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

February 1

First press conference ... ever

Press conference leaves me in the dark. I do find Mrs. Roosevelt in 1933 and first press conference from space, but - according to media history - which was the more or less first press conference recognized as such ? I am also interested (as above) in "first press conference of its kind". THX! GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 12:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I found First presidential press conference happened by accident which describes a briefing by Woodrow Wilson in 1913. Alansplodge (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, first government press conference delivered by a robot: Pentagon's Unmanned Spokesdrone Completes First Press Conference Mission. Alansplodge (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

History of the Mass Media in the United States: An Encyclopedia says Theodore Roosevelt is usually credited with starting presidential press conferences, while Aida Donald's Lion in the White House: A Life of Theodore Roosevelt says he was giving twice-daily press conferences during his Governorship of New York (1899-1900). I also find a reference to Augustus Van Wyck giving a press conference in 1901. Doubtless it all depends on what precisely you mean by a press conference. Alan's first link refers to Roosevelt giving press briefings while being shaved, which may be what we're talking about here. --Antiquary (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean a US Presidential press conference, or any press-conference in general? LongHairedFop (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the press conference is an invention of the US Presidency - in the UK, favoured journalists used to be briefed in the Central Lobby at Westminster, or over a drink in one of the many bars, or they had to wait for a speech to be made in the House of Commons. The idea of getting the press together to announce the doings of government is relatively new over here. Unless you know different.... 22:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Press conferences aren't just a governmental thing; private citizens will occasionally call press conferences. Nyttend (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• This seems to be premised on the modern notion of a journalist, which implies the existence of the printing press. The Greeks had the agora and the Romans their fora and senate, where public announcements were made and recorded by various writers. If were just talking about Americans on the radio, it's Warren Harding. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I just did some Google searches, first, looking for mentions of Thomas Edison holding press conferences—yes, he did—and second, looking for the words "press conference" together with numeric ranges to try to capture various years from 1750 to 1900. It was tricky because there were a lot of false hits where the 4-digit number was not a date but a time (24-hour clock), a room number, a company name, etc.; and there are also hits about fictional press conferences that Abraham Lincoln might have held. However, these hits look genuine:

1. This page says: "The First Spanish Republic was established in 1873, paving the way for the foundation of conservative and liberal newspapers, such as Don Simplico, Don Cándido, La Verdad, El Avisador del Comercio, El Semanario Puertorriqueño. With the Spanish American war ensuing, Primo de Rivera’s [sic] delivered a press conference in 1873 stressing the importance of the press, yet asked for moderation to avoid alarming the population or offending the U.S. government." This was in Puerto Rico, which was a Spanish possession at the time. (The reference to a "Spanish American war" must mean the Virginius Affair, not the actual Spanish–American War of 1898; the given date of 1873 fits both with those events and with the dates when es:Rafael Primo de Rivera y Sobremonte was governor.)
2. Several sites taking the position that the supernatural is a real thing, such as this one, say that Thomas Edison was a believer and "On November 29, 1875, when Edison was just 28 years old he called a press conference because he thought he discovered a 'new force', described as an 'etheric force'..."

I did not find any earlier examples that appeared genuine. Which is not to say that there weren't any, of course. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting findings! Thanks a lot. GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 10:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

A candidate, perhaps: March, 44 BC... --Jayron32 02:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to go there: [[First Philippic]|351 BC]]. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 14 Shevat 5775 02:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Iran a parliamentary democracy?

According to the intro of its article, Iran's government "combines elements of a parliamentary democracy with a religious theocracy". Parliamentary democracy? As far as I can tell from its politics section, the president is paramount among the non-clerical officials, so not purely parliamentary, and the legislature doesn't appear to have much authority over the executive, other than approving vice-presidents, so not semipresidential on the French model, either. It sounds much more like a presidential system than anything else. Am I missing something, or is the intro wrong? Nyttend (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Best overall term might be "Guided democracy"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not what I'm attempting to address. Take out the religious theocracy, and what do you have? Or in other words, if you had another state with similar arrangements of legislature, executive, and judiciary, and if they were the only real branches of government, what would you call it? Would it be a parliamentary system, as the Iran article's intro seems to be saying, or would it be a rather thoroughly presidential system, or something else somehow?

February 2

SNP post-referendum bounce

Hello, everyone. The Scottish National Party may have lost the independence referendum, but it has managed to bounce back, has seen a membership surge and is now polling stronger than ever for the UK general election, where it seems poised to take almost all Scottish seats. Is this sheer luck, or can it be plausibly attributed to certain measures taken by the party in the post-referendum setting? Thanks a lot.--Leptictidium (mt) 08:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

A phenomenon also seen in the past in Quebec inter alia. People will vote for a "protest party" seeking secession far more than they would really vote for secession proper. Collect (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there any study that deals with Wikipedia's entries on fiction?

hi everyone, let me please give it another try: a new day, new people, new opportunites, and maybe some spot-on-results this time :-) Does anyone know any research results on Wikipedia entries about fiction? see here for previous roundabout answers in section "Sought: study on a certain group of entries (fiction)" --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

If anyone knows of such studies it would most likely be the folks at WP:WikiProject Literature, try asking them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

thanks, Roger (Dodger67), alas, no replies last time, so I thought I'd better opt for another try here :-) --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's a few academic research studies that at least mention fiction on WP [1] [2] [3]. The last is a short review, so there should be plenty of refs within. A complicating factor is we don't know what kind of study you want. Do you want a statistical analysis of word counts and coverage? Do you want a humanist review of literary techniques discussed in our articles? These will be very different papers, in different journals, with different sets of terminology. But they will both "deal with WP's entries on fiction." Maybe you just want anything at all related to WP articles about fiction? If so - do you know how to use google scholar to go through forward and reverse citations? This is a bit of a tricky thing to search for, so I think you'll do better off linking through references than repeated word searches. Anyway, google scholar is your friend here :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Great, good hints. Am looking for any kind of study, really. Mainly, I am interested in finding out what experts might say about theoretical slants in articles on literary works (NPOV slants, you see ;-), and since there seems to be none yet that has been made known (meaning: to the brand you name above) that deals with this topic heads-on, I was wondering what might be known (searchable/ retrievable) more generally. Thanks, SemanticMantis. --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Tanzania Youth Empowerment Group( TAYEG)

Hi,
My name is NURU CHRISTOPHER NZOYA, Am a Tanzanian with 24years old. In Tanzania there is humanity problem especially to youth between 15yrs to 35yrs, which is POVERT which mostly caused by lack of empowerment and intrepreneurship education. As my wishes i dicide to create a volunteer group to provide education on different issues concerned with intrepreneurship, empowerment, and agricutural improvement to Tanzanian youth. My request to your foundation is to ask for the support mostly financial and equipments in order to make our group plan implementations. Please help the human as much as possible can, order to make the joyful life to every one.09:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)09:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)~~ Thanks,
It's TAYEG Secretary,
NURU CHRISTOPHER NZOYA
email: [redacted]
phone:[redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.77.192.135 (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

This is the place to ask for information to help your volunteer group, not money and equipment. The Wikimedia Foundation is the place to ask for those things. (Do they have a page for such requests ?) StuRat (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Julian calendar date needed for Third Crusade

In Third Crusade#King Richard and King Philip's departure it says Richard entered Limassol on May 6 and met with Isaac... Is this date of the Julian calendar or the Gregorian calendar, since it is 1191 they are speaking of? If it is not of the Julian calendar, then what date is that in the Julian calendar? An approximation is O.K. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

If it's in the Gregorian calendar it will be a week later. You would need to go to the source because some historians change all dates to the Gregorian. The medieval year started on Lady Day, but that isn't a problem for a date in May. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

We don't need to convert the dates to the Gregorian calendar for 1191, since there was only one calendar then. It was May 6 in England and France and Cyprus. All dates are the same for everyone until 1582. As Itsmejudith says, we do need to adjust the year sometimes, since different places started the new year on different days, but May 6 was in 1191 for everyone. (Well, actually, for Isaac it would have been the year 6699 in the Byzantine calendar, but it was still May 6!) Adam Bishop (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that answered my question = May 6 it is.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No, Itsmejudith is right, you need to see whether the source used the original Julian dates or converted them to Gregorian dates. Although the Gregorian calendar didn't exist and wasn't in use anywhere in 1191, it is possible for a modern historian to make the conversion. I think most historians don't make the conversion, but it's a valid question. Marco polo (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The source here seems to indicate May 6.--Doug Coldwell (talk)

Marco polo, any modern historian worth his salt would NEVER convert Julian dates earlier than 15 October 1582 to Gregorian. The Gregorian calendar was never meant to apply retrospectively, period. Sure, it's possible to convert dates to what they would have been if the Gregorian calendar had been introduced earlier than it was, but it's also possible to work out what my age would be now if I had been born in 1903. Both exercises are pointless and meaningless. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't think of any reason anyone would ever do that, unless they were programming a time machine. I don't think I've ever seen an historian convert a Julian date from the Middle Ages. For the sources we're talking about here, the primary sources from the crusades and the modern history Doug is using, I can guarantee that none of those dates have been converted to the Gregorian calendar. That would make no sense at all. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

There may not be any good reasons any historian worth his salt would do it, but the difficulty is that people do things for bad reasons as well as good, and it's not always possible to know if a given historian is or is not sodium chloride-worthy. That various people have found and do find a use for the proleptic Gregorian calendar is testified to by the fact that it has a name and an article :) Actual primary sources of course, as Adam points out, don't use proleptic dates. People who edit Wikipedia articles seem quite prone to inserting proleptic Gregorian dates where they have no business being, so it's good to raise the concern from time to time. Especially in the context of saint's feast days, which frequently undergo this sort of "modification" because of someone's idea about what celebrating the anniversaries of a death should mean.- Nunh-huh 19:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I take May 6 as the Gospel truth.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Bless you, my son.  :)

Yes, Nunh-huh, some people do confuse things. The classic one is Orthodox Christmas. Orthos tend to say "We celebrate Christmas on 7 January", and others understandably wonder why. The answer is that they've given only half the story. The truth is that they celebrate Christmas on 25 December like everyone else, but unlike everyone else they use the Church Calendar, which is a slightly modified version of the Julian Calendar. Their 25 December just happens to correspond to 7 January in the Gregorian calendar, but that's not the calendar they're following when it comes to Church events and activities. I suppose they have to make it relatable to the rest of the world, for whom Christmas is now just a distant memory and who are now busy eating hot cross buns in readiness for Easter, which is still at least 10 weeks away. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope that Orthodox kiddies find a way to parlay this into a few extra presents, at least ;) - Nunh-huh 05:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I introduced an unecessary worry. It's always a good idea to look at the methodology your sources used (I hope). Itsmejudith (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

how is a scratch-off ticket not just hard cash without all the security features, times a probability?

I don't get that if you can convert a scratch-off ticket into money at location, how is a scratch-off ticket not the same as an actual currency, just with far fewer security features, and multiplied by a probability? Please help me understand the distinction or what I'm missing - i.e. is there a centralized aspect, where scratch-off ticket numbers are checked against a central database? If so then is a winning scratch-off ticket (anything redeemable for cash) actually a stored 'secret' (in the cryptographic sense) that can be used once? Or is there some other centralized feature that makes this different from my mental model. Thank you. I am also interested in other aspects or qualities of bearer instruments of all kinds, centralized and decentralized. --91.120.14.30 (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

They aren't redeemable everywhere. Most restaurants won't take them, for example. StuRat (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Euros aren't redeemable everywhere either. Most restaurants you're thinking of won't take them. (I assume you have the US in mind or another English-speaking territory none of which are on the euro, to a first approx.) But all money exchange centers will, and give you dollars - just like scratch-off tickets.

For something to be useful as a medium of exchange, it needs to actually have a (more or less) known value. Though this is arguably true of scratch-off lottery tickets in sufficient bulk, it is demonstrably not true of individual tickets. Indeed, if it were true, logic would suggest that nobody would buy them in the first place, since their value (their expected mean payout) is less than their purchase price. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

This is simply incorrect. A 1% chance of $1,000 has an exact value of $10 per the argument expressed in my subject line. 91.120.14.30 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Evidently people who purchase lottery tickets think otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you made a typo. $10 is not an "exact value", rather it is an expected value. And while the math of expectation is incredibly useful, it has to be used carefully to give meaningful results. The expected value of a single roll of a fair six-sided die is 3.5=(1+2+3+4+5+6)/6 -- but you will never roll a 3.5 on a six-sided die! And as Andy points out, an expected value is not a known value of a specific item. A dollar bill is always worth exactly a dollar, but no lottery ticket that only pays out $1,000 or zero is worth exactly $10. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You're simply wrong with "no lottery ticket that only pays out $1,000 or zero is worth exactly $10". To see why you're wrong, consider that obviously a lottery ticket that pays out either $1,000 or $0 with some probability, where that probability is 99.99999999999999999999999% the former, is worth exactly $1,000 not one penny less. (Due to the number of 9's I included, which is 25 or less than 1 in 100 sextillion chance of being worth $0.) Now in your mind decrease 99.99999999999999999999999% chance slowly but firmly toward 0.00000000000000000000001% and you will see that the value becomes worth exactly $0.00 - not even close to $0.00000000001 or even a trillionth of a penny. As you do the push you can't help but reach arbitrary values. You are just not thinking logically enough with your mind. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking (with my mind!) quite logically about this. What you've illustrated is that you're conflating expected value with real value or nominal value or purchasing power or some other type of value. The former is clearly defined mathematically, the latter terms depend on all sorts of economic considerations. Take care, SemanticMantis (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Please answer in sequence: 1) does a lottery ticket with 99.99999999999999999999999% chance of being worth $1000 and 0.00000000000000000000001% chance of being worth $0 still have to be scratched off to be redeemed? 2) Why does it have to be scratched off? 3) Under this scenario what is the exact value after scratching and seeing a winner, and after scratching and seeing a loser? Are both possible? Finally 4) Under this scenario what is the ticket worth before scratching, after scratching and seeing a winner, and after scratching and seeing a loser? Can a ticket be in any of the above three states under the described scenario? 212.96.61.236 (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You still seem to be missing the point that others have made above namely that there's no intrisic reason why someone will value a single ticket with the expected value. Firstly, as has been pointed out below and to some extent above, lottery tickets aren't particularly accepted. This is more important than you seem to appreciate since if someone is going to give me a ticket, even if it has 100% chance of being worth $1000, there's reason I will want to accept in in lieu of a $100 x 10 notes, or a bank transfer or the other alternatives which don't require me to go to a store or something to redeem my money want possibly submit ID and whatever else is required. In other words, just because something can be converted to $1000 in a more transferrable format doesn't mean it's going to be treated as equally transferrable and therefore of equal value. Perhaps more importantly, even if we put all this aside and assume I can get my money instantly, won't be taxed (as happens in some places like the US), the government is going to provide me the same level of protection and assistance against fraud and whatever else, it still doesn't mean someone is going to value a single ticket with the expected value. Rather than using such insalely high odds which makes it more difficult to see, consider a ticket with a 99/100 chance of being $1000 and a 1/100 chance of being $0. Many people receiving a single ticket are not going to treat it as $990. Heck they may not even treat value it at $980. And not because they don't understand statistics, but because there is still a risk they will lose out. In other words, while it may be far more likely they ill be $10 better off, there is a chance they will be $980 worse off and this is too much of a bad outcome. (In a similar way as much as people joke about lotteries being a tax on the stupid, there are plenty of people who do buy the lottery despite understanding the statistics properly.) If they were receiving 10000 of these tickets a year, than because it will average out they might be fine with it (but a smaller number, e.g. 10 is probably still not enough for a person to give the expected value of $990 or eve $980). Of course by that token, it is possible that a system could develop where the tickets become basically redeemable for the expected value because banks etc will accept them for such (since they're doing the averaging), although why they'd want to do this is unclear. P.S. You yourself mentioned the Euro above. Consider that although I may be able to go to a money changer and convert by €100 Euro note to US$105 (may be), it doesn't mean I'm going to value the €100 Euro note as US$105. If you're in a store in the US and someone offers you €100 instead of $100 change, many people will reject it and so will the store as payment, even if they're fully aware of the current exchange rate and are owner operated. Perhaps if you offer to pay €1000 instead of $750 they some owner operated stores might accept. Nil Einne (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Most lottery tickets have a serial number, on a small-scratch off panel. You shouldn't buy a ticket if the serial number is visible. When you redeem a winning ticket, either the ticket is sent by the retailer back to the lottery, or the serial number is. If it's serial number, then it's unique, and the lottery only allow it to be redeemed once. This is similar to the bar-coded event tickets you get now - if you print of the ticket twice, and give one to a friend, then you shouldn't be able to use both. LongHairedFop (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

So it is a secret embedded in a 'bearer currency'. How is this even remotely secure? For example, since nobody checks serial numbers if the scratch-off shows no prize, what is to stop someone from buying rolls of tickets, manufacturing all the losing numbers onto a second roll (with covering over serial numbers) and redeeming all the winning ones? Is there any independent verification that this isn't being done - for example, if 10% are supposed to be winning, does anyone randomly check rolls in grocery shops to see if in fact it isn't 5% in a statistically impossible way? (Over 5000 tickets for example). 91.120.14.30 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be simpler just to forge real currency? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Forging of lottery tickets might not attract comparable penalties, however. The US Constitution permits Congress to punish people for "counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States", but it doesn't permit Congress to punish forgeries of anything else, and probably your average state would consider this kind of thing some sort of fraud, and its punishment might be significantly different from federal punishment for counterfeiting. There's presumably no Secret Service analogue for lottery tickets, so you might be less likely to get caught. Put all these together, and the chance of "losing" is probably less for forging lottery tickets than for forging money. Nyttend (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Specifically, in California, creating a fake lottery ticket is defined as forgery, which is punishable only by imprisonment from one to three years. A far cry from the federal penalty for counterfeiting currency. No Matter How Dark (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The companies involve would have their own fraud detection systems which they probably keep mostly secret, and may not always work [4]. But they do have the advantage that they usually only deal with retail outlet they choose, and have many different games (including non scratch ones) and also generally require identification for large prizes, so can look for unusual patterns to try and detect fraud. Being cynical, while there may be some legal risks (including closure), I'm fairly sure most lottos don't rely on prizes not being redeemed that much. So provided people don't find out and stop playing because of it, it doesn't actually matter to them who's redeeming the prizes. P.S. I don't think it's true no one check serial numbers if the ticket has no prize. Some people may make a mistake, and for complicated games some people can't be bothered working out if they've won. Of course, in recognition of this, lottery operators need to consider how they ensure people aren't fooled by those checking the ticket (if it isn't self-service). That said, this doesn't necessarily help you detect the fraud of the sort you mentioned, depending on the systems in place. Nil Einne (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, how many lucky $1 winners can you really pass, even at every store within driving range, before everyone recognizes you as the guy who only cashes tickets, never buys them, right as somebody at the lotto office is noticing an issue with the serial number? Not a chance, I think. The big money should be for store owners who move a serious volume of tickets, if they can do forensic-style imaging to see which ones are the winners before the idiotscustomers have a chance to buy them. See also It's not ethical to gamble unless you have a way to cheat! Wnt (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• A treasury note is a treasury note as long as it wasn't forged, and as long as it was issued, regardless of deficiencies in printing. Lottery tickets have no guaranteed value, and are routinely discredited at the sole discretion of the issuer. μηδείς (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

followup question

what keeps a government from issuing a currency with very few security measures (versus a US Dollar) but being centralized and containing a 'secret' that was scratch-off evident? (OP here) 212.96.61.236 (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

What's the point of such a currency. From an end user perspective, I don't see how it reassures me that the currency is safe to accept because the government can verify if it's genuine when I have little way to do so. Unless you meant the currency to be only used one time and the person with the currency and the person accepting will verify against a database at the time of acceptance but that would add great expense and time and is needless complicated compared to all the other things you can do with a centralised system. Nil Einne (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't the central one-time verification method be open to everyone? Then an unused secret could instantly be verified and transferred to another unused secret at which point only you would know that you were 'safe' with the piece of paper now in your hand - a fresh scratch-off ticket that still has a secret and that you just transferred a verified and used-once currency unit into? Then all you would need to know is that you have a genuine roll of scratch-off secrets that are scratch-evident and hadn't been scanned (scammed) yet, i.e. a roll you get from the government. Regarding 'what would be the point', have a look at Superdollar to see some of the massive amounts of physical security that have been put into US currency, which is a bearer instrument. It's just a piece of paper, and if you can manufacture it for less than $1 you can start scamming people, and people do (and go to jail, and the secret service is involved, etc). Tamper-evident scratch-off secrets are obviously relatively super-cheap to manufacture. I was wondering if this solution actually works or what I'm missing. Let's say for example that a very tiny organization wanted its own currency, without being able to afford good physical security for it - doesn't this work? If not why not? Why isn't it used if it does work - am I the first to think of it? Probably not. Scratch-off tickets are listed under bearer instruments. I must be missing something. This is just a hobby of mine. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the question of the confidence of users in your substitute currencies. For example, the value of your lottery ticket with a 1% chance of winning $1000 would be much below $10 to me because I don't know you, you live thousands of miles away, and it would cost me much more than £10 to redeem my $10. This is why many currencies in the past were backed by gold. Scratch-off currency would be much more expensive to print and distribute because everyone would need to check the serial number and be issued with a replacement by the issuers. It would also be much more inconvenient because people would need to check the validity before accepting it. You might be interested in our articles on Bitcoin, Virtual currency, Alternative currency and Private currency if you haven't already read them. Dbfirs 09:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you're suggesting. Once the panel has been scratched, it's no longer a secret. So you can't transfer it or anything to a third party. You could require a new note for every transfer, but as I already mention that would be expensive, time consuming and fairly pointless considering the plenty of alternatives which would work better since you are after all relying on a centralised system, or at least some networked system. Nil Einne (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Have you considered that very often with a modern high security currency a lot of counterfeiting is actually detectable even without fancy equipment and without needing much training, it just succeeded because no one bothers, at least partially because it's time consuming? [5] And you're proposing a person accepting a 10 $10 bills will need to scratch each one individually, and then check the number against a database (or alternatively not bother but have even less security than they do now)? Nil Einne (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I was more interested in the provable aspects, i.e. not the practical ones. like the scheme could be that, assuming you can check centrally, and assuming you can be sure a secret is still contained and hasn't been revealed, you can check and transfer a possibly already-used secret to the new secret, assuming you can establish a connection to the central Db that is secure. In other words you can go from unverified money to verified money using an ssl conection and a $0.02 piece of paper that's scratch evident. I'm sure dollars and other real currency cost considerably more than that. I'm just asking in a cryptographic sense, not the common use of the word 'secret'. it's just a mental exercise, I'm curious if such a scheme with such (pretty mild IMO) assumptions would have provably secure aspects. I'm also interested in this for crypto currency reasons, as a hobby, since obviously in some sense the network/blockchain is an 'authority' that you 'connect to'. so would this be a way to create bearer instruments (cash) based on such a concept? Maybe this is the wrong reference desk for it though! would math or computer science be better? 212.96.61.236 (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If you think requiring the printing and distribution (which you seem to have forgotten about) of 1000x or more notes each year because each one can only be used once and anyone receiving such notes to scratch 5 or whatever different notes depending how many they're receiving and manually enter the numbers (okay you could use a barcode, but this wasn't stated earlier) to verify each one, I'm not sure what world you're living in. I'm fairly sure even in most ultra low wage economies like various parts of Africa this wouldn't be cheaper. And of course such countries lack the reliable networks, or even transport systems to be able to do this anyway. Meanwhile countries which probably do have the networks and transport systems to do this to this to some extent (noting that it's not stores that need to verify the currency but the person in the store, as well as transactions taking place outside stores and networks go down, and so even in the most connected city where a large percentage of people have mobile phones there are still a percentage of transactions that occur without both parties having access to a device they trust), tend to have high minimum wages. So wasting time on scratching tickets is even more dumb. Of course you could develop machines to scratch the currency, but this significantly adds costs, remembering again it's both parties that need to scratch the currency since if you're using physical currency with a define value it's likely change will be needed. (Perhaps people will trust larger stores and not bother to verify their currency, but there will always be paranoid people, plus smaller stores or other transactions where people would be reluctant to trust the person, noting of course it may be difficult to prove or even remember where the currency came from once someone does scratch it and find out it's fraudulent, so you have to hope they do it enough someone detects them.) Of course the other point you still seem to be missing if even if getting people to scratch multiple new tickets for each transaction and the cost of doing this and distributing these is really lower than printing high security money and dealing with some level of fraud (not that the scratch system is going to be fraud free anyway), as me and others have said before there are many better alternatives which are already in use such as card transactions, mobile payments including perhaps cryptocurrency, which take advantage of such networks and devices you're I presume using to check these numbers. Rather than requiring a centralised system, yet for some unstated reason rather than primarily relying on the network and the devices, you're wasting time distributing a very large number of notes and requiring people to scratch and enter numbers. In other words, it's entirely unclear what's the point of producing physical notes if the only security of the note comes from the secret which you're going to have to scratch, reveal and check using a device which could just receive the info more directly. Nil Einne (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

You might like our article security printing. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Bless the Maker and all His Water

Dune? That reminds me...

In Dune (film), Liet-Kynes (Max von Sydow), upon seeing the Sandworm, utters: "Bless the Maker and all His Water. Bless the coming and going of Him ..."; see e.g. [6]. Where does this blessing / prayer come from? Is it something Frank Herbert made up de novo? Or is it borrowed from -- or referring to -- some prayer or quote in an existing Earth religion or tradition? It sounds oddly familiar yet I can't remember where it comes from, and it's driving me crazy o_O . Dr Dima (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a conflation of two biblical verses:

Genesis 1:2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Psalms 121:8: The LORD shall preserve thy going out and thy coming in from this time forth, and even for evermore. 86.179.203.104 (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Herbert intentionally created religions for his universe which were syncretic in some way, List of Dune religions covers the major ones. The idea is that the religions in his time were evolved versions of religions we know today; they have some familiarity to the reader, but they have all cross-bred to create hybrid religions. Check out the Wikipedia article List of Dune religions and you get a sense for how this worked (with religions like Mahayana Christianity and Zensunni). --Jayron32 15:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Anecdote alert. Any mention of Dune reminds me of the three hours straight that I sat on a bench outside Museum of Contemporary Art Australia waiting for my brother and sister-in law, who had missed their flight to Sydney and had to catch the next one. I left my mobile phone at home, of course, but I did remember to bring a book. And thus three hours of "Paul Muad'Dib" and "Bene Gesserit", and the Dune universe syncretic religions, as Jayron explained. Is it only me, or does the "Butlerian Jihad" bring to mind this Butler? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Tamara de Lempicka's boarding school in Lausanne

I'm having trouble tracking down the name of the boarding school(s) Tamara de Lempicka had attended in Lausanne. Anyone know (or can anyone dig it up)? Thank you in advance! ---Sluzzelin talk 20:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't pin it down either, but found "La Casita, Le Grand Verger, Pensionnat Roseneck, Les Allieres, are among the better- known girls' finishing schools at Lausanne" The Spectator -Education in Switzerland (1927)

Still no luck here, but thanks for that, Alan! ---Sluzzelin talk 18:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Itinerarium Cambriae

I see Gerald of Wales appears to have written a works by the above title. I assume it is a history. Would Matthew Paris have used this or any of Gerald's works as a reference for any of his works? Which ones?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The Itinerarium is sort of a history, but is actually an account of Baldwin of Forde's trip through Wales (accompanied by Gerald), trying to raise money and men for the Third Crusade. I don't think any of Matthew's writings covered that period, did they? The parts of his history book that he wrote himself start in 1235, so he probably had no opportunity to refer to Gerald's works. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate your answer Adam. It gets me doing a little more research. As I get looking into this further our article says: After admission to the order in 1217, he inherited the mantle of Roger of Wendover, the abbey's official recorder of events, in 1236. Paris revised Roger's work, adding new material to cover his own tenure. This Chronica Majora is an important historical source document... In the Chronica Majora article it says: The work begins with the creation of the world and contains annals up to 1259, the year of Paris's death. To me it looks like perhaps material from Gerald of Wales could have been worked on by Matthew and at least put into one of Matthew's works = Chronica Majora. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Possibly, although I don't know the extent of the additions that Matthew made to Roger's book. Matthew himself wrote in the Chronica that everything before 1235 was copied from Roger. Another possibility is that Roger used material from Gerard which Matthew then copied into the Chronica. We will have to investigate further... Adam Bishop (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm interested in anything you find along these lines. I see our article does say, ...Paris revised Roger's work... which to me indicates that he used Baldwin of Forde's work as reference material for Chronica Majora. Perhaps time and further research will verify this.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Why? There were dozens of historians in England and on the continent that he could have used as a source. We don't know what parts he revised. It's a big history, touching on centuries of European history. We have no idea if any of relates to the Itinerarium Cambriae or not. (That is, me and you don't know - I'm sure someone has written about it.) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Just curious. Yes, he could have used dozens of historians in England for reference material and I suspect he did for his Chronica Majora. Matthew Paris was a very good historian and quite thorough.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I definitely believe in the historical work of Matthew Paris and believe he did an outstanding job on his historical works. He gathered material from many sources to get his historical records very accurate. He would be a reliable source. Agree?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I would say he's generally quite reliable. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration

As a result of this question, I have created a stub article at Itinerarium Cambriae. Feel free to build on it. What's the tag for the talk page, to show it was prompted by a Ref Desk thread? --Dweller (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Got it: {{WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration|LINK TO ORIGINAL QUESTION}}

Origin of the archetype of the immortal beautiful man

It seems like every year there are a few different television series running which have the same general premise: there is a beautiful man, muscular with long dark hair, who has exceptional capabilities because he has died, and come back from the dead not quite human. Other immortals of his kind exist who lack his humanity, and he fights them in battles to the death. Usually, the loser takes the winner's head, and perhaps with it, his power. He relies on his human companions for key assistance, and spends his life helping those in peril. There can be only one... or at least, I'd say that if there weren't so many of them. I'm thinking The Crow series, The Highlander, Angel (TV series), Sleepy Hollow (TV series) and (more dubiously on the attractiveness, but to each his own) Doctor Who (TV series) and Forever (TV series). On the fringe, Supernatural (TV series) (with two, who started off human) and Vampire Diaries (without the heroic part). I'm sure you could name many more.

I feel like I'm seeing the same archetype illuminated from many angles until it seems almost to have a reality separate from its implementations, and so I wonder at the explanation. Is this an adaptive radiation, where TV screenwriters each copied the same basic idea because it worked, each putting their own little spin on it? Is it convergent evolution, because when writing a story the screenwriter finds that he has to eventually kill the character, who has to come back, that he has to look a certain way for the best audience, that decapitation is the only plausible way to kill an immortal, and because the need to establish conflict requires others of his kind and so forth? Or is there some sort of collective unconscious aspect to this, tapping some Dreamtime revelation, or reassembling the elements which unconsciously permeate our society from some ancient epic like that of Gilgamesh or Orpheus? Wnt (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

See: The Hero with a Thousand Faces and Jungian archetypes; perhaps also The Golden Bough with this partial explanation. And I've almost finished The Count of Monte Cristo which comes quite close to the trope that you set out. --86.179.203.104 (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I can think of some good ways to kill an immortal besides decapitation. How about a nuclear bomb ? Or will the atoms reassemble themselves from wherever they are blown ? StuRat (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

February 3

I would like to understand the Chinese perspective on spying

Hi, I'd like to understand the Chinese perspective on spying (which I'm generally against, by all countries - I think in general there are better ways to use resources together and grow as a world economy). Besides replying here (from wherever) obviously I'm interested in any books or references by current or ex-Chinese spies detailing their perspective, and also organizationally how China feels and what they're like. This information is quite easy to find and skim through in half an afternoon on most countries but I haven't heard much about China, perhaps due to a lack of translations. Any references would be appreciated - my goal is genuinely to understand the Chinese perspective. Thank you. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I did find Chinese_intelligence_activity_abroad just now, which is an interesting article. However, it doesn't have any material on perspective or philosophy, other than mentioning bolstering the economy through industrial espionage. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I doubt if you will find much from the Chinese perspective, since they just deny that they do any economic spying. Hard to say why you would do something you claim not to have done. StuRat (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

But it doesn't stop them giving perspectives on other aspects of spying, the OP mentioned resources and world economy, but they didn't say they were only interested in economic spying. Anyway even in China people are often able to publish stuff which doesn't toe with the official line and of course, ex-spys living in other countries are sometimes able to sometimes get away with publishing stuff they aren't supposed to publish. So the fact that China may deny they do any economic spying doesn't stop people offering perspectives in support of the idea and, in fact it may not completely stop people publishing stuff claiming they were involved in it. (Of course, it's always wise to read any claims with a grain of salt. Nil Einne (talk) 04:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Everything StuRat says applies just as well to the spying by every country (obviously they will deny it) but it is quite easy to read about other countries' perspectives in an afternoon. Obviously there were large revelations such as the fact that everyone was surprised by Snowden's specific revelations about the scope of spying by America on Americans and details thereof, but everyone knew what the NSA's mission and general MO was or philosophy, i.e. vacuum (hoover) up everything, sort later as appropriate. Of course the official perspective was that nobody should know any of that, but it didn't stop it being 'in the air' so to speak. I didn't ask for details, just general Chinese perspectives and what's hanging in the air and philosophically around their foreign spying and general things, nothing specific. The kind of thing you could read in a well-researched spy novel that doesn't actually say anything specific enough for anyone to even bother to keep it from being published, such as the fact that Le Carré (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy etc) was an actual ex-spy giving a certain perspective. So I'm just looking for the same, fine acceptabe perspectives from the Chinese side, nothing they would even bother to keep from being published. (Everyone likes to express themselves and be understood, and also dialogue always helps everyone in general - it's the distinguishing thing about humanity, and of course of all economic and industrial progress from ancient times through today.) I'd just like to understand their attitudes etc a bit better when it comes to spying, and welcome any kind of reply or speculation or what-not, general resources. I'm not looking for facts here, which for obvious reasons would be buried or gainsaid. Just perspectives, philosophy, etc. References to read for half an afternoon, or anyone's reply or speculation here :) Really, I'm open to anything. The article I linked was super-short and didn't help. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a big difference. The US (and other countries) admit to spying, in general, although they may deny specific instances (or give a "no comment"). The CIA has a "covert service", after all. China, on the other hand, completely denies any involvement in economic spying. Part of the reason is democracy. In a democracy, transparency is important, so they couldn't just deny that the CIA or MI6 exist. StuRat (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Is the OP talking about government spying, or industrial spying? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

They're kind of one in the same in China. The government spies on foreign industries, and gives the info to their own industry, to give them a competitive advantage. StuRat (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, sure. It's just that the OP is talking about the world economy, which suggests more directly to do with industrial spying, as opposed to trying to find out troop deployments and the like. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

OP here. I'm not picky, just give me large references or summarize them at length or synthesize your own opinion based on knowledge or readings. I would have liked the article I had linked if it had some of the questions I raised answered. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm still confused here. Why do you keep referring to economic spying? The OP never said, and seem to have confirmed above they are just interested in economic spying. China may be somewhat more secretive but AFAIK, they admit to spying with the in general with the Ministry of State Security (China) etc, just as the US and other countries do. As AnonMoos said below, depending on your definition the US likewise denies involvement in economic spying, although particularly with recent revelations I think many would call that in to question. Nil Einne (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

OP here. even if they admit something it doesn't really give me a perspective. for example I'm sure the department of agriculture in the united states admits everything, it's just a boring old government division, I picked it to be a boring example here. reading United_States_Department_of_Agriculture is filed with tons of facts nobody has any reason to deny but just doesn't tell me what it's like to be an employee there or what their perspective is. if you google https://www.google.com/search?q=what+it%27s+like+to+work+for+department+of+agriculture+united+states nobody has bothered to write that, because who cares. I picked this department as the most boring thing I could possibly think of. I'm sure I could skim a book on it though if someone wrote one, but in this case it's not my request. in this case I'm asking about china's foreign service stuff, I'm sure parts are just as boring. but in this case I'd skim a book if someone has written one. I'm really not looking for facts here, and they wouldn't help me. I wouldn't even read it if we had as detailed and long an article as my boring example. By the way it could just be my impression that in general spying is boring thankless work, obviously books would be about the exciting parts. so did anybody write any? 212.96.61.236 (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

212.96.61.236 -- Some of the recent disputes between the US and China on the subject are because the US draws a clear "red line" around government spying as industrial espionage for the benefit of companies not directly part of the government, while China doesn't see why such a distinction is important... AnonMoos (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

thanks I guess but this gives very little flavor. I'd just like to know what it's like for them, in practice, etc. there's tons of spy books about other countries, some written by ex spies, and they all read the same (and are pretty boring). so if they're all the same, it gives a good flavor to how things are done. but do you have a book recommendation with a chinese perspective, for example? might be interesting. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Does this sound like it might be along the right lines? Some of the results here seem like they might help too. -Elmer Clark (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

sure. I'd just prefer for someone else to do that reading. could you summarize those books? I'll reply with my personal details. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Deleveraging and the World Wars

Hello, I know that when I ask this question there will be a torrent of "we don't answer 'what ifs' on the Reference Desk" [NPA], but I was hoping one of you might help me find some resources which could answer. I understand that Britain underwent a massive debt reduction programme during the 1800s. My question is, if Britian hadn't of done this, would it have fallen into economic collapse during the World Wars? 203.96.131.17 (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. There's an important note at the end of this response.

I'm not an expert in the 1800s, but have a firm answer for you based on economic analysis you will find very useful, and almost certainly has all the predictive value you asked about. In general unless the debt was over 100% of GDP, it was almost certainly quite manageable and would not have led to collapse. Over that amount would have been extremely problematic and very likely would have led to a collapse if there was no bailout, debt reduction, or external factor. This is to be taken seriously, and I would like to demonstrate it for you. Have a look here: List of countries by public debt and sort by the sixth column, "Net government debt as % of GDP (IMF)" from highest to lowest. As you can see the list starts (after you have sorted it):

List

Country	Average of CIA and IMF data[note 1]	Public debt as % of GDP (CIA)[1]	Date	Gross government debt as % of GDP (IMF)	Net government debt as % of GDP (IMF)[2]	Date	Region
Greece	158.339	161.3	2012	158.546	155.378	2012	Europe
Japan	174.3125	226.1	2013	237.918	134.325	2012	Asia
Lebanon	131.04	127.9	2012	139.527	134.18	2012	Middle East
Grenada	111.2835	110	2012	112.567	112.567	2012	Central America/Caribbean
Portugal[3]	115.628	129	2013	122.985	111.556	2013	Europe
Italy	114.654	126.1	2012	126.978	103.208	2012	Europe
Ireland	110.162	118	2012	117.122	102.324	2012	Europe
Cape Verde	90.176	83.1	2012	103.353	97.252	2012	Africa
Antigua and Barbuda	109.575	130	2010	89.150	89.150	2012	Central America/Caribbean
United States	80.18	72.50	2012	106.525	87.859	2012	North America
...	...	...	...	...	...	...	...

Notice anything about those countries and the sixth column?

This is a Backtesting exercise to prove my point. This column is from 2012 data, and obviously the countries in the news about dire economic straits (Grece, Italy, Portugal, and at the time Ireland) are at the very top of the sorted list, all above 100%. After you move past 100% to lower levels you get some of the largest current economies that have particularly rosy outlooks this year. (Click through to the actual list and sort it and look through it yourself.) I would say that debt up to a large percentage of GDP is absolutely manageable, but over 100% becomes problematic. (This is not only my own opinion.)

Secondly, note the similarity with "Buffet's key metric" (Google this phrase) -- i.e. in that it is also based on GDP. For why you must pay attention to his most important metric, recall that Warren Buffet went from personally being worth a few thousand dollars working for a paycheck as an investment salesman, to generating double-digit returns (leading with a 2 or 3) for 5 decades until his company Berkshire Hathaway was the fourth largest in the world, he was personally worth $73.8 billion and being among the top couple of richest people on investment alone. Which is approximately 738,000x growth in his personal wealth made via investment, over 50 years, i.e. 1.31x (31% annual) growth sustained for 50 years. (Give or take, this is rough and not inflation-adjusted etc.) He knows how to invest for sustained growth. He has become the world's second richest man - around and annually vying with Bill Gates who founded Microsoft, a 338.65B company and top 35 in America and who personally built it to this size. In Buffett's case, this was made with pure investment, (that's his personal wealth, his wealth under management is much larger) with those returns being sustained year over year over year.. So I would just say, I would look at his feedback extremely carefully. That is how you get to 31% growth for decades to come, as he did. Look at Buffet's key metric, notice it is based on GDP, and look also at debt ratios based on GDP size. You can comfortably deal with any debt up to very close to 100% of GDP. Regarding what this figure was in the 1800's, you will have to investigate. If it was over 100% it would have fallen into economic collapse based on all available evidence, all of which is to be taken quite seriously.

Important note: by the way the questioner sounds like they're interested in history, which is a humanities subject. If they could in exchange try to research the prevoius question above this one and give a summary or any references they could find it would be appreciated. Just general things, nothing specific or that would cause a problem or hasn't appeared elsewhere already. Things I would find out anyway from public sources if I had a lot more time - I just think a lot hasn't been translated or well-researched novels haven't been published by people who know. That sort of thing. Any speculation or general ideas based on a quick reading would also be appreciated. I took quite a bit of time to prepare this response, so a similar quick look by OP at some sources and a general summary of what they say for my question would be appreciated. I don't really have so much time or, as I mentioned, such an interest in history. General impressions would be fine too. Thanks for any time you have for this, it would be very greatly appreciated, and, as mentioned in one of my responses above, I am sure even the mainland would not mind once they realize this public information "is the distinguishing thing about humanity, and of course of all economic and industrial progress from ancient times through today", as well as being public and nonspecific anyway. Thanks again, and I will be happy to answer more questions if you help me with the above. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no rule that dictates that debt levels greater than 100% of GDP are problematic. It depends very much on the growth rate of the economy in question. As long as the economy is growing faster than the stock of debt, debt will decrease as a percentage of GDP. Debt exceeding 100% of GDP may be problematic in times of recession, but those have typically been short lived in modern times. According to our article History of the British national debt, the national debt of the UK exceeded 200% of GDP after the Napoleonic Wars. However, because Britain was then the world's leading industrial power, with a steadily growing economy, it was able to reduce its debt as a percentage of GDP steadily during the 19th century. Its successful record of economic growth and debt repayment certainly helped the UK borrow the funds it needed to fight the world wars in the 20th century. Even if Britain had not been able to reduce its debt level during the 19th century, it would have had other options entering the world wars, such as instituting a command economy involving some nationalization. Such a policy arguably could have left the UK economically weaker after the world wars, but would not necessarily have entailed "economic collapse". Repudiating debt would have meant a financial crisis and losses for Britain's wealthy elite, but redistribution and a reduction in economic inequality, which could have resulted from a command economy, could also have resulted in renewed economic vigor if, say, the country's capital had been privatized by granting shares in firms to employees. Marco polo (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The ratio alone isn't that important. As long as the borrowed money is put into adventures that create more profit than the interest on the loan there is really no problem. The table that was placed above isn't very important because it fails to mention the estimated future gdp-debt ratios and debts owned. Some countries, like Canada, owe over half a trillion in debts and continually run deficit budgets, but when you see that the economy is growing faster than the debt and that the interest rates paid out are low and that the country loans out more money at higher interest rates then you see that everything is fine. And back to the WWI context, after Britain won, well to the victor goes the spoils, either flex your obvious military might or tell them to collect what is owed from the Axis. 70.30.20.185 (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Correlation isn't causation, but if you get the top 5 developed countries that are IN HUGE TROUBLE out of the top 10 when sorting 100 datapoints on a field, then maybe that field is worth paying attention to as a predictor. (Though there could be a data bias of only troubled countries having their debt listed in that field, since lots of countries were blank.) You don't have to be tall to be in the MBA but if you get the 3 top scorers out of the top 5 sorted by height of 50 players, well, it does tell you something. It would be like the 5 most expensive buildings in the world being in the top 10 sorted by height of 100 expensive buildings. You would have to concude that height is a great predictor of most expensive. Debt/GDP is a great predictor of dire straits with a few exceptions (including bailout.) It really is a real rule. As for whether height is, just sort all MBA players by height and see if the top scorers are in the top few. I don't know the answer (which is the point, it's experimental) but if so, then height (probably) really does matter. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You seem to just be making it up as you go. You don't seem to realize that most investors don't loan money to nations which are IN HUGE TROUBLE. Many debt free nations are that way because no one will loan them money. Like people, countries have credit ratings, and similarly, a person with millions in debt often is, or will be, wealthier than an average debt-free individual. 70.30.20.185 (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. We are not using debt to predict wealth. We are asking what tends to happen when extraordinarily high debt exists and is retained. (The question asks about this scenario explicitly.) For an analogy about the difference, obviously height doesn't predict MBA playing ability all that well, as it's a sport and skill. you can't just measure heights. But if you're 7 foot tall (very rare), you have a 17% chance of playing in the MBA. If you have over 100% of your GDP as debt (very rare), your odds of impending ruin are high, as I showed. I didn't mean to go too far beyond the OP's question to try to apply it to other scenarios, i.e. more average levels of debt. sorry if I gave that impression. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

A nation could very well hold a 100:1 Debt:GDP ratio without any problem so long as it maintains a credit rating of AAA. Of course the nation would only keep the AAA rating if it was wisely using the borrowed money to create profit over the interest paid. If Britain during the 1800s did not have many profitable adventures in which to invest the money it was borrowing than it would be very important to pay down the debt. If Britain had opportunities to use borrowed capital to increase their GDP by more than the interest cost than keeping the debt would be wise. If you look at a world map of debt:gdp ratios you will see nations like Canada, Japan, and Ireland, borrowing money to increase their GDPs (infrastructure, research, re-lending) and nations like Norway, Saudi Arabia, and PRC holding no debt as all the profitable adventures for them are already fully funded. 70.30.20.185 (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

what you've written about 100:1 ratio is true. But only in the same way that a 12-person unincorporated community can become the world's leading economic superpower in 108 minutes if it is allowed to borrow unlimited money at -0.5% interest rate in any currencies.

^{(still massively tricky, because the created cash has to be locked up so as not to spoof the market, which is massively difficult to set up in 108 minutes without being an actual entity even if several of the 12 knows exactly what they're doing, there's instant agreement on independence and interim government within seconds, in perfect philosophical alignment on all issues. then quadrillions have to be locked up and inaccessible with a few trillion to spend now and $50 trillion due as interests payments, for 1 example (another is simply no plan to repay). still won't have real economic output until it spends tons of that cash - which here is essentially redistributory seigniorage from all 196 countries, not any real output. very tricky, 99% chance of failure, huge chance of devaluing entire world economy massively - but more surprising things have happened, it's easily in the realm of possible within 108 minutes for them to become the world's leading superpower.)}

But anyway, I think the OP was interested in realistic scenarios, not 100:1 debt:gdp ratios retaining AAA rating or unlimited cash in any currency at -0.5% rate to 12 random people. I would say the two are about equally realistic, and in fact QE (quantitative easing) means the world has a lot more experience with this second scenario than yours, and the 12 now-bankers are a good analogy for how many people feel (in this scenario how the 'rest of the world' would feel) about Wall Street over the last few years, and their views on its real economic contribution. Bet you didn't expect that connection! :) 212.96.61.236 (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much all those contributors who answered! 203.96.130.148 (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Grumble: debt is an amount of money, GDP is an amount of money divided by time. A ratio between them ought to be expressed in units of time (e.g. days), rather than a dimensionless "%". —Tamfang (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Short story about soldier ants

As a young teenager I read a short story about a devastating army of soldier ants. I loved it, but can't remember much about it, other than they were a ruinous threat, possibly considered a danger to people and this - the most specific memory - that at one point someone needs stitches and they use soldier ant heads to do the trick. It might have been in a Reader's Digest book and at a guess I read it c.1984. Any help identifying it? --Dweller (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm thinking "Leiningen Versus the Ants"... I recall reading that when I was younger. Scared the daylights out of me (though I'll admit I didn't recall the title). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

  Could be! I've scanned it and it does seem familiar, though I must have synthesised the memory of the ant-head-stitches. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI, ant head stitching is a real thing, not fiction. See the end of Dorylus. I'm guessing this was fiction, because ants aren't generally a threat to human communities (though it is true that a toddler can get pretty damaged playing in a nest of fire ants). Also, "soldier" isn't the name of an ant species or family. You might be thinking of driver ants or army ants, which are new world and old world variants on the same theme. "Soldier" usually refers to a caste of sterile worker ants, see Ant#Polymorphism. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It's about 30 years ago, so details are somewhat fuzzy. --Dweller (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I've heard "Leiningen" dramatized for radio, btw. —Tamfang (talk) 05:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• I read the same story, it was most likely in the late 70's, but could have been published any time before that. μηδείς (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

  Interesting. The book I found could have been a few years old. Do you remember ant-head-stitches, Medeis? --Dweller (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I was in grade school, perhaps four decades and a 1,000 novels ago. I remember it involved an ingenious farmer whose farm was overrun in Africa or South America, his animals killed, and he had to abandon the site. I remember the ant-head anecdote, but can't say it was part of the story. It would have been in a book or a collection that I got from an elementary school for kids 6-12 years old, but they weren't very censorious. Basically, if you could and wanted to read a story you were allowed. The story sticks out because I almost only read non-fiction back then. Of course I have nothing more useful to say than that I read such a story in the same era. Having just read Leiningen Versus the Ants I am quite sure that it was that story I read. μηδείς (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Take your stinking mandibles off me, you damn dirty ant! Clarityfiend (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw the film adaptation, The Naked Jungle, and remember thinking how stupid he was to stay, when the natives told him to flee. Unfortunately, his actions got many people killed.StuRat (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, nobody tells Charlton Heston what to do (except Chuck Norris). They can have the plantation when they take it from his cold, dead hands. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

name of germanic tribe

Which germanic tribe cut off the aqueducts of ancient rome during the sixth century when they sacked it? Also, what was the background surrounding this invasion of rome? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.159.87 (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

See Siege_of_Rome_(537–38)#Water_mills --Dweller (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Angels/Demons

In Kabbalah there are angels of sacred prostitution, which are the first vampires. – True/False? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC))

Sacred prostitution doesn't have much to do with vampires. Lilith, often associated with those angels, but not one herself, is often confused/associated with Lamia, famous for drinking blood. Which (if any) of these demons/angels existed first is virtually unanswerable, but the stories of Lamia predate those of Lilith and crew. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:57, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

Vampire folklore by region is sort of interesting. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

Thanks InedibleHulk! -- (Russell.mo (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC))

Resolved

Prophet Moses

"In one case, an angel wrestled with Moses and was going to kill him, until Moses's wife saved him." – true/false?

Does anyone know the story? A definition would be sufficient as this is not something for me to learn. The original sentence is as follows: “In one case, an angel wrestled with Moses and was going to kill him, until Moses's wife threw a foreskin at it.” I believe the gentleman/lady was trying to throw humour.

(Russell.mo (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC))

See Zipporah at the inn. Nanonic (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The story is recounted in Moses: A Life which is a rather skeptical and irreverant work. It implies she saved him from what was the equivalent of a demon (nephilim?) by circumcising him and providing his foreskin as a blood sacrifice. It is implied that much of what became Judaism was inherited from Moses's father-in-law. μηδείς (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The nephilim are half god, half human. The nephalem are the half demon, half angels. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:22, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

I just found the Kirsch in storage, but am reading Almond's The Devil: a New Biography. The latter doesn't strike me as the most careful of sources, but it implies that some of the Nephilim were fallen. In any case, Kirsch argues that the circumcision story is far older than most of the Bible, with the Nephilim only mentioned in the 4th-2nd centuries BC per Almond. I just happened to be reading this now, and have no expertise. μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

No, me neither. I've read a little bit here and there, and there are a lot of twists on the story. Ancient giants tend to stir people's imaginations more than regular-sized legends. First I've heard of anyone tossing a foreskin, in any book. Cool tale. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:35, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a confused combination of Zipporah at the inn and the story of Jacob wrestling with an angel. In Genesis 32:22-30, Jacob is about to cross a river when God appears in the shape of an ordinary man. Jacob wrestles with God and wins; his name is then changed to Israel (meaning "he who wrestled with God"). --Bowlhover (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Lol. Its not me InedibleHulk, the statement is from Rationalwiki. Someone has to be mad (crazy) to write such thing... Thank you all, and Medeis . I've saved the links, I'll read through the links when I get some free time... -- (Russell.mo (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC))

Resolved

February 4

Objectivity of law

How can the discipline of law be objective if the legal reasoning of the courts on certain cases is always overruled?

Theoretically speaking, if a legal interpretation is valid, it must remain in force until the law itself is repealed or amended. But, in some jurisdictions, the overruling of earlier decisions is a habit.

Law is said to be whatever the Supreme Court think it is. There seems to be a kernel of truth in this statement given that court decisions, no matter how reasonable they may be, can be overruled. Indeed, there are several accounts where the court’s sudden deviation from its earlier decision is influenced by emotion or politics. We can see this in the manner by which the justices or judges twist the law to absurdity, or the way they reacted when confronted with controversial cases that may tarnish their reputation. The problem is, in most jurisdictions, these decisions become a binding precedent that would inspire faulty interpretations of the law in the future.

Again, how can the discipline of law tolerate these subjectivities while maintaining academic objectivity at the same time?

What do legal scholars say to defend the objectivity of the discipline of law? 49.144.214.198 (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Rule of law, Statutory interpretation and Precedent might be useful starting points. Tevildo (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• There's the minor point of laws being changed, new facts being discovered, and mistakes being found in prior reasoning.

But you don't seem to be asking for objectivity, you are asking for absolute certainty. An analogous question might be, how can we hold Einstein to be right, when we thought Newton was right, but he was later proved wrong? The answer is that certainty is contextual, there is no such thing as certainty that isn't the result of the reasoning of some individual in a certain context with a finite understanding of a limited number of facts.

“Certain” represents an assessment of the evidence for a conclusion; it is usually contrasted with two other broad types of assessment: “possible” and “probable.” . . .

Idea X is “certain” if, in a given context of knowledge, the evidence for X is conclusive. In such a context, all the evidence supports X and there is no evidence to support any alternative . . . .

You cannot challenge a claim to certainty by means of an arbitrary declaration of a counter-possibility, . . . you cannot manufacture possibilities without evidence . . . .

All the main attacks on certainty depend on evading its contextual character . . . .

The alternative is not to feign omniscience, erecting every discovery into an out-of-context absolute, or to embrace skepticism and claim that knowledge is impossible. Both these policies accept omniscience as the standard: the dogmatists pretend to have it, the skeptics bemoan their lack of it. The rational policy is to discard the very notion of omniscience. Knowledge is contextual—it is knowledge, it is valid, contextually. --Leonard Peikoff, The Philosophy of Objectivism lecture series, Lecture 6, [7]

For governments to work, decisions have to be made, and they are made by individual politicians, and enforced by guns. It's that or anarchy and civil war. The price is the occasional injustice, assuming there's no overwhelming evil like slavery corrupting the system. Unfortunately just as people sometimes die from routine surgery, the law is an ass. In the course of human events, everyone decides for himself. μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Expressing sympathy at the death of a Muslim

Is it acceptable for me as a non-Muslim to say something like "May Allah the merciful grant his soul eternal peace"? I have noticed that "Allah the merciful" seems to be a standard phrase, is it appropriate in this situation? The deceased is a murder victim so I wish to emphasize the "give him peace" part. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Unless you're saying the whole thing in Arabic, "God" might work better than "Allah". And you should only say it if you mean it. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:28, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

Good point, I do not speak Arabic so saying "Allah" might seem pretentious. The widow is a former work colleague, not a close friend, and I only met the deceased briefly on a few occasions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

If you weren't that close, and if the guy's murder had to do with some sinful living, it might not be right to bring the mercy part up. That's sort of personal, invokes thoughts of judgment. But eternal peace is always a nice sentiment. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:41, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

There are countless ways to express sincere, heartfelt condolences without misleading people into thinking you're Muslim, or accidentally offending people who actually are. Just be true to your own religious beliefs and your words will be appreciated. --Bowlhover (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Very true. Roger, your first idea was good and will be appreciated, just say it in English that way: "May God the merciful grant his soul eternal peace", or simply "May God grant his soul eternal peace". Akseli9 (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. (Just for the record, he was killed in his shop by robbers, no "sinful living" involved - except for the verminous scum who did it.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

A Muslim friend said that phrase to me when he heard that my father had died - I was rather touched. He used "God" rather than "Allah". Alansplodge (talk) 09:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Muslim reburial practices

Sorry, but I've a related question. If a Muslim's burial is disturbed is there any special ceremony that should be done for the reburial so as to show proper respect to the dead? Say, if hypothetically a Muslim was buried in a site and you unearth his bones without realising it at first, how should you go about doing right by him? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 15 Shevat 5775 08:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

According to this, it's OK to dig them up if they're not in sanctified ground, or in a place the landowner doesn't want them. I assume you're not unearthing things without realizing in a cemetery. Just treat it with common courtesy (no puppetry) and give a proper Islamic funeral. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:11, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

Well I'd never do puppetry with human remains, a sheep-goat, yes, but never human remains. It's more like you'll be happily, but carefully, digging away in what you think is ancient soil and then start coming upon bones that are exceptionally spongey (and which you've hopefully not licked to determine if they're bone). Swears will be said and then you'll excavate more quickly as you realise the Roman drain you've been excavating (a gold mine of ancient trash) apparently was reused by well-meaning Palestinian villagers at some point in the last few hundred years as a burial spot and is therefore contaminated. Would the washing aspect include human bones though? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 15 Shevat 5775 22:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why not. But I don't know. Why are these bones exceptionally spongy? And does a sheep-goat skullpuppet say "Bah" or "Meh"? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:21, February 5, 2015 (UTC) InedibleHulk (talk) 10:19, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

Spongy bones means they are not fossilized, thus could be quite recently deceased. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

tax wedge / tax burden by country

Hi,

1.

I'm interested in the effective official tax wedge or tax burden by country, i.e. list of countries and the value for each one. I can't seem to find any such article on WP.

I'm looking for a chart like this one http://view.samurajdata.se/psview.php?id=9d6f999f&page=1 (the pdf is from http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/36371703.pdf which I put into the top Google query for 'online pdf viewer') but as you can see it's a decade out of date. Where can I find our current data?

2.

By the way, I realize in some countries with very high taxes effectively not all income is reported - otherwise much of the income would not occur at all. (Especially countries with, a high underreporting index.) But I'm interested in official figures where everything is done as it would be in a highly-reported country. If there is any significant deviation (more than a couple of percentage) then are the official figures inflated vis-a-vis actual practice? I mean, I can imagine a country operating just fine with a 150% tax wedge (you owe the government $1.50 for every $1 you receive from any source) as long as people drastically under-report. How can I understand this distinction?

3.

Also, I just realized that average figures are quite meaningless without knowing income level we're asking about, but I'm not really sure what question I want to ask that would let me understand this. Is it "marginal tax wedge by country" or something, and then I can just see a chart (rather than value) for eachcountry, for where the jumps are as you go from $0 to $mm? I mean I think I can imagine such a chart but don't think I've seen one. If anyone knows what I'm really asking here it's appreciated :). For starters let's find any of our charts at all.

Thanks for any help, especially I think #1 should be a list we have somewhere, I'm sure. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a direct answer to your Q, but those articles you linked to focus on the negative effect on businesses of taxation, but the positive effects must also be considered. If those taxes are used to provide a good infrastructure, a well-educated workforce, police and fire department protection, and health and retirement benefits so your business doesn't have to cover all those expenses, your business will do far better than it would without taxes. If you look at countries with high taxes (say the Nordic nations) versus low (say African nations), businesses tend to do better in the higher tax nations. StuRat (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I actually wasn't thinking of it in normative ("should") terms at all, just in descriptive ("is") terms. I think your observations are good ones but I wish I could come to some of my own conclusions based on looking at different data. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I only felt the need to add that bit because "burden" seems to be a rather loaded word. I'd ask about "business tax rates" to keep it neutral. StuRat (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I meant it as a term of art - okay, wow, I just found what I was looking for by Googling "tax burden" in quotation marks!

List of countries by tax rates.

As you can see, the article starts "tax burden falls differently on different groups in each country and sub-national unit" with that wikified.

So I literally just found what I was looking for based on that term :) Thanks for focusing on it! By the way, it didn't come up until I googled it as a phrase (in quotation marks). :) I'm now looking over the list. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

What is the name of this philosophy?

Consisting of turning everything into joy or pleasure, even frustration, even suffering? It is not Hedonism, it is not Fatalism, I know there is a specific name, what is it please? Akseli9 (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Possibly Epicureanism. Paul B (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

rose-colored glasses if you're being cynical, or, more generously: optimism. Being constructive. Positive thinking. Looking for solutions and enjoyment rather than finding flaws. Some people like to suffer and love conflict, others love when people work together and help and grow the world. Both are necessary in the world, and I've given a few words for the one you're asking about. People should have parts of both aspects in their personality, I feel. It is important to be critical. it is also important to be constructive and take and share joy and pleasure in accomplishments, even in bad situations. The only thing that all successful, joyful, happy people have in common is working toward positive visions and solutions, not just reactively (to 'frustration, even suffering.) That is an easy cycle to get into but it would never break. This is just my opinion though. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Pollyanna principle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting developments and ideas, thanks. The person who asks this, is looking for a name from back the philosophy class we French have during the last year of our secondary school. "Possibly Epicureanism" was a good guess, but sorry, this one doesn't ring a bell? Akseli9 (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Eudémonisme? (see also eudaemonism, Philosophy of happiness, Eudaimonia, Augustine of Hippo, ..). ---Sluzzelin talk 15:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

None of these exactly fits, but mindfullness is a Buddhist practice where one observes that one is suffering an emotion without being controlled by it. (That's very close to Stoic ethics, which hold that externalities like health and wealth are mere facts (which, while they may be preferable or not) are without moral value, that only that which is under your voluntary control (your judgments and commitment to reason) is truly good.) And Catholicism has redemptive suffering. Epicureanism holds that happiness is the absence of suffering, which is simple to obtain if one has the basic necessities. In extremity an Epicurean can escape unbearable suffering by suicide. Eudaimonism is literally "well-spiritedness", based on balance (nothing in extreme) and magnanimity. μηδείς (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Note also that pleasure, joy are long-term happiness are three different things. A mother who has lost a child, and is again expecting, will not feel pleasure when the new baby kicks, but she will feel joy. A gambler might feel extreme joy at a temporary winning streak, but he won't be said to be a happy person so long as he feels he is out of control. μηδείς (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Geoffrey (archbishop of York)

I'm a little confused as to which offices Geoffrey held in the 1170s. I see the article says,

1 - Geoffrey was Archdeacon of Lincoln in the diocese of Lincoln by September 1171.

2 - In 1173 and early 1174 Geoffrey fought a military campaign in northern England = military position?

3 - He also held a prebend, an income from land owned by a cathedral chapter = landlord?

4 - There are some indications that he studied canon law at a school in Northampton = lawyer?

5 - he taught in Paris during the early 1170s = teacher?

6 - He also acted as a papal judge-delegate at that time.

7 - Bishop of Lincoln in July 1175.

Can someone help me to establish exactly which offices (positions) Geoffrey had in the 1170s? Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Mmm. Yup. All of those and a few others besides. He was a busy youth much in favour with his father, Henry II, by the looks. I think that father-son relationship is the best single explanation for his diverse job portfolio. Neither are any of the combinations all that surprising; large overlaps between church and state and law and and acadamy. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography gives the following:

1. Archdeacon of Lincoln by 1170/71, at say age 19 or 20.
2. also held the prebend of Mapesbury (attached to St Paul's) until 1173 - it's normal for an officer of a cathedral to have a prebend which provides a stipend. I tend to think the Church is the 'landlord'.
3. appointed by Henry II Bishop-elect of Lincoln 1173 - gives up prebend (presumably gets paid for the new post)
4. confirmed as same by pope 1175 (against his better judgement, I tend to think)
5. During all this period - doesn't put much effort into his day-job, and instead is studying & teaching law. Does occasionlly act as a papel-judge delegate, a role which goes with the Archdeacon job.
6. 1173 - war in France, and so not unreasonably Geoff takes up arms for his father, which goes down well with Henry.
7. He is never consecrated as bishop of Lincoln, and spends his time up to 1181 studying. Does not entirely neglect Lincoln, but, you know, not often there.
8. 1181 - seems to be pressure to either get consecrated as bishop, or resign as bishop elect. Resigns.
9. Daddy makes him a Royal Chancellor in 1181, but he seems to be mostly absent from the court, very likely in part moving & shaking on his father's behalf throughout Europe, and studying.
10. 1187 - more war, more soldiering
11. 1189 - Henry I dies, Richard I takes over
12. 1189 - Meets Richard, resigns as chancellor
13. 1189 - Richard makes him made Archbishop of York
14. 1189 - 1208 - Spends 20 or so years getting into & out of ecclesiastical disputes (bringing together all of his talents ;)
15. 1208 - Flees to France, having quarreled once to often, this time with King John.
16. 1208-12 Monk
17. 1212 - dies, presumably exhausted by the above.

So in all of that, we have him doing four sequential jobs (archdeacon, bishop-elect, chancellor, archbishop), whilst learning on the job (studies throughout Europe, including teaching), taking time out to fight wars. Acting as a judge or a landlord are incidental features of his roles.

--Tagishsimon (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

What an outstanding answer. Thanks!--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

LEGO's itsy-bitsy little brother

• https://www.dropbox.com/s/64lpz13xb0luudg/bricks.jpg?dl=0
  • Length: 15.88 mm
  • Width: 7.92 mm
  • Height: 3.06 mm

(measured using an digital caliper)

I found this little 2 x 4 thin brick at a 2nd-hand LEGO seller's place. She was pretty busy selling bricks by weight so she answers no questions.

Dimensions of some standard Lego bricks and plates.

This 2 x 4 brick is roughly the same size as a 1 x 2 standard LEGO brick but a little thinner. Its color is very close to LEGO's dark gray. However, it is incompatible with the LEGO.

Has anyone ever seen this kind of brick? -- Toytoy (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

If I'm reading your measurements and understanding the pictures correctly, they look similar in size to Nanoblock [8] [9] [10]. Our article notes one distinctive feature compared to Lego is the underside and your image shows a similar underside to the Nanoblock examples in the earlier links (or also our article description). Of course just as there are plenty of generally at least partially compatible Lego clones, I'm sure there are Nanoblock clones, or even similar concepts that may have been invented independently (perhaps less likely once we consider the underside, but the general idea of smaller bricks about half the size of lego for the same number of studs isn't hard to come up with). This mentions one example of a similar brick system [11] although these look to have the a Lego like underside. So it may be difficult to be certain what your brick is without careful comparison (perhaps from an expert with sufficient experience to notice any oddities), or perhaps even destructive analysis. (I thought I'd seen them before 2008 but according to our article, I guess it must have been something else, perhaps the Microblox as per the other source and/or with remembering when I did see Nanoblock wrong. Anyway since Nanoblock appears to be that new, it's possible it may still have patent protection. But I'm not sure that the underside or any other aspect was sufficiently inventive to be eligible for patent protection, or if the makers of Nanoblock even tried. If they didn't then it's likely clones could appear quite similar. As our Lego clone article attests, patent protection is likely the only legal protection the brick could have against difficult to distinguish blocks, if it doesn't have the brand name or sign.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Number of presidents

In the timeline of presidents of the US, George Washington is the 1º, Barack Obama is the 44º, and so all the others. In the infoboxes at their articles they are listed as "1st President of the United States", "44th President of the United States", etc. I have a doubt: is that just a manual convention arranged here in Wikipedia and other sites that talk about the timeline, or is there some official regulation in "the real world" about the numbering? Can someone come up with another numbering scheme, such as including Jefferson Davis in the list (president of the Confederate States of America during the civil war), and then counting Obama as the 45th? Cambalachero (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The count is official. There have been 43 men that have served as PoTUS, but Grover Cleveland is regarded the 22nd and 24th President because he didn't serve two consecutive terms (he lost his reelection but then won when he ran again the next go-around) and so it can be a bit confusing, but the count is 44 and you can verify this by going to the White House page on Obama where it's the first line that comes up.[12] Jefferson Davis was president of a different political entity and so there's no reason to include him as a US President even if he was President of a country within the geographical United States. I hope this answers your question, but if you were thinking that the List of US Presidents article needs a change, then this isn't the right place for that discussion. This page is. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 15 Shevat 5775 16:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

We also had several people with the title of "President of the United States in Congress Assembled" under the Articles of Confederation, which was the unsuccessful first form of US government, prior to the current US government under the US Constitution. History classes tend to skip over that failure. StuRat (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Those people were not Chief Executives of the nation as a whole; one of the many weaknesses of the AofC was that it lacked a central executive system outside of the Congress itself. The people who held the title "President of the United States in Congress Assembled" did not wield power as either head-of-state or head-of-government. They were presiding officers of the Continental Congress, a position more akin to the role of Speaker of the House or perhaps the role of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court within the Supreme Court. --Jayron32 17:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This is why George Bush Sr. and Jr. are often called "Bush 41" and "Bush 43". As regards Davis, the Confederacy is not recognized as a legal entity, and he doesn't figure into the count. The "president" under the Articles of Confederation was not the same office as the president under the Constitution, despite having a similar name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

True, but the office of the President now is really not the same as it was in Washington's time, either. For example, the President now has the de facto ability to declare war. StuRat (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it's better said that the War Powers Act gives the president the de jure ability to begin hostilities, which has so far always de facto resulted in the Congress's unwillingness to challenge or gainsay him. Even John Kerry voted for the war before he voted against it. μηδείς (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's like a "blanket pre-declaration" of war, authorized by Congress, but it's not carte blanche for the president. Also note it was passed during the Nixon administration. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

But this does not amount to the office being now a different one to the one Washington occupied. The powers of the office have changed, that's all. Any office worth its salt will undergo significant evolution in 240 years. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The "president" under the Articles was more like speaker of the house. The specific authorities granted to the president under the Constitution have evolved, but it's still the same office, i.e. the executive branch. The "president" under the Articles had no independent executive authority. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, but this Q was about "Presidents of the US", not "Presidents of the US with independent executive authority". StuRat (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Not the same thing, despite using a similar term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The Q was also ambiguous as to whether the guy wanted to know for his own edification or for changing an article. The latter being a Fringe interpretation at best and original research at worst. If that's the case, of course. Not saying anything against the OP. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 15 Shevat 5775 18:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Besides Davis as President of a part of the area of the modern U.S., there were also four Presidents of Texas. Rmhermen (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Davis was not a legitimate president of any part of the US. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Nor is or was anyone else. —Tamfang (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

...and California had one. StuRat (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

He seems to have been commander not president. Rmhermen (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

But only New York once had the national capital and so it wins the Game of States (Philly doesn't count ). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 15 Shevat 5775 18:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe the OP should consider that President is an office and may have (has) "slots". So saying someone was the third pitcher in a series of games (let's say each one has 1 pitcher) is ambiguous: there was a first game, a second game, and a third game, and each one had a pitcher. You could simply be saying, by saying "Who was the third pitcher" - 'who was the pitcher in the third game', or you could say, 'who was the third person to ever pitch'? It's quite ambiguous. Ordinarily in ordinary language if you heard 'who was the third pitcher' wouldn't you think, "who was the third person to pitch"? (in sequence) rather than, out of everyone that has pitched who was the third such person? (e.g. A pitches, B pitches, A pitches, C pitches, D pitches, wouldn't you think that the answer to 'Who was the third pitcher' would be "A again"? It's quite ambiguous. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, my question is just for informative purposes, not for changing an article. It has been proposed to use a similar number scheme for the articles about the presidents of Argentina, and before having a clear opinion in the discussion I wanted to know more about the background of the presidents of the US (which already use this system, and are watched by far more users). My idea was to see which things may be similar to the Argentine context, which ones would be different, and organize my ideas from that point; but that part (organizing my ideas) is up to me. I know that most users will have just a superficial knowledge about Argentina at best, so making the question directly may be less useful. And yes, of course that counting Davis as a US president would be fringe, that's precisely the point of the question: if someone can make his own numbering scheme by using a creative interpretation, or if Obama is formally declared to be the 44th president in some formal or legal way. Cambalachero (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah now I see. I meant no offence and you have my sincerest apologies for any offence caused to you. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 15 Shevat 5775 22:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad that there's people around trying to detect and prevent the inclusion of original research in articles, and if someone tried to actually invoke it (I made that reasoning on the fly, just as a example for the question) I would revert it as well. Cambalachero (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, I'd caution you against applying the US Presidential numbering system to the heads of state/government of any other country. At least, not without a definite consensus in each case. I could be wrong, but I think it's only in the USA that someone like Grover Cleveland is counted as both the 22nd and 24th president. In Westminster-type countries, they're given the ordinal the first time they occupy the office, and that ordinal re-applies no matter how many times they re-occupy it after leaving it and someone else has stepped in. See List of Prime Ministers of Australia, for ex. We've had 28 different people in that job, and the current one is counted as Number 28. Numerous PMs had non-consecutive multiple terms (most recently Kevin Rudd - 2007-10; June-Sept 2013) but we ignore that when numbering them. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

That's how we do it in Canada too - William Lyon Mackenzie King is number 10, despite his three non-consecutive terms. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

When we use numbers at all, which is pretty rare in practice. It seems from where I sit that Americans are particularly fond of numbering things that way. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) --65.94.50.4 (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, a purist may well argue that what the USA counts is not the number of presidents (as the term implies), but the number of non-consecutive presidential terms, which is is quite a different thing. There have also been a swag of consecutive terms, but any of those after the first is ignored. I have never seen much logic in this system. I mean, if it's fair enough to call Cleveland the 22nd and 24th president, why wasn't Washington called the 1st and 2nd? And so on. Just because there wasn't a gap between Washington's two terms doesn't mean he didn't have to get elected all over again and sworn in all over again etc, just like Cleveland. That's what a purist may think. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Two consecutive terms implies a continuity of an administration. Not so with Cleveland. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Then why not call it the 22nd and 24th administrations, rather than the 22nd and 24th presidents? Obama is into his second administration, and when he departs he will have had exactly the same number as Cleveland. But he gets one ordinal while Cleveland gets two. The world would be a far better place if everybody would just see things my way and act accordingly. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

You would have to ask the historians who came up with the numbering system. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Have them brought to me for questioning. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said, I would only use the US context as a starting point for comparison, setting apart which things are similar and which things are not; and thus which conclusions may shared and which ones not. So yes, I take your advise in consideration. Cambalachero (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It's genuinely ambiguous, but we go by terms. President is an office and term, not only a person. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

No; as JackofOz said above, many presidents have had consecutive terms but are counted only once. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to tell when the numbering began, but it's clear the idea was established by the time of the File:Presidential issue-1938.jpg stamp collection. Interestingly enough, they number Cleveland as 22, then skip 23, and then pick up with Harrison as 24. Other than that oddity, the numbering matches the modern convention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Possibly there were no postage rates then in force that could justify a stamp valued at 23¢? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Domestic mail was typically no more than a few cents, so the denominations on these stamps would have been, in part, just a novelty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The USA system makes sense if you count 'presidencies', which is the same as what Mr Bugs called 'continuities of an administration'. Carter had one. Obama is finishing his one. Cleveland had two. Hayttom 04:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs)

Generating a List of History Majors

To Whom It May Concern:

Is there any way to search Wikipedia to generate a list of the people listed in wikipedia that have majored in history? Is there a way to customize that search to find people of color that majored in history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.237.145 (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Two issues: 1) 'Majored in' is a specific term, which doesn't apply to a lot of education systems, would need to be expanded to 'studied history at university'. 2) Same issue with 'people of color', that odd term that is completely meaningless, and needs definition. Do you mean black people, Asians, etc, or all non-whites? Need to be more specific! 82.21.7.184 (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• People self-identify in certain ways using WP:USERBOXes. It's entirely voluntary, someone might identify as anything he likes, so you might get people identifying as black, African-American, African, a history buff, a Historian, or whatever. It's totally unscientific. But for any specific user box you can click "what links here" and you will see a list of people who have put that box on their account. μηδείς (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

You can get this information (a real name) for the price of a sandwich. Offer a sandwich to the first innocent 18 year old in a library who will read up for 4 hours and type a 1-2 page report on what they've found. link the report and you'll get a username and maybe even a real name. you can literally follow this, from anywhere in the world, and get a name. it costs you a sandwich, what's not to like. if going to the library is too much trouble you can fake it. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• The IP has asked a reasonable question from his perspective, why do we have to anonymous users making critical remarks that are irrelevant--the IP doesn't need to define his terms to be told how the site can be searched--and he has no need of obscure jokes either. μηδείς (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, the IP does need their search terms defined, as the currently suggested terms are US specific, thereby limiting the expected results. Now, this can be the intent, but when it is not, other terms will need to be used. Just being helpful! 82.21.7.184 (talk) 09:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, your exclamation points look a lot like spears! Unless you're also new here (and I suspect you aren't!) try to be more gentle! μηδείς (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a List of historians by area of study. And there is the giant category Category:Historians filled with a ton of little categories such as Category:Historians of technology or Category:Indian historians. But I've never seen a biography here with a category that refered to what people studied at university.184.147.116.102 (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I have to apologize, I read the question as asking about wikipedia users. If the OP wants to know about people listed in articles he should look at WP:CATEGORY. μηδείς (talk)

The difference between a tribe and a state

A big and powerful society conquers a smaller and weaker one. Both societies apparently have a lot in common, with a small group of powerful rich people ruling over poor masses. Yet often the conquered one is referred to as a "tribe" and regarded as somehow not as advanced as the big one. I can understand calling such a small society that one meets every other member often a tribe. But none of the groups I hear referred to as tribes are like that. What is a tribe anyway and how is it different from a state? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.222.210 (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Generally I'd say a tribe is smaller, although one tribe can span more than one nation, too. StuRat (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Scope the article on complex society and social complexity. You're asking a question deeply-rooted in anthropology and one of the many that's earned anthropologists the fun title of "racists with hats". Basically a state has more complex social institutions than a tribe, delineated borders, social hierarchy, all that good stuff. That's my half-baked answer. I have about 15 absolutely impenetrable books that could give you a solid answer on some more specific bits. This is question though is a bone of much contention. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775 00:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This might sound like one of those condescendingly simple solutions, but have you read tribe and state? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

I was worried mine might sound that way whereas I was really just stating my annoyance over certain bits of anthro. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775 01:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I think "States" have more fully developed international relations than do "tribes". Bus stop (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

What about Japan during the Tokugawa Shogunate, The People's Socialist Republic of Albania, and Ming China? I'm not sure international relations are a good thing to go on as they're dependent on other polities. For a long time in Egyptology, egyptologists treated Egypt (regarded as the pinnacle of Ancient World civilisation by them) as if it were alone in the world and above the people outside of it. Nowadays we're well-aware of their extensive contacts, but these ideas of what makes a tribe, a state, etc. were all invented a long ways back and though they've been refined, they still have the same base elements (which is very ambiguous on my part, yes, but like I said, complex). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775 02:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes simple is just best. Like you say, the bigger picture is pretty hard for one brain to grasp. Too many cooks. My simplest answer is a tribe is a "savage" state. As that disambiguation page attests, polite society doesn't use that word the same these days, but still gets the gist of it, like with "polite society". When a civilized (or civilised) person sees a tribe, she just sort of knows it's not a state like hers. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:54, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about those classifications either as the savagery - barbarism - civilised ladder is kind of out-moded. It was replaced by a five-tier system whose name escapes me right now. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775 02:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably a bit dated. I sometimes forget if we're supposed to study history thinking like a new age man or the authors. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:11, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As an archaeologist and historian, I'll say it's best to try and study history attempting to apply as little of our own world today and trying to think more about their situation back then in our interpretations. A lot easier said than done though. In other words, take a stab at historiography, but reconstructing how people thought is next to impossible. It's on yet another scale which deals with difficulty in interpretation and is also five-tier (archaeologists are obsessed with threes and anthropologists and socioligists with fives, I guess). No, I don't think that was it. It only covered what we've seen so far in societal development. I did give that a look over after seeing Interstellar for obvious reasons. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775

For the record, Petrie's saying it wasn't the Kardashev scale, which I mentioned before deleting that terrible guess. He's not imagining things. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:35, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that, but I may very well be imagining things. I am quite mad you know. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775 02:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, the Lombards were a tribe, but the Kingdom of the Lombards was an early state. Seems to suggest a state is a geopolitically succesful tribe. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:11, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Tribe did have a different meaning back then. I don't recall if the tribal system of Allies from the Roman Republic was still in effect back then. It can also just mean a group of people sharing extended kinship. One of my best friends is from the Sudairi tribe of Saudi Arabia for instance, and there a tribe is your extended family. They and the AS-Sauds are the two most influential tribes in the state that is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, haha. It's just a whole bunch of forms of complexity that determine which of these tiers a polity is placed on, but even then they're rigid definitions applied in a world where things are rarely so clear. Just ask any archaeologist or anthropologist actually in the field who isn't trying to push an agenda. Such is the problem with theory. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775 02:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, blood ties seem to be a part of it. Like a clan. But that word's tricky, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, especially when it's got 7.000 people in it. In my case with clan, I could claim to be part of the MacKinnons, but that's 1/32 of my blood and who knows what reception I'd recieve on the Isle of Skye Wasn't one's demos in Athens meant to be like a tribe?

Deme dere? Seems like land to me, not people. Maybe thinking of a phratry, phyle or genos? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:09, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, haha. Apologies as it's been a while. The whole Athenian system was last covered extensively for me in Ian Morris's The Greeks back in undergrad and has mostly been forgotten (even though I've never read a better history book). I think a problem in the US is oftentimes when we think of tribes it conjures up old perceptions of American Indians and the idea that they were 'primitive' (a term that's kind of loaded as it was often based on type of weaponry and religion). I don't know how people in Britain or other European countries react to the word (what pops into their minds). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775 03:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

First I'd even heard of those things, just followed the Wikilinks. "Primitive tribes" means "Jungle Jitters", to my Canuck ears. I mean, automatically. I'm more openminded after I start thinking. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:37, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

A state is a tribe with an army and navy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

And alliance with or tribute from other tribes. Though tribute is etymologically for tribes. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:15, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

I think a "tribe" would tend to have a greater degree of cohesiveness than a "State". Bus stop (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

For one possible distinction, has there ever been a nomadic State? —Tamfang (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The borders of Poland have definitely wandered around quite a bit over the years... [13] AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

There were some huge nomadic empires, if that's the same to you. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:00, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

30% of the population of Mongolia is still nomadic or semi-nomadic. --Bowlhover (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Khalkha Mongols suggests 78% of Mongolians belong to a subnation called the Thirteen Khalkhas of the Far North, but Google suggests Wikipedia invented that. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:33, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

• Tribe and state are just words, they don't represent Platonic Ideals with any reality beyond how we use them to communicate in certain contexts, so there's no "one correct answer". I'd suggest that the main attribute of a tribe is that it is viewed as an extended family, with a chief, perhaps. A state is geographically defined, and has bureaucrats, as well as a chief of chiefs, such as a king. A tribe will probably have fewer degrees of separation (maybe from 1 to at most 3) whereas a state will have more. μηδείς (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think the main differentiating factor is cultural. I think a tribe tends to have richer culture than does a State. Bus stop (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Googling "cultural richness" finds me "a diversity" of definitions. Is your meaning as vague as National Geographic's? They're the top result. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:31, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

One need not focus on the term "rich". Culture is going to be fundamentally different on a tribal level. Is culture going to be more weak in a successful tribe than in a successful State? Will it be more tepid? No, it is going to be vibrant. And rich. Bus stop (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

February 5

Proof that proto indo europeans lived in eastern europe.

What archaeological and genetic proof is there that indo europeans were originally from eastern europe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.235.201 (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Proto-Indo-European is a hypothetical language which gives identity to a hypothetical group of speakers who didn't leave any written documentary evidence to link them to the term. So, to my knowledge, we don't have any archaeological evidence for such a group, but someone better read on the subject than I am could probably tell you what archaeological evidence has been found there. I think it's in the region of the Ukraine you're thinking, right? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775 02:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

What about genetic proof? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.235.201 (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Also a tricky one. I mean one thing you could do is to find certain genetic similarities in various groups of people that are most prevalent in people from that specific area, but that's about all I remember from those types of studies. Someone with a far better understanding than I have would have to comment on this. Again though, this is a language-based identity and without written examples you can't do the best thing which would be to tie material evidence to human remains. Then you have a shot at having found a 'Proto-IE' person, but even then you'd need more than one example to get anything concrete. I think it's more an archaeological question than a genetic one and the material evidence likely isn't there (Though absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Shevat 5775 03:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia article is Kurgan hypothesis... AnonMoos (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The Horse, the Wheel, and Language by David Anthony, listed in the "further reading" section of the article AnonMoos linked to above, provides detailed archeological evidence for the Pontic-Caspian origin of the Proto-Indo-European language. The author also claims tha its speakers were responsible for horse domestication and the invention of spoked wheels and chariots. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• See Luca Cavalli-Sforza's genetic analyses from the 90's. He analyzed a large number of genetic foci among Europeans (and various other populations) and noted that certain genetic traits tended to vary in a correlated way. He then seperated out these components, and mapped them.

His first component map of Europe shows a trend out of the Middle East, which may have to do with the expansion of farming, or simple population pressure at the end of the last ice age.

His second map (accounting for the second largest trend in European genetics) is quite striking, showing an expansion out of the lower Dnieper river vally, that fits very well with the Kurgan Hypothesis.

μηδείς (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

They must have lived in Eastern Europe at some time or another, in order to get into Western Europe. Hittites were in the Middle East, and Celtic and Germanic tribes we all over Europe (and even in Western China - plus, don't forget the Tocharians) at the time of the estimated date of Proto-Indo European (3,000BC). The Indian subcontinent had already been inhabited by Indo-Europeans. The 'proof' that was given to me, that Indo-Europeans 'originated' in the Caucasus regions (or at least, somewhere north of Turkey), is that the words for beech tree (*bagos) and salmon (*laks) are prevelant in most ancient P-IE languages, and the only place where both co-exist is in that region. Bear in mind, that language change is a continuous and ongoing process, and dialects will spring up, split off into separate languages, and borrow from each other as trade increases with more discoveries and technology. The idea that a language existed at a certain time in a certain region and then spontaneously exploded into lots of other languages is not exactly how to view it. There was no standardization in those days, as there was no writing system for P-IE. It was borrowing from neighbours who either spoke P-IE or didn't, and also lending them words, too. Language exchange is an important part of language change. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 14:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This is an ideological issue in India. For religious reasons some Hindus finds it "offensive" that Sanskrit may not have originated in India. This overlaps with post-colonial attitudes which see the notion of invading "Aryans" in terms of White supremecism and as a kind of emblem of British rule. Hence the notion that the British made up the trheory to (a) justify their rule and (b) undermine Hinduism. The need for 'proof' that 'that indo europeans were originally from eastern europe' arises from this preoccupation. Of course there is no 'proof' as such, and it's unlikely that there could ever be. There is just a lot of evidence. Paul B (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It has become over-politicised, not least by the Nazis and the subsequent lack of adequate academic denazification. Mallory in In Search of the Indo-Europeans gives various contradictory quotes about where the PIE homeland "must" have been, and devotes a chapter to the question. It seems most likely that the homeland was somewhere around the Caspian. To the West is Europe, to the East, Asia. Not so many kilometres but a huge ideological distance. The Indians are right that the British did posit Aryan invasions as a racist trope, to vindicate their idea that lighter skinned northern Indians were "martial races" and also particularly suited for their Civil Service. The Hindutvas are, however, quite wrong in assuming that the introduction of Indo-European languages equates to invasions of people. The whole Aryan invasion thesis predated the discovery of the Indus Valley civilisations. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

To a significant extent it only really became identified as an "invasion" after the discovery of the IVC, as the advent of I-E languages seemed to coincide with the fall of the Civilisation. Ironically, this actually changed the portrayal of the Aryans. They come to be seen more as Vandal-like barbarians overthrowing a peacful high culture than as a superior race taking over from primitive Australoid aboriginals, which was the common view beforehand. Paul B (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Ignoring the Indian nationalist claims, which contradict all evidence, Gimbutas, Mallory and Cavalli-Sforza, in three different disciplines, come up with the same Pontic-Caspian homeland. The only other serious contenders are Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, who chose an Armenian homeland based solely on typological factors, and Renfrew, who arbitraily identifies the Indo-Europeans with the first agriculturalists, which is off by thousands of years based on all actual evidence. Pastoralism in the area is known to postdate the beginning of agriculture by millennia. And typological arguments simply ignore the fact that languages, related, say, to the North-West Caucasian languages (see Colarusso's Proto-Pontic) had all the typological characteristics necessary to explain how a horse-domesticating civilization speaking an Uralo-Siberian language could have assimilated a more densely popualted Caucasian language, with a reanalysis of the former tongue under the influence of the latter producing PIE. In any case, no set of data agrees in the way Gibutas's archaeological evidence, Mallory's linguistic evidence, and Cavalli-Sforza's genetic evidence does. μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm a lighthouse. Your call.

Does anyone know of any land-based lighthouses that have been destroyed by a ship colliding into them? I was able to find some lighthouses destroyed by collisions, such as the Elbow of Cross Ledge Light and the Savannah Light, but all of them were stuck in the middle of the water, in places that would otherwise be shipping lanes. Basically, I'm imagining a lighthouse destroyed when a ship goes aground in an egregious fashion, e.g. if a ship takes out the Fairport Harbor breakwater and destroys the Fairport Harbor West Breakwater Light, or if a ship hits the cliff underneath the Split Rock Lighthouse and causes its collapse. Nyttend (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

No, but I just read a story about a train that went speeding off the track and into a baggage facility, killing no one.

I imagine lighthouse disasters are equally bloodless and more remote, probably why I don't remember them. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:44, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

The Bell Rock Lighthouse was smoked by a helicopter in 1955. Not destroyed, but not pretty. The Argyll almost hit it in 1915, but the reef got between them. No casualties there, either, of 655 aboard. Also took a whooping from machine guns. But no ship-on-house violence. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:52, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

The question title refers, of course, to the lighthouse and naval vessel urban legend. But if you look at the "See also" section of that article, you will find three actual examples of collisions with lighthouses:

• Elbow of Cross Ledge Light, a New Jersey lighthouse that was hit by a ship in 1953
• Moreton Bay Pile Light, an Australian lighthouse twice hit by ships

A Google search on the obvious keywords produces two Google Books hits: Ship Collision Analysis: Proceedings of the international symposium on advances in ship collision analysis, Copenhagen, Denmark, 10-13 May 1998 edited by Henrik Gluver and Dan Olsen; and Ship Collision with Bridges: The Interaction Between Vessel Traffic and Bridge Structures (1993) by Ole Damgaard Larsen (a name surprisingly similar to "Dan Olsen"!). There seems to be a technical glitch keeping Google Books from showing me any pages of the first book, but on page 66 the second one refers to an actual collision of "a 10,600 DWT vessel" against "the Drogden lighthouse in Copenhagen", so there's a fourth example. By adding "Drogden" to the search, I then found this PDF document which on page 5 gives the position of the lighthouse (apparently in degrees and decimal minutes, equivalent to 55.54°N 12.71°E / 55.54; 12.71) and tells some of the story (in bad English) but does not give the date or the name of the ship. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 07:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Please read my question again. I'm asking about ships hitting lighthouses on land, not lighthouses on water that sit in shipping lanes; I even linked the Elbow of Cross Ledge Light in my original question. Nyttend (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a bit like asking something ridiculous like "has anyone ever tripped over a tree branch thirty feet in the air". Lighthouses on land are unlikely to have been destroyed by ships beaching themselves. Any ship large enough to do significant damage to a light house would have grounded itself well before reaching the beach. --Jayron32 21:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Why? What would prevent an unguided, misguided, or maliciously guided ship from crashing into a lighthouse at the end of a mole, or hitting a cliff and damaging/destroying the lighthouse at the top? Nyttend (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

What does the title of this section mean? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said above: it refers to the lighthouse and naval vessel urban legend. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Cute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Not quite a lighthouse, but the very stupidly conceived and placed Port of Genoa control tower was felled by a ship in recent years, with seven dead. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9g4RyWs5MA --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm amazed that that we don't have an article on that 7 May, 2013 collision between the Linea Messina cargo ship Jolly Nero Genoa Port Control Tower, as it was unusual, deadly, and destructive. Our Port of Genoa article doesn't even mention the incident. I've been unable to find any information on the result of the investigation, with the most informative article I could locate being this one published only two days after the accident when rescuers were still searching the rubble for missing personnel. The only later information I've located is this mention of plans for a replacement tower. The Italian Wikipedia page it:Jolly Nero does discuss the incident, and mentions finding the body of the 9th victum ten days after the collision, but has no discussion of root cause and investigation. -- ToE 13:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Whenever anyone mentions an "inland lighthouse", the Lighthouse Methodist Church always springs to mind; it's in Walthamstow in London, about 5 miles from the nearest navigable water. Alansplodge (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

industrial revolution

Why didn't China, India, the middle east, nor ancient rome go through an industrial revolution?They were certainly quite advanced civilizations.Roger adams49 (talk) 07:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed by various historians etc. Slavery was widely practiced in ancient Mediterranean civilizations, and political and educated elites often disdained craftsmen who performed actual physical labor (see Banausos). In China, trade was disdained by official Confucian ideology (see Four Occupations), and industrial/commercial wealth could be subject to arbitrary governmental expropriation, so that merchants often hastened to set themselves up as landowners and join the gentry-officialdom class... AnonMoos (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

A BBC documentary called Why did the Industrial Revolution happen here? is worth a watch. I probably shouldn't tell you that you can find a copy of it on YouTube. Alansplodge (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Guns, Germs, and Steel proposes a solution to this question; the author believes that a core reason for European industrial superiority was basically environmental. Nyttend (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing you towards Industrial Revolution#Causes. The only adequate way to summarise that discussion is that it's all very complicated. --Antiquary (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Not trying to be obtuse here, but I feel the need to point out that these places did go through industrial revolutions. Just later. Well I guess "ancient Rome" didn't but later Rome did. There's a ton of speculation about what might have happened if a steam engine were ever mass produced in Rome, and many people agree that they were rather "close" in some sense. For our coverage, see Hero_of_Alexandria, Roman technology and History of the steam engine. If you want more speculative stuff, you'll have to google for it, perhaps like this [14] SemanticMantis (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. One thing to point out is that, while traditional Chinese historiography treats "China" as a cohesive single nation state with a single language, history, and culture stretching back to time immemorial, in reality Chinese history is no less complex and complicated, with periods of tribalism, empire, petty states, empire again, etc. etc. than was European History. So when one says "Ancient Rome", one cannot compare it to "China" without saying "China when" Technologically, China during the same time period as the Roman Empire was at least on par with Europe, if not a bit ahead, and during the early middle ages, it absolutely was ahead of it. China began to lag behind for various internal political reasons. IIRC Niall Ferguson in one of his books, maybe "Civilization", posits that European disunity actually generated the sort of competition that allowed it to outpace China, which at that time was a unified Empire. Contrawise, when China was the most innovative was during periods of political disunity, for example during much of the time when Europe was undergoing the demographic collapse of the Middle Ages, China wasn't really all that unified under a single Emperor: Sixteen Kingdoms, Southern and Northern Dynasties, Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period was when China was "ahead" of Europe, innovating all sorts of cool stuff like gunpowder and paper and things like that. When China became at once unified and isolationist, it began to lag behind. Furthermore, "India" as a place under a single state is a modern invention as well. It has only been since the Political integration of India in the middle 20th century that India has existed as a state, rather than simply a peninsula off the south side of Asia. India is likewise as diverse and complex, historically, as Europe has been. --Jayron32 20:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

"Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock." MChesterMC (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Link: The Third Man#"Swiss cuckoo clock" speech. -- ToE 13:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

SemanticMantis -- Hero of Alexandra was probably the most prolific inventor and engineering writer of Classical antiquity, but he concentrated on military technology and "temple wonders" (i.e. gadgets to impress rustics and uneducated people attending temples in Alexandria). His version of the steam engine (the "Aeolipile") was not intended for practical horsepower-generating work, and there's no evidence that anyone tried to adapt it for that purpose. I really don't think that Greco-Roman civilization was just one small missing link away from an industrial revolution; rather there were a lot of attitudes and institutions that would have had to change... AnonMoos (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yes, absolutely. My understanding is that the lack was more in terms of the cultural goals and "attitudes and institutions" as you say. But in terms of scientific and engineering concepts, I think it's fair to say they were quite close. If they had seen it as a potential military technology... well, that's why people like to speculate and write "alternate history" about ancient Roman steam engines :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The economic upheaval caused by the Black Death led to the end of the feudal system and "free" labour, giving rise to increased prominence of the "merchant class" and a reduction in the power of the nobility. Then came the acquisition of a vast empire by the British, which increased the flow of goods into and from Britain and consequent rise in demand for industrial processing. The cost of labour caused innovative ways to increase productivity per worker, thus the Industrial Revolution. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Our article Great Divergence contains a lot of ideas about "why not China". Itsmejudith (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I've now begun to answer this question, it is a really useful and involved answer that is taking me days to write, but should be enormously useful feedback, one of the best things you'll have ever gotten. (I'll replace this text with the complete long answer.) However in this case for a specific reason which I'll mention, I'll include additional specific requests simply due to the huge amount of time involved in my answer - be prepared that these will be relatively large requests, and you will have to meet them to get such huge amounts of my time again. I won't post anything for a few days now as this is going to take me huge amounts of time just now. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what are you saying about requests? I apologize if I misunderstand you comment, but it seems rather strange to me. It's fine let us know that you're working on a long answer; I'm sure many of us will appreciate it. But who are these unknown parties that must meet some "relatively large requests"? All action here is voluntary. If you don't want to participate, then don't. If you do want to participate that's great too. But this reads to me like you are (or are planning on) making some sort of demands, and I don't think this is the place for that. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The Romans were actually very good, industrially speaking. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 22:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Interracial adoption: what about interracial couples?

Hi! The relevant Wikipedia articles and reference desk entries and every paper I've been to find on Google Scholar on interracial adoption seem to assume that both adoptive parents are of the same race. But I see no reason why that has to be the case. I've only found one legal case, Campos v. McKeithen, in which one of the one of the would-be adoptive parents was of the same race as the child and the other wasn't, but that fact was only mentioned in passing because the outcome of the case would have been exactly the same anyway had both parents been white. So, is it not considered an interracial adoption in the US in that case? Intuitively, it would seem to me that it has to be one, because the child can't belong to the same race as both of his/her parents... Thanks for your replies :)JaneStillman (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

There may not be any "official" term for it, since the law doesn't care. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about the USA but in the UK mixed-race couples are actively sought out as potential adopters. They would sometimes take on a child who was black, not mixed-race, but if possible a family will be found who share a background with the child. There are various considerations. Will the child be stared at in the street, as obviously not the natural child of the accompanying adults? Will the parents be able to sympathise if the child experiences racism? Will the parents be able to provide help with such basic things as how to keep hair tidy and attractive? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The OP seems to be asking for a strict definition of "interracial adoption". What, if anything, do the Brits call the scenario you describe? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no official definition. This article [15] points out some of the nuances. Most attention has been on children who are either mixed race or both natural parents black being placed with couples who are both white. I remember very well from my teenage years in the distant past how isolated black children could be when adopted into an all-white community. Then the pendulum swung to a situation an exact match was required "the child is Nigerian-English, and these prospective parents are Jamaican-Scottish, obviously no good". Now it's swung back a bit. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Why are Catholic churches not considered "megachurches"?

A single Catholic parish may have thousands of members on a Sunday, with each liturgy performed at different times of the day. Members are usually people within a geographical parish. So, why are they not considered "megachurches"? Why is the term used exclusively to refer to Protestant churches? 140.254.136.149 (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Megachurches are defined by more than just the number of members or the size of the worship church. The Megachurch movement is a distinct movement within American Evangelicalism of which having a massively large congregation is an important defining characteristic, but it is quite important to note that Megachurches should be seen as specifically an outgrowth of American Evangelicalism and not merely defined by any Christian congregation whose membership reaches some arbitrary plateau. Don't fall into the trap of the etymological fallacy: that a word's meaning is only defined by it's etymology. That is clearly not the case here, nor is it really the case for any word. Instead, you need to understand how a word came to be in its historical and social context to understand what it means. In this case, the word "Megachurch" developed as part of American Protestant Evangelicalism, and is only to be properly understood in that context. Big Catholic Churches are just big Catholic Churches. --Jayron32 20:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, that's just like the word homophobia. By etymology alone, it looks like it means fear of sameness, but by taking the social and historical contexts, it really means "aversion to or discrimination against homosexuals". 140.254.136.149 (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

"Phobia" and "aversion to" are pretty much the same idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Disagree, Bugs. They can overlap, but are not synonyms. I am averse to liquorice (I hate the taste), but I'm certainly not afraid of it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

An "aversion" is "a turning away from", which is what one general does with something one is fearful of. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

You are famously averse to "fly-by" unregistered users. Are you saying you fear them? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Where did I say that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

As to the actual nature of the Catholic Church, it is both the individual parish churches (the buildings on your street or wherever) and the "Church" or "Catholic Church, meaning that the parish church is a bit like a franchise of the broader church. Megachurches often don't have such an affiliation and may be Non-denominational. Mingmingla (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

So we have these individual large-membership churches, i.e. "megachurches". Then we have the Catholic "mega" church. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

"Mega" has no meaning in Catholicism, which basically has parish churches, episcopal cathedrals and national basilicas. Even in a large Catholic church you won't find the minister cavorting around, talking like a carnival barker, asking for emotional audience responses to his alternating ejaculations of salvation and fire and brimstone. Megachurches are much more like tent revivals and televangelist ministries. Not majesty and dignity, but charisma and ecstasy. μηδείς (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

"Mega" need not be a term used by the Catholic church in order to be true. It simply means "big". And the word "Catholic" itself means "universal" and thus implies "big". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say the word was untrue (in fact words cannot be true or false, only propositions). I said it has no meaning as such in Catholicism. μηδείς (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

True. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

What is the main purpose of serving food after a Protestant church service?

What is the main purpose of serving food after a Protestant church service (regardless of the time of day)? Is there any theological significance behind the practice? 140.254.136.149 (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Would you care to be more specific, which protestant denominations do that? I don't know of a single one that traditionally does that. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. 140.254.136.149 (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It must be a custom they've developed over time - and perhaps an incentive for people to show up to the service. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

My church occasionally holds a potluck luncheon following the late morning service. The point is to practice fellowship, to strengthen the church community. We don't do it every Sabbath as it would be to demanding of the members, as they are the ones supplying the comestibles, and perhaps they have other Sabbath activities to tend to. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Originally it was coffee and maybe cookies after service while adults talked and children went of to Sunday school. Then more cookies and maybe tea and cocoa since not quite everyone drinks coffee - and since cookies are not so healthy add some fruit, then vegetables, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Because people are both hungry at that time of the day, and enjoy each other's company. --Jayron32 02:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

We have tea, toast and Marmite at my church. God only knows. Alansplodge (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Fellowship gatherings are not theological in nature, but social in nature. Many (most) Protestant churches have a "Fellowship hall" of some sort so that members can actually meet and socialize with each other after services. Many years ago, when people could take hours to reach the church, such an opportunity for a light meal before heading home was nearly essential. Collect (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

There is an old joke that coffee is an unofficial Sacrament in the Episcopal Church. Blueboar (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

February 6

HR/communication strategies

Hello! I am currently doing self-studies of communication, particularly human relations and business communication with the purpose of developing my own business and network of contacts. I would like to know if there are some books or other literature that could provide advice on these topics? Also, I remember having read about a theory/strategy, particularly effective in building trust and relationships that involves trying to adapt to the personality of the person you are communicating with, and over time, as your understanding and acquaintance with the person develops, you begin to subtly use "their" kind of humor, language, and other personality traits. I don't know the name of this kind of strategy, perhaps you could help me out with finding the name? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.92.248.18 (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean Human Resources when you say "human relations"?--Phil Holmes (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The "theory/strategy" described here brings to mind How to Win Friends and Influence People. ZMBrak (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Here are some oft-recommended books on networking and communication: The Best Books to Boost Your Career in 2013, Top 10 Networking Books for Your Career Success, Top 20 Best Books on Communication and Listening. The strategy sounds like Mirroring (psychology), though that is described as unconscious.184.147.116.102 (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Arearea - Paul Gauguin

Arearea by Paul Gauguin in 1891

Back in the mid-1980s on a trip to Tahiti we bought a reproduction of a Gauguin painting from the Paul Gauguin Museum (Tahiti). It looks exactly like the original (pictured), down to "Arearea" in right lower corner. There is nothing in the way of any marking on the back of the wooded frame it is mounted onto. The painting is on wood, not canvas. The size is about 14 inches high and 18 inches wide. If one were to guess, would there be any significant value to the 30 year old reproduction (that looks exactly like this Commons picture)?--Doug Coldwell (talk)

As a start, these people are selling reproductions (on canvas, I think, not wood) for several hundred US dollars; the smallest (closest to your size) is listed at $225.184.147.116.102 (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

By "reproduction" do you mean a painted copy or a printed reproduction from a photograph of the original? Paul B (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It is NOT a painted copy, but more of a printed reproduction that is on wood.--17:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

You seemed to be so keen to point out that it "looks exactly like the original" I thought it may have been a painting, since there's nothing very surprising about a photograph looking exactly like the original! As for what it's worth, that depends on the quality of the reproduction and the durability of the materials. It might just fetch something comparable to the prints linked by the ip. Paul B (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Sounds right to me.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Monsters and demons

I just encountered the Utility monster concept for the first time. What's the difference between this monster and a demon, i.e. why isn't it a "utility demon"? Nyttend (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

"Monster" generally implies unusually large size or other measurement, and/or unnatural appearance and so on, but not necessarily malevolence and not usually exceeding the laws of nature. "Demon" generally implies active evilness stemming from the Devil or similar supernatural concepts, and in the philosophical sense usually indicates something not thought to have the possibility of actually existing, and thus outside of the laws of nature. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Funny, my first thought regarding the good/evil of monster vs. demon was the exact opposite. See links below :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it just at the namer's prerogative? I don't think there's any mathematical,physical, or philosophical baggage here. Schrodinger's cat could have been Schrodinger's ox (or dog, etc). Maxwell's demon could have been an imp or a daeva, no? And the invisible pink unicorn could have been Russel's teapot. These aren't like the Brownian_ratchet, where the noun part helps clarify the thought experiment by means of analogy. This is all interesting and fun stuff, but I'll be surprised if anyone can find a good referenced answer that's anything other than "accident of history and personal choice". If you're interested in this sort of demon/monster, I recommend The_Cyberiad, that features a few different types. Also I'll be adding Darwinian_Demon to that list shortly. Really, I'll probably add "utility monster" too. These thought experiements don't invoke any demonic hierarchy or properties, just some mythical thing with agency. Recall also that demons are classically value neutral, e.g. (Agathodaemon, cacodemon, Eudaimonia, daemon, etc.), so perhaps "monster" was chosen to make it clear that the utility monster is bad (in the eyes of the creator), whereas Maxwell's demon is not really good or evil. (Now I want to start calling the invisible hand the "market demon" :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The utility monster is not bad. It just is monstrous. Indeed, from a strictly utilitarian perspective, the monster is good - a society that has it and feeds it has a much greater total utility than one that does not. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Right. I guess the monster itself is just neutral, but I thought the idea was that the thought experiment makes extreme/pure Utilitarianism look bad, because an extreme Utilitarian would then rationally kill everybody but the monster. That sounds bad to me... SemanticMantis (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Per SemanticMantis, there isn't any international governing board which has decided how the nomenclature of thought experiments and which adjudicates violations thereof. Someone gets an idea, and gives it a cute little name, and that's about it. The fact that some people chose "demon" or "monster" or "cat" or whatever for their little critter that does their little thought experiment is an accident of history, and not because there's some set of rules which decides what these things ought to be called. --Jayron32 15:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense. I just wondered if there might be some sort of conventional difference between "monster" and "demon" in this context. Nyttend (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I can think of examples of both good monsters and good demons. StuRat (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The utility monster was thought up in 1974. Sesame Street debuted in 1969. The utility-monster thought experiment (according to our article) alludes to the pleasure derived from eating a cookie. I'm sure that Nozick had Cookie Monster in mind when naming the U. M. Deor (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Utility monster?... Any relation to Utility infielder? Blueboar (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Château Gaillard

Richard the Lionheart, the man responsible for building Château Gaillard, constructed it apparently in 1196, 1197, and 1198. Is there anywhere a constructing starting date and finished date?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The French wikipedia article on Walter de Coutances [16], who owned Andelys, says construction started shortly after Walter's return to Rouen in July 1196. This is sourced to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. My instutition has a subscription so I looked; the actual sentences are:

In January 1196, as part of the treaty of Louviers, the two kings tried to curb Coutances's freedom of action by making his manor of Les Andelys, strategically located on the Seine above Rouen, neutral ground subject to neither ruler. They made Les Andelys collateral for the archbishop's good conduct, subject to forfeiture if he excommunicated them or their officials or placed interdicts on their territories. Coutances fled to Cambrai, and he did not return to Rouen until July. Another conflict with Richard I soon arose over Les Andelys, once the king began construction of Château Gaillard on the archbishop's manor. The archbishop placed Normandy under an interdict and left for Rome in November 1196. Pope Celestine III (r. 1191–8) issued a ruling on 20 April 1197 that since construction of the castle was essential for Normandy's security, Coutances should accept an exchange of land with the king. On 16 October, Richard and Coutances agreed to an exchange that gave the archbishop the port of Dieppe and other territories, producing an annual income of nearly 2000 angevin pounds.

Contradicting this, this book by Achille Deville suggests construction started before July, saying that it was already underway when Walter returned to Rouen and complained. (page 11) Deville says Walter wrote his friend Ralph de Diceto about it, and this letter is published in Ralph's Ymagines Historiarum. I do not have access to that book, but you could ask at Wikipedia:RX if anyone does (see [17]) and can get a date on the letter.

All I have for the end is that Deville says (page 39) construction took only a year.184.147.116.102 (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The Ymagines Historiarum is on archive.org and that letter is on pg 148. It's in Latin but it doesn't have any dates pertaining to the castle (only that Walter was going to Rome for November 7, 1196, so obviously the letter was written before that). Adam Bishop (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not a holocaust denialist, nor a believer in conspiracy theory

But if it takes 2 hours to cremate a body, and there were millions and millions of victims to be cremated, how would this be logistically possible? Add to it that energy, in any form, gets scarce in an energy impoverished war zone. --Noopolo (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

What is the basis for your premises? â~F~PBaseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrotsâ~F~R 21:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a question. How is it technically possible to cremate millions and millions of bodies? The 2 hours bit can be corroborated by many sources like funeral companies and howstuffwork web-site. Noopolo (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm certainly not in the mood to go to looking up reference to this, but in-part. The Nazis developed crematoria where the corpses themselves became fuel to combust the corpses that followed, hence they required very little addition fuel. Deutsche technik! Then they built lots of them, which then ran 24/7.--Aspro (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is a page that addresses the issue. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, that's part 2 of 2. I should have linked to part 1, here, as well. And here's a higher-level page on the same site that addresses various claims by denialists. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

If it takes 2 hours to cremate one body, does it take 200 hours to cremate 100? No, it doesn't, unless you are silly and do things one at a time. Our article on the Holocaust is very long, contains over 400 citations, and a separate bibliography. The_Holocaust#New_methods_of_mass_murder might be a place to start. There's lots of information there on the logistics of genocide. Search for "bodies" to find the bits most relevant. Here's what I found at a quick skim: One of the facilities could cremate 10k per day. Not all of the victims were cremated, many were forced to dig their own graves. Sometimes extant mass graves were dug up, so that bodies could be cremated. This was done in an attempt to hide the evidence of the horrible deed.

Part of why the Holocaust is so chilling is that there were lots of very clever people whose will was bent on quickly and efficiently disposing of human beings. They got fairly efficient at it. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, an analysis of the gas vans' performance suggest that they would have been more efficient than the concentration camps were. One of the reasons that gas vans were not used more widely is that the drivers were not able to cope with the psychological stresses involved. Some years ago I performed an analysis on the relative efficiency of the Holocaust, and was surprised to discover that it could have been made much more efficient. My personal suspicion (for which I have only indirect, statistical evidence) is that although there certainly were a large number of Germans who fully accepted the tasks they performed there may also have been a great many other Germans who, though they by and large did not speak up against the Holocaust, found ways to impede it or avoid participation. RomanSpa (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

On the basic question of logistics raised above, the answer is that although the Holocaust was a large-scale operation it was performed over a period of several years. Consider a highly simplified process involving only tipper truck (dump truck) gas vans: using only 50 gas vans running twice a day for 1,000 days, and with 50 victims per trip, it is possible to kill 5,000,000 people. The logistics of running such a fleet are fairly straightforward: a team of (say) ten fully-armed men per van, to give a total staffing of 500, plus a couple of managers to arrange timetables and a couple of administrators to monitor locations of the mass graves. Each victim makes two trips: in the first, he is in a "work detail", digging a mass grave burial pit; then he is loaded back into the truck and told he is going to his next job; in fact, he is gassed and dumped into the next available grave. The total process has a death rate of 5,000 per day, and largely provides its own resources, since the main ongoing process task is grave-digging, which can be performed by the victims themselves. A competent junior minister could run and complete the entire process in 3 years with a total team of well below 600 full-time staff.

In fact, my assumptions above are conservative. In particular, vans with a capacity of 70-100 people were built and delivered, and it would have been relatively straightforward to build and run even larger capacity vehicles.

Further, note that this approach leaves few traces, is resource-efficient, and requires no diversion of infrastructure away from the war effort. The Holocaust, as performed, was inefficient in its use of resources and time.

For the Holocaust as implemented, the logistics were necessarily more complicated, but not intolerably so. The principal challenges are three-fold: the fuelling of the cremation operation, the construction of the sites, and the logistics of moving large numbers of people by train. The references above clearly show that the fuelling issue was solved. Site construction was of approximately the same level of complexity as the construction of an army camp, and thus would be only a small fraction of GDP compared to the total war effort, and the management of transport would be straightforward in a train system that was already handling large numbers of troop trains and was on a war footing. Because of the relative inefficiency of the system adopted, staffing requirements were larger than in the theoretical case I outlined above, but the total staffing requirement would still be low compared to that of the military. A central problem, which is documented in several places, is morale; I'm unable to comment on this. However, my general answer to the original question is this: Although it's legitimate to ask how the Holocaust was managed, is is certain that it did happen, and there is certainly no managerial or logistical reason to suppose that it didn't. RomanSpa (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, for whom or what were you performing an optimization analysis of the holocaust? Noopolo (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering if Noopolo could come back on this. I'm thinking that he (in peace-time) finds difficult to get one's head around a war economy where 50% of the GNP is diverted to war. Resources for these atrocities are not a big segment of such pie-chart (compared to producing armaments and munition, uniforms, weapon R&D etc.) and so are easily accomplished, with a slave labor force â~@~S unfortunately.--Aspro (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not only the resource fuel to fire up an oven, but the time it takes. Anyway, this seems debunked as holocaust denial theory. Noopolo (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I remember reading that the Nazis were also big fans of quicklime, disposing of many corpses in trenches. Indeed, gas van suggests that these were usually used on the way to the grave site. But I don't see a top-level resource for identifying Holocaust mass graves on Wikipedia. An article like Popricani gives an impression there were just two, holding hundreds, in all of Romania. I'd really like to see someone fill in the gaps here. Wnt (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe that Lord Russell of Liverpool reported this in his book "Scourge of the Swastika". RomanSpa (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)