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

June 5

Large scale memorial events

I'm looking for some large memorial ceremonies that are on the scale of the Memorials for the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 in Hong Kong. There were at least tens of thousands of participants for the last 22 years, and more than 150000 for the last three. thanks F (talk) 03:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean things like the Remembrance Day parades, at the Cenotaph? --TammyMoet (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

broadcasters' estates

Please note I'm not asking for legal advice or anything like that. But I've seen archive footage of real people in these films. The first one was of Walter Cronkite in Apollo 13. The second one was of Jim McKay in Munich. The third one was of Johnny Carson in The Newton Boys. Since all three films tend to air on TV channels from time to time, and copies are bought on DVD, what do the estates of the mentioned decedents get?24.90.204.234 (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It's quite common for people making a guest appearance as themselves in TV or films to just accept a one-off fee for the appearance. In that case they would not be entitled to royalties, and so their estates would not have any income from any repeats. So the answer is "it depends on the fee agreed at the time". --TammyMoet (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, it depends on the terms of the contract, as with any film actor. Residuals don't run forever, unless you've got a really good agent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the footage of Walter Cronkite in Apollo 13 wasn't entirely archival. He recreated some of his commentary (especially the bit at the beginning of the film) to better fit the flow of the movie. — Michael J 17:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that in some cases, personality rights can run (at the moment) "forever". --Mr.98 (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Tonight Show is on NBC. Thus, there was a very good chance The Newton Boys aired on that network. Walter Cronkite was an anchorman on CBS News. Thus, there was a very good chance Apollo 13 aired on CBS. Jim McKay sportscasted on ABC Sports. Thus, there was a good chance Munich aired on ABC. So there you may or may not have it.24.90.204.234 (talk) 06:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky

What was the turning point in Chomsky's life which turned him from an ordinary linguistics professor to a history-making philosopher? I believe he is famous because of his contribution to philosophy, rather than linguistics. What exactly was the turning point that earned him the recognition as a philosopher? --999Zot (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Never thought of him as a philosopher. He's a linguist who definitely made a name in linguistics. Then he made a name as a political commentator, which is somewhat different in my mind from philosopher. Not sure which is the greater fame; I suppose it depends on whether the people you ask are more interested in linguistics or in politics. --Trovatore (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Chomsky also had a major influence on computer science, of course. The Chomsky hierarchy has important theoretical implications and practical applications. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

His linguistics and any of his (non-political) philosophy are very clearly linked; they're basically the same thing. His fame as a linguist stands on its own, separate from his politics, and predates it. His political activism began in the mid-1960s.[1] --Mr.98 (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Just ask him by e-mail: he will give you an answer. --86.8.139.65 (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Chomsky is by no means unique in being famous and important in two entirely unrelated fields (Chomsky's being Linguistics and Politics). Note that Linus Pauling won Nobel prizes in Chemistry and Peace; his political work for which he won the Peace prize were entirely unrelated to his Chemistry work. Alexander Borodin made significant contributions to the world of both chemistry and music, and neither field is particularly important to the other. Benjamin Franklin is noted for both his contributions to physics and to politics. --Jayron32 19:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The science/politics dyad is especially common, especially in the 20th century, especially post-WWII. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

did George Orwell study Ancient Greek at Eton?

I know it is a possibility, and probably far from uncommon there, but does anyone know if George Orwell (Eric Blair) studied Ancient Greek at Eton? --86.8.139.65 (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Orwell was educated in both classical languages of Latin and Greek. See here:[2] --Bill Reid | (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast response. This was too hard for me to track down. --86.8.139.65 (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fairly safe to say that anyone who attended a British public school until relatively recently would have been taught Greek as a matter of course. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

thank you for this clarification, also useful. could you clarify when "fairly recently" is? (I would think "until about 1920" but this is just my impression... it sounds like it could be later for you...) --86.8.139.65 (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I learnt Ancient Greek O level in the 1970s at an English grammar school. I understand that it's still available as a GCSE subject. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

so that's why you're so smart :) --86.8.139.65 (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The benefits of a British education. Ancient Greek in grammar school...... The closest thing we got to ancient Greece in my El-Lay High School, was an elective class in Greek Mythology (which I had already studied in the 7th grade!).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Jeanne, given that I'm aware 'grammar school' seems to be used in the US to refer to a school offering primary education, you might be taking Tammy's education as being more extraordinary than it was. I advise clicking the link. 86.182.34.112 (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The only reasonable equivalent we had to that type of school in Los Angeles was a private French lycée where Jodie Foster attended. My French friend also went there.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I've read most of Orwell, but most of that not recently. I'm almost certain the answer is yes. See his posthumous memoir "Such, Such Were the Joys" for his prep school years before entering Eton, although subsequent biographers have questioned how much of Orwell's account is coloured by emotion. But on something like the subjects he studied, this should be fairly reliable. At Eton, Orwell (whose family was not rich) was a scholarship student, meaning that he had to have shown unusual success in competitive examinations. As for private/public schools, I attended a non-public prep school in New England that required two years of Latin in the 1960's but did not offer Greek, which was, however, offered by the same city's selective city high school. Apparently, that's no longer true. Boston Latin School, a selective city high school founded in 1635, does, I understand, still offer (and used to require) Greek. See Nat Hentoff's memoir, Boston Boy. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Conservative regions in Liberal Canada

In the Action democratique du Quebec article, in mentioned in the Electoral Support that the conservative regions in Quebec are Chaudiere-Appalaches and Capitale-Nationale. So, I am wondering that what about Ontario, is there any regions that are conservative and what about in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick? And does it mean that in conservative Western Canada, there are regions that are liberal too?

Well Vancouver is typically (or stereotypically) Liberal, in the west. As for Ontario, the rural areas of the south always seem to vote Conservative. The north, and Windsor in the south, tend to vote NDP (I'm sure this has something to do with unions and the mining and automobile industries). Downtown Toronto is always reliably Liberal or NDP. In the last federal election in May, it was somewhat surprising that so much of southern Ontario, not just the rural parts, voted Conservative. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a map of the results from the recent election. You can see that the Conservatives nearly swept rural and suburban southern Ontario, won all but two seats in N.B., took four mostly rural seats in N.S. and won the westernmost of PEI's four seats and Labrador. In Western Canada, the Liberals won two seats in central Vancouver, one seat in Winnipeg and Ralph Goodale's seat in Saskatchewan. The NDP did best on Vancouver's east side and eastern suburbs and the Victoria area and won a couple of other seats in BC, a couple in Manitoba and one in Edmonton. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Even when Manitoba turns Conservative (or, earlier, Reform), the ridings (electoral districts) around polyethnic Winnipeg tend to vote Liberal or NDP. Three or four decades ago, the Progressive Conservative areas in the Province of Quebec tended to be in the Eastern Townships, long populated by English-speakers, many of whose ancestors were United Empire Loyalists who'd fled the American Revolution. Non-Liberal Francophone Québécois tended to vote for nationalist parties or Social Credit. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Appiani d’Aragona

Why did the Appiani family that ruled the Principality of Piombino used the surname Appiani d’Aragona? PS you can't find this on wikipedia. It's in the other language wikis and books.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the genealogical entry E3 here says that it was Emamuele who adopted the surname. One might infer that it had something to do with his marriage to one Colia de'Giudici d'Aragona, an illegitimate daughter of Alfonso V of Aragon. Deor (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Overthinking the ACT Science section?

Hello all. I'm studying for the ACT Science section, and today I did a (non-official practice) that had a question like this: Several studies are done on a particular species of plant, and the results are (summarized into words, the originals are data tables): the plant's leaf size increases with humidity, peaking at 75% and decreasing for all values greater; leaf size increases with sunlight, peaking at 3 hours per day and decreasing for all values greater; leaf size is greatest at an optimal day/night temperature (F) of 85/65, it is less for any other combination (85/85, 65/65 [lowest], 65/85). The question asked, based on these data, where would the plant thrive the least as measured by leaf size, and the choices were a desert; a temperate grassland; a tropical rainforest; high altitudes. My first instinct was desert, but I reasoned that at high altitudes, temperatures would be lower, there would be less humidity, and a lot of sunlight so I picked that one. The book says a desert is correct, because the studies do not mention altitude. Apparently I overthought the question. How do I know when "reasoning" turns into "overthinking"? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Not that this helps you much, but this is why standardized tests suck. You CANNOT test reasoning via a multiple choice test. It cannot be done. And yet, this question is trying to do that. I am a science teacher; I have taught my fair share of Earth Science classes. If I had read what you wrote above for an answer, I would have given you full credit for a well reasoned answer. If you had arrived at the "desert" answer, and had a well-reasoned explanation for that one, I would have also given you full credit. The very notion that this test cannot read and interpret your reasoning means that it cannot evaluate your ability to reason. Multiple choice tests have one purpose, and one purpose only: the recall of facts. Any multiple choice test that attempts to evaluate anything else is a sham and total hogwash. Sorry, I know that isn't helping you pass this test, but as an educator myself, I take this shit VERY seriously, and it really gets my goat when I see something supposed to be "educational" which screws it up so phenomenally bad. </rant> --Jayron32 18:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

While in no way disagreeing with Jayron, I would suggest that, if you are using anything but the most general information and that information is not included in the question itself, you will be over-thinking for the purposes of the test. Personally, I would have thought that both desert and high altitude would be about equal, except that there is nothing about elevation in the question and so I would have selected "desert". That's just from a lot of experience both writing and taking such tests. Bielle (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like it's the typically tricky question, the trick being that you can't assume anything not in evidence. In short, you have to be both very intelligent, and an idiot. Just what colleges want, apparently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, you need to avoid using any information not given in the question. The problem is, the correct answer to that question is "e) Insufficient information". If they haven't given you any information about altitude then you can't determine whether a desert or high altitude would be better. That is very different from concluding that the desert is worse, which is what they have done. --Tango (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

One thing that might help is to guess at the answer before you read the choices. I did so and came up with "desert" based on the info given. Specifically, the plant seems to like a narrow temp range, so I looked for extreme temperature ranges. It likes humid air, so I looked for dry air. It likes minimal sunlight, so I looked for lots of sunlight. Then, when I combined wide temperature extremes, lots of sunlight, and dry weather, a desert came right to mind. Since that was one of the choices, that's what I'd go with, it being the "obvious" choice. StuRat (talk) 06:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting approach. The list of possible answers could be the source of the "overthinking". Your approach is what intelligence is really about, don'cha think? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

so when you raise money for a startup, is it your money or investors' (the company's)?

I'm just reading this... http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_18203847 my question is... am I correct in concluding that the only problem here is that he got the money in order to buy percetages of OTHER companies? (in oter words that he was just supposed to be a broker or middleman?). If it had been his OWN startup he was selling shares in, all that behavior would have been fine, right? I mean: when you sell some of your company (which you obviously start out owning 100% of) then that's now your money, right? Not the company's. (would be different if the company sold debt obviously...then it's the company's money)...

Am I correct in my assessment? That it's then your money to do with as you please, and you are not expected to donate it to the corporate entity (which doesn't own itself, you do) or in any other way have a duty to spend on the company instead of hookers and blow? thanks86.8.139.65 (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

In general, you are not correct. You might start by checking Share capital, but in essence, when you start a company you do not own its shares; you've merely created a new legal entity which has a certain authorised share capital (and in general, you will at the time of formation buy some or all of these authorised shares). The first sale of any of those shares requires the money received to go into the company. Having bought a share (we can now term it a paid-up share), you may then sell it on, and the money received for the sale is yours. I suspect the chappie in your story has been selling previously unsold authorised shares - i.e. things which belong to the company - and pocketing the cash. Whether or not the company exists to buy shares in other companies is an irrelevance. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

All of which is not good news for the blow & hooker industries. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You are trying very hard to explain, but I am having trouble following. It sounds like you're talking about a legal formality? Let's start with a real example: in the tech world, you can start a company with Zilch: you code on your laptop and initially use services exposed by Google and others (blog etc shared revenue) an establish a revenue stream. Say you get tires of doing this all by yourself, you want the thing to Br autonomous and then be able to sell it off. So, you I corporate (witha token amount of capital from your previous revenue, let's say $100). "tehnically" I gather it is atthis point that you buy authorized shares, with the share price valuing the company at $100 all told? Although, if you had wanted to, you could have paid the same $100 to purchase just half the authorized shares, valuing the company at $200 and with the company owning half the shares, however you owning these by means of owning the company itself whole cloth? Okay, if I have it right so far, now comes: say you go through with your plan, hire a part time writer and another employee on the company payroll to make it truly autonomus, and then just let it coast by itself for a few months, payin dividends to you (who own 100% of outstanding shares). Let's say revenues are around $10,000 per month, you have a lot of users etc, and you want out of the whole thing - so you sell ALL of your shares to an investor for -$500,000 which he pays because of the trailing revenue, which you have not fudged. You now have nothig more to do withthecompany - you have made a clean exit. Can you spend the 500k on hookers and blow then? without malfeasance or any further responsibility to the company? Now comes the kickr: what if you had only sold 99% of your shares? 95%? 90%? 70%? 55%? 50%? 49%? 30%? 10%? 5%? 1%? At what point are you no longer in the clear to use the proceeds for hookers and blow? Thanks. 86.8.139.65 (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's take the case that you buy 50% of the authorised share capital of the company, and there are no other shareholders. You do not own the other 50% of shares; they are owned by the company. (So your sentence: "you owning these by means of owning the company itself" is wrong.) You do "own" the company, in that you own 100% of the issued share capital. But note the quotation marks. Actually, you merely own the shares you own. The company is and always will be a distinct legal entity, and it owns the other 50%. You can sell the shares you bought and spend the proceeds on pot & prostitutes. You cannot sell the 50% that remain in the company, since these are not yours. The company can sell them, but any revenue must come to the company. As to the 99% question ... you can sell 99% of your shares, which would equate to 49.5% of the authorised share capital of the company. And you'd find that you still owned 0.5% of the authorised share capital of the company. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A sensible angel investor or venture capital investor does not give money to a person. They buy a proportion of the equity of a private corporation (in many cases the startup hasn't yet incorporated, so the investors help the founders incorporate). All that investment capital goes into the bank account of the corporation (which the investors and founders jointly own). Typically the founders (who are most often also employees of the corporation) take a salary, although that's frequently very little. The kind of people who invest their own money, or who run venture funds, are astute (sometimes downright cutthroat) individuals, who won't put their money into some venture where the other owners can just take all the money out unilaterally and spend it on whatever they like - the angels/VCs get seats on the new company's board and this gives then a sufficiently tight reign on the company's spending to avoid any such shenanigans. As to the specific case you've linked: we can't comment on what he did because we don't know the details. He's been charged with fraud, which implies "intentional deception"; it's up to a court to decide if that's what happened in this case, or just bad, or unlucky, investing. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'm not getting why you say it goes into the company's bank account and not my own. If I build a special bicycle you can somehow use to make money and sell it to you for $100, would you expect me to put the hundred into my pocket or into a bag on the bicycle, which is now yours? So that you've gotten both the bicycle and the money that now belongs to the bicycle? Meanwhile, I've just lost my bike... 86.8.139.65 (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It goes into the company's account because that's who I write the cheque to. Your analogies to buying stuff aren't productive - I'm not so much buying something from you as going into business with you. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

If you were going into business with me, you would show up and work too. But you're not, you're just giving money. In exchange for what? You write it out to a company, and get what in exchange. Oh, you get stock, by diluting mine. So, if you enter with a billion dollars, what do ai just get diluted out entirely (just about)? I find it very hard to believe that if my company (wholly owned by me) gets a check for a billion dollars from you, then that's not great news for me: actually horrible news. I can't use any of that money (it's the company's, not mine), yet I've Lost my stake in the company (have been diluted out). I find that hard to believe: that's right, I'm incredulous! 86.8.139.65 (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Right. Nominally I do work there (I'm a salaried director), and some MBA drone that works for me becomes the COO and has a nicer office than you, and is only in the office for a few meetings a week. I paid a relatively small amount of money (for angel investments, maybe a few tens of thousands of dollars) and I get a big bunch of the equity (maybe 30%). When it goes to the first full VC round the founders will probably end up with less than 50%. Yes, to you it probably feels like a right screw-job; but it's all a contract, one that you don't have to sign. The trouble startup founders have is that their business isn't profitable and has little revenue, so conventional sources of funding like bankloans aren't open to them. They can try to grow the business off revenue alone (which is what most real-world, non internet-bubble, businesses have to do) or they can turn to angels and VCs, who take a large chunk of the business. It's no surprise that most startups fail, and a great number of successful startups (that go to IPO or are acquired by some profitable company) end up with litigation between the founders and their investors. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 22:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

When someone invests in your company, the company sells them new shares, rather than shares you own. You haven't lost out. Imagine your company is worth $100,000 and you own 100% of it and I have $100,000 in the bank. I come along and give $100,000 to your company in exchange for a 50% share. The company is now worth $200,000 and we own 50% of it each. So, we each own $100,000 worth of the company, exactly the same as we had before. You own half as much of the company, but the company is worth twice as much, so your share in dollar terms hasn't changed. --Tango (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. I put in 10,000 hours of work to produce a company that makes a steady stream of thousands of dollars a month in pure profit: how could it be anything like fair for you to come along and become a 50:50 partner while putting in 0 hours? It just doesn't make sense to me: you're saying the value of my shares hasn't changed, even though I now have a 50:50 partner to split all that revenue with. Obviously if ai only get half the monthly revenue (in dividends) instead of all of it, the value of my shares has very much diminished! So why are you saying otherwise? Could you walk me through the example of where I establish a million dollar a month revenue stream all by myself as sole owner and then (due to high growth potential or whatever) you as an investor come in with 50 million? I'm finding it very hard to see why I woukdn'. just say "no I don't want your fifty million nor five hundred million: all that does is cut the percentage of the profit that I get, without impacting the value of my shares or the money in my pocket in any way. Put another way: if someone pays you $1000 for the chance to become a partner in your profitable lemonade stand, would you expect to still need to ask your mom for 75 cents for milk at the school cafeteria the next day, same as if you hadn't entered this lucrative partnership? something's not adding up... 86.8.139.65 (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The usual reason for looking for investors is because you want to expand your business. For example, you might want some money to build another factory or open another shop. You choose to sell the shares because you think that doing so will increase your profits by more than enough to compensate for you getting a reduced share. --Tango (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)::::::The usual reason for looking for investors is because you want to expand your business. For example, you might want some money to build another factory or open another shop. You choose to sell the shares because you think that doing so will increase your profits by more than enough to compensate for you getting a reduced share. --Tango (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The transaction - the third party coming in with $50M - only occurs if the company decides it is a good thing. If you own all of the issued share capital, you (should have) full control of the company's board of directors. You will allow the investment in the company if you think it will be a good deal for you (e.g. you'll make more profit, get more dividends, or see the share price rise as a result of whatever it is the company does with the $50M), or you will not allow the investment if you do not think it is a good deal. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

okay, fine - how then?

fine, I get all of the above. Could you clearly explain then all of the steps i would need to take before I could actually see $1 mn in my bank account as well as having no obligations or responsibilities of any kind to the company I found? I eventually want out - completely, no board seat, nothing, I just want to pay taxes on the money, not have anything to do with the company, and be able to spend it on hookers and blow. could you explain all the steps I would have to take to get there? (in the context of a very large investment from outside).86.8.139.65 (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You need to sell your shares to someone else. Quite often, you would sell them to a much larger company that is looking to expand its business without having to go the effort and risk of doing so itself and would rather just buy an existing company. Another option is to "go public". That means you float the company on a stock exchange. That is much like selling shares to an investor, except you sell to lots of investors, in that you sell new shares rather than your own. Once you've done that, though, there is a market for shares in your company at a quoted share price and you can sell your personal shareholding very easily. --Tango (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

What's the smallest percentage of a company that has ever been floated in an IPO? I'm asking because then these dufuses (the many small traders) can twiddle their thumbs for a while and undervalue the company, until eventually revenue is so big they have to wake up. Then I can just sell my shares at the now correct share price, pay taxes on it, and invest in h&b outlays... 86.8.139.65 (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

If you own a very large proportion of the shares and try to sell them all at once, you'll cause the stock price to plummet. There isn't much point floating the company if you are going to keep almost all the shares. The company wouldn't get much money and would have all the added restrictions and reporting requirements that come with being a public company. --Tango (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

June 6

Yevgeny Zamyatin's We

Spoiler Warning

I just finished reading Yevgeny Zamyatin's We, and I'm somewhat confused by the last chapters. What exactly happened on the spaceship in Record 34? If the Guardians thwarted Mephi's attempt to take over the spaceship, how does I-330 survive for a few more chapters, and how does the narrator wind up waking up in his own room? Why does I-330 (I assume it's I-330) tell people in the subway in Record 35 to get the Operation? What exactly happens in the Guardians' office in Record 39? It seems like the narrator is ticked off that I-330 never really loved him and only used him for political purposes and that he comes to (finally) realize that "S-" was part of I-330's conspiracy, but I can't be sure. It's all very confusing. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

In Record 34, the Guardians thwarted the sabotage attempt by locking everything down, but they did not know precisely who was responsible so the narrator wasn't immediately arrested. The narrator was knocked out as the ship was landing, possibly by the Second Builder and perhaps by accident, waking up in his room the next day. In Record 35, open dissent is starting to happen and I-330 is being sarcastic about the benefits of the Operation. In Record 39, the narrator is taken to the Bureau of Guardians where he is interrogated by S, and eventually realizes that it was indeed S he saw behind the Green Wall in Record 27. And here's my personal interpretation of Record 39: the narrator has a minor breakdown as he feels like he's the center of a cosmic joke— there is no longer any difference between the Guardians and Mephi, and, by extension, the very foundation of his view of society is challenged. The same thing happens immediately thereafter when he talks to the mathematician who claims to have just disproven the concept of mathematical infinity. Then he's arrested again, and the end begins. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I thought, in reading Record 34, that after the discovery of the plot and the misunderstanding with I-330, the narrator tries to drive the plunge the spaceship into the ground, but the Second Builder punches him out and throws the ship into reverse. ("'Full speed-aft!' A brusque jolt upward...") If that's the case, it's weird that he winds up in his own room and is later summoned on the phone by the Well-Doer. Either way, you'd think a hyperorganized society would know to detain everyone coming off the spaceship to find out who didn't belong there. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Private vs public

What are the advantages and disadvantages of a private company and publicly traded (but privately held, not state-owned) company? --Reference Desker (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The main advantage of "going public" is that you can raise a lot of money, and you can raise more money in the future with additional public offerings or private placements of shares. The bad thing is you give up control of your company (even if the original owners keep more than 50% of the voting power, they sometimes have to get approval of minority shareholders for big things). Also, you have to publicly disclose a lot of your financial information. All of the stuff you have to do as a publicly traded company can be expensive. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Another difference is that privately owned companies tend to have more of a long-term perspective than public stocks. Compare the decisions made by someone who owns the company and hopes to pass it on to his kids and grand kids with actions performed for stockholders who are looking to make a quick buck and then sell. StuRat (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Help indentifying a piece of music for string quartet

Here's a sample of everything that's available on it.

This is played on the 1985 film Brewster's Millions and I've been trying to track it down for the last couple of months. It's not listed in the movie's ending credits and there was never a soundtrack nor a score released, and I've got reliable information denying it was composed exclusively for the film.

I've already tried Borodin and Dvorak, and some stuff sounded vaguely similar, but it's not it. Musipedia gives me plenty of junk results that sound nothing like it.

Can anyone identify it, or at least point to the right direction? Perhaps there's a particular musical element in the composition that I could use to track it down? Any help is much appreciated. Thanks! — Kieff | Talk 06:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

wow, that's dedication. I'm curious why this is such a burning quest... what will you do once you have an answer? 86.8.139.65 (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely a Canon (music) and is in a Minor Key for a String quartet. I'm sorry I'm not sure of the piece's name or composer. You know there are a lot of composers around the world with enough talent to write that piece. I would venture to say that, since no credit is given in the credits, that it was a token "classical sounding" piece the producers bought for a couple hundred, or is from the large collection of "classical sounding" pieces the studio has in its vault. Schyler (one language) 13:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that's probably it. It has a Slavic mood, and it wouldn't be out of place in a Tchaikovsky quartet, but I don't think it's actually by Tchaikovsky. Is there an expert on Russian string quartets in the house, who could say for sure that it's not from any piece in the known repertoire? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There might be an expert on Russian string quartets at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music (shortcut: WP:CM).

—Wavelength (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

A graphical timeline of world history

Hi, I remenber seeing hanging on the wall in high school a particular "timeline" of world history. It was in the shape of a "tree" of empires branching out from left to right, with continuity from Biblical times (maybe starting from Noah's Ark) through antiquity and the medieval period. I think it went a good way into the nineteenth century, and it was my impression that it was meant as a work of art rather than made by someone believing literally in the Biblical account. It was illustrated with various drawings around the edges and listed kings and rulers of the various empires / countries on the tree branches (I think it was quite detailed on European countries, down to Scandinavian kings for example). I can't recall the language the text was written in. (An example of the type of chronology I think was incorporated is the royal Swedish line as laid out by Johannes Magnus.) The question: have anyone seen something like this, and are there any examples of such "timelines" online? Jørgen (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I've seen something similar. In fact, I used to have (or perhaps still do tucked away someplace) three such wall hangings. One was social/political (wars, successions, discoveries, etc.), one was evolutionary, and I think the third was religious, though it's been so long since I saw them that I'm probably mis-remembering. I'll have a look around to see if I can find them when I get home. Handy, but wildly out of date at this point. Matt Deres (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

New message: See Cool Tools: Histomap of World History.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Wallchart of World History seems to best fit the OP's description. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! That appears to be it, though I can only find small samples of it online. It appears it was more Biblical-oriented than I remembered. The "histomap of world history" was also nice, though, with an equally relaxed attitude towards ancient history and a more "quantitative" outlook :-) Thank you for the quick and precise answers! Jørgen (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Winston Churchill

Why wasn't Winston Churchill tried as a war criminal for the firebombing of Dresden which killed mainly women and children? If this had happened today surely he would have been tried and most likely found guilty.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Because his side won. Googlemeister (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"History will be kind to me. For I intend to write it." - apocryphal, but oft attributed to Winnie i.m.canadian (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

In The Fog of War, Robert McNamara quotes Curtis LeMay as saying "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals"; I've not found another source that confirms the quote. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 13:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

So he was a war criminal then. Victors always take the moral high road. Weren't there any willing to charge him?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 13:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I can never ignore a man who wants a proper source for a quote. In 1978 General LeMay took part in a symposium at the United States Air Force Academy, in the course of which he said, "Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time...I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal. Fortunately, we were on the winning side." Source: Alfred F. Hurley and Robert C. Ehrhart (eds.) Air Power and Warfare (Washington, 1979) p. 200. Doubtless he said much the same thing to McNamara. Incidentally, Churchill's opinion of the Nuremberg trials can be gathered from a comment to his military adviser: "You and I must take care not to lose the next war." --Antiquary (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Allied war crimes during World War II says that the Nuremberg trials only covered crimes committed on the axis (losing) side. The Soviets committed many serious atrocities, some of which that article details, and would obviously not have been keen on being put on trial themselves. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If Churchill had been charged, it would have laid others open to charges too: the US leadership for Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and no doubt their contribution to the Allied bombing effort in Germany, and the firebombing of Japanese cities), the Soviets for endless atrocities, and so on. There are good grounds for holding Churchill morally responsible for the Dresden bombing (though it wasn't his decision alone, and that the USAAF didn't play a larger part is largely down to luck), but singling Dresden out would have been highly questionable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't deliberately targetting civilians grounds for being tried as a war criminal? Nowadays if a NATO bomb accidentally kills a goat the west has to explain itself.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If NATO accidentally killed one of my goats (sometimes they even accidentally kill people!)I would be sure to ask some questions. AndyTheGrump, why would singling out Dresden be highly questionable? I'm sure there was a lot of singling out done at the Nuremburg trials. I also don't remember them prosecuting the Nazi scientists who worked on the V-1 and V-2 rockets. Carson101 (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Why would singling out Dresden be questionable? Some figures for deaths due to bombings: Dresden 25,000, Nagasaki 60,000–80,000, Hiroshima 90,000–166,000, Tokyo 100,000 (arguably more) in the raid of 9-10 March 1945 alone.

As for why the 'Nazi scientists' weren't prosecuted, it is obvious - they were far too useful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If you take a look at what the Nuremburg trials did, they were mostly not for anything close to a viable or believable act of mere war. A lot of Axis "war criminals" got off pretty lightly - the Allies chose to set the bar quite high. Speer, for example, our article says was "ultimately responsible for the use of slave laborers from the occupied territories in armaments production" and yet received only 20 years (and was found innocent on two counts). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure why people find this surprising, but war crime trials, use of former Nazi scientists, and so on, are not determined by an abstract Truth and Justice in the sky, but by real political constraints. If you are looking for nations that act as unambiguous heros, or always do the Right Thing, or always 'fess up to their crimes, I am not sure you will actually find any, ever. Why weren't the Allies tried for war crimes? Because they won the war and had no interest in putting themselves and their allies against the wall. Who was going to try them — the brand new and weak UN, which was run by... the Allies? Please now. Why were the Nazi scientists used by the West? Because they thought it would be expedient. Why did the Allies throw out the apparent laws of war at numerous junctures? Because they thought it would be expedient. There has certainly been some truth to the "everybody does it, everybody has blood on their hands" defense regarding human rights and war crime violations. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ultimately, "laws of war" are reciprocal. That is, either both sides follow them or neither side will. One side is not likely to follow those laws while their own citizens are being massacred. In the case of WW2, after the blitz of London, there was very little sympathy for Germans. Then there's also the "end justifies the means" argument, that killing some civilians may save far more if it ends the war earlier. However, and this is key, it only applies if you actually win the war. If you massacre civilians to prolong the war, and then lose, then their deaths did not save others, and are likely to be considered war crimes. StuRat (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's actually not true that there was very little sympathy for the German people in the UK. In fact — I seem to recall reading — those people who had actually lived through the Blitz were the ones who were the least supportive of the firebombing; the biggest supporters amongst the UK public were people who were the furthest away from the war itself. "Ends justifies the means" is generally not accepted in discussions of war crimes — the entire point of talking about "war crimes" means you think that the means are worth talking about. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not just that his side won. I didn't have this preconception (so you would probably disagree with me if you haven't lived in Germany), but if you took the time to live in Germany for a year as I have, you would realize that the Germans are evil. Also, they were evil going back to World War I. It's a concept that they are especially taught about in school "facing the past". I'm not saying America, England, France, or other countries are "good", just my impression of Germany after living there (and not before living there).--86.8.139.65 (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL. "The Germans are evil" and "they were evil going back to World War I". You stated that you have lived in Germany for a year and somehow you're qualified to judge the overwhelming majority of the citizens of an entire country? Pleeeease. Flamarande (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"Once, all the Germans were warlike and mean / But that couldn't happen again / We taught them a lesson in 1918 / And they've hardly bothered us since then." --Tom Lehrer in 1965. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

(Not a reply to the IP). One other thing that might be considered: the willingness of the German people and society to have the Nazis brought to justice. I've talked with some Germans recently, and it seems that the German government is fairly excessive when coming to distancing themselves with the regime (lots of lessons about Nazi Germany ("Lest we forget"-style, from what I picked up)). I don't know when this started, but as I recall the Allies got on pretty quickly with documenting and publicising the horrors of the regime (we have some pictures of villagers being shown the death camps, I think). So maybe Germans were happy to have their top people brought to justice, as if to say to themselves that it's done, they needn't feel so much like they'd personally done something wrong. Maybe our German contributors can confirm (or not). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The simple answer to this question is that the bombing of Dresden, like the atomic bombings in Japan, were not that controversial in the Allied countries. The general sentiment at the time was that whatever was necessary to win the war should be done. There was very little sympathy for the other guys' civilians after all that "the Germans" or "the Japs" did to "us" and their other victims. It's very easy for us 60-some years later to think of it in a different way, but you have to understand the mindset at the time. I did a search of the British Parliamentary debates ([3]) from the period, and I only found one objection in the House of Commons to the Dresden bombings, from Richard Stokes, and his argument was that the bombings were counterproductive. When Stokes talked about how many people the bombing had killed, Wavell Wakefield said, "has he (Stokes) not just shown the value of this strategic bombing?" Regarding Grandiose's last comment, West Germany remained "unreconstructed" for many years after the war, with some of the same attitudes behind the Nazi rise to power remaining prevalent in German society. Only a small percentage of the people responsible for Nazi crimes were punished severely in the West. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The operative term for this kind of thing would seem to be Total war. It was the absence of the "total war" approach that was one of the factors that did us in, in Vietnam. You're either in it to win, or not. And the traditional view would be that whatever disasters occurred to Germany and Japan, were of their own making. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Any 'total war' in Vietnam would inevitably have spread outside (not that the 'Vietnam' war was restricted to Vietnamese territory in any case). Who would have 'won' a total war between nuclear-armed superpowers? (And BTW, it was German and Japanese 'traditional views' that led them into conflict in the first place). AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Which is why they were reluctant to do it, and it cost us dearly, although some argue that even though we lost Vietnam itself, we succeeded in "containing" Communism. It might be Japanese traditional views that led them to make war on us, but the fact is that they chose to do so, and they paid the price for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

...And the US chose to get involved in Vietnam, and also paid a price, as did the Vietnamese people - a higher price still... Returning to the original question, I think it is based on a fundamentally flawed premise - that people should be held responsible for the consequences of their actions, rather than their intent. The bombing of Dresden led to a firestorm, greatly magnifying casualties, but this was a 'bonus' from the Allied perspective. Their tactics were no different from those used elsewhere, and if Churchill could be tried for Dresden, logic implies he should be tried for other raids - along with the other Allied leaders who also supported the bombing campaign. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, we did, and we did, and they did. And I totally see your point on the flawed premise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Churchill could have chosen a purely industrial target, instead he deliberately targeted a city populated by civilians (in wartime this means women and children, and the elderly), and caused firestorms leading to the agonising deaths of thousands. How is that any less cruel than the atrocities perpetrated by the Germans and Japanese? The fact remains that the Allies were flaming hypocrits. IMO, Churchill's savagery was to atone for Chamberlain's earlier appeasement to Hitler.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing opinion from this as this is a Reference Desk, the bombing of Dresden in WW2 was in direct retaliation for the Coventry Blitz in 1940, in which the city of Coventry was flattened. This was an event so atrocious, and one of which Hitler was so proud, that he coined the word "to coventrate" meaning to bomb into annihilation. It was only circumstances which prevented casualties on the scale of Dresden - or you could say it was Dresden's bad luck to have been built and have infrastructure which produced firestorms on being bombed. Coventry, too, was a city populated by civilians. I'm not proud of what my father's comrades did to Dresden and the other German cities, but let's remember who started the bombing of civilian targets, eh? --TammyMoet (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not in the least condoning the horrific air strikes against London, Coventry, Liverpool, Belfast, Plymouth, Glasgow, Cardiff, etc. by Goering's Luftwaffe which caused death, destruction, and grief to thousands of civilians. My question was that the decision to firestorm Dresden surely constitutes a war crime on the part of Churchill. The same Churchill who allegedly had proposed to attack Venice to flush out the Germans. I'm not attempting to besmirch the RAF, British forces, people, etc. I am an editor who edits controversial articles (the Northern Ireland Troubles) with a neutral POV, maintaining a cool, non-judgemental stance. I never venture into the "They started it" camp as it leads to verbal minefields. I am not normally one to introduce morality into issues, preferring to stick with the hard, cold, insentiate facts. In this instance, however, I am breaking from my self-imposed tradition by posing a moral question. That's all.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It is weird that the allies thought it would help on the war effort to destroy a civilian target like Dresden. They were quite parctical, and could have used those bombs against more important military targets. Maybe they hoped that it would destroy German population morale, and that it would force the Nazis into a peace earlier than if civilians continued to feel safe? --Lgriot (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes they did, as this this post from the National Archives shows. You can't remove revenge from the rationale for attacks. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

To paraphrase a Michael Douglas character, "Revenge works"... or it least it can serve a purpose. While it may be morally reprehensible, it can energize people. And if the leaders of the Allies determined that only "total war" would defeat the Axis, then that's what they had to do. In 1814, the British could have been charged with "war crimes", if such a thing had existed then, for burning Washington, DC. But then the Americans would also have to have been charged with "war crimes" for burning Toronto, which was what triggered the burning of DC, as revenge. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Noting what Andy said above Dresden wasn't the worst (in terms of civilian deaths) but Hamburg was. Also the fire bombing of German cities were always joint operations after 1941 with the USAAF bombing by day and the RAF by night. In the case of Dresden 5 times as many US bombers as UK bombers took part in the Dresden raids. Adding that to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would that be Harry Truman taking the stand? ;-)--Bill Reid | (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Harry would have said he wanted to end the war immediately instead of seeing thousands and thousands more Americans killed from a D-Day style invasion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe the estimated casualties from an American landing in Japan would have been around one million for the US troops.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

A million Allied troops killed and perhaps comparable numbers of the enemy, and no assurance of victory. Weigh that against a quarter-million of the enemy killed and no Allied killed, as per Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and almost certain victory. The right military decision there is as obvious as the nose on my face. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(undent.) I fear Bugs is missing the point with regards to this particular question. There is quite rightly an argument over whether the use of atomic weapons was necessary, and I, as with Bugs would say "yes". Even accepting that, though, one must recall that there were people that believed that various things we now consider war crimes (such as the use of slave labour) were justifiable. I'm sure they used similar justification to Bugs: it's these people, to shorten a war that could mean the deaths of civilians etc. This similarity is demonstrated by Bugs' use of "the enemy" to describe civilians. Ultimately, they were tried, and we weren't, because we didn't agree with their hypothesis (mostly) that it was justified; if they disagreed with our hypothesis our actions were justified, that didn't matter. As I say, there were only a small number of war crimes trials, really. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The flaw in the 'A-Bombs saved lives' argument is that it assumes that the only alternative to the bombs was a D-Day type landing. This is highly questionable, as the Japanese economy had already effectively collapsed, largely due to the naval blockade. A continued blockade, combined with the threat of Soviet intervention (as agreed to by the Allies, which the Japanese were well aware off) would have made surrender in a matter of months more or less inevitable. There would still have been deaths of course in the meantime, but nothing like on the scale of an invasion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Even as the Emperor's recorded surrender message was being prepared for play over the radio, there were elements trying to sabotage that effort. The notion that the Japanese "would have" surrendered in a few months is strictly hypothesis. The bomb ended the war immediately. How many more American deaths would have been "acceptable" under your scenario? Including, perhaps, your own father or grandfather before he reproduced? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The A bombs prevented the murder of all the prisoners of war, which the Japanese authorities planned to do before an invasion, in order to prevent escape or rescue, free the guards for fighting, and to conserve food. "They were just about to surrender" is a revisionist history view not widely held by wartime leaders. Edison (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Liddell Hart (was he a revisionist?) quoted the views of several wartime leaders to almost exactly that effect. He also emphasised the significance of the crushing Japanese defeat in Manchuria, by the USSR, as one of the reasons the Japanese surrendered. Although Hirohito did indeed refer to the nukes in his radio message, the loss of Manchuria was given more emphasis than the atomic bombings in the Japanese discussions leading up to their decision to surrender. The Japanese had very largely got into the war in order to protect and expand their empire in Manchuria and other parts of China, and its importance to them should not be underestimated. The defeat there would be psychologically equivalent to something like, say, a foreign power conquering California. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

To go back to the original question, it is my recollection (from reading not from being there) that the Nazi leaders were never charged with war crimes for e.g. the Blitz, because that would have opened up the doors to charges of hypocrisy, or even legal charges, against the Allied leadership. The Nuremberg charges were relating to (I think) aggression, i.e. starting the war, and the Holocaust (crimes against humanity rather than war crimes) for which there was no Allied equivalent. 90.214.166.169 (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Bingo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

According to Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, had he won the war, Hitler would have tried Churchill as a war criminal.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Or he may have just had him shot, which is I suppose one difference between Hitler and Churchill (and between the Nazis and the Allies, too). WikiDao ☯ 17:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Frozen economy

What would happen according to economic theory if all wage increases were frozen at zero percent, but there was still inflation in the prices of goods imported? Thanks. 2.97.212.124 (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, zero growth combined with inflation is stagflation. Wages lagging inflation is just inflation. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 13:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If wages didn't increase, and there was inflation in the price of imported goods, that would be a decrease in real wages. As to "what would happen according to economic theory" if real wages went down in a country, that question is too vague to be given a satisfactory answer. Which country? A decrease by how much? And which "economic theory" are we talking about? Austrian, Marxian, Keynesian, or something else? Gabbe (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Are we to assume that domestic goods are not experiencing inflation? Googlemeister (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That's basically what has happened to gasoline and French cheese over the last few years in the USA. The result is that people use somewhat less gasoline and eat substantially less French cheese. In short, consumption goes down, to a degree that depends on the elasticity of demand. Looie496 (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Inflation in the prices of imported goods (such as food and other basics not just luxuries) and no wage increases is what is currently happening in the UK. I'm just wondering what economic theory predicts will happen if this situation continues for a number of years. The standard of living of employees will drop, business profits may initially increase although eventually lower demand will affect those. 92.24.137.163 (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If wages are not allowed to rise at all, and other prices (imported goods in this case) are, then consumers’ purchasing power would fall vis-à-vis those goods. If the imported goods became uncompetitive, consumers would shift to buying domestic products. Those domestic products would, as a result of higher demand, rise in price to the point where consumers would not be able to afford them, either. Prices would then adjust downward (deflation), producers would produce less and the economy would go into a downward spiral. Oh, and the workers would go on strike and vote out the idiotic politicians who froze their wages in the first place. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe people just stop buying things. I see the sales of Argos (UK) have dropped substantially. 2.97.219.191 (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Who, if anyone, would benefit from such a situation? 92.28.242.181 (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

In the short term, people who produce goods domestically, using other domestic goods as their inputs who have a labor force who always want a raise. Googlemeister (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

What's that called?

I'm looking for the name of a phenomenon whereby one is confronted by a concept one has just learned. That is, how it seems that upon learning about something, it seems to come up in casual conversation the next day even though it seems obscure and like something that has never come up before. I have been finding this a very hard to to do a google search on. Thanks y'all. Tuckerekcut (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The general term might be salience bias. I see now that is a redlink, but recency effect is somewhat relevant. At least some have referred to it by the silly name "The Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon", e.g. here: [4]. WP used to have an article with that title, but it has been deleted. Also the list of cognitive biases might be worth perusing. SemanticMantis SemanticMantis (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

New message: See Apophenia and Medical students' disease.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

We have Law of the instrument. And at Wictionary I find: "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". Also, Bob Dylan said, "A lot of people don't have much food on their table / But they got a lot of forks and knives / And they gotta cut something" Maybe that's some food for thought. Déformation professionnelle would be applicable too. Confirmation bias would seem to work on a similar principle. Bus stop (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Synchronicity might be applicable too. -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes! I was looking for Baader-Meinhof phenomenon and synchronicity. Thank you all!Tuckerekcut (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking for a name

I seem to recall an Allied (American?) POW who actually escaped into a concentration camp to see with his own eyes what was happening. Anybody recall his name? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Denis Avey did it (but was British). AlexiusHoratius 20:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that his story has been questioned. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The statement, "Avey has since suggested that those who consider his story too fantastic to be true may have ein böses Herz - "a bad (or evil) heart", is a classic non-denial denial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course you would not say that if he was American. Only one historian has raised a doubt. I assume that the Jewish organisations which have honoured him do not do so lightly and would I assume have done their best to verify what happened. I think I read a mention of this in a survivors account - I cannot remember which one, it may have been Man's Search for Meaning. 92.24.137.163 (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Eh? The World Jewish Congress and Yad Vashem haven't been able to verify his claims, according to the Daily Mail. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You might be thinking of Witold Pilecki, who was voluntarily admitted to Auschwitz in order to gather intelligence on the camp from the inside and organize inmate resistance. However, he was neither a POW or American. Gabbe (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Armband vs armlet

Is there actually a clear distinction between the two? these are described by the British museum as both armbands and armlets]]. More confusing still wikipedia seems to treat arm rings and interchangeable with armbands when the british museum treats them as separate things.©Geni 22:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Responding purely as a native English speaker, I would understand an arm ring to have a roughly circular cross-section (as with a metal rod bent into ring form), an arm band to have a flat cross-section (as when made of cloth) and an armlet to have no preferred cross-section but to have a (quasi-)military or antique/archaic association. The Museum pieces you link to are an interesting case in that their spiral design combines a circular cross-section with an overall extended band shape. I doubt (but will stand correction) that there is any generally observed, strongly defined distinctions between the terms, though an individual writer (perhaps of an archaelogical paper) might choose to make some in a particular instance, and an individual uniformed organisation might prefer a particular term. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.197 (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Police differences

What are any major differences between American police forces and those of other countries, like say Japan, Germany and United Kingdom? 72.235.230.227 (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the biggest difference is that there are a lot more guns in America, so the police are more concerned about being shot, which makes them either more cautious, more aggressive, or more paranoid, depending on the exact situation. Looie496 (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Police in the UK are organised into relatively large constabularies (bar some special-purpose ones) which are commanded by a Chief Constable who is responsible to the Police authority. The Home Secretary has overall control over policing policy but is mostly not "in charge" of individual police forces. They are funded by taxation from their area and by grants from central government. Some members of PAs, and the Home Secretary, are elected, but none stood for election specifically to that role. So there isn't a police force for every town or for every county, there isn't a sheriff or a police commissioner (Scotland has "sheriffs", but these are judges not policemen). There is no general purpose national police force (so nothing like the FBI), although there are special-purpose law-enforcement units like the Serious Organised Crime Agency. The anti-terrorist and internal security functions which in the US are the FBI's job are in the UK distributed between the various police Special Branch offices and MI-5 (the latter is a civilian organisation, whose officers aren't policemen). While local forces investigate their own officers on less serious matters, allegations of significant misconduct are handled by the Independent Police Complaints Commission in England and Wales, and by similar bodies in Northern Ireland and Scotland; I don't believe there's any comparable independent police investigation equivalent in the US, where issues are either handled internally or (in some special cases) by the FBI or sometimes state officials. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Every country is different, and, in fact, each U.S. state is different. Just as one example, in the Czech Republic, there are two types of police: the national police, who handle all serious crimes, and the city police, who deal with only minor stuff like traffic enforcement. In New York City, the city police handle both major and minor offenses. There is no national general-purpose police in the U.S. The FBI has a somewhat limited mandate focused on stuff that crosses state boundaries or deals with federal law specifically (such as securities fraud or terrorism). They also assist state and local law enforcement. Another thing that's unique to the U.S. is that some police officials (such as some county sheriffs) are elected rather than appointed. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The US is unique because of the "state sovereignty" concept that's built into the Constitution. A truly national police force would probably be seen as a violation of that sovereignty. Within the states, you have county government and city government, which are different governing entities and which each have their own jurisdictions. Likewise for the state police. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Australian state police forces have a similar autonomy to those in the USA, and do all the day to day policing that the general public sees. Australia does have Federal Police, but their authority is only over matters covered by federal law. HiLo48 (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There are a few "national" level law-enforcement agencies besides the FBI in the U.S., but they all have limited jursidiction over certain types of crimes or activities, such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (aka the ATF), the United States Marshals Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), you can find a list at Category:Federal law enforcement agencies of the United States. Bugs is essentially correct, however, in the way the U.S. is organized; the U.S. has a type of divided sovereignty; in that there are many sovereign functions which the Federal government is constitutionally enjoined from doing, and which are specifically reserved for the various states. Indeed, there are only certain functions which the U.S. congress is supposed to deal with itself, known as the Enumerated powers, insofar as the federal government needs police forces to deal with these various powers, they exist. But since the Congress doesn't, for example, deal with enforcing the parking ordinances or property laws or sexual assault laws of the various states, the federal police forces don't deal with those issues either. --Jayron32 06:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Those agencies get involved when a federal crime has been committed, which may or may not go across state lines. A stark example is when JFK was killed, obviously the federal government was a major player in the investigation. But the trial of Oswald, if he had lived, would have been held in a Texas court, because at that time there was no specific federal law covering the killing of the President (there is one now). Going down the items you listed, the state police patrol the highways, while the city police patrol the city streets, and the sheriff's police patrol the county roads. The fed are not interested in those activities, except for the enforcement of the speed laws on Interstate Highways (and I assume US Highways as well), where enforcement is connected with federal funding of highways, which is how Nixon was able to impose the 55 MPH speed limit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope. The Interstate Highways are managed and controlled and under the jurisdiction of the states, just as the "Federal" highway system (U.S. routes) and state highways are. The Interstates are partially funded by the feds, but their design and maintenance is managed on an interstate manner, and not on a federal level. That is, the coordination of the various states manages the American Highway System, but the federal government is uninvolved. See American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials which is the body that coordinates national highway standards, you'll note that the Federal DOT has a non-voting position on that board. The federal funding specifically for the Interstates also only covers their initial construction, their ongoing maintenance is covered by funding from other sources, some of it federal and most from the states. The way that Congress (not Nixon, though he did sign the law into effect) in the 1970's got the states to lower their speed limits was to tie this ongoing funding (which is unrelated to the monies authorized for construction under the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956) to state speed limits; i.e. states which did not lower their speed limits didn't get the cash. This is often cited as a classic example of the power of the purse. --Jayron32 01:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned that UK police are not routinely armed, which is a major difference between the UK and US police forces. (There are armed police but they are only brought out in special cases.) --TammyMoet (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That's presumably based on the assumption that the public does not have guns. But don't the British city police carry "batons" routinely? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

To me, a "baton" is what we used to call a "truncheon", i.e. a stick. I understand the phrase "baton round" refers to a firing of rubber bullets, and UK police don't routinely have access to those. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm talking about Baton (law enforcement). Don't the UK police routinely have those? Because while the average UK citizen probably doesn't have a gun, they could certainly have a club of some kind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"Because while the average UK citizen probably doesn't have a gun, they could certainly have a club of some kind." What???? We are not cavemen, I've never heard of anyone carrying a club or bat. What a peculiar view of society that implies. 92.24.137.163 (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes they do. Traditionally, they carried a truncheon (a hardwood baton about 18" long) in their trouser pocket, but these were phased-out in the 1980s. The replacement varies from force to force, but London's Metropolitan Police currently use a US designed telescopic baton called a "Stinger"[5]. A small can of Pepper spray is also routinely carried[6]. The rules for using these are very strict. Alansplodge (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

A big difference between the US/UK and continental Europe is that they sometimes have a "third force" of paramilitary police - the French Gendarmerie Nationale and the Spanish Guardia Civil are examples. The French Gendarmes are members of the armed forces and live in barracks; they have armoured cars with 90mm cannons. Don't mess with this lot. Alansplodge (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The closest equivalent to that in the US would probably be the National Guard, though even at that the NG's are adminstered primarily by the individual states. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

And they are not really used for law enforcment because of the Posse Comitatus Act. Googlemeister (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Seldom, yes - but not never. Read Stand in the Schoolhouse Door. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Or Kent State shootings. Deor (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Also the National Guard don't investigate murders or hand out speeding tickets! Alansplodge (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The National Guard is more of a militia (in fact technically and under the Constitution, that's exactly what it is, a collection of state and territorial militias) in that all but a small core of permanent officers and staff are part-time volunteers. A very rough French equivalent might be the part-time members of the Compagnies Républicaines de Sécurité (CRS), but they're trained for police and riot-control work, whereas most of the National Guard's training is military (especially after the 2003 invasion of Iraq). ¶ A closer American analogy to the gendarmerie would be most state police forces or highway patrols, as opposed to the municipal police and county sheriffs' departments. Here the distinction is between state and local, although the two usually work very closely together, especially on the roads, with the state police often providing specialized technical assistance to the smaller local departments (e.g. communications, forensic science, financial investigations, air patrols and water rescue). State police are often housed in barracks (although I don't think they live in them) and often wear uniforms that are closer to military ones, with riding breeches, Sam Browne belts and unpeaked, round, broad-brimmed "Smokey the Bear hats" (like those worn by national park rangers) — or in the case of Texas Rangers, white Stetsons. They usually undergo several months of training in isolated residential academies under a quasi-military discipline. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

US Debt Limit & Quantitative easing

The Federal Reserve did 2 rounds of Quantitative Easing, after the 2007 financial crisis.

Both the rounds of Quantitative Easing are now over.

Recently in the news, it stated that the congress refused increasing the US debt limit ceiling, and the Treasury stated that it would default on or around August 2nd.

Why can't they just do another round of Quantitative Easing so US doesn't default?

Or why can't they simply just print money, to service the debt?

--Obsolete.fax (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's political posturing. They'll come up with something. They always do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Quantitative Easing doesn't affect the debt ceiling. The money the government gets from the Fed, it owes to the Fed. In principle the Fed could simply print money and give it to the government as opposed to lending it -- it isn't clear to me whether the law prohibits that or whether it is just seen as politically undesirable. Looie496 (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Quantitative easing does not eliminate the budget deficit. The money "created" by the Federal Reserve does not go to paying off the government's expenses. It goes toward buying Treasuries. I do not believe the Fed is authorized to print money to pay the government's bills. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a Law preventing the Federal Reserve from printing money and giving it to the government? --Obsolete.fax (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that's legal, but maybe the Federal Reserve System article will explain just what the Fed's role is. And it seems to be that the Fed regulates the money supply through interest rates, rather than through printing more money, as such. Among the various responsibilities of the Fed, printing money and giving it to the government does not seem to be on the list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The Fed doesn't print currency, the Bureau of Printing and Engraving prints bills and the United States Mint makes coins. Currency (coins and bills) is an insignificant portion of the money supply, which the Fed controls by loaning money to commercial banks. --Jayron32 06:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The question those articles don't answer, or I'm not seeing it, is just how those items get into circulation. Do the banks "buy" bills and coins? I know that a large percentage of the bills that Engraving and Printing produces are replacements for worn-out bills, so that's a wash. But what about "new" money? How does that get into the hands of the public? What's the mechanism? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

In essence, banks anticipating a need for more physical currency request delivery of a portion of their reserves in currency. However, today most "new money" comes in the form of loans that show up as numbers in bank accounts rather than physical cash. For example, when somebody buys a house, the bank may create new money in the form of a mortgage check that transfers the new money to the bank account of the seller, though much of it may end up in the account of the seller's mortgagee, which can then use this new money as backing for the issuance of still more new money in the form of loans. See Fractional-reserve banking. Marco polo (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

June 7

What did the NYSE and Euronext merger achieve?

Most of the stocks traded in NYSE are still traded under the NYSE banner? Right?

I thought when they would merge all the stocks would be under one exchange.

Am I mistaken, or is the merged entity just a holding company for the two stock exchanges?

What did the NYSE and Euronext merger achieve? --Obsolete.fax (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

They are still under 2 exchanges, for the simple reason that NYSE is not open in the European morning time, and therefore europeans couldn't trade their prefered stocks on Euronext if it was only one exchange. The companies that provided these trading services in each reagion NYSE and Euronext merged, but that does not mean that they changed the way they operate the trading. It was on April 4, 2007. The main achievement is control of the market they specialise and it allows them to share technology costs. --Lgriot (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

So other than sharing technology costs, everything else remained the same? The stocks on the NYSE are still traded the same way, as was before the merger? --Obsolete.fax (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there was no change that was a consequence of the merger that I can remember of. Of course the exchanges will upgrade their system from time to time, introduce new stocks as companies need to be listed or delisted, but they would have done that anyway. --Lgriot (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Marxist/socialist view of robotics

What is the Marxist/socialist view of robotics research? Are they opposed to robotics research? I have this paper Karl Marx on High Tech, but it does not shed much light on the contemporary Marxists' and socialists' view on robotics. Can anyone find some sources on this topic? Thanks. --Reference Desker (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• The most famous primary source is the Fragment on the Machines from Grundriesse here. Very broadly, "Automation" and "Leisure" were major debates in Marxism in the 1960s and 1970s. You could do well to read Braverman's extensive deskilling thesis in Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. Very broadly
  • Marxism supposes that the increasing capitalisation of the process of production results in the [relative or absolute] emiserisation of the working class. Increased capitalisation also causes the tendency of the rate of profit to decline. These both lead to the largest section of the population of a capitalist economy being the working class, that this population be the poorest in terms of consumption of the share of production, and that the value of commodities approach zero (ie: free). This will create unemployment, and the economic and political basis for the great proletarian social revolution.
  • Automated robotic production is usually perceived as merely another step in the development of more intensive and extensive systems of capitalist production. The above still applies.
  • Marxists who: emphasise the subjective potential of the working class to foment revolution separate from their position in capital (ie: Autonomists), or those who doubt the tendency of the rate of profit to decline, doubt the labour theory of value, or doubt the automatic conversion of economic poverty into political class consciousness rather suspect that robots don't equal revolution. Then again, they suspected that Ford/Taylorism didn't equal revolution either. There's also a fair number of Marxists who are workers and are therefore personally fucked-off with robot related speed-ups and loss of wages and conditions in the here and now.
  • Finally, most socialists love robots, given the long standing linguistic, literary and cultural symbolic links between robots and the proletariat. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Please explain what emiserisation of the working class means. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Emiserisation, emiseration, emiserising are all variant English spellings of immiserisation, immiseration, immiserising (replace s with z as applicable to your variant of English). Our article on the topic Immiseration_thesis gives a fairly good explanation. There are two main variants:
        1. Emiseration in capital is an absolute. The real living standard of the working class will decline. This is generally considered as disproven; though, some proponents of this position argue that the absolute world wide standard of living of the working class must be considered.
        2. Emiseration in capital is a relative, based on returns of surplus value to classes and fixed capital. In Marx's conception of the circuit of expanded reproduction of capital where ' indicates that a term is in a varied (ie: expanded) form: Money -> Commodities (being Labour Power, Variable Capital (consumables) and Fixed Capital (plant)) -> Product -> Commodities' -> Money' there are some necessary implications:

           As the process is cycled, and as technological change occurs, a greater proportion of the social wealth ends up in the hands of capitalists as either profit or ownership over fixed and variable capital (particularly fixed capital). A less proportion of social wealth ends up in the hands of workers as wages. Even though the form of the commodities may be subjectively "better", in objective value terms, less value is returned to workers, leaving them emiserated. A key example is market entry into mature markets. In 1700, by saving wages, workers could buy the capital to set up a steel works. In 2012, I doubt even the largest worker controlled superannuation/pension fund could mobilise the capital of millions of workers to establish a new steel plant. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I just want to point out that in countries where self-avowed Marxists took power, Taylorism and Fordism were often explicitly embraced. Arguably no state embraced Taylorism and Fordism than Lenin's USSR. It seems counterintuitive for those of us raised on the leftist critique of Taylorism and Fordism as technologies used by bosses to de-skill workers, but when the "boss" was the Soviet state, they had no problem justifying that. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Definitely, but there is a "yes but no but yes" here. Simon Pirani's work on the Soviet workers in Moscow to 1923 indicates that workers eagerly sought a deal where they sold political rights in order to buy social democratic material outcomes. One Man Management and the NEP were rarely opposed in plants, and only political groups with an inherent critique of Taylorism (ie: anarchists, anarchistic Left SRs) or a considered critique of New Classes (same mobs, plus Mensheviks, some Bolsheviks, many industrial workers) resisted this at length. Part of the reason they could do so is that while Lenin deeply advocated a full scale Taylorism, including the positive HR benefits outlined by Taylor but never implemented in Fordist factories; the actual implementation of Ford/Taylorism prior to 1942 was minimal. This has been explored at length in the 1930s, where the possibility of pseudo-Taylorist "advance" to higher wage grades on the benefit of demonstrated skill through unauthorised movement between factories by workers was considered standard. Workers straight off the farm in the 1930s could move massively through skill and pay grades in a single year, and factory labour turnovers were many multiples of the workforce. Starting during the war workers gave up the last of their workplace freedoms to save the "nation". Subsequently, the Eastern societies became a nightmare of Ford/Taylorism for the standard worker, even in post-Stalinist plants. Miklos Haraszti Worker in a Worker's State is magnificent on this, and on how the Ford/Taylor "Norm" was used to discipline workers as a class in the East. So at times Soviet Ford/Taylorism resulted in more freedom for workers than in the West (bits of the early 1920s, most of the 1930s), but generally was worse (1920s, 1940s-1990s). And of course Ford/Taylorism never managed to measure up against workers control (1917-1921, 1956, 1968) in terms of industrial freedom and democracy. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Plessy vs Ferguson -- unanticipated disaster?

From the Civil Rights point of view, is it reasonable to call Plessy vs. Ferguson an unmitigated disaster for the Civil Rights Movement? From reading the Plessy, and case articles here, it seems only a decade or two later things were MUCH worse for black Americans than before the verdict was handed down. Is that an accurate assessment? The Masked Booby (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Another view might be that it was the ongoing bigotry (and greed?) of white people with power that made things worse, rather than one particular court case. HiLo48 (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• For the benefit of the uninitiated, Plessy v. Ferguson was a decision by some white Americans that it was OK to discriminate against black Americans. DuncanHill (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but this court decision removed the constitutional and legal obstacles to discrimination and even seemed to enshrine such discrimination in the constitution. As such, the decision made it much easier for white people to enact discriminatory laws against black Americans, whose circumstances consequently did worsen. However, Plessy v. Ferguson was just one of a number of court decisions that institutionalized racism, which also included Williams v. Mississippi and Giles v. Harris. Marco polo (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

And Reynolds v. United States. Oh wait-- that was a different minority group. Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 14:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Arguably a very different type of thing. The latter is about what people do, the former is about who they are. The law ostensibly should only be about what people do. The line between doing and being is a fuzzy one, to be sure, and reasonable people will disagree on the question of bigamy, but it's hardly the same level or type of prosecution as Plessy v. Ferguson. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

See Nadir of American race relations. Obviously, Plessy set a very bad precedent for race relations, but they were already terrible at the time. It's hard to imagine the court ruling differently considering the prevailing mindset in the era. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Work Accident Claim

[Sorry, we can't offer legal advice. You have to talk to a lawyer. Pais (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)]

Simion Tavitian, Lascu Stoica: reliability

There is a series of books by Romanian Simion Tavitian dedicated to the history of Armenians in Romania. Some of them are reviewed and prefaced by a historian Lascu Stoica (see e.g. "Dobrudjan Contributions to the Development of Contemporary Armenology"). Are these sources reliable in what concerns the Armenian origin of the mentioned personalities (among them - Spiru Haret, Vasile Conta and others)? --Max Shakhray (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• It all boils down to the reliability of Lascu Stoica. If he vetted the work of Tavitian, then he is basically putting his name on Tavitian's book and taking responsibility for Tavitian's claims. I don't know Romanian, but it seems like Stoica is a scholar, whereas Tavitian isn't. As a result I would use Stoica only, as he seems to meet Scholarship requirements. Divide et Impera (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the reply! The formal consideration is now clear. It would be surely also helpful to read some specialists' opinions on Stoica in general or his work on Romanian Armenians in particular. --Max Shakhray (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Inflation

Bear with me and my limited understanding of economics. :) I understand that if the US were to say, just print 56 billion dollars, it would cause some Inflation, i.e., the value of the dollar would go down, right? Since there is that much more money in circulation?

Assuming I'm not missing something and the above is true - what would happen, then, if Bill Gates were to take his 56 billion and burn it (thereby taking it out of circulation?) Would the value of the dollar go up? ^Avic_ennasis @ 18:02, 5 Sivan 5771 / 7 June 2011 (UTC)

What would stop the Fed from printing 56 billion in new bills to compensate for the ones that went up in smoke? Gabbe (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Even if the Federal Reserve System were to take no further action in either of the scenarios you present, you fail to account for a crucial variable: The value of a currency depends not only on supply but also on demand. In currency markets today, demand tends to be a much stronger force than supply. Considering that the stock of U.S. dollar money in the broadest measure of money supply (M3) totals about $14 trillion according to this source, it would probably take a change in supply of considerably more than $56 billion to overcome the forces of demand in a lasting way. Marco polo (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Gates doesn't have $56 billion in cash. Most of it is in Microsoft shares. He couldn't sell all those shares without causing the share price plummeting, so he wouldn't get anywhere near $56 billion for them. Even if he did sell them, he wouldn't get physical currency, just numbers on a bank's computer. Trying to withdraw $56 billion in cash would be a challenge, since that's pretty much the entire supply of currency in the country. --Tango (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

And it would weight something like 500 tons and fill 56,000 stereotypical Hollywood breifcases. Assuming you only use $100 notes of course. Googlemeister (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That's when you use 100,000 bills. ^Avic_ennasis @ 20:21, 5 Sivan 5771 / 7 June 2011 (UTC)

See our article burning money, which discusses how such a gesture would indeed raise the real value of other dollars (details of cash/stock notwithstanding). SemanticMantis (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The important thing to remember is that the vast majority of dollars in existence are not printed money. In fact, there isn't really a limit on how much printed money the treasury will print. They're happy to exchange "virtual money" in bank accounts with real paper money as fast as they can print the stuff. While theres

Cecil Adams gives his usual easy-to-read summary The Straight Dope : How Much Money Is There?

APL (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Though exchanging virtual and printed money doesn't decrease the total, which is what I was trying to get at. :) ^Avic_ennasis @ 20:21, 5 Sivan 5771 / 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all for your responses, though perhaps I should have used a better example. :-) I'm aware that most money is not paper and that Bill Gates's value is not all cash. I guess what I was really getting at - is there anything a private citizen (even if it has to be a very rich one) can do to increase/decrease the value of the dollar in the US? ^Avic_ennasis @ 20:21, 5 Sivan 5771 / 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure. If a very rich individual decided to devote his (or her) entire fortune to buying or selling dollars on a given day, they would probably push the exchange rate (versus the other currency or currencies they transacted) enough for markets to notice on that day. However, no individual is rich enough to have a lasting influence on the exchange rate. Marco polo (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm also interested. I think that the New Zealand dollar was once affected by a couple of people sitting at home, buying it. Maybe that's a myth, I don't know. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There are certain circumstances where one individual can have a big influence on an exchange rate. See Black Wednesday for one example. --Tango (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As I understand burning money, any destruction of US dollars increases the value of all other US dollars, at least conceptually. This is true whether one burns $1 or $10^10^10 (though of course the magnitude/significance of the change does depend on the amount destroyed). If anyone can describe why this should not be the case, I welcome her to update the article after explaining it to us :) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you can prove that cash money was destroyed it could be replaced at no cost, or at less than face value, depending on the circumstance. APL (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Three semi-wealthy guys are showing off their casual attitude about money. The first one puts a match to a 50 dollar bill and uses it to light his cigar. The second one does it with a 100 dollar bill. The third guy, not to be outdone, writes out a check in the amount of a million dollars, and then puts a match to it to light his cigar. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think nobody here is talking about the Fed destroying old bills and printing new ones (which they do all the time, and doesn't change the money supply). The circumstance is, suppose I just burned $100, and can prove it. How can that money be replaced? Even if I can get someone to give me $100, that doesn't replace the money I burned, because someone is still out $100. I'm not trying to be difficult, I just have no idea what you're talking about. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The United States Bureau of Engraving and Printing has an entire department for investigating such cases. If you can convince them that cash money was destroyed they will replace the bills. This doesn't come out of any existing pool of money, so no one is "out" any money. They're not giving you money, they're just replacing the pieces of paper that represent the money you already have. (This is different than an insurance pay-out, because the insurance company would have to give you some of their own money, the BEP will just print some replacement bills.) APL (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating, I was not aware of this. Do you have a reference? I suspect that the provision is intended for accidental destruction, and that I would have a hard time getting them to send me a shiny new bill if I send them a video of me flagrantly burning one... SemanticMantis (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure. It's mostly for people who had their entire life savings hidden under the mattress when their house burned down. You put the ash in a box, along with how much you think it's worth and they'll do their best to verify it. Looking at their claim instructions it looks like mutilated coins go back to the Mint. Makes sense, but I hope you didn't keep them in the same coffee can. APL (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It's handled by the Mutilated Currency Division of the US BEP.

Under regulations issued by the Department of the Treasury, mutilated United States currency may be exchanged at face value if:

• More than 50% of a note identifiable as United States currency is present; or,
• 50% or less of a note identifiable as United States currency is present, and the method of mutilation and supporting evidence demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Treasury that the missing portions have been totally destroyed.

^{Damaged Currency}

So, if your home catches fire, and you send the ashes of your money-stuffed mattress to them, they will replace your money. (Provided their research correlates your story.) ^Avic_ennasis @ 00:30, 7 Sivan 5771 / 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I just point out that the "value of the dollar" has two senses: 1) the purchasing power it has for Americans, 2) the amount of foriegn currency it buys. These are by no means the same. 2.101.15.113 (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No, they are the same. You can use it to buy a certain amount of printer toner, paper, or paper with toner on it, the last being in fact currency of another country. People forget that PPP is a fiction, in fact currencies are just something you can buy just like anything else. People pretend that "rice in Manhattan" is the same item as "rice in Shanghai" and then say "but it doesn't cost the same even though it's the same!" and introduce the fiction. Obviously the error comes from thinking that "rice in Shanghai" and "rice in Manhattan" are the same item. 87.194.221.239 (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Purchasing power is different than the value on the currency markets. Over the long term they tend to follow each-other, but they are by no means the same.

This is why it's a good idea to take your vacation in a country whose currency has recently lost value compared to your own. If the pound suddenly lost value so that it was worth the same as the dollar, it would be quite some time until prices in London adjusted. The pound would still have the purchasing power of just over a dollar and half. In the mean time, American tourists would pay about a third less than they expected to pay.

Now if you want to get all philosophical on us and say that a pound of sugar in London is a different product than a pound of sugar in Boston, well that's fine, but it's a matter of semantics that doesn't change the fact that there's a real phenomena of local prices not instantly being adjusted to match the day-to-day fluctuations of the currency markets. 76.28.67.181 (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you're simply wrong. "purchasing power is different than the value on the currency markets" is exactly wrong, a myth perpetrated by economists. Think about it. If I command you to buy me an apartment in Manhattan, does it become any cheaper for you to do it if you move to Malaysia first? Or South America? No. It becomes cheaper for you to buy a LOCAL substitute. The local apartment and the Manhattan apartment are not the same thing - everyone knows that. What everyone EXCEPT economists knows is the "slice of Malaysian bread" and "slice of Manhattan bread" are not the same either. Everyone in the world knows you're buying DIFFERENT goods, not at all the same ones. Economists are the only ones who introduce the myth, no, no, they're the same, it's just that your purchasing power has increased. If that were true I would never spend more than $5000 on anything, whether car, house, whatever, without first buying a round-trip ticket to BumF-ck, Asia, getting a disposable phone there, and then completing the transaction by phone and from there before flying back home to enjoy the goods bought with my greater purchasing power. --188.29.215.73 (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong. Certainly, some things can only be purchased in certain areas, with the local currency. And certainly the cost of living is different in different areas and that does not indicate that the currency has more or less "purchasing power".

You seem to be (violently) reacting to some argument (that no one here has made) that intentionally confuses purchasing power and cost of living to make it seem OK that someone in Malaysia is paid very little compared to a westerner. Those arguments are nonsense, but not because the idea of purchasing power is a fiction, but because they're confusing several different ideas. (Besides, the differences in "purchasing power" wouldn't even come close to explaining why Malaysians make less money than Americans.)

The fact remains, that the real purchasing power of a currency does not vary day-to-day with the currency markets. Sometimes it lags quite a bit behind, or even remains somewhat apart for various reasons.

Now, you think about it. If I buy a pound of sugar in a market in London they won't charge me the USA price translated by that day's currency exchange rates. They'll charge the same price they charged the day before. That is because the exchange rate has changed, but the purchasing power hasn't. Obviously, over the long term, wholesale prices of imported goods are driven by the exchange rate, and that will in turn effect the consumer prices. So the exchange rate clearly affects the purchasing power, but they're just as clearly not the same.

"Purchasing Power" is a very useful concept to understand when traveling. Take the example above. The pound usually has a purchasing power near a buck fifty. But the exchange rate varies quite a bit. When the exchange rate is up near $2.00, you can expect everything to seem super-expensive to visiting Americans, because they'll be paying $2.00 for a unit of currency that can only buy $1.50 worth of stuff. But if the exchange rate drops to near $1.00, then it's a great time for Americans to visit, because they'll be paying $1.00 for a unit of currency that can buy $1.50 worth of stuff.

Many people intentionally plan their vacations to take advantage of these sorts of fluctuations. It would be ignorant and costly for a traveler to pretend that the exchange rate is the only way of understanding currency.

I particularly like the (only somewhat serious) attempts to define purchasing power based on the cost of a Big Mac. (See Big Mac Index) Big Mac sandwiches are pretty much the same everywhere in the world, but they are certainly not priced at what you would expect based on the exchange rates. 76.28.67.181 (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question without the crazy arguments above, What you are describing is called the quantity theory of money. In theory the value of a currency (or more precisely the price leven within the economy) in the long run is determined by the quantity of that currency. One of the problems with that theory today is that most money is not created by governments, but by the fractional-reserve banking system. Jabberwalkee (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Nazereth to Jerusalem

Luke 2:42,in the bible(KJV)states "And when he was twelve years old, they [Jesus and his family] went UP to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast". Jesus and his family lived in Nazereth at this time, according to my references. How would Jesus go UP to Jerusalem when Nazareth is in the northern region and Jerusalem is in the southern region as depicted on any map that I can locate? This event probably took place around 12 to 16 A.D. Was the map different during this era, or is there another explanation for this wording?

The maps to which I am referring are Palestine in different eras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wruth244 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The idea that north is 'up', and south is 'down' is evidently not universal (there is no particular logic to it). I suspect that Jerusalem was 'up' in the sense of being 'higher' as in 'more holy' or 'closer to God'. Or perhaps Jewish maps (did they make maps then?) has south at the top? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The convention of depicting maps with North at the top dates back to Ptolemy (see [7]). Gabbe (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

^^As your own source says, though, this didn't become the prevailing convention until after the Middle Ages. --M@rēino 20:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

True, but my point was that the convention post-dates 16 AD. Gabbe (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

In the Hebrew scriptures, travel to Jerusalem is traditionally represented as ascent. That is, one travels up to Jerusalem. See Song of Ascents. This may be a reference to the position of Temple in Jerusalem atop the Temple Mount. Your passage makes an explicit reference to Pesach, one of the Three Pilgrimage Festivals, when Jews traditionally went up to Jerusalem. Marco polo (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As well as endorsing the "north doesn't automatically mean up" responses above, I would add that the word up was not in the original Bible. It is a translation. If it really bothers you, you need to find the original text. HiLo48 (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

And as a more modern example of "up" not meaning "north", in Railroad directions, trains tend frequently to go "up" or "down" for north/south, unless they're going to the capital, in which case, a train would go 'up' from Scotland to London, despite the journey being due south --Saalstin (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'd also add that the New American Standard Bible and the Revised Standard Version do use the word "up", but don't say "up to Jerusalem." --M@rēino 21:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see the corresponding Greek verb and preposition. Notice in the link former that it says "to go up (literally or figuratively)." Schyler (one language) 22:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 May 21#Are north and south strongly connected with up and down everywhere? for a recent discussion.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Note also that Jerusalem is on a plateau, at an average altitude of about 2500 feet -- so many routes of approach must involve going uphill in the literal sense. Looie496 (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes Jerusalem is 2500 feet above sea level while Nazareth is 1200 feet.--Bill Reid | (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The first verse of the World War I song "It's a Long Way to Tipperary" begins with this line:

"Up to mighty London came an Irish man one day..."

London is geographically east and south of Ireland. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The song continues with the information "As the streets are paved with gold, Sure, everyone was gay". Wikipedia has an article about the song which was premiered by the redoubtable Florrie Forde, "a dashing...lady with a most attractive figure, excellent voice, and a positively uncanny faculty for taking hold of an audience."[8]. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ancient maps often had East at the top - see Mappa mundi. Astronaut (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Some historian I don't remember the name of said that "To orient" originally meant to turn so the map faced East (if one were in Europe) since The Orient (or The Holy Land) was at the top. Similarly, The "Oriental Institute" in Chicago is devoted to artifacts from the Holy Land and surrounding countries, not Asia. Edison (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The Holy Land and surrounding countries are in Asia. — Kpalion^(talk) 08:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

There is also some speculation that "Nazarene" as applied to Jesus may have been a title, rather than a geographical classification, and even that the town now known as Nazareth may not have existed in biblical times. See Nazarene (sect) Rojomoke (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I doubt there were any maps 2000 years ago. Some of the earliest maps, from medieval times, had south or east upwards. 2.101.15.113 (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

People in the English Home Counties "go up" to London, whichever compass direction they have to go in. By ancient tradition, you also "go up" to Oxford or Cambridge - everywhere else is "down". As the King James Bible was translated in Oxford, Cambridge and Westminster, perhaps it's no surprise that the translators followed the same logic for Jerusalem. Alansplodge (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Me again. I've just found the Latin text from the Vulgate Bible; "et cum factus esset annorum duodecim ascendentibus illis in Hierosolymam secundum consuetudinem diei festi"[9]. My Latin is not up to much, but "ascendentibus" sounds as though it ought to mean "went up". Perhaps the idea of "going up" to the capital and "going down" to the provinces is more widespread than I thought. Alansplodge (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Consider the name "Songs of Ascents" — there's a good reason that these psalms, sung by pilgrims going to Jerusalem, are songs of Ascents instead of songs of Descents. Throughout the Bible are found references to going up to Jerusalem, going down from Jerusalem to wherever, etc.; for a New Testament example, look at the poor victim in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, who (along with the religious leaders that followed him) was going "down" to Jericho, which unlike Jerusalem is below sea level. Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Photo from federal prison

Asked at the Image help desk and not given an answer:

This photo is of an inmate in federal prison, while in federal prison. Would it therefore be considered public domain? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the answer either way, sorry, but I'll bet it makes a difference whether the prison in question is operated by the government or if it's corporate operated. It might help to know which facility it's from. APL (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

What matters is who took the photo, not where or who it was of. If the mugshot originates from a Federal Bureau of Prisons or the FBI, on Wikipedia we give it the {{PD-USGov-DOJ}} tag. Anything else we consider to be probably non-free. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That's why I wondered about corporate run prisons. Wouldn't photos taken by employees there be handled differently? APL (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The inmate is at the Federal Correctional Complex, Beaumont, which is federally-run. The photo is from this page--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the photo in all it's formats, but the file you linked is of such low resolution that I personally would have no qualms about using it on fair use grounds. It's a tiny image! --188.29.130.143 (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

June 8

Queen Victoria's diaries

Are Queen Victoria's diaries available online anywhere? Or have they been published in full? All I have found is a selection from her youth. They must be out of copyright by now, although the originals will be locked up somewhere. Thanks 92.29.122.28 (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The question was asked at Yahoo Answers. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

They don't seem to have been published in full. This may be because there were 111 "large manuscript volumes" of diaries, plus hundreds more destroyed after her death[10]. They are apparently held in the Royal Archives at Windsor Castle, which is open to academic researchers[11]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not Queen Victoria's own diary but here is the lost diary of her servant Abdul Karim. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"Mr. Kinnock remarked that it was great to see Queen Victoria's diaries, "and in her own handwriting". The Queen then told the truth with millions watching, that Queen Victoria's diaries had all been destroyed because she had upset the British establishment. The diaries were all rewritten, taking out the most important bits where Queen Victoria recorded every sitting she had with the medium John Brown when she made contact with Prince Albert." According to this source this was said on a live TV broadcast. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that that article is an opinion piece referring to "the British thought police", etc., I doubt whether it should be seen as reliable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow! According to this http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=A0S00SaBau9N9QwAoQP37BR.;_ylv=3?qid=20110608003953AADTGGP Queen Victoria's first language was german, and she spoke german at home! Perhaps the diaries have not been published because they were partly written in german. I wonder how fluent our current rulers are in german. 92.28.242.181 (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like anti-royalist half-truths to me; Queen Victoria#Heiress to the throne says "Her lessons included French, German, Italian, and Latin,[13] but she spoke only English at home.[14]". Interestingly, Queen Elizabeth II is pretty fluent in French. Astronaut (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I hate to disabuse you of this, but Queen Victoria was English and her first language was English, not German. Her husband, however, was indeed (what we would now call) German and so there is every possibility they spoke both English andGerman at home. (The UK imported the Hanoverian King George I over a century before the birth of Queen Victoria, so it could be said that the Royal Family was German, but as every monarch since George III has been born in England, they are English by birth.)--TammyMoet (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Our article on Victoria's mother, Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, states that she was unable to speak English in 1820 when the Duke of Kent died (the year after Victoria's birth), so perhaps there would have been some German spoken in the Kent household. Victoria's governess Baroness Louise Lehzen was German too. However, Victoria was writing a journal in English from 1832[12]. But I do agree that anti-royalists often over-play the German ancestry card. Alansplodge (talk)

This page says that Victoria was "taught only German but at the age of three she started to learn English". I'm looking for a better source. Alansplodge (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

So it appears to be true then. 2.101.15.113 (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, being fluent in French is not surprising for someone with an upper-class background and in Elizabeth II's generation. It's probably not even rare now for people from good schools. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

French isn't taught as a manner of course any more, even in top schools. GCSE French may be compulsory in a particular school, but A level, which is by no means fluency, surely isn't. Anyway, it's certainly not surprisign for QEII. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

What language did Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh grow up speaking? His family was Danish, he was a Prince of Greece, but his uncle was the Earl Mountbatten, in the British nobility. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

According to our article, he understands a bit of Greek but doesn't really speak it. The languages his parents had in common were English and German, but German was clearly his mother's first language, his sisters all married Germans, and he attended school in Germany until he was 16 (though he had lived in France for a while). Thereafter, he attended school in Scotland and later joined the Royal Navy. So, most likely, German was his first language, but English became his dominant language. Marco polo (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) From Elizabeth & Philip by Charles Higham & Roy Moseley, p. 74: "The boy's nanny, Nurse Roose, was British ... English was his first language, German and French his second and third, and Greek not at all." He was also "raised to learn sign language, so that he could communicate with his mother", who was totally deaf. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat correcting myself, I point to the quote from the prince himself about a third of the way down this page. He was apparently multilingual from childhood. Marco polo (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Pierre Albuisson

I'm looking for a good reliable source that supports the statement "French engraver Pierre Albuisson designed a stamp for the Principality of Monaco featuring Claude Monet's painting The Magpie to honor the 150th anniversary of the artist's birth." I've found the personal website of the artist[13] but no reliable secondary or tertiary sources (although I'm sure they exist). The website says the stamp was awarded "Best stamp" at the "world cup 1993", so surely it must be notable? Any help finding more information about this stamp and any coverage in good sources is appreciated. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Three hobbyist websites: [14], [15], and [16]. No mention of a 'World Cup', but several references to Monaco 1993. Meph^talk 07:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The "World cup" refers to a a competition of stamps of the world, during which the readers of Timbres magazine voted for their preferred stamps proposed by postal administrations (In French the name of the competition is Coupe du monde des timbres, "Stamp World Cup"). You can check here that Pierre Albuisson wins four times. — AldoSyrt (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Are any of these reliable sources that we can use in Wikipedia articles? Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Mixed capitalist-communist system

Is it possible to develop mixed capitalist-communist system which in partiuclar would be able to fight unemployment more efficiently and whose planned ecomomy would combat financial crisises while retaining private property?--188.146.51.33 (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

How would you mix them? The key difference between the two is the ownership of the means of production (factories, farmland, etc.). If they are owned by private citizens, it's capitalism. If they are owned by the community generally, then it is communism (although capitalist economies usually have a fairly large public sector too). I am simplifying things to a ridiculous extent, but that's the gist of it. You could have a partly planned capitalist economy, using a combination of regulation and incentives (eg. tax breaks) to influence what private owners of capital do with it (in fact, all countries do this to some extent). That wouldn't make it communist, though. --Tango (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

State capitalism? Mixed economy? The articles may be of interest, anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any state that has ever had a pure capitalist or a pure communist system. A mix with aspects of both is the norm. For the model used in several European states (originating in Germany and Austria, and implemented with vastly different degrees and shades), see Social market economy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Which begs the question, is China really a communist country or is it a capitalist autocracy? --Bill Reid | (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's neither. It's a hybrid system with some heavy aspects of socialism and some heavy aspects of capitalism. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it raises the question. </lostcause>AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

@ Mr. 98. Looking at 21st century China it is hard to find heavy aspects of socialism. Maoist-communism is only given lip service and the large state owned industries are being privatised quite quickly. The direction is towards complete privatisation with a non-centralised market economy. The heavy hand of suppression is ever present but communist? Socialist ideals are almost gone. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

So, "State capitalism" could fit. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• It could, but it would be bending it heavily. The largest user of State capitalism at the moment is the SWP (UK) line parties. It is a bit of a stretch to reconcile their Cliffite construction of the soviet union with the nature of China. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I think they call themselves a Socialist market economy. There are some rather significant industries under state control that don't seem like they will privatize anytime soon. Whether you want to call that socialism or capitalism or what have you seems like cutting rather fine hairs. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that these days China is more capitalist than the US. This is because a totalitarian state can suppress unions and government regulation that would otherwise be demanded by the workers/voters. Meanwhile, the US has a large proportion of government workers, and those working at companies which get government grants, bail-outs, subsidies, etc., especially in fields like the military, police, fire-fighting, agriculture, and education. StuRat (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

China has all of those things, too. The main difference between China and the United States today is in the area of political freedom, not economic system. The main way in which their economic systems differ is that, in China, the financial system is tightly controlled by the government, which also represses labor. By contrast, in the United States, the government allows labor organizing and theoretically lightly regulates and oversees the financial system (though some have argued that it is really financial interests that control the U.S. government). Marco polo (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

James Meade (in Full Employment Regained?) argued that something like the OP's system might be achieved through the introduction of a Basic income guarantee; the idea is that with that in place the minimum wage could be significantly lowered or abolished and with aggregate demand high enough and labor cheap enough, full employment would be possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand the Italian Autonomists used the "Social Wage" as an explicitly transitional demand, believing it to be incompatible with continued capitalism. (Then again, some Social Democrats used a non-starvation wage as an explicitly transitional demand...) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

A mixed system WOULD be possible. You could have the state owning all the key industries, and people assigned to jobs for which all their needs are then met (state issued food vouchers, housing, car, public transit, ect), as well as private ownership of small businesses that were run as a sideline business to your state-given job. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

A much more common mixed model is created by limiting ownership. Just because you "own" something, does not mean that you can do whatever you want with it. You have to abide by all sorts of rules and regulations. Restaurants are not allowed to discriminate based on race or sex. Nuclear power plants must implement extensive safety features. Microsoft, Apple and Google probably would not be allowed to merge, even if 100% of the stock owners would support it. Eminent domain can be used to further the public interest even over individual owners. In that sense, "the people", represented by the state and its laws, exercise some aspects of ownership over private property. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Only to the extent that you can demonstrate that the state itself is a radical democracy, rather than being hegemonised by a property owning class. And if controlling the state is conditional on displacing a capitalist class, then you can't really describe it as socialism. For early critiques of state control, see Proudhon, Bakunin, Marx, Goldman, Luxemburg. Another interesting question in this mix is about states in transition, such as dual power on one hand, and the NEP on the other. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

India from independence till the early 1990s is an interesting example of a mixed system. There was widespread nationalization of many industries, Soviet-style central planning, and private businesses were strictly controlled. Economy of India has a bit of info. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I found it very amusing when our Australian government privatised the nationally owned telecommunications company, with a very aggressive argument that government ownership of such bodies was wrong, while the biggest player in the newly opened up telecoms market happened to be owned by the Singapore government. Go figure. HiLo48 (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

And French companies, some state-owned, some private, some mixed, but from supposedly statist France anyway, have bought up much of the UK's erstwhile public sector. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Bible version(s) used/referenced by Henry VIII in his dispuute with the Vatican

Which version(s) of the Bible would Henry VIII have referenced in his dispute with the Vatican regarding the biblical interpreation of divorce? Which would the Vatican have used?82.17.198.76 (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.

Henry VIII cited from the Catholic Bible's Book of Leviticus regarding the invalidity of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. The Vatican would have mainly relied on Canon Law--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I would guess the OP meant which printed editions they used. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It would appear Henry and the Vatican used the Latin Vulgate Bible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality in Israel, need lots of info

Hey all,

My girlfriend is giving a very important speech on homosexuality in Israel (complex relationship =p), and I need to find as much info as possible about it but I see no article. Basically everything and anything so we can boil it down. =p Could someone please assist with this? Thank you very much. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Israel is a good place to start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good start. Anything else? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 19:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

We also have Category:LGBT in Israel. You could take a look at the pages listed there, and follow the sub-categories downwards. --Antiquary (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, even better! Thanks! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 19:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

She is giving a speech about homosexuality in Israel OR in Israel, giving a speech about homosexuality? 2.139.12.164 (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

On the topic of homosexuality in Israel in Israel (as an Israeli). =p More I cannot say. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect and no offense intended, if it were me giving an important speech, I probably wouldn't start with Wikipedia. Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 17:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, when given the choice between finding info all over the web in sources you may not be able to trust, and finding them all in one place and being able to check the sources themselves for more info and credibility, in what is actually a very good article (though it could use a bit more on the anti-discrimination bit), I think I'd pick that article as a good starting point. I am going to see if I can find sources not covered in the articles though and hope they are good. You can count on Wiki at times. Let's face it, most people do. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Except that Wikipedia and the web are not your only two sources of information. (Shrugs.) Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 14:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Upon thorough inspection of most online English sources on this matter, I can happily say that the current Wiki articles have pretty much all of the relevant info. Well done. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 03:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Western Europe 1453

Did the West ever plan to come to the aid of Constantinople in 1453? I know they never did. But did any of the rulers of Western Europe ever thought of extending their hands to help their fellow Christian brother in the East? Also what was the immediate reaction toward the fall of Constantinople by the rulers of Western Europe.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think if you read our article on the Crusade of Varna, perhaps along with our article on what is sometimes known as the Crusade of 1456, it should give you a pretty good fix on the state of affairs at the time. Executive summary: people cared less about what happened to Constantinople than about the threat the Ottomans posed to the rest of Europe. Looie496 (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The Fall of Constantinople article also talks about this. Who would have helped? The west already tried to help, and failed disastrously, at Nicopolis and Varna. The Polish king was killed at Varna, Poland had no king at all for a few years afterwards, and was probably not very keen on getting involved with the Ottomans again. They were also occupied with a war in Prussia. In the Empire, there were disputes over Austria, Bohemia, and Hungary, and the Hungarians (like the Poles) had already been defeated numerous times. England and France were still fighting the Hundred Years' War. And what would be the point of helping, if anyone had been willing or able? Constantinople was essentially all that remained of the Byzantine Empire, and it had been that way since the fourteenth century. The Ottoman sultans left it alone because they could extort tribute from it, but otherwise the empire no longer really existed. The emperors did come begging for help in the west, but the Papacy (which was itself still recoving from the schism of the fourteenth century) wanted the emperor and the Orthodox clergy to recognize the superiority of the Roman rite first. One of the emperors (John VIII maybe?) agreed to this, but the Orthodox population wanted nothing to with it. They didn't want western help at all if that was the price. (This was in the later stages of the Council of Florence.) So, basically, mutual distrust, the inability of most of Europe to help, and the absolute futility of doing so, led to the fall of Constantinople. There was really no way to beat the Ottomans at this point, and they eventually conquered Hungary and almost Austria before western Europe was able to do anything about it. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes it was John VIII Palaiologos who re-submitted the Orthodox Church to the authority of the Pope and attempted to force the use of the Latin rite in Byzantine churches. He led a mission to the Council of Florence in 1439, taking with him a retinue of scholars (claimed by some historians to be pivotal to the Rennaisance). This led to some financial support from the Catholic nations - I believe that Henry VI of England ordered a collection to be taken in every English parish church for the Byzantines. In terms of direct aid "Although some troops did arrive from the mercantile city states in the north of Italy, the Western contribution was not adequate to counterbalance Ottoman strength. Some Western individuals, however, came to help defend the city on their own account. One of these was an accomplished soldier from Genoa, Giovanni Giustiniani, who arrived with 700 armed men in January 1453" (from the Fall of Constantinople). Alansplodge (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ownership of Royal Graves

Okay in current modern day monarchies, palaces and royal estates belong to the state rather than the monarch. But who do the tombs and bodies of their ancestors belong to? Do they belong to the Church they were buried in, the state as in the case of royal palaces and estates, or to their descendants.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Since nobody has given an authoratative reply yet, I expect that for example Princess Diana's grave is owned by her brother, as it is on his estate. Presumably the graves of anyone are owned by who owns the land they are in. In some countries it may be customary to buy grave-plots, in others the church or local authority owns the land. On the other hand, "buying" a plot may be just paying a fee to the owner of the land to reserve use of the plot rather than actually owning the freehold. As to who owns the bodies - one would guess that bodies who died hundreds of years ago are owned by the landowner, although I understand that often even the skeleton decays away completely. 2.101.15.113 (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Not all royal residences belong to the state (perhaps more strictly The Crown): I think Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle are personally owned by the Queen. (The Sandringham article says it's owned by the Royal family.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Since 1928, all Royal burials (except for sovereigns and consorts) have been at the Royal Burial Ground at Frogmore near Windsor. I believe this is privately owned by the Queen but not 100% certain. Kings and Queens come to rest at St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, which is a Royal Peculiar and so answers directly to the Sovereign and not to any bishop. Westminster Abbey which contains the remains of several medieval monarchs, is also a Royal Peculiar, so the chances of a rogue bishop selling them on eBay to boost the funds is rather remote. Alansplodge (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I expect that "ownership" of a buried body is not a simple issue. The land in which a body is buried has an owner, such as a cemetery association, a church, a municipality, or the family who owns the old family burial ground. There are laws in some localities governing the treatment of dead bodies, such that if I own the family cemetery in which my ancestors (parents back to some great grandparents) are buried, I have no legal right to dig up their remains and sell their skeletons as curiosities or medical teaching tools. I probably also have no legal right to dig them up. Exhumation typically requires legal process. I doubt that someone could legally have their ancestors dug up and the bones ground for fertilizer. That said, there was once a lively trade in Egyptian mummies, which were used as medicine or for various disrespectful practices. Edison (talk) 03:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course it might be that someone (the descendant, the estate, and or the cemetery owner) "owns" the body, just as a pet owner or farm operator owns his animals, but society has laws to limit actions taken. One cannot legally torture animals, unless it is "for science," and even then there are supposed to be limits, based on public sentiment. An owner of a failing animal is typically supposed to take it to a vet to be euthanised, rather than killing it himself. A descendant can have an ancestor dug up, with suitable paperwork, and the remains moved to a different cemetery plot (so Grandma can "rest" next to Grandpa, if they were initially buried in different cities), but typically just cannot grab a shovel and do the digging himself. Edison (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

June 9

Genealogy in Australia

I wish to grind through free records of birth on the www to see if I can figure in what order my "friends" came to join me on my planet. What site should I searh for?Kittybrewster ☎ 00:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Each Australian state maintains a separate Births Deaths and Marriages register, but these registers are not web accessible for recent information. BDM NSW for example offers online "limited information for records from 1788 to: Births (up to 100 years ago); Deaths (up to 30 years ago); Marriages (up to 50 years ago)." This means that anything from 1982 onwards will not be accessible online for NSW BDM. Many Australians weren't born in Australia, and the Federal Government's Immigration files may also be of great use. Your first step would be your State Library, your State Archives and National Archives. These information agencies have guides for genealogists. Australia also has a genealogical community. Once you've tracked down the basics, you can proceed to Church or Union archives—the Union archives are predominantly held at UWA, Adelaide, Melbourne and ANU. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Palin and Paul Revere

What the hell is this going on [17] and why Palin is so interested in Paul Revere. What will she gain by making edit in that article? --999Zot (talk) 06:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

There's some discussion about this on the Misc desk. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

But this is about edits to the Revere article...and it's probably not Palin herself doing it, but some nutjob followers, or people trying to make her look even worse. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually the Paul Revere article has been protected since november 2010, so the "rush of Palin followers" are most likely highly exaggerated. From following the discussion on that article I have not been able to find anyone coming up with a concrete example of political editing following this incident (though of course the page abounds with accusations of it). There was some discussion about inclusion of a "Sarah Palin"-section, which of course led to partisan bickering, but the section was sensible deemed irrelevant for the article and removed. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Palin doesn't have anything to gain, but the anti-Republican crowd has a lot to gain by doing all they can to support the "All Republicans are dumber than monkeys" message. -- kainaw™ 12:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do not start a political discussion here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Kainaw, you are missing the deeper game. This is a common trend: Palin says something wrong. Media reports on it. Palin spins it into a "lame-stream media persecution" story — elites vs. "regular folk," and so on. Followers learn to tune out any voices that don't reinforce their worldview. And so on. It's not a new phenomena — the Bush crowd had a variant of it, and the "look at how stupid this guy is" line backfires as often as it hits — but Palin's gotten very good at it. It's become Palin's primary means of responding to criticism of any form, and it certainly resonates with her "base" (which does not include all Republicans, thank goodness). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I am basing it on history of Presidential elections that I've followed: Both Bush's were considered monstrous idiots. Reagan was a blubbering idiot. Quayle was such an idiot that he couldn't string two words together. McCain was so senile that he was an idiot. The only exception is Cheney. Instead of being an idiot, he is evil. Looking at elections from before my time, Nixon and Ford were both idiots. So, it is clear to me that the standard anti-Republican cliche is that all Republicans are idiots. -- kainaw™ 14:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

"Actually the Paul Revere article has been protected since november 2010". This is the Internet - "hardly a man is now alive who remembers that fateful month and year..." 87.194.221.239 (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

And as for FDR, Truman, JFK, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and Obama? ... All complete idiots! (and don't get me started on Biden!)... Now that we have all expressed our personal political biases and called every President (and most vice-presidents) in the last 75 years an idiot... things are nicely balanced... can we please move on and discuss the issue (if there is one) with some neutrality?

Palin said something stupid off the top of her head, and then got defensive when the media called her on it, and instead of just laughing about it and saying "come on guys... ok, I said it wrong, but you all know what I was trying to say" she got defensive and tried to spin it. It isn't the first time a politician (from either party) has done this, it won't be the last. It really is irrelevant in the context of the Paul Revere article... and I would argue that it is irrelevant in the Sarah Palin article as well. Her mis-statement has a degree of notoriety right now, but it really isn't notable in the long run. In a few weeks, no one is going to care about this. Blueboar (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Enough with the politics, please. This is an example of historical revisionism. As semi-vounteers for this thing, it's our job to make sure that silly things like this don't have any lasting impact, so let's all just be vigilant next time someone with a lot of followers makes a silly remark like this. Or let someone else do it, big project after all. =p As for mentioning this thing in any article, we go by WP:RECENT. As Blueboar said, no one is going to care about this in a few weeks. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Kainaw,As long as you're listing off Republicans who acted like senile idiots, I was amazed by how intelligent, witty, and vibrant Bob Dole seemed in talk show interviews after he lost his election. Why didn't he act like that during the campaign? Perhaps big thinkers in the Republican party have decided that intentionally acting in a way that you and I perceive as "stupid and senile" will win them votes from their base? Or from moderates? There's a similar phenomena with George W. Look at debates he participated in to become governor of Texas. It's difficult to believe you're watching the same person who bumbled his way through the presidential debates. I'll readily admit I'm no expert in these matters, but it's difficult to believe that in this era of carefully crafted media personalities that this isn't being done on purpose for some reason. 76.28.67.181 (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Mr 98, In fairness Obama did something similar, if not quite as extreme. His campaign against the news media's "distractions" probably won him as many votes as anything else. If his opponents and detractors had stopped going on and on and on about Obama not wearing a lapel pin, McCain might have won. I don't feel like slogging through article histories to back this up, but it wouldn't surprise me if some Obama supporters were inspired to remove unflattering details from his articles as "distractions". 76.28.67.181 (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Obama makes his own distractions, though. I don't think he didn't wear a pin in order to get attention for it, or have a complicated birth story so that people would get suspicion, and so on. And Palin's campaign against the "lame stream media" has been more forceful than any politician on the national stage that I've seen in my lifetime. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Total outsider here (non-American), and someone older, who has watched many campaigns in many countries. This incident hardly matters in the individual sense, but it will be remembered cumulatively as part of a long term image that seems to exist for Palin. Many candidates seem to gather collections of "silly" comments around them. At Presidential level, there do seem to be more with that sort of image on the Republican side, but remember I am just saying "image". Given that there have been plenty of Republican Presidents, it's obviously not an insurmountable barrier to election, so maybe it's all just part of the broader game of politics in the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't paid much attention to this story, but when it first broke, I took a glance at the Paul Revere article, and it seemed to me that the media had it backwards. There wasn't a rush of Palin fans trying to change the article, as much as a rush of anti-Palin folks who wanted to highlight her gaffe in the article. Editors who follow the article probably know if my impression is correct or not. Mostly I just heard about the story from friends' Facebook links. I was amused by this anti-Palin blogger, who seems to have a weaker grasp on history than Palin, but doesn't know it. —Kevin Myers 23:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Length of sentence: EU vs. US

It's a common belief that in the US you get a longer prison time than in Europe. However, how much longer is that? (if it's the case at all). Is there any reliable comparison between the two systems?2.139.12.164 (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the data is available. However, there is unlikely to be a single convenient comparison - the EU has many different states with different legal systems and traditions. However, I'm not aware about anything like a "three strike" law in any EU state. Likewise, no EU state has the death penalty under normal circumstances (I think some very few have reserved it for war time treason, but I'm not too sure even these holdouts haven't been phased out). I'm most familiar with the German system, and here it's basically unthinkable to try juveniles as adults - on the contrary, for young adults its fairly routine to be found "not fully mature" and tried as juveniles (which affords extra protection and much lower sentences). This paper describes some of the difficulties of comparison (e.g. different distributions and frequencies of various criminal acts), but also concludes that Germany uses lower or no prison sentences compared to higher sentences in the US for similar crimes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

About the death penalty, see European Convention on Human Rights protocol 6 and 13 Nil Einne (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I know it was on the way out, but not how far... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• I can't help you with length of sentence, but I can point to a related variable: incarceration rates. Assuming that everything else is equal (obviously an overly heroic assumption), then longer prison terms should mean higher incarceration rates. And, indeed, see List of countries by incarceration rate (also see Incarceration#Incarceration rates by country). The USA beats everyone on the planet at keeping people in prison, and it isn't even close. --M@rēino 13:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Also in Germany, no one under the age of 14 can be held accountable for any crime, a fact that many people take advantage of. I've heard of cases where gangs intentionally recruit 12- and 13-year-olds because they won't be punished, and cases where an honor killing among Middle Eastern immigrants has been assigned to a 12- or 13-year-old for the same reason. Several year ago, there was a Swiss family living in the U.S. whose 11-year-old was arrested on suspicion of raping his younger sister and kept in a reformatory until his trial. I don't think he was going to be tried as an adult, but he did have to wear the orange jumpsuit associated with prisoners. The German press raised a hue and cry over the pictures of him behind the barbed-wire fence in his jumpsuit and being "treated like a criminal". In America, on the other hand, there was no particular media interest in the story at all, except for some reporting on the German press's reaction to it. (In other words "Eleven-year-old rape suspect is held in custody until his trial" was not news in America, but "German press is incensed by the fact that 11-year-old rape suspect is held in custody" was news.) Pais (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The article on United States incarceration rate says, as one example: "the average burglary sentence in the United States is 16 months, compared to 5 months in Canada and 7 months in England." Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You really need to compare the sentences given for identical crimes, not average rates. For instance, American burglars may be more likely to carry guns, which would get a more serious sentence (certainly in the UK). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Another factor to consider is the actual time spent in prison relative to the sentence. In the UK prisoners typically serve half the "headline" time, though they may be on licence when released and liable to be recalled if they misbehave; this is certainly true for Life sentences. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

In France, suspended prison sentences are very common (impression based on reading the press, but also based on reading of comparative research somewhere). It seems to be a habit among magistrates to give a suspended sentence, on the basis that the convicted person then has an incentive to keep out of further trouble. Of course a proportion subsequently re-offend and are then incarcerated. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

16th century ports

The year is 1594, two young men wish to travel to Dublin in the English held part of Ireland, only a few miles from north Wales, as it turns out. Coming up from London, they decide the best course would be to take a ship from the northwest of the country, but I am wondering, which port would they sail from? My first guess, with limited knowledge of geography and history in that part of the country, was Liverpool, which I have at least heard of, but it seems that was a village of about 500 people at the time. Recent research suggests the only major settlement in that part of the country, rather out of the way and rural as it was, was Chester, though that was, and still is, situated some miles from the coast itself. So, giving up, I thought to come here and ask if anyone else can provide some better informed information on this problem...

79.66.111.46 (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Roads were really poor in Britain before the late 18th century. My guess is that it would have been quicker, safer and cheaper to get on a ship in London and sail round the coast to Dublin. Failing that, Bristol or Cardiff would have been the best bet in my opinion. Alansplodge (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This page says; "Travel (in Tudor England) by road is dirty, tiring, slow and dangerous. A hired horse can cover about 30 miles in a day. Otherwise travel means a slow walk or a bumpy wagon. It takes more than two days to go from London to Oxford by wagon." At that rate London to Bristol (107 miles) would take four days on horseback - Chester (166 miles) is the best part of a week. Alansplodge (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sailing from London was no piece of cake either. If the winds were in the wrong direction at any point, you could easily get hung up for a couple of weeks or more. My guess is that Bristol would have been the most likely spot -- it was the second largest city in England at that time, and a major connecting point for trade with Ireland. Looie496 (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the least risky and probably the cheapest way would be to walk or ride to Bristol, then sail from there. Although it would take probably five or so days to get to Bristol, the time required to sail from London east, around Kent, and then west (mostly against the wind) through the Channel past Cornwall could easily take as long in less than ideal weather, with the added danger of shipwreck or other accidents at sea. Marco polo (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Southampton is another choice of port, an easier sailing route than going from London but not as good as Bristol. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment re Chester. The Dee estuary was (and is) very prone to silting up, so that by the 16th century Burton - now a small inland commuter village - was being used as a port for some of Chester's shipping, and later on Parkgate further downstream was developed for the same reason. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Besides the lengthy and arduous land travel required from London to Cheshire, another argument against such a route is that sailing from Cheshire to Dublin would typically have taken almost as long as sailing from Bristol, since the entire route from Cheshire would have been against the prevailing winds. While a ship leaving from Bristol would have had to sail nearly as far upwind through the Bristol Channel, the remainder of the trip, from St. George's Channel to Dublin would normally have been a relatively quick course perpendicular to the wind. So, for all of those days spent slogging on muddy roads to the north, your travelers wouldn't gain much advantage in sailing time. Marco polo (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Alansplodge. London was the biggest port in England and ships would have been traveling between London and Dublin regularly so I'm sure the two men would have boarded at London. In many ways it would have been safer as traveling on foot or on horseback would have been very dangerous unless they traveled in a large group. The well off wouldn't think about traveling without armed guards. Outlaws were prevalent and wild and feral animals could be dangerous. The main roads were maintained to a reasonable level by the local landowners and were wide enough to let two wagons pass but off the beaten track they were rutted and could become quagmires after heavy rain. Inns and hostelries were positioned about 20-30 miles apart and that determined the traveling horseback mileage. Roads tended to follow the topography and today's mileage would'nt be all that accurate. A medieval cog could travel around 40-60 miles per day with an unfavourable wind and doesn't stop till it reaches its destination while the road traveler has to stop. All-in-all, better by sea from London. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I was about to make a counterargument for the road to Bristol, until, looking for an article on the Great West Road, I found in our article on the A4 that the road was not really laid out until the 17th century, before which travelers would have had to follow one of a number of routes along minor paths between villages. So overland travel could have been difficult. However, so could sea travel. Apart from the danger of shipwreck, Breton pirates were certainly active during the 16th century and ships traveling between London and Dublin would have been targets. All in all, I think the answer would depend partly on the circumstances of the travelers. If we are talking about young men of modest means and appearance, I think that they probably would have chosen to walk to Bristol, the main port involved in Anglo-Irish trade, where a quick and relatively inexpensive passage to Dublin, or even a reduced fare in return for work on board, might have been possible. If we are talking about sons of the monied gentry, mercantile class, or nobility, then I think a sea passage from London would have been more likely. Marco polo (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree piracy and shipwreck was an ever present risk but that risk would still have been present from a Bristol embarkation although lessened. Grace O'Malley was a case in point for Irish pirates. Yet, with the cost of animal feed if our travellers were on horseback plus board and lodging at the inns, the longer time to get there, the need to travel in groups, I feel a London embarkation would have been the better option. --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What about river travel? Are there any ports further west that could be reached from London by barge? --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The River Thames was a very busy river in both goods transportation and for passengers but in the 1500s it wasn't navigable even as far as Oxford but it was almost possible to reach that town when it was deepened by 1620. So our travelers would still have had a considerable land journey to face to reach a west coast port. --Bill Reid | (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Most impressive speech against U.S. Policies

What is the most impressive speech(es) blaming U.S. for post-9/11 policies and crimes in middle-east, inside U.S. and ... . Flakture (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

President Obama is credited with becoming President of the United States post-9/11. --188.29.215.73 (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I would hardly say that Obama has been critical of the U.S. policies post-9/11. He's been an ardent supporter of the Afghan War, which was a direct response to the 9/11 attacks. He's not necessarily been a strong supporter of the Iraq War, but he's hardly alone in that regard, and I don't know that he's had any impressive speeches regarding it. --Jayron32 00:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I don't mean just presidental speeches and high offices. They could be professors, political strategists, social leaders and ... .Flakture (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

In the UK, former foreign secretary Robin Cook's speech against the US invasion of Iraq was highly rated.[18] The full text is online.[19]

Some people rate Osama Bin Laden's rhetorical style; his speeches are collected in Messages to the World. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Since he himself was responsoble for 9/11, his commentaries on its aftermath are of special interest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez's speech where he called Bush the devil is pretty impressive, at least in its ridiculousness, haha. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Harold Pinter famously used his lecture upon receiving the 2005 Nobel Prize in Literature to deliver a stinging condemnation of U.S. policies. It can easily be found through a google search. --Xuxl (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I got a pick. Ahmadinejad's Speech to the United Nations General Assembly (22 September 2010). or it's some highlights in this. Flakture (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

June 10

YHWH

Sorry if you're Jewish :) I know that most observant Jews aren't supposed to say the name but would they be offended to hear a Gentile (non-Jew) say it? (in an educational or otherwise non-confrontational context of course, not in a mocking-your-religion context). How does this vary by denomination? thnks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.128.95.0 (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that most orthodox and ultraorthodox people say adonai, which means lord. Others just say God or Yahweh or sometimes El or Elohim. It varies from person to person, but generally the Reform Jews and Conservative Jews have no fear of saying God's name, especially the reform. Reconstructionists, I am not sure, but I think they follow us Reform Jews. In prayer, most people will just say adonai, because that is customary. You're not required to though. The reason for Yahweh being written as YHWH btw is because that is the latinisation of the four Hebrew letters, Yud, hei, vav, hei, (יהוה)that make up God's name. It doesn't have anything to do with respect though, just no vowels except in the form of nikkud. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

To add on, while most Orthodox Jews wouldn't say it themselves, I don't believe they'd really be that upset over a Gentile's use of the name. If anything, I would think they'd have only a slight discomfort with hearing it used in an educational light. And as Petrie said, the more "lenient" denominations wouldn't offer any protests at all. ^Avic_ennasis @ 08:08, 8 Sivan 5771 / 10 June 2011 (UTC)

In regard to "saying His name", is it even known how YHWH is properly pronounced? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

We do not know how the Tetragrammaton was pronounced in ancient times. Yahweh is a modern convention. Marco polo (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

And there is the equally-artificial "Jehovah". In any case, since we don't know how YHWH was pronounced, we can't really "say" His name anyway, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Correct. I believe in modern days it's more along the lines of gezeirah than anything. Jews have historically implemented additional "safety zones" or "fences" via gezeirah - an example is that the Torah commands us not to work on Shabbos, but a gezeirah takes this a step further and commands us not to even touch our tools on Shabbos, less we forget what day it is and accidentally perform work. By not pronouncing the name, we fulfill at least two mitzvot; we avoid the desecration of His Name, and we sanctify and respect His Name. ^Avic_ennasis @ 17:33, 8 Sivan 5771 / 10 June 2011 (UTC)

See The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site.

—Wavelength (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Pensions and salaries in occupied France

I am just curious about what happened to public and private sector salaries and pensions - and personal savings after Germany occupied France during WWII. Even a point in the right direction would be appreciated. Thanks 92.4.32.2 (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

As our article German occupation of France during World War II points out, the Germans imposed an artificially low exchange rate on the French franc, resulting in a devaluation of the franc. This would have reduced the buying power of the savings, salaries, or pensions of French residents. Marco polo (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want to pursue this topic further, you'll find references at the foot of our article on Otto von Stülpnagel. Marco polo (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Assassination of Abraham Lincoln

I have seen a documentary film shortly ago, about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. It mentioned a detail I did not know, that the assassination was actually a scheme to kill the president, the vicepresident and the secretary of state all at the same time, to make the US fall into anarchy. Fortunately, although Booth was successful, the others were not, and the plan never achieved its real purpose.

But that raises a question: what would have actually happened in such a situation, if all the people in the presidential line were killed or died at the same time? And what would happen today in such a scenario? Surely during the Cold War and the atomic threat, the chance should have been considered Cambalachero (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

See United States presidential line of succession, Presidential Succession Act, and Designated survivor. Marco polo (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The short answer, in the case of the Lincoln conspiracy, is that the President Pro Tempore of the Senate would have become acting President. As regards the actual conspiracy, I've seen conspiracy theories that claim Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton was actually behind the assassination conspiracy. No definitive proof can be found, of course. But he and his "radical Republican" pals nearly succeeded in eliminating Johnson from office via impeachment, which would have had the same effect as killing him would have... and in practical terms, it did anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

How so, Bugs? Johnson was impeached by the House, but the Senate acquitted him, so he returned to his presidential duties. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but Johnson was denied renomination a month or two later. Although he was so unpopular by then anyway I don't know if it would have made a difference. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Although it wasn't the case for Abraham Lincoln, it's interesting to note that, according to the article Presidential Succession Act there *were* three times in history, summing to about five weeks time total, that assassination of the President would have resulted in there being no clear successor to the office. Note that these were all before the passage of the Presidential Succession Act of 1886, which added the cabinet to the line of succession. -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Difference Liberal Party and New Democratic Party

What are the main differences between Liberal Party of Canada and New Democratic Party of Canada, despite being left-wing parties? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.215 (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Do they have lists of issues, or "position papers"? If so, you could start by lining them up and see where, if anywhere, they differ on issues. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Our articles have sections on the current positions. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Traditionally, the Liberal Party is not considered a leftist party but a centrist party. That is a significant difference. --Xuxl (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

During the recent election the Globe and Mail put a comparative party platform tool on their website. It's got the main points at least, for those two parties. [[20]] i.m.canadian (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

One BIG difference is that the NDP is now the Official Opposition for the first time ever, with all the perks that entails, after its second place showing in the recent election. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Marx in mainstream economics?

Have any of Marx's theories or writings been accepted by right-of centre economists? 2.97.219.191 (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Much of Marxian theories of understanding economics has been included in mainstream academic curriculums. --Soman (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Show some evidence. Looie496 (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Shimon Peres

From the article:

Peres was elected to the Knesset in November 1959 and, except for a three-month-long hiatus in early 2006, served continuously until 2007, when he became President.

What happened in early 2006? --Theurgist (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

He left the sixteenth Knesset in January when he switched from the Israeli Labor Party to Kadima. He was elected again in March of that year for the seventeenth Knesset. ^Avic_ennasis @ 23:22, 8 Sivan 5771 / 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. --Theurgist (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin's wife

Is there a bible scholar here who can tell me the name of the wife of Benjamin (son of Jacob)? I can't find it anywhere. Moriori (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

According to our article, the name of his wife/wives are not given in the Bible. Are you looking for answer outside of the Bible? ^Avic_ennasis @ 00:04, 9 Sivan 5771 / 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Aaaaarrrggghhhhh. I read that article too, but didn't see that info. Thanks. Moriori (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

There are no extrabiblical sources currently known with that info afaik (by which I mean there is no info on the Patriarchs currently known that exists outside the Tanach/Bible). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 04:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

June 11

support vehicle

I saw a picture of the US Airways Flight 1549 support vehicle. It looks nice. But I was wondering what the brand was. Anyone know?24.90.204.234 (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

From the picture in the article, I'd say it's either a Chevy Suburban or Tahoe. Dismas|^(talk) 02:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

What's the difference between the two?24.90.204.234 (talk) 03:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Check the articles but my cursory check indicates that the Suburban is the long wheelbase version of the Tahoe. Exxolon (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

When will this case be heard?

I suppose there are too many variables to make a guess? [21] 66.108.223.179 (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Such lawsuits rarely go to "trial" in a traditional sense. What usually happens in these cases is that one group or the other gains favor with either lawmakers OR with the regulatory agency in question (in this case the FDA it would appear) and either law or regulation ends up changing to favor one side or the other. --Jayron32 03:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was filed in federal court, and specifically in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, in Los Angeles. In the federal courts there is a crisis with judicial vacancies; the Senate takes much longer than has been traditionally standard to confirm the President's judicial nominees, and the result is that as seats become vacant and judges go on senior status, it takes correspondingly longer for cases to proceed in court, although magistrate judges take up some of the load. So you can count on a long-term backlog in the federal district courts, and probably in this particular California federal district.

As to when it will actually proceed to trial - it might not. There might be a settlement, or the FDA might issue some rule that makes the suit moot. Even if the suit does proceed, there will be pretrial motions to take up (such as a motion to dismiss and motions on venue and jurisdiction), continuances, and so forth. So count on it being many months at the very least. Neutrality^talk 05:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Marriage alliances with Portugal

Was Portugal a very undesirable country to marry with or marry into in the age when royal marriages were used as diplomacy? I mean from my observation Portugal has seen the most spinster and bachelor infantas and infantes in any of the royal families of Europe.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Robert Kiyosaki

Approximately how rich was Robert Kiyosaki before he sold a single book about how to get rich? 76.27.175.80 (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)