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 26

how to satisfy two women

this is kind of I don't know, related to psychology I guess. my question is how to satisfy two women at the same time, just sexually. The major issues I see (thinking of it as a man, if I were in a threesome with another man and a woman) is 1) that's pretty repulsive, since I am not gay (and neither are any of these two girls) 2) I couldn't avoid thinking of all sorts of veneral diseases and stuff, sine what kind of man (or woman) goes into a threesome? I've never done anything like this, however, and neither have they - we just really like each other. So my question is from a psychological / human sexuality standpoint, how do I satisfy these two women at the same time. None of us is seeing anyone, we're in our mid-twenties, and but we all flirt. We've known each other fleetingly for a few weeks, and noen of us has had sex with any of us. --188.29.202.199 (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot the biggest one in my list! Jealousy! I would think, that as heterosexuals, this is the biggest issue. I really can't imagine a correct approach to this kind of situation - in fact maybe it can't be done at all. I am NOT talking about a menage-a-trois type situation, where a third woman would join a couple (advice for this is here). I'm talking about flirtation among three people none of whom is seeing each other. None of us is promiscuous at all, actually - we're sexually frustrated. Wouldn't surprise me if all of us were a redditor and "forever alone". I think we all think we're cute though... --188.29.202.199 (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

also please note that this is not chauvinism. if there were another guy in our circle who was as cool as we are, the question might be a very different one. It's easier for two guys to fuck one woman though (and kind of hot) so on a purely physical level I can see this (as in porn scenes). I am bringing this up not because it's relevant but to show that I am tyring to view the situation from the other point of view as well, which woild be two guys and a girl. The main thing I see is 1) that it's icky, 2) who would do that? vd type stuff, and 3) jealousy... I would very much like to read up and make myself wiser on this subject. Thank you. --188.29.202.199 (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ask them. It is the only sensible answer. Bielle (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, why would they know? If a girl asked me about being with another guy and her, all I could say is I've never done it, it's repulsive to think of thet type of guy that would jump on that chance, but you know, if it's someone we know well who is cool, and if it is basically more about her than the two of us (not gay action) than it could be a very exciting experience. All I could say is let both of us touch you, or keep a hand on both of us, and don't try to make us do stuff with each other (don't say, "kiss him" or suck him). But in the case at hand, I think I can easily follow this advice. Surely there must be more, that no one would know except by expereince? It sounds like you can help me on this point Bielle?--188.29.202.199 (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to reply to myself again, but another thing I thought of is that I don't want them to to feel inferior or that it takes two of them (they're in some ways similar, and friends with each other) to satisfy me, like one of them is not interesting enough or things like that. But, you know, we've known each other for weeks and none of us has dated each other, so this is not really about building a relationsihp... this is what could be taken the wrong way. any help here (psychologically) is very much appreciated. I care about their feelings and as people as well. --188.29.202.199 (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Put a third way, if I were reading about this in erotic fiction, the major things that make it work more easily is 1) it's just a story, no one has to think about disease and promiscuity, and 2) people can act out of character in a story. in a story two librarians could just decide to start undressing and fuck me. obviously this is not the way the world actually works, and i am looking for advice as it relates to real people. --188.29.202.199 (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe one is not supposed to be able to do so. Schyler (one language) 00:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking about that. In my experience, if you can't think of how something will go, then maybe you should go do something else. This is why I'm asking for help from all of you - I realize my own limits. --188.29.202.199 (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I do feel that if I heard someone else asking this question, I might think that this guy was sleezy and wanted a way to "psych out" and manipulate women... that's not what this is about though, but just the fact that it can come off this way is good reason to think that maybe you're right schyler and maybe one is not suppsoed to. but i do think there is an alternative. just as men choose to watch films where two men are banging a girl -- and why do they choose to that, because it's hot. if i were a girl and trying to arrange this with two guys, i would not be manipulative, i would be a hostess, and just as with any good host or hostess, it looks effortless and easy, but in fact it is hard to get right. it's easier for a girl, who would be a hostess of her body, but as i guy to be host of this would be more than just sharing my body. i mean, sensuously, physically i would have to be there 100% with both fo them, i mean things like continually caressing them, stroking their hair and body, if i am kissing one of them, then also giving 100% attention to the other, for example like if the other were sucking me at the same time. same for intercourse. i think the jealousy and giving 100% attention is very important (to the woman, i shoudl be, i think, there 100% with her, just with the difference that i am also satisfying another woman). i think this is not as easy to pull off as it sounds, and this is why i would like pointers or further reading and education. --188.29.202.199 (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Women are pleased by talking, especially about them. So, hopefully you can understand why "Ask them" is the best answer. -- kainaw™ 00:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

One reason I would think it's a bad answer, is as a guy I would absolutely hate being asked about this. I would hate talking about it at all. It's gay as f_ (nothing wrong with that, but I'm not) and uncomfortable for me. Especially if the other guy were all enthusaistic about sucking my d_ and stuff. It's one thing if it happens during the heat of the thing, but to talk about it. That will make sure the thing did not happen at all. The way it would work with me, that I would be cool with it, would be if a girl asked me could you ever imagine f__ing me while another guy does? And I say yes and she says okay let's do it and we do it. F_ talking about it!! But it's different with a guy and two girls: it's not that each of them "f_s me while the other does" - I only have one d_ck, which is not analogous to how a woman can easily suck a guy off while she's getting banged. (and in which case, to each guy, he's just f_cking her while someone else is). So, it seems, I need far more at my disposal than just talking about it. I need to know what to do, both physically and psyhcologically... I'd like to educate myself and improve in this field, and that's why I'm here asking you. --188.29.202.199 (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

If you aren't asking women what they want, you aren't pleasing them - even one of them. Your penis isn't anything of interest to them. They probably have dildos that are twice as big and vibrate. What good are you physically? All you can provide is conversation. Until you wrap your brain around that, you will be just another guy that the women fake orgasms for just to keep you from feeling bad. -- kainaw™ 01:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the concern, but we talk dozens of hours a week and have a lot of fun. I am not going to start talking about sex for the reasons I outlined -- the golden rule, that I wouldn't want to talk about having sex with another man and woman. Doesn't mean I wouldn't want to do it, just that I think talk is counterproductive. In fact, this is my explicit experience: talking about this (in that case about another guy and I) was very bad, and should not have happened. It's one thing to discuss things briefly, but as for doing well with the thing, I think it is just plain not the best way to do it. This would be like me asking "how do I be a good host for a party" and you saying "ask your guests". Well, yes, you can ask them what they'd like at the party, but at the end of the day the thing should seem effortless and spontaneous, not the product of laborious machinations. the best hosts make it seem like they're hardly working at it - they don't aanalyze the party dynamics with you. I would like the same result. --188.29.43.193 (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

How to satisfy two women at once: Give one your checkbook and the other your credit cards. StuRat (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow! That was pretty cynical StuRat. I can't help wondering why these kind of questions often get the longest response list.190.148.136.161 (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

They get the longest responses because the OP is more interested in writing about his own fantasies than he is in listening to the answer to the question. You please two women the same way you please one. Be most interested in what she/they want. Not much else matters. Bielle (talk) 03:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's it. It ain't rocket science. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Cue "The Husband Store" joke... ;-) Viriditas (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This,[1] with a rebuttal from the female viewpoint. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say that if you aren't open enough to discuss such things, you won't be open enough to perform such things whole-heartedly. Foofish (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Dude, just be creative, but don't do anything really freaky, lol, it's that simple. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Furthermore as one of the obvious flaws with the OP's approach is they appear to be presuming the women would be uncomfortable with any sexual interactions with each other. While this could be the case, you will never know without talking to them. Notably in many modern European (including American) cultures it seems more accepted for women to be involved in same sex interactions even when they don't consider themselves gay or to be bisexual then for men [2] [3]. And of course people are different. So going by how you would feel about sexual interaction with a guy doesn't work. Nil Einne (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

What women are really "burning for" is "the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night."[4] Bus stop (talk)

Fooled me. Bielle (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Some years back, Jay Leno reported that a group of researchers had paid a series of women 75 dollars apiece to tell them what turned them on. "It turned out that what turned them on was the 75 dollars!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. Did the OP think that we're too genteel to see the word "fuck" uncensored but that we'd have good advice about three-way sex? --JGGardiner (talk) 07:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't you know how the Victorians operated; there was no activity considered unacceptable, but there were severe, extreme restrictions on what might be spoken about. That approach is still very much alive in many ways. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You're both overanalyzing it: it's just the Wikipedia filter. I (OP) had all words uncensored then tried censoring them one at a time, but it kept tripping the filter, so I censored them en masse. --188.28.242.234 (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What is this "Wikipedia filter" of which you speak? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Source of lyrics

I've recently been enjoying this piece, referred to as "Creation" from the Continental Harmony by William Billings. What is the source of these lyrics? Did Billings write them as well as the tune? SDY (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You can find the answer in our article about the piece, Creation (William Billings). Looie496 (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Zoiks, we really do have an article on everything. SDY (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we do have an article on everything. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Samoa

Is there any attempts or possibiltiy of the unification of American Samoa and Samoa? Also how did the two Samoas keep their native population so high? Most natives of other islands in the Pacific are now minorities in their own lands, ie. Hawaii. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

In a sense, they're about to move further apart. Western Samoa is planning to move itself to the other side of the International Date Line in December to better align itself with New Zealand and Fiji. HiLo48 (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

And even more importantly it will align itself with the region's leading economic force, Australia. Samoa is now 21 hours behind the eastern territories of Australia, but after the shift the country will find itself only 3 hours ahead of them. This will ensure a better consistency between the working hours in the two nations. Now Samoans work on Friday when it's already Saturday in Australia, and Mondays in Australia take place when it's still Sunday in Samoa. (This, of course, is valid in regard to New Zealand and Fiji too.) --Theurgist (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that New Zealand is apparently Samoa's current principal trading partner. The date line switch will also make Samoa's work week significantly better aligned with Pacific Rim parts of Asia like China often seen as a major possible future partner Nil Einne (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That makes it 23 hours behind versus 1 hour ahead. --Theurgist (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

According to this site, "Western Samoa has a lively political climate, with much jousting and intrigue between the different political parties. There continues to be, in some circles, discussion of a possible unification of the two Samoan regions into a single independent country. Few American Samoans appear to be in favor of this idea. Their resistance to Samoan unification is driven not only by the tremendous economic disparity between American Samoa and Western Samoa, but also because of different cultural trajectories.". Looie496 (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK Fiji, Tonga, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands as well as many of the smaller pacific islands still have populations generally considered majority native. If you include them, both Papua New Guinea and West Papua (region) still have a majority native population I believe, the later despite the Transmigration program Nil Einne (talk) 07:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

1 billion hungry

I've read that 1 billion people go hungry every day. How is this number calculated? Viriditas (talk) 05:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

More like a "guesstimate", I should think. But where have you read it? They might have an explanation or rationalization of such guesstimate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The phrase one finds on the news or in books is "1 billion people chronically hungry",[5] however, the exact term is food insecure, not hungry.[6] Are these figures coming from the UN? Viriditas (talk) 06:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's another one: "500,000 Illinois children whose families must cope with food insecurity".[7] Viriditas (talk) 06:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Another: "The US Department of Agriculture reports that one in six Americans is food insecure."[8] So the question remains, how is food insecurity calculated? Viriditas (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Those numbers sound suspiciously "round". As you suggest, the citations kick that number around but none of them say where they got it. The UN or one of its branches would be a reasonable guess. The interesting thing in the food security article is that supposedly food production per capita in the world is actually increasing, which means the problem is as much to do with distribution as anything. I wonder if the UN has a website that might lead to this information. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The food security page has a bunch of references that could be perused. That article's number seems to be 800 million rather than an even-rounder 1 billion. It also mentions the World Resources Institute, which I suspect has numbers like that at its disposal. If one of the food security references explains where they get those numbers, that would be a good addition to the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This source suggests the US number is based on food stamp recipients. That much is obvious. But what about the rest of the world? Viriditas (talk) 07:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

If you close your eyes you can actually feel the hunger. Try it: it's about a billion people's. --188.29.246.40 (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

What were you hoping to achieve by that "contribution"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

If at least one person here closed their eyes to feel how a billion people's hunger feels, then my work has been successful. --188.29.32.204 (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it worked for me. I closed my eyes and a vision of a Sundae appeared. So I went to DQ and got one. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This Millennium Development Goals Report from the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations uses the 1 billion hungry figure for 2009, and discusses on page 2 and again on page 74 where it's getting its data from. I've been looking around on the UN's Department of Economic and Social Affairs website for data or discussions of how data is compiled, but haven't hit paydirt yet. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The FAO's The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2009 talks about how they derive their numbers in what looks like pretty good detail. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The people in charge of producing food are the same people who say how much food needs to be produced? Isn't that a conflict of interest? How much food insecurity and/or hunger do government aid agencies say there is? I would think they would be a lot more accurate, without any motivation to overestimate like the food producers' have. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 02:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The Book of the Dead

According to this video (from 4:47 to 5:37), the Book of the Dead tells many stories that are very similar to the Christian stories about the virgin birth of Jesus, his crucifixion etc. Is that an exaggeration? A specific commentary to the book? And in what plate [9] can I find it? Oh, well (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of miraculous elements common to many religions. Among them are miraculous births and the idea of a divine figure who dies and is resurrected. Both of those articles have sections on both the Christian and ancient-Egyptian versions of these elements. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 14:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The video has been removed, so I can't see specifically what it says. In general, though, the idea that Egyptian mythology has close parallels to the life and death of Jesus has a long history but is not very accurate. The Book of the Dead alludes repeatedly to the myths that are claimed to parallel the life of Jesus, but there are numerous other Egyptian texts that do the same. To summarize the similar stories:

The god Osiris is murdered by his brother Set and then revived by his sister and wife Isis. The revival may be a literal, physical resurrection in one way—Isis has sex with Osiris to produce Horus. On the other hand, Osiris apparently lives only in the Duat, the realm of the dead, after Horus is conceived. While there, he is an agent of cosmic renewal: the sun goes into the Duat to meet Osiris and be reborn every night, the waters of the Nile flood flow out of the Duat to renew the fertility of Egypt, and dead souls go to meet Osiris and be revived in a similar manner to the sun.

The life of Horus is also supposed to have parallels to Jesus' life. I believe that the idea originated with Gerald Massey, who was not a professional Egyptologist in a time when even professional Egyptology was not very sophisticated. He claimed that Horus was born of a virgin, which as I said above is not true. The same goes for the claim that Horus was born on December 25 or that he was crucified. Some of the other claims may be true but not constitute particularly important events in Egyptian mythology. For a lot more detail and argument on this subject, you can look at the talk pages for the Horus article (Talk:Horus and Talk:Horus/Archive 1).

So, in sum, parts of Osiris' story have broad similarities to that of Jesus. Very little of Horus' story does. A. Parrot (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) See firstly our article Jesus Christ in comparative mythology and other articles linked from it. Egyptian influences in the Hebrew Bible may also be of interest.

You might check out the 1999 book The Jesus Mysteries for one recent and detailed exploration of these ideas. FWIW I've just read it, and while I don't go along with everything the authors suggest, a good deal of it seems congruent with other material I've read in this area (Pagan religions, early Christianity, general history of the period). Try to ignore the rather bitter sniping in the article's discussion pages: much of it seems to centre on a very minor question, irrelevant to the main thesis, about whether or not a particular artifact which was lost during the Second World War, whose picture is used on the cover, was genuine or not. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.244 (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

When Egypt converted to Christianity, statues of Isis with Horus were rededicated to Mary with Jesus. You literally cannot tell which religion a statue belongs to: the stylistic differences reflect when the statue was made, but not for which religion. The museum in Berlin has a series of them, starting Pagan and ending Christian, but with no break between.

But Christianity itself is not a direct continuation of Egyptian religion. It also has elements of Persian religion (Mithra), as well as a lot of Greek and of course Jewish religion. — kwami (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Do be careful, on this topic, not to stray to far into The Two Babylons style misinformation. 86.164.163.138 (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

A. Parrot please notice that "Isis has sex with Osiris to produce Horus" is a bit unclear. Osiris' penis was lost, eaten by a fish. Isis resorted to some magic solution to become pregnant (a magic spell or a penis of gold?). Flamarande (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I left that out for brevity's sake. The episode where Isis recreates Osiris' penis is present only in Plutarch's version of the story, and then it gets complicated (in Plutarch's narrative Horus is apparently already born when Osiris dies, and it's Harpokrates, a child form of Horus, who is conceived after Osiris' death). Source: Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride, translation and commentary by J. Gwyn Griffiths, 1970. A. Parrot (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Set murdered Osiris and hid his body in a tamarisk tree. Isis found the body, reanimated her dead husband (who still had his penis at this point) and had sex with him. Set then found the body and cut it into pieces where (in Plutarch's version) his penis was eaten by the nile perch. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

June 27

What is the most northern community in Alaska?

Neptunekh2 (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Barrow, Alaska. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That's right to the point. StuRat (talk) 05:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep. The folks who live in Barrow are grateful that the town wasn't founded on Point Barrow, because it gets really cold there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

St. Clive?

Plaque on a park-bench in Bangor, County Down

How many people consider C. S. Lewis to be a saint? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean besides the guy that created that sign? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I see that he's listed in "Category:Anglican saints", so it must be true. To what extent anybody cares about Anglican saints, I couldn't say. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well any local parish called "the Church of St Thomas the Martyr" is probably an Anglican church named after Thomas Beckett, since to Catholics that phrase would be clearly ambiguous, possibly referring to Thomas More. So maybe that says something about who cares about Anglican saints. OK, I've put square brackets around "Church of St Thomas the Martyr" just to see where it leads, on the theory that that will explain who cares about Anglican saints.

Anyway, in a science-fiction book by J. Neil Schulman there are references to "Saint Clive", and he doesn't leave any doubt about who is meant. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Thomas Beckett was sainted by the Roman Catholic Church originally. Meanwhile, there's this old poem running through my head: "As I was going to St. Clive's, I met a man with 7 wives..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Were you mis-remembering that on purpose and I missed the joke? It's "As I was going to St Ives" since Ives rhymes with wives. Dismas|^(talk) 07:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

And with Clives, chives, hives, lives, etc. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

There was a libertarian sci-fi novel (I think it was The Rainbow Cadenza), which I have to admit I found rather tedious despite my general agreement with its politics, that used the jingle with St. Clive. The story identified Lewis as one of the major proponents of rationalism in his era, despite clearly disagreeing with his conclusions. --Trovatore (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Beckett's story is an example of what you had to go through to get sainthood in those days. Lewis died of natural cases, his head in one piece. But there are saints, and then there are Saints. Even the Baseball Hall of Fame has its Babe Ruths, and its Chick Hafeys. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's true that you had to be a martyr to be a saint in those days. St. Patrick and St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine were not martyrs, IIRC (but correct me if I'm wrong). They died of natural causes with their heads (etc.) intact. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

According to Canonization#Anglicanism, there's only one genuine Anglican saint - viz, Charles I. It's therefore theoretically possible for Lewis to be canonized, despite his not being a Roman Catholic, but there haven't been any serious official moves towards it. ECUSA commemorates the date of Lewis' death (22 Nov), but I don't think that they recognize him as a saint. Tevildo (talk) 07:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, there may be Anglican saints, and also saints recognized by the Anglican churches but who were not themselves Anglicans. Obviously many of the latter exist. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The category's descriptive paragraph suggests that the term "saint" is used rather loosely in the Anglican church, i.e. it can mean someone who has lived a life of piety, and not necessarily formally canonized. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

When I saw the question title I assumed it was going to be about this guy. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

At Canonization#Anglicanism, it says: "Some more recent people, while not officially declared saints, have been added to certain Anglican national calendars for commemoration; for example, C. S. Lewis (November 22) and Martin Luther King, Jr. (April 4)." It doesn't say which countries' Anglican churches have added him to their calendars. (It seems the most conspicuous difference between the way the Eastern Orthodox Church is organized (mutually recognizing autocephalous hierarchical churches) and the way the Anglican Communion is organized (also mutually recognizing autocephalous hierarchical churches) is that in the latter, they seem to make something of a big deal out of refusing to let any hierarchy cross international boundaries (e.g. you'll never find anything like the "Episcopal Church of the United States and Canada" whereas the Orthodox Church in America seems to extend through those two countries). Hence the calendars are "national". Am I understanding this point correctly? Is that actually a formal canon or something like that in the Anglican Communion?) Michael Hardy (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

To be a little unhelpful, Anglican Communion#Provinces is the relevant list. The Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East is probably one of the better counter-examples, and some of the rest is covered by the Church of England's Diocese in Europe. I suspect the case in America is due to there being fewer Orthodox than Anglicans (or at least, at the time of foundation of the relevant organisations.), and national is an alternative to "provincial" or something. 95.150.20.43 (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, "95.150.20.43". Michael Hardy (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to add that the Anglican Church of England does not include CS Lewis in its calender of commemorations. Alansplodge (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Google

Googling "St. Clive" (in quotes, so it's verbatim), I find this:

http://cootsona.blogspot.com/2011/05/st-clive-science-and-theology.html

and this:

"131st st., Clive, Iowa, http://maps.google.com/maps?q=clive,+iowa&hl=en&ll=41.606747,-93.798609&spn=0.016686,0.021243&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=36.178967,43.505859&z=15

and this:

http://www.tyrusclutter.com/images/altarpiece/cliveopen.html (This is obviously C. S. Lewis, unless I'm confused)

and this:

http://www.wheatonpub.org/issues/fall-2009/the-relics-of-st-clive/

and this:

http://sacramentalliving.blogspot.com/2009/05/st-clives-academy.html

and a site that sells "St. Clive" tee-shirts, which the software won't let me post here since it's on Wikipedia's blacklist;

and this item with numerous references to St. Clive, St. Clive's Day, and Clivester:

posterous.com/getfile/files.posterous.com/roncampbell/.../SERMON.doc

Michael Hardy (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

what happens if you don't preheat?

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.115.160 (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't preheat what? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The oven, before putting item in for cooking, I would presume. This question is addressed here: "How important is it to preheat your oven?" Bus stop (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you do not preheat, it may take a bit longer to properly cook whatever it is that you are cooking. Blueboar (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) As important a scholarly review as that may be, it is short on theory. If it takes 5 minutes to preheat my toaster-oven, then I put in something from the fridge for 30 minutes (some sausages, say), how different would the effect be if I had just put it in cold for 35 minutes? During those five minutes that the sausages sit there while the toaster oven preheats, going "Well, this is awkward..." What happens to them? I would like a good theoretical understanding of the whole process.... --188.29.206.58 (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"Carl Sagan's Apple Pie" requires that you "Preheat oven to 375 F. Make the universe as usual."

One cautionary note is that the universe has billions and billions of calories. Bus stop (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The actual quote, or at least the way Carl said it in the Cosmos TV series, was this, with his stylistic pauses noted, "If you wish to make... an apple pie from scratch... you must first... invent the universe." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

But also zillions of anti-oxidants. Start now and see how you go. Just leave what you can't finish, we'll give it to the dog. While it's digesting, you can be reading the entire internet, which you've just downloaded and printed off on your dot matrix printer. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

1) Baking is a more exact science than regular cooking, so preheating is a way for recipe writers to remove the variability of how long the recipe users' ovens take to come to temperature. 2) Putting food in a cold oven increases the time it's in the temperature danger zone (40°F to 140°F) at which bacterial growth is fastest. --Sean 12:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, some techniques require the food to be put into a hot oven, not a cold or lukewarm one. The instant heat browns and caramelises the surface of the meat, whereas a warm oven will just make it tough. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

THis is the answer I was looking for. Could you elaborate? Also: why did Baseball Bugs strike out his text? --188.29.96.144 (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That was Bus stop. As noted here,[10] he decided he didn't like his answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

There may be another reason: if you don't preheat, whatever you are cooking will take longer to warm up, and any bacteria etc present will have longer at the optimum temperature range to produce toxins (cooking should kill the bacteria, but the toxins may remain). AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Already answered here.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If you are frying a meat or other foodstuff in a pan,

always preheat the oil or fat before you put the food in, or else it may get soaked with oil and taste very bad and oily.

If you are cooking anything in water or baking in an oven,

there are almost no bad effects of not preheating the water or the oven, at least in my experience as a beginner cook, though some more advanced cooks swear it does sometimes make a difference.

If you are baking in an oven

I retract the above advice about baking. I don't use an oven too much, and if I do, I try to follow the recipee more strictly, so I can't really tell about the effects of not preheating the oven.

– b_jonas 17:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

One case where you definitely need to bring the water to a boil before you add the food is pasta. It becomes a slimy mess otherwise. StuRat (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Some comments on preheating the oven:

1) Regarding the longer time period in the "danger zone" for bacterial growth: This is true, but unless your oven takes a very long time to preheat, it's probably not long enough to make much difference.

2) As for controlling the total amount of heat the food receives: This is true, too, but, since most ovens aren't very accurate in the final temperature, you really shouldn't be doing what I call "dead reckoning" cooking, where you just take it out when the bell rings. Altitude, where in the oven the food is located, etc., will also affect cooking time. Instead you should look at it, smell it, poke a fork into it, use a food thermometer, etc., to determine when it really is done. Set the timer to go off 5-10 minutes early, then keep checking it til it's done.

3) As for wanting to "sear the surface to lock moisture in", this is true, and I see no way around preheating, in that case.

Also note that similar logic applies to whether you remove food from the oven immediately to quickly cool or leave it inside to slowly cool. Leaving it inside will allow for extra cooking, so you would need to account for that. For some types of food that's OK, for others it's not. A nice compromise might be to leave the food in the over to cool, but open the oven door. This reduces the possibility of burning yourself by reaching into a hot oven, but don't do this with children around, or they might touch the inside of the oven or door and get burned (especially if you have a batch of cookies in there). StuRat (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

3) is bullshit. Good Eats did a thorough review of this, and searing food does nothing to keep juices in or keep it "moist"; searing imparts flavor by browning reactions akin to the maillard reaction. That is why you do it, because it tastes good. Keeping meat from drying out has more to do with how you cook it otherwise; paradoxically you can get juicy meat by either using hot fast methods (grilling) and removing the meat at the "rare" stage, OR you can get juicy meat by long, slow, low temperature (sub-boiling) cooking, like barbecue or braising, which allows gelatin formation in the meat, the gelatin traps the moisture and the low temperature keeps it from escaping via evaporation. The cut of meat also has a lot to do with how it will dry out; some meats are better suited to grilling and others to barbecue, depending on their fat content and amount of connective tissue. --Jayron32 19:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

3) gets shot down in flames in our List of common misconceptions, Stu. It's a good thing to brown the meat, but the advantage does not come because of the reason you stated. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The instruction to preheat the oven is because if you use a gas oven, it heats up by running absolutely full on until it reaches the right temperature, then turning itself down (maybe modern fan ovens don't do this, but trad gas ovens do). Consequently there is a danger that you would burn your baking on the side closest the fire if you put it in the oven just after you turn it on. My other half used to do this regularly, till I drummed it into him to let the oven run for 15 mins before putting the food in.

Incidentally, if you put cabbage, green beans, broccoli or other green veg into cold water and bring it to the boil, it will be overcooked. If it grows above the ground, it needs to go into boiling water. Roots can go into either, but since there's no advantage in preboiling the water, you might as well start them off from cold. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It's really a matter of what you are cooking. For example, if you are cooking raw potatoes, there is no harm in starting cold, whether you are frying, baking, or boiling -- they take long enough that it doesn't matter. But if you are cooking any bread-like thing, starting cold will pretty much ruin it. Looie496 (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact, due to density, certain vegetables do better when starting with cold water. Potatoes (and related), carrots, turnip family; all of these should be started in cold water, so as the water heats up so does the entire product. If you start potatoes in boiling water, you will end up with mushy overcooked outsides before the inside is done. → ROUX ₪ 19:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Difference between New York City's boroughs and other city boroughs, such as Mexico City's boroughs

I just came back from my first trip ever to New York City, and I have been reading about what boroughs really are on several Wikipedia articles like this one (sorry for not making that clear earlier by not putting a hyperlink) because I had no idea what they are and now I'm a little bit confused. I've read and have been told that the term borough has a unique meaning when it is applied only to New York City. If that's the case, other than the fact that New York City's boroughs are apparently also counties, what is really the difference between New York City's boroughs and other city boroughs, especially Mexico City's boroughs? Can the meaning and concept of borough that's applied to New York City also be applied to Mexico City? If not, why not? Willminator (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, each of these types of jurisdiction is subtly different from the others, and technically borough is just the word Wikipedia happens to use to translate the name of the delegaciones of Mexico City. They might just as well have been called wards or districts. Probably, the word borough was chosen because of their similarity to the major administrative subdivisions of large English-speaking cities such as London and New York. I do not think that New York's boroughs really are radically different from Mexico City's delegaciones. The main difference is just that the New York boroughs are also counties, a type of subdivision that doesn't exist in Mexico. Marco polo (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

For complicated historical reasons, the Five Boroughs inhabit a strange netherworld, where they have no real independent existence but are more than merely administrative conveniences. After various changes to the City's Charter, the only borough official elected borough-wide is the Borough President. The other official elected borough-wide is the District Attorney of the county which shares the same boundaries as the borough. (Wikipedia's articles about each borough include the corresponding county: New York County at Manhattan, Kings County, New York at Brooklyn, Richmond County, New York at Staten Island, Queens County, New York at Queens and Bronx County at The Bronx.) There is no borough-wide legislative council or assembly below the New York City Council, nor for the counties within New York City is there a county legislature or county executive (as there are, for example, in Nassau County on Long Island). Borough presidents used to have more power when they sat on the New York City Board of Estimate, a kind of City-wide senate that could override the budgets and planning decisions of the directly-elected New York City Council. Today's Borough Presidents appoint the voting members of the several Community Boards within each borough, which have some powers over zoning and planning issues. See Government of New York City. (If I haven't thoroughly confused you by now, I obviously haven't been trying hard enough; you'll have even less luck asking me about the Government of England or the special status of the City of London. :-)  ) —— Shakescene (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

New York's boroughs are a sui generis situation unique to New York. They exist because they were all once seperate cities, towns, and/or counties which were later annexed (in part or in whole) to New York City itself. That's why the postal addresses reflect the earlier independent cities, and why the street systems are independent (i.e. the numbered streets in Brooklyn have no connection to the numbered streets in Manhattan, and mail to Queens is addressed to the names of the former towns like Jamaica, New York or Hollis, New York). Borough (New York City) has some background, as does History of New York City (1855–1897). --Jayron32 21:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright then, so there's not much difference between the term borough and its function when applied to New York City's and when applied to Mexico City's or London's districts, eh? Now, after doing more research and reading your answers, I've become a little bit more confused and more questions has been raised. I'll ask all of them at once. By the way, I know you can tell that I'm not a New Yorker. :) I just came back to my home in Tampa Bay, Florida from my first visit ever to NYC. So anyway, how does New York City's growth and expansion compare to other cities with boroughs and administrations such as Mexico City and London? When referring to growth here, I'm not talking about how fast they grow. Also, with 5 counties, how does New York City's growth and expansion compare to normal American cities that are inside counties? Again, when referring to growth here, I'm not talking about how fast they grow. Also, what is the purpose and point of such cities having boroughs and administrative divisions instead of none, and what is the purpose and point of New York City being made up of 5 counties instead of 1? Finally, I know that the hierarchy of government in the U.S is this in general: Country, state, county (or parish in Louisiana's case), and city. Would the hierarchy of government in NYC's case be this: Country, state, city, and county? If not, why not? Willminator (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

As I explained, New York City's "boroughs" are entirely unique to New York City, because of the way in which New York consolidated in 1898. Prior to the 1898 consolidation of New York, the five boroughs consisted of: 1) The City of New York (modern day Manhattan and Bronx) 2) The City of Brooklyn 3) Richmond County (modern day Staten Island) and the western 2/3rds of Queens County, New York (consisting of several towns and cities, including Long Island City, Hollis, Jamaica, Flushing, etc.). In 1898 these were consolidated ito the single City of New York, and the five boroughs were created (Manhattan, Bronx, Staten Island, Brooklyn, and Queens). The eastern 1/3rd of Queens County became Nassau County. Other cities have also grown by annexation, though none (excepting New York) preserves the prior divisions as "boroughs". Also, most cities grow piecemeal by annexation, that is the sort of nibble up the surrounding towns and/or unincorporated areas around them. Sometimes, a city will merge with the containing county, forming a consolidated city-county. There are also independent citys, which do not belong to any county, among these are many cities in Virginia along with St. Louis, Missouri and Baltimore, Maryland. You can look to Boston, Massachusetts as an example of a city which grew by annexing neighboring towns. Originally, Boston Proper was confined to the Shawmut Peninsula. Other than land reclaimed by filling in the Charles River estuary (Back Bay, Boston), the rest of modern Boston (including Charlestown, Allston, Dorchester all used to be independent towns. An oddity in this case is Brookline, Massachusetts which resisted annexation and is now, not only mostly surrounded by Boston, but also is seperated by the rest of its county (Norfolk County, Massachusetts) because the towns around it were annexed into Boston, and thus became part of Suffolk County, Massachusetts). In New York City, the counties only exist and lines on a map, they have no function at all. The boroughs only exist (governmentally) as a single office, the Borough President, who is largely a figurehead. This is different from the rest of New York State, where the counties do have a real administrative and governmental power. --Jayron32 22:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

So, would it be correct to say that a New York Borough President being a figurativehead for that borough would be almost similar to the Queen of England being a figurehead of Britain without the royal factor and the Emperor of Japan being a figurehead of Japan without the royal factor? Willminator (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No, the borough presidents do have a few minor powers, and they are very much political figures, with an informal role as advocates for their boroughs' mundane interests at the city and state level. They have some clout because of the votes they have won and their visibility in New York's media. As I understand it, the royal figures you mention have virtually no real powers and make a point of refraining from political activity. Returning to the original question, New York's boroughs are an odd historical artifact, and they exist mainly because their residents at the time New York City was consolidated in 1898 wanted some independence from the big city government. The delegaciones of Mexico City are not so radically different in their origin, for the most part. Most of them were independent municipalities within the Federal District until they were renamed delegaciones in 1930. Three central districts were carved out of what had previously been the city of Mexico (previously just a fraction of the Federal District) in 1970. London's boroughs likewise evolved from (combinations of) earlier municipalities. Apart from the history, administratively, the delegaciones of Mexico City are very similar in role to the boroughs of New York. (The boroughs of London are actually much more powerful than those of New York, because the powers of London's metropolitan government are so limited.) As for your second set of questions, each city has a unique historical geography. Each city has grown uniquely. In some parts of the United States, for example the Southwest, cities tend to expand to cover their urban areas because of their legal control over water supplies. Developers seek to have areas annexed to the city to ensure ample water and other services. In other parts, especially the Northeast, urban areas have grown to encompass older, formerly rural municipalities, which, for political reasons, have remained politically independent and resisted incorporation into the core city. Jayron's example of Brookline was one of the early cases, but Boston's urban area has since expanded far beyond Brookline. I live in Boston's urban area and have to pass through three different towns (likewise within Boston's urban area) before I reach the city limits. An additional ring of several more municipalities beyond me lies within Boston's urban area. Why this is so, and why beyond the city limits of Las Vegas or Jacksonville is mostly countryside can only be explained by the unique political and geographical circumstances that shaped each city's growth. Marco polo (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

In regard to your question about hierarchies, there are really three. In the 57 other counties of New York State outside New York City, it's roughly as you said (ignoring, since I don't know enough, special districts, schools and courts): U.S. → New York State → county → city, town or village, although when I was trying to sort out and rationalize a template for Long Island, New York, I think I found some villages that straddled across the line between Nassau and Suffolk counties. Within New York City, for most purposes, there are two parallel hierarchies: (A) U.S. → New York State → county (e.g. Kings) and (B) U.S. → New York State → New York City → borough (e.g. Brooklyn) → [community board, (e.g. Brooklyn Community Board 6)]. Even here, while election boards designate themselves by county (e.g. New York, Kings, Richmond), they come under the Board of Elections in the City of New York. The financing for the county District Attorneys (e.g. the New York County District Attorney, made famous by Robert Morgenthau and the TV series Law & Order) and elections boards must be even more confusing, much of it I suspect from the general New York City budget. ¶ As for other states, there has historically been no such thing as a county government for the eight counties of Connecticut and the five in Rhode Island, although their court systems are organized by county. Political and administrative functions below the state level are conducted by democratically-elected city and town governments, which between them cover the whole geographical area of each state. After a series of minor scandals, Massachusetts has been moving in this direction, although the separate towns on Cape Cod have found Barnstable County to be a useful authority for their shared common needs. The recently-captured James "Whitey" Bulger is awaiting trial in the Plymouth County House of Correction, and the adjoining Bristol County has a politically powerful sheriff, Thomas Hodgson. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You have all been great and gracious to me, so thank you all. You have all made me understand better a concept that is also probably complicated for others outside of NYC, Mexico City, etc. to understand. So, on one of the parallel government hierarchies that you mentioned for the case of NYC (U.S. → New York State → county), why would "city, town, or village" not be included? I'm just curious. Willminator (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

A few functions in New York State aren't managed on the city level at all; for example the district court system is based on the county organization, so there is a "District Court for the County of Richmond" which would cover Staten Island. For most other functions, the City of New York itself does most of the functions that a single county government would do in the rest of New York State; the court system is a state-wide organization that is based on counties; that the counties of New York City themselves don't have any government is still true, but the state uses the county borders to determine how the court districts are assigned. --Jayron32 19:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Within the USA, the term "borough" is defined differently in several different states and not defined at all in many states. I think in Pennsylvania, some incorporated municipalities are officially "boroughs". Michael Hardy (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Discrimination of women

In which country are women not allowed to drive automobiles: a) Dominica; b) Dominican Republic; c) Saudi Arabia; or d) Slovakia? --84.61.149.188 (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our policy here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know.

Also, the phrase should be "Discrimination against women". The phrase "Discrimination of women" is vague and could also mean "...for women", "...between women" or "..by women". StuRat (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

<redacted answer to obvious homework question> StuRat (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm also a bit worried by the fact that the OP could have got this answer within seconds by typing a couple of dozen characters into Google, and clicking the mouse more or less at random... but instead they choose to come here and write out the entire question. Hmmmmm. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

<redacted answer to obvious homework question> StuRat (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

<redacted Buddy's 2nd answer to obvious homework question> StuRat (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey. This is not appropriate. I have supplied a referenced source, twice, that is on topic, and from a reliable source. If you don't want to answer the question, don't, but don't prevent me from doing what the reference desk is for: providing references. You worry about your posts, I'll worry about mine. Buddy431 (talk) 04:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

And for the record, here is a thoughtful, informational, on topic, and entirely appropriate news article about this subject [11]. Buddy431 (talk) 04:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

See the discussion on the talk page Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Redacting_answers_to_homework_questions.. StuRat (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Betting in court

Situation: Mr A and Mr B are parties to a civil action. During the trial before the court, Mr B says to Mr A that "Your claim is false. You, liar...blah, blah, blah... If you're brave enough to swear before the city cathedral that may you horribly perish within three days if your claim is not true, then you win this case. But if you aren't, you lose." Mr A fears swearing so and the court adjudges according to this betting.

Is there a specific legal term to call this situation, or judgment or proceedings like this? And is there any Wikipedia article in connection with this? Thank you so much.

--Aristitleism (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, but you've just set the stage for the past few thousand years of a real code of law and legal procedures. What you're describing sounds like the first 100,000 years of human law, right up until a few thousand years ago. --188.28.68.234 (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like a type of oath. From that article: "The essence of a divine oath is an invocation of divine agency to be a guarantor of the oath taker's own honesty and integrity in the matter under question. By implication, this invokes divine displeasure if the oath taker fails in their sworn duties." (Although people have always lied under oath in court-cases, so it may not be terribly effective.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Trial by ordeal, perhaps. Rmhermen (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems like just a slightly unusual settlement (litigation) to me, but then, I'm not a lawyer. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think oath is probably the most relevant concept, see also sworn testimony. Oath is a type of evidence which has been used in a great number of legal sytems. Even in the present day common law system, oath remains at the foundation of all oral evidence, since each witness who gives evidence either in person or by way of affidavits and the like swears an oath (or, alternatively, affirm) that what they say is true, the base implication being that they are compelled to tell the truth because of their fear of divine retribution in some way. However, since the reliability of oath evidence is in itself difficult to test as it rests on the faith or ethical character of the witness, legal systems have overtime developed other ways to supplement, and over time, supplant the function of the oath to ensure true evidence. Such devices in modern usage include the basic regime of cross examination, laws of perjury, laws of evidence and procedural rules - so much so that the "swearing" part of giving evidence is not, in itself, given much formal weight in weighing the parties' evidence. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

For France, see fr:Serment décisoire. Apokrif (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This kind of proceedings did not exist in the past procedure, it does exist in the law of my country (Thailand). Few days ago I attended an evidence law class where I came to the knowledge that the Thai Code of Civil Procedure allows the result of a betting in court to take effect as an adjudicative point. Its section 103/2 (which has just been inserted in 2007) reads:

"The relevant parties may request the court to take evidence according to the method agreed upon by them. If the court finds expedient for the sake of the expeditious and fair taking of evidence, it may grant the request, save where such taking of evidence is contrary to a statutory prohibition or public policy."

The Thai Supreme Court of Justice once ruled that:

"Both the plaintiff and the defendant viewed the map of the land in dispute...and bet before the court of first instance that, if the official engineer inspects the map and testifies that the land in dispute belongs to either of them, the other will give in. Such betting was recorded onto the minutes of... The court of first instance questioned the official engineer in the presence of every party and the official engineer replied that the land in dispute belongs to the defendant. The court of first instance therefore declared the plaintiff lost...

"The plaintiff lodged an appeal on the basis of a question of law as to whether the betting is lawful. ... Having considered, the Supreme Court found that the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to have the testimony of the official engineer taking effect as an adjudicative point is the acceptance of certain facts according to the Code of....And by virtue of such agreement, if the result of the proceedings agreed upon benefited any party, the other party may not refuse it. When the official engineer gave a testimony that the map of the land in dispute is correct and the said land thereby belongs to the defendant, the plaintiff must 'give in' according to his agreement. ..."

So, I just wonder if there is a specific term for such kind of proceedings. But, I don't think it is an oath at all (its my fault that I've provided an example as to swearing). --Aristitleism (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like arbitration really. Googlemeister (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The technical expression is "trial by compurgation". According to our article, it was abolished in England for criminal cases in 1164 and for civil cases in 1833. I don't know if it was ever valid in US law. Tevildo (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Pay until you're sick in China a true story?

I've heard many times that in medieval times, the Chinese paid their doctors for being healthy and stopped the payments while being sick, giving a nice incentive to the doctors to keep you well (implying the weird incentive for modern or Western doctors to keep the patient coming by keeping them sick). Is that just a made-up story using the Chinese as an example nobody can check or is it true? And if it's just invented as an example of how things should work, is the example known in for example the US? Joepnl (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, isn't that basically how health insurance works ? That is, you pay premiums all the time, but, when you're sick, they end up paying back more than they get from you. That is, of course, assuming they don't refuse to pay and/or drop your policy. Unfortunately, those insurance companies are often after short-term profit, so, while preventative care may save them money in the long run, they don't care, as it increases their costs this quarter. StuRat (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not that convinced that insurance companies are that much interested in the short term. Most stockholders aren't, and there are plenty companies that sort out the amount of smokers or obese an insurance company provides service too. Anyway, adding insurance companies to the equation just adds complication to my simple question. Joepnl (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

In the case of smokers or the obese, they can just charge them higher premiums, so they don't have to take a short-term loss in order to improve the insured's long-term health (and thus improve long-term profitability of the insurance company). StuRat (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That approach would never wash under community rating, where everybody pays the same premium for the same cover irrespective of pre-existing conditions. The catch, if you want to call it that, is that those with pre-existing conditions may have to serve a waiting period before being able to claim under their cover at all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This was discussed on the Straight Dope Message Boards a while ago, but they failed to find any evidence.[12] This idea is mentioned a lot on alternative health websites (which are frequently hostile to conventional doctors and western medicine), and by anti-healthcare conspiracy theorists, but no evidence is ever offered.[13][14][15][16] --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, from now on I'll consider it an urban legend :) Joepnl (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

June 28

William Lafayette Strong

Did William Lafayette Strong ever have a son named Putnam Bradlee Strong?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Major Putnam Bradlee Strong of the Hope diamond saga was the mayor's son.--Cam (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Interpretation of Canadian Charters of Rights and Freedoms

Is there any website where it can explains the Charter in details to understand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.41 (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The article Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms explains most of them. Bielle (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked at Wikipedia's article on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its links? (Look along the left-hand side for versions in French and other languages.) But if they don't give you what you're looking for, of course, don't hesitate to come back and ask here. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Rights in Canada

What are the rights does Women and LGBT community have? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.41 (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Everyone (or almost everyone) has the same rights: Under the Charter, people physically present in Canada have numerous civil and political rights. Most of the rights can be exercised by any legal person, (the Charter does not define the corporation as a "legal person"),[3] but a few of the rights belong exclusively to natural persons, or (as in sections 3 and 6) only to citizens of Canada. From Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Bielle (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

For some more specific information and some history, see Feminism in Canada and LGBT rights in Canada. Warofdreams talk 10:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Types of rights in Canadian Charter Rights and Freedoms

Which rights are natural rights? Which rights are legal rights? Which rights are claim rights? Which rights are liberty rights? Which rights are negative rights? Which rights are positive rights? Which rights are individual rights? Which rights are group rights? Which rights are civil rights? Which rights are political rights? Which rights are economic, social, and cultural rights? Which rights are linguistic rights? Which rights are three generation of human rights?

Start with:

Natural rights;

Legal rights;

Claim rights;

Liberty rights;

Negative rights;

Positive rights;

Individual rights;

Group rights;

Civil rights;

Political rights;

Economic, social and political rights;

Linguistic rights; and

Three generations of human rights.

Bielle (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

And also Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of course. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You guys didn't understand my questions. my questions are meant to be answered as Section 23 are linguistic rights for example. So my questions are which section of the Charter are natural rights? which section is legal rights? which section of the Charter is claim rights? which section of the Charter is liberty rights? which section is negative rights? which section is positive rights? which section is positive rights? which section is individual rights? which section is group rights? which section is civil rights? which section is political rights? which section is economic rights? which section is social rights? which section is political rights? which section is linguistics rights? which sections are three generations of human rights? Please answer my questions properly and thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.32.179 (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. => Bielle and Adam Bishop already gave you a number of starting points. If you're confused about something, we're more than happy to clarify points, but don't expect us to fill out a checklist. -- 174.24.222.200 (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

War poets

Richard Aldington, Laurence Binyon, Edmund Blunden, Rupert Brooke, Wilfrid Gibson, Robert Graves, Julian Grenfell, Ivor Gurney, David Jones, Robert Nichols, Wilfred Owen, Herbert Read, Isaac Rosenberg, Siegfried Sassoon, Charles Sorley and Edward Thomas.

Which of these war poets (WW I) praised the war or maybe praised and condemned the war at once. (I'm no native speaker.) Thanks for your help. -- 178.5.9.202 (talk) 08:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this a homework assignment? It's not usual in normal English discourse to just fire a long alphabetical list of names and then ask such a question. Have you read the articles which you wikilinked? If you had read those articles, then you could have grouped at least some of the poets in a more logical and less arbitrary order to ask more specific questions; for example, from my very limited knowledge, Robert Graves and Siegfried Sassoon had been very close, but then fell out (quarrelled) after Graves published Good-Bye to All That. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Im looking for similarities between the nations in WW I. Marinetti, Giuseppe Prezzolini and Giovanni Papini (Italy) "praised" the war, so did Walter Flex and others (Germany). Which of the English war poets would be comparable? -- 178.0.144.56 (talk) 06:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Of the British war poets, I can't think of any that praise the war. The only ones to show the loss of life in any positive light were Laurence Binyon, "For the Fallen" and Rupert Brooke, "The Soldier". Both poems were written in 1914 before the trench-warefare stalemate had set-in. Brooke was in action at the Siege of Antwerp but died of natural causes before he got to Gallipoli. So neither work represents the Western Front experience of the later poets. Alansplodge (talk) 08:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Henry Newbolt is the standard contrast to the English war poets. Although he wrote Vitai Lampada a couple of decades earlier, it was used heavily during the first world war. I seem to recall he also wrote a poem about pitying the weak constitution of the conscientious objectors, rather than hating them. But even his stuff, written before the first world war, can't really be taken as praising war as such, more praising the honourable sense of duty and bravery made necessary by war. This is the basic idea that is then satirised by the war poets. 86.164.67.252 (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936) can hardly be considered a War Poet (he didn't serve in World War I), but in his prose he was generally, I think, pro-war or at least pro-war-effort (he wrote a short story, "Mary Postgate", that implicitly agrees with a war-bereaved English mother denying aid to a dying German aviator.) I think his attitude might have changed somewhat after he lost a son at the front (as did Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Theodore Roosevelt). Among non-British war poets writing in English, one should remember Pete Seeger's uncle, Alan Seeger, famous for "I Have a Rendezvous with Death" (at some disputed barricade) and the Canadian Dr John McCrae who ended In Flanders Fields

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands, we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields...

There were poets who served at the front and supported the war, but I don't know how much pro-war poetry they wrote, and how much of it was notable and for how long. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Werner Sombart accused the English of being merchants (Händler), while the Germans allegeldly were heroes (Helden). In German literature of WW I we find a heroic existentialism, for example in the works of Ernst Jünger. I'm searching for English examples, that might show, that Sombart was wrong. Does somebody know any Secondary source on this matter (English war poets)? -- 178.5.9.232 (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure (knowing even less of philosophy than I do of literature) what a heroic existentialism means in this context: is it similar to fatalism or the notion that though the purpose has vanished, conditions are impossible and defeat is certain, one must continue to fight on heroically?

shopkeepers: Napoleon dismissed the English as a "nation of shopkeepers" (une nation de boutiquiers), and a section of George Orwell's World War II essay England Your England is subtitled "Shopkeepers at War". It must be remembered that Britain did not have conscription until 1916, and only after a major political crisis. The Empire had been garrisoned and defended by a small professional (or mercenary) army of volunteers enlisted for long periods and officered by a section of the country gentry and the non-inheriting younger sons of the nobility. During alarm about possible invasion by Napoleon III's France in the 1860's, many of those same shopkeepers and clerks (including the small manufacturer Friedrich Engels) volunteered for and trained in a citizen-originated militia movement (somewhat analogous to, but less radical than, similar German movements in the 1830's and 1840's). During the South African War (Boer Wars), volunteers came from the same commercial, clerical and industrial classes (see Kipling's poem "The Absent-Minded Beggar"), and also from other parts of the British Empire, such as Australia (see Breaker Morant) and Canada (see Kipling's poem "Our Lady of the Snows"). At the start of World War I, there was a similar enthuaiastic wave of voluntary enlistments, often on the "Mates" principle of allowing members of the same neighbourhood, workplace, school or profession (e.g. The Artists Rifles) to enlist and serve together. But, as in the United States, there had been (ever since Oliver Cromwell) a long-standing distrust of a large, standing, permanent conscript army, together with a corresponding passion for peace, a strong Royal Navy to guard it, and undisturbed farming, trade and commerce. Orwell pointed out in (I think) England Your England that, while military dictatorships are common, "there is no such thing as a naval dictatorship." One of Kipling's most famous poems, "Tommy" defends the common English soldier "Tommy Atkins" against anti-military prejudice among the general civilian population.

existentialists: Some of the poets, writers and artists who might come closer to an existential or nihilistic position were active in 1914-18, but not at the front, such as the Americans Ezra Pound and T.S. Eliot and the Irishman James Joyce. Also see Wikipedia's articles on the Bloomsbury Group and on Vorticism with its magazine BLAST, a cultural/artistic movement that was essentially aborted by the war.

sources: While I wish I could answer your question more directly, some sources I would recommend at least looking at (and in some cases studying closely) are Orwell's essays, especially "England Your England", "Rudyard Kipling" and "Inside the Whale"; and Robert Graves' and Alan Hodge's The Long Week-End (e.g. the chapter on "Reading Matter"). —— Shakescene (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Downtown New York City?

On a previous question I posted here, I mentioned that I just came back on Sunday from my first trip ever to New York City. After doing some reading about the city on Wikipedia, looking at the city on a map while there, and driving around the city, I couldn't find anything on the map nor any signs that said "downtown New York City." I know that there is a downtown Manhattan just like there is a midtown Manhattan and an uptown Manhattan. I also know that there is a downtown Brooklyn. There should be an official downtown New York City somewhere because every city that I've been to, including Tampa where I live, has 1 downtown at or near the center of the city, so where is the official downtown of New York City? Willminator (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

New York has several "centers", from the financial center on Wall Street to the theater center on Broadway to the fashion center, etc. So, for an overall "downtown", I'd say that downtown Manhattan qualifies. StuRat (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Also note that the downtown area of a city frequently isn't at the geographic center, particularly when the city is constrained by a geographic or political border. In Detroit, for example, the downtown area is on the Detroit River, which divides Detroit from Windsor, Ontario. So, downtown Detroit is right on the border, although perhaps close to the center of the Detroit-Windsor area. StuRat (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Metropolitan areas can also have multiple centers, especially when they started as two cities (or more) that later grew together, like Minneapolis-Saint Paul. StuRat (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm an Upper-Eastsider, but I think the downtown area is basically everything below 14th Street. It's not as fancy as our area or some of the nicer bits of Midtown, but it does have some interesting points. As StuRat said, some cities started as two, and in the case of New York, four (New York - Manhattan and Bronx, Kings - Brooklyn, Whatever they called Queens, and Richmond - Staten Island.) Though in NYC, most of the action is in Lower Manhattan. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Many cities also don't have "downtown"s at all. Charlotte, North Carolina has an Uptown, but no Downtown. The distinction depends a lot on local terminology, and exactly how the city developed, and since there are literally hundreds of different patterns for city growth and development (many such patterns are unique to just a single city, like the New York model) defining what a "downtown" is for every city is impossible. The term that urban developers use is "central business district", but there is nothing confining a city to just one CBD, or even having an easy to define a CBD. New York City is so huge and sprawling, it has several districts which could be called CBDs. What is the CBD of, say, Paris? Is it La Défense, which is the modern business district (i.e. where all the big buildings are) even though that is essentially on the outskirts of town? Is it the Île de la Cité, which is the historic heart of Paris? What is the "downtown" of Paris? What about Washington, DC? The heart of the city lies on the National Mall, but the largest business district in the metro area is centered on Arlington County, Virginia which isn't even in the District of Columbia. What makes a "downtown" a "downtown" is really hard to determine, unless you just go on the name itself, and take it at that. --Jayron32 19:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

New York is unique among American cities in that the area known as Downtown New York is not the city's main commercial core. In New York, the area known as Midtown would be a bit more important than the area known as Downtown. Historically, before about the mid-20th century, Downtown New York (meaning, roughly, Manhattan below about 14th Street) was the commercial core. The word downtown (which originated in New York) referred to the position of the southern tip of Manhattan, downstream from the rest of the island along the Hudson River. In New York, today, you can still use the word downtown as a directional adverb. For example, if you travel from Upper Manhattan to Midtown, you can say that you are going downtown, even if you are not going to the part of Manhattan known as Downtown. The use of the term downtown to refer to the central business district originated in New York during the 19th century and was copied in other American cities. However, many businesses migrated during the 20th century to Midtown Manhattan, which had previously been an elite residential district. (There has long been a pattern in the United States of businesses moving closer to the residences of senior management.) The main exception was the financial sector, which has remained mainly in Downtown Manhattan to this day. Marco polo (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

One other quick comment: If you were driving around New York, you wouldn't see signs for "Downtown" because the area is large enough that no highway exit would offer good access to all of it. Also, most highways don't go to Downtown New York, they go around it. However, if you took the subways, you'd see that the signs in most subway stations in Manhattan direct you to either the "downtown" or the "uptown" platforms. This is a case of the directional use of these words. Marco polo (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

So, NYC apparently has more than 1 "downtown" then. Ok, One more question. I know that there are "downtowns" for Brooklyn and Manhattan. I was told on a previous question that the Bronx, Staten Island, and Queens were towns before New York City's consolidation. Why don't they have "downtowns" reflecting on what they used to be before consolidation? What happened to their downtowns? Willminator (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's take these one by one. If you look at the History of the Bronx, you will see that the Bronx was not one single town before its annexation to New York, which occurred in two stages. Instead, three former towns were annexed in 1873 and all or part of three more towns were annexed in 1895. The center of each of these towns (except for towns whose centers were not annexed) is now a local commercial district in the Bronx. The Bronx was never a unified city, so it doesn't have a single downtown, or really any area known as "downtown Bronx". Likewise, Queens and Staten Island were a collection of independent towns or (in the case of Rockaway Peninsula) parts of towns centered outside of the New York City limits after annexation. Three of the Queens towns (Long Island City, Flushing, and Jamaica) now have areas known as "downtown". Staten Island was just a collection of rural districts and villages when it was annexed, none of which were big enough to have developed a downtown. It remains polycentric, without any area known as "downtown". Marco polo (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Unlike most cities where downtown is a place and the term refers to the vital center, in Manhattan it is simply a direction the avenues and subways travel in. North is uptown, south is downtown, and the Upper East Side is downtown from Spanish Harlem. 02:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

White House thrill seekers

Has anyone not authorized ever gone wandering around the residence level of the White House like what happened at Buckingham Palace years ago? Googlemeister (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

We have an article on everything. White House intruders documents a few dozen of them, though not all of them had access to the residential areas of the White House, some may have. Sadly, the article could use some fleshing out and some more refs. --Jayron32 19:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this thread is the most racist thing I've read in a very, very long time. Shame on you. --188.29.22.13 (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you care to explain what led you to that conclusion? --Jayron32 03:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Upon rereading the thread, it might not be the most racist thing I've read in a very, very long time. I had initially thought the thread referred to the commander-in-chief et ux, if you get my drift. --188.29.22.13 (talk) 03:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Now, that is humor. I had thought you were using "THAT'S RACIST" in the jocular fashion which the upper-crust white folks at NPR informed me yesterday is all the rage among the children. Of course, now that NPR has done a story on the meme, it's dead to the kids. Comet Tuttle (talk) 03:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I consider the Obama family to have been authorized by the 2008 election. Googlemeister (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Even if you didn't, that would be no more anti-black racism than it would have been anti-white racism for Al Gore to say that an unauthorized intruder arrived about ten years ago. Nyttend (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It surely depends on the reason why the person believes whoever is the president. If someone believes Bush was not the legitimate president as they didn't actually win of the 2000 election because they 'stole Florida' there's most likely no racism in that, whether true or not. If someone believes Obama is not the legitimate president because he was born in Kenya that's not inherently racist although such claims often seem to have a bit of a racist bent. If someone believes Obama is not the legitimate president because only humans can be the president that's very likely a racist claim. Nil Einne (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how even that can be racist, Nil. Nowhere does it say that an alien can't be president. As long as an alien meets the constitutional requirements of citizenship and residency etc, they're in like Flynn. And if such a person were indistinguishable from a human, as Obama is, then questions of racism do not arise. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

June 29

Sichuan Migrant Workers in China

How many Sichuan migrants workers are living in each of these Chinese provinces and region: Guangdong Province, Fujian Province, Zhejiang Province and Guangxi Region? Sonic99 (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Could the U.S. hock Taiwan?

Suppose the U.S. made an agreement not to do anything with Chinese rebels - no arms sales to Taiwan, close the consulate, no threats to intervene in conflicts with them (certainly no more nuclear posturing about it), no high level meetings with the Dalai Lama (or Panchen Lama, if he turns up). From the U.S. perspective it would be nothing but accepting reality and putting some IRL trolls out of work disappointing some hawkish commentators, but the Chinese seem to care about that stuff a lot. Question: do they care about it enough that they could be talked into forgiving some meaningful amount of U.S. national debt in return? Wnt (talk) 03:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

What is "IRL"? Within Wikipedia, that's a disambiguation page, which doesn't seem to list anything relevant to this topic. As for "rebels"....the Communists rebelled against the government that retreated to Taiwan. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

In this case, "IRL" means "in real life". Though I spent some time on open wheel racing forums shortly after the split, I doubt that Indy Racing League fans are, as a group, that passionate about Taiwan. :-) Wabbott9 Tell me about it.... 01:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There's levels of wrongness with that question so deep and profound I don't know where to begin to correct them, never mind even answering it. The assumptions that the question makes are so unconnected to reality it would take volumes to begin to peel back the layers of misunderstanding within it. --Jayron32 04:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, but please do! The level of ignorance in the U.S. regarding the Taiwan situation is indeed hard to exaggerate. And people have all kinds of odd ideas about it. So some remedial education here would be most useful to the public interest ... especially with crazy news stories running about the U.S. getting involved in some kind of military conflict over some dispute between Vietnam and China over oil prospecting! Wnt (talk) 05:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You have a question about the Spratly Islands dispute? --Jayron32 05:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't want to get into that - I'm looking for the more basic perspectives you hint at. For example, to begin with, do you dispute the commonly presented model that U.S. pressure prevents China from invading Taiwan? Wnt (talk) 06:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by calling the Taiwanese "IRL trolls". --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry! I never meant for that to be taken to mean Taiwanese people. I meant, certain commentators in the U.S. who push relentlessly and in my view heedlessly for military confrontation or cold war with China over issues like Taiwan and Tibet, which to me seem very unlikely to produce results and distract from any broader goal of supporting human rights as a universal principle. Wnt (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

US pressure does not prevent China from invading Taiwan, military reality does. China does not have a navy capable of transporting troops in sufficient quantity to do more then die uselessly on a beach were they to attempt to invade. Think about how many ships and landing craft it took for the D-Day invasion of Normandy. I don't think that China has anything even close to those kinds of numbers, and logistically, Taiwan would be more difficult, not less. Googlemeister (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll take it on:

1) Such a betrayal of a US ally would cause all other US allies to jump ship, leading to the collapse of NATO. This would leave the world vulnerable to all sorts of military threats, from terrorists to pirates to Iran, North Korea, China and Russia.

2) The US would do better to default on it's debts. This would cause a worldwide economic crisis, but, in the long run, if the US could no longer borrow money, it would be forced to live within it's means.

3) China and other creditors would want to avoid a US default, so would negotiate down the debt. This is both because getting some of the money is better than none, and also to avoid losing exports to the US as a result of economic collapse there. StuRat (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Stu, I would just like to point out that America doesn't own NATO, and NATO would not fall apart just because America reneged on an agreement with an ally. America pulled out of full operation in Libya pretty quickly and NATO didn't fall apart. The US refused to help the UK (and even threatened action at one point) in the Falkland War, but NATO didn't fall apart. America went into Iraq against intenational law and the rulings of the United Nations, boycotting trade with fellow NATO members who helped in the UN rulings, but that didn't cause NATO to fall apart. We've got NATO because we need it, and we will continue to need it even if one member does have a consistent track record of behaving badly from time to time. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The US is pretty much the core of NATO. If the US wasn't part of it, the other members would have to make major increases in their military budgets, perhaps on the order of 10X, to maintain it's current abilities. I see no sign of a political willingness to do so. StuRat (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't disagree with you there. However, we are not talking about the US not being part of or leaving NATO. We are talking about what would happen to NATO if the US did something (which we both agree as) disagreeable, and the simple answer is nothing. NATO would continue just as it always has. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead. (Taken from the text at the top of this page.) This is a ridiculously speculative question. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No predictions of future events? So if I ask when the next total eclipse of the sun will be, that's not one for the reference desk? And since when aren't requests for opinions answered here frequently? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Technically the sun is perpetually being eclipsed. You can see it every night if you look at the ground. Googlemeister (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hardy - WP:FUTURE does a pretty good job of explaining it. Note the phrase "unverifiable speculation". —Akrabbim^talk 19:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I was actually interested more in what was within the current range of possibilities, but due in part to some very unclear phrasing on my part we went off track. Though I doubt NATO has much to say with Taiwan, does it?

But there's another assumption to consider: does the U.S., which does not recognize Taiwan as a nation, have any possible treaty obligation to Taiwan? I know that for decades presidents have vaguely been saying "help Taiwan defend itself", but so far as I know, there's no literal betrayal involved if they just stop. Or is there? Wnt (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The real answer is that you are confusing the interests of politics with the interests of business, and in many cases, they operate in distinct spheres. In the tricky case of Taiwan, they two do not even operate in the same universe. In the political world, everyone has to pretend that Taiwan doesn't exist. The One China Policy is so entrenched it borders on blind faith that the policy cannot be touched. So everyone in the political world operates under the "don't piss off the PRC with regards to Taiwan" mindset. However, businesspeople don't really care to play political games; their more interested in generating profits, and for them Taiwan is a real place with which to do real business. The political world is at worst a nuisance for these people. In fact, as recently as one year ago, the business world directly influenced the political, and China and Taiwan signed the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement which removed many of the barriers to cross-strait trade (which many wiley businesses were likely skirting anyways with a bit of a "nod and a wink"). You should also read the Cross-Strait relations article, which has lots of good stuff on recent detente between the PRC and Taiwan. --Jayron32 01:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The OP may also want to consider the current state of amphibious capability within the People’s Liberation Army.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I feel like that is a red herring. Posturing over Taiwan has gone over decades - plenty of time for China to build as many transports and naval vessels as desired. Heck, with the time and labor force available to them they should have been able to build a 99-mile mole leading out to it like Alexander in the Siege of Tyre... Wnt (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

house of Hanover

Henry VII was the first Tudor king of England. The Tudors ruled the country from 1485 to 1603. They did so by allying with the Parliament and curbing the powers of the feudal lords. This period in English history led the country to progress and also witnessed the Renaissance and Reformation movements. The Stuarts ruled the country from 1603 to 1714. Thereafter the House of Hanover has been ruling England. seen here This is from a school text book. Hanover dynasty ended at the beginning of the twentieth century. So this is palpably wrong. I can't figure out how come such an obvious error in a text book learnt by hundreds of thousands students. Is there an approach which assimilates the later dynasty under Hanover itself? --117.253.190.68 (talk) 04:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The House of Hanover was "ended" after the death of Queen Victoria, so if you read Queen Victoria's descendants as being in "her" dynasty rather than that of Prince Albert, monarchs down to the present day could be mistaken as being in the House of Hanover.

Or perhaps that particular text book has not been updated since 1899... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It isn't palpably wrong. The House of Windsor is the current British Royal House; the house of Windsor was created by decree when the house was renamed from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to make it sound more "Britishy". The question is whether a "house" can be passed "matrilinially". After all, the British Kings/Queen of Windsor/Saxe-Coburg and Gotha are all still directly descendents of the Hanoverians through Queen Victoria, who was unambiguously a Hanoverian. By convention, the house name changed to that of her husband, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, however it isn't automatically clear that such change of house name is automatic or standard practice. Prince Charles is still considered to be of the House of Windsor officially, even though his father was a Prince of Greece (so technically, if we followed Victoria's precedent, he'd be of the House of Greece, or perhaps of the of the House of Mountbatten, or of Battenberg, or of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg). There have also been precedences in many other countries where the children of a female ruler adopted her "house" as their own (i.e., they didn't automatically take the dynastic house of their father). Look for example on various members of the House of Romanov; several Romanov emperors claim to be Romanovs through female lines, e.g. Peter III of Russia is a Romanov though his only connection to that Dynasty is because his mother was a daughter of Peter the Great. His patrilinial decent is of the House of Oldenburg. Back to the throne of the United Kingdom; since the throne has passed via uninterupted primogeniture (i.e. it has always passed to a legal heir who has a legitimate, direct descent to a prior recent monarch, almost always to the closest availible heir) there's not necessarily any reason to consider a "dynastic change" to have occured during the "Victoria-Edward VII" transition; i.e. why should a "dynastic change" occur when a child of a monarch legally inherits the throne without controversy. This is very different from the situation which caused the Tudor family, or later the House of Hanover, to assume the throne... --Jayron32 06:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Prince Charles has the "personal surname" Mountbatten-Windsor, as do his sons, so that may become the Royal House when he (or one of them) accedes to the throne, though there seems to be some doubt about the matter. AndrewWTaylor (talk)

I think you will find that as a Prince, he still has no surname (but it is unclearly worded). Rmhermen (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I put scare quotes around "personal surname", which is the expression used in the article I linked to. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that, in practice, members of Charles' family use the surname "Wales" when needed, and not "Windsor" or "Mountbatten" or "Mountbatten-Windsor". You can clearly see this on the military uniforms of Princes William and Harry, who have the name "Wales" on their uniforms, see here which clearly shows the names "William Wales" and "Harry Wales". This is, of course, because there isn't any official or traditional custom or practice when dealing with the "last names" of British Royalty. There just isn't any standard practice or guidance to go by; prior to the early 20th century (when Victoria asked for guidance on what the surname of her children might be) even the concept that Royals would need to carry a surname was seemed "beneath them", as such matters were largely seen as unimportant. Even names like "William Wales" and "Harry Wales" aren't an endorsement that those last names are their "Official, Sanctioned, and Honest-to-God real Last Names"; rather it is merely a convenience, i.e. in some applications it becomes necessary to put something down in the "Last Name" field, the Princes have chosen to use "Wales" for that purpose. The use of the name "Mountbatten-Windsor" as a legal surname is more likely to only be important to later decendents for whom having a surname may be important. In the British practice, untitled children of the nobility are officially considered commoners; it is the existance of the Title which imparts nobility. This sort of standing may extend to the monarchs children and grandchildren, but eventually there will become a time when the connection to Roylaty becomes tenuous. For example, imagine Prince Harry has a son, and then that son has a son, and then that son has a son. So by what surname will Harry's great-grandson be known (and then pass on to his kids)? Mountbatten-Windsor would be the likely result. This is despite the fact that Harry himself has no official surname, and appears to use "Wales" as his default surname. Furthermore, Prince Williams "convenience surname" likely recently changed; since he is now the Duke of Cambridge, usual practice among the nobility is to use the highest given title as a surname, so perhaps Williams "convenience surname" is now Cambridge instead of Wales. Or maybe he will keep "Wales" to avoid confusing all of the existing paperwork with that name. Who knows. --Jayron32 16:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"... prior to the early 20th century (when Victoria asked for guidance on what the surname of her children might be)" - it must have been very early in the 20th century, as the century was only 22 days old when she snuffed it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 16:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, late 19th is better. The information on Victoria's "Search for a surname" is detailed at House_of_Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha#Names_of_the_British_royal_house, where it was determined that her Children would have the surname "Wettin" if they followed normal naming practices. The statement has a "cn" tag in our article, but I distinctly remember the information in my pre-Wikipedia memory, so I generally trust it... --Jayron32 16:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Some more examples from the Royal Family. Queen Elizabeth's sister, Princess Margaret maried a man whose birth name was Antony Charles Robert Armstrong-Jones, and who carried no titles prior to his marriage, and so used Armstrong-Jones as his surname; however he was given the title Earl of Snowdon, and so began to use Snowdon as his surname. Their son's birthname is "David Albert Charles Armstrong-Jones", but he uses the name "David Linley" (Linley as a last name) because he has the title "Viscount Linley". Even though his father used the surname Snowdon, and he uses the surname Linley, his children currently use the surname "Armstrong-Jones", being that they don't have any titles of their own. --Jayron32 16:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with some of that. When a peer such as the Earl of Snowdon signs something as simply "Snowdon", he is not claiming that is his surname. His surname remains Armstrong-Jones, but his title is Viscount Snowdon. Now, his son David has the courtesy title Viscount Linley, It's a courtesy title because the Earl is still alive, and David is not yet a peer in his own right, but he is expected to succeed his father when he dies, whereas any younger siblings he may have are not expected to do so. David's surname remains like his father's, Armstrong-Jones. His use of "David Linley" is like a stage name; it's recognised as a practicality, but its status is unofficial. His children have the surname Armstorng-Jones because that is his own surname. Had it become Linley, their surnames would also be Linley. But it didn't, and they're not. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but how is what you say any different from "Harry Wales" Isn't "Harry Wales" equally as much of a "Stage Name" as "David Linley" is? That was my only point, that the Royal Family has no defined surname, and that any existing "surnames" in use by the close members of the family are "stage names" as you put it. The 1960 decree cited above doesn't make any change to the situation of close family members of the monarch, that is it doesn't make Charles's surname "Mountbatten-Windsor", what it does is to give anyone who isn't royal enough to claim "I'm Royal enough not to have a surname" an actual, legal surname, being Mountbatten-Windsor. --Jayron32 19:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that Princes William and Harry and Charles have no surname at all, and they have to borrow or assume or adopt one when the occasion demands it. Charles used Mountbatten-Windsor when he married Diana; William and Harry use Wales in the armed services - so already we can see these are temporary personal choices and not family names that carry on to the next generation. William's children may well choose to be known as Whoever Cambridge. Whereas, the Earl of Snowdon and Viscount Linley have always had a surname, Armstrong-Jones, and they don't need to borrow anything. That the Viscount chooses to be known professionally as David Linley is no different from Frances Gumm choosing to be known professionally as Judy Garland, or Paul Hewson choosing to be known professionally as Bono. That he has taken a part of his courtesy title, Viscount Linley, and reused it in his nom de guerre is neither here not thuerre.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. --Jayron32 19:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A further amusing example is that (as I recall from my (and his) youth) when Prince Charles wanted to remain relatively incognito while staying at modest local hotels, visiting museums, etc, he used to sign registers and visitors' books as "Charlie Chester" which, as the Earl of Chester, he legitimately was, though it was also a deliberate allusion to the better known Charlie Chester. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.166 (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This whole thread makes me think of the scene in Tom Sawyer in which Tom and Huck are pretending to fight a mediæval battle: Huck asks the "other name" of Richard, is told that "kings don't have any but a given name", and is quite displeased. Nyttend (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"divers Abuses"

What is divers Abuses?Curb Chain (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Many abuses. Think diverse. In the context, I think we're chiefly thinking of rotten and pocket boroughs. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I first came across this meaning of divers in the Biblical reference to people speaking in "divers tongues". Deep sea divers? Scuba divers? Springboard divers? And what did their tongues have to do with anything? Such were my questions, until the phrase was explained to me. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Some deep sea divers breath a special air mixture. During decompression, helium may be added, causing raised voice pitch. I've heard a recording of Scott Carpenter making a call from the Sealab II undersea research project to the Johnson White House, and the White House operator not wanting to put the call through because she thought it was a prank. The "diver's tongue" was too diverse for her taste. Edison (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously it's an archaic spelling of "diverse", meaning many different kinds. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Or similar to the French divers, meaning "several" or "various", as well as "diverse". French election returns often include a line or column for divers gauche or divers droite (other left-wing or other right-wing parties or candidates). —— Shakescene (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, 1983 edn., page 366. "Divers, adj. sundry: several: more than one: same as diverse." DuncanHill (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

OED suggests that while it was originally just an alternative spelling of "diverse", the two words are no longer the same (the meanings which are identical to diverse are marked archaic in the OED). "Diverse" means "many different" and "divers" means simply "many". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Chambers is flat out wrong in the final three words; "diverse" has a stronger sense of heterogenity among the nouns that it modifies than "divers" does. Nyttend (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I remember as a small choirboy singing a hymn which included the line "Oh, in what divers pains they met; Oh, in what joy they went away". I read it as "diver's pains" and having watched too much Jacques Cousteau on the telly, imagined that it referred to the bends. I have now noticed - on trying to find the words to link to - that many versions on the net now say "many pains". Shame. Alansplodge (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In the EU, but not in the NATO

Why are these countries - EastlandEstonia, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Ireland, Malta - not in the NATO? Being EU members does not guarantee a place in the NATO, but it certainly could be easies for them to enter it. I'm specially amazed that Finland is not a part of it; having Russia as a neighbor should be a compelling cause to have powerful friends on the other side. Wikiweek (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• NATO is primarily a military/defence organization and some of those countries have no interest in mixing themselves up with that. I think Finland was neutral in World War II, but I'm not sure. - 194.60.106.38 (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

But, if you think you could be attacked, which is not the case of Austria, a landlocked country, surrounded by (at present) peaceful countries, it makes sense not to mix yourself up with that. However, Finland and EastlandEstonia have reasons to fear Russia, a bigger and sometimes instable country. Wikiweek (talk) 11:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The Austrian State Treaty required Austrian neutrality. I believe Finland had obligations to both NATO and the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War. DuncanHill (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Finland was certainly not neutral during the second world war. Most of these countries subscribe to a principle of neutrality and would avoid joining any military alliance. However, NATO has various cooperation agreements with non-member states, which cover some of the nations listed. 81.98.38.48 (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Where is Eastland?
Sleigh (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Estland is an alternate name for the country most commonly called Estonia in modern English. Though the name derives from the name of the Aesti people who lived their during Roman Empire times, (i.e. Aesti-land, similar to the name of England coming from "Angle-land"), it is so close to "Eastland", and it actually does lie in the Eastern part of Europe (i.e. other that Russia, it is to the "East" of almost everything else) one could see the easy confusion. --Jayron32 15:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Estonia is a member of NATO. As for the others, our article on neutrality, referenced by 81.98... above, explains some of the reasoning behind neutrality. A relatively small country, potentially threatened by much larger powers, might wisely choose not to take sides with either of them. If that country joined NATO, for example, it could make itself a target for military action by NATO's foes. As a small, peripheral member of the alliance, the country might fear that other NATO members, if they themselves also faced threats, might not offer an effective protection against attack. Estonia has chosen to join NATO because of a history of Russian aggression. However, its accession to NATO has arguably led to increased Russian hostility. In any conflict between NATO and Russia, Estonia would inevitably face Russian aggression. Finland has a somewhat different history. While Finland was once part of the Russian empire, but during World War II, it found itself a pawn between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Wanting to avoid such a fate after the war, it adopted a policy of neutrality, which allowed it to maintain its democracy, unlike other countries bordering the Soviet Union in Europe (apart from Norway with its tiny Arctic boundary). So, neutrality is prized in Finland, whereas Estonia has chosen a different strategy. Marco polo (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the Finns were forced to accept nuetrality in a crippling peace deal with the Soviet Union. Besides having to give away large chunks of their territory to the Russians, they were obliged to enter into the "Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance" by which they narrowly avoided slipping behind the Iron Curtain, on the understanding that they would observe strict nuetrality, and accept Soviet dictated limitations on the size of their armed forces and the volume of Soviet goods and services that they had to buy. Alansplodge (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"Crippling" is hardly accurate - the Finnish economy benefited from the ability to trade with the USSR under favourable conditions as well as with the West. Which is another answer to the question why one may want to maintain neutrality.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Finnish anti-NATO sentiment is based on several traditions: first, the careful neutrality of the Cold War era was adopted out of necessity but internalized by the majority of the population as something to be proud of. Second, there is a lot of nationalist sentiment tied with the idea of independence and military self-sufficiency. Third, knee-jerk anti-American ideas are widespread especially in leftist circles, and NATO membership is believed to lead to participation in US-led foreign wars. Only about a quarter of Finns favour NATO membership, and the opposition is vehement enough that few people in the political elite are willing to take steps toward membership. It is ironic that the majority of Finnish military officers, i.e. the people responsible for planning Finnish defences, are in favour of NATO membership. 188.117.30.209 (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Academics debates these issues as the concept of Finlandization. Matt's talk 06:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Joining NATO doesn't just mean the other members will defend you if you are attacked, it also means you have to defend the other members if they are attacked. The countries you mention may not want such obligations. --Tango (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't an answer, just a thought: I think that there are dangers to having NATO and Russia physically adjacent to one another. To give an extreme example, suppose that the Republicans had had their way in making Georgia a NATO member, so that NATO would have considered South Ossetia its own territory, even though that region had claims of independence, and was inhabited primarily by Russian citizens largely favoring Russian rule. What would have happened when the shooting started? But in any situation where NATO is patrolling one one side of a fence and the Russian Federation on the other, one wonders how quickly things could get out of hand. Wnt (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

¶ At the beginning, in the mid-1950's, the European Economic Community had only six members (West Germany, Italy, France and Benelux), but the alignments of the NATO, Warsaw Treaty Organisation and neutral nations had already been set. Spain had not been admitted to NATO because Francisco Franco's government had been aligned too closely with the fascist Axis powers and Spain's admission would have caused anti-NATO outrage in many European members, but had a long-standing defence agreement with the United States. So Spain was neither a NATO member nor really neutral. Otherwise, NATO's members comprised the U.S., Canada, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, the UK, the EEC countries, Portugal, Greece and Turkey.

On the other side of the Iron Curtain were the Warsaw Pact nations which before 1962 comprised the Soviet Union and her satellites: the Polish People's Republic, the (East) German Democratic Republic, the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, the Hungarian People's Republic, the Romanian People's Republic, the Bulgarian People's Republic and the People's Republic of Albania. Albania and Romania later withdrew their military cooperation with the Warsaw Pact. Tito's Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, although Communist, was in an anomalous position, having been expelled from the Cominform in 1948, but not militarily allied with the West and helping (together with India and Indonesia) to found the assertively neutral Non-Aligned Bloc.

The remaining nations had adopted a policy of neutrality either before, during or after World War II: Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Austria and the Republic of Ireland. You'd have to do your own research into the reasons, but Sweden's been neutral since the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Denmark and Norway (like Belgium before World War I) had also been neutral, but were occupied by Nazi Germany in 1940; neither Sweden nor Finland had been occupied by the Germans, although large parts of Finland — part of the Russian Empire before 1917 — had been invaded (and much annexed) by the USSR. (Iceland, then a dependency of occupied Denmark, was "pre-emptively" occupied by the Allies and declared independence in 1943.) Switzerland has been neutral for centuries, and was even hesitant about compromising her neutrality by joining the United Nations. Austria and Finland, as earlier posts explain, reassured Russia of their military (and in Finland's case diplomatic) neutrality as part of post-war treaties that ended or avoided Soviet occupation. Ireland, under Éamon de Valera, was neutral (much to Churchill's outrage) during World War II, and had no interest in joining a military alliance with the United Kingdom, from which she broke after a long bloody struggle for independence, in 1922, then leaving the British Commonwealth by declaring herself a Republic in 1949.

¶ However, there are still natural questions arising from that chronology. How did Portugal, a dictatorship on quasi-fascist lines under Dr António de Oliveira Salazar, join the Free World NATO when her fellow Iberian dictatorship (Spain) could not? What do Greece and Turkey, discontiguous with the other allies, have to do with the North Atlantic? And, like Portugal, how did they fit into a democratic alliance in periods when they were under military (or royalist) dictatorhip? What about countries that were neither allied with either bloc nor traditionally neutral, like Spain, Yugoslavia, and, later, Romania and Albania (the latter aligning herself in 1962 with the People's Republic of China? How did Denmark and Norway (feeling unable to defend themselves against another totalitarian country) end up in NATO, while Sweden and Finland remained outside?

¶ And all this ignores the other half of the question: the complicated set of economic and geo-political considerations that dictated the not-always-consistent pattern of European Union and NATO expansion after the fall of the Iron Curtain 1990. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

history quotes

I have been looking for quotes about the period 1913-1935, though with rather little success. I have little idea where to look for them, other than trying to find specific events from the period to read about, and that seemingly provides few results. I was rather hoping for a wide variety, with references to events and places all across the world.

Any advice on how to better go about doing something like this would be most welcome, to save me having to come back another 118 times to ask after different periods.

79.66.97.193 (talk) 11:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd advise reading a history book or two, dealing with the period. Something like this, for instance, has great quotes about the period. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You're not looking for quotes from 1913-35 but about 1913-35, even ones from 2011?
Sleigh (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You could find both quotes about that period and from that period by reading significant literature from authors of the period. I would recommend F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemmingway, W. Somerset Maugham, Dorothy Parker, etc. While not strictly an author, Will Rogers is eminently quotable. --Jayron32 14:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Aqueduct in Israel near Lohamei HaGeta'ot

The perimeter wall, of sorts, of Kibbutz Lohame HaGeta'ot is an old Roman aqueduct. It's a rather nice one, fun to walk on and walk alongside on my way to the strip mall nearby, but I don't know its name. All aqueducts have names, no? What is the name of this one? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a picture of it in our article Al-Sumayriyya, it's possible one of the sources used there would give it a name. DuncanHill (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

When I saw "strip mall" my first thought was a street dominated by strip joints and was a big shocked given the context.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It's known as the Pasha's Aqueduct or the aqueduct of Jezzar Pasha. It is "only" about 200 years old.--Cam (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The Jezzar Pasha article suggests he caused it to be refurbished; so presumably it dates from an earlier age? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This guide to the antiquities of Accra (page 19/54) says "A new aqueduct was built in the end of the 18th C by Jezzer Pasha, the Ottoman builder of Acre. It was rebuilt by his son, Suleiman, in 1814. The aqueduct was in operation until 1948. This photo shows the aqueduct in Kibbutz Lochamei-Hagetaot, about 6km from the end of the water line in Acre. The next photo shows the aqueduct at the same location, with a double level structure.". Alansplodge (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If you scroll down to page 23/54, it says that the original Jezza Pasha aqueduct (which ran in pipes) was destroyed during Napoleon's siege of 1799; the open-channel structure visible today is Suleiman Pasha's aqueduct which was built 1814-15. It describes how the double level structure came about. Alansplodge (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The Hebrew name is אמת עכו. --Cam (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added a small paragraph about the aqueduct to the Lohamei HaGeta'ot page. Alansplodge (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Taxes - Good or Bad?

Republicans say raising taxes is bad for the economy and cutting taxes is good for the economy. Democrats say cutting taxes is bad for the national debt. What do objective economists say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.89.34 (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you want the opinions of Republican economists or Democrat economists? --Jayron32 17:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

At least 12 opinions were forthcoming from the 11 who were asked. All of the opinions in your question are true - within limits. All things being equal, decreasing taxes increases consumer demand, which is good for the economy. But cutting taxes (if government services & subsidies are not also cut) will increase the national debt; and the national debt tends to be a bad thing. In part it's a question of timescales - short term good, long term harm. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You must force the politician to define what it means to "cut" or "raise" something. The usual politician definition is not what us commoners tend to use. When a politician says he will cut taxes by 2%, what he means is that the current plan is to increase taxes by 5%, but he will cut that down to a 3% increase. When a politician says he will cut spending by 10%, he means that the current plan is to increase spending by 30%, but he will cut that down to 20% increase. There is also a timeframe. If a politician makes a wild claim like cutting taxes by 10%, he means that he plans to cut taxes by 10% over 20 years with the first actual cut to take place 5 years in the future of about 0.1% and an assurance that the tax cut bill will be scrapped long before any change is actually made. So, all in all, neither side is saying anything at all that is meaningful. -- kainaw™ 18:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that this also works in reverse. If a temporary tax-cut designed to stimulate the economy is allowed to expire, as planned, the Republicans will then accuse Democrats of "raising taxes". StuRat (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This is also compounded by the problem that you can quite literally get a published economist to give a valid, mathematically sound "proof" of any economic theory in existance, and get such works published in peer reviewed journals.

Lets say, for the sake of arguement that you have two political parties, The Haters and The Griefers. The Haters want to cut all taxes and spending and the Griefers want to increase taxes and spending. The Haters and Griefers have these opinions a priori and without any actual proof as to their efficacy.

Now, here's the kicker: they need proof, and somewhere some economist (lets call him Joe Blow) has published some work which provides "sound economic theory" which exactly supports the Haters position. A completely different economist (Say Peter Pumpkineater) has done the exact same thing for the Griefers position. Now, even if neither economist was previously well known or respected for their opinions, because the Haters have decreed Joe Blow's theory to support their political plan, both Joe Blow's unsusbtantiated theories AND the Hater's unsubstantiated political ideology instantly gain credibility. They grant it to each other.

It doesn't matter if actual academics think Joe Blow is a nutjob, the general public doesn't read economics journals, they read newspapers (or blogs, or watch political "news" networks), where they see things like "The Hater's tax cutting plan is supported by economist Joe Blows theories" which is a true statement, but doesn't necessarily mean that Joe Blow is correct, merely that his theories correlate to the Haters tax plans. It is true that he is an economist, and it is true that his theories are in line with what the Haters want to do.

It's all a house of cards, however, because none of it is actually any indication that either party has a workable plan for a sound economic policy. The exact same thing is done with the Griefers and the theories of Peter Pumpkinhead; what you end up with is battling "experts" who's contradictory theories are only held in any regard at all because they are in line with people who's personal political interest happens to match them, and not because they are sound in any meaningful way.

The reality is, real respected economists with sound economic theories probably preach some middle ground (we should provide some services, and tax the people somewhat to pay for them, but the best plan lies somewhere between "no taxes and no spending" and "tax a lot and spend a lot"), the problem is middle-ground opinions don't win elections, even if they are right... --Jayron32 18:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Paragraph breaks in short supply shock horror probe. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a supply shortage of said breaks so they were too expensive I expect. Googlemeister (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It's true that no economist is really objective and that facts can be cherry-picked. However, I would like to present the following facts. Here are the top marginal U.S. income tax rates (income tax rates on income in the top income tax bracket, that is, affecting only the very affluent) every 5 years since 1955:

1955: 91% 1960: 91% 1965: 70% 1970: 71.5% 1975: 70% 1980: 70% 1985: 50% 1990: 31% 1995: 39.6% 2000: 39.6% 2005: 35% 2010: 35% (source: [17])

Now here is the average annual growth rate in real US GDP over the preceding 5-year period for every 5 years since 1960:

1960: 2.5% 1965: 5.0% 1970: 3.4% 1975: 2.7% 1980: 3.7% 1985: 3.2% 1990: 3.2% 1995: 2.5% 2000: 4.3% 2005: 2.4% 2010: 0.9% (source [18])

Do you see a correlation between tax rates and economic growth rates? Economists on the left would argue that, by redistributing income from the rich, who tend to save it, to the less affluent, who tend to spend it, income taxes can spur economic activity. Also, they would argue, government spending on infrastructure and education tends to raise an economy's productivity and to spur growth more effectively than consumption by the rich. But of course those economists are biased. Marco polo (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey now, no fair bringing facts into this discussion. Facts have no place in helping people reach politicial conclusions. Politics must only be decided by demagoguery and propaganda, and not by reasoned consideration of actual facts. How are people going to win elections if they can't declare their opponents to be evil, and instead have to defend their policy positions with actual facts? Hmmm? What do you have to say about that? --Jayron32 20:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Marco has not adduced any (useful) facts. All sorts of things impact on economic growth. Is Marco seriously suggesting there is no link between tax rates and demand for goods & services? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I am suggesting that high tax rates on the affluent, spent in ways that increase wages for the non-affluent, increase the demand for goods and services. I know that this is contrary to current economic fashion, but Paul Krugman would back me up, and current economic fashion has a lot to do with the fact that the real money in the economic profession comes from saying what people with real money want you to say. Marco polo (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Should I be seeing support for this theory in the figures? They seem to show no positive or negative correlation between tax rate and growth rate, for instance both 91% tax and 31% tax seem to cause a 2.5% growth rate, and both 2.5% and 5.0% growth correspond to 91% tax, and although the most recent figures tie low tax to low growth, growth is affected, or ostensibly managed, by a great many factors other than tax rate, isn't it? Like Tagishsimon says, I can't see the use of those facts.  Card Zero  (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought Marco polo's point was that there is no correlation either way (probably because these parameters are parts of a much more complicated set of relations), though both sides might use such figures to support their own arguments. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.166 (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This all depends on what you consider "good" or "bad". For instance, if increasing corporate profits and GDP are your primary goals, then you'll have a very different set of policies than someone who primarily values public health, happiness, and social justice. When you say "good for the economy" -- what exactly do you mean? Do you mean that the majority of Americans will benefit from the policy (be able to afford housing, education, healthcare, etc.), or that the Dow Jones and GDP will rise?

Also, economics is a social "science", therefore the notion of "objective economists" is absurd. Economists can of course emulate physical scientists (i.e. actual science) by drawing up clever-looking mathematical equations to justify their ideological programmes, but that doesn't mean that these equations are objectively describing reality in the same manner as the laws of thermodynamics. The swill taught in college economics textbooks serves the interests of corporate America, which hires economists to increase profits. They pretend to be immutable "laws" on the same footing as gravity, however, in reality they are just pseudo-scientific justifications for a certain type of economic policy, that benefits a certain group of people (see Dowd, for an interesting history of the development of modern textbook economic theory). ~ Mesoderm (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, economic laws are much more akin to (for example) the laws of fluid dynamics than to the law of gravity. The laws of fluid dynamics break down when the number of molecules becomes small enough that Brownian motion becomes a significant factor. A large part of the problem is that the number of "particles" (i.e., humans) isn't large enough to completely drown out the influence of random individual decisions. Wikiant (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue of "random individual decisions" (i.e. those made by human beings with free will and a sense of morality, rather than by purely rational economic calculators) is a serious issue with neo-classical economic theory, to be sure. But it is just one of many flawed assumptions about human nature and society, upon which the theories are based. Others include the assumption of a capitalist economic system (when other alternatives exist) and the complete lack of concern with ecological limitations on consumption. Most of the laws only apply to a non-existent universe occupied by abiotic robots whose primary function is to accumulate wealth. Of course, all scientific models misrepresent reality in some way. But in the case of economics, the particular misrepresentation taught in college textbooks has horrid social consequences when applied in the real world. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Most assumptions (e.g., absence of ecological limitations) are abstractions akin to that of the frictionless surface in physics. The abstractions enable the theory to focus on a specific phenomenon. Like the frictionless surface, the fact that the abstractions are unrealistic does not negate the theory, but rather causes predictions to deviate from observations. For every abstraction, there is a more complex theory that removes the abstraction. As expected, fewer abstractions mean a more complicated theory. The economist must then choose between the rock (too many abstractions but equations that are solvable) and the hard place (few abstractions but equations that have no easily attainable solutions). Wikiant (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I think economics is a real science. I like to compare it with meteorology. In both cases, there's real science underneath, but measuring and weighting all the variables is so complex that long-term predictions are not very accurate. StuRat (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that the physical systems that cause weather don't have free will, emotions, and a sense of morality/conscience. They are describing systems to which mechanistic models can realistically be applied. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the law of large numbers applies to both cases, if you have enough random variables, eventually a somewhat predictable pattern will emerge. StuRat (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There are, however, also totally bogus economic theories, like, IMHO, Supply side economics, which argues that the way to improve an economy is to give more money to the rich. This seems like a rather transparent excuse to give more money to the rich. StuRat (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a rather transparent excuse to brush the theories aside. Do the rich or the poor contribute most to wealth-creating activity? I don't know: the rich do all the big, important stuff, because they've managed to persuade other people that they should be allowed to (i.e., that they should have money); they are the after all people we have as a society arbitrarily decided deserve to have the money, and can be assumed to spend the money most wisely (I only mean on average, I'm not denying the existence of rich, lucky idiots!) - they are sort of like our elected directors of activity, where currency units are like voting tokens. On the other hand, there aren't many of them, and there are a lot of the poor, and so a lot of activity there. Since I can't see the point in picking on anyone, I support a flat tax.  Card Zero  (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

As noted previously, poor people must spend their money to survive, while rich people have the option of stuffing it in their mattress, if they so please. Also, let's not forget the middle class, which have been the main driver of economic growth. Why ? There are many of them, and they tend to do things like start small businesses, while rich people tend to own large, old, inefficient businesses that have lost their entrepreneurial spirit. StuRat (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes there is a substantial philosophical component to an economist's ideas - which doesn't make them any less objective, if by objective we mean "sincerely attempting to describe reality". Ideas about knowledge and creativity can matter a lot: creativity is connected to creating wealth. So ignoring philosophy, and so epistemology, and so creativity, leads to a rather blinkered and mechanistic form of economics. (Which might be the sort of thing Mesoderm had in mind.)  Card Zero  (talk) 10:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Now, as to whether raising or lowering taxes is best for the economy, it would depend on the current tax rate. If the current tax rate is above the ideal tax rate, lowering it is best, if it's below the ideal tax rate, then raising it is good. What's the ideal tax rate ? It's the theoretical amount where government has enough to provide those things which help the economy, like infrastructure, education, police, fire departments, etc. (and which can't be provided more efficiently by private companies), yet the government doesn't have so much money that it wastes it on unnecessary projects. What percentage is that ? It's hard to say, but since the US and European economies have both done fairly well, I'd assume the ideal tax rate is somewhere in those ranges. Countries with much lower tax rates tend to be third world nations with poor economies. StuRat (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

About the argument that you can increase tax revenue by cutting taxes: This is pretty much as silly as it sounds, at least in the short term. Let's say you cut taxes by 10%. You would then need the economy to grow 10% more than it would have, this year, to make up the loss. That's not going to happen. In the long term it might, but then you not only have the 10% to make up, but all the money borrowed, and interest on it, until the economy grew. Plus, in the current economic situation in the US, the government might have to default on it's debts while waiting for growth to catch up. StuRat (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A lot of people agree that the Laffer curve does exist -- that is, there is a point past which higher taxes actually reduce revenue, just like a store can only raise the price on a product so much before people stop buying it and revenue goes down. The difference is liberal economists would say we are nowhere near that point. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I once had the difference between the European and American attitudes towards wealth and taxes explained to me this way... a European and an American are walking down the street and see a rich man driving by in a limousine. The European says: "Someday I am going to make that guy get out and walk like me"... the American says: "Someday I am going to be rich enough to ride in a Limousine, like that guy". Blueboar (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it's important to add what follows the ellipses at the end of the European's statement, namely "...so that we can spend the extra tax revenue to fund schools, health care, and other social programs." ~ Mesoderm (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"...because we can't trust the guy in the limousine to fund such things, because we are at heart authoritarians and have no respect for the individuals we wish to bestow education and health on."  Card Zero  (talk) 10:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's a non sequitur. You can't leave it up to the rich to pay for schools, health care, etc., of their own free will. First of all, it's vanishingly unlikely that they would, except for their own family members (even then, only the ones they're currently getting along with), and second, why should the poor be dependent on the whim and good will of the rich to ensure their human rights are protected? But anyway, what Blueboar heard is bullshit. Europeans are just as interested as getting into that limousine, and kicking in the teeth of anyone who gets in their way, and then (once in the limousine) loudly whining about being expected to pay taxes on their astronomical incomes, as Americans are. Pais (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC) That's a fairly stupid explanation, but thanks for sharing this gemette of doleful rightwing propaganda. . --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know of any economist (right or left) who believes that the Laffer curve does not exist. All agree on two points: 0% income tax rate yields zero income tax revenue and 100% income tax rate yields zero income tax revenue. Disagreement surrounds what the Laffer curve looks like between those two points. Wikiant (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Taxes are bad. Taxes remove income from people which decreases their welfare. Taxes also distort the decisions of economic actors by disincentivising the choice that is now taxed (be it the purchase of an item with sales tax or income subject to income tax or corporate tax). Government spending is good. The provision of public goods as well as welfare programs and other interventions where market failures exist enhance welfare. The question is not whether taxes are bad, the question is whether the damage caused by taxes is worth the benefits gained from what the money is spent on (including administrative costs). Welfare economics is the field that studies this question.Jabberwalkee (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

What are the consequences of 9/11 on government policies all around the world regarding terrorism?

I'm working on our article on 9/11 and I need to add a subsection on the 9/11's consequences on government policies all around the world regarding terrorism. I'm looking for some ideas (and sources!) for what to write about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well it has made commercial flying a lot less convinient. I remember the good old days when you could wear your shoes through security, and have some bottled beverages along with you. Googlemeister (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, if you go through airport security in nothing but a schlong sock, everyone will understand your reasons. --188.29.241.38 (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

9/11 wasn't responsible for either the liquids ban (that was the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot) or the shoe removal (that was Richard Reid, in 2002). Except, I guess, in a very broad terrorist-freakout sense, but it was not directly responsible for either of those policies. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhpas not directly, but it created an environment where such nonsense would be politically viable. Googlemeister (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The United States is quite easy — the PATRIOT Act, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the general consolidation of intelligence assets, and the increased use of wiretapping (including warrantless wiretapping) and "coercive interrogation methods" are among the easily documentable results. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Add to that the decisions to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - overt acts in contrast with the long history of covert regime change. Plus ca change. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

wouldn't it be fair to charge next-of-kin?

if someone kills someone but escapes, wouldn't it make sense to incarcerate their next-of-kin until they show up for a trial? Then they don't "get away with it". --188.28.68.241 (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

What crime did their next-of-kin commit that would necessitate their incarceration? Why should the fact that a man had sex with the woman whose womb I was in mean that I should be held responsible for that man's crimes? --Jayron32 19:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It might be regarded as expedient, but it would hardly be "fair"! It would be a kind of hostage-taking (though not a kind discussed in that article), which is generally viewed rather negatively in the modern world. Collective punishment is another article which touches on the idea. --ColinFine (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If you didn't happen to like your next of kin it would be a wonderful way to "get" them. APL (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The logical response would be for the imprisoned person's family to capture a member of the judge's family. Franamax (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The idea that people should be held responsible for actions of their relatives is a very old one, and the Bible is rife with examples. However, with the exception of holding parents responsible for some actions of their underage kids (like habitually skipping school), we no longer believe that. StuRat (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No, no, no! You don't call her a hostage, you call her a material witness. Though charges of aiding and abetting are also handy to throw around.

Understand that it is acceptable to threaten to charge, or actually charge, family members for potential crimes, then plea bargain to drop their charges in exchange for a guilty plea from the main target of the investigation. Wnt (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

war disease deaths

Looking at Civil War deaths, it seems like less then half the deaths were caused by things like bullets and most was from disease. I have a couple questions on that area. First, what was the disease death % for US troops in WW2, and what was it for the Iraq campaign of the 21st century? Googlemeister (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The military may have some official records that come close to your requirements, but I reckon it's a pretty tricky request. Do you count depression followed by suicide two years after returning from active service as a war "disease" death? HiLo48 (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Not unless the Civil War tallied the same. Googlemeister (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the most reliable estimates of total excess deaths resulting from the Iraq War are on the order of hundreds of thousands of civilians (with very few sources saying that it is fewer than 100,000). However, interestingly, it seems that the large majority of these excess deaths are violent deaths (gunshots, bombs, etc.), unlike the Iraq sanctions, which also killed somewhere on the order of hundreds of thousands of civilians, but mostly from disease and malnutrition. It seems from the numbers in the Lancet survey and others that a relatively small proportion of the excess deaths are occurring as a result of disease. I'm not sure about WWII, but would also be very interested to find out. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"The aftermath of the Civil War" Anderson, 2004) page 7 shows far more deaths from "disease" than "killed in battle, including fatal wounds." The book says that official estimates are unreliable. Union: 114,904 from battle, 227, 580 disease. Confederate: 94,000 battle, 164,000 disease. World War II casualties has footnotes following the table "Military Casualties by branch of service" which say for the Germans, "The number killed in action was 2,303,320; died of wounds, disease or accidents 500,165." For the USSR "6,329,600 combat related deaths, 555,500 non combat deaths." US noncombat deaths are not reported in the article, but a footnote refers to Army battle casualties and nonbattle deaths in World War II" which would not open for me. I could not find up-to-the minute tallies for the ongoing wars breaking down the deaths by cause. Modern medicine and a good supply chain likely greatly reduced the proportion of disease deaths in these current wars among the US, Britain etc. Certainly there were many deaths from disease in WW2 and likely in Korea, since the supply chain was hampered and only early antibiotics were available. Allied soldiers as well as Japanese soldiers suffered from limited water, food, and medical supplies in muddy hell holes in the Pacific. Many allied POWs of the Japanese died of disease due to poor food and poor sanitation, as well as lack of medical treatment. Edison (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that proper sanitation is also a critical factor that reduced the percentage of non-POW soldiers who died of disease in later years. For example, digging proper latrines, not near the water supply. StuRat (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Depending on how you measure, either the Korean War or the Vietnam War was the first major war in history where more soldiers died from wounds than died from disease. --Carnildo (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Presumably the OP is referring to the American Civil War. There have been lots of Civil Wars. --Dweller (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering my question was US military specific, it is hard to imagine I was talking about the Kongo Civil War now isn't it? Googlemeister (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You only specified US deaths in one of the three conflicts you mentioned. I assumed you wanted all combatants for the Iraq conflict, as did Mesoderm above, which left room for uncertainty. However, if you look, I did indeed presume which Civil War you wanted for exactly the reason you say, which leaves me wondering why your reply is snarky, rather than simply confirming that was what indeed you meant. --Dweller (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Mostly because it appeared to me that you would justify others for being obtuse. I thought I was quite clear from the context that I was not particularly interested in the Jacobites or the Czarists or some other non-US conflict. Googlemeister (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

To folks in the US, the "Civil War" is the one that happened here, and others are identified as "The English Civil War" or whatever. How many civil wars resulted in more deaths and injuries than the American Civil War (~585,000 dead, ~412,000 wounded, out of 3,164,000 combatants)? Death and casualty info is lacking from the list of civil wars and even from the articles about some civil wars. Edison (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There have been several English civil wars, but let's not have a Wikipedia civil war. I was shot down in flames for trying to help once. I have no idea what Googlemeister means by "Mostly because it appeared to me that you would justify others for being obtuse." but it doesn't exactly sound conciliatory. --Dweller (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

June 30

Declaration of Independence

Copies of the declaration were almost certainly sent to England and France. Where are those copies now? Where can they be seen?James E Curtis (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

List of surviving drafts and copies of the United States Declaration of Independence may be informative reading for answering your question. --Jayron32 02:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

As that list shows, there are several known copies in the UK, but none in France. Lafayette was said to have had a framed copy on his wall. I think we'd know about that copy if it still existed. Perhaps it was primarily news of the Declaration that was sent to France, rather than English-language broadsides. —Kevin Myers 02:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It could have been a real one; there were literally hundreds of copies of the first three broadsides created (the July 1776 version, the Dunlap broadside, and the Goddard Broadside). That only a few dozen of those first printings survive is actually not all that surprising, it wouldn't be odd for any of the copies to have disappeared, even ones owned by such important figures as Lafayette. --Jayron32 03:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there's every reason to suppose that Lafayette had a "real one" on his wall, since he was in America for much of the war. He could have easily taken a broadside overseas on his journeys to France during the war. The lack of extant broadsides in France today suggest that broadsides may not have been sent there in any great number, if at all. The Declaration was widely printed in newspapers, and this was the way folks overseas usually read it. There were more than three early broadsides, by the way: our article's reference to a "July 1776" version is really a catch-all phrase for the 16 or so versions of broadsides printed privately or by the states to spread the word. Our article on the surviving broadsides is a little vague on these details and needs some work. —Kevin Myers 04:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Back in 1949, an article in the Harvard Library Review listed the location of 71 known broadsides (none in France, I think). A few more have been discovered since then, so our list is only about half complete. I'll put this on my "to do" list. —Kevin Myers 04:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Presumably most Europeans outside of UK would only have wanted versions in their own languages, since English was not known by many in Europe at that time. So the ones dispatched to France and other countries, apart from official uses or sentimental reasons (like Lafayattes), would have gone to translators and printers and have been discarded after having served their purpose. The Journal of American History (vol. 85, no. 4, 1999) had a theme issue on the international reception of the Declaration and its translation history which might be of interest. The article on French reception specifically mentions that it is the version Dunlap also used for his broadsides, which was used for the first French translations (which incidentally appeared as clandestine editions printed outside of France). --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Service of the document is a puzzle. The Declaration presumably was intended to be a legal document, declaring that the United States were no longer subject to the British Crown. If a government wants to summons someone, or break a lease, or foreclose on property, or declare war, it is customary to hand the other party an official document, signed by the person with the authority to do so. Did the Continental Congress depend on newspapers and reports of British colonial officials to convey the action of separation to the King? It would seem that the Secretary of the Continental Congress should have sent a letter to George, along with a copy of the declaration, also signed and sealed to establish that it is the official approved document and not a variant or draft. In theory, at least, when a country declares its independence, the "mother country" might just say, "Well, so be it. Lots of luck and don't come crying to us if it doesn't work out for you," the same as if someone resigned from a business partnership. Edison (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There were copies that were sent to King George, the list notes at least two that ended up in his hands, obtained by some of the Generals and sent back on ships to England. There are several confounding issues, however, with treating the actual document as an "official writ" like a summons or a subpeona, or something like that, which requires a specific act of transferance to put it into action (i.e. a subpeona is only official once it is recieved by the intended party).

• Firstly, the so-called "engrossed copy", the one that everyone signed, was considered to important of a symbol to ship anywhere, so they weren't going to just send it off.
• Secondly, the actual written declaration was always intended to be a symbolic, and not a legal, document. For most involved, the event which was the "official" moment when the U.S. became independent wasn't the signing, it was the vote whereby the Second Continental Congress decided to declare the United States to be independent. John Adams himself thought more of this date (July 2) than of July 4.
• Thirdly, for many independence was already a fait accompli, they were already de facto independent from the UK, and while the formal vote and the pretty signed paper were a nice touch, the "situation on the ground" was that the U.S. wasn't subject to the British Crown and Parliament any more. They had their own working national legislature (The Congress), military, etc. Furthermore, some actually saw the independence of the States as already endorsed by Parliament and George well before the Declaration by the Continental Congress, the Prohibitory Act had specific language in it which treated the various colonies in rebellion as enemies rather than revolters; that is it treated them as a foreign power in war with the UK, not as subjects of the UK in revolt; it was an act of war, not an act of policing.

Those are some reasons why the Declaration wasn't treated as an "official writ" which required service to an intended recipient in order to come into affect. And, of course, it is all mooted by the Treaty of Paris (1783) which made the independence of the 13 colonies "official" in the really we mean it, it's really official sense. --Jayron32 20:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that the colonists were "de facto" independent already on July 4, 1776. Many of them were still loyal to their King, who had a large army on the ground, easily able to control the major cities and harbors and the coastline. They were only a bit more "de facto independent" than some guy in Idaho or Texas announcing his farm is a sovereign nation. Edison (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Today, we usually think of the Declaration as a "document", but we're better off thinking of it as an "announcement" that was printed in a variety of documents. It was more of a press release than a legal document, since there was no court of law where Congress could have presented the Declaration to show that the United States were independent. Instead, the Declaration is a justification for independence addressed to a "candid world". It was the announcement, and the argument therein, that mattered, not any specific document. Congress did not send the Declaration to King George, since it was not addressed to him, although of course some copies found their way to him. —Kevin Myers 02:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Route 101 collectibles

I'm interested in buying some U.S. Route 101 patches. Where's a good place to start?24.90.204.234 (talk) 08:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Here. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Inflatable rats at strikes

I've seen some hints somewhere that there is a custom in the US of erecting a giant inflatable rat outside scenes of strike action. Could someone explain the significance of this, or preferably link to an article or webpage discussing it? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►Subsyndic General─╢ 10:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

We have an Inflatable rat article which has a little info on it. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 11:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

StuRat puffs up with pride. StuRat (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Submarine enemies

I was watching a tv program about current UK submarines last night, where people were being trained to attack other submarines. I can understand that submarines could be used as a platform for nuclear deterrent to rogue states. But my questions are, 1) after the peaceful end of the Cold War (despite Putin apparantly wishing to be more belligerant again) which nations could enemy submarines come from? 2) Of these, are there any potentially enemy nations that have nuclear-powered modern submarines? Thanks 92.24.188.232 (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The article List of submarine operators might help but it clearly needs some work. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Nuclear submarine lists 6 nations with nuclear submarines (USA, Russia, UK, France, China, India). Brazil is working on one[19][20][21]. Israel has non-nuclear submarines with nuclear weapons.[22][23]; see also Nuclear weapons and Israel. None of these nations seem to be enemies of the UK. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You should realize that Si vis pacem, para bellum. Certain countries may be unable and unwilling to attack today but may become so in the next couple of years. They may be unable to build nuclear submarines today but they may buy them from another country or even learn how to build them themselves. To maintain a solid core of experienced officers and crews during peacetime is IMHO a wise policy because they will teach and pass their skills to the new sailors (recruited when the political climate becomes worse). Who knows of the future? The allies of today may become the enemies of tomorrow and vice-versa. Flamarande (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The first of the newest Astute class submarines took 9 years from being laid-down to completion. I'm sure it could be done a bit quicker, but you get the idea. If all the skills for designing, building and operating them are lost, then the whole thing is going to take longer and be less efficient in the end. Either we keep these things in service or lose them forever - a likely fate for our aircraft carrier capability. Alansplodge (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

No reason to limit ourselves to nuclear subs. According to Libyan Navy, it isn't clear what happened to all of their conventional subs. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

IMHO if the war machines become too expensive for a country, it should dismantle/disband/sell them. Security is very important but to bankrupt a country is foolish. Supposedly the British defence budget can't afford both the maintenance of the old aircraft carriers and the building of new ones at the same time. Therefore the old British aircraft carriers are going to be dismantled/sold so that new ones may be built. That seems to be reasonable. Flamarande (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspect they'd save more money by just upgrading the old carriers, instead of building a new fleet. StuRat (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The "scrap-old-carriers-to-build-new-ones" argument has been used before. Alansplodge (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There are certain limits of upgrading old carriers like size, technology, cost of maintenance, seaworthiness, age, etc. Certainly, to announce-something-only-to-cancel-it-later is a true possibility (happened before and happens all the time). However to maintain old ships and build new ones at the same time is very costly, some argue too costly for the UK. Flamarande (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how an old hull limits technology, you can upgrade the radar, etc., as needed. Seaworthiness should be addressed by the maintenance. Age isn't in itself a problem. The cost of maintenance has got to be less than building a new fleet. Now size could be a valid reason. If they need a carrier twice the size, they need to build a new one. They might be able to extend decks a bit on the old one, but not that much. Hmmmm, I wonder if you could mate two aircraft carriers together to make a Frankenstein carrier twice as long. StuRat (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

ordinary in South Carolina

What was the function of a district or county ordinary in South Carolina during the 19th century?

It was a county-wide office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.132.79 (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about then, but this job description talks about the position of a County Ordinary now, as an official responsible for various hearings to do with local government. This describes the Ordinary as being the official concerned with issuing marriage licences. I'm surprised that Wikipedia doesn't appear to have an article (or link) about that (the Ordinary article talks instead about the comparable ecclesiastical official). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 11:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph to the article about the civic ordinary. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You may also be able find information on this from a local historical society, or perhaps (since the current ones seem to be associated with marriage licenses) even a geneology group. Not being from South Carolina, I don't know how things are there for sure; but the city I grew up in in Indiana had one, and it's less than 100,000 people, and Indiana isn't as old of a state as South Carolina, so I imagine there's a few historical societies or associations there. Wabbott9 Tell me about it.... 15:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In the 1800's, the job of the ordinary was primarily to adjudicate probate matters. The ordinary kept a minute book of them, which served as a timeline for when things were filed. If you search for "south carolina ordinary minute book", you'll certainly find a few. I quickly found one for Marion County, SC 1800-1814. -- kainaw™ 02:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Bride kidnapping

Where can I find prevalance statistics for the countries listed in Bride kidnapping per capita? Also why does this reference desk page say "view source" instead of "edit" when I'm logged out? I can still edit. 69.229.154.254 (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a direct answer, but a caution. You will get very different "prevalence statistics" if you go by records of crimes reported to the authorities, or by a victim study such as the British Crime Survey. Remember also, as it says in the article, that the term "bride kidnapping" covers marriages along a spectrum of consent. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Referendums on independence from sovereign states

Scotland, ruled by the Scottish National Party in a devolved parliament, are intending to have a referendum on independence near the end of their second term in office. Whether the referendum will be in favour of independence is another subject, but are there other western countries today who would constitutently allow a referendum on whether a part of a sovereign state could be split. I just realised it can and has happened in Canada, but would the US, France, Spain etc allow a referendum to take place? For the record, I am in favour of an independent Scotland. Carson101 (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Puerto Rico votes occassionaly and always stays in the U.S. (1967, 1991?, 1993, 1998) (and still the UN bugs us for keeping them as a colony.) Rmhermen (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Surprising they would have so many votes on it in such a small space of time. I assume the votes were always very close? Carson101 (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Political status of Puerto Rico goes into more detail on individual referendums (or plebiscites as they call them), and you can also read in Politics of Puerto Rico how the issue of independence has continually been a distinguishing characteristic of major party platforms. Since both of those articles are kind of sprawling, you can check out the sections of the Puerto Rico article that summarize them pretty well, if you're not interested in all the gory details (Puerto#Government and politics and Puerto#Political status). —Akrabbim^talk 17:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and this looks like you might be able to learn some more about independence movements in general: Lists of active separatist movements. —Akrabbim^talk 17:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that Puerto Rico is not actually on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, they were removed after a vote and while there have been attempts and there is discussion to re-add them, they are clearly not officially considered a colony. Also the issue is likely not simply about the independence (or lack thereof) but whether their current arrangements meet the expections of the international community. For example our article says:

Though the subject continues to be debated in many forums it is clear that (1) the current territorial status has not satisfied Puerto Rican political leaders,[75] and (2) that despite the divergent views that Puerto Ricans have with respect to their preferred political status, 'all factions agree on the need to end the present undemocratic arrangement whereby Puerto Rico is subject to the laws of Congress but cannot vote in it.'[75]

While the referenda did propose various options, I'm sure some would say none was the right option (similar perhaps to the Australian republic referendum that a few here like to mention) or if they were they weren't actually followed. For example the commonwealth option seems to leave open enhancement of the current arrangement and in the 1998 vote 'none of the above' was the winner.

It's worth remembering even both major political parties in the US don't seem to think the current arrangements are ideal.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Not strictly "independence" per se, but questions of sovereignty have come up in referenda/plebiscites in the past, see South Jutland County, which voted to join Denmark in a plebiscite in 1920. The Saarland voted in a referendum in to join West Germany rather than be an independent state in 1954, see Saar_(protectorate)#Independence_Referendum_and_the_Little_Reunification_with_Germany. --Jayron32 18:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The situations of Puerto Rico and Scotland are not fully analogous. Puerto Rico is one of the unincorporated territories of the United States. As such, it is not an integral part of the United States. Its status is that of a dependent territory, and its relation to the United States is similar to the relationship of Bermuda to the United Kingdom. By contrast, Scotland is an integral part of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom got its name from the political union of Scotland and England (which then included Wales). A referendum by Scotland on independence would be more comparable to a referendum by Texas (or some other state) on independence from the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White that, constitutionally, states do not have a right to secede. The last time any state attempted to secede, war resulted. Marco polo (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, SCOTUS probably wouldn't care if Scotland left the UK, so who would have the power to force Scotland back into line if they attempted to leave the UK? Googlemeister (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I was just answering the OP's question whether other countries, such as the United States, would allow their constituent parts to declare independence. Whether the United Kingdom would allow Scotland to declare independence is a different question. As to who would have the legal power to overrule Scotland's voters, presumably that would be the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. If your question is who would have the physical power to force Scotland in the line, answering that question would require us to speculate on future events, which we try not to do. Marco polo (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Marco, just a teensy correction. The political union of England and Scotland was the Kingdom of Great Britain, created in 1707. The word "United" did appear in the legislation, but consensus is that it was meant as a descriptor of the new state, and was not a formal part of its name. The term "United Kingdom" only came into existence proper when Ireland was added to the mix in 1801 - at that time it was United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, regarding the history of the relationship between Scotland and England and the UK specifically, the single event which led to the eventual political merger of the two nations into a single sovereign state wasn't a takeover of Scotland by England, it went the other way around: it was the Scots that took over England, in a manner of speaking, the House of Stuart, a Scottish royal house, in the person of James VI and I, who inherited the English throne on the extinction of the Tudor line. (Of course the Tudor's weren't an English family either. They were Welsh, Rhys ap Tewdwr was the founder of the dynasty). While it took about a century for the union of Scotland and England to be completed, the genesis was still initiated by a Scotsman, and not by an Englishman. What this has to do specifically with Scottish Independence, I don't know, but its a nice bit of tangentally related trivia to munch on. --Jayron32 20:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• There was the Norwegian union dissolution referendum, 1905 (which passed with 99.92% support) - it is very similar conceptually to what the SNP wants, as it was not constitutionally binding but was used to force a political agreement. There's a few others listed at Independence referendum. Shimgray | talk | 20:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

More recently, Czechoslovakia split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993 - an act that always struck me as a particularly dumb move. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• In 1973, Northern Ireland held a border poll to stay within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or to join the Republic of Ireland. Since nationalists who opposed continuing the union boycotted the poll, there was an overwhelming 99% pro-UK majority. As there was no independence option as such, it's closer to the other 20th century plebiscites, referred to by Jayron32 above, on the future of the Saar and South Schleswig and Memel. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sopron was another place that had a plebiscite, voting to join Hungary rather than stay in Austria. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Mountain north of Mexico City

What large(?) mountain is immediately north of Mexico city? I can see it in Google Earth, but there are no labels or anything, and this doesn't tell me much. The border of the federal district comes near the summit, where it looks like there is some sort of mansion or resort. —Akrabbim^talk 18:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It's called the Sierra de Guadalupe. Here is a link to an article on the mountain in the Spanish Wikipedia. It has several peaks, the most prominent of which is Cerro del Chiquihuite. Marco polo (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks. —Akrabbim^talk 18:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Loki

Do the Egyptian, Greek, Roman or Hindu cast of gods have a trickster god like the Norse Loki? Googlemeister (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

We have the categories [[Category:Trickster gods]] and [[Category:Trickster goddesses]] which list a number of different trickster deities in numerous religions. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are direct links for those categories: Category:Trickster gods and Category:Trickster goddesses. --Dismas|^(talk) 19:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, English mythology has a god who always tried to Puck things up. StuRat (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hermes sometimes has characteristics of a trickster god. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

(in response to "Egyptian, [...] Roman or Hindu": Hermes's close correspondent in Roman mythology is Mercurius aka Mercury. The article on Trickster mentions both, and others. The subsection tricksters in various cultures' oral stories lists Mohini and also Krishna for Hindu mythology, and Set and Isis for Egyptian mythology. (None of these are quite like Loki, whose article's subsection on "Theories" shows him elusive and confusing as ever :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 09:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

what do the Germans and Japanese have in common?

what do the Germans and Japanese have in common? Note: I mean besides the fact that they were allies in World War 2 . --188.29.128.61 (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Industrial capacity. I think that amounts to coal and iron ore, but I'll leave it to someone else to look that up. Wnt (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I looked a bit further: apparently Japan began steel production in 1901, and rapidly increased its capacity.[24] As a country it was always struggling to obtain coal and iron ore.[25] The Japanese invasion of Manchuria (1931) and Second Sino-Japanese War (1937) made these more obtainable. Wnt (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A rather queasy feeling about nuclear power. Really, it could be anything, given the declared territory. Please put us out of our misery before we get fractious and remember that the RD isn't an appropriate venue for trick questions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

They are both major US allies housing multiple US military bases, although technically I suppose that is a legacy of WW2. StuRat (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A low fertility rate below the replacement figure (2.1). Read: List of sovereign states and dependent territories by fertility rate. Flamarande (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Both known for their auto industries. Rckrone (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I like this. Is there some cultural similarity that explains the auto industries?

The US also has an auto industry. Bus stop (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The Japanese auto industry expanded dramatically from the 1960s onwards as they created cheaper copies of British cars, with much better quality control, and quickly outsold the British. The German auto industry was older, with the Beetle being the mass market vehicle from Hitler's time.

Both countries have strong camera industries. In that case, it was German technology that the Japanese copied, and made cheaper. HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

But I'd like to know the underlying similarity that led both of them to go into the auto industry (as opposed to other countries which did not). Same for Cameria industries. Why were they particularly and specifically them in that position? 188.29.123.18 (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

All industrial countries had an automotive industry at some time in the 20th century. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. So how is that a legitimate answer to my question of what Japan and Germany had or have in common! (OP here). --87.194.221.239 (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Both are societies that value order and have a strong work-ethic. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 10:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Both names start with the "j" sound in English. Pais (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This disappeared in an edit: "Both are societies that value order and have a strong work-ethic. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 10:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)"

I like this answer, Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, it both answers my question and matches my experience (i.e. seems to be true) but it is kind of vague. Could you be more specific? 87.194.221.239 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This is entirely subjective, but neither culture really views diversity as a positive thing. Also subjectively and probably controversially they are fairly uncomfortable with their internal racial minorities in some ways, Japan with Koreans and Germany with Turks. 98.209.39.71 (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

For centuries the numerous German states existed as relatively autonomous entities, applying very varying systems of government, adhering to various Christian denominations, as well as differing very much in industry, economy and culture. Germany was literally a patchwork of states with only the language and the emperor in common. As such I can only agree that your opinion on this is entirely subjective. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

the below has become irrelevant after a title change

If this is a "trick question", then likely the OP knows the answer. Why are we spending time searching for something that the questioner knows? Is this "Test the Ref Desk Week", and I missed the parade? Bielle (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not how I read it. They probably saw it in a quiz somewhere, and want us to suggest an answer. StuRat (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, instead of complaining about the question, perhaps we can suggest references that would help answer it (we are a reference desk after all). Blueboar (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not really a "trick question", the only reference to that was in the title. I am normally extremely smart and have wide breadth and depth of knowledge, and could not come up with the similarities on my own: that's why I had that title in frustration. It is a legitimate question. I am most interested in cultural similarities: which might explain why they became allies in world war 2. I would like to remove this whole subsection, because the question has begun to be answered above it. 188.29.201.9 (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that "What do the Germans and Japanese have in common?" and "What did the Germans and Japanese have in common, which lead to them being allies in WWII?" are similar but distinct questions. (Most importantly, similarities which occurred post-1950 are irrelevant to the latter, but perfectly appropriate for the former.) We do have an article on German–Japanese relations, which does discuss the issue a little. Part of it was a mutual movement away from a weak fledgling democracy, and (back) toward consolidation of power under a single person (the Emperor/Reichspresident). Possibly even more important was the signing of the Anti-Comintern Pact, which was effectively an anti-Russia agreement. As I read the article, the main answer to the question "What did the Germans and Japanese have in common, which lead to them being allies in WWII?" was "they both were enemies of the Russians". -- 174.24.196.217 (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

And enemies of the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands and the United States. The system of government in pre-war Japan was really quite different to Nazi Germany. In Japan, although there was public deference to the Emperor, real power was in the hands of the military establishment. Hitler completely sidelined the traditional military elite by means of the Nazi party. His style of governance veered unpredictably from giving subordinates total freedom of action to enforcing his own micro-management when the fancy took him. The similarities (in my view) were:-

1) The perceived need for military expansion

2) The subordination of personal freedom to the needs of the state

3) Resentment of the dominance of the great powers (US UK France and USSR)

4) Belief in their own racial superiority (although this was problematic because both regarded the other as racially inferior)

Alansplodge (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the answer lies in the fact that Germany and Japan had common enemies, and that led them to ally. That's about it. The real answer is that they both had the same groups of enemies. Other than China, most of Japan's enemies were the major European colonial powers: The British (Burma and India and Malaysia) and the Dutch (Indonesia) and the Americans (Philipines and Hawaii). Germany, remember, also had an alliance with the Soviet Union at the start of the war (the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact) which Germany rapidly ignored as soon as it wasn't in Germany's interest to be allied with the Soviet Union anymore. The only thing that kept the Germans and the Japanese allied was the fact that Japan's territory and imperial interests didn't lie in the path of the Germans; that is the Germans had no impending need to invade Japan or compete for territory that Japan was also trying to take. This is quite different from the Soviets, which is why Germany ended up invading the Soviet Union. So, Japan and German were allies because a) they had common enemies and b) Germany didn't have any reason to stab them in the back. --Jayron32 16:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd argue that the reason Germany and Japan didn't fight was that neither had the ability to defeat the other, due to their geographic isolation. Of course, that didn't stop them both from declaring war on the US, even though neither seemed to possess the ability to invade North America and defeat the US. They must have thought that the US was a weak democracy which would refuse to fight. StuRat (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I find it VERY hard to read your response as anything other than "The only thing they had in common - and which united them - was a mutual hatred of Freedom and Free societies." I realize this borders on flamebait, I am not saying this is what I think! This is just my IMPRESSION from reading your paragraph above, which seems to me to imply it. Maybe you could elaborate given this impression on my part, so that you are more specific and can "set me straight". Thanks! Note: this applies more to the paragraph above beginning "And enemies of the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands and the United States" and ending "Belief in their own racial superiority". 87.194.221.239 (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That was my paragraph. I'm not sure that they had "a mutual hatred of Freedom and Free societies"; they didn't want a free society themselves and saw it as a weakness in their opponents. What Japan wanted was its own empire in mainland Asia to ensure security of resources, such as oil and rubber. That these were controlled by the western powers was seen as a major threat to Japanese prosperity. BTW none of the western powers had very "free societies" in their Asian empires. Germany wanted its pre-1919 borders back, and later to expand into Soviet territory. Germany kept the USSR from attacking Japan. Japan distracted the US and UK from their war with Germany. Alliance was pragmatic rather than idiological in my opinion. Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. There were strategic reasons for alliance (the enemy of my enemy is my friend), and the ideological positions were close enough not to be an obstacle. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

An interesting article, Honorary Aryan, proves me at least partly wrong on point 4) above. Alansplodge (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

July 1

Thunder and lightning

I'm not sure whether to put this here or in Science. I'm wondering, in pre-modern societies that lacked a scientific understanding of light and sound, what (if any) explanations were posited for the time delay between thunder and lightning? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

They probably thought of light as instantaneous, but sound is so slow you can tell it's not. There's the thunder and lightning example, but also you can hear the delay when a distant person hits two rocks together. StuRat (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Some symbolic beliefs separated the two. A couple examples: Vikings knew that blacksmiths heated the iron before striking it. So, the flash of light came before the thunder when Thor was striking his hammer on an anvil. Some Native American tribes attributed it to a lightning bird. The lightning came from the flaps of its wings and the thunder from its cry. -- kainaw™ 02:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind that (by definition) pre-scientific societies didn't see any need to "explain" everything. But it is easy to observe a time lag when watching, say, farm labourers at a distance, or hearing an echo.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

For an example from a pre-modern society that did sort of have a scientific understanding, the Greeks (or at least Aristotle) knew that sound was a physical thing moving through a physical body (the air), and took time to do so. They didn't really understand what light was though; I think it was Plato, rather than Aristotle, who thought that light was not a physical thing and was just there, shooting out from your eyes onto everything you see, instantaneously, at infinite speed if it had a speed at all. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can say the Greeks had a "scientific understanding", rather it would be better to say they "guessed right." Saying what the Greeks did was "science" is like saying what a lottery winner did was "investing". The Greeks didn't do science any more than other pre-modern societies, but they had a mythology and a philosophy that through nothing more than dumb luck happened to have a coincidental resemblance to the results of modern scientific experiment. And even less so; the biases of Western culture hold the ancient Greeks in such high regard (and other pre-modern cultures in such low regard) that it tends to skew its view of how "right" the Greeks were, coloring our interpretation of their philosophy to make it seem as though the Greeks were somehow prescient in their understanding of the physical universe; in reality the same arguement could be made for just about any pre-modern society, it just takes a willingness to draw connections between the myths and the science in the way we've done with the Greeks. --Jayron32 14:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to disprove that they guessed right, but bear in mind that much of the Greeks' knowledge did not come from Greece. Greece and Macedonia dominated much of Turkey, Egypt and other lands and collected a great amount of information (and actual books and scholars) from those sources. In much the same way Rome became scientifically advanced later on by dominating Greece. Wnt (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

All science is based on trial-and-error, but the important part is that you accept the correct answer when you "guess right", rather than ignoring it if it goes against your preconceptions, religions, etc., as in the later case of the Catholic Church suppressing the fact that the Earth is not the center of the universe. The Greeks also conducted some experiments, like the one where the length of shadows at the same time along a north-south axis was used to determine the diameter of the Earth. While it's true that there was also some rather non-scientific thought going on, with people saying the world was one way because they wanted it to be so, like that related to the perfect solids representing 5 fundamental elements, this is also true in our time, with Intelligent Design being an example. StuRat (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

French phrase for owner of loot?

There's a French phrase for the informal contract that, say, people enter into when they find (often in wartime) an amount of gold, hide it, and agree that it belongs to the last surviving member of those party to the agreement. I can't remember the phrase; does anyone know? Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language? It might have a higher concentration of people able to answer your question. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a tontine, like in english. 80.169.233.244 (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's the one. Ericoides (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how many people are familiar with tontines only from Raging Abe Simpson and His Grumbling Grandson in "The Curse of the Flying Hellfish". Adam Bishop (talk) 08:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat older folk may be familiar with them from an episode of M*A*S*H involving a tontine of which Col. Potter was a participant. Deor (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Or The Wrong Box (1965) about two elderly brothers who stand to benefit from a tontine should the other die. "The film is so British that it met with a gentle success in most places except Britain, where it was a terrible flop. I suppose this was because the film shows us exactly as the world sees us - as eccentric, charming and polite - but the British knew better that they were none of these things, and it embarrassed them." (comment by Michael Caine). Alansplodge (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a movie. The novel (by Robert Louis Stevenson) is great fun. Looie496 (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I remember seeing that movie at the cinema when it was current. I laughed myself sick, particularly at Tony Hancock addressing a crowd of unsuspecting gallery patrons and telling them they were all mad, before storming out of the room. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Simple question (How tall is Elizabeth II?)

How tall is Elizabeth II? --John (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

5' 4" according to IMDb, which isn't, of course, a formal reliable source. I don't think that any answer other than "not very" can be considered definitive. Tevildo (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say that 5'4" is about right - I was surprised how short she was. Alansplodge (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the messenger god Hermes associated with water and is war god Ares associated with fire and arrows?

Is the messenger god Hermes associated with water and is war god Ares associated with fire and arrows? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Not directly. Check the infobox on Greek sea gods under "Aquatic deities" for a list of the Greek gods associated with water. As for Ares, in his role as war god I'm sure you can say he was associated with arrows, and possibly military incendiaries, but the only weapon he's ever depicted with is a spear, and more often he just has a shield without a spear (perhaps because it's a lot easier to sculpt a shield.) Apollo and Hephaestus are directly associated with archery and fire, respectively. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Income of at least £34 million a year, every year, for ever

What would £34M a year every year in perpituity pay for in terms of public services in the UK? (Schools, doctors, old people's homes, weekly bin collections etc). Capitalised at say 2.5% (as it appears to be inflation-linked), then its equivalent to £1.36 billion. 92.24.141.227 (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

For that salary, I would be delighted to offer my services to the government as an advisor. Looie496 (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I would offer my services for half of that, £17 million per year, if Looie does not make a counteroffer. The other half can go to various charities. --188.29.154.125 (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Tontine (redux)

Given the discussion above about tontines, what is the etymology of the name of the small settlement in Yorkshire (now best known for the pricey restaurant there) called Cleveland Tontine (it's just south of Ingleby Arncliffe). Mills' Oxford Dictionary of British Place Names doesn't have it (under Tontine or Cleveland Tontine). The OS map calls the (equally tiny) place just south of it "Little Tontine", confirming that it's not just the name of the inn. 87.113.82.26 (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

According to this page, the site was developed into an inn in 1804 with financing derived from a tontine subscription. Looie496 (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)