentence. How long will it be now before we see such an undreamt of thing in an actual law? Oh, I see that's already covered @ Legal writing: Similarly, see Professor Fred Rodell's "Goodbye to Law Reviews," whose opening lines contain the classic statement of the problem: "There are two things wrong with almost all legal writing. One is its style. The other is its content."  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 14:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I supposed that society discuss must be a term of art (a compound noun). —Tamfang (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Word War

Is it true that during WW1 the British had plans to tell the Germans on the battle field via loudspeakers, jokes so funny that it would incapacitate them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetterindi (talk • contribs) 09:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You may be thinking of this? --Phil Holmes (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The answer is no, but the Germans did seriously consider that the British sense of humour gave us a tactical advantage. Brits tend to make a joke out of a bad situation, which may make it more endurable. A German staff textbook published just after WWI includes a reprint of a Bruce Bairnsfather cartoon to illustrate the point. "Old Bill" is sitting in the ruins of a house and a younger soldier asks him what had made the large holes in the walls. Bill replies "mice". The textbook felt it necessary to state that it wasn't mice but shells that had made the holes, just in case any German officers didn't understand the gag. You're going to ask me for sources now aren't you? Alansplodge (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

And the Americans seriously considered a gay bomb. Now that would have been entertaining!--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The language desk has an extended discussion of this Monty Python bit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"Make sure he's dead" (A British bren gunner near Osterbeek 1944 upon shooting a german out of a tree and seeing him run over by a tank) "They'll send a hearse next" (A british engineer in Arnhem 1944 after two SS attacks by commandeered vehicles, the first trucks, the second ambulances)--92.251.205.84 (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Bestsellers lists

Is there a catalogue (publicly available online hopefully) of the New York Times bestseller lists? Similarly for the Amazon book rankings? I'd like something that can be cited in Wikipedia articles about books. (I don't want a URL of the current lists, which change every day.) Staecker (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you even bother to look? See The New York Times Best Seller list

The War

Why did the Allies allow Germany to continue taking land when they knew exactly what he was planning because he's written it all in his book Mien Kamp? Why wasn't there preemptive action? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Candercore1 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Appeasers such as Neville Chamberlain thought that Hitler would be content for years to come if he was allowed to take some land in Czechoslovakia and elsewhere, while Britain had time to rearm. Edison (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

People often forget that Britain and France are democracies. In 1938, the idea of another world war was hugely unpopular. Chamberlain was doing the will of the people. Most were relieved that war had been apparently averted - very few thought he was making a mistake at the time[34].

Just a note for the OP, the book's title is Mein Kampf. Take special notice of the order of the vowels in "Mein". The german language puts the vowel that is heard/pronounced/etc second. So, "mein" sounds like the english word "mine" and if there was a word such as "mien" then it would sound like the english word "mean". Dismas|^(talk) 15:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Dismas's rule is sort of true, from an English speaker's perspective, but only for the letter combinations ie and ei. Neither eu nor au in German is pronounced like the English u. Marco polo (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

And since we're being exact about spellings, it's initial capitals for 'German' and 'English'. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 17:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack, for putting your own spin (or should I say english ?), on it. StuRat (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, I thought that and it was originally typed with capitals E and G but then I changed it thinking that I was wrong. Arg. Dismas|^(talk) 20:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, lets not forget that Germany in the 1930s were scaring the s*** out of everyone. Everyone knew that a war with Germany would be absolutely catastrophic. Sure, it seems stupid in hindsight to give the Sudentenland to Hitler, but if you are faced with the option of either doing that, or going to World War II, suddenly the decision is much harder. It was still a dumb thing to do though, the European powers should have realized that they were going to WWII no matter what. But we have to remember that hindsight is 20/20, and it's a lot harder to play hardball when you're eyeball to eyeball with the Wehrmacht. Belisarius (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

How could we claim WWII was a just war if we had not done everything in our power to prevent it peacefully first?--92.251.205.84 (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Also note than Mein Kampf is not a book that can be read. It's so boring, incoherent, and badly written that it would need a very dedicated intelligence officer to actually plow through. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I made it through about half, but, I agree, he was no brilliant author (which seems odd, since he was a good public speaker). StuRat (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The Allies needed to reoccupy the Rhineland when Germany first started to remilitarized it in 1936. This would have been in accordance with the WWI treaty, and the Nazi party would have been disgraced for losing the Rhineland, and forced out of office. By the time Hitler started invading his neighbors, they were indeed a real threat, with no easy solution. StuRat (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

One explanation is simply that the Allies had no choice. They didn't have the military power to stop Germany any sooner than they did. All the time they were appeasing Germany they were preparing for war. They knew perfectly well that it was very likely to end up with a big war, whatever they did. --Tango (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

To the contrary, I'd say they could have won early on, but couldn't later, as Germany was able to rearm far faster than them (England and France). Only the addition to the Allies of the US and, even moreso, the Soviet Union, pushed the balance of power in the Allies' favor. StuRat (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Livestock

What economic model is used to determine the correct price of livestock such as cows? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelickios (talk • contribs) 17:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Supply and demand Marco polo (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

While that's true in a pure free market economy, the price of food is often regulated by governments, through the use of price supports and other mechanisms. There the price is more likely to be set based on what people can afford to pay or what they've historically paid. StuRat (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Livestock trading was also subject of a nice (and famous) article in the area of information asymmetry, of which I have forgotten the name and authors. User:Krator (t c) 19:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Deflation

I've read a bunch of articles lately that state that the crisis that Greece is going through right now has a very real risk of leading to deflation (this article most recently), but no one has explained to me why that is. I mean, Greece's currency is the euro, and what I've always been taught is that deflation is the opposite of inflation, i.e. a steady increase in the value of money. But the euro isn't going to deflate, it's backed by an entire continent. So how can there be deflation in Greece and not the rest of the Eurozone when they have the same currency?

Thinking this through, the explanation I've come up with myself is that locally in Greece what will happen is that you will suddenly be able to buy more and more stuff with the same amount of money (which is the definition of deflation, I guess). This will happen since general demand for stuff will decrease, and thus the prices of that stuff will decrease along with it, starting a deflationary spiral. But isn't the whole point of having a monetary union that the rest of the union will compensate and "fill in the gap", so to speak. If I'm a guy in Germany looking to buy grapes (or whatever Greece exports), wouldn't I make a killing buying from Greece instead of, say, France, because of the extremely low prices they're having? And wouldn't that increase in exports pretty much make up for the lack of demand and put a stop to the deflationary spiral? Can someone explain this to me?

(I should say, the reason I'm asking this question is mostly because I'm grouchy. When the politicians were selling us on the euro, one of their primary arguments was that since the whole continent was backing the currency it would be very stable, and things like deflation and hyperinflation wouldn't happen. I'm starting to suspect that I was lied to) Belisarius (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Greece is likely to face deflation, but this deflation will have only a modest effect on consumer prices. There are two ways of defining deflation: 1) a drop in prices; and 2) a drop in the money supply, which in turn tends to lead to lower prices. There will most likely be a drop in the money supply, because government spending will have to drop relative to GDP, and GDP is likely to fall as well as the government's contribution to it falls. This is likely to lead to a drop in certain prices. The prices that are most likely to be affected are 1) the prices of labor in Greece and 2) the prices of real estate in Greece. As you say, tradable goods and services are unlikely to fall in price because a stable money supply and stable wages elsewhere in the euro zone will provide strong support for those prices. So Greeks are not likely to see the cost of food or fuel drop by much. An exception would be goods that are not produced much outside of Greece, such as perhaps retsina. The prices for domestic goods are likely to drop somewhat. The result of the falling price of Greek labor (largely as a consequence of rising unemployment) would be that Greek firms, or firms producing in Greece, will be able to gain market share by offering lower prices on exports. Also, Greek producers are likely to gain market share within Greece over producers from other parts of the euro zone for the same reason. That should slowly help the Greek economy to recover. The downside for most Greeks is that their income would be falling, but, apart from the cost of housing, their cost of living would not fall by much. This would result in a drop in the standard of living for many Greeks. This form of deflation has already happened in Latvia (see this blog post), which faced a serious financial crisis in 2008. (See 2008-2009 Latvian financial crisis.) Because its currency is pegged to the euro, it has had to confront the crisis in the same way that a country within the euro zone, such as Greece, would have to confront it. This is largely a matter of gaining competitiveness by forcing domestic prices down, a process that has also been called an internal devaluation. This term is used because the solution to the crisis before the introduction of the euro would probably have been a devaluation of the currency. The internal devaluation accomplishes much the same thing. Marco polo (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right that arbitrage is a strong force against asymmetric price changes (both inflationary and deflationary) across the euro area. Still, we see (large) differences in both absolute prices and price changes today. Distance is still a factor (the chance of a Slovenian buying an X-box in the Netherlands is pretty slim, even if the price difference is €40 [35] [36], even though it's legal.) Probably less of a difference than if all countries still had their own currency, though those who believe independent monetary policy is important may even disagree on that. Politicians tend to exaggerate 'less of a difference' into 'complete and enduring stability.' That doesn't mean they technically lie, they're just doing their job.

This is the answer to your first question, and the politician's thing. Given the fact that price differences do exist, and they're larger for perishable (food) and non-tradeable (haircuts) goods than for things like an xbox, it's at least possible that Greece will go into deflation.

There's several factors that could contribute to deflation in Greece. The simplest economic explanation is when demand goes down (due to putting a halt to the extensive borrowing by their successively more spend-happy governments), ceteris paribus, prices will go down. Of course, things do change in the meantime, and this is where the Euro comes in. With independent monetary policy, a country's central bank could simply change the money supply to prevent deflation. With the euro, it's the question what independent market forces will do with the share of euros that is allocated in Greece at the moment. On a basic level, you would expect interest rates to go down in deflation (more people want to save, fewer people want to borrow) which would decrease the attractiveness of Greece vis-à-vis other countries to invest one's euros in, which would decrease the money supply, which makes things worse. Does this have a lot of effect on the rest of the euro area? I doubt it. User:Krator (t c) 19:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(ecX2) I agree with you, mostly. While there could be periods of deflation, particularly in areas where prices were higher than most, I wouldn't expect a deflationary spiral, unless Greece is able to pull the whole EU down with it. However, certain sectors of the economy, like real estate, could suffer such a fate, as cheap homes in Greece can't easily be moved to other countries and sold, so an oversupply of houses could indeed lead to a deflationary spiral in the real estate market. There would still be a limit, however, as eventually people from other countries (such as retirees) might start moving to Greece to take advantage of the low prices, and thus prop up real estate values. You might also get foreign speculators who don't intend to live in Greece themselves, but think it likely that Greek real estate prices will recover, allowing them to make a tidy profit. Similarly, if Greek wages remain depressed, more Greeks and resident aliens may choose to work outside of Greece, and fewer people from outside Greece would go there to work, rebalancing the local oversupply of labor. StuRat (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that, even if many Greeks were to emigrate in search of work elsewhere in Europe, wages would be unlikely to rise much on average in Greece in the near term. The reason is that productivity levels in Greece are low. (See this report.) A firm that raised wages in Greece without first achieving productivity gains would quickly price itself out of the market. Firms producing in Greece are more likely to invest in productivity-enhancing equipment or software than they are to bid up wages in response to a hypothetical labor shortage. Marco polo (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)