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

November 2

bairum khan...of iran

GOOD morning sir, myself KADIR KHAN,from mumbai,india First of all i really thank you and wikipedia.org that they provide us with the column that we can ask question to it.

I want information about Bairum khan,who once upon a time a great soldier and commander,in one of the rule of the then king of iran .But i am not getting any information about him.I know only few things that,he was a great commamnder and soldier in army and once he had won a great fight,due to which his king got very happy and he rewarded him to go along with his family and stay in india,on which he came to india and resided in uttar pradesh,india..being i stay in India i cannot go iran and go on for so long search.it will be time consuming for me.also i am busy person with my studies..my parents had once told me this true story.. \ please sir will you help me,by searching this information..i love history.. [contact information removed] THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.140.126 (talk) 04:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a short but decent article about him at Wikipedia, but it appears you just misspelled his name. See Bairam Khan. The article also has lots of references and additional reading, so if you can located those sources you can find more information about him. --Jayron32 04:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I found some information in The Cambridge History of Indua on Google books (I hope you can see it too, as different results are sometimes shown in different countries). You may be able to find a copy of this book in a public library. Alansplodge (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Liliuokalani on film

Was Queen Liliuokalani of Hawaii ever filmed on camera? It wouldn't have been in her reign but she did live till 1917.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Like these? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you mean a moving image? There doesn't seem to be anything online.Alansplodge (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes moving pictures.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

IMDb only credits her for her songs, mostly "Aloha ʻOe" (as opposed to someone like Mark Twain, who has two acting credits). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

One Twain credit seems to be a mistake. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I've found a clip of it on youtube but here at 1.57 but does anyone know about the moment these two clips were taken and who she was with.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Clerical dress question

I was watching the old ATV adaptation of the Father Brown stories the other night. Kenneth More as Father Brown dresses always in some kind of cassock, with a sort of very short cape which only reaches to the elbows (picture). Can anyone tell me the name for this kind of garment? Marnanel (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be a mozzetta. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I quote from the Mozzetta article: "A shoulder cape, elbow-length like the mozzetta but open in front, is sometimes worn with the cassock, either fixed to it or detachable. It is known as a pellegrina. It differs from the mozzetta also in not being associated with a cotta, surplice or rochet". Alansplodge (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

How many Hail Mary's must I say? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I only got there by following your link. I can do traditional Anglican kit, but Catholics have a whole lot more in their wardrobe, and Italian styling too! Alansplodge (talk) 10:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ulster Resistance

What was the point of the Ulster Resistance thing? Why did someone feel that yet another loyalist paramilitary was needed instead of just, say, strengthen the UDA? I heard Ian Paisley supported the movement at first but when he "realized" it was violent in nature he retracted his support. Our article about them doesn't say much. --Belchman (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the need for any new "splinter group". Obviously, the people who formed the Ulster Resistance opposed some fundemental philosophy in the UDA. This isn't a novel event, in many paramilitary groups this sort of thing happens all the time. You'll also note that besides the Ulster Resistance and UDA, there is also the Ulster Volunteer Force and the whole bunch listed at Ulster loyalism. See List of organisations known as the Irish Republican Army for a list of similar splinter groups. --Jayron32 13:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ulster Resistance came about in the wake of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It was an umbrella organisation comprising many leading Unionist politicians and religious leaders. The UDA was already an unwieldy, cumbersome organisation, with its many brigades. It often carried out bloody feuds with the UVF. Ulster Resistance served to bring in all loyalist groups and leaders.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

So it wasn't really a paramilitary organization —at first—, but a loyalist umbrella group to plan the loyalists' reaction to the Anglo-Irish Agreement (more or less), right? --Belchman (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It was a paramilitary organisation.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

From the very beginning? Ian Paisley says he didn't know that —which is kind of difficult to believe, but whatever—. --Belchman (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This article from the Belfast Telegraph may be of interest to you: "A Spectre From the Past Back to Haunt Peace". Belfast Telegragh--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Grim, indeed. --Belchman (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The Pythons gave us some hilarious satire on splinter groups (socialist groups, to be fair). See Monty_Python's_Life_of_Brian#Political_satire. --Rixxin (talk) 11:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary autodidacts

Please name some contemporary autodidacts such as Eliezer Yudkowsky. --Toiuyty (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Most people are somehow autodidacts nowadays, but you seem to be searching for someone without formal education and with a successful career. 88.9.210.218 (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. --Toiuyty (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe you want to know about school drop-outs who became successful? It's not rare to find self-made men in some fields like business. Many people like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs apparently didn't get any business formal education and only a little college exposure. 88.9.210.218 (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Though being a drop-out is pretty different from being an autodidact. Getting into the position to become a drop-out usually requires substantial formal learning, and exposure to college can be as valuable as the actual education. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The other major problem is that most modern developed societies have full compulsory education though someone's late teens, and most of those also offer free post-secondary education for people who show the right apptitude for it, making it rare for a person who was raised in a developed nation to have avoided exposure to some level of advanced education. Presupposing the objections to this analysis, I will remind all people that the word "rare" is not a synonym for impossible, so I expect it does happen, just not as commonly as it used to. The OP can likely find people they are looking for at the article List of autodidacts. --Jayron32 16:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a difficult thing to find out about, because in the modern age (where policitians are castigated if they don't put on a show of providing education for all) it's quite easy to be handed a structured education, whether at school or at university, even if you actually found the structure useless and took the initiative. (I see Jayron has just said much the same thing.) Searching for "did poorly at school", I came up with Jack Russell Weinstein, who "was able to pursue his long-held interests in reading, writing, and learning in the free university environment". I also found Arran Fernandez, who is extraordinarily precocious and passed a mathematics exam at age five. Does he structure his education himself? I'm not sure how to determine that.  Card Zero  (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

N.K.B.

Old New York Times Book Reviews are sometimes signed "N.K.B", such as this review from 1947. What is the full name of this reviewer? Viriditas (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Nash K. Burger, one of the editors of The New York Times Book Review. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Viriditas (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"Phaedon" in Moby Dick

In chapter 35 of Moby Dick, Melville writes:

And let me in this place movingly admonish you, ye shipowners of Nantucket! Beware of enlisting in your vigilant fisheries any lad with lean brow and hollow eye; given to unseasonable meditativeness; and who offers to ship with Phaedon instead of Bowditch in his head.

I know that Bowditch is the famous navigator, but who is Phaedon? Wikipedia finds several people with that name, none of whom seem to make sense here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.112 (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This essay on the relationship between Herman Melville's writing and the US Civil War says: "Ishmael's deft contrast between Phaedo, Plato's great dialogue on the immortality of the soul, and Nathaniel Bowditch's New American Practical Navigator (1802) is but one indication of Melville's juxtaposition of the philosophical problem of the nature of the soul, with all its attendant implications for the best political regime, and the utterly practical problem of how to find one's way on the vast expanses of the ocean and thus to safety at last by returning to the shelter of political society." (p.202 - 203 or 11/104) I'm not much wiser after that, but at least we know who Phaedon is. Alansplodge (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if it isn't an alternative or misspelling of Phaeton, the reckless driver of Apollo's chariot (and not somebody you'd want at the head of your boat). Probably not, though, given the above. The more I read it, the more I think it's basically saying, "don't trust your boats to someone who reads philosophy rather than practical boatsmanship." Which seems like good advice... --Mr.98 (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Unlikely (your first thought, that is), because the same passage continues: ""Beware of such an one, I say: your whales must be seen before they can be killed; and this sunken-eyed young Platonist will tow you ten wakes round the world, and never make you one pint of sperm the richer" (my emboldening). This confirms his reference to Plato. Now, I'm sure an otherwise respectable editor is at this very instant itching to make a gag about the "pint of sperm", so I'll yield to the inevitable. Alansplodge (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. (Coincidentally, I've been reading Moby Dick myself lately, though I haven't gotten quite that far. It's really a marvelous book. I had been put off by its "mandatory reading" status, but it's far more entertaining, funny, and cleverly written than I had expected.) --Mr.98 (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Alansplodge, you've hit the nail squarely on the head. Bowditch refers to Nathaniel Bowditch's The American Practical Navigator. An updated version is still published by the DMA's Hydrographic/Topographic Center, and it remains a well known book among modern sailors who refer to it simply as "Bowditch" or as "Publication Number 9". (As I type this, both volumes are within arms reach on the port bookcase.) Likewise, Phaedon refers to Plato's dialog Phaedo (Greek: Φαίδων, Phaidon), named after Phaedo of Elis. Thus the line from Moby Dick is telling ship owners to sign on sailors who have studied the practical arts of sailing and navigation, not those contemplative souls who have studied philosophy (just as Mr. 98 wrote). -- ToE^T 00:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Melville places a lot of imagery into Moby Dick which exemplifies the painting of School of Athens by Raphael. You will notice that the Ishmael character goes to great length discussing the practical reality of whaling. There are several chapters, a little fantastic, which describe this. We learn that whales use their tails to feel out the bottom of the sea according to Ishmael. Also, sailors are paid according to their ability with a cannibal receiving one of the larger shares due to his immense skill as a harpooner. These descriptions are to be contrasted with Ahab's description of the Great Whale: a supernatural force of evil and the social and racial inequalities of the time. The chapter in question deals a lot with the superstition of the masthead. When we read this book, many years ago, we memorized four poems and recited them as class opened: Sea Fever by John Masefield[1], The World Is Too Much with Us by William Wordsworth, Once by the Pacific by Robert Frost[2], and excerpts of the The Rime of the Ancient Mariner by Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Besides overwhelming students with literature, the point was to show the students that the myths that we placed on the sea drew a contrast to the practical. The contrast of Plato pointing up and Aristotle with his hand outstretched over the ground is played out in Moby Dick and in the poems mentioned. In the context of the times, America was in the midst of the industrial revolution; its effect was decried in the Wordsworth poem in the English context. Melville presents us with both views in The School of Athens which exemplified the philosophical challenges in a world he found was rapidly becoming modern. There are other deep contrasts in the book: a golden doubloon embedded in the mast represents the practical implications of finding Moby Dick and material rather than a spiritual reward. In contrast, the coin contains astrological symbols representing fate, the supernatural, and the power beyond the physical realm. The coin's symbols are similar to Queequeg's tattoos. (yar, here be spoilers!) He later inscribes these on his coffin when he believes he is fated to die (showing a connection between finding the whale and his death all part of the ship’s fate). That coffin then serves a practical use in storing his belongings and saving a life. The particular passage in question in chapter 35 is yet another example of the character of Ishmael, representing the modern practical sailor of Aristotle, contrasting the superstitious, romantic, and Platonic sailor who reads much more into a wooden carving. Hopefully, that should be a sufficient star to steer her by for our inquirer to write a paper. Gx872op (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The inherent bias of public opinions

Hello,

I'm am writing an essay about my skepticism about the notion that ideology was the main reason behind the conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War, as it is generally (and nearly universally) assumed by the historiographic scholarship of the era. I'm mostly having an issue with John Lewis Gaddis' work, who purports that the legitimacy of the Soviet memos that he had access to is irrefutable proof that 1) the Soviet leadership strongly believed in communism, and 2) since strong belief in something leads to proselytizing, imperialism was unexpected. (however Gaddis also notes that the U.S wasn't really a Saint, either; but that's beyond the point)

However, how does one know that what the Soviet leadership wrote was sincere? It's frigging words. They're dead, and even if they weren't, they could still be lying. That's like when politicians claim that they are very saddened by events; how does one know that they are actually disturbed, and not playing a game due to peer pressure? Further, assuming that the politicians know that some day it is highly likely that what they're writing will be unveiled to the public, they're probably taking extra care for the sake of their historical posterity. let's say that Khrushchev wrote in a memo "America must be destroyed. The Motherland is awesome". How does one know that Mr. Khrushchev was not playing ta game for the sake of power (i.e. for the chicks) and not a closeted liberal? Has there been any scholarship done on such a subject? Like, I don't know, the bias of historical documents. 184.163.160.61 (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with your premise that nearly all scholarship of the era claims that ideology was the main reason behind the conflict. In fact I don't think I have never run into any scholarship that claimed ideology was the main reason for the conflict. Neither of the current main works of the history of the 20th century, like Tony Judts Postwar, Mark Mazowers Dark Continent or Eric Hobsbawms Age of Extremes, claim that ideology is the main reason. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

On your general point, there is definitely a line of criticism that suggests that the obsession with archival findings (as opposed to intangibles) is a basic part of historical methodology. In the end there is an insurmountable gulf when one discusses the internal states of human beings. We do our best to navigate around it — any such approaches must be theories at best. The question is whether the theory matches up with the indisputable things. It would be a fair criticism to say that Gaddis uses official documents to derive internal states of being, and this is no doubt as false as doing so today would with regards to official press statements. By itself that's not enough, though — you'd want to push the alternative as well and show how it could be acceptable given said documents.

As for historiography, Gaddis is something of a revisionist, so attributing the majority point of view to him is wrong. Gaddis pushes ideology in particular as a way to revise the pre-1990s view of the Cold War as just realpolitik. Gaddis is saying, no, ideology was important too. Whether one agrees or disagrees with that, it's important to situate Gaddis correctly. He is important and a major figure, but he's not what I would call representative of the general historiography of the Cold War. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose one could try to understand what people really believed by looking at their non-public works, such as their diaries or personal letters. Granted, no one among the Soviet nomenklatura was going to leave a diary saying "I hate Stalin" around or something. The KGB didn't ask for search warrants. But I did see an interview with Khrushchev's son Sergei in which he says his father really believed in communism, and I see no reason not to believe him. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

In the end it's a judgment call. Part of what it means to be a real historian is to learn enough of the facts and context to be able to interpret actions, letters, utterances, etc. A huge amount of historical practice is judging which sources are the most reliable, and making sense of the genuinely contradictory nature of real-life human beings. There is always some unknown there. I'm glad for it — it makes being an historian interesting, and it means there are always a lot of new things to be found, interpreted, understood. History has always straddled the boundary between the social sciences and the humanities; I lean towards the humanities personally, recognizing that there is a great deal of art to it. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You could look for Western appreciations of Soviet theory of international politics from the era; but, you'd be arguing that Soviet theory actually influenced practice. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your skepticism in believing the words of politicians. I would judge them by their actions, not their words. Did these "communists" actually work for the equality of all or just use that as a pretext to accumulate riches and power unto themselves ? StuRat (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Eeesh, this could lead to some rather conflicted results. While Soviet policy within its current sphere of influence was defined by obvious and immediate support for bastards in almost all instances (Kadar at the head of an "anti-party bloc" over Nagy at the head of a bunch of reformists with broad worker's councils support for example; for the counter, consider the removal of Rakosi); in the case of Soviet support for agents outside the Soviet sphere of influence, for example with the Vietnamese Workers' Party this is less clear, as it is only possible to untangle the revolutionary current from the nomenklatura current in the mid 1970s. An equivalent analysis of the United States would leave us with a similarly schizoid power that acts with apparent altruism at times (Suez), merely lobbies for its ridiculous policies in some allies' public sphere (Encounter Quadrant), but in other cases engages in acts of mass barbarity for the most trivial reasons only rivalled by the other great powers' own trivial mass barbarity of the day. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Im confused by one thing - why do you say imperialism was unexpected? Is this confusing ideology with idealism, or have I missed something? It is possible to believe in communism as a system, but not be sincerely egalitarian, or share too much common ground with Marx. It's been emotional (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible to really believe that true communism can work, yet still only give it lip service as a means to establish yourself as an absolute dictator. This would seem more likely early on, before the shortcomings of communism became apparent. Later communist leaders must have been fully aware that true communism would never work, yet still used it as a means of controlling the masses. Then there's the case of the leader who is a true believer at first, but, once they figure out it will never work, then decide to use it for their own purposes, instead of to benefit their people. StuRat (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Small c-Conservative and large c conservative

What is the difference between small-c conservative and large-c conservative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.151 (talk • contribs)

It depends on your political context (politics is relative to the political system you are working in). I see from your IP address that you appear to be editing from Canada, I apologize in advance if you are not, but I will make my answer based on that assumption. In that case, the difference is likely between people who self-identify as "political conservatives" (see Conservatism) and people who are members of, and/or self-identify with the Conservative Party of Canada. A small-c conservative would be someone who supports political conservatism as a concept, but does not belong to or support the Conservative Party of Canada. A large-c Conservative would be a person who was a member/direct supporter of the Conservative Party of Canada. The difference would be between a person holding a particular ideology and belonging to a specific political party. Usually, someone who specifically calls themselves a "small-c conservative" is saying they adhere to the ideology of conservatism, but for whatever reason are distancing themselves from the Conservative Party. --Jayron32 19:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, see Small-c conservative. --Jayron32 19:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Richard Armour once defined "conservative" as "a man who saves his money (even before women and children)." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Red grit and blue grit

Is there such thing as red grit and blue grit in Canadian politics? what about blue tory and red tory?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.151 (talk • contribs)

See Blue Tory and Red Tory for the different strains of Conservatism in Canada. There are no "Blue Grits" and "Red Grits" because the Liberal Party of Canada has not had the same sort of shake-up and division that the Tories have had. The distinction between the reds and the blues among Canadian Tories has to do with the way in which divisions arose within the Conservative Party (or parties, there have been several splits and mergers over history) over fundemental ideology. It appears that the distinction came about in the 1960s, per info in some of these articles. --Jayron32 19:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The term "Blue Liberals" has sometimes been used to describe centrist members of the Liberal Party. For those unfamiliar with the topic, members of the Canadian Liberal Party are knowns as "grits" for some reason. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I sometimes wondered about that. It seems the name came from a predecessor of the Liberal Party, the Clear Grits. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

See Blue Grit Topher67 (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

England political conservative and liberal areas

Which parts of England are conservative due to history of Conservative Party traditional strongholds and which parts of England are liberal due to history of Labour Party traditional stronghold?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.151 (talk • contribs)

You can find a map of the most recent election by constituency at United Kingdom general election, 2010 and you can also work backwards to previous elections using the navigation tools at the top of the infobox in that article for similar maps. Going just by the 2010 election, the three main parties appear to be arranged on a rural/urban distinction: Labour won most of the seats in urban districts (the red bits on the map are concentrated near the largest urban areas like London, Merseyside, Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, the Edinburgh/Glasgow axis in Scotland, South Wales which has many of the urban areas in Wales) while the Conservatives seem concentrated away from those urban centers. The Liberal Democrats seemed to take sizable numbers of seats in the Scottish highlands, in the Southwest, and in Central Wales. The balance of the seats seems to mostly consist of the Nationalist parties like the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, various Irish national parties in N. Ireland, etc. There are also a few random seats from various minor parties. --Jayron32 20:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Do note that the Labour Party are historically socialist, rather than liberal. You may be thinking of the Liberal Party or the Liberal Democrats. Or you may have confused liberalism with the left wing. Marnanel (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

To add to the above, generally it's the industrial or formerly-industrial areas like Merseyside, Tyneside, and parts of the Midlands and Yorkshire that were traditionally liberal or left-wing. In the 19th century, Whigs and Liberals were associated with Manchester and Liverpool, the West Midlands, and other areas of early industrialisation; the newly wealthy industrialists were in conflict with the Tories who got their wealth from land rather than manufacture, and who had their power base in the more rural areas and the south-east. The strong working-class culture of trades-unionism, particularly in mining and heavy industries like steel and ship-building, had close links to the Labour party; these were generally based in the north and midlands (where there was coal, water, iron ore, etc). London has traditionally been more mixed, with lots of wealth, but also poverty, immigrants, and some industry. The countryside and farmers in particular have always been Conservative supporters (for various, not always obvious, reasons). The south-west (Cornwall and Devon) has a strong history of Liberalism rather than socialism through the 20th century, often returning Liberal and Liberal Democrat MPs; I'm not so sure why this is, but it probably reflects an independence of spirit and localism. --Colapeninsula (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Independence of spirit and localism yes, but also chapel: church is Tory ("The Church of England is the Tory party at prayer"), chapel is Liberal. DuncanHill (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Not so much now - more the bane of the Conservative Party. The Dean of St Paul's Cathedral invited anti-capitalist protesters to camp out in the forecourt[3] and the Archbishop of Canterbury (who was once arrested at a US airbase on a CND protest) said this week that bankers should be taxed more[4]. Then there was the Faith in the City thing in the 1980s that riled Mrs Thatcher so. Alansplodge (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe anything about the Labour party being particularly liberal. Bunch of statist control freaks is the description you're looking for.

ALR (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on your soapboxing, but the person asking the question is from Canada, where "liberal" can mean "left of center," as opposed to "libertarian." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Liberalism and Libertarianism are themselves quite different, although there is a more Libertarian wing within the Liberal Democrat Party, as there is in the Conservative Party. Equally neither of those would compare to the flavour of libertarianism in North America.

There is a very small liberal wing within the Labour Party, although predominantly present in the Co-Operative Party element there. They've certainly not been particularly prominent in the last 13 years.

ALR (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The debate on the political complexion of Labor generally accepts that Labour has always been multifaceted. Why the ILP ran a strong socialist line in early labour, the majority of labour were lib-labs with a liberal or at best "Labourite" mentality of social progress. The role of nationalisation and universal welfare in labour were hotly contested, especially from working class areas satisfied with working men's welfare. The emergence of a concept of labour as nationalisation and universal welfare came relatively late in British Labour due to a strong lib-lab influence, and due to confusion over whether nationalisation actually meant socialism (a thing many labourites opposed). So while it is more than a little silly to call Labour voters in the UK "Liberal" from a US perspective, when "Labourite" represents a long running ideology of social welfare in British society and is the term of art often used in political analysis of the Anglophone labour parties... the UK Liberal mentality had a long standing influence on Labour through the lib-labs. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Which cities of England liberal and conservative?

Which cities of England are liberal and which cities of England are conservative?

Your use of these terms in opposition suggests that you are from the U.S., where these terms refer roughly to "left-wing" and "right-wing" respectively. From a U.S. perspective, all but a tiny handful of Britons would be considered "liberal", so your question doesn't have much meaning. All English cities are liberal from a U.S. perspective. Marco polo (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

right wing and left wing france

Which part of France has been traditionally left wing stronghold (e.g. Socialist Party) and which part of France has been traditionally right wing stronghold (e.g. UMP, and its predecessors)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.151 (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The maps in the article French presidential election, 2007 should give you an idea. Also in the French wiki article there are some maps and a table "Analyse socioprofessionnelle" at the bottom of how different employment groups voted. Sussexonian (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

In recent years the east and north have voted conservative, while the more rural south and west are more left-wing.[5][6] However, 30 years ago things were a bit different with the industrial north-east and the area around Marseille (traditionally popular with immigrants and full of shipworkers) left-wing or even communist.[7][8] Lately Marseille seems to have gone more towards the National Front. --Colapeninsula (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Several of the Département d'outre-mer are traditional communist strongholds, such as Reunion, Martinique and Guadeloupe. Also, there are several municipalities in the north and north-east of the Paris region, that are communist strongholds, were you find schools and streets named after Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Marx, etc.. --Soman (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

French cities liberal and conservative

Which cities of France are liberal and which cities of France are conservative?

Your use of these terms in opposition suggests that you are from the U.S., where these terms refer roughly to "left-wing" and "right-wing" respectively. From a U.S. perspective, all but a tiny handful of Europeans would be considered "liberal", so your question doesn't have much meaning. All French cities are liberal from a U.S. perspective. Marco polo (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

How can I go about researching the Hobby Horse for an article I need to write on wikipedia for class?

Besides utilizing my school library and google, where else is good to look? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MYoung1030 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look at our Hobby horse (disambiguation) page and let us know what sort of hobby horse you would like to know about. Alansplodge (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Assuming you mean hobby horse, we already have an article on that. If you want to add to it, perhaps you could call toy stores and antiques dealers and see if any of them have one you can take a picture of, and then upload that picture to Wikipedia (which would require scanning, if it's a film picture). StuRat (talk) 02:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Leaving the euro

I'm seeing articles that Greece could leave the euro.[9] (Also mentioned at Greek_financial_crisis#Objections_to_proposed_policies) Question is... how does that work in practice? It seems to me that anyone in Greece, knowing the local currency would be destined to lose most of its value, would stick to using euros at all costs. So how do they switch? Wnt (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Whooo-hoo! Greece goes back on the dollar? Yeah! Helen never looked so good. USA! Dualus (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Helen was said to have weighed in the neighborhood of 200 pounds. However, that was Troy weight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe they would let people a chance to keep using the euro. They would declare a bank holiday and force convert all assets. Or simply introduce the new currency and start paying all civil servants in it. 88.9.210.218 (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Does this mean that right now Greeks are frantically moving their assets to offshore accounts? Wnt (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

[10] it has been happening for a long time, it's not like this is the first time the possibility of Greece leaving the Euro has been suggested. Edit: Rereading the article more carefully it highlights another issue, the Eurozone problems and the risk to Eurozone banks, even without considering Greece leaving, are itself a reason for some to get out. Nil Einne (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The new currency would only lose value if they print too much of it. Given the lack of discipline that led to the crisis in the first place, that's not unlikely, but there is nothing that forces it to happen. Looie496 (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Currency doesn't only lose value by printing too much of it. The new currency would lose value depending on the expectations regarding the Greek economy. And I'm pretty sure that they are bad. 88.9.210.218 (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed given their current situation it's difficult to imagine what's the point of (or how it would happen that) Greece leaving the Euro if it's going to remain the same value as the Euro. Nil Einne (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that leaving the Euro would be a disaster for Greece. If they pay their civil servants in drachmas, with little value (since they could not be backed by anything and people would have no faith in them), and everyone else continues to use Euros (either legally or on a black market, if made illegal), then civil servants would be paid less than everybody else and would eventually all quit. A similar situation exists in Cuba, where waiters who get tips in dollars do far better than doctors who are paid by the government. StuRat (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times before, e.g. Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 August 19#The Euro, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 June 21#Weak countries leaving the Euro - could it work at all?, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 September 7#Euro and the debt of others. As mentioned there, Argentine economic crisis (1999-2002)#End of convertibility perhaps has some lessons here. Nil Einne (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Another good historical example from S. America was Plano Real, the Brazilian plan to revamp its currency. Brazil's problem wasn't sovereign debt so much as inflation, but it does present a model of sorts for shutting down one currency and establishing a new one. --Jayron32 05:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I guess I should have looked! [11] was quite informative, for example. Wnt (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Wnt -- The "local currency [being] destined to lose most of its value" would be a bad thing for some people, but probably would be an overall good thing for the Greek economy as a whole, according to many economists. Right now, all the EU has to offer to Greece is perpetual austerity with no end in sight. Keeping Greece in the Eurozone requires continual bailouts and infusions of new money, but these expensive bailouts do almost nothing to improve the situation of ordinary people in Greece. By contrast, if Greece had a separate currency, it could take a short-term dose of bitter medicine, and then hopefully be in a position to start a good long-term recovery (as has happened to many nations in the past, including Argentina etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

In other words: all bank savings of the Greek people would become virtually worthless as they would be exchanged into the new Drachma, which would lose its value extremely quickly. Better withdraw every single euro before that happens and hide under the mattress (no Greek bank will be able to survive that). The same would happen to the salaries (of the people who still have a job); they would be paid in the new Drachma and as the hypothetical new currency is meant to be devalued on purpose the monthly salary may just become sufficient to by a loaf of bread. I believe that rampant inflation also hurts the economy. But yes, the Greek economy would survive. I'm not so sure about Greek democracy though. Flamarande (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Economics not being my strong suit, can anyone point me to a brief account in plain English of why Greece went down the tubes in the first place? From a reliable source, of course. Textorus (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Never mind, I found one on the Greek_financial_crisis page. Textorus (talk) 11:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A nice summary from the BBC: [12] Flamarande (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that helps too. Textorus (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I've commented on this kind of question before, but there are ways to control this process. If the process of imposing a new currency is not well-controlled, then you could have bank failures, a public repudiation of the new currency, hoarding, and other chaotic and harmful results. If the exit from the euro is forced and a plan is not in place, then various kinds of unpredictable chaos could result. However, one hopes that Greece's government is competent enough to have a backup plan, which would look something like this: 1) A bank holiday is declared without warning for the conversion to be put in place. Conversion could involve a temporary measure such as stamping euro notes while a replacement currency is printed and distributed. Internal debts and deposit accounts would be redenominated in the replacement currency at a 1:1 or some other rate of conversion. Of course, whatever the official conversion rate for depositors and creditors, the new currency will have a lower market value. 2) The Greek government declares a moratorium on debt service, with terms for creditors to be negotiated. 3) As needed, failing Greek banks are nationalized. 4) As soon as possible, banks are reopened, and depositors are allowed to withdraw a limited amount of funds per day in the new currency. 5) Conversion controls will be put in place limiting the amount of local currency that any individual may convert into euros currency. At first, the limit may be zero. 6) As the situation stabilizes, some controls may be lifted. The results of this process would include the following: People with savings inside Greece would find that they are worth much less. Imports would become dramatically more expensive, while Greek products would drop sharply in price outside of Greece. The result would be a sharp spur to the local economy, although wages and pensions would buy less than before. Greeks would buy local goods instead of imports wherever possible, imports would become unaffordable to many Greeks, Greek exports would jump, and Greece would become the new bargain tourism destination. Outside of Greece, the results would be less predictable. Initially, foreign banks would suffer, but few or none would fail because most have already written off much of their Greek assets. However, a Greek default and exit from the euro could destroy any remaining confidence in Spanish and Italian debt, and that could lead to bank runs and bank failures throughout Europe. It is almost impossible to predict how that process would play out. Marco polo (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is a relevant paper Checking Out: Exits from Currency Unions. I agree with AnonMoos & Marco Polo. The problem is that the Euro is an unworkable design, at least if the ECB keeps to its basic mission. Monetary union without fiscal union is impossible in the long run. It can only go on a long time because of the wealth of Europe. The Euro forces mass unemployment on the Euro nations and is bound to suffer an endless series of bailouts and eventually fail. Judging its by its fruits, the aim & consequence will be impoverishment of enormous numbers of Europeans & enrichment of its banks, and even more, its bankers. Returning to a new Drachma would have initial costs, specifically making essential imports unaffordable, but its foreign exchange value would be anchored by the value of Greek exports, including tourism. Staying on the Euro has enormous costs, and is a disaster for Greece already.John Z (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Letter bomb attacks against Alois Brunner

I'd like to know more details about the letter bomb attacks against Alois Brunner. Was the intention of the Mossad to kill or just to mane him? How could he fall into the same plot twice? Couldn't the Mossad have killed him instead of sending letter bombs? 88.9.210.218 (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The only way to know the intentions of a militarised government agency is to either accept the rare public announcements regarding that agency's intentions, or to wait until the archives are released and historians analyse them. As with the great Soviet history debacle, where "pre-archival" and "archival" work often have substantively different conclusions due to the suspect methods of anti-communist Sovietologists; I'd suggest that even "expert" speculation by academics regarding Mossad's intentions will be far less trustworthy than the results of research after the Mossad archives open. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what that means -- When Soviet archives were made partially available in the 1990s, it threw new light on many things, including Soviet spying in the U.S., and even verified many of the claims of Elizabeth Bentley (who had been considered by many to be a hysterical liar). AnonMoos (talk) 09:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to accept that in areas other than the ones I read, that new light was thrown on different phenomena. In the areas I read, mainly Soviet society, the hystericism of the 1950s and 1960s sovietology in the US wasn't borne out. Rather, the non-Americans, the non-sovietologists, the historians and sociologists generally had their depiction of soviet society confirmed. Fitzpatrick on administrative structures and advancement, for example, did much better than the various hermeneutics of dispatches. (What's even sadder is that it wasn't hard to correctly read data coming of central and eastern europe correctly, and the CIA readers got it right, and quite often published most of it.) Fifelfoo (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My Auntie Maim wants to know, does he have that ghastly a mullet? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

But, how can we know at all that it was the Mossad then? Couldn't it be any other Jewish/Polish/Dutch/Dane/whatever-Nazi-victims group? 88.9.210.218 (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Our article is reliant on Alois Brunner : La Haine Irreductible by Didier Epelbaum, January 1990; who seems to publish scholarship, but I'm not very good at the French system. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

November 3

Islamic New Year

How Prophet Muhammed PBUH used to celebrate the Islamic New Year the hijri new year? like eid ul fitr or different like doing a lot of prayers or something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.18.28 (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The first month of the year is sacred in Islam to allow pilgrims to return. I'm guessing family dinners. Dualus (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any hadith about the Islamic New Year. You may want to contact an ulama through a local mosque or Islamic center. Marco polo (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Becoming famous

How to become famous on facebook and youtube? --Toiuyty (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ask Fred Figglehorn. --Jayron32 04:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth pointing out that many times originality is needed, though, rather than there being any given "template for fame" that works for anyone. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait for your 15 minutes to roll around? -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Self-promotion. Lots of websites display amusing videos from the internet (see e.g. Viral video#Notable viral video sites, Social bookmarking, and social networks), and many take submissions or let users post links to videos they've found. Lots of people use Facebook and twitter for promotion; if you can get some famous people re-tweeting a link to your video, you've got it made. Warning: about 99.999% of videos on the internet are dull, and there are millions if not billions of videos online, so you do actually have to have something interesting going on. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit like jazz: if you have to ask, you don't understand it. If you show even the tiniest interest in becoming famous, then you at least currently are not exhibiting any of whatever it takes to actually be famous. Be less interested in being famous, and be more interested in making a difference and being of service. One day you might wake up and discover you're famous - but you may not like it as much as you think - or, you may be famous simply for being famous, which would be a fate worse than death because it would mark you as molecularly shallow. Or you may never be famous, but you might have a fabulous and rewarding and achievement-filled life anyway. Treat fame as the icing on the steak. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

downside of fame

Follow up question... do we have an article (or a section of an article) that discusses the potential down side of becoming famous on social media sites? Blueboar (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Fame sucks. Example: Epic Beard Man. He was happy doing his daily thing, living as an old retired Vietnam veteran. Then, he becomes famous. His phone rings constantly. Half the calls are from people who want to kill him. Half the calls are from people who want to worship him. He gets agents pestering him to represent his media engagements. Journalists write articles about him. They interview his family - and find out he was never in the military. He spent most of his life with Vietnam veterans as friends and now he is exposed as not being a veteran himself. He eventually has to have friends go shopping for him as he becomes a shut-in because he doesn't know if a walk down the street will result in someone wanting to fight with him or follow him around taking pictures. What did he get paid for all of it? Nothing. His "agents" claimed in an interview that I read a long time ago that there was some interest in a book, but that collapsed when it turned out he was a fake veteran. I know this is just one example, but even John, Paul, George, and Ringo have made many statements about how bad fame is. It is cute when it is new, but gets old very quick. -- kainaw™ 00:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Kainaw is of course refering two one of the participants in a 2010 AC Transit Bus fight/ Buddy431 (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Totally OR here, but I have found that anonymous people make a far bigger difference in the world than famous people. — Michael J 00:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it true that America won every major battle in the Vietnam War?

Topic says it all. ScienceApe (talk) 11:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The situation in Vietnam doesn't really lend itself well to a fairly binary question like this. Essentially the answer is, broadly yes for an arbitrary value of "won".

From a broader perspective you'd want to ask "did the engagement deliver the desired outcomes or results?" In that case you'd say no they didn't.

Vietnam was very much what we'd now describe as an asymmetric conflict. Campaign objectives were never going to be delivered through set piece battles.

ALR (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It depends on your definition of "major", "battle", and "won". For reference, see Category:Battles and operations of the Vietnam War. The USA/South Vietnam won most battles during the time the USA was there. However there were Viet Cong wins during that time, such as: Battle of Fire Support Base Ripcord, Battle of Pat To. Some battles were inconclusive: e.g. Operation Bribie, and it's hard to say who won the Tet Offensive - a tactical victory for the US but a strategic loss. After the US withdrew, the North won battles such as Battle of Phuoc Long. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The PLAF won a number of battles prior to 1964, and the PAVN won a number of battles subsequence to 1972. So it also depends on your definition of the Vietnam War. Also, and I can't reemphaise Colapeninsula enough here, the ARVN won quite a number of battles; and the Korean and Australian forces won a smaller number of battles. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't the military battles that led to the U.S. withdrawal (and ultimately to the collapse of the South Vietnam government). It was two other, ultimately more important things: 1) the political battle for the allegiance of the rural majority in Vietnam, and 2) frequent and repeated skirmishes and sporadic attacks that didn't amount to "battles" but that the Viet Cong certainly "won". When the United States recognized that it had lost the political battle, it had to recognize that there was no way to end the attacks and skirmishes that were destroying U.S. morale, without committing egregious war crimes that would offend U.S. and world opinion. That's when it was decided to withdraw. Marco polo (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The USA and its friends won a lot of major battles, but wasn't so successful on the guerrilla warfare front. HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that you could just about be describing our little adventure in Afghanistan. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Time to bring back John Wayne. HiLo48 (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, let's make a desert and call it peace. And make some kick-ass movies while we're at it. Yeehaw. Textorus (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Right. Maybe we need a sequel to Charlie Wilson's War? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

"You can kill ten of our men for every one we kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and we will win." Ho Chi Minh. See also our article on General William Westmoreland, the architect of the Body count strategy. Alansplodge (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

why does china have such little debt

i just read this article

http://www.news.com.au/national/aussie-taxpayers-shouldnt-have-to-rescue-eu/story-e6frfkvr-1226184375316

and am curious, but I want a short answer.

Why is their debt so relatively small compared to the GDP/debt of other (western) countries.

thanks Ballchef (talk) 12:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a debt expert myself, but one reason could be that PRC had dismal relationship with Western lenders for quite a long time. Once they initiated political relationship with the west, they had already built up a quite impressive industrial production oriented for exports. This puts the PRC in quite different position than most other third-world countries. Chinese_financial_system#External_debt has some info on current debt. --Soman (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

There are several reasons for this. 1) Until recently, China has had a rather rudimentary financial system that would not have been able to handle the financing of much debt. For reasons to do with national sovereignty, China has never had much interest in using foreign intermediaries to issue debt. 2) Very much unlike most English-speaking countries and most of the highly indebted European countries, China has for years maintained a large current account surplus. Therefore, unlike those countries, it has not needed to borrow money to finance imports. 3) China's government faces less pressure than democratic governments to spend more than it raises in taxes. Marco polo (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting! Thanks Soman and Marco! Ballchef (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Nor, going the other way, democratic pressure against raising taxes to pay for all the graft and corruption... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A couple of answers: Basically, its debt is not as small as it appears. The Chinese banking system is engaged in hidden, disguised fiscal policy, by issuing loans which are not repayable, making the banks themselves formally insolvent. But banks are in essence organs of the State, and they can continue being insolvent or solvent as long as the State wants them to, and then these loans are really part of the (internal) national debt. The real economic importance is - what are these loans, what is this spending for? In China, it is basically for things like new universities, new cities, new infrastructure. The USA does the same thing, but the loans, the disguised spending is for asset bubbles, speculation & basically making rich people richer. I think it is obvious which makes for a healthier economy. So judging degree of democracy by graft & corruption, China is far more democratic than the USA. Another answer is that the current account surplus Marco Polo alludes to is not really as big as it appears, it is not as much of a creditor nation as it appears to be. James K. Galbraith has some papers on the possibly bogus accounting of Chinese firms behind this.John Z (talk) 07:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The Chinese chose to liberalize foreign investment early in the reform period, which provided the hard capital the country needed to import food, machinery and other foreign inputs. Contrast this with Korea, where FDI was pretty tightly controlled, and the country borrowed for its foreign purchase needs. Different strategies. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Relationships and physical/cultural distance

There's one question that has entered my head...

Do many people (especially women?) prefer relationships with those who are from a different town, city, region or even country? I suppose it adds some novelty to it, rather than having people who have grown up in exactly the same area where there is no 'mystery' to it. Like, they may have a different accent, have had a different upbringing, etc. This adds to the romantic element of the relationship as it adds a level of 'specialness', the indulgence of romance.

Like for example if I was in my hometown, people may see things as just dull and routine and no place for finding a partner. But if I was on holiday and meeting people there in bars and so on it would be a better environment for it because of exaggerated behaviour in alien culture, a different environment is perfect for change, trying new people. I am male by the way.--It's a Cow! (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Some do, some don't. The problem with human beings is that they are infinitely variable; in other words, individuals. So no reliable statistics can be found to answer your question with. Rather than foreign-ness, believe it or not, your looks and personality have much more to do with romantic success than any other factor. Trust me on this. But just to prove it to yourself, try this simple experiment: go hang out at your local bar or pub one night and count how many girls hit on you. Then go to an out-of-town bar and do the same thing. Repeat the experiment on alternate weekends for six months, and then add up your totals to find out in which locality you are more likely to score. Textorus (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Not sure if that would always be a valid experiment... especially if you live in a small town. Prior familiarity could bias the results. In a small town, all the local women will probably already know you and your reputation (those around your age have probably known you since childhood). If you have a poor reputation, fewer local women will hit on you. On the other hand, when you go to an out of town bar or pub, your poor reputation will not have preceded you, and so more women may hit on you. It will work the other way as well... if you have a good reputation locally, you should find that the local women already think of you in a positive light, and will thus be more likely to hit on you than if you were a stranger.

That said, vacation spot hook-ups can be fun and exciting, and they occasionally do lead to lasting relationships... but on average they tend to be short term. The majority of people find lasting relationships and romance closer to home ... schools, work places, houses of worship, organizations related to an interest/hobby, places like that. Where vacation spots make the greatest impact is in moving an existing relationship into new stages of romance. The exotic/romantic setting can help reduce inhibitions that were holding back the relationship's growth. Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

And thus, since it works both ways as you just said, the only way for the OP to find out which locale works best for him is to get out of the house and try his luck in both places, right? Q. E. D.  :) Textorus (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm a woman and believe me a good-looking guy with a foreign accent will attract more attention from females than a good-looking guy with a local accent. Clothes also count.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

See what I mean? Looks are half the equation, at home or abroad. I can't imagine many of you ladies fawning over a stranger who looks like Michael Moore or Rupert Murdoch, even with a French accent.  :) Textorus (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Then again, there is the charisma factor which is not dependent upon looks. John Lennon and Mick Jagger are perfect examples of this phenomenon. Where I live in Sicily, the men adore foreign women (not so much as potential brides, but for casual relstionships), whereas the women overwhelmingly prefer their own men--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

See what I mean? Personality is the other half of the equation; cf. Bill Clinton.  :) Textorus (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Mystique (personality trait) redirects to charisma; I think it shouldn't. I don't think it's really a personality trait, either. Maybe it should redirect to fetishism, which might be what the OP has in mind, though that article seems to limit the concept to material objects, which also seems incorrect to me.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about modern statistics and romance, but there is a biological and historical basis for such a phenomenon, it's called exogamy and outcrossing. Increasing genetic diversity results in healthier populations in biology that are more likely to survive environmental changes that would have caused extinction in highly inbred populations. Customs like the incest taboo (which can extend from siblings only to distant cousins), bride kidnapping, and arranged marriages, among others, were/are very widespread cultural mechanisms to ensure this in human populations.

It is even more striking in other animals and plants, as they usually have very elaborate mechanisms to ensure they breed with the least related individuals if possible. Flowering plants have mechanisms to avoid self-pollination (timing or flower structure), sexual dimorphism ensures a constant internal natural selection (kind of like pitting two parts of the same species together to evolve a stronger whole by requiring each participant to contribute different parts of their genetic makeup with certain conditions; in this case the males are the "accessory gender", see Red Queen's Hypothesis), breeding grounds and timed mating seasons ensure populations still come back together to contribute to the species' gene pool no matter how far they may migrate to find food, social animals often force related male offspring to leave groups once they reach breeding age to prevent inbreeding (or else do not contain males at all, like in elephant matriarchies), females can be predisposed to be attracted to itinerant males (as in meerkats) or new arrivals to groups, only one male and female pair may be allowed to reproduce (the alpha male and female which are also oftentimes the parents of the entire group, as in wolves and marmots), etc.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

There are some built in assumptions to the question asked. I'm not sure if they are reasonable assumptions. The original question for instance says, "there is no 'mystery' to it", and "This adds to the romantic element", and "it adds a level of 'specialness', the indulgence of romance." Is it in fact established that the element of "mystery" enhances romance or intimacy? Bus stop (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The article says that romance (love) is a "feeling of mystery" and that there is emphasis on the emotion of intimacy. This doesn't mean that mystery (surrounding a person) and intimacy enhance each other, though. Petrarch seems to know very little about the Laura with whom he was obsessed, apart from that she had nice hair and at least one lovely foot. Likewise Dante only met Beatrice Portinari twice. They are basically stalking, and the objects of their affections are nearly imaginary. In contrast to this there is Sonnet 130 where Shakespeare talks about his mistress's wiry hair and stinky breath, and claims this doesn't put him off at all, although she sounds mundane and unmysterious.  Card Zero  (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

CZ, have you never longed for someone you could not have? The poets are "stalking" only in the sense that marriage is legalized prostitution, as some people have been known to claim: a gross exaggeration and misuse of the term. Also - Shakespeare does not mean that his mistress has stinky breath, etc.; he is clearly speaking facetiously, which is precisely what makes the poem so charming. Readers in this technology-worshipping age are so very literal-minded. Sad. Textorus (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Alaska, United States and Canada

Why did United States buy Alaska from Russia and etc as opposed to Canada buying it? Espcecially, giving it location. This is not the first time that I have thought about this, but it is the first time that did something about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 15:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

In 1867, Canada was only just constituted as an entity, and still was a British colony. Britain and Russia were not on the warmest terms, and indeed, one of the reasons Russia sold Alaska was for fear of losing it to Britain anyways. See Alaska Purchase. Also, of course, Canada has all the frozen waste it needs, and to spare (remember that Canada is slightly bigger than the US including Alaska, but has only about 10% of the population). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Russia had recently been at war with the UK (in the Crimean War), while Russia and the USA were allies (Russia supported the North in the US Civil War). --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The US was concerned about coming into conflict with Russia on the west coast -- if I recall correctly, Russia had sent expeditions as far south as Oregon. The US was not really interested in Alaska at that time, but was interested in keeping the Russians from moving south. Russia, on the other hand, was concerned about being overextended -- even in Siberia their presence was very light. So both of them had motives for making a deal. Looie496 (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, refreshing my memory, the Russians made it a good bit farther -- they established a colony at Fort Ross, California, right next to San Francisco Bay -- the Russian River derives its name from that colony. The colony was sold in the 1840s, but it still was a worrisome precedent. Looie496 (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

--Jessica A Bruno 21:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Thank you for all of your answers to my question here. All of them were interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 21:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

For some more context, see Maritime Fur Trade. The Alaska Panhandle always struck me as an anomaly, unlike the longer division between the US & Canada, the 49th parallel. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, I'm always pleased to see Maritime Fur Trade mentioned. I think that page is the best thing I've ever done on Wikipedia! Pfly (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The Alaska panhandle makes perfect sense when you consider the money which was to be made off of fishing, which was a HUGE industry, and likely a major part of the value of Alaska. Many of the settlements on the Panhandle were Russian, and so "part of the deal", see Sitka for one example; such sites were (and still are) major salmon fisheries, not to mention the logging and fur trade in such places. The Panhandle was probably the most important part of the purchase, economically speaking; the bulk of the mainland of Alaska is basically worthless artic wastes which Russia dumped on the U.S. as part of the deal along with the more valuable coastal areas. That's why the Alaska boundary dispute centered on the Panhandle, both the Russia/the U.S. and Canada had a LOT to lose or gain depending on how the boundary was drawn there. The Panhandle was considered so important to Alaska that the eventual capital, Juneau ended up there. It's easy in modern times to tend to think of places in terms of the land they occupy; for most of history, however, the coastal areas and rivers were far more important; nations evolved along (and fought over access to) coasts and rivers far more often than interior lands, see Thalassocracy for some background on the development of states based on waterbodies rather than lands. --Jayron32 20:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

As others have basically said, the long and short of it is that Russia didn't want Britain/Canada to acquire Alaska, so the offer was not extended to them. As for the panhandle, it had been defined long before the Alaska Purchase. Britain/Canada had controlled the interior ("New Caledonia") since the early 19th century. Russia controlled the maritime coast down to 54-40 (the current boundary between Alaska and British Columbia). There was a short-lived, saber-rattling attempt by Russia to claim the coast down to about the northern end of Vancouver Island. That attempt resulted in treaties cementing 54-40 as the southern boundary. Fort Ross was an anomoly, and one which all sides knew could not be duplicated or expanded upon. Pfly (talk) 06:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, the Alaska Boundary Dispute centered on the panhandle not just because it was the most important region, but also because its boundary was the least well-defined. The northern boundary was unambiguously defined as the 141st meridian west. The panhandle's boundary was much less clear, as the Alaska Boundary Dispute page describes. Pfly (talk) 06:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the further context, Pfly and Jayron. So the interior of Alaska used to be called "New Caledonia" -- I always thought that was that part of France stuck in the West Pacific, inhabited by Kanak people, not to be confused with Canucks, nor with Acadians in the other Canadian New Scotland. How etymology makes (armchair) travellers of us all! BrainyBabe (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

3 questions about Charles Francis Adams, Jr.

Hello learned ones ! I translated Charles Francis Adams, Jr. into french (& BTW thanks awfully for the text), but I still wonder :

1/ I couldn't find where CFAJr pronounced his 1913 adress "'Tis 60 years since" on Founders' Day. I assumed it was at Harvard. Right ?

2/ I found only one source saying he was lieutenant colonel of the 5th US Colored Cavalry. Is it true ?

3/ As for the book written in 1965 by Edward C. Kirkland Charles F. Adams, Jr.: The Patrician at Bay (which I have no hope whatsoever to get here in France) does the enticing title infer that CFAJr has been cornered (in monetary or judiciary domains, which could occur, since he was also a wealthy businessman) - or that he conceived bays (i.e. railroad branch-lines) ?

Thanks a lot beforehand for your answers .T.y. Arapaima (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

To answer #3: "At bay" has nothing to do with railroads. It means he was cornered, like a pursued animal. Textorus (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Metaphorically, it means "rendered harmless" or "put on the defensive". This may have to do with his work attempting to regulate rail firms, in which he faced opposition from various parties. Marco polo (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(2) He's not listed on this "Complete Roster". I'm a bit intrigued by Elvira Adams though. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Number 1: The speech was at the University of South Carolina in Columbia on January 16, 1913.--Cam (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I should note that in this context Founders' Day refers to a holiday specific to that university (near the anniversary of its founding).--Cam (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding #2: List of United States Colored Troops Civil War units has 6 "colored" cavalry units listed, only the 5th has an article. He could have served in another. However, in the Civil War, most regiments were organized geographically, and the 5th United States Colored Cavalry was organized in Kentucky; it would have been somewhat unusual for a Massachusetts officer to serve in it. Maybe he served in one of the other cavalry units. --Jayron32 04:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

According to this list, there is a Charles F. Adams Jr. listed for the 1st Massachusetts Cavalry, and a Charles F. Adams (no Jr.) listed for the 5th Colored Cavalry. There are also numerous other Charles F. Adams entries and many Charles Adams (no middle initial) listed. It is entirely unclear how many of these entries refer to the Charles F. Adams, Jr. we are interested in here. --Jayron32 04:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This book I found on Google Books says that he was a brevet brigadier general in command of the 5th Massachusetts Cavalry, which was a unit of African American troops. This appears to be a different unit than the 5th Colored Cavalry. That may be the source of confusion. --Jayron32 04:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks awfully to all ! T.y., Arapaima (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Jewish law

Jewish law prohibits doing all sorts of things on the Sabbath, but what if someone's life is in danger? Are Jews required to let him/her die in order to avoid working on the Sabbath? --70.134.52.4 (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Pikuach nefesh#Shabbat and holidays addresses this question. Bus stop (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

One way to look at it is what I've heard/seen referred to as the "greater sin" rule. It may be a sin to violate the Sabbath, but it's a greater sin to endanger human life. In contrast, Jesus was presumably only healing on the Sabbath, not lifesaving, hence the temple pooh-bahs objected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

"...whosoever preserves a single soul..., scripture ascribes [merit] to him as though he had preserved a complete world." Talmud, Sanhedrin 37a.[13] Alansplodge (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If 'working' is really so imperative as to save lives then surely it will not be regarded as work at all -- more 'emergency measures' such as repairing a dyke or defending your village from marauding brigands. And if you've gotta pick a zucchini for use in your dinner, well picking just one isn't really work now is it. In fact you might be able to get away with picking two or three before the full force of the law comes crashing down on your head. Vranak (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think picking zucchini would be considered reaping. Bus stop (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the rules prohibit cooking on the Sabbath, among a very long list of other things. Textorus (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Unbelievable! What about eating? Vranak (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that's why they make ovens. --Sean 19:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. Is it just me or are these kinds of arcane restrictions totally neurotic? I mean, what's the point of avoiding these things? How is a man expected to profit -- spiritually or otherwise -- from not lighting fires on the Sabbath? Vranak (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Presumably by devoting his thoughts to God instead of to worldly things for one day of the week, but I'm no expert. You probably would need to ask an Orthodox rabbi to get a good answer to that question. But note that other branches of Judaism do not necessarily follow all these rules. Other religions have their own rules which may seem odd to outsiders: e.g., abstaining from meat on certain days (Catholicism), abstaining totally from alcohol (Islam), males never cutting their hair (Sikhism), etc., etc.

Vranak, the "profit" is mostly stored up for the world to come, but there are some benefits in this life too. Ask most Orthodox Jews, men, women, children, even women in very traditional roles and they'll mostly tell you it's the best day of the week, by far. --Dweller (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

wikifying Fasting and abstinence in the Roman Catholic Church which has a redirect from Meatless Friday, but not Meatless Fridays or Friday penance; Haraam and Islamic dietary laws which latter has a rediect from Islamic prohibition against alcohol but not Islamic prohibition on alcohol or Islamic prohibition of alcohol; Kesh (Sikhism), which is one of the 5 Ks. Uncut hair in Sikhism might be a handy redirect? 86.163.1.168 (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the prohibition against lighting fires on Shabbat is specifically mentioned in the Torah (Exodus 35:3), so it's been a Jewish tradition for quite a long time. Part of the pull of religion is doing something that one's biological or adoptive ancestors have done since time immemorial. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It occurs to me that that is a very equal-opportunity prohibition: it would give the women (who tended the hearth and cooked everything from scratch for the family, daily) a day of rest from their labors, just like the men rested from theirs. Textorus (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, it gives them half again as much work on Friday and Sunday. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Damn, it's a man's world after all, isn't it?  ;) Though actually, I don't see how Sunday would be different from any other day of the week. Friday, she would have to make extra food to cover the Sabbath - but when you're already used to making family-sized batches of stuff from scratch, it's not that much work to make an extra loaf of bread and save some leftovers in a pot for one day, I suspect. Textorus (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Not only is it not a sin, it's a mitzvah. The article Hatzolah may also be of interest. Hatzalah (spelled differently in different places) volunteer paramedic crews operate on Shabbat (and Yom Tov and receive special training in how to do so. --Dweller (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

November 4

Greek opinion polls?

Any links to Greek opinion polls (on party sympathies), from let's say the last month or so? --Soman (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Googling on "poll Greeks" brings this up as the fourth result. Textorus (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but that is a subscription service. Also, I'm not looking for attitudes regarding the bail-out deal, but party sympathies. I see references that Pasok has 14% support now, but can't find which opinion poll this refers to (would like to see how the other parties are faring as well). Greek language links would be ok. --Soman (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't subscribe to WSJ but the link comes right up when I click on it from the Google results. The relevant part you want from a poll published on Sunday, Oct. 30, is this:

The popularity of Greece's two major parties—the governing Socialist, or Pasok, party, and the center-right New Democracy opposition—continued to scrape lows, with Pasok commanding just 14.7% public support, and New Democracy just 22.2%. More than a quarter of Greeks, 26.5%, said they were undecided about who they would vote for if elections were held next week. But 55.2% said they would rather have Greece's political parties work together than have early elections.

Hope this helps. Textorus (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! But I curious how these development affect the other parliamentary forces, such as the left and LAOS. It seems there is an additional 36.6% of votes to be distributed. Does the WSJ state who did the poll? --Soman (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

With the numbers from the WSJ quote above, I found this link http://www.grreporter.info/en/majority_greeks_reject_decision_european_union/5352 --Soman (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool, glad I could help. Textorus (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Descendants of Cœur de Lion

The Daily Telegraph reports that the Viscounts St Davids are descended from Richard I. As Richard left only one son, Philip of Cognac, who died in his late teens/early twenties and left no issue, how is this possible? Textorus (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not, but it sure sounds good, doesn't it? Adam Bishop (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This obituary of the third Viscount (also from the Telegraph) mentions an ancestor fighting for Richard but nothing about being descended from him.--Cam (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The article says nothing about Philip having died without issue; it only says that his wife failed to produce offspring. Most young medieval men sired children out of wedlock prior to and after their marriages. A man in his late teens/early twenties would have likely left behind a byblow or two.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What Jeanne says does tend to be true for men from the aristocratic elite, largely because young women might hope to gain privilege or other rewards by sleeping with a nobleman. I don't think that young male commoners in the Middle Ages were as likely to find young women willing to risk pregnancy out of wedlock. Marco polo (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

And while that did happen sometimes, was there much to be gained from being impregnated by the bastard son of a dead king? Philip wouldn't have gained anything from it either. It seems extremely unlikely that he had any children, especially since there seems to be no other evidence for it. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Men normally don't think about anything beyond their own gratification whilst they are impregnating a woman. We really have no way of knowing whether or not he left descendants. Anymore than the average man today knows if he has any illegitimate children or not. I had a close friend who had her baby put up for adoption without the little boy's father ever being informed of his existance.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well that's rather a glib view of men, women, and history. In any case, if Philip had a child and didn't know about it, and no one else ever knew about it either, and we don't know about it either, isn't this effectively the same as if he never had any children at all? And we do have a very good way of knowing if he had any descendants: the actual material evidence tells us he didn't. All else is speculation, and that's fun, but why not consider all the possibilities? IF Philip was at least a teenager while Richard was still alive, he was still a bastard and not in line to inherit anything. Richard was not the most popular ruler, since he was always off fighting expensive wars (or getting captured and in need of expensive ransoms). If Richard was already dead, Philip and his own hypothetical bastard(s) certainly weren't in any position to get anything from John, or Eleanor, or anyone else for that matter. Who would want to have an illegitimate child with an illegitimate child? But maybe he raped someone; it's possible, but if he raped someone important that is the kind of scandal that would have been recorded, and if it was some random girl, how would we ever know? And this is all assuming that Philip has the leisure time to go around trying to impregnate people, even though he wouldn't have been living the spoiled, do-nothing life of a legitimate royal heir who is actually in line for the throne - and there are plenty of those in history (medieval or otherwise) who did go around seducing women, without leaving any children. It's entirely possible to have sex without impregnating anyone, then as now, whether the woman is willing or not, and even if she are willing and specifically trying to get pregnant. And especially then, even if he did manage to impregnate someone, it was a lot easier for the child to die young without leaving further descendants. But we don't even know when Philip himself was born or died. All we know is that he had a wife who died without children, with no other indication that he had illegitimate children with someone else. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What you say may be right, Adam, but the assumption that Philip, as a bastard, was just turned out of the house to fend for himself with no job and no prospects doesn't seem quite right, not necessarily so. Our article on Philip says that his father left him the castle of Cognac - and presumably, I would think, the surrounding lands and tenantry, which would have produced an independent income for the boy. Illegitimacy was not necessarily the same as degradation and poverty for the children of kings: Philip's illegitimate uncle Geoffrey was brought up with the rest of Henry II's children, and Richard made him Archbishop of York, a very high ranking post, indeed. And of course, the progenitor of the English line, William Conqueror himself, was a bastard. So there may well have been an aura of the royal about our boy Philip; and of course, history records many, many royal mistresses who made out like bandits for their, um, services to the Crown. Even if it was just a medieval one-night stand, an obliging wench would probably have gotten a few gold coins to tuck into her chemise - it was the age of chivalry and courtly manners (not that some royal guys didn't act behave like bastards, then as now). But of course, we can't prove a negative one way or the other, unless the Viscounts have a genealogy back through some unmarried mistress of Philip's that doesn't turn up in a google search. Would be interesting to know, though. Textorus (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Illegitimate offspring of royalty and the nobility were generally well-provided for as was the lucky girl's family; many royal mistresses were of the gentry or nobility themselves. In the case of Philip we will likely never know whether he left descendants or not; for that matter, we don't know if Richard had other (unrecorded) offspring.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for introducing me to the word "byblow", Jeanne. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I also learned that word today thanks to her. --Belchman (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You're both very welcome. This is where my avid reading of historical romances has paid off by having added such words as "byblow", "leman" and "wanton" to my vocabulary!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I've heard it said that the surname Carlyon is derived from Cœur de Lion. Whether that began through true heredity or through some other means I don't know. HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Some if not all instances might be locational surnames derived from the two places in Great Britain formerly called Caerleon, or from Carlisle. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.58 (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Surely the way to settle this is to access the St Davids' pedigree? I have tried to access Burke's Peerage online but I get a 404 message. Perhaps it's available through a library. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Scrub that, it's not going to help - I found this which indicate it's of recent creation. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC) I've also found this which as a forum may be a better place for this query. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

How interesting. The obituaries cited at thepeerage.com say that the late Viscount also held five separate baronies, one of which goes back to 1299 - just a century after Coeur de Lion's death. So maybe there is a connection somehow, albeit with a bar sinister. Not curious enough to seach any futher for it, but thanks for the tip. Textorus (talk) 11:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

How are statutes of limitations good for the people?

How are statutes of limitations good for the people? How is not punishing illegal behavior just because it occurred too many times around the sun before it got found out good? Please don't tell me "See Statute of limitations," I did. Just please give me a to-the-point example of why it would be bad to categorically say that it's impossible to prosecute a case that had perfectly fine evidence yesterday but not today without even leaving the opportunity for cases that have nothing but nothing wrong with the evidence?

From Statute of limitations with my counters in italics:

One reason is that, over time, evidence can be corrupted or disappear, memories fade, crime scenes are changed, and companies dispose of records. Yes, things can dilute evidence, but that shouldn't invalidate cases where all the evidence still is good The best time to bring a lawsuit is while the evidence is not lost and as close as possible to the alleged illegal behavior. Well, the best thing is for crimes not to happen at all, but we take what we get in life. Again, this shouldn't allow us to categorically invalidate cases where nothing is lost. And now that the crime is known about, what's the good in arbitrarily assigning a duration of time prescriptively to how close is 'as close as possible' when people are wanting justice for things such as rape, arson, murder (in Japan after 25 years), for instance? Another reason is that people want to get on with their lives and not have legal battles from their past come up unexpectedly. The injured party has a responsibility to quickly bring about charges so that the process can begin. Yet again, people who do want to see the state administer justice shouldn't lose their opportunity just because some other people hold a different outlook 20.137.18.53 (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

As the header clearly says, this isn't a place for debates. However I will say clearly different people will have different views and if you think only your view is the correct one you're not going to get anywhere. Nil Einne (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree the topic is one that could easily arouse emotions, but if I am ignoring some objective reason(s) why it would be good to have statutes of limitations in all cases of a given type of crime instead of taking it on a case-by-case basis, I'd like to know what that/those reason(s) is/are. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It originated at a time where the primary evidence consisted of witness-statements. And as such if a case was reopened after a certain period of time, the accuracy of witnesses could not be deemed trustworthy. However with the development of forensic evidence, specifically DNA, it does seem like cases could be made in a lot of instances after the statute of limitation. I guess the main reason to introduce this was probably to alleviate the pressure on an already strained justice system. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I can accept the practical if not ideal issue you point out of making a cut-off because the system isn't believed to be able to handle the volume of cases that would come in without the cut-off more than the reasons given from the Wikipedia article that I quoted above. Sacrificing justice for some being the price to pay to avoid delaying everyone's day in court by possibly years or more. Thanks.20.137.18.53 (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be missing the point it's not just about delays (which can probably be partially alleviated by increasing resources spent) but also about whether it's an effective use of resources to prosecute someone for some historic crime, particularly if it's low level offence. Note that even in your hypothetical but unexplained case by case basis, presumably you still need to investigate to some extent to decide whether it's one case worth prosecuting. Remember money and time doesn't come out of thin air. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well a simple example: You said 'Yet again, people who do want to see the state administer justice shouldn't lose their opportunity just because some other people hold a different outlook' but you seem to be ignoring the fact it's a binary (if we ignore things like sentence time). Either the state administers justice or it doesn't. If it does, then those who want to see justice or say it's unfair on the victim will say that's wrong. If it doesn't then those who consider it a waste of the governments resources, unfair to alleged perpetrators, not helping perpertrators reform and get on with their lives, may be even damaging to any victims, etc will say it's wrong. Your initial statement suggests you only think the first parties matter. (You now say on a case by case basis but you don't seem to have considered how this works. A national vote for every person past the statute of limitations? Randomly selecting people who will be prosecuted past the statute of limitations to try to please both those who want to see the state administer justice and those who disagree? ) Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The reason we have laws in the first place, is to protect the individual from the abuses of the government. Laws exist to protect YOU, (yes, YOU OP 20.137.18.53). People, in their analysis seem to always think about the law as pertaining to OTHER people, as if no one is ever falsely accused. Well people are falsely accused A LOT. So tell me 20.137.18.53, how wonderful and fair a system do you think it would be if some snot nose decided to accuse YOU of molesting them, 25 years ago. How exactly would you go about defending yourself of that charge? Isn't it a bit obvious now, the answer to your question? Greg Bard (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ex post facto?

By the way, do limitations on ex post facto laws affect the statute of limitations? Like, if the legislature decides that due to DNA evidence certain rape cases can be tried even 35 years after the fact where there's physical evidence, can they simply pass such a law and go after the culprits? Wnt (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional in the US. In the case of new technology, there doesn't have to be a new law permitting each and every advance in the field of forensics. They are already permitted for in the law, as far as courtroom procedures are concerned. The crime itself is separate and distinct (and therefore the statutes of limitations on them) from any methods we use to discover the culprits. Greg Bard (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are a couple of reliable legal sources that address all the concerns heretofore raised in this thread:

• • "Statutes of Limitations" in Criminal Law and Procedure, Ronald J. Bacigal, 2008. (law textbook)
  • "Statutes of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview," Congressional Research Service, 2007. (page 1 has a nice overview of the general topic)

Textorus (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! The FAS link (though I don't know why they'd have it) is clear that the statute of limitations can be extended retroactively unless it has expired, oddly enough. Wnt (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Textorus (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the idea is that if a crime isn't that severe, then it may just be for the good of everyone to let past crimes slide and focus more on the present. Another idea is that if a crime was really that egregious, then surely it would have be brought to the attention of the appropriate authorities long ago. Perhaps the powers that be want to discourage people from holding onto secret knowledge until the time is right and then exposing a crime, which is maybe not such kosher behaviour since it carries the idea that a crime isn't worth reporting until there's some potential profit margin for the person bringing it to light. Vranak (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, if a crime is not investigated promptly, it's far more difficult to get a complete and accurate history of what happened (people forget, evidence is spoiled, etc...). Without a good understanding of what happened, the possibility of a miscarriage of justice is far higher. SDY (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The roots of statutes of limitations go all the way back to ancient Hebrew law, believe it or not. The concern was over vengeance, where the victims of a crime and their relatives might pursue vengeance well out of proportion to the severity of the original crime, even visiting it on family members or descendants. This vendetta mindset was considered more damaging to the society than the crime itself. In Hebrew law - if I remember the details correctly - a criminal could flee his homeland to another city, and the victim and his family were forbidden to pursue him there. Then after a certain amount of time had passed (25 years in the case of murder, I think) he could return home (a very important principle in ancient judaic philosophy) and the victim and his relatives were forbidden from reprisals. This ideal gradually mutated - the state took control of the punishment of criminals and formalized the ideal that justice should be a balance between reparations to the victims and the interests of civil society (including those of the perpetrator).

Unfortunately (in the US anyway) there's been a push towards more and more severe punishment (the state becoming a proxy for vengeance due to political pressure, rather than an instrument of justice). too bad… --Ludwigs2 16:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Ludwigs2's notes on ancient Hebrew attitudes towards assylum, see Cities of Refuge for the cities he mentions. --Jayron32 16:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Our Supreme Court has held:

The purpose of a statute of limitations is to limit exposure to criminal prosecution to a certain fixed period of time following the occurrence of those acts the legislature has decided to punish by criminal sanctions. Such a limitation is designed to protect individuals from having to defend themselves against charges when the basic facts may have become obscured by the passage of time and to minimize the danger of official punishment because of acts in the far-distant past. Such a time limit may also have the salutary effect of encouraging law enforcement officials promptly to investigate suspected criminal activity. Toussie v. United States, 397 U. S. 112, 114-115 (1970)[14]

The example of child molestation is poor example as there is no statute of limitations for child molestation in certain states such as Florida, Mississippi, Texas, New York, New Jersey and Michigan. We are now also seeing a DNA exception to the statute of limitations in some states such as California. Where the identity of the defendant is conclusively established through DNA evidence, there will be no barring of the proseuction by the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations in Pennsylvania for the rape of a minor is when the minor reaches 50 years of age. The legislative trend is to expand or eliminate the statute of limitations for child molestation. That was not a good example. As for how ex post facto laws impact the statute of limitations, they do, but if prosecution was still possible at the time of the extension, the prohibition against ex post facto laws does not apply. Only in those cases where the statute of limitations had run will a later extension not include those crimes. Gx872op (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The Texas judge currently in US news who can easily be seen and heard beating his daughter on video (which evidence was not withered by time) and will not be prosecuted due to statutes of limitations is what brought on this question. As for what I was saying that I accept the idea of the strain on the legal system being more of a valid reason for making a cut-off than the nebulous notion that some people want to forget about it or that in some cases (to some people) it's not worth the effort, the end result of a cut-off may be the same, but at least the former is motivated out of impartial necessity, while the latter is favoring one group of humans' outlook. Note that in this specific case, I acknowledge that knowingly sitting on the evidence helps to hold up the statute of limitations ruling. But what if someone else had caught this video if it were done outside (or even if the judge himself had recorded it unbeknownst to her) and held onto the video and cruelly given it to her the day after the limitation had run out?20.137.18.53 (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The primary moral issue here is protecting citizens from false accusations, and false prosecutions. Court case load or "strain on the legal system" is a ZERO priority as far as moral justice is concerned, and that argument has no place. In direct answer to your last question about someone cruelly withholding evidence... it's terrible, and too bad, however in the scheme of things the truth is that A) <shocking>we don't have to punish every single criminal for civilization to remain intact</shocking>. B) It is better to have 100 guilty people go free than have 1 innocent person be wrongly punished. C) Just having the video evidence, and not being able to prosecute actually makes some justice possible, in that now the world knows, and can judge the judge for themselves. His reputation suffers accordingly. As far as the cruel withholding is concerned, there is no way to differentiate that person from someone who just didn't think the video was anything special or meaningful and just put the recording aside and forgot about it innocently. The truth is that, in that case, it's just a bonus that we should be grateful for.Greg Bard (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

But the issue isn't just about 'moral justice' but what's the best overall outcome. I don't know whether this is much of a concern re:statute of limitations, but whether prosecutions for offences are an efficient use of resources (which may include the investigation & court costs & time and the cost of any punishments handed out) are a commonly discussed issue including by lawmakers. The resources can to some extent be boiled down to time and money (some would say time is money but from a societies POV, time is limited by population so if you need more of your population-time on criminal justice, you're taking it away from elsewhere). Since no society has unlimited resources, there is always going to be the question of where to direct those resources. So in criminal law, the question of whether spending the resources to achieve some idea of 'moral justice' (or whatever) as opposed to other things, like reducing the chance of injustice in the first place is an obvious one. And this is ignoring the possibility the resources you spend on certain prosecutions which may have limited benefit even if they are successful (which again may be a big if) will in fact reduce the chance of a quick or successful prosecution in other cases where the 'injustice' is seen as greater. Nil Einne (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow. First of all the moral priority is, well, morality. I am always surprised when I run into someone like this who places no value on morality, but then I ask why am I so surprised. What the "best outcome for all" is, is a matter of interpretation, an interpretation of what is the utilitarian thing to do. Utility isn't a moral value, it is a name we give to a collection of results, and does not involve any actual real moral principles, just consequences. I could easily take a utilitarian approach that supports my view: i.e. the "best outcome for all" is to make sure to respect the rights of the accused because that is the moral priority, and upholding moral priorities has it's own consequences. The judiciary has been underfunded traditionally. There are all kinds of systemic political reasons for that, and they are all, in reality, lower priorities than supporting our judiciary so as to ensure "justice for all." That is the reality. I don't have to pretend about it. The case load of the judiciary is a ZERO priority, as I have already stated, insofar as the moral priority is concerned (and for those who are morally unreflective, the moral priority is ALWAYS the real priority). Overburdened courts and police can NEVER be a reason for taking some action or not taking some action, insofar as institutionalizing a principle of law is concerned. If statutes of limitations being abolished had the effect of (somehow) relieving the caseload, that still would not be a reason to do it. The reason to have statutes of limitations is to protect the accused. Period. If somehow the overburdened courts and police was a reason to do anything, wouldn't it be a reason to properly fund them in the first place?!? Greg Bard (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Long time later so I won't reply in depth except to point out once again that resources are not infinite. 'properly fund' meaning funding them to pursue cases even when the benefit of doing so is unclear means resources may be diverted from elsewhere where they will have a greater benefit. For example, if rather then pursing someone who has no more children, is not going to have any more children and may have even learnt to accept what they did was wrong and have a good relationship with the children they abused you use those resources to fund greater intervention to stop new children from being abused, there's no reason why this has to be seen as 'immoral'. (Note that these may not be the case here, and don't apply to the statute of limitations per se since in such cases there is no discretion based on the facts of the case, but they do apply to the general point namely why use of resources may be considered.) Of course child abuse may not be a great example to use here anyway as it's a more extreme crime, but there are plenty of lower level crimes where this is clearer. Speaking of lower level crimes, there is also a belief in some circles that the burden of knowing you are at risk at any time is a punishment of sorts. You claim that the burden on the courts and associated parts of the criminal justice system like the police can never be a reason, yet this ignores the fact I already pointed out, it is often a reason, your personal dislike for it not withstanding. I don't know where you come from, but in many countries the police will simply not investigate some lower level crimes because they lack the resources. Plea bargains and agreements to plead guilty are made not simply because the prosecutor isn't convinced they will win in court or that they may get a longer sentence, but also because they recognise sometimes it's better to accept a less outcome if the outcome is good enough rather then bringing every possible case to court with all the resources that requires. Cases where the prosecutor and other relevant parties like the attorney general or whoever is responsible believe there is a some (but far from definite) chance of winning in court may not be brought if the odds aren't that great and the actual crime is minor yet the prosecuting the case may devote a large amount of resources. In many countries, this is going on all the time, whether or not you personally believe it should happen is besides the point. In the US, here BTW are some examples where increasing the burden on courts is discussed as one of the reasons not to do something [15] [16] [17]. Here is one where shifting the burden [18] is suggested. This one discusses the fiscal impact of a law which will in some cases increase the statute of limitations (and other things) [19] [20]. (The later actually says the cost increase may be minimal to the courts but may be not for the prosecuting.) While there's no guarantee the lawmakers involved have any consideration to the report which may have been required by the rules of the body involved, one of the reasons why such reports are made and required is because lawmakers do consider fiscal implications of the laws they make. Note that this doesn't mean that the priorities and decisions are necessarily right, there is often a lot of debate over that. But ultimately that's a matter of opinion and not something the RD is intended to deal with. And I thought I made clear none of this relates to my personal opinion on these matters which I've attempted (and I think mostly succeeded) in avoiding expressing my personal opinions, simply in explaining the multitude of reasons why such priorities and decisions are made. P.S. Note that I never said the efficient use of resources was a major consideration when it comes statute of limitations, in fact I made it clear I wasn't sure if it got much consideration at all in that case, I simply pointed out it is something considered in many cases including when it comes to prosecutions. Nil Einne (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In any just society with rules to maximize justice, those exact same rules will also, by necessity, also cause (sometimes grave) miscarriages of justice in certain cases. That doesn't mean that the rules have no purpose, or should not exist. A similar problem to what 20.137 notes is the laws prohibiting double jeopardy. Such laws exist to prevent the state from vexatious prosecution by repeatedly bringing the same charges over and over even if there is little or no chance of a guilty verdict. However, the same law also allows that, sometimes, a guilty person will 'get off' and be immune from being punished for that same crime, no matter how heinous. Such a person could literally confess to the crime and describe exactly how they did it immediately after the conclusion of their trial, and suffer no prosecution for that crime. Society has decided that such a thing happening is, on the balance, less destructive to society than would be the problem of vexatious prosecution, and so laws against double jeopardy exist. Similarly, laws exist to prevent evidence gained through unethical, immoral, or illegal means from being admissible in court, even when such evidence would be very damning against the defendant. That is to discourage police and prosecutors from using unscrupulous tactics to gain such evidence; again abuses by the state against possibly innocent people are seen as worse than a guilty person evading punishment for their crimes. It is the same here with statutes of limitations. --Jayron32 17:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

'while the latter is favoring one group of humans' outlook' - seems to prove my first point. Since as has been explained, as is obvious, ultimately the law can only be in favour of one 'outlook', this suggests you are convinced your 'outlook' is the correct one and are unwilling to accept not everyone agrees with you. If there was no statute of limitations because 20.137.18.53 doesn't think there should be one, then the law is still 'favoring one group of humans' outlook', it's just that you're saying it's okay because it's your outlook. P.S. Just to be clear, I'm not saying any specific view on the statute of limitations is right or wrong, simply that there are plenty of reasons why people may feel one way or the other on the matter, and as with most things, if you automatically reject someone else's arguments as wrong because you disagree with them, you're not getting anywhere. Nil Einne (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

To the original poster: rather than discussing in the abstract how the statutes could be good for "the people", whatever that is, let's talk about how they could potentially be good for you. They could be good for you because you might someday be accused of something. That would cause you serious negative consequences whether the accusation is true or not, and whether you are convicted or not. Perhaps the prosecution's case, if brought on the basis of evidence involving fading memories and such, would not stand up, but it would still harm you to have it brought at all.

So the statutes say that, after a time that is likely to have rendered evidence unreliable, we bar prosecution. This protects you from having ambiguous evidence from long ago used to bring a case against you. Against this, you have to weigh the value of being able to bring cases based on more solid evidence against the unambiguously guilty. I am not saying whether the current statutes strike the correct balance, but I think you have to remember that, just because an accused person is not convicted, does not mean that person is not harmed. --Trovatore (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Curse of the Hope diamond

Regarding the curse of the Hope diamond, is it true that the Smithsonian's fortunes have been increasing while the United States' have been in decline? Dualus (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

According to Google News, Smithsonian set record attendance last year. It is well known that the U.S. economy has been suffering for the last 10 years. -- kainaw™ 19:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

However, setting record attendance records is only one possible measure of success. That doesn't necessarily mean they are a financial success or considered to be a quality museum. StuRat (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if the indirect advertising via Bones (TV series) has helped? HiLo48 (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the term for the verve/initiative/morale/spirit of a group of soldiers that was considered the most important factor in who won or lost a battle, rather than real strategy?

I used to hear it a lot, but it's completely left my head. I don't even know if it's a whole truth or one of those mythical attributes applied to commanders in the middle ages, and British officers in ww1. It would be phrased like " Commander X was confident that the ______ of his troops would win the day" Bewhatever (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the word is just morale, but sometimes the french term esprit de corps (lit "spirit of the body", better translated as "spirit of the group") is used. --Jayron32 19:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Or you might be thinking of their élan. Textorus (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It's élan. Thank you so much! I was going crazy from frustration.Bewhatever (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Textorus (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Soldiers were often enjoined to be "men of pluck and dash". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

When I pluck and dash, my wife complains. She wants me to stay around and cuddle for a while afterwards. --Jayron32 23:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Women often fall for dashing pluckers. Textorus (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The pheasant plucker™? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Are we all getting in early for Thanksgiving? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Espirit d' corps? Greg Bard (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Aka Esprit de corps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.58 (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that another similar term is 'fighting spirit'. Flamarande (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Sky Pilot, how high can you fly......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Do we ever apply terms like that to our enemies? HiLo48 (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Analysis of opposing force morale as a decisive factor is often conducted by military intelligence. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Depends on who you mean by "we", the media and general public generally wouldn't. Professional military do. As observed it's also an element of assessing the combat effectiveness of an opposing force.

ALR (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I was partly thinking of the Japanese "fighting spirit" in WWII. It was rarely doubted, but I cannot imagine anyone using the term élan to describe it. It seemed to be largely based on a love of the Emperor. HiLo48 (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

On Google Books, I found only one use of élan applied to Japanese forces during WWII, in a U.S. War Department handbook. As opposed to Japanese "élan vital," which is a different concept. I didn't try to perform an exhaustive search; but my sense is that military élan is a complimentary term, more likely to be used about one's own or an ally's troops than of the enemy's. Textorus (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

2nd Indian Mutiny

My late father once mentioned that he was in India after WW2 finished, and took part in a strike, which he referred to as a second Indian Mutiny. He quoted this as the reason he didn't claim his medals and wouldn't buy a poppy. I have been unable to find any detail on this, and wonder if someone out there can help me with this. Thank you. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Could it have been the Royal Air Force Mutiny of 1946? Textorus (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

More likely the Royal Indian Navy mutiny, which was more far-reaching. --Soman (talk) 06:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Textorus, you're probably spot on because he was a RAF wireless operator. Thank you. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. BTW, you might be able to order your dad's service record from the War Office, or whatever it is they call it nowadays. I just saw an episode of Who Do You Think You Are? on youtube where someone did just that. Textorus (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The National Archive

ALR (talk) 10:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my father's records are kept by the RAF Museum at Hendon, and I have it on my "things to do before I die" list to go and research there. Doing it from a distance costs money which I don't have, and going to London costs money which I don't have. I've got as far as I can without spending money, I'm afraid. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

My father was in the REME in Calcutta 1943-46. He spent his time in the post war months trying to stop the locals from killing each other (not very successfully by all accounts). Alansplodge (talk) 09:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

November 5

Israel & American policy

From a foreign policy perspective, why does it make sense for the United States to continue supporting Israel and alienate almost every Arabic country in the process? If our Israel - United States relations article is to be trusted, the US went from the most admired country in the Middle East to the most hated due to this support. I understand that during the Cold War, the US wanted allies in that region to prevent all of it from falling into the Soviet sphere, but that concern is obviously no longer valid. --140.180.36.161 (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

A non-American's guess - the big parties' policies are influenced by their big financial supporters. It sure happens in my country. HiLo48 (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It's complicated. First you have to read about the Balfour Declaration, which raised the expectation of a Jewish state in Palestine. Then, after the appalling persecution of Jews in the Holocaust, and other factors, President Truman recognized the State of Israel at the moment of its creation, because, as he later said: "Hitler had been murdering Jews right and left. I saw it, and I dream about it even to this day. The Jews needed some place where they could go. It is my attitude that the American government couldn't stand idly by while the victims [of] Hitler's madness are not allowed to build new lives." So ever since, the U.S. has been an ally of Israel. That's how we got involved in the first place. But - there is no simple answer to your question, first of all because it depends on exactly what you mean by "supporting Israel." Militarily? Politically? Approving some particular action or other of the Israeli government? There are many conflicting points of view on those topics here in the U.S., so without a more specific question, no precise answer is possible. However, the overall policy of the current U.S. administration is summed up by our State Department in this speech given yesterday by Assistant Secretary Andrew Shapiro:

We don’t just support Israel because of a long standing bond, we support Israel because it is in our national interests to do so. This aspect of our relationship with Israel is often overlooked. America’s commitment to Israel’s security and prosperity has extended over many decades because our leaders on both sides of the aisle have long understood that a robust United States-Israel security relationship is in our interests. Our support for Israel’s security helps preserve peace and stability in the region. If Israel were weaker, its enemies would be bolder. This would make broader conflict more likely, which would be catastrophic to American interests in the region. It is the very strength of Israel’s military which deters potential aggressors and helps foster peace and stability. Ensuring Israel’s military strength and its superiority in the region, is therefore critical to regional stability and as a result is fundamentally a core interest of the United States.

Beyond that, it may be difficult to find a neutral assessment of the relationship. Feelings run high on both sides of every issue having to do with Israel, it seems to me, both here and around the world. As an individual, my greatest concern is for the victims of injustice and violence, the ordinary folks who suffer because the politicians and religionists of both sides can't sort things out. I just wish everybody would beat their swords into plowshares, settle down, follow the Golden Rule, and get along - but that's just me. Textorus (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You should carefully distinguish between pre-1967 and post-1967 phases. In the 1948-1967 period, the United States certainly supported Israel's existence and the two countries generally had friendly relations (except during the Suez Crisis and its aftermath), but it would have been going a little too far to call the U.S. and Israel active allies -- and the U.S. was always very careful to avoid any appearance that there was any form of military alliance between the U.S. and Israel. However, those inhibitions on the part of the U.S. were thrown out of the window by the events of 1967, when the United States public formed an overall extremely low opinion of Arabs (or certainly of Egypt and Syria), due to the very frequent virulent "Throw the Jews into the sea!" type hate rhetoric accompanied by anti-Americanism that was being loosely tossed around by prominent Arab personalities or spokesmen or ugly mobs, followed shortly by the farcical and pathetic military collapse of the Arab armies on all fronts and the formation of strong and tight Egyptian-Soviet and Syrian-Soviet military alliances. After 1967, the United States and Israel became open close allies in the military and other spheres, and the Arabs mostly had themselves to blame for this turn of events... AnonMoos (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It is an interesting question, why the U.S. is stuck in a posture obviously detrimental to its own interests. In 1948 the Arab world was not a strong actor on the international scene. The oil boom was yet to happen, and most Arab regions were still (directly or indirectly) under colonial control. Siding with the Zionists against the Arabs didn't appear to have to much consequences. The Arab states were also internally very weak, their resistance to the destruction of Palestine was to some extent a symbolic stand and I think many analysts at the time thought the conflict would eventually blow over. Now the situation evolved differently, as the Palestine question was instrumental in shaping the democratic of the Arab masses. Which in turn put the US on the sides of Arab dictatorships, having to repress the Arab people in order to shield of Israel.

That doesn't mean that the US-Israeli alliance is solely negative for US interests, through the military capacity of Israel the US is able to exert pressure of regional oil producers. But clearly the US puts in more in this relationship than it gets back. The problem is that once your get into deep shit, it is not so easy to get out of it. Any US politician speaking out against US funding of Israel is likely to get marginalized, and essentially all recent US govts are held hostage. Interestingly, Obama is more vulnerable to these types of attacks, due to race and conspiracy theories, and thus needs to reaffirm steadfast support for Israel again and again.

We should also remember, that in 1948 both the US and Soviet Union sought to outbid each other for support to Israel. The Soviets hoped that Israel would evolve into a progressive state, and supplied (through Czechoslovakia) armaments for the new state. However, the US sphere provided the financial support for the new state (through direct funds from the US and reparations from West Germany, still technically under occupation), which held to the forging of business linkages and the integration of Israel in the Western sphere of influence. Post WWII events in the Socialist Bloc also contributed to turning Israeli public opinion anti-Soviet. So, in the end the Soviets (after some years of rather confused Middle East policy) opted for aligning with the emerging Arab nationalism of Nasser. --Soman (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"The Soviets hoped that Israel would evolve into a progressive state" seems to be a highly-tendentious code-phrase for "Stalin was in favor of anything that that would lessen British control and power in the middle-east, and was not hesitant about stirring things up and trying out a number of seemingly-inconsistent policies in pursuit of that goal. Stalin also was not without hopes that a new state of Israel could be influenced in some manner by Stalinism -- or at least that the Communist party in Israel would play a role analogous to the French or Italian Communist parties." The word progressive is really a grotesque solecism in this context. AnonMoos (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is your interpretation. Also, don't forget that Mapam was clearly pro-Soviet in the early phase of the Israeli state. At 1948 Mapam was the second largest party in Israel, and combined with the smaller Israeli CP and the Arab list of Mapam the pro-Soviet bloc had 18.8% of the votes in the 1949 election. So, politically there was a foundation for the Soviet policy. However, the Soviets were incapable to matching the US support economically, leading to the integration of Israel in the Western sphere of influence. --Soman (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, when it comes to Israel's reputation in the U.S. (which is a necessary but not sufficient condition for U.S. support for Israel), Israel actually has a very mixed and overall indifferent record over the years when it comes to spinning specific events. 1967 was a great public opinion success (more because of Arab failings than because of any marked Israeli propaganda prowess, as indicated above) -- but 1956 and 1982 were almost equally great failures. However, one area where Israel was highly successful in connecting with the U.S. public for many decades was in giving the general impression that the Israelis are "like us" or "like Americans" in their values of democracy and political freedom, their desires to work hard to build up a successful society and to be left alone to live with their 2.5-child family in the resulting prosperity, etc. By contrast, the events especially of the 1960s and 1970s gave many Americans an impression of Arabs as a people who hadn't achieved many real accomplishments in modern times that Americans would respect (such as building up strong economies, advanced technologies, progressive societies -- in the sense of the word "progressive" which does not mean "being a subservient toadying groveling flunky to Stalin" -- or political democracies), and yet who seemed to be eager to tear down and destroy the accomplishments that others had achieved, displaying somewhat self-destructively spiteful attitudes of the "I would rather starve than accept half a loaf of bread, if that means that my enemy will also receive half a loaf" type. If things are starting to change in recent years, it's more because of the apparent inability of the Israeli government to crack down on provocative actions by a small number of Jewish religious fanatics and/or the events in the Arab world outside the Palestine-Israel area (since Arabs have almost always been hopeless in framing the Palestinian issue in terms that will significantly appeal to the broad U.S. public, outside of a few lefties or paleocons...) AnonMoos (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure about that last statement? There seems to be considerable debate about the Israeli-Palestinian issue in the US, and lots of people partially support Palestine (and don't unconditionally support Israel). --140.180.36.161 (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Such debate really hasn't affected the broad majority of the U.S. populace (as opposed to a committed political minority) in any major way. If the Palestinian claims resonated in an unambiguous and unequivocal way with a broad segment of the U.S. public, as the situations in Burma, Tibet, and Darfur have done (or Bosnia etc. did in past decades), then this could hardly fail to have a significant impact on U.S. politics -- but in actuality, the number of U.S. congresspersons who could be called "pro-Palestinian" in any meaningful sense is almost certainly in the single digits. The Palestine Solidarity Movement has limited its broad influence on U.S. public opinion by refusing to condemn in any way any terrorist attacks (no matter how bloodthirsty or brutal), while the International Solidarity Movement strongly antagonized a large number of U.S. Jews when Adam Shapiro made some overly simplistic and propagandistic-sounding remarks in 2002 which were extremely poorly received, and it also strongly antagonized many western journalists based in the mid-east when these journalists were pretty much lied to by ISM activists in the immediate aftermath of the Rachel Corrie affair. Down the decades, strong pro-Arab anti-Israel advocates have pretty much consistently shot themselves in the foot as far as expressing their case in terms that are acceptable and appealing to the broader American public. If things are starting to shift in recent years, then as far as I can tell it's more because of Israeli government actions (and its inability or unwillingness to put a stop to settler stupidities or brutalities), or perhaps because Arabs are overall perceived a little differently in the aftermath of the Arab spring -- rather than because pro-Palestinian advocacy is having a major impact on U.S. public opinion (something which has never been the case). AnonMoos (talk) 11:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the initial question can best be answered by taking the question in the inverse: Why would it be in the world's interest if there were no Israel, that is, if the Jewish people had no sovereign state at all of their own? That's what the OP is really asking here; phrasing it in the positive rather than the negative doesn't change the fundemental nature of the question; which is about the survival vs. extinction of the Israeli state. I'd posit that the world is NOT a better place without a sovereign Israel in it, which is not to say that the existance of the State of Israel does not itself create stresses on the world. However, this is not a situation where there is some magic solution that has no negative consequences, it's a matter of which situation is less negative; and then working through that situation to ammeliorate the problems it creates. The world tried having the Jewish people as a stateless ethnicity; see The Holocaust for how well THAT worked out. Statelessness is never good for a culture or a people, and the recognition of that is why Isreal has a fundemental right to exist. Now, that DOES raise the problem of how to deal with the (now) stateless people that the creation of Israel caused (the Palestinian people), but we're working on that... The solution is painfully slow, but it would be inaccurate to say that progress has not been made at all in that regard. --Jayron32 16:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a false dichotomy. The Palestinian question is not one of Israel as it is now vs. no Israel at all. The favoured solution by the international community seems to be the "two-state solution". There would still be an Israel for the Jews (albeit smaller than it is now), but there would be a Palestine for the Arabs as well. --Tango (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I never once, in any word above, made that claim in my entire analysis, so I will thank you not to pretend that I did just to make your own attempt to disagree with me look better. The question was made of why the U.S. supports Israel. The answer is that without U.S. support, Israel would likely cease to exist. The question of Palestinian statehood is a problem that needs to be solved. I clearly and unambigously stated this, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to disagree with a statement that I did not make. It is quite possible to believe that full statehood for both peoples is the only tenable solution to a peaceful middle east, which is why above I made that exact arguement. I'm not sure why you say my statement was false, and then go on to make the exact same statement I made in slightly different words. Let me say it in smaller words and packed all together in one sentance so it is not confusing for you: The Israeli and Palestinian people both deserve sovereign states. If the U.S. did not support Israel's right to exist, however, it would not exist at all. That is the arguement I made above. --Jayron32 20:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You said "I'd posit that the world is NOT a better place without a sovereign Israel in it" - why did you posit that? No-one has been proposing eliminating Israel completely (well, Iran has, but that's about it). Israel would continue to exist without US support, since no-one with any real power wants to get rid of it. You are the one arguing against straw men, not me. --Tango (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's the United States government that believes that Israel's survival depends on U.S. support, not me. I was answering the OP's question regarding the beliefs of the U.S. government, not my personal beliefs. My personal beliefs are irrelevent to this discussion, so I'm not sure why you feel the need to assume what they are. If you wish to change the U.S. government's position on this, you should contact your congressperson to convince them, not me. I have no power to change the U.S. government's position. If the arguement is a strawman, then you need to contact the U.S. government who believes that strawman, not me, who is impotent in changing policy with regards to Israel. If it is so important to you that the U.S. government stops supporting Israel, you need to realize I have no power in that regard! --Jayron32 23:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

What a bunch of odd responses. The OP's question wasn't about the history of Israel or about Jewish persecution. It said "why does it make sense for the United States to continue supporting Israel?" (I've bolded what seem to be the key words.) It's still a good question. Talk of what happened way back in 1948, '56, '67 and '82 doesn't help explain the word continuing. The Soviets are obviously irrelevant too. Non-specific comments about what's best for the world don't explain American behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. continues to provide support for Israel because without that continued support Israel could cease to exist. --Jayron32 20:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

But why does it care about that? HiLo48 (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do you care whether New Zealand ceases to exist, or any other country? See Israel: Background and Relations with the United States, Congressional Research Service, 2007, p. 3: Since 1948, the United States and Israel have developed a close friendship based on common democratic values, religious affinities, and security interests. . . . The United States and Israel concluded a free-trade agreement in 1985, and the United States is Israel’s largest trading partner. Israel is a prominent recipient of U.S. foreign aid. The two countries also have close security relations. Not to mention 7.7 million souls that could potentially be wiped out because The government views Iran as an existential threat due to its nuclear ambitions and support for anti-Israel terrorists. Textorus (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

More history (not relevant to "continue"), and free trade, etc. The US has NOT intervened automatically to stop citizens of other nations being "wiped out". So why Israel? The only hint of a formal reason in your post was "...close security relations". Note: I'm not advocating standing around and watching any people being wiped out, but every country is selective. HiLo48 (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

HiLo, it's like you are being deliberately obtuse and disruptive here. You keep asking why, why, why, like a little child who is never satisfied with any answer but keeps on and on just to annoy the hell out of his daddy. I don't make U.S. foreign policy myself, nor do I necessarily agree with every iota of it, but twice in this thread I have quoted the official U. S. government explanation of the policy to you, and provided the links to further reading on the subject in official U.S. government publications. If you don't understand what you read, I guess the only thing left for you to do is to write the State Department and ask for clarification. Textorus (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's look at that last bit of "policy". It mentions Iran's nuclear ambitions. Hey, Israel already has nuclear weapons. So that doesn't work. Then it mentions Iran's support for anti-Israel terrorists. That's just begging the question. It comes back to the issue of why the US takes Israel's side. Would the US be concerned about terrorism aimed against Iran? The US didn't worry too much about Tamil terrorism. Again, all countries are selective. The US is very selective about Israel. It's interesting to ask why, without condemning that behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You already stated the answer you want to hear in your first comment on this thread. If you want Hillary to confirm that for you in writing, click here, select the "E-mail a Question" tab at top, then in the Topic drop-down box, choose U.S. Foreign Policy - Middle East. Fill in your email address and the answer you wish to receive, and press Continue for more options. Or stay on the line and a customer service representative will be with you shortly. Textorus (talk) 00:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

HiLo48 -- Historical factors have a lot to do with the current pattern of alliances (not just for Israel). A few months after the six-day war of 1967, De Gaulle made a cold-blooded decision to change French diplomacy from a policy of relative friendliness towards Israel to an anti-Israeli pro-Arab policy, based almost solely on his calculations of what would increase the gloire et grandeur de la France (which was his main reason for most of the major decisions he made), disregarding all considerations of history, past alliances, domestic politics, personal relationships, rights and wrongs, etc. to focus solely and exclusively on naked national self-interest. U.S. decisions about whether to continue long-standing alliances are not generally made in this exclusively coldly calculating manner, and I don't think that the U.S. public would be in favor of making decisions only on that basis... AnonMoos (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The answer is really the same as to any question about why politicians do a particular thing - they think it will get them more votes than not doing it. That's not necessarily due to lots of voters supporting the idea (it can be due to campaign funding, for instance), but at the end of the day it always comes down to votes. --Tango (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

One can't ignore the possibility that supporting Israel no longer is in the US' rational interest, but that the US continues to do so because it has in the past, and it fears instability should that support diminish or cease. Much of US middle-east policy emphasises short-term stability over a rational (for the US or the middle east) long-term strategy, but short term electoral math says "don't rock the boat". 87.114.91.4 (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

With the choice basically being a binary one, between support for Israel or the Muslim states, I believe the reason for a lack of support for Muslims is their terrible reputation in the US. The US sees them as terrorists, people who refuse women the vote, beat them for not wearing a burqa, and stone them to death if any man says they committed adultery. If they convert to Christianity, they can be executed for that, too. The US gets video of them dressing up toddlers as suicide bombers wielding machine guns and see them as hostage takers and murderers. The 1973 Arab oil embargo didn't win them any friends in the US either. Then we see Palestinians dancing in the streets in celebration on 9-11.

There's also the political fact that Muslim nations seem to be unreliable allies. For example, when Turkey was asked to allow US troops to pass through their nation to invade Iraq, the Turks refused, but also implied they might go along if bribed with enough money. And Turkey also refuses to admit to the Armenian genocide and imprisons anyone who talks about it. The there's Saudi Arabia, with a government and laws straight out of the dark ages. And our former ally, Iraq, whom we supported in the Iran/Iraq war, then turned around and used poison gas on the Kurdish villages and invaded Kuwait. Pakistan was also our ally, in fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, but then turned around and supported Al Queda. Then low and behold, we find Bin Laden hiding right next to their military academy. And Egypt was another ally, but with a government so oppressive it led to a revolution.

Also, if we need something "dirty" done, like bombing the Iranian nuclear sites, Israel is the only one that will do it for us. Now, if as a result of the revolutions of this year (hopefully including the fall of the Syrian government), we get democratic governments that respect basic human rights (freedom of the press, freedom of religion, equal rights for women, etc.) then perhaps the situation will change. I'm skeptical, though, and picture more Taliban-style governments. StuRat (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's easy to find lots of nasty things that some of Israel's neighbours have done, but Israel hasn't exactly been as pure as the driven snow in its behaviour either. I know a tit-for-tat argument is pointless. But saying that the support for Israel is on humanitarian grounds is not enough. That Israel will do the US's dirty work makes sense. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree that Israelis have done nasty things to Muslims, just as Muslims have done nasty things to Jews. However, I can't think of any terrorist attacks on the US launched by Jews, nor do they oppress their own people to the same degree that many Muslim nations do. Also, Muslims have attacked other religions, too, such as Christianity (church attacks), Hindus (attacks in India), and even Buddhism (the destruction of the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan by the Taliban). When you attack everyone, you end up with no friends. StuRat (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's just random odds and not official ideology of Islam that makes that difference. "Muslims" as an entire ideology have not attacked anyone. It is not a monolithic single-minded movement, it's a bunch of random people who are as prone to being good or bad, law-abiding or terrorist, as any other random group of people. There are several orders of magnitude more Muslims in the world than Jews, and so their criminal actions will be greater merely because some constant percent of all people commit crimes; and so there are going to be more crimes committed by Muslims merely because there are more of them. There's nothing in Islam which makes them more prone to terrorism!!! Muslims are not "attacking everyone". There are several hundred million muslims in the world who haven't attacked anyone! --Jayron32 23:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The numbers might figure into it, but somehow I doubt if more Jews would mean they would then have committed a 9-11, too. After all, even if you lump all non-Muslims in the world together, none of them have done anything similar to the US, unless you go back to Pearl Harbor. Note that all Japanese were considered untrustworthy after that, not just those who ordered the attack, hence the Japanese internment camps. It may not be logical, but that's how public perception works. StuRat (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

No, Americans are just fine doing horrific terrorist attacks all by themselves. And regardless of what another person believes, you are under no obligation to perpetuate the horrifyingly offensive insinuation that there is something in the nature of being Muslim that causes terrorism. There just isn't, and to imply in any way that there is is just awful. --Jayron32 23:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

There is the current wave of Islamic fundamentalism which seems to be the cause of most of the Muslim terrorism. And yes, 1000 years ago Christian fundamentalism was as bad or worse, leading to the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, etc., but that threat has long-since ended. StuRat (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

With the choice basically being a binary one, between support for Israel or the Muslim states. But that isn't true, at all. Turkey, for example, is a NATO ally. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Only nominally. As I described above, they aren't a very reliable ally. StuRat (talk) 13:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the summary here should be that there's more to U.S. foreign policy than realpolitik. The U.S. is to at least some extent a democracy, and abandoning Israel has little support among the populace. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Éamon de Valera and the plastic Paddies

Was Éamon de Valera a plastic Paddy? --Belchman (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear so. Our article, which surely you have read, mentions his mother was Irish and his father absent (or so); he appears to have been raised Irish and taken to Ireland age 2. The articles gives every indication he was properly Irish. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, his mother was Irish and he was raised in Ireland. Plastic Paddy's are the people who show up for the St. Patricks Day parade to drink green beer and wear the "Kiss Me I'm Irish" buttons, and have no other connection to Irish culture than that. Despite the American location of his birth and his Cuban father, Éamon de Valera was clearly an Irishman through and through; I think it borders on offensive to imply that a man who fought hard for Irish independence, and seved multiple terms as both Taoiseach and President of Ireland was a "plastic paddy". --Jayron32 16:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who survives the Irish educational system is Irish as far as I'm concerned whether they're white yellow, brown, green or pink. Dmcq (talk)

On Cherokee Grandmothers. Buddy431 (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The universal Cherokee grandmother I have personally known plastic paddies in the US to claim spurious Cherokee Indian ancestry besides the Irish.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Actually, I'd wager that at least three out of four caucasian families in the U.S. claim to have a Cherokee great-great-grandmother. This claim is common knowledge among people who work in family history, but alas, said grandmas are notoriously shy about appearing in the actual genealogical records. Textorus (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Yes and it's always a Cherokee. Never Sioux, Cheyenne, Iroquois, Choctaw. As if the only Native American tribe was Cherokee and all the women married white guys! I once saw an online family tree where a family claimed their great-grandmother was a full-blood Cherokee yet claimed she was directly descended from English royalty and Charlemagne!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC) In which case, Charlemagne must have had his own Cherokee grandmother.  ;) Textorus (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Actually, I don't see what makes the claim impossible. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC) The Cherokee lived in the South as a "civilized tribe" during the early settlement of the thinly settled frontier. There was thus some neighborly interaction in the 1600's and 1700's. I'm not sure the Easterners going out West on stagecoaches or later trains interacted in the same way with the Sioux and other western tribes. Many of the ancestral "Cherokee" might have been other tribes of the south and southeast. In many cases the claim is true. Edison (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Same story in my family, but when I traced all the lines back to the appropriate generation and before, there's nothing to indicate Indian ancestry, and nobody turns up on the Dawes Rolls. There may well be a basis for the stories somewhere in the past, but not so near as we were told. Textorus (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Guys... all that is very interesting but it's not related to my question, you know. --Belchman (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC) You got your answer in the first two replies. What did you not understand? Textorus (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC) You miss the point. I'm saying that this is not the place to chit-chat about that. --Belchman (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC) This is not the place to ask obviously silly, time-wasting questions about famous dead politicians, but we didn't throw you out of the park for that. Textorus (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC) I'm reporting you for incivility. --Belchman (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Go right ahead, be my guest. I don't work here, I'm just a volunteer. Textorus (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Same story in my family, which does come from the southern Appalachians and could plausibly have interacted with the remnant Cherokee, but I've found no sign it's true. In that region the story might be cover for Melungeon ancestry.Acroterion (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

November 6

Forms of address used by literary characters

Watching Agatha Christie's Poirot last night, it struck me for the first time that he always addresses or refers to women as, e.g. "Madame Smith" or "Mademoiselle Jones", men as "Monsieur Brown", and mixed groups as "Mesdames et Messieurs". Yet the stories are routinely set in England, the characters are English, and Poirot's command of English is otherwise more than adequate. Everyone calls him "Monsieur Poirot", never "Mister Poirot", so why can't he reciprocate?

Then I remember seeing shows where German characters address Englishwomen as Frau or Fräulein, and Englishmen as Herr. And Italians prefer Signora, Signorina and Signor in such settings. And so on.

I realise these are literary devices, but how closely do they reflect what such people would do in real life? When people are taught a language, one of the earliest things they're taught is how to address people in that language. Maybe authors do it to highlight the Belgianness, Italicity or Germanitude of their characters. Some of these characters were conceived as existing only on the printed page, and the author had to work a little harder to get across the extent of their foreign-soundingness than a TV or screen writer would. But they have their unusual forms of expression translated from their own languages, their "zis" for "this", and their occasional use of words or phrases in their own language to do that task for them very nicely.

Do English literary characters always address foreign people as Mr, Mrs, Miss, Ms, or do they use the appropriate foreign title? "Who Do You Think You Are Kidding, Mr Hitler" comes to mind, but I doubt that's a typical usage. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

In a real-world context, I have an old edition of Emily Post's Etiquette from the 1920s, which prescribes that married women from non-English-speaking countries are generally to be addressed as "Madame" rather than "Mrs." I don't know to what extent this was, in fact, a widespread practice, nor when it pretty much died out. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It was prescribed by UK newspapers until some time about the 1970s. Nguyen Thi Binh was thus called "Madame Binh" during the Vietnam War negotiations. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a direct answer at all, but, similarly, see "PoirotSpeak" at TV Tropes. (It also links to "Viewers are Morons" for one possible reason :-). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Poirot routinely also uses bon and oui, when, as you say, the English equivalents would be some of the first words a new speaker of the language would learn. And he's supposed to be really smart! HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

And, after further investigation and hopefully to nobody's surprise, I find that Wikipedia itself has the explanation. In Hercule Poirot, we have this quote from the man himself...

"It is true that I can speak the exact, the idiomatic English. But, my friend, to speak the broken English is an enormous asset. It leads people to despise you. They say – a foreigner – he can't even speak English properly. […] Also I boast! An Englishman he says often, "A fellow who thinks as much of himself as that cannot be worth much. […] And so, you see, I put people off their guard." HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems to answer it perfectly for Poirot, thanks HiLo48. I still wonder about the broader question, though. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Ptha

der Ufokontaktler eduard meier soll deine Botschaften von Ptha erhalten haben. Ist es derselbe Gott, der in Aegyten war oder ist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.136.76.87 (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. Try asking your question at the German Wikipedia. Insofar as your question goes, either my translation is awful, or you're asking a question that could be easily googled for. Try googling it. Shadowjams (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the question is, is Eduard Meier's "Ptaah" the same as Ptah; I believe the answer is, "How the heck is anyone here supposed to know?" --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Bible for evolved children

Is there a bible without God covering big bang to evolution? --Kittybrewster ☎ 10:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bible is a specific text. If you're looking for alternative explanations there are a number of biblical faiths that differ from conservative protestantism in the U.S., actually there are quite a few. If you're looking for religions that draw on some of the same text, then there are a number of other religions that do that. If you're looking to start a debate (this is where my money is) then you're in the wrong place (although I can't be sure someone won't indulge you below). Reference desk really isn't about rhetorical questions like this where you already know the answer you want to hear. If you have an honest curiosity, then we're all here to help. But if you want to argue, we got plenty of that just dealing with this encyclopedia. The rest of the internet is thataway. Shadowjams (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no sign that they are trying to start a debate. As for "bible", uncapitalized it means "an essential text", with no religious implications. See Wiktionary:bible. StuRat (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

A fair answer but unhelpful/ I don't want an argument. I want a book to read to a child which Dawkins would approve of.--Kittybrewster ☎ 11:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Darwin is a long dead British scientist who used 19th century methodology and took long oceanic voyages. [Dawkins is a middle class wanker.] Perhaps you'd like to respecify. Meanwhile, the Cartoon history of the Universe is a handy text covering a world history perspective including (briefly and out of date popularisation of a high quality) scientific perspectives on life and species formation. For the fifteen year old, why not Peter Kropotkin's eminently readable Mutual Aid which connects principles of natural selection on a group basis with social success amongst humans. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you try Dawkins' new Children's book The Magic of Reality? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Great ideas. Anything for younger children? --Kittybrewster ☎ 12:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This seems to have reasonable reviews. The "Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought" thread on the same site will give other suggestions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If you merely want a book covering science as we know it from time immemorial to today, may I suggest Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything? It's a decent read. (Edit: suitable for older children, I'd say 11+.)Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a children's version of it, too: "A Really Short History of Nearly Everything" Mingmingla (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a parent but would you read the bible to children? I certainly wouldn't.. I'm reading 'Magic of Reality' myself, I know the majority of the material but I'm finding it interesting reading it in very plain English, there is a certain skill in that. It is aimed at 12 year-olds, I think you can probably read it to a switched on 10 year old. If they're much younger then 10, read them story books, there's nothing wrong with cultivating imagination. There are lots of good children books which aren't all about fairies. If they're curious and smart enough to ask "bigger questions" they're probably smart enough to hear honest answers. Vespine (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Persecuted Christians & Gays

Wich countries persecute Christians and Gays but receive money from Britain's Gift Aid? --Kittybrewster ☎ 15:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you really mean Gift Aid? That's just a way for charities to reclaim the tax paid by a donator, so I don't understand what you're asking. Every country that receives any aid from any charity at all could be said to receive money from Britain's Gift Aid, although more accurately it is receiving the money from the person who donated, with the income tax being repaid. Would you include cases where a charity uses gift aided donations to set up support for gay people or Christians in countries that persecute them? This question also seems somewhat vague in other ways, and seems (especially taken with the one above) to be designed to provoke discussion. This doesn't seem like you. Are you okay? 86.163.1.168 (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You are quite right. I think I meant Overseas Aid. --Kittybrewster ☎ 16:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you have in mind David Cameron's threat, last week, to cut off aid to anti-gay nations [21]. The article mentions Malawi, Uganda and Ghana.  Card Zero  (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Did you, instead, mean the Department for International Development, which has recently rebranded (at least in developing countries) as UKAid? I still think it's a vague question with a probably questionable agenda (I'd have thought "all of them" is the simple answer, just as all of them probably oppress women and have low literacy), but that would make more sense. You might want to define whether you are talking about government mandated action, government condoned action, or general societal practice. (after EC) So, do you mean aid sent from the official Department, or from the UK in general? 86.163.1.168 (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I meant Government mandated action, although Pakistan comes pretty close re Christians. --Kittybrewster ☎ 16:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, here's a list of all the countries. Perhaps one of these says how much to each. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Are there any Continental Philosophers who are politically conservative?

Are there any Continental Philosophers who are politically conservative? --Gary123 (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify I'm talking about Continental Philosophy as a philosophical tradition rather than geography so I would exclude European philosophers who are in the analytical/positivist tradition, and include any Anglo-American philosophers in the Continental traditional broadly understood. The wiki article does a pretty good job naming the traditions coming out of continental philosophy but I would just quickly name existentialism, phenomenology, critical theory, structuralism, French Theory, and post-modernism, as what I generally mean. Also for the purposes of this question, I would define conservatism and right-wing very broadly to include traditionalism, classical liberalism, nationalism, feudalism, Christian democracy, libertarianism, centrism, and fascism etc. So I would include both European and American definitions of conservative or rightwing. Or pretty much anyone non-socialist, non-anarchist, non-radical.

In America there is a general perception of Analytical Philosophy being generally centrist to conservative, with continental philosophy being leftwing to radically leftwing. But in Anglo-America analytical philosophy pretty much IS philosophy, and the same is true in Europe for continental philosophy. So its not like ALL American philosophers are centrist or rightwing. Some Analytical philosophers and leftwing. So I would assume the same would be the case for continental philosophy both in the USA and Europe. The same way that Analytical philosophy contains some lefties, I would think Continental Philosophy would have some rightwingers. That some philosophers in the Continental tradition would be "conservative" (broadly defined). --Gary123 (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I distinctly recall Nietzsche writing some disparaging things about liberalism... something about the liberal instinct wanting to reduce mankind to a herd. It's proving difficult to find a quote so I'll leave that up to you, if you're so inclined. Vranak (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean living philosophers, or dead? As far as dead, in the 20th century, Emil Cioran is a candidate; initially a fascist, he later repudiated this in favour of a pessimistic conservativism, heavily influenced by Oswald Spengler who might also count. Karl Popper and Isaiah Berlin are intermediate between continental and Anglo-American philosophy, but both were right-of-centre and opposed to socialism for its tendency to threaten individual liberty. Heidegger was conservative in his political views, opposed to much of modernity (and pretty much everything later than the Pre-Socratics). European postmodernism is politically interesting; although many of its members were very left-wing, it has right-wing elements in its critique of Marxism and the Enlightenment. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I found Right Hegelians.  Card Zero  (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

For the most part conservatism in Europe is associated with the church (Catholic, Lutheran, whatever), and most of the philosophers identified with Continental Philosophy were either atheistic or showed little concern for religious dogma in their writings. Looie496 (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Anything said about this is likely to be confusing unless it's clarified what sort of conservatism you're talking about; the term has very different connotations between Continental Europe and the United States/Britain (especially the United States). Popper might have been right of center, but was definitely not a conservative in the European sense; Europeans would have called him a liberal.

In Europe, as I understand it somewhat vaguely, conservatism is mostly about respect for traditional institutions, and is actively hostile to free-market capitalism, which it sees as destructive to those institutions. American conservatism is an uneasy alliance (held together mostly by mutual enemies) among several distinct tendencies that have little in common philosophically, but at least one of those wings, the libertarian one, is supportive of the free market. That wing is called "liberal" in the European sense. --Trovatore (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you cannot ever define "conservative" and "liberal" universally, except in the broadest sense that conservative beliefs seek to maintain/reestablish "traditional values" while liberal beliefs seek to change society into a "new, better society". These concept differ from locality to locality and also don't have any connection to "reality", rather to perception, and the other issue is that once a definition for a locally defined value of "conservative" or "liberal" is determined, then the definition becomes calcified even if the social reality changes. Conservatives in any one location seek to preserve what they perceive to be "traditional values" (however that is locally defined) and liberals in any one location seek to bring about what they perceive to be a "better society" (however that is locally defined). Thus, in Europe when the terms became calcified into the public consciousness, conservative and liberal gained their meanings in reference to the revolutions of 1848: Conservatives supported command economies, monarchies, aristocracy, and the other ideals of Metternich and his like. Liberals thus became defined as people who were democratic, supporters of free markets, and of individual liberty. In the U.S., the terms became calcified around the period of the 1930s-1960s, where conservative refered to people who supported free-market economies, traditional social order, and religious institutions, whereas liberals were people who supported government safeguards over the economy, civil rights, and secularization. The deal is, these ideals were what the two groups perceived to be the 'traditional' and 'betterment' policies of their local and historical period. So THAT is why European liberals are free market supporters and supporters of personal liberties, because when the term became defined in Europe, the "traditional" position was in support of aristocracy and mercanitilism) while in America, liberals are defined as supporters of government controls over the economy, because the term became defined when the "traditional" position was in support of free-market, laissez-faire economy. The terms do not become abandoned merely because they don't work in different contexts. This is also ultimately why totalitarian, oppressive regimes with nearly identical outcomes get defined in "right wing" and "left wing" terms: the Naziism of Hitler's Germany was motivated by preserving traditional German values; the Communism of the Soviet Union was motivated by establishing a new political order: it makes no difference what the output of each system was; merely that the philosophy is motivated by tradition or new order. Other examples include Franco's Spain (traditionalist, thus right wing) and Castro's Cuba (revolutionary, thus left wing), Mao's china (revolutionary, thus left wing) etc. --Jayron32 19:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No, what you're here is trying to preserve the US usage of liberal/conservative and explain why it's the same in a European context, just relating to different history. But that's wrong. It isn't the same. Liberal in the proper sense of the word (which is closer to the European sense than the American one) is not about whether you want to change society, but about what sort of society you want to have (specifically, one that respects individual liberty against the demands of the collective). If society is already like that, the liberal wants to keep it that way; if it is not, then the liberal wants to change it so that it is.

The liberal/conservative axis taught in American high schools is basically bullshit. --Trovatore (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

In otherwords, the way you understand the terms is the only right way because it is what you believe them to mean, other perspectives are invalid solely because they are not your perspective. --Jayron32 20:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: Your explanation for how the word liberal came to be used for these different things is ahistorical. That's not the way it happened. Classical liberalism is not about your attitude towards tradition; it's about a certain specific set of political values, specifically about individual liberty. In the United States, the reform liberalism movement took the position that classical liberalism had misidentified the worst threat to individual liberty, and therefore came up with divergent policy prescriptions, but still with individual liberty as its basic goal. Over time, this movement became associated with other tendencies, such as identity politics, that were not primarily concerned with liberty, but which had similar policy prescriptions to the reform liberals, and their bastard child is today's "liberalism" in the American sense.

In Europe, this never happened, and therefore "liberalism" still refers to the classical liberal outlook, though it has no doubt mutated in other ways whose details I don't know. But it's not about the attitude to tradition versus change; it's about what sort of society you think is best, independent of whether it's traditional. --Trovatore (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia article "Conservatism": "Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve")[1] is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to the way things were.[2][3]." From the Wikipedia article "Liberalism": "Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom")[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] " Neither of these terms is defined universally, that is that one specific set of beliefs, irrespective of location, applies to any. Your steadfast contention that Liberalism and Conservatism can only be properly defined by a European perspective, and that other perspectives are thus instantly and totally wrong, is simply not supportable. --Jayron32 20:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not arguing for the "European" perspective per se (why would I do that? I'm an American) but for the more historical one. While interpretations, as you note, vary from place to place and time to time, the word "liberal" in both America and Europe refers originally to classical liberalism, which is simply not about one's attitude to tradition, but rather about one's attitude to freedom (hence the name). To claim that classical liberals are still called "liberal" in Europe because of their positions relative to tradition, as opposed to because of their political values on a more absolute scale, is just ahistorical. --Trovatore (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I assume that the OP asks the question from the American perspective on Liberalism and Conservatism (mostly because there's a pronounced misconception in the American view that Continental philosophers are vaguely socialist). With that in mind, the question is nonsense, but it's nonsense that deserves a response.

Continental political/social theory largely focuses on the problematic interrelation of the citizen (individually and collectively) and the state. Different aspects of Continental social theory can sound (to the American ear) either liberal or conservative: For instance, many continental philosophers place a high value on established social structures and social values as 'normative' goods - i.e., they like certain established institutions, prize certain moral constructs, and have objections to certain kinds of governmental influences, all of which American conservatives would find appealing. On the other hand, Continental philosophers often see the state as a necessary tool to control the hegemonic influence of wealth or other illicit power structures, and in that sense are often viewed by Americans as anti-capitalist. In truth, though, one simply cannot make sense of Continental philosophy from within the perspectives of American liberalism or American conservatism, because in the US conservatism and liberalism are largely non-theoretical - they are political stances that have no overriding philosophical conception, but are more in the nature of reactions to particular events via identification with certain parties. Throwing mud-balls at each other does not encourage the adoption of a theoretical detachment. --Ludwigs2 20:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a pretty good analysis with one major problem to it — it seems to suggest that there's a uniform Continental view. Continental European politics has a very broad range of ideas considered "mainstream" (I think Europeans must wonder why Americans even bother to have more than one party, since 95% of them apparently think exactly the same about the big issues and argue over relative details). What do we do with, say, Friedrich Hayek, assuming he's to be considered a political philosopher and not just an economist? By American standards he's very "conservative" economically; in European terms very "liberal". --Trovatore (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Hayek explained at length why he was not a conservative.  Card Zero  (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This debate over terminology is very interesting. Can anyone provide reliable outside sources to support the various definitions of terms being discussed here, from both European as well as American perspectives? I ask because I can see the usefulness of an article on this topic: Worldwide views of conservatism and liberalism, or something like that. Textorus (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That is a VERY complex question. Keep in mind that Classical Liberalism (of the Enlightenment era) is fairly close to modern Libertarianism (which is staunchly conservative) and that classical Conservatism (of the Edmund Burke variety), is the origin of things like environmentalism and certain social reform movements. Each generation tends to redefine 'liberal' in terms of whatever needs to be broken through a society and 'conservative' in terms of whatever needs to be preserved. --Ludwigs2 03:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I object to the claim that libertarianism is conservative. Libertarianism seeks to conserve individual liberty where it exists, and establish it where it does not. Libertarians make common cause with conservatives, when they do, primarily on the basis of shared enemies. --Trovatore (talk) 03:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Trovatore: this is not the right place for pamphleteering. your point is taken, but misses the thrust of my comments. please keep on topic. --Ludwigs2 15:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious about the choices of the examples of "conservatism" by the OP. If Christian democracy is conservative, shouldn't Islamic theocracies also be conservative as well? They certainly uphold their traditional values in far more draconian ways. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 22:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Only names I can think of are (very different) Giovanni Gentile, Raymond Aron. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Executive order for single payer health care

What conditions would be necessary for the President of the US to hire all uninsured people and their wardens to perform some nominal task which would qualify them for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, nationalize private primary health care insurers, bail them out, and either convert them to reinsurance, secondary insurance, or shut them down, leaving an expanded FEHBP in their place? Dualus (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Insanity? This is not to say one way or another whether a single-payer government health insurance system would (or would not) be a good thing in the United States, but I cannot imagine any President being able to achieve that through the specific set of circumstances you describe. The political realities of the United States would make your scenario completely impossible. --Jayron32 19:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Look at the Supreme Court canceling certain New Deal agencies (Frazier–Lemke Farm Bankruptcy Act, Agricultural Adjustment Administration, National Recovery Administration) for a precedent on how it might not work even if Congress and the President agreed. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

According to the article even with the FEHBP people still need to pay part of the premium (1/3) and the lowest of the self only part is $2,800 so it seems unlikely this alone will ensure everyone is covered, if that is your intention Nil Einne (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at the article Executive order. Generally speaking, the President has no authority to make laws - rule by decree - only to execute laws passed by Congress (which may grant the President a certain amount of discretionary authority), or as otherwise specifically provided for by the Consititution. Presidents have often been criticized for exceeding their statutory or constitutional authority, as in the cases already cited by 75.41 above. Absent specific legislation on the topic by Congress, the scenario the OP contemplates would be unprecedented in the U.S., probably resulting in great outrage both in Congress and by the public at large as being highly undemocratic and unconstitutional, and would very likely be stricken down by the Supreme Court. Even in wartime, when the President's ability to act independently of Congress is greatly expanded, the Supreme Court has reined in the unlimited use of his authority: see, for example, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 1952 (Truman during the Korean War dealing with a steel workers' strike). And more recently, see Medellín v. Texas, 2008, in which the Supremes ruled that "The President's authority to act, as with the exercise of any governmental power, 'must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.'" Textorus (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all. It seems that Congress has given the President emergency authority to act on health care through emergency executive orders concerning FEMA with the restriction that they have to act within budget. If the savings from single payer is really 40% as the Canadians say, that does seem like one way to completely rescue the FEMA budget. Dualus (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The site you linked to is full of scare talk about the godless "scoundrels in D.C." seeking to establish a totalitarian "Media Mind Control" regime over all God-fearing Americans, etc., etc. I wouldn't take their fringe views too seriously on any topic. Textorus (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Voices in the head

Do voices in the head disappear if you hear music? (maybe, loud, with headphones). Quest09 (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Without offering any specific advice, I note that a women's prison near me reported a dramatic fall in self-harming and suicides after they included televisions in the cells, which they said was because the more troubled inmates used them to drown out the voices. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the voices disappear, but I have read that people with schizophrenia do sometimes play loud music in an effort to distract themselves from the voices. Looie496 (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, but then you're left with the other problem of what to do to get rid of the earworms... --TammyMoet (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you devalue a currency by more than 100%?

If it was 1:2, and after the devaluation it's 1:5, is that a devaluation of 150%? Quest09 (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

A 100% devaluation would reduce its value to zero, wouldn't it? Depends on which way you're looking at it, I guess. Sounds like a question for the Mathematics desk. Textorus (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"The following list of peak-to-trough devaluations since the mid-90s gives us an idea of what we could be talking about:

- 2002 Argentina: 280 %

- 1999 Brazil: 78 %

- 1998 – 1999 Russia: 330 %

- 1997 – 1998 Indonesia: 660 %

- 1997 – 1998 Thailand: 110 %

- 1994 – 1995 Mexico 115 %" [22]

Well, it's from CNN. Apparently, it's a normal way of expressing it... but it sounds not so logical. Quest09 (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems like that answers your question - it is possible, according to some kind of math. But economics is not my strong suit, so another editor will have to explain it. Textorus (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, and math is not the strong suit of economists and journalists. So, maybe CNN screwed it up in great style... Quest09 (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Always a great possibility, if not a certainty.  ;) Textorus (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be an interesting currency. I could pay you, and you'd end up owing me 50%. Then you'd pay me back ... Clarityfiend (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What they clearly mean is that if my £1 bought me $4, and it now buys me $2, this has been a 100% decrease. It's not so silly: if you think that my $4 bought me £1, and now it buys me £2. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you express that as a simple equation? To me, 2 is 50% of 4 any way you look at it. Textorus (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"2 is 50% of 4". Yes. But that might not be how we feel it useful to see a situation. If you'd prefer, think of this percentage as the amount that it is required to appreciate to get back to where it was. If I'm an importer, then stuff I buy in a foreign currency because this percentage more expensive. [For example, in my example, I needed £1 for $4, now I need £2; my costs have risen 100%.] Since exporters gain out of a devaluation, it's often the impact on imported goods that is measured.

Just as, say, gamblers have an adapted system(s) best suited to their area, so might traders. It's about which visualisation is most helpful. It it dropped a lot, then say it's devalued 6750% might be more useful than saying "99.985%" it's just about how you think of them in your head. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I sort of see that if you are talking about your costs, then a rise from $2 to $4 is 100%, yes. Though that's not strictly referring to devaluation, is it. To me, if my currency has been devalued, it would be much more useful to think that my $1, or £1 is now worth only .015 of a penny than to make sense of a "6750%" figure. In which case I'd be looking for another, more prosperous country to hitch-hike to.  :) But perhaps, as you say, for some arcane reason the other way is useful to currency traders and exporters, which I'm not. Textorus (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

To communicate clearly, one needs to specify which value is being used as the basis of the percentage. If this is not specified, then the original or starting value is assumed (where 100% devaluation is the maximum when a currency becomes worthless). Dbfirs 00:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You can devalue a currency more than 100% with respect to some other currency. However to devalue a currency by 110% in an absolute sense would mean that a person would owe more money by the act of paying someone. Why would anyone admit to having any currency? They'd just burn it, and come out ahead.Greg Bard (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The simple answer is that the media are lazy statisticians. Many currencies are most commonly quoted in units per US$, such as 1,100 Korean won per dollar (W1,100:US$1). If the won were to fall to W2,200:US$1, it might look like a 100% devaluation. However, the proper assessment would be either (a) the dollar has doubled in value vis-à-vis the won (100% appreciation), or (b) the won has fallen (depreciated, or devalued depending on action taken) 50%, from US$1:W0.0009 to US$1:W0.000455. That’s too complicated for 30 second sound bites, so the lazy say the won fell by 100%. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The outer boroughs as the suburbs of Manhattan?

Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island are usually known as the outer boroughs, which are generally more residential and suburban than Manhattan, which is often referred to as “the city.” Many people who live in the outer boroughs commute to Manhattan for work. Manhattan is the center of the NYC metropolitan area. It is the place in NYC where most of the tourists go to. Would these facts imply that the outer boroughs would be the suburbs of Manhattan and that the tri-state area is the suburbs of the 5 boroughs in total? Would that be a fair way of describing things in NYC or not? Willminator (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It's sketchy. Urban/suburban usually refers more to settlement patterns and population density. I have heard Queens and Staten Island described as the most "suburban" burroughs in terms of the character of their settlement (lots of single family homes, more automobiles, less dense population overall.) If you are asking for "What are New York's Suburbs" however, I think I would consider it places like Hoboken and Westchester County and Nassau County; I don't think anyone would consider the 5 burroughs proper as the "suburbs" of New York; rather as part of New York. --Jayron32 01:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't go to Brooklyn or the Bronx and call those places "suburbs of Manhattan;" someone might have a problem wid dat. Brooklyn in particular developed as a distinct entity until the Brooklyn Bridge was built. Acroterion (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure where you get the idea that Queens, Brooklyn and Bronx are "suburban"... all three have very urban areas (tall apartment buildings and office towers, mass transit, etc) ... Staten Island, however, is much more suburban in nature, so there are no hard and fast rules here. Blueboar (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

See suburb, especially the historical sections (there's a history subsubsection for the United States). Large parts of NYC's outer boroughs might sensibly be called suburbs in the 19th century (the first example given in the US history subsection is Brooklyn Heights, Brooklyn). However over the course of the 20th century the term became associated with cars and single family detached homes. Levittown, New York is often cited as the archetype of the post WWII suburb--a suburb of NYC but notably beyond the outer boroughs. In short, most of NYC's outer boroughs do not conform to the common notion of "suburb" in the US. Pfly (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Eugene V. Rostow

In the Wired magazine article "Inside the Apocalyptic Soviet Doomsday Machine", it says Eugene V. Rostow said that Japan "not only survived but flourished after the nuclear attack" in his 1981 confirmation hearing. But the Wikipedia article says it was is 1966 confirmation hearing. Trying to find a source to corroborate this, Google mostly finds either blogs talking about the Wired piece or Wikipedia mirrors. Can anyone find a reliable source to corroborate the one already in the article (which I'm not arguing is wrong, but it's nice to have multiple sources). Better yet, are transcripts of both hearings available online? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It's 1981. Citation is "Nomination of Eugene V. Rostow," Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, 79th Congress, First Session (22-23 July 1981), on page 49:

Senator PELL. Let me ask you another broad question, about which you must have thought in view of your new responsibility. In the event of a full nuclear exchange between the Soviet Union and the United States, do you envision either country surviving to any substantial degree?
Mr. ROSTOW. Well, I think that the risks are not so much that of nuclear exchange as of political coercion based on the prospect of a nuclear exchange: the Cuban missile crisis sort of scenario.
So far as the risk of survival is concerned, I suppose the answer to your question is, it depends on how extensive the nuclear exchange is. Japan, after all, not only survived but flourished after the nuclear attack, however much we may regret that attack and do regret it. Nevertheless, it happened during the course of the war, and Japan survived. The problem is how extensive.
Senator PELL. My question is in a full nuclear exchange would a country survive?
Mr. ROSTOW. The human race is very resilient, Senator Pell.
Senator PELL. Oh, the race is; but, I asked if either country would survive.
Mr. ROSTOW. Well, there are ghoulish statistical calculations that are made about how many people would die in a nuclear exchange. Depending upon certain assumptions, some estimates predict that there would be 10 million casualties on one side and 100 million on another. But that is not the whole of the population.

It's online and searchable, but only if you have access to Lexis Nexis Congressional via a library subscription (which I do). --Mr.98 (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Political and Hollywood scandals and the use of lie detectors

There has been many scandals, particularly sex scandals, in the U.S in the Hollywood and political arenas in recent years. The most recent one is the Herman Cain sexual harrassment scandal. He says he hasn't done anything, but many people have questions. Why aren't lie detector tests implemented and used in such scandals? Wouldn't that help answer people's questions and doubts sooner, end any scandal sooner, and prevent the accused from further troubles and difficulties? Willminator (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Because they're not reliable. For example, according to this article published by the American Psychological Association, "most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies." Clarityfiend (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Who would implement such tests? Why would the alleged "perpetrators" submit themselves to such tests? HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Only if they're absolutely certain they're going to pass. But unless they're dragged into some actual legal case (criminal or civil), they'd have no compelling reason to take the test. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's not exactly true. Public figures might well want to take an infallible 'lie detector' test to clear their names even in the absence of a legal case. (Herman Cain, for instance, wants to be President: an ambition much more likely to be achievable if his candidacy isn't shadowed by doubts about what he might have done in the past.) Unfortunately, as Clarityfiend notes – and which is amply demonstrated by our extensive and well-sourced article on the polygraph – there's no such thing as an infallible lie detector. Modern devices don't even come close, in fact. Germany and Canada consider polygraph evidence completely inadmissible in court; most European countries don't use it; the United States has a patchwork of laws and precedent, but neither defendants nor witnesses can be compelled to take a polygraph examination. Our article also includes a number instances where polygraph examination has failed to catch murders and spies; innocent individuals, meanwhile, regularly fail polygraph examinations. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Law enforcement agencies like polygraphs because they often lead to confessions, not because they actually catch lies. They're a great tool for extracting a confession and not much else. The reason is psychological — the person being examined feels under pressure, worries that the machine is going to catch them out, and so on, and breaks down. They're remarkably effective, but only in this secondary, indirect fashion. My understanding was that they were rarely admissible as anything but exculpatory evidence in US courts (because they assumption is that they would likely be more prone to false positives rather than false negatives) but I may be some decades out of date in that understanding (my understanding is primarily historical). --Mr.98 (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

And, if you're interested in truth rather than convictions, those confessions are dangerously unsafe! People under pressure, particularly if they trust that some evidence will come in to clear them, will confess to things they didn't do frighteningly often. If you assume the polygraph will be accurate, you're more likely to confess to get the pressure off you, since you think the polygraph will show you didn't do it. Be very sceptical of anything that's "very good at getting confessions", since success will almost certainly have little correlation to whether the suspect is guilty or not. But juries, like law enforcement, place a lot of faith in confessions. This is one reason why (say it with me children) you always ask for a lawyer before you say anything, especially if you are innocent. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Lie detectors are only a small step up from Ouija boards. Even their biggest supporters only claim 90%-95% accuracy! That's nothing to be proud of! That's horrible. It's a 10% error rate! That'd be fine for a party game, but would you trust your freedom to a machine that at best, had a one-in-ten chance of telling the world you're a criminal?

And you can bet that if supporters claim a 10% error rate, real number is probably higher! APL (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that "at best, had a nine-in-ten chance"? And isn't it the chance of telling the world whether you are lying or telling the truth in answer to a specific question on a specific occasion, not whether or not you're a criminal? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Writby

help i want to find out about gr great granfather being served Writby us goverment around 1853 1863 on beaver island michigan

The above was asked via IRC,and I posted it here, trying to help.  Chzz  ►  23:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I expect the question is about the great grandfather having been served a writ by the US government, but if there is any record of it, it's probably buried in a dusty file cabinet somewhere in a federal office. Looie496 (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Doing genealogy research on non-notable individuals does not fall within the scope of Reference Desk activities. But you can begin doing your own research by looking through legal records located at such free sites such as The USGenWeb Project and Genealogy.com, where you can also participate in discussion boards with other researchers working on a particular family or locality. Among subscription sites, Ancestry.com is excellent, with millions of records available from local, state, and federal sources. Textorus (talk) 03:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Beaver Island, Michigan has an interesting history in that time period, being ruled by self-proclaimed "King" Strang, the leader of a Mormon splinter group until the U.S. government sent in a gunboat and someone assassinated him (but nobody cared enough to figure out who). After which mobs came in to dispossess many of the Mormons and most of the local government offices were unfilled and nobody much wanted to sort it all out. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

November 7

The Three Ravens -Suitable Ochestration

Hi, I was attempting to score this using MuseScore and would like some suggestions on what instruments might be sutiable.

Given that it appears to be an Elizabethan tune, I'm currently using a vocal instrument and a (Soprano) Recorder. However the tune sounds a little weak.

Your thoughts on suitable instrumentation would be much appreciated.

Posted to humanities rather than Entertainment, as this is more a question relating to historical instruments and musical theory stuff than the desk deals with.

I don't know the tune, but viols were common back then and have a wonderfully dark and rich tone. Pfly (talk) 08:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps virginals, the predecessor of the harpsichord? --TammyMoet (talk) 10:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Why not a lute? Deor (talk) 11:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, My next question is of a technical nature, How to 'fake' the sound of an old instrument using modern ones given that MuseScore is seemingly limited to MIDI instruments? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Does it not allow you to select a harpsichord? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It does, but it was more how to fake a 'viol' using combinations/transpositions of string options Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I've uploaded a temporary version of the current arrangement I have here. File:Three_Ravens.mid - feedback appreciated. Currently it's scored for 3 recorders ( 1 Soprano, 2 Bass) and a tenor voice part (which is using a SynthVoice effect in the MIDI uploaded.) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Obtaining the Darwin notes from Britain in America

File:Bank Of England10.png

A £10 Bank of England note.

I don't know any way, besides paying exorbitant exchange rates and insisting on one denomination (would they even accommodate such a request?), of obtaining the notes. Any help would be greatly appreciated. 66.108.223.179 (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to pay anything. They are availible free online. See [23]. --Jayron32 02:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

He probably want's a 10 pound note featuring Darwin's portrait. APL (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

See, I type "Darwin's notes" into google, and I get transcriptions of the man's notebooks. I naturally figured that was what he was after. I didn't realize he was on a banknote, and that's what the OP was talking about. Silly me. --Jayron32 04:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's a stupid question, have you asked at your local bank? They often carry small amounts of foreign currency as a courtesy to travelers.

You might try your local AAA office as well, however I think they'll want to sell you a "Tip Pack" of assorted small bills. They may not be willing to break one up to get just the 10s. APL (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

How many do you want? If you only want one might it be easier just to try some random money changer who doesn't say they have a minimum amount. Perhaps you'll pay $20+ for a single £10 but it may still be better then ending up with a lot of unwanted foreign currency notes. You can try looking around for the best rate which may vary wildly for such a small amount, but consider whether it's worth your time. Now if you want a lot, it's probably worth shopping around for the place with the best exchange rate. E.g. Travelex promise the best online rates [24], they make it clear their in store rates may not be as good (and they don't allow you to select the denominations when ordering online [25] and anyway just I presume selecting £10 isn't going to guarantee you only receive Darwins so it's probably a bad idea to do this online unless the site allows you to select Darwins which I find unlikely) but perhaps still worth checking out their store rates. It's probably not that unusual for people to request specific denominations (although more whether they want large, small or a mix or large and small) and it's likely some would be willing to honour a request for a specific denominations (or actually specific notes) provided it isn't going to badly affect their stocks of said notes. At most they might give you a worse rate, so hence the greater importance of shopping around to see who offers the best rate (but if the one you find offering the best rate offers the same rate then you don't have to worry). Remembering paying a slightly higher rate and ending up with all Darwin notes is likely to be better then a slightly better rate and ending up with a few non Darwin £10 notes. Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The only legal £10 notes over here (excluding those funny Scottish notes[26]) are the Darwin ones. The previous issue depicting Charles Dickens were withdrawn on 31 July 2003[27]. My favourite was the fiver showing the Duke of Wellington - in the background, you could see a lot of French soldiers running away[28] - manifique!. Maybe it didn't do much for the entente cordiale though ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 12:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he ever landed on Oahu and what is Leahi Point, Niihau?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Cook in Hawaii

What is the time frame of Captain James Cook's visit to Hawaii in 1778 and 1779 from the moment he sighted Oahu on January 18, 1778 to March 15, 1779, the date that Captain James King left Hawaii? Be aware that Cook visited Hawaii twice in that one year period, I think he went somewhere in the North before coming back. What I mean is like the "precise dates" he landed or sighted the different islands and how long he stayed on each one - the details. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried "A New, authentic collection of Captain Cook's voyages around the world"? It's not an easy read, but at a glance it seems to disagree with your dates. They seem to have moored the Reſolution in a bay in the 17th, having spotted the bay the day previous and the island before that. APL (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

(I don't know enough about that book to be convinced of its authenticity, but it claims to be compiled from first person sources.) APL (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, of course, I had my years mixed up. APL (talk) 03:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably not useful to you, but it's cool so I can't help point out that this site has high-res scan's of some of the Resolution's logbooks from that time period. I can't read the dense, old-fashioned script, though. APL (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

At the bottom of each page is a button to click for full magnification, which helps considerably. Textorus (talk) 04:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth Cook was heading "up north" in search of the Northwest Passage when he found the Hawaiian Islands. After his first visit he continued north (summer being the time for exploration of the far north), making a relatively rough chart of the coast between Oregon and Alaska (with a key stop at Nootka Sound). I don't know of a detailed, accessible, and easy to read log of exactly where and when he visited around the Hawaiian Islands. For such a famous and important voyage you'd think such info would not be hard to find. I have a book on George Vancouver's surveys of the Pacific Northwest with that kind of detail and readability. It seems strange there might be not something similar for James Cook in Hawaii (and elsewhere!). Pfly (talk) 08:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Captain Cook's World gives some key dates:

• 18 January 1778 - sighted Oahu
• 20 January 1778 - landed at Waimea, Kauai
• 29 January 1778 - anchored at Leahi Point, Niihau
• 2 February 1778 - departed for Oregon coast
• 26 November 1778 - arrived at Maui but did not land
• 17 January 1779 - anchored at Kealakekua Bay, Hawaii
• 4 February 1779 - departed
• 11 February 1779 - received by Kamehameha after gales force return to Kealakekua Bay, Hawaii
• 14 February 1779 - death of Cook
• 22 February 1779 - ships departed then "quickly investigated the islands of Lanai, Molokai and Kahoolawe" and stopped briefly on Oahu (Waimea Bay), Kauai (Waimea) and Niihau
• 15 March 1779 - departed for Kamchatka

--Melburnian (talk) 10:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

new ridings in Canadian politics

Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper said that there will be new ridings of House of Commons in Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec. Is there website where I can get the name of the new ridings and how many seats will the House of Commons have in 2015? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.228 (talk) 03:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This should have everything you need. The new ridings have not yet been drawn, though. This news report says 330 total seats. Mingmingla (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

A. P. Foster & Co.

A. P. Foster & Co. published a Holy Bible in the years before 1880. The address for this publisher was shown as 730 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas. One of these Bibles was presented as a gift from Blocker Brothers at Dodge City, Kansas in November 1880. Is there a history of this publisher and is there a history of "Blocker Brothers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HomerPickens (talk • contribs) 14:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't find much in the Interwebz regarding the A. P. Foster & Co publishers, a quick scan of Google Books turns up only 5 books, all published in the late 1800s, which would be contemporaneous with your bible. See [29]. The Blocker Brothers were apparently major cattlemen in Texas. See [30]. There's enough I can find on Google Books to develop a good Wikipedia article on the Blocker Brothers, they seem to meet the minimum notability standards. --Jayron32 14:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocker Brothers of Texas

The Blocker Brothers were a family of siblings who operated a group of cowboys and drove huge herds of cattle, mostly from the Texas Panhandle toward rail heads in Kansas and other ranches farther north into Whyoming in the late 1800's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HomerPickens (talk • contribs) 14:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a question relating to this? Looie496 (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Which Gray? Which Addison?

In the introduction to the Essays of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Matthew Arnold is quoted as saying:

Not with the Miltons and Grays, not with the Platos and Spinozas, not with the Swifts and Voltaires, not with the Montaignes and Addisons, can we rank Emerson.

Which person named Gray is he referring to? Which Addison? -- noosphere 16:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)