Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:44, 21 March 2012

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/H

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.

March 16

USSR's occupations in WW2

This has always bothered me after I learned about the Soviet Union's part in World War II. As most may know, the USSR allied Nazi Germany, invaded Poland with them, occupied the Baltic nations, annexed Moldova, and then when Germany attacked them they became apart of the Allies. They even helped the Allies defeat the Nazis. But why were the Soviets justified for keeping those lands they invaded, annexed and killed for? If the Allies were the good guys why didn't the USSR return the lands they took? Thanks. 64.229.204.143 (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that the Allies weren't necessarily 'good guys', though the general opinion seems to be that on average they were better than the 'bad guys'. For the long answer, you'll have to read up on the history of the period - though what conclusions you reach will depend on who's version of history you read, and on your own political perspectives. There aren't easy answers to questions like this - in fact there probably aren't answers at all. You might find that reading up on the Yalta conference and similar events gives an indication of what the Allies were intending - or at least, of what they said they were intending. Much of what was agreed was never implemented. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't "given" Eastern Europe, they simply refused to leave. The only way to get them out would have been war, using nuclear weapons. The US wasn't willing to do this when they had the chance, and once the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons of it's own, this was no longer an option. StuRat (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That has to be the most facile oversimplification of the question possible - and how exactly would 'liberating' eastern Europe by killing its inhabitants have made the US the 'good guys'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nukes would have been dropped on the Soviet Union until they agreed to pull out of Europe. And killing millions of people would have made the US look very bad, this is why they weren't willing to do it. StuRat (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly could the Soviet Union 'pull out of Europe? Much of it was in Europe - look at an atlas. As for whether the Soviet Union could be persuaded to give up territory by force, that had already been tried once, and it didn't work out too well for the bloke who tried. The Western allies were never in a position to take over the Soviet Union militarily, and their populations (and economies) would never have supported them if they had tried. And in response to your earlier comments regading the Soviets not being 'given' territory, Churchill in particular seems to have seen the negotiations at Yalta, Potsdam etc as quite explicitly about dividing up the spoils of victory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence. A link to Churchill's "naughty document": [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's pulling out of all of Europe except for the portion which was actually the Soviet Union. Churchill recognized the reality that once in, they wouldn't leave voluntarily. That's not the same as giving it away. And while the US had nukes and the Soviet Union didn't, the US did have the ability, just not the will. StuRat (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ability to do what? To kill a large number of Soviet civilians, certainly. To actually render the USSR incapable of fighting, maybe not. As for America not having 'the will', given subsequent events (not least the collapse of the Soviet Union), I suspect that we should be grateful they didn't. And no, Churchill wasn't just 'recognizing reality', he was negotiating about what 'reality' was going to be. Or at least attempting to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you can't stop the inevitable, you negotiate to get what few concession you can get. That's pragmatism in action. And even dictators must bow to public opinion when it's strong enough. Stalin's ability to maintain the occupation of Europe wouldn't work if the army refused. And yes, it did work out well in the end, except for the couple of lost generations in Eastern Europe. StuRat (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If something is 'inevitable', negotiations are irrelevant. But yes, you can call it 'pragmatism' if you like. Stalin would have liked to take over Greece. In terms of popular support, and in terms of having the means to do this (the communist dominated Greek resistance), he was probably in a position to do so. He seems to have preferred to be 'pragmatic' and concede Greece to 'the West' - which resulted in a particularly bloody civil war. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That, short of war, the Soviet Union would soon dominate Easter Europe was inevitable, but the actual boundaries were not (as in Greece), that's what the negotiations were about. StuRat (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and short of war, that the United States would dominate Western Europe was likewise inevitable. And the negotiations were in part about whether Greece was in the 'East' or the 'West', regardless of the opinions of Greek citizens. I don't see much evidence of 'good guys' here. Just the usual spectacle of victors dividing up the spoils:

AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Life in US-dominated western Europe was just about intolerable. For example, people were always trying to escape from West Berlin into East Berlin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. To equate the two situations is absurd. Western Europe had free elections, and the subsequent governments were of their own choosing, while Eastern Europe had puppet governments and sham elections, backed up by Soviet troops whenever anyone challenged the results, as in the Prague Spring, or even preemptively, as in the Katyn Massacre. This is true, with a few exceptions, like Spain in Western Europe which, even though friendly with the Nazis, remaining officially neutral and thus was not under Allied control post-WW2, and Romania, which while just as repressive as other Eastern European govs, did manage a degree of autonomy from the Soviet Union. StuRat (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)"The enemy of my enemy is my friend..." is how the saying goes, and that applies for exactly as long as we share an enemy. The Soviets were never very "friendly" with the UK or the U.S. either before or after World War II. Indeed, they were only forced into the war against Germany because Germany renegged on the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. In simple terms, the Soviets didn't fight the Germans to make the world safe for democracy, or to rid the world of a totalitarian scourge. They fought the Germans because the Germans attacked them first; they were defending themselves. Coordination with the other allies was always tenuous at best; there's no indication Churchill and Roosevelt trusted Stalin in any way. The Soviet Union only joined the war against Japan at the literal last second; they fought no significant battles and only declared war against Japan so they could reap the spoils of the "victors" side, see Sakhalin_Island#Second_World_War. The Soviets and the Western Democracies went back to being rivals almost as soon as the war ended. --Jayron32 03:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must disagree on one point. Stalin and Roosevelt actually had a mostly trusting relationship with one another. Stalin and Churchill, not so much. Roosevelt believed that Stalin could be reasoned with, worked with as a respected equal, trusted to keep his word, etc. (Not completely, of course, but I Roosevelt didn't even trust Churchill unconditionally.) Now whether this was because Roosevelt was a fool or because he had a more subtle diplomatic touch, historians disagree. But Truman had no diplomatic touch, no subtlety, and no ability to trust or be trusted by Stalin. Roosevelt+Stalin was a very different situation than Truman+Stalin. It's possible that had Roosevelt been the one at Potsdam and VJ Day, that things might have turned out a bit different in the Cold War (I have my doubts, because I think the limiting factor here is Stalin, not the Americans), but of course, one can never know. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, but two things. First, Truman inherited a very different post-war (and mostly post-bomb) diplomatic relationship with Russia than Roosevelt did, and second, turning the Soviet Union into an allied power was possibly one of Hitler's worst (of many) strategic blunders. There are accounts of Stalin being almost personally betrayed after Hitler declared war on the USSR. That seemed to be a reoccuring theme of Hitler's... declaring war for no strategic reason on countries that would come back to crush him (Germany declared war on the U.S. within days after Pearl Harbor, which made it easy for Roosevelt to finally be involved in the war in Europe). Shadowjams (talk) 09:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without disputing much else of what you say, it's worth noting that the western Allies pressed hard at the Yalta conference for the Soviets to agree to enter the war against Japan once Germany had been defeated. Whether they would have done this anyway is one of these questions that can never be answered... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea was for them to enter the war against Japan immediately after Germany fell, not right before Japan surrendered. StuRat (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that the Soviet Union entered the war as agreed at Yalta - within 90 days of the final defeat of Germany. I think you'll also find that many historians consider the entry of the Soviet Union into the war as being a significant factor leading to the Japanese surrender. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

" The Soviet Union... fought no significant battles" - well the Soviet invasion of Manchuria threw a force of > 1,500,000 men and 5,000 tanks against a Japanese army of > 600,000 and routed them in 11 days (in contrast, the Allied assault at the Normandy landings totalled 156,000 men). To quote our article: "The rapid defeat of Japan's Kwantung Army was a very significant factor in the Japanese surrender and the end of World War II" The article also agrees with AndyTheGrump above; "The invasion began on August 9, 1945, exactly three months after the German surrender on May 8 (May 9, 0:43 Moscow time)". Alansplodge (talk) 11:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They sure waited until the last possible minute, though. StuRat (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that earlier Soviet intervention would have done us any favours. The Allies were certainly worried that the Soviets might mount an invasion of Hokkaido before they could get their act together. The Soviets did invade Sakhalin and have never got around to giving it back. Apparently all the Japanese people were chucked out in 1949. The prospect of it ever being returned seems very remote. Alansplodge (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It takes time build up a force of a million and a half soldiers on the far side of Russia. Anyway, the US and UK weren't exactly encouraging them by that point — any significant participation in the invasion of Japan would mean sharing more territory with the Soviets, and by then the US was convinced they could win in Japan without their help. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, "Allies of World War II" are "Антигитлеровская коалиция" in Russian - literally "Anti-Hitler Coalition". Use of such name might make things a little easier to understand... Also, it might make sense to see three sides - Axis, Western Allies and Soviet Union - instead of two. For example, computer game Hearts of Iron divides the states in a similar way. We also have an article concerning evaluation of the position of Western Allies with respect of Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe - "Western betrayal". --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a significant difference between the US and the UK/France, in that the US wasn't interested in helping those two reestablish/maintain their empires post-WW2. StuRat (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant articles: Operation Barbarossa (close to 26 million Soviet citizens were killed in later years, including 20 million civilians in then-German-invaded western Russia), Allied war crimes during World War II and the much-later Sino-Soviet split. Also, were there actually many people trying to flee West Germany (W. Berlin) into East Germany during the 1960's? ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 19:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source on that last point ? I imagine people in the West might have wanted to go East if the rest of their family was there, but couldn't they just walk across ? Who actually would prevent movement in that direction ? StuRat (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AH1: No, Beseball Bugs was just joking in his comment above. There have been some (few) people moving from West Germany to the East during the Cold War (e.g. Angela Merkel's parents), but there were no restrictions of movement in that direction, so no-one was forced to "flee".--Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus: "So many candidates in our elections, it's so confusing !"

Gretta: "Ya, so why don't we escape to East Germany, where the government decides who we should vote for ?" StuRat (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collections

I read somewhere that if you own three of something, you're well on your way to having a collection. But, really, if you own just two of something, don't you already have a collection, as otherwise why have two of the same thing?

Also, I would submit that if you own something already, that is already a collection. It is not difficult to imagine a museum saying "This piece is our whole Chinese collection."

Going farther, if the museum is just about to acquire the piece, aren't they "well on their way to having a collection"?

What if they're only considering acquiring it, but have good reasons to do so? So, really, if you have good reasons to get something, aren't you well on your way to having a collection of that?

Is this where we draw the line? But what if there aren't really any good reasons to get it, AND you're not about to, either. Certainly you're not on your way to having a collection then, right? But, what if someone comes and convinces you, in SPITE of the fact that there aren't really good reasons for you to have it.

So can't we really say, if you could be convinced - verily, tricked - into possibly considering getting something, aren't you on your way to having a collection of it?

Also, what if the person can't convince or trick you because you're simply unreasonable, and you don't see the value. Couldn't you become more reasonable in the future? Isn't a better question "Could a reasonable man be convinced to or tricked into considering getting one of these things?"

Is this where we draw the line? I submit that it is. But I would like philosophical references or insight from this desk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.254.208 (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are asking how we define whether you are 'well on your way to having a collection' of something? This phrase is so vague, I don't think you are likely to get any definite answers, and naively, it seems unlikely to me that there any philosophical references discussing this specific phrase - maybe you could make your question a bit more general? Maybe you are interested in philosophical discussions of quantity or ownership? 130.88.73.65 (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The paradox of the heap might be relevant, as it considers how many items are needed to have a heap: see Sorites paradox. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those semi-humorous phrases which isn't meant to be subjected to deep analysis to understand its meaning. When I grew up, my mom used to say, after talking to herself, "People who talk to themselves outloud are either crazy or have money in the bank..." That doesn't mean that some study has been done which correlate wealth or level of sanity to frequency of self-speech. Knowing that my family wasn't particularly rich, it basically was meant to be understood humorously that my mom was calling herself crazy. Or when we were kids in the bathroom, a guy at a neighboring urinal used to say something like "If you shake it more than twice, you're playing with it!", as if that was some hard rule which defined the difference between cleanliness and masturbation, which is of course a bit absurd. Its the same with this phrase. The context is not that there is a strict numerical definition of the term "collection". The context I usually hear it in is when someone thinks collecting things is a bit "weird", reminding people that at some point one has to admit they have gone beyond buying some stuff because it looks cool, or is useful, to the point where you're buying things merely to collect them. It isn't that that magic limit happens at 3 (anymore than the third shake to get the last drop makes one a public masturbater); its just supposed to be a silly thing to say. Sometimes silly things to say are just supposed to be silly. --Jayron32 12:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wycliffite's "staff"

I noticed in our article on John Wycliffe#Activity as a preacher it talks of a "staff" in hand. I assume this is a walking stick and not a weapon - am I correct? Is the picture a good depiction of their "staff". What does it mean "...the latter having symbolic reference to their pastoral calling"? In the picture it appears that every set of "two-by-two" had one. I assume when they "passed from place to place preaching the sovereignty of God" it was only in England - right?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

18th century painting showing a sheperd and their crook

A Roman Catholic bishop carrying an ornate crosier meant to resemble a sheperd's crook

Shepherds traditionally carry staves (often called "Crooks" as they frequently have a long crooked bit at the top to hook sheep) to guide and control their flocks. The term "pastor" refering to a priest or cleric in the Christian faith, and the term "pastoral" meaning "of or relating to herding animals" are directly related. Christian clerics of all strains use the symbolism of the shepherd to signify their vocation to varying degrees, and the staff can be one of those symbols. See Staff_of_office#Ecclesiastical_use and Crosier for more details on the practice. In summation, a christian cleric may sometimes carry a staff which is symbolic of the sheperd's crook, in keeping with the symbolism of the cleric as a sheperd of his flock. I've added a few pics as examples. --Jayron32 15:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Lollards were mainly in England, but they were also in Holland, with which England had close economic ties at the time. They must have also been in Bohemia; England and Bohemia were connected by the marriage of Anne of Bohemia and Richard II, and Wycliff was certainly an influence on Jan Hus. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We also have a brief article about the Pilgrim's staff, which discusses the peculiar hooked variety used by pilgrims to Santiago de Compostella. Most other pilgrims would have carried a plain pole like a quarter staff I suspect. A rather upmarket version is shown here. However, "The rejection of saints and pilgrimages was another common facet of Lollardy."[2] Alansplodge (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great responses on "staffs".--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of years ago, I spent a rainy afternoon writing a long paragraph on the shepherd's crook, historical development in medieval Europe, and use as a symbol in ancient egypt and by the church; all carefully referenced. I can't remember which article I appended it to, but the whole lot seems to have vanished intop the ether. If anyone can track it down, I'd be very grateful. Alansplodge (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On what charges?

Maybe this belongs in the Entertainment section since it is about an actor, but I'm asking here first since it doesn't really have to do with their entertainment work. Actor George Clooney and some other people got arrested while protesting outside (according to the news releases I've read) the gates of the Embassy of the Sudan in Washington, D.C. The morsel of actual news that no news source I've been able to find seems to include in their reporting is what the charges were. Public disturbance? Was the ground they were on not public property? No data (that I can find). Just curious. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was apparently charged with "crossing a police line." Which is to say, the police defined part of public space as a place where you cannot protest, and since he (and many others) protested there anyway, they were arrested on minor charges.

It has become terribly common in the last decade or so to arrest protesters in the United States who fail to disperse upon police order, or who fail to stay in designated "free speech zones" (I dare you to find a more Orwellian term for these cages). The protesters are usually not charged with anything substantial and released shortly afterwards. You might well ask how that policy is compatible with the whole "right of the people peaceably to assemble" thing. The truth is, the courts have given extreme leeway to police forces in the name of keeping order and avoiding violent riots, including the ability to arbitrarily declare certain public spaces to be off-limits for protesting at select times. Whether the state violence that accompanies many such police actions is more or less worth the possible avoidance of extremely hypothetical mob violence — well, I leave that to you to muddle over. You might also read over the text of HR 347, which was recently signed into law and allows the Washington, DC, police extreme leeway in defining protest as an illegal activity within the city limits. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It gets worse than that, actually. Not so recently, I was involved in an anti-war demonstration (against the Gulf War) in San Francisco. The police surrounded the demonstrators and then ordered them to disperse, while going at those who "refused" to do so (but in fact could not escape) with clubs and then arresting them. Some were charged with resisting arrest or with assaulting an officer for trying to protect their bodies. I was fortunate to find myself near a side alley through which I was able to disperse before being attacked and arrested. Marco polo (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Remember, they hate us for our freedom. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Kettling --ColinFine (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These arrest incidences have been relatively common recently, for example during the Keystone XL pipeline protests often involving 10,000+ demonstrators where on one occasion over 1,000 were arrested including notable individuals. The particular recent protest referred to by OP concerns the ongoing Sudan internal conflict (2011–) which has displaced half a million people in northern Sudan alone (South Sudan became independent in July 2011) and is creating a potential "man-made" famine situation exacerbated by the fact that some prominent UN food envoys pulled out of the country when one of its representatives was murdered earlier in 2011. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 19:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony J. Selin

I am doing research on Capt. Anthony J. Selin, who fought with George Washington in the Revolutinary War. I have found a few discrepancies (I think) and would love to have them clarified. I read that Capt. Selin died in 1792. He married Catherine Snyder and they had two children, Anthony Charles Selin and Agnes Selin. Somewhere in my research, I found that [another?] "Capt." Anthony Selin married Aug. 26, 1810 to Miss Catherine Yoner of Sunbury. Would this be the SON of Capt. Selin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sselin62044 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it will help you, but findagrave.com has [3] as its only Anthony Selin, shows a plaque "In memory of Capt. Anthony Selin of the Revolutionary Army Born in Switzerland Founder of Selin's Grove Died in the year of 1792". Mary Ann Selin Swineford (1815-1872) is buried in the same cemetery, and the site lists 227 with the last name or as a maiden name. Dru of Id (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lollard protectors?

I see that John Aston and John Purvey were close associates of John Wycliffe. Were they protectors of the Lollards in general? If not, which preachers would be considered the top protectors of the Lollards in Wycliffe's lifetime?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some other clerics who were Lollards were Nicholas Hereford, William Sawtrey, John Trevisa, Thomas Bagley, William Taylor, and John Ball of course. I don't think I could call all of them "protectors" of Lollards though (especially not Ball), but the church wasn't very interested in protecting them. Their greatest protectors were all nobility, I would say. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Adam for the response.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Americans in the Second Opium War?

Was the United States involved in the Second Opium War? B-Machine (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the title of this question. Please don't just call it "question", as it will garner a better response with a clearer title. Mingmingla (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The United States was involved, and our article (which you've linked) gives examples of U.S. involvement. Marco polo (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA criticism of being too European

Didn't FIFA receive alot of criticism regarding World Cup because the continent that contributes the most nations is European like I mean FIFA a little bit too racist about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.42.146 (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't surprise me if people had made criticisms like that. There are a lot of people in the world and they make a lot of criticisms about all sorts of things. European football is certainly where the money is (although a lot of that money comes from fans outside Europe - Asian television rights bring in a lot), which means Europe will have a lot of influence in FIFA. That doesn't necessarily imply there is any racism going on, though... --Tango (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA is regularly accused of bias by many different groups. It can be claimed that FIFA is pro-Europe (for example, only 1 player has ever been nominated for FIFA World Player of the Year whilst playing for a non-European club), or that FIFA is anti-Europe (by awarding the FIFA World Cup to countries like Qatar, when it is felt that their bids were weaker than those of European nations). Mostly, though, it seems that FIFA's biases, if they exist, are motivated more by money than by out-and-out racism. Having said that, Sepp Blatter has been accused of racism in the past over comments such as "There is no racism, there is maybe one of the players towards another, he has a word or a gesture which is not the correct one, but also the one who is effected [sic] by that, he should say that this is a game. We are in a game, and at the end of the game, we shake hands". - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Europe won all medals in the last two FIFA World Cups and on average, European teams also do better than non-European teams in the World Cup. If slots were allocated to get the best teams to the World Cup then Europe would get more slots than now. As in many other sports, World Championship slots are a compromise. They award better continents with more slots, but not as many as they would get in a distribution based purely on quality. In team handball, the European championships are considered harder than the World Championships because you don't get "walkovers" against poor non-European teams. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some arithmetic to second what PrimeHunter said: Europe will get 13 berths out of 32 in the 2014 FIFA World Cup (downgraded from 15 out of 32 in 1998). Currently, there are 20 European teams in the FIFA World Rankings top 32, and there are 17 European teams in the World Football Elo Ratings top 32. Some partially or fully Asian countries like Russia, Turkey and Israel count as European for footballing purposes. Notice also that, excluding Brazil's automatic berth, the South American confederation is given 4.5 berths (that is, either 4 or 5; an inter-continental play-off will determine the exact number) when there are only 9 teams other than Brazil that are affiliated to it. Therefore we'll see either 50% or 60% of all South American teams compete in the 2014 finals. --Theurgist (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing with South America is not only that these are the teams that most fiercely compete for the title with the Europeans, but that is also where most of the notable non-European talent comes from to play in the big European teams. To even be more accurate, the World Cup is generally a contest between Western Europe and South America. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I mean notice that last World Cup had 13 Euro nations, 4 from Asia, 6 Africans, 1 Oceania, 3 CONCACAF and 5 CONMEBOL. Definitely, FIFA is being pro European when it comes to qualified teams. Can't they make it equal number like 6 teams from each association? making it more exciting and longer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.150.48 (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that having six teams from Oceania would make for an exciting World Cup? --Wrongfilter (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking Australia 31–0 American Samoa might be sort of exciting – if you are not from American Samoa. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that soccer fans be somewhat careful when describing anything in their game as exciting. Obviously the fans get so bored at times that they need to create their own excitement in the stands and streets outside. HiLo48 (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that the world's most popular sport is not exciting reveals interesting POV, HiLo! --Dweller (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know, but obviously the word "exciting" is always POV, and I didn't use it first here ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume that the teams currently (as of March 2012) ranked best at the FIFA World Rankings qualify for the 2014 finals.

First scenario. We're using the current allocation system. Europe: 13 spots; South America: 5.5 spots (we're assuming 6); Africa: 5 spots; Asia: 4.5 spots (we're assuming 4); CONCACAF: 3.5 spots (we're assuming 3); Oceania: 0.5 spots (we're assuming 1).

Qualifying teams:

Europe: Spain, Netherlands, Germany, England, Portugal, Italy, Croatia, Denmark, Russia, Greece, France, Sweden, Switzerland.
South America: Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Colombia.
Africa: Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, Algeria, Zambia, Mali.
Asia: Australia, South Korea, Japan, Iran.
CONCACAF: Mexico, USA, Panama.
Oceania: New Zealand.

Second scenario. Europe and South America have 6 spots each, the other confederations have 5 spots each.

Qualifying teams:

Europe: Spain, Netherlands, Germany, England, Portugal, Italy.
South America: Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Colombia.
Africa: Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, Algeria, Zambia, Mali.
Asia: Australia, South Korea, Japan, Iran, Uzbekistan.
CONCACAF: Mexico, USA, Panama, Jamaica, El Salvador.
Oceania: New Zealand, Samoa, Fiji, New Caledonia, Vanuatu.

Do you really think that having the purple teams at the expense of the green ones would contribute greatly for an exciting World Cup? :) --Theurgist (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. There's that word exciting again. (Fair might be better.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to push a POV. I just repeated the word from the particular question I was answering. --Theurgist (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbekistan, Jamaica, and El Salvador might very well have semi-worthy claims. The Oceania nations, on the other hand, are too small (population wise), and their football-playing populations even smaller. If we were talking about Rugby, on the other hand... very different story! Samoa, Fiji, and Tsonga, tiny as they are, would all have worthy claims to entering the Rugby World Cup (and have been). 58.111.224.202 (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbekistan, Jamaica, El Salvador are ranked 67, 54, 58 in http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtable/index.html. They might get points but not compete for medals. In this scenario they would replace France, Sweden, Switzerland who are ranked 16, 17, 18. France won gold in 1998 and silver in 2006. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually every sporting competition in the world is weighted to ensure that the 'top' teams/players make it to the finals. The qualification processes do this to ensure that things like 'world cups' are opportunities for the best teams/players to be pitted against each other in an exciting tournament...It's not that Fifa is biased/Euro-centric it's that ALL sports organisations are. In Tennis most tournaments are ranked so the top-seeds avoid each other early in the competition. In Rugby for their World Cup the qualification process (Rugby World Cup qualification is 'biased'. The cricket world up has its bias too Cricket World Cup qualification. Hell even big Chess tournaments have biased qualification FIDE Grand Prix 2008–2009#Qualification. I guess what I'm trying to make clear is...this isn't so much Fifa being euro-centric/biased, this is virtually every major 'world' tournament in virtually every sport weighting qualification processes so the highest ranked/historically established nations (in that sport) are more likely to qualify. ny156uk (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This scheme also makes it less likely for an underdog to break into an advanced stage by chance (that is, by encountering weak oppositions all the time) rather than according to actual merits. --Theurgist (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 17

Peace treaty between Italy and Japan?

Italy declared war on Japan back in 1945[4]. Was there ever a peace treaty between the two countries? Anonymous.translator (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. See Military history of Italy during World War II#Italy's declaration of war on Japan. Oda Mari (talk) 09:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Should this be in the Italy–Japan_relations article? That was the first place I looked.Anonymous.translator (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my possible ignorance here, but what's the practical difference between "negotiat(ing) the resumption of their respective diplomatic ties", and a "formal peace treaty"? 58.111.224.202 (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just the level of formality. A formal peace treaty must be approved by the full governments of each nation, and would have a formal signing ceremony, typically. Resumption of diplomatic ties can happen at a much lower level, with little or no ceremony. StuRat (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The work involved in resuming diplomatic ties would be handled by government employees, mainly out of the limelight as you say, but approval to do it in the first place could only come from the individual governments. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this somewhat depends on the government. If some nation declared war on the US, but never actually attacked and the US never bothered to declare war back, and only severed diplomatic relations by executive order, they could just be restored in the same way, without Congress needing to vote. StuRat (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For example, France wouldn't have any real need to sign a peace treaty to end its war with Elbonia if it happened in real life; nobody would mind the French diplomats going back to Elbonia despite the official state of war. Alternately, you can look at List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity and add Italy-Japan if you have the sources. Nyttend (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both Italy and Japan were conquered by the Allies; and there's no special need for the installed governments to declare peace with each other, is there? It might be fairer to say that Italy declared war with one Japan and found itself at peace with another. I mean, by analogy, if Italy had declared war on the Confederate States of America I doubt they would have had to make peace with Georgia and Texas and so forth as reorganized under Union control. Wnt (talk) 05:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English-speaking class in Western Europe?

Has anyone ever considered the possibility of the emergence of an educated English-speaking —actually bilingual in their country's main language and English— class in Western Europe? A lot of people there already speak good English and some of them are pretty much bilingual because of TV and the Internet. Probably most of those with an excellent command of English will teach their children the language. --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No and no. They learn English at school and their children will learn English at school.
Sleigh (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a distinct class. They all learn English at school. --Tango (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there can even be a somewhat opposite feature. In some countries, usage of English terms and Anglicanized grammar in everyday speech might be a sign of lower education, as people with higher education will be more strict in speaking their mother tongue 'correctly'. --Soman (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I think it's a good question, as in the Imperial Russian aristocrats who spoke French en famille. I understand that many families of Chinese and Malay ancestry in Southeast Asia (e.g. Singapore, Malaysia) speak English at home, although of course they can also speak, write and understand Chinese and/or Malay. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broadside_Perceptor -- A somewhat interesting and accessible book which discusses similar issues in a historical perspective is Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World by Nicholas Ostler... -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all. --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's more the case that higher classes will speak English, but speaking English doesn't make you a member of a higher class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.106.190.177 (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking English may be a sign of being educated to a high level, but lots of people in low-level jobs dealing with tourists or foreigners will also learn English (e.g. shop assistants, hotel staff, transport workers). So maybe reading/writing English would be more distinguished. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE;Helmer Hanssen (South Pole)

Hi, I read some of your information on Helmer Hanssen (South Pole) I am Helmer Hanssen great grandaughter Philomena Price I noticed the dates you have on his death are wrong he died in 1957 can send you a photo of his headstone if you wish and have many photo,s of Helmer Hanssen and his wife Kristina also if you wish to have them for the artical. Please feel free to contact me. Philomena Price — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.251.62 (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has to rely on published sources like newspapers, books etc. Depressingly the Helmer Hanssen cites no sources at all. What reliable sources I can find are the Fram Museum in Oslo, which on this page which gives 1956 (citing, I think, this article). You should probably discuss the matter, and the photos you have, at the article's talk page talk:Helmer Hanssen 87.113.82.247 (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of a puzzle: This genealogy page gives a "Died 2 Aug 1956" and then "Cemetery Record: Helmer Hanssen Polarfarar B.year: 1870 D.year: 1957". This stone at Bjørnskinn kirke gives a date of 1956. This 2010 newspaper article says "Han døde 1956" ("He died in 1956"?). The Fram Museum's page on Hanssen says "He died in Tromsø in 1956 and the state paid for his funeral from Tromsø cathedral. A monument to ‘Polar Explorer Helmer Hanssen 1870-1956’ stands behind the Bjørnskinn church in Andøy." Alansplodge (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's defenitely something strange going on here: there seem to be two almost identical stones at Bjørnskinn: 1870 - 1957 (source [5]) and 1870 - 1956 (source [6]). Perhaps they are the same one and it has been altered? Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there could be two people called Helmer Hanssen (and sources have muddled them) - but Helmer isn't a very common name. Surely the death of Hanssen will have been reported in the death notices of Norwegian newspapers. 87.113.82.247 (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka: here's his actual gravestone (source [7]). The inscription says: "24 - 9 - 1870 + ? - 8 - 1956". Google translate says: "Helmer Hanssen is buried in Tromsø cemetery along with his wife Augusta. An anonymous Tromsø woman has for years paid the ground rent for the grave, that has been in danger of being deleted... Now is the time that he gets his own monument, says Gidsken Halland, polar enthusiast and information officer at Visit Tromsø." She seems to be the nice lady in the photograph. Alansplodge (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. I've just realised that he seems to be buried with a different woman than the one you thought was your great grandmother. You'll have to solve that one! Alansplodge (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No necessarily. The Fram Museum website says his wife was called "Kristine Augusta Josefine Berg" - so while the gravestone you've found calls her "Augusta", the OP calling her "Kristina" isn't inconsistent with that. 87.113.82.247 (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd uncovered a dreadful family secret ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His obituary in the London Times published on Saturday 4 August 1956 says he died on Thursday at Tromsoe, Norway (which would be 2 August 1956). MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The tombstone indicates August 1, but it could have been overnight the 1st and 2nd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The death year was given at article creation, and the specific dates were added early last year,[8] by an editor who might still be active, so he might respond to questions about the source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Muslim surnames used

Which surnames of India are commonly used by Muslims of different ethnic groups? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.150.48 (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try Indian name (although the article is admittedly in poor shape). Khan (surname) appears to be a common one. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 19:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfly Lovers

Throughout human history, there have been countless of legend stories ranging from mythical figures to ordinary people who did extraordinary things. I wonder why are those legend stories come from? Someone must have made them up at some point in time. Are they real stories or totally made up just for entertainment? Or what is any other reasons for ancient people to make up fake stories? And i also want to know specific about the butterfly lovers case. Was it real? I meant was it actually happened in real life.Pendragon5 (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stories, Myths, and legends, usually owe their longevity, in the main, because the original events that lead to the story being repeated (and sometimes embellished beyond recognition) reflected aspects of human nature, and thus they held a moral/educational thyme that the tellers thought that their young ~~brats~~ children would learn something of value from them. Also, it was a an outlet for peoples that had a sense of history and wanted to pass it on to the next generation.--Aspro (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you have already read the article Legend, but if not, it addresses some of your concerns. Some legends may derive from actual people and events that are not (or not reliably) historically recorded, likely with various distortions, embellishments, and/or omissions. Others might originally have been pure inventions for entertainment, or religious or moral instruction, not originally intended to be taken literally (at least by adults). Some legends may combine two or more such elements, or be fusions of originally separate stories. These do not exhaust all the possible origins of legends, and one cannot lay down a general rule about them.

If a story contains obviously supernatural or otherwise unlikely elements which were intended to be believed for religious reasons, they might be better defined as Myths. One definition of a myth, which I myself find useful although others might differ, is a story (or legend) with cultural and/or religious significance whose importance was/is independent of its actual historical truth or untruth (or degrees of such).

Regarding the Butterfly Lovers story, the fact that it's described as a legend means, pretty well by definition, that nobody knows if real historical events definitely lie behind it, and I think we can be fairly sure that no people turned into butterflies, but some of the details in the article suggest to me that, leaving aside the fantasy elements, it might be partly based on some real events. Only an expert in Chinese history and legend might be able to say much more about it than that (in which case they ought to add their information to the article).

The subject of myths and legends is a very wide and diverse one. Some of the further links in the two articles I linked may lead you to material of further interest to you. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.22 (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Some legends may derive from actual people and events that are not (or not reliably) historically recorded". Why those people or events were not being recorded if they were real people and events? Why did people try to embellish and distort the real stories? Could it be something unexplainable, supernatural, miracles... did indeed happen and people were actually telling the truths.Pendragon5 (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have access to everything that was ever written, plus we don't have access at all to stories that folks made up and never wrote down until many generations later after they had been embellished. Some modern-day legends are easier to pin down because they are better recorded, but even now there can be unsolved and unsolvable mysteries about the origins of legends. As to "why" to embellish stories, it's because they're more interesting that way. There was a Robert of Locksley, a thief who was hanged many centuries ago, who may well be the inspiration for Robin Hood, an otherwise-mythological hero. Maybe he was known for generosity, maybe for robbing the rich and giving to the poor. Maybe he was good with bow-and-arrow. That's enough basic facts to give someone with imagination the inspiration to tell tales. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many stories are exaggerated for reasons of propaganda or entertainment, as well as being accidentally changed. If you want to tell a good story, you may combine legends about different people to refer to the same hero, exaggerate to better fit the accepted format of legend, or you may be confused by people with similar names. This probably happened with e.g. King Arthur, Roland, and Saint Patrick. Stories of Jesus were probably manipulated to fit Old Testament prophecy[9] and to match other myth systems (Mithras in comparison with other belief systems). For propaganda you may exaggerate the deeds of your people's heroes, or make up stories about the evil things your enemies do: there were lies told in the Western media about German atrocities in World War I (e.g. The Crucified Soldier myth) and even about Saddam Hussein (Rationale for the Iraq War), so it's likely that similar lies were told before then. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 18

Im trying to figure out what this is

I am trying to figure out what this is all i know is that it is from the late 1800's http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v419/Krazy006/IMAG0129.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.252.191 (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can assume the white zip tie isn't an original part. BTW, I removed your double posting of this Q on the Misc Desk. StuRat (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Is that the only photo you have? Dismas|^(talk) 02:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like some sort of squeezing device, possibly to extract liquids, with a part missing. The set screw on the left locks in some sort of 'die' and the part with the holes filters out the larger bits after the die. Having a removeable die could be for cleaning it, or different squeezing aplications.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Aloysius' queen

From Aloysius Gonzaga:

Purity was his notable virtue; he never looked even upon his mother's face and never looked at his queen so that he could only recognize the queen by her voice.

He appears to have lived most of his life in the Papal States, and of the other states mentioned in his biography, I get the impression that he didn't spend any time (aside from travelling) in countries with queens, other than a couple of years in Spain. Is this perhaps a reference to Mary, Queen of Heaven? The section in question (along with most of the rest of the article) is completely unsourced. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I would take it to be a loose reference to Maria of Austria, Holy Roman Empress, in whose household he is described, earlier in the article, as being a page: its context and phrasing doesn't seem consistent with visions of a divine entity, and refusal to look at the face of The Blessed Virgin (for fear of feeling sexual attraction) doesn't sound like a conventional Christian attitude (though refusing to look at one's own mother's face for the same reason also sounds pretty weird). I suspect from the prose style that much of this article has been copied or paraphrased from (out-of-copyright?) Catholic reference works, but the edit history is too long and complicated for me to want to work out just where this sentence was introduced. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.22 (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was added in May of 2008,[10] by an editor who worked on various Catholic articles for a couple of months around then, and then disappeared. Perhaps his other edits should be scrutinized for similar types of comments, as that one is not only an unsourced editorial, it also sounds like it was lifted directly from somewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great Lakes battlefleets

What are the names of the U.S. Navy and Canadian Navy fleets operating in the Great Lakes? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 02:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure there are any? The Great Lakes would seem to be more in the realm of the U.S. Coast Guard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Now if you mean way back, there were fleets around the time of the American Revolution and War of 1812. StuRat (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Canada–United States relations — between the fact that no other countries have access to the Great Lakes and the fact that there have been excellent relations between the two countries for the last century, there's no real need for either country to maintain military fleets in the Great Lakes. I suppose that Canada might have some sort of naval facilities along the lakes, but I know nothing about them. As far as I know, the only American naval facilities along the lakes are (1) the Naval Station Great Lakes, where new sailors are trained, and (2) Niagara, a museum ship that was part of American fleet during the War of 1812; it's definitely not a warship anymore, and its governing agency (which isn't naval at all) doesn't even have the money to maintain it. Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian Coast Guard also operates on the Great Lakes. There are Royal Canadian Navy stations there too (HMCS York in Toronto for example) but I don't think navy ships actually patrol the lakes or anything. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. doesn't currently have navy ships in the Great Lakes (Naval Station Great Lakes had an aircraft carrier in WWII, though). In fact, there was a "healthly debate" when the U.S. Coast Guard wanted to start live fire training exercises on the Lakes after 9/11.[11] 75.41.109.190 (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The USS Wolverine (IX-64) was the training aircraft carrier. It was a high speed steam powered sidewheeler ship which trained 10,000 naval aviators a year while leaving the real aircraft carriers available for war operations. It was not quite a real aircraft carrier (lacked an airplane elevator), used for WW2 pilot training on Lake Michigan. Videos of her in operation: [12], [13]. I could not find my favorite video of the Wolverine, in which a biplane is landing as the big paddlewheels churn, while a waterspout is seen in the background. See also [14]. Edison (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Flight of the Bumblebee bravura?

I was surprised to not see that word in its article. I'm not a classical geek though so it's more than possible it shouldn't be there. I'm just wondering. Flight is one of those pieces everyone plays to show off, so... no? Equazcion ^(talk) 05:39, 18 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Despite what Bravura says, I must say that in half a century of serious involvement in classical music, I have never, ever heard a piece of music described as "a bravura". I've only heard that word used as an attributive adjective (never as a predicate, as in your header), and then only to describe sections of works, such as "The finale of Rachmaninoff's 2nd Piano Concerto opens with a magnificent bravura cadenza". It's often found where "virtuosic" is also found.

The Flight of the Bumblebee could validly be described as "a bravura showpiece", or something like that, but not just "a bravura". Even "The piece is bravura" would sound quite odd. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just one problem, Jack: you're the first editor to put an article in front of bravura. The question was "Is Flight of the Bumblebee bravura?" as in "Are apples green?" [or "is my face red?" ;-) ] —— Shakescene (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC) Let me soften that by saying that I think that I, too, saw a non-existent "a" in front of bravura perhaps because we're used to seeing "Is The X a Y?", but then I looked again and like the man who wasn't there, it wasn't there. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to quote from Bravura: In classical music, a bravura is a virtuosic passage intended to show off the skill of a performer .... That's what I was commenting on. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did mean it as Jack describes, despite my wording that could go either way; so that was a valid answer, as it turns out :) I'm basing this on what I learned in my college Music 101 class, which seemed to put bravura in the list of piece classifications, like cantata, chorus, etc. If it's not used in practice that way I understand though. Thanks for the answers :) Equazcion ^(talk) 14:55, 18 Mar 2012 (UTC)

I have never encountered "bravura" used in that way (sc. like cantata, chorus, etc). The OED does however list as meaning 2 "A passage or piece of music requiring great skill and spirit in its execution, written to task the artist's powers.", with examples using "a/the bravura", though the most recent quotation of this use is 1846, while it has more recent examples of the attributive (i.e. adjectival) use. --ColinFine (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon King temple in Oregon

Where is there a Dragon King temple in Oregon as stated in that article? Also is there any other non-Judeo-Christian-Islamic places of worship in Oregon?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rajneeshpuram (infamous but defunct)... AnonMoos (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baha'i in Oregon, for intance. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 19:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper "LA Times"

Hi! Can anyone say me please, how many pages the LA Times issues have? I need this information for a library order. I have to know only the average number of pages, not exactly. Thanks a lot, -- Doc Taxon (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you didn't get an answer last time you asked, it is likely no one here knows the answer. Try calling the LA Times office and asking them. RudolfRed (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or just buy a copy and count them... --Tango (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't live in (northern) California any more, so I don't regularly see copies of the printed Los Angeles Times, but my memory is that like many newspapers, but perhaps more than most, its page count is highly variable, both within a week and from week to week. This is especially true of the Sunday L.A. Times. When advertising for holidays, travel, grocery stores (Wednesday), entertainment (Thursday through Sunday) or cars (usually Saturday & Sunday) goes up, so does the available "newshole" for editorial matter. When advertising and readership are low (Saturday), then there's scant space for news, even if three or four very major, complex stories break out at the same time. You also have to take into account different editions for Orange County, San Diego and other markets. There might be a statistic somewhere for the total annual number of pages printed, which you can then divide by 52 or 365 for a rather arbitrary and somewhat artificial mean average number of pages (when a median or mode might be closer to what you're seeking). Have you tried searching on Google or another engine for such a number? —— Shakescene (talk) 08:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I used to deliver papers, the first thing we looked at was the number of pages, because of the weight we had to pack. Monday were thinest, and friday were heaviest. Friday could have twice the pages of monday some weeks.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PNG geographic name

What's the name of the large peninsula in PNG informally known as the "bird's tail"? — kwami (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to have any more offical name, it just seems to be refered to as the southeastern peninsula or Bird's Tail peninsula, at least in English. If it has a different name in the Dagan languages, I can't find it. Smurrayinchester 09:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess PNG stands for Papua-New Guinea? Dismas|^(talk) 13:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Side issue.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
He's asking for the name of the peninsula, not what PNG means. PNG obviously means Papua New Guinea. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] It wasn't so obvious to me. That's why I asked. I'm sorry that I'm too dumb for you. :\ Dismas\|^(talk) 13:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you supply some geographical coordinates, so we know which one you mean? Sample coordinate-providing page; it's my favorite. Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:New guinea named.PNG shows the island New Guinea. Papua New Guinea is a country consisting of the Eastern half of the island and many smaller islands. The shape of New Guinea is compared to a bird. The southeastern peninsula is called the "bird's tail", or simply referred to as "the southeastern peninsula". I haven't found other names used in English. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous sources call it the Papuan Peninsula. Looie496 (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks! Funny that's not normally on maps. — kwami (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegates?

Correct me if I am wrong, but if I can recall correctly, until sometime ago, Newt Gingrich had more delegates than Rick Santorum, despite having won only two states. Why was this the case? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand rightly, the primaries aren't winner-take-all like the presidential election; I think the delegates are divvied up proportionally. If so, it's like points-based sporting leagues: if you come in second just about every time while some people either win or do rather badly, you can still come out first overall. Nyttend (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked into the rules for those two states but it's often the case that if the winner of the primary doesn't get at least a certain percentage of the votes, then each candidate gets a portion of the delegates. In Vermont, for instance, if candidate A doesn't get at least 50% of the votes, then the delegates will be split up amongst the candidates. Also, not every state has the same number of delegates. See Proportional representation. Dismas|^(talk) 13:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

States have different systems for assigning delegates. See Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries and South Carolina Republican primary, 2012. The South Carolina primary was early. Gingrich got 40.4% of the votes but 23 of 25 delegates. Santorum got 17.0% and 0 delegates. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The presidential election isn't entirely winner take-all either. See United_States_electoral_college#Congressional_District_Method. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maine and Nebraska's approach is of shady constitutionality, and if the approach tips the scales of the election sometime, there is liable to be a political firestorm. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though this has nothing to do with convention delegates, Baseball Bugs' constitutional understanding is a bit under the shade itself. Nothing requires all of a state's electors to vote the same way. New Jersey's electors were split 4-3 in the historic United States presidential election, 1860 and I'm pretty sure that the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly upheld Michigan's former practice of dividing her Electoral College delegation between the Congressional Districts on the Upper Peninsula and those on the Lower. In 1892, the new state of North Dakota split her three electors three ways: one each for ex-President Grover Cleveland (D), sitting President Benjamin Harrison (R) and Gen. James B. Weaver (People's Party). A glance at any historical table or map of presidential elections will show dozens of other examples, often selected by Congressional District or else (as in New Jersey's case in 1860) running as individuals statewide on a "general ticket". See Electoral College (United States). —— Shakescene (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC) ¶ The relevant U.S. Supreme Court case upholding the State of Michigan's power to determine how to choose Electors — consonant with the 12th, 14th and 15th Amendments — is McPherson v. Blacker 146 U.S. 1 (1892), text available here. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine monthly dating scheme

I've been trying to remember why uk magazines that are released in March are dated as April, does anyone know? I saw something on tv about it a few years ago but can't remember the reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Podge Papin (talk • contribs) 15:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cover date suggests it is to A) to allow magazines to appear 'current' to consumers even after having been on sale for some time and B) to inform newsstands when an unsold magazine is ready to be removed from the shelf and returned to the publisher/destroyed. ny156uk (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just UK magazines, either. It's pretty standard. It's also not limited to the magazine industry. 2013 model cars are being released now, in March 2012, presumably for the same reason. Mingmingla (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the off sale date rather than the on sale date. If it were "on sale" it would be the month it was released: as it's "off sale", it's the month it's due to be removed from the bookstands. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good way to explain it. Some magazines that are to be left on the newsstand for more than one month will explicitly say on the cover, "Remove from newsstand on such-and-such date", or words to that effect. Weeklies and monthlies have that assumption built in. There does seem to be a "creeping earliness" to this, though. For example, Leonard Maltin's annual film book dated the next year seems to come out earlier every year. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Shelf life and Model year.—Wavelength (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Gaines worked out a schedule for the release of Mad Magazine eight times a year, according to which no issue was supposed to be for sale on newsstand magazine racks during the month listed on the cover... AnonMoos (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep in mind the dates on which periodicals go to press, are mailed out, and actually arrive on someone's doorstep. My next column for a local free monthly needs to be submitted by the end of March so that the issue can be edited, sent to press before the middle of April and then mailed out in mid-April to ensure that most households in the area get it by bulk mail by the beginning of May. Some issues will appear in local shops in late April, and many (but not all) postal customers will see it then; however the date and the content both refer to May 2012. Similarly with the April issue of Popular Mechanics that I've already received by mail; the publishers and readers would both far prefer that issues arrive a few weeks "early" and generate no doubts or complaints than leave the readers wondering whether or when "this month's issue" will arrive. ¶ But with a newsweekly like TIME, Newsweek, Bloomberg Businessweek or The Economist, the reasons are closer to those given above; the date on the cover is the last day the issue is meant to be on sale, which seems to hold generally true in New York, London and Washington, but much less so in other cities where an issue printed to appear on Monday (with a cover date of the following Monday) may not show up until Tuesday or Wednesday. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some publications have a 13-issues-per-year system (which divides neatly into 4 week periods), named January-December and the extra issue Christmas or similar. This means as you go through the year, issues become earlier and earlier. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, if only I were a publication. Then I'd have only 12 or maybe 13 issues a year. As it is, I'm lucky if I have only that many issues to grapple with every day. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Better than dying without issue, Jack. On the other hand I wonder how many mothers would welcome the prospect of 12 or 13 issue a year? ;-) —— Shakescene (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Argentina and Brazil in Bengali culture

when being a fan of Argentina and Brazil became a value or part of the Bengali culture? Why? is it because Maradona and Pele were considered the best soccer players by the Bengali people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.168 (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that soccer is a sensation in Bangladesh, where roughly half of the Bengali people live, as evidenced by this article bringing French soccer player Zinedine Zidane to rural Bangladesh (Grameen Danone). However, I'm not sure about your question directly, but culturally it is possible that Argentina and Brazil are considered great teams. This article mentions Pele in addition to Bengali people (i.e. Kishore). ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 18:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's traditional in the world of football to pick between Argentina and Brazil (rarely will anyone be considered a fan of both rival squads). In other words, this is not unique to Bengali people. However, I am not sure when exactly this started. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial police force

Would a policeman in west Africa have reached the rank of Major? Kittybrewster ☎ 20:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific? What policeman? Where in west Africa? When? --Tango (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I.F.G.Coles born c.1912 Country unknown.Kittybrewster ☎ 23:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds unlikely to me that the British Colonial Police would have used military ranks, like Major. This article, Law Enforcement in British Colonial Africa, says that the Colonial Police in Africa followed the Royal Irish Constabulary model, which was more para-military than the mainland British police forces. Our article says that the RIC rank of District Inspector 1st Class carried the "insignia of a Major" (ie a crown). This article, Khaki and Blue: Military and Police in British Colonial Africa, says; "Personnel of colonial police forces were divided into three main groups: gazetted officers, nongazetted officers, and constables. Gazetted officer titles were standardized in 1937 to include superintendents, commissioners, and inspector generals. Nongazetted officers included inspectors, while constable levels included rank and file police corporals and sergeants." Alansplodge (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, bear in mind that a substantial number of officers in colonial police forces would have been ex-military, especially in the immediate aftermath of major wars - after 1945, there were a lot of youngish unemployed majors born c.1910! Shimgray | talk | 20:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. In the British forces, retired officers with a rank above Captain (or equivelent in the RN or RAF) are allowed to use their rank as a courtesy title instead of "Mr". But an active police officer wouldn't use an ex-military rank in preference to his police title. Alansplodge (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Crown as used in the Colonial Police forces to indicate the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police. To differentiate the badge from the army, it was Silver in colour.

Procrastination and politics

Hi. My first question is related to observations of my own behaviour: why is it that I often procrastinate more on tasks and long-term goals that I actually want to accomplish, and projects started in my free time that may be enjoyable, as opposed to short-term educational assignments? What implications does this have for goal-setting? Are there any articles on this form of procrastination?

The second part of this question is related to observations concerning politics in the modern Western world: politics often becomes very ad-hominem. Is this a basic tendency of human nature, or is there some other reason why humans tend to comment on the contributor, rather than the content–that is, attacking the policy-maker, rather than the policy itself? How can human nature be addressed?

Finally, I'd like to know more about how these above topics are related. No, I am not requesting medical, legal, homework, horticultural, opinionated or diatribical advice, but more about information regarding the amplification of procrastination in political decisions, human perceptions of risk and value, and moreover the contribution of compassion fatigue into the aforementioned issues and crises in "First World" attention span. Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 18:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why in the world do you think that procrastination has anything to do with political attacks? Looie496 (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts on the first question ((original research, I'm afraid). A few months ago I noticed that my own procrastination is often purposeful: it makes sure that there is always something hanging over me to keep me from doing anything risky like trying something new. --ColinFine (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Compassion fatigue in charitable giving" often has little to do with attention span as such, and more with the fact that people are often most inclined to give when there's a natural disaster or other simple-to-understand catastrophe, and people can feel that their donations will help in restoring the situation to some kind of relative normality. When there's no such simple comprehensible narrative, but instead a complex political situation with many contending groups with opposing interests and convoluted twists and turns (as in the Congo war and its aftermath) and/or people feel that their aid will be used for long-term subsistence maintenance of those displaced or impoverished by ongoing politics, then that's when the "fatigue" really sets in. People considering donating to Somalia relief, for example, might naturally wonder how the current situation is really different from that of 20 years ago, and if it will still be much the same 20 years from now, or whether their donations might perhaps help the conflict to continue by relieving warlords or extremist groups from the need to consider the well-being of the populations in territories they control, etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's related to how much you want to achieve it - the key difference is that some of the goals are long-term and some short-term. You can't procrastinate much on short-term goals - if it needs to be done by the end of the day then you have to get on and do it. If you have several months to do it, then it's easy to convince yourself that starting it tomorrow rather than today won't do much harm (you can then make the same argument tomorrow, until, in my experience, you finally realise a week before the deadline that you haven't even started...). This is a very topical subject for me - I have some exams next week and my kitchen is now spotless! --Tango (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that people choose to do tasks first which are:

1) Quicker.

2) More enjoyable.

3) More important, in terms or reward for completion and punishment for failure to finish.

However, which of these 3 factors is more important may vary by the individual. Also, true procrastinators may intentionally put off the more important tasks, being afraid they will mess them up. StuRat (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White African Americans and black non-African Americans and the one drop rule

In the application papers for most jobs, colleges, dating sites, etc. there is always a section that asks you to describe your race. One of the options, of course, is “African American” and one of the options is, of course, “White or Caucasian.” This seems to assume that all African Americans are black and that all blacks are descendants from Africa, but that is not always the case and so it just appears to be discriminatory. There are some African countries with a significant portion of the population being white like in South Africa. Two famous white Africans include Richard Dawkins and Orlando Bloom. The Australian Aborigines, for example, are black, or would be considered black under the one drop rule. The same thing applies with the Southeast Asian Negrito people. If I were to be an American whose parents were whites born in Africa and who practices and observes the customs and cultures from whatever part of Africa they would have originated from, would I put “White or Caucasian” or “African American” in an application paper; and if I were to be an American whose parents where Australian Aborigines or “Negritos” from Southeast Asia, would I put “African American,” “Native American,” or what if was filling out an application paper, especially if there was no "Other" option (many application papers lack that option I noticed)? Where would the one drop rule fit and apply in all this? What would I say to either of the 2 cases I described above if I were to be asked personally about what race would I be or something along that line? Willminator (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast to the "1 drop rule" there has always been "passing as white" when it is convenient, or claiming "Cherokee" ancestry if in the US South. Some colleges or employers with US government contracts give preference in admissions or hiring for "disadvantaged minority" status, so checking the "African American " box when someone has 1/32 African ancestry might be beneficial,even if they could easily pass as white or perhaps "Southern European." Any African ancestry less than a Quadroon , like an "Octaroon" (one of eight grandparents African) was hard to discern. In the pre-Civil War US South, writers discussed the existence of red or blond haired and blue eyed slaves, who were slaves because of the condition of servitude of their parents, rather than because of their features and skin color, and considered the difficulties in the distant future of a large proportion of the slaves being indistinguishable from free persons, due to racial admixture. Edison (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

African American is a particular cultural identity based on the particular experiences and context of slaves and descendants of slaves in America: it doesn't mean someone of recent African ancestry who is an American citizen. If someone came from South Africa or some other specific country and became an American citizen, they would generally be termed (or term themselves) a South African - American or Ugandan-American or such like. "African Americans" typically do not know where in the continent of Africa their black ancestors came from, because records of such things were not kept. They might be lucky enough to be able to trace some of their white ancestors.

It is not to do with physical appearance, or genetics, or anything so measurable: it is the creation of a positive identity for people whose family history has generally been erased. The American construct of race does not generally include Aboriginal Australians: you'd have to put whatever category you felt best, or add your own 'other'. It is an unwise form that does not include 'other' for something as open as ethnicity or race (although, I guess you could just put anything other than "white or caucasian", and it would usually give the main data point they really want). If you're white, mark down white because you will be treated as someone who is white, and the form is generally checking for prejudice in the system. 86.164.69.49 (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two key problems here. One is that race and ethnicity are extremely poorly defined. Yes, Africans and Australian Aborigines have fairly similar coloured skin, but there is really no reason to group them together. Conversely, there are people from Africa with all kinds of difficult skin colours, and it would probably make sense to group them together for certain purposes. The second problem is the euphemism "African American". As with many euphemisms, it doesn't really carry the same meaning as the word it is used in place of ("black"). I remember hearing somewhere that when the US media were reporting on the riots in France a few years ago involving a lot of black French people, they referred to the rioters as African Americans despite them not being American in the slightest, simply because the US media couldn't bring themselves to say the word "black". --Tango (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate a link to the supposed instance of US mainstream news media calling black French people "African Americans." It might have happened if a reporter did not have his brain in gear, but is smacks of an urban legend. "I remember hearing somewhere" is an inadequate reference when you cast aspersions on the journalists of a nation. Edison (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reference is probably to CNN's Carol Lin, who when asked for comment during a live slot, replied "it’s been 11 days since two African-American [by which she means Tunisian] teenagers were killed, electrocuted during a police chase, which prompted all of this". - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 10:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have this sort of thing in the UK too. There's usually a box marked "Other" with a space where you could write "Australian Aborogine" or "White South African" or "Inuit" or however you like to identify yourself. Folks with a certain political agenda sometimes ignore the usual "White British" box, tick "Other" and then write-in "English" (the thought being that you can aquire British citizenship, but, in their worldview, you have to be "born English"0. Alansplodge (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what would happen if someone ticked the wrong box, a white South African ticking the African-American box for example, or if someone deliberately lied when answering that question? Would it matter? Astronaut (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't these questions usually ask which race you self-identify as? I don't see how anyone could demonstrate that you are lying about that. Maybe some countries have legal definitions of race, though? 81.98.43.107 (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that there are basically two ways in which this data is used in the United States:

1. To comply with equal opportunity statistics keeping. If you run a business where 95% of the people applying are a minority (or female, or whatever) but 100% of the people you hire are white (or male, or whatever), you are probably going to run into discrimination issues. If the percentages don't show systematic bias then it's not an issue. So a handful of falsified entries are unlikely to make any difference there. I suspect that in most cases these statistics are just kept for reference and are not trotted out unless there are serious accusations being leveled. And in all cases I'm pretty sure these are voluntary — you can decline to state anything, if you want.

2. In some areas they relate to affirmative action policies. I'm not familiar enough with these to know what happens if you deliberately falsify data, but I doubt anyone is going to get too mad about honest differences of opinion, given the self-identified nature of them. In any case, giving knowingly false data on an application is usually grounds for rejection.

As for the categories not matching up with the "real world" — the thing is, racial categories are variable and arbitrary by definition. These particular ones have been crafted for specific social purposes. There is always an "other" box for people who feel too hemmed in by them. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of mentions here of Australia, so let's add some information. Very few forms in Australia ask for "racial" information. The word "race" is hardly ever used anywhere in Australia. Many forms for government and education institutions ask a question like "Are you an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander?" (no mention of "race".) Note that it's asking the individual to make their own judgement and declaration, so it's about self-identification. The reason for the question is that additional federal funding is frequently available to the relevant institutions, and there are special government programs in place to address disadvantage for such people. Other "races" hardly ever crack a mention. Our five-yearly national census asks people to tick a box or boxes to identify their "ancestry". Again, it doesn't use the word "race". And because of the massive amount of mixed parenting that has occurred in Australia since non-Aboriginal people arrived, and the massively diverse backgrounds from which they have come, (and, some might argue, the impact of suntan on some outdoor workers) skin colour is an almost useless indicator of anything to do with race, ancestry or what one might self identify as. I would also point out that it isn't much of a problem, because most Australians don't really care. HiLo48 (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a news story in the last 2 years of a white South African-born US high school student who ran for and won some election as "African American Student of the Year" or some such, then was suspended by the school. Edison (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They could drop the "African-American" schtick and go back to "Negroid", provided the whites and Asians are likewise labeled "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there was much point in that one really should distinguish between lots of different Africans as they are more varied than the rest of the world put together. Dmcq (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP began "In the application papers for most jobs, colleges, dating sites, etc. there is always a section that asks you to describe your race. One of the options, of course, is “African American” ..." and my first thought was, I haven't seen that option on the forms I am confronted with. Anyway. One resource: Black people. And, without wishing to cast aspersions on a whole nation of journalists, I can confirm that I too have heard a white, well-educated, well-intentioned American make the classic slip-up of referring to black people who have nothing to do with the United States as "African-American". I'd be interested to know to what extent that was the case in the American media with regard to the 2005 civil unrest in France and indeed the 2011 England riots. BrainyBabe (talk)

In America, asking that kind of info on a typical job app would be illegal. Dating sites, sure. Or Hollywood casting calls, where they're looking for specific types of all kinds. But not on standard job apps. If the OP has actually seen one on a job app, maybe he could point us to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I lived in the US virtually every black person I knew referred to themselves as black. I am curious as to whether blacks actually consider themselves African-American or is the term used solely by the US Government? I am reminded of when my white Cuban friend enrolled at a college in Los Angeles and was informed that she was a member of the Hispanic race. Completely baffled, my friend had to ask what the word meant having never heard it before!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I regard "African-American" as patronizing to black people; trying to tell them how to define themselves, rather than letting them do it. As with "Negro" or "Colored" in generations past. Same with "Native American" rather than "American Indian", never mind that many (though not all) actually like the term "Indian". I was born here, so I'm a "native American", but my ethnic ancestry is English. Maybe the best comment I've heard on this was by Whoopi Goldberg, who said something like, "I've been to Africa. I'm not African-American, I'm American." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Letting people describe their own ancestry is surely the safest and nicest thing to do. (We all have plenty of ancestors to choose from, after all.) Other labelling would hopefully be unnecessary. HiLo48 (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the ideal world, yes. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 19

Share devalue to cover losses

http://www.duro-dakovic.com/company_profile/ownership_structure/default.aspx

To cover losses coming from previous time periods and to give real value to the company simple decrease of nominal capital was carried out, by decrease of the nominal value of one share from 200,00 kuna to 100,00 kuna.

Is there an article on this, or can someone explain the part about the share price devalue to cover previous operating losses - I assume this is a unilateral action by the board of the company - I sort of understand that this could make sense, but I don't really understand how losses are moved off the balance sheet etc. Can someone explain this simply. If they want they can modify Đuro_Đaković_(company)#Đuro Đaković Holding too ! Oranjblud (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The effect on the company's balance sheet of reducing the nominal value of issued shares is to transfer funds from shareholders' capital into reserves. If the company had negative reserves as a result of previous losses, this transfer will reduce those negative reserves, and may even leave the company with a positive reserve figure. In effect, shareholders are recognising that the company will not produce sufficient profits in the forseeable future to cover its previous losses, and so part of their capital has been lost. In UK company law, this transfer creates a non-distributable reserve known as a redeonimation reserve - see here. I know nothing about Croatian company law, but I doubt this type of action can be taken unilaterally by the board - a UK company would need to pass a special resolution, which must be agreed by at least 75% of shareholders. However, since the company in question is over 70% state owned, this agreement may have been a formality. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - what you described is the sort of thing I was slowly grasping at as the rational .. "redenominantion reserve" [15] is something I had not heard of and would have never guessed. I guess the croatian case will be differenct but the basic principle the same.

If anyone does have a relevant explanatory link that could be inserted into the article please do so.Oranjblud (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bermondsey Palace

Apropos of a question on last week's Mastermind, I'm curious about Bermondsey Palace. When Eleanor of Aquitaine first came to England with Henry II Westminster Palace was unavailable, so they set up their court at Bermondsey Palace. Apparently Henry the Young King was born there in 1155. But it seems that the palace is THE ONLY THING IN THE WHOLE DAMN WORLD which we don't have an article about.^{[citation needed]} Google searching brings very little information. So, what can you tell me about the palace? Where was it, when was it, what is there left of it? All information gladly received. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The British History website has this section on Bermondsey palace and abbey. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article on Bermondsey Abbey; the building later described as "King John's Palace" appears to have been given to the Abbey by William Rufus. Only older sources seem to mention it as a Royal Palace, like this BERMONDSEY: Description and History from 1868 Gazetteer. Alansplodge (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TammyMoet's link above says; "The quotation inserted in Aubrey's Antiquities of Surrey, as the only conjectural proof that the kings of England had a residence at this place after the grant above-mentioned (ie that of William Rufus), has been totally misunderstood, and proves nothing.". Alansplodge (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about Henry II and Eleanor "holding court" at Bermondsey. This book, Lives of the Queens of England from the Norman Conquest By Agnes Strickland, Elizabeth Strickland, admittedly written in 1841, says: "...but directly the coronation was over, ther king conducted his queen to the palace of Bermondsey, where after remaining some weeks in retirement, she gave birth to her second son, the last day of February 1155." (p. 256) This is not inconsistent with here being packed off to a nearby abbey rather than a palace to give birth. So it looks as though Bermondsey Palace is more legend than fact, but we need to find a modern, reliable source. Alansplodge (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the lack of corroboration on that was what got me wondering. But I heard it on Mastermind, and they're usually quite scrupulous with their facts, so it must be out there somewhere. For completeness, the question was: "When Eleanor and Henry first arrived in London, Westminster Palace was uninhabitable, in which palace did they set up their court?" (A:) "Bermondsey". It's available on iPlayer (UK only) until the end of the week. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They do say that don't they. As you say, they're usually reliable. Alansplodge (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found The natural history and antiquities of the county of Surrey: Begun in the year 1673 by John Aubrey Esq. F.R.S. and continued to the present time, Volume V (1719). It says: "Mr Aubrey tells us, that he was assured by one Mr Hawkins, that this Abbey of Bermondsey was King John's Palace, and converted into an abbey; but upon what Authority this information was grounded I cannot find." (p. 35). The author then goes on to quote some Latin texts that might support there having been a palace in the vicinity. This seems to have been written by Richard Rawlinson who is credited along with Aubrey on this page - but hardly a ringing endorsement. Alansplodge (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article says that the questions for Mastermind are set by a company called 21st Century Quiz. You could drop them an email and see what they've got to say for themselves! Alansplodge (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a job for an antiquary. If we're looking for a modern, reliable source I'll put forward the third volume of the Oxford History of England, Austin Lane Poole's From Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 1087-1216, 2nd edition (1955), p. 321: "The work [of putting the barons down] was begun immediately after the coronation [of Henry II] at the Christmas court at Bermondsey priory". That does seem to show that he owned something substantial at Bermondsey, so we might just as well call it a palace. --Antiquary (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe they had the use of part of the abbey as a temporary measure? The plot thickens. Alansplodge (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth remembering that this was a period when the king and his court traveled around the country, more or less at will, spending a period as one vassal's guest, then moving on to another. A priory is a convent or monastery, so the 1955 citation indicates that the king was holding court at the Abbey of Bermondsey. No doubt the abbot had a nice residence. If the king and his new bride showed up and wanted to stay there, the abbot was probably not in a position to refuse. I don't see anything to suggest that the king owned a palace at the abbey. Marco polo (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should also bear in mind that 'palace' doesn't necessarily mean 'royal residence': see for example Fulham Palace - the former residence of the Bishop of London. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Winchester Palace is just down the road, but I'm certain that's not what was meant. Alansplodge (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information so far everyone. And thanks Alan for the contact details for the question setters. I have emailed them and I hope that they'll be able to help out. I'll keep you posted. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a reply from the very lovely question-master Ray, who says:

"The setter's source books for this subject were :

Marion Meade : Eleanor of Aquitaine Phoenix press 1977 reissued 2002 (p203-4) and

Alison Weir: Eleanor of Aquitaine by the Wrath of God Queen of England Vintage 2007 (p107)."

So, does anyone have access to either of these books, with the possibility to see what's mentioned on the subject of Bermondsey Palace? I'd love to know anything about it - I'm getting quite curious now! - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a book/story

I am looking for a book or story, but I don't know the title or author, and only remember it vaguely. It is about an author who is so utterly convincing in his roles because he goes and lives them for real before filming. Like if he has to play a bum, he lives on the street for a few months. In the end he has to play a cult leader that sacrifices a little girl, so... well, you can guess what happens. He ends up in an asylum, and I believe he starts shouting "Someone give me some light!" there. It's not that much information, but does anyone know what story this could be? Thanks 94.226.123.243 (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked around a bit more, and it's probably "All the Sounds of Fear" by Harlan Ellison. 94.226.123.243 (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's definitely the short story 'All the Sounds of Fear' (published in a collection of that title), which I've just reread to check. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.131 (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

is tim cook innovative

is tim cook (or is he considered / woujld he be considered) an innovative individual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.21.225 (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which Tim Cook in particular? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thinks he might mean – he of Apple - but yes, we need clarification--Aspro (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think clarification in other areas is perhaps even more important. Is/would he be considered innovative by whom? (Hopefully not us.) And do you mean people who have specifically called him innovative or else what do you mean by 'considered innovative'? Nil Einne (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the OP means the new CEO of Apple Inc, then he seems to be pursuing a different cash strategy, at least, although it might not be on as a huge scale as it appears. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And for all we know, it could have been Jobs' idea, and maybe they are just now carrying out that plan. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OP here 1) obviously I mean Tim Cook of Apple 2) why did you guys switch to starting to talk about Apple's cash strategy? I mean, is the man, Tim Cook, current CEO of Apple, considered by anyone innovative or vice versa? (the other way around: i.e. not). 188.156.228.96 (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People are worried that he may not be, as he doesn't seem to have much of a track record of innovation; Bloomberg Businessweek writes, "Cook is a talented engineer with a gift for optimizing operations", which hardly indicates confidence in his Job-like inventiveness. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the problem with any organization which is focused on a "cult of personality". With Jobs now gone for good, whether anyone there is truly innovative, remains to be seen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's really far too early to make any assessments of Tim Cook's innovativity (sic), either personal or as the leader of Apple. It takes years for a product to go from conception to release, and Apple is notoriously tight-lipped about future products. Anything that Apple puts out in the next year or two would have been designed primarily during Steve Jobs's tenure at Apple. (Which means in practice Jobs will get most of the credit and Cook will end up with any blame.) Even after we start seeing Cook-only products coming out, it won't lead to a fair assessment, as Cook will always be compared to Jobs, so even if Cook is above average in innovation, he'll come up short against Jobs. That said, everything I've read indicates Cook is satisfied with a caretaker-type CEO-ship. That is, he probably won't be the personal innovator and driver that Jobs was, but rather will curate the innovative talent of others at Apple. -- 71.217.13.130 (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you can find at least one person in the world who consider him innovative and at least one person who does not. Even if you restrict your answers to notable opinions publish in RS, I'm still sure you can find one of either. So I think further clarification is still needed. Nil Einne (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not answering the question directly. I don't think that there is any objective way to assess an individual's innovativeness. So we aren't going to be able to provide a well-sourced and authoritative answer. However, I would point out that Steve Jobs's penchant for innovation is relatively unusual in a CEO and that Apple's future does not necessarily depend on the CEO's ability to innovate. Typically, CEOs manage a company and hire others to innovate. Marco polo (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 20

Engaging in prostitution? Is it possible?

This question was removed and then restored. See the talk page for the relevant discussion. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:23, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)

How does one dabble in prostitution? Say one wanted to engage in it for a short period, have only a few partners, for a short term monetary goal, without generally being part of that network/culture, how would one go about it? Assuming that it's both illegal and stigmatised in the society/country. Howie26 (talk) 08:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot provide advice of this nature. You state that prostitution is illegal in the country in which you are imagining engaging in it. Please don't ask us to assist you in breaking the law. However, if you wish to educate yourself, I would suggest contacting the English Collective of Prostitutes or a similar organisation in your country, which the ECP may well be able to direct you towards. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly offensive for you to assume that I am asking because I wish to begin a career, short-term or otherwise, in prostitution. The query is in regards to several highly influential rumours about the raised tuition fees in the UK leading university students into moonlighting in sex work. It is purely for research and, hopefully, a better picture of that economy. Howie26 (talk) 09:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it's more than "fairly" offensive for you to be asking for advice on how to evade the law and to expect a "go ahead" kind of answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP may be interested in reading about Belle de Jour (writer). Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) See also COYOTE (a self-advocacy group in the U.S.) For a purely literary treatment not involving any practical current business or legal issues, watch the classic French New Wave film Belle de Jour (1967), directed by Luis Buñuel and starring Cathérine Deneuve, or read Belle de Jour, the 1928 novel by Joseph Kessel upon which the film is based. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you move to Nevada, you could work at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch. That way it's legal. Dismas|^(talk) 09:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(to OP) Not every society stigmatizes prostitution. There are some societies where it is normal to engage in prostitution. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 11:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, a great deal of sex work is legal. I suggest reading up on what the trade union says about sex working. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In New Zealand also, prostitution is legal and political parties like ACT New Zealand vocally support prostitution. It does have a sex workers' union New Zealand Prostitutes' Collective. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 12:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another good profession is to work as a sexual surrogate. A sexual surrogate provide sexual services to a client for medical reasons in return for money. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 12:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why be a ho when you can be a Courtesan? Brief quote from the article courtesan: a well-educated and independent woman of loose morals, eventually a trained artisan of dance and singing, especially one associated with wealthy, powerful, or upper-class men who provided luxuries and status in exchange for companionship. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

Working as an escort could easily lead to being asked to perform sexual services for money. It would also provide a degree of screening of customers, so it might be safer. At least in the UK there are also establishments such as saunas which act as fronts for prostitution and advertise for staff. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only a few weeks ago I watched a documentary about lap/pole dancing in the UK (sorry can't remember the title or channel it was on). One of the women featured was an undergraduate student and claimed she was doing it for the money so she could pay her tuition. While she said she wouldn't go further, I can easily imagine there are those who will. In the US, you can advertise online (much to the dismay of protestors). Astronaut (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in a career as a sexual surrogate, you can consult International Professional Surrogates Association. It is a legal and respectable healthcare profession, with chances of being highly successful and famous. After earning a good reputation as a sexual surrogate, you can work as a sexologist or sex educator. But you must have in-depth knowledge of psychosexual development. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking only thinkable thoughts

Template:Formerly

is it meaningful and true and meaningful to say we are constrained to thinking only thoughts that can be thought? Or is that not sensible (first 'meaningful') or in some sense false or at any rate not meaningful (second 'meaningful') i.e. a truism or simple vacuous tautology to say such a thing?

I think it is a valid constraint, an actual constraint. Much like the laws of physics constrains us, surely the space of possible thoughts constrains us to only thinking a thought that can be thought.

so do I have it right, or am I being meaningless or, worse, vacuous? 188.157.169.36 (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's nothing you can do that can't be done, and there's nothing you can sing that can't be sung. --Trovatore (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the normal sense thoughts involve subjective consciousness. However, meaningful acts can be performed without this. So how are we defining thought.--Aspro (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that Wittgenstein´s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is the relevant reference to start pondering the question. --Incognito.ergo.possum (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tautologically speaking, you can only think what can be thought. You can only sing what can be sung. You can only build what can be built. And so on. It's true but not profound in any way, because it gives you no indication of what an unthinkable thought might be, or even if such a thing even exists. What would be interesting is if you could speak meaningfully about a class of unthinkable thoughts. It's not a totally absurd idea for a hardcore logician. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And keep in mind that you can dream The Impossible Dream. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can a dog think about Goldbach's conjecture? Can he even grasp in some way the concept of such thoughts? I doubt it. Why would we be different? There's an unknown universe of thoughts the human brain can't handle. 84.197.178.75 (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike a dog, we can store thoughts outside our brains, in writings. Thus, we can build theories, devices, etc., too complex for any one person to understand, so long as each of us can understand the little part we work on. Thus, we have a collective brain, which dogs lack. Some other animals may effectively have a collective brain, too, like bees. However, since each of the individuals is so much less intelligent, and the number of individuals which cooperate (one hive) is so much less, their hive mind is far exceeded by ours. This allows us to come up with concepts like string theory, which doesn't match any of our experiences in real life. StuRat (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am revising the heading of this section from "is it meaningful and true and meaningful to say we are constrained to thinking only thoughts that can be thought?" to "Thinking only thinkable thoughts", in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 12 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox).

—Wavelength (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silly question. Of course no one can think about anything that's not notable. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:11, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the question of what it feels like to be a bat, or to think like a bat--a question that I think comes from Thomas Nagel. We humans can think visually but not "echolocationally". More simplistically, if you don't speak Hungarian you are not able to think in Hungarian, right? Pfly (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true, then deeper thoughts ought to come from people fluent in more robust languages. I wonder if anyone has studied this. StuRat (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese "political intelligence" network abroad

I have long been fascinated by how much of the Chinese overseas intelligence apparatus is devoted to spying on (actual or perceived) "enemies of the state" (political opponents, dissidents, Falun Gong practitioners, etc), as opposed to government, military or industrial espionage. Though China no doubt does plenty of the latter as well.

If Chen Yonglin was indeed saying the truth in his claims, this appears to be a MASSIVE intel effort against individuals who pose no "military" threat whatsoever.

Of course, given the shadowy nature of such activities, I well understand that the answers to my questions here will be, by neccesity, somewhat speculative / estimations (albeit bases on reliable sources).

1. Which branch of the Chinese intel apparatus is responsible for such activities as monitoring Falun Gong practitioners and Pro-Chinese-Democracy activists outside China?

2. How much money and foreign-based personnel are devoted to these activities? How many people are stationed around the globe to keep tabs on such activists? (Chen Yonglin claimed "I am aware there are over 1,000 Chinese secret agents and informants in Australia, and the number in the United States should not be less." He also testified that "The United States and Australia are considered by the CPC as the base of the Falun Gong overseas". This would be befuddling indeed to the western mind, if true.

3. Training spies properly is expensive, and the number you can train to a high standard is limited. Does China consider itself to be getting "value-for-money" or "value-for-personnel" for all this (absurd-seeming) effort?

4. After China, which country would be the one devoting the most effort to such activities? Would Russia be a distant second? 58.111.224.202 (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read, China is very heavy into industrial espionage, not so much into the other forms. This supports their goal of becoming the dominant power through economics, rather than military means. StuRat (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

President and privacy

Suppose President Obama got bored and wanted to watch a movie at the local theater, buy groceries at Food Basic, play paintball with his friends, attend a hackathon, and then go skiing with his family at the local ski resort. Is he allowed to do any of these things without being followed around by Secret Service agents? How much privacy does he have when he's out in public with the rest of us? --140.180.5.239 (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Service's job is to protect The President in general, not Obama in particular. So, no. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Service is part of the Executive Branch; the President is head of the Executive Branch. Barring the terms of some law, which I don't believe pertains, he can order them to get lost and they'll have to do it (with, as you can imagine, strenuous objection, and much lollygagging about how precisely lost they were ordered to get). But obviously Presidents are realists, and don't dish out such orders, because the threats to them are very real. For others under USSS protection, the USSS give them as much latitude as is practical - I once shared a cinema with Energy and her agent sat at the end of the row behind her (in a very early evening showing, when the theatre was nearly empty), I imagine to tell anyone who wanted to sit in those two rows to sit elsewhere. That seemed to me to be about as far away from Energy and her buddies that the agent could reasonably be, and still do her job (I guess that somewhere else in the theatre was said agent's buddy - I didn't see them). And remember when Twinkle was ticketed by police for underage drinking (ref) and Turquoise had her fake-id confiscated (ref) - in both cases their respective USSS details would be in pretty close proximity and darn sure what was going on - clearly the agents felt that personal protection was their only job, and not enforcing Texas' or Connecticut's drinking laws. That certainly doesn't amount to privacy from Uncle Sam, but that's evidence of a determined effort not to intrude more than is necessary. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 01:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just me, but from your description, being related to the President in any way condemns one to a sad and lonely life. I know a movie theater is not usually a place for socializing, but what if Chelsea wanted to sit with other people, instead of having no one around her for 2 rows? What if she wanted to go to a night club and hit on a boy or two? Does she have to accept the fact that Secret Service agents will be pointing and laughing at her poor tactics while she tries to talk sexy? I don't think sexual interests, or the desire for privacy while engaging such interests, magically disappear when someone's dad becomes president. --140.180.5.239 (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, that's just another facet of their job. They have to balance their core job (protecting their charges) with providing the amount of privacy that A) the situation calls for and B) the privacy that they've had requested of them. In the case of teenage charges, the President has likely had a conversation with both their children and their children's protectors to come to an agreement as to how much privacy that the kids should have. (How's that for an average American family conversation over the dinner table?!) Dismas|^(talk) 02:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was at least one West Wing episode which involved the president's daughter getting into trouble in a bar. I am sure someone can tell us precisely which episode:) I imagine the creators of that show had a better notion about how such things go than us. --99.113.32.198 (talk) 05:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 21

@@ Line 172: / Line 172: @@
 ::Maybe it's just me, but from your description, being related to the President in any way condemns one to a sad and lonely life.  I know a movie theater is not usually a place for socializing, but what if Chelsea wanted to sit with other people, instead of having no one around her for 2 rows?  What if she wanted to go to a night club and hit on a boy or two?  Does she have to accept the fact that Secret Service agents will be pointing and laughing at her poor tactics while she tries to talk sexy?  I don't think sexual interests, or the desire for privacy while engaging such interests, magically disappear when someone's dad becomes president. --[[Special:Contributions/140.180.5.239|140.180.5.239]] ([[User talk:140.180.5.239|talk]]) 01:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 :::If I'm not mistaken, that's just another facet of their job.  They have to balance their core job (protecting their charges) with providing the amount of privacy that A) the situation calls for and B) the privacy that they've had requested of them.  In the case of teenage charges, the President has likely had a conversation with both their children and their children's protectors to come to an agreement as to how much privacy that the kids should have.  (How's that for an average American family conversation over the dinner table?!)  <span style="font-family:monospace;">[[User:Dismas|Dismas]]</span>|[[User talk:Dismas|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 02:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
+:::: There was at least one [[The West Wing|West Wing]] episode which involved the president's daughter getting into trouble in a bar. I am sure someone can tell us precisely which episode:) I imagine the creators of that show had a better notion about how such things go than us. --[[Special:Contributions/99.113.32.198|99.113.32.198]] ([[User talk:99.113.32.198|talk]]) 05:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 = March 21 =