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

October 14

Iranian president

I notice that the past Iranian since revolution including present are ethnic Persians. Is it because that their constitution says that the President of Iran has to be Persian? When was the last time that Iran had a President who was non-Persian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.18 (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

65% of Iran's population is of the Persian ethnic group, according to Demography_of_Iran#Languages_and_ethnic_groups. Noting that all Presidents of the last 30 years have come from this ethnic group would be akin to noting that all Presidents of the United States of the past 240 years (prior to January, 2009) were Caucasian Males, and then asking if there was a law requiring it. There may be cultural contexts which determine that all of the leaders of Iran come from the majority ethnic group (just as there are in the U.S. and many other countries), but that doesn't mean that there are written rules that require it. --Jayron32 03:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ali Khamenei, who was President in the 1980s, is an Iranian Azeri. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, there ya go. --Jayron32 05:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is the relevant section of the Iranian Constitution. It contains no mention of ethnic requirements on the President. This section makes Persian the official language. --Sean 16:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Arrogant American court?

Why would an American judge even think about issuing a restraining order regarding an event in another country which the court has no jurisdiction or authority in? See http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/9091246.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/9080946.stm This and other incidents suggest that American courts regard other countries merely as provinces of America. 92.15.4.145 (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh, back in the 1980s, an American judge sentenced some poor blighter to "transportation to the Australian colonies" for a certain period of time. This was incredibly ignorant and wrong on about 20 different levels, and naturally the sentence was not executed. The judge should probably have been, though. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

IANAL, but the owners of Liverpool are Americans and the company that wants to buy the club is American too. A Texas court can issue a restraining order against a US company, I suppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Strangely enough, that fact is discernible within the articles which the US-hating OP cited. Since the OP obviously did not actually read the articles, is there any reason not to box this one up? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"the US-hating oP"! Please do not troll. 92.15.2.211 (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, OP, please do not troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If this 92 IP is the same one who doesn't like Nazis, we're probably being trolled again. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Not trolling at all. Someone changed the title - I've changed it back. Someone has at least provided a possible explaination - saying that the sellers and buyers of the club are both American. But having re-read both artiocles I cannot see where it says that the club is currently owned by Americans, so the explaination does not seem to be the correct one. The club appears to be owned by several different interests. Edit: However the Liverpool F.C. article says it is currently owned by two American businessmen. 92.15.2.211 (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact of your insistence on that offensive section title is proof enough that you're a troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• WP:INSULT WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Though I am a US citizen and resident, I am the first to admit that US institutions are sometimes guilty of arrogance beyond US borders. However, I don't think that this is such a case. The court is merely blocking a transaction between two US parties. The fact that the transaction involves a property in another country is incidental. If the team were not US-owned, the US court would have no power over its owners. Incidentally, I happen to work for a British-owned corporation. It is entirely conceivable that a court ruling in the UK could affect, or even eliminate, my job. That would not be a case of British arrogance. It would just be part of life in a globalized world. Marco polo (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

See Piper Aircraft v. Reyno[1]. There is a wikipedia article for Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, but it is rather horribly written. The most important facts about the case were that this was a plane crash in Scottland, which killed Scottish citizens, and the plane was registered and operated in Britain. The survivors of the Scottish citizens brough an action against the company who made the plane in California when the plane was manufactured on the other side of the United States in Pennsylvania. The reason why they did this is because the United States gives greater legal protections involving those injured by products than the UK does. Basically, American laws were better for the Scottish than Scottish law. (I find this particularly amusing that they aknowledge this). The case went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, which finally determined that Scottland would be a better place to handle the lawsuit. As you can see, it works both ways. I don't think our Scottish brothers believed America to be a mere province for handling their legal problems. This sort of thing happens a hundred times a year both in the UK and in America. We routinely decide whether these foreign matters should be heard in our courts. Indeed, the Supreme Court ruled in Helcopteros Nacionale v. Hall[2] that a Texas court did not have jurisdiction to handle a crash that happened in Peru. There are thousands of district judges; sometimes they make mistakes. To get more examples of the UK exercising jurisdiction over matters that occurred abroad and by individuals who have never set foot in the UK, do a google search for extraterritorial jurisdiction. The UK routinely does this, particularly with war crimes. Gx872op (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The points here are well made, about the complexities of the modern world with its extensive internationalism - something which, if the OP is sincere (which some of us question), he may be unfamiliar with. The fact is that many corporations have their tentacles in many countries, and while it may a good thing overall, it can get vexingly tricky due to the manifold laws and jurisdictions. I myself work for an international company, and I can assure you that things can get very complicated, and we retain full-time legal staff to deal with that complexity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I would read the extensive coverage that The Guardian website is giving to this story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football). Basically as others have said law in the international system is complicated, and the main concern appears to be not whether or not the court can 'decide' on the Liverpool sale case, but rather what sway the court holds in terms of the ongoing interests that those involved have in the US (at least that's the suggestions i've heard). ny156uk (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. plaintiffs' claim says Dallas is an appropriate jurisdiction because "all parties are subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas based on their continuous and systematic contacts with Texas, the intentional tortious conduct they have directed at this State, and/or other conduct and contacts with this State as alleged herein." That's clearly boilerplate language, and I don't know the background of it. If the case were to go to trial, or at least if it went to an appeals court, that point might be debated further.

It's worth noting that jurisdiction shopping is common in civil law. For example, it's common for patent-holders to sue tech companies in rural Texas, since that area is supposed to have owner-friendly juries, and you can sue someone anywhere the offending product is sold in the U.S. It's not limited to America -- "libel tourism" is the term now used for plaintiffs who sue for libel in a country with strict libel laws, such as the U.K, when the natural jurisdiction is elsewhere. In one instance, a Saudi businessman won a libel judgment against an American author in England over a book that was not sold directly in the U.K. It's also interesting that the British judge in the Liverpool case has one-upped the Texas judge by ordering the U.S. plaintiffs to withdraw their U.S. claim or be held in contempt of court in the U.K.! -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Prison ID of Valerie Suzette Friend

I'm trying to find the prison ID of Valerie Suzette Friend, who was a federal death row inmate. I'm trying to find out her location, to see if she is in Carswell (with the other two federal death row inmates).

Her news story is at:

• "Lecco and Friend Sentenced to Death." WOWK. Tuesday May 29, 2007.

"A federal jury on Tuesday sentenced two Mingo County residents to death for murdering a drug informant. George "Porgy Lecco, 57, and Valerie Friend, 33, received a death sentence recommendation for the death of 33-year-old Carla Collins in April 2005. "

So we know she was a federal DR inmate. It's just that I can't find her record on the inmate locator at http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp

According to:

• Goad, Julia Roberts. "Friend escapes death, gets life." Williamson Daily News. October 2, 2009.

She now has a life sentence, but she should still be listed in the BOP database

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't find her, either. If I were you I would contact each reporter of the news stories about this (such as here and here; both have e-mail links) to ask whether the reporter or editor has any insight. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This article from July 2010 says, "In addition to the cooperation in the Lecco case, Friend is helping authorities who are investigating allegations that corrections officers had improper sexual contact with female inmates at the Carter County Detention Center in Kentucky, where she has spent much of the five years she has been in custody, he said." Dalliance (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Aha, so she must not have been incarcerated in the federal system. Thank you for helping me :) WhisperToMe (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Americans ancestry

I remembering reading something somewhere (helpful, I know) that was something along the lines of 1 in x Americans are desended from whomever. Anybody know of something like this? Personally, I'm decended from John Alden, and I'm sure a decent percentage of other Americans are as well. Grsz¹¹ 17:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This is similar to Descent from Genghis Khan. I know I had a history teacher in grade school who was descendant from Ulysses S. Grant. My grandfather talks about our family descending from Charlemagne. Although whenever someone purports this, it's not readily proven, and a polite "really?" works nicely. schyler (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Everyone in Europe is "descendent" from Charlemagne due to a book that someone published a long time ago that listed all the descendants of Charlemagne. The problem with the book is that wealthy (or even somewhat well-off) families could get into the book by just purchasing one of the ancestors. After it was published, people took it as fact and suddenly everyone was some part royalty. It really makes ancestry.com a bunch of garbage because people use the book as proof of their ancestors on there. ...searching... Found the book for sale here. -- kainaw™ 19:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, Charlemagne had 20 "official" children, and there are ~1200 years (or 40 generations) since his reign. Assuming only 2 surviving children per generation (i.e. the replacement rate - it should really be a lot higher for the first few generations, if Carlo the Big is in any way typical), and no inbreeding (we know that this is a wrong assumption, but what the heck ;-), he should have about 10¹² descendants if you start with his generation, and 10 times more if you start with the generation of his official children. So it's not impossible that everybody of recent European descent has him somewhere up in the tree. Of course, you probably also have about one million average yokels somewhere in there - the exponential growth works both ways... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The average yokels being the ones who get the actual work done. :) To be descended from some old-time figure, they have to have been prolific enough to start with a broad based, as you're suggesting. I think I read that there are no longer any living descendants of President Lincoln, and that's in no small part because he only had one child that grew to adulthood. And anyone checking to see if they're descended from his predecessor, President Buchanan, is likely out of luck. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Lincoln's last confirmed living descendant, his greatgrandson Robert Todd Lincoln Beckwith, died in 1985. There is some possibility that Timothy Lincoln Beckwith may be Robert Beckwith's son, but he claimed it wasn't his son, and Timothy has never had a paternity test. --Jayron32 22:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

We're forgetting other possible illegitimate offspring besides Timothy Beckwith. There may be Lincoln descendants around due to the fact that birth control (prior to 1967),if it was practised at all, was notoriously unreliable.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No, you have it backwards. Timothy Beckwith's mother claimed that Timothy was legitimate, Timothy's father denied that he was (he basically disowned him as his offspring) while Timothy has been officially coy on the matter, refusing to confirm or deny his own legitimacy. In otherwords, he is either a) a legitimate decendant of Honest Abe (if his mother is to be believed) or b) of no relation to the Lincoln family (if his (not-)father is to be believed). --Jayron32 06:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That still does not negate my point. It's possible that either Honest Abe himself or his son fathered illegitimate offspring. That was what I was trying to say.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Alden had 11 children. If you assume that they each had on average 2 children who became adults and their descendants too, and if you assume that there were 16 generations since his death (323 years / 20 years for each generation), then there are today 720,868 descendant of Alden. --Lgriot (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What about the descendants of Pocahontas? There are a lot of Vitginia families which claim her as an ancestress.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Stephan Schulz above: if you take a person who lived long enough ago and whose family didn't die out early enough, then most likely everyone on Earth today is descended from them. It is this reason why I claim to be a son of Beren and Lúthien – but then you know royal blood doesn't make you a better or worse person in any way. – b_jonas 14:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Scholarships

I am an American Permanent Resident (Green card holder) and would prefer not to become a citizen. To what extent would my scholarship opportunities be limited, and does this vary according to prestige of school? Thanks. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Scholarship opportunities are going to vary from school to school, and I doubt there's a strong correlation between scholarship delta as a foreign national and "prestige" (however that's defined). Generally, US universities seem to encourage foreign national attendance, so while some scholarships will definitely be off-limits to you, I don't know that I'd assume that less is available collectively. All that said, rather than getting a vague handwavy answer here, why not just contact the admissions departments of some schools you're interested in? You'll no doubt get a more detailed and more accurate answer. — Lomn 13:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Voting record - Canada's election to Security Council

Is it possible to see which countries voted for, or against Canada's election to a non-permanent seat to the Security Council? 132.205.215.33 (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This UN webpage says that recorded votes are only undertaken if specifically requested beforehand. Normally, only a summary of the result is made available. Dalliance (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It was a secret vote. No one can know who voted for whom unless countries declare openly who they voted for. But it is not in their interest to do so, as many had promised their vote to all three candidates. --Xuxl (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

October 15

How did Albert Battel escape punishment?

I'm watching a documentary about the Holocaust and discovered the amazing story of Albert Battel, a lieutenant in the Wehrmacht who helped save a hundred Jews under SS control. What makes the story especially amazing is that the Jews were already in a Jewish ghetto under SS guard. Battel threatened to send his troops in and force entry unless the SS freed about a hundreds Jews. (I don't think he saved all the Jews, just the ones who worded for him.) The SS guards backed down and released them. Battel then sheltered some of them to basement of the army headquarters. According to our article on him, Battel also ordered the bridge over the River San, the only access into the Jewish ghetto, to be blocked. As the SS commando attempted to cross to the other side, the sergeant-major in charge of the bridge threatened to open fire unless they withdrew. The SS opened a secret investigation and recommended that Battel be arrested after the war. My question is why did the SS want to wait until after the war to arrest Battel? I thought the SS had more power than that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia goes into a bit more detail:

Battels Intervention für die „Wehrmachtsjuden“ konnte als logistische Notwendigkeit hingestellt werden. Offenbar kamen Battel wie auch Liedtke mit geringfügigen disziplinarischen Strafen davon: Stubenarrest, Rücknahme des Kriegsverdienstkreuzes und der Versetzung an anderen Einsatzort.[2] Möglicherweise besteht ein ursächlicher Zusammenhang zu einem später erlassenen Befehl des Oberkommandos des Heeres vom 31. Oktober 1942, in dem Offizieren eine „kompromisslose Haltung“ gegenüber dem Judentum abverlangt wird; andernfalls sei ein Offizier untragbar.

Norbert Haase stellt heraus, dass eine Versetzung an die Front oder schärfere Sanktionen ausblieben. Vorgefundene situative Möglichkeiten, ein Gruppenzusammenhalt in der Wehrmacht wie auch biografische Dispositionen hätten zum erfolgreichen Rettungshandeln geführt.

Unfortunately, I don't speak German, and the Google translation is unclear. Perhaps a German-speaking reader can translate? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a very good question. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The Google translation of the German page has this line:

"Norbert Haase turns out that a dislocation, the front or stayed away from tougher sanctions. Corpus situational opportunities, a group cohesion in the Wehrmacht as well as biographical dispositions that led to the successful rescue action."

which sounds like it might be something like an answer (unsourced though), whatever it is it's trying to say. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me try. (My German is a bit rusty but I think I get the gist of that.)

Battel's intervention in favour of the "Wehrmacht Jews" could be put down as dictated by logistical needs. Clearly Battel as well as Liedtke were let off with only insignificant disciplinary measures: barracks arrest [don't know the English term], forfeiture of the Kriegsverdienstkreuz and a transfer. A possible extenuating circumstance may have been the fact that the order from the High Command requiring officers to assume an "uncompromising attitude" towards Jews had been issued only after the incident, on 31 October 1942

Norbert Haase points out that no one was transferred to the front or given any harsher punishment. The success of the rescue may have been the result of opportunity, group cohesion in the Wehrmacht as well as personal dispositions.

Or something. Haase is a historian who specializes in German resistance to Nazi rule.--Rallette (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

And as to the original question: from what I read in the German article, Battel was technically within his rights to block the SS from crossing the river, since the area had been shut off and the Wehrmacht was in charge. And the people he saved were working for the Wehrmacht, so he could indeed claim he needed them.--Rallette (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

If your Italian is stronger than your German, you might be able to pick up a few extra details (such as the year Battel joined the NSDAP, 1933) from the Italian version, it:Albert Battel. (There's also a version in Russian-language Wikipedia.) —— Shakescene (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Most evil female in history

I know we had a similar question a while back regarding the most evil human being of all time. I am curious as to which female (with the exception of biblical personages) is regarded as the most cruel-and yes, evil- in recorded history? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

According to this 'source' Elizabeth Bathory could be the one you're looking for..Sealedinskin (talk) 07:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahhhh, she was the person I had in mind for the number 1 place. I was curious as to whether there were any others who outdid her in sheer barbarity, which is why I posted the question. In the 20th century alone Ilse Koch, Jeanne Weber, and Myra Hindley would surely fit the bill.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you intend to run for the post and want to check out the competition? ;-) Anyways, here are some candidates (I'll leave of 20th and 21st century for now to avoid derailing this into a political debate):

• Julia Agrippina, mother of Nero, who, according to some sources "poisoned everybody" to ensure "proper" succession. Of course, we don't know if these speculations are right.
• Caterina Sforza (who allegedly said "I can bear more" when her hostage children where threatened with death - of course, a man would probably be lauded for putting the interest of the state before his own children).
• Madame de Brinvilliers, serial poisoner.

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

There is also Catherine de Medici, who instigated the infamous St. Bartolomew's Massacre in which Huguenots of all ages were brutally murdered in the streets of Paris. And Catherine Monvoisin a contemporary of Madame de Brinvilliers.As for wishing to run for the post? No way, Jose, I don't have mean-looking eyes. Who would I be able to intimidate?!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Do rent Barbarella. Cute looks are no obstacle for absolute evil - they may even be an advantage (and no, I'm not referring to Jane Fonda, but to the man-eating dolls ;-). And our list misses "the Warden" from any WIP flick. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

While I do admire Jane Fonda, I much prefer Anita Pallenberg. She personified the 1960s!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Also Ranavalona I. --151.51.28.10 (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

More fun if you allow fictional characters. I vote for Nurse Ratched. The Marquise de Merteuil probably makes the list, as does Dolores Umbridge, but neither of them really comes close to the good nurse. --Trovatore (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

According to Christian mythology Eve - without her none of the others would have been evil. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Biblical, mythological and fictional personages do not count. I am referring to actual historical women. They need not be connected with politics.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think one can really rank such people, but if a list is to be compiled, there have been a number of baby-farmers who certainly deserve a place on it.--Rallette (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Rosemary West was fairly horrible. Then there was Beverley Allitt. --Viennese Waltz 09:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Griselda Blanco was pretty unpleasant, though I don't know about "most evil." She certainly demonstrated that men have no monopoly on sociopathic violence... --Mr.98 (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher War monger and no friend to the working class Mo ainm~Talk 16:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

With the lack of a universal quantification of "evilness" this question can not really be fully answered. Though there have been some candidates put forth, it would be impossible to say which is the most evil. Googlemeister (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Magda Goebbels who murdered her 6 children. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure killing your children puts you as "evil." Lots of parents kill their own children when they think that unspeakable horror would otherwise confront them. I don't have any children but if I thought they'd be beaten and raped by Soviet troops I might consider the morphine plus cyanide a better way out. Whether or not her fears were justified is an entirely separate matter, but it doesn't make her "evil". She certainly didn't kill them because she enjoyed killing children. It was probably a very hard thing for her to do. (None of which is any attempt to say that the Goebbels were victims or anything, but I don't think she ranks on the "evil" list at all.) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Killing your own children ranks you as evil in my book, whatever genitalia you happen to have. Killing them because you can't bear for them to live in a world without Nazism puts you pretty high up the list of evil. DuncanHill (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of people who kill their own children do so out of fear that worse is about to happen to them. Often these fears are unfounded or due to them being mentally ill or what have you. But they're doing it out of a "greater good" impulse. I can't say I find that "evil" — I generally just find it to be sad. Whether being a Nazi or being a fan of Nazism makes you evil or not is an entirely separate question. She was probably right that things wouldn't have worked out well for her and her kids in a postwar world. She's certainly not a contender for most evil woman in the world, though, however you slice it. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Something worse than being murdered? You mean something like "not being murdered"? DuncanHill (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I could understand a parent killing their own children as painlessly as possible when they've been kidnappen by a psychotic serial killer known for brutally raping and torturing his or her victims, inflicting as much pain as possible for as long as possible, perhaps even with the medical training and equipement to revive the victims when necessary. Since we're talking WW2, I could understand a parent killing their children rather then letting Josef Mengele get his hands on them if they knew what he might do. Obviously you don't see things the same as me or Mr.98 although I would note understanding doesn't mean you have to agree with it. Note of course in both these cases the children would eventually almost definitely be murdered, from your POV, it's better the parent let them suffer and then die rather then kill them quickly but no one said not being murdered had to be involved. Nil Einne (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

More possibilities: Jiang Qing, Mao's wife and a figure in China's disastrous Cultural Revolution; Nazi war criminals Irma Grese, Juana Bormann, Elisabeth Volkenrath and Ilse Koch; Isabella I of Castile, supporter of the Inquisition and queen of Spain during the expulsion of Jews and Muslims; and quasi-fascist Argentine President Isabel Peron -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

On a slightly different tack, we have Hetty Green, who was fantastically rich but also fantastically miserly, so much so that her son was said to have lost his leg because she was unwilling to pay for proper treatment. After years of believing this story, I am devastated to now read that it was only partially true. But what the hell. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The heretic Elizabeth I.
Sleigh (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Gloriana evil? Never! Bloody Mary on the other hand... DuncanHill (talk) 03:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I always thought Sharon Osbourne seemed pretty nice, really, but she is married to the Prince of Darkness Himself, and it sounds like she can get a bit bitchy at times. Does that sort of thing count, or do you have to actually kill a lot of people? Catherine the Great killed a lot of people. But, then, so did Jeanne d'Arc, too. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't mean "evil" in the way that the archetype of Lilith represents a kind of "feminine evil", right? You're asking about women who have exhibited what is usually considered a more "masculine" variety of evil (which is what "politics" has traditionally been a realm of...)? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually meant evil in the sense of a female Adolf Hitler, Cesare Borgia, Vlad the Impaler. A woman whose ruthless actions and cruelty brought death, destruction and misery to many people. I personally nominate Catherine de Medici and Elizabeth Bathory to share pole position. There is also this lady: Helena Palaiologina who was pretty wicked (she poisoned her son-in-law, cut off the nose of her husband's mistress), but she was not quite in the Bathory-de Medici class.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh. So I guess Karla LaVey just wouldn't cut it... WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no. I should also add Margaret of Anjou, whose actions during the War of the Roses were quite ruthless and bloody. After all she encouraged her Lancastrian troops to rape and plunder the villages they passed through, not to mention the crowned heads of her enemies placed upon York Gate at her order following the Battle of Wakefield. Queen Mary I of England wasn't a very nice lady either. The 20th century needs to include the horrible Sarah Louise Northcott.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

just trying for a little humor to lighten a sad and serious subject - it;s still Friday night my time! ;)

But all of the real "paragons" of Human Evil (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Napoleon, Benedict Arnold, the Medici Princes (m.)... etc etc etc) – all the "most evil of the evil" are males, aren't they? In that sense of "evil". I wonder why that might be...? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Because they all hold positions of power, which women were essentially excluded from, for most of history. Yes, there have been occasional female rulers, but they have been so rare as to each be notable just for being female. Women don't orchestrate genocides because they are not in a position to do so. It may be very different had we had gender equality in government for the past so many centuries... --Jayron32 04:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That's what I was thinkin', too. (six comments up, counting yours) May I ask, Jeanne, if your list is to be used for some purpose (an article, perhaps?), or were you just interested in maybe hearing of possibilities you hadn't thought of before? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiDao, your last question is correct. I was/am interested in learning about women of whom I had not been aware of before. I must reply to Jayron that when it comes to attaining and retaining power, history has shown us that the (lamentably) few female sovereigns throughout the centuries have been capable of displaying the same levels of ruthlessness as men. The previously-cited Catherine de Medici is one of the best wxamples; then we have Agrippina as has been mentioned already. In addition to these charmers, there have been a series of medieval Byzantine females who would make your skin crawl.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree fully with you there, it's why I implied that had women had equal access to power, we'd likely see more female genocidal leaders. Even so, its likely that as a percentage of total world leaders, the numbers of genocidal female leaders is roughly the same percent as found among the males. There's just such a smaller number of absolute examples. --Jayron32 05:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"Agree" more-or-less pending hard stats. One wonders if perhaps the "ruthlessness" required to gain access to and then wield "power" (genocidally or not) in the first place is manifest on average more often in males than in females, for reasons involving the course of our evolutionary history, ie. in the balance of evolutionarily advantageous differences (hormonal, psycho-emotional, developmental, etc) between the sexes. To put it differently: if women are as "ruthless" as men when it comes to wielding worldly "power", then why haven't as many women as men in history gained and wielded that power (ruthlessly or not)? I think there are gender differences (on average) in the way "ruthlessness" is manifested and in the kind of "power" women tend to naturally possess, pursue, cultivate, and actually then wield. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 06:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well in the past, power was typically gained on the battlefield by force of arms. Few women excelled at combat, so that excluded them in that arena. Then you had the laws of primogeniture and the Salic Law, both of which favoured men. Today, we see more females in the political sphere. Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister of the UK from 1979 to 1990. Angela Merkel is Chancellor of one of the most powerful nations in Europe. Hilary Clinton is US Secretary of State.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes. There is a change underway in the social environment, making political leadership for women far more a viable possibility than in the past. "Power" in the past was, as you say, and with which I have been agreeing, determined more by typically male qualities.

I wonder if this shift towards more equitable political power-sharing between the genders might eventually also have some overall effect of shifting the level of "ruthlessness" (of the typically male-variety, eg. war-fighting and so on) of the wielding of political power down a notch or two...? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

[]63.17.76.14 (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

These chicks are Rainbow Brite compared to Ann Coulter. LANTZY^TALK 08:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"Amen" to that, brother... WikiDao ☯ (talk) 08:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to add the horrible Maria Mandel to the list. She killed over half a million people!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say Empress Lü Zhi considering what she did to her rival Consort Qi and her son and Wu Zetian according to legend she strangled her own child (who was only a princess not the desired prince) so she could frame her rival. Also if you want to get legendary there is Daji who cut open a pregnant woman to see what it would look like.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is I'm surprised that no one has mentioned any ex-girlfriends/ex-wives, and thankful that no one has mentioned their mother. --Ludwigs2 05:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that's what no one has done...? ;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You dated Ann Coulter? Or is she your mother? Nil Einne (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)</small?>

October 16

website english singular plural

Is there a website where I can find words like phenomenon-singular and phenomena-plural, datum-singular and data-plural and etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.17.9 (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen English plural? Rojomoke (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

There are so many websites that provide that information you are asking for. Try typing "plurals of nouns" in search engines.

Name of a fictional Native American Tribe

I am thinking about writing a short story concerning a young Native American boy who becomes an apprentice to the Thunderbird deity. I don't want to be hindered by having to adhere to the customs / beliefs of a real world tribe, therefore, I want to create a fictional tribe of my own. I'm open to name suggestions for this fictional tribe. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I might suggest looking at a lists of Native American words for existing tribes (e.g. [3]), and picking one that sounds good and has a meaning that makes sense as a name for your fictitious people (after checking that it already isn't a name of a tribe, of course). For example, the Blackfoot word for "man/men" is "Nínaawa". It'd be possible that a fictitious tribe related to (or near) the Blackfoot might be called "men"/"Ninaawa". It'd probably be good if you picked a tribe in the same general location as your story is set (e.g. if set in Arizona, pick someone like the Southern Paiute rather than the Blackfoot, who are from Montana.) If nothing else, looking at a Native American word list will give you a better sense of what real Native American words sound like. -- 174.24.199.14 (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for actually contributing something useful to this section. That is an interesting website. My tribe will most likely be an amalgam of those from the plains and South America. I will borrow lightly from their individual cultures to make my own. I'm thinking the story will take place prior to the European settlement in America. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want to avoid offense, you might also want to specify in any accompanying notes that this is not based on any specific tribe, and you might even want to go the whole hog and make them a tribe (not Native American) in some alternative universe, which happens to be based on your impressions of Native Americans, thus avoiding writing about the beliefs and practices of a group of people inaccurately. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be best either to stick with a particular NAtive American culture and their system - or to not set the story in a Native American setting. The world has seen enough fake Native American stories - call the tribe N'avi or something...·Maunus·ƛ· 02:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

How interested are we in Ruritania nowadays?--Wetman (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

A school friend and I had a "fake summer camp name" game which was, in retrospect, a "fake Indian tribe" game. Basically we would just mash together a lot of anglicized Iroquoian morphemes, yielding strings like Chickapawntuck and Wockaswannee and Muckapawnsett. Pretty puerile stuff. Nothing like Little Pwagmattasquarmsettport. LANTZY^TALK 03:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the effect you want to have. Compton Mackenzie's comedy The Monarch of the Glen (novel) (1941) gives his American entrepreneur an honourary membership in a native American tribe. Chester Royde Jr was inducted into the Caraway nation. At your peril. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Confused about my rights in Europe

Here's the deal: I'm an Australian who derived Irish citizenship through descent a few years ago, and therefore I hold an Irish passport without ever having been there. I recently entered Europe for the first time, flying direct to Berlin, and I'm now living here for about a month while my friend (who is just Australian) goes through the rigmarole of getting a British working visa, because we're going to try to live and work in London. Our Finnish roommate mentioned in passing that she needed to register her address with the police every three months or so, which confused me, and she didn't do a very good job of explaining why. Correct me if I'm wrong (and apparently I am) but I thought as an EU citizen I was permitted to remain indefinitely in any EU country. When I went through immigration they didn't scan or stamp my passport or anything. They really should TELL you stuff like this... 92.206.186.237 (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You do have the right to live in any EU or EEA country. The best place to get information about any formalities is the embassy of your country (the republic of Ireland) in the country in which you wish to live. When I lived in Denmark I had to register with the local council, and got a nice shiny residence permit. DuncanHill (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

But that's the thing - why did you have to register, and get a residence PERMIT? 92.206.186.237 (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I mean, assuming you were an EU citizen. 92.206.186.237 (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I was and am an EU citizen. The permit is issued "as of right", but it has the equivalent of National Insurance and National Health numbers, so you can access employment and healthcare exactly as if you were a Danish citizen. Not sure what the procedures in Germany are - I did work there for a couple of weeks, but don't remember having to register or anything. Check with your embassy - they get paid to know this stuff!— Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanHill (talk • contribs)

above added by someone else not me, unsigned and I'm lazy to find out who

Your mistake may be your presumption that just because you have the right to reside somewhere means you don't have to register with anyone. In some countries people (including citizens) are expected to register with someone whenever they move. I think this may include some EU countries as well in which case it's perhaps not surprising that other EU citizens are also expected to register when in those countries. However I'm also not sure if there's actually anything in EU law preventing member countries from requiring people to register their address even if it's not required of citizens. In any case, some examples of discussion of registration requirements in some EU countries [4] [5] [6]. The German one actually does suggest it's something common to all Germans. These say they are reference only so I would suggest you check with a better source if it actually matters, such as in your current case. For example [7] [8] or with your embassy as has beem suggested. Note that all these were found with simple internet searches. Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Found this EU site which gives free advice on your rights. DuncanHill (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

In Germany and Austria you need to register your place of residence. In Germany, it's even entered on your ID card. I'm fairly certain that you also need to register in France. I don't think I registered anywhere when living in Britain, but I went through some hoops in Italy - don't remember if this was just for getting a tax number or also involved residency. If you fail to register in Germany, it's a fairly minor offence. In theory you pay a small fine if caught, but in practice you are nearly never caught, and it's not prosecuted except in very rare circumstances. This does not affect your right to live or work in the EU, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

EU citizens in the UK are required to register to vote. You don't have to do anything proactive, though, just answer the letter when it comes (as it does once a year to every residence). Algebraist 16:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Only the householder is required to register the inhabitants of the house, so it is easy (and legal) to slip through this net. Dbfirs 08:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• The Irish Embassy in Germany has a website here - they will be able to give you specific advice. DuncanHill (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Having lived in Germany, I can confirm that anyone living there, including a native-born German, is legally required to register with the police. This is not about getting a residence permit, it is just a requirement of all residents. They will ask you to show documentation proving your right to be in Germany. (In your case, this would be your Irish passport.) See Resident registration. To people from countries with a tradition of English common law, the requirement may seem a little creepy and Big Brotherish, but it is wise to respect the laws of the country where you are living even if you find them odd. Marco polo (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

A citizen of the Irish Republic wouldn't need to register in Britain, wouldn't need a passport even, but might want to check out how to get a National Insurance number. I noted that the EU website mentioned above had sections for "workers and pensioners" and "students". My impression is that you have the right within the EU to live in any country for the following purposes: on holiday, to work, to look for work, to study, to start a business, to work in a business, to retire, as a dependant of a worker, student, pensioner or business owner. That covers most cases but not all. Other than that, you don't necessarily have a right to live in another EU country. Solution: register with the JobCentre or equivalent to look for work. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. It shouldn't really matter at the moment, since I'll be leaving in a few weeks for London, but it's good to know in the future if I ever live on the mainland again. Marco Polo, you're right, it does seem creepy and weird - obviously to the point that it never even occurred to me that it would be neccesary. Not as weird as the shelf toilets though. 92.206.186.237 (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Pretoria - official or administrative?

In the article list of national capitals I asked:

According to this article, Pretoria is the official capital of South Africa, but according to the articles Pretoria, South Africa, Cape Town and others, it's the administrative capital. Is that a mistake? 82.166.216.211 (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

13:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.188.44 (talk)

According to our South Africa article:

"South Africa has three capital cities: Cape Town, the largest of the three, is the legislative capital; Pretoria is the administrative capital; and Bloemfontein is the judicial capital."

They can probably all be described as "official" capitals, whatever that means. Rojomoke (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"Official" usually means it's stated in some law, regulation, statute, formal decree, whatever. For example, the official capital of the USA is the entire District of Columbia, because it says so in some law or other. The capital for all practical purposes is the city of Washington, but it alone is not the official capital as such. What official status, if any, any of South Africa's 3 capitals has - search me. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Historically, the Union of South Africa was created out of three seperate colonies, Cape Colony, Orange Free State, and Transvaal Colony. The capital cities of these colonies were, respectively, Cape Town, Bloemfontaine, and Pretoria. When they merged to form the union, rather then designate any one of these as the National capital, it was agreed to establish a sort of power-sharing situation where each city would take some of the functions of the national government. Officially, all three are considered capital cities. It is not the only country in the world with capital cities of an odd status like this. Amsterdam has always been the "official designated capital" of the Netherlands, but The Hague has almost always been the "seat of government", i.e. its a strange situation where the Government doesn't actually operate out of the capital. A similar situation exists in Bolivia, where Sucre is the designated capital, but the government works out of La Paz. --Jayron32 23:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

St. Louis Gateway Arch

Can you tell me how much, if anything, the architect Eero Sarinan was paid for the design of the St. Louis Arch?76.115.151.53 (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It isn't mentioned in our article Gateway Arch. According to Eero Saarinen: Shaping the Future, the five finalists (which also included teams by T. Marshall Rainey; Berger, Hornbostel, and Lewis; Phillips and Eng; as well as Harris Armstrong) each received USD 10,000 for the second stage of the competition in 1947. The final prize money Saarinen's team received from the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial Association amounted to USD 40,000. (Saarinen, Pelkonen, Albrecht, Taidehalli; Eero Saarinen: Shaping the Future, Yale Universtiy Press (2006), p 226). ---Sluzzelin talk 14:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

In all likelihood there was far more paid for the detailed design and engineering of the Arch, as $50,000 would not have sufficed for such a large project even in the 1960s. This might be a question for the National Park Service at Jefferson National Expansion Memorial. Total architecture and engineering fees probably were between 5% and 15% of the construction cost - $650,000 to $1,950,000.Acroterion _(talk) 13:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Maratha people with Jain Surname

I was reading this page for Maratha Caste (under Castes of India)to find any information on Maratha people with surname Jain. One of my friends is a Maratha from Mumbai but his surname is Jain, which is otherwise a different caste in India. I was curious to find out his origins as Maratha although even his forefathers belong to Maratha caste. Could you possibly find any literature with such kind of example (Caste different as oppose to surname ) particulary Maratha people with Jain Surname ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.42.124 (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought the name Jain indicated a religion, rather than a caste. Rojomoke (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

In a South Asian context, you can rarely separate caste, religion and community. --Soman (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

French texts

What are some easy but good (as in good literature) French texts (written by and for native speakers, of course), preferably not too long, that are good for introducing French learners to French literature? Thanks. --Nichols. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(Based on some of the first things outside textbooks we read in French classes at school): Any of the Le petit Nicolas books, Le Petit Prince, Simenon's Commissaire Maigret stories, Une vie de boy. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

We did an excerpt from Le Comte de Monte-Cristo, which I loved. It's probably much too long to do the whole thing though. Jules Verne also wrote in French, though I've never read any of his works in French (so I'm not sure how difficult they are, and again, probably too long to do the entire thing). Buddy431 (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the Maigret stories. In school we also read some short stories, like The Necklace by Maupassant and The Guest by Camus, which were not too difficult. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I can second Le Petit Prince, as I also read that text during my first year of French in high school and at the time managed to understand most of it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Alphonse Daudet, Le Petit Chose.--Wetman (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Alain Robbe-Grillet's Djinn was written for the purpose of gradually introducing readers to increasingly more difficult aspects of the French language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The only novel in French that I've ever tackled was La Gloire de mon père by Marcel Pagnol. I'd seen the film and thought it would help me to follow the text, however the two differ quite a lot towards the end. Alansplodge (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I vote for Le Silence de la mer by Vercors. An A-level set text in the UK. --Viennese Waltz 07:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of good answers already, so I'll go a bit the other way and suggest the Asterix comic books. Though originally French, they've been translated into a staggering number of languages so that they're almost surely available in the person's native tongue as well. Also, being comics, there are visual cues to help with understanding. Matt Deres (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The Adventures of Tintin! BrainyBabe (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Marshall Field and Co.

Did Marshall Field and Co. manufacture blankets for the US Army during World War IMinerva34 (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC) and if so, what would be on the label?Minerva34 (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

October 17

Name of Science Fiction Novel

Many years ago I read a science fiction novel in which people lived in vast tower blocks and spent much of their time in some sort of dream state where they could influence their dreams. Unknown to them, they were actually influencing events on earth. I think the book had the word "Dream" or "Dreamers" in the title. Ring any bells with anybody? Japier 00:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossdeep (talk • contribs)

You might like to narrow it down with anything else you remember, like how old the book was roughly, when you read it, anything else you remember: so far, I suspect there are many stories that fit. But, wildly stab in the dark, it wasn't The Lathe of Heaven, was it? 109.155.37.180 (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

sounds a bit more like Wine of the Dreamers to me. but yeah, more information would help. --Ludwigs2 01:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

That's it - also known as "Planet of the Dreamers". Thanks a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossdeep (talk • contribs) 22:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I always wished John D MacDonald wrote more SciFi. The few he wrote (IMO) were better than most of the Travis McGee books that he's famous for. but such is life... --Ludwigs2 00:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

moral relativism

is there any ethical theory etc that would have influenced Germans' judgments regarding their actions during theHolocaust (murdering civilians of their own country who were in good standing), or were they just, simplistically, morally depraved monsters, to a man?

for example, as an American when people talk about war crimes american troops commit against civilians in Iraq, I think they don't realize that there is a moral theory working, that it is good to spread American freedom to dictatorships. was there any "moral theory" working during the Holocaust? 92.224.205.50 (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

See Dehumanization. One way to make atrocities fit into a moral code is to deny the humanity of the victims of the atrocity. If blacks aren't real people, American slavery becomes tolerable. If women aren't real people, mysogyny becomes explanable. If Jews aren't real people, there is no longer the moral quandry of dealing with real people. --Jayron32 01:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, see Demagogy. If it wouldn't have been for a strong central figure to rally round (whom around to rally?) then there may have been no World War 2. schyler (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Also see Hannah Arendt and Banality of evil - this is a really good explanation of why people do what is evil even when judged by their own ethical system. Ethical systems and moral philosophy is often very far from daily life. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspect you're not using the correct terminology. moral philosophy is an esoteric field that few people pay any attention to. There is a sense in which the core Nazi ideology was built around (a misinterpretation of) the moral philosophies of Neitzche and Heidegger, but that would have had almost no impact on the common soldier or the common citizen. You seem to be reaching more towards the influence of propaganda. In the Nazi case that would have been eugenics type arguments: the people subject to the holocaust were broadly portrayed as less than human, soldiers and citizens were exposed to rhetoric about the ascendency of the german 'race' and its right to expand into and dominate other regions. It's usually neither possible nor necessary to convince a person to do something he/she would normally consider evil; all that's required is to convince him/her that someone more important and significant has made the decision for what must be valid reasons, and most people will comply, even if they have reservations. see Milgram experiment--Ludwigs2 01:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

And it's not like Jews "were in good standing" in Germany before that. They were there, and there were lots of them, but they were always different, never quite fully accepted. Hitler didn't suddenly start picking on Jews for no reason, and German citizens didn't suddenly decide that this was okay. That's how it was for the Jews in Europe for centuries before Hitler. Why the Jews? Well, from the perspective of a random German person in the 1930s...who else was there? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

When I first saw the title of this section, I thought it was referring to cultural relativism. In English class, we read an excerpt from something that referred to moral relativism as cultural relativism. Evidently, the author did not have a disclaimer like in the cultural relativism article saying the two should not be confused. =P Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

cultural relativism is a type of moral relativism, so... --Ludwigs2 02:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Munich, there have been civilian casualties in Iraq, some instances of which have been more severe and, yes, criminal than others. But there was never any policy to specifically target Iraqi civilians in the way the Nazis specifically, and as a central aspect of policy, targeted Jews and other civilian groups. So, could you try to explain more clearly what comparison you would like to ask about between US military action in Iraq and the Holocaust? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I read somewhere that Hitler read Schopenhauer in the trenches of WW1: presumably The World as Will and Representation (echoed by the title Triumph of the Will), although I'm not sure how true that is. Leaders being very willful or "strong" seems to be one of the core values of Nazi beliefs, so it was like institutionalised bullying. I've read that the Nazis would settle leadership disputes in Nazi party branches by just letting the two contenders metaphorically fight it out, like Social Darwinism, where "Might is right", and the "strongest" would win. Bullies must have victims to demonstrate the bullies powerfullness to their audience. The audience is "us", the victims are "them". The audience feels gratitude to the leader/bully for being in the prestigeous and protected "us" group. Jewish people, or their stereotype, fell into the despised "them" group. I wonder if the German culture of drinkiing lots of beer, such as their beer halls and beer gardens turned them into psychos. There must have been a lot of undiagnosed alchoholics around, even though Hitler did not drink. See also Hofbräuhaus#Nazi_history 92.24.191.208 (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

(rolls eyes) Really, you're blaming the beer gardens for Nazism? Are the economic, racist, social, and political explanations for the rise of Hitler so insufficient that we have to appeal to undiagnosed alcoholism? --Mr.98 (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

See Beer Hall Putsch. The Bürgerbräukeller article has an interesting photo showing the one litre beer steins; so they were all sloshed when listening to Hitler. The photo in the Nazi Party article has a one litre beer stein prominently in the foreground. 92.15.20.132 (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm suggesting it could be a factor amony many others. An alcoholic I once knew did rant just like Hitler, and was a bully using the method described above. Most of my little essay does not mention booze. I'm trying to answer the OP's question, I'm not diagnosing the causes of Naziism as you wrongly suggest. 92.24.191.208 (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're interested in learning the moral theory that people like Hitler thought justified them, read Mein Kampf. It's propaganda, it's nuts, but if you think it is truth then all of the Holocaust seems like an unpleasant but necessary outcome to a big problem. If you want to find out what moral system motivates people, you have to read their own professions of why they do what they do. You don't have to agree with it, obviously.

Note that there is a big difference between the moral justifications used by people at the top (who don't have to do the dirty work) and those used at the bottom (the guys with the guns). Recommended reading on the latter point: Christopher Browning, Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland (1992). --Mr.98 (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps one way of describing it might be as the triumph of emotion over reason. Gut feeling. I heard a vicar on the radio this morning saying that people should not think that being in an emotional state entitles them to overrule reason, yet many people seem to think that even now. (Anyone who heard it got the exact quote?) 92.24.191.208 (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Eugenics? 92.15.20.132 (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the OP was wondering if it is possible whether "Nazis" could have felt the same way about what they were doing as, say, US soldiers feel about what "the US" has done in Iraq. But it is not really a moral relativism at play here as the OP suggests, but rather a difference of purpose and method.

• We may frown at what the US has done in Iraq, and question its purpose and methods, and hope a bad situation there can get "fixed" as best it can be, or at least made better for all involved;
• Nazis we kill until they are dead. Nazi Germany we killed until it was dead.
  

(Nazi Germany, for its part, clearly reciprocated that second feeling but tended to simply not experience the first, which is one way to understand why it can be considered "moral" to have ruthlessly killed it until it was dead the way we did. The relativism is, again, to do with purpose and requires (accurately) seeing a bigger picture.) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Interactive Theatre gone Awry

Hello there:

I was talking with my friend about ideas for plays where the actors would interact with the crowd, and the crowd would be part of the story. He told me of a situation where there was a play with an all-black cast, seemingly in America, where the cast pretended to be white supremacists in the vein of the KKK, and abused the audience as though they were black victims back in the pre-Civil Rights Movement era. They would even physically attack plants, causing quite an uproar because much of the audience didn't distinguish it as being fictional. When I asked where he had heard of this story, he said that it was either chronicled in a book about/by Pacino or De Niro that he'd read, where either man was in the audience.

Has anyone out there heard of a play like the one described? I'd very much appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.105.19.66 (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a play, but you may want to read up on the Stanford prison experiment. --Jayron32 01:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like the Stanford prison experiment after being run through something like the Telephone game to me, too. If that experiment was adapted for the stage at some point, though, that would be interesting to find out! :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I was confused for a moment by the reference to "attacking plants" until I realised it was meaning 7 of wikt:plant). :: --ColinFine (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The 4th quick definition of plant here was intended. No Welsh children were attacked. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

:::: Heheh, now attacking flowers something of that ilk would actually be quite amusing, and I do agree that a stage production of the Stanford Prison Experiment which involved the audience would be intriguing. Attacking plentyn not so much. I'm not sure how it derives from that though, surely SPE was trying to prove a socio-psychological point, whereas this play seemingly was more about race relations. If no one has heard of it though, I'll have to assume it was just a story. Shame really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.155.125 (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I find it entirely believable that there should have been such a play (and nothing to do with Zimbardo's experiment). Just because nobody here has encountered it doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's not clear how you would search for such a thing, though, and interactive theatre is no help. --ColinFine (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I recall reading about a play called "Insulting the audience," in which the cast broke the "fourth wall" and interacted with the audience, challenging them or insulting them in some way I have forgotten. In one performance described in the article, audience members seized the stage and would not leave, despite appeals from the actors. Edison (talk) 01:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This would have been Offending the Audience by Peter Handke. --Viennese Waltz 07:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

A related topic is Chris Burden, a performance artist who had himself shot as the performance, among other things. I have no account on-hand of the audience reaction. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Then there was Rhythm 0 by Marina Abramović, in which she allowed audience members to hold a loaded gun to her head, resulting in a fight among the audience. --Viennese Waltz 15:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Levels of communication and identity

Years ago I attended a seminar. The speaker said something about communication (between people) occurring at three levels, the third of which is at the level of one's identity (which I took to mean one's religious or cultural identity, or something like that.) The speaker said that when people perceive a message as an attack on something that defines their identities, they will be offended and become defensive.

I got the impression that there must be some theory of communication on which the speaker based his remark; If so, I want to learn more about it. I'd welcome a brief explanation of it or some reading suggestions. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.79.13 (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the speaker was inspired by the Organon model, a communication model in which there are three aspects to any message: the speaker, the addressee and whatever it is that is being discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It might relate to Games People Play (book), a pop-psychology book which is based on three levels as described in the Transactional analysis article. Not experimentally verified as far as I am aware. 92.24.191.208 (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

list of languages sorted by the number of people in the world currently studying them (not as a Native language)

If we make a list of every language,

 then for each language i:
   For each person in the world j:
      Add one point to that language (i.points) if j is currently studying i, but i is not j's Native language

Then we sort the languages by the number of points, what are the first 20 languages in the list? Approximately how many points does each one have?

Note: if an Italian person is studying Italian, English, French and Spanish, this person would account for one point for English, for French and for Spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.23.239 (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm betting English is at no. 1 Rojomoke (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, certainly it is #1, and obviously French, and Spanish are up there too. But that's far from 20. What is the top 20 worldwide (not just North America) and how many points would each language get? 84.153.205.126 (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The Linguaphone (company) has over 108 years of experince in selling self-study language courses. Their UK website lists their top 5 best sellers are Spanish, Italian, Greek, French and Arabic. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

But they are presumably targeted at English speakers, and thus onoly part of the picture.

Having said that, I think it would be hard to make the problem precise: what constitutes "studying a language"? --ColinFine (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I sometimes consult the headlines in the Spanish newspapers online. It helps to keep my Spanish up to date. Is that studying a language? If I had signed up to take exams to validate my level of Spanish I would probably log on to Spanish websites more often. Perhaps that might count as studying a language? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Your algorithm is wrong, it only counts points for studying your native language.
Sleigh (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

OP here. DEFINITELY want to count a language you're "improving"!!! I would love to count 10 languages if an American has read this year a single newspaper each in Spanish, French, Italian, German, Russian, Japanase, Chinese, Hebrew, Polish, and Czech with the partial purpose of improving these languages, or seen a movie in any of these (I guess I'm assuming this American has a rudimentary understanding of all of these languages and can make an improvement by doing these things). I would not count as "studying" staring at a chinese newspaper without having taken a single minute of chinese instruction, though... As for my flawed algorithm, pardon? How is it flawed? You start with English and Mr Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamthefirst. If Mr Aaaa&c is learning English, you add one point to English, if he is not, you do not. Then you move on to the second person and repeat. It's not a particularly efficient algorithm (it goes through Mr. Aaaaa&c 6,700 times, for each of the world's 6,700 languages, but it gets the job done... 92.224.207.25 (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

See 10 Most Popular Foreign Languages in the U.S. for information about foreign language study, where "j is studying i, but i is not j's native language".—Wavelength (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

An Italian fluent in Italian studying Latin & Classical Greek counts 0 for Latin count and 0 for Classical Greek count as Latin is the Italian's foreign language so don't count it and same for Classical Greek. Italian which satifies being not the Italian's foreign language counts 0 as it is not being studied. Your algorithm is bugged.
Sleigh (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Consider the case of speakers of any Chinese language. Many of them will be using/improving Mandarin Chinese, but speaking another dialect or language (the choice of term is contentious) that is mutually unintelligible with Mandarin. Some Mandarin native speakers will also be using/improving e.g. Cantonese. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed the dialect/language problem is a tricky run. Someone was going to quite the language is a dialect with army I'm sure but the issue is relevant here. For example Malay and Indonesian are somewhat mutual intelligible but different languages. Yet some dialects of Malay are very difficult for someone not familiar with them to understand. As I've said before (hopefully this time I don't get someone asking me what seems to be the same question every month or so), you can't draw a clear line since it's a continuum. In addition, the concept of a native language can sometimes be fairly fussy too. For starters some people may grow to use another language more then the language they learnt at birth (and perhaps still use at home), and may even prefer it. Which one you count as their native language is not something people always agree on. In a similar vein some people know and use two or more languages well enough that they can be consider to have 2 native languages but even presuming your algorithm (which lacked a (s)) accepts that, precisely where to draw the line is obviously not going to be clear. At least you avoided the term 'mother tongue' which is even worse since for some people it means something similar to native language yet for others it usually means of your ethnic group even if you don't know the language at all. Nil Einne (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Saints excommunicated?

Are there more examples (other than Mary MacKillop) of people who had been excommunicated and later became saints? Staecker (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Joan of Arc. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The only person in Category:People excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church whose article's title includes "St." is St. George Jackson Mivart, but on closer inspection I discover he was not a saint. He was named "St. George" by his parents, in honour of St George, patron saint of England. I'd bet some of the others were actually saints, though. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming you only count those who were excommunicated and canonized by one and the same church (?) Otherwise Carlos Duarte Costa might be a candidate (excommunicated by Pope Pius XII on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church. Later canonized by the independent Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Martin Luther is commemorated in the Lutheran Calendar of Saints. There might be some Anglican saints that fit the description too. I thought there might be some medieval saints that were excommunicated, like anyone involved in a mendicant order, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Remember also that excommunication was more often than not a political tool against secular people, and that it was usually only temporary. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Arialdo, Firmilian, Lucian of Antioch and Engelbert II of Berg were all excommunicated, and are now all venerated by either the Catholic or Greek Orthodox church as saints, though not all have been officially canonized. Antiquary (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

October 18

Looking for a film

Hello. I'm looking for the name of a film which I watched in the theater two or three years ago. It was a British film, about a couple who visits a quarry for the weekend, for a relaxing swimming holiday. The man remembers it from his childhood, and soon thereafter it was meant to be drained and turned into condos. However, they are terrorized by local kids who steal their car, kidnap and attempt to eventually kill both the man and the woman. I don't want to spoil the ending, so I won't say anymore. I remember it as being quite scary, but can't remember the title. Thanks for any help. Llamabr (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Eden Lake? --173.49.11.179 (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That's the one. Thanks. Llamabr (talk) 12:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

New Saints

Who were canonised as saint with Mary McKillop and Saint André Bessette? --Ksanyi (talk) 06:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

They're listed at the bottom of this page. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Caspar David Friedrich - Tetschen Altar

Which Dresden gallery has the painting Tetschen Altar (Cross in the Mountains) by Caspar David Friedrich? According to the list of works by Caspar David Friedrich, it's in the Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister; but the German article on Galerie Neue Meister implies that it's in the New Masters Gallery. Lfh (talk) 08:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a German article about the painting, Tetschener Altar, which also says it's in the New Master Gallery - which makes sense, I suppose, because the works in the Old Master Galery are from the 15th to 18th century and this is from 1808. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Lfh (talk) 10:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

tax breaks

Seems to me that the united states has been giving tax breaks for American businesses to do business over seas for at least 40 years. Is this correct?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parpar47 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Not in the way you mean. In America, when any business spends any money on anything, that spending is deducted from their "income" calculation, and taxes are paid on income. If an American business earns US$3 million in one year but spends US$2 million, then its income is US$1 million and it pays income tax on US$1 million. It doesn't particularly matter whether the US$2 million is spent on employees, equipment, supplies, and facilities in America or in India. There is normally no additional "tax break" for doing business outside of the US. American businesses do a lot of business outside the US because many costs are cheaper, particularly labor; it's not because of some tax incentive. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, because of the lower costs abroad, and the resulting higher taxable income, one could make the argument that the U.S. government taxes outsourcing companies more heavily (in total cash, not as a percentage) than if they'd been using labour/materials from within the U.S. Of course, sourcing from within the U.S. brings other benefits to that economy than taxed income. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Comet Tuttle is incorrect that the business pays taxes on the $1 million in net earnings, if those earnings come from overseas. The tax break for outsourcing that comes up in U.S. political discourse is actually a potentially indefinite tax deferral for the "unrepatriated income" of corporations that do business overseas, so long as they reinvest that income overseas. What this does is to incentivize investment in countries with lower tax rates than the United States, since income earned in those countries is taxed at a lower rate. The difference, which would normally be owed to the US Treasury, is exempt from taxes if it is used to expand the business overseas, whereas it would incur additional taxes if it were invested in the United States. This tax provision therefore gives corporations an incentive to move operations to countries with lower taxes than the United States. See this explanation. Marco polo (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected (for the duration of the deferral). Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

In practice, the deferral is indefinite, as long as the corporation reinvests the earnings overseas, which corporations typically do to avoid the tax. So the deferral in many cases amounts to an exemption. Marco polo (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Basic story themes.

Someone said to me the other day that all literature stemmed from a limited number of basic story archetypes or themes (ie. all stories are variations on 5 basic story themes) When I pressed them they could not provide these themes yet were very sure in their conviction. I have searched using the obvious variations of the words story, basic, archetype and have found nothing that supports such a simplistic explanation for all of man's storytelling. Is there any support for this? 17:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ledbelly62 (talk • contribs)

Christopher Booker wrote a book called The Seven Basic Plots: Why We Tell Stories. We don't have much info about it, but the ever valuable TV Tropes lists his seven, and cites examples of them here. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 17:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You might also be interested in the Joseph Campbell article (which has some coverage of his influence on pop-culture works like Star Wars). I don't think he's quite so prescriptive as to divide all stories into 5 or 7 or however many broad baskets, but his broad thinking (the cowboy film is the same story as the samurai film is the same as the monster film) is in the ballpark of your question. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 17:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It's quite subjective; I've read one claim there are only 2 stories ("A person goes on a journey" vs. "A stranger comes to town") and read another that there are 40 stories. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

See Aarne-Thompson classification system. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

See also Vladimir Propp for another folktale classification system. 92.15.28.219 (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

See Plot (narrative) and the links from it. 92.15.28.219 (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Link to previous thread on the same topic. Deor (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There's also Monomyth. 92.24.191.1 (talk) 09:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Find private collectioniers

Hi, maybe some one knew private collectioniers who are buy 8-10 age things —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martand7 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you need to explain a little more what you are looking for. Are you looking to sell some toys that were designed for kids aged 8 through 10? If so, eBay may be your best bet, depending on where you live. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Im look collectioner who buy 8-10age things likes jewelcraft brooch 8-10age —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martand7 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

African American history month

If the United States has an African American History month, than why don't we have a Caucasian History month? Common sense, right? Albacore (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I've often wondered this myself. I guess this is as close as you can get. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

These commemorative months are meant to make people "aware" of what has been underrepresented (in history, politics, society, culture, medical research, etc.). The White American narrative has been covered pretty well since the beginning of "Caucasian" American history. The same cannot be said of Black American history. Another way of seeing it is as making up for past injustice. Or guilt. Anyway, February is the shortest month. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think I have ever seen an advertisement for Irish-American Month. I see them for Black History month every year. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It's typical to think that there are a lot more black people than Irish people in the United States, although it's actually not much different (36 million self-identified as Irish in 2008: [9], while 37 million self-identified as black or African American in 2000: [10]. Still, at least the common perception is that there is a larger, more cohesive "black community" than there is an Irish community in the United States (at least from my Mid-Western perspective. Perhaps someone from Boston would disagree). Plus, we need to keep in mind that the Irish have St. Patrick's day :). Buddy431 (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this a serious question? I suppose the kneejerk reply would be "Every month is White History Month", but the OP probably wouldn't be satisfied with that. To put it briefly and crudely: The idea is that black Americans, among all American subgroups, are historically unique on account of the fact that slavery, and not (for instance) starry-eyed immigration, was what brought them to the United States. Black Americans regard it as extremely important to educate people about that fact, and about the subsequent cultural and economic ramifications of their enslavement, so that they might be seen "in context", as it were. But the more general thrust of the OP's question seems to be, "If we're equal, why isn't everything symmetrical?" That's the problem: equating political equality with some kind of superficial symmetry. Lyndon Johnson anticipated that view: "You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘you are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair." Of course you're free to disagree, as many do, but that's basically the logic of the position. LANTZY^TALK 21:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The Onion has this covered. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

There's also National Hispanic Heritage Month. 216.93.213.191 (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

In any case it has long been controversial, and not just from people who in a misguided sense long for a white history month. The leftist argument against it is more along the lines that the answer to biased history is not to have a month of "other" history, but to integrate that history into the mainstream curriculum. In the USA, history curriculum is so varied that I don't know whether that has been accomplished very well, but when I was in elementary and high school, we certainly did learn a lot about African-American history as part of our regular curriculum. Whether that was aided by the month (or could survive its removal) is unclear to me, of course. Still, one also has to remember how recent things like the Civil Rights Movement were. It wasn't very long ago that it was pretty commonplace to assert that the history of human civilization was a history limited primarily to white men. This change likely happened within the lifetime of your parents and grandparents (depending on how old you are). --Mr.98 (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a nice example of that attitude that I saw quoted in another forum recently. According to the person who posted it there, when Ronald Knox returned home from colonial Rhodesia to England, he enumerated a list of things along the way that "make you glad to be going home". And the first one was "the sight of the Nile and the reflection that this belongs to the history of the world, whereas everything else you have seen in Africa dates from Livingstone." --Anonymous, 06:29 UTC, October 19, 2010.

Presenting one's credentials

When somebody is chosen to be an ambassador from one country to another, they have to "present their credentials" to someone in the new country. Firstly, what are credentials? Are they actual pieces of paper? What do they say? Secondly, to whom do they present their credentials? Does an ambassador to the US present their credentials to the President, or to the Secretary of State? Does an ambassador to the UK present their credentials to the Prime Minister, or to the Queen? 216.93.213.191 (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The practice may differ in some other countries, but in the Commonwealth realms, new ambassadors present themselves and their credentials to either the monarch or her representative, the relevant governor-general. Ambassadors to the UK are formally known as "Ambassadors to the Court of St James's", i.e. they are accredited not to a government but to a monarchical court (not that the stereotypical image of such things exists anymore). Yes, they actually hand over documents prepared by their home governments. What these documents say I have no idea, but I imagine it's a (much) more high-falutin' and ornate version of a passport. It verifies who they are and which government they represent, so it has to be something fairly formal and contain a high degree of gravitas, not just something your local dealer in fake documents could whip up in an afternoon. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

How about if my local dealer happens to be Geoffrey Chaucer? --Anon, 06:31 UTC, October 19, 2010.

See Diplomatic credentials. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

See http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-diplomatic-passport.htm. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

My Google image search for diplomatic passport found images of diplomatic passports.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

But diplomatic passports, which will be issued to just about everyone travelling on behalf of a country's diplomatic service, will be very different to the sort of diplomatic credentials we're talking about. Rojomoke (talk) 08:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The credentials are presumably letters from their home heads of state saying "Please accept the bearer of this letter as my ambassador to you" - in as long-winded a way as possible. In the middle ages these would have fulfilled a function. The seals would have been examined in case the person was a fake. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Does the person they present them to hold on to them? If the ambassador is asked to leave the country, do they have to retrieve their credentials? 216.93.213.191 (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

October 19

Kid -- the young of the goat and the young of the human, are they related somehow?

(Moved to Language desk here - -- the Great Gavini 04:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC))

Law

Why are some cases, such as United States v. Lopez, titled with the name of the US whereas other cases, such as Gonzales v. Raich, are titled with the attorney general's name? TIA, 76.78.154.197 (talk) 04:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not especially familiar with Gonzales v. Raich, but as far as I understand it, the difference is that in Raich, Raich brought an action for declaratory judgment, whereas in Lopez, Lopez was appealing his conviction in federal court. You're obviously looking at the recent line of commerce clause cases; a topic that isn't internally consistent. But the naming conventions tend to depend on the procedural posture of the case. The person challenging someone is named first, then versus who they're challenging. I'm not especially familiar with naming conventions with declaratory judgments, but I think the law enforcement authority of the sovereign being challenged is named, in this case the Attorney General. In Lopez, the defendant was appealing a conviction so the U.S., the opposing party, is named. In Raich it's a declaratory judgment, so the AG is named. Shadowjams (talk) 08:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are Greek bonds more expensive than other Euro-bonds?

Even if their economy is screwed up, isn't it reasonable to expect that other Euro-countries would hurry to save them, if the need arises?--Quest09 (talk) 09:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no guarantee that Greece would be "saved" if it found itself unable to fund its borrowing. A number of states have defaulted on bonds obligations - IIRC, Brazil is one - and have done very nicely in later years. The increased yield from Greek bonds is the risk premium on a default. The price of Greek bonds is presumably low. (Bonds have fixed interest. The interest is varied by varying the price.)

Were Greece to be bailed out, it would be that country's relatively small debts spread amongst whichever other EU countries picked up the tab. The risk falling on these other countries is considerably lower than that falling on Greece. And presumably these other countries would only lend to Greece if they could afford it - i.e. would so so only in a period where their own bonds were being sought in the market. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The E.U. would act to prevent the Greek economy from going into deep depression, but that wouldn't necessarily ensure that all Greek bonds would still pay out at 100% of the originally-promised level... AnonMoos (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Uplifting classic novels?

What classics or minor-classic novels are emotionally uplifting, in other words not depressing? When I was a youth I unwittingly read Jude The Obscure and The Bell Jar, and although I did not realise it at the time they may have caused my youthful gloom. Thanks 92.24.191.1 (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Pride and Prejudice, Emma and Jane Eyre, although you need to read them to the end and not find the basics of the society depressing! 109.155.37.180 (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

To Kill a Mockingbird, despite its serious themes. --Viennese Waltz 12:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Silas Marner - George Eliot manages to include much of what is satisfying about Dickens, without much of what annoys me in his works. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Les Misérables by Victor Hugo has some pretty uplifting stuff, but it also has some fairly depressing stuff. Googlemeister (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If you can get through the hundreds of pages of trivia. The protagonist, Jean Valjean, doesn't even show up till about 150 pages into the damn thing. 216.93.213.191 (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if Neville Shute's work is yet old enough to be considered 'minor-classic', but I find nearly all of his novels have a cheering effect. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You find On the Beach uplifting? Anyways, I think Robinson Crusoe and Huckleberry Finn are both quite nice, as is everything by Jules Verne (however, the English translations are reputed to be horrible - I read them in the KlingonGerman original). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"Delivery" in telling jokes - how to perfect it?

I once said that when I heard someone give a joke in middle school, it got great laughs, but then when I told it to another group of kids word-for-word, the results weren't the same.

The reason: "It was all in your delivery."

When I think of "delivery," I think of getting a box of pizza to someone's house on time, making sure that it's not cold or smashed, and getting a tip from the customer. I think of taking an order of a meal from a restaurant to someone's residence.

But apparently there's another type of "delivery" that has something to do with telling jokes.

Therefore, would anyone please hypothesize how my delivery of the joke was wrong somehow, and how I can correct it so that it procures better results next time? I'd like to hear the finer, intricate details; all I'll need to get it done right. Thanks. --70.179.178.5 (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't something that can be effectively learnt from reading text: the delivery of a joke is all the things like timing, tone of voice, voice effects, body language, facial expression, etc, all of which contribute to how funny the joke seems to the listeners. There is no single 'delivery' to learn: different jokes, different comedians, different audiences, different situations all work better with different deliveries. I've watch comedians reduce an audience to hysterical laughter with completely deadpan delivery, and others achieve the same effect with over-the-top 'wacky' delivery. You best bet is to watch and listen to a lot of comedians, as well as observing when other people tell stories and jokes, to see if you can spot tricks and patterns that work well with given audiences and jokes. An example (if you are over 18) is to watch several different comedians tell The Aristocrats. This is a fairly rubbish (and obscene) joke which comedians use to demonstrate their skill: the trick is to try to outdo each other in obscenity and delivery, making the joke funny. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(A lesson from when I was a child in acting school...) One way to think of it is as a sucker-punch. If you are going to effectively sucker-punch someone, you need to do everything possible to ensure they don't see it coming. How? You can be over the top with other actions so they are confused. You can do a series of fake punches. They know something is coming, but not when. You can pretend to be nice and, without warning, sucker-punch them. Delivering the sucker-punch is mainly about hiding the delivery. A joke is the same in that people won't find a joke funny if they see it coming. You can be wacky so they get confused and then have a weird joke tossed in. You can tell a series of unfunny jokes so the funny one seems funnier. You can dead-pan the whole thing so the joke is completely unexpected. All in all, you should work on copying those who do it well in the style you would like to have (which may not be the style you enjoy most - ie: I enjoy Emo Philips very much, but I have no intention of perfecting his style of delivery). -- kainaw™ 13:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A group of inmates in a jail has developed a way of telling jokes between them in order to circumvent restrictions on their free speech imposed by the governor. Each joke is assigned its own unique number. In order to tell a joke, all the inmate needs to do is call out its number. So, for example, one prisoner calls out "25!" and everyone falls about laughing. A new arrival at the prison watches this and tries it himself. He calls out "37!" but no-one laughs. He turns to his cellmate and says, "Hey, why didn't anyone laugh?" "Ah," comes the reply, "it's all in the delivery." --Viennese Waltz 14:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A few more jokes elicit moderate amusement, and then the new inmate calls out "Sixty-three!" at which everyoune collapses in paroxisms of laughter. "How come that one went down so well?" he asks. "Ah, replies the cellmate, "we haven't heard that one before!" 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

My Google search for how to tell jokes reported 34,900,000 results.—Wavelength (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, it involves a peculiar kind of suspension of disbelief. Even though everyone (including you) might be aware that you are in fact making a joke, you need to give the impression that you're just engaged in perfectly normal - even uninteresting - conversation or behavior. Slapstick works because we are willing to believe that someone could be that oblivious to the fact that they are that spasmoid; vocal jokes work because we are willing to believe that the story might just have a normal, conventional ending (which lets us set ourselves up for the surprise twist); even sarcasm works best as humor when it's hardest to tell that the person is being sarcastic (sarcasm laid on too thick just plain isn't funny, as anyone with teenagers in the house knows). The Marx brothers were masters at this: Harpo and Chico were always doing utterly absurd/antisocial things while somehow convincing everyone that they were perfectly normal and appropriate behaviors, while Groucho played along, looking simultaneously suspicious and gullible and giving big bushy-eyebrowed "can you believe this cr@p?" cutouts to the audience. --Ludwigs2 17:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)