Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

March 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: [1]

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: [2], 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[3] 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[4] He wrote about British cities in Prospect magazine[5]--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)

Many places in Continental Europe look like "bad neighborhoods" from a U.S. perspective with graffiti, fading concert posters and litter all around. But these are often middle-income places with low rates of poverty and violent crime. The link between urban ugliness and socioeconomic problems seems to be much more pronounced in the U.S. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:08, 5 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 [6]. 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 [7] (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[8] 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)

When the Czech Republic and Slovakia "divorced," "Movable and divisible assets ans liabilities were divided... in a ratio of 2 to 1, according to population" ([9]). The Czech Republic has about twice as many people as Slovakia. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Belgium is an example of a country where this may become relevant at some time in the future and there has been talk about this issue. (I digress, but I can't wait until Easter to find out what the Plumber is going to propose about this!) In this article (in Dutch), a Belgian official is quoted as saying that the exact procedure has not been investigated yet, but that in any case it would be such that no investors would lose money, because then obviously the new states could never borrow again. 94.208.148.111 (talk) 20:15, 6 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)

Given that Marx's masterful post-Enlightenment work Das Kapital was largely ignored everywhere EXCEPT Russia after its publication in 1869, it's clear that there were plenty of Russians heavily influenced by the Enlightenment. Marx was the great philosopher of "human"-ism (to coin a word) -- he founded a philosophy founded upon (non-transcendant) individual human experience as the basic unit, as opposed to some transcendant extra-temporal principle. Russians recognized the greatness of the work decades before any other large group of people. (Alas, the resultant movement was hijacked by despots.) On another subject, the stories of Gogol in the mid-19th century describe an urban culture that doesn't seem any less post-Enlightenment than the narratives of Hawthorne, Flaubert, Hugo, James, Dickens, etc.; Gogol's Russia seems very "modern" relative to its time. The Decembrists had their share of post-Enlightenment thinkers as well. To observe a truly behind-the-times culture (no value judgment intended), one might look at the Empress Dowager's China, which had the resources to build a navy (and thus prevent the cannibalization of China in the ensuing decades) but instead stuck to the traditional business of palace-building and so on (... for which they ended up with Mao and the Cultural Revolution, the latter a great blemish on the history of the human race; but I digress). 63.17.82.123 (talk) 02:18, 6 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[10] 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[11] 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.

The article and source I cited say that the Executive provided four different character widths — two, three, four or five ticks of the very small space actuated by the backspace key. When answering a question, it's usually better to look stuff up than to make stuff up. PhGustaf (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I plead guilty to not looking it up, but not guilty to making it up. I said "I recall". Anyway, thanks for the correction. --Anon, 05:37 and 05:54 UTC, March 6, 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 -- [12]. 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)

^{Take a look at the first item in the police blotter under the above-mentioned letter in the New Orleans newspaper. I guess New Orleans hasn't changed in 170 years. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)}

Interesting to see slaves in the classifieds, between the shirts, wine, and pianos... Tevildo (talk) 02:20, 7 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. [13] Vranak (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Pornstar

Who is the person in this poster (not the people hugging [Not Ray Daniels Or The Girl]). I am not talking about the person who posted the picture.174.3.110.108 (talk) 03:39, 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.[14][15][16]/ 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

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)

See thefreedictionary.com/blue-skying —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dataport676 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 5 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)

Try Amazon.com, there are several of his books listed there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dataport676 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 5 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)

(OR:) I've always taken vulgar in such contexts to mean 'crude; without advanced understanding of important subtleties'. —Tamfang (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Vulgar's older meaning can also derive from "common", it was originally a term without perjorative, as in the Vulgate bible, literally "The commonly used bible". The term "vulgar" to mean "classless" or "rude" or "in poor taste" comes from the negative association with "commoners" (i.e. peasants, or "vulgar" people; not the upper class). The term may have more connection to Marxism's goal of a classless society rather than any meaning of "less than perfect" or "crude". --Jayron32 00:56, 6 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)

Or an example of an oxymoron. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The OP asks about "those countries where homosexuality is highly illegal" and whether it is "illegal to be gay or to practice homosexuality." One "Akrabbim" found it necessary -- on this rigidly formal desk which never, ever contains a spare or needless syllable -- to delete my entirely relevant response, which was as follows: "In the USA until 1987 (the Bowers decision), it was illegal to engage in some homosexual practices in many states ... not so long ago for the land of the free and the home of the brave, the city on a hill setting an example for freedom loving people everywhere." This answer relates to both the predicate of the question and the question itself, with (respectively) "Oh, you mean like the USA prior to 1987," and "Yes." I mean, PLEASE. 63.17.82.123 (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

My memory played a trick. I meant Lawrence (which overruled Bowers), and it was 2003. So, "Oh, you mean like the USA prior to two thousand freakin' THREE?" and "Yes." 63.17.82.123 (talk) 04:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, 63, I would support the removal of your soapboxing, because it violates a Wikipedia policy; see WP:SOAP. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever READ these desks? Again: PLEASE. 63.17.52.111 (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I would note that according to HRW, there's limited evidence that executions solely for consensual homosexual acts are common in Iran. Many widely published cases either involve other crimes or in many cases the acts don't seem to be consensual (Iranian law doesn't really distinguish if the acts were consensual but often when the facts emerge, they suggest the acts were not consensual.) It's possible there are many unpublished cases or that the evidence of the cases is untrue and undoutedly executions solely due to consensual homosexual acts but it's definitely not clear it's routine. See [17] for example. Nil Einne (talk) 15:58, 6 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)

User R12IIIetc was obviously being sarcastic-- you dim wit! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.171.183 (talk) 21:22, 6 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)

Possible, but then, we wouldn't have a question at all to deal with. (Not that "Discuss" is a question as such, more a command. But still ...) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that could be a letout for a school smartass. The exam paper has the instruction "You must answer all questions", but one of the "questions" is "The Second World War was a good thing for the film industry. Discuss." -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:12, 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dataport676 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I did bother to look (not at Wikipedia though). I have a hard time trusting such a ridiculous looking webpage as http://www.hawes.com/no1_f_d.html. Any more RS than that? Like from NYT itself? (Also one which includes trade paperbacks?) How about Amazon? Staecker (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

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[18].

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)

The question does not have any root in the logic of ethics. If a killer shoots person #1 and person #2 in a crowd, and an armed bystander watches and does nothing, then that's morally and ethically wrong, most people would agree; but it does not make it "not just" for the armed bystander to attack the killer when the killer shoots person #3. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:40, 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)

Winston Churchill, an authority on the subject, disagreed strongly with Tango's assertion that the Allies could not have stopped Germany sooner; he wrote at length about this in his six-volume work The Second World War. I read the 1-volume condensed version, which I recommend (and which I suspect StuRat may have read). See Hitler's quote in our Remilitarization of the Rhineland article: The forty-eight hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve-racking in my life. If the French had then marched into the Rhineland we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs, for the military resources at our disposal would have been wholly inadequate for even a moderate resistance. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting that that article quotes Hitler as having said that after the war (it says Heinz Guderian said it in an interview after the war, and then also Hitler later said it). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That is interesting. While I don't have the source in question so can't verify it, I have gone ahead and removed the word "later". Anyone with a reliable source regarding Hitler's appearance at a seance are welcome to revert me! --Tango (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Hitler and Mein Kampf, one interesting point is that the English translations of the time abridged it, leaving out much of the "good parts." The USA was lucky to be led by FDR, fluent in German, who read the original and understood early on what a wild and crazy guy Hitler was.John Z (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that not a single member of British Military Intelligence could speak a word of German? No-one in France? No-one in any other country? Are you suggesting that the only person outside of German borders who could speak German was the US President? (Plus, if your assertion is correct, his unique ability to speak German would only have allowed him to be able to read the "good parts" - what sort of an advantage would that give him?) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly there were people in those countries who read German, but having someone tell you what they claim it says is not the same as reading it for yourself. If Chamberlain had read Mein Kampf in German, perhaps he would have agreed with Churchill and avoided making deals with Hitler. StuRat (talk) 18:18, 6 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)

In other words: does the OP mean 'correct' according to an economist, or according to a lobbyist, or what? —Tamfang (talk) 21:50, 7 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)

Are we talking about livestock futures? Or just buying and selling of individual cows through sales from one farmer to another or possibly during a cattle auction? I took the OP's question to be referring to the latter. In which case, I would think it would vary depending on the genetics of the cow and what the local market for such an animal is. Dismas|^(talk) 23:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

We had a similar question in the past. Markets are the answer. Within that market, the factors that generally matter for cattle are what variety they are, as in dairy cattle or beef cattle, and their weight. Other factors can include grade, such as grass fed, veal, or other variations. Shadowjams (talk) 11:31, 6 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 [19] [20], 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)

Thank you all for that lively, clear and helpful explanation. I hope Belisarius is as pleased with this series of responses as I am. Bielle (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I most certainly am. I've been going around mulling over the answers in my head, and it really has clarified things. This is why the refdesk rocks :) Belisarius (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Style of play from a chess computer opponent?

I do not play chess, but I often play Othello with humans and sometimes with the Othello software called WZebra. When playing WZebra, it is very noticible that the moves are made apparantly chaotically all over the board, often in what would normally be seen as unsafe positions, yet it nearly always wins. Human opponents, on the other hand, keep their pieces together more in a more ordered and less chaotic-looking way.

Is it the same with chess computers? Do they do what would seem to be unwise or chaotic in a human opponent? Thanks 89.243.198.135 (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Playing all over the board is actually a good technique during the early game because it gives you influence over the entire board. If you watch some really good players, you'll probably find they do the same. There have been comments about different playing styles between computers and humans (see here for a particularly well known example). --Tango (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, for anyone who wants to beat a computer at chess at difficult settings, the way to do it is to use your strategic and positional knowledge, as this is impossible to program algorithmically. We just have absolutely no way to program inductive logic into a computer like fuzzy concepts of "openness" and such. So, the way to do it is to make small token sacrifices for position early on in the game, for example trading a bishop for a knight but leaving the computer with their rooks and knights completely locked in, effectively removing them from play for a while. The computer will always take the best move purely on points, it can never realize that a whole section of the board is really "closed" to them. Another example: unless a computer programmer EXPLICITLY programmed it into their program logic, they would never realize that in the endgame if they only have a bishop of one color, and all of your pieces are on the other color, then while that's true, the biship is effectively DEAD strategically. So, if you want to beat the computer, make offers such as making an exchange that seems great for the computer, but in fact leavse them in a very closed position: their bishop is on the wrong color; they can only move their pieces to a few different positions, and so on. One thing you can do if you're playing against a mobile phone or something else that can't look ahead that deep, is get the checkmate together "out of the blue" for example with two knights and two bishop, where until you make the checkmate none of them are "in position". A mobile phone's computer can't look ahead far enough to see that you can do it (for example repeatedly checking them or forking a very valuable piece with their knight). I have ALWAYS been able to beat ALL of my mobile phone chess games using strategies like the above. The most important thing is to remember HOW a computer thinks, which is with a look-ahead tree that is ONLY able to give a score to each position, based on things that have been EXPLICITLY programmed into it, which is 98% of the time just points for material, and maybe slight modifications for doubled pawns and so on.
Oh yeah one more thing: get them out of the opening book, since they will end up with a better position since they probably have a better database of opening book moves than you have memorized. Instead, make an early offer of your big pieces for their poor position, which they will take, and then exploit it fiercely along the lines I've mentioned. If you play right, then you will find yourself quickly having traded all your pieces, but the checkmate doesn't come together. So you start over: quickly trading in your pieces for position, and again, they evade the checkmate, so you have to start over. A few times doing this and you learn to realize how far ahead the computer looks, and then WHAM, you trade a few pieces for position, but htey don't SEE that, at all, and you just have them cornered. They play SO dumb with respect to position, you just have to make sure on a pure point basis they're always making the moves that get them "ahead". It's kind of like how these people who always try to save every last penny end up eating and having nothing but crap around their house. The computer is always trying to get every last point, down to always taking the bishop for their knight (ALWAYS), even though it ends up with nothing but crap in its fridge. 82.113.121.94 (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This article by Kasparov [21] Briefly mentions that computers play "prejudice and doctrine", and suggests that humans that train against computers player better than those who grew up playing against other humans. APL (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Modern computer chess programs can beat even the world's best chess players. The kind of tricks you describe don't work any more. --Tango (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

When I said "at difficult settings", I was referring to everyday chess programs you or I or anyone here might download and use. They do work against these kinds of programs. 82.113.121.104 (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Rybka, the current computer chess world champion, is available for download for anyone that wants it and will run effectively on a typical modern laptop. I think it costs money, but not an enormous amount. --Tango (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The article Arimaa might be interesting. AnonMoos (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has pointed yet to our long article Computer chess, which has a number of other relevant article links. Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think good chess computer programs play as differently from people as good Othello programs. The reason is that something like Othello can be approached using a brute force strategy, where you simply look at all possible moves and outcomes, to a certain depth, and evaluate them based on a point system (more points for corners and secured adjacent edges, for example). This is possible because of the relatively few moves avaiable each turn in Othello. Chess, on the other hand, has too many moves available each turn for this approach to work well, so the chess program must adapt a method of thinking more like what a human uses, looking at board position more and relying on brute computing power less. StuRat (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Strait of Gibraltar during WW2?

Were the British situated in Gibraltar, able to prevent all movements of Axis ships between the Atlantic and the Meditteranean? Or could Axis ships get through, either by taking a chance on not gettting hit by a shell, or sneaking past undetected at night? Thanks 89.243.198.135 (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Military history of Gibraltar during World War II may be interesting. User:Krator (t c) 22:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree its interesting, and I did read it and some of its links, but it unfortunately does not give any information relevant to the question. 89.240.63.162 (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The section titled "Mediterranean U-boat Campaign: 1941 - 1944" does. This article agrees: of 62 U-boats that tried to sneak through, 9 were sunk, and 21 aborted either due to being damaged or because their commanders thought it was too risky. The rest got through, but were all eventually either sunk or scuttled in the Mediterranean. I infer from this that no German surface ships tried it. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Under the heading "Mediterranean U-boat Campaign: 1941 - 1944", the article states that the Germans sent 60 U-boats into the Mediterranean during that 3-year period. Of these, nine were sunk and ten were damaged. So some U-boats were able to get through the strait, but at a heavy risk. As for surface shipping, I agree with you that our article fails to address it. After doing some research on the web, I found this article and this one, both of which indicated that the British imposed a blockade on the Strait of Gibraltar. Their unbroken possession of Gibraltar would have enabled them to impose an effective blockade of the Mediterranean throughout the war. Certainly, they would have patrolled the straits at night. Even the primitive British radar of 1939 would have allowed them to detect an approaching ship, regardless of visibility. They would not just have shelled a ship attempting to enter the Mediterranean without making for the port of Gibraltar, they would have launched aerial bombers and would probably have sent a destroyer or other fast combat ship to pursue it. Marco polo (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

However, the Germans would just as easily have been able to 'enter' the Mediterranean from the shores of their ally, Italy, as well as from any Mediterranean port in any German-occupied country. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a memorable scene in the film Das Boot depicting such an attempt (though inaccurately on the surface rather than submerged). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No, in the movie they planned to pass through the strait while underwater; they only ran on the surface because they were detected and therefore wanted maximum speed. --Anonymous, 05:44 UTC, March 6, 2010.

Germans could certainly enter the Mediterranean from Italy or Vichy France, but they could not travel between the Mediterranean and any other sea, except perhaps the Black Sea. Marco polo (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Of course, which is where their northern European shores came in handy. Considering Germany placed more emphasis on land and air forces and not so much on shipping, Gibraltar was not a huge priority for basically the entire war (and became progressively less so as the situation in the East worsened, and after the Italians surrendered). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Italian submarines also passed the opposite direction, and several operated in the Atlantic from a base in France (Bordeaux, from memory). Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ownership of Language

Is it true that some Americans call English "American" and instead of English classes they have "American classes"? Are there any other cases of this happening with other languages, for example people who speak French in Africa calling it "African" instead of French? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faller999 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No.

Occasionally we'll call the language "American" as a joke (Typically to parody over-zealous patriotism, but occasionally just to irritate British people.), but never in any serious context. APL (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say yes, cases exist. The most famous example is Afrikaans, which developed from 17th century Dutch.

Another example would be Spanish. See Names_given_to_the_Spanish_language where español and castellano are used to distinguish the Spanish spoken in the new world and in metropolitan Spain.

It's also common to shorten the name of the dialect by just idenifying the region.

Ex. "He speaks Acadian." - It's understood the subject speaks a variety of French. --Kvasir (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually the "español" / "castellano" divide is much more varied and subtle than Kvasir states; the article he linked to does a good job of explaining. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm American and have never heard of any student taking "American classes". And yes, we do use the term "American" but like what's been said, it's usually just to rile the speakers of British English. Additionally, software when it has a language preference will often have a choice of either American or British English. Dismas|^(talk) 00:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Aside from an ill-educated few, Americans do not refer to their language as "American" except to make a point, humorous or otherwise, as H.L. Mencken did when he titled his book The American Language. That said, I think most Americans do have a sense of ownership of the English language. Unlike some denizens of England, we do not claim exclusive ownership. We recognize that native speakers in other countries (including, for example, Australia) have an equally legitimate claim on our common language. While we call our language "English" and recognize that it originated in England before spreading to America some 400 years ago, I don't think that most Americans would agree that the present-day English "own" the language. Marco polo (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting. We Brits sometimes call the language spoken by Americans "American" in order to insult Americans and say that you aren't speaking English properly. --Tango (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Or "I don't mind what the Americans talk, but I wish they wouldn't call it 'English'" --ColinFine (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"American" as a language is only used as a joke, or as a juxtaposition with Commonwealth English. I've never heard of an actual language class called "American" as opposed to "English". Shadowjams (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The distinction is made in French. As a book collector who has occasionally bought French editions of works, I have noticed that translations from British-English authors (e.g. Arthur C. Clarke) often carry on the verso something like "Traduit par l'Anglaise," whereas translations from American-English authors (e.g. Robert Heinlein) sometimes carry "Traduit par l'Americain." [Precise wording uncertain as I don't have any actual examples readily to hand - I might update later.] Personally I think this would be a useful distinction to introduce, as it might help to defuse arguments by ill-educated users of either variety that variations characteristic of the other are "wrong" (unless the two are being improperly mixed). No disrespect need be implied by acknowledging genuine differences. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of English who are just as capable of butchering the language as any American, and the arrogant comments by Colin Fine and Tango prove my point about the perverse desire of the English for exclusive rights to the English language. In fact, the English benefit from sharing their language with the Americans, since it would otherwise be just another rather unimportant European language of a former colonial power. Marco polo (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think comments by two editors "prove" anyone's point. As another Brit, I wouldn't take their opinions too seriously - any more seriously than I would take the views of anyone who thinks that Americans are more "important" than anyone else.  ;-} Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Traduit de l'anglais is what I'd expect to see. — A French-speaker once asked me whether the book in my hands was "English or American". I said I didn't know. Later I noticed that the story called a vehicle's hood a bonnet. —Tamfang (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Noah Webster call the form of English spoken in America "American"? DuncanHill (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

So it would seem, or at least he wrote it down. My Webster's gives several definitions for the noun form of "American" and the last of them states it as a short form of "American English", which has a separate entry in the dictionary, a few entries down the page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Noah Webster must have been an attrocious speller. 84.13.166.170 (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

!! (can't talk now, having apoplexy) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite know where to post this, but it belongs to 87.81s comment on the usage of l'Americain in French. The same specific usage exists in German, where you occasionally see "Aus dem Amerikanischen übersetzt" ("translated from American"). [22] ---Sluzzelin talk 02:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

March 6

Violence in Congress?

Did any US Senator or Congressman ever carry a gun onto the Senate or House floor? If so, did he ever shoot anyone? Did Senators or Congressmen ever get into a fist fight on the chamber floor or could they have been charged with assult for something they did in their official capacity in Congress? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough this google search with the phrase "fistfight in congress" turns up a wealth of information. The second linke titled " Ready to Rumble: Greatest Fistfights of the U.S. Congress " kicks up Wikipedia's spam filter, so I can't link it, but its a GREAT article that catalogues exactly what you are looking for. As far as shooting goes, Wikipedia has two articles on shooting incidents in the Capitol, both linked under United States Capitol shooting incident. --Jayron32 05:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

[23] —Dark 08:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia based in mainland China? I read the first few paragraphs of Wikipedia but it doesn't say. I'm just asking because that's where I've heard of these kinds of pointless censorship stories coming from before. 82.113.121.104 (talk) 09:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

@82.113. No, Wikipedia is not based in China. Wikipedia is uncensored. However, links to certain websites (not content) are forbidden as detailed at WP:ELNEVER. --ColinFine (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can say that "Wikipedia is not censored, however links to certain websites are forbidden". Isn't that akin to saying, "Wikipedia is not censored, however explicitly spelling out certain vulgar terms such as shit, fuck, cunt, and so on, is forbidden." That means you can ALLUDE to these terms, you just can't spell f-u-c-k. You can ALLUDE to a certain web site, you just can't spell h-t-t-p-:-/-/-w-w-w-.-t-h-e-s-i-t-e-.-c-o-m". Look at the above example that made me ask whether Wikiepdia is based in mainland China. The person said: "its a GREAT article that catalogues exactly what you are looking for". However, despite the fact that person WANTS to be able to mention what they're talking about, they CAN'T. It is forbidden to write the explicit mention, leaving the person unable to communicate what they want. Sorry, this is the definition of censorhip. 82.113.121.104 (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Far as I know, the "forbidden" sites are thus because they are pure spam sites and/or copyright violations, and thus have no value to wikipedia. That's not "censorship". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Googling "fistfight in congress" and clicking the link titled "Ready to Rumble: Greatest Fistfights of the U.S. Congress" you will see that the article fits none of your criteria. Not being allowed to mention it, so that I have to vaguely allude to it, is pure censorship in its most unadulterated form: you are forbidden from saying it, so you allude to it. It is not "censorship" of spam sites or copyright violations, which could almost make sense. It is senseless, pure censorship with no justification. 82.113.121.88 (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is censored only in the sense that it is censored by US law. This is because Wikipedia's servers (the computers that store Wikipedia's database) are in Florida and thus those servers are subject to US law. (And, I guess, to Florida law as well.)

For example, we're not allowed to repeat copyrighted works verbatim unless we give credit, and then only for fair use. Similarly, we're not allowed to publish links to sites that do repeat copyrighted works verbatim. That's all that Jayron32 was saying. But there are many things that we, by consensus, have decided not to allow. See WP:NOT for examples. Therefore when we say the Wikipedia is not censored, we mean that Wikipedia is not censored as a group but we are severely self-censored in what we will allow others to publish through Wikipedia.

I've always been a bit worried that Wikipedia could be censored for real. Let's say Congress passed a law making it illegal to "cause others to view the American government with contempt" during the War on Terrorism. (A similar law was passed in WWI.) Would we be allowed to report fully on the Pentagon Papers during the injunction, when the NY Times was not? Sometimes I wish that Wikipedia's servers were spread all over the world, so that that action of any one government could not overturn Wikipedia's consensus. What if the Wikipedia servers happened to be located in China? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

@82.113: The link you are talking about is on the site Associated Content. That entire site irrespective of content has been blocked since March 2008 as a spam site, in that anybody can post there and get paid to do so. It is therefore 100% under the rubric mentioned at WP:ELNEVER. This is a blocking a site, not particular content: it is not censorship. --ColinFine (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The caning of Charles Sumner by Preston Brooks in 1856 was an extremely notorious public incident at the time, and contributed to tensions between the U.S. north and south in the years preceding the Civil War. There's also a famous early illustration (ca. 1800) showing one Congressman attacking another with fireplace tongs, but I'm not sure what search keywords to use to turn it up... AnonMoos (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Also the famous quote (apparently by James Hammond) that in Congress "the only persons who do not have a revolver and a knife are those who have two revolvers"... AnonMoos (talk) 09:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, we have an article here Legislative violence which has the illustration of the fire tongs incident... AnonMoos (talk) 09:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

So. The bottom line in answering my first two questions as originally stated is no. The closest thing involving a firearm on the chamber floor was in 1850, when Senator Foote pointed a pistol at Senator Benton. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. See United States Capitol shooting incident (1954). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I only asked if Senators or Congressmen themselves had ever carried or shot a gun on the chamber floor. The 1954 incident is about four visitors in the gallery firing guns. No Congressman shot back.

The answers to my questions are: (A) so far as "carry", there are too many legislators to count (especially in "the old days") that carried firearms as a matter of course and (B) so far as "shoot", no federal legislator ever shot a firearm while in Congress. The closest was Foote, who pointed a gun at Benton. I suppose that, if it happened today, Foote would be up on DC assult charges, suspended from his seat and, if convicted, tossed out of Congress. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Currently, Senator Jim Webb may be packing heat at any given time, without apology. I wonder if there's a specific rule forbidding a Senator taking a loaded gun into the Senate chamber? —Kevin Myers 18:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

billion

How much millions constitute one billion, 100 million or 1000 million? --Wikigon (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As our page billion states, it is one million million in the long scale, and one thousand million, in the short scale. Gwinva (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

And note that the long scale, formerly use by the British, is being phased out, so a billion is 1000 million to almost everyone, now. StuRat (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I was just about to ask whether OP meant a British billion or an American billion when I read your post —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartender, bloodwine! (talk • contribs) 22:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

@StuRat, I was going to say something similar, then I actually read long scale: apparently the long scale is still in use in a number of other countries. --ColinFine (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Information on Instant Messenger Use

Can anyone suggest a group or organization that has tracked or estimated the total number of users of various instant messaging clients? I'd be particularly interested in comparable and recent data.NByz (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems Wikipedia has - there's a chart in our article Instant messaging with estimates for numbers of users, and it looks like a sourced chart. Maybe following the source links will help you? Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

History Channel Documentaries

The History channel (or the Hitler channel as it's become known because it shows nothing but world war two documentaries) shows a lot of old documentaries made in the 50s and 60s. My question is, are these documentaries still factually correct to this day? Have new things about the war been discovered that would discredit a documentary made in the 50s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agitable (talk • contribs) 11:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

In some ways they may actually be better, as more of the people from the events were still alive to be interviewed. Over time, certain myths tend to develop, and lacking any first-hand witnesses left alive to counter them, they tend to spread. However, you do need to be aware of the politics of the time. For example, they might well minimize the contributions of the Soviet Union to defeating Nazi Germany, for fear of being called before called before the House Un-American Activities Committee.

On the other hand, news programs actually made during WW2 are likely to be pure propaganda. For example, they referred to the Germans and Japanese, in an offical news program, as "Huns" and "Nips". If they can't even avoid racial slurs like that, I'd have very little faith in the accuracy of any of the facts stated.

Now for the advantages of modern programs. In addition to being in color and having better special effects, they may also have access to some info that was unknown earlier on. This is particularly true when dealing with nuclear weapons and other military secrets, where all records were sealed for many decades. The collapse of the Soviet Union also brought about the release of many Soviet records which were formerly kept secret. So, I'd watch some of each, old and new, to get both perspectives on history. StuRat (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

With due respect to the people who answered the OP, it should be mentioned that, in fact, the History Channel does NOT show "a lot" or even ANY documentaries made in the 1950s and 1960s. A contrary example would be most surprising. For one thing, you don't get ratings with old shows like that, which is why they end up on PBS only. 63.17.74.113 (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't comment directly, since I don't subscribe to that channel, but would suggest that the much lower cost of an older show might make it a good choice, especially when viewership is low, like late at night. Compare with how Nickelodeon airs new shows during the day and reruns of much older shows during Nick at Night. StuRat (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Novel

What was the world's first novel? --70.250.214.164 (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a complicated question - see Novel#History. As the article shows, the answer depends on how you define "novel", but it gives a number of examples starting from about 1,000 years ago. (Naturally, there are long written stories from much earlier as well. And no one is able to date the earliest non-written stories.) Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The Tale of Genji (early 11th century) is, apparently, sometimes called the world's first novel. Vranak (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hellenistic tales such as the Aethiopica are sometimes called "novels". AnonMoos (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Do cave paintings count? They often tell a story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VCRVLC1010 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it -- they're non-linguistic (i.e. not true writing), and the strong probability is that they were about people's immediate lives, not convoluted fictional narratives... AnonMoos (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Novels need be neither convoluted nor fictional to be novels. But I agree, cave paintings are not in the ball park. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The first novel in English is often said to be Robinson Crusoe - still an entertaining read all these years later. See also First novel in English. 84.13.166.170 (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It would have to predate Satyricon, which by any definition is a novel. It would be hard to believe that novels are not as old as all lengthy transcribed literature. Why wouldn't they be? Nothing distinguishes transcribed verse from transcribed narrative except that the former might have been handed down generationally; but the fact of it being "traditional" doesn't preclude other transcription of "original" contemporary work, including prose. Certainly in the thousands of years of (now lost) Ancient Egyptian literature someone wrote someting that was an extended narrative unclassifiable as poetry. It's a "modern"-cultural bias, fostered by uneducated journalists and high school teachers and so on, that novels are a recent genre. Again: was Satyricon a once-in-a-millennium fluke? I don't think so. 63.17.74.113 (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

And to mention another work coeval with Satyricon: the author now known as Luke wrote a single novel eventually published in two parts: The Book of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, the latter a splendid example of the romance genre. 63.17.74.113 (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Jesus' connotation with David

Maybe I missed something while reading, but I can't get one thing. I know that Jesus' genealogy is traced back to David because he is the foretold Messiah. But firstly, unlike Jesus, David is the earthly king while Jesus repeatedly criticised the high classes of Jewish society (Pharisees, Sadducees) and its customs (Shabbat, etc). Besides, Jesus emphasizes that "Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me"Mt. 11:6 (i.e. one who would not regard Jesus as an earthly king to restore the independece of Jewish state) and essentially affirms his unearthly originMt. 12:48. Jesus also knew who would be actually responsible for his crucifixion, but is still regarded as being from the David line. Thoughts on why is that? Brand[t] 16:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is. Jesus needs to be in David's line to fulfill various prophecies as the Messiah, but he certainly never used his lineage to try to claim any (earthly) power. Correct me if I'm wrong, but his lineage from David is never mentioned by Jesus or anybody else in the narratives of his life. Keeping his followers (and everybody else) in the dark about his lineage would be consistent with your reading of Mt 11:6. I think it makes a lot of sense to assume that none of those who would be responsible for the crucifixion knew about Jesus's lineage. Staecker (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Besides, that's all Joseph's lineage. You know, the step-dad. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've found the relevant place: Mt 22:41-46, particularly: "If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?". It looks like in that place Jesus says that the God can not be a human descendant, neglecting the genealogy once more. So the issue is why Jesus had not incarnated from a virgin without Davidian background to avoid being David's offspring by flesh and ultimately evade such complications? The only reason I assume is providential, that Davidian background was necessary to be successfully charged and crucified, but that's a bit odd. Brand[t] 18:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Staecker, Jesus was referred to as a "Son of David" various times. Matthew starts his Gospel, “A record of the origin of Jesus Christ, the son of David ..". He’s also referred to this way in Matthew 9:27 and Luke 18:39. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Right you are, thanks. Staecker (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you are vastly under-estimating the number of people who can claim Davidian background. with ruling elites, it is generally sufficient to be able to trace background to near relatives (bothers, sisters, first cousins) and over the course of a dozen generations there might literally be tens of thousands of people who can claim to be descendants of David. Add that the hebrew culture tended towards extended clan-type organization, and you can increase the numbers. it might have been difficult to find someone who couldn't trace some ancestry back to David if they tried hard enough. --Ludwigs2 18:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I don't see any contradiction. Suppose we are around 33BC and somebody wants to criticize the high class of his Jewish society: it works much better if he can boast a good pedigree including, in direct line, Abraham, Isaac, Iacob, David and Salomon (and God himself). It should put him on a sort of authoritative position (like saying: "Of course I know what is written, 'cause my father himself wrote it"). --pma 19:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like by Davidian reference Jesus proved his authority for Jews in particular, while universally that claim is useless. Brand[t] 20:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Christianity started out as a Jewish sect, and early Jewish Christians might have claimed that Jesus was descended from David to enhance the authority of Jesus among their fellow Jews. Marco polo (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You can see what people thought in the middle ages at Tree of Jesse... AnonMoos (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"Jesus also knew who would be actually responsible for his crucifixion" wrote the OP. Q: Oh, really? Who was? If you don't know, how can you say that Jesus knew? 63.17.74.113 (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Space fiction

When did fictional works about space travel first start to be written? It seems like a very new concept, the last 100 years ago at most. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventiant (talk • contribs) 19:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Icaromenippus by Lucian I guess. Brand[t] 20:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Jules Verne wrote some more than 100 years ago. Edison (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Apart from Lucian of Samosata's story in the 2nd century, mentioned by Brand, there were a few stories from the 18th century involving inhabitants of the Moon and the Sun, but the first stories we would really consider to be space travel ones would be Verne's De la Terre a la Lune in 1865 followed by E.E. Hale's The Brick Moon in 1869. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Mention should also be given to Micromégas (Voltaire, 1752). Tevildo (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

See The Moon in Science Fiction]. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The shooting script for Georges Méliès film "A Trip to the Moon" (French: Le Voyage dans la lune) was ready over 108 years ago. The Wikipedia article. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's necessary to clarify whether the question is about space travel or extraterrestrial travel. We now know that those are the same thing, but when Lucian of Samosata was writing about people going to the Moon, he assumed they'd have air to breathe all the way. Only once people had the concept of the vacuum of space could they write stories about traveling through it, as Verne did. --Anonymous, 01:37 UTC, March 7, 2010.

Somnium, a book about a trip to the Moon that landed Kepler's mother in jail, was written almost 400 years ago. --99.237.234.104 (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

And let's not forget Ol' big nose's Comical History of the States and Empires of the Moon, written in 1657. Methods of space travel suggested by Bergerac include smearing yourself with bone marrow, so the moon will pull you up. Obviously. FiggyBee (talk) 06:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oy... Jules Verne was really the first author who wrote anything remotely resembling science fiction space travel, and you're probably not going to find anything comparable after that until the 1940s or '50s, when the big scifi boom started. unless you consider topical bone marrow or glued on feathers to be scientifically credible, that is... --Ludwigs2 06:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not sure how you define "scientifically credible", but that "gap" between Jules Verne and the 1940s was filled by H. G. Wells, Edward Everett Hale (already mentioned), Edgar Rice Burroughs and others - see our history of science fiction article. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

And adding a few at random to Gandalf61's list, Percy Greg's Across the Zodiac 1880, Robert Cromie's A Plunge into Space 1890, John Jacob Astor IV's A Journey in Other Worlds 1894, Garrett P. Serviss's Edison's Conquest of Mars 1898 and A Columbus of Space 1910, George Griffith's A Honeymoon in Space 1901, Mark Wicks' To Mars via the Moon 1910, etc, etc.

Once the SF magazines took off (heh!) in the 1920's space travel stories came thick and fast. E. E. Smith began to produce his Skylark multi-novel series from 1928, the same year that the prolific Edmond Hamilton began publishing interstellar adventures; in Germany, Otto Willi Gail and Thea von Harbou were writing space-travel fiction around the same time. If I were to attempt any kind of comprehensiveness, this comment would run to several dozen more lines - in short, space travel stories (of varying scientific plausibility) were common from the late 19th century all the way through to the 1940s (and beyond, of course). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Dreaming

What is the study of dreaming called? Who are some of the best know researchers into dreaming? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ObligationBreak (talk • contribs) 21:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Oneirology. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The Lathe of Heaven is the best science fiction book about oneirology ever written. well, it might be the only one ever written, but it's still a damned good book. --Ludwigs2 06:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think that, you're dreaming. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sunday shopping in Germany

Why is Sunday shopping illegal in Germany? --88.76.18.70 (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The trivial answer is "because it's against the law" - see Ladenschlussgesetz. According to our Sunday trading article, one major factor in the law's continued application is objection to reform from the retail trade unions, who (understandably) object to their members being forced to work longer hours. Tevildo (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Because the Ladenschlussgesetz says so (the authority for setting shop closing times was devolved to the Laender in 2006) - the basic reason is because the federal constitution refers back to the Weimar constitution of 1919 in declaring Sunday to be a day of rest and recuperation. The follow-on reason is because the churches don't want it, the shop workers don't want to work on Sundays, and neither do the small shop-owners want to open up then. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is holiday shopping illegal in Germany? --88.76.18.70 (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Essentially for the same reasons that Sunday shopping is illegal. I would add to the arguments mentioned above that workers want a day that they can spend with their families, and many Germans agree that guaranteeing a day for family and recreation is socially desirable. Marco polo (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is night time shopping legal in some parts of Germany, and illegal in others? --88.76.18.70 (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sunday shopping in the USA used to be widely banned, as per Blue laws. Those laws were at the state or local level, so they varied a great deal from place to place, in terms of what kinds of businesses could or could not be open on Sunday. There's a subtle hint about this in a 1944 Woody Woodpecker cartoon called Ski for Two, in which Wally Walrus sees a calendar that says "October 3 - Only 70 shopping days until Christmas!" That "70" figure excludes Sundays and the Thanksgiving holiday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Why aren't Easter Sunday and Whit Sunday public holidays in Germany? --88.76.18.70 (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Easter is not really a "holiday" in the US either, because it's on Sunday, which is already a "holiday" in a general sense. Many places in the US take Good Friday as a holiday, making a 3-day holiday weekend out of Easter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Why are Jewish shops in Germany not allowed to open on Sunday, even if they observe the Jewish Shabbat? --88.76.18.70 (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

My guess is it would create unfair competition, if the Christian shopowners had to remain closed while the Jewish-owned stores remained open. I've never known Jewish shopowners to be too fanatical about closing on the Sabbath, at least not in Christian-dominated countries. It's possible they would in Israel. As a compromise in a largely Christian nation, the store owner himself might take the Sabbath off and expect his Christian employees (if any) to operate the store on Saturdays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't create unfair competition: quite the reverse, it would disadvantage Jewish shopkeepers who are anyway obliged to close on Saturdays... an extra day off means an extra day's takings lost. In Britain, Jewish shopkeepers are exempted from the Sunday Trading Act 1994 (see here for the law), and I'm very surprised to hear that this isn't the case elsewhere. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 23:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, should a Jewish-owned shop open on Sunday and get fined or whatever, I strongly suspect that an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights would result in an exception being made, because the law essentially requiring Jewish shops to close for two days per week and everyone else for one is clear religious discrimination. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 23:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

In the US, I don't think this is such an issue. But it probably varies from case to case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is Saturday shopping legal in Germany? --88.76.18.70 (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is Thursday shopping legal in Guatemala? Why not? ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 11:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is Saturday shopping illegal in Israel? --88.76.18.70 (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you try and use some common sense, please, rather than just asking a stream of questions without even thanking people for the comprehensive answers you've received so far?

Saturday shopping is illegal in Israel for precisely the same reason that Sunday shopping is illegal in predominantly Christian countries: to protect workers' rights and observe a religious day of rest. This should be obvious. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 11:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Iceland debt

If Iceland does not pay back the rest of the world what it ows them, under international laws, can America nuke em? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.171.183 (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Great Britain is perfectly capable of nuking Iceland to dust ourselves thanks. 84.13.166.170 (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No. For a start, Iceland doesn't owe America anything, as far as I know. It's the UK and the Netherlands that are trying to get money back. The main consequence of Iceland not paying back the money is that the UK and Netherlands may well veto Iceland's application to join the EU, which it needs in order to stabilise its economy. The use of military action to force a sovereign state to pay its debts is not usually permitted by international law. The one exception I can think of is payments required by a peace treaty (eg. war reparations) - if you don't comply with the conditions of the peace treaty then the peace is over and you can be attacked. The use of weapons of mass destruction wouldn't be allowed even then, of course. There are rules against indiscriminate killing of civilians. --Tango (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Luckily the UK didn't "nuke 'em", or the U.S. would have been obliged to defend Iceland under our 1951 defense treaty with Iceland. Rmhermen (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

They won't be any physical repercussions. No one will go to war even if Iceland said tomorrow "nope we ain't gonna pay it back ever." What will happen is Iceland won't be trusted again and no country will do dealings with them, so they'll lose out on international trade and such, and eventually shrivel and collapse unless their geothermic energy reserves are needed by other countries in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartender, bloodwine! (talk • contribs) 22:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but if they had oil, would America invade? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.171.183 (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think America would be more keen to invade if Iceland had vast reserves of oil, but the international community wouldn't allow it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartender, bloodwine! (talk • contribs) 22:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

America is not in the EU, last time I checked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I never said anything about the EU. I said "international community". That means all countries from all parts of the world. If America just invaded Iceland the rest of the world wouldn't allow it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartender, bloodwine! (talk • contribs) 22:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The point was made earlier that Iceland owes no debts to the US, and since the US is not in the EU, it would have no justification to invade. If you're trying to argue that the US invades countries just to get oil, keep in mind that the whole problem with Saddam, starting in 1990, centered on his invasion of Kuwait, an act which threatened to mess with the world's oil supply. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the U.S. already did sort of "invade" Iceland back in 1941 -- but it had nothing to do with oil or debts... AnonMoos (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Who cares about International Law? Under the Bush Doctrine, all the USA has to do is claim that Iceland is "harboring terrorists." So, hell yeah. 63.17.74.113 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC).

Why can't America join the European Union? --88.76.18.70 (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Because we don't want you. We don't just let anyone join you know. We've got standards. 84.13.166.170 (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Luckily, so do we. >:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing preventing it from joining European Union, even though it's not in Europe. America just doesn't want to; it would rather pay higher currency conversions to trade with Europe so that it can remain apart and purely American. Basically nationalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartender, bloodwine! (talk • contribs) 22:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There was plenty of complaining here even about NAFTA, which is nowhere near as broad in scope as is the EU. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the EU's rules say only European countries can join. It doesn't define "European", but there is no way the USA would be considered European. As I recall, Morocco wanted to join and was rejected for not being European. I expect the EU would be open to negotiations involving free trade with the US, but probably not full EU membership (the US would end up with far too much control, since it is almost as big as the entire EU is now). It is irrelevant, though. The EU only comes into this since EU membership is the UK/Netherlands main bargaining chip. They each have a veto on Iceland joining and Iceland really wants to join, so Iceland has to do what the UK/Netherlands demand (they are negotiating over the details, like how quickly they need to pay back the money, but they won't be able to refuse to pay at all). --Tango (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

See Copenhagen criteria#Geographic criteria, Future enlargement of the European Union, Morocco – European Union relations. Of course rules may be changed (or ignored) when they get in the way of things. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition to cultural differences between the U.S. and Europe and the political difficulties that would be involved with America joining the EU, the basic goal of the EU is for countries to join together so that as a whole they form a zone of quasi-"continental" scope (within which trade is free etc.) -- but the U.S. already has quasi-"continental" status all by itself... AnonMoos (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is it very unlikely that Russia will ever join the European Union? --88.76.18.70 (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Amongst other reasons, one is because it's not in Europe, it's in Asia, and is more likely to form part of an Asian trade agreement. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, quite a lot of Russia is in Europe. --ColinFine (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Likely a supermajority, by population. —Tamfang (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

what prophecies about the Messiah did Jesus fill?

1. Which prophecies about the Messiah did Jesus fulfill?

2. Are Jews today still actively, seriously and literally awaiting the Messiah -- ie they believe the Messiah will come, they are ready to see if anyone meets the description and fulfills all the prophecies, etc -- or did they stop doing that after the Jesus debacle?

Thank you. 82.113.106.88 (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I am completely astonished that Wikipedia does not have an article on this, but Jesus Christ as the Messiah redirects to Jesus in Christianity, which barely touches the subject. Clearly there is room for an article here.

Christians believe that Jesus fulfilled many prophecies about the Messiah - too many to list here. This page recounts some of them along with some counterarguments. They don't believe that he fulfilled all of them, but they believe he will return again, and the remainder will be fulfilled at that time. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Found a much better article: Jesus and Messianic prophecy. I'm going to change the redirect of the above article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the antecedent of your word "they" when you say "they don't believe that he fulfilled". Who is they?

So what is the answer to my second question, about whether Jews are still totally actively awaiting a Messiah even after the Jesus debacle, or whether they are not really awaiting one actively... thank you. 82.113.106.88 (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"They" would be Christians. Jews, in theory, are still waiting for the Messiah, although I don't think they obsess over the subject the way many Christians do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That would indeed be Christians, the pronoun referring back to the last group mentioned. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Certain old testament books contain messianic prophecies which Jesus fulfilled. The Book of Isaiah is the most important, though there are some other prophecies in other books of the old testament as well, such as in the Book of Malachi and the Book of Zechariah. --Jayron32 00:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason why Jews reject Jesus was because he was a false prophet by Jewish standards -- he modified Mosaic Law in contrivance of the law itself, thereby subject to the death penalty. He is also not a descendant of the house of David. Moreover, he failed to fulfill the mission of the Messiah, and only through the contrived "he will return" assertion do Christians substantiate their claim -- Jews do not need to fall upon such an assertion, because they reject him being the Messiah the first time. So from a Jewish perspective, no, he has not fulfilled any of the requirements of the Messiah. And, yes, Judaism purports that the coming of Messiah is anticipated -- "speedily in our days" is the phraseology generally used. To be fair, though, there is a significant school of thought that portrays Jesus as an obedient Talmudic Jew and paints Paul as the one who used Jesus as a figurehead for his new spin on Judaism. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

One prophesy about the Messiah that Jesus failed to fulfill was the ushering in of an age of peace. Oh yes, there was the peace dividend. Added, after striking through: I stand corrected. Bus stop (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comment minimalizes the issue, Bus stop. He fulfilled no prophecies. By definition, a prophecy is irrational and completely objective when fulfilled. Being born in a certain city, suffering or other similar ambiguous claims certainly do not establish one as a Messiah. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw a very interesting TV show, once, which argued that Jesus intentionally fulfilled several of the requirements for the messiah (which, of course, he would have been perfectly aware of in advance, since they were long-standing traditions in judaism) in order to put the Pharisees in a difficult position. Just from a political perspective, I wouldn't be surprised if he at least nominally fulfilled most of them. Oddly, part of the reason that the Jews didn't accept him as the messiah (if I understand correctly) is that for the Jews the messiah is an explicitly political/military figure who would (like Moses and David) lead the people out of bondage and into righteous independence. the fact that Jesus refused to place himself as a worldly leader soured him for Jews as much as it inspired Gentiles. --Ludwigs2 03:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many of the criteria one meets for being the Messiah; a single disqualification would lead to disqualification. Jesus was not from the House of David. Although Matthew provides a genealogy for Jesus, it does so to Joseph, not Jesus. The Church provides three responses to this question, all of which are inadequate:

1. Joseph adopted Jesus -- this rebuttal is invalid because adoption does not continue a blood line. The adopted son of a kohen is not a kohen, the adopted son of a Levite is not a Levite and the adopted son of a king can not be king. Thus, the adopted son of Joseph is not descended from Judah and is not considered from the House of David according to Jewish law. The Messiah is a Jewish concept and laws pertaining to the Messiah would have to conform to Jewish standards.
2. The genealogy is really that of Mary -- this rebuttal is similarly invalid because Jewish rites are passed through patrilineal descent. The son of a daughter of a kohen is not a kohen unless the daughter's husband was a kohen, etc.
3. Jesus is a spiritual descendant of David -- Jesus is decidedly not a spiritual descendant of David. Jews, who follow the Mosaic Law as David did, read the texts that he wrote (Psalms) in the original language that he wrote it in (Hebrew) and hold sacred the Temple that David desired to build but that his son ended up building are more spiritually descended from David than Jesus and his followers were, and so this weak explanation is hardly sufficient grounds for establishing Jesus as a proper blood descendant of David.

DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You're getting into pretty solid WP:SOAP territory here. This isn't a place to debate the validity of Christian theology and doctrine. The question was "Which prophecies about the Messiah did Jesus fulfill?" Christians believe that Jesus did fulfill a lot of prophecies, Jews and Muslims (and everybody else) disagree to varying degrees. We don't need to try to argue for or against any of these cases. Staecker (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion the OP's question is being answered. I do not believe there is a violation of wp:soap. I think if there is any issue, and I don't think there is any, that it would be one involving finding fault with the original question posed by the OP. But again, I don't find the question improper. Bus stop (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not soapboxing. One of the prophecies was that the Messiah would come from the House of David, right? (The king's lineage, not the baseball team.) So the question, in that context, is "Did He or didn't He?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There are many well-known points of contention between Christianity and Judaism and I don't think I brought up one that was even mildly unrelated to the topic at hand. The OP certainly was focused on Jesus, the prophecies he may or may not have anything to do with and the Jewish version of the Messiah. If he did not, please correct me. I read and re-read my previous post multiple times to ensure it was a balanced approach towards the issue at hand articulated in a civil, cordial manner. The reality is that Judaism makes claims, Christianity makes claims and then each makes counterclaims against the claims of the other. Now, in the past I have crossed such a line, and perhaps that is why I have received such a comment as I have from Staecker, but I sense that my comment was in line with the query posted, and I thank Bus Stop and Baseball for their words of support. I will certainly use this opportunity to strengthen my Wikipedia sense of neutrality and stifle any urges to the contrary. But, yes, if the question was, "Which prophecies of the Messiah did Jesus fill?" A proper response is not just "none" from the perspective that maintains such, but the evidence to back up such a claim. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You're certainly not being uncivil DR, and I don't really think it's an issue of neutrality-- my reading of the question is: "In traditional Christian theology, which Messianic prophecies did Jesus fulfill?" If that's the question, then we can list them by chapter and verse from the Old Testament. If the question, as Bugs seems to suggest above (and others are implying), is "did Jesus actually fulfill these prophecies?", then I don't think the RD can meaningfully answer, except to say: "Christians think so, pretty much everybody else thinks not". To argue that one of the other of these camps is correct isn't productive. What if somebody asked if Muhammad was really God's true prophet? Or if The Buddha really achieved true enlightenment? Would we at the WP RD really answer "yes" or "no" to these (with or without providing "evidence" to back it up)? Staecker (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me it's a given, for the first question, that we're postulating that Jesus was the Messiah. That doesn't mean we're taking the position that He was the Messiah. It's more like, "IF He was the Messiah, THEN which prophecies did He fulfill?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case, then aren't you finding fault with the question posted by the OP? Bus stop (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, User:DRosenbach is being extremely uncivil, portraying the Jewish view of these matters as if it were incontravertible fact. The rest of us at least have the decency to prefix comments with "in Jewish belief" or some such. This is soapboxing at a great height. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No, DRosenbach said, "by Jewish standards." Bus stop (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: (2), see Jewish messianism. Haredi Jews today, particularly those of Chabad Hassidism, actively and fervently anticipate the coming of the Messiah. While they are a minority by numbers in contemporary Israeli society, the cultural concept of the Messiah's coming (imminent or not) is expressed among secular Jews in colloquial references including popular music and humor. Not to be confused with Messianic Judaism, a term referring to "Jews for Jesus." -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see the talk pages of: Paul of Tarsus & Paul of Tarsus and Judaism, where a lot of this is already aired. There are quite a lot of commentries on this and notes in modern Bibles regarding this. The Jerusalem Bible has good accounts of this, written before the Books of the Bible concerned, and extensive foot-notes.

Luke 24: 25-27, would be a good beginning.

Look up the terms Jesus used regarding Himself:

1. Son of Man.

2. The Messiah.

3. The Christ.

& "This text is being fufilled today even as you listen..."

& "My God, my God, why have you deserted Me.."

(I am not giving my opinion here. I can understand why Wikipedia have not an article page on this, as this issue would be very contravertial. See the new article page: Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience, and see my effort, in the talk page, to get the Manhattan Declaration's own list of people it wished to defend, in the article page!) {Post Script}.

MacOfJesus (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

One of the problems with this debate is that Jews declare, as a matter of doctrine, that Jesus is not the Messiah. Anybody who believes that he is is declared not to be Jew (a state of affairs that has been going on for two thousand years now).

What this also means is that, by definition, there has been no Jewish scholarship considering with an open mind the question of Jesus' fulfilment of prophecy. Anyone who concludes that Jesus might be the Messiah is thrown out of Judaism. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

DJ Clayworth, open-mindedness is a subjective thing. And are you sufficiently familiar with Jewish scholarship to know with assuredness that "there has been no Jewish scholarship considering with an open mind the question of Jesus' fulfilment of prophecy"? Bus stop (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually my point is that anyone who comes to the conclusion that Jesus is the Messiah is declared not to be Jewish, and thus there can be no Jewish scholarship declaring his Messiahship. DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

John Ankerberg quoted Dr. Stoner on the the fulfillment of Biblical prophecies by Jesus in a statistical way. If the state of Texas were covered with silver dollars 2 feet (61 centimeters) deep, and one marked with an X were added, then all were thoroughly stirred, and a blind man were asked to select one from the set, the odds of finding the X marked one would be one in 10¹⁷. The Christian writer then states that Jesus fulfilled 48 prophecies, with odds far less than finding the hypothetical x marked dollar. He takes this number as an indication that Jesus was likely the prophesied Messiah. I have seen some hyperbole from many different religions. In the first century, the Christians were just one more Jewish sect, and they were not so automatically deemed "not to be Jews" as was claimed above. The New Testament states Jesus' descent from David. Edison (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In the first century Christians were indeed "one more Jewish sect". The separation occurred shortly after that. DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sunday shopping in Poland

Why is holiday shopping illegal in Poland, even if Sunday shopping is legal there? --88.76.18.70 (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Speculation: Take it from the shops perspective. There may be government regulations which mandate that businesses have to close down on certain holidays; it may be illegal to force people to work on those holidays. Different countries and jurisdictions have different laws which govern when employers can make their employees work. Shops are a business, and they may required to shut down like other businesses on certain mandated holidays. Not knowing how such laws work in Poland at all, but it may be a prohibition on working on holidays rather than shopping. --Jayron32 22:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if the OP is going to pose this question one-by-one until he gets all the European nations covered? :) Blue laws vary from place to place. For example, Illinois has (or at least used to have) a law prohibiting car dealerships from being open on Sunday. And if that's sounds discriminatory, it is - except it was the car dealerships themselves who lobbied for that law, so they would be guaranteed at least one day off per week. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

European? How parochial of you! —Tamfang (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This tourist site says there is no easy answer. SHOPPING IN POLAND Opening hours are very diverse and it is difficult to apply any rules. Most grocery stores open at 7 in the morning and are open until 7 pm from Monday to Friday, but there are many exceptions. The smaller shops close earlier on Saturday while on Sunday they do not open at all. There are also numerous supermarkets belonging to international chains that are often open seven days a week until late. Modern shopping malls are mushrooming in all major cities. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Same too in Malta! MacOfJesus (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In Ontario, Canada, they repealed what Americans called blue laws several years ago but left intact the portion prohibiting retailing on public holidays such as Canada Day and Canadian Thanksgiving. Certain establishments such as restaurants, gas stations and convenience stores are exempted, which means that on public holidays, some large drug stores will close off half the store so they can qualify as small shops for the day. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

March 7

All Nippon Airways headquarters

I know that All Nippon Airways used to occupy the Kasumigaseki Building and put its headquarters there, and that it now occupies Shiodome City Center, where its headquarters is. It also used to have its headquarters on the grounds of Haneda Airport.

My question is: When did the headquarters move from Kasumigaseki Building to Haneda? I know when they moved from Haneda to Shiodome City Center. But I do not know the date when the headquarters moved to Haneda.

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Immediate family in the military

I'm interested in what percentage of the population of each country is "military or immediate family". If asked of an individual, the question would be "Have you, or at least one parent, sibling, spouse, or child, been in the military of your country for at least one year?" If I found the ideal piece of research on this, it would list every country, ranked by the percentage of its population who answered "yes" to the above question. Does anyone have any pointers? Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

While this would be very difficult in a lot of places, in some areas it's easy. In Israel, the answer is nearly 100%, because of the obligatory military service laws. The only exception, IIRC, is Orthodox Jews, who won't have any family members in military service. On the other hand, in Costa Rica, the number is 0%, or close to it, because Costa Rica has no standing army. Steewi (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you asserting that there are no Orthodox Jews in the IDF, or that Orthodox Jews do not join the army in, say, France, the US or Australia? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that Steewi is referring to the complicated situation in Israel regarding Ultra Orthadox Jews and compulsury service in the IDF. They are certainly permitted to enlist, but they can defer their service while they're in Yeshiva, and essentially get out of service all together, I think. Buddy431 (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That is correct, it should be noted however, that a good number of the Ultras do voluntarily sign up, as they are often highly patriotic. 130.88.162.46 (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you intend for this to be time-independent? Your great-grandfather was in WWII, so he and your gradfather count but not you father and yourself? Or do you mean currently/recently in service? Rmhermen (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Comet Tuttle, the stats I can find are all about the number of individuals in the armed forces, not families. An additional confounding factor in your question (as Rmhermen just pointed out) is that you also want statistics that apply over time - very difficult to pull together. Over the last 2-3 generations, many countries have significantly increased or decreased the size of their armed forces.

You might be able to rough calculate it for *current* service using these resources/rubric:

• This yahoo answer suggests about 2 per cent of the total world population is currently in military service (or 6 per cent if you count reservists as well).
• The world average fertility rate is about 2.5 births per woman, giving you an average family size of 4.5 people. So very very very roughly, 4.5 X 2% X 6.8 billion = 600 million people who are either currently in a military or have a family member currently in military service.

Resources to do this country by country: Military service, List of countries by number of troops, List of countries and territories by fertility rate, and List of countries by population. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A Google search using the technical term "military participation ratio" may help. —Kevin Myers 18:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Help identifying this person

I need to find the name of some guy years ago who did experiments on dreams. He was also religious and tried to prove god existed or something with science. Eventually he went mad and died alone and destitute. That's all the information I have on him. Anyone able to supply a name for this mysterious fellow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seventhoughts2 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Kurt Gödel was on QI last night; he tried to prove the existence of God by logic, and died because of intense paranoia about someone poisoning his food - his wife was hospitalised and thus couldn't test his food for him, so he refused to eat and starved to death. The article doesn't mention anything about researching dreams, though...And he didn't seem to be destitute, either. Maybe I'm completely wrong, heh. Vimescarrot (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So how did he get on QI then? I don't remember hearing Stephen Fry doing seances, and definitely not for special guests. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a composite of John William Dunne and Emanuel Swedenborg, from what I can tell.. AnonMoos (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

John Dee was a leading Renaissance chemist, physicist, astronomer and much besides, but blew it all away by trying to communicate with angels. Alansplodge (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Forbidden Books

Are there any books that are actually forbidden is the USA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chime444 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What about “Show Me!”? --88.76.18.70 (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

wow. absolutely. thank you for that excellent link. Does Wikipedia have an article about the current witch-hunt generally? 82.113.121.94 (talk) 12:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what the last two comments are referring to but getting back to the original question, no, not for the entire US. Certain libraries and school districts may not allow certain books in their library or to be taught in their schools but that's all determined at a lower level of gov't and only affects certain areas. Dismas|^(talk) 13:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I wl'd 18.70's book title, for those who have no idea. FiggyBee (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what "wl'd" means. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikilinked?  :) Antandrus (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Child pornography laws in the United States is probably the best article about this specific issue - see also Obscenity for a general discussion of US law in this area, and Censorship in the United States for material that's illegal for non-sexual reasons. Tevildo (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(Joke warning): "The suicide instruction book, Final Exit has been banned by many librarians, not because they object to the content, but because nobody ever seems to return the book." :-) StuRat (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Deer species in the Bambi translation

In the Austrian original edition, Bambi is a roe deer, and very impressed by the much larger red deer. (Writing about this is aided by the fact that German has entirely different, not overlapping terms for these two species). Is the species of Bambi specified in the English translation? What about the larger deer species Bambi is impressed by? --KnightMove (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised they would specify a species in a children's book like that. It really wouldn't work in the US, as here kids just call them all "deer". The best guess you could make would be based on the illustrations, but you might find that, in different editions, different illustrators choose to model their pics on different species, probably ones they are most familiar with. (This reminds me of how the Renaissance painters all painted Jesus and pals to look Italian.) As for being impressed by a larger deer, wasn't it just an adult male (a buck), which was much larger than either him (a fawn) or his mother (a doe), and also had those impressive antlers ? StuRat (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This is explicitly not the case. Bambi is impressed (and, as a fawn, frightened) by the so much larger red deer. However, it is possible that this got lost in the translation. As I said, there is no clear German word for "deer". Instead, the term Hirsch may mean "any deer", "any red deer", "red deer stag" or "any deer stag", depending on context. In everyday speech, roe deers are not considered to be "Hirsche". Maybe the translator considered the term Hirsche to be male adults of the same (roe deer) species. This would be a major translation error... and if it remained unnoticed so far, this is almost sensational! --KnightMove (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a translation error. Often they may make some intentional minor changes when translating a work, to make it fit better into the new culture, including, in this case, slightly altering the type of deer. StuRat (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The article Bambi mentions he's a white-tailed deer in the Walt Disney movie. White-tailed deer are the most common deer species in the US, especially in the eastern portion. Note that in the US, at least, the Disney movie *is* Bambi - most people probably aren't even aware that it was based on a book, let alone a non-US book. I do not know what the situation is in the UK, Australia, etc. -- 174.21.235.250 (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know, even though it is not entirely correct - actually the deers in the movie merge aspects of white-tailed deer and mule deer. See [24] --KnightMove (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There are no deers in Australia, except maybe a few in zoos that are native to Australia, but there is now a sizeable introduced population, enough for there to be an Australian Deer Association. Bambi was very popular here, as was The Deer Hunter , but we have little experience of deer aside from that. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

would someone modifying Mosaic Law today still be subject to the death penalty under it?

above, someone said of Jesus: "he modified Mosaic Law in contrivance of the law itself, thereby subject to the death penalty." If Jesus did that today instead of whenever he lived, would he still be subject to the death penalty under Mosaic law? Or has that part been abolished from it? 82.113.121.94 (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly clear what you're referring to, but the legal provisions of the Old Testament haven't been applied as a full autonomous legal code with enforceable criminal punishments since at least 63 B.C. (the date when the last independent Jewish state of ancient times came under Rome)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As AnonMoos has stated above, Jewish law is self-regulated (or perhaps, community-regulated). Since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE and the subsequent disbanding of the Sanhedrin roughly 300 years after that, there is no court authority to impose the death penalty. A false Messiah would be subject to the death penalty imposed on the zakein mamrei, (Deutoronomy 17:8-13) or someone who refutes the law as dictated by the Sanhedrin. That said, and as explained above, though, no one would actually kill the false Messiah today. In reality, it's no different than a Jewish person who violates any other law that is subject to the death penalty, such as desecrating the Sabbath or killing another person, who would also not be killed today because of lack of a unified judicial entity. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, isn't it the case nowadays that Jews take the view that Jewish law in general yields to legislation? For example, autopsies are normally not done with Jews, but if the legal system decides that a particular person needs to be autopsied, then it will be allowed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It depends upon the violation being violated; the violation of desecrating a corpse is certainly not one punishable by death. Even though it would not normally be allowed (such as for fun, or for learning anatomy), if the police refuses to release the body without performing an autopsy in order to collect forensic evidence of some sort, rabbinic leniency may very well be applicable in such circumstance. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't limiting it to capital crimes, but just in general terms. I'm assuming it has to do with the "greater sin" concept. Like it might be a sin to desecrate a body by doing an autopsy, but defying the law, and hence encouraging instability in society, would be a greater sin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

And did Dr. Laura ever answer that list of biblical punishments? -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this subject or at least a closely related subject is well addressed here (in archives) by DRosenbach (especially in his last post in that section, titled "Jewish law" of 19:47, 15 February 2010). Bus stop (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Deborah -- what is your purpose other than to mock Judaism? Certainly the author of such a letter either has such little understanding of Jewish law that he or she used a fundamentalist translation of the Hebrew text in error or used such a translation in an intended overextention so as to provide more humor for others who would read the letter and who similarly lack an understanding for Judaism. One can easily make fun of most anything given enough determination -- I hope you didn't take the letter in the way it was meant, either way the author meant it. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

My purpose was to post a well-known satirical spoof that referred to biblical passages citing O.T. transgressions and their associated severe punishments. Aside from my use of small font, the link clearly came from Snopes.com with ample discussion included. And perhaps you meant to direct this remark to me on my talk page rather than in the body of this query's thread? -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What part of satire do you think is proper in debating a serious issue of religion? From the satire article, it is meant "to censure by means of ridicule, derision...ideally with the intent to bring about improvement." Does your post and associated link have anything constructive to do with either the OP's question or the responses given? Your use of satire serves to undermine the validity of things that many hundreds of thousands of people would be willing to give their lives for...yet in one post, you succeed in denigrating that ideal. Satire may be fine in some contexts, but the satirist whose work you linked to is ill-informed at best. Your intentions may have been to provide a laugh, but it and the person who would post it contribute to anti-religous sentiment and perhaps may even influence people who do not possess such a derision for religion to contemplate ascribing to such a philosophy. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is the Icesave money now?

If you assume that money, like energy, never gets destroyed, but is simply transferred from person/company to person/company, then where is the money that savers paid into the Icelantic bank scheme Icesave now? 89.242.102.148 (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(Just spent the last five minutes reverting the vandalism of someone called "Telvido" who erased this question.) 89.242.102.148 (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This gets very theoretical. Essentially wealth is whatever you think it is. Most people would agree that they are wealthier if they have certain things, like a house, car, clothes, a stockpile of food, etc. But there are many forms of wealth which are more highly subjective. For example, are you wealthier if you have a sports stadium near your house ? Well, that does mean more access to sports games, but probably also mean regular traffic congestion. So, real estate values may go up or down when they add a sports stadium nearby, depending on how most people view it.

Now, you're probably wondering how all this relates to money invested in a company, stocks, bonds, etc. There, the value is also highly variable, depending on how much people think those items are worth now, and will be worth in the future. The term "paper profits" is often used to describe the case where the perceived value of stock has gone up, meaning the stock price rises. Those don't become actual profits until a sale is made, however. The same logic applies to "paper losses".

It might be helpful to compare stock prices with a fad. Let's say you were a collector of Cabbage Patch Kids. If you had more than everyone else you knew, and they were also into the fad, they would think of you as being rich (and, if you sold them all then, you might have made a lot of money). However, once the fad ended, most people probably just thought you had a bunch of worthles crap. So, you still owned the exact same amount of "stuff", but it was now valued at a far lower level. StuRat (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your reply is correct and interesting and falsifies the parent's assumption that "money (...) never gets destroyed". However, does that account for all the money in this case? I don't know much about this case, but it seems plausible that Landsbanki used some of the deposited money to buy shares in ACME Industries at 40 Euros. As the bubble burst, they would have had to sell these again, at, say, 20 Euros. If the buyer happens to be the original seller, which is not impossible, then the money has been transferred in a pretty real sense. 94.208.148.111 (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the question about money or about value? —Tamfang (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Value. StuRat (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Creating and destroying money

On reflection money can be created (eg plant an apple tree sapling costing £10, sell its apples for £20, so £10 created) or destroyed (eg buy an expensive vintage car, leave it outside in the rain to rust away - money destroyed).

Is there an inclusive list anywhere of all the types of ways in which money can be created or destroyed please? 89.242.102.148 (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Money "destroyed" in what sense? That the car has lost its resale value? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in that example. 89.242.102.148 (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the concept you're looking for here is economic value, rather than "money". As you can see from the mess surrounding that article (the see also list, for example), it's an incredibly complex idea that people can't quite pin down. Almost everything everyone does has some economic impact, so no, there is no such list anywhere. FiggyBee (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Our Capital accumulation article is relevant but also doesn't seem to tackle the original question directly. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Figgy is on the right track here, and really when you get down to brass tacks, there's no solid notion of 'money' or 'economical value'. It all depends on what people are willing to do for what is on offer, and this may fluctuate like the wind. A cheeseburger may be worth $4.50 at noon, but when I've already eaten I'll give you a dollar just to take it away from me. Vranak (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a topic I've thought of often, particularly from the POV of increasing both national and global wealth. It seems we would do better in that regard if more effort went into creating wealth, and preventing it's destruction, while less went into moving existing wealth around.

A) Ways to create wealth:

1) Farming and herding.

2) Mining.

3) Manufacturing and construction.

4) Some services. This is interesting, since society moved from agricultural to manufacturing and now into the majority of people working in services. This can be bad for wealth creation, especially in more developed nations, as many services seem to involve moving existing wealth around, rather than creating new wealth. Advertising, marketing, and sales might be one example. Casino and lottery workers are another example, as are lawyers engaged in lawsuits. So, what services create wealth ? I'd put teaching right on top, as almost everyone considers themself wealthier when well educated, and they tend to make far more money over their lifetimes.

5) New technology. Most people would consider themselves wealthier with a modern cell phone than one of the first generation that looked like an army radio.

This might explain why the wealth of China in rapidly increasing, since they are still largely in a manufacturing economy, while we in the West have moved on to mostly services. India, on the other hand, while a provider of services, gets cash for them from other nations, while those other nations are often left with nothing of lasting value in exchange, thus increasing the wealth of India and decreasing the wealth of other nations (and hence just moving wealth around, on an international scale).

B) Ways to destroy wealth:

1) Fire (and thus fire departments help limit this destruction of wealth) and natural disasters, such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, etc. Disaster preparedness helps limit this destruction.

2) Vandalism and theft. You might think that something is worth the same once it's stolen, but it frequently loses much of it's value. An extreme example is when copper piping is ripped out of a building and sold as scrap metal, for far less than the cost to replace the pipes. But, even a stolen car has far less value than it had, as it can't be sold for much without valid papers. Chop shops often take just a few components off the stolen car and sell them for far less than the original car was worth. So, just like the fire department, the police have the power to limit the destruction of wealth.

3) War, and in particular, "total war", where everything is bombed to the ground, destroys vast amounts of wealth. Soldiers can either cause this destruction or prevent it, depending on whether they are the aggressors or defenders.

4) Decomposition. This includes the rust example you gave, but also food that rots, plastic that gets brittle and breaks, etc. In some cases this wealth destruction is due to planned obsolescence, where the object is designed to fail before it otherwise would.

5) Going out of fashion. If people feel that an otherwise functional product, like their clothes, car, etc., is no longer of much value because it's "last year's model", this leads to the item being discarded (often for little or nothing) and being replaced by a new one.

I really think that nations which build products to last, and don't change the styles each year, will, in the long run, have far more wealth than those with a "disposable society". So, how do we get there ? Perhaps higher sales taxes on initial purchases and lower taxes on maintenance activities, might be one step forward, encouraging us to keep up the items we have. A nice enviromentally responsible way to increase the sales price is to require that the eventual disposal/recycling fees for a new product be paid up front. This both encourages them to keep their old items, and takes away the incentive for them to dump stuff in a swap or the woods, to avoid paying the disposal costs. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Leslie Salmon - Author

Arthur Leslie Salmon was born in 1865 but I cannot find the date/year that he died. Does anyone out there know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.24.12 (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've done an extensive google search and found nothing. Very strange. I suggest looking up his death certificate at city hall —Preceding unsigned comment added by Assembler45 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Where does Riyadh get its water?

Looking at the article for Riyadh, I can't see anything that explains how a city of 6 million could exist in a desert. The article says that it was famous for its orchards in ye olden days, so I would assume there are substantial springs that can support irrigation, but there's no mention of this. 71.70.143.134 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC).

Apparently from groundwater, but the supply from the aquifers is a diminishing resource (the same is true with Las Vegas, Nevada and Phoenix, Arizona in the U.S.). Here is the abstract of an article on the situation. Evidently the water needs some treatment to be usable. Antandrus (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know if I buy that. An aquifer under constant drainage for more than a thousand years is capable of supporting a population of 6 million for more than a couple months? Either I'm wildly underestimating the (water per human)/(capacity of an aquifer) ratio or the Riyadh aquifer extends under the entire Arabian penninsula. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.143.134 (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Remember that the sedimentary strata underlying Riyadh have been absorbing water for a lot longer than that. It doesn't have to rain a lot, on a highly porous surface (e.g. sand) to charge or recharge an aquifer, given sufficient time. If the surface is porous, water sinks in before it has a chance to evaporate -- and in hundreds of thousands of years, that's plenty of water. Unfortunately when you build a city not only are you draining it at an unsustainable rate, but you're covering the former porous surface with buildings and parking lots, further reducing recharge rate. There is often plenty of groundwater in the desert, though ironically they may be sucking it out faster than their oil. Antandrus (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Turns out they also get a fair portion of their water from desalination plants on the Persian Gulf -- see Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Saudi_Arabia#Water_resources for some more information. According to this abstract, Riyadh gets 35% of its water supply from its aquifers, the rest from desal. It's rather analogous to the situation in a place like Phoenix, which gets water from the Colorado River while simultaneously draining its groundwater. I suppose this could go on the science desk since it involves hydrology, but what the heck ... Antandrus (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Historical Chinese gender imbalance

A recent Twitter post by Hans Rosling pointed out that China and India have a male:female ratio much higher than 1, and if you look at Gapminder[25] the Chinese trend starts almost exactly at the introduction of the one-child policy. But if you keep going back, the ratio was also quite high in 1950 - about 113 males for every 100 females. Is there any reason why this might be so? Especially since wars historically dropped the sex ratio due to the large number of males in the armed forces getting killed; and while the Nanking Massacre did result in a large number of female deaths, that was about 15 years earlier and as far as I can tell shouldn't have resulted in such a large imbalance in the first place. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 21:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That was probably because the bride's family was expected to pay a dowry to the groom's family, making girls a financial liability. Unfortunately, this probably led to many poor families killing their female babies. StuRat (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

China (and most Asian countries) are very misogynistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Assembler45 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Etymology question: Ptah *ph₂tḗr

Ptah is described in ancient Egypt as the god who created the world (i.e. father of creation). Could there be any common etymology to PIE *ph₂tḗr meaning father? Si1965 (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(This would probably be better on the Langauge desk).

There could be. There could be a connection between any two words in different languages that happen to be similar. But in the absence of any linguistic or historical reason to think so, it is very unlikely. --ColinFine (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Music

Is there a specific word for someone who translates musical notation from one instrument to another? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghoulygone (talk • contribs) 22:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Arrangement is the general term, and someone who does it is an "arranger". See List of music arrangers. Tevildo (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Transcription may be the term you are looking for. I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 23:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Single, Young African-American Moms and Fornication

Why many young African-American women are practicing fornication and raising their children by themselves? Why is this more common for African-American women than the White American women and Asian American women? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think they are? Please give sources for your tendentious claims. . --ColinFine (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I wouldn't use the word "fornication", in this context, as it implies a religious value judgment. The more neutral term would be "engaging in premarital sex". StuRat (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Now, as for why more black women are single mothers, I can think of several factors:

1) Higher death rate among black males than white males means the father is more likely to be dead.

2) Black men are more likely to be in the military, and thus absent while deployed (although this doesn't technically make the women single mothers).

3) Black men are more likely to be incarcerated.

4) There is less of a stigma in the black community for a mother raising a child alone, so more do. StuRat (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The question seems to be soap boxing based on unwarranted assumptions. Lots more women have sex outside marriage than have babies. Sexual activity is common among black , white and hispanic teenagers and young adults, and cohabitation is common as well among young adults past college age. There is a thing called "birth control." One online source of unproven reliability says that as of 2002 68% of U.S. black women who had babies were unmarried,, down from a peak of 70.4% in 1994. Overall 33.8% of U.S. new mothers were unmarried in 2002. The illigitimacy rate among non-Hispanic whites was 22.9% in 2002. The Wikipedia article Legitimacy (law) offered few statistics, except that 40% of babies born in the the US in 2007 were outside wedlock, with no racial or ethnic breakdown. A book has graphs of U.S. black and white illegitimacy 1960-1999, which shows the black rate levelling off at just under 70% while the white rate was around 20% and still rising. Edison (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how any of the data you presented demonstrates that the OP is working under incorrect assumptions. A decline of 2.4% is probably statistically insignificant, and a ratio of ~3:1 of unmarried black:white births suggests that there IS a statistically significant correlation between race and unwed births. 71.70.143.134 (talk)

Go back and read the part about having sex may not produce pregnancy if birth control is used, particularly the pill. Thus pregnancy rates or "unwed births" do not necessarily equate to "fornication" rates. Edison (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sudhir Venkatesh has explored this topic (I think in "Off the Books", but I'm not exactly sure). He basically found that motherhood was considered a rite of passage for black teenage girls in poor neighborhoods, which is why it's so prevalent compared to similar non-black populations. 71.70.143.134 (talk)

Unwanted pregnancy is prevalent among lower-income neighborhoods/cities/countries, regardless of race. It's just that in this country, minorities, particularly African-Americans and Hispanics, are the ones who are financially and socially disadvantaged more so than other ethnicities. So teenage and unwanted pregnancies are more prevalent among them, and therefore the stereotype is born that only black people and Latinos have kids outside of marriage and are unable to financially provide for their offspring. However, this is all just my personal observation, so don't ask me for references. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Same Sex Marriage in the UK

Is same-sex marriage, specifically between females, legal in the UK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Assembler45 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not marriage, but same sex couples may form a civil partnership which is practically identical in legal form if not in terminology. See Civil partnership in the United Kingdom. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose, technically, the answer is that marriage other than between a man and a woman is not recognised at law, so a same-sex "marriage" is neither legal nor illegal; rather, it simply does not exist. I mean, if a minister or civil celebrant purported to marry two females in exactly the same way as they'd marry a man and a woman, then the two women would not be married, and the celebrant might well be in trouble with the law. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In the US, same-sex "marriages" have been conducted for (at least) decades by liberal-minded ministers. Those "marriages" are what I would "spiritual" marriages, i.e. they made the participants feel good but they had no legal standing. And much of the brouhaha in the US about same-sex marriage could have been avoided if the civil union approach was pursued. But the gay community took the bold approach of demanding it be called "marriage". As I recall, even the right-leaning George Bush supported the idea of civil unions. "Marriage" is a hot-button term in that context. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

March 8

Marijuana Intoxication

Two questions:

Can one be arrested for being intoxicated on Cannabis within the confines of one's home in the United States? Note, the question deals only with intoxication and not possession.

Can one be arrested for being intoxicated on Cannabis within the confines of one's home in the State of Florida?

Wikipedia and/or non-Wikipedia references would be appreciated. 76.110.192.228 (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you asking for legal advice? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not. This question is for personal knowledge. 76.110.192.228 (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

OK -- According to this, only possession, cultivation or sale of marijuana are punishable offenses in the state of Florida, and possession of paraphernalia is a misdemeanor. I don't think there can be a federal offense because it's a state issue. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have also read that the presence of Cannabis in the blood can also be considered "possession". Have any judicial rulings or appropriate statutes shed any light on the said matter? 76.110.192.228 (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It might "be considered possession" by the truly overzealous law enforcement official, but has anyone ever been convicted of possession in the US (or elsewhere) merely for having it in their bloodstream? People can "be arrested" for many specious reasons which lead to dismissals, nonprosecutions, or acquitals. Edison (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly any driver can be pulled over for driving erratically, and could be subjected to intoxication tests. Driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right. Within your home would be subject to a search warrant, and since intoxication is often a shared experience, all it would take is one blabbermouth telling someone who tells a cop, "Hey, this guy is growing cannabis in his house" or "This guy has quite a stash!" and then you're cooked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The US Supreme Court cases Powell v. Texas and Robinson v. California are close but not exactly addressing the issue. In Robinson, the Court struck down a California law criminalizing drug addiction, mostly because, the Court said, drug addiction is a disease; while in Powell, the Court said it was OK to have arrested an alcoholic for being publicly intoxicated, because even if alcoholism is a disease, Powell had not been arrested for being diseased, but for being drunk in public in a particular circumstance. Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems like they were drawing a civil-liberties-based distinction between personal failing and the potential endangerment of others. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Do any records exist of a conviction of Cannabis possession based on evidence that proves you were "possessing Cannabis in your bloodstream" at the time of arrest? 76.110.192.228 (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried googling this particular hypothesis? I would think someone who's intoxicated would be charged with intoxication, as opposed to "possession", but I have no specific facts to back that up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Per my understanding, intoxication of Cannabis isn't a crime unless it's in public. However, I've read that the presence of Marijuana in one's bloodstream may be used to justify possession; as you "posses it in your blood".

I'll see what I can find on Google and I'll get back to any of the interested parties here. 76.110.192.228 (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I found this interesting little link. Does it hold any merit? 76.110.192.228 (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're high, then you're intoxicated, and just as with alcohol, they could presumably do tests to determine the cause and degree of intoxication. But they would have to have probable cause to arrest in the first place, I should think - like smelling pot on your breath or otherwise showing classic signs of being high. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That scenario holds in non-public instances as well? You can't be intoxicated within the privacy of your own home? 76.110.192.228 (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)