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

August 6

United Kingdom

What is the gender neutral term of "Kingdom"? BTW, this country is ruled by a queen, but it is called kingdom, not queendom, why? The country has done so many things for achieving gender equality, but the name still shows gender bias, and no one, including those who claim to advocate gender equality, objects. Why? --Do098l (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_neutrality_in_English#Arguments_against --151.41.138.181 (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

"Monarchy"? Gabbe (talk) 11:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Monarchy it too biased. I suggest Womon-archy! --151.41.138.181 (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, a couple of answers spring to mind. Firstly, in the UK you still have a large number of titles (job titles, etc) that are phrased in male terms. Not many people are bothered by that, and very few see it as a block on achieving equality - why would it be? Does "Kingdom" for you imply that within it men are deemed superior to women?

I suppose the second, and more major thing, would be that changing the name of a country is a very drastic measure associated with a high degree of cost. Although, as you say, the UK is increasingly gender-neutral, there is still more "low hanging fruit" than a name change, such as education programmes that encourage talented women into male-strongholds and talented men into female-strongholds. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 11:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Kings are in a sense more special than queens, because there's only one type of king. But a queen can be a queen regnant or a queen consort, so they're a dime a dozen, relatively and hyperbolically speaking. That may have something to do with why there are no queendoms, princessipalities, or duchessies. Also, those who care about these things are probably more concerned with getting rid of the law that males take precedence over females in the line of succession. That's the substantive issue, as distinct from the issue of form you're raising. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The gender-neutral term is "realm". All sorts of institutions change their names with the monarch: His Majesty's government and offices associated with it. But would it be easier if the political entity were called the Disunited Queendom? BrainyBabe (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Kingdom of Great Britain was established in 1707, when the monarch was Queen Anne. I haven't seen anything to suggest that the terminology was considered odd at that time, any more than, say, the concept of a "dual monarchy" under William and Mary ("mon"-"archy" = "single" "power"). Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Another Columbia fella

Told Queen Isabella

"I don't think the world is flat

"Now whaddaya think about that?"

And she said, "ya don't?"

And he said, "no, ma'am"

And she said, "ya get outta my queendom"

And he said, "yes, maam" -- Johnny Cash

--21:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

King and kingdom are the sex-neutral terms. The word king derives from kin or literally, the "kinning". The word queen, from the Proto-Indo-European root *gwena. (Compare "lady".) It is always the female gender term words which are sexist. μηδείς (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Then why is it called Queen Elizabeth II, not King Elizabeth II? --Do098l (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It is Laissez Majeste that verges on High treason to refer to Lizzy as an "it". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You mean lèse-majesté ? Pleclown (talk) 11:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Flags!

I'm searching for 3 non-Soviet pre-1945 flags of some areas of Russia (if existing): the general areas now occupied by Buryatia, Irkutsk Oblast and Krasnoyarsk Krai.
To be more clear, I'm searching 3 flags for (non extremely strict) historical "precedents" of these entities (I was able to find this historical flag of Yakutia: http://flagspot.net/flags/ru-14_h.html).
For example, this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_the_Republic_of_Buryatia flag of Buryatia is too recent, and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buryat-Mongol_ASSR is a Soviet one. Thanks! --151.41.138.181 (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Jewish support for Hitler?

I cam across a website Adolf The Great which claims Jews supported Hitler. Is it true? --55Centy (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Why would anyone believe anything from a website named 'Adolf The Great'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It is hard to imagine such a claim - when made about some individuals - is false, especially when "support" is such a flexible term. What ethnic group is so monolithic that not one member acts contrary to the others? And it's not uncommon for members of an ethnic or socioeconomic group to act against their own interests. In the U.S. there are black people who support gun control, even though by and large they're the only ones who end up being jailed for possessing one; there are also middle class people who vote Republican... Of course, in Nazi Germany these things were vastly amplified; for Jewish people who decided to try to pass for Aryan, maintaining their cover was a matter of life and death. The site mentions the Haavara Agreement, also obviously a desperate measure, but one which doubtless contributed revenue to Nazi coffers. You might even say that the Jews in the concentration camps supported Hitler with their slave labor. Wnt (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• That's a different case. Being Nazi is definitely tied to being anti-Jewish. Being pro-gun control does not mean being anti-Black. Most crimes are committed among members of a social group, so it is hardly surprising that blacks are pro-gun control. 193.153.125.105 (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What an astoundingly idiotic site. I mean, it brags about Gertrude Stein "nominating" Hitler for a peace prize. But here's what she said: I say that Hitler ought to have the peace prize, because he is removing all the elements of contest and of struggle from Germany. By driving out the Jews and the democratic and Left element, he is driving out everything that conduces to activity. That means peace... The authors of the website clearly don't recognize irony or sarcasm. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hitler was actually formally nominated for the Peace Prize, albeit by a Swedish Parliamentarian.[1] Gabbe (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If there actually was a serious nomination for Hitler for the Peace Prize, presumably it came in 1938 or earlier. Someone once said that if Hitler had died in 1938, he would have been regarded as one of th greatest German leaders. Alas, he didn't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You could simply click on the reference provided and read it: there is no need to suppose or presume which year it was. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 09:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

(rereads) Wait, who thinks Hitler's actions before 1939 would generally be consider 'great' and lead to him being regarded as 'one of the greatest German leaders'? Seriously, what? The invasion of other countries was what sparked actual war, but that doesn't mean his actions and policies before that were okay. Early_Nazi_Timeline: maybe if he'd died in 1932, hardly anyone would remember him, at least? Or they'd remember him as the early leader of a movement that went on to power and terrible atrocities after he died? In which case, maybe people would imagine he would have avoided those things? But I don't see him being considered on of the greatest German leaders, unless all the ones after bathed in baby-blood. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If Hitler had died in 1938, he probably would have been remembered as the leader who returned Germany to a position of power after being defeated in the Great War. The fact that he did so using mob violence and questionable legal tactics would have been quietly forgotten. (See Otto von Bismarck: he's remembered for unifying Germany. The fact that he did so through decidedly underhanded means has been mostly forgotten.) --Carnildo (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Surely the Nuremburg laws and Nazi concentration camps count as more than "mob violence and questionable legal tactics", let alone all the Hitler Youth stuff and the weird doctrines taught to children? If you read something like Mit Brennender Sorge, you can feel the palpable fear and sense of things being controlled, even from a group that was not being rounded up systematically and legally discriminated against, yet. The stuff about the children being taught horrible things in their schools, and being required to attend youth groups to be further indoctrinated which were deliberately scheduled to try to prevent them having time outside the state-controlled groups. I just really don't see this being considered 'great'. 86.164.56.34 (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Would those have been remembered by anyone other than historians? Hitler's reputation does not depend on if his actions were "good" or "bad", but if the actions are remembered. Hitler is remembered for losing a war, destroying a large part of Europe, and killing millions of Jews. If he had died in 1938, he would have done none of these. --Carnildo (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly possible that Hitler was supported by people who didn't consider themselves Jewish, but Hitler did. This is a part of the confusion over the question, "Who is a Jew?". It's not unknown for a Jew to be on the record as hating Jews, but it is certainly unusual. A notable example is Bobby Fischer. However, if you look at it from a different perspective, it is common. Judaism does not recognise conversion away from the religion - and many of Judaism's enemies in the past were converts. For one interesting example, see Disputation of Barcelona. --Dweller (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Tiny European countries

Why are there so many tiny countries in Europe? (Monaco, Andorra, Luxembourg, etc.) --134.10.116.13 (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've always assumed they weren't annexed into larger countries because there was no strategic value to them. Their main sources of income tend to be from offshore banking and tourism, neither of which were important until after WWII. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

A good read in this case may be Microstate. The question shouldn't by "Why are there so many tiny countries in Europe?" but rather, "Why are there so few tiny countries in Europe" today. In the area today known as Germany there were actually over 1800 independent states. That number is not a typo. One thosand eight hundred seperate, effectively independent countries, all simultaneously, in an area the size of Germany. See List of states in the Holy Roman Empire. Other places in Europe had similar organization at various times, especially Italy around the same time. If you go back far enough (say to the early middle ages, 600-1000 or so) ALL of Europe was that way, though occasionally some powerful ruler would take control over a large area (like Charlemagne, Cnut the Great, etc.) that was the exception, rather than the norm. All of Europe was essentially a bunch of petty kingdoms, duchies, counties, etc. all running their own affairs. The process of consolidation into nation-states took many centuries, and happened at different rates in different places.

• The earliest such state was probably England, which consolidated its territory under the House of Wessex during the 800s and 900s and was essentially in its modern geographical limits by the time of Edward the Confessor shortly before the Norman Conquest.
• In France, the process of creating a unified nation state under a single, absolute government really didn't get started until the reign of Philip II Augustus in the 1200s, and really didn't reach its full form until the late 1400s.
• Spain didn't become a unified state until the Habsburgs unified it in the early 1500s, around the same time that the Russian state became unified under Ivan the Terrible.
• The Scandanavian countries were constantly shifting and shuffling how they were organized, Kalmar Union, Denmark-Norway, Sweden-Norway, etc.
• Germany and Italy, for historical reasons, didn't become nation-states until the 1800s, though a process known as Mediatisation which eliminated most of the tiny states.

The few tiny countries that still survive today are mainly artifacts from the age when ALL of Europe was organized that way, and while those countries are official independent, they still depend HEAVILY on their neighboring countries for many sovereign functions, i.e. Liechtenstein is quite dependent on Switzerland, San Marino on Italy, and the like. --Jayron32 17:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me the vast majority of those 1800 "independent countries" inside what is now Germany so ill-fitted our modern conception of "independent country" that they're not notable enough to have Wikipedia articles and are not remembered. Is there a list of them anywhere? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

See List of states in the Holy Roman Empire and the links therein. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

@JackofOz: For much of Europe's history, the modern concept of "country" didn't make much sense at all. There were "realms" which basically refered to the lands under the control of a lord. There were lords that were officially sovereign, and then there were lords that vassals of a more powerful lord, a system known as suzerainty. To be clear: It was not the state that was sovereign, it was the person (i.e. the King) who was sovereign. The relationships between all of these various realms, however, was (if you excuse my french) a complete clusterfuck. In many parts of Europe, states may have been de jure vassals to a suzerein, but were de facto so autonomous that they could be said to be completely independent under modern analysis. Many of these states had their own armies, their own tax systems and laws, and the like. The reasons for this complex system are, well, complex:

• Much of Europe after the fall of the Western Roman Empire came under the rule of Germanic peoples, including the Franks in central Europe and France, the Lombards in Italy, the Visigoths in Spain, the Anglo-saxons in England. Germanic inheritance tradition was based on a system known as Partible inheritance, whereby all heirs would inherit something. In general, this meant that after the death of a leader, each of his sons would inherit part of his father's realm as an independent realm in its own right.
• The system of primogeniture, whereby a single heir would inherit the entire realm, took several hundred years to come to pass, and the system of "oldest male inherits always" took several hundred years more. That meant there were often complex wars between competing heirs of a powerful lord, this sort of confused inheritance system led to things like the Norman Conquest and The Anarchy in English history.
• Kings would parcel out much of their land to powerful noblemen to administer in the king's name. Each vassal had different responsibilities and different levels of autonomy from the King. Some were basically tax farmers who were given a few estates to produce goods and money and soldiers for the king, while others were left to run their own affairs, and became effectively independent states. These powerful lords may even begin to parcel out their own realms into smaller chunks through what was known as subinfeudation.
• In the Holy Roman Empire, you had the additional problem that it was an elective monarchy, and that placed tremendous power in the hands of the electors and fellow nobles; while some Emperors could command a lot of power, many of them, especially in the later centuries of the Empire, were little more than figureheads in their role as Emperor, most of their so-called vassals managed all of their own internal affairs. Also, the systems of partible inheritance and subinfudation never really was abolished among the princes of the HRE, so after many centuries, the realm kept being subdivided and subdivided and subdivided exponentially; the Empire always had little control over its vassals, the stem duchies which made the main subdivisions of the German Kingdom in the early middle ages originally numbered only 5 (Saxony, Bavaria, Thuringia, Swabia and Franconia) but over time got so divided you would end up with messes like the Ernestine duchies; I'll let you read that article to see how messy it gets. In the HRE, not all of those 1800 states I noted above had official Imperial immediacy; only about 150 were direct vassals of the Emperor; the others were subinfuedal vassals of those 150; furthermore those 1800 states weren't represented by 1800 different princes; many princes through marriage and consolidation reigned in multiple states at once.

It really was a giant mess. --Jayron32 04:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It certainly puts the former 600-odd independent realms within India to shame. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

As previously stated, Europe used to be full of tiny statelets, some of which shared sovereignty with a higher-level entity, such as the Holy Roman Empire. Each of the little states left are around for a reason:

• Liechtenstein was one of the hundreds of German-speaking countries in central Europe. It avoided getting annexed by one of the other states because it only borders Switzerland (not a part of the Empire) and its former close ally Austria. Since Austria was left out of the second German Empire in 1871, Liechtenstein couldn't be included.
• Luxembourg used to be bigger, but Prussia took part of it after the Napoleonic Wars and Belgium got part after it became independent. The rest was ruled by the Netherlands in the 19th century. The Dutch royal family had agreed earlier that no woman could be the head of state of a Dutch-ruled part of the (former) Holy Roman Empire, so when a woman became queen regnant of the Netherlands, Luxembourg got a different grand duke.
• Monaco, also formerly much bigger, was given to the Kingdom of Sardinia (which evolved into the Kingdom of Italy) after the Napoleonic Wars, then transferred to France as part of an exchange for French support of Italian unification. France than sold the coastal part of Monaco to its old ruling family.
• Andorra was originally controlled by the bishop of Urgell. Since the diocese didn't have an army, the bishop signed a defense pact with a local nobleman. The bishop agreed to share sovereignty over Andorra with the nobleman's descendants, now represented by the president of France.
• Vatican City is also another remnant of a much larger territory, the Papal States. After newly united Italy took over the territory, the popes refused to leave the Vatican until eventually Mussolini agreed to make the Vatican an independent state.
• San Marino was the one little Italian state to retain its independence after unification. "Its wish to be left out of Giuseppe Garibaldi's Italian unification in the mid-nineteenth century was granted, since it had offered a safe refuge to numerous supporters of unification in earlier years." says the article History of San Marino. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

besieging a castle

A few hundred years ago during a war, suppose one side was a larger country with more people and a better organised army, and set against them were only a few hundred soldiers and a few hundred farmers and blacksmiths and such like armed with whatever they had, and though they would not stand much chance in a battle, they hope to recapture a castle lost to the enemy. A big castle with towers and stone walls, by a river and defended by most likely not a small number of enemy soldiers, which they lost a few months earlier in the conflict. How might they go about getting it back, in spite of the fact that they seem in a rather difficult position? What sorts of things might they try, if their leader was clever and experienced and their men determined? It is a rather small scene in a book I am trying to write, but I do need them to take this place back before I can get on with the rest of it.

79.66.101.250 (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If you read Siege, you'll find many of the common tactics used in sieging a fortification. All of them, however, depend on time, and for a smallish force beset by a much larger, stronger, and well equipped force, time is NOT on their side. The standard ways to assault a fortification is to starve them out, undermine the walls, launch corpeses into the city to spread disease, etc. All of those techniques, however, require that the assaulting force has the time to do them. With the force you describe, the seiging force itself would be vulnerable to themselves being beseiged; it was a common tactic to simply encircle the besieging force with a still larger force; essentially pinning the besiegers between the castle walls and a larger ring of forces outside of them. No, you need to end the seige quickly, which would likely require some subterfuge whereby some of the soldiers are able to sneak into the castle and open the gates from the inside (not an easy task) or undertake a series of daring assassinations of the leaders of the defenders to demoralize the rest. Traditionaly seigecraft with a small, motley band against a well defended position that had numerical superiority would not likely be possible. --Jayron32 17:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Subterfuge is indeed the way to go. It was quite common for castles or fortresses to be taken by treachery - opening the main gates, or a smaller postern, so that the besiegers can get inside. Historically, this would tend to be done by bribery (money or a future position of power) or by one of the garrison having sympathies with the besiegers. For the purposes of fiction, you might prefer the motive to be some sort of romantic involvement between someone in the castle and one of the besiegers, or a kin relationship. (Or some use of magic to influence the mind of one of the garrison, if your universe allows that.) Or there could be prisoners within the castle who somehow manage to get loose and then open a gate. An occasionally used ploy in fiction is to have a group of besiegers gain access to the castle through its sewers, through its water supply, or even through a garderobe. Some of these methods may have been used for real, but I can't remember the examples.

Once the besiegers are inside the castle, the advantages of the garrison are largely eliminated. In room-by-room melee fighting, the defenders for the most part can no longer make use of cavalry, specialised weapons such as pikes, and their better tactical discipline and training. An untrained but angry blacksmith with improvised but effective weapons could be quite an opponent in such fighting. Even if the defenders still have greater numbers (which they may not, since castle garrisons tended to be quite small, and peasant armies can get quite large), this may be of no benefit to them in fighting in confined spaces inside the castle. The attackers should probably set the place on fire, throw people off battlements, and slaughter a few of the high-ranking nobles in horrific ways, of course. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

An Act of God has proved useful during a siege to at least one warrior. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 18:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Eh, literal Deus ex machinas are generally frowned upon for serious fiction. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Trojan horse? You could also have it be that some of the characters have been taken prisoner and are being kept inside the castle only to escape, cause a lot of chaos, and lower the draw bridge. A long forgotten about sewer passage is also a common trope.AerobicFox (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Secret tunnel, built years before by a King to visit his paramour, or as an escape tunnel, unknown to the invaders who captured the castle. Might open into the master suite, the root cellar, the armory, the chapel, a tomb, wherever makes an interesting story. Edison (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that subterfuge is probably the most likely and realistic option. One plausible idea is to have internal divisions within the castle — someone is waiting in the wings to become the new leader or whatever, and is willing to use the guys outside as a means to do that. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the secret tunnel idea. It might be worth noting that there is a famous episode of history in which Edward III, the teenage king of England, captured his archenemy Roger Mortimer by introducing a small force into a castle through a secret tunnel in the middle of the night. Looie496 (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Secret tunnel is quite plausible because it's their castle, and the enemy doesn't even know where to post a watch. Kite#Military_applications is admittedly not so plausible for farmers and blacksmiths, but I like it anyway. Maybe they've long had a local festival, and they have a depot of materials outside the castle to make some large manned kites to fly over the wall in the night. Wnt (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Real enemy soldiers, (bribed, coerced, whatever) or friendly soldiers wearing enemy garb and able to imitate enemy speech adequately appear at the gate with a motley crew of apparently wounded, limping , securely bound "prisoners" to be taken to the dungeons for torture/interrogation before execution. Behind them, a donkey pulls a cart with their captured weapons. Once inside the gates , "Surprise!" the prisoners aren't really injured or bound. They grab their weapons from the handy cart, and they and their "guards" go on the offensive, slaying the gate guards and letting in the rest. Used in various movies and TV shows.Edison (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A group of noncombatant Friars or whatever heavily garbed come in to visit the shrine. "Surprise!" They are really commandos in disguise, and they secure the opening of the gate. Popular tactic in all sorts of fiction. Edison (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

As in the end of The Adventures of Robin Hood. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The subterfuge and bribery that Demiurge mentioned has a few real life examples - Antioch in 1098, and Constantinople in 1204 and [[in 1453. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Antioch example is particularly instructive. If the castle is reasonably large, then it will have some inhabitants who will remain in it even after its original capture by the occupying force. Kitchen staff, serving-women and washerwomen, fletchers and farriers and rat-catchers and such, and their dependents. These might initially accept the rule of their new overlords, but retain some resentment towards them (especially if mistreated). They might assist in helping the forces of the smaller country regain access to the castle. Alternatively, as at Antioch, they might reveal their true loyalty once the liberating force appears within the walls, and start assisting in slaughtering the garrison. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Climbing up the toilet is one, charming, answer that has delighted students of medieval history... probably for centuries. --Dweller (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Birth and death dates for Jessie Lemont Trausil, translator of poems by Rainer Maria Rilke

Jessie Lemont translated extensively under that name, but she was married to Hans Trausil, so her obituary could be under either name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howardkmyers (talk • contribs) 18:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

From Google Books searches I find that she was born in Louisville in 1862 and died in New York in 1947. Her obituary was published in The New York Times on March 10, 1947.--Cam (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

And the Times obit says she died "Friday" which would have been 7 March 1947. - Nunh-huh 20:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Shielded Soldiers

An example of a gun shield

While watching Captain America, I started wondering about soldiers carrying shields. Is there a modern-day army (not like a SWAT team kinda thing, a proper Military is what I'm after) that has a shield standard issue? If not, when was the last army that did?199.94.68.201 (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Riot shield states that "some military organizations" use 'em, but doesn't say who. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't really think it's common (or as needed) - these days, people generally aren't trying to stab you so much as shoot you - and we've developed bulletproof vests and kevlar helmets for that. Though some military equipment comes with gun shields mounted on them. ^Avic_ennasis @ 22:19, 6 Av 5771 / 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes but when was the last time where people were fighting wars predominantly with swords and yet those are still issued to many militaries. (Weird, Firefox is telling me that I mis-spelled the plural of military!?) Dismas|^(talk) 23:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

But only as ornamental weapons. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, while US Marines may be issued a Mameluke sword, it's likely any blade fighting would happen with the KA-BAR.(Do they still use Bayonets?) But IIRC, even as late as World War II, the Japanese carried Katanas into battle. No idea on shields. If you count actual use of riot shields, I've heard the British Military used them in 1970s and 1980s during The Troubles. (something like this, maybe?) If you count simply having riot shields, I'm sure a couple could be found in any Military Police headquarters. ^Avic_ennasis @ 00:46, 7 Av 5771 / 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The British army still use bayonets occasionally in combat. [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't provide a source, but I was watching the Military History Channel's recent documentary about the Falklands War, and it said that bayonets were used extensively in the fighting on the ridges and hills North and North West of Port Stanley where there was a lot of close quarter fighting between British Paras and Argentines.Most of the fighting was at night, and the British Paras were being careful not to wake the residents... :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The relevant articles are Battle of Mount Longdon (Paras), Battle of Wireless Ridge (Paras) and Battle of Mount Tumbledown (Guards and Ghurkas). Alansplodge (talk) 07:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In the Chinese theatre in WW2, Japanese katanas occasionally actually did battle with Chinese daos. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

And don't forget the Kukri; still being carried about in Afghanistan today. Alansplodge (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The article shield notes that shields were used by Zulus in the 19th century, but generally fell out of use in Europe with the rise of gunpowder - though Scottish clan soldiers used them into the 18th century. Neither of these had formal uniform in the sense of modern armies.

Regarding swords, List of individual weapons of the U.S. Armed Forces#In_active_service_7 lists some knives and bayonets still issued in limited circumstances. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

What is it called when the church is ruling a nation or state? what kind of government is this?

When a nation or city-state is ruled by the church, like f.ex the papal state is ruled by the pope, then what is this form of government/ruling called?

You have monarchy, democracy, oligarchy etc. but what is it called when the highest rulers are of the church? You might answer papacy or something like that since i used the papal state as an example but it doesn't necessarily need to be the pope ruling. I know there's a word for it but i don't remember it and I can't seem to find it.

85.167.223.37 (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Theocracy. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

More accurately, ecclesiocracy. Theocracy would be direct rule by God without an intermediary. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 21:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Not according to the first definition of theocracy. Dismas|^(talk) 21:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

More importantly to explain the distinction between what Schyler is saying and what Dismas is saying, the word "theorcracy" means literally "god rule", and the word "ecclesiocracy" means literally "clergy rule". However, as word usage does not necessarily directly come from the root meanings of the bits that make make up the words, 99.9999% of the time a person says "Theocracy", what they will mean is "rule by the clergy". --Jayron32 21:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The article ecclesiocracy redirects to theocracy; see also theodemocracy. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Technically speaking, God (or gods) do not overtly "rule" a nation. The clergy who actually rule the nation may claim they are takin their authority from God, but that's not quite the same thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

In this context, theocracy works almost exactly like communism does. "Pure" theocracy would be "God rule", in the sense that the goal of theocrats is often to purify their country (or the world) so that the law of God would be the only law, and that the people would be directly obeying the rule of God, literally. In the same way, "pure" communism has no central government because of the withering away of the state that is supposed to happen, though like real theocratic governments, real communist governments tend to be heavily authoritarian, and quite some distance from "stateless" regimes they are very "state-centric" regimes, especially in contrast to secular and democratic states, which generally allow more individual sovereignty (i.e. more personal freedom) and less state sovereignty. --Jayron32 19:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Really really real? I haven't noticed the statism you talk about in the Krondstat committee, nor the Barcelona councils, nor in the Workers Councils of 1956. This is somewhat like comparing using the Government of Iran to inspect theocracy while neglecting the diggers communities, US socialist communes of the 19th century, or the anabaptist underground during the reformation. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, of course there are both religious movements and communist movements (and even religious communist movements) which are democratic and even non-statist. There are, however, no important national governments which could accurately be described as "Theocratic-democracies" or "Communist-democracies". Modern countries which have regimes which charactize themselves (or are usually characterized by reliable sources) as either "communist countries" or "theocratic countries" are invariably authoritarian (though there are lots of authoritarian regimes which are neither communist or religious, of course). The movements you cite represent interesting footnotes in history, but do not represent significant national sovereign governments. So yes, they can all be truely really real movements and really have existed, and still not contradict my thesis one iota. --Jayron32 03:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest you inspect your methodology and terminology (but not your conclusions). Authoritarianism has been considered broadly vacuous in the social sciences and humanities I read, and I attend rather closely to all opinions on the Soviet-style societies. Considering edge cases is vitally important for the capacity to make general claims. I wouldn't decry absolutely Christian Government, even considering Calvin's Geneva, when, in contrast, I can look at the North East of British America in the 17th century. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Low inflation increases the real value of debts

If you have $X amount of debt, then with high or moderate inflation the real cost of your future payments to gradually pay off or maintain the debt diminishes with time. However, with low or zero inflation the real cost of your future payments to gradually pay off or maintain the debt does not diminish with time but stays more or less the same.

Thus when the brakes are applied to an economy and the rate of inflation goes towards zero, then the real present value of the future debt payments mushrooms upwards.

Is this why economies like Greece, Italy, Ireland etc are having problems? After joining the euro the inflation rate in their economies dropped, and correspondingly the real value of their debts rose considerably to more than they could cope with and they had the problems that have been in the news in recent times. 92.28.249.101 (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason governments like those are in trouble is because they've been spending more than they've been taking in in taxes. It doesn't help that inflation is low. A country may be able to "inflate away" its debt if it controls the currency in which the debt is denominated. But Greece, Italy and Ireland don't control their currency anymore -- they use the euro. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

That dosnt address the point raised in the question - is it correct that a reducing rate of inflation causes the real value of gradually paying off or maintaining debt to shoot upwards? In other words, if inflation had not decreased, then we wouldnt be having the current and recent problems where countries cannot afford their debt payments (because they have suddenly increased in their real value even if they have not borrowed any more). 92.24.133.68 (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It is correct that reducing inflation causes the anticipated future value of repayment to increase. I don't think it is correct that this is a major cause of the problems in Greece and elsewhere. Greece's problem, for example, results from debts they incurred after joining the Euro zone, not from an increased difficulty in paying their pre-existing debts. Looie496 (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You mean they paid off all their previous debt before joining the euro, and then racked up a huge amount of debt in the short period of time since then? That seems unlikely. Its more likely that they carried the old debt forward, which then greatly increased in real servicing costs as described above. 92.24.191.250 (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Look at the article "Economy of Greece". It contains historical data on debt as percentage of GDP both before and after joining the Eurozone. Gabbe (talk) 08:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

August 7

GDP from the fourth to first quarter

Why does GDP typically drop from the fourth to the first quarter? Widener (talk) 06:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a question I'd be interested in the answer to as well, if only I knew where you were talking about. Do you want to tell us please? HiLo48 (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand the question, but I don't know whether the premise is correct. Seasonal adjustment is so pervasive that it is nearly impossible to find data on quarterly GDP that are not seasonally adjusted. Seasonally adjusted, GDP does not typically drop from the fourth to the first quarter. However, if the raw numbers do drop, then that is almost certainly mainly because of the following factors: 1) In many parts of the world, a large share of consumer spending happens during the last 3 months of the year due to gift giving at the Christmas holiday. This spending is not present during the first quarter. 2) In the Northern Hemisphere, the first 3 months of the year are much colder than the last 3 months. In some areas, snow and ice make travel difficult. As a consequence, people go out and consume less. Also, where the ground is frozen, construction is difficult or impossible, and so this area of economic activity ceases. Marco polo (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know specifically, but I think there is a simple answer: Christmas presents. Looie496 (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

In the 34 year-period, 1977-2010, US real GDP grew faster (YoY) in the fourth quarter than in the following first quarter 17 times. The same pattern holds true for quarter-to-quarter annualized growth. In other words, exactly half. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Which is the most powerful and dangerous...

...among vampire, zombie, poltergeist, Werewolves, Goblin? --Goblin 224 (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

They are all fictional and appear in multiple fictions, therefore it depends the particular fiction you are interested in. Also, they are generally each described as having some strengths and some weaknesses, so it's difficult to say which is the most powerful/dangerous overall. --Tango (talk) 09:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

In terms of strength werewolves are usually shown to be stronger than most other things, but vampires are more cunning and usually end up defeating their supernatural adversary. 82.43.90.27 (talk) 10:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've been surprised by how often a movie plot considers any sort of ghost as untouchable, and giving it whatever it wants as the only possible resolution. It would be nice once or twice to see a resolution where the hero locks lock the annoying ghost in a quintuple pentagram, cases it in corrosion-proof metal and dumps it over a subduction zone. Wnt (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

There was actually a Lost in Space episode with a similar ending, i.e. where a spirit connected with an ancient artifact was dispatched permanently. One of the more serious episodes in a typically-campy series. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Wnt, haven't you ever seen Ghostbusters? Pais (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Individual zombies are not very powerful, unless they end up creating zombie hordes. Which probably could best all of the rest? Who knows, it's fiction. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Zombies are slow (physically and mentally), and body parts had an annoying habit of falling off. Goblins are usually not portrayed as having any particular magic powers. Werewolves are strong only a small fraction of the time. That leaves vampires and poltergeists. I go with the former, as they can make more of their kind. Also, aren't poltergeists supposedly tied to one specific location. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ciano's claims

I'm reading the book Mussolini Unleashed, 1939 1941: Politics and Strategy in Fascist Italy's Last War. At page 138 it says: "Ciano’s war aims program was lengthy and explicit. In deference to both German and Spanish interests, he abandoned the claims advanced at Munich to Algeria and Morocco. But France to the River Var, Corsica, Tunisia (with border rectifications toward Algeria), Djibouti, and an extension of Lybia to the south remained...". I'd like to find more specific information regarding the ill-defined territorial expansions of Tunisia (toward Algeria) and Lybia. I suppose that they wanted their claims to be as detailed as possible, so I'm expecting at least some vaguely defined border (also considering that these were official claims made fearing a too early German armistice with Britain and France). Thanx! --151.41.138.181 (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Date of the peak of British relative power and prestige?

The downgrading of the US credit rating on the 5th. August 2011 seems like an historic day to me, marking the passing of the peak and the beginning of the down-wave for the power and prestige of United States compared with other countries in the world. When would the equivalent date for Britain have been? 92.24.133.68 (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll offer September 19, 1931, when the UK took itself off the gold standard. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about that. It was going on the Gold Standard that was the mistake. What about 4 August 1914? Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I would put it at 1899, just before the start of the Second Boer War -- even though they won, the unexpected difficulties they faced were a blow to their prestige and confidence from which they never fully recovered. Looie496 (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

That seems a very strange date to choose. The British Empire suffered many embarrassing defeats and examples of incompetence, both before and after the Second Boer War. Why would that war be more significant? The incompetence and failures in the Crimean War became legendary, and there were remarkable defeats, reverses and slaughters in other parts of the empire. Nearly half a decade after the Boer Wars, the Second Battle of El Alamein prompted Churchill to say, "before Alamein, we never had a victory. After Alamein, we never had a defeat". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Half a century, I think you mean. But basically there were wins and losses throughout history -- it's a question of smoothing out the fluctuations to find the overall peak. Before 1900 Britain had the world's largest empire, by far the strongest navy, and the strongest economy. After 1900 all the long-term trends were downward, especially in comparison to other countries: the US surpassed their economy; the US and Japanese gained on their navy; their hold in India, the heart of the Empire, became steadily shakier; and the Germans greatly surpassed their ability to project power on land. Looie496 (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, half a century. (Sorry, my score in expressing my thoughts in this thread has hit near zero!) If you are looking at pre-1900 as against post-1900 then yes, during the 1900s, the British Navy ceased being the strongest in the world, and all the rest. But this didn't happen at the year 1900. No-one would have imagined in 1902 that Britain had suffered "a blow from which they never fully recovered". That claim is far better made in relation to the First World War. Even that wasn't seen as a crippling blow, the British Empire was largely unshaken - in fact even strengthened - by it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is between the 30th of October and 2nd of November 1956. Britain succumbed to the financial pressure of The United States during the Suez Canal Crisis, effectively passing the last bits of her empirical power to The US. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 18:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

August 15, 1947. Jewel in the crown of the British Empire, and deeply symbolic of her place within it; no longer to be the ruler of a billion people. That being said, I think the effect of the Suez Crisis was partly to lose the self-esteem that had been kept when releasing the colonies - "we have understated power". Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly the UK's IMF bailout in September 1976 [3]. -- CS Miller (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Many people cite World War II as the pivotal event when the United States surpassed Britain as a world power. --Jayron32 18:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

And within that time period, you could perhaps pick 25th July 1944, the start of Operation Cobra, as the turning point. The British Empire and Commonwealth landed more troops on D-Day than the Americans did, but Cobra saw the main initiative pass to the USA, and at around that time, the number of U.S. troops involved substantially surpassed the number of British troops involved. Of course, you could also pick an earlier date, since although the U.S. had very limited combat involvement until relatively late in the war, its financial and material support to the U.K. was still substantial. So for example you could pick the Attack on Pearl Harbor (because it brought the USA into World War 2), or Operation Torch (the first major U.S. operations in the Mediterranean theatre) or perhaps the conclusion of Operation Vulcan. The loss of Singapore by the UK could also be a key moment, even though the USA were in the process of losing the Philippines under similar circumstances. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

An earlier date - 28 September 1939, the capitulation of Warsaw to Nazi Germany. You don't have much power and prestige if you promise to defend a country and then signally fail to do so. A controversially much later date - 15 August 1947, India, always the "jewel in the crown" of the British Empire, becomes independent. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to use the fall of Warsaw as a date, a better one in the same vein may be the Munich Agreement since that involved the direct involvement of the British, indeed many saw the move as the emasculation of British power... --Jayron32 19:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, the Munich Agreement was the point after which intervention in the east was perhaps no longer possible anyway, and so much more significant than the fall of Warsaw. Although, on balance, I'm going to agree with Schyler that Suez was really the tipping point, certainly from the British point of view - I had somehow managed to misread the question and overlook some of the earlier replies. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A simple measure may be when Britain had the highest per capita GDP or standard of living in the world, and when that was surpassed by another country. Whenever that was. 92.24.131.126 (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The peak of British relative power must be the years inbetween the decline of France and the rise of Germany as the foremost Continental power, so roughly inbetween 1815 and 1871. Between those years Britain was easily the economic superpower of the world as it was the first country to embark on industrialisation and its exports conquered foreign trade. After the 1870s Britain was overtaken economically by the United States and Germany. However Britain temporarily regained its position in 1918-1919 when it had the foremost army, the largest navy and the most advanced air force in the world. But instead of consolidating this position she disarmed and put her faith in the League of Nations due to a mixture of economic incapability of sustaining this position and idealism in faith in multilateral agreements.--Britannicus (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Woodrow Wilson's declaration of the Fourteen Points in 1918. America's contribution to WWI was modest compared to Britain's, but Wilson made it clear that America was going to assert itself as a world power in the war's aftermath. A year later, Wilson (in the first overseas trip by a sitting president) was greeted with shouts of "Vive Wilson" as he arrived in France for the peace conference. The American Century had begun. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The United States still has without a doubt the strongest military, the world's reserve currency, and the largest economy in the world. So at the analogous date for Britain, it would still have had that status. US GDP surpassed the GDP of the UK sometime during the 1870s, although the UK remained militarily stronger, and its currency, the pound sterling was a point of reference for all other world currencies (though the "reserve currency" at the time was gold). During this period, most of the world's economies were suffering through the Long Depression, and Britain was among the hardest hit. According to our article Panic of 1873, the Long Depression weakened Britain's economic world leadership. During the 1870s, Germany also began to grow much faster than the UK and to rival its power in Europe. So the analogous period to the present one in the United States would have been the 1870s in the United Kingdom. Marco polo (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the per capita measures are more important. For example someone from for example Monaco would be regarded as being wealthy, not dismissed because the population is small. 92.24.191.250 (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You might then draw the erroneous conclusion that Monaco was a world power if that was all you looked at. You also might underestimate the British Empire because there are a lot of poor people in India. Googlemeister (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Subconcious Part of the MInd.

we all know that Mind and brain are two different things. I have to ask a question about Gabriel. The angel of God. we all know that there was no science in that era. So can we conclude that Gabriel was basically the subconscious part of the Mind through which these prophets received the information they did not knew? because there are possible links. Take Jesus. The holy bible came through his mind not from the sky. but what part of the mind? Maybe Subconscious. Because god always point out in Holy books that I know that You know not. So Subconscious is that part of the mind which has no link wit hour brain.Because this is the only knowledge we dont know about it. the only way to enter in our Subconscious Mind is through dreams. where sometimes Subconscious process can show us future predictions. what will you say about that? Is it possible? Because in that era the prophets gave the name to things they couldn't understand. Such As Gabriel(Subconcious Mind Maybe) Angels(Laws Of nature i.e hail, rain, snow, physics, biology etc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.115.161 (talk • contribs)

The mind and the brain are separate ideas, yes, but the idea of a subconscious mind in Freudian terms is by no means whatsoever universally accepted, even among more well-trained fellows.
The thing that strikes me about your hypothesis is that you seem to be lacking in your knowledge of The Bible. The role Gabriel plays is not very highlighted. He appears only 3 times. In the Book of Daniel (to help interpret a dream, no less) and twice in the gospels (to foretell the birth of John the Baptizer and Jesus).
The next thing I would like to point out is when you say "...Jesus... The holy bible came through his mind not from the sky..." Here you seem to say that Jesus had a major role in creating the Christian Greek Scriptures; he did not. Jesus moved mens' inner selves (thier "hearts") to record his words of wisdom.
Finally, I may be mistaken about your idea of what the subconscious is and the role Jesus really takes, so if you could clarify that maybe answering your question more in depth will be possible. (P.S. I removed your duplicated section) Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 13:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It is worthwhile pointing out that Gabriel / Jibril in the Quran is, indeed, the messenger of God who deleivers the words of the scripture to Mohammed and to all prior prophets (of which Jesus = Isa bin Maryam is one). Our article implies that Jibril in Islam is also referred to as the Holy Spirit. Maybe, or maybe not, Gabriel = Jibril = the Holy Spirit can be interpreted as some "divine subconscious" inspiration in Islam. Anybody with more knowledge on the religion may want to comment on that speculation. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The questioner should have a look at The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes. It's not even close to scientifically accepted, but it's an interesting take on the voices heard by religious folk and schizophrenics. - Nunh-huh 18:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

While it's an interesting idea, I should point that that it isn't only "not even close to scientifically accepted": it shouldn't be accepted on a humanities level either, because it simply doesn't paint an accurate picture of human history and civilisation. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the questioner should read book recommended by nunh-huh, Julian Jaynes' The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind for an interesting fantasia on the subject. Then read Merlin Donald's two books in chronological order for a more sober view. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

--

"We all know that Mind and brain are two different things..." The only problem is that it isn't true at all. Your mind is just telling you that it is. Your mind is in a perfect position to fool you isn't it? It is very much like an optical illusion. I highly recommend Dennett on Consciousness. Also, religion will certainly make it impossible to think clearly about these sort of things. Greg Bard (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Economic growth

1) What does current economic theory say are the economic conditions that cause the highest growth, in western economies?

2) Seperate question also about economic growth: in what ten year period since 1900 did Britain have the highest economic growth? 92.24.133.68 (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not an economist, but I think it has something to do with going to war over tax-cuts for digging holes. #2 Seems like a homework question. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 17:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Neither are homework questions. I assume your first answer is some sort of joke which I don't get. 92.24.131.126 (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The House of Commons Library is always a good source of free (as in beer) research that's been done for the benefit of MPs. They produced a report Trends in UK Statistics since 1900 which (on p. 21) has graphs of total GDP (unadjusted for inflation) and real GDP per capita. Another source for such data is Measuring Worth. Either of these and a spreadsheet will answer your second question. Economic history of the United Kingdom doesn't have any information on historical GDP, so if you did follow this up it would be useful to add your results to the article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

1) Most of the time, an almost total lack of regulation leads to maximum growth. However, this also leads to occasional collapses of the economy. When you factor those in, a moderate level of regulation may be best, overall. Perhaps the way to put it is "allow individuals to make their own economic decisions, but, give them full information". Note that this means companies can't hide their investment strategies or lie to their stockholders. StuRat (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

StuRat's answer makes sense, when applied to certain kind of people. However, people make every kind of uninformed decision, even if information is available. 193.153.125.105 (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, but when the government steps in to prevent those types of mistakes, it becomes a nanny state. StuRat (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If by Western you mean developed economies, growth in the steady-state is believed to be a function of increased knowledge, technology, and population. The Exogenous_growth_model (Solow model) is one way to quantify these inputs.12.186.80.1 (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Becoming braver

I am probably about average regarding being brave or timid in social life and in business. But are there any ways of making myself braver without using alcohol or drugs? In other words being able to do riskier things in business etc without being distracted by feelings of fear or worry? 92.29.126.238 (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Definitely stay away from substances. The way to be brave is (1) develop a clear idea of what you want to do; and (2) don't place too much importance on what others think of you. They have as many faults as you do, if not more. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This is OR, but one friend wears a hat. Yes, wears a hat. It feels like a mask to him, and he sort of dons a different personality, he says. It's acting. He acts braver, he claims, and is therefore braver. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Even indoors? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Granted, he currently lives in Texas. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The whole thing about bravery is that it wouldn't be bravery if whatever it is you're facing wasn't scary to you. Does it require bravery to turn up at the office every day? Not usually (although there are obviously exceptions). But jumping out of a plane at 50,000 feet - that's different, even with a parachute. So, everyone has to put on a brave face, wear a brave hat, whistle a happy tune, fake it till they make it, or whatever other platitudinous expressions they care to employ, -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that that was George Washinton's belief. To become virtuous one acts virtuously. μηδείς (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that taking risk in business isn't always a good thing, unless your company is too big to fail and you can rely on a taxpayer bailouts to cover your mistakes. StuRat (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Generally, fight shyness by going out more. Our article shyness says: Shy people avoid the objects of their apprehension in order to keep from feeling uncomfortable and inept; thus, the situations remain unfamiliar and the shyness perpetuates itself. To which I would like to add: the shyness might even get worse when you start avoiding social situations. Face your irrational fears, and the fear will decrease (see Systematic desensitization), avoid them and they will get worse. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Martin.

Airports named after people who died in airplane crashes

What are some airports named after people who died in plane crashes? Right now, I can think of Will Rogers World, Wiley Post, and Ted Stevens Anchorage International, but are there any others, domestic or global? Thanks. Abeg92contribs 20:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Subhas Chandra Bose is alleged to have died in one, so maybe Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

We may never know exactly what happened to her, but Amelia Earhart probably died that way, so Amelia Earhart Airport. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Edwards Air Force Base? Does Glen Edwards' airplane coming apart count as a crash? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

If we're going military, then there are going to be a lot more answers. McChord Field, for example. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yuri Gagarin Airport in Namibe, Angola. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Berlin Tegel "Otto Lilienthal" Airport. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Lyon-Saint Exupéry Airport. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

O'Hare International Airport, originally called Orchard-Douglas (hence the ORD designation), was renamed for Edward O'Hare, who died in air combat in 1943. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Not to split O'Hares, but he may have been killed by gunfire before crashing. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The same applies to Saint Exupery, who could have been killed by the Nazis. 193.153.125.105 (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Except O'Hare was engaged in combat, while the only claim for Saint Exupéry by a Luftwaffe pilot came long after the fact and has no support other than the guy's word. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The official name of Sydney Airport is "Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport"; named after Sir Charles Kingsford Smith, who is presumed to have crashed into the Andaman Sea. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Maynard Jackson, for whom 1/2 of the name of Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport commemorates, died of a heart attack in an airport, so an interesting tangent on the OPs question. --Jayron32 00:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Roland Garros Airport. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

There was a proposal by a local politician in Jönköping in 2009, to rename the city's airport after Dag Hammarskjöld. http://www.jnytt.se/Read__22255.aspx That proposal didn't go through it seems. --Soman (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There is Laughlin Air Force Base, named after someone died in a B-17 that was shot down in WW2. Not an airport per se, but it has runways and a control tower at any rate. I bet other US Air Force bases are named after similar folk. Googlemeister (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Selfridge Air Force Base, named after the first passenger to die in an airplane crash. --Carnildo (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

19th century US senator cheating on his wife

I am currently proofreading a speech by Norwegian author Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson on Norwegian Wikisource, entitled Engifte eller mangegifte (Monogamy or polygamy) which he went on tour with in 1887-88. In it, Bjørnson puts forward the case for monogamy due to the social ills that all sorts of polygamy leads to. 'Polygamy' to Bjørnson means all sexual relations not within the confines of a monogamous marriage, including premarital sex and cheating on one's spouse. Of course, Bjørnson does not use Norwegian examples, but instead examples from other countries, this includes the French politicians Honoré Gabriel Riqueti, comte de Mirabeau (who died due to the 'excesses of his youth') and Léon Gambetta (presumably because he didn't marry the woman he slept with and that he died from an accident, while she was present). The third example he mentions is an incumbent US senator from 'Western America' who was not re-elected after a member of his state's legislature stated that he had seen him leave a feast and entering a public house (I would guess this is a euphemism for a brothel) and then asked the question that if he were able to betray his wife, surely, he would also be able to betray them all. Neither the name or the state this senator represented is mentioned, however, I would like to know who he is. Does anyone know? V85 (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

James Graham Fair served from 1881-1887 and apparently his wife divorcing him in 1883 for "habitual adultery" is what turned public opinion against him (he was not reelected).[4] This is my best guess after looking at senators that served in the 48th congress but not the 49th or the 49th but not the 50th (which seems like about the right timeframe) from California, Colorado, Nevada, and Oregon (the only states at the time that I would call "western"). I can't find anything about this quote in particular... Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"Western" is an ambiguous term when applied to the US, it should be noted. See Western United States. Much of what someone from the West Coast would consider to be "mid-west" (at best) is often called "Western" by others (especially its residents). I'm not sure one can consider the coast and southwest to be what a Norwegian would call "Western." --Mr.98 (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Umm, surely anyone would consider those states to be "Western"? Of course, others might be included, but I can't imagine states such as Oregon and California not being counted as "Western" by any standard. Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The question is whether those are the only states that are considered "Western." There is no dispute that the Pacific States are "Western," the question is whether limiting a search to just the Pacific States is warranted. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't just consider "Pacific" states - I looked at everything that is marked in red in the above-linked Western United States. (Most of those were not states at the time, so they didn't had senators.) I didn't look at any of the states in pink. I doubt that they would have been considered "western" once California and Oregon were states, but who knows what someone from Norway (who likely had a somewhat sketchier knowledge of US geography) would have thought. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I could see where the western most pink states are western, as they include Texas, but Louisiana would be a hard sell. Googlemeister (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Texas is a pink state? Hot dawg, this lonesome cowboy ain't gonna be lonesome no more. Git along, little doggie. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Parts of Texas, like Montrose, Houston, are very pink indeed. But in reference to the states colored pink in File:US West map.png, it assumes that all states west of the Mississippi - including Louisiana (although parts of Louisiana are east of it) - can be considered "Western" under some definitions. I think that was especially true at the time the speech the OP mentions was given. Nowadays, no one would consider Louisiana a Western state, but in the 1880s it probably was. Calliopejen says she (?) didn't look at the states marked in pink on the map, but I think she probably should, since those states were highly likely to have been considered Western at the time (and of course, many more of them were actually states, not territories). Pais (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Depending on the time and speaker, any state west of the Appalachian Mountains may have been considered "western". In 1887 Europe, "western" probably would have meant "west of the Mississippi River": the pink and red states in Western United States. (Incidentally, the "midwest" is entirely within the grey region of that map.) --Carnildo (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You think? I would certainly include Minnesota and Iowa in the midwest, and probably ND, SD, Nebraska, and maybe Kansas and Missouri as well. According to Midwestern United States, the U.S. Census Bureau puts all seven of those states in the Midwest. Pais (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

And most people in Iowa, NE and SD that I know object to Ohio being a Midwestern state. They consider it an eastern state. I never asked them about Michigan or Indiana. Googlemeister (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Conversely, I know people from the NYC/Long Island area who consider Pennsylvania the midwest. Everything is relative. Pais (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

August 8

Stocks, 10% cheaper

This week, the Spanish stock market, like many others, lost 10%. I know that the price is obviously a question of market offer and demand, however, how can the market believe that a company is 10% less valuable in just one week? 193.153.125.105 (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

How can the gold value be 150% higher in just some years? Indeed, the value of gold is, for me, almost 0, although it's price is certainly not. The point here is that it is not about value, but price. The companies have the same value (more or less), but the market is less optimistic that the money paid today could be get back tomorrow. Therefore, 10% less. Quest09 (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because "the market" does not have any intelligence. An individual investor may purchase a stock because he believes that the stock value will rise, and sell a stock because he believes that the stock value will go down. The absolute value of a company, however, is only but one of the tools that an investor will use to decide on what value to pay for a stock. Investors use a whole slew of metrics to decide when to buy and sell, and at what prices, and many of those metrics have nothing at all to do with the value of the company in question. --Jayron32 00:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The market suddenly thinks that it was wrong to value these stocks at that level. The reason is that, one week ago, they thought these company would enjoy soon a recovering economy within which to do business. It has now decided that there will be no recovery this year, therefore these companies' businesses will not make as much money, and they will not be able to pay as much dividends to their shareholders. So shareholders are selling and trying to find an investment opportunity somewhere else where they can get better return for their money. --Lgriot (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

See P/E ratio and fair value. The reverse question is "How can the market possibly believe that a stock is worth 2000 times its earnings?" or better "How can the market believe the value of a stock increases over time for a company that has yet to turn a profit?" The answer may be irrational exuberance. By way of comparison, Linkedin Corporation, ticker symbol LKND has a P/E ratio of 2068.96 whereas Exxon Mobil corporation, ticker XOM, has a P/E ratio of 9.60. You may also check out the criticisms section of the rational choice theory article. Gx872op (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

(note), someone should adjust the LinkedIn article as the name of the company is LinkedIn Corporation, not LinkedIn.[5] Gx872op (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:UCN and come back and ask us questions if you find it confusing. --Jayron32 17:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Headquarters of Westmont Hospitality Group

I found the article for Westmont Hospitality Group but can't tell where the headquarters for the entire company are. One secondary source says the HQ is in Canada, and another says it's in Houston... WhisperToMe (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yahoo! Finance states it "has co-headquarters in Houston and Toronto". Bloomberg says just Houston. Gulf Coast Business Review describes it as "Houston-based". Clarityfiend (talk) 06:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

And on top of that:

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6140031/10-deals-that-mattered-in.html says it is Canada

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2005/05/30/story3.html says it is Houston

So what should I do since there is a bit of source conflict going on?

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, according to the information on LinkedIn, which is typically supplied by the company itself, the headquarters is in Toronto. However, if you do a reverse postal code lookup for its postal code, you find that it is actually in Mississauga, a Toronto suburb. Bloomberg Businessweek, a highly reputable journalistic source, confirms this headquarters. The sources that list the company's headquarters as Houston are all US publications. The company is likely to maintain a US "co-headquarters" and even to cite that office as its headquarters to people in the United States because of US sensitivities about foreign ownership, especially when it comes to a flagship hotel in a major city. However, it seems clear that the real headquarters is in Mississauga. Marco polo (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I clicked on your Bloomberg link citing Houston as the headquarters and found that the entity headquartered in Houston is "Westmont Development, Inc.", not "Westmont Hospitality Group". As the company's website indicates, Westmont Hospitality Group has several different functional units, one of which handles development. The name of the corporation is Westmont Hospitality Group. Therefore, Westmont Development, Inc., based in Houston, is pretty clearly a subsidiary. Marco polo (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! So Houston has a subsidiary, and Mississauga has the main company. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

container size change

Is container size change as well as price change included as a measurement used to determine inflation? --DeeperQA (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify: Do you mean volume per price? E.g. for $5 you used to be able to get 1 oz of candy, and now the package only has .8 oz, for the same price? --Mr.98 (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe that is what he is talking about; and I would say that clearly that represents price inflation. For some examples I see around the United States, the "half gallon" used to be a standard size for lots of items, like ice cream and orange juice. About 10 years ago, ice cream companies started selling ice cream in containers shapped like the old half-gallon container, but with a smaller amount. Now that container sells 1.75 quarts (12.5% less) than the container that used to fill the same market role. Likewise, some companies have recently (within the past year or so) started selling orange juice in 59 ounce containers shaped exactly like the old 64 ounce (half gallon) size. This is a sneaky form of price inflaction, since consumers won't necessarily look at the size of the container closely; they grab the "half gallon" of ice cream from the same shelf they always have; and don't necessarily notice that what was a half gallon yesterday is now a 7/16 gallon today. --Jayron32 13:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Candy bars are the classic example of a commodity that changes size rather than price. Acroterion (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the basket of goods used to measure inflation will specify the quantity of each product that is included, so it won't be fooled by companies changing the size of their containers. However, if the change in the size of the container changes the amount people consume (eg. if people continue to buy one tub of ice cream a week, even though the tub is now smaller), then the basket may be adjusted to take into account the new consumption (inflation baskets are regularly adjusted to make sure they are still representative of what people actually buy). --Tango (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, if I eat a cup of ice cream after dinner every night, I would have to buy proportionally more ice cream containers in a given year, so I'm pretty sure it DOES matter. The average consumer may not notice that they bought, say, two more tubs of ice cream this year than last, but such an effect SHOULD be taken into account in calculations of price inflation. --Jayron32 16:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but you don't carefully measure out your ice cream portions, do you? If you're accustomed to eyeballing approximately 1/7th of a tub every day, you'll just wind up eating a little less ice cream every day. Pais (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Jayron meant a standard cup or scoop. I suppose some people do divide up the tub, but, in either case, the calculation of inflation is correctly adjusted. Tango meant that the balance of the basket is adjusted to reflect buying habits, but the actual calculation probably uses price per 100 ml (standard in Europe, though the USA might use a different unit). Dbfirs 16:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, he meant the amount of ice cream you eat would remain constant, so you would have to buy more than 1 tub a week. I think it's more likely you would not start buying more than 1 tub week, but would rather start eating slightly less ice cream every day (or would just go without ice cream on the last day before shopping day each week). Either way, it's inflation of course, because if Jayron's right you're spending more money to get the same amount, and if I'm right you're spending the same amount of money to get less ice cream. Pais (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, I don't judge how much ice cream I take out of the container, I judge it by how much I put in the bowl; and at 1.75 quarts I am probably losing 1-2 bowls per quart, which WILL result in me buying more ice cream. With orange juice, it is more pronounced: I drink pretty much the same sized glass of juice every day for breakfast, so if they start shorting my orange juice container I will start running out faster. With "single use" items like candy bars, the effect may not show up (i.e. you still buy and eat ONE candy bar even if todays bar is 0.1 ounces smaller than yesterday's) but for stuff where you take a portion out of the container, it will likely show up slowly in the average purchasing of the customers. --Jayron32 17:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could call 1/2 a cup a bowl, but alas to me, that is just a taste. Googlemeister (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Any even more intractable problem is liquid detergent, shampoo, liquid soap, etc., where they can change the concentration without the consumer knowing, since, at least in the US, there's no requirement to list the amount of active ingredients, only the total amount of all ingredients, including water. A similar problem occurs with foods containing "filler", like rice. As long as your "sweet and sour pork with rice" contains one chunk of pork, they aren't lying (although they might have to call it "rice with sweet and sour pork"). StuRat (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Another dirty trick is that they've started making shampoo bottles with domed tops or knobs on the tops so that you can't easily stand them upside down to get the last bits of shampoo out. See [6] and [7] and [8]. I find this particularly obnoxious, as they obviously are trying to get you to throw away good shampoo so you'll have to buy it more often. For the record, my wife buys this stuff, because if I had a choice I'd boycott the brands that do this. --Jayron32 04:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Since I pour in hot water to dissolve the last bit stuck on the bottom, that wouldn't work on me. StuRat (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Just lean it up against the wall of the shower stall and brace it with the soap to keep it from falling down. Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Politely declining flattery

Hi. What is the most polite way, in English, decline flattery or just a compliment that one feels one does not merit, even if it is not deliberate flattery (eg the person was just trying to be nice). For example, if someone told me 'You're very smart', I would feel like I was being arrogant or egocentrical to just say 'Thank you!' What is the most polite way to respond in this case? Have a nice day :)

Saying "Thank you" is the most polite way to respond to a compliment. If someone tells you they think you're smart, it would be rude to contradict them. If you disagree, keep it to yourself. Pais (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If the compliment comes as a response to a specific event where the recipient has just come off as smart, talented, strong, or agile, I don't think it's rude to say something like, "Nah, it was a lucky guess" or "...a lucky shot" or "I just got lucky that time." Just don't belabor the point. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"You're too kind" is somewhat self-effacing without being rude IMO. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

People are allowed to have any opinions and think any thoughts they like, and nobody requires any thanks just for thinking stuff. Saying "Thank you" thanks them for taking the effort to complement compliment you, that's all. It does not necessarily mean you agree with them about you being smart or whatever, and it does not involve any arrogance on your part. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

OMG, time to save the diff. Never thought I'd see the day Jack of all people misspelled a word! ;-) Pais (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I take that as a compliment. So, thank you.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's also a complement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.153.125.105 (talk) 09:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

How so? To what? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

To your post. Complement: something that fills up, completes, or makes perfect. 193.153.125.105 (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I see. In that case, thanks to Pais for the complement as well as the compliment. Did I ever tell you how much you complete me?  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The complimentary hors d'oeuvres complemented my tie when I spilled them. Bus stop (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I get this problem a lot. I say "It was really nothing" and look modest. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Uncharted territory?

Have there been any times in the past when inflation was at around 2.5% per year or less, yet the economy was not in a slump? Or not about to go into a slump in two or three or so years?

I'm wondering if the theorectical economic heaven of virtually no inflation and a strongly growing economy is anything that's ever existed in reality, or has only been theorectically predicted? Recent events suggest that zero inflation is in reality a dangerous economic singularity point. 92.24.191.250 (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"Singularity point" has no meaning in economics, so that part of your question can't be addressed. From 1997 to 2000, IPD inflation was below 2 GDP growth was above 4%. Wikiant (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That's like saying "'Iceberg' has no meaning in economics" when we're all on the Titanic. Only three years?! Surely you were taught what a metaphor analogy is at school. Edit: apology, I should have added analogy rather than metaphor. 92.24.191.250 (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You asked if the combination ever existed, not a list of all years in which it existed. "Iceberg" has a clear definition. The only definition I know for "singularity point" is from physics and I'm not seeing the connection between that definition and anything in economics. Wikiant (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

With attitudes like that, its easy to see why we're in such a mess. 92.24.191.250 (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want honest answers to questions, 92.24.191.250, it helps not to speak in hyperbolic metaphors. The term "singularity point" has no meaning in economics, as already mentioned. Yeah, we get that you are trying to political point about the state of the economy but Wikipedia isn't the place to make those points or draw people into debates. If you have a question where we can link a Wikipedia article for you, let us know. If you are looking for a place to do what you appear to want to do here, there are blogs and forums in the rest of the internet. --Jayron32 23:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

And this was not a personal attack, 92.24.191.250. You appear to be wishing to use Wikipedia as a soapbox and this clearly is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Please do not remove my comments again, as you did here.--Jayron32 23:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Assuming you're going to come back and ask for the list of all years, here it is. Years since 1947 in which real GDP growth was at least 3% and inflation was at most 3%: 1950, 1952, 1953, 1955, 1959, 1962-1966, 1985-1987, 1992, 1994, 1996-2000, 2004. Wikiant (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

So at most it could only be substained for four years. What about when inflation was no more than 2.5%? What about the second part of my question? 92.24.191.250 (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No. That's like flipping a coin 20 times, getting a maximum of 4 heads in a row and then concluding that 4 is the most heads you can get in a row. It is the most you *did get*, not the most you *can get*. If you reduce the maximum inflation to 2.5%, you get the following: 1950, 1952, 1953, 1955, 1959, 1962-1965, 1986, 1992, 1994, 1996-2000. What is the second part of your question? Wikiant (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

When was very low inflation not followed by a slump? If it just results in a slump in a few years, then its useless. 92.28.254.151 (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm looking at the years 1947 to 2010. I split real GDP growth for those years into two groups: (1) years in which inflation in the *prior* year was 2.5% or less, and (2) years in which inflation in the prior year was over 2.5%. Twenty-eight years fall into group 1 and thirty-three years fall into group 2. The average GDP growth in group 1 is 3.9% and the average growth in group 2 is 2.6% (and these are statistically different). This suggests that low inflation is not only *not* followed by a slump but that it is followed by above average growth. Note that you get the same results if you compare GDP growth to inflation 2 years prior, 3 years prior, and 4 years prior. Wikiant (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your work, but would not the statistics discriminate more if you put them into bands of say less than 2.5%, and more than 10%? Currently an inflation rate move of as little as 0.2 from 2.4 to 2.6 flips it into an entirely dfferent category. Where can I find the stats myself please, as I would like to examine them. I'd be inclined to plot them on what I think is called a phase graph first of all. 92.28.244.21 (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you face two problems: (1) why choose one band limit over another, (2) the more you tighten down on the bands the fewer years you'll have in each of the two groupings. As the number of years in each grouping falls, it becomes ever more likely that whatever results you find are simply due to random chance. For the data, a good source is www.freelunch.com. You need to register, but the data is free. You're looking for IPD (under Prices) and real GDP figures. Wikiant (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to think that currency inflation is a bad thing. Currency inflation just means that currency is a bad investment—it depreciates gradually over time, so you're better off converting it into something else (i.e., spending it) relatively soon after you get it. That keeps the economy moving, and that's why a positive (but not too large) rate of inflation is associated with economic growth. If you deposit your earnings in a bank, the bank does the investment for you. Your account balance may be stored in a database somewhere in units of US dollars, but the sum of all of those balances is far larger than the amount of US currency the bank actually has at a given time. The only problem with inflation is when you price things as some fixed multiple of a currency base unit and then have to keep raising the multiplier. Consumers don't like it when you "raise prices", even though you're really just countering a gradual price drop. (Likewise, congresscritters don't like raising the minimum wage, etc.) But that's not an argument against inflation so much as an argument for tying prices to some index that doesn't depreciate over time (i.e., that "keeps pace with inflation"). -- BenRG (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The OP appears to be from the UK, so I suspect that s/he has hundreds more years to look at for the possible answer than these US-based answers. Look at the much more distant past, when money was actually based on something: economies often grew without debasement of the currency or without an increase in the supply of the currency. Nyttend (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, when you go back that far, economies organized very differently than today. Currency was certainly important, but earlier economies based on mercantilism and manorialism had very different concepts as to the source and disposition of wealth. And debasement of currency is as old as currency itself, the Romans were known to regularly devalue their currencies. So please, get off of the "down with U.S.-centrism" horse. --Jayron32 04:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

And then there was The Great Deflation in the late 19th century when productivity gains were huge and the economy grew in most years while inflation was negative for an extended period of time.--Zoppp (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I am asking from a UK perspective, where the politicians have imposed an inflation target of 2.5% on the Bank Of England (or was it 2%? Cannot remember). I'm also interested in similar conditions in the US. The events of now and recent years in the UK suggests to me that low inflation is not the Shangri La that politicians would like to think, but dangerous because it slips so easily into or even causes recession. Being politicians, they will resist the loss of face that comes from admitting they were wrong, so they will sacrifice the UK economy to their vanity by not raising inflation to re-start and maintain growth. I don't understand what BenRG means by "currency inflation" - I'm just refering to inflatiopn. 92.28.254.151 (talk) 12:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The inflation target is 2% (see [9]). Secondly, if inflation causes economic growth shouldn't stagflation be impossible? Gabbe (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

To counter that I could ask if low inflation does not cause recessions, then shouldnt we not have them? 92.28.244.21 (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Because correlation does not imply causation? Gabbe (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why recessions should not occur. One cause of recessions seems to be human emotion. People sometimes see things as more extreme then reality, so what happens is that sometimes people become over-optimistic about something, like the value of their house. When enough people feel that way, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy, but most of the extra value that was created was based only on perspective, not on something tangible. When something happens that causes enough people to lose that optimism, the price drops, people become over-pessimistic and the self-fulfilling prophecy goes the other direction. When such swings are large enough, you have a general recession. Granted there are other factors, but you can not separate human perspective and emotion from the economy, so the economy does not always behave exactly as one might think based on things like the inflation rate. Googlemeister (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The technological component should not be ignored. Thanks to the Internet, we have Wikipedia. But due to Wikipedia, some people at Encyclopedia Britannica no longer have a job. Due to Amazon, brick-and-mortar bookstores have fewer customers. The list goes on. There's nothing wrong about the Internet, but it might be a while for the people who have been made redundant by it to find skills needed for other jobs. Technological improvement is beneficial in the long run, but in the short run it can sometimes cause a bit of a slump. See "Real business cycle theory". Gabbe (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Page 280 of The Golden Compass (aka Northern Lights)

The pictures at the beginning of each chapter in Philip Pullman's book are pretty easy to figure out, but this one[10] stumps me. Are they supposed to be witches' daemons on an empty tree branch? What's the light around the branch? 66.108.223.179 (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a branch of a tree in a puddle, probably in a forest somewhere. It reminds me of Puddle (M. C. Escher), which might have been the artist's inspiration. Its unlikely that the author designed the things himself, the publisher probably had the artwork done. 92.24.191.250 (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's the "cloud pine" branches that the witches ride on. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

Karl Marx - last laugh?

Do the plummenting stock markets and the shameful riots in London and elsewhere correspond to what Marx predicted about the collapse of capitalism? 92.24.191.250 (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No. --Jayron32 23:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

At least, not yet... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I find it somewhat funny is that every time some economic crisis erupts some former/neo communists or anarchists begin to appear and gleefully tell us that capitalism and the System have failed and are bankrupt. Their problems are that Communism is dead and buried and that most "Anarchists" don't have guts to emmigrate to Somalia, a truly anarchic country.

Capitalism never claimed to be perfect. What usually fails is government supervision and oversight (usually starved of funds) to ensure that corruption and incompetence don't screw up the system creating a new crisis. These crisis' will come and they will pass, making a lot of damage and filling the pockets of the truly lucky and very smart. Capitalism endures and there is NOTHING ELSE (that I know of).

Everybody works because he wants to get paid (or gets something in return). Carrot and stick, Supply and demand, private property. Those are the basics of economy. There are no credible alternative economic theories to replace those. Flamarande (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"Everybody works". Except when the economy doesn't. Then some of them don't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said: Capitalism isn't perfect and unemployement is arguably its biggest flaw (among others). Never was and probably never will be. Communism countries hadn't unemployment but then they had other more serious flaws. Flamarande (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Marx could be right about the collapse of Capitalism, and be wrong about the advantages of Communism ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote a couple of books which have been read, studied, (mis)used, twisted and abused by ruthless, power-hungry and merciless dictators who supported their rule with the banner of Communism. Capitalism isn't going to collapse or replaced. It has endured worse crisis' than this one. The same cannot be said of peace and democracy. Flamarande (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Somalia isn't an anarchy. The Islamic Courts Union is a theocracy, Puntland is a rather imperfect democracy, and Somaliland mixes a tribal system with limited democracy. Get your facts right, and stop ranting. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't constitute a crisis in the reproduction of capitalism in any of the senses that I'm aware that Marx and Engels used. If we consider 1848 as an example year, much like 1968, it was a year of sudden uprising quickly crushed. 2011 through the North African and Arabian political movements could be considered to be related to the year of the nations; but, as Marx and Engels found out, widespread revolution on a nationalist basis doesn't indicate that capitalism is in crisis. This could be a period when a series of long term waves of economic growth synchronise creating a series of fundamental crises, as in 1880-1919 as a series of escalating crises. I do not see the level of self-controlled workers organisation at work which corresponds to the 1880-1919 period. Nor do I see a "rate of profit" argument given the incorporation of externalities (enclosure of carbon, China's continuing enclosures of working class rights), and through new productive techniques which change the captialisation problem temporarily (the recent computerisation boom, much like the railroad boom, can defer rate of profit issues for a significant period). So if we take the long term Capital perspective, this isn't a crisis of capitalism. Finally there could be a political crisis of capitalism, as in 1917-1919 when workers soviets and shop stewards councils threatened the capacity of capitalist states to govern. The idea that 2011 involves a direct assault by armed democratic organised workers on the capitalist state is ludicrous. 2011 is a periodic year of contestation, where a few instinctively organised nationalist movements, or workers movements (Greece), can push capital a little way. It isn't a year of generalised crisis like 1917-19. By the way, it is shitty newspaper editors, rather than Marxists or Anarchists, who pull Marx out of the cupboard in a year like this. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"The plummenting stock markets and the shameful riots in London" have nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism in its natural/pure form never existed and does not exist anywhere on Earth. What we call "capitalism" is actually individual rights applied to economic sphere. The very term "capitalism" was created by opponents of individual freedom. Opposing capitalism is denying that an individual has any right. --79df (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That's just the No True Scotsman fallacy. You can use that to deny the faults of any position. APL (talk) 08:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Not trying to be argumentative, but since you posted a supposed riposte to my post above, I have to remind you that capitalism, as defined by Adam Smith, is a "system of natural liberty". We human beings are separated from other animals by our ability to trade, so trade in part of human nature. So the freedom to trade is fundamental of freedom. You cannot expect liberty without the existence of capitalism or the freedom to trade. Human civilization is not hunter-gatherer, human civilization is based on trade, and trade and associated activities are collectively called capitalism. You are free to oppose capitalism, but then you have to chose a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, you cannot oppose capitalism and support civilization at the same time. --79df (talk) 09:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Before the advent of agriculture, our ancestors lived a hunter-gather lifestyle. They hunted animals and gathered fruits, ate those things as long as they felt hungry, and then left the rest to rot. There was nothing called surplus in a hunter-gather world. This was the time what Marx called primitive communism. After the advent of agriculture, human beings learned to store food, which they used for trade. This is how surplus originated. Surplus created incentives and profit-motive, which gradually resulted in modern industrial civilization and modern capitalism. So a system alternative to capitalism existed on Earth, but that was when there was no surplus, before the dawn of civilization. There is no alternative to capitalism in human civilization, because the foundation of civilization is surplus and trade. --79df (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: Since surplus is the foundation of human civilization, income inequality is a natural outcome of civilization, there is nothing morally wrong with it. Those who gather more surplus in a competitive market (through the use of quality service and satisfying consumer needs) generate more income, those who don't generate less income. Thus income inequality is not a "defect" of capitalism, it is the characteristic of human civilization, and separates civilization from hunter-gatherer societies. When you oppose income inequality, you are not opposing capitalism, actually you are going against human civilization itself. In primitive hunter-gatherer society, there is no income inequality because there is no surplus. It is natural outcome of civilization to gain wealth by satisfying consumer demand through effective supply in a competitive market (as done by Richard Branson). What is morally wrong is to forcefully take others' property and become rich in a non-market procedure, it is contrary to civilization (as done by Vladimir Lenin or government bureaucrats). --79df (talk) 10:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe the claim that primitive societies lacked inequality, nor surpluses for that matter (which are not required for inequality). There's plenty of evidence for inequality in the animal world (it's often highlighted in nature shows). Clan connections matter when it is time for the hunters to parcel out the rewards, and accepting those rewards may involve reaffirmation of lower social status. Food could be stored as pemmican and the like; land could be held as territory. Before there were pyramids and Easter Island statues there were still ritual costumes, scarifications, beads and so forth. But none of these things mean that modern society is forced to accept inequality; after all rape, infanticide, and other violence are related traditions going back to pre-human times which have since been rejected. Wnt (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, don't use false analogy. "Rape, infanticide, and other violence" are violation of an individual's natural right (the right not be aggressed or coerced), income inequality is not (because it does not violate an individual's right not be aggressed or coerced). So "Rape, infanticide, and other violence" belong to one category, income inequality belongs to a completely different category. Because of the harm principle, "Rape, infanticide, and other violence" should not be accepted. Second of all, WTF are you saying, hunter-gather societies are not egalitarian? Hunter gatherer societies are egalitarian in nature and lack class division. So if you don't like entrepreneurs and risk-takers living "luxuriously", and others living ordinary life, the only option you have left is to adopt hunter-gather lifestyle. You have one other "option", albeit unethical, i.e. to violate those risk-takers' natural right (the right not be aggressed or coerced), and subject them to gigataxation, and using that tax-money to become "rich" in a non-market procedure, or simply loot their property, as did by the Bolsheviks. --79df (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is an article (JSTOR link) by James Woodburn which states, "Greater equality of wealth, of power and of prestige has been achieved in certain hunting and gathering societies than in any other human societies. These societies, which have economies based on immediate rather than delayed return, are assertively egalitarian. Equality is achieved through direct, individual access to resources" and "only the hunting and gathering way of life permits so great an emphasis on equality". There may be difference in possession of resources among members of a hunter-gather society, but it is not income inequality, a concept applied in the context of economies that are part of civilization. --79df (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt from Marshall Sahlins's Stone Age Economics where he accepts poverty is natural outcome of civilization ("Poverty is a social status, the invention of civilisation and has grown with civilisation"). In hunter-gather societies, there are no rich-poor divide. And an article Egalitarianism Among Hunters and Gatherers discussed Bushman egalitarianism, that states these primitive people have a strong sense of economic equality. --79df (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I wish that Aaron Swartz had succeeded in distributing this.[11] Apparently the hunter gatherers of the Pacific Northwest had slaves. Sacagawea is also described as a slave, though perhaps with some vagueness of definition. [12] Now as for "false analogies", does anyone really believe the poor are not "aggressed or coerced"? I suppose that the janitor pays his taxes while the billionaire pays nothing as a matter of personal choice? Wnt (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Paleo-Indians were classical hunter-gatherers. Native Americans were horticultural people, not classical (full-time) hunter-gatherers. They learned cultivation of certain crops. Native Americans descended from full-time/pure hunter-gathers and opted for hunting and gathering in case of shortage of cultivated food. After contact with Europeans, they became familiar with domesticated horses and firearms, and some of them opted for full-time hunting and gathering with the help of firearms, as it was easy compared to cultivation of crops. [13] So they were artificial/modified/evolved "hunter-gathers", not classical hunter-gather. In today's world, say for example, if for any reason the city of Los Angeles becomes isolated from the rest of the world, and the people of that city take guns and start hunting animals due to shortage of food supply, will they be called hunter-gathers? No. Even if they are called hunter-gathers, they will be classified has situational "hunter-gatherers" who opt for hunting and gathering due to lack of their primary mode of food production. The same applies to the American Indians. American Indians had completely different culture from the classical (full-time) hunter gatherers. --79df (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW hunting with firearms, as did by American Indians, is not characteristic of a pure hunter-gatherer world, because you need an industrial civilization to manufacture those firearms. --79df (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If you know what you are doing and have easy access to iron ore and gunpowder making materials, you don't need an industrial civilization to make primitive firearms any more then you need industry to make a nice longbow. Of course, if I had to make one or the other from scratch, a longbow would probably be superior to that level of firearm. Googlemeister (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Gunpowder was invented in the 9th century, and firearms in the 12th century, long after the Neolithic Revolution. So gunpowder and firearm are products of human civilization. To access iron ore, you need to know Mining, and mining is characteristic of civilization. You may not need ASIMO or ISS to manufacture a gun, but you need civilization to manufacture a firearm, no matter how rudimentary that firearm is. --79df (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Any caveman, had he pre-existing knowledge, could get materials to make gunpowder. True civilization invented gunpowder, but strictly speaking, is not needed to make it once the knowledge exists. Now you could argue that the knowledge is a product of civilization and I would not argue that, but the civilization could be lost and the knowledge maintained. Just because there is no evidence that pre-civilization humanity built firearms does not mean they were incapable of doing so in theory (not that I think they did). Also, mining is not needed to get iron if the guy is lucky enough to find a meteorite (and at least one early group did use one or more meteorites as tool materials). Googlemeister (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Access to firearm will result in attempts of territorial domination by different bands of "hunter-gatherers", in theory. This may escalate into war. This will prompt any band of "hunter-gatherer" to acquire as much firearm as possible. Possibility of war will prompt the more physically able members and those with higher battle skills to be be valued more within their group, because they will be able to best defend their territory or capture other territories. They will get more respect, and will be valued more. This will result in class division. Since pre-Neolithic hunter-gatherers did not have access to firearms, you cannot compare their culture with the post-Neolithic/"modern" armed "hunter-gatherers" such as the American Indian. --79df (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought you were talking about people before land ownership, not before the invention of the club. (I don't see how that is socially much different from the gun) But even before tool use, one person could oppress another by force. I don't know, but I imagine that public rape was a method of establishing a social pecking order in such times much as it is in the modern prison system. Wnt (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sahlins "zen road to affluence" doesn't really jive with human nature as I have seen it. Granted I don't spend much time outside Western Civilization, but human nature is human nature. In any case, I fail to see how a purely hunter-gatherer society could keep from over-reproducing and depletion of animals and plants to eat unless they are dying young or have some kind of problems reproducing. Over-population would lead to mass starvation and human-human conflict, so I don't think everything was all bunnies and flowers before agriculture. Googlemeister (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Traditionally, hunter-gatherers didn't have access to modern medicine, so infant mortality was high, and life expectancy even for people who made it to adulthood was probably far lower than it is for us today. In addition, 12,000 years ago when no one had agriculture, the Earth's population was much smaller, so there was plenty of room for a tribe to split up if it was starting to get larger than what the local ecosystem could support. For the few remaining hunter-gatherer societies today, on the other hand, that isn't an option; nevertheless those few societies are more at risk of dying off than at risk of overpopulation. Pais (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes this is what I'm saying. Capitalism is the natural outcome of progress of civilization. With a large population, and dependency on modern technologies such as medicine, biomedical equipments, modern transportation, modern communications system, you can't escape capitalism. When you will get sick, you have buy medicines, to communicate you have to use mobile phone, to use wikipedia you have to use a computer, all are manufactured by capitalists. --79df (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"All are manufactured by capitalists." Er, No. The capitalists (under)pay the workers to manufacture things... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The USSR made transportation systems and medicine. Are you saying they were also capitalist? Googlemeister (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

To make quality product, you need competitive market. USSR did not have competitive market. Although they made those things, the quality of their products gradually became inferior. See Criticisms_of_socialism#Slow_or_stagnant_technological_advance. In a competitive market there is an incentive-mechanism that rewards businesses that satisfy consumer demand, and discipline businesses that fail to do so. Due to lack of competitive market, the state-monopolies of USSR produced inferior products, failed to meet consumer demand, and technological advance stagnated. --79df (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

(to AndyTheGrump) Don't use Marxist rhetoric that lacks logic and defies reality. Everyone invests labor in manufacturing process - scientists, engineers, managers, and manual laborers. Each of them get paid according to their productivity, magnitude of their contribution, and the magnitude of risk they take. When a car is manufactured, scientists and engineers provide the most important labor, they design and plan the car without which a car will remain only in our imagination; they take major risk because any fault in the design will be a disaster, this is why they are paid more. Managers supervise the entire production process to help ensure proper production and proper quality; they take major risk because any fault in production process will be their responsibility, this is why they are paid more. Manual laborers assemble the parts under the guidance and supervision of engineers. Without that guidance, they cannot do anything. They take the lowest risk. The magnitude of contribution of an individual scientist/engineer/manager is far greater than the magnitude of contribution of an individual manual laborer, this is why a manual laborer gets the lowest salary. In this process, the people who have the most vital contribution, without whom there will be no basic infrastructure to manufacture a car, are the capitalists. They take the maximum risk and makes the most important contribution. This is why they get most of the profit. With advancement of robotics technology, one day all manual work will be done by robots (So Marxists should view robotics scientists like Joseph Engelberger as greatest threat to the proletariat!!!).

The salary of all these workers, be in the managerial level or a manual worker, is determined by supply and demand in the market. When there is no demand of a product, the workers associated with it lose jobs, when there is more demand, more workers are hired. This is how any economy within the framework of human civilization works. Capitalists don't have money tree in their home that they will pay workers whatever they want, capitalists are dependent on consumers for their income, i.e. they are dependent on the market. So if the income of capitalists is determined by market, why the income of the workers will be determined by the non-market? No one can escape the market. If a worker feels the salary he is receiving is low, he is free leave that job and search for a new job. Since the property (for example a factory) belongs to a capitalist, being the property owner they have the natural right to determine what they will pay to the people they are hiring for their work done. Any third party intervention is violation of that natural right. What a capitalist cannot do, (s)he cannot forcefully bring some people in their property and force them to work for him/her (as was the custom under feudalism, as did by Joseph Stalin, or as done in proletarian heavens like North Korea). Being the property owner, a capitalist have the natural and moral right to pay lower than market or above than market salary to a worker (s)he is hiring, the natural and moral right to fire a worker from their private business if they believe the contribution of that worker is inconsistent with market demand or anything else, similarly it is the natural and moral right of the worker to leave that job and join a new one. Just as a capitalist cannot force a worker to do his/her job (it will be violation of the worker's natural right not be aggressed or coerced), a worker can bargain, negotiate, but cannot force a capitalist to pay more (it will be violation of the capitalist's natural right not be aggressed or coerced). Everyone has the right not be aggressed or coerced, both capitalists and workers. --79df (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ironically people who criticize capitalism themselves seek wealth. Multimillionaire Noam Chomsky criticizes capitalism by publishing his books through capitalists and then earning profits. Michael Moore has become multimillionaire in a capitalist system by slandering capitalism! Actually there are two types of people - one type of people who imagine capitalism is ultimately good, and other type of people who imagine capitalism is responsible for all evils. Businesses (particularly mass media and publishing businesses) and celebrities, who's profit is dependent on their consumers' worldview, have found these two types of niche markets. Some businesses try to target the first niche market, other businesses try to target the second niche market. But whether they depict capitalism in a positive or negative light, they all want to be rich. All arguments against capitalism is based on vested interests - labor unions, environmentalists, government bureaucrats, pro-regulation businesspeople - they all want cultural, political and economic capital bypassing the market. People like Michael Moore try to cash in on ordinary people's envy. Chomsky and Moore want to gain cultural capital (which will later produce economic capital) by presenting themselves as "rebels" against "capitalist oppression". Source of their wealth is the second type of people. People like Glenn Beck want to gain cultural capital and subsequent economic capital by presenting themselves as rebels against socialist oppression/Obamunism. Source of their wealth is the first type of people. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro found a shortcut, a non-market way to become rich by presenting capitalism as evil. Ordinary people have vested interest - they want to gain more wealth and service without giving labor, this is why they demand more and more "free" everything. Politicians, "intellectuals" oppose businesspeople when they view their economic capital as a threat to their existence, businesspeople oppose free market when they find it is easy to harm competitors with the help of government intervention. They all have dominating instinct, they want to dominate others. Capitalism is the process of peacefully gaining wealth while strictly respecting everyone's natural right, the right not be aggressed or coerced. Those who want otherwise oppose capitalism, no matter if they are rich or poor. To answer the OP's question, whether Marx is profitable in the market or not, he can't be right because being inseparable with human civilization, capitalism can't collapse. Whether you cash in on capitalistic mentality or anti-capitalistic mentality - you can't escape capitalism because trade and capitalism are foundations of civilization. So after establishing a publishing company, you can analyze the market demand and determine which is more profitable to publish - The Wealth of Nations or Communist Manifesto; but ultimately you are seeking profit. Meanwhile in this battle between capitalistic and anti-capitalistic mentality, civilization and capitalism goes on in their own way. --79df (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are so convinced of the enduring solidity of capitalism, why do you feel the need to write long rambling screeds in its defence, 79df? Oh, and look up non sequitur in a dictionary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Which part of my post you believe is non sequitur? --79df (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Most of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL. --79df (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The big problem I have with those who portray the market as a law of nature is: who decides what is defined as property subject to the market? There are lots of things which have been variously defined as public rights or private goods: the right to sell pretzels on the sidewalk, the right to write a parody of a song with the same music, the right to set up a radio broadcast station, the right to walk on the beach, the right to not be a slave, the right to copy a successful business model, the right to use a software algorithm. For that matter, even land ownership was quite different in the Old and New Testaments - see Luke 6 and related commentary on that site; people were free to walk into grain fields and eat without the owner's permission. It makes it hard to take credibly those who say that capitalism is what it must be and couldn't be any different, until the next time they propose something (like carbon emissions rights). The more things are defined as property, the more inferior the poor are to the rich from the moment of birth. But while I won't claim to have endured Das Kapital, I don't recall ever reading any mention that Communism considered this wide range of definitions either. Wnt (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You have problem viewing market as a law of nature. The same can be applied to society or the state. How do you assume the state as a law of nature? What gives the state the moral authority to monitor economic activity? --79df (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

August 9

riots in Camden, Notting Hill and Ealing

Camden, Notting Hill and Ealing in London are good boroughs? The first two sound as more refined, but I don't know anything about the third. Quest09 (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In much of London, poverty and wealth are in close proximity - sometimes only streets away. This isn't new either: see the research of Charles Booth (philanthropist). AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

yes, as far as I understood, the riots where not in the same boroughs where the rioters lived. They simply went to different places of the city. Specially for looting, it makes lots of sense to go there were non-poor live. 193.153.125.105 (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There are no boroughs devoid of poor people, because councils have the obligation to provide council housing or social housing of one sort or another, even in Kensington and Chelsea. It is true that there are boroughs where not many wealthy people choose to live, because the free market has not chosen to build millionaires' houses there. But inner London is well-known for cheek-by-jowl wealth and poverty. Take for example Islington: not just streets of gentrified Georgian architecture and organic hummous purveyors, but some of the most deprived wards in the country: unemployment, free school meals, teenage pregnancy, illiteracy, etc. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

London riots

Why British people are so uncivilized? If someone is wrongly killed by police, why are they rioting instead of approaching judiciary? --World Watcher 000 (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

People rioting in Britain have been members of socially excluded groups for years if not generations. In particular, since the late 1970s, Britain has restricted access by the poorest workers to political representation and common wealth. When people in industrial societies lack a sense of access to political voice, are impoverished, excluded, but have strong social networks; they often rely on direct action through their social networks. One way to look at this is by examining E. P. Thompson's Making of the English Working Class where he discusses the relationship between Radical liberals and the London Mobility or Mob in the late 18th and early 19th century. The Mob could get their candidates elected through riot in London, as voting was a very public action. Intimidating the few rich individuals who could vote, was a way in which the London poor gained political voice. In the late 20th and early 21st century where Parliament and Council's claims to represent all people is effective propaganda, hegemonic in the terms of Antonio Gramsci, the poorest workers who know through life experience that they have no political power, take actions like rioting. I think rioting because you're excluded from democratic social power is a rather sensible and civilised thing. Your opinions on the radically democratic Boston and London mobs of the 18th century may differ from mine; and, similarly, your opinion on whether real democracy constitutes an element of civilised society may also differ. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"Since the late 1970s, Britain has restricted access by the poorest workers to political representation and common wealth." I think you mean the 1380s ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In propaganda I'd go back and kick it old school with Wat Tyler. But there's a reasonable debate to be had as to whether revolt prior to the 1790s constitutes "workers'" revolt or not. Also, I think it is disingenious to deny that between 1945 and the late 1970s that both the representative power, and real living standards in relation to rights to common wealth, rose for most workers—even including Black British, Irish, Catholics, Afro-carribeans, women and youth. If we compare the Winter of Discontent to the Anti-Poll Tax Unions, we can see a fall in the power of political representation considered distinctly from political power for workers in general. The hysteria in liberal (Guardian sense) media in the UK in the 1970s about the living standards of poor Britons was quite tangible—they started more sociologist's courses at Universities. In comparison Shameless is a horrific joke for the white collar workers and stipendiary professionals whose interests within Capitalism are represented by Labour, the Liberals and the Tories; and Shameless is arguably the Shame of Labour both new and old. (Its also a telling reminder on the pathetic ineffectiveness and white-collar (at best) background of British "revolutionary" organisations in general.) But enough bile at the failures of the workers' movement in general. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

...and I thought I was the Grump around here. What is this, an old Trots' reunion? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm closer to Solidarity (UK). I believe the Socialist Register described them (paraphrase): Their mascot is a hedgehog, small and spikey. Of course, I've also heard that in Industrial struggle Solidarity was pretty much lovely to deal with. Their Australian admirers were apparently lovely in industrial struggle too. Why be sectarian, when I can blame everybody :). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

IMHO most riots are the same nearly everywhere and there is nothing diffrent compared to recent riots in China, Paris/France, USA/Los Angeles etc. The poor youth are bored, frustated and lack hope. Something creates a spark and suddenly the youth goes wild. In this particular case the rioters don't know of or give a damm about the guy who was shot (and no one is sure if this was lawful police shooting or not). IMHO they aren't excluded from democratic social power.

The rioters seem to be poor, lacking parental supervision, uneducated, unemployed, frustated and without hope of a better future. They seem to be poor thugs who have caught the police by surprise. So they throw stones, loot shops and burn the shops, cars and other peoples' homes to the ground (and the rioters don't give a FUC* if you're still inside the house or not). They are, for the lack of a better word, SCUM and should be ashamed of themselves. They should be punished according to harshest degree of the law. Flamarande (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"recent riots in China..." What? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Rural workers rioting against enclosure [here, in the Guardian]. There are also regular workers riots due to the lack of union and bargaining rights within Chinese capitalism. (Also because local Party figures regularly send violent police in to smash industrial protest by workers). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

China was never spared from urban unrest or riots. Go to Template:21st century unrest in the People's Republic of China and read the respective articles. Flamarande (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, the Chinese workers should seize the means of production, and declare a state of irony. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, if it happened in '56 in Hungary and '68 in Czechoslovakia and '89 in bits of China's old industries why not in '11 :).

(ec x 2) It may suit the purpose of Wikipedia editors and newspapers to label the incidents listed in that template as "riots", but I must say most of them are merely violently put down, peaceful protests. For example, the 2011 Shanghai riot is nothing like the London riots. For one thing, the protests target the government, not shoe stores.

That said, I asked the question because I was wondering what exactly Flamarande was referring to, and now I understand. Thanks! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, there are riots, "riots", and there are revolts and revolutions. Some riots are "justified to a certain degree" because of the circumstances. Others are simple orgies of violence, looting, burning, rape and destruction. Was there widespread looting by the mob in the 3 examples you chose? I honestly don't think so (but I may be mistaken). Granted, many "riots" in China are something else. Flamarande (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The British are not alone to do this, see 2005 civil unrest in France , 2007 civil unrest in Villiers-le-Bel , 1992 Los Angeles riots and 2008 Greek riots. I am sure there are hundreds more. Don't imagine it is a British problem only. --08:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

From my perspective, I'd look at it like this. Every day, everyone passes opportunities to commit crime. Much of it, petty enough, would never be found. I could become that bit richer if I started defrauding the system. Instead, I, and almost everyone else, follow the rules because of some 'greater good'. If you're hopeless, unemployed, etc., then the 'greater good' is going to look like a pipe dream. So you kick out. Same the world over. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's refreshing to see the British riot over something other than a soccer game. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

How dare you??!! The British never riot about soccer. It's Football we riot about ;)--Jac16888 ^Talk 13:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Geez, I don't like the New England Patriots either but I don't riot when they win. Googlemeister (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Rioting in the sub-zeros of early February has little appeal. Riots usually happen in good weather. Although Vikings fans have rioted every time their team won the Super Bowl. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As a Packers fan, that comment gives me great glee. (For the uninformed, the Packers and the Vikings are rivals, and the Vikings are 0 for 4 in their Superbowl appearances). Googlemeister (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As to the OP's question "why?", it would appear as if at least two of the rioters subscribe to this rationale. Gabbe (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

What we seem to be seeing is a range of different activities being captured under the media term of "riot". The first night there was escalation from a straightforward law enforcement operation where one violent criminal ended up being shot. There is reporting that the escalation on the first night was a gang response, exacerbated by opportunistic criminality.

On the second night there is reporting of a co-ordinated copycat response from a number of other gangs in London.

Media reporting indicates that the expansion is more related to criminality than any kid of coherent political reaction. Policing has been seen to have been challenged by the scale of the action and there is an opportunity to steal some "free stuff, innit". The identification that regional forces will have been depleted in support of London creates opportunity that has been exploited.

Inevitably there are political answers from all quarters attempting to explain this as some indicator of whatever the commentators persuasion might revert to; disenfranchised and disillusioned, feral youth etc. That doesn't appear to be supported by the available information.

ALR (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This ceased to be about the killing of Mark Duggan by a police marksman after the family's vigil on Saturday afternoon. Instead, it became the latest manifestation of the "getting away with it" mentality in British society: after the bankers who destroyed the world's economy, and the UK MPs who pushed the boundaries of legitimate expenses, now we have people who think that if they can break into shops and steal stuff and get away with it, they will do it. Of course there are underlying problems, not the least of which is that the social programmes which have kept the lid on the anger felt by poor people over the last 15 years have been cut in the name of austerity. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Facebook, Yahoo Mail, YouTube - Profit

• How does Facebook generate profit? It is a free service.
• Why do online companies like Yahoo or Google offer free email service? They have to bear the cost for providing free email service, but what they gain in return? Providing free email service is loss-making, but still they provide it, definitely they gain something. What is that gain? How does that affect their overall business model and profit generation?
• YouTube is a free video-sharing website. Then how does Google generate profit through YouTube? --Reference Desker (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Advertising, advertising, and advertising, respectively. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Not just advertising, very targeted advertising. Google can serve you emails based on the what you've been emailing about. Facebook can do essentially the same thing with the stuff you post on Facebook. That kind of very targeted advertising is worth a lot more than regular advertising.

By the way, Google also sells gMail service to businesses, so you could consider that the free service also acts as advertisement for the paid service. APL (talk) 08:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

But why do the advertisers bother buying ad space? Most people use some sort of ad blocker in their browser, and those who don't, never actually click the ads, do they? Pais (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

They don't need for everyone to click the ads, only a sufficient number to sell something. It's just like the junk mail you receive. You might not buy, but someone else will. It's the "carpet bombing" approach to marketing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

But they need someone to click the ads, right? Have you ever actually clicked one, Bugs? Has anyone else reading this thread? I just can't believe the number of clicks they receive is non-zero. Pais (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

People click the ads. Also, if you think, say of TV advertising, you don't have to buy it now. It'll just affect your decisions when you're in the shops, you probably won't notice. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I rarely see TV ads; I always either change the channel or put the TV on mute and read a book until the ads are over. (Sometimes I just shout "Stop trying to sell me shit I don't need!" at the set.) And at the store, I always buy the cheapest no-name brands that don't advertise anyway. But I guess other people pay more attention to ads than I do. Pais (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Advertisers don't care if they get you to buy their stuff, only that they get somebody to buy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

What utterly mystifies me is why these sites (e.g. a Google search) don't crack down hard on advertisers who make up phony targeted ads. I mean, if you search for a left handed monkey wrench in Podunk, there will be a site advertising a left handed monkey wrench in Podunk ... be the first to rate this product and list suppliers! Sure, I understand that such scammers pay the same as anyone else, but the problem is, the customers try clicking one or two featured links and decide it's a waste of time, and the ads become worth much less than otherwise. Wnt (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting that there's some debate as to whether YouTube actually is profitable.[14][15] As a subsidiary of Google, part of its value is in enticing people to use other more profitable Google services. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

As for people who "think" they are impervious to advertising, no one actually believes they are being manipulated. Unless you work in advertising, or you have studied the psychology of influence and persuasion, (and therefore make up a tiny insignificant part of the population) what makes you think you are smarter then everyone else? (apart from the fact that you trawl the wiki ref desks? lol). I like to think advertising doesn't work on me either but I wouldn't be so certain as to proclaim it in a public forum. Vespine (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hawaii and Britain

What was happening in the British Empire from 1893 to 1900 which would explain why the British didn't step in to prevent America from annexing Hawaii or even voice a non-physical opposition/objection? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

From the history given in the Hawaii article, it appears that Hawaii was not a part of the British Empire. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Never said Hawaii was part of the British Empire. What was happening with the British at this time that would explain why they didn't intefere in the situation in Hawaii at the time? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Why would they be expected to? Maybe they didn't interfere for the same reason the French, the Germans, the Japanese, and the Russians didn't, namely that they didn't care. Pais (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

British interests in the Pacific, Britain's ties to Hawaii, and the fact that Britain was mighty enough to have a say in such an issue during those days. All reasons and many more given by British ambassadors in Hawaii. The Kingdom of Hawaii allowed the British and Americans to dock merchant and military vessels in their ports. With Hawaii under American control the British lost a lot of access and control in the Pacific which as a naval power it would benefict from; "Cut in half" according to James H. Wodehouse since they still had some colonies in the Southern Pacific. I've been guessing the British were starting to fear America's growing power so they stay silent, but that's probably not it since America had a terrible army at the time and there navy wasn't that great until after all this and the Spanish-American War.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"Britain's ties to Hawaii..." such as the natives killing Captain Cook? Maybe the Brits had had enough of the place. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ties=the flag, foreign relations between both countries, the fact that four Hawaiian royals met Queen Victoria, invites to the Golden Jubilee, and even the Diamond Jubilee as the Republic of Hawaii. I've never heard of any hostility between the British and Hawaiians because of Captain Cook's death, twenty years after the death of Captain Cook, George Vancouver came along and he was too eager to make peace and allies with the people that killed Cook. Vancouver even gave Kamehameha I a modern naval ship, lifestocks and other stuff. And then Britain was the first nation to recognize Hawaiian independence and even returned sovereignty back to it rulers after a British naval officer decided to go ahead take over the island in the name of Britain in 1843.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it true that America forced Hawaii to become part of the US, when they would have preferred to be connected with the Britain Empire instead? Hence the flag. 92.28.254.151 (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hawaii preferred to be an independent sovereign country, but was forceably annexed by the US. All it required was the marines from one ship marching in. They only had to kill one Hawiian policeman in the conquest. Then the put Sanford Dole (American) and his cronies in charge of the country. The pretense was that the Hawiians were about to do harm to Americans, just like when the US invaded Granada in 1983. The invasion of Hawaii was described as imperialism in its most blatant form by many writers of the time. European countries like Britain had done the same thing many times: see a country then just send in the troops and announce it belongs to them. When Hitler and Japan started doing the same thing in the 1930's the US and Europe did not view it as the same process at all. Edison (talk) 12:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Just some corrections the ones who overthrew the monarch were Hawaiian citizens of American and European descent with the help US marines who didn't fire a shot but were probably prepare to if the Hawaiian government resisted. The policeman was wounded not killed trying to stop a cart of ammunitions to get to the revolutionists. Sanford B. Dole wasn't install by the American government. The things is the Americans in Hawaii wanted to annex Hawaii to the US while President Cleveland didn't want to and wanted to restore the Queen, so the Americans in Hawaii decided to declare a republic until a US president comes along that support annexation. Which was McKinley.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This was the height of the imperialist period, when European countries were busy carving out colonial empires in Africa and elsewhere and extracting concessions in China. The U.S. annexion of Hawaii was exactly the same type of action, and the islands were closer to the U.S. sphere of influence than anyone else's. And why wage a war over a few small islands when there were still much larger and significant chunks of territory to be parcelled out, such as the crumbling Ottoman Empire and all of Central Asia ? --Xuxl (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Also see Treaty of Paris (1898). During this time the U.S. also acquired Guam, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines (actually bought it). The latter sparked the bloody Philippine–American War. It was all pretty dastardly, in my (admittedly biased) opinion. :P -- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The Reciprocity Treaty of 1875 clearly put Hawaii within the U.S. sphere of influence. If the British were going to object, 1875 would have been the time to do it, since the treaty allowed the United States to set up a naval base at Pearl Harbor. Since there was otherwise no prospect of conflict with the United States, and since Hawaii was on the other side of the world from Great Britain, far from its main shipping lanes, it wasn't worth provoking a conflict with the United States, whose economy was now larger than that of the United Kingdom, over such a distant group of islands. During the 1870s, the UK was preoccupied with securing territory in what are now Pakistan and Egypt, protecting its empire in India and its communication links with that empire, including the Suez Canal and the Red Sea. During the 1890s, the UK was preoccupied with expanding its empire in Africa. Also, during the 1870s, the UK was much more concerned about the rise of nearby Germany and its defeat of France, which had upset the balance of power in Europe, than it could possibly have been with US expansion on the other side of the world. During the 1890s, French and German seizures of territory in Africa, Indochina, and New Guinea posed a much more direct threat to major British colonies than US imperialism in Hawaii. Marco polo (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It was already apparent in 1874 that in Hawaii the US had a leading rôle relative to the UK. The event was the quelling of a riot where the US with 2 warships provided 150 troops compared to the British with one ship and 70-80 troops. America's involvement in the riot led to the establishment of the United States Navy base at Pearl Harbour, see above. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

C3, you're such a stickler for spelling and pronunciation. Please recognize that there is no such place as Pearl Harbour. --Trovatore (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor is indeed the US spelling while the British who are the subject of the OP's question adhere to the spelling Pearl Harbour which is also a valid Wikilink. Learn how to spell my name properly. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "British spelling" of an American proper name. It's a US location so the US spelling is correct by definition, and any other is wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really. It wasn't until 1887 that Pearl Harbor was under US semi-control and even then other nations' wawrships were allow to dock at Pearl Harbor which I don't know why. Japan, Britain and America each had one ship in Pearl Harbor at the time of overthrow. The British still had HMS Champion and the Japanese Naniwa docked in Pearl Harbor; the Japanese offered to assist Liliuokalani militarily or take her to Japan to start a government in exile, but she declined the offers.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Google's News Archive, it seems an objection was raised in the House of Commons but Lord Curzon didn't seem to care that much. The Pall Mall Gazette said it was better for Hawaii to be in American hands than under any (other) rival. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

An interesting comparison to the Hawaiian situation was the Samoan Crisis of the late 1870s, which was ultimately resolved with the Tripartite Convention of 1899 — the UK, the USA, and Germany were disputing control of another group of Pacific islands; unlike the situation in Hawaii, Samoa almost led to warfare between the disputing powers, although war was averted by a tropical cyclone that wrecked almost all of the disputing powers' ships. Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

How could Dan Brown make such a mistake?

Hello to so many people. Please excuse my uneasy English, indeed I'm a froggy. My wife has just finished "The Lost Symbol" (in the original text) and from time to time while she was reading she explained me many interesting things that we trusted 100% because page 15 FACT: says ..."All rituals, science, artwork, and monuments in this novel are real". So for us it meant that this novel is more trustworthy than "The Da Vinci Code" was.

BUT a trifle puzzles me: page 472, lignes 1 to 6 is explained the etymology of the words sincere and sincerely referring to the latin "sine cera" meaning without wax. "Sincere" coming from the French word "sincère" we checked in 2 good dictionnaries of French etymology. No reference to wax. I did the same on the Internet for French etymology, nothing.

But doing the same for English etymology, I found this http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=sincere&searchmode=none which shows that apparently Dan Brown was wrong.

So may be now you understand my question: is Dan Brown a liar or an ignorant?

Thank you very much for the time you took to read my question. Joël Deshaies-Rheims-France---80.236.117.41 (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidently, Dan Brown made a similar claim for The Da Vinci Code - see Dan_Brown#Criticism. Of note is his response to the criticism, which I interpret as saying "just enjoy the book and don't think too much about the details." Personally, I prefer authors who are less intellectually dishonest. (Also, your English is just fine, much better than my French). --LarryMac | Talk 15:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

My guess would be that he made a mistake, perhaps by trusting an online source. (Since you obviously care about words, let me point out that in English, "ignorant" is not a noun. The correct wording is, "is Dan Brown a liar or is he ignorant?") Looie496 (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

See Sincerity#Controversy. (WP:WHAAOE) --Tango (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

One thing to remember is that works of fiction are made up. That literally means that every word between the front cover and the back cover exists for the sole purpose of advancing the plot in entertaining ways. Some works of fiction incorporate random actual historical facts, because it serves the purpose of the author, but that should not be taken to mean that other facts in the book are true even if the author tells you they are. The actual statement declaring that some aspect of the book is "honest to god, we swear this is true" is itself a dramatic device; it is being used by the author to elicit a reaction in you, since he primed you that some part of the book is true, you are more likely to accept it, and that may lead to your liking the book more. That, however, doesn't mean that it is actually true, just that the author is telling you it is true to advance the plot. There are lots of works of fiction which use these disclaimers, and which are blatantly false. Communion by Whitley Strieber declares itself to be a true story; but if you believe that I have a sweet land deal you should buy into. The film Fargo is completely made up, despite the disclaimer at the front that tells you "THIS IS A TRUE STORY". Fargo_(film)#Fact_vs._fiction discusses this. The fact remains, you should enjoy Dan Brown's book for what it is, but don't even take his disclaimer about the veracity of any aspect of it at face value. Yes, there may be historical facts in it, but that doesn't mean that any specific fact is in itself trustworthy in that book. Check actual histories and find out for yourself. Don't take the author's word for it, and don't treat his fictional work as a work of scholarship. --Jayron32 17:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Dramatic license knows no bounds. Case in point: Plan 9 from Outer Space was "based on sworn testimony". We know that's true because Criswell tells us so, and also reminds us that we can't prove it didn't happen. Criswell would have been an interesting wikipedia contributor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no idea at all why Dan Brown's books are so overrated. I mean, Da Vinci Code was quite similar (but inferior) to a rather modest film Revelation (2001),^[16] which certainly didn't get that much attention; the ideas presented are also familiar to readers of The Illuminatus Trilogy. His writing didn't seem all that compelling to me, though the Da Vinci film was very nicely filmed and scored. How did that book become so famous? Wnt (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

While dramatic license may know no bounds, fans of the hard sci-fi genre fondly recall afterwords from some of the better authors explaining the factual basis for their tales. Wnt (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For hard science fiction, the principle I explained above has been coded into law, specifically Clarke's third law. Most hard science fiction runs smack-dab into the wall of relativity when it tries to deal with the problem of the speed of light. Every author deals with it differently, and some produce some pseudoscientific "explanation" about why their solution to the problem is "elegant", but that just means that it's well written pseudoscientific babble. The fact remains that, as yet, the problem of rapid interstellar travel and communication, as it relates to the speed of light limit, is entirely unresolved, and anything that any science fiction author comes up with to deal with it is, by necessity, entirely made up. --Jayron32 19:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

True, but not all hard sci-fi assumes FTL, and even where they do, this can merely set the stage without trammeling the plot (e.g. Dragon's Egg). The important parts of the action can be rooted in fact. Of course, a little "magic" may be involved in any fiction - details are always omitted somewhere - but to deny the validity of hard sci-fi as a genre is an unjustified overreaction. The attempt to building the fiction using real scientific ideas and not just random jargon is very much worthwhile, and is much akin to the planning of real-world enterprises, except at some point the author stops working out the details because the resources are unavailable or the technologies aren't fully mature. Wnt (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've never denied the validity of hard sci-fi as a genre, I read such books all the time. I find them quite entertaining. I just don't treat anything written in them as reliable sources of real science, in the same way I might, say, for the journal Nature... --Jayron32 19:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the core plot of the Davinci Code was ripped off of the book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. Dan Brown may have thought everything presented as facts in that book was in fact real (if we are to take his disclaimer literally), we can't really know. However if he did, then it certainly does speak volumes about his gullibility, as well as being a warning not to take everything written in books as the literal truth. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah. That article tells us about Dossiers Secrets d'Henri Lobineau (1967). I suppose this probably inspired the mentions of these details in both The Illuminatus Trilogy and the BBC series leading up to the Holy Blood book. Wnt (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Etymology is not a ritual, science, artwork or monument.
Sleigh (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Our article Etymology is in Category:Etymology, which is in Category:Lexicology, which is in Category:Linguistics, which is in Category:Social sciences, which is in Category:Scientific disciplines, which is in Category:Science. So etymology is a science. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope that's tongue-in-cheek? I'm not ruling out etymology as a science, but inferring that from Wikipedia's category structure, especially with such a long transitive chain, is evidence so terribly weak as hardly to be evidence at all. --Trovatore (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

outside ancient Rome

There is plenty of information around about the various government officials in ancient Rome itself, but I am wondering if anyone can tell me anything about the sorts of officials that might have been appointed or elected to govern say a small town somewhere in one of the provinces. Would they have had anyone in such a capacity, how might they be chosen, what would they do and what were they called?

79.66.103.116 (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Much of what we know about provincial administration in the Roman Empire comes from the Notitia Dignitatum. The governors of the provinces themselves were called Proconsuls. Smaller subdivisions were called dioceses, and their administrators were called Vicarius, or Vicars. Other local officials had titles which later morphed into titles of nobility in Western Europe. Comes (Count) was one, though some Comes were officials or advisors in the Emperor's household, others were local governors. Dux (Duke) were military governors, the position also changed and morphed with time and place; some Dux were more like Generals than Governors, while others had roles similar to Marcher Lords in later English history. There were also civilian officials, like Corrector and Praeses. --Jayron32 19:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Also see our articles Prefect, Municipium, and Civitas, which have additional information on Roman local government. Marco polo (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is a notable example of someone who held such office: Pliny the Younger --Dweller (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

self sufficient nation

If there was some kind of situation where all countries closed all their borders today to all trade and allowed no one in or out (think really nasty disease), which country would most likely be able to maintain the best standard of living for the next 20 years or so (assuming the borders remained closed and that the populations remained where they are now)? I realize there is probably no one answer to this question, but reasonable guidance in the matter as much as possible would be enough for me. Googlemeister (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Canada. It has all of the energy it needs, plenty of cropland, and abundant other resources. In addition, it has a tradition of good governance and a well-educated population. The latter two qualities are missing, for example, in Russia. Marco polo (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You would have to look at which countries have (a) enough agricultural capacity to feed their entire population; (b) enough domestic sources of energy to maintain their standard of living; (3) supplies of raw materials required to produce basic goods; and (4) the skills to create new areas of production to replace what was once supplied from abroad. A complicating factor is that all national economies are now woven into the world economy. No country would be able to maintain its standard of living if cut off from trade; the question is whether any country could adjust quickly enough to avoid mass penury and starvation. Some speculation on how certain countries would do: the USA is hampered by its dependence on foreign energy sources, which would be hard to replace; China would need to reorient its export-based economy inward, which is not too difficult (it was existing largely outside the world economy until three decades or so ago); Russia would need to finally get its act together on agricultural production, but it's not lacking in any skills or natural resources; Most European countries are energy-poor and would have difficulty adjusting - they also have a lot fewer resources than the USA; Japan would struggle to produce enough food and has almost no resources; most emerging countries lack the skills to produce domestically what is presently imported, even though they often have the raw materials and sources of energy required. --Xuxl (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, Canada does seem to be a very good choice. They have plenty of oil, gas, timber and food production, as well as minerals and fresh water resources and a smallish population. Googlemeister (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Norway: small population, large energy reserves, perfect long coastline for smuggling. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the OP means a hypothetical situation where nothing is crossing the borders, whether people nor things. 193.153.125.105 (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As Cuddlyable hints at, you've got the issue of maintaining the border; in the US/Canada case that's going to be impossible. Is it under consideration? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I am assuming anyone who tries to cross a border or coast to magically get pushed back. Smugglers would complicate things. Googlemeister (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Rolls eyes at the word "magically". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There are too some magic countries. My realm, for starters. Surely we have Category:Magic countries. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Pay no attention to the man behind the redlink. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Canada has a lot of natural resources but there's no way it or any modern country could maintain its standard of living without trade. Canada's economy is very closely tied to exports to the US. If the border were to close, it would cause a massive depression. Like the U.S., Canada is reliant on imports for its consumer goods. There's no way it could easily go back to making TVs, dishwashers, toys, clothing, etc. Those factories that do exist in Canada depend quite a bit on parts from the U.S. and elsewhere. Many medications are not made in Canada. And what would all the Tim Hortons do without access to coffee? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In general, the larger a common market the better, allowing better division of labor. The limitation on resources in places like the US is artificially self-imposed, America has all the oil, etc., it needs. The determining factors in relative success between the big nations would be political--how great their regulatory and tax burdens. μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Australia also has lots of good farmland and fisheries, lots of coal and uranium, and lots of minerals. Its economy at present is heavily dependent on export, and its population might be too small to support all the industries needed for a modern techological society, but in terms of raw resources it is well-off.

In practice, though, there's no real way of answering this question: modern living requires production of a huge variety of things such as electronic components which are at present only produced in a small number of countries, all of which (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, China) are heavily dependent on imports of energy and food; and it would be very hard to set up a complete electronics industry. For anywhere without such sources of semiconductors, the change would be immense. Add the likelihood of domestic unrest, violence, lawlessness, etc, as virtually everybody sees their standard of living plummet and vast numbers lose their jobs. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a trade cutoff would lead to something close to an economic collapse in almost every country that currently has a high standard of living, Canada included. It's just that I think, of these countries, Canada would stand the best chance of reorganizing and being able to support a reduced, but still high standard of living after reorganization. While there are a number of manufactured goods Canada doesn't produce, it retains a sizable manufacturing base in Ontario and Quebec, and it has the technical know-how to set up production of components currently imported. I'm not sure what Medeis means when he says that the United States has all of the oil that it needs. Our article oil reserves in the United States says that the country has 134 billion barrels, even if areas currently excluded from production are included. The United States now consumes more than 7 billion barrels per year. First, it would take several years to ramp up production in currently excluded areas, many of which are offshore and/or in remote areas. Next, this production could only be expected to meet current US demand during a peak production period lasting 10 years at most before production started to decline. So, even harnessing these reserves, the United States would not meet Googlemeister's 20-year criterion. As for China, China's energy demand also now exceeds its supply. China might be able to survive without trade, but it would come at the price of a substantial drop in the standard of living. It is in a similar position to the United States, except that the United States would have the additional challenge of restarting production of goods it no longer makes. (There are few manufactured goods not made in China, apart from the most sophisticated precision tools and instruments now made in Japan or Germany.)

Oddly, the countries best positioned for a trade cutoff would be the countries least dependent on trade, but that are net exporters of petroleum and that are more or less self-sufficient in food. These countries are mainly in Africa, including Congo, Gabon, Cameroon, and Nigeria. These countries all have relatively low standards of living and could maintain them if their elites adjust to doing without the imported goodies that oil exports finance without further impoverishing the rest of the population. Another interesting country from this perspective is Malaysia, which is self-sufficient in oil and food and which has a large, though export-oriented, manufacturing sector. Malaysia has a moderately high standard of living and could conceivably retool its industry to meet domestic demand. Marco polo (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

How is Malaysia in terms of domestic food production? Arguably, that is a more important consideration then oil. Googlemeister (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Malaysai imports rice from Thailand. They are not producing enough to feed themselves at the moment. --Lgriot (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Lgriot is correct that Malaysia imports rice and other food products. However, according to the chart on page 6 of this document, they produce 90% of their rice consumption. Furthermore, most food imports are foods that are foods of affluence and not part of a traditional Malaysian diet. By far Malaysia's main agricultural product is palm oil. Rubber is also an important product. This is because large areas of Malaysia's cropland are planted with oil palm and rubber tree plantations producing cash crops for export. If this land were converted to food crop production, Malaysia could easily be self-sufficient in food. Marco polo (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

British police

When did British police start commonly carrying firearms? I was under the impression that for the most part, only their SWAT equivalent commonly used firearms. Googlemeister (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

See List of police firearms in the United Kingdom. UK police are not commonly armed. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)What makes you think that things have changed? I'm not sure that it's common for them to be armed. Mikenorton (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As a resident, I have seen armed police only once. (On any interesting side-note, the UK owns only 6 water cannon, all in Northern Ireland.) If you're referring to the death of Mark Duggan, it was a special firearms team that shot him. (Probably.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression from the reporting on the riots in London that a lot of the cops int he UK did carry handguns. Googlemeister (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If the police have information that they are dealing with someone who is armed, then there will be firearm officers called in. Apart from that, and away from anti-terrorist officers at airport etc. they average British 'bobby' remains armed with nothing more than a baton. Mikenorton (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't they have a pepper spray? It's difficult to understand why they wouldn't issue at least that, provided the chances of being attacked with a knife.193.153.125.105 (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they do. Uniforms_and_equipment_of_the_British_police#Incapacitant_spray --Tango (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Tasers are also increasingly common, as that article says. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Our normal British police officers on normal police duties do not carry firearms. There are specific sections of the force who carry them: some airport police; protection duty officers, etc. And, of course there are specific duties on which specially trained 'firearms officers' will carry them. In fact there are quite a lot of police duties on which officers carry firearms, but the normal 'bobby' on the beat, or in his patrol car, does not. Gurumaister (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Our article on the death of Mark Duggan says that he was shot by a member of the Specialist Firearms Command unit. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Just think about the difference in culture between the US and the UK indicated by the fact that one man shot by the police causes riots in the street... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

A guy who got shot by police in Oakland a year or two ago also caused rioting, so I don't know what you are getting at. Googlemeister (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's be careful not to blame the victims here. It wasn't the shot guy who caused any rioting. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's see some facts: 'In the year 2007-08, there were 6,780 Authorised Firearms Officers, 21,181 police operations in which firearms were authorised throughout England and Wales and 7 incidents where conventional firearms were used', 'According to an October 2005 article in The Independent, in the preceding 12 years, 30 people had been shot dead by police.' Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom. (for reference As of September 2001 there were 127,231 police officers in England and Wales - can't find a more up to date one quickly) This is probably for England and Wales; whilst I do not expect Scotland to differ much, Northern Ireland, per capita, is likely to have considerably more deaths (depending on the timeframe). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Great answer. So only around 5% of British cops commonly carry firearms as part of their job (at least in England and Wales). Googlemeister (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

No, about 5% have the training and authorisation to carry firearms, but only a small percentage of those will commonly carry them (as part of one of the aforementioned small forces, or a specialist team). Most will only use them on the uncommon occasions where they are part of one of the operations in which firearms are authorised. Warofdreams talk 13:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

What is this Art movement called?

This video shows a series of artworks. Do they belong to a named art movement? 89.82.190.163 (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I see several different movements. Some of it looks like modern forms of surrealism, others look like Dada (especially the cut-out-letters bit), others like Cubism. The vast majority of the images I would describe as Fantasy art, however. --Jayron32 20:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know but I know what I like and I like it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I see several as well. If you're interested in names of artists, I'd say there were influences of Salvador Dali, H. R. Giger, M. C. Escher, and whoever did the album covers for Boston (band). Dismas|^(talk) 00:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

According to Boston (album), that would be someone named "Roger Huyssen", at least for the debut album. --Jayron32 00:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Fantasy art is not a bad way to name it. Strictly speaking I don't know if Fantasy art would be an art movement. I would guess that most of the images are not particularly well-known. The images seen in the video, in my opinion, display the sensibilities of Lowbrow art. Consider an artist mentioned in the Lowbrow (art movement) article—Robert Williams (artist). Click on some of these images. (Click "Enter" and then "Gallery".) Bus stop (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you could probably classify fantasy art as a movement; there's a definite uniformity of style and theme that runs through it. Just because it isn't a popular movement with the art collectors and the practitionars aren't all famous doesn't make it less of a movement. There are lots of cohesive music genres which aren't well regarded or popular, but it doesn't make them less of a genre... --Jayron32 01:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"Genre" is slightly different than "art movement". An art movement is a commonality in visual art that enjoys the support of art criticism. "Commonality" may not even make sense because a common thread may be elusive concerning art movements. Consider Color field painting or Abstract expressionism. Art movements are created or at least defined by art critics. Art critics bring their own assumptions to art criticism, giving rise to what they perceive—correctly or not—as art movements. Their pronouncements are dependent on the acceptance of others—especially other well-respected art critics. Art critics give voice to their own assumptions in the interpretations that they provide for works of art. Their own assumptions have to bear some relationship to the prevailing zeitgeist of an age. I don't think art movements are ever understood to exist detached from the zeitgeist of a period of time in which they are said to exist. This is original research and designed to be as incomprehensible as possible. Bus stop (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh... I think you're all barking up the wrong tree. Most if not all of them, are actually digital art. i.e. created in non-traditional media (speed painting, concept art, and matte paintings especially). Their actual genres can range from Pop Art, Surrealism, Cubism, Street art etc. to genres-but-not-art-movements like Cyberpunk, Steampunk, Anime, Goth, etc.

They share on thing distinguishing them from other forms of art though: they're done almost entirely on a computer. Using photomanipulation, tablets, high poly 3d modeling, 3d rendering techniques, etc. They usually feature strong influences from games, science fiction, comics, graffiti, anime, and youth culture in general. You can see a lot of examples of this (some of them quite stunning) in sites like DeviantArt. You can also routinely see this kind of artwork in game development and movie CGI. Speed painting and concept art both evolved from there after all.

Sadly, trad art 'snobs' don't really consider them art. As unlike traditional media, they are far more forgiving on mistakes.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 06:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Art snobs are irrelevant. The original question inquired about art movements. Thank you for bringing Speed painting and Matte painting to my attention, as I was not aware of those entities. There are no "traditional media" and there are no "non-traditional media" (in my opinion). Art uses "materials", is often created using techniques, and these materials and techniques are refreshed periodically. Plastic for instance was not a material used in making art a few hundred years ago, but has been used in the twentieth century. The use of the computer in making art would be a "technique", I think. Pop art, Surrealism, and Cubism are art movements; they are not Genres. Neither untraditional media nor traditional media are "more forgiving on mistakes". What is a "mistake", anyway? The artworks of Jean Dubuffet seem forgiving of mistakes, but I certainly could be mistaken about that. Bus stop (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

For the genre/art movement thing, my bad, got confused, heh. But yeah, as a 3d artist (though with no pretensions of being an artist artist, LOL, I tend to consider myself more like a draughtsman than anything else), I respectfully disagree. People do differentiate the two. Especially since digital art is still very much in its infancy and is still usually considered Commercial art rather than Fine art.

By mistakes, I mean literal mistakes. If you accidentally mix the wrong colors and end up ruining a watercolor (or if it got drenched in the rain or something), there is usually no way to salvage it. If you were in Photoshop however, you can simply undo, cut and paste, heal, or do a dozen other things to fix it without starting all over again. Not to mention the fact that you can make perfect copies of digital art by simple copy-paste, while traditional art can usually never be perfectly duplicated. Some techniques can also be automated in digital art. You can see why some trad artists will resent it. In the view of some traditional artists (and previously mentioned theoretical snobs, heh), this is cheating. Hence probably why you don't see exhibits of digital art in galleries and museums.

Our own article Digital painting discusses the difference. Some other online stuff that talk about the two :

• Art: Traditional vs. Digital
• What is Fine Art—Traditional Art Only, or Digital Art Too?
• And more results from Google on the topic.

I'm fully aware how absurd it all is though, so I agree really. Art is art, the medium is simply the vehicle, not the purpose. But still, the OP asked about the common link between all of them. It's safe to say he wasn't asking about the art movement (since they belong to several). I don't know what you'd call digital art, but it's definitely not technique though, sorry. The number of ways you can create visual art digitally is just as varied as in real life.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

@Obsidian Soul, it can make a thread confusing when you change[17] [18] [19] your own words after others have read them. It is better clearer if you put < strike > < /strike > around the word(s) you replace, as I did here to the word "better". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Er no... they were consecutive edits, with little time elapsed between them, and done before any other replies. In other words: normal copyediting/clarification. Hence the 'ce' edit summary. Other editors do that frequently don't they? I only strike lines when someone else has already replied before I made the edit. Also, I know my html tags thank you, please don't treat me like a noob... T_T LOL-- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible that art including beautiful sculptures have been lying around since the Big Bang, and represent no "Art Movement" at all, just (re)discovery? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt you can paint the Mona Lisa with fractals, heh. If you think mandelboxes are beautiful. Check out Mandelbulbs (google it too)-- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If the central bank interests is lower than the gov. bond interest...

...couldn't certain financial players borrow money from the government and lend it back to it? 193.153.125.105 (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. But central bank loans generally have a much shorter term than most government bonds, so the strategy entails risks. Looie496 (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

But can you buy a gov bond on the secondary market, to match the maturity of the bond your are getting from the gov? In this case, would it be free money? 193.153.125.105 (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Typically, when a bank borrows from the Fed, the bank goes on the Fed's records as being a risky bank worthy of future scrutiny. Borrowing from the Fed is not something banks like to do if they can avoid it. Wikiant (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's true. There is a big difference between the central bank bailing out banks as they've had to do recently and the routine overnight loans that are just a normal part of banking operations (if one bank happens to have more withdrawals than deposits one day, it will need some cash, so it borrows it from either another high street bank or the central bank until the next day rather than having to liquidate its investment assets). --Tango (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Banks in effect control the Federal Reserve System. Banks own the regional Federal Reserve Banks that make up the system and that elect 5 of the 12 system board members. While the other 7 are appointed by the US president and confirmed by the US Senate, in practice the desire for campaign contributions from the finance sector insures that these 7 appointees are agreeable to the banking community. As such, a top priority of the Federal Reserve system is to pursue policies that benefit banks. Many commentators have pointed out that keeping the discount rate below market rates for other kinds of loans is a subsidy to banks. See, for example, this blog, or this one. The St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank itself admits that low interest rates are designed to help banks. Marco polo (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for that US-centric response, which explains the situation in the United States. After checking the questioner's IP address, I see that he or she is probably in Spain. The European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of England, unlike the Federal Reserve System, are in effect owned by their respective governments. (In the case of the ECB, the bank is owned by the member central banks, each of which is in turn owned by its government.) These central banks are generally managed by technocrats with an academic background in economics. This background has apparently led them to the same conclusion as the Federal Reserve board members, namely that banks need this kind of support. Marco polo (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

August 10

Addition to O. Henry article

The Wikipedia article on O. Henry mentions performances of The Cop and the Anthem, but doesn't mention that Red Skelton recorded one some time in the 1950's. Shouldn't that be mentioned in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.27.88.202 (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

See The_Cop_and_the_Anthem#Cultural_references, which is a better location for the info than the O. Henry article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you have a reliable source to confirm that fact, please feel free to add the fact yourself. Just indicate the source for the addition so that others can trust it to be a true, verifiable fact. --Jayron32 01:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• It was a fine and memorable segment of the Red Skelton Show, broadcast December 20, 1955. Here is video of the broadcast: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4. I suppose that a newspaper or book describing it would be required for "reliable sourcing." Ok here is "A critical history of television's The Red Skelton Show, 1951-1971" by Wesley Hyatt, which lists it for Dec 20, 1955. Google News Archive lists [that broadcastas well as repeat performances in 1958 the fourth performance on Dec 20, 1959, Dec 20 1960, and Dec 23, 1961. Edison (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. It is already mentioned in the appropriate article, as above. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Making allegations in fiction and poetry

Hello, I was recently writing something and I wondered - is it ok for a work of fiction of poetry to contain a statement that could be technically libellous? For example, if a poem or a novel contained the line "John Leslie celebrity rapist" (Ulrika Johnson claimed he had raped her but the case never went to court? I understand it's dodgy ground, but a poem is essentially a work of fiction, so I'd imagine that was ok? If I wrote a story about Tony Blair killing a dog, he wouldn't track me down and have me killed (I hope!), but I understand a situation like that might be a bit more edgy? Or am I making a bit of a fuss about nothing? And would it be better or worse if it contained the line "John Leslie the celebrity rapist"? Ol' Uncle Screamin Bug (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently fictional about poetry. If a poem is about real events or events purported to be real, then it can be libel just as anything else can. If it's something that no reasonable person would interpret as being a true statement, then you're probably ok, but something like the John Leslie claim wouldn't fall under that. (NB: These are just general comments about libel law - it differs considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction so if you want specific answers about how it pertains to you, you should consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction.) --Tango (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Libel is covered by the article Defamation. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You might also have difficulty getting something like that published at all. Looie496 (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of novelists have been sued for libel or defamation.[20][21][22][23] You're apparently less likely to be sued, at least in the US, if you use pseudonyms for the characters (e.g. Anna Wintour never sued over The Devil Wears Prada because the titular devil wasn't called Anna Wintour).[24] Note: this isn't legal advice, just a description of past events and other people's opinions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Slightly related to the above discussion: When Poetry Seems to Matter/NYTimes Bus stop (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

DELHI POLICE

Soapbox post deleted. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Australian national debt data

I need to get hold of a timeseries (from the 70s at least) for the Australian federal government debt as a percentage of GDP. I have tried ABS, IMF, OECD, the World Bank and PWT. Does anyone have a link to this timeseries? Jacob Lundberg 62.20.0.254 (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

A Google search for "Australian federal government debt as a percentage of GDP" takes me directly to this document, which I think either gives you what you need or at least points to a place where you can find it. Looie496 (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen that but I need the data, not just a diagram. I've emailed one of the authors but he has not responded. Jacob Lundberg 62.20.0.254 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC).

I had a look at the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and searched for “central government debt.” The results weren’t great, except that I got a clue as to why some of that debt exists: the search bot asked, “Did you mean “Federal Government Rebate” ?

More to the point, perhaps Jacob Lundberg can clarify if he is looking for “central government debt,” “total gross outstanding debt” or perhaps “net foreign debt.”

If you do not have on-line access, a good library will have back issues of the IMF International Financial Statistics Yearbooks. I’m looking at a 1979 copy that has data from 1949 to 1978, and as an example, it lists (1975 data) Government deficit or surplus -A$4,161 million; Net borrowing: Australian dollars A$3,797 million and foreign currency -A$15 million; Debt: Australian dollars A$13,536 million; and Debt: Foreign Currency A$6,069 million (the last is from 1973, the last year data is available. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Google comes through! Here's a spreadsheet with debt to GDP ratios for 1861 to 2010 (find GDP, and work out the dollar amounts yourself): [[25]] DOR (HK) (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Exactly what I needed! Jacob Lundberg (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there a list of all verses of the bible by earliest date of appearance in manuscript?

Hi, I'm looking for a reference for the Bible, or at least the NT, that lists, verse by verse, the earliest point at which there exists a manuscript containing that verse. For example, the earliest I know of for the last chapter of Luke is Papyrus 75, around the end of the second century. I know we have an exceptional article on the topic in general, but I can't find, either in any article or on the linked websites (or google) anything that gives the summary of the earliest appearance by verse. There is something close here, but it is not quite what I am after. I really want a list of dates, with a papyrus/MS reference as well. Does anyone know of anything, online or in print? It's been emotional (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

In what story does Jesus pull a man out of a hole?

I have heard a story where a man falls in a hole just deep enough that a strong man could reach in and pull him out. The leaders of all the world's religions pass by. Most give him useless advice, and some say he must have committed some sin. The last man to pass is Jesus, who reaches in to pull the man out.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

And? Obviously a Sunday School story for simple Christian kids. Given that the sin obsession is primarily a Christian one anyway, it's hardly a realistic story. It would be more likely that Jesus would be telling him he had sinned. HiLo48 (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I dispute that sin is a Christian obsession, but since several religions did not exist at the time, I wonder exactly how the story went. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe sin is the wrong word. I seem to recall that Muhammad was the one who said he must have done something wrong if he fell in the hole. I'll search tomorrow using the title of this thread if I remember. I'd rather not do it at home.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Is not watching where you are going a sin? That must have been on the missing tablet of the originally 20 commandments. Right up there with "Thou shalt not cheer for the Yankees" and "Thou shalt bring a 6 pack when visiting friends". Googlemeister (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you misspelled "thou shalt not cheer for the Dodgers". I mean, come on. You'd have us believe that the Almighty is interested in the American League? --Trovatore (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Since he cares about the wellbeing of sparrow, I would suspect he is a fan of birds and is likely to be a Orioles fan, but you might be right and he actually likes the Cardinals. Googlemeister (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad doesn't appear in the Bible, since he was born in 570AD. If both Muhammad and Jesus appear in the same story, it's obviously just something made up as an example (and, apparently, an example of how Islam is evil, which makes it among the worst kind of religious stories). --Tango (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree. But then again, demonization is an age old tactic in in the business of trying to get the most souls (gotta catch em all!). Most religions have stories of 'us vs. them'. What makes it ironic though, is that this story contrasts sharply (completely rejects it, even) with the actual Biblical story that Jesus himself told of the Good Samaritan. It would be more realistic if the "leaders of world religions" included leaders of major modern Christian denominations as well as others, heh. I'd wager a Pope pushed the man there in the first place. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 09:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this scene took place in "Jesus Christ and the Sermon of Doom". Ok, seriously... The story isn't biblical (although there are echos of the "Parable of the Good Samaritan" in it). It does sound like something that was made up for Sunday school (The implied moral is obvious: no matter how deep a hole (sin) you find yourself in, faith in Christ will get you out of it, and faith in other religions won't). Blueboar (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, prosperity theology would say that if you'd been good, God would have shown his favor by not letting you fall in the hole. Which sounds like a debasement of Christianity to mere magic, but seems awfully popular. Wnt (talk) 02:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That's called Calvinism, right? Oddly enough, it's primarily the wealthy that believe in it. An amazing coincidence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, there's also a good-sized group of poor Christians who buy into prosperity theology (which isn't Calvinism, and Calvinism isn't it) and think that when things go badly, it's because they have done something wrong or haven't fully surrendered to God or something, and when they talk to people at their church about their problems will basically get a lecture on how they aren't being a good enough Christian. And probably aren't giving enough to the church. "Not enough money to pay for surgery and feed your children? Well, you can't be tithing enough. If you give more, you'll receive more." People get into real trouble, and think it's all their fault for not being properly saved, but it appeals to them because it appears to offer an answer to all their problems. Calvinism is much less judgemental: it holds that you are either Saved or not Saved, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it, no way you can respond to God's Grace, no role you play in your Salvation. This doesn't actually tend to tie in with Earthly prosperity at all. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

After a little Google searching, I found that the source of the story is this video clip from a Christian "teaching" site called BluefishTV. There are also a bunch of copies on Youtube. Looie496 (talk) 05:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't watch videos at home. My Internet is too slow. And I don't have sound where I am now. But I found a similar story here.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Not the one you asked about but I prefer The West Wing story: video, text. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

August 11

Rotation method

What was the original Danish term for Rotation method? The article gives a citation for page 4 of an English edition of Either/Or, if anyone has the Danish version handy for a quick leafing. Skomorokh 03:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The article "Enten - Eller" says vexel-driften. Note: The "-en" at the end implies that it is in the definite form ("The crop rotation"). Gabbe (talk) 08:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Also bear in mind that the present-day Danish word for "crop rotation" is vekseldrift. I assume the spelling differences (dash; "x"/"ks") is due to some spelling reform. Gabbe (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Dictators in Africa/anti-dictators

Besides Robert Mugabe, defiant at 87, there is other dictator guys like Him. Yoweri Museveni is another bad guy like him. How does Yoweri Museveni do bad to blind Africa. Corruptions? Killing people? How is he brutal. Paul Kagame another dictator of Rwanda, a 53 year old being a ruthless killer. When I look them up on Google image, it usually say what he is-tyrant and that. Is he a corrupter, why is he almost like Adolf Hitler basically. Mwai Kibaki one site say he practice dictatorship and best friends of museveni-i thought Kibaki is not that bad. I thought other leaders like Pierre Nkurunziza, new leaders like Jakaya Kikwete, Armando Guebuza rules states just fine. They are more friendly and try to support the state rather than trying to commit genocides.--69.229.5.134 (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you a question, or are you just trying to start an argument? This is not the place for arguments.

You have linked to articles on several of the people you name: those articles will tell you a lot about them. If you have specific questions about them that the articles do not answer, you are welcome to post them here. --ColinFine (talk) 07:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Question on vandalism

How to vandalize wikipedia without getting caught? Please suggest some tricks of vandalism. --WW009977 (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a particularly insidious form of vandalism where you study up on the topic and improve the article, thus fooling everyone into thinking you're an expert when you're really just a vandal. StuRat (talk) 04:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We have a policy relating to questions like that: see WP:BEANS. Looie496 (talk) 05:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

First, become an Administrator. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia should be posted on Wikipedia:Help desk, not here. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism is beginners' stuff. I once crashed Wikipedia, globally, for about ten minutes. It was an accident, although I guess I could do it again if I was feeling malicious. I don't think anybody realised that I'd done it, although if I did it repeatedly, I'm sure a dev could figure it out. I won't explain how I did it, but becoming an administrator is the first step. Warofdreams talk 12:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Legality of vandalism

Can a vandal face legal trouble after vandalizing wikipedia articles and userpages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WW009977 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we usually just trace where a vandal lives then send assassins.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Except we call them Hired Goons. (No disrespect to goons.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Not vandalism, it's hacking!
Sleigh (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anyone getting in trouble with the law for vandalising Wikipedia, but people have got in trouble with their school/university/employer for misusing their computers. --Tango (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You could be sued for libel or defamation (e.g. [26]), or for harassment. But note that we can't offer legal advice: if you're considering vandalising Wikipedia I suggest you consult a lawyer first. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any case where someone WAS sued for libel under these circumstances, but it's a distinct possibility. They'd have to prove you published a known untruth (or simply didn't care if it was true or not) that caused damage, though. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

But how can one hack "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? --Nricardo (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You may find this relevant. 87.112.14.181 (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL, that was hilarious. I'm surprised they didn't bring in the CIA and the USSOCOM too. I'm glad we at Wikipedia are more refined, in just utilizing our vast army of assas... er Hired Goons.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

when did Jesus realize he was the Messiah?

At what age did (historical) Jesus realize he was the Messiah? Did he realize it first, or did his parents? Does the bible show any disagreement between him and his parents about how he should use his powers?

Note: I am trying to imagine what would happen if my son were the Messiah. Obviously the above could contain inaccuracies in my preconceptions. I am not a historibiblical scholar, I welcome corrections! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.130.231 (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's very doubtful if the historical Jesus (who, if he existed, likely was a peasant preacher from Galilee) ever though of himself as the messiah (literally "the anointed one", i.e. a king, and in this case a king who would rebuild David's kingdom). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you clarify: are you saying he said it, but didn't believe it himself? Or that he didn't believe it, didn't say it, and didn't perform miracles without noticing, and then his disciples invented all of this after the fact? I am trying to see why it got ever written down in the Gospels, if he neither said it, nor did it, nor had someone invent that he did it? Most likely, is that he DID say it. My question is when he started saying it, saying stuff like he is the way, the truth, and the life... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.130.231 (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

i.e. at what age did he start saying he was the messiah? or, did he never say that himself? (talking about historical jesus now). note that I don't care if he actually did miracles or prove he was the messiah, my question is when he started saying he was, what age. thanks.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.130.231 (talk) 10:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he ever did explicitly say he was the messiah. All instances of the association consists of other people asking 'Are you the messiah?' and him replying something ambiguous. The most he claims to be seems to be 'the Son of God', which can be interpreted in many ways, but can also simply mean being human.

The whole 'vibe' I can get from the passages about it, was that people wanted desperately to believe that he was the messiah, and he simply went with what they wanted to believe in order to get things done without ever explicitly saying he was. Ironically, this was what made him so unpopular among the clergy. Notice the different words that his disciples attribute to him.

When asked if he was the messiah, his replies: “You have said so” (Matthew 26:63-64); "“I am." (Mark 14:62); and "You say that I am." (Luke 22:70). Two versions say he gave a nonanswer. Then again, I'm no Bible scholar, nor do I believe in it. :P -- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

When Jesus met John the Baptist who had been announcing Him. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for actually answering my question, lovely Cuddlyable. But could you dumb it down a shade more! What age was he when he met John the Baptist who had been announcing Him? --84.2.130.231 (talk) 11:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you also quote the relevant verses for us, please Cuddlyable? This is a really interesting thread. --Dweller (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Aid to Bible Understanding: In the autumn of 29 CE, Jesus came to John to be baptized. (Note that this would be a jew baptizing another jew.) John at first objected, knowing his sinfulness and the righteousness of Jesus. But Jesus insisted. God had promised John a sign so that he could identify the Son of God. (Matt. 3:13; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21; John 1:33). When Jesus was baptized the sign was fulfilled: John saw God's spirit coming down upon Jesus and heard God's own voice declaring Jesus to be his Son. Evidently no others were present at Jesus' baptism. - Matt. 3:16,17; Mark 1:9-11; John 1:32-34; 5:31,37. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Luke 3:21-3 suggests he was about 30 when he was baptised and started preaching: "When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened (22) and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: 'You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.' (23) Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph" (NIV). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

How is that telling us that he then considered himself the messiah? --Dweller (talk) 11:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that Jesus had a vision when he was baptized, so, as much as we can date anything this ambiguous, that would seem to be it. He is reported to give evasive answers, but of course those answers were written down hundreds of years later. It seems from e.g. riding into Jerusalem on a donkey that he was acting as the Messiah, not just being called one. But of course the true Messiah could have defeated the Romans with a sweep of his hand, so when he was arrested, people decided we was a false Messiah. (Denied 3 times etc.) His followers who did not abandon him then reinterpreted his kingdom as being in heaven rather than on earth, had him say he knew he would die even though it seems obvious his followers never heard him say that, etc. That is, he went from being the Jewish Messiah to the Christian one, though Christianity and Judaism were all but identical until about the 5th century. — kwami (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a little weak. Did everyone who rode into Jerusalem on a donkey thereby definitively proclaim themselves as messiah? There'd be thousands of messiahs every week in those days. --Dweller (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's the way he did it. He was fulfilling prophesy. It was clearly a significant event from the way he was received, and the way the Bible tells it. — kwami (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Does the Bible tell it in such a way that tells us that Jesus rode a donkey into Jerusalem and therefore, unambiguously, Jesus considered himself the Messiah? If so, please quote the verse, because it'll answer the OP's question. --Dweller (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No, nothing is unambiguous. It comes down to the obvious interpretation that people would give things, when we would no longer think to interpret them that way. That's why people spend their lives researching these questions. — kwami (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

So, did Jesus never claim to be the Messiah? --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

How can we know? All we know is what the gospels say, and they weren't written by Jesus or any of his disciples.

Read Mark 11:

(1) And as they approached Jerusalem, near Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples (2)and said to them, ‘Go to the village lying before you. As soon as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there on which no one of men has ever sat. Untie it and bring it here. (3)If anyone says to you, “Why are you doing this?” say, “The Lord needs it and will send it back here soon. ”’ (4)And they went and found a colt tied at a door, outside in the street, and untied it. (5)Some people standing there said to them, ‘What are you doing, untying that colt?’ (6)They replied as Jesus had told them, and they let them go. (7)And they brought the colt to Jesus, threw their cloaks on it, and he sat on it. (8)Many spread their cloaks on the road and others spread branches they had cut in the fields. (9)Both those who went ahead and those who followed kept shouting, ‘Hosanna! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord! (10)Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David! Hosanna in the highest!’ (11)And he entered Jerusalem and went to the temple. And after looking around at everything, he went out to Bethany with the twelve since it was already late.

Now compare this to Zachariah 9.9, when the messianic king arrives to claim his throne:

Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion! Shout, daughter of Jerusalem! Look, your king is coming to you: he is legitimate and victorious, humble and riding on a donkey—on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

There are lots of passages like this, where Jesus fulfills the expectations of the OT Messiah, acts like the Messiah, speaks like the Messiah. But that all started with his baptism and vision at age 30. — kwami (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

..but, it seems, doesn't actually proclaim himself as the Messiah. Strange. --Dweller (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

But it seems he did. It's just not reported as an official pronouncement. — kwami (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

See Confession of Peter, where Peter says he believes Jesus is the Messiah and Jesus responds, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven", which is effectively saying "Yes, I am". He was more discreet when Pilate asked him that question. Pais (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment on "what the gospels say, and they weren't written by Jesus or any of his disciples. " What shitty disciples. --84.2.130.231 (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No need to be offensive. --Dweller (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was an oral society to a large extent. Writing was scripture, and at the time these things happened, they weren't scripture, they were current events. — kwami (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Mark text

That Mark text mentioned above is interesting. According to Wikisource's King James Version, the question asked was "Are you the Christ, the son of the Blessed"([27]) which isn't quite as unambiguous a question as the one cited above. What does the original (Greek?) text for Mark say the question was? I guess part of the problem here is the ambiguity between messiah meaning anointed and messiah meaning the one who'll deliver Israel... and the meaning of "Christ". All the Israelite kings and many priests were anointed (for example), but no-one would claim King Ahab to have been the messiah! --Dweller (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance, but why would the Messiah's existence on Earth not be written down until "hundreds of years later"?? Wouldn't this be like the Book of Mormon being written TODAY, in 2011, saying "Oh, by the way, a couple of hundred years ago, in the eighteen hundreds, God sent a new Prophet down, but we haven't gotten around to writing it down until now..." That just doesn't make sense. Joseph Smith convinced people he was a new prophet in his lifetime, and people thought this was remarkable enough to write home about. Jesus convinced people he was the SON OF GOD in his lifetime, and NOBODY thought it was remarkable enough to write home about? This makes precisely ZERO sense to me, please explain! NOTE THAT I AM THE OP OF THIS THREAD AND THE ENTIRE THREAD IS ABOUT HISTORICAL JESUS/JOSEPH SMITH, ETC. No part of this thread is concerned with whether anyone was or is a prophet, son of God, messiah, etc. Just, what they say, who they convince, when they start believing it, etc. --84.2.130.231 (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bible wasn't compiled until 325. We don't know how old the texts were that it was compiled from; estimates vary widely, but they're all generations after the fact. Of course, people may have written stuff down, we don't know; all we do know are the texts preserved in the Bible, and that there were many more texts which were not chosen and are now lost. And of course things could have changed between the time they were first written down and when they were compiled into the Bible—after all, they were changed even after they were compiled into the Bible! — kwami (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Why are they "all" generations after the fact. This makes ZERO sense to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.130.231 (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You're asking a historical question. I don't know. Mark is probably the oldest gospel, and I've seen estimates as early as 70AD, two generations after the crucifixion. It's thought that many of Paul's letters are older than that, but of course Paul was not a witness to the events. In any case, we don't have any writings from any witnesses or companions of Jesus that have survived, at least as far as we know. (There has been speculation that some boy in the crowd who ran away may have been the author of one of the gospels, but that is speculative.) — kwami (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

AD is supposed to be dated from Christ's birth, not the crucifixion, so 70 AD is only one generation after the crucifixion, about the time that the witnesses to it would be getting old and starting to die off from old age, and people would start to think, "Wait, we'd better get some of this written down, since we won't be able to ask them to clarify later." If you look at the epistles, which tend to date from the time the Apostles were actually going from place to place, telling people what they'd seen and heard and writing (or dictating) letters to other communities, it really was being passed on by people visiting the churches and telling them it orally, and to some extent by reading letters sent out. Why not? It would have seemed the obvious way to do it. Why would your first reaction be to write up new Scriptures, rather than tell as many people as possible what you had heard and seen, and answer their questions first hand? It started small.

Mark, the oldest Gospel, is traditionally considered to have been gathered by Mark taking dictation from Peter when he was fairly old. That was why it was said to have a slightly meandering quality, and to not be particularly stylish: Mark supposedly didn't want to reword anything, or rearrange it, in case he missed something out, so it's a dictated old-man's telling of the story of what happened when he was in his twenties/thirties. The Gospel of Mark is criticised by early Christian writers for not being in a literary style, but nobody seems to suggest it doesn't fit what they had received orally, or to suggest that the Apostolic nature of it (taken from Peter's telling) is unlikely.

In a similar vein, see Luke (I forget if Matthew does it too) mentioning that this is the account he's gathered from various witnesses (traditionally, he was supposed to have talked to Mary, among others) and actually making an effort to name witnesses. And the author of John also talks about his Gospel being the story he has compiled based on what the disciples saw, although does not record on what basis he knows this. The later appendix claims that it is all vouched for by one disciple ('this' disciple), but that's a later addition. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't get the question. Wouldn't you consider it strange if nobody wrote about the fact that Joseph Smith convinced a bunch of people in the nineteenth century that he was a new prophet, until two generations later? And that is the earliest text to get into the book of mormon? Why would the bible not include anything contemporaneous, if this guy convinced all these people that he was the messiah! It does NOT add up to me, I do not understand this. Please explain why no sources contemporaneous with Jesus were deemed important enough to include in the bible -- didn't people write letters or diaries at the time, wouldn't somebody "blog" (in the terms of the day) about hanging out with the son of God, who is the Messiah??? Please explain to me. Thank you. --84.2.130.231 (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be strange. But it's not parallel. First, we don't know when things were written down. AFAIK the only historical date we have is the Council of Nicaea in 325. Sure, Mary Magdalene might have kept a diary, but if so it hasn't survived. Second, literacy wasn't what it is now. It seems clear from, say, Mark that everybody knew these stories. That is, they were passed from person to person, or taught in the temples/churches, and it may not have seemed important to write them down right away. All we know is what we know, and that isn't much. — kwami (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

However low literacy was at the time, it wasn't 0. Jesus picked some seriously shitty "disciples", who in no way memorialized him, and now 2000 years after the fact we are left guessing. --84.2.130.231 (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You've got the same problem in Islam, where Muhammad was illiterate, and at one point there were 13 conflicting official versions of the Koran. We don't even have a good copy of the Ten Commandments. Seems to happen a lot in religion. — kwami (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that literacy levels in early first century Judea were poor? I'd have assumed the opposite? --Dweller (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think they were generally pretty poor before universal education, some religious groups excepted. That was a radical idea at the time. Remember, a lot of Jesus's followers were peasants. Also, many of his disciples abandoned him when he failed to defeat the Romans. Maybe all the literate ones left. — kwami (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That's the point... I think we are indeed talking about "some religious groups" - or rather, one religious group, Jews. --Dweller (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If Jesus was from the royal family, as the Messiah should be, he would presumably have been literate. But many of his disciples were "simple folk". Jews place great value on education now, but that's following millennia of being dispossessed. At the time, I don't know. Scripture was of course paramount, but that doesn't mean that a simple fisherman or goat herder would spend much time at the local book store. — kwami (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Literate ones tend to become rabbis. And none of his disciples were even remotely close to being a rabbi. Even if one of them actually were literate, it's a bit unlikely that they'd carry around little notebooks jotting around every little detail of Jesus' life like paparazzi waiting to write a prize-winning biography someday. And a very detailed biography at that, written by what can only be an actual scholar, not a peasant. I think the main problem is someone apparently saw these different versions of the compilations of oral and scattered accounts (the books) and felt the need to attribute them to a specific disciple. When in truth, they may have simply been different versions of people using slightly varying sources.

Anyway, the 'messiah' in Jesus' time probably had stronger connotations of being a pretender (i.e. claimant to the throne) rather than simply being theological, and probably added to the confusion. Some probably called him that because they saw him as the literal messiah, i.e. someone of royal blood who is coming to restore independence of the Kingdom of Israel from the Romans. Hence the obsession with the descent from David. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he was going to restore a Jewish Kingdom and rid Judea of the Romans. He had the power of God flowing through him as the rightful heir to the throne. That why his arrest was so devastating, and his execution inconceivable—or, rather, proving he wasn't the Messiah after all. — kwami (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

First, let's not forget oral history... much more common in the first century than today. Second, what makes you think that there were no contemporaneous sources?... there are some indications that the Gospels we have today borrowed material from an earlier source. If this theory is correct, then Mark's Gospel is not the earliest account... its simply the oldest that survived. This happens all the time with ancient sources. An eye witness (or at least a contemporary) writes down an account... someone else copies it (and adds material that was passed down to him orally)... at some point, however, the eye witness account gets lost... so the earliest source we have is the later copy. Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, there may have been contemporaneous sources, again he was very notable for his time, but the ones in the Bible now are unlikely to be it. They all seem to be compilations of the aforementioned contemporary sources, yet the Council of Nicaea all proclaim them to be contemporary, even going as far as attributing them to specific disciples.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's presumably what happened. But all we know is what survived. — kwami (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, of course! There was no reason to write anything down, because you would only do that to preserve historical events for posterity. The Kingdom of God was at hand; the end of history would occur during the lives of those living. Why would you bother to write things down? — kwami (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

answer to rest of original question?

I also ask whether he realized it first, or his parents... this is an aspect of my question no one has answered directly. But can we agree that by everything detailed above, it is pretty clear that Jesus realized he was the Messiah well before his parents did? (It also seems this happened around when he was 30.). Thanks... --84.2.130.231 (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If the OP has not yet done so, he/she might do well to read our article Messiah, which I don't think has previously been linked in the discussions above. The Jewish concept of the Messiah was rather different from the one later evolved in Christianity, perhaps in part to explain why Jesus (to use the name he himself would not have recognised) had not fulfilled the requirements of the former. There were many aspirants to the role of the Jewish Messiah around that time, some of whom are much better recorded in contemporary documents than Jesus, of whom no contemporary record at all survives. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.129 (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In Luke, the angel Gabriel pretty much spells it out before Jesus' birth. He goes through the Messiah checklist: Thone of David, house of Jacob, and son of God. It would take a real idiot not to get the point. -- kainaw™ 15:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Luke 1:26-35 has the story, including the name Jesus, kingdom without end, throne of David, Son of the Highest, Son of God, etc. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

But! This was to Mary. Did they tell Jesus? I imagine it'd be like hunkering down and saying... "Son... you're adopted.". :P -- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The episode of the Finding in the Temple suggests he knew he was the Son of God without anyone having to tell him, and that he assumed Mary and Joseph knew it too. Pais (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ooh. Good point.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you believe the non-canonical Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the killing of a boy (and blinding of his parents) via a curse, animating clay pigeons, resurrecting the dead, and successful re-plantation of a severed foot should give both Jesus and the onlookers a hint that something unusual was going on... --Stephan Schulz (talk)

(edit conflict)x3 To expand a bit on this, it seems rather trite and arbitrary to demand that Jesus stated unambiguously "I am the Messiah" to confirm that he knew he was The Messiah at any point. If a man is planting and harvesting corn all day, do I need to hear him say "I am a farmer" or can we assume he knows pretty well what he is doing from the evidence of his actions? If we go by the textual evidence in the Gospels, its pretty clear from the text that he knew his role definately by the time of his baptism. From Matthew 3:13-17, God states unambiguously in verse 17 "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." To claim that after this time, Jesus didn't know or understand his role seems pretty rediculous. As noted before, the text indicates he was "about 30" years old when this event occured, so that is the absolute LATEST age when he should have known he was the Chosen One. There are other events in his childhood and youth when it shows he had some idea that he was different with regards to his relationship with God; though none is as completely unambigious as the baptism as described in Matthew 3. See Luke 2:25-52, which describes several incidents in his childhood which would steer a reasonable person to understand something was different about themselves. (post EC) or, exactly what Pais said. --Jayron32 16:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, being the Son of God isn't the same thing as being the Messiah. AFAIK, none of the OT prophecies about the Messiah say he'll be the Son of God, let alone God the Son incarnate. Pais (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but Jewish thought contemporary to Jesus' time was that the Messiah would be a warrior-king (ala Joshua, David, etc.) who would lead to the new independence of the Jewish state. There wasn't any expectation of a religious leader who would lead a Heavenly Kingdom or anything like that. If we go by the expectation of who the Messiah would be, Jesus never claimed that he was that. The question needs to be asked "When did Jesus ever claim to be the military leader who would lead a military force to rise up and lead to an independent Jewish state" the answer is "never". If the question is instead "When did Jesus realize he was going to be leading a religious revival, and knew that his role was to lead people to God through a new covenant based on faith in him, as the Son of God incarnate" then the answer is almost certainly by his baptism, and likely even in childhood (per the Luke passages). --Jayron32 16:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that the original question was asked for "the historical Jesus", not "the mythical Jesus". Only very few parts of the gospels are generally accepted as probably true in the historical sense. In particular, everything that has only one independent attestation (where typically the shared tradition between the synoptic gospels is not independent), and that fits in well with the overall intention of the early church, is highly dubious. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A contemporary person who also solely did 'God's work' was John the Baptist, and I assume he did much of the same things Jesus did (miracles even) without actually being labelled a messiah. To use the farmer analogy, they both plant and harvest corn all day, yet only one of them is getting government tax cuts. Should it be evident in the way they plant and harvest the corn? A messiah is not equivalent to a godly man who goes around healing people, if that were the case, there would have been dozens of prophets mistaken for the messiah long before Jesus' time.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 17:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I need to get my hands on some of those seeds that farmer has if he can harvest corn the same day he plants it. Googlemeister (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

They were utilizing the revolutionary technique of extremely rapid crop rotation™, planting and harvesting exactly one plant a day, everyday! :P -- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that Jesus realized he had a mission when he was baptized and then spent the 40 days in the desert. Temptation of Christ. That seems neither implausible from a believers' standpoint nor from a historical and psychological one.

If you want to credit stories of baby Jesus doing miracles, they made both a Star Trek Charlie X and a Twilight Zone It's a Good Life (The Twilight Zone) episode on that theme. μηδείς (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The main thing that you need to understand about Jesus is that he was an apocalypticist. He preached to his followers that the world would be ending within their lifetimes. They weren't supposed to be writing things down! or divorcing, or accumulating possessions, or doing anything that implies that the world will be around for a while. His messianism is related to, but not necessarily more significant than his apocalypticism. The idea was that upon his being martyred, the end would come. He was mistaken, and hence the line "Why hath thou forsaken me." When did he get this idea? Well schizophrenia often has an onset during the late twenties. See Apocalypticism. Greg Bard (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia administrator

What is the criteria for becoming an administrator in English Wikipedia? How many edits I should have and for how long I should edit? --WW009977 (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

There are no official requirements: see Wikipedia:Administrators, Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. However it might be a good idea if you know the difference between the Reference Desk and the Help Desk; the latter is for questions about Wikipedia and the former for general factual questions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear whether the OP is asking out of random interest or personal desire. If it's the later, I would note there's also little chance of becoming an admin while you can't work out how to become an admin by yourself (although you should already have a fair idea by heart before trying to become one anyway). In addition people are often sceptical of those who appear too keen to become admins (again not saying this applies to the OP). Nil Einne (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You must first prove that we can trust you. That means surviving the seven deadly trials of doom.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 11:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Bah, you kids today don't know how easy you have it, back in my day it was 12 trials of doom--Jac16888 ^Talk 12:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but they weren't deadly. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Try telling that to the first 16887 Jacs ;)--Jac16888 ^Talk 13:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

And here I thought it was your credit card pin number. :( -- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course not, my pin number is 723....wait a second, I'm on to you now, nice try--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Arrgh. What do you think the n in PIN stands for? This is as bad as talking about an ATM machine. Googlemeister (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Why, Noodles of course. Everyone knows that!-- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion (which is rather piss-poor when it comes to admins), becoming an admin is very easy. Make a bunch of dummy accounts. Edit a few times with them just to ensure they work. Then, do the RfA. Flood your RfA with praise from the dummy accounts. Use the dummy accounts to play down any scrutiny. You're in. Now, to avoid problems, you should think through how to handle the dummy accounts. Vandalize with one of them. Block that one yourself. Then, somehow identify the others as socks and block them too. Then, you'll be the cool admin who shut down a whole ring of vandal socks! -- kainaw™ 15:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Riiiiight. You don't think people will notice blatant sockpuppeting from accounts that have never voted on an RFA before? There are people who spend a considerable portion of their day voting on RFAs; they'll notice if something is amiss, the same way that we notice when things are out of order on here. (Imagine if someone came on, posted some sort of idiotic question, and then 5 other people who each had 10 random edits each showed up and started agreeing with the original poster. It'd stand out.)

It used to be that if you hung around for long enough, edited enough, and were friendly enough, RFAs were pretty straightforward. My perception is that nowadays it's a much more painful process, with much deeper scrutinizing of edit histories, arbitrary numbers assigned to editing habits (how many edits you've done in the main namespace, on talk pages, on admin pages, etc.), and so on. When I became an admin in 2005 or so (with a different, mostly defunct account), it was pretty much a breeze. I'm not sure I would have been able to get it with the same sort of editing history today, even though I don't think the additional requirements have probably made it any more likely than an admin is going to be a good admin. But such is how it goes. I don't think it's at all easy to become an admin — I think it's gone a bit far in the other direction. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem with nowadays is that people pretend that adminship means something more (socially) than it used to. You still get access to the same basic 3 functions (protect-block-delete) but people have this weird idea that being an admin means that you have some sort of additional power or status with regards to resolving disputes at Wikipedia; that somehow the opinions of admins mean more than the average editor of similar experience, or anything like that. It shouldn't be that way AT ALL. Admins should just be experienced editors who have extra editing tools, and the tools should be much easier to give, and to take away if they are misused. As Mr. 98 notes, it used to be much better. It would get better again if people would stop treating adminship as a social prize, which grants the holder status. It shouldn't do that. --Jayron32 16:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. We should reduce the seven deadly trials of doom to six. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A few years ago in my city there was a spate of incidents in which security guards overstepped the mark, and some innocent or not very guilty people got very badly hurt. In an enquiry into a death, the wise statement was made that probably the worst kind of person to recruit to such a job was someone who really wanted to do it. Does the same rule apply to Admins here? HiLo48 (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Plato had a similar idea a few thousand years ago, after a whole series of incidents in which people got badly hurt. I think you're right, it applies to Wikipedia administrators too. Wikipedia needs to move away from the volunteer method of recruiting administrators, and instead introduce conscription. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We can try an admin lottery, and force anyone drawn to be an admin! Athenian democracy, har! -- Obsidi♠n Soul 21:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Admin lottery in June, corn be heavy soon? --Trovatore (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Both term limits and an Admin lottery would help immeasurably since most admins are nepotistical (spellcheck says that's a word!) vain, sanctimonious, clueless and arbitrary. A few simple rules impartially imposed would be a huge improvement upon the present lazy self-validating failed-academic jacobins in charge. The usual admin response to any valid ANI complaint is "do you seriously expect me to read the diffs or understand the topic at hand when summary judgment based on popularity contests and political correctness can be had?" At least with randomly assigned admins lechebotte creeps would on occasion suffer what they deserve. μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I suspect, for the sake of accuracy, you should change your statement from "most admins" to "most admins I've lost an argument with and am still unhappy about." It's ridiculous to generalize in such a way. You haven't interacted with most admins. Frankly I doubt even the ones you've interacted with deserve such silly insults. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Danish government report on the costs and benefices of immigration

Is the report cited here available online? Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this is it. Marco polo (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Marco polo. I myself did look but could not find. You used google translate? In any case, once again you show your merit. μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I can make out a bit of Danish without Google. Marco polo (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Buyers and Sellers

When I sell my shares in a company, to whom am I selling them? Conversely, from whom am I buying shares? 166.205.10.235 (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Generally, someone who is offering to buy shares, and someone who is offering to sell shares, respectively. Various types of trades allow you to further specify the subset of offers that you'll match with. Our stock market article, and related articles, provide additional context. — Lomn 20:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In practice, that other party may be a large institutional investor like a mutual fund. This is particularly true if the stock is listed in a major index; large portions of the equity of many large corporations is owned by such large investors (Apple 71%, Microsoft 72%, GE 52%, Ford 64%). If one of those large funds elects to change its position at the time you're in the market, it's quite likely that that's who you'll be buying from/selling to. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 22:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Depending on the market and the stock, there may also be a market maker. In rare circumstances the buyer/seller may be the company itself - in the case of an IPO/SPO or other equity offering, you may be buying stock in a company from the company itself. Conversely if a share repurchase is underway you may be selling the company's stock back to it. And in cases where a company is going in or out of government ownership, you may be dealing with that government (or some government-owned financial corporation). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 22:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

August 12

Where are some fine places online to solicit charity donations?

My campus ministry center has funds to raise for a kitchen that has yet to be built. So far, we've raised $93,000 out of the $160,000 needed. The campus minister would love to have me approach caring people for the kitchen donations. However, I feel more comfortable doing so online. Therefore, where are some fine digital venues in which to post for donations to charities? Thanks, --70.179.163.168 (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Bacchus and the Ganges

Ovid in the Ars Amatoria, speaking of Love, says, "Thy ardent flame turns water itself to vapour. Such was Bacchus when he triumphed over the land of the Ganges."[28]

What mythical event is Ovid referring to here? How did Bacchus "triumph over the land of the Ganges"? And what did that have to do with turning water in to vapour? -- noosphere 02:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)