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 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[1], here[2] and here [3]. 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[4] "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[5] and this[6]. 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)

Why would you want to do that anyway? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a bizarre hobby of mine: casting the horoscopes of various historical personages. That is why the difference between the Julian and Gregorian dates are very important and have to be considered.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 19 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[7]. 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)

Last time I was in Vegas (a couple of weeks ago), the legal age to gamble was 21. Minors can be in the casino, but not in the gaming area unless they are passing through (no loitering near the slots). Hemoroid Agastordoff (talk) 17:25, 21 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”. " [8] --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)

With your scenario, there is most certainly an algae bloom since there is nothing to consume the algae. Depending what type of algae, this could impede world's shipping. Not only will poor island nations suffer, fisheries and trade are a major part of the economy in countries like Japan, Canada, and many "well-off" countries. --Kvasir (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Where should this wikilink point?

Resolved

I created the page New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. My main source, [9], 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. [10] -- but other sources omit it -- see e.g. [11].

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

[12] ..."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)

I think what the OP is getting at is the sort of argument where one person makes a statement, expecting to have a debate or argument of some kind (just for sake of example: "The moon is made out of cheese."), and instead of replying with an actual argument ("No, people have gone there and proven that it is made out of dust and rocks."), the other person simply says the argument is pointless and they shouldn't argue about it ("That's an incredibly stupid idea that is simply not worth arguing over."), regardless of whether or not it actually is worth arguing over (in this case... probably not!). I agree with Vranak that this isn't really a logical fallacy, per se, but it is definitely a poor arguing technique (because it doesn't do anything other than make your side look weak and defenseless), and there's probably a term for it. This page calls it (or at least an argument type that seems somewhat similar) "argument by dismissal". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.163.175 (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There are several rhetorical terms that are close to what Malamockq is asking for. I believe the nearest is apodioxis, though it's usually considered a technique of argumentation rather than a fallacy. Deor (talk) 01:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It might be a case of floccinaucinihilipilification. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be stonewalling or filibustering. A stonewalling link connects to something unhelpful and not related. 92.29.88.100 (talk) 21:19, 20 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)

Except that additional digits of pi has almost no usage. It's a cute trick but the number of people who would be interested at that time is almost zero. And if they could verify them with ordinary calculation, they could calculate them on their own, if they really wanted them. I just don't see pi as a valuable commodity back then, sorry. They had mathematicians, they knew it to the digits they needed it. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:31, 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)

A flash drive... which they would read on, what exactly? Oh, right. The laptop they brought. Which also has adapters for 19th century electrical outlets. And won't arouse suspicion. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Alternating current at 110 volts and 60 cycles (US or 50 cycles (Europe) was widely available by 1896 (although DC at 110 volts was common in large cities, and some places have circa 50 volt AC at widely varying frequencies from 25 to 400. If you are smart enough to build a time machine, you are smart enough to build an electric adapter which accepts DC or AC of 25 to 400 Hertz and 50 to 240 volts and powers your little modern doodad. A company I worked for built such an adapter many years ago. Carry a plug adapter which screws into a light socket. In the US the thread has been the same since 1880. Edison (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You're not being realistic about time travel. If some of the other things suggested could be carried back in time so could a small computer. Bus stop (talk) 22:07, 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)

It would be difficult to sell a suitcase full of spices to a grocery store now, but back then, I wouldn't expect it to be that unusual. Traveling salesman of different types of goods were common. You could also sell them on the street to individuals. They'd probably demand a sample first, then you'd make a sale. StuRat (talk) 22:40, 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)

That's ... not really in the spirit of the question. The question-asker obviously wants to maintain a low-profile when he gets to past. Usurping one of the most influential inventions of the century won't really achieve that at all. APL (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Besides that, the telephone was already widespread by 1896! They were invented decades previously. If you recall they're mentioned in a couple of Sherlock Holmes stories from the time period in question, and Doyle didn't feel the need to explain what they were. So obviously they were not only already invented, but common knowledge. APL (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, since he's focused on 1896 for some reason. The best thing for him to take along would be some book that would explain what everyday life was like in 1896. Everytime I see one of those backwards time-travel shows I get a laugh. If you went back even to 1996 you'd know way too much about the future, never mind 1896. The best way to be low-key might be to pretend you're from a foreign country and don't speak English. You could probably find a low-paying job and take lessons in English - and pick up then-current idioms while you're at it. The last thing you want to do is use futuristic idioms ("Cool, dude!") and definitely not give away that you have any information about the future. If you bet on a horserace and win, you'd better act very surprised and happy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You're saying that if I travel to the past and want to blend in, I have to act as though I'm from the past? Woa. Thanks Cpt. Obvious! btw, You always laugh at a trope that's almost always played off as comedy? (ST4,BTTF,DrW,etc) Good work. APL (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a revolutionary concept. And for starters, you'd have to resist the temptation to complain about the plumbing (or lack thereof), and only bathe once a week. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Use your time machine to plonk you into a bank vault some weekend of the appropriate era, in a bank some distance from where you want to be. Surely your time machine has control of where, as well as when, you land. Steal a lot of money. Now use your time machine to go exactly where and when you want. Spend your money. If you are pursued, use your time machine to take you sometime where the statute of limitations has timed out. PhGustaf (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Depends on your time machine. If its a Tardis style time machine then yes that would work, but many fictional time machines work only move a person in time so they end up in the same place at a different time--Jac16888^Talk 23:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The OP, remember, is writing about this time machine, and he can make it do whatever he damn well pleases. One useful thing would be to use the time machine to retrieve objects from the past and sell them in the present. One Fabergé Egg could probably pay for the whole thing, and enough of them have gone missing that one might "found" and sold with little trouble. The intact True Cross would be problematic — there would need be fudging to get it past radiocarbon dating, and the people who claim to have some of it already would be annoyed. The current brouhaha about the "Christ myth theory" article would get more interesting, too. PhGustaf (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Remember to pack your handy time travel cheat-sheet t-shirt! Adam Bishop (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I want one :)--Jac16888^Talk 00:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Are there antibiotics that are specific to hogs? How about a couple of suitcases full of antibiotic vials, sold in small quantities to hog farmers with a money-back guarantee? Once they see that the "magic hog serum" works, they'll buy the rest at massively inflated prices. Meanwhile, no one will know that hog serum shots (antibiotics) have any effect on anything but farm-raised hogs; and once your supply runs out, the farmers won't have a clue how to make any more, so it won't affect the timeline. 63.17.94.91 (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC).

Elementary, my dear Abeg92. According to Sherlock Holmes#Use of drugs, "All these drugs [cocaine, heroin, and morphine] were legal in late-19th-century England", so they probably were in the U.S. too. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wait. How much did those drugs cost back then compared to now? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

All the people suggesting small electronics to bring back in 1896, not only would those devices draw unwanted attention, but there's no way they would work. For starters, what about those big satellites orbiting in space that are responsible for making some of our electronic stuff function? Could a laptop work even for just a second in 1896? And what would you do once the battery inevitably runs out? Now you've got a piece of equipment that you can't use and that you must hide from everyone else. BTW, would the OP attempt to date anyone in 1896? And how come when this desk gets some truly interesting questions, I'm always too busy to check? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That's silly. The only electronic devices dependent on "satellites" are GPS devices and certain very expensive phones. My laptop would absolutely run for more than "just one second" in 1896. It'd run for about three hours, like it normally does. Charging it would be a pain. But by 1896 some cities were already wired for electricity. I believe that includes some parts of Chicago, but I could be wrong. With the appropriate adapters that could be used to charge a laptop without too much difficulty.

Obviously, you couldn't show this marvelous technology to anyone, and there's a serious question about what would happen to it if you were unexpectedly hit by a train or something, But the idea can't eliminated out of hand. You could store a tremendous amount of information in a very small package. (An iPod Touch, for example.) That could theoretically give you an advantage in many aspects of 1890s life. APL (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the cosmetics I had suggested earlier, what about necessary toiletry items such as shampoo, deodorant, toothpaste, disposable razors?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As you have a time machine, why not travel further back, and bring an interesting item from Antiquity, or perhaps purchase an early work by an artist who was still alive and well-known in 1896 - they could confirm its authenticity? Alternatively, perhaps some sort of intricate wood carving or glasswork which can now be done by machine, but would have been time-consuming to produce in the 1890s. Warofdreams talk 10:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, travel back to the 16th century, specifically to the court of Henry VIII and take a photo of Anne Boleyn; that way we can see what she really looked like instead of relying on unreliable descriptions made by often hostile writers who were born decades after her death.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Depending on when your time machine lands, you may need to take 2 pictures, one of her body and one of her head. StuRat (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You couldn't really profit from a photo of Anne Boleyn while remaining inconspicuous. It would pretty much require you to prove you have a working time machine. I can't think of anything that is less conducive to remaining inconspicuous. It'd be more inconspicuous to shoot the president. APL (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Synthetic gemstones would be the way I would go as they are pretty cheap today, and would be indistinguishable from natural stones with contemporary technology. If you want to bring stuff back to be rich here, then I would recommend a couple of Van Goghs (Though that might be tough to get them from Europe). 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of presidents, why not travel back to the morning of 22 November 1963 in Dallas and hide up on the Sixth Floor of the Texas School Book Depository and see if Lee Harvey Oswald really did manage to perform those amazing feats with his old broken-down 1890-vintage Carcano rifle.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

My initial idea of something cheap today but expensive then was: Money. Due to inflation, $100 today is worth much less than $100 in 1896. Unfortunately, this predates the Federal Reserve System, and therefore Federal Reserve Notes, and money from 1896 or earlier, even if in noncollectible condition (and you only need it to be in good enough shape that people will accept it as money), would probably cost you nearly as much as it's worth. Two of the ideas already mentioned are things that would have immediately occurred to someone in 1896, and for good reason. Nobody in 1896 would have been at all troubled at the thought that you are pawning or selling your jewelry to raise money. There is a morality issue, though: Your character's buyers can't tell that the zircons your character selling are fake, but they are in fact fake, and some future holder will be stung when testing for zircons becomes available. If your character is in a position where he or she can go to a library and research in advance, using microfilms of old newspapers, then the racetrack is probably the best bet. A small bet on a daily double or other longshot would produce substantial funds, without much attention being attracted. Frequent racetrack visits would be inconsistent with a religious environment, but a rare lucky visit would probably be acceptable, if it's only a "relatively religious" circle. There are morality issues with this too, but they don't seem to bother people as much. You could also do this with the stock market, but the racetrack is easier and faster. Depending on the nature of your time machine, it might be possible to have the funding go the other way: To buy things that are cheap in 1896 but will be valuable in 2010. Then you could afford to buy real jewelry today to fund your trip. John M Baker (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The diamonds don't have to be zirconium. You could use real synthetic diamonds or real synthetic rubies. Back then those stones couldn't be created artificially, they had to be dug out of the ground, now both real diamonds and real rubies can be created in the lab.

I'd probably bring at least some local money back. It looks like silver dollars from that period go for about $20 on ebay, Which appears to be slightly below the inflation rate. (As calculated here[13]) You could afford a couple of dollars. APL (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As has been mentioned a few times here, information creates a more interesting story. There are many ways to go about it. These are examples from stories that I've read:

• Read the archived papers from the time. Locate a criminal that is wanted with a huge reward and caught around that time. The paper will say where he was caught. Before the police find him, go to the police and tell them were to look. The timeline is unchanged to any degree because the overall actions didn't change.
• Again, read the archived papers. See if anything was discovered around the time. Go to the discoverer and sell information that will help find the discovery.
• And again, read the archived papers. There will be a scandal. Gather all the info you can on the scandal and blackmail the people involved before the news of the scandal breaks. Of course, in that short story the main character is killed in vengeance before making it out of the past. -- kainaw™ 16:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Why does one have to parley something of lesser value for something of greater value? Why not just bring sufficient "money" to live on? Gold or silver would obviously fit the requirements. Bus stop (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, $100 1896 of gold would cost around $5000 in 2010. Silver would be about $2000. I do not know about paper, but perhaps you could find some very low cost stock certificates of companies that are defunct now, but were doing well in 1896. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you try to maximize your exchange? Seems like common sense to do so. APL (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Inexpensive now and valuable then? How about crack? Or perhaps read up on scandals and how they were uncovered and blackmail the scoundrel who does not know he is going to be exposed soon anyway. (Of course he is likely to eliminate you). Edison (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

My question is: why the concern with the difference in value, between then and now, of whatever one chooses to bring back in time to 1896? Why does it matter whether the "time conversion" results in greater value or lesser value? In my opinion it is a trifling matter in the scheme of temporary time travel. Bus stop (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I will go against the question asked here, but I have a suggestion. Almost all major works of fiction where the main character travels in time involves this boring "Temporal Prime Directive". They make such a miracle of moving across time, and waste it by staying in the corner and let everything stay the same, or find another time-traveler making a revolution and then spoil the fun by stoping him. You work in this fiction is a creative work, so I say, Break the law! Take an electric guitar and play "Breaking the Law" or "Anarchy in the U.K." at some roof! Take a bazooka and kill Hitler's ancestors! Take strategic knowledge and save JFK! Take automated machine guns and help Napoleon achieve the conquest of Europe! That would be something new and interesting to read MBelgrano (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is (from the POV of the time traveller) is that you have no way of knowing how that could affect the world. Butterflies and all that--Jac16888^Talk 19:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

In the multiverse concept, every outcome that is at all possible actually happens at every turning point in history. The jambread falls sticky down in one universe, sticky up in another, is snarfed by the dog before it hits the ground in another, etc. Oswald misses Kennedy in one, hits Mrs. Kennedy in another, there are two, three, or four assassins working independently or in concert in others. Maybe Kennedy shoots Oswald (or his father) in some. The fictional series 1632 (novel) deals with a small town from West Virginia being swept up by an ill defined cosmic event and swapped with a portion of Germany in 1632. The folks of that era realize that the world the "uptimers" came from will never exist. All of Beethoven's compositions will be well known by the year he would have been born, and even if his parents meet and have children, it is unlikely that one with his exact genetics will result. Living painters will not paint the "future" paintings they see attributed to them in art history books. Kings read the encyclopedia an learn which of their associates will conspire against them in the future, and take action against them. King Charles II sell America to the French, for instance, to get money to hire mercenaries to protect his reign. There are radio broadcasts to crystal sets in central Europe. 19th century technology gets widely implemented (much of 20th century technology requires tools and materials that can't be made with the 17th century industries). In the present OP's scenario, if a time traveller went from 2010 to 1896 and bet on a horse race or bought a stock which was upward bound, the odds at the tote or the prices on the stock market would immediately change. Someone else who would have made or lost money would be affected financially, and inevitably some of his decisions or actions would change. If the vacuum tube radio were patented 1 years earlier, it would be used for military communications sooner and some battle would come out differently. If any invention were patented before the "true inventor" got to the patent office, the deprived inventor might not go on to develop his later contributions. Edison (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And that's where the strength of the narrator would come into play. Only episodic works (like TV series) have to return everything back to normal after each story. A self-contained work can make a radical change like this, explore how do things have changed, and doesn't need to find a "way back" MBelgrano (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Clocks, watches, chronometers. Imagine how valuable a £1 quartz (solar powered) wristwatch would be when used for navigation around the time that the earliest chronometers were being designed - ooh, you want things for 1896. If the requirement is to have something that is not too unusual in the past, then I expect a cheap clockwork wristwatch would have been much more expensive in the past. The best-selling novel for soon after 1896 would be worth something. Regretebly, the plans for military equipment such as guns or battleships would be worth a lot. As well as posing as a best-selling writer, you could pose as an inventer with a better internal combustion machine. 92.26.16.12 (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Salt or spices. And don't pack it in glass - use paper. --Dweller (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Condoms,light ,cheap reliable and much,much better than what was around then.Batteries,a lot of inventions needed decent small batteries.Laser pointers,you could make your living in the circus with that.Don't know which religions you are talking about who may or may not be bothered by these.Buy Coca -cola shares for yourself to take back to the future....hotclaws 18:16, 20 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)

I highly doubt that Kelly has been in the same position for 49 years! Is the Port of New York you're referring to the same thing as the contemporary Port Authority of New York and New Jersey? If so, I searched its website and could not find any evidence that the position even exists anymore. Good luck! —Eustress ^talk 22:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It was a federal Customs position (as the article says), and a highly-valued presidential patronage appointment during most of the 19th century; the Port Authority is not a federal agency, so whatever the current version of the position is, it would not be under the Port Authority. AnonMoos (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears Kelly was the last one. Here is an NYT article on Michael Stramiello Jr who became "new regional director of the new New York Customs Region II" that apparently took over from the Collector - a google preview has "Mr, Stramiello, has taken over from Joseph P. Kelly, the last of a long line of Collectors of Customs for the Port of New York that date back to 1789, ... Kelly to Be Consultant Mr. Kelly, the last of 41 men who have held the post of Collector of Customs here, is being retained in an .."John Z (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice work, John. If anyone is wondering about the 1967 knife case, after he was no longer "The Collector" (1961-1966), that was the date of the court case, while the actual incident happened years earlier. StuRat (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

April 19

Where In The World

[14]

Where is this?174.3.123.220 (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The green logo in the foreground is for Early Learning Centre. Millets, according to our article, only has shops in the UK. So, you can narrow it down a bit. Dismas|^(talk) 01:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It is definitely a British high street, but I have no idea which one. TinEye finds it used as a generic picture of a high street on a few websites, but none of them identify it. --Tango (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The third sign appears to be Ellis Brigham Mountain Sports: [15]. Here's a map of their UK locations for cross-referencing with the other two stores: [16]. StuRat (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Found it ! 130 Deansgate, Manchester, UK. StuRat (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Kensington High Street to me [17] meltBanana 01:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know, Stu. I put the address from Ellis Brigham's Manchester store into Google Maps Streetview and, while there is a Millets just down the road, I can't see any Ellis Brigham. Nor any ELC. Dismas|^(talk) 01:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it's Kensington High Street. In fact, you can see the stores from the OP's photo in our own image of KHS. They're on the left of the photo. Dismas|^(talk) 02:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm late to the party, but the No. 27 bus's destination board reading 'Turnham Green' would have narrowed it down to the London area from the get-go. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Except the bus isn't in the picture linked to by the original questioner, it's in a different picture linked to by someone answering. DuncanHill (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry. Missed the initial link and leapt to the wrong assumption. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Boy Scouts of America and Evolution

Has the Boy Scouts of America ever issues an official policy on teaching evolution? It wouldn't surprise me based on the BSA's other absurd policies.

--71.98.64.15 (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I was a Scout years ago and I don't remember any specific mention of it. I don't know why they would have any position on it. There are certain religions that allow for a belief in evolution, so I don't know how they would be able to reconcile religious freedom with a stance against evolution. Also, going over the requirements for Environmental Science merit badge, it asks for the Scout to "Conduct an experiment to find out how living things respond to changes in their environments" which suggests the possibility of evolution. And then Geology merit badge has a requirement that involves discussion of various eras including ancient life and fossils. Again, not a direct endorsement of the idea of evolution but they're certainly not young Earth creationists about it. Dismas|^(talk) 04:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not really about evolution, it's about adaptability. In any case, I don't think the average creationist has a problem with the idea of "natural selection". What they have a problem with is the idea of one species evolving into another species. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Its been a few years since i was in Boy Scouts (made it to eagle) and i wasn't sure if they either had a policy and i never heard about it or if they started a new policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.64.15 (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The BSA has no policies on evolution. Other than the merit badges noted above, I can't think of anywhere it would come up. The BSA is a member of the World Organization of the Scout Movement, and they have nothing on evolution. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Rocky Marciano

Did Rocky Marciano appear in any films? If so what were they? Thank you.

Yes, see IMDB: [18]. Also, this would have been a good question for the Entertainment Desk. StuRat (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Wittelsbach heir of the Kingdom of Greece

After King Otto's death he made Luitpold, Prince Regent of Bavaria his heir as pretender and because Luitpold's son Louis III renounced his claim to Greece it passed to Luitpold's second son Prince Leopold of Bavaria. But after Leopold wikipedia doesn't list who comes next. I can only guess that it passed to his son Prince Georg than his other son Prince Konrad and finally his grandson Prince Eugen. Does anybody know for sure if this is correct and who wpuld come after Eugen?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the pretender title claim did pass to Prince_Konrad_of_Bavaria and onto Eugen. At his death, his rights were passed to a third cousin once removed, a certain Prince Fernando of Bavaria. The current claimant is Prince Leopold. --Kvasir (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

economic growth

this project that the government will be doing in the article...will it ensure economic growth? 41.145.87.150 (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

What project that what government will be doing in what article? Regardless, I doubt any government can ensure economic growth, they can just increase the likelihood of it. --Tango (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Governments tend not to generate economic growth because the taxes they need to impose to pay for the project cause as much (or more) drag on the economy as the project creates expansion. It is analogous to sitting in a sailboat and directing a fan at the sail. Wikiant (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Government can create the infrastructure required for economic growth, like roads, airports, schools, police & fire departments, etc. StuRat (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

They can change when economic growth happens (or does not happen), though, by funding projects through borrowing (or spending savings for those rare governments that aren't in debt). A good government can invest in a way that produces more economic growth than their taxes destroy, anyway - it's not easy, but it is certainly possible. --Tango (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

What do Atheists swear to in court?

A guy next to me was wondering this. Any help? Buggie111 (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I googled ["swearing in" atheist] and found a number of possibly useful answers or theories. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Which Bible is used to accomodate the different Christian religions? After all a Catholic wouldn't swear an oath on the King James Bible nor would a Protestant swear on the Catholic Bible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of those sources in google say that Bibles often are not used anymore, and where they are, the witness can choose their own particular holy book, e.g. a Jew might take the Jewish Bible (i.e. the Old Testament) and a Muslim might take the Quran (hence the right-wing flap over Keith Ellison's swearing in). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeanne Boleyn, when I (a Catholic) was on Jury Duty (in the UK) they used a copy of the New Testament. That way there isn't any worry about the different number of books (since those are seven in the Old Testament). I didn't know what translation it was but I personally wasn't fussed - the important part was that it was a book containing the Gospel of Jesus and the teachings of the early Church. Joe^Talk_Work 20:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

A number of jurisdictions offer the possibility of an affirmation for those that for some reason are unwilling to swear an oath. This can potentially include both atheists as well as those of various and sundry religious persuasions objecting to oaths. Gabbe (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Cecil Adams covers this here : The Straight Dope : How do courts swear in atheists? APL (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

May I offer a personal answer? I would not describe myself as an athiest, but post-religious. In any event, if a judge wanted my assurances of honesty, I would tell him that I understand that lying is counter-productive to my interests as well as everybody else's. I believe that would satisfy even the most cynical of magistrates. Vranak (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Please note that it is not only atheists who object to taking oaths. As our article Affirmation in law makes clear, the exception to taking the oath was introduced to allow Quakers (a notably devout denomination) to act according to their conscience and beliefs. Some other Christian denominations also prohibit the taking of oaths, as do some traditions in Islam. DuncanHill (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

A bible isn't a honest book & it may be missing a few pages or might be in a foreign languauge (maybe even brail). IMHO, one should swear on a mallard duck. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not a half eaten fig? Or a margarita? Googlemeister (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Either will do. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You could swear before who or whatever you consider to be a supreme being. In your case, I would imagine you would also sing a "ducksology". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Why a duck? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I doubt any judge or magistrate would accept that. There are procedures to follow and they will follow those procedures. That includes getting you to swear or affirm using the standard words for that jurisdiction. --Tango (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Vranak, what makes you believe that a judge would accept that? Besides the fact that the judge will almost certainly have a protocol he has to follow, (You wouldn't be the first atheist ever to be sworn into court!) You're also dodging the point of the exercise. (You haven't promised to tell the truth, you've just explained that it would be a good idea for you to do so.) And furthermore it may, in fact, not be counter-productive to your interests to lie. That's certainly not self-evident at all! APL (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the judge believes that I value honesty as much as he does, then plainly I will be regarded as honest. (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm certainly not a lawyer, but I think he's much more likely to believe that he doesn't have time for this crap, why won't this guy just say the affirmation like all the other atheists, and that he hasn't found these sorts of dodges clever since his first week on the job. APL (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Vranak (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You would use the form of words prescribed by law. In the UK it is given by the Oaths Act 1978. [19] DuncanHill (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I had to swear to something a while back (for a US federal document). They had me hold up my right hand while they asked me "do you swear or affirm blah blah blah", from which I inferred that swearing and affirmation were considered equivalent. I think I was supposed to say "I do", but I instead said "yes sir", which was accepted. 66.127.54.238 (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I recall hearing that some prominant atheist or other (Dawkins? Hitchins?) said he preferred to be sworn in using a copy of the constitution. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins is British and we don't have a single written constitution, so I very much doubt it's him. --Tango (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Foreigners can't take the stand in the US? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 00:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

What if someone happened to be a Satanist? Would he or she have to swear on the Satanic Bible?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

In UK courts, there is the standard General Oath "I swear by Almighty God...", an Affirmation, "I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that..." and a number of Other Oaths for members of other mainstream faiths or Christisn denominations that eschew the swearing of oaths (ie Quakers and Moravians)[20]. Full details here[21]; I'm afraid Satanists don't get a mention. More contentious here is the oath or affirmation that Members of Parliament have to take before they can take their seat[22], because they both require "allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law." Some MPs who support republicanism take the oath with their fingers crossed, while others, notably members of Sinn Féin, don't take their seats at all[23]. Alansplodge (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence 603 (to use a federal example in the U.S.), there's no requirement that any oath be on a bible or religious text, only that there is an "oath". It says:

Before testifying, every witness shall be required to declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the witness' conscience and impress the witness' mind with the duty to do so.

In practice, there is often not a bible at all and the oath is generally agnostic. There is not (again, federal) a specific text under FRE 603. Shadowjams (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I just got off jury duty in Massachusetts, and saw a lot of people taking oaths, but there were no Bibles/other books, just standing with right hand raised. 65.96.208.10 (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for anti-immigration?

OK I completely understand anti-immigration sentiment in many countries at the moment, there are already so many unemployed people during this economic downturn that immigrants are only going to add to that and be a complete drain on my money.

But, during the boomtime before all that Lehman Brother's crap there was still a lot of anti-immgrationism. Unemployment was quite low and if you really tried you could find a job. Why was this?--92.251.238.63 (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Check out xenophobia, which is a recurrent theme in connection with immigration. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Aside from xenophobia, there is also the issue of foreigners keeping nationals from getting jobs, one way or another. For example, it used to be the case, and maybe still is, that in Switzerland you had to "prove" that no Swiss citizen could do a specific job before bringing a foreigner into that job. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

See also Scapegoat#Psychology and sociology --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, the major reason behind anti-immigration rhetoric (and similar rhetoric that has been leveled in the past against welfare recipients, single mothers, and certain disempowered groups like African Americans in the US, migrant Turks in Germany, and gays everywhere) is that the groups have negligible political clout and can be made to look like they are a drain on the rights and resources of 'solid citizens'. That makes them ripe political targets for any person or group looking to gain political power by inflaming public tempers. sad, really... --Ludwigs2 21:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

See our articles Immigration to the United States, Immigration to the United Kingdom, etc. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, you need to be careful to differentiate between those who are anti-immigration, and those who are anti-illegal-immigration. While one may see illegal immigrants in a bad light, the same might not be true for legal immigrants. The trick is distinguishing which is which. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a secondary issue. People (like the minutemen groups in the US) who actively advocate tougher measures against illegal immigrantion do so on basis of racist arguments, the same type of prejudice that affect legal immigrants as well. --Soman (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, you are assuming a static economy. Labor is a resource. The more resources a country has, the more it can produce. Look, for example, to the 170,000 (as of 2008) jobs created in the US by just five immigrants: Grove (founded Intel), Khosla (founded Sun), Yang (founded Yahoo), Brin (founded Google), and Omidyar (founded eBay). Wikiant (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a natural instinct in humans. As Enoch Powell said: "...we have an identity of our own, as we have a territory of our own, and that the instinct to preserve that identity, as to defend that territory, is one of the deepest and strongest implanted in mankind. I happen also to believe that the instinct is good and that its beneficent effects are not exhausted...In our time that identity has been threatened more than once. In the past it was threatened by violence and aggression from without. It is now threatened from within by the forseeable consequences of a massive but unpremeditated and, in substantial measure, reversible immigration."--Britannicus (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Disadvantages of immigration, other than causing unemployment:

1) Leads to an increase in population. Of course, if your country has a low population and plenty of room for more, this is less of a problem, but not many countries fall into this category any more (although many "colonies" did 200-300 years ago).

2) If the immigrants are poor, this can lead to lowering the wage base, especially for menial jobs. This, however, is an advantage to business owners, who tend to be pro-immigration, but also want to keep it illegal, so the workers don't get any legal rights.

3) If the immigrants are from another culture, this can change the existing culture, sometimes in rather severe ways, like wanting to implement Sharia law.

4) If the immigrants speak another language, this can cause problems for government, which now must provide both translations and translators. StuRat (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, every one of StuRat's 4 "disadvantages" may not be a disadvantage or has a flip side that's an advantage; and additionally, although the very poor will consume some state resources, depending on where we're talking about, even the very poor are consumers, which boosts local business. It's a very complicated issue. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Applications of involuntary sterilization in the United States in the 1900's, including cases of coerced sterilization.

I am trying to do a report on the history of applications of sterilization in the United States in the 1900's. My instructor requires me to locate print materials, which I have already located, as well as audio-visual materials and web based resources. I was hoping someone would be able to help direct me towards web based materials, idealy archives or websites that focus on involuntary sterilization, which are repuitable enough for me to include in a bibliography. I know they have to exist but I'm having difficulty locating them and my librarian told me to consult wikipedia.

Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.79.37.16 (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me just suggest some categories of people who are sterilized against their will, to help in the keyword searches:

1) The mentally retarded.

2) The mentally ill.

3) Male rapists. StuRat (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that male rapists were sterilized in any great numbers. By the 20th century, sterilization as a form of punishment had been largely discontinued in the US on account of its probable violation of the 8th and 14th amendments. In any case a search for "eugenic sterilization" is probably going to be more helpful than the specifics of the populations sterilized. (And I note you use the word are—compulsory sterilizations by and large have discontinued in the USA; that ought to have been a were.) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought about changing that, myself. However, I do believe some male rapists are currently given the choice of prison or sterilization, and I don't consider that to be "free choice". StuRat (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That'd be chemical castration, Stu, not the same thing as sterilisation at all. FiggyBee (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the distinction. They can't reproduce while on the chemicals, just like a man who has had a vasectomy. Yes, it does reverse itself once the drugs are stopped, but a vasectomy may also be reversed. StuRat (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The point of chemical castration is to reduce sexual desire, not to reduce fertility. The two are completely unrelated (men who have vasectomies retain their sex drive). FiggyBee (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That may be the original intent, but the result is the same, both are incapable of reproduction. StuRat (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

See Compulsory sterilization. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

And, specifically: Compulsory_sterilization#United_States. StuRat (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The best web-based resource on the history of eugenics is the Image Archive of the American Eugenics Movement. It has a lot about the sterilization laws and their use on it. They are a reputable source, run by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. BuckvBell.com is the website for a book by a well-respected historian of sterilization, Paul Lombardo, and has a number of documents on it in a small archive, as well as an excellent bibliography of eugenics and a links page. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Joseph DeJarnette, Racial Integrity Act of 1924, Buck v. Bell and Category:Eugenics. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could also look at the more recent controversy over "voluntary" sterilization of Native Americans. Rmhermen (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What's the name of this psychological phenomenon?

i ws talking to a friend the other day who said that he "can't see part of something," his brain can only take in the whole thing, instead of compartmentalizing. So, for instance, he said when he would hear a tune, he couldn't play just part of it, if his instrument only played part; he would have to play the whole song. Is there a term for this manner of processing information? Thanks.209.244.187.155 (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Something related to Gestalt psychology? Warning: the article is not particularly well-written. It needs a good cleaning with an effective de-turgid. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Assuming your friend can otherwise function normally in the world, that kind of thing would just be taken as part of normal human behavior, and wouldn't have a specific name. If it is severe enough that it begins to interfere with his life in a significant way (e.g. he finds himself incapable of stopping himself from completing wholes so that he can't engage in normal human interaction, puts himself and others at risk when he operates a car or other machinery, or etc), then it might be diagnosed somewhere in the obsessive/compulsive spectrum of disorders or as a mild form of autism. or something else entirely - a lot more information would be required for a clinical diagnose. but that's probably not the case. --Ludwigs2 13:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

April 20

Who funded McVeigh?

Having just watched the special on Timothy McVeigh and seeing how much time and effort he put into his efforts, I wonder: where did he get the money? --Halcatalyst (talk) 03:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

A rental truck full of fertilizer isn't all that expensive. It was presumably financed by the conspirators: McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and Michael and Lori Fortier. StuRat (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Oklahoma City bombing#Gathering materials provides more detail on the funds required, suggesting the total budget was less than $5000. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Socialism and capitalism (USA vs. world)

USA is considered to be the richest country in the world, yet it is one of the very few countries (maybe even the only one) that never had socialists in power. Could it be argued that even though socialism in theory is more noble then capitalism, that in reality "little people" live better in capitalism? You often hear that capitalism is "cruel", "evil" and so on, while its never said of socialism... But could it be said that american capitalism, as an economic system, is superior to any socialist system in the world? Socialism is suppose to make things easier for the regular, hard-working people, but dont they live better in capitalism after all? --92.244.137.205 (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No. The US is the richest country in the world due to a high average per capita income and a fairly large population. The average per capita income of the US is comparable to many socialist nations in Europe. However, since each nation is smaller, the total GDP is lower. But, if the US is compared to the EU in total, then the EU is far richer.

Now, as to how well the "little people" do, there is more disparity in wealth between the rich and poor in the US than in socialists nations. This, along with a comparable average per capita income, means that the "little people" are poorer in the US, and the rich people are wealthier. Also note that poor people in the US have fewer government resources provided for them, such as health care, child care, high quality schools, job training, etc., than in socialist nations in Europe. This makes their quality of life much lower. StuRat (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "socialism." The only truly socialist state left in the world is North Korea. There is no question that ordinary Americans live better than ordinary North Koreans do, or for that matter ordinary people in any of the Communist block when it existed. If you are talking about countries with a more-developed welfare state than the U.S. has, which is not the same as socialism, the answer is less clear. Rich people are probably better off in the U.S. than in Europe. Poor people are probably better off in Europe. As for the people in the middle, Europeans are currently better off because their recession hasn't been as bad. Looking at it from a long-term viewpoint, American middle-class people tend to have bigger houses, bigger cars and more "stuff." Europeans have longer vacations, safer cities, healthier lifestyles and less fear of economic catastrophe should they lose their jobs or get sick. So pick your poison. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think many people would agree that North Korea is a "truly socialist state". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The No true Scotsman fallacy often rears its head in discussions of which states are or were "truly" socialist/communist. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really. "No true Scotsman" applies when there is an initial, well-agreed upon definition of the class, which the speaker appears to accept, and then it turns out that the speaker changes his definition in order to be able to dismiss all counterexamples by excluding them "by definition", thus making his initial statement tautological "no true Scotsman is dishonest... and my definition of a Scotsman is a man from Scotland who is not dishonest". In the case of socialism, there is no such initial, well-agreed upon definition that socialists appear to accept ("any country that calls itself socialist", or "any country that nationalizes its entire economy"), and most modern socialists' definitions of socialism do exclude dictatorships from the start. So did the definition of most socialists before the October revolution; etymologically, "socialism" (from socius "partner", "associate") suggests something like "partnership", so it is about equals working together voluntarily for their common purpose, not about a tyrannical boss forcing them to do what he wishes for his purposes. Socialism was supposed to involve some form of democracy, and the dictatorships that described themselves as socialistic always claimed to be democratic. Thus, this is not a case of "No true Scotsman", but simply of people having different definitions of the same word. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there are a number of other reasons for the success of the US. Inheriting what amounted to a (as far as military/political power is concerned) nearly empty continent with unspoiled resources, right on the brink of the industrial revolution, and at a time when technology allowed this to develop into one fairly homogeneous nation is one point. Sitting behind a conveniently large ocean from all large technologically similar nations also provided a huge benefit - there has been only one serious war on US soil (not counting the War of 1812), and no credible threat of a conventional war destroying significant infrastructure since the US Civil War. Europe, on the other hand, had two world wars and a number of smaller (not small) wars, and, of course, maintained large and unproductive armies to fight them. WW1 killed 16 million, only 117000 of them Americans. WW2 killed some 60 millions, only 418000 of them Americans. In both cases, casualty rates for Americans are about an order of magnitude or more lower than for Europeans. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Some European countries have a higher per capita GDP than the US - places like Switzerland or Luxemburg for example. My half-educated guess is that the large physical size of the US may have something to do with the wealth of the US - lots of land per person, hence lots of natural resources (ie wealth) per person. The large population size of the US means you have a large internal market which can support lots of fledgling products that would not get big enough sales to be viable in other smaller countries. In Europe the difficulties of the different languages, cultures, and regulations means that it is impractical for small or new companies to sell things Europe-wide. And I wonder if the comparative cheapness of real-estate in the US means that people's efforts resources are not wasted on the unproductive end of acquiring very cramped but very expensive housing. 89.241.47.121 (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

..."never had socialists in power" - really ? What about Roosevelt's New Deal ? Social security, minimum wages, empowerment of unions, central economic planning through agricultural subsidies and state funding of big engineering projects, increased regulation of banks ... surely that was a socialist administration in all but name ? Gandalf61 (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that socialism, in theory, is more noble than capitalism. Capitalism (i.e., free market economics) is predicated on the assumption that people are fundamentally good and that, left to their own, they will work together in harmony. Socialism is predicated on the assumption that people are fundamentally evil and that, left to their own, they will devolve into chaos. Wikiant (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither of these is generally accepted. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yea, those are backwards. Capitalism assumes that people are lazy, yet greedy, and will therefore only work if they don't get paid, otherwise. Socialism, on the other hand, assumes that all will work for the good of society, without the need to be rewarded. StuRat (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No brand of socialism, even the craziest Maoist type, ever abolished rewards. The idea, even in the sickest dictatorships, has been to reward labour, materially as well as symbolically ("to each according to his labour"). Only in the future perfect society of absolute affluence ("communist society" as opposed to "socialist society" in Marxist parlance) would people start working without a connection with what they get and vice versa ("from each according to his capacity, to each according to his need"). Moderate, social capitalist ideology does assume that people will work in order to be able to buy nicer clothes or a newer car, even if there is a safety net ensuring that no matter how little they work, they won't starve to death, die without medicines, or see their children suffer that fate. More radical forms of capitalist ideology, on the other hand, consider these stimuli to be an indispensable bliss for the lazy animals.

As for the issue of which one is "nobler" in the sense of pre-supposing a nobler human nature: Strictly speaking, socialism is nobler, because proponents of a socialist economy, like democracy, expect the citizens to be capable of ruling their own society collectively and consciously for their own common good; proponents of a capitalist economy expect the common good to result as an emergent phenomenon, unconsciously, from people's individual selfish actions. But moderate pro-capitalists recognize that for this to work, there is a need for at least some rational and collective decisions made by the people for the common good; these are supposed to impose rules and restrictions, to create some legal framework for capitalist activities, and to make some convenient and humane additions to the overall system. Radical pro-capitalists of the kind we've been seeing recently tend towards denying all such needs. While that latter ideology does not always assert directly that it expects the rich to act consciously for the common good, it is often argued to pre-suppose this expectation, because it seems obviously impossible that the rich would avoid all noxious activities (use of force, ecological damage, child labour, subprime package machinations) or perform all the needed useful activities (regular and reliable charity) if they aren't forced. In this sense, it can be regarded as being even "nobler" than socialism - while socialism expects the citizens as a group to act in their own collective interest, radical capitalism expects individual rich people to act in society's interest without being forced to or having any profit from it. But again, other representatives of that ideology will argue that there is a good enough selfish motive for each of these things, so there is no need for conscious striving towards the common good even here. The only conscious striving for the common good endorsed by these idealists is then the one found in their own motives to advocate radical capitalism. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I dont think that size has anything to do with it. Russia is much bigger then USA, but its much poorer. Also, EU is not richer then USA, because EU is not a country. Every, or 9 out of 10 european countries, have had socialist in power at least once. I believe that Wikiant is probably closest with his answer. --92.244.137.205 (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Russia is much bigger than the USA as a territory (so is Canada), but it is much smaller in terms of population.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether the EU is a nation has nothing to do with whether it has a higher total GDP than the US. It does, period. StuRat (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If you look for a single cause in history, you will very rarely succeed. Russia is bigger than the US in area only. It's only half the size in population. Russia also was a backwater long before the October revolution, and had to bear the brunt of the most destructive war ever within less than a generation after the revolution. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

One cannot judge the quality of life in Europe as if it were one single country; each nation is different, and therefore has a different standard of living. For instance, can one compare southern Italy to Scandinavia, for example? The same goes for the USA. Can we honestly say that people living in West Virginia generally enjoy the same standard of living as those in Southern California? As regards the difference between capitalism and socilaism it boils down to two things: Capitalism offers a person more freedom to choose and it favours individuality, whereas socialism is about conformity.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your claim that "socialism is about conformity", I also disagree that "capitalism favours individuality" - it doesn't, it favours those with capital. DuncanHill (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And how does a person acquire capital? In a socialist state there is more government control and regulation; it hinders the individual with the intelligence and/or diligence to open a business, start an industry, thereby giving employment to others. Socialism and it's heavy sidekick communism hinders free enterprise and the entrepeneur. Could Wikipedia, Facebook, etc., have been conceived and brought to fruition in a socialist state?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the WWW was invented in "socialist" Switzerland by a British employee of state-funded CERN. ARPANET was created in a government lab, too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

While nobody doubts that Switzerland (as well as other socialist nations such as Sweden, etc.) has given the world many wonderful things, I cannot help noticing that given a choice, the average European would choose to emigrate to brazenly capitalist Los Angeles or New York than Zurich or Geneva (My apologies to Swiss editors as I've no wish to give offence but we are talking governments not people).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

TomorrowTime (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"the average European would choose to emigrate to brazenly capitalist Los Angeles or New York than Zurich or Geneva". Yes. You often hear people say how american economic system is cruel, but still America have more immigrants then any socialist country. So it must not be that cruel after all? --92.244.137.205 (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The WWW was not invented in Switzerland. The protocols that made it possible may have been, but the WWW is the sum total of individual contributions by hundreds of millions of bloggers, web designers, photographers, etc. In fact, it was not until ARPANET released control of the beast that the web developed. Wikiant (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As an American, the argument I generally hear against socialism has to do with individuality, which seems to us to be of more importance than it does to Europeans. The attitude about socialism seems to be "someone will take care of us", that "someone" being the government. The attitude about capitalism seems to be "no one will take care of you - least of all the government; you have to watch out for and stand up for yourself." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well put, Baseball. It's interesting that most of the Europeans who chose to leave the safety of Europe for the uncertainties, risks, as well as opportunities on an undreamed-of-scale the New World had to offer, were the most daring, non-conformist members of their society.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The ones who left were the unsuccesful and poor ones, for whatever reason. The wealthy succesful people stayed at hom,e. 92.24.59.3 (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That is hardly relevant. Neither European nor American society then was anything like it is now. --Tango (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It is relevant as it serves to explain why so many Americans place a high value on individuality and mistrust socialism as a form of government interference.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Those perceptions are still there, though, at least to us Americans. Australia might be a better example of the American ideal in terms of individual freedom, though no place is perfect. But ultimately it comes down to what you want. I've worked with people who think Switzerland is wonderful because there's no crime. And from what I've heard, I would hate it, because it seems to be a highly conformist society. What's the state's interest in telling you what you can or cannot name your child? None, that's what. It's legalized nannyism. And while Americans are usually willing to obey rules that are agreed upon, some busybody government telling us how to run our private lives is highly offensive. That's just a symbol of something that Americans wouldn't stand for. But for those who like an authoritarian environment, that's just fine, I suppose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I like the heading for this section, by the way, as it illustrates my point perfectly. Rest of the world: "Conform!" USA (mockingly): "Sieg heil!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying all Europeans are conformists and all Americans non-conformists. I am originally from west Los Angeles, not far from the celebrated counter-culture of Venice Beach, where believe it or not there was a degree of conformity even among con-conformists. What I'm saying is socialism favours the common interest not the individual concern. In fact socialism reminds me of school uniforms.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Groups certainly have their specific conformisms. You're touching on another core issue, by bringing up uniforms. If everyone looks the same, then everyone is the same, no one stands out from the crowd; and the American argument is that in such a system there is no incentive to produce anything new, because there's no reward. It's no accident that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of authors and inventors for a period of time. What's the point of inventing something if you won't be rewarded for it somehow? Remember what Michael Douglas' character said in one of his movies: "Greed is good. Greed works." That's a crass way of saying that appealing to people's selfish interests is the best way to stimulate progress; not by appealing to their supposedly good nature. That's the libertarian view of things, anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What gets me is when I hear women praise the virtues of socialism, not seeming to realise that fashion and cosmetics are products of capitalism.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, under capitalism pretty much everything is a product of capitalism. Under slave-ownership it would be a product of slave-owning. As for the "anti-authoritarian" argument against socialism, it's funny how this argument completely rejects the possibility of democracy: it assumes the state could never be an instrument used by the people collectively to fix things and help each other, it is necessarily portrayed as an alien authority. Indeed, any form of collective action is branded as "conformism" or "tyranny against the individual" (except for anti-collectivist collective action, which is OK). This ideology may be OK for the strong and rich, but the weak and poor do need to work together. This argument also ignores the fact that authoritarian dominance relations develop perfectly well from the cleft between strong and weak everywhere in corporations, gangs, families and every walk of life without any help from the government, and flourish progressively as you abandon the possibility of collectively combating them through democracy. I'm afraid that the idea that "greed works", when left unchecked, to produce freedom and welfare is a utopia, unless your idea of freedom is working like a slave during all your waking hours or licking the boots of a boss in order to live another day. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I notice the OP and subsequent posters are talking about European countries or even "the world" being "socialist" as opposed to US capitalism. Please stop. There isn't a single country in Europe that isn't economically capitalistic - their economies are all market economies. A socialist economy is a command economy. Almost no country in the world is economically socialistic nowadays (and under most socialists' definitions, almost no country ever has been). What US right-wingers refer to as "socialistic" are just minor modifications or restrictions of capitalism intended to make it slightly more palatable and to prevent it from self-destructing. Help for the poor and sick, laws for at least minimal protection of labourers from their bosses, restricting certain dangerous business activities for the good of society as a whole, etc. have been part of every capitalist system to some extent during most of capitalism's history. The US is not categorically different from Europe in that respect, there is only a gradient difference (and many a Third World country has even less of these than the US). Calling these features "socialism" and describing them as mutually exclusive with capitalism means reviving the language of the Cold War in a completely inapt way; calling them "European / global" and describing them as opposed to "American" is similarly incorrect. The purpose is, of course, to destroy those small elements of non-capitalism on the basis of their being equated with something evil or feared such as Stalin, Hitler, absence of all economic prosperity, the "Other" alien enemy, etc.. Even the minimal rules that capitalism needs to avoid devolving into warfare and banditry between rival feudal clans have to be decided upon and enforced through some form of collective self-governance. If you call any such form of collective self-governance "socialism", then capitalism can't exist without socialism.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well it's not so much all subsequent posters as only two of them patting each other on the back about how exceptional the US really is, and how the ancient Egyptians, a people with a flourishing cosmetics industry, apparently lived in a capitalist state. In other words, a lot of pointless soapboxing, but then with a question like this, that's to be expected... TomorrowTime (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that so many still want to come to the USA speaks for itself. And your implication, that this is not really an appropriate ref desk question, is likely on the mark. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised by the view expressed here suggesting that many Europeans would like to live in the US. Not in my experience - we enjoy some of the products of its culture, but are bemused to the point of incredulity about others. There is no way many of us would want to live there. Of course, the view from other parts of the world, where the obvious differences in material living standards are much greater, is quite different. And just to comment on the differences between socialism and capitalism, my view is that "socialism" is essentially a set of structures necessary to enable people to help each other, while "capitalism" is the product of the underlying assumption that it is most important for people to be hostile to each other and try to outdo them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, most Europeans would not want to live in the US. The lack of universal health care and the guns and so on suggest that people are very selfish, and that those who cannot help themselves are considered not worth helping. This far outweighs the lure of cheap property or "real-estate". 92.24.59.3 (talk) 07:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

One factor to consider is that Protestantism tends to be more capitalistic and Catholicism tends to be more socialistic. I say again, the core difference is the notion that someone else will take care of you (socialistic) vs. you have to take care of yourself (capitalistic). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's true globally. Nearly everywhere in the world, Catholics are associated with more conservative parties and capitalist systems. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No question the Catholic Church is conservative to the point of being backwards in some ways. I'm saying that in a certain way the Church itself is more of a socialistic creature than the Protestant churches are, which tend more to encourage individual initiative and less reliance on someone else (perhaps other than God Himself) to help you. You've perhaps heard the term "Protestant work ethic"? I've never heard of a "Catholic work ethic". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that idea goes back to the puritans, and is prevalent mostly in the US. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Notably, the % of Protestants in Sweden is way higher than the US. Furthermore, in Sweden Lutheranism was state religion (and enforced in a rather brutal manner). Later, the 'Protestant Work Ethic' has been a key component of the Social Democratic welfarist project. The logic of Protestant Work Ethic is that productive labour is of greater ~(moral/ethical) value than earning money by speculation. --Soman (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The advantage of the European system is that people can take great risks in starting a business because even if they lose everything, they will still have health care and somewhere to live. The outpouring of creative artists from the UK, for example, may be for the same reason. 92.24.59.3 (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The UK, despite its health care system, is a capitalistic nation as well as the USA's staunchest ally. Yes many creative artists do come from the UK, and the music industry just happens to be one of the most blatantly capitalistic businesses in the world. That is why I find British pop stars who bleat on about the advantages of socialism while being a part of the lucrative entertainment industry makes me laugh to the point of gagging for their sheer hypocracy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That proves that its possible to have capitalism and socialism combined. 92.29.113.160 (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It's reasonable to say that most developed countries (including the US) have a mixture of the two. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Could we please close this? As shown by 91.148.159.4 the premise of the question is faulty, and not ref desk material at all. Let us end this before it gets even more cringeworthy. --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

US and Western Europe have many things in common politically & economically, but there are also differences. For many Europeans (Scandinavians in particular, I think) it is mind-boggling why many Americans prefer twice as much of their GDP for health care rather just so that insurance companies can harvest billions in profits whilst millions of Americans lack medical insurance, rather than having a cheaper, more efficent and ethically justifiable health care system. In Sweden, promising lower taxes doesn't win any election (compare the electoral platform of the rightwing in 2002 and 2006), whilst in the US the situation is the diametrical opposite. I heard once a theory, which I don't know if it is true: That the notion that the tax-collecting state is a vicious robber is a cultural inheritance largely from Irish immigrants, whose experience with the (British) state was universally negative. Would there be any truths in this? --Soman (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC) I have a vague feeling that we've had an identical discussion before, and that I have posted the same question earlier? --03:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Socialized schooling and policing in the US

Why are Americans content with a socialized school and education system, a socialized policing system, and socialized fire-fighting, but go bananas (some of them) about what they call "socialized health care"? 89.241.47.121 (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I surmise that those who oppose it either don't really understand what "socialized" means and so don't realise that those existing institutions are - to some degree - socialized, or they do understand but don't believe that health care falls into the category of services that should be socialized. Some, of course, will be lobbying for the retention of the existing setup because they profit from it. Apologies if this is too discussional: hopefully someone can come up with more referenced material on the topic. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

They already have all the other systems. It is change people don't like. I expect there was an outcry when each of those systems was introduced too, but people get used to them and realise they actually work rather well and stop complaining. The same will happen with health care. --Tango (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the basis of claiming that Americans are content with the current police, fire-fighting, and education systems? If you spend any time at all reading the news, you will find a daily dose of complaints about the police, fire-fighting, and education systems. Also note that there is a huge difference between systems that benefit society as a whole and systems that benefit a single individual. When police protect a city, they benefit the city. When fire-fighters protect a city, they benefit the city. The purpose of public education is to reduce the population of uneducated adults in the city, which has been proven to reduce crime (and education is required to make democracy function). When a doctor sees a patient, the patient is helped. Further, consider the need. If there was no police, how many people have their own police force? If there was no fire-fighters, how many people have their own fire-fighters? If there was no public school, how many people have their own school? Now, how many people have their own health insurance (including those who use Medicaid/Medicare, the VA, military medical benefits, or purposely refuse insurance and pay out of pocket)? You can go one step further in this argument by asking if people are against socialized health care (like Medicaid/Medicare and the VA) or if they are against a plan to introduce a completely new (and expensive) branch of the Federal government with the sole purpose of undercutting existing insurance companies to put them out of business and cause all of their employees to become unemployed. -- kainaw™ 13:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

When a doctor treats a patient, society benefits. Ill people are less productive economically, they are less able to contribute to society through voluntary work, and they spread diseases. DuncanHill (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the basis for your assumption that Americans are content with a socialized education system? We have a robust (parallel) private education system. Pick up almost any newspaper on any given day and you'll see an article arguing that our public primary through secondary education systems are inferior. Wikiant (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think we have socialized firefighting? Where I grew up all firefighters were volunteers and the ambulance was run by the undertaker (he got your business either way). Where I live now the firefighters are city employees and are all paramedics but the ambulances are private companies. There are many different systems in use. Rmhermen (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Even when firefighting is contracted to a private company, it is paid for by tax money. But, it still isn't socialized firefighting at a Federal level. People in Cuba, MO are not paying to fight fires in Enid, OK. Public schools are similar. Local taxes pay for local schools. There is a little Federal funding here and there, but not enough to make a big difference. It is more aid than socializing the system. -- kainaw™ 14:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What exactly the problem if itwas socialized? (So asks the rest of the world) Aaronite (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is taxes. Who pays for socialisation? The burdened taxpayers. Since 1980, I have been living in three different Europeam countries and I am still astounded at the amount of tax people have to fork out to the government. Here, in Italy a person has to pay for a stamp for every document! Then there's a TV tax, road tax, tax this tax that, everywhere you turn you are hit with a tax, yet my daughter was born in a private clinic because the wonderful socialised hospitals are rat-infested and full of incompetents.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"Taxes are what we pay for civilized society". The "burdened tax-payer" also is the one who profits from the services his tax money buys. Nearly all Italians manage to get born fine in "socialized" hospitals. It's quite possible that there are less-than-shining examples among these hospitals, but the same is true for private clinics. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Basically, I think you get what you pay for, through taxes or any other means, except that when you pay a private corporation, a big chunk of your payment goes to generate profits and outsize executive compensation. Because of the imperative to generate profits and the claimed imperative to pay executives 8- or 9-digit salaries, it is a myth that private providers can provide similar services at a lower cost than public providers. On the specific question of healthcare, this study shows that the current privatized system in the United States is the most expensive in the OECD, but it delivers poorer results in terms of public health than the healthcare systems of most OECD members. Certainly, wealthy individuals in the United States have access to and can afford excellent healthcare. However, other countries offer better results to the general population at a much lower cost through "socialized" healthcare. Jeanne Boleyn is unhappy at the level of taxes she pays in Europe. If she is affluent, she can probably enjoy a similar quality of life in the United States with a lower tax burden, but with higher out-of-pocket costs for services she has to cover on her own. The U.S. and its state governments offer few good services, since they are starved of taxes. If she is not affluent, I invite her to move back to the United States and notice the absence of services to which she has grown accustomed in Europe. When I travel to Europe, I am in awe of the excellent public transportation services, the well-maintained roads, and the thought that everyone enjoys free healthcare. (When I hear Londoners complain about their public transport system, I try to tell them that it puts public transport in any US city to shame.) Those things cost money, which must come from taxes, though the healthcare does not cost as much as (lower-quality for most) healthcare in the United States. Marco polo (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It is important to note that any current study of healthcare cost in the United States will not separate the cost of lawyers in the health care system from the cost of health care. Most of the cost of health care in the United States currently goes to lawyers. If not directly to lawyers, it goes to insurance companies to hold money to hand over to lawyers in the future. This is a snowball effect of continually increasing malpractice lawsuits. Socialized medicine will replace insurance companies with a Federal insurance company (one company to rule them all). It will not replace the lawyers. So, those who need care will still be in a system designed to take money that is supposedly going to health care and hand it over to lawyers who are only in the business of seeing how much money they can get from malpractice suits (and many other lawsuits such as "My doctor called me fat" or "I swear that nurse spit in my water"). -- kainaw™ 15:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Lawsuits are problematic, yes, but they are also the only incentive medical providers and insurers have to provide good medical care, as regulatory agencies in the US mostly seem to have suffered from regulatory capture. StuRat (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Kainaw, all reputable studies (as opposed to people like Rush Limbaugh flapping their jaws up and down) have shown that malpractice lawsuits are simply not the biggest factor (or anything near the biggest factor) in driving up U.S. healthcare costs. Some types of malpractice reform might be useful, but by themselves they would not remotely constitute a broad general solution to U.S. healthcare problems... AnonMoos (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

To answer the original question, not all Americans go bananas about "socialized healthcare". A minority are very unhappy about any publicly funded plan, a minority desire such a plan, and a third minority is in the middle, seeing some advantages to a public plan but concerned about possible disadvantages. I think that opposition to such a plan comes from three directions: 1) the small minority who benefit personally from the present arrangement; 2) another minority who are ideologically committed to laissez-faire capitalism and opposed to any role for the state, apart perhaps from policing and military operations; and 3) those who do not benefit from the present arrangement and expect the state to educate their children and provide for their retirement but who are not well informed beyond what they happen to see on TV and have been convinced by media propaganda generated by people in camps 1) and 2) that public healthcare is an evil plot designed by people who want to enslave Americans. Incidentally, the minority of Americans who fall into camp 2) are opposed to public education and sometimes to public firefighting as well. An alternative to public firefighting would be a private subscription service. If you don't pay, your house burns down. Marco polo (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Add that there are people who are against the plan that just went through Congress, but are not against Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA. They are against this particular plan. -- kainaw™ 15:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And the minority who are against passing legislation that has not been fully read by those passing said legislation as a general rule. Googlemeister (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that it is impractical for everyone to do a grass-roots study and survey of the primary data themselves, so they have to rely on what other people (in the media or politicians) tell them. These people already have opinions or agendas of their own. 92.24.59.3 (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The Turtles 1965 line-up

I have a question which the article on The Turtles does not provide the answer. Perhaps an editor can answer. I was watching on YouTube the clip of the Turtles on the programme Shindig! in which they are singing It Ain't Me Babe. It was recorded in 1965 and I'm curious as to the name of the good-looking guitarist who elicited the hysterical screams from teenage girls everytime his face appeared on the screen. The reason I wish to know is that I know a guy here in Italy who is the image of him (only much younger) and I'm curious as to whether there's a family connection. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

At the bottom of the linked page, the guitarists are named as Al Nichol and Jim Tucker. So one of those probably. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; I hadn't noticed their names listed at the bottom. Alas, I'm still none the wiser as to whether he was Al Nichol or Jim Tucker. He was the guitarist who stood in the back, but received all the screams!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a picture here that might help; it lists the names of the members in a photo left to right. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears he was Al Nichol. Thank you so much for your help.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm mistaken.The photo line-up is wrong. I have just been searcing around various Internet sites and the photos say he was Jim Tucker. Can anyone please confirm this? He can be seen in the Shindig clip when all the girls burst into screams whenever the camera shows his face.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's the guy second from the right in this photo, it seems to be Jim Tucker - but I probably don't have any more evidence than you have. He was born 17 October 1946 in Los Angeles, but left the band in 1967, and I don't know any more about him. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No, he was Al Nichol. Jim Tucker is too skinny to have been him judging by the clip. All those bowl-cut hairstyles make it all very confusing. Thank you,Gmyrtle.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

GK Question

I am looking for city (place) A. its canal system is one of its greatest, yet mostly undiscovered assets B.Each and every year (more than once) its name is heard or seen on almost all media outlets worldwide. Would apptrciate anu help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.89.215 (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Venice & St. Petersburg are both known for their canal systems. Googlemeister (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And there is Amsterdam which is also celebrated for its canals.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The answer was Indianapolis, Indiana, but the $100 prize has already been won, see here.. I assume you intended to donate it to Wikipedia if we had been able to produce a winning answer for you? Karenjc 17:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"every year (more than once) its name is heard or seen on almost all media outlets worldwide" Really? I presume that's a reference to the Indianapolis 500. I'm not sure about the rest of the world but coverage certainly isn't ubiquitous in the UK.--Frumpo (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly "undiscovered" to this writer, but I don't live in Indy. Much bigger and likely better known is the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, although it doesn't make the news except when something goes wrong, like the carp infestation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Reference Desk should stop aiding contestants in WorldAtlas GeoQuiz, as a matter of good form.--Wetman (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Either that, or answer the question and claim the prize, then tell the OP what the answer is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I considered that last time one of these came up ... and I would have donated, honest! Karenjc 08:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The Chinese ban against google and wikipedia.

While China warnings to block its citizens access to google from many different reasons (political, economical and etc)-some were publicated and some probably were not, I never heared that China have any intention to block the access to wikipedia (even if blocking google may have similar effect on wikipedia)-does it ever aired warnings against wikipedia?--Gilisa (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

See blocking of Wikipedia by the People's Republic of China. China has frequently blocked Wikipedia, but they don't tend to air warnings about these things - Google was a rare exception. Warofdreams talk 16:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Do you know whether other countries have blocked wikipedia?--Gilisa (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

According to History of Wikipedia#Blocking of Wikipedia, the countries that have blocked a part or all of Wikipedia in the past are Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Thailand, Tunisia, the United Kingdom and Uzbekistan. Karenjc 16:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The UK? Well that's interesting, run to read why!--Gilisa (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Because of a pic they thought was kiddie porn: Virgin Killers. StuRat (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The cover of a Scorpions album contains a picture that the Internet Watch Foundation (a non-governmental body that many UK ISPs use to help the identify and block illegal pictures) decided was, or might be, illegal. Wikipedia wasn't blocked, per se, but the clumsy way they did the block and the dismal way they interacted with Wikimedia, the public, and the press made them look far more like moustache-twiddling tyrants than they needed to. A BBC story is here. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia describes the affair in detail. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Why people live where they live

Earthquake zones, active volcanoes, and other locations prone to natural disasters in high numbers. I'm wondering why people ever chose to settle in such locations? Why did they consider these risks to be acceptable? Were the events too infrequent? I'm assuming the only reason people live there now is because of the infrastructure created by the settlers before them, but if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Volcanic ash can make for extremely fertile soil, which explains why people live near volcanoes. For other locations, it may be a different reason for each one. People live near the San Andreas Fault because gold was found there, for example. I think Earthquakes are only a serious problem in areas with high population density (a few mud huts collapsing isn't a big deal, a skyscraper collapsing is a a very big deal), so the earthquakes probably weren't a problem when people arrived in the area and they have become a problem gradually, so people have just got used to them. --Tango (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The infrequency of major earthquakes in a given area is the main problem. Many areas were probably built up before the residents had ever experienced an earthquake there. Or, if they did, they just thought it was a random act of the gods, not a feature of that particular location. Very few places have been heavily populated only after plate tectonics theory was fully developed. So then, the Q becomes "why don't they leave, now that they know the danger ?". It just works out that the risk is worth the benefits of continuing to live there, I suppose. StuRat (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Moving is an expensive hassle, and the probability of being killed by any particular disaster is pretty low. One could just as easily ask why midwesterners build farms in the flood plain of the Mississippi River, or for that matter why anyone lives in the midwest at all, given that it's "Tornado Alley". Or in the coastal regions, where hurricanes and typhoons can occur (as well as volcanoes, on the Pacific rim). Or in the tropics, where it's too hot, or the polar regions or the mountains, where it's too cold. The fact is, there's really no "safe" place to move to, and even if there was, you couldn't get there because everyone else would be going there too. Life itself is not safe. However, unlike animals, which are almost totally dependent on evolution for their adaptability (or lack thereof) to environments, humans are one species which can use its brains to create acceptable environments with risks that are considered acceptable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is some risk anywhere, but the risk is by no means equal. For example, the risk along the banks of the Mississippi river is far higher than to any property in the central US (from tornadoes). Not building homes along the river is also far more practical than abandoning the central US entirely. The easiest way to get there from here is to not offer government subsidized insurance on such houses, and condemn the property once a disaster strikes. If the homeowner or private insurers choose to take the risk, that's fine, but the taxpayers shouldn't pay them off when the risk comes to fruition. StuRat (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

People mainly migrate for economic reasons. In the past people chose the land which had the most fertile soil, hence eastern Sicily (where Mount Etna is located) has a much higher population than western Sicily.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

have you considered that it is God's will that people live there? People simply could have gone to these locations after praying and receiving divine providence. As for leaving or staying, this, too, could be a decision made with divine help. 84.153.182.163 (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No. I would never consider that. Vimescarrot (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not appropriate to blame God for what people choose to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

To expand on the points made by Tango, a recent BBC TV series along the themes of natural forces (Earth, Air, Fire and Water, though not in that order, and whose title I have regrettably forgotten - anyone?) asserted that easily exploitable mineral deposits are most often found close to geological faults, so from ancient times onwards, towns and cities preferentially grew in their vicinity, with occasionally tragic results. San Francisco was an example mentioned where the costs of rebuilding after earthquakes are calculably outweighed by the benefits of the location. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

How Earth Made Us, perhaps? --TammyMoet (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That indeed was it. Thanks, TammyMoet. (No Wiki article yet, but mentioned in Presenter Iain Stewart's, by the way.) 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

All useful info. Thanks for the input. Vimescarrot (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Rich and fertile lands tend to have some hazard accompanying the boon. Hawaii's soil produces high quality, high-cost goods (e.g. coffee, vanilla bean), but it's sitting on a volcanic hot spot. Iceland has great prospects for geothemal power -- because it's sitting on a volcanic hot spot over the Mid-Atlantic rift. Kansas is good for growing grains, but then there's the tornados. The west coast of North America is rife with salmon and seafood and verdant crop-growing lands, but there's the prospect of earthquakes and tsunami. Not much hazard in the desert, apart from the temperature issue. But there's not a lot to eat either. Vranak (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Deserts can have earthquakes, flash floods, sand/dust storms. I think the point is that all places on earth can be dangerous at certain times, some more so then others, but not really all that frequently. Googlemeister (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. One doesn't generally think of Ireland as being buffeted by the primal forces of nature in too severe a manner, but then that potato famine wiped out or displaced about a quarter of the population. So even when there's nothing obvious to cause ruin, there may be something insidious and subtle. Vranak (talk) 02:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

how do I develop a sense of rhythm?

how does someone who has absolutely no sense of rhythm (ie for dancing) develop one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.182.163 (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

First, understand how rhythm works with most Western music. Most rock and pop and blues is 4/4 time or 2/2 time. Waltzes are 3/4 time. Those are essentially all that are important for ballroom dancing. Then get some music with a strict rhythm and learn to count the beats. If you have difficulties, there are special dance recordings where an instructor counts the beat for you. Be warned that the music on those is often fairly atrocious, though. If you are interested in pair/group dancing, what is also important is a proper sense of balance and of knowing where your centre of mass is. Even if you know it's time to move your left foot, you cannot do so if you have any weight on it. This leads to an awkward pause while you shift your weight. That pause is often mistaken for a lack of sense of rhythm.-Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Before trying to count beats, you need to be able to find them. Can you clap in time to music? Learning to do that is the first step in getting to grips with rhythm (it's pretty easy from there, really). --Tango (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It helps to have someone show you. I'm thinking of a particular scene in Mr Holland's Opus, where a character helps another learn rhythm by playing music with a clear beat and rhythm, and clapping along with them, and tapping them on the shoulder or arm with the music, with the hope that you can connect it to something in the music. If you don't have someone to help you like that, what can be learned is to separate the bits of music that are the primary parts emphasising the beat. In modern popular music, this is usually (but not always) the drums. Listen for the bass drum. It often sounds on the strongest beat of a measure, so you can find it each measure. When you can hear that reliably, listen for alternating drum hits between them that are stronger than the others. In standard rock and roll (e.g. Rock Around the Clock), the strongest beat is the first one in the measure. Listen for it. Then listen for the third beat in the measure. It's the second strongest beat, half way between each of the strongest beats. Then fill in another one on either side of them, and you have four beats in a measure. It takes a while to get used to it, but classic rock and roll is usually good for hearing it. So is some club music, which has a very strong, regular beat. It's fast though. Steewi (talk) 05:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

April 21

modern lifestyle bring more harm than good to us?

????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Airene Sim (talk • contribs) 10:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This question cannot be answered because:

1. You cannot define harm.
2. You cannot define good.
3. You cannot compare harm (of X) with good (of Y) without first assigning a scalar value to each of them.
4. You cannot come up with a scalar value (for Z) that everyone would agree upon.

122.107.207.98 (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Whilst agreeing with 122.107 that this qwuestion is effectively unanswerable. Evidence in favour of modern life could include...Modern average-life-spans lengths are almost universally higher than historically (how much of this is due to lower Infant mortality i'm not sure). Similarly average Working time has come down in the modern era too and there's evidence to suggest more people have more Leisure time too. It's hard to find out for certain but i've also heard that there since World War 2 the world is a period with very low numbers of wars occuring compared to most of documented history - and i've heard it suggested that modern warfare is less bloody than historic wars (though again it's hard to research). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"It was the best of times... it was the worst of times..." etc. - Dickens. "The quiet past is inadequate to the stormy present." - Lincoln. "The worst moment of being alive is better than the best moment of being dead." - Dennis Miller. 122 is right that it would be difficult to measure. And there's another aspect to this: "Compared to what?" The OP is implying that older lifestyles might have been more good than harmful. But in what sense? What era does he think might be superior to this one? The one where lynchings of minorities evoked a shrug of the shoulders? The era when there was no running water, and if you got sick, you died, end of story? As regards war, look at the casualty figures for World War II compared with Iraq or even Vietnam and tell us if you would prefer to live in that era. "The best time is always right now." - Paul Harvey. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the writings of the Traditionalist School. René Guénon's "The Crisis of the Modern World" would be a good place to start. -Pollinosisss (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Compared to preindustrial life, there are many improvements (as mentioned above) but there are quite a few health problems associated with our recent lifestyles such as increased heart disease and possibly allergies and autoimmune diseases. Also, our chemical and nuclear advancements mean people are more likely to be exposed to harmful substances.\

If we're going further back to pre-agriculture, there are some more stark differences: foraging peoples typically have more leasure time, better nutrition, and a more sustainable lifestyle. It's likely that agriculture became widespread because it supports larger populations (which can then easily conquer foraging peoples and force them to cease their foraging ways) and allows workforce specialization that includes an elite class that rules over others. Since agriculture allows larger populations, it also allows the formation of cities, which then facilitates the spread of diseases.

Going back to the OP's question, you'd have to assign weights to the good things and bad things, which can be pretty subjective. But, now that you know the sort of things to look at, you can decide the answer for yourself. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 17:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

One theory about the "Garden of Eden" and other creation stories is that they express nostalgia for hunting-and-gathering lifestyle ("living off God's bounty") vs. agriculture, in which man attempts to control the environment rather than letting the environment control him. Nostalgia or idealism for the past, and being blind to its negative side, is what led Will Rogers to say, "Things ain't what they used to be... and never was!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

See Doomsday Clock. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The principle of natural selection prohibits outrageously poor practices from continuing very long. Vranak (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Natural selection prevents practices that are poor for the continuation of the species to last very long. It says nothing about individual comfort or the amount of leisure time available. Buddy431 (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that I personally find to be better from the years past is entertainment. Movies and music were, in my opinion, much better than that of today and you didn't have talentless idiots becoming famous for absolutely no good reason. But that aside, I'm thankful to be alive today and I wouldn't have it any other way, even if presented with the opportunity to travel back in time (unless I'm guaranteed that I can return to the present whenever I feel like). From a social and technological point of view, we're the best that we have ever been. That being said, ask any American minority if they think life was better 30-40 years ago, and they will answer you with a resounding "HELL NO!". 24.189.90.68 (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There were always talentless idiots, you just forget about them. And in 25 years you'll forget about today's talentless idiots who seem to be omnipresent. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Reality shows didn't exist back then, did they? Unless the trend of people becoming stars from reality shows, sex tapes and the internet dies down, we'll probably just keep seeing more of the same. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

They had their equivalents—their media spectacles, their celebrities for celebrity's sake. Daniel J. Boorstin's The Image makes this quite clear—he puts Charles Lindbergh in basically that category: carefully engineered media fete (the flight) is then spun out into a personal drama. The trick is that you don't remember most of these kinds of people, and in fact it's always good for a laugh to remind people of who used to be popular for no great reason. (Half of the jokes in Family Guy are based on this kind of humor—remember when MC Hammer was cool? Ha, ha!) --Mr.98 (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Lindbergh was in significant peril during his flight (a French counterpart had disappeared over the Atlantic not long before), and also just happened to be the one who was ready to go from New York, as there were two other American teams at the same airport trying to be the first to fly the Atlantic solo. Regarding "reality shows", that era had its own equivalent (or ancestor) of "American Idol" or "Star Search" (or "The Gong Show"), which was Major Bowes' radio show, the Amateur Hour. He didn't have Simon Cowell, but he had a gong and didn't hesitate to use it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

As a word of warning, I will say that we must be careful when comparing our experiences to the past, because our experiences (i.e. people with access to a computer, probably living in an English speaking country) are not representative of all people's experience. A poor farmer in Ethiopia would almost certainly have been better off in terms of health and leisure if he had lived in a hunter-gatherer society 15 000 years ago than now. Maybe he would have been better off 500 years ago, when those pesky guns weren't so readily attained that make it so easy to slaughter people by the thousands. On the other hand, there have been numerous advances that have benefited even the poorest in recent times: antibiotics, mosquito control, vaccination, etc., so it's not a clear cut case for anyone, and we must assign a subjective metric to get any meaningful results. I just think we should keep in mind that Wikipedia editors are not a representative sample of the world population. Buddy431 (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Native American Culture without European Involvement

I often times find myself wondering what direction native American culture would have gone in had it not been for European settlement. I was wonderng if anyone knows of any fiction related to this idea, or if there are any anthropologist that have theorized about it.--160.36.38.126 (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean no contact at all ? Or would they still be exposed to European alcohol, guns, disease, horses, and ideas ? StuRat (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Fiction? Two sort-ofs: Kim Stanley Robinson's Years of Rice and Salt and Orson Scott Card's Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus. There may be more if you check the Uchronia website. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Fiction relating to the idea would be "Alternate history", and theorising would be "Counterfactual history". List of alternate history fiction has some examples which might fit the bill, including Aztec Century, Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus, Conquistador (novel). I have read none of these, but the plot summaries sound like they might interest you. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, guys.--160.36.38.126 (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Given how thoroughly inaccurate many representations of pre-Columbian Native Americans are, you may also want to check out 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus for a very up-to-date and well-referenced assessment of current knowledge of the topic. Once you know what things were like in 1491, you'll have a better idea how to imagine an alternate 1492 (and onwards). Matt Deres (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

And if you are more in the mood for viewing than reading, try Apocalypto by Mel Gibson. It has taken its fair share of criticism, but I did learn something from it. Vranak (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Correction -- Apocalypto gained some passionate champions in the Hollywood community. Actor Robert Duvall called it "maybe the best movie I've seen in 25 years". Director Quentin Tarantino said, "I think it's a masterpiece. It was perhaps the best film of that year. I think it was the best artistic film of that year." Actor Edward James Olmos said, "I was totally caught off guard. It's arguably the best movie I've seen in years. I was blown away." Vranak (talk)

I thought it was so-so. They missed a golden opportunity when the chief baddie told his minions to jump over a waterfall, while standing in front of them. I expected them to say "you first" and give him a good shove. Not that "our hero" had anything to risk. Anyone who can outrun a jaguar while seriously wounded clearly has super-powers, so he should have just flown away. I was glad to see his father die, though, as he was too stupid to ask why the other villagers were fleeing and take some action to protect his village. And what happened to the village kids ? They just dropped that thread midway thru the movie, it seems. StuRat (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Immaculate conception of Elizabeth?

Just read Luke 1 recently, where Gabriel reveals: "He (John the Baptist) shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb" and "And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible". Is that a reference to immaculate conception of Elizabeth and immaculate birth of John the Baptist? 213.154.11.120 (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The articles on Elizabeth (Biblical person) and John the Baptist seem a little vague on that point. I don't think Lizzy conceiving John was "immaculate", but "merely" miraculous. But it would be better for a biblical expert to step in here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No. An "immaculate conception" is conception in which the child avoids the stain of original sin, and the only person the church has ever thought of in this way was Mary, Mother of God. It refers to the child, not the mother; thus the Immaculate Conception was the conception of Mary by her parents, not Jesus by his. Mary was the result of an immaculate conception. No such claim is made for Elizabeth; the claim is that she miraculously conceived late in life when seemingly barren. - Nunh-huh 19:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's coming back to me a bit: Mary was conceived in a normal way, but God declared that she was without original sin. God Himself became the father of Jesus by impregnating Mary (by turning Himself into a sperm cell, or whatever - those kinds of details were unknown in biblical times). Hence Jesus was born without original sin. Right? The remark in one article about God having graced Liz probably means simply that this miracle happened, not that God took away her original sin. Right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Priests always squirm whenever you press them to elaborate on the dynamics of the Immaculate Conception.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Especially as it's reasonable to assume the beneficent God gave Mary one Holy "Big O" in the process. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

More especially if you're dealing within the Mormon mythos, where God physically schtupped Mary with His big ol' God-penis.-Nunh-huh 19:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

And I bet that's the exact word He used, being Jewish and all. And it came to pass that Mary sang out, "Ah, sweet mystery of life, at last I've found Thee!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

But it may be worth noting that we seem to have slipped into discussing the virginal conception rather than the Immaculate Conception. - Nunh-huh 19:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a common misconception (choke) and which confused me also until you reminded us of it. Mary needed to be free of original sin so that Jesus would also be. There was no such need with cousin Elisabeth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

And for some interesting coincidences (?) regarding naming, check out the articles on Miriam and Elisheva. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I always thought the Magnificat was the Biblical equivalent of an orgasm! --TammyMoet (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If God can't give a woman an orgasm, then who can?!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You cannot be serious! Vranak (talk)

The serious point is, there's no "immaculate conception" in scripture or in early apocrypha. Instead, this is part of what the RCs term "tradition".--Wetman (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, certainly not in those words, but Catholics actually do maintain that their belief in the immaculate conception has a scriptural basis. In fact, they maintain there is a scripture basis for many of the doctrines of Catholicism that Protestants object to. And of course, if one is judging ideas on the basis of their antiquity, the idea of the "immaculate conception" (though not its proclamation as dogma) pre-dated that of "sola scriptura" by centuries. - Nunh-huh 23:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Gendered unemployment question

This week in my Introduction to Economics class, the professor showed us graphs of recent monthly unemployment in the US by gender. I don't have them on hand right now, but I noticed that male unemployment tended to peak at the 1st of each month, whereas female unemployment tended to peak around the 15th of each month. Do you know why this is? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If it was monthly figures, how do you know when in the month the peaks were? --Tango (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Here is a PDF from the US's Bureau of Labor Statistics and they measure everything monthly. I have never heard of an attempt to chart the daily unemployment rate. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said daily. I haven't found the graphs yet, but I remember with certainty that male unemployment peaked at or near the start of each month, and female unemployment at or near the middle - the respective peaks and troughs appeared to alternate almost perfectly. (I know this does sound odd, and I have no idea where my TAs got the graphs from, but they must have gotten them from somewhere.) --Lazar Taxon (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You're going to have to ask your professor. I've never heard of daily unemployment figures. --Tango (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like it's a monthly data set, with the male data justified to sit 'on' the month-line 'crosshair' thing along the axis, with the female one justified to sit between the two months - IE. the male Jan datapoint is directly beneath the line for January on the axis, with the female one halfway between Jan and Feb points. Not sure why the lecturer would set it out that way, though. --Roydisco (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It could simply be reader error. The chart is a monthly barchart with male on the left and female on the right for each month. The reader assumed that the male bar was the first of the month and the female bar was the 15th. -- kainaw™ 16:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't what it was - it was two completely separate line graphs. I think Roydisco might be right. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

April 22

Defendants showing up in court

Is there anyplace I can find the percentage of defendants for criminal cases that were let out on bail bonds that show up to court on different charges? For example, lets say 90% of people who are arrested for domestic violence show up, 85% of people who are arrested for criminal threats, etc... Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.33.234 (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• U.S. data is collected and published by the Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics here's data for 1990-2004, what you asked for is on page 9, table 7. Note that the data is for 75 large urban counties (which, I reckon, are worse-than-average in public safety). NVO (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

What are the big issues in the UK election?

From a US perspective, there don't appear to be a whole lot of difference among the three major UK political parties. They all seem more or less centrist. It's not like in the US where there's more of an obvious difference of opinion between the major parties on taxes, healthcare, abortion, gay rights and so on. Or in the old days when Labour wanted to socialize steel mills.

So what are the big issues that people will be basing their vote on, and how do the main national parties stand on those issues?

I suggested including this info in the article on the election on its talk page but no knowledgeable person seems to have taken up the task. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This poll suggests that the main issues include economic recovery, immigration, crime, health care, education, defence and terrorism. There are different views, particularly on when public investment should take place to stimulate the economy, and how savings in public sector budgets are to be achieved, as well as on things like civil liberties issues. Different polls of course give different results. It's quite surprising that defence issues aren't higher in that list given the fighting in Afghanistan, and also that the trustworthiness of politicians isn't mentioned. In Scotland and Wales, there are also fundamental issues over the extent of devolution. But, if the media are to be believed, the election's actually all about which party leader is better at looking into the camera, and smiling nicely. And many people don't so much vote for a given party or candidate, as vote to stop other parties or candidates winning. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The Telegraph has an interesting quiz which asks your opinions on various issues and proposals, and then tells you the party positions. Since the quiz proposes to help you decide how to vote, it covers issues on which the parties differ. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 07:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) A lot of attention has been paid to the details of economic recovery packages - especially whether National Insurance (a form of income tax) should be put up in order to pay for other government recovery plans. Labour say yes, the Conservatives say no, and I think the Lib Dems say yes too. The Digital Economy Act is a hot-button topic in some quarters. The future of public transport is another. UKIP would like EU membership to be treated as important; the Greens feel the same way about the environment.

As for comparison with the US - all three main parties are no further right than the Democrats, but there's still reasonable difference between them. The Conservatives are fiscally and socially 'right-wing', the Lib Dems are fiscally right-wing and socially left-wing, and Labour are slightly (but not very) left-wing in both areas. Oh, and 'socialise' is what you do when you go down the pub; government-owned industries are nationalised. The use of 'socialize' by Americans to describe this is regarded with some curiosity here - trying to damn thnings by association with 'socialist' doesn't really work so well over this side of the pond. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

As with above, the main issue is economic reform, although I would say that once you get past the superficial stuff, like NI, it centres on whether that should be state supported, Keynsian, and where the investment should go. Labour say yes, Tories say sort of and Lib Dems say not really but keep the momentum.

General priorities are similar; health education, welfare, immigration and the parties differ on how to deal with each of those. Tories and Lib Dems tend to want to encourage private sector engagement and competition, Labour want to maintain state control. Labour and Tories are very authoritarian, Lib Dems tend not to be although the lunatic wing would roll back the policing/ judicial/penal triad quite far.

Two emerging themes are around civil liberties and electoral reform. Labour has presided over state sponsored intrusion on privacy and oppressive security to an excessive level, cheered on by the lunatic wing of the Tories. Centrist Tories and Lib Dems talk about rolling some of that back, the balance between security and liberty is skewed quite badly. With respect to Electoral Reform has only really come up in the last week since the leaders debates, highlighting the structural issues with our electoral system that put parties in power that reflect neither popular support or appropriate share of the vote. That's one of the factors that's driving down democratic participation in the UK.

The big differences between the main parties are around authoritarianism and state involvement in service delivery.

ALR (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, of course, the US parties differ more by rhetoric than by action. You typically hear the more radical voices, but you elect more centrist people. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a detailed and balanced comparison of the policies of the three main parties (and, if you want to see them, all the minority parties too) at the BBC's election web site here. Note that none of the three main parties is proposing to abolish gun control or civil partnerships, make abortion illegal, dismantle the National Health Service, remove evolution from the national curriculum or restore the death penalty. So on the US political spectrum they are all somewhat left of centre. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

In the 1990s, all three main UK parties realised that to win a General Election, you had to appeal to the cemtre ground. A new type of voter had emerged who was neither working class nor middle class, had no ties to any particular party and would vote for whovever they thought was best representing their interests. Referred to as collectivly as Mondeo Man, the parties realised these were votes they needed in order to get a majority. Since then, all the main parties have been competing to sound moderate and sensible. Alansplodge (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

what do you call this literary device?

lets say we have a poem about economic inequality in a country. the poem may show a rich person with branded clothes, then the poor person who is so badly dressed cannot afford to buy proper clothes. then the poem shows a rich person eating in a high class restaurant, then a poor person eating leftovers. next the poem shows a rich person going to his bungalow home while a poor person has to sleep in the street. maybe its a form of juxtaposition but im looking for a more specific term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.218.113 (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"Economic disparity juxtaposition" sounds like the right term, to me. StuRat (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

lol, i mean, the poet wants to draw parellels or comparisons between the state of the rich and the poor. theres no more specific term than juxtaposition?

Is "class juxtaposition" better ? (It's a bit more general, though, as some socially upper-class people are broke, and vice-versa.) There's no term for specifically comparing the rich and poor. StuRat (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

i mean, its not so important what is being compared, but the way the parellels and contrasts are drawn. i know its a generalisation but i guess that is also the way the device works —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.218.113 (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

How about "social/class juxtaposition"?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Though not a literary term, "cross-cutting" comes to mind. (The article even mentions a rich/poor juxtaposition that's very similar to yours.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It could be considered an elaborate form of antithesis. Deor (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Alison FitzEustace's mother

Does anyone happen to know which of Rowland FitzEustace, 1st Baron Portlester's three wives was the mother of Alison FitzEustace, the first wife of Gerald FitzGerald, 8th Earl of Kildare. FitzEustace married firstly, Elizabeth Brune on an unknown (at least to me) date; he married his second wife, Joan Bellew in about 1463; his last wife Margaret Dartas, he married after 1467. Most genealogists have narrowed the possibilities down to the first two, as dates make it almost impossible for the third wife to have been Alison's mother. I appreciate any help I can get as I need the information for an article I recently created. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Political elite in totalitarian countries

Totalitarian countries such as North Korea are, in practice, ruled by a political elite, often with a large contrast to the general public. But this political elite also consists of people. How does one become part of it? Does one have to be born into the elite caste, or does the elite seek out new recruits, or does a normal member of the general public have the opportunity to rise into political ranks on their own efforts? JIP | Talk 20:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This is about the US, but our Power elite article says sociologist C. Wright Mills wrote that "the governing elite in the US primarly draws its members from three areas: (i) the highest political leaders (including the president) and a handful of key cabinet members and close advisers; (ii) major corporate owners and directors; and (iii) high ranking military officers." (I'm quoting the article's paraphrasing of Mills, not quoting Mills directly.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Check out the Communist Party of the Soviet Union#membership. Evidently, people would start out as children in the Young Pioneers, join the Komsomol, and perhaps eventually join the party itself (with the proper connections). The article says that in 1986 about 10% of the population were party members, so obviously not everyone was part of the highest tier political elite. Buddy431 (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

North Korea's elite, from what I understand, is highly family-based. If your great-grandfather was on the wrong side in the 1940s, you can forget about getting into the top schools or becoming a member of the Workers Party. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There were supposedly many slightly different variants of Kim-Il Sung badges (worn obligatorily by all adults during at least ca. 1970-2004) which indicated different categories of people ("reliable", "unreliable", and many gradations in between). Not sure the code was ever fully cracked, and we don't seem to have much about it on Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

UK political journalist, pundit, editor or author?

Who am I thinking about? He is highly intelligent, articulate, aged about 70, not so tall, jewish (I think), gay, has appalling forward-thrusting teeth and looks rather like Nigel Farage. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Howard? - [24]. Married and C of E, though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That is the fellow. Well done. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

April 23

online psychopath test?

is there a test I can take online to see if I have the proclivity to be a murderous psychopath (like Hitler, Stalin, etc). Thanks. 84.153.204.118 (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There are probably joke tests that do something like that. However, if you want a real psychological evaluation, you need to see a real psychologist in person. In other words, make an appointment with a properly trained psychologist and ask for a proper evaluation. One should never self-diagnose oneself based on random stuff found on teh itrewebz, and one should also never ask for nor believe any medical advice one gets on teh interwezb either. --Jayron32 00:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, is "murderous psychopath" a proven diagnosis for Uncle Adolf and Uncle Joe? Or is it just demagogue-haters blowing smoke? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, neither Adolf nor Joseph ever killed anyone. It's called personal responsibility. They may have facilitated tens of millions of deaths combined, but I can't account them indecent for their facilitation of death. Perhaps that is just what made sense in the world they inhabited. Vranak (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw a comment once, possibly an urban legend, that an American reporter somehow once asked Stalin, "When will you stop killing people?" and his answer was, "When it is no longer necessary." Truth or fiction, I expect that was both Stalin and Hitler's view of the situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Expulsion of fugitives from embassy properties?

We all know that police from country A are never allowed to follow fugitives into an embassy of country B. However, are there any restrictions at all on country B's diplomats being able to expel said fugitives if they so desire? For example, let's say a person is convicted of murdering French citizens in the USA and (for some crazy reason) flees into the French embassy; is there any reason that the embassy staff wouldn't be allowed to hand him over to the D.C. police? Moreover, let's say that the embassy staff are allowed to hand him over but find themselves physically unable to remove him from the building; is there any reason that they wouldn't be allowed to call in the D.C. police and have them remove him? The closest parallel I can imagine is the Japanese embassy hostage crisis, but our article seems to suggest that the Japanese government didn't permit Peruvian troops to go in with the use of force. Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is it inappropriate for children to sleep with their parents?

Considering that so many children have a fear of the dark, why is it considered inappropriate for children to sleep with their parents? When did this peculiar "moral" develop? It couldn't always have been this way; I can't imagine any parent 20000 years ago leaving their children alone during the night, when predators were everywhere. --99.237.234.104 (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)