Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

August 10

27th Amendment to the US Constitution

I've never understood — why was the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution written to forbid all immediate changes in legislators' salaries? Why wasn't it written simply to prohibit immediate salary increases? Presumably nobody except the legislators themselves would suffer anything if the legislature reduced its own salaries effective immediately, and the article's "Background" section shows that New York suggested in 1788 that increases alone be prohibited, so it's not as if nobody thought of it. Nyttend (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

A salary reduction could be imposed as a punishment of some kind, like if the wealthier representatives reduced the pay to zero, then the less-wealthy might have to resign. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe your statement "nobody except the legislators themselves would suffer anything if the legislature reduced its own salaries" is true. Low legislator salaries favour legislators with independent wealth and disfavour those without. Imagine a legislature split between wealthy capital holders and representatives from low- or middle-income groups who depended on salaries before entering the legislature. If the first group gained control, however briefly, they could lower the salary to $1, making it difficult for their opponents to live and work effectively. The amendment doesn't entirely preclude this, but it means everyone has to go to the polls with a cynical stunt like this pending. 46.208.108.197 (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

My point exactly, and better-stated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It says "The laws ascertaining the compensation ...". I don't know whether it was a concern but depending on details (which tend to be complicated in laws), if you allowed decreases but not increases then you might get into discussions about whether something is an increase when it isn't a single law simply saying "You get $X". PrimeHunter (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for the input. The Ineligibility Clause refers specifically to "increased" instead of "changed" for salaries, and it's prompted discussions: not whether something's exactly an increase, but how to apply the word — see the Saxbe fix article. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe that's why it says "The laws ascertaining the compensation...", so that it's not practically possible to weasel around it by getting creative with what terms like "increase" and "decrease" mean. It's vaguely like the income tax amendment, which gives the Congress the power to tax incomes. Some purists argue that "income" is not the same thing as "revenue". The way the amendment gets around it is by adding, "...from whatever source derived." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

House of Châlon-Arlay

Who is the heir general of the House of Châlon-Arlay (more specifically Mary of Baux-Orange and John III of Chalon-Arlay) which ruled the Principality of Orange? After René of Châlon the title passed to William the Silent, who wasn't a descendant of the House of Châlon-Arlay. Who stood to inherit Orange in 1544 by hereditary right as heir general of the House of Châlon-Arlay ?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you clarify the question? According to our articles, the title passed to another House/family because there were no heirs. Philibert of Châlon (died 1530) had no children; the title passed to his sister's son René, who also had no children, thereby ending both male and female lines. Is the confusing because René took the name Châlon? He was the last female-line heir, Philibert the last male-line heir. 184.147.136.32 (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

In a nutshell I was asking were there descendants of Mary of Baux-Orange and John III of Chalon-Arlay in 1544 who had a better claim than William the Silent. René was probably the last descendant of John IV of Chalon-Arlay and maybe even William VII of Chalon but definitely not of Mary of Baux-Orange and John III of Chalon-Arlay. Wikipedia has really little to no info on this subject of the other children of these princes besides the one that succeeded. I was wondering if Louis II of Chalon-Arlay's two other sons Louis and Hugh had descendants? Or if the other children, only mentioned on the French wiki, of fr:Jean III de Chalon-Arlay had descendants.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Economics of individuals within firms

I wanted to read economic papers that deal with how firms are affected by the individuals within them acting in their own interests, and related situations, but my Google skills do not appear to be up to scratch. E.g. a firm wants to achieve a goal, so hires an employee to work towards it, but that same employee will be better off by working towards a mutually exclusive goal. --superioridad ^(discusión) 02:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't really know, but maybe our articles Conflict of interest and Perverse incentive can be a starting point? Sjö (talk) 07:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Diseconomy_of_scale#Office_politics touches on this. StuRat (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, in a sense, this is a special case of tragedy of the commons/degradation of the commons, a very old problem, where a shared resource, in this case the company, tends to be used inefficiently, in this case by the employees, if they don't personally hold much of a stake in the preservation of that resource. StuRat (talk) 08:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

William K. Black's concept of control fraud is what you are looking for, if the individuals are the ones best placed to direct the firm's activities towards their own, mutually exclusive goal of self-enrichment at the firm's expense: the top management.John Z (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You might start with theory of the firm and the articles linked from there, especially behavioral theory of the firm. Control fraud is a special case of moral hazard. John M Baker (talk) 04:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

See Principal–agent problem. Duoduoduo (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Husband of Mona Lisa

who was husband of mona lisa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.183.170.82 (talk) 05:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The subject of the Mona Lisa was Lisa del Giocondo and her husband was Francesco del Giocondo. (section header added.) -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

This is in the news currently, as they are in process of digging up her grave to reconstruct her face to see if it matches the Mona Lisa. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

"It's only grave desecration if she's 534 years or younger!" Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, a the good news a Lisa is A'm a gonna paint a you face for free. The bad news is they gonna dig a you body up aroun a the year 2000 to use you face a bones as lego pieces. μηδείς (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Your impression of Leonardo is uncanny. And speaking of Leonards, Lisa answers back, channeling Leonard "Chico" Marx centuries before he was born: "'At's-a no good!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

term for all atheists going to hell?

What is the term for the belief that good people of other religions can also go to heaven, but atheists will go to hell? Which religions/denominations hold such beliefs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.101.131 (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Universalism. See our article for the various attitudes that different faiths have taken towards this issue - particularly Christian Universalism, Unitarian Universalism, and Noahidism. That being said, I don't know of any universalist viewpoint that regards atheism (simpliciter) as a mortal sin - there are plenty of religious groups that do so condemn atheism, of course, but none of those (as far as I know) are particuarly strong on ecumenism. Tevildo (talk) 14:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, though, there's nothing within the spectrum of "Universalism" (itself a slippery and poorly defined topic) that necessarily excludes even atheists from the afterlife. Still, it is the closest, and that's the only useful starting point for research I can imagine. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hell is very much part of the afterlife. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

As I recall, the core premise of Universalism is that "everyone is saved." So presumably it's all heaven and no hell. But that's as much of a guess as anything else is. I recall one of Rod Serling's TV programs (probably Night Gallery) in which a deceased hippie-type arrives at the afterlife and is assigned to perpetually listening to Lawrence Welk records or something. He's crying, "Bummer, man! Bummer!" and the death angel says, "Oddly enough, there's a place in heaven just like this... one man's heaven is another man's hell." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Note also that Noahidism (guilty of that same poor definition and slipperiness I mentioned earlier) typically requires a great deal more than simple belief in God. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Not according to everyone. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't know if he made up a term for it, but one of Raymond Smullyan's logic puzzle or philosophy books has the opposite idea - when only the atheists have an afterlife. He imagines a future with all his atheist friends enjoying bliss and mourning his absence. Though Smullyan himself still hasn't reached the decision point yet.John Z (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (No salvation outside the Church). μηδείς (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• But that excludes Muslims, Buddhists, animists, etc., as well as nonconformist Christians; the original question regards something that would accept Muslims, Buddhists, animists, etc., and all flavors of Christians, excluding only the atheist. It's such an unusual perspective that I'd guess that there's no name for it, in the rather-unlikely event that any organized groups have ever held such a doctrine. Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I read this question when it was posted. It's because the Roman Catholic phrase is neither one word nor an exact equivalent that I waited before I answered it. But given Jesus is a member of the Trinity I am not about to concede your objection--even though I am an atheist. The OP is free to ignore the reference if he likes, but it would have been contrary of me to have withheld it. μηδείς (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Per the Unitarian Universalist website http://www.uua.org/worship/words/chalice/151521.shtml, there is no requirement to believe a specific creed to belong to the UU church. In fact, there's an old joke that Unitarian Universalists are basically athiests who have had children. OldTimeNESter (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Balliol and Coucy

House of Balliol indicate there was a marriage between a female Balliol and a lord of Coucy. Who are they? I can't seem to find any daughters in the articles of the Balliol who did.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

fr:Enguerrand V de Coucy married Christine de Lindsay, daughter of Ada de Balliol and William Lindsay, and granddaughter John I de Balliol (and therefore a niece of King John Balliol). Unfortunately we don't have an article about Enguerrand V, but his French article mentions it. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Mrs G and Mr W

In volume one, chapter three of Emma we are told Mrs Goddard "having formerly owed much to Mr. Woodhouse's kindness, felt his particular claim on her to leave her neat parlour". What did Mr Woodhouse do for Mrs Goddard? Yours, Cluelessly almost-instinct 22:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Austen gives any more information than that. Presumably Mr Woodhouse contributed some money or property towards the establishment of Mrs Goddard's school. Tevildo (talk) 09:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that seems the safest presumption. I was hoping that there might be some gossamer-thin allusion a couple of hundred pages later; I shall be keeping my eyes peeled for any hints of that this time I read it, and will report back if I come across anything! almost-instinct 11:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

August 11

Luxembourg royal burials

Where are Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxembourg and William IV, Grand Duke of Luxembourg buried? Their articles indicate they've been buried in Schlosskirche (“Castle Church”) in Weilburg since 1953 while a category to Burials at Notre-Dame Cathedral, Luxembourg is also linked. Were they originally buried in Luxembourg than transfer to Weilburg in 1953? Also the article Weilburg indicate Schlosskirche is of the Lutheran denomination but the Nassau family have historically been members of Reformed Church not the Lutheran Church. Isn't that as bad as burying them in a Catholic cathedral.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

According to de:Schlosskirche (Weilburg) the church is a union church belonging to the Protestant Church in Hesse and Nassau. According to the same article more than 30 princes of Nassau and Luxembourg are buried there in the burial vault, and it mentions explicitly the two princes in question. Another surprising feature: the article states that the burial vault is under the sovereignty of Luxembourg. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you know what happened in 1953? Also what denomination was it before the union of the Reformed and Lutheran churches?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Americanization of the BBC

BBC programing seems to have become Americanized over the last decade or so. Is there any critical commentary on this? And if so, could responsibility for it be laid at the feet of any specific individual or policy? I have read our basic articles on the BBC and its history but I have had a hard time even determining who is responsible for programing decisions, or whether they are independent between the various channels. (In the US it's easy to identify eras in the programming of the big three (now four with FOX) networks and point to eras like NBC's domination of thursday night programming during the Brandon Tartikoff period.) Is there any evidence or explanation for this at wikipedia or in reliable sources? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on what you mean by Americanization. Do you mean actual programmes, or style in the news broadcasts? Mingmingla (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I rarely watch the US thing called the BBC News since it is not on at a convenient time and is shown as a 42 minute long broadcast interrupted by 18 minutes of commercials. I get my news from google, WP and aggregators. I am thinking more of things like The Weakest Link. Like the dumbed-down, hyperemotionalizd, super-effects over plot-lined Doctor Who. (What prompted this was the recent cringe-making BBC special announcing Capaldi's casting.) Even to Top Gear, which is not that new. Footballers' Wives. Or Sherlock, (starring the weirdly sexual Cumberbund Bandersnatch) which reminds me very much of the perverse Dexter. Of course I'd still be interested in hearing about the news if there is good level commentary. Just to mention, the fact that the Daily Mail is now the most widely read newspaper in the US is also interesting, but a bit tangential. μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that dumbed-down and hyper-sensational content is typical of the US, but not of the UK or other countries? Otherwise, Americanization might more accurately be described as dumbing down, sensationalizing, etc, and you might get more results by searching these terms. --Bowlhover (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you asking about the BBC that shows in the UK or the thing called BBC America which is not the same? RudolfRed (talk)

I am an American, and am asking about BBC shows regardless of venue. I see them about half on PBS and half on the internet and I seriously don't think ever in full on the BBC America thing. What is relevant to my question is the distinction between shows from the 70-90's and shows in the last decade, not what venue they were viewed in. (The trend to me seems the same on ITV --footballers wives-- and Sky --the cafe-- as well, but that's harder to tell from over here.) It seems rather reasonable to describe them as having gotten more Americanized. The changes in Doctor Who, for example, all seem to be in the direction of Americanization: format, special effects, show tempo, the end of the world at least once a season. Some of this dates back even to Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy. Is this trend limited to Doctor Who? Is it general? Am I imagining it? If I could answer this myself I wouldn't be asking. μηδείς (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Who is certainly Americanised. When Russell T. Davies revived it in 2005, he looked for examples of sci-fi/fantasy shows that had been successful in recent years for inspiration - and the examples he followed were US shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Smallville, because they were successful. Also, it's an expensive show to make, and as the BBC is a non-commercial broadcaster it can't make its money back in the domestic market, so it relies on selling it abroad to defray costs. The US is the biggest and wealthiest market for anglophone TV, so it makes sense to tailor it to appeal to American viewers. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Your comments seem very likely. Unfortunately I have only seen the commercials for Buffy and Smallville. I suppose I will have to watch the former at some point if I want to keep my passport. μηδείς (talk) 02:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a reference for you, but US TV material has become increasingly popular in the UK; House (TV series) and CSI New York for example. Therefore, if producers want their output to be watched by British viewers, I suspect that they will tend to follow the most popular formats. I like to think that US shows have sometimes been influenced by British productions too. Alansplodge (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Funny. You do realize Hugh Laurie's an Englishman? :) (Honestly, his American accent is better than any American's I have ever heard.) A lot of US shows are remakes of British shows. The only ones I can think of that are obviously British are things like American Idol, which I don't watch, as it is too American. μηδείς (talk)

It is difficult to answer this encyclopaedically, but, being a british resident and having seen the similar BBC Entertainment in Switzerland recently (which was mainly The Weakest Link) I think I understand what you are talking about. The BBC is an enormous organisation with a £5 billion income and is nearly 100 years old. It held a state monopoly on all broadcasting until 1955 and the tradition here has been to regulate all broadcasting. The CEO and Chief Editor of the BBC, who is supposed to be responsible for all output and answerable like the editor of a newspaper, is called the Director-General of the BBC, and two that are perceived as 'era-definers' are Lord Reith and Hugh Carleton Greene. But nowadays, the BBC has four television and at least 6 radio channels broadcasting continuously, and there are a number of management positions in a Byzantine arrangement, who have overlapping responsibilities for various aspects of the output. The running joke is 'there's a crisis at the BBC, deputy heads will roll'.

BBC Worldwide is a separate organisation which buys in programming from the BBC (and others) for rebroadcast on its various channels, including BBC America. Although this provides an income stream for the BBC proper, the lion's share of its income comes from payments by UK residents of the Television licensing in the United Kingdom. The terms of the regulations that the BBC must operate under are renegotiated with the Government every 10 years when its Royal Charter is renewed. This system means that the BBC is not directly tied to advertising revenue and viewing figures for its income, and can afford not to budget each programme directly on the advertising that would be sold during that programme (the domestic service is not allowed to advertise at all). But, in successive negotiations, the Government, which at first was focussed on maintaining the appearance of independence from Government control, has increasingly put pressure on the BBC to produce popular programmes or risk losing some licence fee income to the competing broadcasters (who somewhat resent this subsidy). So the BBC produces popular programmes on high budgets, designed to maximise viewing figures, and also slips in cheaper but more worthy programmes where it can afford to, hoping to maintain its reputation as a high quality broadcaster while also satisfying itself and the Government that it could manage with advertising income instead of licence fee income.

It should also be noted that some national newspapers consider themselves to be in competition with the BBC in the area of news; there is a BBC News website which competes directly with the newspapers' sites, which is also paid for by licence fees, and is free to use. At least three newspapers are owned by organisations that also have british broadcasting interests: Channel five is related to the Daily Express and the Sun and (London) Times are part of the same corporate structure as BSkyB, a major satellite broadcaster. The newspapers have been accused of using their position (they are allowed to take a biassed viewpoint) to attack the BBC's (who have an obligation to report news in an un-biassed way, whatever that means). These biassed sources have chronically accused the BBC of bias, and some might say (who? Well, Private Eye for a start) that these attacks have succeeded in reducing the BBC's willingness to enter 'controversial' waters.

It has been widely reported that Mrs Thatcher was incensed by the BBC's decision to report on the Falklands War in terms of 'British soldiers' and 'Argentine soldiers' rather than 'our brave lads' and 'Argie madmen' which led to a sticky Charter negotiation in 1986 and the Broadcasting Act 1990 and that the BBC has been on the back foot since then. If you want a single moment that the rot set in, that's as good a point as any.

See also John Birt who introduced 'blue sky thinking' to the BBC, and Greg Dyke who might have been capable of improving the situation, but he was felled by the scandal surrounding the death of David Kelly (weapons expert). There have been other scandals and errors of judgement, all of which lead the Corporation to err on the side of popular, family-friendly (lowest common denominator, dreadful) entertainment. For some reason this is further emphasised in the selection made by BBC Worldwide in its output.

You might be able to get "BBC World News" bulletin at 2pm Eastern time, which isn't too bad; Doctor Who holds many nostalgic 40 and 50 year-old brits in its grip and we still watch no matter how dilute it becomes. I think the producers know that they can Americanise it to their heart's content and we will still follow loyally. Perhaps an analogy would be if the producers of the Wire made CSI:Sesame Street with the original puppets and sets, but new voices for the characters. The chances are it would be awful, but the temptation to watch would be very strong...TrohannyEoin (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a great comprehensive answer, and with the links quite useful. I'll be reading for quite a while. μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• It works both ways. See The Office, Pop Idol, Weakest Link, Top Gear (1977 TV series) etc. for British shows that later showed up in American versions. --Jayron32 17:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's the typical hollywood "copy what is successful, just do it worse" thing. Thinking about it in detail I think "class" and "reticence/reserve" are the two especial characteristics of British broadcasting. Those seem lost in things like Torchwood, unfortunately. Even Jean Hardcastle has become an Air Elemental. μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, when I think of "class" and "reticence/reserve", The Benny Hill Show is always what comes immediately to mind. Deor (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I could just say he was on Thames, not BBC. But it's obvious the shock of his humor was precisely for its take on notion of class and it's violation of British reserve. Same for Python and Dudley Moore and Peter Cook and so forth.

I don't think British TV shows being like American shows is a recent thing. Take Are You Being Served?, from the 1970's-1980's, which had sexual innuendo very similar to that on Three's Company, of the same era. The BBC has also had it's share of cheesy sci-fi, from Space: 1999 to Red Dwarf. StuRat (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you being served came out five years before Three's company, and Ritter didn't mince and lisp, nor was he "really" gay. μηδείς (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Mr. Humphries did those things either, and his sexual preferences were only implied, like when he said "I was in the Navy once for a couple of weeks" ... and we can imagine why he was thrown out. StuRat (talk) 09:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Islamic republic article

The article Islamic republic does not include Sudan. Sudan is a republic that has a legal system based on Islamic law. Should it be included in the article? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

That should be discussed on the article's talk page, not here. Our comments on the article will have no standing there. μηδείς (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The other countries listed are called Islamic Republic of Place while Sudan calls itself the Republic of Sudan.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I just took it to the article's talk page to continue the discussion. I know it isn't called the "Islamic Republic of Sudan", it jis just that Islamic law is practiced by the Republic of the Sudan. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Product placement in movies

Is there a source anywhere that goes into detail on product placement in movies and how much advertisers pay for product placement in various types of movies? Our product placement article has a large list of movies and TV shows that include some product placement, but doesn't have a single figure for how much it costs. Bononoko Clavier (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It's likely highly variable. If you can watch The_Greatest_Movie_Ever_Sold, it covers this topic, but I can't recall how much detail they disclose. RudolfRed (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The smell of bacon

For observant Muslim and Jewish people who have never eaten pork, what percentage think the smell of bacon is disgusting instead of mouth-watering? Bononoko Clavier (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

People who abstain from pork for religious reasons may do so, because they believe that the pork is not halal or kosher. If they find pork tasty, even though in their worldviews, they know that the pork is dirty food, then that still means that they still shouldn't eat it. Put it into perspective: would you eat food that has been tossed into the garbage and has weird mold growing on it? IIRC, a Christian would fast during Lent and avoid meats (except "fish"), because the meats are believed to be related to a sensual appetite. So, meats are avoided by Christians during Lenten season. I'm not sure if the same concept applies in Islam and Judaism. According to chabad.org, Jews are allowed to eat fish with scales and fins, so aquatic mammals are forbidden, which seem to contrast the Christian eating of aquatic mammals (i.e. capybara) during Lent in Latin American countries. Sneazy (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

That is generalising, not all Christians observe lent, in fact, I have never heard of lent before joining Wikipdia. On another note, since becoming an SDA two years ago, I've forgotten the taste of pork, but I still find the smell of bacon to be delicious. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You've become a Structured Digital Abstract? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if that is a joke on account of my Asps, but I'll correct anyways: Seventh Day Adventists. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The above doesn't address the question at all. Probably good statistics on this do not exist, but google for "jews like the smell of bacon" gives several results. Here's one which suggests that Jewish people do indeed like bacon: http://forward.com/articles/139697/the-bacon-problem/ Staecker (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You might as well ask: how would a lifelong vegetarian (or convert) respond to the smell of cooking meat? People who choose to follow dietary restrictions related to a belief system or ethics, probably haven't evolved some physiological response but rather a subjective one. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Pork... So juicy so irresistible... I think some smells, like bacon's, are undeniably awesome-smelling and anybody who smells it will like it. But in a split-second reaction, the devout Muslim will turn away and stick to his discipline. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

A quick strawpoll of some lifelong religious Jews reveals that universally the ones who have encountered the aroma of bacon (some hadn't) found it delicious. Some of them found the concept of eating it disgusting, others were more neutral (ie along the lines of "I won't do that, but I'm not revolted by the idea").

To counter some misinformation above, Jewish law does not perceive pork as "dirty" any more than any other forbidden food (eg mutton, crab or pike). It's just forbidden. While some have tried to rationalise the Jewish dietary laws, ultimately, they are statutes. --Dweller (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Anything that's considered a "bottom feeder" is considered "unclean", which is why not just pigs, but also crustaceans and catfish are also off-limits to anyone observing strict kosher rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Mutton is forbidden to jews? I kinda doubt that, given that "an angel of god" provided a ram to be sacrificed by Abraham in Isaac's stead, and that sheep are explicitly listed among the pure animals. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant sheep hind quarters, which are problematic at best and not permitted in most of the world for religious Jews. See Gid hanasheh. Porging is extremely rare, worldwide, these days, outside of Israel. --Dweller (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that the majority of Muslims don't relate to bacon at all. Bacon is not sold in shops across large parts of the Muslim world, and virtually no restaurants serve it. As to the notion of eating pork, it tends to disgust people (in same way most Westerners feel about eating dog or snake meat). --Soman (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I stopped eating bacon a while ago, though I liked the taste. Still like the smell a lot, but it doesn't make me want to eat it. Just makes me want to smell it some more. On the other hand, I dislike cigarette smell, but enjoy smoking (if only because it stops the non-smoking feeling). A bacon-flavoured cigarette could be amazing. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

mom-and-pop shops

Recently, I watched a PBS Masterpiece Theatre making of the Great Expectations, and I noticed that Pip was called "boy of the forge". So, that got me thinking. Would a forge be considered as a mom-and-pop shop, or is the forge the place where metal is made but not where metal is sold? How small is this "small business"? Can this small business become wealthier over time and buy out other competing small businesses, transfer its resources to one location, maintain the same private owner(s), and still call it a "small business" or mom-and-pop shop? At the end of the film, Pip returned a shilling or a guinea to his brother-in-law, and said that he did not deserve it, because the money was all that his brother-in-law could earn. Seriously, how much can a shilling or guinea buy in those days? Sneazy (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

"Mom-and-pop shop" is not a usual expression in British English. Nor is "Mum-and-dad shop", which would be the translation of it into British English. A "forge" would not be considered any kind of "shop" in British English - a shop is where you buy things, not where things are made. (There are certain contexts where "shop" can be used for "workshop", but this is not one of them). The arc you have described could certainly happen, and did so, but the classification "small business" would not have meant anything in particular in the era of Great Expectations. Neither a shilling nor a guinea exists today: in 1971 a shilling became 5p (£0.05) and a guinea became £1.05. Obviously their buying power was many many times greater than those sums today. --ColinFine (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, a guinea was 1-2 weeks wages for a full-time laborer during the time period when Dickens was writing. Looie496 (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

In 19th century rural England most communities had a forge, also called a smithy or a blacksmith’s shop, where the smith worked. Normally he sold his output then and there to the locals. I don’t think village smithies expanded into chains but stayed, like farriers, under a single craftsman. I don’t understand your reference to a shilling or a guinea, both of which have significance for Pip and Joe. They are very different things of course. In 1830, for example, a shilling was equivalent to about £3.67 today and a guinea about £77. --Hors-la-loi 16:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hors-la-loi (talk • contribs)

I think that the modern term would be sole trader. Blacksmiths did most of their business shoeing horses, but would also make anything else from iron or steel that was required by the community; tool heads, hinges, grills and so on. These items began to be made in factories around the time that Dickens was writing and smiths then began to specialize in horses and became farriers or in ornamental wrought iron work. Alansplodge (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

John, Duke of Beja

Could someone help me find Portuguese secondary sources or or even primary sources calling John, Constable of Portugal Duke of Beja? My hypothesis is a mistake in this book led to his being Duke of Beja becoming a fact. This only stands if no Portuguese sources or even primary sources call him "Duque de Beja." Please don't mention other wikipedias.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, Wikipedia has John, Constable of Portugal, as Duke of Beja. Are you looking for an explanation that John, Constable of Portugal, may be falsely named the Duke of Beja? Sneazy (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. I am trying to find evidence that calling him this was a mistake. Portuguese sources or primary sources would indicate this was a mistake arising in the English sources which was later proliferated into other secondary English sources.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the English Wikipedia has John, Constable of Portugal as Duke of Beja. But going to the Portuguese version of the site and translating that version instantaneously to English bring results that John, Constable of Portugal is not the first Duke of Beja, because the title was created for the king's brother, the man who is in second place on the English Wikipedia. This discrepancy proves your point: that John as the Duke of Beja is a questionable fact. Sneazy (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Did you read my "Please don't mention other wikipedias"? Bringing up Wikipedia articles doesn't prove anything and doesn't answer my question. Saying other wikis has this or that isn't much of a good prove because I can just say that those articles have been written with a false understanding of the subject and that this new fact/addition on the English wiki is the actual correct fact, especially since the Portugeuse article is written without sources. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

That's the old "Do not think of the number 8" trick. The human brain is not wired to exclude something without first thinking of it. The moral is "Do not give negative instructions". :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Even though these are Wikipedia references, both Duke of Beja and Duque de Beja say the title was created in 1453 (nine years after John’s death) for Infante Ferdinand. Plugging the name of the dukedom into google scholar comes up with this reference, which confirms the creation of the dukedom for Ferdinand (though not the year) on page 227. That’s all I can do as someone who can’t read Portuguese – hope it suffices for you. 184.147.136.32 (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Question is answered.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Anglo Saxon name for British royals

Has there been any British royal with Anglo Saxon names other than Edward since the Norman Conquest?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Define "Anglo Saxon name" and "British royal". I guess the other English/GB/UK monarchical names (Henry, Richard, Stephen, John, George, James, Charles, William; Anne, Elizabeth, Mary, Victoria) are not AS, but there was a King Edgar of Scotland, and one of Edward III's sons was called Edmund. Rojomoke (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Any name with an Anglo Saxon origin and English and British royals from 1066 to present. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

So both my examples qualify. Rojomoke (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. I didn't notice the Edmunds.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You can ask an editor in Category:User ang.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, William is of AS origin (Willelm). Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Not according to William (name). Germanic, but from Old Norman.
If you cast the net a bit wider, we almost had a King Roger (Hroðgar). Rojomoke (talk) 05:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

William (name) is typically misleading information. Yes, it is common Germanic, but the name indubitably existed in Old English spelled as Willelm. Philologists who pretend that Modern English "William" has nothing to do with Old English "Willelm" would be, well, lying. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 11:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

According to Klein, William is not from Old English. He's not pretending that it has nothing to do with OE "Willelm", but he is implying that "Willelm" is not the etymon. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 16:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Is Matilda an Anglo Saxon name? Warofdreams talk 10:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Empress Matilda, (1102–1169), also known by her Saxon name "Maud" or "Maude" (she was briefly Queen Regnant of England but was never crowned). Alansplodge (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You are counting royal family members in addition to monarchs (as with the Edmunds), right? What about Alfred, Albert, Maud? 184.147.136.32 (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Being a little pedantic, I believe that Prince Albert was more Saxon than Anglo-Saxon ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Great Pittsburgh Fire of 1845

I'm curious where the info on the Great Pittsburgh Fire of 1845 came from. The article says that only two people died and it names them. In a brief paper that my father wrote, he says that my great, great grandfather had a canal boat and tried to save it during the fire. He died in the fire in the failed attempt to save his boat. His name was Patrick McCambridge. Wondering how to check the information of yours and his. Any help you can give would be appreciated.

Sincerely, John E. McCambridge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.250.188 (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

At the bottom of the article Great_Fire_of_Pittsburgh, it lists the sources used. The information on the deaths came from books written by Cook and Hoffer. RudolfRed (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

August 12

Possible Updates for Two Wikipedia Entries

Hello - I am not sure if this is the right department to write to, but I have two suggestions for updating two Wikipedia Entries.

For the Entry about Cagliostro - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alessandro_Cagliostro - you have a section 'Appearances in Fiction'. I have found numerous references to Cagliostro in the novel 'He Who Whispers' by John Dickson Carr (aka John Carter Dickson), one of his Dr Gideon Fell mysteries. In this book a French professor, Georges Antoine Rigaud, has written a history: 'Life of Cagliostro'. The name 'Cagliostro' gets mentioned 23 times.

For the Entry about the Sandyford Murder Case - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandyford_murder_case - you mention various appearances in fiction of this case. I have found two references to this case in 'Seeing is Believing' (also published as 'Cross of Murder') a Sir Henry Merrivale novel by John Carter Dickson (aka John Dickson Carr) and in Chapter 20 there's quite a long account of the Sandyford Murder Mystery.

I hope that the above has been useful.

And by the way in the entry about the Sandyford Murder Mystery the word 'published' is spelt wrongly: "…novel, When Last I Died, publilshed in 1941…"

Yours sincerely - Duncan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.212.89.254 (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you know you can edit articles here yourself (except for cases where they are locked down due to repeated vandalism) ? A spelling error you can fix and just put "Fixed spelling error" in the comment line at the bottom. For the other cases, it would also be nice if you could add a reference, which in this case would be the books themselves. So, list the books, publish dates, pages, authors, etc. Just pick "Edit source" above the section you want to edit. StuRat (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks Duncan. I've left a message on your user talk page explaining how to make these changes. As StuRat mentioned, it's best you do it since we need to know the book details and you have the books. 184.147.136.32 (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Midfielders

Would midfielders in association football be able to run at 10,000 metres events? Footballers run 11 kilometers a game [1] and midfielders especially run a lot.Pass a Method talk 08:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. HiLo48 (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Not without additional training. The running that football players do is quite different than distance runners. Football players run in fits and starts, with occasional sprints, lots of turns, etc. Distance runners run a straight line at a constant speed, building towards a sprint finish. Football players may have the necessary endurance, but would likely need training on pacing etc before they could be competitive. Now we just need some references. --Xuxl (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, 10k runners run it in under 30 minutes, rather than for two 45 minute periods. Most midfielders wouldn't do much better than a casual runner. EamonnPKeane (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Is Long-distance Running Really Important in Soccer Training? says; "When analyzing the game, players run approximately 70 percent of the actual minutes of the game... Most of the runs made in soccer are explosive, high-intensity runs, rather than long, slow runs". I'm certain that I read an article claiming that Premiership footballers actually run for only 15 minutes during a game, but I may have been mistaken. Alansplodge (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

More detail at How Far Do You Run During a Soccer Game? by Don Kirkendall, Ph. D. which says; "The first time-motion study over a full season was done on Everton FC (Liverpool, England) in the mid 1970s and the estimated distance covered was just under 8,800 meters per game... About 2/3 of the distance was covered at the low intensities of walking and jogging and around 800 meters sprinting in numerous short 10-40 meter bursts... Subsequent work and maturation of the game has pushed this total distance up to around 10,000 meters for a men's professional European game with the South American game being contested at a little less total running distance... Don't brag too much about the running volume--10,000 meters (six miles) in 90 minutes is four miles per hour, something a good power walker can do." Alansplodge (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Sociobiology and fashion

As opposed to today's fashion, suntan wan't fashionable in ancient times. For insance, the Bible writes

Look not upon me, that I am swarthy, that the sun hath tanned me; [...]

— The Shulamite, Song of Songs 1:6

It seems to make sense from an evolutionary point of view because tanning was common mostly among rednecks. But this is just one feeble evidance that evolution affected perceptions of beauty so accurately, and it makes one wonder: how significant is the role of evolution in fashion, especially in ancient times?

Also, I heard that the Japanese culture (or was it the Chinese?) used to accept chubby people as more attractive. Does that make sense according to evolution?

Thanks, 84.109.248.221 (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no "sense according to evolution" on the numbers and timescales you are considering here. To put this into the common metaphor of "not seeing the forest for the trees", you're trying to understand the whole forest by examining a tiny patch of bark on one tree. Genetics certainly plays an important part in people's social behavior, but genetics is not purely deterministic in this way. Fashion is fickle, and drifts and changes at FAR to short a time scale to be subject to evolutionary pressures. --Jayron32 11:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I should have probably emphasized that I'm talking about any type of evolution, and thanks to you I noticed that this is probably an example of memetic evolution. 84.109.248.221 (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not the appearance: it's what the appearance means. In an ancient context, everyone would be working, except for people who were unable to work (obviously not the case with the Shulamite) or for people who were rich enough that they didn't have to work; being fair-skinned and healthy showed that you were rich. Meanwhile, in a premodern culture, only the prosperous could afford to eat enough to get fat. Nyttend (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: "Also, I heard that the Japanese culture (or was it the Chinese?) used to accept chubby people as more attractive. Does that make sense according to evolution?" Obviously, if a population "used to" do something, it suggests there are reasons why it evolved away from doing it now, perhaps it was not "selected for" in competition with other propagating populations. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

According to the theories of Thorstein Veblen (who, as our article notes, wrote from a Darwinian evolutionary perspective), fashions generally are examples of conspicuous consumption and seek to exhibit the individual's high status. Suntans were low-status when they indicated peasant labor, but high-status when they indicated the resources and leisure to travel from a northern city in the winter to a tropical resort. The advent of tanning salons, which cater to the lower end of the market, has lost a great deal of suntans' cachet. John M Baker (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That may change with the increasing world-wide regulation and, in some places, outright banning of such places and the sale of personal tanning beds. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Or the increasing world-wide nannyism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Evolution is too broad a term. Look at sexual selection as opposed to just natural selection. μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you derive that "suntan wasn't fashionable in ancient times" on the basis of one old text reading "Look not upon me, that I am swarthy, that the sun hath tanned me"? Bus stop (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

A suntan particularly of the face still isn't fashionable in many cultures in Africa and Asia (including East, South East and South) where there is in fact a push towards extremely levels of Skin whitening using probably dodgy products, which may be seen in advertising etc. While there are some pushes towards tanning e.g. [2] and Ganguro, I don't think they've generally been that successful, at most partially counteracting the trend towards whiteness (helped sometimes by government regulations and/or social and government backlash against the whiteness messages) hopefully pushing towards recognising both ideas are silly. Nil Einne (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

John M Baker has it right -- down to about the 1920s or so, tanning was commonly a sign of long outdoors work (usually agricultural) and so a signal of relatively low status, and ladies carried parasols to protect their pale complexions. After that time, tanning started to acquire connotations of being able to take long vacations at the seaside, or remote sunny resorts, and so acquired more trendy connotations. As for fat vs. thin, a woman with a "pleasantly plump" figure is more likely to be fertile than a stick-figure thin model, and some signals of attractiveness are probably based on fertility indicators. Also, in some societies, plumpness means that you consistently have enough food to eat, and so are relatively well off. But in modern Western societies, thinness means that you probably have access to relatively high-quality food and have powers of self-control, so that thinness is now the signal of relative wealth or high status... AnonMoos (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

What was the point of World War 1?

I understand the causes of WW1, and how it started off. However I fail to understand what the objectives of the British and the French on one side, and the Germans on the other? If the Germans won WW1, what would the Germans want out of it? --Beerenhofft (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You may already be familiar with the opinion that war is good for absolutely nothing, but I suppose that might be too simple an answer. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Good answer! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Say it again. --Jayron32 22:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

A slightly more substantial answer comes from Fritz Fischer, who said the goal was to distract citizens from domestic problems and whip up patriotism, to counteract a rise in left-wing ideological popularity. So a bit more than nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That's the view from the left. I'm not sure that anybody much wanted Continental Europe to be dominated by the German Empire except maybe the Germans. From Britain's point of view, the main issue was protecting a neutral country that we had pledged to protect (Belgium); the same issue that led us into WWII (Poland) and the Gulf War (Kuwait). "But what good came of it at last?" / Quoth little Peterkin. / "Why that I cannot tell," said he, / "But 'twas a famous victory." Alansplodge (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have been clearer. I meant German citizens, German domestic problems and the German goal. For the last part of the question. Being conquered isn't good for another citizenry's morale. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• The simple answer is that the Germans wanted dominance. A country that dominates the world is in control of its own fate (or at least feels like it), and doesn't have to defer to the wishes of other countries. Right now the US dominates the world militarily, and I believe most Americans feel that's a good thing. The primary objective of the British was to prevent the Germans from dominating the world. The primary objective of the French was to get back the territory they lost both in the early stages of the war and during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. Looie496 (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Geopolitically the late unification of Germany meant it lacked the colonies that nations that had unified earlier did, and wanted to achieve them. Germany saw itself as surrounded and nearly landlocked except for the North Sea, it wanted respect, and maybe the Netherlands. Ideologically the ruling Prussian Junkers were petty war barons whose highest value was the military prowess the needed to keep their Slavic and Baltic peasants subjugated. And there's the neurotic Kaiser with his wooden horses and shriveled arm, jealous of his cousins on their thrones, and wanting to prove he was better than them. See Causes of World War I. μηδείς (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The First World War was way more complicated than "the Germans were bad". It was about tensions between rival empires, and treaties of alliance that obliged countries to act in defence of their allies. It started because the Austro-Hungarian Empire wanted to grab the lands in the Balkans that had recently been vacated by the Ottoman Empire. They knew the Russians were allies of Serbia, so if they made a move against Serbia the Russians would likely move against them, and the French, who were allies of the Russians, might join in in support of their allies, leaving them having to fight a war on two fronts. So they got their own, ally, Germany, to invade France first, neutralising one potential opponent. The French-German border was well-defended, so the Germans invaded through Belgium. The British were allies of the Belgians, so that brought them in.

Germany was a relatively young country, and when the war started was if anything a junior partner to the Austro-Hungarians. It was certainly expansionist, but was in no position to threaten world domination. The threat Germany posed was of altering the balance of power in Europe. They got stuck with all of the blame when the war was over, because the Austro-Hungarian empire had collapsed, and a non-existent state can't be held liable for reparations. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

A substantial issue for many countries was the safety of their allies. The alliance system meant that many countries were dependent on their allies, and because they believed that it wasn't in their best interest to let their allies get squished by multiple enemies, they thought it best to go to war to support their allies. Russia ended up doing really really badly, even though Germany had substantial resources diverted by the war in the West; imagine how it would have ended up for them if the full weight of the German military had been thrown eastward. Austria-Hungary didn't do the best against Russia early in the war, and they were repeatedly repulsed in their earliest invasions of Serbia; if Germany hadn't come to their aid, Russia may have overwhelmed them. Nyttend (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Germany was not the junior partner of Austria-Hungary, even if it was the younger state. Germany had a larger population and economy and a much larger industrial sector, as well as a military that had just one generation earlier single-handedly delivered a humiliating defeat to France, which until then had been the leading power of continental Europe. At the outset of World War I, Britain was clearly the world's dominant military power, even though both the United States and Germany had surpassed it in population and industrial output. With the United States initially neutral, German military leaders thought that the time was right to challenge Britain for hegemony over Europe. Austro-Hungarian leaders saw the alliance with their rising neighbor as an opportunity to strengthen their own position in Europe and particularly in the Balkans. Britain's leaders and public, meanwhile, were committed to defending their hegemonic position (and felt duty-bound to defend Belgium against the Germans). American sympathy toward democratic Britain (the mother country) and France (a historic ally) eventually led the United States to intervene on the side of the Allies to prevent a possible German victory in the West once Russia had in effect capitulated. As a result, of course, the United States began to eclipse Britain's military hegemony, but that was an outcome foreseen by the leaders of neither Britain nor Germany at the outset. Marco polo (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with MP's points 100%. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

And I have to disagree. Britain didn't have hegemony over Europe. Its imperial interests were elsewhere. It had an interest in there being a balance of power among the European powers, each cancelling the other out, which allowed it to stay aloof from European matters. Germany was a rising power that might upset that balance, but it did start the war following the Austro-Hungarian agenda. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Britain exercised its hegemony by acting as arbiter and enforcer of the European balance of power. Marco polo (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

In the run-up to WWI, diplomats and politicians on all sides tried to boost their own nation's power and reach, and some didn't seem to treat the possibility of future war with appropriate seriousness. However, there were several provocative moves by Germany which had the effect of somewhat destabilizing the situation, without particularly strengthening Germany's own position. To start with, the island of Great Britain was not self-sufficient in basic food production, so that the British viewed any attempt by another European power to build up a navy directly rivaling Britain's as a potential direct threat to Britain's food supply. By contrast, Germany's desire for a navy was based more on psychological prestige factors and a desire to obtain a few tropical colonies before the British and French snapped up all available territories, rather than any vital strategic need. So when Germany started a naval arms race at the beginning of the 20th century, the UK was unalterably determined to spend however much it took to stay ahead of Germany, as a matter of basic survival. In the end, the German surface navy ended up at the bottom of Scapa Flow without ever having struck any very decisive blow for Germany, and its real main function seemed to be to cater to Wilhelm II's semi-childlike glee in possessing shiny new military toys and lots of gold braid on his shoulders. If Germany not building a surface navy rivaling Britain's would have meant that Britain wouldn't have been driven into the arms of France (the Entente Cordiale alliance), then Germany really would have been much better off not building it.
Also, at a critical point in Summer 1914, the German political leadership allowed itself to be drawn into launching an invasion of France largely based on rather simplistic German military staff mobilization plans, which assumed that "the first army that gets the most troops into the field the earliest wins" and "the war will be over by Christmas". It seems a little strange that outmoded military logistic plans were allowed to dictate such a momentous decision... AnonMoos (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

If Germany could knock France out in six weeks and seize the neutral coasts of Belgium and the Netherlands, Britain would be in grave danger while Russia could do little to help. This scenario was achieved 26 years later in 1940.--Hors-la-loi 07:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hors-la-loi (talk • contribs)

In contrast, Britain wasn't any more ethical than Germany. For one, as part of the arms race leading up to WWI, Britain wiped entire nations off the map, all just to fill their coffers with gold and diamonds. That travesty is still celebrated today. What is worse, is that they dare claim those victories in the name of equality and humanity. Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Really? Can you cite a source for that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Which part? Their official statement on their war objectives, their heavy garnering of the profits generated by the mining industry, or that commemorations in honour of the victories are held? Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

You claimed that "That travesty is still celebrated today". You linked the Boer war. Provide sources for your assertion that Britain still celebrates the 'travesty'... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

At the time, Australia was part of the commonwealth, so here you go: [3]. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It is also included in annual ANZAC commemorations. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

So events in Australia organised by the National Boer War Memorial Association (Australia) - which incidentally seems to have a more nuanced outlook on history than their name might suggest - become evidence that Britain 'celebrates wiping nations off the map'? Yeah, right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Plasmic Physics -- considering what the Germans did in Hereroland, they wouldn't have had much right to reproach the British for the Boer War. In any case, colonial skullduggeries in remote corners of the globe are not what had the largest destabilizing effect on European power politics in the run-up to the outbreak of WWI. AnonMoos (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It may not be the largest, but it definitely contributed to increasing tensions. FYI, Germany was allied to some degree with those nations and provided support against the British invasion, in the form of munitions and such. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

What happened in Hereroland? Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

In 1904, General Lothar von Trotha supressed a rebellion in German South West Africa by the Herero tribe. "70,000 Herero fell to 16,000 in a year. 75-80% of the Herero died as a result of the war."[4]

I can confirm that I have never heard of any celebration of the Second Boer War in the UK, where it is widely perceived to be a low point in our national story. The whole thing had been over for 12 years by 1914 and I've never heard it mentioned as a casus belli, rather a cause of irritation between the UK and Germany. A more pertinent case would be the German supply of rifles to Irish separatists. Alansplodge (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I've just found our article; Herero and Namaqua Genocide. Alansplodge (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I may be wrong on the point about celebration. Why would your suggested case be more pertinent, simply because it was more recent relative to WWI? Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Alansplodge (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't at all about ethics, it was about allies and tactics. If you were Germany, it would be nice to know that you have an extra port along the south of Africa, and you don't have to manage it. Oh, and if nothing else, it would also impede the UK's acquisition of yet more resources for a probably future war. Germany wasn't all that excited about having colonies, so strategically located allies was becoming more important by that time. Germany and the UK were already involved in war by proxy since the second half of the 19th century, it only became formal in 1914. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"Germany wasn't all that excited about having colonies"? Germany was - according to our Scramble for Africa article - the third largest colonial power in Africa (prior to WWI) and, having come a little late to the party, pursued a rigorously imperialist policy following the resignation of Bismarck! Valiantis (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Which Bismarck? According to German colonial empire, it says that colonisation was an experiment, which Otto initiated at the behest of another. In fact, five years later he regretted his decision and tried to give away one of his African colonies to British. The endevour was even called a "colonial burden". Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Homophobia

While some irrational prejudices have a kernel of truth, homophobia seems baseless and defies rational explanation. Most stereotypes - e.g. greedy, stupid, violent - are negative traits but the "gay sterotype" is harmless, so why does it elicit such hostile responses? Religion aside, are there any social or evolutionary explanations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.119.208 (talk) 7:42 am, Today (UTC−4)

You say "some irrational prejudices have a kernel of truth". I can't think of any offhand. Can you give an example or two? Which "irrational prejudices have a kernel of truth"? Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The question is worded in a very POV manner, that is hard for someone who doesn't share your point-of-view to wrap one's head around. It would be less inflammatory if you at least attempted a resemblance of neutral point of view. Yes, I'm sure obviously many people can without difficulty come up with plenty of "non-religious social and evolutionary reasons" for why populations that practice homosexuality are selected against, and populations discouraging it have been selected for, on a global scale over the course of thousands of years...! So, who is now arguing that it is suddenly the other way around? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you not noticed: your statement "...the 'gay stereotype' is harmless" is widely contradicted by many sectors of the world population who perceive it as harmful and react accordingly. In fact, a great deal of harm is done to homosexuals by people who object to them. Why don't you consider and perhaps acknowledge that, before any of us proceed here. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure the original poster has noticed those things, and that's pretty clearly the question: Why do so many sectors of the world population perceive homosexuality as harmful and react so strongly against it? Why is so much harm done to homosexuals by people who object to them? That's what I assumed the original poster was asking, and it's something I've wondered about, too. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if people may be misunderstanding the 'harmless' bit, it sounds to me like all the OP is saying is that many gay stereotypes don't seem particularly negative compared to other stereotypes. For example, the stereotype of Jewish people as greedy or abusive moneylenders, black people as violent criminals or lazy, Muslims as being always willing to use violence to defend or or spread their religion and as terrorists are all obviously quite negative whereas a number of the stereotypes of gay people like being effeminate, speaking with a lisp, dressing in certain ways, highly caring about their appearance, interested in and good at the arts etc may not seem particularly negative to the OP or at least a lot less negative than many of the other stereptypes. I don't think the OP is denying stereotypying is harmful rather they are saying since gay stereotypes don't aren't that negative, why do people react so strongly against gays? (Whereas it's easier for the OP to see why people may reac against others based on the highly negative stereotypes.) I'm not saying the OP is correct. There are obviously many stereotypes of people besides gays which are not particularly negative, e.g. the penis size of black males, Asians (depending on the country possibly East, SE and South) being studious, hard working and carring about family etc. More importantly many of the gay stereotypes can be negative depending on the person and culture, the OP may do to take a read of LGBT stereotypes. For example the stereotype of gays being highly promiscious and unwilling to enter in to long term commitments is obviously quite negative in for those with highly conservative attitudes towards sexuality. Similarly the stereotype of hard drug use. Let alone more serious ones like gays being paedophiles and sexual predators or considering paedophilia harmless. Even being effiminate while it may only be slightly negative in much of the developed Western world, can be quite negative in cultures which still emphasise traditional gender roles and where male masculinity is important. Of course, the biggest point which the OP is missing is that negative stereotypes, are only one factor in why people react against another group of people. If people are ingrained from a young age from a variety of sources in to thinking a group of people are harmful to them or their society, many will keep thinking it even if logically there's no reason even from their warped perceptions of these people in thinking these people are so harmful (or so much more harmful than others). Note in the particularly case of gay people the fact that they have sex with men (well obviously not all gay people will end up doing so for a variety of reasons) is something some people consider harmful and not to be tolerated based on their religious or other world views and so something they react against (not helped by the fictitious belief that most gay people want to convert others in to being gay). P.S. I'm only talking about gay men here as I think that' what the OP is referring to and they also tend to be what people react what most strongly against, which is not to deny the horrific crimes like corrective rapes and other forms of hate lesbian women face. Nil Einne (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The OP might want to read Homophobia where i hold confidence that his bias will be rubbished in the lede section alone and countless other times by reliable scientific studies and journals. Or just read the account of yet another of the victims to have killed themselves this week. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The OP's bias is not "homophobia is nonexistent", so you don't have to cite references that it exists. The question is, why does it exist? Why do people hate or fear gays so much that they enshrine violent stigmatization of it into their religions, and outlaw it in their civil societies? The Homophobia article you cite contains plenty of examples of those stigmatizing religions and those prohibitory laws, but it doesn't go much into the why, either. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It appears likely i have misread and my earlier post should be disregarded, although the Homophobia article is still a good source of information on this. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• This is actually rather easy from the men's point of view. Gay sex is obviously 'icky', it involves contact with the anus or oral contact with where pee comes from. You might get poo on your wiener or pee in your mouth (or worse!) Gay men might make you uncomfortable by suggesting such activity, or forcing you into it. Lesbians (the 'obvious ones') are manly and unavailable to and in competition with straight men. Arguments from the women's side are similar. There are habits that I find positively disgusting, like chewing and (god forbid) bubble gum. I don't find it hard to believe some people are disgusted by "sodomy" and fear having it thrust on them. There is also contempt for "sissies" among men, and the most overt gay men are the effeminates, which leads to the belief homosexuality is demasculinizing. And most people are biologically very naive, and have a contagion-based view of morality, that being around gay people will make you gay, just like being around unclean people will make you unclean, or being around uncool people will make you uncool. It's prescientific pre-rational thinking on the level of animism.

See:

• Law of contagion, a folk belief related to magical thinking
• Emotional contagion, a tendency to feel others' emotions
• Behavioral contagion, a tendency to mimic others' behavior
• Hysterical contagion, an effect in which a group exhibits physical symptoms due to a psychological cause
• Sacred contagion, the belief that spiritual properties pass from one entity to another

• See also Popo Bawa and the African panics over penis theft. μηδείς (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

And what's more, while most people have that view, the same most people would not agree themselves that they are practising pre-scientific pre-rational thinking on the level of animism. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Homophobia has been associated with bigotry (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#Distribution_of_attitudes) and many of the LGBT stereotypes are negative. Besides religion, the article on group conflict may help explain hostilities and stigmatization. -Modocc (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

From a politico-socio-economic perspective: most aggravated and pernicious homophobia is probably on the part of heterosexual men, who hold the top position in dominance and are heavily invested in staying there by any means. Homosexual men who are otherwise qualified to challenge them for a slot at the top of the food chain, present a threat to the status quo as much as do competent women (of any sexual orientation). -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that the threat is not that the gay man might seek to topple the alpha male from his perch, it's that he is comfortable in not seeking to do so? (I.e., that he has the temerity to deny the superiority of the perch?) —Steve Summit (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion goes back to the OP's premise, that there's nothing inherently noxious in the stereotypical "gay," but rather, possibly appealing and positive qualities - which is a threat to the straight male who jealously claims superiority as his birthright regardless of actually deserving it - and has to suppress all challengers. How better than to cultivate and even legislate homophobia (or homo-cide?) to tidy up the playing field in the titleholder's favor? -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Historians may also be aware of other reasons, such as particularly unfond popular memories of homosexual kings, and their style of statecraft, in the old days! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure some homophobia is also derived from Abrahamic religious ideology. The legalistic parts of the Old Testament were compiled at various times by the secular rulers of the Hebrew states in part to help them get or retain independence from their neighbors and overlords, among whom numbered several large and aggressive empires (inter alia Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Greece, Persia, Rome...). Part of retaining independence is being able to field a military force, which you cannot do without a surplus population. Without refs this counts as OR, but functionally speaking the end effect of every law regarding sexual conduct in the Old Testament is to maximize the population increase of "well-raised" people who will bear arms in defense of their nation. In a nutshell, no sexual energy is to be spent on anyone other than a member of the opposite sex, in marriage if possible (to ensure good values and traditional loyalties): no bestiality, no homosexuality, no masturbating ("Better to spill your seed in the belly of an whore than on the ground"), and no mixing with other countries who might corrupt or weaken your offspring's loyalties. So violators of these laws either must be put to death, or are struck down by God himself (as with Onan). I'm absolutely not comparing homosexuality to bestiality, either morally or in terms of my personal reaction thereto, but they share the common theme of being part of the comprehensive moral worldview of the Old Testament; which is driven by the Hebrew state itself and its need to survive or resurface by constantly being fruitful and multiplying. Hence the slew of laws and traditions which became Leviticus. And hence modern humans behaving as if Bronze Age tribesmen have the last word on sexuality for the globe-spanning human civilization of the 21st century. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 18:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

In many cultures past and present, homosexuality is a taboo. People in every culture internalize taboos and view the breaking of taboos with dread and revulsion. Breakers of taboos are seen as threatening to the whole culture and society. Other members of the society may be moved to violence, even murder, to stop the breaking of taboos and to defend the integrity of the culture and society. Violent responses to homosexuality are especially likely among men who identify as straight but who secretly or subconsciously find other men attractive, as this study, among others, demonstrates. These men feel personally threatened by open homosexuals and in effect violently attack or even murder men that they think are homosexual to try to combat their own hidden, threatening feelings. Marco polo (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You can also go to google scholar and search "homophobia authoritarianism", and you will find plenty of references suggesting a link. I'm putting this below Marco's response because it could add to his suggestion, rather than being a different thread. It is perfectly possible that authoritarian people who have suppressed homosexual desires are even more likely still to be homophobic - but the exact links between these are something you would have to look into. IBE (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

George Carlin, never one to hold back, talked about this in his typical politically incorrect way: "In my day, a 'fag' was not the same as a 'queer'. Everyone knew what a queer was. A fag was someone who wouldn't go downtown with the rest of the guys and help beat up queers." The general point being that the real stereotype is the appearance of being unmanly. Or to put it another way, "acting like a girl". When I see some of these very openly gay public figures on TV, the enlightened adult side of me recognizes that that's just who they are, and that's that; while the old-school side of me still asks, "Why does he act like a girl?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

And then there are the multitudes of male public figures who are gay or have sex with men, but are not out, whose private sexual lives are unknown to the public, who show no overt signs of apparent homosexuality, and hence about whom such questions are never asked. But they're still there. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

For sure. There used to be a TV reality series called "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", an entertaining twist on the generic "makeover" show. There were four or five guys, running the spectrum. Carson (sp?) was so "out there", you could tell from a mile away. But the food expert, the guy with the glasses (can't recall the name) appeared as straight as can be, at least within the narrow framework of that show (or maybe just compared to Carson). The stereotype is typically not about what they do in private, it's how they act in public... which is why Liberace was made fun of, while Rock Hudson wasn't, in general. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Ted Allen hosts probably the most entertaining cooking show left on the air these days. About which more here. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 03:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That's the one, yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Attending Christian schools during the week and Christian churches on Sundays, I was taught that the laws in the Pentateuch/Torah had good reasonable bases. Since then, reading about non-canonical Jewish writings and about the cultures surrounding the ancient Jews, it has become clear that many are more mythical and magical than rational. Can I suggest two potential motivations behind the taboo on homosexual activity (which, by the way, includes cross-dressing)? One is difference: that the Jews wished to distinguish themselves from surrounding cultures where homosexuality was not forbidden, for example the Greeks. Another theoretical cause, that may strike you as highly contentious and almost certainly unprovable, would be if homosexual acts were not abominable but in fact sacred. If they were strictly reserved for ritual occasions, ordinary people doing them would be committing sacrilege.--Hors-la-loi 09:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hors-la-loi (talk • contribs)

I was assured on the talk page that the purpose of this thread in particular was to request "references", not an invitation to engage in personal speculation, not in the least because the OP stipulated "religion aside". This is not a reasonable answer to a request for references, and consists of personal speculation about religion that is potentially offensive to adherents of those religions. I would advise you to pray about questions like these or talk to a religious leader or use a blog since they clearly should not be allowed on wikipedia's public forum by several of our policies. I was told that everyone's opinion is welcome here except for mine, so I am going to unwatch this page and voluntarily ban myself from participating in this reference desk where I have been participating for the last couple of months. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

...voluntarily ban yourself? You mean as in, just not do it for a while? Well, anyway, feel free to return anytime. You may be reacting to the work of a minority. IBE (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Til does this all the time. Apparently, there is a powerful cabal of editors out to get him. Paul B (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The suggestions that upset Til were not personal speculation and could be backed up by references if anybody seriously wanted to mount an academic challenge. While the original question did exclude religion, doesn’t this artificially close off a key area of the subject? Two main roots of current Western civilisation, which I assume we are discussing, are the Judaeo-Christian tradition and the Greco-Roman tradition. The latter was tolerant of homosexual activity while the former, following Jewish observance, condemns it. As the source of the taboo lies among the ancient Jews, don’t we need to think why they adopted it when their neighbours did not? --Hors-la-loi 08:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

A metal picture of Christ's Last Supper

A friend saw a metal picture of Christ's Last Supper with the Crown Jewels in London, England. He said there was a dog lying at the front of the table. I would like to know if you have a picture of it and what is the significance of the dog? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.115.74 (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Our articleLast Supper in Christian art suggests that a dog is a common motif in Last Supper paintings, representing Satan and used to indicate which disciple is Judas. I couldn’t find a picture on Wikipedia of such an engraving at the Tower of London, but if you wish to be sure you can look through the categories again: Crown jewels of the United Kingdom, Tower of London and Last Supper. 184.147.136.32 (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The communion plate shown in the third picture on this page is probably what your friend saw. Deor (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

People named Prince

Is "Prince" a common name among Anglophones anywhere outside of West Africa? I know that it's common in Liberia (e.g. Prince Johnson), but I just noticed that Prince (musician) was born as Prince Rogers Nelson, and my first thought was "was he born in Liberia" because I've never heard of "Prince" as a given name in the USA or anywhere else outside of Liberia. Nyttend (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I've played around with this site from time to time but I don't know how accurate it is or just what areas of the world it covers. It claims that the numbers for "Prince" peaked in 2012 with 150 per million babies. Dismas|^(talk) 21:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Prince Michael Jackson I and his brother were born in the USA. - Karenjc 21:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

"King" has been a fairly common first name for a long time. Why they feel a need to demote their child to "Prince" is hard to figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

"My prince" has an honoured history in the annals of lovemaking, while "My king" doesn't. Imagine if this song ended "A king of love in every way". No, it just doesn't fit, does it. Maybe it's because "prince" conjures up ideas of youthful virility and heroism, while "king" is more about father figures. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Fairly certain this guy's not a prince. μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Inspired by this question: Prince (given name). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

My favorite is Prince Fielder, body double for the Michelin Man (who is on the list linked above). --Xuxl (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

For a second there I thought you meant M. Bibendum's first name was Prince too! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Unknown as far as I know in the UK, but would be handy when booking a restaurant, especially if your surname was Philip, Andrew, Charles or Harry ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

August 13

Black POWs in Nazi Germany -- Is Hogan's Heroes accurate?

Not that I'm saying that Nazi Germany was a totally racist state, but does anyone know how African American or Afro-French prisoners of war were treated in the POW camps? I don't recall that Nazi Germany then had any anti-Black laws or prejudices (probably because there were very few blacks in Germany so they were not really an issue).

Really all I know about this is from the TV show Hogan's Heroes where the Luftwaffe staff at Stalag 13 all treated the black dude (Sgt. Kinch) there just the same as the other white POWS. Is that how it really was? Does anyone here know anything about this from research, or even personal experience in Nazi POW camps (or concentration camps)? Thanks, Herzlicheboy (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I myself knew nothing (nothing!) about the subject. Then I found Black people in Nazi Germany#Non-German prisoners of war. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

They certainly were anti-Negro. See Nuremberg laws#Application of the Laws to other non Jewish groups for example. Rmhermen (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I was told when I was young that Jesse Owens was treated poorly at the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin, but our article says that was not the case. HiLo48 (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Cracked also mentions that myth. Apparently, he was better off in Germany than America. Not to say it would have been so if he'd stayed longer. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:30, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

Segregation in the United States Armed Forces meant that black US soldiers were largely restricted to logistic and labour duties, so I suspect that few were captured until the Battle of the Bulge in 1945. More research needed when I have time later. Alansplodge (talk) 07:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Nazi Germany certainly was "a totally racist state". They had more racial laws than any country before or after them, and they enforced them in the strictest and most brutal way, systematically enslaving and murdering people of "unacceptable" race. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Someone is seriously asking if "Hogan's Heroes" is "accurate"? ROFL Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not an answer to the question, and Nazis did not "systematically enslave and murder" black people. Nazis, of course, considered Africans to racially inferior, but this was also a very widespread view in Europe and America at the time. Hans Massaquoi was taught in an integrated school in Nazi Germany, which wouldn't have happened in much of the USA at the time, but that's simply because there were only a tiny number of Germans with African ancestry. Nazi laws forbade sexual relations between Aryans and non-Aryans, which certainly included Africans. The Rhineland Bastards (mixed race children of French African occupying troops after WWI) were sterilised. I don't know of any evidence that black POWs were generally badly treated. That also applies to Jewish POWs from the western Allied armies. Paul B (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That is not an answer to the question either. The correct answer is "No HH was not accurate" nor was it even attempting to be accurate. It was a Sitcom whose sole purpose was to try and be entertaining enough to attract an audience and make some money for its production company and CBS. Any attempts to try and tie it to the reality of the 1940's is a waste of time. On the other hand you can tie it into the reality of late 60's and 70's television in the US where Hollywood was trying to integrate black people into the casts and storylines of its programs whether comedy or drama. BTW McHales Navy, Sgt Bilko and, later, CPO Sharkey weren't accurate either. MarnetteD | Talk 19:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

While the OP did ask if HH was accurate, it seems clear from taking their question on the entirety that they aren't particularly interested on whether HH is accurate (and if not, why not) but more on how blacks were treated in Nazi POW camps and perhaps how blacks were treated by the Nazis in general. The OPs is apparently aware how Hogan's Heroes potrayed the treatment so we can presume it's not actually that important to give a yes or no answer on the accuracy since they can decide for themselves if we answer their main question. It's perhaps worth pointing out that it's unrealistic to expect sitcom which aimed to entertain and didn't care about accuracy, to be accurate, but that isn't an answer to the OPs real question. Nil Einne (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It is worth noting that anti-miscegenation laws in most U.S. states also forbade sexual relations and/or marriage between whites and non-whites (especially blacks) right through and beyond WWII. Indeed, when Hogan's Heroes first aired in 1965 – a full twenty years after the war – there were still 16 U.S. states that enforced anti-miscegenation laws; those remained in effect until overturned by a 1968 Supreme Court decision. From our not-so-distant vantage a few decades later, it is all too often forgotten that the abhorrent attitudes and actions of Nazi Germany were different in degree but not necessarily in kind to those widely applied in the contemporaneous United States. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

South Africa wasn't all that flexible on such matters at the time either. HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for all your answers so far. I take issue with User:Rmhermen's response of see Nuremberg laws#Application of the Laws to other non Jewish groups. That section of the article is so vague as to say nothing at all. The article on the Nuremberg Laws would not be hurt one bit if that entire section was removed. My original question, just to be clear, was asking if anyone knows from research or personal experience how Western Black POWs were treated in German WW2 POW camps. Herzlicheboy (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The section certainly should not be removed. It's very important to note that the laws did not only apply to Jews. The vagueness is to a considerable degree due to the inherent confusion about what "related" to "German blood" means in practice. It's inherent in the wording of the law. The term "Aryan", which was used in the original legislation was replaced precisely because that was confusing (Gypies are Aryan, in the literal meaning of that term). However, that's nothing to do with POWS, who were not subject to the law. Essentially the German army treated all British and American soldiers in accordance with international rules, mainly because they wanted their own prisoners to be treated in the same way. There are individual cases of Western Jewish and black POWs being mistreated, but in general it did not happen, and there were very few black POWs because, as was explained by another editor, most did not have combat roles in the US army of the time. There were many more combat-active black French solders, especially in the Italian campaign. As for Hogan's Heroes, that was made at a time when there was often a "token black" character in ensembles. The most bizarre case of that I remember is in the 1965 film The Long Ships, in which there is a black Viking. Paul B (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Correction, the black Viking is in The Norseman (1978). It's a masterpiece. The black character in the The Long Ships is not a Viking, but a Moorish prince played by Sidney Poitier, not that this has any relevance to your question. Paul B (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

One quick note - while there were relatively few black combat units, one of the two large segregated formations (the 92nd Infantry Division) did serve in the Italian campaign from August 1944 onwards. On the Western Front, most black combat units were artillery, tank destroyer, or (in a couple of cases) tank battalions, all of which would tend to be less likely to have men captured than infantry units. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

UK weather forecasts in the 1960s

According to a discussion at the Language Desk, this video was produced in the 1960s, so I'm guessing that this other video (very similar, sounds like the same group, and definitely the same style) is also from the 1960s. The "other" video pokes fun at weather forecasts on UK television. If you go right to 1:00, you'll be in the middle of a nautical forecast: the surrounding areas of the Atlantic and North Sea are divided into little zones, and a forecast is given for almost all of them. In the 1960s, was it common for TV weather forecasts to include such a segment, or is this simply another silly part of an already silly video? Nyttend (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The seas around Britain are always full of ships, so weather forecasts are important even for places that are seemingly in the middle of nowhere. And of course we have an article on everything, including this: Shipping Forecast. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

But on television? Shipping Forecast says that the BBC never broadcast the forecast on TV until 1993. If other television broadcasters existed (I have no clue if they did or not), would they broadcast a shipping forecast on television? The lack of television towers in the middle of the sea makes me guess that you'd have to be on land to get the forecast, so remote areas of ocean wouldn't be easily reachable, and after all the mariners could presumably receive the normal Shipping Forecast on BBC Radio; it just doesn't seem as if anyone would benefit from a television broadcast of the shipping forecast. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The songs are from the 60s but I suspect the videos are from a later period. Notice that both are in colour but the BBC didn't broadcast in colour until 1967, Timeline of the BBC#1960s and First colour TV]. Also in the first video at about 4 seconds in it uses a US street scene. By the way Canada has the same layout of zones that are used for marine forecast and probably the US too. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm that the shipping forecast was never on British TV in the 1960s. I suspect that the song was intended as a parody of radio forecasts whioch were rather more formal than their TV equivalent (radio was a BBC monopoly until about 1980). Most of the images of TV forecasts on the video are from the 1980s, including the redoubtable Michael Fish. Alansplodge (talk) 07:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I notice that the graphic for the shipping areas includes the new-fangled 'Fitzroy', which has only been in use since 2002, replacing 'Finisterre', as used in the chant, so at least that part of the imagery is recent. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The Master Singers (yikes, no article!.. [5]) song (which actually reached the UK Top 50 in 1966) was a rendition of radio weather forecasts, not those on TV. The video itself was produced, as others have suggested, probably in 2007 when it was uploaded, using (mostly) 1980s imagery. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input (and the article :-); it never occurred to me that the video was separate from the recording, although I did observe and was confused by the singers'..."unusual" pronunciation of Fitzroy. Nyttend (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I've finally found a PC with speakers (somebody "borrowed" mine) but can't hear them say "Fitzroy"; however, they are parodying the exaggerated annunciation used by some choirmasters who have to make the words audible in a vast resonant building. Alansplodge (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Belay that, I've just realised what you were talking about. Alansplodge (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Morganatic marriage in Spain

Was the marriage María Teresa de Vallabriga y Rozas, Español y Drummond and Infante Luis, Count of Chinchón really a morganatic marriage?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I found three references describing the marriage as morganatic, though unfortunately they are all google books in snippet view, meaning that the crucial word (morganatic) is only visible in the google search result.

• The life and complete work of Francisco Goya, 1981. Search result says: ”...his ecclesiastical dignities as well as life at the court by making a morganatic marriage in 1776 and withdrawing to his...”
• Goya: man among kings, 1987. Search result says: ” ... And this morganatic marriage duly took place in the summer of 1776. ...”
• Francisco Goya (1746-1828): Letters of Love and Friendship in Translation, 1997. Search result says: ” ... of Avila, home of the ex-cardinal Don Luis since his morganatic marriage in 1776 with Maria Teresa de Villabriga.”

However, note this reference in Goya: Images of Women, 2002. It says an edict of 23 March 1776 prohibited children of the marriage from bearing their father’s name and barring Maria Teresa from the court. The implication is the marriage was declared morganatic after the fact? There’s a Spanish Wikipedia article Pragmática Sanción de 1776 with a paper book reference. 184.147.136.32 (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Neglect

I know its illegal for kids to work, but what if you grew up in a home where your parents neglect you? Are there any provisions in place where the child would be able to financially support himself such as hrough employment. Pass a Method talk 09:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

1) Children are often allowed to work, albeit with certain restrictions.

2) Child neglect may result in the child being taken away from the parents.

3) In some places, the child may petition the court to become an emancipated minor, which may include the right to work, again with restrictions. StuRat (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Weisbecker-Calendar

I'm looking at a picture that includes a low-resolution image of a calendar inscribed "Weisbecker-Calendar" and featuring a pair of fish as the primary design. I'm trying to learn anything about this calendar, but all I can find is this webpage. The design is basically the same, and note that the webpage mentions "zebra fish" as one month's entry. Has anyone heard of this company (or Meyer Gasters) and does anyone know when they were making calendars for the American market? I don't have a solid date for the picture; it's part of a group that shows a subject that was built in 1971, but (according to people who know fashion better than I do) the hairstyles are perhaps more like something from 1980. My ultimate goal is to date the picture via the calendar, so if you could find another year when this calendar was produced, I'd appreciate it, or even more if somehow you could say "1975 is the only option". I've put everything I can think of into Google, but I'm getting literally ten hits per search, and nothing relevant except the Worthopedia page. 2001:18E8:2:1020:5C69:D059:29BC:F807 (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

According to the de:WP, Klaus Meyer-Gasters was (†2013) a German graphic artist and founder of the Meyer-Gasters Bildverlag (a publishing house for graphic artwork). It seems that he produced quite a few calendars (ink / aquarells of plants, animals, land- and cityscapes) since 1963. You may want to contact the firm to date the specific calendar containg the zebra fish. Carl Weisbecker apparantly is a publisher who had some of Meyer-Gasters calendars printed in the 1960s and presumably later. Unfortunately, the only fishy lithography I can find is for the February-page of the 2014 calendar. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Australian geographical names - loss of apostrophes

The current news activity about the Second Sydney Airport got me thinking about the way Badgery's Creek has become Badgerys Creek, New South Wales, or Regent's Park in Sydney has become Regents Park, New South Wales, according to the powers that be anyhow - and the apostrophe-less name is now reflected on public transport signs, maps and on Wikipedia. I'm vaguely aware that this is due to some sort of standardisation by the Geographical Names Board of New South Wales. I think it looks quite odd (as if Regent's Park has become a commemoration of multiple Princes Regent, or Badgery's Creek has become named after a mysterious Mr "Badgerys" instead of Mr Badgery), but I know government moves in mysterious ways. By direct contrast, I know that Regent's Park in London is still firmly singular and possessive.

My question is therefore twofold:

1. Does anyone know the reason for the standardisation to drop apostrophes, and how has it become enforced in normal, and not just bureaucratic, contexts? (The motivation for the latter part of the question is that, if it is for example simply because the government's antiquated computers can't handle apostrophes, then I would have expected this not to have affected normal usage.)
2. Has the same happened in other parts of Australia, and other parts of the world? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't give specific references because I read it ages ago in a paper book rather than online, but in a number of books about place name origins I've read about British Columbia and Canada, it's extremely common up here. If I recall what I read correctly, it often had to do with "making life easier for the postal service". I don't know how. Mingmingla (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

There has been some apostrophe-dropping in U.S. placenames (Pikes Peak etc.). You can turn up some interesting material with a Google search apostrophe dropping placenames... AnonMoos (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The British bookseller Waterstones dropped there apostrophe last year, stating the reason that it was "a more versatile and practical spelling" for the digital age. Grammar purist's were outraged. Although also Tim Waterstone had not worked their for ten years, something which is unlikely to apply to place names. Although it could be that they're dropping there apostrophe's for the digital age as well? Horatio Snickers (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Grammar purist's outraged, Horatio? I can't imagine why dropping there apostrophe's would produce such a reaction.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Timmies is one of the more well-known Canadian cases. Interestingly, our article says one motivation was that without the apostrophe, the name was no longer obviously "in English", therefore their sign was ok in Quebec (which has strict laws on the language used in signage). 184.147.136.32 (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Back to geography, here's a reference. Wall Street Journal. It appears Australia is less conservative than the UK and more so than the US.... “The U.S., in fact, is the only country with an apostrophe-eradication policy” (per the United States Board on Geographic Names and the UK has an Apostrophe Protection Society. One reason mentioned is that you can't have apostrophes in URLs (so far, anyway). 184.147.136.32 (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Umm, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/' or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badgery's_Creek. Nyttend (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably meant no apostrophes in domain names... AnonMoos (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff. So the policy goes back a long way in the US. I wonder if it has the same sort of pedigree in Australia. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't really answer the question, but I know we as a nation have multiple personalities on the spelling issue. We drop the apostrophes in place names as a matter of policy, yet in the late 1990s we went to the trouble of correcting, but also making even more difficult the already-too-difficult-for-most-Australians-to-get-right spelling, of our highest mountain, to bring it closer to the way the honouree actually spelt his own name. It still isn't quite there. He had an ś, while we make do with a humble s. That was probably a matter of bureaucratic policy too. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

We don't just lose the apostrophes. Particularly when it's the name of a road, we lose the "s" as well. In the 40 years I've lived in my current neighbourhood on Melbourne's outskirts, two local minor roads obviously named after someone who lived on them have became fairly major thoroughfares, and lost both the apostrophe and the "s". I have come to assume that it's happened to many roads. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Which reminds me of Princes Highway, now named after multiple unspecified princes. It's also interesting that Wikipedia articles do not regard name changes like this as noteworthy - many articles would start off saying something was named "X's Y" in the 19th century, then move without a pause to referring to it as Xs Y. I would have thought the loss of the apostrophe changed the name? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No, just the spelling of the name. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there a relevant distinction there? Mount Kosciusko -> Mount Kosciuszko was a "change of spelling" which is duly noted. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It happened in Birmingham, UK some years ago. It happened before this reference http://metro.co.uk/2009/01/29/birmingham-bans-apostrophes-from-road-signs-406036/ Although the report says part of the reason is "the need for consistency", I am of the opinion there are two other reasons. Firstly, the use of the apostrophe is not taught in schools to such rigor now, but more importantly, a huge change in the demographics. Fifty plus years ago the population of Asians (Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi or Other) in Birmingham was very small; today it is about 20% and for a large number English is not their first language. Grammar is difficult to deal with if your native tongue is English and I suggest more so if English is a second language. --TrogWoolley (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a question of style rather than spelling per se, PalaceGuard008. The bureaucratic/government powers that make these decisions are not saying that the English language has changed and we no longer use the apostrophe to make our nouns possessive. All they're saying is that in the specific context of place names they consider it a better policy not to use them. The convention is widely known and understood, although people can be forgiven for writing "Wilson's Promontory" etc. Other organisations obviously have similar policies*, which is why we see adverts saying "Australias biggest canned air provider" or whatever. Most young people see these ads and never give them a second thought, since they're texting "im at dads house c u at mall". Others tend to notice them and wonder what's going on. (* I'm being incredibly charitable here.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

In the United Kingdom, the estimable chaps at the Ordnance Survey are the guardians of our apostrophes; while just about everybody, including Wikipedia, has dropped the apostrophe from Goffs Oak in Hertfordshire, the good old OS still has it on their latest maps. Alansplodge (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Why did people, especially military personnel, think WW1 would be "over by Christmas"?

When World War One broke out politicians assured the public that it would be over in 6 months and a quick victory, and this seems from what I've read to have been a widely held view from the public to the top brass in the army. I get that politicians are often optimistic about success, and the ordinary man on the street doesn't have any real way of knowing that the papers and politicians are wrong. But why didn't the army realise this was unrealistic? WW1 dragged on because trench warfare lended itself to stalemates very easily, but trench warfare was always the plan from what I can tell. Were there wars before WW1 where armies fought using similar tactics and someone won fairly quickly? Prokhorovka (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, most (all?) the major parties were planning on a short war based on manoeuvring armies - for instance, the Germans based their overall strategy on the Schlieffen Plan (a quick, crippling strike of France, before turning on Russia), while France put their hopes on Plan XVII (a a "scheme of mobilization and concentration" to regain control of Alsace-Lorraine). It was only when they realised that modern weapons (bolt loading rifles, breach loading field artillery and the machinegun) made mincemeat out of soldiers caight in the open that they started digging in - lessons they could have learned from other wars in other parts of the world if they had been paying attentions.

Everyone planned on having trenches — because they're good temporary field cover. Nobody imagined trench systems at all resembling what happened. Note what had happened in some other wars, such as the South African, Franco-Prussian, Austro-Prussian Wars of the last fifty years: they were wars of movement, and long sieges were more of the traditional type (e.g. the Siege of Paris) and didn't have the extensive trench warfare seen in battles such as the Siege of Petersburg. Nyttend (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It's been said that if European military types had paid a little more serious attention to the U.S. Civil War (especially the Virginia theatre), they might have been less surprised by the way WWI turned out to be fought... AnonMoos (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Union Infantry formed in an infantry square with bayonets fixed. Wouldn't have worked well in 1914!

It's a common claim by US popular historians that the American Civil War was the first truly modern war and its outcomes were ignored by European military thinkers, however the facts don't really bear this out. The infantry of both sides still fought in close order lines and formed square when charged by cavalry, the same as every other 1860s army. In the example quoted above, the Siege of Petersburg lasted 9 months; there was plenty of trench warfare in the Siege of Sevastopol (1854–55) which lasted a whole year in the previous decade, so it's plain wrong that the British and French didn't understand what it was all about. The British Army in 1914 were ahead of the game because of the lessons learnt in the Second Boer War at great cost, but even they were unprepared for the power of modern weapons when used en masse.

Trench warfare in WWI wasn't inevitable,; the Germans came damned close to turning the French line in August and September 1914, and it has often been suggested that if they had followed Alfred von Schlieffen's deathbed advice "Remember to keep the right flank strong!", the war would indeed have been over by Christmas. There were only brief spells of static warfare on the Eastern Front and in the Middle East, here mobile warfare complete with large cavalry contingents was the key to success. It has been suggested that it was the well developed rail network in France and Germany that made the Western Front possible and enabled defenders to snuff out any offensive by throwing huge reserves at it. By WWII, armour, motor transport and air power had reduced the role of railways somewhat, allowing the Germans to concentrate overwhelming force on weak points in the line before they could be reinforced. Alansplodge (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Berlin police vs. BEF

All these World War I questions makes me wonder: what was the numerical strength of the Berlin Police in 1914, when it was suggested by Imperial officials that they be sent to arrest the BEF? Of course I understand that it was an exaggeration, but Google shows nothing, and Berlin Police jumps directly from 1848 to 1936. Nyttend (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't find an answer for you, but I did find this amusing photo; BERLIN POLICE OFFICERS ON SLEDS, 1914, which would have made a rather good cartoon by Heath Robinson. Alansplodge (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

August 14

Did the Nazis

burn people alive? Or the procedure was always kill and get rid of the body by cremating it? OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The Holocaust did not involve any significant number of people being burned alive. The Nazis first utilized shooting, then mobile gassing vans to poison the victims with carbon monoxide from engine exhaust, and ultimately settled upon using a cyanide-containing gas, Zyklon-B. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Moral considerations aside, isn't it much efficient to burn alive than to gas and cremate? This jumps to mind because it's not as if they were trying to be humane, they just wanted to be efficient. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You're now arguing why they wouldn't have done this. We should not get into speculation about their reasons but stick to what's citeable. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but maybe there is a rationale in their choice of method of killing. They moved from the mobile gassing vans to the cyanide gas for a reason (that can be cited). Did they think about other, more efficient methods too? Are they documents explaining why they chose the latter method, and what other options were considered? OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe they weren't that interested in hearing the screams of the condemned while they burned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, ..... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I recall ages ago reading an account of the early days of the holocaust in a historical work, in which German soldiers reported having a very difficult time shooting-to-death German Jews. Murdering Polish Jews was fine as the soldiers could not understand what they were screaming. But when murdering German Jews, at least some soldiers reported hesitating because of and later being haunted by the screaming and pleading that they could actually understand. Extermination_camp#Operation_of_the_camps mentions that one German officer reported after the war that some of his men could not bear the sight of all the blood. I have no idea if the reactions of these soldiers had any part in motivating the decision to switch to gas chambers, and I cannot find a clear reference to any reason in our article (I only did a cursory search, and found only mentions of "efficiency", "industrial scale", etc, but no clear statements). That said, I doubt that murdering people by burning would be terribly efficient, since coercing someone into a furnace should be rather difficult. If I recall correctly the works of Elie Wiesel, I believe he mentioned suspicions that some of the people fed to the furnaces were not dead, but ill to the point of stillness. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The screams of a room of burning people might also do as much to stir the prisoners as haunt the jailers. Thankfully, I don't know, but I think that sort of sound would hit the "fight or flight" button harder than the dull thud of drowsy people would. If I was a jailer, I'd rather keep those that outnumber me as subdued as practical. Fire would also make the victims themselves much more agitated than gas. Those may have been thick doors, but why risk one breaking down and berzerk flaming people running through the place? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:03, August 15, 2013 (UTC)

Burning alive is inefficient. Gold teeth need to be extracted from the corpses before cremating.
Sleigh (talk) 05:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Gold is denser than ash or bits of bone, ash and teeth. My friend who runs a crematorium says that there are spatters of gold at the bottom of the chamber after a body is cremated. It would be easy to retrieve the dental gold after bodies were cremated. Edison (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The Nazis didn't cremate one corpse at a time, they cremated en masse.
Sleigh (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

There were instances of German troops or their allies forcing civilians into barns or churches and then setting fire to them. A very rapid Google search produced Gardelegen (war crime) and Oradour-sur-Glane as examples, but I believe that there were many more instances on the Eastern Front. Alansplodge (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

There are similar cases with Jewish victims in synagogues, though I think the OP's question was about crematoria specifically. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 13:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The question is about mass-extermination, and why it had the form it had. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The answer seems obvious. Maybe you could explain why you think burning alive is somehow more "efficient". I don't see how tying someone up, binding, gagging, etc. to keep them from struggling would somehow be easier than just shooting them and throwing them all into the fiery furance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. I've never burned a human, but I've put upset cats into non-flaming carriers and upset children into non-flaming cars. Not easy. Adding the fear of fiery death and longer, stronger limbs, then multiplying by thousands doesn't equal efficiency. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:53, August 14, 2013 (UTC)

Experiences of a Fifteen year old in Birkenau says; "The elderly were loaded onto dump trucks and then dumped into burning trenches while still alive. The remainder were led into the gas chambers." Note that this part of the account is hearsay rather than an eye-witness account, having been reported to the author by the work party responsible for clearing the gas chambers; at least some of the other events described are debatable. This is actually being quoted on the website of David Irving, who is described in our article as a Holocaust denier.

Auschwitz II - Birkenau: History of a man-made Hell says; "There were allegations by several survivors of Birkenau that Dr Mengele had 300 children burned alive in an open fire." and later "He (Mengele) also shot people, and by some reports he tossed live babies into the crematoria."

Auschwitz-Birkenau: Bunker 1 and Bunker 2 gas chambers quotes from an eye witness account by Dr Miklos Nyiszli, describing how 5,000 men were killed, 'for whom there was no room in the four crematoriums.' "At the end of the pathway two Sonderkommando men seized the victims by the arms and dragged them for 15 or 20 yards into position before the SS. Their cries of terror covered the sound of the shots. A shot, then, immediately afterwards, even before he was dead, the victim was hurled into the flames." The article also says that "Several survivors of Auschwitz accused Otto Moll of throwing live babies into the flaming pits."

So the answer to the question is that many accounts describe concentration camp inmates being burned alive, although they were either infants, elderly and infirm or had already been shot. Alansplodge (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Likewise, kittens, old cats and sick ones are a breeze to cage. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, August 14, 2013 (UTC)

Another one from the DEPOSITION OF 24th MAY 1945 BY HENRYK TAUBER: "The SS carefully checked the worked of the dentists, always being present. From time to time they would stop a load of corpses ready for charging into the furnace and already operated on by the dentists, in order to check the mouths. They occasionally found a forgotten gold tooth. Such carelessness was considered to be sabotage, and the culprit was burned alive in the furnace. I witnessed such a thing myself. A dentist, a French Jew, was burned in this way in Krematorium V. He fought and cried, but there were several SS and they threw themselves on him, overpowered him and put him in the furnace alive." Alansplodge (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been torn up good by five conscious feral tomcats. Two of them ended up in the cage, but that doesn't mean it was efficient. If I had to do even a hundred, I'd be toast. Not knocking your answers, quite good for showing it happened, it's just for the efficiency part of the question. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, August 14, 2013 (UTC)

Obviously it wasn't a major method, but it happened. I always feel rather unclean after reading those accounts - time for bed. Alansplodge (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I get that forcing people into small ovens is not efficient, and that building big ovens is also not an option, but once you have people in a locked space, like they had them, why use Zyklon B? Why not just use something easily available, like CO2 or CO? OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Burial site of Carlos Martínez De Irujo, 1st Marquis Of Casa Irujo

I am looking for the place where Carlos is buried. He is an ancestor and I would like to pay my respects 88.151.208.207 (talk) 09:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Don Carlos Martínez de Irujo y Tacón died in Madrid.
Sleigh (talk) 09:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Vel Phillips

Hi,

I'm researching Vel Phillips for a documentary and on her Wikipedia page there is something mentioned that I haven't been able to find anywhere else. Can you help me reach out to the author of the page in order to find the source of the information?

Thanks!

Robert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Trondson (talk • contribs) 15:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Robert, you might be able to do this. What you need to do is:

• go to the Vel Phillips page and click on the "view history" tab at the top. What you'll see is a listing of all the "authors" of the page - of everyone who has made changes to it and when they made the change. Luckily, there are only a few compared to some pages here!
• You can click on the different times-and-dates until you find the edit where your piece of info was inserted.
• Then you can return to the history and click on the "(talk)" link next to the username or IP address of the person who added it.
• At that point you have the option to leave them a message, or email them if they have Wikipedia email enabled. (For more help with that process, see the Teahouse which specializes in helping new Wikipedians find their way around.)

Best luck, 184.147.136.32 (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Total floor area in Chicago

I am looking for the total floor area in Chicago. Unfortunately, the only data I find is on the "floor area ratio" or on the floor area of individual buildings such as skycrapers. The value is likely to be in the order of magnitude of 500,000,000 square meters. Any help is appreciated. 129.132.225.23 (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

What if you contact the Chicago Tax Assessment office and ask them if this information is compiled anywhere? 184.147.136.32 (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. However, for the reason of citation I would prefer to find the data in a publically accessible website or database. 129.132.225.23 (talk) 09:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Lenin in a lift

I recall once being told about a building (possibly a skyscraper) in the US (possibly built during the 30's / 40's when the US and the USSR were getting on a bit better) which had a giant mural of Lenin and glorious Soviet future in the lift. This was then removed by the time the Cold War was in full swing. Does anyone know if this is actually the case, which building it was, and if any pictures exist of the mural? Thanks. Horatio Snickers (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Rivera's Man at the Crossroads in the Rockefeller Center famously had Lenin in it, but it didn't last until the cold war. Paul B (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

August 15

Was that dude skinhead?

I came into contact with a man with many tattoos. I got a closer look at one that was a symbol that I did not recognize. It was basically four thick arrows nested together with each one of them pointing to a different direction and the configuration of the arrows formed a prominent swastika in the middle. I now think he is a nazi and have prejudice against him, what did it actually mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.48.229 (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

What was the average number of children in ancient times?

And how much did it vary from place to place and time to time? Thanks! 84.109.248.221 (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)