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

April 13

Muslim clothing

What justification is used by European countries which ban Muslim women from wearing the clothing required by their religion? They aren't harming anyone, after all. --70.129.184.122 (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Such clothing is not really required by their religion, it's more of a traditional custom. Occasionally someone argues that headscarves and veils should be banned because it violates women's human rights, but more often the reason is apparently simple xenophobia. People fear the unknown, and at the moment Islam is equated with terrorism, so anyone in a veil could potentially blow you up. It's funny, Catholic canon law used to be full of rules that Muslims and Jews should dress differently, so Christians could tell them apart and avoid intermingling with them. And now Europeans want them to be as dissimilar as possible. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This is happening in Quebec as well, and the justification is to 'protect' their identity and make sure there is no fraud when requesting public services. And yet, they permit absentee ballots for elections by mail. It's all a big load, if you ask me, but this isn't the place for opinions... Aaronite (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This really only applies (at least in Quebec) to the niqab and burqa where the face is partially or totally covered. And how often do you see that in Europe or North America? Personally I have only ever seen one person wearing a niqab, and never a burqa. It's hardly a big problem, but it distracts people from more important things they probably won't be able to understand anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

See the articles (and where they lead) listed under Category:Islamic dress controversy in Europe. For Quebec, see accommodation for Muslim headgear Another one at Europe's border: Headscarf controversy in Turkey. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

We also have Hijab by country, including a short section on Europe. Turkey's always the one that gets me. It's not xenophobia, but rather a clash of internal cultures. And to answer the original question, some people do believe that headgear does harm others. In Turkey's case, Ataturk believed that headscarves prevented Turkey from modernizing. Buddy431 (talk) 04:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

We also have Reasonable accommodation (for the Canadian perspective). Earlier I was thinking of sumptuary law, which has some more links specific to clothing. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There are different aspects. One is the (somewhat, but not completely, patronising) argument that (most) women would not wear this clothing voluntarily, but only because of social or family pressure. Or, if they wear it voluntarily, it's only because of their cultural conditioning, and they wouldn't if only they knew better (you can see where the patronising comes in ;-). For school teachers, another argument is that teachers should not be an example for lifestyles associated with a strongly non-egalitarian society. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

See divide and rule, though that's just my opinion. A couple of quotes: Daniel Bacquelaine, the Belgian MP behind the bill there: "Wearing the burqa in public is not compatible with an open, liberal, tolerant society.", and Nicolas Sarkozy: "The all-body veil is contrary to the dignity of women. The answer is to ban it" [1]. I think the case being made by most people in favour of a ban is that wearing the veil is damaging in some way to society as a whole, that it facilitates some kinds of fraud, and that it is something imposed on women that restricts their liberty. Tinfoilcat (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are some arguments for making wearing a burqa illegal:

1) It hides the identity. This is particularly a problem when women want their driver's license picture to have their face hidden. Such ID is worse than worthless, as anyone can use it and claim to be that person. So, basically those women would have no ID at all. This just doesn't work in a modern society.

2) Terrorism. Suicide bombers wearing such loose clothing can hide a lot of explosives and kill many people. Since the identity is concealed, even a man and/or someone the guards would recognize as a terrorist could get close to their target.

3) Integration into society. In order to prevent a polarized society and eventual conflict, some degree of integration within the new society is necessary. This is the "melting pot" concept. Clothing is one aspect, as are language, customs, etc. Perhaps people who are completely unwilling to integrate into the new culture should be kept out. StuRat (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The OP says "They aren't harming anyone, after all". That point is debateable, since they are harming the woman who has to wear the thing. Women who wear it are excluded from most of society and are effectively owned by men. 78.147.232.11 (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So where does that leave women who choose to wear the veil as a sign of their faith? Astronaut (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I have known Muslim women in the workplace who are very strong and assertive, yet wear a headscarf (though not a veil) as an indicationg of faith and modesty, and who would take offense to the idea that they are "owned" by men. And as far as that's concerned, how different is that "ownership" from so-called "submission" practiced by some Christian sects? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

A headscarf is of trivial importance compared to wearing a burqa or a niqāb. 78.149.114.89 (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't buy it as part of their religion, as most Muslims don't cover their faces. I believe the Koran only says that "men and women should dress modestly". It's more of a cultural thing, going back to the Arab tribes which predating Islam (along with many other misogynistic practices). That said, many Arab Muslim clerics have tried to incorporate these tribal values into the religion, as this allows them to spread their tribal values to other cultures, as if it was "the will of Allah". StuRat (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The whole religious vs. cultural thing is a bit of a straw man though. The Mr. 70.129 could have just as easily asked "why do they try to ban women from wearing clothing related to their cultural heritage" and the question, and answers, would essentially be the same. Buddy432 (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

At least in the US, having a religious basis for wearing certain clothes is more likely to result in those clothes being protected, as discrimination based on religion is banned by the Constitution. There's no such protection for clothing of "other cultures". StuRat (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

In the US, it wouldn't just be freedom of religion, but also freedom of expression. Obviously, compromises are needed. You can't hide your face for a driver's license photo. You can't use the religious argument there, as driving on a public street is not a constitutional right, it's a privilege granted by the state under certain conditions, including passing the test and having a proper ID photo taken. Schools might prohibit any kind of clothing they consider to be a distraction from the educational process. Employers might have similar rules. The military will require regulation uniforms while on duty. Lower-level governments will have "decency" laws. But in general in the US, clothing choices are none of the government's business. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK no country has or ever will ban any clothes except those that somehow violate decency laws. Schools on the other hand are perfectly within their rights to ban any clothes they wish. Most have school uniforms, and non-religion items such as hats and gloves are banned. If I made up my own religion and claimed that I needed to wear a hat all the time, I still wouldn't be allowed to wear it to school.--92.251.147.169 (talk)

Then I recommend that you read clothing laws by country, sumptuary law and hijab#Governmental enforcement and bans, which cover some of the many occasions where governments have banned clothing which did not violate decency laws. Warofdreams talk 22:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Further [2] [3]. It seems that the Belgian law may not happen at least yet, as the Belgium government has collapsed, although not because of anything to do with the proposes ban Nil Einne (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

America doesn't have a government?

Russian President Medvedev said in an interview[4] (comparing his own role in Russia with that of PM Putin),

"But I would say the most important and most complicated decisions I have to take myself. So we have the government which has its own competence. America doesn't have a government. The government itself generates the laws. The government is busy with economics and this is a lot of work, I used to work in the government for many years. I was the first deputy of the prime minister..."

I think he is contrasting the US system of a multi-branched entity called the "government" with the Russian system, which I gather is parliamentary, which in turn I think means what they call the "government" is what we'd call the "executive branch", and it functions like an agency that reports to the Parliament, rather than as an equal policy-making branch in its own right. But I still can't quite make sense of the sentence. What does it mean? Thanks. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 06:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The Federal Assembly of Russia is the legislature, so more or less equivalent to the United States Congress. The Judiciary of Russia likewise equivalent to the United States Judiciary. But the US Executive branch has no single equivalent Russian branch. The President of the United States is both the head of state and the head of government. In contrast the President of Russia is the head of state and the Prime Minister of Russia is the head of government. Perhaps what Medvedev was getting at by saying "America doesn't have a government" was something like, America doesn't have a head of government separate from its head of state. In Russia the president has to work with the "government"--ie, the prime minister, but in the US there is no equivalent "government" that the president must work with in this way. The issues relating to the Russian president and prime minister having to work together--how to deal with disagreements, responsibility, taking blame or credit, etc--do not come up in the US because a single person is both president and "government". I admit I am guessing here, and would like to hear a more knowledgeable response. Pfly (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In a multi-party parliamentary system, "the government" typically refers to a coalition of parties which together controls the majority of the legislature, and thus elects the Prime Minister. In the US two-party system, this would just be called "the majority party", and only gets to pick some lesser offices, like Speaker of the House. So, if by "the US has no government", he means "has no ruling coalition of political parties", then that's quite true. StuRat (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

From the context, I think it's clear that Medvedev means roughly what Pfly said. He means that Russia has a government (headed by a Prime Minister) as one institution and a President as another institution, and the two have different responsibilities. In America, there is no government separate from the President, because the President is in complete control of the government. In fact, I don't think Russia is really a parliamentary republic, it's more like a semi-presidential one (as our article says), and the president does have substantial power over the government, albeit less so than in the US. But Medvedev is indeed emphasizing the "semi" aspect of it, and that Putin's authority and sphere of competence are separate from his own. Basically, he is being asked "Which one of you two is the boss?", and he is answering that each of them has his own domain. And this is technically true, although I somehow suspect that Russia is especially inclined to emphasize its parliamentarian aspects when Putin is the PM, and its presidential aspects when Putin is the President :).--91.148.159.4 (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Quibble: There are obviously a few parts of "the government" that the US president does not control, like the Federal judges themselves. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In Europe, when we say "the government", we refer exclusively to the ministers and the prime minister. "The Governement" never refers to the whole series of public institutions like the parliament and the judges, only the ministers. Since there are no ministers and no prime minister in the US, Medvedev is correct in the European meaning of "Government", not in the American meaning of the same word. -Lgriot (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. I'm Bulgarian and I wouldn't dream of calling the judicial system part of "the government"; nor would a Russian, a Frenchman or anyone else outside of America, I think. In case there has been a misunderstanding - Medvedev and Gordon Brown do not have official control of the judicial systems, despite the fact that they are "heads" of their respective "governments". An American president has complete control of the "government" in the European (including Russian) sense. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

So how do you collectively refer to the whole series of public institutions like the parliament, judges, and ministers ? StuRat (talk) 05:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Here in Finland at least we just call the whole thing "valtio", or "the state", which works neatly since we have no state/federal distinction to consider. Ditto in many other continental countries. "Hallitus", or "the government", is the cabinet.--Rallette (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If you irritate and inflame the cabinet, you get lots of important people making lots of hot air. Commonly called halitosis.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"The state" is what Russians, Finns, Bulgarians, British people and probably most other people in the world besides Americans call the entire sphere of public institutions, I think. This does seem to translate to "government" in American parlance. Whereas the non-American meaning of "government" is indeed "cabinet".--91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The closest thing in American English to what Europeans would call "a government" is "an administration." The "Obama administration" refers to the president, his cabinet and the people in charge of the executive branch of the state at the time. However, it would be incorrect to refer to the "Obama government" because in the American system, the legislature actually does much of the governing rather than serving as a rubber stamp for the cabinet. Americans outside of political science don't generally use the term "state" to refer to the federal government because a "state" in the U.S. refers to the 50 entities that (along with DC, etc.) make up the country. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Just one remark - the legislature does not serve as a "rubber stamp" for the cabinet in the non-American systems either - in all these systems, the legislature and not the cabinet is the one that makes the laws (if this is what you mean by its "actually doing much of the governing"). What is true is that there does tend to be greater unanimity between the executive and the legislative branches in parliamentary democracies such as the UK than in presidential democracies such as the US and France, where the president and the legislature may have completely different agendas; but this is because, far from the legislature being a "rubber stamp" for the cabinet, the cabinet is bound to reflect the positions of the legislature, because the cabinet is elected by the legislature. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Er, no they're not. The cabinet is appointed by the crown on the advice of the Prime Minister. However, only members of the legislature may be appointed, unlike in the American system. FiggyBee (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

In theory, in the UK, the cabinet is "appointed by the monarch", but this has no significance. In practice, the cabinet is derived from and completely dependent on a majority in the House of Commons, and this majority determines the monarch's "choice"; in most other parliamentarian democracies, which don't have the UK's historical traditions, the cabinet is elected (i.e. voted on) by the parliament formally as well.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

history - John Wilkes Booth, a white supremacist?

I was reading the colfax massacre article and came across the line "This was enough for white supremacist John Wilkes Booth to assassinate Lincoln". This seemed like a bit of a stretch to me-was he actually a white supremacist?

I'm not asking if he was pro-slavery, his article seems to be pretty adament that he was pissed about the whole freeing the slaves thing, I'm asking if he was actually a supremacist.

Thanks in advance. flagitious 07:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be safe to say Booth was a white supremacist; certainly he shared the widespread belief that the best thing for blacks was life under white rule. From his final letter, printed in the New York times:

"This country was formed for the white, not for the black man. And looking upon African Slavery from the same stand-point held by the noble framers of our constitution, I for one, have ever considered it one of the greatest blessings (both for themselves and us.) Witness heretofore our wealth and power; witness their elevation and enlightenment above their race elsewhere... Yet, Heaven knows, no one would be willing to do more for the negro race than I, could I but see a way to still better their condition."

On the other hand, the sentence in the Colfax massacre article which you quote seems very much exaggerated, implying as it does that this particular decision, giving the vote to a number of black veterans, was the reason for Booth. Accordingly, I shall delete it.--Rallette (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any distinction between white supremacists and those who endorse black slavery. If there is such a distinction, it's that the white supremacists would settle for less than total slavery, perhaps just segregation or Apartheid. StuRat (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln himself, viewed from today's perspective, was somewhat of a white supremacist. But by standards of the day, he was liberal, and he absolutely deplored slavery. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Booth was a white supremacist. In other words, his views on race were fairly typical for American whites of his era, northern or southern. In our era, we often equate white supremacy with hatred and violence, but in Lincoln's era it could be paternalistic and compassionate. Even many white abolitionists took it for granted that whites were inherently superior to blacks. —Kevin Myers 13:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You have to be careful using modern terms and concepts for historical events and people. Booth was probably fairly typical for his milieu. See Moral relativism. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"White supremacy" may be a modern term but it's an old concept. In scholarly writings it is routine to discuss "white supremacy" in 19th century America; I'd go so far as to say that you cannot understand Lincoln's era without understanding white supremacy. A typical citation, this one from Don E. Fehrenbacher, writing in the 1970s: "Lincoln in the 1850s did plainly endorse the existing system of white supremacy, except for slavery." Scholars debate the degree to which Lincoln was a white supremacist; with Booth, there's little room for doubt. He was a white supremacist, i.e. his views were fairly typical. —Kevin Myers 14:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Fairly typical for a pro-slavery person. Let's not forget that there was a huge anti-slavery movement and sentiment, even though even many of its members may be seen as partly racist by today's standards. It certainly can't be claimed that the average American of the time was pro-slavery as Booth was.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

---

In the political context of the 1840s and the 1850s in the US, giving blacks equal voting rights and full "social equality" was a controversial "advanced" position supported by only a distinct minority of the electorate in most areas (while usually a much larger section of the electorate, even in many areas in the north, would have been vehemently opposed to it). At that time, even many of those who were strongly opposed to slavery on moral and humanitarian grounds, and were thoroughly disgusted by Dred Scott, "bleeding Kansas" etc. were often somewhat uncertain or hesitant about giving full equal rights -- or at least argued for handling one issue at a time (i.e. fighting slavery first), without unnecessarily anticipating eventual future issues which would be controversial and divisive within the Free Soil party or the Republican party at the moment. Lincoln was among the uncertain and hesitant (especially before the war), but he made few explicitly racist statements, except during the Lincoln-Douglas debates (where he uttered what he thought was the necessary minimum of racism to stay a viable candidate in the 1858 Illinois Senate race, in response to the very racist Stephen A. Douglas's accusations of "Black Republicanism"), and it would be grotesque to try to lump together Lincoln with someone like David Duke. AnonMoos (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

But why is Lincoln hailed as some saintly hero when he wasn't crusading for equal rights, he was just against slavery? Would he agree with MLK's ideas for equality for all people regardless of color, gender or creed? Abolishing slavery was a pretty big step in the right direction, but it would be another 100 years before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, when equality for all became the law of the land.24.189.90.68 (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there was a high degree of equality, in the South, enforced by federal troops, during Reconstruction. StuRat (talk) 05:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln was a complex character, and is not easily pinned down. In a way, being assassinated was a good career move. He had more enemies than you can count, and one of them got him; but his death (as with that of JFK) allowed his successors to invoke his memory to push reform legislation through Congress. Lincoln's focus more than anything else was not so much about slavery but about preserving the Union - he had the vision and foresight to realize that fracturing the USA would weaken it in the long run. His Emancipation Proclamation, while it did nothing about the slaves at that moment, was a brilliant political stroke, as it made the war "about" slavery and held at bay countries like England which might have come to the south's aid otherwise. Maybe it would be better to say that Lincoln was a white "superiorist". That was by no means an uncommon view. T.R. used to refer to "our little brown brothers", and he was a liberal for his day. Race relations are complicated throughout our history. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

User 24.189.90.68 asked, "But why is Lincoln hailed as some saintly hero when he wasn't crusading for equal rights, he was just against slavery?"

The reason is: Because being against slavery was heroic enough. Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist, but he was the first person elected president who had repeatedly and publicly characterized slavery as morally wrong. He wasn't crusading for racial equality, but he was a consistent advocate for the principle that blacks were entitled to the natural rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. By our standards that may be a mild position to take, but slaveowners found it so alarming that some slave states seceded even before Lincoln took office. Abolitionists were initially unenthusiastic about Lincoln because he wasn't one of them, but they eventually realized that he was going to advance their agenda more than they could have hoped. There's a lesson there about pragmatic adherence to principles. —Kevin Myers 06:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln was the first person elected president who had repeatedly and publicly characterized slavery as morally wrong - no, that's not true. Thomas Jefferson did so as well. Of course, as a slave-owner himself he was inconsistent about this, and later in life he did not stress this opinion very much. But the sentiment was doubtlessly there. "The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism[...]" and "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever..." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

As usual with history, the details matter, not just the pull quotes. My words "repeatedly and publicly" were carefully chosen. Like other slaveowners of the founding generation (e.g. Washington and Madison), Jefferson sometimes criticized slavery in writings that were not intended for the general public. The quote you give is from Notes on the State of Virginia, which was prepared for private circulation in France. Jefferson specifically warned against publicizing his "strictures against slavery" (Shuffleton edition introduction, p. xvi). He was alarmed when it became clear that his sentiments about slavery were going to be published in America; he initially hoped that his authorship would remain anonymous, or, failing that, that the book would be read by a select audience. As David Brion Davis said of this situation, Jefferson "would not take the risk of placing his own prestige squarely behind his antislavery views" (The problem of slavery, p. 178). As president and retired president, Jefferson was even more reluctant to criticize slavery publicly. According to Davis, "the most remarkable thing about Jefferson's stand on slavery was his immense silence" (ibid, 179). Perhaps Jefferson's silence on slavery was politically prudent for his time, but the fact remains that Jefferson, unlike Lincoln, was unwilling to repeatedly and publicly characterize slavery as morally wrong. —Kevin Myers 19:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I never said that Lincoln was some "saintly hero", but during the the last five years of his life he was the face of white moderate progressivism towards blacks in the United States, and the most prominent black political personality of the time (Frederick Douglass) supported his presidential candidacy in both 1860 and 1864, so it would be rather absurd to call him simply and only a "white supremacist". If you demand that people in 1860 be fully and completely anti-racist according to modern standards, then you would find that only a few theoretical "advanced" thinkers (without much practical political influence) would meet your standards of untainted purity. In this context, it's kind of useless to beat up on Lincoln for not being an immediatist abolitionist or uncompromising racial equality advocate, because no immediatist abolitionist or uncompromising racial equality advocate could realistically have been elected president of the United States in 1860, so whoever filled that office (if not Lincoln) would have fallen equally short by modern standards (probably even more so). Lincoln was no immediatist abolitionist, but by the standards of his time and place he was a moderate progressive, and he was issuing qualified public anti-slavery statements as early as 1837 -- when there was no possible political advantage for Lincoln (in his role as a state legislator from central Illinois) in being seen as any kind of anti-slavery advocate (and a lot of potential political liabilities -- see Elijah Parish Lovejoy). AnonMoos (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

WTO, World Bank and IMF

What is the eligibility to become a member of the board of the directors of 1. World Trade Organization, 2. World Bank and 3. IMF. --WTLop (talk) 08:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

These are international organizations made up of member states. Their dgovernance differs from that of private sector organizations. In the WTO, each of the members is in theory equal. The decisional organ is the Conference of Ministers; there is no inner council (e.g. nothing like the United Nations Security Council) as far as I can tell from the article. The World Bank and International Monetary Fund both have a Board of Governors, whose composition is proportional to the contribution of the various members to the institutions' capital. The governors are nominated by the member states who hold seats on the board (often, more than one country will poll their votes together in order to have enough weight to be able to appoint a governor). So, to answer the O.P.'s question directly, in order to be a member of the equivalent of the board of directors of the WTO, one needs to be the Minister of Trade of one of the member countries. For the other two organizations, one must be appointed by a government which holds a seat on the council of governors. Typically, the governors include former Central Bank presidents (for the IMF), senior aid officials (for the WB) and other former top-level bureaucrats. These are not jobs the man on the street can apply for. --Xuxl (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The Catholic church's influence on pedophilia statistics

I've often heard it said that the abused become abusers. If that is true, then it seems to follow that the pedophile priests that have been in the news of late have been creating abusers. And again, if the first bit is true, has anyone looked into how much the pedophilia problems that we have today have been started by bad priests? Basically, how much are they responsible for? Either world wide or for a single country will do. I'm not really sure how anyone could quantify this or if it has even been looked at but it came to mind yesterday while hearing more about the scandals. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 09:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a flaw in the logic that "the abused becomes the abuser". If this was 100% true, and each abuser abuses several others, then the pattern of abuse would encompass 100% of society in just a few generations. However, AFAIK, the percentage of abuse isn't going up, although the reporting of such cases is. StuRat (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing new under the sun. If the abused become the abusers, then there's a good chance the abusers were once abused themselves. That's not to condone anything for a second; but there's still a bigger picture here, which does not have its beginning with modern-day bad priests. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Masturbation

We men are quite good at it. When deprived of sex men always do it. It is rightly said that 95 % men masturbate and 5 % lie ! What about women ? Do they do it as frequently or if at all ? And how do they do it ? Do they also ejuaculate ?(if yeah what ?) Jon Ascton  (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you not read the article you linked to? --TammyMoet (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Once the men are "done", even the ones who are "quite good at it", the women are just getting started. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I read that just under two thirds (60%) or women masturbate. One third (33%) of all porn viewers are women according to the same source. The source was a sort of educational poster about pornography, which I doubt you would find online.--92.251.147.169 (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

For the OP's last question, see Female ejaculation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

K.L. Lebenau, 1945

Among a dozen drawings by Abraham Ryza (Lodz, 1920–Los Angeles, 2001) that depict the abuse of concentration camp inmates by SS staff, half are signed (lower right corner) with the initials "A.R.", the year "1945", and the name LEBENAU in block letters. Could this have been the name of a camp, or possibly a misspelling of Liebenau? The I.T.S. lists two camps with the latter name and none with the former - which I'm trying to pin down before checking alternate or variant spellings. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There does seem to have been an internment camp in Laufen-Lebenau, Bavaria. Holocaust testimonies: European survivors and American liberators in New Jersey I don't know whether it is the same facility as the modern day JVA Laufen-Lebenau. Its history dates back to 1862. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This [5] source says: "Nach den Aufzeichnungen des Laufener Stiftsdekan und Stadtpfarrer Peter Gries (1894-1977) kam vier Tage vor dem Einmarsch der Amerikaner, das war der 1. Mai, ein "Trieb" von etwa 230 KZ-Häftlingen, alle in erbärmlichem Zustand, aus verschiedenen Lagern in die Strafanstalt Lebenau.", meaning that shortly before the end of WW II some 230 KZ inmates were transferred to Lebenau, a prison in Bavaria close to the border to Austria. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Attica in the Threepenny Novel

In Fewkoombey's dream in Brecht's Threepenny Novel, why does the judge ask about Attica?--188.222.58.219 (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Has there ever been an atheist Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court?

20.137.18.50 (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Almost certainly. The question is if there ever was an atheist who was open about this on the U.S. Supreme Court. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, openly. That's what I meant, thanks. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

To elaborate, since most US voters are not atheists, people running for office might want to hide their atheism, lest it hurt their chances of winning elections. A Supreme Court Justice isn't elected, but is selected by people who are (the President and Senate), so might also want to pretend to be religious, to curry their favor. StuRat (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

According to our article, Felix Frankfurter was a non-practicing Jew, and regarded religion as "an accident of birth". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I would venture much farther than StuRat's timid "might". All American politicians claim to be people of faith. Unfortunately, it seems that for many American voters, being religious is a requirement for receiving a vote. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"All" is a pretty strong statement. I direct you to List of nontheists (politics and law) which lists a few elected Americans in the mix. In 2007, representative Pete Stark declared that he didn't believe in a higher power. He's the only openly atheist member of the U.S. congress. Buddy431 (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know about Stark, good find — but he is quoted in that MSNBC article as claiming he is a Unitarian, and it appears that the reporter interpreted this as referring to Unitarian Universalism, which our own article declares to be a religion (hence he still purports to be a "person of faith", in something). Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That reminds me of the Tom Skerritt character in the movie Contact. He wanted the committee's votes to be the one in the spaceship pod thing. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This page claims David Davis was "not a member of any church." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Davis was kind of Lincoln's "kingmaker", and Lincoln returned the favor by nominating him to the Supreme Court. Lincoln was ostensibly Christian, but was also thought to be agnostic or even atheistic, and was likewise not a churchgoer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

On Killing (philosophy)

Why is it wrong to kill somebody? But please leave Religion and Law aside, because I want to get an answer that even an atheistic outlaw might understand. --95.88.26.239 (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's the fear of reprisal. That isn't a moral argument so much as a safety one, though. As for moral arguments, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" seems to apply whether you believe in god(s) or not. StuRat (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Or, put more succinctly and less problematically, don't do unto others what you wouldn't want them doing to you. (Which gets around the fact that just because something floats your boat, it might not others.) --Mr.98 (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)You're asking why it's "wrong" to kill, yet you want to leave religion and law out of it. But "wrong" itself is a moral/religious/legal concept. If you want a practical answer, I would say it's because it's disruptive to society, which is why there have always been laws against it. As far as the moral aspect, let's reverse it and see what you think: What would be wrong with someone killing you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Digression
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
} Biologically, if you are weak enough that your fellow humans are able to kill you, then it's good if you get killed before you pass your 'weak' genes down to the next generation :) 20.137.18.50 (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC) So all babies should be killed? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC) That logic doesn't really apply to a social species, like us. In order to act collectively, we can't spend all our resources trying to kill each other (and protecting ourselves from being killed). Imagine if all the ants in a colony were always at each other's throats. StuRat (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Lions have some degree of social order (of course nowhere near that of humans) and yet some male lions eat their own children. I'm not being mean-spirited, just hypothesizing. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Don't feed the trolls... --Mr.98 (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Agreed. Throwing food under the bridge is disruptive. 10draftsdeep (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Who's a troll ? If you mean Bugs saying "So all babies should be killed?", that sounds like a legit reductio ad absurdum argument against "killing the weak to improve the species". If he's being a troll, then so was Jonathon Swift, with A Modest Proposal. StuRat (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC) I took it to mean Mr. 98 was saying I was feeding Mr. 20, but he would have to clarify that point in order to be certain. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC) And his placement and tabbing would indicate he was responding to me, so I'm thoroughly confused. StuRat (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Aha, so we're both thoroughly confused. Maybe that was his objective. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC) The 20.137 comment I was calling trollish (it is an expression of Social Darwinism so idiotic that even Hitler wouldn't have agreed with it), and I was implying that both of you were feeding it.  ;-) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Roger. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's first make it clear that not everybody thinks it is unequivocally bad to kill people all the time. Even the Bible is usually considered to say it is bad to murder someone, which by definition a non-sanctioned killing. There is plenty of killing in there and allowed by our laws—states can kill, for example, in war, or often via capital punishment. Murder makes a lot of sense to outlaw for a society, because human beings take a lot of resources to develop and arbitrarily offing them leads to extremely unstable social situations. This is likely the main reason that societies disallow arbitrary murder, and the main reason that religions disallow it as well, whether or not they say this up front or not. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Ten Commandments item is taken to mean "murder" specifically, and in a bit of circular reasoning, "murder" is "the unlawful taking of human life." When people call abortion, capital punishment or warfare "murder", they are technically incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, there's the "greater sin" aspect. If someone is threatening your family's life, and you shoot him to death, you may have sinned by shooting him, but the greater sin would be to let him kill your family. That, extrapolated to the national level, is a justification for war. I once heard William Buckley say, "There is no such thing as a 'moral' war, but there is such a thing as a 'defensible' war." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll reference the social contract, a theory often used to describe the role of government. Thomas Hobbes famously said that without government, human lives would be "nasty, brutish, and short". Because we ourselves don't want to be killed by others, we give up our right to kill on our own. I know you didn't want laws, but there's a lot of philosophy about government. The accuracy of the social contract in describing actual governments is disputed, but it's an interesting idea. Buddy432 (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Laws, or the "social contract", are as old as society itself. Putting religion and law aside is called "anarchy". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In case I wasn't clear, I meant that the OP didn't want laws used as a justification for not killing people, not that he wanted anarchy. Buddy432 (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with below)And strictly speaking, laws aren't as old as society itself. In many societies, the will of the king/chief/religious leader was enforced pretty haphazardly, without codified laws. The Code of Hammurabi went a long way towards the modern practice of actually having a "rule of law", instead of a "rule of whatever the person in charge feels like". That's one of the criticisms of the social contract: governments didn't really form by people getting together and saying they wanted a government. They formed because people with the most power subjugated everyone else. Buddy432 (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

<sign...> philosophical myopia. Look, in the animal world, animals will sometimes kill members of their own species. usually not - animals that fight to the death tend to die off early and fail to pass on their genes, so most animals back down before death - but it does happen. the reason it's acceptable in the animal world is that we're talking about the death of one animal, which is irrelevant to the species as a whole. With humans, though, there are the dual problems of mind and technology. if you kill someone, that will likely not be the end of it. their friends and relatives are likely to come hunting for you, and no matter how big and mean you are, you won't stand up to a wave of angry relatives, not unless you use technology (a sword, a gun, a bomb). so, now what do you do: kill off all the friends and relatives of the first person you killed, to prevent reprisals? kill off all the people of the same race/ethnicity of the person you killed, in case they decide you're going to hunt them, as well? kill off an entire nation, in case the nation decides to take reprisals for you killing one of their citizens? Humans have complex social bonds and emotional attachments, and it's a fair bet that if you kill one human you enrage a notable number of other humans, who will come looking for you, and the whole situation will escalate. You can be a serial killer or a terrorist, killing people at random to make it hard for others to find you, but the former general marks you as the lowest of the low and the latter invites broad reprisals against your own kith and kin, and the technology to hunt down and kill people keeps getting better and better all the time.

If you are a complete loner (no friends, family, or attachments) and the person you want to kill is a complete loner (no friends, family or attachments), and the two of you have a mutual desire to kill each other... then go find a nice corner out in the desert and have at it (because no one cares). otherwise you're not just killing a person, you're cutting into a large and complex social fabric, and the trouble from it won't end. --Ludwigs2 15:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So he's asking why there is a law against it, yes? And I think that's pretty well covered. People freely killing each other could result in social breakdown and ultimately extinction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

He is not asking why there is a law against it. The OP clearly excluded any legal explanation. Try to convince a atheist outlaw why he shall not murder. Quest09 (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Well, I'll keep it simple then: He shouldn't kill because someone else is liable to kill him in return. Unless he's OK with that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe put that a little more subtly: if one is killing for a reason or goal (anything from killing for money, power, or love to killing for the sheer fun of it) than one or more aspects of society are going to put a lot of effort -directly or indirectly - into making sure that that reason or goal is in vain. In the animal world, the logic "If I fight with, defeat, and maybe kill X, I will be rewarded with Y" works, because once X is gone nothing obvious stands between you and Y. in the human world the same logic fails, because removing X will generally dredge up a whole assortment of new participants dedicated to getting between you and Y (if only by mounting your head on a stick). Of course, putting it rationally like this is silliness, because most people learn (by the time they are 6 or so) that they depend on the society around them, and that society gives to people that play together nicely and withholds from people who don't. it's only in that 'adolescent rebellion' stage when people hold the erroneous conclusion that they have complete freedom of action (a necessary stage to break them out of family authority into existence in the greater wold, but not a stage that lasts in most). --Ludwigs2 16:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

And here's the basic problem: The OP didn't ask for practical reasons not to commit murder; he asked why it's wrong. That's not got to do with practicality, it's got to do with morality, which is a social concept. You may scoff at this, but here's a bit from Love and Death: Sonia (Diane Keaton) wants the two of them to assassinate Napoleon. Boris (Woody Allen), who has essentially claimed to be an atheist or at least an agnostic earlier in the film, objects on the grounds that "murder is immoral". Now, how do you convince an "outlaw atheist" that murder is immoral, i.e. is wrong? It does not compute! The best you can do is to try to appeal to his selfish interests. But does that make it "wrong" to him? No, just "not practical - fraught with consequences." That's different. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Besides the legal and religious aspect (that you don't care), there is the practical aspect (above) and also the psychological aspect. How would you feel after killing someone, even if you have a reason?--Quest09 (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Many would feel bad, some would feel nothing, some would feel good, depending on circumstances and disposition. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

As for killing causing the breakdown of social order, that's a good argument for why others shouldn't kill, but not so good of an argument for any individual, as a single killing isn't likely to cause the collapse of civilization (although they gave it a good shot with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand). StuRat (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Not so true as you might think. see Hatfield-McCoy feud, or other examples of clan or gang wars --Ludwigs2 16:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd argue from the point of view of valuing knowledge for its own sake. Killing somebody destroys knowledge (in the absence of extenuating circumstances, where the killing defends some other knowledge). If we accept that the creation of knowledge is our basic motivation, then that's a reason not only to avoid killing people but also to be cooperative and rational. I find I can get a lot of moral mileage out of this principle. Uh ... oh yes, this is a ref desk. I don't know if there's an appropriate article. Knowledge value, sort of, but it's not much of a read. 213.122.54.206 (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

ah, please... reducing people to their inherent knowledge is bordering on a religious/moral/mystical explanation. you might as well just go whole-hog and say that that killing another is tantamount to killing yourself, because you damage the inherent common experience we all share. I don't dislike that argument, mind you, but it is a religious argument, not a philosophical one. --Ludwigs2 16:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. It's my philosophy, and I'm an atheist (and I don't see religion as in any way pro-knowledge, at least not in the modern world). There is a worthwhile clarification to make, though, about self-interest; I figure we have a duty to be more concerned about ourselves than about others, because we are more familiar with ourselves, and therefore better able to further the growth of knowledge by being biased towards our own interests than if we attempt to serve the interests of the whole world by proxy. 213.122.14.148 (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• You guys are overlooking the most obvious answer: If it weren't 'wrong' to kill people, everyone would be doing it. Want to take bets on how long the human race would last? HalfShadow 16:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, extinction, as I said. Tribal man realized the need for some order for the sake of survival, hence laws not only about murder but about theft and random violence and adultery and such stuff as that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So, you all seem to agree that killing is only wrong ( - I do not mean morally or legally wrong - ) out of "fear" of reprisals (family, friends, etc...). However, what if nobody cares about Mr. X? Am I (a monkey with a weapon) "practically" justified to kill Mr. X knowing that he's got no relatives or friends??? --95.88.26.239 (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No, whether they have people who care about them doesn't figure into it, for me, but whether they do good or evil does. StuRat (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't kill people ... because my crawlspace smells bad enough already. :-) StuRat (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you a serial killer? why would you want to kill such a person? the (fairly pointed) mistake you're making is assuming that one needs a reason not to kill, but one doesn't need a reason to kill. If this Mr. X is completely outside society, there's nothing he would have that you would want that would require killing him. if he has something you want, then he's not completely outside society, therefore you premise is wrong. If you are presupposing someone who is inclined to kill without reason, then no reason we give will stop him from killing - that kind of person gave up any pretense of humanity, and needs to be put down like a rabid animal. --Ludwigs2 17:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Which is why we typically execute serial killers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we typically just imprison them. StuRat (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In America, at least, they're usually prime fodder for the death angel. It depends on the state, of course. Gacy (Illinois) and Bundy (Florida) were sent to their just rewards. Dahmer (Wisconsin) got life in prison, which turned out to be not very long, as a fellow inmate clocked him a good one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This question is impossible to answer unless we know what stops you jumping off a bridge every day. Why do you want to live? We can then tell you why it is wrong to kill. I could write reams on this subject bu am currently unwilling. Read Reciprocal altruism and Competitive altruism--92.251.147.169 (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't agree with this, see my answer above (which unfortunately has had the word "mystical" appended to it in my absence, making it easy to dismiss and overlook). 213.122.14.148 (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Too put it simply: in most circumstances, both you and everyone else will be more harmed by you killing someone than by you not killing someone. There are exceptions to this, such as killing someone who is about to kill you and a load of other people.--92.251.147.169 (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Kant's Categorical imperative might make interesting reading (though it's explained more abstractly than necessary in the Wikipedia article)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the whole basis of the question is flawed. We're asked to leave aside moral, religious and legal paradigms. Yet, they're the only paradigms where there is such a concept as "right and wrong". In purely practical or utilitarian contexts, something either works or it doesn't, and right/wrong doesn't enter into it. For a person in a great rage, killing someone might work as an outlet for their feelings, at least until they realise that what they've done is irrevocable. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the original question asked that only religion and law be left out, not morality. Of course, morality is very much intertwined with the other two, as many people have elaborated so far. Because of this, it is very difficult to pin down a set of morals for any particular atheist anarchist, as they probably vary significantly from person to person. —Akrabbim^talk 19:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The word "wrong" implies divergence from what is "right", or some set of rules. You can't separate this from morality. We often hear people saying so-and-so is "morally wrong", as if there's a single Grand Set of Morals set in stone for all people at all times to adhere to. It does not work that way, and never has. Something may be terribly wrong in relation to a particular person's moral code, but quite ok for another person. Even leaving aside all the religious and legal issues, abortion would be a very good example of that. But is abortion a good example for this question, which is about killing "somebody"? It depends on your point of view. Some say abortion is the killing of a human being, and the whole panoply of rules about the killing of humans inherently applies to it. But some say it does not involve the loss of a human life, so those rules are irrelevant. Who decides who's "right" and who's "wrong" about this question? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't let religion hijack morality please. I will say it again, in most circumstances, both you and everyone else will be more harmed by you killing someone than by you not killing someone. There are exceptions to this, such as killing someone who is about to kill you and a load of other people.--92.251.147.169 (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Why would an "atheist outlaw" care about "morality"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Like most people you seem to think morality is some set religious rules, a sad side effect of the hijacking of morality by religion. Contrary to popular expectations, two people deciding not to kill each other because they are useful to one another is morality in the same way someone deciding not to kill others because they believe killing is inherently evil is morality. Morality is simply your code of conduct: "I will not harm him because he is useful to me" is a code of conduct just like "Killing people is inherently evil". I have no religious beliefs, and although I have no evidence I suspect you don't either, yet both of us have moral codes.--92.251.147.169 (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Bugs is just pointing out the underlying absurdity in the OPs question, namely that "atheist outlaws" would presumably just kill people, because they are, well, "atheist outlaws", unless they were given a reason that is beyond law and religion. And that is a (perhaps not very) subtle case of hijacking morality in religion's name, if you ask me. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"I will not harm him because he is useful to to me" is not morality, it's expedience. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

EO has a good section on what "moral" means:[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What you have in quotation marks there is what every single reason for being "moral" boils down to.--92.251.147.169 (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"Rights" and "wrongs" are tied to one another, or at least the basic and largely incontrovertible ones are. While everyone has a life, except colloquially-speaking, not everyone has the same property. When humans band together, as they always have, we being a social species, those with the most property want it protected. Thus systems are set up, with the greatest property-holders having the greatest influence. The "wrongness" of murder is tied to the wrongness of stealing. Stealing property can be facilitated by killing the owner. Thus when systems are set up to protect property rights, the prohibition on murder is a part of that system. The question could be asked why are there property rights. That question is not asked because our acquisitive and possessive qualities are a more innate aspect of who we are as creatures than our vaunted aversion to killing neighbors. And anyway it just sounds good to say we respect the lives of others. Bus stop (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right that right and wrong are intertwined - one does not exist without the other. The dictionary definitions of "moral" equate it to "character". A person is not necessarily a good judge of his own character. I'm sure even Hitler thought he was a man of high character. Character is judged by the other members of the group, tribe, or whatever. And it's aided in that judgment by deciding on certain rules. You can try to exclude religion and law, but you can't exclude rules. The rules are society's agreement or "social contract" on what constitutes good behavior and bad behavior - a.k.a. "character". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, morality is the built in set of rules that humans have to say "this is (ethically) bad" or "this is (ethically) good". We're social animals and social animals need ways of holding their groups together and keep them working well. Religion pretends to be a source of morality, but it's not. If you extract and use the bible's morality you'll be behind bars pretty quickly. Morality is an inbuilt part of humans. There is certainly such a thing as a moral outlaw atheist - they tend not to break the laws that agree with their morality though. Human morality is also broken. Maladapted to the modern world, an example: just about everyone has this moral imperitive not to kill people - that's generally a good thing, but take the classic thought experiment A train has is hurtling toward a switch which you, upon a bridge over the railway, see is going to divert the train onto a siding on which a crowd of people are working -- many will die... but there's a man sitting on the bridge railing right over the lever to operate the switch, if you gave him a shove he'd either knock the switch into the right place or give the train reason to slow down before it careened into the crowd, thus you would be saving many people. That man, would be certainly killed though. Do you push him? The answer in 'normal' people is "no", of course logic tells us that the answer should be "yes". --Psud (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

To the OP: It is wrong to kill someone because we are a social animal and nature has kindly built into us a set of rules commonly called "morals". Due to those rules you won't need to convince the atheist outlaw as he will already agree with you that killing is wrong. Unfortunately morals aren't quite universal and it appears that there are people who don't think killing is wrong. The military (of just about any country) has put a lot of effort into working out how to convince normal people to believe that killing is not wrong. Perhaps some of their methods would work in convincing the few amoral outlaw atheists of the opposite. --Psud (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that murder may not be a crime in a hermit society. Interestingly enough, even in such a small group, the perpetrator is executed. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This thread is already quite bloated as it is without me adding fuel to the flame, but here goes: "What's wrong with killing?" is one of the central questions of the extremely controversial book Practical Ethics by Peter Singer. I would do the book a great disservice in attempting to condense its arguments in a few sentences here, but if you're looking for a somewhat recent, relatively jargon-free and quite thought-provoking line of reasoning "that even an atheistic outlaw might understand", I'd say that book is as good a start as any. Even if you – as many do – disagree with his conclusions. Gabbe (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

My last chance to add something to this before it's archived. :) The question of (extra-legal, extra-religious) non-killing is ultimately tied to the question of (extra-legal, extra-religious) altruism in general. You shouldn't kill, because one part of being human is to look beyond yourself, to realize that there are other humans than yourself and to wish them well in the same way as you wish yourself well (perhaps not equally strongly, but ultimately in the same way). You know that you as an individual are limited synchronically (there is a world around you) and diachronically (you did not always exist and will not always exist). But there are countless other humans, and you value in them what you value in yourself simply because it is, ultimately, the same thing. So there is simply no logical reason to value your own life and yet not to value others' life. Even very egoistic persons, once they are sure of their own impending death, are able to extend their egoism, see part of themselves in somebody (relatives, friends) and wish that somebody well in the same way in which they would have wished it for themselves. Even if you are a professional murderer, you are likely to at least admire other professional murderers and wish them well; and a consistent extension of this sentiment to other commonalities you have with other humans will lead you to wish everyone life. Life is just absurdly limited if you are only interested in what concerns you, as an individual, personally and directly; this would be a truly unnatural blindness, a reduction of your imagination and power of understanding to that of an animal.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Monomyth

I am looking for any literature that are good examples of the female version of the monomyth. --Reticuli88 (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not exactly literature, but how about Xena, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Sailor Moon ? StuRat (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Reading the linked file puts me in mind of The Lives and Loves of a She-Devil by Fay Weldon. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If anti-heroines are acceptable, maybe the Fisherman's wife... AnonMoos (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)One of the criticisms of the monomyth is that it's primarily male-centered. The only female example that I recall Campbell using in HWTF is that of Daphne, who "refuses the call" by turning into a laurel tree so that Apollo wouldn't boink her. You might be interested in American Monomyth, which apparantly incorporates a female version more readily. These so-called "Heidi-redeemers" save their community through miricles and manipulation. Not sure of any examples. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 20:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand all the details of the monomyth, but does the story of Judith, from the biblical apocrypha, qualify? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems like it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 01:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Traci Harding's Ancient Future trilogy follows the pattern, with a female protagonist, but I wouldn't have called it 'good', so much as Mary Sue fiction. Steewi (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

From history, people like Boudica and perhaps Cleopatra VII may have been remembered to the present because they correspond to your monomyth - in other words they were female heros. See also List of women warriors in folklore92.29.104.157 (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

But both of them were ultimately defeated. A good myth has a hero who ultimately prevails. StuRat (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Everyone is defeated by death. It depends where you decide to stop the story. 78.146.249.204 (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The religious-minded would disagree that "everyone is defeated by death". StuRat (talk) 05:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

But they wouldn't be able to make a very strong argument. --Psud (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I just remembered that I argued in a Medieval lit class I took a few years ago that two plays by Hrotsvitha (Abraham and especially Paphnutius, which depict the conversion of repentant harlots), when viewed in the Campbellian monomyth lens, are better understood if the harlots are seen as the heroes rather than the hermits who go out to save them. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 18:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Medieval married names

When did women start taking their husband's name as their customary surname in the English upper classes? More specifically, did the wives of the Southworths of Samlesbury Hall take the name "de Southworth" as their own as early as the 13th century? —Akrabbim^talk 15:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This article here might be able to answer your question: Family names. It notes that in medieval times if a man was of a lower social class than his wife, he would often assume his wife's surname; therefore it's safe to presume that it was during this same medieval period that women of all social classes took their husbands' surnames as their own providing he was not of an inferior class.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

White people in Africa

Are Zimbabwe and South Africa the only African nations that have significant white population? If not, then which other nations have white people in Africa? -- 16:30, 13 April 2010 76.64.52.208

There used to be significant populations of European origin in Algeria and Kenya... AnonMoos (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Angola and Mozambique as well. Many of the Indian Ocean islands considered part of Africa (Mauritius, Seychelles, la Réunion...) have significant European populations. --Xuxl (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought that the white people were expelled from Angola after independence.--Quest09 (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably not what you looked for, but people in northern Africa have fairly light skin; I'd call them "white" though not everyone would. The U.S. Census bureau agrees with me, though; they call Middle Easterners "white". This is perhaps the reason some people say "Africa" when they mean "sub-Saharan Africa". Jørgen (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Most northern Africans are certainly "Caucasian", though whether you consider that "white" or not is up to you. And WHAAOE: White Africans of European ancestry. Buddy431 (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Naturally, we have an article: White Africans of European ancestry. According to that, Namibia has the second largest white population, after South Africa. Warofdreams talk 21:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright or restrictions on PDF-scans of old, now public domain, texts?

If I have understood things right, then old journal articles automatically become public domain 75 years after publication.

Now I wonder:
May a scanned (PDF) copy of a public domain text, somehow, still be restricted by some kind of "copyright"?
(Maybe because of the work spent on scanning and making the PDF-file? Or maybe because of the software used?).

In other words: Do I risk breaking some law or regulation, if I spread copies of a PDF file containing an 75 year old text, when I have no idea of who or where this particular file came from? or How about if I charge a fee for my effort?
--Seren-dipper (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It depends on where you live. For Wikipedia purposes, see this link. In the US, it has been ruled by a court (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.) that a photograph of a public domain work is also in the public domain. In Britain, however, the National Portrait Gallery has done everything it can to assert copyright over its photographs of old, public-domain paintings it possesses. See this BBC story. To answer your other questions, you can charge for your effort, sure; but you probably would not be able to prevent others (via copyright law) from copying and distributing your work freely once they receive a copy. The 75 year rule is not absolute; see public domain; it can get complicated (some old copyrights could get renewed in the US for a certain period). For your own liability reasons, if I were you, I would make sure I could prove the journal was in the public domain before I commenced this. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Than you! :-)
--Seren-dipper (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

So is a 100 year or older text or image in Google Books fair game to add to a Wikipedia article? Edison (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Blue food

These photos set me to thinking of doing the same, but with the flags of Scotland and Norway. The trouble for both is the colour blue - I can't think of a blue or blueish foodstuff that is native to either country. The few blue foods I can think of don't match: blue corn, arròs negre, and blueberries are all foreign, and while I'm sure I could find a blue cheese from both countries, it doesn't really seem ideal. Brambles are really more purplish. Can anyone suggest a blue(ish) food that is (at least vagely) Scottish and ditto Norwegian? -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Wild bilberries collected in Norway.

I couldn't think of anything until you mentioned blueberries - apparently what we Norwegian call blueberries ("blåbær") is not the same as what is usually called blueberries in English - but Wikipedia has an article on Bilberry. I don't think these are grown for sale, though, so you'd have to wait until the fall and collect some yourself, though I'd think it perfectly acceptable to "cheat" and use blueberries instead (they are also marketed as "blåbær" in Norwegian supermarkets). Of course you have to take care not to crush them, as they are red on the inside. Except from that, I don't know. Some type of white fish might have a bluish tint but hard to integrate with other food. By the way, those pictures you linked to were really nice, good idea! Jørgen (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

[ec] Bilberries are native to both Scotland and Norway. Bluefish and Atlantic mackerel can be caught offshore and have bluish skins. Marco polo (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Also sv:Blodpudding maybe (more often seen in Sweden but I think you can argue for a connection to Norway). If you agree it is blue, that is. Or something else with blood in it, like nn:Blodpølse Jørgen (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Those olives used in the Greek flag on the WildAmmo site certainly don't look very blue. Deor (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Australia's doesn't even try to be blue! What food is the Australian dishflag, by the way? ---Sluzzelin talk 20:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's meant to be an "iconic" Australian and New Zealand meat pie. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It could be almost any pastry, but the tomato sauce on the Union Jack (no relation) gives it away. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Also the meat that one can see through the star-shaped holes. :-) Deor (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That's assuming you know it's a meat pie. The dark stuff could be fruit or all manner of other things. I still reckon the tomato sauce is the giveaway. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Would it be cheating to dye a non-blue native food? Googlemeister (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not if that food is normally dyed blue (like maraschino cherries are normally dyed bright red or green). StuRat (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not like there's a committee that will fail my dishes for lack of authenticity, but I was hoping the ingredients to be apparent to the viewer without explanation. So if the dyeing were commonplace and traditional then that would seem fine - the squid ink used to dye arròs negre, or the saffron (?) to dye the rice in the Spanish flag would seem entirely in keeping. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, what's the foodstuffs used for Korea on that site? I can't make out what the middle circle is made from, and the divination lines on the sides look like sushi rolls, but that can't be right... TomorrowTime (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Gimbap, soy sauce, and I think gochujang. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I can see why I would confuse gimbap for makizushi, they do look a lot alike. TomorrowTime (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

These things are really very evocative of the native culture, food being one of the main windows we have to cultures. They also make light of the national flag, which is refreshing. Bus stop (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently there is such a thing as Scottish heritage blue potatoes: [7] Marco polo (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice job on the tree for Lebanon ! BTW, the tomatoes in the Italian flag are not native to Italy, they are from America. However, they have certainly become associated with Italy in recent centuries. Now let's see you form all the points on all 50 stars on the US flag (out of mayo, presumably) or take on the Arabic writing on the flag of Saudi Arabia. StuRat (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That depends on what you mean by native. They certainly grow tomatoes in Italy and have done so for centuries, and even have some very well known varieties (See San Marzano tomato). I would guess if you go back far enough, most things in those pictures were not native to any of those countries at one point in time. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I should point out that I found these photos, I didn't take them. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If you take the photography in a slightly different spectrum of light, you can have all the blue you want. =) 88.90.16.251 (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Or have them flying toward the camera at a significant portion of the speed of light, so they exhibit a blue shift. :-) StuRat (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Coincidentally, today's featured article, Flag of Japan, mentions: ”In 1937, a group of girls from Hiroshima Prefecture showed solidarity with Japanese soldiers fighting in China during the Second Sino-Japanese War, by eating "flag meals" that consisted an umeboshi in the middle of a bed of rice.” ---Sluzzelin talk 13:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Popularity of the EU within the EU

Why is the EU not that loved in the UK than in other parts of Europe? At first, I fought because they are paying for it, however, Danemark and Holland are also paying and despise that, the index of acceptance is much higher.--Quest09 (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Germany pays more than every other country. I don't understand that objection anyway. Why are people from, say, Yorkshire, happy with their money going to the home counties or Northern Ireland, yet not happy with it going to Bulgaria or Lithuania? Personally I'm not happy with it going anywhere, but as I have to pay it I don't mind where it goes so long as it's put to good use.--92.251.147.169 (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Your question is not phrased entirely clearly, but if you're asking why the EU is not embraced that enthusiastically in the UK, it has something to do with the legacy of a whole convoluted history; originally the UK refused to unambiguously place Europe above its Commonwealth and Colonial interests, then when it tried to join in 1963 and 1966, it was vetoed both times by De Gaulle. When it finally joined, France had entrenched things so that French agriculture was favored above all others, and the UK had to negotiate the UK rebate with great difficulty in order to avoid paying exorbitantly extravagant sums to subsidize inefficient French farmers. From the point of view of many average people, the EU is a remotely distant bureaucracy which seems to be chiefly concerned with such things as straightening bananas and creating "metric martyrs"... AnonMoos (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Because EU-bashing sells newspapers. So the newspapers print it, which reinforces the idea that the EU is bad...which makes EU-bashing stories popular in newspapers...and so on. Vimescarrot (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly at least partially true -- but perhaps EU-bashing wouldn't get the same traction if it weren't for certain underlying attitudes which create a predisposition to accept negative stories. AnonMoos (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

My take on it was that they were happy with their trading arrangements under the British Commonwealth, and only joined the EU for fear of otherwise being locked out of the vast European market. That, combined with having to subsidize poorer nations and eventually losing the Queen on their money, made them a bit cranky. StuRat (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Except that the UK hasn't adopted the Euro, so we still have the Queen on our money. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be why I used the word "eventually". Or do you think it will never happen ? StuRat (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, the UK joined the EU largely to weaken (and to destroy it if possible) it from the inside and very little else. Flamarande (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The EU definitely gets the blame for Black Wednesday. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 09:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, the British hatred towards the UE is based upon their own culture and history. Remember that they live in an archipelago (a cluster of islands) and tried and only tried once to establish their own large European empire (by conquering the kingdom of France during the 100 year war). Afterwards they realized that any great continental power was a potential threat (a great continental European empire could conquer them). Therefore the great powers (the Empire of Spain, France, Austrian Empire, German Empire, Russian Empire) were always regarded with a certain degree of suspicion and whoever was the most powerful among them was considered (officially or not) the enemy that had to be fought, defeated and weakened. Check the history of British military interventions: most of the time they support the weaker power against the stronger one. A lot of medium continental powers meant that none of them could threaten the UK. That's why many peace agreements made with the UK try to maintain a balance of power. So how this sold to the unwashed masses? With the ideal of "our British Liberty is threatened by continental tyranny". They were right during WWII and this POV survives among their collective psyche. Flamarande (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Good answers from AnonMoos, Vimescarrot and Flamarande. And, on top of all that, they talk about us Brits behind our backs in funny foreign languages that we can't be bothered to understand - unlike those friendly people and distant cousins in the US, Australia, South Africa, India and so forth who we can understand and trust (some of the time). Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Note to US readers... the preceding comment may contain some irony. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, not sure if that was a typo, but note although the people are called Danes, the country is called Denmark in English (Danmark in Danish). Also presuming you're referring to th moderne country, it's better called Netherlands since Holland may refer to only one part of it and so may be offensive to those in the parts that they don't consider to be Holland (similar perhaps to referring to England if you mean the UK). Nil Einne (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

But it's so much more fun to call them the Nether Regions. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Everyone seems to be addressing the question in terms of why the English (and it seems within the UK the Scottish and Welsh are more EU friendly) dislike the EU, as though this is the unusual position. It might be interesting to think about why other countries favour the EU? If they do, what do the surveys say? It was the French and Dutch who rejected the Constitution in referenda after all.

Obviously some countries gain financially, but what about Germany (war guilt?) or the Netherlands (drugs?). As an English Eurosceptic the main reasons I hear given for membership are free trade (which we've had for many years without needing a shared government), an imaginary future in which we are at war (or trade war) with both the US and China and a suggestion that belief in national sovereignty is a bit, you know, xenophobic. 92.14.216.25 (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the more likely scenario is that the EU and NAFTA will eventually join to become a trading block of the nations which have environmental laws, democracies, human rights, respect copyrights, don't manipulate their currencies, etc., against those that don't care about those things, like China. Perhaps Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and a few others might then join. The problem with the WTO is that it's too inclusive, and allows some members to get away with too much crap. I have no idea why China was ever allowed to join without first allowing their currency to float, for example. StuRat (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, other's may wonder what's the point of a group containing the US, when they basicly just ignore most decision they don't like (using their force combined with a few peanuts to convince the small complainants to back down), which it should have been fairly obvious to anyone that they would do even before it happened [8] (SAFE Port Act#WTO dispute [9] (United States – Canada softwood lumber dispute) [10]. Of course the US isn't the only one I think most commentators expect the results of the Airbus-Boeing dispute to be largely ignored by the US and the EU. Nil Einne (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well with the BRIC countries expected to over-take the rich western countries in the long-run perhaps politically it's foolish to exclude these countries (China in particular) from being in the club - they're already hugely important to the world eocnomy (haven't they had continually the highest annual growth in GDP for about 30 years? (ignoring silly tiny-nations)). Back to the original-question though...basically I find that people here (Uk) like to moan about the EU lots, but few people seriously understand the wider role of the EU and how it helps/hinders the UK and even less can make rational theories about the impact on the UK were it to leave the EU (which, with the exception of a few nationalist numpties, i've rarely heard be seriously proposed). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's the whole point, the current WHO system is inherently biased towards nations like China, leading to a higher growth rate there, since it promotes free trade without requiring a "level playing field" in terms of democracy, human rights (like the right to organize unions), environmental protections, product safety, allowing currencies to float, etc. StuRat (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Also don't forget that the British have a unique history with a theoretically more liberal political tradition than that of the Continental countries. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

One needs to look at England's history. Twice within the last 200 years it was, apart from Russia, the only European nation to hold out against an overly-ambitious Continental dictator. Oh, here in Italy, the EU is thoroughly despised due to the doubling of prices following the adoption of the Euro.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Switzerland is small, but still a European nation... Googlemeister (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

As a result of the bitter conflicts in the past, I just don't think the English trust the German-French power axis that dominates the EU.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

William Warham, by Hans Holbein the Younger drawing

I have a William Warham, Archbishop of Canterbury, drawing by Hans Holbein the Younger. And a hand written letter on the back of the frame telling about him. Can any one tell me how many of these drawing's exist.

If the picture to which you refer is this one, then the original appears to be in Elisabeth II's Royal Collection. As to how many copies exist, I suspect, counting those to be found in art books, the numbers are in the many thousands. Is the accompanying "handwritten letter" signed, and if so, by whom? Is the letter an original or a copy? Bielle (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Tablets of stone

Were there really tablets of stone brought down by Moses? And, assuming he (not God) wrote on them, how did he do it? Have any bits of the tablets ever been found?--BandUser (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The Tablets of Stone were, according to the bible, stored in the Ark of the Covenant, which disappeared when the Babylonians destroyed the temple. Neither the arc, nor its purported contents, have been found and generally accepted as the real deal, to my knowledge. Buddy431 (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There may well have been Tablets of Stone in an Ark, which is mentioned in Biblical texts that also refer to confirmed historical events. I think that nonreligious scholars accept that there is a fair possibility that there was an Ark in Solomon's Temple that contained inscribed stone tablets. However, these tablets are not known to have been seen in the last 2,500 years. If they existed, we know nothing about their origins. Most nonreligious scholars see Moses as a legendary figure whose story may or may not have been based, loosely, on that of an actual person. There is no source other than the Bible that confirms the existence of Moses, and most nonreligious scholars agree that the story of the Exodus is largely if not completely fictional. Marco polo (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

And, according to the Bible, was Moses up the mountain long enough for God to inscribe the tablet (say, 5 minutes) or long enough for Moses to do it himslef and claim that God did it ? StuRat (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Forty days and nights (Exodus 24:18), long enough for the impatient Israelites to build a Golden Calf. Buddy431 (talk) 05:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Jewish sources the tablets were made of [blue] sapphire (not rock), and were not objects that could exist by normal physical rules. Specifically the center of letters (for example an "o") stayed in their proper place, but were unsupported by anything. And the tablets could be read correctly (not mirror image) both from the front and the back, yet the empty space of the letters went all the way through the tablets. Also they were square, not rectangles as is commonly depicted. The second set was made by Moses (not God) and he was allowed to keep what was left after making them. And that was his source of wealth (since he, unlike everyone else did not take anything from Egypt since he was busy retrieving Josephs body). Source Ariel. (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

To answer both the OP and StuRat, Moses made the second ones. Ariel. (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and they managed to misplace them. At some point, God must have wondered why He had selected such schlemiels as His "chosen people". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

To be fair though, they were (if the stories are to be believed) misplaced due to a successful invasion by a foreign power. Their god was supposed to be stopping that sort of thing from happening. --Psud (talk) 08:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Vote counting

Has there ever been a system where the counting of votes was speeded up by having multiple boxes (one per candidate/party) and then weighing the ballot boxes to find the winner? --Rixxin (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Since voting is a secret, it's unlikely they would have such a system, especially as you're allowed to split a ticket among 2 or more parties. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

They could easily have all the boxes behind a screen to avoid giving away the secret. And as for voting for more than one party, that depends on the system. In the upcoming UK general election there will be only one vote per paper, for instance. 92.14.216.25 (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, so you would be in a voting booth, and you would drop a ballot into one of two slots, let's say? When voting is over, you would weigh them. Keep in mind that before voting, you also have to weigh them empty, because what you want to measure is the weight of just the ballots, not the boxes too. Then what do you do if you messed up and put it in the wrong slot? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Sigh. Rixxin's queried system has no secrecy implications one way or another, so long as voters are able to insert their vote without being viewed. Neither is the ticket observation conclusively dismissive since in many elections there is one thing being elected and you have a single vote. I take it Bugs is presupposing that whatever voting system he's used is universally applied. I have not heard of Rixxin's system being employed - at least not for the election of members of government - and hazard a guess that there are a number of practical objections: 1) the weight of a single vote is probably much less than the expected variability of weight of voting boxes ... bottom line, it is not a system that'll work well at distinguishing candidates getting similar amounts of votes, and in any event requires a standard of weighing and box manufacture unlikely to be practical 2) the number of boxes required is in proportion to the number of candidates standing, which means elections with large numbers of candidates require large numbers of boxes (remembering that there may be many polling stations. 3) The system invites fraud to the extent that a person can drop more weight into a voting box - sand, coins, &c. To the extent that bug's comment was of any use whatsoever, it reminds us that there is a problem of enabling the voter to vote in secrecy whilst enabling the election scrutineers to police the box. Clearly it is difficult to facilitate both of these. All that said, my local supermarket has a system whereby shoppers are given a green plastic coin and invited to insert it into one of three containers, each associated with a charity. Some amount of money is given by the supermarket each month in proportion with the rough volume of coins in each container. It's not weighing, nor is it for the election of government members, but it is a quick & easy voting system along Rixxin's lines. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The usual snippiness from Simon, as well as a lengthy essay (speaking of "worthless"). So I'll just summarize with what I had thought about saying previously but had decided to elaborate a little bit: "Such a system would be rife with fraud and would otherwise be impractical." Any questions, class? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I apologize to the other readers here, for momentarily allowing myself to descend to Simon's level. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Oops, did it again. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

US elections typically have more than one -- sometimes dozens -- of races on the same ballot, so you'd have to have a lot of boxes. And speed really isn't an issue -- a stack of punch-card or optical-scan ballots can be counted in seconds, and electronic ballots in milliseconds. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It's an interesting theoretical question. What he's describing is how, for example, grain is weighed - difference between full weight and empty weight of the truck is what the grain weighs. But for voting, it's clearly neither practical nor necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

And it's necessary to have a precise count of votes, but not of oats. PhGustaf (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Usually it's not necessary to have a precise count of votes, unless the poll is close, or a candidate is close to some arbitrary mark regarding future funding or something similar. Warofdreams talk 00:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If everyone was voting at a single location, the weight system might be useful in cases where the vote was not close, as a way of getting a very quick result -- the heavier box wins. But in order to combine votes from multiple polling stations, you would either have to get accurate weights for every polling station, or you'd have to bring all the ballot boxes together to a central location (without mixing up which ones were which) and weigh them in large groups. Not very practical. And anyway, manual counting gets results quickly enough. --Anonymous, 06:15 UTC, April 14, 2010.

The proposed system has some similarities with the blackballing system. Provided the ballots were sufficiently distinctive and difficult to forge, it might not suffer greatly from fraud. While modern methods of vote counting are clearly superior, this would make some sense for an election more than, say, one hundred years ago, with a sufficiently large electorate. But, according to voting machine#Early History, even the first known proposal for some device along these lines envisaged use of a clockwork counter, rather than weighing the ballots. Warofdreams talk 00:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Benjamin Graham, you're describing the long-term appreciation of a publicly traded company's price per share! He said (paraphrased), "In the short run, the stock market is a voting machine; in the long run, it's a weighing machine." 63.17.77.76 (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it helps the OP but there have apparently been occasions in UK Parliamentary elections when scales were brought in as a secondary check on an election result. Upminster in 1979 was one such example. However, in those cases the ballot papers would have had to be separated by party already. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

As TS mentioned, hiding the ballot boxes (as needed if you want to maintain secrecy) is a good way to encourage fraud even without using weight. When you start using weight meaning people don't even need legitimate looking ballot papers you've got a recipe for disaster. Ballot stuffing is already a problem in some countries. BTW in discussions of historic contexts like 100 years ago, it's perhaps worth remembering that there were very few if any very large electorates and given the transportaton and communication barriers of the time and absence of TVs or even widespread radios, the benefit of having the results in say 10 minutes instead of the say 5 hours normal counting may take is questionable. Remember when it comes to electorate sizes, many places wouldn't have allowed women voters at the time, and also perhaps some other people. In fact it's not even the size of the electorate that matters, presuming you count in the polling centre (and if you don't the advantage of a weight system is even more unclear), it's the size of the polling centre that matters more then the size of the electorate. Given the low density of the time and the transportation issues, polling centres would generally cover a lot less people then then they do now. Nil Einne (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

People have always been keen to find information as quickly as possible, and as I say, design of the ballots - for example, using a distinctive token - could limit the frequency of fraud. Weighing the ballot boxes wouldn't rule out a cursory check that everything in the boxes resembled one of these tokens or, if the election was close, conducting a detailed check. Other technical issues are not hugely problematic - for instance, each candidate's box could be a different, standardised, colour, which would make it easy to transfer them to a central counting place without confusion. On the specific point of electorates 100 years ago, I suppose it depends what you call large, but in the UK, there had certainly been city seats where 60,000 or more votes were cast, and these would have had only a very limited number of polling stations. Warofdreams talk 09:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth (Bowes-Lyon) visited France in 1938

King George VI and queen Elizabeth went to France July 19 to 22, 1938. We have a clue they visited the city of Vannes (Morbihan) but are unable to confirm. Dhatier (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

According to a contemporary newspaper, the royal couple went from Boulogne directly to Paris, stayed in the capital for three nights, then returned via Calais, stopping at the Australian war memorial in Villers-Bretonneux on the way. There is no indication they went way out to Brittany. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That was quite the news day! Nazi Germany preparing for war, ominous mentions of Czechoslovakia, and Wrong Way Corrigan to boot. --Anonymous, 06:20 UTC, April 14, 2010.

Thank you. Dhatier (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

April 14

Why are Irish folk songs so sad

First of all, I hope that I don't offend people from Ireland. I'm from the Philippines so I'm not that keen about European history and culture. Anyways, I'm listening to Celtic Woman. I found that some of their songs are sad such as Siúil A Rúin, She Moved Through the Fair, Danny Boy and Carrickfergus (song). They are mostly about longing for their love and even death. Why is so?--121.54.2.188 (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

See History of Ireland. Part of it is the Irish character due to thousands of years of shitty living, brought to you by various English and British kings, Oliver Cromwell, and the Potato Famine. For most of its history, Ireland was not always the nicest place to live. --Jayron32 02:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it really most of its history? It was beyond the Roman Empire, and it was one of the major centres of Christian culture in the early middle ages. Maybe it all started going downhill when the Vikings invaded about 1000 years ago (and 1000 years is a long time to create a musical culture of depressing songs, of course). Adam Bishop (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is the music for an Irish jig. Those will only make you cry if you stand too close to the dancers and get kicked in the crotch. StuRat (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

To come in from a different angle, Ireland doesn't have a monopoly on sad folk song's, most of the Flamenco songs of Spain are intensely sad based around lost love and unrequited love. Richard Avery (talk) 08:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Lousy weather, living in Ireland ;)

HTH, HAND etc

ALR (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Infact a huuuuuge proportion of folk-songs (infact music in general) are about emotionally charged things, which often means sadness and horror. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if the sadness derives from the dreary weather. I always cry when I hear Irish songs such as Danny Boy, Dublin in the Rare Ould Times, and Carrickfergus; then again many Neapolitan songs are sad and that city is definitely sunny. In fact O Sole Mio was written by a homesick man from Naples.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

There are more modern songs than these that are sad, for example Christmas 1915.--92.251.220.72 (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the delivery of songs of the sort referred to are sad, though I have to admit only a smattering familiarity with this subject. But I happen to find the articulation of the English language by the Irish to be uplifting. It is very different from American English in this regard, at least in my perception. The words spoken might be sad, but the delivery I find ennobling and therefore uplifting. Bus stop (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This is just selection bias. The Irish have a whole range of traditional music, of all types, it's just that the more plaintive songs were en vogue for a while (late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries) and got exported to Britain and the US. Spend some time in an Irish pub (even one in the US, that attracts real Irish people) that has live music; you'll hear maybe one or two sad ballads and a ton of stuff you can hop to. --Ludwigs2 18:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Except in certain old men's pubs essentially none of the music will be identifiable as Irish.--92.251.220.72 (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"Paddy McGinty's Goat"[11] is very sad[[12]] ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Global business network

Is there any international non-governmental business network (global chamber of commerce) representing big businesses other than International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)? Are the political positions of ICC similar to the positions of the United States Chamber of Commerce? --WTLop (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In some places, there is the Better Business Bureau, which certifies that its members follow certain standards of business ethics. Consumers can identify its members by listings in BBB directories and by signs which they are authorized to display. An improved corporate image is an incentive for a business to follow those standards, although some people have additional motivations. (http://www.mlbible.com/proverbs/11-1.htm; http://www.mlbible.com/proverbs/20-10.htm) -- Wavelength (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

See the disambiguation page International Association for examples in specific fields. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Can't remember what book this is...

I remember reading a book a long time ago (or maybe just hearing the summary) that I can't remember either the title or the author of. As I recall, the main character was a young woman. She fell off a ladder (or some other height) and was caught by a man who conveniently happened by (he might have startled her?), only for her father to come out and find her in his arms. Her father, being ridiculously strict about rules of propriety, forced the two of them to get married, and the book is about the aftermath. I believe it was "Christian historical romantic fiction" or something, but I can't remember the book's title or anything about it other than this (probably slightly screwed-up) summary.

If anyone knows what book this is (or is better at Googling it than I am!), your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance! 24.247.163.175 (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Series vs. Trilogy (et al.)?

Many of my favorite authors have written several connected books about the same characters, and I like to get them and read them in order. I've been working on a database of all the books I own, and I include a special note for those books which a part of a sequence, indicating to which sequence they belong as well as their ordinal position within it. This has started me thinking . . . at what point does a sequence of books become a "series"? When you run of number-words (duology, trilogy, tetralogy, etc.)? Or are such words as "trilogy" and "tetralogy" reserved for works that necessarily form a story in their own right, whether or not the individual parts are readable standing alone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.119.240 (talk) 05:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally (and this isn't official at all, just my personal opinion), I consider anything larger than two books (a prequel/sequel) to be a "series". In my opinion, a trilogy is just a special kind of series that only has three books. This isn't very helpful to someone trying to catalogue books by the type of series... but I'd say to just give up and call it a "series" when you can't think of more words. You could also look at what the author calls it--if they call it "chronicles" or "series" themselves, it would probably be best to organize it under that title. 24.247.163.175 (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Very sensible. I suppose I could also follow my own example in the above paragraph and refer to any continued storyline as a "sequence." This would mean I wouldn't have to change how books were listed in my classification system just because an author released another book (turning a trilogy into a tetralogy, say) and I wouldn't have to worry whether the works could stand alone or could be understood only as part of a whole. It works for prequel/sequel books as well as extended series, too. 71.104.119.240 (talk) 08:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Roman corn

In a handout my mother gives her students when she teaches them about ancient Rome, there is mention of the Romans eating cakes made of corn. They couldn't possibly have eaten what we know as corn today, since corn is indigenous to the Western hemisphere. I've been told that the word "corn" was used by pre-Colombian Europeans to refer to some other kind of food, and that what we now know as corn was first dubbed "Indian corn" by European settlers in the Americas. If this is so, what was it that the Romans make their cakes from? 71.104.119.240 (talk) 05:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Corn is any sort of grain, in this case just plain old wheat. Maize is of course from the western hemisphere. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If "corn" originally meant, and technically still does mean, any kind of grain, how did the word come to be used most often to refer specifially to maize? (And - no, I don't really expect an answer to this one - but if the Romans ate wheat cakes, why, WHY, why would a handout written for middle-school kids use the word "corn," however technically accurate? No wonder the poor kids can't tell sheep from llamas. [13]) 71.104.119.240 (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know why, but as our maize article says, "Outside the British Isles, another common term for maize is "corn". This was originally the English term for any cereal crop. In North America, its meaning has been restricted since the 19th century to maize, as it was shortened from "Indian corn." The term Indian corn now refers specifically to multi-colored "field corn" (flint corn) cultivars." Maybe the American natives didn't grow wheat. I guess your mother teaches in North America, if you think this will be confusing? (If so, I agree, why not just say wheat?) Adam Bishop (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• A guess: That handout was originally prepared from a BrE book (or an AmE book by an academic who cared about the distinction ;-), and whoever did the preparation either was sloppy or uninformed, or did not care. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ugh . . . anyone who cares that much about the distinction (and it's not WRONG to call wheat "wheat," after all) shouldn't be writing for seventh graders. (I don't think the handout was from a BrE book - for one thing, it's unlikely there's a BrE book that's perfectly configured to teach California's seventh-grade social studies standards, and for another, I haven't seen any Britishisms crop up in student work, which they certainly would have by now, since these kids seem to think "paraphrase" means "copy the text directly except for a couple of words changed here and there.") Anyway, I think I can consider this pretty much wrapped up. And I suppose with the state of education in the United States today, we've got bigger problems than whether the kids imagine that Caesar liked to chow down on corn-on-the-cob once in a while. 71.104.119.240 (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that what Stephan Schulz meant was not that "the handout was from a BrE book", but that whoever wrote the text of the handout probably read that detail in a British book and didn't know enough to "translate" the usage of corn for American students (probably not knowing that "maize" was not, in fact, what was meant). Having worked a bit in the textbook industry, I can say that such mixups (along with downright errors) are quite common in material written for students. Deor (talk) 11:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I also think that is likely. The same problem occurs with potatoes, how many people know potatoes are native to South America? Adam Bishop (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Time to fire up the old Oxford English Dictionary... "corn" is"a general term the word includes all the cereals, wheat, rye, barley, oats, maize, rice, etc., and, with qualification (as black corn, pulse corn), is extended to leguminous plants, as pease, beans, etc., cultivated for food. Locally, the word, when not otherwise qualified, is often understood to denote that kind of cereal which is the leading crop of the district; hence in the greater part of England ‘corn’ is = wheat, in North Britain and Ireland = oats; in the U.S. the word, as short for Indian corn, is restricted to maize." Anyway, I tend to agree that if this is for US consumption, it is misleading. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the Romans made bread out of just about anything[14]. Alansplodge (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all so much! I know all too well the errors that slip into textbooks - I've read about them and I've been known to catch them on occasion. (My high school geography text had gold discovered in California in 1849. If that had been the case, the swarms of miners that headed west to seek their fortune would have gone down in history as "fiftiers" - and then, of course, textbooks would erroneously say that gold was discovered in 1850 . . . ugh.) Textbooks for the lower grades are often particularly slapdash, since the people who know enough to get a contract to write a textbook often believe they have better things to do with their time than simplify their knowledge to a child's level. Since "Romans ate corn" isn't the obvious kind of error that's likely to jump out at you right away, I can see how it slipped through. I mightn't have caught it myself if I hadn't seen it in student work first (I was already in active error-hunting mode, not passive learn-from-a-text mode). If Steven Schulz's theory is correct, it would seem the writer of the materials was as careless a copier as a lot of the students. Ah, I do love irony. 71.104.119.240 (talk) 08:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Strange, I've lived in England all my life and never heard anyone refer to anything except the big yellow grains as corn, I had assumed maize was the american term for it since it never seems to be used this side of the atlantic. Guess foreign people know my own language better than me. 148.197.114.158 (talk) 09:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Guarding the Tomb of the Unknowns

Since the term Tomb Guard implies that the soldier actually has to "guard" the tomb, are there any regulations that specify when and how a tomb guard can break-stride and take the necessary steps to protect the tomb? For instance, if someone were to hop the gallery barrier and land on the platform where the tomb is, what is supposed to happen? Does the Tomb Guard actually do anything? I know his gun is unloaded, but I'm sure there's something he must do. Has anything like this ever happened in the past? Jared (t)  09:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. "Today, most of the challenges faced by the Sentinels are tourists who want to get a better picture or uncontrolled children (which generally is very frightening for the parent when the Soldier challenges the child)." So I guess they "challenge" the person, but it doesn't specify what that means. Ariel. (talk) 10:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In this photo, the guard not only has a rifle but also it seems to be sporting an unsheathed bayonet; so I'm assuming the guard has multiple options for "challenging" interlopers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen this video? Gabbe (talk) 10:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Knowlege

We possess more knowlege today than mankind has ever before, electricity, nuclear power, automobiles, science, technology etc. Is there any sort of project on the go anywhere in the world to ensure that this knowlege is preserved for centuries to come. To clarify, if there was a nuclear war tomorrow, and 99% of humans were gone, all our knowlege would have disapeared. But like the pyramids, some things can last for hundreds of years. Wikipedia is great but will not last hundreds of years after a nuclear war, the project I am thinking of would be for instance to write all the wiki articles onto stone tablets and store them in a pyramid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Does this count?--droptone (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Where would we find the editors willing to do undertake this massive project?!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be a nice gesture, I suppose, but, really, if there was a nuclear war tomorrow and most of the earth's population (humans, animals, and plants) disappeared and we ended up in a post-apocalyptic Stone Age, most of the knowledge we have now would be next to useless for the survivors, who would really be more interested in trying to survive. Maybe a survival guide might be a better idea. Then there is also the problem of storage. It would need to be in a place safe from the apocalypse for it to be still there afterwards, meaning, probably deep underground or in space, or in some other highly inaccessible place to also keep it safe from looters and vandals before the apocalypse - thus defeating its very purpose. This would also probably mean that someone somewhere would need a key for it (or there'd be a couple of keys), which also need to be safely stored and under the control of people who will definitely need to survive in order for the knowledge to be passed on (or used by the 'keepers' to control the uneducated masses after the apocalypse). Sounds like a 'novel' idea, if you pardon the pun. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It probably would not do people in a post-apocalyptic world a whole lot of good if the whole of human knowledge was stored in space as people would have to rebuild a heck of a lot of infrastructure to build a rocket (assuming they still remember how), to go get the knowledge. Probably better to leave the knowledge vault or vaults on earth somewhere. Googlemeister (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, I was trying to show how impractical the whole thing could be. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Or we collect it on the Internet, say, in a collaborative work, so that everyone can take a copy on his USB-Stick/Blueray/Harddrive, and some copies would survive by chance, just as e.g. 600 or so copies of the Iliad did survive the dark ages. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Physical copies of the Iliad don't need computers or electricity to read, though, unlike hard-disks. In order to get to the knowledge, as Googlemeister says above, there would be a lot of rebuilding to do, and if only 1% of the earth's population remain (trying to survive in a post-nuclear ecological disaster area with very limited food resources, large areas of the planet being uninhabitable, climate change, etc.) it would take a very long time. Let's say it took them a few thousand years to come out of their Stone Age to reach a level of infrastructure/civilization/knowledge comparable to our own (at least at a level where they can use computer disks, assuming they can make computers that use the exact same physical connections that would be needed for USB-Sticks, etc.) - language would have undergone huge changes by then and the probability of them being able to read anything of what we had written thousands of years before them (even in all of our languages) would be extremely low, unless they had access to 'ancient texts' (as everything would be to them) and they'd either had a continued line of teaching these 'ancient languages' or were able to decipher them in some way. Then, it can be said, if they had reached a level of knowledge comparable to our own just in order to be able to read what we knew, there would be hardly much they could learn and makes the whole project almost pointless, besides perhaps being an archaeological record of who we were, what we did, and what we knew, essentially, about our world. If it was going to happen - and be quickly helpful to our survivors, it would have to be stone tablets or something, buried deep and away from harm, and everyone would have to know where they were and be able to get to them - deciding on this place would probably be the most difficult thing, though, as we have no way of predicting where the biggest concentration of survivors will be, what changes in climate (or even earthquakes) may do to the geography, and any manner of things. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

All of you are presuming that after a full-scale nuclear war the Earth would still be habitable. There is also the alarming but possible scenario of the Earth being knocked off its axis!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That presumption was a necessary part of the question, without which it would be nonsensical - 'how can we preserve all of our knowledge for a future planet with no life on it?' --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, there is not. The amount of energy we can release is minuscule compared to the mass of the Earth. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Have there been any studies on how long USB drives can be neglected without data corruption? Googlemeister (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Scientology organization is preserving the words of L. Ron Hubbard in durable materials in vaults at various locations (see Trementina Base). In the famous science fiction novel The Mote in God's Eye, the "Motie" civilization is given to recurrent semi-predictable collapses, and "museums" are built with the deliberate intention of preserving knowledge through the dark age periods... AnonMoos (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Well, there is the theory/hypothesis/whatever - call it what you will - that below one of the pyramids in Giza there is a 'secret' chamber which houses knowledge from a previous period in our history (Edgar Cayce mentioned it, as well as plenty of other psychics, and certain people have tried to find it, having no success for varying reasons). Whether it is true or not, no-one knows, but I suspect that if it were true, in order for it to serve its supposed intended purpose of supplying knowledge and wisdom to survivors of whatever it is that is supposed to have caused that civilisation to collapse, A) there would be a lot more references to its existence and location; and B) it would be a lot more accessible. Unless it was a secret. In which case, what would have been the point? (DISCLAIMER - I do not in any way whatsoever subscribe to this theory, it just 'exists' :) ) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahem. 600 copies of the Iliad survived the "Dark Ages" because the "Dark Ages" people made copies of it, not by sitting around in a pyramid/Greek temple/Ancient Greek hard-drive.

The idea of creating a "knowledge repository" is a beautiful one, but one should take into account that the preservation of knowledge (or any kind of archeological/textual evidence) is subject to flukes of fate. What if the repository just burned down, like the famed Library at Alexandria ? If this happened, perhaps the creation of the repository would in fact hamper the preservation of knowledge - since, before the fire, people would tend to think "oh, no need to make a copy of this text, it's already in that Great Big Repository !".

You can never know what the fate of a text will be... For instance, it's believed that the works of the Roman historian Tacitus, very valued today by historians, had during the Late Roman Empire fallen out of favor and would have probably disappeared if not for the extensive copying ordered by emperor Marcus Claudius Tacitus, who claimed to be a descendant of the historian. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that many "voluntary preservation of knowledge" operations have been made, and have disappeared, so that we cannot today access that knowledge.

However, evidence has an uncanny ability to survive in one form or another - often in forms not intended by the one who "created" that evidence - so I'd not worry too much about a nuclear disaster wiping out everything or whatever. As a last case study, look at Pompei. At the time, the volcanic eruption of 79 AD was a disaster, wiping out a whole town ! Today, it's one of the best things that ever happened for scholars studying Ancient Rome : an unparalleled glimpse at Roman daily life... --Alþykkr (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Rosetta Project might be of interest. It engraves linguistic information onto nickel disks that should survive for millennia. You could do something similar with wikipedia. Even millennia is a cosmic eyeblink though. The book The Earth After Us indicates that after some millions of years, almost no trace will be left on the planet of anything ever done by humans. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this question is concerning a nuclear war in which some people survive, and the knowledge is for their benefit. This is largely the plot of A Canticle for Leibowitz. I have a hard time envisioning something knocking us back to the stone age that doesn't wipe us out all together: the fact that writing exists ensures that we'll remember a lot of what we knew. Surely some people will remember how to smelt iron and make gunpowder. It would be an interesting world: the history would not develop as it did, because people would retain extensive knowledge of how things work (even without a massive encyclopedia), but lack the industrial or political structure to put a lot of it into practice. Buddy431 (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a spoiler, but I must mention that the --other-- canonical treatment of this topic is probably The Mote in God's Eye. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a spoiler at all, CT, because AnonMoos mentioned it in a bit more detail above. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

1) I don't think killing off 99% of us would necessarily be enough to wipe out our current technology. That would leave some 70 million people, more than enough to run an advanced society, especially if they all pooled their resources. However, if the people who survived were all in the jungles of Borneo and the Amazon, then we would lose a lot of technology.

2) Is the goal to provide technology immediately to the survivors or only later, once they mature as a society ? A series of satellites in stable orbits would be good, for example, if we want to wait until they regain the ability to travel in space before "revealing our secrets".

3) We might want to be selective about what info we record. If the apocalypse was due to nuclear war, for example, then we might want to skip instructions for building more nukes. We might even want to skip all the advanced physics lessons, allowing them more time to mature before they rediscover all that. StuRat (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the survivors are more likely to be scattered in small groups across the planet. Sure, enough of them together would probably be able to pool their resources, but this would be a world of very limited resources, as most has been either destroyed or made unusable by radioactivity. Climate change would also be a factor in this. I think in a situation like this, people would be less likely to share with people they don't know very well, and especially so after a war. Survival of one's own group is more likely to be such a priority that it wouldn't matter if it was at the expense of other groups. As for your second and third points, StuRat, it is entirely possible that they may shun technology altogether, as it was the knowledge of this that was the prime cause of them being in their situation and being kicked from their Garden of Eden, as they may come to think of our world as, but at least a knowledge of how it all happened may help them to avoid repeating our mistake. We can't predict any of this, of course. In any case, as a humanitarian gesture it's a wonderful thought, but it would cost too much and wouldn't benefit anyone alive now (so no incentive) or anybody for thousands of years to come. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a similar question being pondered on another ref desk, more specifically about how to preserve wikipedia in the event of a nuclear holocaust. The above discussion might be a tad more serious, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Bathing after eating

Does anyone know why people in certain countries such as Italy and Cuba believe that one has to wait exactly three hours before entering the water following a meal? I live in Italy and the Italians claim bathing can interfere with the digestion process and even the doctors back up this belief. Most Americans and Northern Europeans, however, consider it to be an Old Wives Tale. I'm an American and I was always told as a child not to swim for one hour after eating, but never three hours, and that was swimming not bathing. Do any other editors know why this is so in these countries?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In the UK it was and probably still is believed. Funnily enough I saw it discussed yesterday on an old episode of QI and as you say, it's just an old wives tale. 86.179.90.197 (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This article says: "There isn’t a clear origin to this particular wives tale, but it has been persistent for years, going back to the 1950’s and beyond. The idea here is that a child—or anyone, for that matter—that goes swimming after eating risks their very life, thanks to the inevitable stomach cramps that come along with the activity. Yet the very lack of those stomach cramps among those who disobey the “rule” about waiting to go swimming after they eat calls foul on the concept...While the belief is prevalent in many countries and in many cultures, there has never been a drowning reported that could be linked to stomach cramps brought on by entering the water too soon after eating...It certainly is possible to have muscle cramps through strenuous exercise, and it is not recommended to over exert oneself directly after eating a big meal, but regular splashing about isn’t likely to bring on the cramps...In some countries, such as Cuba, the waiting time can be as much as three hours for those that ascribe to this particular belief..." Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It was fairly widely believed in the US in the past, but I never heard "3 hours" (more like one hour). AnonMoos (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Here in Italy people keep their kids out of the water for exactly 3 hours after their mid-day meal. Even if it's five minutes to go, the poor kids have to wait the full three hours! When people see my kids and I going stright into the water they put it down to luck that I haven't been killed yet. LOL. What the Italians doctors claim is that the shock of cool water on the body temperature can block the blood flow to the stomach that's needed to digest the food. The water is actually quite warm, but they still maintain this fallacy. They also think that drinking ice-cold beverages will kill you and that if a child is perspiring he or she needs to be covered to prevent a fever!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I can testify that it's a common belief in France, too. I really wonder when and how that tale appeared, and how it spread so wide... --Alþykkr (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess in a way it would have made sense to most people (even though it's wrong) not to swim after a meal. I'm not sure I'd like to swim the channel immediately after eating a five course meal . Gotta go tuck myself in now and starve this cold of mine. 86.179.90.197 (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

There is probably no reason why a child or adult can't enter the water after eating simply to bathe or to wade or float around in a leisurely way. However, as a former serious swimmer, I can testify that energetic swimming within 2-3 hours of a meal sometimes does result in cramps. My cramps were never so severe that I couldn't get to the side of the pool when they hit, but it is remotely conceivable that cramps could cripple a person, which could result in drowning in deep water. In any case, such cramps are likely to disrupt a swimming workout. Again, though, I don't think this would apply to a leisurely dip in water that is no deeper than a person's neck. Marco polo (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

But why would you get more cramps soon after eating ? --Alþykkr (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The theory is that the body cuts blood flow to the extremities after eating in order to concentrate resources on the digestion process going on in your middle bits, just as it does in cold weather to maintain your core temperature and protect your vital organs at the expense of your fingers and toes. The extremities are thus more vulnerable to cramping until your stomach has done its thing and the blood flow to the limbs returns to normal. Flailing your blood-starved limbs around in chilly water will inevitably provoke the muscles to cramp, and you will inevitably drown. My granny believed this explanation as an article of faith, but she also had to be physically restrained from rubbing butter into burns. I have no idea whether there is any science behind it. Karenjc 17:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Snopes, perhaps not, as the idea was challenged in a medical journal in 1961 and evidently not subsequently supported. Ah, all those swimming opportunities I missed back in the '70s. But my parents were fairly progressive, so we usually only had to wait 30 minutes. —Kevin Myers 20:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I can testify that it was also a widespread belief in Australia when I was growing up. Kids were told: "Don't go swimming straight after eating, or you'll get stomach cramps and sink to the bottom. Wait at least one hour". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that was swimming, and one hour. I was told that as well by my mother to avoid possible cramps. What I'm curious about is the three hours wait Italians (and others) insist upon before dipping into the water. The kids aren't allowed to get their stomachs wet, just their feet until the full three hours have passed!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, your header says said (it's since been changed) "Swimming after eating", so .... The "swimming" in my post was a generic reference to entering the water and frolicking and gambolling in the glee of acquatic disportment, not necessarily using one's arms and legs as a means of maritime locomotion. Just entering the water at all was a no-no, for at least an hour. Never heard of the 3-hour thing till now. But it's curious that this was such a widespread misbelief. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

To old wives' credit - from what Marco Polo has said, it seems that it is not a misbelief, but a correct belief (about swimming with arms and legs), which has been incorrectly extended to bathing and frolicking. It's natural that such a generalization should occur in many places: after all, bathing in the old days would very often be in rivers and such, any entering into the water is likely to lead to swimming, and it's better to err on the safe side.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Alice Bailey

Sorry for the repost but no one has answered my question please help

Is there a religion based on the writings of Alice Bailey specifically A Treatise on Cosmic Fire. I realise she is a Theosophist, but is this a religion, and alot of Theosophy is, well, tripe. But I am very intrigued by her writings, is this a religious movements? Any enlightenment on the subject would be appreciated. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The article you linked describes several movements linked with her thought. The grouping with a clear link is the Arcane School, which forms part of the Lucis Trust. Whether you describe that as a religious movement would, I suppose, depend on your definition; they state that they don't support any particular creed. Warofdreams talk 14:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Enlightenment is not the natural province of the Reference desk, but you might look at Theosophy for yourself.--Wetman (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

short stories dealing with books/literature/reading

Hi, I'm looking for (short) short stories (or at least one) that somehow deal with literature, books or reading. Well, I know Fahrenheit 451 but I'm looking for something much shorter. Google couldn't help me. Can someone here? Thanks in advance. --87.123.219.165 (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

These links might be helpful.

• http://www.eastoftheweb.com/cgi-bin/read_db.pl?search_field=&order_by=author_last%2Ctitle&page=1&search_for=reading&x=0&y=0
• http://www.readbookonline.net/search/search.htm?cx=partner-pub-9997146367302884%3Ag8p7pfqnytc&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=reading&sa=Search ----------- *http://www.storybites.com/ -- Wavelength (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Library of Babel by Jorge Luis Borges instantly comes to mind. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Fun They Had is a much-anthologised one. --Hence Piano (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

dandelions as weeds

Why are dandelions considered weeds? They are not altogether unsightly, they are edible with some good medicinal qualities. Is there a cultural reason why they are not cultivated (similar to the alleged English fear of tomatoes in the 16th and 17th centuries?) Googlemeister (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I can buy dandelion greens in my supermarket so they are not altogether uncultivated. Rmhermen (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The article Weed describes weeds as plants that grow in unwanted places. I would hazard a guess that dandelions are considered weeds because you can see them practically anywhere - even growing through cracks in the pavement. We don't see many other plants do that, at least ones that are not considered weeds. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I can think of some reasons:

1) They spread uncontrollably.

2) The leaves are "weed-like", meaning they have spikes. (Yes, roses have thorns and aren't considered weeds, but the flower is better looking on them.)

3) The fluff-ball of seeds is annoying when they blow all over and get on clothes and such. Yes, other plants, like cat tails, do this, too. Some may also consider those to be weeds. StuRat (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(Edit Conflicts) I think the main reason is that, because of their numerous wind-borne seeds, their spread is very hard to control. If cultivated as a flower, they would tend to spread both to areas of one's own garden they were not wanted, and also to one's neighbors' gardens, making one rather unpopular. In addition, they do not grow very densely together, making a bed of dandelions look untidy (though selective breeding might overcome this), and readily colonise lawns which most people prefer to be a monoculture (though I myself like to see a sprinkling of daisies and other smaller flowers on a lawn for contrast). Given their several culinary and medicinal uses, there must presumably be some commercial cultivation by methods which overcome such problems by perhaps unaesthetic means. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if left alone, they will take over a lawn, which is fine if you want a lawn consisting of dandelions and if the city's zoning laws permit it. Otherwise, they're a royal freakin' pain. It's true that weeds are unwanted plants. For example, a maize plant growing in a soybean field is technically a weed, although the more typical term is "rogue corn" or "volunteer corn". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"...if the city's zoning laws permit it..." Really??!!!?? So much for those Americans who think that the UK is a hotbed of "big government" and the tyranny of socialism! Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not the city's zoning laws that matter. Its the Restrictive covenant with the homeowner's association that does. City's don't usually legislate these sorts of things, but HOAs frequently require you to maintain a certain quality of yard, in order to protect home values in the neighborhood they cover. Bugs misspoke here, it isn't the municipality that cares, its your neighbors that do. --Jayron32 21:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Cities can also penalize you if your yard is not "kept up", and being overgrown with weeds is one way. That's not "big government" that's "small government". The Federal and State governments couldn't care less. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ever see the root structure of a dandelion? They're as thick as your thumb and go on for feet. Some trees don't have roots like a dandelion. HalfShadow 16:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

They are liable to be around after humans have vanished from the earth. At home we never tried to poison them or anything, we just dug up the visible ones about once a week. And once they go to seed, you're screwed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

To respons to the OP's idea that they aren't unsightly... The flower is not unsightly, but the flower isn't the problem. The plant puts out a yellow flower that lasts about 2 days before going to seed; but for the rest of its life it is has these low, wide, ground-hugging leaves that crowd out the grass in your lawn, and a giant root system that makes it impossible to remove them. So, your choice is basically an occasional yellow flower and zero grass... Not my idea of a desirable plant. --Jayron32 21:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe you all are talking about a small photosynthesis factory as though you had a personal grudge against it. Bus stop (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

They are always useful if you want to know if you like butter. 86.179.90.197 (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That's buttercup, surely? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Dandelions were used too where I came from. Maybe it's the poor mans buttercup. 86.179.90.197 (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The best way to get rid of them ? Convince all the little girls in the neighborhood that they are the prettiest flower of all. They will then pick them whenever they see them. Well worth having a bunch of girls around with dandelions in their hair. StuRat (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

ahem...well worth having a bunch of little girls going around with dandelions in their hair? Did I interpret that correctly?--92.251.220.72 (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what your talking about, but I meant that dandelions are actually annoying, and having them drop all over the place from the hair of said girls is therefore annoying, but worth it, if it means they aren't in the lawn any more. StuRat (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

And to take care of the other problem, convince the kids to pick the leaves and make food out of them. I'm sure when they're all grown up, those kids would look back at those times as their salad days. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In France, where they really do eat the leaves as salad, they are known as pis-en-lit[15] after a rather undesirable side-affect. Alansplodge (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

But only when eaten by French psychiatrists or psychologists.  :) -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Pissabed is an old English name for them, but as we stopped eating weeds long before the French did, few people now know the name. DuncanHill (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, now we just smoke them. In any case, a name like that is not necessarily enticing for a food product. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, when I was a kid in the North of England, we used to call them wee-the-beds, but it never once occurred to us that people actually ate them. Must be just a southern thing :). --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Dandelions have several uses. Please see Russian Dandelion Domesticated for Natural Rubber. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Dandelions are called weeds simply because they grow where they have not been planted by whoever owns the land they are on. Similarly wildflowers grow where they are not planted, the difference being wildflowers are appreciated when they appear unexpectedly, weeds are not. It is up to you to decide which of these your dandelions are. 148.197.114.158 (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

And I would guess partly they are not usually cultivated simply because there is no reason to, they are already growing everywhere. 148.197.114.158 (talk) 09:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Morita Therapy Programs

As a student of Japanese therapy for close to 10 years, I am considering studying to become a Morita Therapist. I am therefore opening this discussion, to learn more about the Morita Therapy programs available in the United States and abroad.

If you are a Morita Therapist, or have undergone a Japanese Therapy training program, I'd be delighted to hear from you.

Thank you and kind regards, Kate  [ Unsigned comment added by Kathleensimonelli (talk • contribs) 16:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)]

For the time being, until you can get a more specific answer, I can point you to our Morita therapy article. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

KägeTorä suggests the right use of the Reference Desk, which is not an opinion forum.--Wetman (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What is it?

In the proposition "It's raining.", what does "it" refer to? Speculative responses welcome. 86.45.150.20 (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

We beat this Q to death a month ago, on the Language Desk: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2010_March_7#Nuclear_dummy.3F. StuRat (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In this case, I would say "it" refers to the weather. Astronaut (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? How about "It's dark in here"? Deor (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Then "it" would be "the level of luminosity"...or "this room". Vimescarrot (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In all of these cases, "It" is the non-specific third person. English actually lacks a distinct pronoun for such a case, but other languages do not. Consider French, which has 5 third person pronouns: Il and Elle (masculine and feminine singular), Ils and Elles (masculine and feminine plural) and On (non-specific). You use the first 4 when the antecedant is known and distinct, and the last one when it isn't. In English, we use the word "It" for all 5 cases, but the antecedantless "it" is what we have here. --Jayron32 20:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Constructions that can't easily be teased apart grammatically are idioms. Historically, idioms come first; grammarians come scrambling along afterwards and try to justify usage.--Wetman (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Il pleut?--BandUser (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

86.45.150.20 -- You're like the duck in Alice in Wonderland:

'I proceed. "Edwin and Morcar, the earls of Mercia and Northumbria, declared for him: and even Stigand, the patriotic archbishop of Canterbury, found it advisable—"'

'Found what?' said the Duck.

'Found it', the Mouse replied rather crossly: 'of course you know what "it" means.'

'I know what "it" means well enough, when I find a thing', said the Duck: 'it's generally a frog or a worm. The question is, what did the archbishop find?'

-- AnonMoos (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Since the OP requested speculative answers, here goes. Considered philosophically, the "it" can be thought to refer to the subject matter of metaphysics, whatever it may be. Some have argued that the preoccupation of Western philosophy with substrates, ontology, things-unto-themselves etc. etc., is pretty much the result of people trying to figure out what "it" is. In Finnish, for instance, "it's raining" is simply "sataa", with no subject, explicit or implicit. The same goes for all so called "state clauses" in Finnish, statements about the prevailing state of affairs such as "it is summer", or "it is dark in here". The question of what "it" is thus does not even arise in Finnish (but does of course preoccupy Finnish philosophers as well, since they get most of their material from Indo-Europeans). Actually, I should check how that particular passage in Alice's adventures, which again proves that the book is relevant to everything, has been translated into Finnish.--Rallette (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't refer to anything (as Lewis Carroll points out) -- it's a dummy pronoun, a consequence of the fact that English demands a noun or pronoun as the subject of every sentence. In pro-drop languages like Spanish, this demand is absent, and people can just say "is raining." -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

GK History Geography question

I am looking for the name of a famous historical woman who has many names. Her family members protected her from invaders by killing them all.She was from a location (mountainous rock) at the entrance of a bay

I would appreciate any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.78.214 (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If we help you, will you split the prize with us? --TammyMoet (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Got it. But I'm sending in the answer myself.--Wetman (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Advantages of big countries over numerous small countries?

Why would one big country, in say, South Africa or Europe be better than the countries there maintining their sovereignety? What advantages and disadvantages does one large unified country have over numberous small ones?--92.251.220.72 (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that it entirely depends on the relationship between the nations. If they cooperate, have free trade, and don't make war with each other, many small countries could collectively be like the EU or even the various states in the US. On the other hand, if they constantly make war on each other, it could be a disaster. StuRat (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

To put it simpler, what are the advatages and disadvantages of the USA compared to the EU.--92.251.220.72 (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(EC) That's a completely different question. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Two completely different beasts, historically. Even if it wanted to, Europe couldn't be a USA because of history and inertia thereof. While certain states feel as though they were sovereign, they aren't, whereas most of the EU at one point or another is, or at least was. I think many of the advantages and disadvantage will arise from that fact.72.2.54.36 (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Many of the US states were sovereign, at one time. The original 13 colonies once had an even weaker link than the EU, under the Articles of Confederation. Both Texas and California were independent republics, briefly. Hawaii was an independent monarchy. StuRat (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

One of the best advantages in the US over the EU is a common native language, English. The EU is perhaps more comparable to India, which like Europe has many local languages as well as the national language of Hindi, and a lot of usage of English also. English seems destined to become the world's universal language eventually, but I'm not sure all the members of the EU would be that keen on the idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A good article to read would be federalism, which is a broad term that encompasses both what the USA's states and the EU's member nations have done. The article has many subtopic links that will be of interest; the US-specific one calls out a lot of the problems that caused the US states to form a stronger federal government. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Slightly related: the theory of Optimum currency areas (though the Wikipedia article's focus maybe doesn't make it very relevant to the question asked here). Jørgen (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Europe is not a country.

However, at the basic level the advantages of size are predominantly economies of scale, although that has to be traded against complexity and the cost of managing a greater area and population.

The advantages can be replicated through free trade, free movement of population resource, and harmonised economic models without the need to federate.

ALR (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think economy of scale really applies here, as when businesses gain from being able to buy items cheaper from suppliers when they buy in bulk. There most of the advantage would be in going from buying one item to thousands, with smaller reductions in price for going to millions of items. Under capitalism, governments don't buy much compared to what businesses in the nation buy, but even the items they do buy (like uniforms for soldiers) tend to be in large enough quantities that there's not much diff between the price per unit from nation to nation. StuRat (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

All the economic dead-weight of the public sector can be slimmed down by reduced duplication, hence increasing the opportunity for funding to remain in circulation and adding value. Governments spend an inordinate amount of money, lots of it in services and lots of transaction cost. By consolidating the service provision there is an opportunity to reduce headcount.

The main point with respect to the business environment is captured in my final paragraph, business transactions across borders cost in both cash and time. Removing those costs is good for business although state equity is affected. The implication is that the cash again remains in circulation rather than being sucked into the inefficiencies of the state system.

ALR (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that most nations are already beyond the scale where further increases in size will improve efficiency of the government. Indeed, a diseconomy of scale is more likely, due mainly to self-competition and duplication of effort. For example, how many competing intelligence agencies does the US have ? I take your point about an effort being required whenever money, people, or goods are shipped across borders, though. A common tax system may be needed to eliminate that problem. But, if the EU had that, it would essentially be a single nation. StuRat (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Seventeen, plus seven internal departments that style themselves as Int... The US is not a good example, the federating arrangements entrench a number of inefficiencies.

It's more than tax; regulation, compliance, performance standards, production standards, environmentals, working conditions etc.

ALR (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, then, how many MI-x orgs are there in the UK ? As for "regulation, compliance, performance standards, production standards, environmentals, working conditions, etc.", isn't the EU working to standardize those now ? StuRat (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

There are four Int orgs in th UK; BSS, SIS, DI and GCHQ plus the directing authority in Cabinet Office.

The EU has made fairly significant moves towards trade optimisation, but there are still a lot of obstacles. The issue of not being Sovereign means that member countries don't all implement in the same way, so inefficiencies persist.

ALR (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much of an advantage to being a "big" country. There are plenty of examples of teeny countries that have achieved great wealth, such as Singapore, Luxembourg and Israel. On the other hand, there are big countries that suffer from all kinds of problems, including DR Congo, India and Brazil. It makes you wonder why countries will go to war to get more land when it's the little countries that often wind up doing the best. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Easy, because even a relatively poor, relatively big country could knock off a small rich country if it wanted. For example, Thailand or Indonesia could take Singapore if they really wanted to (assuming Singapore could not call for help). Googlemeister (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really an answer to the OP, but some things to consider: the unification of Germany (in 1871, not 1990) created a very strong country out of a number of weak ones. Some have good reason to believe that unification was the proximate cause of two world wars and a cold war as well. On the other hand, the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire into many smaller countries probably caused just as many problems. There are many other examples of this dichotomy in the history of Europe Julius Caesar v. Caesar Borgia. Zoonoses (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

April 15

Zoning

Hey, I have a question about some zoning laws that I don't udnerstnad. I am NOT looking for legal advice--I can afford a lawyer if I need one. In my city zoning or some similar kind of laws forbid raising farm animals (such as chickens, ducks, sheep, etc) in my neighborhood. Does this include pheasants, as pheasants are more of a game animal than farm animal? I want to raise one for a pet. Thanks! --Posted by: Zoned out about zoning laws —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.138.52 (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Every city's zoning laws are different, so your best bet would be to call your city government office and ask them. One thing about raising a pheasant - if it misbehaves, you can have it for dinner. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

By the same token, if your cat misbehaves you can just make a tennis racket. PhGustaf (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That would require some guts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sheep guts. Catgut is not generally made from cat. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles like that illustrate the wonders of human ingenuity. I can see this caveman Grog saying to himself, "Well, yesterday I invented the wheel. What shall I do today? Maybe if I take the intestines from a lean animal with the toughest gut, clean it, free it from fat, steep it for some time in water, scrape off the external membrane with a blunt knife, steep it again for some time in an alkaline lye, smooth and equalize by drawing out, subject to the antiseptic action of the fumes of burning sulphur, dye if necessary, sort into sizes, and twist together into cords of various numbers of strands, maybe I can make a stringed musical instrument from it. But what shall I call the instrument? The strings would be like little tubes, so maybe I'll call it a 'tuba'." [inventors are not always known for their marketing skills] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A non-organic application of the logic behind Intelligent Design? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You know, Arthur Clarke implicitly postulated "intelligent design" in the book version of 2001: A Space Odyssey. In that book, the actual first invention was a nuclear thighbone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If your kid misbehaves, you can also have him for dinner, probably several dinners. Plus, the other kids will tend to behave after that. :-) StuRat (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You'd obviously need to check with your zoning board to find out how they interpret the rules. There have been cases of other people wanting to keep animals as pets which are normally considered food, particularly the pot-bellied pig. So, they might allow it, or they might take a hard line and say "once we allow one pheasant in we'll have hundreds of requests for variances". If you tell them you intend to keep the bird in a cage inside, they would probably be more willing to allow it. StuRat (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know from pheasants, but I've got a pet wolverine, and I wanna tell ya, nobody messes with me anymore. Least of all, the animal control folks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the local codes, and in some cases, they may not be well defined. In my city, we do not allow farm animals, but there was an exemption specifically made for fowl, including chickens, ducks, and quail. If no one's ever tried to raise pheasants before, then it's quite likely that no one has even ever decided whether pheasants are allowed or not. I agree, call up the city government. And hopefully, if you're just raising it as a pet (rather than running a big operation), your neighbors would be decent enough to not complain. And if you keep it inside all the time, practically speaking, no one would know (though really, I'm sure that a pheasant would appreciate getting out in the yard to strut around and eat insects). Buddy431 (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If it never gets a chance to go out and play, it could become an unpleasant pheasant. Unless he trains it to watch soap operas all day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Who this in this picture?

The German text says it is "Elisabeth, duchess of Bavaria. Died 1314, daughter of duke Heinrichs 13 of Niederbayern. In the garb of the cistercians". --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That can be mean a lot of person because Elisabeth is a very common name in the Wittelsbach family and duchess of Bavaria can mean a daughter or wife of a Duke of Bavaria. And who is Heinrich the thirteenths? Ok I found who is she is now. She became a nun and was the daughter of Henry XIII, Duke of Bavaria--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sculpture of Cleopatra - is that what she really looked like?

The Cleopatra VII is illustrated by a picture of a sculpture or bust of herself. Is that what she really looked like, or was it just something made centuries later? Similar busts of Roman emporers look realistic rather than idealised, and perhaps in part served to identify them, so were likely to be authentic representations. The Cleopatra bust has quite a big nose, like that of the image on the picture of a coin. 92.29.104.157 (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If the caption on the photo is accurate, it's contemporary, although it seems to be in remarkably good shape. If the coins are also contemporary, then her big nose and braided hair would seem to be consistent. And probably closer to the mark than this:File:Guido Cagnacci 003.jpg ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeating the same detail of the same Wikipedia article, and part of the OPs question as well, is not a terribly good answer to a question about a detail in that Wikipedia article being authentic. 92.29.104.157 (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Getting snippy with those are trying to answer a question, for free, is not a terribly good attitude to cop. You asked if the sculpture was made centuries later, so I assumed you had not read the details on it. The sculpture's description says it's first century B.C. That would be contemporary with Cleopatra. If the coins are contemporary, then they are consistent. And you've seen noses bigger than that, so what basis do you have for questioning its realism. If anything, it might be more realistic than the Roman emperor busts which tried to make them look like gods or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What Bugs presumably did to get information about this bust was to click on the image and go to this page: [16]. The German caption on the page states that the bust is from the 1st century B.C., that is, the time when Cleopatra lived. The caption info states that the bust is in a museum in Berlin. This information is confirmed here. The latter site mentions one scholar's opinion that the bust was created in Italy rather than Alexandria, but at a time when Cleopatra was still alive, making it fairly likely that the bust was based on a likeness. Marco polo (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The "Statue of Cleopatra as Egyptian Goddess; Basalt" does not look like the bust, although its difficult to see. 78.145.23.61 (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That is because the bust is made in the Hellenistic style, while the statue is made in the traditional formalised Egyptian style on account of religious reasons. Obviously the Hellenistic style has a greater possibility of being a more realistic portrayal, as the Egyptian style mainly applies symbols instead of realism when depicting persons. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

After seeing further pictures of the bust, it does look more similar to the statue. The article says Cleopatra did travel to Rome, so even if made in Italy the bust could have been direct from life. I am surprised, I thought no images of Cleopatra existed. Wonderful to see her face reaching to the present from over two thousand years ago. If I had time I'd try putting together the images of her bust with Photosynth. 92.29.29.181 (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming that the "Statue of Cleopatra as Egyptian Goddess; Basalt" mentioned by the IP above is referring to this. That is at least what I based my answer on. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to use modern technology and merge what are said to be several surviving statues of her (according to http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/l/limestone_head_of_a_woman.aspx ) and her mummy to create a definitive 3D portrait of her. Similarly for the Roman emporers. 78.147.241.153 (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia Administrators

Hello Wikipedia Administrators. I want to inform you about the necesity of updatein a page on wikipedia the one about the polish catastrofy in the international response section. The Romanian Government anounced yesterday official mourning for 18 April but this doesn't appear on the page...and I am not familiar with doing this myself. please add Romania to the mourning nations in the list and on the map.Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddy89 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not a question for the Reference Desk. You should post this request on the 'Discussion' page of the page you are referring to. I would do this myself, but as you have not provided a link to the page in question, I have no idea which it is. Therefore, please go back to that page, and look above. You will see a 'Discussion' tab. Click on that and it will bring you to the article's 'Discussion Page' (also called 'Talk Page'). You will then see another set of tabs, one of which is 'New Section'. Click on that and post your request. Hope this helps. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

He's most probably referring to the crash of the Tupoljev plane about a week ago: 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. Since I last checked the article, the international response has been moved to a separate article: International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. To Eddy: Doing as KageTora suggested would be the fastest and most appropriate way, yes. TomorrowTime (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Free business cards

What is the catch with "free" business cards? Do they have the provider's advert on the rear side? 92.29.104.157 (talk) 12:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to an example? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Are you talking about "free business cards" in general, or free business cards from a particular provider? If the former, then all I can say is that in general some will and some won't and ones that do will have it either on the front or the back, depending on the provider. If the latter, then we have no idea unless you tell us which provider you are talking about, and, in fact, it may be just simpler to ask them directly. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The ones I've had in the past have the supplier's details on the back of the card, and a limited selection of styles and designs. That said, I've found them very worthwhile for my Scouting. DuncanHill (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

www.vistaprint.co.uk 92.29.104.157 (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There are some general "rip-off" business models that might apply here:

A) "We will send you an (absurdly small) sample absolutely free ! If you like them, you need do nothing; we will send you more each month (at an absurdly high price). If you aren't satisfied, you may cancel your subscription at any time (or you could, if we actually answered our phones)."

B) "Absolutely free ! You just pay the shipping and handling fee (which is enough to ship it from Pluto). If you aren't satisfied, simply return the unused portion, and we will refund the entire purchase price (but not the shipping and handling)." StuRat (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

As well as printing their name on the back. The OP could have answered his own question by following the process through (up to a point) on that link. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The supplier I've used (which is also the one named above by the original questioner) does charge postage, but the cards are still substantially cheaper than I could source them locally from a printer (and vastly and amazingly cheaper & better looking than they would be if I printed them off from my PC). DuncanHill (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I use that supplier too and often wonder what the catch is with them. I've only had one minor quibble with the printing in 3 years. The supplier's name is in print so small I can't read it! If anyone knows how they make their money, please let me know! --TammyMoet (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Enough free customers will go on to order paid-for goods. The cost of printing cards is vanishingly small if you have a sufficiently super printer, and the goodwill and consumer inertia generated by the free offers will make the costs worthwhile. DuncanHill (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. A supplemental question is - I would like just a plain white card without any graphics or lines or anything, just the plain print in black ink with all my details centred, my name in somewhat larger print than the rest of it. Does anyone know how to get this from Vistaprint or elsewhere please? All the ones I've seen have graphics of some kind. 92.29.104.157 (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Just be aware - Vistaprint has numbers of customers who express satisfaction with the service (I have used them myself, the cards were of OK-ish quality, and we had no subsequent problems). However, I have been told personally, and have read online, that others have had difficulties with what they claim are unauthorised debits from their card accounts after purchase. One such example is here. This may or may not be down to customers misunderstanding what they are signing up for, but if you are planning to use them I would suggest a spot of googling and a careful look through a selection of customer reviews, which may help you avoid making mistakes with their ordering system. Karenjc 14:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I did have this happen to me because of a mistake with the ordering system. However, I was sufficiently impressed with the attitude of their customer service department - who refunded every payment I'd ever made to VP, as a mark of goodwill - to keep on with them. It hasn't happened since, and I think because of the public outcry in the UK about it, they've changed their ways. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

To answer a question that you didn't ask: if you have specific (and relatively simple) needs, and you have any kind of printer at all in your house, you can actually probably do these in Microsoft Word and get decent results with the "print them yourself" cards now on the market. They are much better than they used to be even just a few years ago. They don't look cheesy and don't look hand-made if you do them right. They pop out of the sheets without any perforations of any kind. They are very cheap when you consider the per-card cost (less than 10 cents a card). Just putting that out there. Personally I prefer cheap-and-DYI to free-but-questionable for things like this. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

10 cents a card isn't all that cheap, that's $50 for a batch of 500. And, if you hand them out to everyone you pass at a convention, that could really add up. StuRat (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Assuming I can buy the 'print them yourself' cards and my old printer can process them, what software can I use? I do not like using Word, I have OpenOffice installed. I'm willing to instal other free software. Thanks 78.145.23.61 (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Open office write will work fine. If the cards come with an MS word template (or a link to one on the 'net) you can use that with open office. --Psud (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I got some "free" Vistaprint cards a while back. The experience was partly good, partly bad, overall not recommended:

• The cards themselves were of good quality, much better than DIY laser printer cards, mostly due to being printed on thicker stock than you can put through a typical home printer.
• The cards had a discreet Vistaprint ad on the back, which I expected, in fact I had found out about Vistaprint by receiving a card from someone else who used them, so the ad worked.
• The shipping charge was clearly high enough to also cover the printing cost and a profit margin, but it was still a pretty good deal if I just thought of it as the card price, so fine.
• They spammed the email address that I had supplied in the card order, but this wasn't a problem since I routinely use throwaway addresses, so I just shut the address off when the spam started.
• They also spammed the phone number (with robo sales calls) that I had printed on the cards. That pissed the hell out of me and went on for a long time (like a call every few months for at least a year), but it eventually stopped. I don't remember if I had to contact them to make it stop. I have a vague memory of this.
• It looks like you can get laser printer cards for 2-3 cents a card. I'll probably do that next time I need cards, since I'm currently not fussy about such things. If I become more fussy about cards, it's because someone is paying me to be fussy, so I'll go to a real printing shop and pay the big bucks for good cards.
• As someone else said, there are Word templates for DIY cards that work ok in Open Office. You can download a lot of those templates from avery.com, I think. They should work fine for all similar layouts of cards regardless of brand. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Did all these bad things - credit card fraud, junk emails, and so on, only happen in the USA and not the UK? I need to rephrase that - Which of the above happened in the US, and which in the UK please? 78.151.110.54 (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

balloon tying school tuition

if there were a balloon tying school, how much would tuition likely be? (I mean on economic grounds). Or is there no way to tell in advance, you just have to open one, try different prices, and see what gets you the most profit? 84.153.179.97 (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine there being too many people willing to pay for this. Those who actually need such skills for their jobs, like clowns, probably are taught that along with other clown skills (either in a clown school or as an apprentice). Those who just want to learn for fun might get that info off the internet or otherwise learn it on their own. So, to attract customers, it would have to be cheap. Exactly how cheap is hard to say, but to try and see might be the only way to find out. StuRat (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This online course in "clown skills" presumably includes balloon skills, and they only charge $40: [17]. StuRat (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

But that link, unlike my proposal, is an online school, and not just for balloon tying. Anyway you say there isn't much demand for it, but if my proposed balloon tying school were only like 15 minutes long, couldn't the tuition still surpass the $35,000 per year at Harvard's undergraduate college, and yet still find plenty of buyers if the campus is in, say, central park? I say this because $35,000 per year is only 99 cents per 15 minutes. You don't think people would pay 99 cents for a fifteen minute course of study at a balloon tying school? It could be broken down into 7 two-minute semesters and a 1 minute graduation party. What do you think? 84.153.179.97 (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A 15 minute class would be more of a demo than building permanent skills in the students. Some clowns do this at parties; they show the kids how to make some simple balloon animals. And yes, it might work at Central Park, but you may need some type of license to work there. Also, don't expect to have a continuous line of customers, you'd have long periods with none, when you would need to demo your skills to attract customers, and maybe occasional times when a group of 100 shows up. Also expect to provide the materials (balloons) for the students to take home with them. Balloons are quite cheap, but at under a dollar per student you could expect them to cut into your profits considerably. StuRat (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's misleading to suggest the $35k per year Harvard tuition can be said to be 99 cents/ 15 minutes. No one expects 24/7 every day in the year tuition for their $35k Nil Einne (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a physical clown school with a class just on balloons: [18]. They have two 2 hour sessions. Call them to get the price. StuRat (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Balloon Knots 101 and 102. I wonder if they have a graduate-level study program? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure: balloon angioplasty. StuRat (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Not at Harvard though. Googlemeister (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Keeping us free

Interpret this as you may, but I'm genuinely confused about wars that claim to "keep us free". I don't like war (who really does), but I do recognize that there is a job to finish in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and pulling troops from either wouldn't be very helpful to the people in those countries, so, having started those missions, it makes sense to see them through.

But I honestly can't see how our troops (Canadian in my case, but that's irrelevant) keep me free in my hometown halfway around the world. For this reason, when I'm told I am supposed to appreciate and thank these people for the service they are apparently providing. 70.79.246.134 (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The theory is that the war stays overseas rather than coming here. Whether that theory is valid or not, and whether they are right or wrong-headed in their logic, the fact remains that we have fellow citizens willing to take a bullet for us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Or at least, they're willing to go to war on behalf of our government in exchange for a paycheck and a benefits package. Their motives beyond that are not really clearly demonstrated. APL (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, at the plausible risk of being killed while on (or off) the job. Love the soldier, and vote against the people who put them in harm's way, unless there's a clear and present danger. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes yes. Lumberjacks, deep sea divers, and coal miners put themselves in harm's way too, but there's no evidence that they're "doing it for us". Putting yourself in harms way does not automatically imply noble intentions. Certainly many of the Army's recruitment techniques are designed to appeal to people's more selfish urges. ("Adventure! On the job training! Looks good on a resume! Pays for college! Keeps you out of trouble! There are no jobs in this town!)

The idea that every single soldier is out there because they believe what they're doing is vital to the security of our nation is propaganda idealism. APL (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

"A man does not have himself killed for a half-pence a day or for a petty distinction. You must speak to the soul in order to electrify him": Napoleon (apparently). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 15:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, ultimately, if someone tried to invade Canada, it would be your army's job to keep you free. That much is clear.

Beyond that you get into a lot of rhetoric about "Taking the fight to the enemy." APL (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

As a member of NATO, all the NATO nations would defend Canada in case of invasion. But, of course, due to it's proximity to the US, most of those forces would come from there. StuRat (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing the soldier with the war. Thank the soldier for being willing; judge the war as a separate thing. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the Reference Desk. There are many on-line forums.--Wetman (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. "Thanks, Soldier."

So, now that We've thanked him/her, can we answer the question? APL (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, he did ask why he was supposed to thank them. The reasons for thanking them are not necessarily what the soldier is currently doing, hence my point to judge the merits of the war separately. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

There are two opposing theories on dealing with terrorists (or rogue nations):

1) Attack them wherever they are, to keep them weak, so they can't grow to where they become a threat to us. This is the most common view, used by all the major powers (US, Russia, China, etc.) against terrorist threats to them.

2) Leave them alone and they will leave us alone. While this is often true in the short run, especially for smaller nations, it's hard to imagine that if everyone left terrorists alone to do as they please, that they wouldn't attack anyone any more. StuRat (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The latter approach, i.e. the first sentence of item 2, could be called the "Neville Chamberlain approach". They attack us because they see us as an obstacle to their objectives, as Japan did in 1941. We could revert to isolationism, and then everything would be peachy. Only it wouldn't. Because no matter how you try to avoid thugs, they eventually come looking for you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A wonderful strawman StuRat, truly enlightening. There are of course a wide variety of dealing with terrorism—the main responses are not whether you should or should not be involved, but whether it should be treated as a military matter or a police matter. This is separate from the idea of whether extensive overseas military holdings, propping up of dictatorships, or unconditionally supporting nations that perpetuate human rights abuses, actually contributes to the legitimizing of extremist viewpoints amongst the populations in question. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, StuRat's binary view is not really the range of choices. In addition to what Mr.98 discusses above, there's also a range of (controversial, I'm sure) economic attempts that could be tried — give them all a goddamned job, and fewer people will join the bad guys out of having nothing to lose — and StuRat's claim forgets about what Thomas Friedman calls the "super-empowered angry man" — some terrorists are lone wolves, and as technology keeps getting more advanced and more accessible, it will continue to be easier for individuals, or groups of 2 or 3 individuals, to create effective weapons of mass destruction without state sponsorship. Domestic lone wolves are terrorists, too, that we have to "deal with". Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should add two more choices:

3) Bribe them/pay tribute. The Pakistanis tried this with the Taliban, paying them $1 million at one point to stop fighting. Saudi Arabia also has tried this with militants. Neither case has been successful.

4) Bring economic and political equality to all. If this was actually possible, it might work, eventually. However, this would require violently overthrowing all the governments which are opposed, such as Saudi Arabia. Also, in the early stages of democracy, militants may gain control of the government through a legitimate vote. So, then, you have to decide whether to allow the violent militant government to stand, or overthrow it. If not, you could expect Sharia law to spread, with stonings of homosexuals, apostates, and women (for offenses which men can commit with impunity), genocide of ethnic and religious minorities, etc. StuRat (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Sharia has become a bit of a scarecrow. It's certainly not something to cherish. But neither is Leviticus. And both have been interpreted similarly in comparable socio-economic situations, by picking and choosing which parts to enforce, which to bend, and which to ignore. In Somalia, for example, the Sharia court system has been very much preferable to full anarchy for significant parts of the population. Sharia is a big step back for modern western systems of justice, but it can certainly be a step forward compared to my-stick-is-bigger-than-your-stick, especially in its more liberal interpretations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sharia in Islam is somewhat comparable to Christian Reconstructionism ideology in Christianity, but Christian Reconstructionists or Rushdoonyites have no practical political power or significant influence on governments or legal systems, while advocates for strict enforcement of Sharia have had a lot of real-world influence on a number of governments, from Zia-ul-Haq's Islamization to Amina Lawal... The Islamic courts union in Somalia might have brought a certain degree of welcome order to Somalia (at the cost of heavy repression in some fields), but the United States was convinced that elements of it had strong personal ties to prominent international terrorists. AnonMoos (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Returning to the original "question", well-designed to provoke debate, the confusion may be due to dubious embedded assumptions. There is a large body of opinion that the soldiers are not keeping anyone free, rather the reverse, that there is no job to be done in Iraq and Afghanistan, that the people of these and the soldiers' countries would be best helped by immediate withdrawal. That, in Glenn Greenwald's words "the very policies justified in the name of fighting Terrorism (invasions, occupations, bombings, lawless detentions, etc.) are the precise ones that most inflame and exacerbate that threat." [19] One can go further and consider terrorism as an application of StuRat's and Bugs' logic in reverse, a decision to take choice (1) instead of (2) or (3), to refuse to be Neville Chamberlains with respect to aggressive great powers.John Z (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Number 1 doesn't really work in reverse: "Attack them wherever they are, to keep them weak, so they can't grow to where they become a threat to us", since many of the nations they attack are already powerful. It's more like "Attack them wherever they are, so they will be afraid of us and will leave us alone/pay us tribute/counterattack and cause civilian casualties, so we can grow in strength". StuRat (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

War

This might be inappropriate for the reference desk, because it might be an opinion statement instead of a question, but I feel a strong need to write it anyway.

I don't understand the whole concept of war. It seems to be defined with mutually exclusive criteria. War is a genuine conflict, not previously arranged, between two parties that do not need to be equal. In war, people die. I feel the need to emphasise this point.

Yet, war is controlled. There are internationally recognised laws of war, disobeying which carries a penalty in peacetime. War can be decisively ended with declaring peace, after which the combatants put aside all hostilities. For most of the parties involved in war, they have been engaging in hostilities, even killing each other, simply because there is war, and they have been told to kill each other. They have no real, genuine hatred towards each other.

How can such a controlled conflict, among people who do not feel genuine hatred towards each other, go as far as people killing each other? I'd understand it in two situations:

• If it were only a match-up of force, with no real danger to people's lives.
• If the involved parties truly hated or feared each other. I like to think of the film Alien when I think of this. The aliens see humans as no more than food. In reaction, humans see the aliens as a genuine danger by themselves. The parties want to kill each other because they feel a genuine instinct to do so, not because they've been told to.

But real war seems to be both at the same time. How can this be? JIP | Talk 20:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the Reference Desk. There are many on-line forums.--Wetman (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that there have been many wars lacking an element of "hatred". It may be that an outsider sees no reason why one side in the conflict should hate the other, but generally there is animus and a desire for vengeance or for righting a perceived wrong on at least one side of every conflict. I am an American who was vehemently opposed to the invasion of Iraq (and who remains opposed to its occupation), and here is a case where there should be no hatred on the American side, since Iraq never attacked the United States. However, the U.S. media and politicians presented Iraq as an aggressive country that seriously threatened the United States and that was somehow linked to the deaths of 3,000 Americans in the September 11 attacks (even though no such link existed). So probably most of the U.S. troops who invaded Iraq saw the Iraqis as "bad guys" and murderers who had to be stopped for the sake of their country, their loved ones, and "freedom". Do you see how that happens? In many cases throughout history, elites have seen an opportunity to gain an advantage through the use of deadly force, and they have more or less cynically used propaganda to convince their people that the enemy is evil and that therefore war is not only just but an urgent necessity. Marco polo (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 The nature of war changed greatly in the 20th century. Prior to World War I, most wars did not feature widespread conscription, so most residents of a country did not feel the direct effect or it, nor were wars as deadly for the general population. Indeed, in the European tradition of decisive battle, whereby two armies met on a battlefield and organized as set pieces to do battle; the battle itself was somewhat ritualized. It was hell for the participants, but by its nature it spared non-combatants from the war itself; the two armies duked it out, and whichever one "won" got the reward; usually control over the particular territory. One thing that has not changed appreciably over time (indeed, one could argue that it has gotten worse) is that the decision makers; that is the people that stand to benefit from the war, do not actually do the fighting. Sending the peasants/plebes/serfs/poor people to die so that the aristocracy can gain control of some bit of land/resource/cultural influence is as old as warfare itself. The really nasty wars are always the ones where the people doing the fighting actually give a shit themselves. --Jayron32 20:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, not always. From the middle ages to at least the 18th century nobles (and sometimes even kings) were usually leading their troops personally in the battle. --131.188.3.21 (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. Any large war had a terrible impact on the non-combatant population. The Hundred Years War, the Thirty Years War, even the Peloponnesian War were all devastating for regular people who got in the way. Conscription existed long before the First World War. "Two armies meeting on a battlefield" is a mythological ideal, and I'm not sure I can think of any battle that was actually ritualized and not destructive. There are times where armies have marched out just to show off their strength, and battles have then been avoided, but that's much different... Adam Bishop (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not that wars prior to World War I had no effect; its a matter of scale; World War I featured orders of magnitude greater casualties than prior wars. Our article cites a total war dead of something like 39,000,000 people; compare that to the major European war immediately preceeding it, the Franco-Prussian War, which had less than 500,000 deaths. Admittely, the F-P war was smaller in scope, but even accounting for that, there were more deaths per year along the Western Front (roughly the theatre of the F-P war) than there were in the year of the F-P war... --Jayron32 21:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Our Philosophy of war article points to several books about this topic. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Edwin Star has some good points as well. --Jayron32 20:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you're also confusing the differences between the people who fight wars and the people who start wars. Politicians and generals see war a very different way that the grunt on the battlefield. The politician and general sees it as a map of little arrows moving into places, and maybe a list of numbers (expenses, casualties, poll ratings) at the end of the day. They are largely removed from the death. The grunt is the opposite end of the spectrum. He (or she) sees only the immediate objective: doing their job and not getting killed. They are not thinking about how much they love or hate the enemy or too much about the larger political merits of the conflict. They are often scared and running on adrenaline. They know (or think) that the enemy has killed their friends and would kill them if they got the chance. They often regard the enemy as not-quite-human (even if they know better). The great irony of war is that it requires both extremes on this spectrum to happen—those so far removed from the battlefield as to see it as purely abstractions, and those so close that they couldn't think abstractly about it if they wanted to. Obviously I am generalizing quite a bit here, but is not terribly original... recommended references are really any of John Keegan's works (esp. his A History of Warfare), Dave Grossman's On Killing, Michael Herr's Dispatches, Evan Wright's Generation Kill, and so on. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this is an opinion question ultimately, so it probably should be dealt with elsehwere. I certainly don't want "debate" about this sort of thing here, because it will spiral out of control.

Formal war (what you're talking about) is a question between sovereign nations entities. In all of these cases, there's a moral hazard because those that make the decision aren't necessarily those that suffer most directly. But if the question is about "why", I think the reasons are not so different from the same reasons that tribes of chimpanzees fight and kill each other, or why any other group of animals do so. Homo Sapiens are one of the most homicidal mammals on the earth. Shadowjams (talk) 07:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Any politician who cannot slime his way out of takeing his country to war should have to resign as he was unable to do his job —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.59.90 (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

A great example of why we shouldn't discuss this on wikipedia. Shadowjams (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is the Reference Desk. There are many on-line forums.--Wetman (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If someone breaks into your house an attempts to damage your property what does your government do? They send the police over to arrest them. If the person resists arrest they forcefully restrain them. If they resist with a lethal weapon they will probably be killed.

Now if government A wants government D to do something, but government D does not comply, government A can send people over to remove government D from power. Government D of course will do the same thing it does with criminals, and send in security forces. However as both parties are exceptionally heavily armed there is no chance of non-lethally subduing the enemy. The reason they persist in fighting is because A's army strongly believes that what it is doing is right, while D's army believes what they are doing is wrong and needs to be stopped.

The Nazis, for example, genuinely believed what they were doing was right, they weren't just being dicks for the heck of it. They actually though the world would be a better place with untermenschen, and they were prepared to commit the most horrid atrocities in human history (I can't even think of anything in the ancient world that compares to it) to get rid the world of "judeo-bolshevik corruption". Stalin, although he loved power just for its own sake, thought communism provided a great quality of life for everyone.

As an aside, does this make conquerors like Napoleon worse than the Nazis? He understood perfectly he had absolutely no right to go marching across Europe ruining the lives of countless masses, yet he did it anyway.--92.251.167.128 (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

USA states - economy question

In the EU budget here, with eternal net contributors like Germany/Netherlands and net beneficiaries like Greece/Portugal [[20]], there are often people in the population like Germans or British who are "fed up" with always paying to help poorer countries (I read in newspaper comments) and really fed up with Greece etc. Does a similar system exist in the USA, and therefore which states pay most and which ones receive most and is there any animosity about this between long-term paying/contributor or long-term receiving/beneficiary states? (I've tried googling and wikipedia articles but can't get/understand info. - please explain in simple terms for economics dumbo, thanks). --AlexSuricata (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there are some people who will complain about anything, but its not a major point except among those who see any taxing-and-spending program as "wealth redistribution" and oppose it on those grounds (see Tea Party movement ). You have to remember that in the U.S., people think of themselves as Americans first and citizens of their states second (well, except for Texans, but that's another story for another day). In the EU, no one thinks of themselves as "Europeans" before they think of themselves as "Germans" or "Greeks" or "Spaniards", so there's a certain amount of mild xenophobia in the European's concerns (i.e. why are we spending German people's money on foreign countries) that isn't present in the American situation. --Jayron32 20:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

For some numbers, you could start by reading through this entry (as well as the report linked therein). Gabbe (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, because of deficit spending of the US government, each and every state (with the possible exception of Alaska) receive benefits where the dollar amount exceeds the collected tax revenue. Googlemeister (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There's been some sarcasm over the fact that some of the loudest self-proclaimed "fiscal conservatives" or "small government" types come from some of the states which receive more from the federal government than they contribute . However, I don't really think that in the U.S. there are systematic regional resentments remotely comparable to those in Italy (where sufficient people in the north of the country resent subsidizing what they see as the corrupt and inefficient Mafia/Camorra/Ndrangheta-ridden south to have created a semi-major political party devoted to northern Italian autonomy), or those in Yugoslavia (where the fact that generally the further north you went in Yugoslavia, the more developed the economy, was a significant factor in the break-up of the country). AnonMoos (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Show was a sarcasm contributor on this point during the last Presidential election. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. has nothing equivalent to the Canadian system of "equalization" in which the less-well-off provinces get big chunks of cash from the federal government just for being poor. Because poor people, seniors and the like tend to live in some places more than others, as well as for other factors, certain states tend to be net recipients of federal payments while other states are net contributors. However, that is not a major issue in U.S. politics. People tend to complain more about certain classes of people, such as the poor, minorities and immigrants, who are (often unfairly) seen as being the recipients of money taken from hard-working "regular" people. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

An interesting comparison might be the early U.S. under its first constitution, the Articles of Confederation; as our article states, the more populous states were expected to pay more, but all the states had an equal vote in the Congress. In a way, the smaller states were "poorer" and would have received disproportionately high proportions of any general expenditures. This is a bit different from what you're talking about, though. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

More urban states, with more taxpayers, tend to be net payers in the US, while more rural states, with lots of national parks and such, tend to be net recipients. Ironically, those states with higher population (the net payers) also tend to be Democratic and the rural states (the recipients) tend to be Republican. StuRat (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I am skeptical. Because of deficit spending, all states are net recipients. Googlemeister (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the amount of net money gained each year by borrowing is largely offset by interest payed on what was previously borrowed, meaning there is not much new net money available from borrowing each year. And that interest is again largely payed by the most populous states. Also, consider that when and if those debts are payed off, yet again it will be mainly by the most populous states. So, no matter how you look at it, they are subsidizing the rural states. StuRat (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

StuRat is correct in that US states have different ratios of federal tax dollars received/paid. There's several graphics available that show the differences- such as this one. I just recently saw a more nuanced version of the same idea, which broke down the ratio even further so some parts of the states pay more than they receive than others. (I believe it was a week or so ago on Andrew Sulivan's Daily Dish blog) 69.10.218.131 (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

For comparison, this is a huge deal in Canada, where the federal government more directly takes large sums of money from the "have provinces" and gives them to the "have not provinces". See Equalization payments in Canada. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

To answer the original question, yes, some states give more than they receive, while other states receive more than they get. However, this has mainly to do with affluent people giving more than they get. Some states have more affluent populations. Every state has poorer people and poorer areas that are net beneficiaries of the system. So any resentment that exists about tax and expenditure inequities is mainly along class lines rather than by geography. Many of the rich and the upper middle class complain about how little benefit they see from their excessive tax payments (in their view). Geographic inequities, while recognized, are really not a significant political issue in the United States. Marco polo (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the affluence of each state, the population density is important, and, since military bases tend to be located in the exterior states, like Hawaii, being there is also beneficial for getting more federal dollars. StuRat (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

An important difference between the EU and the USA not mentioned so far is that while the US federal govt taxes individuals directly through income and payroll taxes, the EU gets most of its revenue through an assessment on member states that is paid by national governments. The US federal government doesn't have the authority to demand payment from state governments. The result is that while a New Jerseyan may chafe at the poor deal his state gets in the balance of payments to the federal government, as an individual he is treated the same as any other American in similar economic circumstances, thus his treatment doesn't seem unjust. A citizen of Britain or Germany has a stronger argument about the unfairness of the system. —D. Monack ^talk 08:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thisd sort of stuff happens mostly with in individual state boundries, not in the USA as a whole. seeSecession in New York and many of the entries in List of U.S. state secession proposals have to do with taxes.--Found5dollar (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

dust cloud

Are the RAF jets also grounded?

What happens if the Russians come with their Bear-aircraft type turboprops things armed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.240.169 (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you assuming that turboprop engines are not effected by volcanic ash? Googlemeister (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the RAF is prepared for this kind of event (while it is unprecedented on this scale, the idea that volcanic ash is bad for planes is well known). The ash also isn't guaranteed to stop engines and the level of risk acceptable to a fighter jet intercepting enemy aircraft is much higher than the risk acceptable to a passenger jet, so they might just take their chances. It is also worth adding that relations with Russia are reasonably good at the moment so there is really no chance of them wanting to nuke us. --Tango (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I wondered the same thing. Russia continues to probe UK air defences with Tupolev Tu-95 "Bear" and Tupolev Tu-160 "Blackjack" aircraft, doing so every few weeks.(ref) (ref) As Googlemeister notes, there's no reason to think that a Bear's turboprop or the Blackjack's turbofan engines would be resistant to the ash - it's hard to think what countermeasures you'd build for your engine being filled with an uncomfortable amount of molten glass. (ref). In practice military aircraft should be able to operate, as the ash is at a high level (ref) and, if they have to cross that layer they can do so much more quickly than an airliner (their climb and dive rates are hugely better, particularly for the fighters) - but I'm sure they'll still avoid it at all costs. But if you look at the full extent of the ash in this map you'll see why the Russians will stay at home. The cloud now covers the airspace north of the Finnmark, the Kola Peninsula, and the areas around Murmansk and Arkhangelsk from which the bombers operate. So they'd have to fly most of the way in airspace where the ash is, while the fighters (close to home, high performance, and with much better local weather intel) can mostly avoid it. There's probably nothing the Royal Navy would enjoy more than fishing a nice intact Blackjack out of the Norwegian Sea and shipping it off for lots of study. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on the stories I've seen, only civil airspace is closed, and the military generally gets to operate however they like. So no, the RAF isn't grounded in an official sense. As a practical matter, though, I'd guess they've suspended a lot of operations, so they may well be practically grounded.

Additionally, prop-driven bombers aren't really a threat to a modern state like Britain these days. — Lomn 03:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

What? The Tu-95 is a heavy bomber with capabilities close to the B-52 - it's almost as fast, and certainly faster than a lot of jet-powered airliners. And the Tu-160 is something else entirely... FiggyBee (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Surface-to-air missiles, specifically. Conventional bombers don't fare well against modern air defenses, and gravity nukes probably aren't in Russia's war plan these days to begin with. Sure, Russia could pack a bunch of nukes on cruise missiles and huck them from range, but they could do that anyway -- that's not a scenario that's really impacted by the RAF sitting out the volcanic cloud. — Lomn 13:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The Tu-95 is, indeed... And Great Britain is the place were the Russian barons stash their fortunes and send their kids to study ... Why would they bomb their bank vault, pray tell me? NVO (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Th BBC said that TV broadcasts were hamperes in Scotland (I don't see why, since they are line of sight and the cloud is not stated to be lower than the line of sight between transmitter and antenna. Could it be satellite relaying that is interfered with? How likely is it that the dust, at least in zones where it is thicker, would hamper radar detection of airplanes or incoming missiles? Edison (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand how these bombers are employed Lomn. They don't carry dumb bombs, they fly in to just over the North Sea then fire off the 10 long range missiles they can carry. Each of those can carry a nuke if needed. There's a reason that many militaries are not just keeping strategic bombers in service, but actively replacing them with more advanced models. These bombers aren't just good for strategic bombing, they are absolutely epic on modern battlefields as well. A modern attack aircraft can strafe and destroy a few tanks before RTBing. It's extremely vulnerable during that time. A large bomber can fly in above the effective height of enemy anti aircraft systems, and release a gigantic payload, each bomb guided to a different target. Enough to destroy an entire tank battalion.--92.251.167.128 (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

"Redmans Hall"

During the 1800's An organization (group),or club of men. Called the redmans held regular meetings and had a large following.One of the meeting Halls (buildings)still exist in a small village in southern Ohio. What was the reason to join this group,and what did they do and stand for?---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aseacapt (talk • contribs) 21:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Improved Order of Red Men.—eric 22:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

April 16

Occupations and musical preferences

Please see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#Occupations and musical preferences. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

White people in Caribbean

Besides Cuba, is there any Caribbean nations that has white people as minority? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.234 (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The demographics of the Caribbean are such that whites would be a minority in most countries, I'd think. Exceptions would probably be dependent on your definition of "white" relative to "hispanic". — Lomn 03:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Definitely Haiti. StuRat (talk) 04:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

See Demographics of Bermuda, Demographics of Barbados, Demographics of Saint Lucia, etc... caknuck _° needs to be running more often 06:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I used to work with a white guy who came from Trinidad and Tobago (and who spoke with a caribbean accent). I have no reason to think his family didn't have a long history on the islands. Astronaut (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, but what does that have to do with whether he is a minority on the island ? StuRat (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say the Virgin Islands, as well as Santo Domingo have white people as a minority, but I haven't got the numbers. Prior to the end of slavery, most Caribbean islands had sizeable white populations such as Martinique, Guadeloupe, Haiti, Jamaica, Barbadoes, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

StuRat's response made me doubt what qualifies some group as a minority in this context. According to Demographics of Trinidad and Tobago, whites form 0.6% of the population - a minority IMHO. Even if my friend's family were the only white family there, would that somehow make them not a minority?

Anyway, I very much doubt there is any country with no white residents at all. I would have thought it was self-evident that white people would be considered as a minority in any country where they were not considered a majority. Astronaut (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I was going with the simple "under 50%" def of minority. There is another def, though, of a group "historically treated as second class citizens". Women are sometimes considered a minority by this def, even when over 50% of the people are female. When sticking with the "under 50%" def, you can get the strange situation where every ethnic group in a country is a minority. StuRat (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft accident lists

While researching a new article (Andre Laguerre), several reliable sources, including the MacCambridge book I am using, recount in some detail a story of him surviving a plane crash at London Heathrow Airport. The story is interesting, in that he apparently walked away from the crash, hopped a fence, hailed a cab, and then went to a bar to get a drink, where he listened to the news of the crash he was just in on the radio. I have several versions of the story from several authors, including Michael MacCambridge and Frank Deford, and they all generally agree on the major points, except none of them list the date. For that reason, I have not put the story in the article yet, as I am trying to get some sort of corroroborating evidence. It appears to have been on a Paris-London trip (not sure if it was direct or had a layover). Not even an indication on when it occured; it was likely sometime before 1956, when Laguerre joined the Sports Illustrated staff. It is most likely from when he was Paris or London bureau chief for Time Magazine, so sometime between 1948-1956, when his positions would have necessitated travel between the two cities. Any help in finding canonical lists of airplane crashes at Heathrow would be most helpful. --Jayron32 05:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

[21] has a similar story featuring Mark Kram, one of Laguerre's colleagues at Sports Illustrated. Could it be the same incident? It gives the date as 1969 and the incident as being an emergency landing rather than a crash. FiggyBee (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

BOAC Flight 712 is a possible candidate, although that was in 1968 rather than 1969. Anyone got any bright ideas on how to find the passenger list? :) (edit: The accident report is here, although ordering the full report might be a bit much if you just want to know if a name is on the passenger list. Perhaps we can find someone keen near Kew who can go and look at it?) FiggyBee (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not the Laguerre story. MacCambridge's version of the story specifically recounts ambulances and firetrucks and Laguerre hopping a fence. Also, Laguerre recounts a flight from Paris to London. The Kram flight seems to have been a flight returning back to Heathrow, thus originating there. The Kram story seems to be of a different event. Flight 712 also seems to be of a flight originating from Heathrow. A shorter version of the story appears on page 1-2 of this article by Frank Deford: [22]. The longer version is on page 75 of The Franchise: The History of Sports Illustrated Magazine by Michael MacCambridge. --Jayron32 12:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I see. Not much to go on then; I guess there's no reason to think (especially pre-jet-age) that it was a scheduled flight at all, or that it was that serious a crash. I think the only way to definitively pin it down would be with some OR biographical work; find some references to the crash in Laguerre's correspondence to narrow down the date, location and/or the operator, then compare to the AAIB's investigation files (which, for a 1950s non-fatal non-scheduled accident, might mean searching a cellar full of boxes rather than a computer). FiggyBee (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, in that case, I will use "Laguerre related a story..." to match the sources; since we don't have confirmation on when and if it really happened. No reason to believe that it didn't, but no confirmation either. Oh well, thanks for looking into it. If anyone else has any insight, that'd be cool too... --Jayron32 13:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

In the period 1945-1980 there are two candidate accidents that were serious enough to be listed at http://www.planecrashinfo.com: a Sabena DC-3 arriving from Brussels that crashed on March 2, 1948, and a BEA Viking arriving from Paris that crashed on October 31, 1950, both accidents happening in bad weather. However, in each case it says that 20 or more people were killed and only 2 survived, so it seems likely that any survivors would have been injured and unable to just walk away from the scene.

Trying a Google News Archive Search on the 1950 crash, I found an article saying that the two survivors were "found in the wreckage". Ah, and this article gives their names and details their injuries. So for this one to be correct, you would have to believe that a third survivor walked away and that nobody had noticed that the number of bodies and known survivors didn't match the number of tickets.

For the 1948 crash, several newspaper articles report that there were three survivors, not two (maybe one died later), and some articles say they were "thrown clear". Ah! And this one gives their names, and none of them is Laguerre. So again, you'd have to believe that an additional survivor had walked away and the passenger list had not been checked.

--Anonymous, 06:50 UTC (copyedited later), April 17, 2010.

Story mentioned here (via google), he told the story about himself. I suspect it's embellished or fiction. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I came across the BEA crash, but discounted it as being too serious to be the subject of a throwaway personal anecdote. For those who are unaware of the realities of general aviation, even in modern times there are half a dozen or so non-fatal aircraft crashes in the USA every day; back in the 1950s they were even more common (the NTSB's online records go back to the 1960s, and show about 20 crashes a day in that era). A general aviation crash which everyone walks away from is not an unusual occurrence and rarely makes more than local news. FiggyBee (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Best thing to say to vagrants in stores

if you have like, either a well-kempt homeless person or just someone who lives in crushing poverty - to "judge" (yes) by their whole presence - come to your upscale retail store, declare that they have no money but are going to just look around for "next time", then just walk around the store touching everything, asking irrelevant questions like whether different wall fixtures that are obviously part of the store and not an item are for sale, etc, what are you supposed to tell them that fits in with my left-wing, "communist", bleeding heart liberal agenda and doesn't hurt them, to get them to stop their behavior. Oh yes, it is a repeated thing, with the same individual.

For their obvious questions I tell them that it is obvious, which could already be construed as quite demeaning. I'd like them to realize what they're doing though. Can I say kindly that "most people who come here don't touch so many different items", or is that too much? What is something that is less presumptive and classist and so forth than the sentence just quoted? Dos my agenda not allow me to comment or meet the behavior with anything more than a forced smile? Thank you. 84.153.179.97 (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait, you're a communist, and yet work in a retail store? How ironic... --Jayron32 13:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Why is someone with a left-wing, "communist", bleeding heart liberal agenda running an upscale retail store? Hold a charity auction and get rid of all your stock, then turn the store into a soup kitchen. FiggyBee (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

First, the guy said he was a "communist" in quotation marks, he was obviously exaggerating, humorously. Second, Engels was a capitalist, too. Your arguments are like saying that anyone who believes his local water supply system needs to be changed ought to stop using that local water supply system for drinking and cooking in order to live up to his beliefs. Or that if a sportsman advocates changing the rules of the sport he plays, he should also give up playing and trying to win according to the current rules. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Was the person Howard Hughes? Are you sure their frugal dress-sense means they are poor? You dont accumulate money by frittering it away. Be honest with the person - either tolerate them and extend the same courtesy as to other customers (at least its a training exercise in being polite to people you do not like) or tell them that you would prefer them not to come in the store unless they actually buy something. Yes, I do already know that Howard Hughes is dead. 78.151.110.54 (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(EC) You haven't told us why this behaviour bothers you (or even if indeed it does bother you). If it's because you think it's a waste of your time, then tell him. If you've got another reason, then tell him. If you're busy, tell him. If you just don't want your 'upmarket retail business' sullied by those beneath you, then tell him. If he takes offence, that's his problem - or yours, if you want it to let it affect your bizarre mix of conscience and upmarket lifestyle. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre? I liked your post until that part. Perhaps you really mean illegitimate? Vranak (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't want to hurt the OP's feelings. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The street person may be just presenting nuisance behavior so you will give him a couple of bucks to leave. From a communist perspective, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." If he "needs" $2 and you have the ability to give him $2, then what is the issue, except for word getting around you are a soft touch? Do local laws allow you to say "If you are not here to buy something, then please leave?"Edison (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The 'person' (assuming that you're description is psychologically accurate, about which I have some doubts), is probably cold/bored/lonely, and looking for someplace to be and someone to talk to. S/he's using the pretense of window shopping to be around people in whatever capacity. If you want to be nice (and can deal with the issues that might arise), joke around with him/her, make some small talk, slip him/her a ten to go get you both some coffee and doughnuts from down the street; basically make him/her feel like s/he is part of a community in some small way. just be sure to set boundaries (e.g. "ok, I need to get back to work now" kind of thing). If you don't want to be nice, point to the "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" sign and ask him/her politely and apologetically to leave.

That being said, you don't talk like a social progressive in the least. You talk like a born-and-bred rightist who (out of guilt, or rebellion, or etc) is trying to adopt some leftist warm-fuzzies to ease your conscience. Your description of the person and the situation is classist, your attitude screams that you see yourself as superior, your primary worry is that he's touching the 'product' without buying... Don't adopt some agenda because you think you should adopt it; adopt an agenda when you think it's the right agenda to adopt. You will never manage to be true to your beliefs if you're not true to yourself. --Ludwigs2 14:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. I believe the city should take away my trash once a week, but I don't want to drive a garbage truck. I pay taxes so that other people will do it. That doesn't make me a hypocrite. I believe that society should help provide for the homeless; it doesn't mean I want to have a homeless guy living in my basement. It is not hypocritical to not want to actually perform the social services yourself. I don't have anything against the homeless as a group, but if a homeless guy was harassing me, or driving business away, or using my store or house as a place to crash, I wouldn't be very happy with that. Just because you don't want to do everything yourself doesn't make you a hypocrite. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It sounds to me like this person has mental problems, so don't upset him, or he could turn violent. He might also be looking for an opportunity to shoplift, so keep an eye on him. I'd just politely answer his Qs, but don't do anything to encourage him, or he may become even more of a pest. Hopefully he will eventually find someone else's store to "patronize" and you will be off the hook. (The most upscale stores have locked doors and only let in "legitimate customers", which they probably judge by attire.) StuRat (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you are making enormous speculative assumptions on the basis of almost no facts - "has mental problems", "could turn violent", looking for an opportunity to shoplift". 78.151.110.54 (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It pays to be cautious. But, if you want to give him the day's receipts, your bank card, and car keys, and ask him to make a deposit at the bank, go right ahead, be my guest. StuRat (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Only the paranoid survive? 78.147.241.153 (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Loitering is illegal in many areas. If arrested, the homeless person will likely have a home and a meal for the night. -- kainaw™ 16:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say this is loitering, since loitering applies to public spaces, which could exclude a shop. ProteanEd (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It depends on where you live, but I have very rarely encountered any store where one is obliged to buy if you enter, and the only stores I have seen with locked doors and letting in "legitimate customers" have been very specialised jewellery stores. Only once have I ever been asked to leave a store for "touching too many things" and I felt thoroughly insulted that the store detective implied I was looking to steal something (I was about 13 at the time and wanted to buy a new watch with the money I had got for Christmas; I decided to buy elsewhere after that incident).

Why not treat this person like any other potential customer (ie. ignore them until they ask for assistance). Of course, if they start damaging stock or become hostile towards staff or other customers, the police should be called. Astronaut (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a tendency for some people to distrust people who seem to be different or unfamiliar. Such mistrust may or may not turn out to be well-founded. There is an analogous situation with anonymous people contributing to Wikipedia. One Wikipedian has said "A word of advice; it makes no sense, but you will get more respect if you create your user page". (permanent link here) [I am revising the heading of this section, according to WP:TPOC, "Section headings".] -- Wavelength (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Protestant Crusaders

Were there any? (Restrain predictable jocular mention of certain U.S. presidents. Serious reply preferred.) If there weren't any, why not? Is it because they viewed Catholicism as their enemy, so that Islam was off the radar screen? Or were there other reasons? What about Eastern Orthodox crusaders? Thanks. 166.137.10.75 (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about the medieval Crusades in the middle east, then no protestants were involved since protestantism did not yet exist. Eastern christians were involved on both sides. Algebraist 21:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

To be precise, the era of the Crusades ended around 1300. The Protestant Reformation started in 1517. FiggyBee (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The organizations which had led the so-called Baltic Crusades had Protestant leadership at a certain point, but the "crusades" there were over by that time. In general, Protestants with significant military force at their command didn't really have the pan-Protestant outlook (i.e. that would put international concerns above national interests) which would allow for crusades of the medieval type. However, many Protestants in Elizabethan England viewed English support for the Dutch revolt against Spain as somewhat essential to the survival of Protestantism as a whole, since the Low Countries were the strong economic center of northern Europe at that time. AnonMoos (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The Danes and especially the Swedes also justified their participation in the Thirty Years War as defence of Protestantism. All in all, there did exist an idea of pan-Protestant solidarity against Catholicism, even if it didn't always affect the realpolitik.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The broadest definition of "Crusade" that I know of extends, at least for Catholicism, up to the end of the Hospitaller presence in Malta in the eighteenth century. I don't think Protestants are ever referred to as "crusaders" in that period though. Actually, one of Luther's biggest problems was the sale of indulgences, which was rooted in the crusades. Sometimes medieval crusaders were considered heroes in Protestant states (Richard the Lionheart in England, Frederick Barbarossa in Germany), and in the late nineteenth century Kaiser Wilhelm II was particularly fond of Saladin, even though he was a Muslim (Wilhelm went to Damascus and built Saladin a bigger tomb, because the original wasn't glorious enough). There were Catholic-Protestant conflicts that were seen as crusades, at least by the Catholic side, like the war between Spain and England in the sixteenth century. For that you might want to look at "England and the Crusades" by Christopher Tyerman, which goes up to the Spanish Armada in 1588. Otherwise, Protestant countries were sometimes happy to ally with Muslim states against Catholics. Sixteenth-century England was friendly with the Ottoman Empire for that reason. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There were also crusades waged against sects which the Catholic church deemed heretical such as the Cathars and Albigenses. Had Protestantism as we know it today existed during the time of the Crusades, they would have been targeted as enemies by the Crusaders.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

That's true, and the Hussite Wars are often considered part of the crusades. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Das Kapital Translation

Is there an English translation of Marx's Kapital that is considered the best? I'm not looking for something that is overly simplistic. I have a background in political theory so I want something that's true to his original. Any suggestions? Thanks, GreatManTheory (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

ugh. half my books are in storage at the moment, but the standard text they use in every college level political theory course I've seen is the Big Red Book - check with your local university bookstore. Looking at Amazon.com, I think it's "Karl Marx: Selected Writings" (Hackett Publishing Company, 1994, Lawrence H. Simon, ed.). I don't remember if it has all of Kapital, but it has the important sections, and you get a great selection of the rest of his body of work as well. I wouldn't worry too much about the translation, though - Marx is relatively recent, he had a clear and straight-forward writing style, and because he was such a prominent figure a lot of care will have gone into any translation you're likely to find. --Ludwigs2 04:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Ludwigs. I do happen to have the Marx-Engels Reader, which is a red book (although not exactly big). This isn't the one you're talking about, is it? GreatManTheory (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking for books on employee empowerment in software development companies

Hello. Can you please me tell me if there are any books or literature on employee empowerment specifically in the context of software development companies? I have a nice book on empowerment in the service sector but it is about nearly-pure service offerings involving high face-to-face interaction of workers with customers, such as restaurants. But I haven't been able to find anything else on Amazon or through Google scholar etc. Are there any books (most preferable) or case studies or articles or anything at all that discusses empowerment in the context of software or similar industries? Thanks a lot. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, do not know any specifically for software development companies. But you may be able to generalise from other fields. What's Worth Fighting For In Headship? by Michael Fullan is a very slim 62-page book that gives short and succinct details about empowerment and although I'm not involved in schooling I found it very informative and interesting and applicable to other organisations such as business ones. It led me to buy The Empowered Manager by Peter Block, which I found verbose and have not read. Coincidently I found that Block's content was given in a much more concentrated form with another book I just skimmed through this morning, Putting Management Back Into Performance by James Webb, and although it never mentions the word "empowerment" it does include and cover the same ground as far as I can see, with the added great advantage of actually telling you how to implement things and what you should do. I'd be interested to know what the book was that you mentioned? 78.146.229.142 (talk) 10:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the answer. The book I am reading is "Empowerment - HR strategies for service excellence" by Conrad Lashley (2002 print). The book is good, and useful for me, and contains a thorough review of literature about empowerment in general, but it is mainly presented in the context of the hospitality industry, and most of the examples are from there. At this point I will actually be glad to have a comprehensive book on empowerment in general - not necessarily in the context of the software industry. It's just that I want at least one more "complete" book. I am actually doing a project in employee empowerment for a software development company, and review of background literature is very important. Thank you for the books you suggested. I'll try to get hold of them, and I'm sure they will be very helpful in the implementation part. I am also looking at case studies from the software industry, and recent articles. Once again, thank you very much for answering :) 115.113.11.206 (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

April 17

Brian of Brittany

Brian is mentioned under Eudes: "*Brian († 1072), who defeated a second raid in the southwest of England, launched from Ireland by Harold's sons in 1069. Brian participated in the conquest of England and afterwards held the honor of Richmond, died without issue." Elsewhere it is said that he led the Normans at the Battle of Exeter and was granted lands in Cornwall by William I. Please let me know where I can find more detailed information on his life.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 06:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried Charles Cawley's Medieval Lands project?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A few more details here[23], here[24] and here [25]. This was after a cursory search using "Brien de Bretagne" rather than the Anglicized version. I'm sure there's more in the depths of Mr Google's engine room. Good hunting. Alansplodge (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Me again - some more morsels, this time from Google Books. This[26] "Histoire Navale d'Angleterre" says (apologies for the schoolboy translation): "While William was occupied in the north of England, the sons of the late King Harold had obtained from Devinot, the King of Ireland, a fleet of sixty sails, landing a second time close to Exeter, pillaging and burning the places that they passed; but Brien, son of Eudon Count of Brittany, fought them twice on the same day, and killed seven hundred of their soldiers along with several Irish nobles who had joined with them. The others regained their vessels and returned to Ireland." Also this[27] and this[28]. Alansplodge (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Months

Why did September, October, November, and December keep their names when July and August were added? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 13:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

July and August were renamed (not added) to commemorate Julius and Augustus Caesar. The other months were also, at various times, similarly renamed, but these names didn't stick and the older names prevailed. See Section 4 of Julian Calendar. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Jc, you may be puzzled, as many people have been, why the 9th to 12th months of the year bear the numbers 7 (septem) to 10 (decem). The answer, as you can see from the link 87.81 gave you above, is not that two extra months were inserted, but that March was regarded as the first month even though the New Year was not necessarily celebrated during March. --ColinFine (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually in medieval Europe the new year began in March around Easter; hence the confusion over dates. Bear in mind the calendar was also behind. I have read on various Internet sites that Joan of Arc who was born 6 January 1412 was likely born in 1413 and with the rectified Gregorian date of 15 January. March derives its name from Mars which rules the zodiac sign Aries as the sun enters Aries on 21 March. Remember astrology predates astronomy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't always March in the Middle Ages; sometimes it was March 1, or March 25, or Easter, which could be March or April, or sometimes January 1 like us, or another date depending on where in Europe, and what year/century. It's all very confusing, even for them, although if you have to guess, "March" is usually a good option. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

In France it was usually 25 March, but like you say it was very haphazard and confusing!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

March 25 was once taken to be the spring equinox, just as December 25 was the winter solstice. When Pope Gregory ordered the dropping of some days to the calendar, he had the chance to fix the original error and reset those events to the 25th instead of 21st or so. However, he did not do that. It's possible his astronomy advisers were unaware of it; it's also possible they knew, but no longer wanted those events to coincide with Anunciation Day and Christmas Day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This is covered in the book "Calendar: Humanity's Epic Struggle to Determine a True and Accurate Year" by David Ewing Duncan (1998, Avon, ISBN 0-380-97528-9). The whole reason for dropping days when the Gregorian calendar was adopted was to put the equinox back on the same date that the Council of Nicaea had used as the basis for its algorithm for determining Easter, and the reason for changing the calendar was to keep it on that date. And that date was March 21, not 25. Gregory's astronomer Lilius did get one thing a bit wrong, but that was the true length of the solar year: he should have recommended a 500-year rule for leap years instead of the 400-year rule that we have. --Anonymous, 19:56 UTC, April 17 (Gregorian), 2010.

Yes, that's in general what I was getting at. They were already off by 4 days when the Council was held, and they didn't fix it. They were off by an additional 10 days once Pope Gregory came along, and all they did was reset the calendar to square with the Council's formula. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

@ Jeanne Boleyn: Re Joan of Arc, you're probably talking about her "proleptic Gregorian birthdate", i.e. dates that would have applied had the Gregorian calendar been brought in earlier than it was. The thing with the Gregorian calendar is that it was not retrospective. There was a 10-day discontinuity between the end of 4 October 1582 (Julian) and the start of 15 October 1582 (Gregorian), and the earlier dates were not recalculated. We don't have any proof that Joan of Arc was born on 6 January, but even if we did, it would still be recorded as 6 January (Julian) because that was the only calendar in use at the time. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am talking about her proleptic Gregorian birthdate. In astrology, when we cast the horoscope of someone born under the Julian calendar we have to calculate it using Gregorian dates as if it were already in use, due to the position of the stars. What is confusing for us isn't the difference in dates as they can be easily rectified; it's the date of the start of the new year. Taking Joan again as an example; while there is some evidence that she was born on 6 January 1412, we don't know if it was 1412/1413 or 1411/1412 as the new year normally began sometime in March in 15th century France.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Roman legends about the early origins of the Roman Calendar it originated as something like a ten-month lunar calendar -- since the main purpose of the calendar at that time was to keep track of the yearly agricultural cycle, and pretty much nothing happened in agriculture during the dead of winter, therefore there was no real need for the calendar to operate during that season, and there were no months of January or February. The Roman calendar went through a lot of subsequent convoluted historical developments (converting from lunar to solar and operating throughout the year), but continuing relics of its early stages are the number names (September formed from the Latin number 7, etc.), and leap-day being inserted in late February... AnonMoos (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

college/university England

When I was reading the the article of British-Asian#communities, some of the articles have education section and they didn't specify which institution is university or college. Is there a website where I can find the name of the institution in those places and whether they are university or college? I need to know if they private or public, so I can give lectures on history topics. Sorry if I didn't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.55.53 (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

List of universities in England (or List of universities in Scotland, List of universities in Wales and List of universities in Northern Ireland) might help. Universities almost all have "university" in their name and they will all have Wikipedia articles which will be linked to from the education sections you mention. --Tango (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Almost all British universities are public, in the sense of being state-controlled. (Most of them are constitutionally exempt charities.) However, lectures are normally given only by employed academics, and only to enrolled (and paid-up) students. While there are exceptions, those exceptions mostly cover guest lecturers who have been invited for specific reasons. In the event that another organisation based at a university (say, the Imperial College Science Fiction Society) invites someone to give a talk, that talk would not form any part of any accredited course at the university. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

What!? You mean I can't list attendances at Picocon as academic credits on my CV? Humph! 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

They are (partly) state-funded. They aren't state-controlled. The state controls who can call themselves a university and issue degrees, but for the most part universities are very independent. --Tango (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

That was pretty much what I meant - funding and accreditation. Apologies for the inclarity. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Lyon King of Arms heraldry question

In this image, what are the crossed baton-like object behind the escutcheon called? Woogee (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Crossed staffs ? StuRat (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

More specifically, it is a Baton (symbol). Rather like a Field Marshal, a King of Arms carries a baton as an emblem of office. Here's the Lord Lyon himself in full fig[29]. Alansplodge (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Alan. I've seen batons used inescutcheon, but never part of the crest. Woogee (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no crest in that image. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? What's the crown? Woogee (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a coronet of office. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 14:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to expand on Jarry1250's answer, a crest is, and only is, a decoration attached to the top of a helm, with the join being covered by the torse. A coronet (or crown) may also be worn on the helm, typically as a mark of rank in the Peerage (or of Royalty), but remains a separate item from the crest, which will still issue from the helm above/within the coronet.

A Coat of Arms/Achievement may include a coronet but no helm, as here where it probably signifies the non-combatent nature of the Heralds, who were theoretically neutral 'referees' with diplomatic immunity.

An Achievement without a helm cannot by definition have a crest. However, the crest can be displayed separately, without the helm and the main body of the Achievement, though often with the torse and perhaps also the motto. This is typically done on small items such as silverware or notepaper where the full Achievement would either be too small for its detail to be distinct, or would take up too much room. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

18+ pubs, discos, etc.

If you're 17 and you're turning 18 very soon. Would you be allowed to enter?. --190.178.174.44 (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No, they have to set the line somewhere, and they set it at 18, exactly. StuRat (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Legally, I believe they would still get in trouble if they allowed it. Some places may be lenient, but it's to their own risk. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 18:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No almost certainly not. However some hardly known pubs doing badly that are unlikely to be inspected let anyone in even 13 year olds...--92.251.154.56 (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes (a pub in UK). But you can't buy or drink alcohol. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Here in Italy discos and pubs are full of minors under 18. And the discos close at 6 AM!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Your IP address locates to Argentina, is that where you are talking about? I don't know anything about Argentine pubs, but if they say you have to be 18 then they probably mean it. In the UK, the law allows under 18s into pubs (with certainly restrictions), but some pubs have their own rules against minors entering at all. --Tango (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are minors not allowed to enter casinos? --84.61.146.104 (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Here in USA gambling is restricted to folk over 18. Letting in minors would force them to check ID at every table and every machine. Which, obviously, wouldn't be practical. APL (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that it is the casino floor that is off-limits. In the mega hotel/casinos in Vegas there is a lot which is technically not the casino floor, and minors can go there in many cases. (Shows, hotels, restaurants, etc.) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

In Vegas casinos they have lined walkways marked on the carpet through the casino floor; minors are not allowed to cross the lines. FiggyBee (talk) 06:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Tory party mailing list

I got some junk mail from the Conservative Party recently. It had my full name and my middle initial which I never use. How did they get my (full) name and address? 78.147.241.153 (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably from the electoral register. DuncanHill (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I always tick the privacy box so that my details are not made public or sold - do political parties have special privelidges? Or are there commercial lists which (I imagine) collate a lot of stuff about people? 78.147.241.153 (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

(After ec) When you registered to vote, there would have been a box on the form, which indicates if you want your details to be passed on or not. If you tick it, only the registrar and credit reference agencies will have your details. If you don't, all sorts of people can buy them at cost price. This is an innovation from the same people who brought you the Data Protection Act - I leave it up to you whether the left hand knew what the right hand was doing. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that political parties have access to the full list. There are also commercial mailing lists which collate information from a wide variety of sources. DuncanHill (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that even if you tick the box for exclusion from the public register, the full register including you is available for inspection in Council Offices and some libraries - so parties could well obtain your information from there. DuncanHill (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can buy databases. Your details, even if you tick the box, will be on one of the databases publicly available. The Labour Party have been using these databases, with some "unintended consequences": "The cards are being distributed by Ravensworth, part of Tangent Communications, which has won accounts sending out mail for the Department of Health and Cancer Research UK. Tangent claims that it specialises in “highly targeted marketing”. " [30] --TammyMoet (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

April 18

No life in the oceans

Let's say that for some reason in the future all life disappeared from the ocean, meaning that the ocean became so toxic and/or acidic that no complex life could live in it. What impact would this have on global society? I'm sure millions would die because of the dependence on fishing around the world in certain countries, but would this be enough to cause a world conflict and a collapse of modern society?--十八 03:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This would be a good Q for the Science Desk. StuRat (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I originally was gonna post it on Science, but I didn't want to know how this could happen, I want to know about the societal impact, so I asked this board.--十八 06:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I suspect we would be in bigger trouble than a collapse of civilization: [[[Oxygen production]http://ecology.com/features/mostimportantorganism/]] 70.79.246.134 (talk) 04:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

In that case, say all life in the ocean other than algae died. For instance, say there was a genetically altered strain of algae that still produced oxygen as good as (or perhaps better) than normal algae, but as an unforeseen side effect, it also produces some kind of poison that kills off all normal algae and other complex life in the oceans. Then what would happen to world society?--十八 07:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Then other forms of life in the ocean would develop a tolerance for the poison, that's just how it works out. But, OK, let's go with your scenario. The main impact would then be a lack of seafood. Poor nations dependent on seafood (mainly islands) would suffer massive starvation, while rich nations and those which eat mainly farmed foods would do fine. If this change happened slowly enough, then more farm area could be made available by deforestation of the Amazon, etc. Also, we might get a worldwide population control program with mandatory sterilization for those who no longer have any source of food (that is, either they get sterilized or they don't get food aid). StuRat (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Where should this wikilink point?

Resolved

I created the page New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. My main source, [31], alleges that all the title #s (except for "judiciary" and "miscellaneous") refer to departments of the state of new york.

However, I'm having a heck of a time finding any internet resources about the New York State Department of Social Services (i.e., the department corresponding to Title 18). Apparently it does exist -- see e.g. [32] -- but other sources omit it -- see e.g. [33].

So what's going on here? Please help me gather research that I can use to write the article, or else some proof that the article can't be written. JD Caselaw (talk) 05:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

oh crap

[34] ..."New York State Department of Family Assistance Formerly the Department of Social Services"...

:(

JD Caselaw (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Norman invasion of 1066

Does anyone know how many Normans actually took part in William I's invasion of England in 1066? It appears that there were a considerable amount of Bretons as well as Flemings in his army. I have noticed many noble families' ancestry traces back to Brittany rather than Normandy as in the case of the House of Stewart whose founder FitzAlan came from Brittany. Also Anne Boleyn's direct maternal ancestry derives from Brittany.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the rivalry between Normandy and Brittany spilled over into conflict between William and Conan II, Duke of Brittany in 1064. When William decided to invade England, he recruited his supporters (Conan's opponents) to join him, at the same time warning Conan off invading Normandy. There is some more information here and here. According to this site, "led by Earl Alan of Richmond, the Bretons constituted one-third of the Norman forces at the Battle of Hastings". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank You, Ghmyrtle. That's very interesting. I knew the Bretons formed a large part of the army, but hadn't realised they constituted one third! I got to thinking about the Bretons when an editor posted the above question regarding Brien of Brittany. I believe they were highly skilled as archers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Name of a logical fallacy?

What is the name of a fallacy where someone throws out your entire argument and just says it's not worth discussing, or it's not an argument, without actually addressing the points raised? Is there such a thing? Malamockq (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

In order to have a logical fallacy there has to be some attempt to use logic. Avoiding the argument altogether is therefore outside of logical argument.

However, if they say your argument is wrong "because you always say stupid stuff like that", this could be a type of genetic fallacy (that the argument is false because of who it comes from).

Also note that "whether the matter is worth discussing" is another logical argument, distinct from the actual matter. StuRat (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

So there's no word to describe what I'm talking about? Malamockq (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You haven't been specific enough. At the moment, far from being a specific fallacy, it's not even clear that someone doing this would be wrong; lots of things are genuinely not worth discussing, and lots of things advanced as an argument are not actually arguments. Algebraist 14:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The Watergate-era term for that kind of thing was "non-denial denial". A more recent term would be "impeaching the source" or "demonizing the source", i.e. "everything that man says is a lie". It could also be considered a type of boycott, although I'm not sure I've ever heard it used that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Those really have nothing to do with what the OP is describing, which is just a failure to engage at all. I don't think that's a logical fallacy. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You might find an answer in List of fallacies. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not a fallacy at all. The only pointer I can offer is the phrase "What we have here is failure to communicate". Vranak (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Practical Aspects of Time Travel

[Let's say the following is for a fictional work of fiction I am writing.] If one were to go back in time, what could one take to sell that is relatively inexpensive now, but would be valuable then, in order to have enough money to live comfortably for a few months, but not drastically change the world and/or arouse too much suspicion? My thought just now which I remembered was "information about the future" (place bets on events that you know are gonna happen, reap rewards) but I feel that that would be best done in moderation, due to the relatively religious circles I (my character) would be hanging around in, and the whole "not arousing suspicion" thing. (Pretty crucial to the question: the time period concerned is around 1896 in the United States, mainly Chicago.) Thanks! Abeg92contribs 16:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I would think food would be a good item to trade, since many food items are now far cheaper (in terms of hours you must work to afford them) than they were then. Take bags of grain, white sugar, spices, eggs, etc., in appropriate containers for the time. Just be sure not to take back any genetically modified foods. Cloth would be another good item, with silks being far more valuable back then, for example. Avoid synthetic cloth, of course. StuRat (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobody in the 19th century would be able to distinguish genetically modified food from contemporary food. Nobody today would be able to distinguish it either. Assuming nobody is replanting it shouldn't be a problem to worry about. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume that nobody would replant it. And, if they did, it might spread and change the world of agriculture. StuRat (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The most obvious example of a metal that was exceptionally valuable back then but not very valuable today is metallic aluminum. In that case the disparity is a little too great—there'd be no market and it would certainly be noticed. Gold prices seem pretty stable, adjusted for inflation, so that doesn't help. But I wonder if there aren't other metals that would have been made a lot easier to manufacture and mine today than they were back then, but still valued back then, but not such a great change that it would be noticed. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

How valuable was aluminium in 1896? I was going to suggest it, but then discovered that while it was "as expensive as silver" (already way down from its peak of more valuable than gold) in 1884, the key process that made it cheap was discovered in 1886, with the first large-scale production starting in 1888. I can't find figures, but it seems likely that prices had crashed by 1896. Algebraist 17:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, you are probably right. I was off by a few decades! --Mr.98 (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Travelling to the past is, of course, impossible. However, if it were possible, even the smallest changes your character makes on the past could drastically change our present world due to the Butterfly effect. --Quest09 (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Medication: Aspirin, Penicillin, Cipro and the like would be invaluable. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

But there would be no market for small amounts of penicillin or Cipro. If nobody knows what it is, they won't pay for it. If you take the time to establish that it works and is invaluable, then you're going to attract a huge amount of attention. I'm not sure how profitable aspirin would be in small quantities—it was already being produced by 1896. Useful, but invaluable? I'm dubious. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking Viagra would be a big seller, but might cause an unintended steep rise in the population. :-) StuRat (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Information about how to make various modern drugs would be invaluable, but you can't sell that information without "polluting the timeline" (as science fiction writers like to say). --Tango (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There was a market for aluminium, just a small one. You would probably need to do research in advance of your visit to find a buyer and to work out what form to take the aluminium in (shaped into something would probably raise less suspicion than bars), but it could be done. --Tango (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about it, I would go for the information aspect. Specifically, look up the names of winners of big horse races and bring that information back with you (bet on Ben Brush, I guess! Can you believe there is a Wikipedia article on the horse that won the Kentucky Derby in 1896? Yeesh!). If your protagonist is careful, he'll just look lucky. You do that a couple of times with modest bets and you don't have to do too much else. Spacing out the wins and not being greedy about it would probably work pretty well at keeping a low profile. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You'd still need some money to bet, though. It would be very expensive to buy 1896 currency to take back, so having something to trade would make sense. StuRat (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You could just bring back gold, then exchange that for currency. The price of gold is pretty stable over time, so you wouldn't be making a killing in the exchange, but you could then use the gold for the bet money. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

But why not bring back something that's much cheaper now ? As for gold, any bars or coins would have dates and other markings, so you'd need to be very careful. StuRat (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Modern cameras would be a good item to sell as people would be amazed by the quality of the photographs one could take. Obviously digital cameras would not be practical as they had no PCs; but normal cameras with film would be fine. Also plastic toys such as Barbie dolls would go down well; also synthetic fabrics. Oh, and let's not forget jeans. I know they were around then but they weren't designed the way they are today.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the "but not drastically change the world and/or arouse too much suspicion" part. A modern instant color film camera would make everyone notice. As for Barbie, they would think it was obscene, as more than just her ankles go uncovered. StuRat (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that if you brought back a modern camera with modern film, you'd have to know what chemicals and processes were used to develop it. You could not just drop off a roll at your local drug store and have them turn out prints. Modern films need specific chemical combinations to work correctly. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You'd bring back an instant camera and film, which needs no other processing. That doesn't address all the attention you would draw, though. StuRat (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

How about a different kind of information, specifically that of the location of, at the time undiscovered, Gold/Oil/Diamond rich areas. --Jac16888^Talk 18:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It's possible, but 1. now you're spending a lot of time developing mineral resources (or purchasing them, then having them scouted, then selling them off, at the minimum), and 2. you'll probably provoke a lot of attention in doing so. I think what the OP is going for is something that would generate modest income in a short time. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, whoever was going to discover it and get rich now won't, so that changes history. StuRat (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, gambling doesn't have to be the sort that would be frowned on by the religious types our hero seems to want to blend in with. Depending on how long he's going to be in the past he could invest in some small, local business that's about to take off. (This could be pretty well researched by going through newspaper microfilms.) You'd still need a good amount of time and seed money to make that happen, though. APL (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow! I love the responses. Gold is the first thing that would come to mind for me, but it wouldn't be more valuable back then. I was thinking along the lines of something to fit in a suitcase, so perhaps the cloth might work there? From what I know, anything plastic would have not been invented yet, so selling it would be a bit sketchy to say the least (although I think I could get away with taking some relatively inconspicuous items for personal use). And yes, the amount of articles on Wikipedia about the horses is kind of mind-boggling (was looking through them a couple of days ago). I think that would probably have to be the place to go in terms of information, as betting on things like who will win the presidential race and what Central Park's average temperature will be in March was not as widespread back then, and the mineral lands idea sounds like a bit too much work for the amount of time that would be spent. Thanks, and keep the ideas coming! Abeg92contribs 18:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Bring back Pi calculated to the greatest extent it has yet been calculated. Join a circus where you could display the full calculation. Bus stop (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Pi was already known by then to as many decimal places as is actually useful and I can't see any circus being interested in someone reading a really long number (billions of digits). --Tango (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think if the reader is already willing to suspend credibility to the extent of accepting time travel then I think a case can be made that at a small circus in a locale with a quirky interest in science and/or education, such a display could develop a cult following. Bus stop (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if you found some nerdy math club that was interested in paying someone to read off a large number, they would certainly be nerdy enough to insist on knowing how the answer was achieved, and how they could verify it.

(Besides, Time travel is a standard conceit in fiction, math circuses are not.) APL (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Verification would be possible by ordinary calculation. In fact the time traveller's explanation could simply be ordinary calculation. He could produce a few worn down pencils and abbreviated calculations on paper, explaining that he likes to do most of the math in his head. Some would doubt him. But some would accept the story hook line and sinker. He could request a small stipend to keep providing additional digits. Bus stop (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If space and weight are at a premium, perhaps spices would be best. I get a 2.5 ounce bottle of cinnamon for US$1, and I imagine you could sell that for at least a day's wages, back then, in Chicago. You could fit dozens of those in a briefcase. StuRat (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Cosmetics. Women back then would pay a fortune for modern cosmetics. Remember, in the 19th century ladies used arsenic on their faces to obtain a glowing, luminous complexion.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

An interesting aspect to this (my above suggestion) is that it could be carried back on something very small and easily disguisable. A flash drive could hold the information. All that would be needed would be a small display and/or earphones for an audio readout. Bus stop (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There were so many wonderful seemingly incredible new things being invented then such as the telephone, lightbulb, automobile, etc., that it probably wouldn't arouse that much suspicion.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As regards the concept of time travel, the idea isn't as far-fetched as it appears. For instance if a person travelled to a planet 116 light years away and had a powerful telescope with which to view the Earth, what he or she would see would be our world as it was in 1896! The person couldn't change anything yet could observe events as they unfolded; the major and mundane.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

But how long would it take to travel a distance of 116 light years? Probably at least 116 years. Bus stop (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Spices are a good answer, but there's the hidden expense of repackaging it in some inconspicuous glassware. Also, a lot of the stuff you find in a modern grocery store is not the best quality. Cinnamon is often cut with Cassia, for example.

However, It may be difficult to sell on the other end. A mysterious stranger can't just show up at a grocery store with unmarked glass jars full of spices of unknown providence. APL (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

What about items that are cheaply mass produced now, but are functionally equivalent to items used back then? My first thought is some nice knives or tools. You could buy a entire tool box full of decent quality construction and woodworking tools for not very much money, but they'd be worth a good deal back then. Bringing in a box full of tools to a pawn shop (or similar) would also be a perfectly normal thing to do that wouldn't arose very much suspicion, even if the details of the tools were rather different than the standard at the time. (Nowadays tools tend to be chrome-plated. You'd have to talk your way around that some how.)

Another good answer would be Synthetic diamond, Synthetic ruby, and Cultured pearl. It'd be easy to carry a large amount of value and the price difference from now to then would be large because the prices would be set for the naturally occurring variety. However, you'd probably have to offload these a few at a time. A mysterious stranger rolling into town with a fortune in gemstones would attract attention. Perhaps one or two of them could be set into jewelry, as long as you dressed as though they weren't totally out of your league you could probably pawn them as a family heirloom or something. APL (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The ones who gripe about using this page for speculation must be apoplectic about now. Here's an idea that might work: Bring a working model of the first telephone, then patent it the year before the phone actually was patented. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Collector of the Port of New York

Does anyone know who the current Collector of the Port of New York is? Our article says it's Joseph P. Kelly, since 1961 (unfortunately uncited), but he has neither an article nor a website. I did a semi-thorough Google search, and the only reference I could find to him as Collector was a (kinda interesting) knife case from 1967. (The commonality of the name made searching somewhat difficult.) It seems kind of a stretch (but possible) that he would still be in that position today. If no one knows, I might go down and do some WP:OR of my own (and maybe even get that published somewhere so it can go in the encyclopedia?). Thanks. Abeg92contribs 16:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)