Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reference desk

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.119.61.7 (talk) at 21:57, 13 December 2008 (→Bills: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
skip to bottom
Select a section:
Shortcut
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:


December 7

Huns, Avars & Bulgars

Why did the Huns, the Avars and the Buglars move to Europe and not to the Middle East? Middle East was warmer and had fertile valleys. 72.136.111.205 (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a fairly continuous "steppe belt" of grasslands which runs from Mongolia in the east to Hungary in the west. Mesopotamia and Egypt were not contiguous to the steppe belt, and not ecologically suited to maintaing an animal-herding lifestyle on a large scale (and the steppe tribes were not really interested in becoming settled agriculturalists). Some groups of steppe horse-nomads did invade the middle east at long intervals (Scythians, Mongols). AnonMoos (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, they liked to take things one steppe at a time. StuRat (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you stare at a topography map for a while you can literally see what AnonMoos is talking about (the Eurasian Steppe), and get an idea of some of the physical barriers which would discourage a (presumably) central Asian on horseback from heading south. If you start with the Himalayas and Pamir Mountains and proceed west, you've got: the Karakum Desert and the various deserts and mountains which compose much of Iran (see Geography of Iran and this map), the Caspian Sea, the Caucasus Mountains, and the Black Sea. And of course you've got the Byzantine Empire and various Persian dynasties in your way. None of these obstacles were completely insurmountable, obviously, but hey, I'd probably have gone for Europe, too. --Fullobeans (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After a stair at the steppes, I'm inclined to agree. StuRat (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might also wish to check the page on the White Huns. Emma Dashwood (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Empire was in the way for getting into Europe: Heraclius fought the Avars during his Persian wars. See also Basil II Bulgaroctonus. Nyttend (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lousy empires get in the way of everything. There were the Byzantine–Bulgarian Wars, too, and probably others that I don't know about. As far as I know, though, most of these wars were fought over the Balkans, and the mean ol' barbarians attacked from the north— meaning they had already made it at least a thousand miles into Europe, but raised some Byzantine hackles by turning south. --Fullobeans (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan

I read somewhere that Taliban killed Tajik and Hazara people because they non-Pashtun and non-Sunni(except Tajik), meaning they wanted to make Afghanistan an all-Pashtun and all-Sunni. Does this mean they also killed Baloch people, Nuristani people, Pasha'i people, Uzbek people and Turkmen people because they were non-Pashtun? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.85 (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that it was more complex than them wanting to kill off all other ethnicities and religions. They likely only killed off those groups they thought opposed them or their goals. And, even if their eventual aim was actually to kill off everyone who was different from themselves, it will still make tactical sense to wait to kill off some groups who didn't pose an immediate threat to their goals, and instead focus on those who did. StuRat (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is always a bit of propaganda to state unequivocally that a group or groups goal is to "eliminate all groups not like them" or to "take over the whole world". It is rarely true, and as such holding such positions does not inform us in helping find an end to the problems. If we say "Group X wants to kill everyone else" or "Group X wants to take over the world" then it makes it easy for us to simply apply military force and stop them; it assumes that Group X has no rational goals and as such can only be stopped by force. The truth is that these issues and relationships are often far more complex than we wish them to be. Every group from the Nazis to the Communists to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda has been accused of wishing to "kill'em all". The reality is far more nuanced. Groups DO commit genocide, and groups DO commit horrendous acts of terrorism; but their goals are often more focused than "killing everyone else"... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But nobody 'stated unequivocally that a group or group's goal is to "eliminate all groups not like them"'. StuRat (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The OP certainly makes that case quite clearly... "Does this mean they also killed [people groups] because they were non-Pashtun?". To claim that the Taliban participated in a genocide of people groups may be part of the historical record, but to claim that they did so merely because they weren't Pashtun is the sort of over-simplification that leads to the non-productive conclusions we have about how to solve these problems. It isn't like the Taliban woke up one morning and decided "Lets just kill all the non-Pashtuns". The Taliban has political goals, and their decisions on how to achieve those goals are not made in a vacuum. To oversimplify them in this way is not helpful. I am not defending the Taliban; understanding why an action was taken is NOT the same thing as justifying that action. Understanding why can only lead to better means of preventing it in the future... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By my reading the original poster made no claims at all. Their first sentence starts with "I read somewhere", meaning they aren't stating their own opinion but rather are relaying an opinion from another. Their second sentence is a question, not a statement at all. StuRat (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Jayron was necessarily saying it was the OP opinion rather that if he/she understood the point Jayron was making (which I would agree was a good point) he/she would understand the question is nonsense and overtly simplistic and therefore pointless discussing Nil Einne (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highest Mountain in the former Texas Republic

Guadalupe Peak is the present extent of elevation in Texas, but what was the highest peak before it lost other land upon becoming an American state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.15.230 (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, different maps of the Republic of Texas show markedly different configurations for its borders in the northwest. Quite possibly they were never clearly defined and the maps represent conflicting interpretations. However, the bottom left map on that page seems to be the most detailed and it clearly shows that the northwestern prolongation of the republic as bounded at least in part by the Rio Grande and the Arkansas River and including at least part of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains in between them, although it doesn't show any northern boundary. So one possibility for the highest point would be Blanca Peak and, if the republic extended that far north, another would be Mt. Elbert. Both are now in Colorado and Mt. Elbert is the highest point in the US outside of the Pacific Coast states. --Anonymous, 07:03 UTC, December 7, 2008.
The northwestern borders claimed by the Republic of Texas were defined by the Rio Grande and the Arkansas River and then by lines drawn north from their headwaters to the 42nd parallel. Since Mt. Elbert lies between the headwaters of those two rivers, it would have been part of the land claimed by the republic. Of course, Mexico did not recognize those claims. In fact, the area grudgingly and sporadically recognized by Mexico as the republic covered a smaller area than the present state of Texas and would not even have included Guadalupe Peak. By the Mexican definition, the republic's highest point would have been somewhere on the Edwards Plateau. Marco polo (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking a little more closely, the Edwards Plateau would not have been the highest part of the Mexican-acknowledged Republic. The highest point would have been near the westernmost point of the area acknowledged by Mexico, on the plains of present-day Martin County. Marco polo (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger-Taming Arhat

I recently watched Stephen Chow's The Mad Monk again and became interested in the Dragon-Subduing and Tiger-Taming Arhats. I started looking up info on them and found one pdf paper that mentions the following info as if it came from Journey to the West:

In Buddhist mythology, there were two Buddhist arhats (羅漢 luo han – an eminent monk who has achieved enlightenment), one of whom subdued a dragon with incantations and the other who tamed a tiger with an abbot’s staff (錫杖 xi zhang). The saying ‘Subdue the dragon and tame the tiger’ is often used to describe the ability of an individual to overcome powerful adversaries. In China, the tiger is considered the king of the animal kingdom, and the Chinese character for tiger is invariably associated with brave generals (虎將 hu jiang) and warriors.

The only mention of the these arhats that I remember from the novel was when Buddha ordered them to call all heavenly beings to a great mass by hitting the wind-cloud chime (or something like that). Does anyone know what chapter the arhat taming the tiger with a staff thing happened? If it didn't come from Journey to the West, what novel (or sutra) does this appear in? Other versions of the tale just say he fed a tiger to keep it from killing people and that's how he tamed it. Also, everything else I've found says the Tiger-Taming arhat is usually depicted carrying a book and bowl. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Tiger-taming and Dragon-subduing arhats are two Chinese additions to the 16 original, principal arhats.
In the Journey to the West they appear during the abttle with the 兕大王 the Si Dawang, a blue ox which belonged to the Taishang Laojun. This appears in Chapter 50. They also appear briefly elsewhere in the story, e.g. accompanying the Buddha when he goes to subdue Sun Wukong near the beginning.
However, the role of the two arhats in the Journey to the West is limited. In Chapter 50, they were among the 18 arhats sent out by the Buddha to combat the demon. These two bore special instructions, not revealed to Sun Wukong and the other 16 arhats until later.
It is uncertain when the two Chinese arhats were added to the list of principal arhats. Their names also vary from source to source. According to the list given by the Qianlong Emperor in the preface to a Buddhist work (秘殿珠林續編), they are Mahākāśyapa and Maitreya. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Do you know of any scholarly papers that discusses the addition of the two to the 16? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case anyone is interested, I found some info on google books and posted some of it here. It explains how the Dragon and Tiger lohans were added to the sixteen around the 10th century and that some historians see their mastery over these beasts--which are two of the four direction animals in Taoist cosmology--as a challenge to Taoism. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers: terminology

The traditional dichotomy in the press in the UK taught to EFL-students used to be broadsheet vs. tabloid. But since these terms originally referred to the paper format and some quality papers have now adopted the tabloid format, with which terms could one distinguish these two extremes in journalism? (This dichotomy may be simplistic, but it is aimed at 15-year-old learners.) -- 93.132.143.225 (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could use "Serious" and "Red tops". Nanonic (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Tabloid" and "Broadsheet" are still used even though many broadsheets have switched to a compact format. I've never heard of a compact former-broadsheet being referred to as a tabloid, even though it may be technically accurate. --Tango (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the term yellow journalism still used? (In German, the more aggressively sensationalized variety is called boulevard press and tabloids reporting gossip of royal and showbiz celebrities are labeled rainbow press). ---Sluzzelin talk 14:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think of "yellow press" as being an American expression. In Britain we have the gutter press - the Sun, the Star, the Express. DuncanHill (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I once had a lecturer from England at university, and she was always puzzled by her students' use of the expression "yellow press", since she was not familiar with it... (if I remember correctly) -- 93.132.143.225 (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I've only ever seen "yellow press" mentioned online (I'm in the UK). --Tango (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard British people refer to "quality" papers, but I don't know a corresponding term for the other type. --Anonymous, 07:30 UTC, December 8, 2008.
How about "quantity"? :P —Tamfang (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like Tango suggests I believe the words have moved from being a mere description of the format/size of the paper and come to mean the actual 'style' of paper itself. The Times is still referred to as a broadsheet even though it's not printed in that format these days. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, tabloid says the etymology of the term is the other way round - "tabloid" originally meant a small, compressed pill, and was applied to the abbreviated, less detailed style of journalism in certain newspapers before they adopted a smaller paper format. Then it became, by association (or maybe post-rationalisation) a term for the smaller paper format itself. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian media section seems to divide papers into "popular", "mid-market", and "quality", at least in more formal coverage.[1][2][3], although the "popular" Star sells fewer copies than the "quality" Telegraph[4]. Mass-market is another term, often used in contrast to mid-market tabloids (Daily Mail,Daily Express) as well as to quality/broadsheet titles.[5] Note that although the Independent and the Sun are the same size, the former size is called "compact" and the latter "tabloid". --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The terms you're looking for are newspapers and fish wraps. Both are, of course, the latter on the second day but only one starts out that way. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've eaten a lot of fish from a lot of different places and never seen any still wrapped in old newspaper. I would have thought someone from health and safety would have banned it, doesn't the ink on newspapers stain anything that touches it? 148.197.114.165 (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Leader of the Opposition and Ghanaian Leader of the Opposition

So over at Wikipedia: Requested articles/Social sciences#Topics I have managed to redirect every request to an appropriate page, write the article, or delete the requests as non notable except for two requests: Leader of the Opposition (Ghana) and Leader of the Opposition (Israel). I have a strong feeling that neither the Ghanaian parliament nor the Israeli Knesset have Leaders of the Opposition.

A Leader of the Opposition is 'a title traditionally held by the leader of the largest party not in government in a Westminster System of parliamentary government', the Westminster system being the parliamentary system used in the UK. I believe neither Ghana nor Israel was ever colonized by the UK, so I'd strongly suspect that neither country uses the Westminster system, and consequently has no Leader of the Opposition. My belief was further reinforced by these two articles: Politics of Ghana and Politics of Israel, neither of which mentions any 'Leader of the Opposition'.

Tl;dr: I'm not familiar with Ghanaian politics, and only have a vague grasp of Israeli politics. I was just wondering if anybody could confirm for me that neither Ghana nor Israel has an official title of 'Leader of the Opposition'. Thanks! Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 17:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana was colonized by Britain (as the Gold Coast), and was the first of our African colonies to achieve independence. Our article Politics of Ghana has some information about her parliamentary system. Israel was not colonized (as such) by Britain, but was governed by Britain under a League of Nations mandate. DuncanHill (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[hadn't yet seen Duncan's answer:] Without being able to answer your question--what do you mean by saying Ghana was never colonized by the British? It was at some point a British colony. Where do you draw the difference? --Ibn Battuta (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I assumed Ghana was colonized by the French, being in West Africa. The Politics of Ghana article still doesn't mention a Leader of the Opposition. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 18:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the article, it appears that they have a "Majority leader" and a "Minority leader" - I am unclear as to the division of powers between the President and parliament, it appears to be a mixture of a presidential system of government and a broadly Westminster-based parliament. Do we have any experts of Ghanaian political affairs? DuncanHill (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's what I was wondering. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 20:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the leader of the largest party outside of the governing coalition in the Knesset is referred to as leader of the opposition in the press, although I don't know if this is an official title as in the UK. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that s/he was referred to as the 'opposition leader', which I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) is different. Hmm, wait a second. Benjamin Netanyahu, current opposition leader, is referenced as 'Leader of the Opposition' as his current office. Of course, that still could be an unofficial title, which I believe it is. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 21:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Knesset website calls Netanyahu "Chairman of the Opposition". Go to [6] and click on "Knesset activities". DuncanHill (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(after two ecs) From what I gather, Ghana's system is a hybrid of the UK and US systems. There is an elected house, per Westminster style, with spokespeople on different issues both for the governing and opposition parties. At the time of the election, each party chooses a candidate to run for President, per US style. Whether the losing candidate can be considered formally as a "leader of the opposition", I'm unsure - "minority leader" might well be a more appropriate term. (Note - this information is not from an expert on Ghanaian politics - things have changed dramatically from when my father worked in the country (and met Kwame Nkrumah) in the 1960s) Grutness...wha? 22:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The website of the Parliament of Ghana refers to a "Majority leader" and a "Minority leader", with (as far as I can see so far) no mention of a "Leader of the Opposition". See [7]. DuncanHill (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So can we agree that Ghana has no Leader of the Opposition but Israel might? I have found three links on the Knesset's website that mention a Leader of the Opposition, but three links isn't many, and (once again) may just be an unofficial term: [8], [9], [10]. A google news search for israeli "leader of the opposition" returns fewer than 3000 results. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 23:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israelis comparing Jews to anti-semits

The recent clashes between Israeli settlers and Palestinians about a house in Hebron have led prominent Israeli politicians to compare the violence of some Israeli settlers (shooting at what was described as innocent Palestinians) to pogroms.

The term "pogrom", at least in English, is closely linked to anti-semitism, possibly even "especially" to the Nazis (?). Is the same true in Hebrew? And if so, is this the first time that prominent Israelis compare Jews/Israelis to anti-semits? --Ibn Battuta (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the word has been adopted verbatim into contemporary Hebrew. Its correct or generalized usage is as I've noted below. Instances in Israel of Jews charging other Jews with "antisemitic" or "Nazi" behavior may be an expression by Jewish nationalist settlers being evicted from outpost settlements in the West Bank by Israeli security forces and by opponents to the Gaza Strip evacuations of the 2005 disengagement plan, that involved the destruction of property though not necessarily at the time of the evacuations. -- Deborahjay (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pogrom as a term, as I generally understand it, invokes more of Russia than it does the Holocaust. It's a crude form of mass violence, not a sophisticated form of state violence. As I generally understand it (knowing that there were pogroms elsewhere, including Nazi Germany, although the numbers are quite paltry compared with the camps). But it is still anti-semitic in nature, of course. --140.247.10.42 (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This BBC story gives some context to the use of the term. Grutness...wha? 21:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The most common contexts for the word "pogrom" are, as noted above, in Czarist Russia and the Kristallnacht pogrom, hence the association with antisemitism. The characteristics of a "pogrom" are twofold: (a) acts of mob violence against persons and property, perpetrated against a minority group, and (b) slow or minimal response by the state's security forces with minimal or no consequences to the perpetrators. Otherwise, generalized applications of this rather inflammatory term are likely to be demagogic. -- Deborahjay (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all very interesting. That being said (and meant!), my initial question was about the use of the word by prominent Israelis. I take it from the BBC article (thanks!) that at least Olmert himself 1.) used it in a very reflected way, and 2.) had used it before for Jewish Israeli violence against Palestinians. (I guess he doesn't define it as requiring "slow or minimal response by the state's security forces with minimal or no consequences to the perpetrators," at least not as in "the police and the state were approving of the pogrom.") --Ibn Battuta (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That "second condition" (b, above) comes from my own understanding of the word and isn't necessarily supported by lexical sources, certainly not by the page in its present form. I believe the targeting of a (racial or religious) minority plus a tardy and/or disproportionately mild response by the authorities is what distinguishes a pogrom from a race riot. THe word in use may reveal more about the speaker's or writer's mindset than a dictionary would endorse. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have other prominent Israelis used the word before? --Ibn Battuta (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely, and I too would be interested in reading of other instances. Please note that this remark of Olmert's is one of a series of strikingly leftish public pronouncements by the lame-duck, discredited prime minister, leaving office under a heavy cloud of criminal charges related to the abuse of power, as his and other parties scramble for position towards the upcoming national elections. Caveat lector! -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German newspaper Spiegel reports that Daniel Friedmann used the term pogrom for the Hebron incidents two days before Olmert. And yes, it's an interesting leftist approach--I would have thought they'd try to (re-?)establish themselves more at the political center, but well... Or maybe Olmert did listen to Haaretz, which suggests half ironically, half polemically that he should learn more from George W. Bush... ;o) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC) PS: Do you know if Awoda politicians have used the term as well? Or anyone else for that matter?[reply]

Cost of woman

How much does a wife cost in Afghanistan?--88.27.179.64 (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? It depends on the woman, the family she is from, distance between there and the family she is moving to, the husband, etc... Your question is as unanswerable as asking "How much does a painting cost?" -- kainaw™ 22:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read bride price.--Shantavira|feed me 09:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foucault's Des espaces autres

In his 1967 essay Des espaces autres (available online, here's the French original and the English translation), Foucault talks about the changing concept of space and makes a passing mention of changes in our conception of space caused by (then) recent developments in information technology. Having studied philosophy and working as a sysadmin, I am in the lucky position to know both sides of the story, but I still find some details of what exactly Foucault is saying a bit hard to grasp. The passage in question goes as follows:

L'emplacement est défini par les relations de voisinage entre points ou éléments; formellement, on peut les décrire comme des séries, des arbres, des treillis. D'autre part, on sait l'importance des problèmes d'emplacement dans la technique contemporaine : stockage de l'information ou des résultats partiels d'un calcul dans la mémoire d'une machine, circulation d'éléments discrets, à sortie aléatoire (comme tout simplement les automobiles ou après tout les sons sur une ligne téléphonique), repérage d'éléments, marqués ou codés, à l'intérieur d'un ensemble qui est soit réparti au hasard, soit classé dans un classement univoque, soit classé selon un classement plurivoque, etc.

The English translation is easy enough to follow, although I think it is quite oversimplifying:

The site is defined by relations of proximity between points or elements; formally, we can describe these relations as series, trees, or grids. Moreover, the importance of the site as a problem in contemporary technical work is well known: the storage of data or of the intermediate results of a calculation in the memory of a machine, the circulation of discrete elements with a random output (automobile traffic is a simple case, or indeed the sounds on a telephone line); the identification of marked or coded elements inside a set that may be randomly distributed, or may be arranged according to single or to multiple classifications.

Now, here are my questions:

  • I can understand what is meant by series, trees and grids (at least I hope so), but I'd like to know whether serie, arbre and treillis in French are technical terms used in mathematics or informatics, and if so, what exactly they mean as technical terms.
  • I don't quite get why Foucault speaks of aleatoric/random output in the context of computing - shouldn't one assume that the defining element of information processing by computers is that it is strictly deterministic? The examples of cars and phone conversations don't really explain to me what Foucault is on about here.
  • What about classement univoque and plurivoque? I think I understand what Foucault means, but from what I know these terms are not common in French. Do they have a specific technical meaning (or did they have a specific meaning in 1960s computing)?
  • My last question goes a bit beyond mere understanding difficulties: has there been any larger debate in 1960s France (or, out of general curiosity, at any later time) about changes in conceptions of space (and changes in our conception of meaning) in relation to computing technology? More to the point, is Foucault's essay in that regard part of a larger debate about this? I am well aware that outside of narrow technical fields (computer linguistics comes to mind, but that's about it) there is little to no interaction between philosophy and informatics (computer people usually thinking philosophy is a waste of time, philosophers only rarely knowing what they talk about regarding information technology), but I'd be very interested to learn about any such debate. I'm not really asking about the usual and (in my opinion) rather useless fluffle about virtual realities and stuff, I'm more interested in a semiotics perspective.

I was a bit unsure whether to post these questions on the language, computing or humanities desk as they seem to fall somewhere in the middle; if you think the questions are on the wrong desk, feel free to move. As always, many thanks for your comments. -- Ferkelparade π 20:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emplacement is a key and difficult term in the text. The translation "site" does not really do justice to it, as it carries a dynamic sense of "the act of placing". Of course "site" in the sense of "website" was not a possible meaning in 1967. I wonder what books on cybernetics Foucault could have read at that date. The reference to a telephone line makes me wonder whether there is some reference to Shannon's information theory. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like emplacement here means 'arrangement', but could it also mean 'setting'? —Tamfang (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is from 1958, but still kind of interesting:
D'une façon générale les mots français se situent généralement à un niveau d'abstraction supérieur à celui des mots anglais correspondants. ... nous disposons de termes commes "alignment", "étagement", "jalonnement", "déroulement", superposition", "filière" [, "échelonnement"] dont les dictionnaires bilingues ne fournissent pas d'équivalents satisfaisants. -- "Stylistique comparée du français et de l'anglais" ISBN 2-278-00894-3
AnonMoos (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aléatoire does not exactly mean random. It means subject to chance, alea being the Latin for dice ISTR. So I think that Foucault may indeed have been thinking of Claude Shannon's work on signals and noise. From our article Shannon's ideas were made available to a wider public by John Robinson Pierce. If you can find French editions of these books they may use the terms that Foucault picked up. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer some of you questions:

  • "série", "arbre" and "treillis" are indeed technical terms describing different ways of representing data sets. In a "série", A leads to B which leads to C etc, in a direct line. An "arbre" would have A leading to either B or C, then B leading to either D or E and C leading to F or G, etc; if you graph this out, it looks like a tree, with the A to B being the trunk, and the next levels looking like branches. In a "treillis", the various points can be linked in all sort of different ways, with some lines crossing over one another; when graphed, this looks like a network.
  • "Classement univoque" would be a system of classification based on a single criteria (e.g. a list of persons in alphabetical order); "classement plurivoque" would use a number of criteria (e.g. a list of persons that can be sorted by date of birth, height or test score).
  • Foucault was very much a pioneer in his thinking and writing, and I would not be surprised if he was one of the first French authors to write about changing concepcions of space because of the development of information technology. I'm not aware of this being a wide subject of debate in the 1960s. However, Saint-Exupéry, for one, had written in the 1930s about how the airplane had changed perceptions of space ("avec l'avion, nous redécouvrons la ligne droite"), so Foucault may have been furthering this line of thought to a new technology. --Xuxl (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

describing music

I'm not too keen on musical terms. I'm trying to describe the music in this video in terms other than "ominous" and "booming" and etc. Any suggestions? Technical terms would be fine, as would allusions to other artists (the score is original). Any suggestions would be appreciated. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Words like "dramatic", "urgent" and "apocalyptic" came to me. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hear echoes of Alexander Nevsky (Prokofiev). —Tamfang (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I second the Alexander Nevsky allusion: there are several, including the very opening, and they're quite direct. (I almost expected an alto solo to begin "The Field of the Dead" during the footage of the bombed city.) In addition I heard a pretty direct allusion to Carmina Burana (Orff). There is another allusion that is a little less direct: the very opening, already reminiscent of Prokofieff, recalls Benjamin Britten's Peter Grimes -- the texture, the orchestration, and even the key (A minor), though it stops just before the clarinets bubble out of the mud with their figures in thirds. Antandrus (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The opening reminded me more of Lieutenant Kije Suite (of all things!), also by Prokofiev. —Tamfang (talk) 07:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a problem associated with the Philosophy of Music. Can music really represent anything at all (particularly in the way that a painting can)? Llamabr (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Igor Stravinsky said "Music is powerless to express anything", and he would know, having written The Rite of Spring, which famously caused a riot at its premiere. It's our brains that associate certain music with certain emotions, and that has to do with a lot of prior conditioning from our histories - it's not the music itself that makes us do that. If the Paris audience had been populated by one-year old toddlers, they probably wouldn't have rioted. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So music is analogous to language. —Tamfang (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At one point is a student association [in a state of existence]

If I am trying to found a new student association and have arranged a first meeting, advertised by several means to the student body, when does the association begin to exist? Should the first order of business at the first meeting have anything to do with declaring the existence or voting on whether or not it should be formed? Since I've already had meetings with an external body (complete with recorded minutes), does the student association already exist? ----Seans Potato Business 23:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That will depend on how things work in your university/college/school. At my university new societies are formed by proposing a motion at a JCR meeting, the society exists when that motion passes. --Tango (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing to do when setting up a new organization is to draft its bylaws. It then comes into existence when the first meeting under those bylaws is called to order. In my humble opinion. —Tamfang (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a sub-organisation of an existing organisation (the student body), then it may not need its own bylaws - having a constitution is optional for societies at my uni (it's often quite important for large socs, but the smaller ones rarely bother). --Tango (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At my university a student organization is formed simply when the appropriate paperwork has been submitted (documenting a minimum number of member and a regular meeting time), and it has been approved with the appropriate university official. It’s different at every school. However, I can say from experience that unless it is required by student policy you should never take any vote on whether a group actually “exists.” People as a rule can be assumed to be apathetic. If you want to get things done the best way is just to lead. They will follow and be glad they don’t have to make any decisions. :) A group is really formed when the allusion of a group is created, then it comes into being in truth. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At my last university, I think you only needed at least three students to sign a form to be submitted by the group's organizer to the student government. (However, if you actually wanted money, then that was quite a different matter...) AnonMoos (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If your association is attached to or a sub-organisation of a larger organisation, such as the student union or association or council or guild (etc), then its formation will be governed by the rules of that organisation.
Otherwise, your association will be governed by the law of the land. In most common law countries, you would have the choice to incorporate your entity or not. The requirements for formation (if any) and legal status of the association will vary widely between jurisdictions, and you should probably seek advice from a lawyer with expertise in that area. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


December 8

Canada's military after WWII

This conversation took place in my history class about half a year ago:

Teacher: At the end of World War II, Canada had the third largest navy and fourth largest air force in the world. Student 1 (surprised): Really? Student 2: Well yeah, because everyone else is dead. Teacher: There you go.

Is this accurate? --99.237.96.81 (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda, sorta, not really. The economies of the United States and Canada both benefited immensely from WWII. I'm sure someone here can explain exactly how and why; I'll just summarize and say that all-out war efforts can make your country incredibly productive when you're not getting bombs dropped on your head every five minutes. While Europe was in the process of getting demolished, North America was sitting pretty, with a massive workforce, endless resources, and governments which had been recently strengthened in response to the Great Depression. And both the US and Canada responded by kicking themselves into high gear. That meant producing both war supplies and basic necessities for their civilians, their armies, their allies' civilians, and their allies' armies. And they weren't giving that stuff away for free. By the time the war ended, the United States and Canada were the two wealthiest nations in the world (here's a source, if you're concerned). Sure, there was less competition for that title in 1945 than there was in 1938, but you can't minimize the unprecedented economic boom that took place during the war.
As for the third largest navy and fourth largest air force: I don't know about that statistic specifically, but, as stated above, production of planes, ships, etc, was happening in North America on a large scale. Canada, despite its land area, is a small country, so it is indeed fairly absurd to think of Canada having the third largest navy in the world. But Canada also joined the war right at the beginning, in 1939, years before the US, so that's six full years of war effort. Canada was putting its military to use, but was presumably able to replace lost equipment more easily than the beleaguered nations of Europe (or Asia). Much of the country's air force was also used for training rather than combat, since Canada was home base for the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan.
In summary, yes, the wholesale destruction of many powerful nations during World War II made other countries look good by comparison. But Canada wasn't just some disinterested, neutral nation sitting around eating poutine until, one day, a telegram arrived reading "Hey u has teh 3rd largest navy now! kthxbye." We (I'm assuming you're American) have a sacred tradition of turning everything pertaining to Canada into a one-liner, but, as usual, there's more to it than that. See also: Military history of Canada during the Second World War, Canada in the World Wars and Interwar Years, History of Canada (1945-1960)--Fullobeans (talk) 07:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about their air force, but if they had that large of a navy it was because they borrowed ships from the Royal Navy. :) If I remember right, I think that they borrowed one or two light carrier(s) off of them and a class of destroyers (the Tribal class maybe? I forget). —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 07:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the chart:

Otolemur I believe you have overlooked the "At the end of World War II" part. Flamarande (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the WHOIS for the IP indicates that our questioner is Canadian...As far as this goes, I must say I'm surprised: the Royal Canadian Navy says that they were the fourth largest navy and third largest Allied navy during the war; I'm assuming that this includes the Imperial Japanese Navy in the top three, and it definitely wasn't very strong by the end of the war, so I guess this official site supports the IP's claim. As far as air force: I don't know where to find that, so I can't comment. Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, per this, "Australia had the fourth-largest air force in the Western world at the end of WWII". Since Canada is also in the Western world, Canadian Air Force was certainly not larger than Royal Australian Air Force at the end of World War II. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that "largest" could be interpreted many ways. It could mean total number, which would tend to favor many small planes and ships, or it could mean total tonnage, which would favor larger planes and ships, or it could mean the total price, which would favor expensive planes and ships. It also may, or may not, include non-combat planes and ships (such as supply ships), leased ships, ships captured from the enemy, confiscated from civilian uses, etc. StuRat (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give an overview, the number of aircrafts the four largest air forces in present day world have are shown below:

So according to this list, in term of the number of aircrafts, People's Liberation Army Air Force will be the second largest air force and Russian Air Force will be the third largest air force (because the figure in Russian Air Force includes both combat and non-combat aircrafts).

Now comes the question of technology. USAF has

Russian Air Force has:

People's Liberation Army Air Force has:

Indian Air Force has:

Note: The above figures may not be completely accurate and may vary from sources.

A quick overview of the data shows China and India are the only two countries which still maintain second generation aircraft Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 or its clone. USAF has the largest number of 4.5 generation aircraft i.e. 2542 4.5 generation aircrafts, Russia has 381 4.5 generation aircrafts, China has 450 4.5 generation aircrafts and India has 136 4.5. generation aircrafts. This suggests China has more 4.5 generation aircrafts than Russia. Till date the United States is the only country to maintain 5th generation fighter, however Russia, China and India all are developing their own 5th generation fighters. In case of Russia it is Sukhoi PAK FA and Sukhoi/HAL FGFA (both are in collaboration with India), China is developing J-XX and India is developing Medium Combat Aircraft.

Regarding the question at the end of WWII, Royal Australian Air Force had 5,500 aircrafts at the end of the war [23]. I do not know the number of aircrafts Royal Canadian Air Force had at the end of WWII. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To get back to the RCAF in the World War II timeframe, let's consider the state of militaries as of Sept 1945:
  • Germany and Japan have, effectively, no air forces (as having just surrendered)
  • Italy is less clear but likely has nothing
  • France is just re-establishing as a functional entity
  • China hasn't had a significant air presence of its own
  • The US, UK, and USSR are the big winners. These are undoubtedly the big three air forces
  • Canada and Australia are the next likely possessors of modern air forces. Canada's Air Force site supports the 4th largest claim with 80 squadrons operational, and it's an entirely reasonable claim. While the RAAF doesn't have a total squadron count that I can find, it does note about 2/3 the personnel of the Canadians and 20 squadrons in its major operational formation.
So yeah, 4th largest is entirely reasonable, but only because we've scratched Germany and Japan from the list. — Lomn 19:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very sad once world's "fourth largest" air force now maintains only 138 combat jet fighters. You could not find the total number of aircrafts of the Royal Canadian Air Force had at the end of WWII. This reference clearly states Royal Australian Air Force had 5,500 aircrafts at the end of the war. RCAF had 80 squadrons, so if we take there were 24 aircrafts in each squadron, then the total number of aircrafts RCAF had should be 1,920. This is far less than 5,500 aircrafts of the RAAF. So RCAF was certainly not fourth largest, it was RAAF (probably after US, USSR and UK). Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, the website of the RAAF clearly states it was the fourth largest air force at the end of WWII [24]. Problem resolved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, quite possibly the USSR and RCAF were close with the RCAF in front by a bit - the USSR's air force was hit hard by the German invasion. All pure speculation though. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that after a bunch of apples-to-oranges comparisons, one standalone reference clearly trumps another, resolving the problem. Er, that only works if you're attempting to satisfy an answer you want to find. In particular, your declaration of "number of aircrafts RCAF had should be 1,920" -- the "80 squadrons" notes that it considers only front-line service, a distinction not made by your RAAF totals. Elsewhere numbers support some 5000 aircraft produced domestically for the RCAF (16000 produced, approx ~30% for domestic contract). That number further ignores imported aircraft such as the P-40 and P-51 which heavily equipped Canadian squadrons. Additionally, the RCAF's commonwealth-wide BCATP training program supports the notion of a larger-than-expected support aircraft count (addendum: the BCATP required over 10000 aircraft). Barring a good referenced number, then, it seems fair to say that the relative size of the RAAF and RCAF, in terms of aircraft count, is far from clear. If relative size is considered by personnel, the RCAF held a decisive edge. — Lomn 14:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are some examples of Marxist/Radical factions within mass Social Democratic Parties?

What are some examples of Marxist/Radical factions within mass Social Democratic Parties? For example the Leninist and Trotksyist factions within the Workers Party of Brazil or the various Marxist tendencies within the UK Labour Party.--Gary123 (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The links on the List of social democratic parties should give you plenty of reading matter. To speed your searching, try <control+F> on each page for the terms you're seeking (e.g. radical). -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Entryism should also prove useful. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Militant Tendency in the British Labour Party. DuncanHill (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral stain / ink

Does anybody know where I could obtain this? In the UK, preferably. Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per this, I.D. Technologies manufactures election ink and ships their products anywhere in the world. I also found this, Lantrade Global Supplies Ltd (LGS) "provides professional solutions for all aspects of the electoral process" [25] and LGS is based in Buckinghamshire. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antiretrovirals - Cost structure and demand

What is the typical cost structure of antiretroviral (triple therapy ARV) drugs (generic, free of royalties in a TRIPS non ratified country)? What EBITDA margin is typical for producers? Also, what is the market demand estimate for these in Sub Saharan Africa and South Asia? At what profitability does the current marginal producer operate? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.43.14.101 (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds suspiciously like homework...Nyttend (talk) 13:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me its not - Its an investment case I was looking at. 199.43.13.100 (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So - Any one who can shed some light on this? Thanks 90.192.160.235 (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Ahmed

Does this mean he will be excluded from the House of Lords? Kittybrewster ☎ 18:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you suggesting by "excluded"? Does this mean expulsion? There is incident where a person convicted of a serious crime was expelled from the House of Lords. I have very little knowledge on UK constitution, so I cannot say the same will be applied here or not. I do not know if there is any law by which anyone convicted of criminal offense will be expelled from the House of Lords. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that plan never actually materialised. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Parliament could pretty much do whatever they want. They could kick him out, or they could let him stay. It is entirely up to them. Britain has no written constitution which outlines how Parliament is to act in these situations. Any action they take will be based solely on tradition and political expediency. See also elective dictatorship for more on parliament's absolute power. The question WRT Parliament is always "will they..." not "could they". Given the way the British system works, they ALWAYS "could"... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. From the Qualifications section in our House of Lords article: "an individual serving a prison sentence for an offence other than high treason is not automatically disqualified". Gandalf61 (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Financial crisis in Britain

Were there any big financial crisis in Britain in the 18th/19th Centuries? Was the upper-middle class (eg: Darcy-Pride and Prejudice or Knightley-Emma types) very affected by them? Thanks for any info. - --AlexSuricata (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Darcy was a great landowner so would not have been greatly effected by a purely financial crisis. There was an agricultural depression in Britain in the late 1870s. British landed estates could not compete with the giant prairie farms of North America (who exported vast quantities of cheap corn), but the re-introduction of the Corn Laws was rejected by Beaconsfield's Conservative government and British agriculture declined significantly.--Johnbull (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful how you present that arguement, regarding connection between the Corn Laws and the state of agriculture, see post hoc ergo propter hoc. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was the Panic of 1890. DuncanHill (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
South Sea Bubble, List of stock market crashes, Railway Mania-Arch dude (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Panic of 1873 initiated the Long Depression, which coincided in the UK with an agricultural depression. Marco polo (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't there also a crisis associated with canal building, once railroads took over? I can't find an article about it if there was one. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there was a gradual decline in the use of canals rather than a crisis - major canal engineering projects were still being undertaken between 1850 and 1900, including the Manchester Ship Canal, Foxton inclined plane and the Anderton boat lift. See History of the British canal system. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a series of banking collapses, one of them fictionalized in Ken Follett's novel A Dangerous Fortune (not one of his best but still pretty readable). 67.122.210.149 (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The book Mary Poppins, while set in the early 20th century, had a scene where a boy causes a run on the bank by demanding his two pence back. The only way this could happen is if the public was nervous about bank failures, after having suffered through many of them. This gives some insight into the zeitgeist of England at the time. StuRat (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on Overend, Gurney and Company, known as “the bankers’ bank” and its 1866 collapse (₤11 million loss in currency of the day), which led to 200 companies or banks failing; and the Panic of 1825, a UK stock market crash arising out of speculation in Latin America (score: 66 banks to nil). DOR (HK) (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read somewhere that there was a very serious financial disaster during the time of the wars against Napoleon, at the very begining of the 19th century. I'll see if I can find where I got that from to check the details. 148.197.114.165 (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese Civil War

When Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter were presidents of U.S., what were their roles in the Lebanese Civil War? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.246 (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well they were too busy being president to participate I guess. This sounds like a homework question. Exxolon (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't sound like a homework question to me, unless the teacher is quite uninformed. The Lebanese Civil War did not begin until 1975. Richard Nixon had already resigned as president almost a year earlier. So the conflict began during the presidency of Gerald Ford, who seems to have had little role in the conflict, although his administration voiced opposition to outside intervention by Syria or Israel, according to this document. Jimmy Carter likewise opposed the intervention of both Syria (according to this document) and Israel in the Lebanese conflict. When Carter was president, the United States voted in favor of United Nations Security Council Resolution 425, calling for an immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon. Carter supported a negotiated solution to the Lebanese conflict and was sympathetic to the desire of Lebanon's indigenous Christians and Muslims to end the aggression of Palestinian forces operating out of refugee camps in Lebanon. Marco polo (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Camp David Accords might provide additional context to President Carter's efforts in the Middle East. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


December 9

2008 Financial Crisis

I've been spending a lot of time lately thinking about the role of 'asset-shifting' and 'off-balance sheet' arrangements used by regulated banks during the last 6-7 years, as a primary cause of the 2008 Financial Crisis. CDOs in particular, allow banks that face strict capital requirements to bolster their balance sheets and (improve equity ratios) by removing risky assets.

It's pretty obvious that combining 1) low short-term interest rates, 2) government-driven demand (fannie, freddie, deductibility of mortgage payments) and 3) a generally stock market-averse regular public (that chose to invest more heavily in real estate) we can partially explain the real-estate bull run.

It's also a pretty well-established fact that a banking system, unregulated, has a natural tendency to over-lever, unregulated (I suggest that this tendency comes from moral hazard created when banks have the knowledge that the Fed will intervene during periods of weaker economic growth. It really doesn't matter where it comes from in order to support my eventual argument, as long as it exists.)

I'd like to further suggest that the ease with which regulated financial institutions could collateralize and transfer loan assets to unregulated institutions (the investment banks or insurance funds, for example) was complicit in the price run-up. The ability to avoid capital requirements by selling assets allowed the financial sector to keep lending and lending until they reached the bottom of the "credit" barrel.

I'm looking for discussions, perspectives or data that examines the role of the Fed, as an "ensurer of full employment" in monitoring leverage ratios, not only amongst the regulated institutions, but within the financial sector as a whole. Has there ever been an explicit discussion of this responsibility as a means of protecting credit markets generally? Have their been any well-known financial writers that have made a similar claim recently?

[I think you can see where I'm going with this. I blame the regulatory framework entirely for this explosion. From my point of view, a Fed that monitors and enforces leverage ratios at regulated banks, but not with other financial institutions is no longer protecting society; it's only protecting the depositors of those banks.]NByz (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably familiar with the many Paul Krugman columns saying similar things. UC Berkeley economist Brad DeLong's blog (delong.typepad.com) might also be of interest to you. 67.122.210.149 (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fed is primarily responsible for sound money, not employment. Hence, the old saw about "taking away the punch bowl just as the party's getting started" -- raising interest rates and driving the economy into recession (thus increasing unemployment) for the purpose of reducing inflation and thereby defending the value of the dollar. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the role of Yoga in the new millennium ?

role of yoga in the new millennium

Wait, what are you asking...? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yoga will allow self-righteous new-wave hipsters to feel a greater "spirituality" by participating in something they don't really understand, except that its kinda "eastern" and "exotic" and will make them feel superior to their "less enlightened" fellow westerners who don't practice it. So, basically, its role will be identical to its role in the old millenium. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yoga is a superstition like many other Hindu superstitions. Advocates of yoga claim through yoga one can "overcome the illusory temptations of sensual existence, discover one’s true self and eventually, after a number of reincarnations, attain nirvana, a state of ecstatic union with the godhead" [26]. So you can see the goal of yoga is nirvana through reincarnation, which is an unscientific belief. Regarding the role of yoga in the 21th century, I will say the only role of yoga will be to help flourish the growing spiritual industry all over the world, the latest manifestation of which is Swami Ramdev. The spiritual industry will advertise, people will be fooled, they will expend money to learn yoga, will buy books and CDs on it, thus yoga will be a good raw material for the booming spiritual industry. You can also read this reference. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is a bit harsh, and not entirely correct. There is an ancient form of yaga, Hatha yoga, which is practiced entirely for physical training, particularly to prepare the body for strenuous meditation. --S.dedalus (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To bolster sales of lululemon. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval dress of royal women in the Middle East

How did royal women in the Middle East dress in medieval times? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikramkr (talk • contribs) 05:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Click http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/171379/dress/14021/The-Middle-East-from-the-6th-century. See "The history of Middle Eastern and Western dress » The Middle East from the 6th century" section. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One thing you should remember is that traditionally consorts of middle-eastern Muslim rulers did not have any kind of publicly-visible queen role, but were generally kept strictly secluded from public view. In Ottoman times, the only high-ranking woman who had even a very limited role in official public ceremonies was the mother of the reigning sultan, who would occasionally decorously appear (heavily veiled) on a remote balcony overlooking the men far below, and be acknowledged... AnonMoos (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help! Would you happen to know of some websites that have information about this topic? I'm writing a paper and am trying to find a quote from an academic source that gives insight regarding how women of royal stature, in the Middle East, would dress. So, I basically need some evidence that they would dress conservatively. Vikramkr (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not medieval but for Ottoman times at their peak, there's a contemporary painting of Roxelana wife of Suleiman the Magnificent. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For other high-ranking women try Shajar al-Durr, Sitt al-Mulk, Ismat ad-Din Khatun...I thought there was a "Medieval Muslim woman" category but apparently not. (The only one for whom there is any worthwhile info is Shajar al-Durr, though.) Adam Bishop (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Local Elections in Nazareth

I know that Israel have had local elections in November this year. Can anyone tell me who got voted in as Mayor of Nazareth? There doesn't seem to be an easy source for this information on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.11.162 (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article for Nazareth, it's Ramiz Jaraisy, but it's probably out of date. Vltava 68 09:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jaraisy was re-elected, see http://www.ulai.org.il/Info%20about%20outcome%20of%20elections-16.11.08.pdf . --Soman (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient diagrams

There are two diagrams shown during the opening credits of Neon Genesis Evangelion, both with a mix of Hebrew and Latin writing. I've identified one as Athanasius Kircher's "Tree of Life", but what's the other (seen here)? --67.185.15.77 (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like just another version of the Sephirot (which is also what Kircher's "Tree of Life" is). Adam Bishop (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, looks like a version of the Tree of Life (Judeo-Christian). I do not think you should use a shounen manga - or anime - as a source of knowledge on the history of religion or philosophy, though. There are much better sources for that :) . Enjoy the manga for what it is, and search in the library for what it is not. --Dr Dima (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and these diagrams are definitely not "ancient", although the concept of a Tree of life is indeed very old ;) . --Dr Dima (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had a suspicion that it was a Tree of Life. Do you know whose version it is? --67.185.15.77 (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found it! Robert Fludd circa 1620. Enjoy. --Dr Dima (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama - Foreign born

Is there a chance that Obama is foreign born? If this is a urban legend, where does it come from? --Mr.K. (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there is a chance (although highly unlikely), but yes it is an urban legend. Check out the Snopes page on this topic.--droptone (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The supposed objections to Obama's qualifications lie in the misinterpretation of the definitions of "natural born". All persons born in the U.S. are natural born automatically, the qualifications on the parent exist for those sitations where a person is born outside of the U.S. Since Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, he's a natural-born American citizen regardless of the age of his mother when he was born, or that he lived for a few years in the Philipines because his step-father's job moved his family there. The claims against Obama's citizenship are particularly rediculous juxtaposed to the circumstances of John McCain's birth, given that McCain was born in Panama on a U.S. Military Base; and U.S. citizenship law does not include military bases as part of U.S. territory for the purpose of citizenship. However, McCain being born to at least one parent who was a citizen makes that point moot. Both candidates in this years election were clearly natural born citizens, and qualified to be president on all counts, despite the fact that neither was "Born in the U.S. to two parents who were U.S. citizens", which has never been the requirement for being a citizen at birth... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a chance that we're all just brains in vats, and no amount of evidence can make that chance go away. But if you're going to let evidence convince you of anything, it will surely convince you that Obama was born in Hawaii: he and his family say it's true, he has presented a birth certificate which Hawaiian officials have said is authentic, and outside organizations have found his birth announcement in a 1961 newspaper. If that's not enough, what is? I know I can't document my own birth with any more evidence than that. Can you? --Sean 13:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many people have less documentation of birth. I'm adopted, so my "official" birth certificate has been altered to show my adoptive parents as my birth parents (standard practice to keep adopted kids from easily finding out their family medical history). There was no birth announcement when I was born, but I was born in a hospital. I do know my biological father. His family didn't use hospitals, so they rarely got birth certificates. I found this out from the family story of my aunt Early. My grandfather wanted his daughter to have the first family birth certificate, so he sent a post to the hospital to get one. The doctor knew the family and sent the post back with a note to resend after the birth. My grandfather sent it back with the note "Baby born early." The doctor sent back a birth certificate with the name "Early" on it. -- kainaw™ 13:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Asking where an urban legend comes from is like asking why fools fall in love. You can try this mental exercise: how can you be sure you were born where you think you were? Although present at the occasion, you probably lack a clear memory of the events. How do you know the birth certificate is legitimate? In my home town, people relied for decades on baptismal certificates. I've seen a photocopy of the "application for the registration of a birth" for my aunt -- dated thirty years after the event. In the section explaining the applicant's "knowledge of the fact" and circumstances, my grandfather wrote: "I am her father and know the date of her birth." This not only proved Aunt Cassie's age but explained the family tendency toward procrastination. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course he was foreign born... At least to me and anyone else not in the USA. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"'Obama too British' case rejected". --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories ]... AnonMoos (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]



This urban legend is a product of the vast right-wing conspiracy, otherwise known as the GOP. These jokes are easily identifiable by (a) the total lack of any supporting evidence; (b) the total disregard of contradictory evidence, and (c ) the extremely fine thread linking some obscure point of fact to the lie in question. Although, I have to say that Q Chris makes an excellent point! DOR (HK) (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical knowledge of Americans

Is it true that 25% of the American population can't find their country on a map?--81.38.153.16 (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A) Probably not and B) If it is true, then replacing the word "Americans" with any other nationality will likely lead to similar percentages. Americans are celebrated for their stupidity, but they generally score in the same range as other nations. At certain tests, and in certain years, they score near the bottom of similar nations on certain measures of education, but not every year and not every test. The source of the "Americans are stupid" is probably due in large part to our desire to see Americans and the USA cut down to size for their strong position in the world economy and culture. It gives the rest of the world something to feel good about; "We may not have as strong of an economy or military, but at least we aren't as stupid as those dumb Americans". For the most part, Geography is a poor measure of general intelligence and education anyways. Generally, most geography (beyond maybe, reading a road map) is not useful for most people on a day-to-day basis. It is generally trivial knowledge to know random, unconnected facts about locations on the Earth. One could always argue that proper civic involvement would require some level geographic intelligence; however others have noted that all politics is local. In actuality, the American education system, especially its post-secondary (College and University system) is among the strongest in the world, else one would not see the huge numbers of non-Americans who come to the US just to study. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not true that 25% of the American population can't find their country on a map. The National Geographic-Roper Public Affairs 2006 Geographic Literacy Study found “Nearly all (94%) young Americans can find the United States on the world map" [27]. Here is the full report. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See page 26 of the report. You will find a graph which will answer to your query. Not only the US, 92% Americans can identify Canada also. But they have pitiful knowledge on Asia and Middle East. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And yes American education system is one of the "best" in the world, as Jayron32 suggested above, this is why the United States is the most religious country in the western world, this why most Americans believe in religion. World's "best" education system produces blind believers in nonsense like religion. Oh yes, some Americans also believe humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is certainly not limited to Americans... Adam Bishop (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to OC... that jingoism you display there shows a fantastic lack of understanding of the American culture and of religious belief both in America specifically and in general. As Adam Bishop notes, that some Americans use their religious belief to reject obvious scientific truths is not limited to Americans; and it does not describe even a majority of Americans. Yes, you can find people who hold such ludicrous positions, but that is merely an indictment on the stupidity of those individuals, and not on American culture as a whole. There is no inherent conflict between, say, evangelical Christianity as a belief system and science. There are many many scientists, even evolutionary biologists, who are themselves devoutly religious. I really suggest you read Rocks of Ages by Stephen J. Gould. It is an enlightening book on how science and religion can and should coexist in a fully developed society. Given that I assume OC is a free thinker, and willing to at least read the works of others, he/she may find that their understanding of the role of religion in people's lives is much different than it really is.... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Jingoism"? I think it is you who is displaying jingoism. I have strong objection to the process you estimate the American education system as the best in the world only because people from other countries go there. Russia and China have excellent educational infrastructure. Why people don't go to Russia? Because language is big barrier. My objection came when I saw you simply ignored big players like Russia or China to prove American superiority. Your claim "There is no inherent conflict between, say, evangelical Christianity as a belief system and science" is showing your utter lack of understanding of both religion and science. Religion is belief, science is based on Reasoning. China has the highest non-religious population in the world anyway. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS many students from other countries are now going to China [28]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will recommend you to read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Because when I read Dawkins, I found it a good read, but lacking on some levels. It certainly does a good job of explaining the "wrong" reasons for believing in God, but I think it does a poor job of completely explaining away religion's role in modern society. For example, it erroneously assumes that rejection of evolution and natural selection and its replacement with the "God made the world on a Thursday afternoon in 4004 BC" is somehow a "requirement" for religion. It is not now, nor has ever been. That there are individuals who are religious who hold that position does not somehow invalidate the religious beliefs of those individuals who do NOT hold that position. Dawkins is entirely on point with his notions that morality is not religiously derived, but (at least in connection to Christianity) the idea that you get into heaven because you are a "good" or "moral" person is also entirely a wrong. I, however, found that Dawkins almost single-minded focus on the evolution vs. intelligent design debate as a basis for rejecting all religious beliefs to be wholly inconsistant. He basically set up "religion" as a house of cards which is predicated entirely on evolution being false. This is such a narrow view of religion. The other main problem with Dawkins book is his notion that God must not exist because the universe is so complex, that a God who created a complex universe MUST be Himself so complex as to be impossible. To make that arguement is to make the same mistake that ID proponents make, but from the other direction. So, yes, Dawkins does a great job of explaining how religion is "done the wrong way" and how NOT to use religion to inform aspects of your life, however when he delves into the absolutes and says, essentialy, that because some people misuse religion it must therefore be invalid, that seems like a weak philosophical position to take. It displays a sort of gross "guilt by association" to say that because some people who are religious reject evolution, therefore ALL religious-minded people are somehow tainted. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to do with Dawkins, but I just felt compelled to point out that no one said the American education system is "the best in the world"; Jayron's words were "among the strongest in the world," which is hardly something to get worked up about. Now excuse me, I have to go bathe in snake oil and pet my dinosaur. --Fullobeans (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Just as a spin and quasi-response to Fullobeans, the US is still undisputed king for college level education. One set of rankings by a Spanish group shows the highest non-US university ranked at #25, a Chinese set shows 17 of the top 20 in the US, etc... Where the US falls flat is that it has a "first world second rate" primary and secondary education system. It has great offerings but fails to deliver consistent results. SDY (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This ranking - as the name indicates - only measures the web presence of the university, not the quality. It is not amazing that MIT fills the first place. What this university offers for free is amazing. On the other hand, I must point out that MIT is probably a terrible place for being an undergraduate. It looks more like a chicken farm than like a university. Mr.K. (talk) 09:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The figure 20% was used in a U.S. beauty pagent question, it was claimed that it was based upon a survey. Not clear on which the survey was, however. (see http://machinist.salon.com/blog/2007/08/30/upton/). In the 2002 version of the NatGeo report (the same as the 2006 version cited above), 13% of U.S. respondents couldn't find US on the map, and U.S. respondents fared far worse than many other countries. However, one should take any survey based upon hundreds of respondents with a fair degree of scepticism (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/). Some other commentary at http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1068259.html . --Soman (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an even more scary factoid: 40% of US congressional representatives and senators don't have a passport. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered that this is a goodwill gesture on the part of the U.S. toward other nations? --- OtherDave (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We in the (rest of the) English world forget how *big* America is. The US population is much larger than that of, say, Canada, Australia or the UK. A populous country tends to be inward looking, since a much larger proportion of its trade will be domestic, and it produces a sufficient quantity and variety of anything - be it culture, minerals or people - that there is much less need and desire to look outward. The historical factor that the Commonwealth was a global empire from which the US was increasingly excluded also has an effect.
It isn't appropriate to compare the geographical knowledge or congressmen-passport-holding-percentages of the US to what we are used to - i.e. similar statistics in the traditionally outward-looking Commonwealth countries.
It would be more appropriate, on the basis of the size of the population, the degree to which the economy is domestically driven, and other factors, to compare the US statistics to that of other "large" countries like China, Brazil, or India. I don't know whether we could obtain comparable statistics on those countries, but I trust the statistics quoted above would compare favourably, even taking into account the developing status of these countries. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
India and China are hell of a lot larger in terms of population then the US (over 3 times in the case of China, nearly 3 times in the case of India). Indonesia and Brazil are perhaps fairer comparisons although both are smaller Brazil is still more then half the population of the US Nil Einne (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Raid"?

News reports say Pakistani troops in a "raid" arrested Lashkar-e-Taiba "commander" Zaki ur Rehman Lakhvi, who is accused by Indian authorities for plotting November 2008 Mumbai attacks. I find it quite amusing that the leader of an organization, which is closely linked with the Inter-Services Intelligence (it is an open secret) and its leaders are allowed to freely operate in Pakistan, is "arrested" by Pakistani authorities. Is it really a "raid" or just window dressing? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Is yours a question, or some sort of cheap point scoring? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck you are talking about? My question is whether this raid is real or window dressing because it is well known fact in India that ISI is involved in organizations like LeT. If you don't know anything about this, then don't engage in this thread. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you reread your words you could be forgiven for mistaking it to be a statement of your assertion of the security service's involvement with the raided group, rather than a question. Indeed the question seems to me to be merely a McGuffin to get your opinion on this page. YMMV, of course. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a legit question to me. There have, indeed, been instances of the ISI supporting terrorists in Afghanistan, so it seems quite plausible that factions within the ISI also supported the terrorist attacks against India. StuRat (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are certainly a variety of factions in Pakistan. The situation is quite complicated there. Unless one of the Ref Desk volunteers happens to be part of the Pakistani government or the ISI (in which case they are unlikely to divulge it), we have no other source of evidence than the news reports. The news reports say that there was a raid. It may be that there was no raid, but we have no way of knowing this, so there is no way that we can answer your question with any assurance other than to say that the available evidence indicates that there was a raid. Marco polo (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The raid appears to have been carried out by the military not the ISI. As Marco has pointed out, the situation in Pakistan is incredibly complex. While it may be true that the ISI maintains links to the Lashkar-e-Taiba, something which remains unproven, this doesn't mean everyone in Pakistan has connections to Lashkar-e-Taiba. Actually even if elements of the ISI maintain links to Lashkar-e-Taiba it's likely there are also elements of the ISI which work against Lashkar-e-Taiba. It's a noted fact by many sources that the civilian government probably doesn't have complete control over ISI does and as the various military coups have shown, nor is the military always in agreement with the government. It is entirely plausible that the government and/or military may wish to crack down on Lashkar-e-Taiba even if (and again I emphasise it's unproven) the ISI maintains links with them. Most of the links you provided mention this to varying degrees so perhaps you may want to read them Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was the Peoples Temple a religious cult?

From the article I gather that the Peoples Temple wasn't religious. Surprisingly, I also found out that Jim Jones was an atheist. But when the group moved to Jonestown didn't they ever hold bible studies or didn't Jim Jones ever preach sermons? 124.171.215.119 (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the article lately, but it is my understanding they were very much a cult. Jones became mentally unraveled toward the end of his life, and he started as a Christian preacher, so I wonder if atheist would be an apt description of him near the end. I suppose the definition of cult is more important than religion in this instance. Pressure to join, stay, give time, money, and effort to the group and to Jones himself were all part of the Peoples Temple. Certainly the way it ended was one of the most powerful demonstrations of cult power and groupthink ever seen in human history. --Moni3 (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most definitions of "cult" suggest the term "cult" is only applicable in those situations where religion is involved, see Cult#Dictionary_definitions. However Merriam-Webster online dictionary has a definition of "cult" which states "great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad". On the other hand Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines cult as "a religious group, often living together, whose beliefs are considered extreme or strange by many people" [29]. If we take the definition of Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, then the Peoples Temple has nothing to do with cult. But if we take the definition of Merriam-Webster online dictionary, then the Peoples Temple was a cult organization. Some people describes the Peoples Temple as a cult [30][31] while some people dispute this claim [32]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the definition of Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary is more acceptable. Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines cult as "a system of religious devotion directed towards a particular figure or object > a relatively small religious group regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over members". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of cult is vague, since groups like Scientology and UFO-based organisations like Heaven's Gate (religious group) would fit most people's definitions, despite not being focussed on gods - although they do believe in higher beings than humans (actually in both cases extraterrestrial beings of immense but probably not infinite or supernatural powers). There are similar problems in defining religion; it's more a case of comparison between possible examples than matching an exact definition. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that Jim Jones practiced faith healing and called himself God, I should think that, yes, you could call the Peoples Temple a religious cult. Regarding the definition of "cult," though, I think "religious devotion" has a very different meaning from "religious group." If a group is religiously devoted to an individual, and that individual convinces the group to adopt militantly atheistic beliefs, then the group would then be an anti-religious group religiously devoted to its leader (and Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo). Since there seems to be an increasing number of controversial, non-religious "self-empowerment"-type organizations that frequently have the word "cult" thrown at them, I suspect the definition of the word is evolving.--Fullobeans (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has some quite contradictory meanings: when used in "this film/TV show/book has a cult following", it's a fairly benign, or even positive thing. A "cult" of the type we're discussing here is universally regarded negatively. I suppose you could write a book about a cult (-ve), that achieves a cult (+ve) following. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rome

I know this may like homework question but I am sorry because in our history textbook, it doesn't say anyhting about why Roman Republic fall(Ancient Rome). Does any of your articles say about why the Rome Republic fall and what were the reasons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.21 (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read this. I will also recommend you to read this book. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We do have articles on the Roman Republic and on the Roman Empire. Some helpful articles to understand more might be found in Constitution of the Roman Republic and History of the Constitution of the Roman Republic.
The classic understanding was that the Roman Republic ceased to exist in 27 AD with the ascension of Augustus Caesar and instantly became the Roman Empire on that date. The truth is that the Republic had been undergoing evolution, and the ascension of Augustus is merely a symbolic change; in reality the process of transformation of the Roman state from a republican one to a monarchical/dictatorial one took place over many centuries, and the rise of Augustus represents neither the beginning nor the end of that process. There were dictators and non-republican forms of government before Augustus, and there would continue to be a role for the Roman Senate for many centuries to come after Augustus.
The "big picture" issue on the change from Republic to Empire was probably its size. A republic was suited well to governing the Roman city-state during its early years. At the rise of Augustus, however, the state was already in direct control of lands as far apart as Palestine and Iberia in the east and west; and of Gaul and Libya in the north and south. The management of such a large empire became impossible to manage under a republican form of government.
As far as specific "pre-Augustus" events that were central in the change from Republic to Empire, look at the populist rule of the Gracchi brothers, the dictatorship of Sulla (especially his changes to the government of Rome), the First Triumvirate, the dictatorship of Julius Caesar and the Second Triumvirate. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paleolithic Age vs. Ancient Egypt, Ancient Sparta, Classical Athens, Roman Republic and Romam Empire

Do any of the articles say about the role and status of women? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.21 (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paleolithic: Read Paleolithic#Social_organization. According to evolutionary biologist Jared Diamond, status of women declined with the adoption of agriculture because women in farming societies typically have more pregnancies and are expected to do more demanding work then women in hunter-gatherer societies. [33]
Ancient Egypt: For the status of women in ancient Egypt, read these references [34][35][36].
Sparta: For status of women in Sparta read this and this.
Classical Athens: For status of women in Classical Athens, read this.
Roman Republic: For status of women in Roman Republic, read this.
Romam Empire: For status of women in Romam Empire, read this online book. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illicit Trade in Viagra

Would anyone know why spammers keep trying to sell me Viagra? It's legal (at least here in Canada and the US), so why would I want to buy it from them, and at higher price at that, when I can just get a prescription from my doctor?

Is it a matter of embarrassment? Guys too shy to tell their doctors they have erectile difficulties?

Or perhaps is it a matter of abuse? Guys taking it when they don't really need it, or shouldn't be for health reasons, or taking too much?

I just don't get it. 76.69.250.39 (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be legal, but the fact that it is heavily regulated (as a prescription drug) keeps availibility difficult and prices high. In such situations, even legal substances have a black market. There is still, for example, illegal moonshine stills and widespread bootlegging in the U.S. even though liquor is legal, and there is an active black market in cigarettes and other tobacco products. Being legal is not the same as being easy to get; I would say that it is both easier and cheaper for me to get a bag of pot than to go through the hoops to get legal viagra. Thus, the black market... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that there exist black markets for legal substances. A pack of 25 cigarettes here in Canada can cost over $10, however I happen to live nearby an Indian Reservation where you can buy a 200 for $6, or 75¢ for 25. But illegal Viagra is more expensive than getting it by prescription, not to mention the fact that you can never be sure what you're getting if you buy it on the black market. You'd have to be a real moron not to go the legal route for this substance. But there's no shortage of morons in this world, which I suppose is the answer to my question. 76.69.250.39 (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that people who are getting it illegally don't actually have the medical problem that Viagra is designed to treat so they couldn't get a prescription from their doctor. A strange distinction for what is in essence a recreational drug anyway, but it's only legal as a way to "level the playing field" rather than as a "performance enhancer." SDY (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, those people don't want a level playing field, but want to tilt it in their favor. StuRat (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do doctors test for impotence? Surely all they can do is take your word for it (I can only think of one way to test it and I can't see them trying that...). (Conceiving a child wouldn't generally be considered recreational [and least, not purely], so it could be argued that it isn't just a recreational drug.) --Tango (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Impotence can lead to depression, so treating the impotence may prevent the depression. Not a recreational drug. DuncanHill (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not purely recreational, no, but I think most of the ads are targeted towards people who have things in mind other than procreation or treatment of unhappiness. "It" doesn't work, and they want it fixed, so the pill does that. Tests for impotence vary, they're right there in the impotence article. SDY (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That means it isn't ONLY a recreational drug. StuRat (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doctors can test for impotence (or at least determine if the cause of the ED is due to physical problems or psychological problems) by attaching a device to the patient's penis for the night. If you have physical problems then the penis will not get hard during the night, if it is psychological the penis will get hard (see nocturnal penile tumescence. A cheap test you can use if you're worrying is licking two stamps and placing them on your penis. If they have come off during the night (and you aren't a restless sleeper) then your problem is probably psychological. This isn't medical advice either.--droptone (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think the spammers will either send you anything at all (once your check clears), or send you actual Viagra? DOR (HK) (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viagra was recently shown to be a performance-enhancing drug for athletes. In other words it is now a sports doping concern.[37] --S.dedalus (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But if so used, wouldn't some athletes, like pole vaulters, risk getting caught ? StuRat (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Narrative Poetry and the Real World

(Question by 74.46.126.47 moved here from Reference desk/Language.) Strawless (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm a writer who creates novels in poetry forms; not epics, because they don't follow the format, but novels just in...poem form. So, I looked up narrative poetry, but am puzzled about two things. First, is it better to write these poems as just blocks of text, or split them into indivual poems about conversations, events, etc.? But, more importantly, what resources are provided to get these into the real world? I know of few publishers that deal with this, and fewer contests. What sort of organizations would offer these (specifically contests, which have a better turn-around time)? Thanks! 74.46.126.47 (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The usual term is verse novel. I don't know of a prize which is specifically for a novel in verse, but of course such work has been published for centuries in the usual way, which is as a printed book, and still is, as with Vikram Seth's The Golden Gate. No doubt the easiest way to publish your work would be to put it online yourself, but then most writers need to be paid royalties of some kind, or at least to get a one-off payment from a publisher. Strawless (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually just read one the other day. A kids book, but full-length and entirely in rhyme. The publisher is Penguin. Zorgamazoo. Sorry can't help with the contest part of the question. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal/sociological terminology question

In the sentence, "The prospect of a prompt fine equivalent to $600 US (at 2005 exchange rate) would help assure preventive compliance, as well as cover costs."

Does the term "preventive compliance" have some particular meaning, or is it (as I suspect) a meaningless combination?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The translation into plain English is "the chance that you would have to pay a $600 fine means that you won't do it, and if you do anyway we can pay for it." "Preventive compliance" is essentially children eating their vegetables for fear of not getting dessert. The fear of consequences forces proper behavior. SDY (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happened to just using good old "deterrence"... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The probable difference is that "Preventive Compliance" implies that they will do something (e.g. wear a seat belt), "Deterrence" implies that they will not do something (e.g. not drive 80 in a school zone). That and someone might think nuclear weapons were involved, which is slightly more heavy-handed than a $600 fine. SDY (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Preventive compliance" isn't meaningless, but in my opinion it's self-important. The prospect of a fine helps assure compliance (with whatever regulation or policy you're talking about). Negative, positive, who cares as long as they comply? I would take the sentence to mean something like, "A fine of $600 will get more people to comply, and the fines will help cover the cost of (whatever this program is)." This is similar to the speed cameras on roads in my county; the cameras (and the virtual certainty of a ticket) slow traffic, and revenue (from the tickets that get issued thanks to the cameras) helps pay the cost of the camera program. --- 20:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Louisiana Purchase

The article for the Louisiana Purchase says it cost about $217 billion in today's dollars. Was it worth it for America? How much is the area covered by the purchase worth to the American economy every year? Thanks 86.7.238.145 (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one site I saw put Iowa (a small fraction of the total purchase) at a GDP of $82.3b in 2001, so I'm assuming the total is >$217b/yr. The purchase doesn't cover state boundaries, so getting exact numbers is difficult. That land includes some of the best farmland in the world, so it was undeniably "worth it." Heck, even Seward's Icebox pays itself off every four years. Check this site for some 2001 data. SDY (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the CIA Factbook: [38], US annual GDP is around $13.78 trillion. I'd expect that most of that is produced on the coasts and Midwest, as that's where most of the people who produce the wealth live. But, we can probably figure at least $1 trillion per year is produced in areas obtained during the Louisiana Purchase, so it pays off something like 4-5 times the purchase price every year. That's a darned good investment. StuRat (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
StuRat is pretty close to on-target with his estimate of $1 trillion per year. Using the Demographia 2001 data and estimating the proportion of GDP produced within the original Louisiana Purchase for states that lie only partly within it (such as Colorado and Minnesota), I got a figure of $841 billion. Certainly a good annual return on $217 billion! Marco polo (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GDP isn't a useful number, what you need is production minus consumption - there is no point buying an area of land if all the people there end up consuming more than they produce. You need to work out something similar to the current account of the region, that's what it actually adds to the country. --Tango (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current GDP (say, Iowa's) is the product of a host of things, including the land. It also includes all investment, the legal system and a slew of other things that came long after the Louisiana Purchase. To get to the nub of the question, ask what would the US have been like without the Louisiana Purchase ? DOR (HK) (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably be also worth considering what would have happened to the (now non-US) territories of the purchase. Would it have stayed part of France? Would it have been sold to the British? The Spanish? Would it have become an independent country? What would the international relationship between the US and the country to the west been like? Even if the US loses money because of the Louisiana Purchase, it may still have been worth it in avoiding an even more costly territory dispute/war with "New France". The long term consequences of "what would have happened if ..." hypotheticals are never easy to determine. -- 128.104.112.113 (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Manifest Destiny probably wouldn't have caught on, and the nation would have been a lot smaller. If France had colonized it more fully, the US probably would have been less influential than Canada is now: the only reason the US grew so powerful so fast was that it had so little "competition." I disagree that GDP is meaningless-it's not "profit" but it does give an indication of the "production" of the area, especially farmland which people will pay thousands of dollars per acre for. According to our article, the price per acre was about 3 cents, which is more in current money, probably a dollar or so. Just poking around on the web, the cost of an acre of farmland varies from $1,000 to $10,000. Even if only a third of the purchase was usable farmland and the rest of it was worthless, the return on investment was staggering. SDY (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are seriously underestimating inflation over the last 200 years. It's most like $400 per acre in modern dollars. The production of an area is meaningless if the people in that area are consuming it all (unless you're assuming the population of the US would be the same as it is now, just spread over less area, which seems unlikely). --Tango (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, misplaced a few zeroes there (m and b), 1.5x10^6 -> 2.17x10^11, about a 1.5x10^5 difference, or 3.0x10^-2 goes to 4.5x10^3, about $450. Still excellent return. I totally disagree with "if it's consumed it's meaningless"- it supports the population of the area, which is part of the US, and that population is available to the country as soldiers in time of war, as workers in times of peace, et cetera. By your logic, the world as a whole is worthless since the net production is zero, which I don't find convincing. SDY (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The world is worthless to anyone outside the world, just as the Louisiana Purchase is useless to anyone outside its boundaries if it doesn't produce more than it consumes (producing soldiers and workers is a form of production). (In fact, the world has positive net production most of the time in the form of investments, if it didn't there wouldn't be any economic growth.) --Tango (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, any $450 an acre growing to an average of $5000 an acre over a period of 200 years is an annual return of about 1%, not at all impressive. --Tango (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's merely the appreciation of the principal. You also have not considered the return on investment due to the productivity of that land, as well as non-financial benefits... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But if that food produced on that land was eaten by people in the Louisiana Purchase area then it hasn't benefited the rest of the country, that's the point I've been trying to make. You can't just look at production, you have to look at consumption too. --Tango (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The land in question doesn't exist in a vacuum, though (and man does not live by bread alone). If the Louisiana Purchase area consumes more than it produces, then it's producing demand which stimulates growth in other regions of the country (or world). Much of the US population doesn't produce anything of quantifiable monetary value, and yet somehow the country ekes by. --Fullobeans (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the people eating that food then go off to work in factories which produce goods and services for the rest of the world... Again, if you eliminate something from the equation, you can make it LOOK like a worse deal than it was (for example, if you ONLY look at food production vs. consumption).
However, there are MANY other factors to consider... For example, the extra land reduces population pressures; much of the Louisiana Purchase provided additional lend to settle imigrants, and reduced overcrowding in eastern states; thus increasing perhaps their productivity. The extra imigrants provided labor to work in factories which produced goods for export or for internal use. Even if not exported, the goods (like machinery, cars, etc.) could be used to increase productivity in OTHER parts of the country.
The LP also opened up expansion for western states; it would have been impossible for the U.S. to stake a claim on the Rocky Mountain or Pacific Coast states without a contiguous means to "get there". You must factor in the potential loss of EVERYTHING west of the Mississippi and decide how that should be valued against the marginal cost of the land itself.
Again, if you dick with the numbers, or make unreasonable restrictions on how you "value" the purchase, you can make it look like a bad deal. It wasn't; the U.S. would definitively NOT be the economic and political power it is in the world today. It was the single most important event of the nation's first 50 years, with regard to the long-term prospects of the nation, and trying to calculate its "worth" by simply adding the value of appreciation of the acreage to the net production of food and thinking that the number you get there means anything is a terrible mistake. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that the current version of the article Louisiana Purchase has been updated with source figures which suggest $278 million is the more accurate number in todays figures for the purchase (although from the source it depends how you calculate it) Nil Einne (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 10

You just don't give it away for nothing

In previous (United States) Congresses, when just one seat is vacant, has the number required for cloture votes been rounded up to 60 or down to 59? Mathematically, it's 59.4, so I'm not sure which they would do. Thanks! Abeg92contribs 01:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You always round "up". If the "break-even" point for vote was, say 50.1, that means you need MORE votes than that to pass, any less than that point fails. Thus, for fractional "break-even" points, you always round up. In the case you cite, you need absolutely more than 59.4 votes. 59 votes is less than 59.4, so the measure would fail with 59 but pass with 60. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

abuse in The Sun Also Rises

The Wikipedia entry mentions Jake going through abuse as a child. Does anyone recall where it mentions this in the book? This completely slipped past me when I read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.211.93 (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that book more than once, and I sure don't remember that. In fact, I just took it out with a click on "rollback". Hope this helps, Antandrus (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of health care provision around the world

I vaguely remember hearing a news story about some recent research that measured the comparative quality of national health care provision around the world. The line I remember was that the British system was ranked below that of Estonia. However, I can't find a source for the research. A search of the usually reliable BBC news website has brought up nothing. Any pointers? Many thanks, --Richardrj talk email 10:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source (WHO). Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but that's not the one. That list dates back to 2000, and it says that the WHO no longer compile such lists "because of the complexity of the task." So it must have been someone else's work. I'll keep looking, --Richardrj talk email 11:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bailout cost

The FT had a blog post comparing the cost of the US bailout to other inflation adjusted US budgetary programs:

Bloomberg has rejigged its estimated total of potential US support to the markets to around $8,500bn from $7,700bn, reflecting the most recent Fed proposals to save the world.

A ginormous sum, by any measure, and one which Barry Ritholtz has helpfully put into perspective.

By Ritholtz’s estimate, the total actual cost of the various bailout programs (including Citi, but not including today’s announcements) exceeds $4,600bn dollars, making it the “largest outlay in American history.”

So large, that according to inflation adjusted numbers provided by Jim Bianco of Bianco Research, “the bailout has cost more than all of these big budget government expenditures – combined”:

• Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion • Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion • Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion • S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion • Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion • The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est) • Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion • Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion • NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion TOTAL: $3.92 trillion ($3,920bn)

Further, he notes:

The only single American event in history that even comes close to matching the cost of the credit crisis is World War II: Original Cost: $288 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $3.6 trillion

Ritholtz estimates that by the end of 2010, the final bill may scale up to as much as $10,000bn.

Are these estimates correct? What is the explanation of the bailout being more expensive than WW2? Because WW2 cost Europe more as well as had huge personal costs that the US budget of course does not measure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.43.13.100 (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What format is the aid in? If it includes tax cuts, it's questionable whether they should be included in government spending. Similarly, does it include missing tax revenue due to companies losing money and people not working, or the cost of social security payments, etc? It seems to me that the costs of a war would be quantified as something like costs of materiel + wages of soldiers and other workers + repairing war damage + cost of care for veterans. The cost of the economic crisis will be expressed in different terms. If you looked at the cost of WW2 to Germany, the figures would be much higher. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Bloomberg figure for the bailout is misleading. They arrived at the 8.2 (or 7.7) trillion by adding up all the funds. loans and assets the US government is guaranteeing, but guaranteeing a loan is not the same thing as spending the money. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, a large proportion of that money is loans that will most likely be paid back and shares that will most likely accumulate in value. The treasury may even make a net profit once they close all their positions in a few years' time. --Tango (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That may be too optimistic, Tango. I don't think there can be any doubt that the banks owned a lot of stuff that was not worth what it was in the books for (eg subprime mortgages). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the banks have recorded massive losses for those, that doesn't mean they won't pay back their loans from the treasury eventually. --Tango (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting to see the comparison, but you have to remember that it's quite misleading and shouldn't be taken seriously. First, it includes purchases of securities on which the government can reasonably expect to make a return. This is not just the purchase of bank preferred stock that the government hopes to go up in value; it also includes large amounts of commercial paper and other short-term obligations, where repayment in full is by far the most likely outcome. Second, it includes guarantees of debt that mostly won't go bad. For example, most banks won't fail, so much of the FDIC's obligations under the Temporary Loan Guarantee Program won't be paid out, even if banks do as badly this time around as they did in the Great Depression. Third, it includes amounts that have been authorized but probably won't be drawn down in any way. For example, it includes the Fed's $540 billion commitment to the Money Market Investor Funding Facility, which was set up to buy commercial paper from money market funds. Money market funds have found the program unappealing, and as of last week not a single dollar of the facility had been drawn down. John M Baker (talk) 06:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to your list: It also makes more sense to analyze this intervention as a fiscal and monetary stimulus. Only the New Deal and S&L Crisis above are similar in this respect. An intervention designed to 'bail out' credit markets (despite understandable cynicism) is very much like the printing of money or selection of a budget deficit/surplus designed to contribute to short-run Keynesian aggregate demand to smooth-out economic cyclicality. Notice that it's only been since September that significant net job losses have been reported (I mention this to support the idea that credit markets are the 'grease that lubricates the engine' at the center of the economy.) Secondly, a large majority of the actual "paid-out amount" is coming from the Fed's balance sheet. The fed buys back government securities, increasing the money supply. Fed actions can't really be analyzed using the same "costs" approach as, say, an individual or corporation. Fed money is costless in that sense; it can print as much as it wants. The only cost is eventual inflation. With the massive bank deleveraging, however, they can get away (or rather they must inject!) with injecting a ton of liquidity without having to worry about inflation. The last FOMC minutes actually concentrated on deflation as serious concern! Lastly, even the additional Federal Budget deficit (the $700 billion) is being borrowed, primarily from foreigners (China's massive trade surplus sucks up Federal debt!) at very low rates. There have been two days since September when (short-term) T-Bill rates actually went NEGATIVE. Investors are so risk-averse and America-loving that a couple of times they were willing to pay the government for the right to lend it money! With the appreciation of the USD [39] (as a result of the insatiable appetite for US Federal debt) lately, they'll be paying back their creditors with even stronger dollars than they borrowed. The only major threat to America's solvency is if it loses it's position in the world as THE best place to invest. Sorry Obama, that means more ships, tanks and punitive foreign policy.NByz (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So are there any estimates of the bailout cost that could be considered more "accurate"? 199.43.13.101 (talk) 10:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It depends on precisely what happens over the next few years, and we can only guess at that. I'm sure people have come up with estimates, but there is an enormous margin of error in them (probably to the extent of making them useless). The final result in 5 years time could probably be anywhere from a $500 billion profit to a $10,000 billion loss. Where in that range it will be is anyone's guess ($500b profit is more likely than $10,000b loss - that kind of loss would require the complete collapse of the economy, in which case it's pretty meaningless to put a monetary value on it). --Tango (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a dollar cost isn't the appropriate way to analyze a fiscal or especially a monetary stimulus. What is the 'cost' of the Fed lowering interest rates? (by providing short-term liquidity, either printing new money or distributing shelf money [this is my own term for money that exists, but the Fed holds to, effectively keeping it out of the money supply or economy generally]) The only cost is inflationary. I say 'inflationary' not necessarily 'inflation', because most of the time it's done when the economy is contracting anyway, so the net effect is just inflation targeting, or the keeping of inflation within the expected range.
Most of the 'money' (excepting the $700 billion TARP) being used here is Fed money. The fed can (and I will argue, has to) inject heavily right now because there is negative bank money creation via the money multiplier effect. Under normal circumstances, when you deposit a dollar in a bank, that dollar is lent out to a borrower (ignoring any reserve requirement), resulting in the 'creation' of an extra dollar in the economy. There is now the claim to dollar you are owed by the bank (you can still get at it because banks carefully track how much short-term liquidity will be needed by their depositors and ensure enough funds are on hand) and also the dollar in the hand of the borrower. Chances are, that borrower is going to deposit the dollar in another bank account, extending the effect further. The more leverage in the economy (via this and many other processes) the more "money" (by certain measures of what money is) exists. When banks stop lending as aggressively - either out of fear, or out of a need to improve their capital ratios - this money creation effect is reduced and the money supply either shrinks, or grows less quickly.
When this happens, it becomes the Fed's responsibility under it's 'inflation targeting' policy to increase the money supply and/or decrease short-term interest rates (which it can only do through intervening in money markets) to avoid deflation. The Fed normally does this by buying up government securities in the open market. Every asset it buys takes another dollar of money off of its balance sheet and injects it into the economy. It's useful to think of many of the Fed's interventions right now as simply an alternative way of injecting money into the economy. There is no real 'cost' to this; the Fed can print an unlimited amount of money to support their inflation targeting goals. In fact, it's just what the Fed is mandated to do.NByz (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS, you might say that the 'cost' is to the holders of government securities that would otherwise have been bid-up when the Fed buys them back. With zero-coupon T-bill auctions selling damn near par right now, it's hard to make that argument! NByz (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our common future

I've been trying to find a source to download Our_Common_Future, preferably a .pdf Can anyone help me? In advance, thanks. --93.184.122.12 (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article you linked has a link to here, which has the full text. Algebraist 20:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball RBI Rules

In the article on Runs Batted In, it says:

The official rulebook of Major League Baseball states in Rule 10.04:

(a) The official scorer shall credit the batter with a run batted in for every run that scores:

(1) unaided by an error and as part of a play begun by the batter's safe hit (including the batter's home run), sacrifice bunt, sacrifice fly, infield out or fielder's choice, or a passed ball, unless Rule 10.04(b) applies;
(2) by reason of the batter becoming a runner with the bases full (because of a base on balls, an award of first base for being touched by a pitched ball or for interference or obstruction); or
(3) when, before two are out, an error is made on a play on which a runner from third base ordinarily would score.
(b) The official scorer shall not credit a run batted in
(1) when the batter grounds into a force double play or a reverse-force double play; or
(2) when a fielder is charged with an error because the fielder muffs a throw at first base that would have completed a force double play.

(c) The official scorer's judgment must determine whether a run batted in shall be credited for a run that scores when a fielder holds the ball or throws to a wrong base. Ordinarily, if the runner keeps going, the official scorer should credit a run batted in; if the runner stops and takes off again when the runner notices the misplay, the official scorer should credit the run as scored on a fielder's choice.

I understand all the rules except for a 2 (in bold). Does anyone know what this means? 216.239.234.196 (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This refers to being walked (the Base on balls article explains it well); being hit by a pitch; and to interference by the catcher. Nyttend (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are they talking about when the bases are loaded? Does that mean that if the bases are loaded and the batter gets a walk and forces in a run, the better isn't credited with an RBI? That doesn't sound right to me. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait a second, I get it. I thought the 'unless' applied to 2a. Thanks! 67.184.14.87 (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, if you are walked with the bases loaded (by 4 balls, Hit By Pitch, or catcher interference) you get credited with an RBI. Since none of these events credits the batter with an "at-bat" it is thus possible to get a "run-batted-in" without getting an "at-bat". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct. My error was that I misunderstood what I was reading. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curious. RBI credit without evening having an official at bat! DOR (HK) (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a bit ironic. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was the composition of the European Parliament by group immediately before and after the Sweden elections to the EP on 17 September 1995?

The European Parliament is subdivided by political groups (e.g. PES, EPP-ED, UEN, ALDE, etc). Each group contains a number of MEPs. These numbers are not stable and vary from day to day as MEPs change groups, resign, are unelected or are elected. For that reason, the European Parliament issued factsheets and press releases periodically to indicate how many MEPs each group had on a given day. Those factsheets are available online, but the ones before 1996 are sparse and/or contradictory.

On 17 September 1995, there was an election in Sweden to elect its MEPs. The results of those elections are available, but they only give the parties that those MEPs represent. They do not give the groups they sat in, nor the effect they had on the group numbers.

So my question I have for you is simple.

  • What was the composition of the European parliament by group immediately before the Sweden elections to the EP on 17 September 1995?
  • What was the composition of the European parliament by group immediately after the Sweden elections to the EP on 17 September 1995?

OK, two questions.

Thank you for any assistance you can provide, Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This question relates to the appointed MEPs, just after Sweden joined the EU. Some of the pre-election MEPs from Sweden were; Bengt Hurtig was in GUE/NGL (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/term4/view.do;jsessionid=0956A36F55CDDD4068889174234954F1.node1?language=EN&id=2116), Bengt-Ola Ryttar (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/term4/view.do;jsessionid=69EC2DB9A320A86E5B3CD9A472B4E500.node2?id=2070&language=EN), Inga-Britt Johanson (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/term4/view.do;jsessionid=5373CDDD6EBBFCCE7C753BC1E8D3A635.node1?language=EN&id=2065), Kristina Persson (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/term4/view.do;jsessionid=942310B245595B4CA26250944037609B.node1?id=2069&language=EN), Reynoldh Furustrand (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/term4/view.do;jsessionid=E52BE4EA6D7313B9584D3ACD8D0E18F9.node1?id=2112&language=EN), Maj-Lis Lööw (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/term4/view.do;jsessionid=6995DA42B976B62F4DD4E694053B2E1D.node1?id=2067&language=EN), Tommy Wailedlich (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/term4/view.do;jsessionid=7E14252CC97B9761510E2A53CFAF6B30.node1?id=2151&language=EN) represented PES, Karin Starrin was in ELDR (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/term4/view.do;jsessionid=CB434BDF9EE96A5B7FF3D6DBCD0A12A8.node1?language=EN&id=2146), Margareta af Ugglas (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/term4/view.do;jsessionid=D9BEEB6334EAC60C42DB4863F785CD56.node1?language=EN&id=2148) was in EPP. --Soman (talk) 07:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and more, Karl Erik Olsson was in ELDR (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/term4/view.do;jsessionid=C273E625B568DF757DB7D83A87FFD344.node1?language=EN&id=2068), Jan Andersson (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/term4/view.do;jsessionid=459C8F90325F2E9D10D04C8AB350EEFF.node1?id=2107&language=EN) and Axel Andersson (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/term4/view.do;jsessionid=3EA5A28693C3BF80FB2663A5BE6CD147.node1?id=2105&language=EN) in PES. Per Gahrton (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/term4/view.do;jsessionid=C22004A474B86253CA15B9CACC96D4E6.node1?id=2114&language=EN) was in the Green group. I think there are various EPP MEPs that my superficial google search didn't find. --Soman (talk) 07:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Soman: I don't know if you remember me from the marathon discussion on the political groups of the European Parliament earlier this year. Thank you for your hard work, which will come in useful for the European Parliament election, 1995 (Sweden) article. Unfortunately, you have not answered the question I asked: I needed to know the total composition before & after, but what you told me was how it had changed (it's like asking "what's the temperature?" and being told "it's up 5 degrees"). What I was hoping for is something like this:
Date Notes   PES   ELDR   EPP   UFE   EUL/NGL   G   ERA   EN   NI Total Sources
1995-09-15 Before elections in Sweden 217 52 173 54 33 27 20 19 31 626
1995-09-18 After elections in Sweden 216 52 173 56 33 27 20 18 31 626
- but that's not what you gave me. Unfortunately, it looks like this info is just not available on online sources (I may have to email the Parliament itself, and it may not be able to answer!). However, thank you for your hard work. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Using some of the names found by google earlier, I found this at swedish wikipedia: sv:Lista_över_ledamöter_av_Europaparlamentet_från_Sverige_1995 (which, in retrospect, should have been the first place to look). Comparing the wikipedia article on the 1995 nominees with the 1995 election, we come up with the following:
Party EP group pre-election seats post-election seats difference
(s) PES 11 7
(m) EPP 5 5
(fp) ELDR 1 1
(c) ELDR 2 2
(kd) EPP 1 0
(mp) Greens 1 4
3
(v) GUE/NGL 1 3
2
See also sv:Europaparlamentsvalet 1995. --Soman (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxia the Stories Of Ilusion

I added a request for an article how long I need to wait till the article actually appears on Wikipedia is it possible to request it here ? if so there's the material for the article: http://www.mediaminer.org/fanfic/view_st.php/158666

In my view, this falls into the category of articles that should never appear in Wikipedia, for the reason of . . . well, non-notable seems too generous. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is this a probe of offending me ? Youre just a Hongkong clerk mind your buisness and do not intefere ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is Fan Fiction. Fan fiction virtually never gets its own article in Wikipedia. For a very good reason, too. There are literally hundreds of thousands of short fan fiction stories, Wikipedia cannot afford to write articles about every last one of them. Unless your work is mentioned in professionally published newspapers and magazines it's not going to have a Wikipedia article. Sorry.
(Incidentally, you do realize that "Illusion" isn't spelled like that, right?)
APL (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So first I need a Magazine to review this ! Somebody could have tell me earlier and not trying to offend me so Ill find a Magazine than ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a word or phrase?

When one spends many hours on a boat, especially a small boat, and especially in fairly rough seas, and then one steps off onto dry land, one experiences (sometimes) the continuity of the rocking sensation that one experienced on the boat -- it seems the solid, dry land is tossing to and fro just as the sea did. Is there a name for this phenomenon? Any phrase, or single word to describe it, either from colloquial usage (preferable) or from perhaps scientific or medical literature? Bus stop (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illusions of self-motion#Sea legs suggests this is one of the things 'sea legs' can apply to. Algebraist 23:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Great. Thank you. Yes, that is exactly the sort of colloquial phrase I was looking for. And, interesting article. Bus stop (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another version of the expression is "losing your land legs". The idea is that have "sea legs" when you are comfortable on the moving boat and "land legs" when youare confortable on land. --Anonymous, 11:05 UTC, December 11, 2008.
And it matches the sensation of walking just after you have gotten off a trampoline. Steewi (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British pound sterling vs. EURO

Why is the British pound falling so much and so rapidly against the Euro (I believe it's down to 1.14 today from about 1.50 not so long ago) in recent months? Could it get down to 1:1 or less? - and if this happens, could it eventually necessitate an entrance of the UK into the Eurozone (even if the British don't really want to)? Thanks for info., --AlexSuricata (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The value of currencies fluctuate against each other for many reasons, but a likely strong reason for this would be the current economic crisis. The pound is related to the British economy which is about the size of Germany (an Euro member). The euro-zone is related to all of its members, some of whom will be more affected than others in the current economic climate. As Britain is a huge nation in terms of finance, banking and investment the impact of the current credit-crisis is maybe being felt more strongly in Britain (and thus the pound's value) compared to the Eurozone. Yes the Eurozone is being impacted upon too but the scale may be smaller or that area accounts for less business.
Second point - I see no reason why it couldn't get below 1:1 if that is how the currency markets end up valuing it.
Third point - I'm not aware of any rules that necessite the UK entrance to the eurozone, the EU, like the UN and most international organisations has limited power over nations to make unpopular demands unless other countries (within or outside of the organisation) support it. ny156uk (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simply put, Britain is perceived to be relatively harder hit by the financial crisis than continental Europe, because of the large presence of the financial sector there, as well as additional housing market troubles that the Eurozone hasn't really seen. This makes investors move away from pound-denominated investments, as they are perceived to yield lower returns, hence a depreciation of the pound. (source) Some sources say it's just speculation about central bank interest rate cuts, and some of the recent spikes you see are indeed related to the BOE cuts.
There's no necessity of the UK entering the Eurozone as it was a 'necessity' for it to exit the ERM. There's no government or central bank obliged to do anything, but it's certainly more attractive to join the Eurozone for the UK at this moment (see: United Kingdom and the euro), because some of the benefits of having a common currency weigh higher than usual when there's an economic crisis.
There's probably a few weird scenarios that one can cook up that would probably make entry into the Eurozone more or less a necessity, though. For example, if the pound declined to .25, and the UK government somehow needs to borrow a huge sum of money now, expected appreciation (because no one really believes the pound is going to stay at .25) would make the cost of that borrowing quite prohibitive. In such a case, the adoption of the euro would solve the problem. Edit: Actually, this works the other way around. See, thinking of a scenario is quite hard. Edit 2: You could see it the other way around: if the government has to borrow right now, when the exchange rate is believed to be higher than it will be (expected depreciation), it would be cheaper for the government to adopt the euro. User:Krator (t c) 23:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason for the sharp drop in recent months is that investors had chosen to hold pounds sterling in recent years because the Bank of England set the interest rate (discount rate) for sterling much higher than the interest rate for other major currencies such as the euro, or even more so, for the very low-yielding yen. Many investors worldwide borrowed in yen (or Swiss francs or even euros) at very low rates, then bought pounds sterling, driving up the price of pounds sterling in other currencies. They made an easy profit by earning interest in sterling at a much higher rate than they paid to borrow in yen (or Swiss francs or euro). This is known as the carry trade. However, in the past few months, the Bank of England has cut interest rates sharply and signalled an intention to cut them further. This has eliminated the profit investors were making from the carry trade and exposed them to the risk of losses. So they have been selling their investments in pound sterling (driving its exchange rate down) and paying off their loans in yen (or Swiss francs or euro). It is also true that the United Kingdom had a severe financial crisis, which has affected it disproportionately because finance (the City of London) plays a greater role in its economy than in many other economies (including that of the United States).
It is certainly possible that sterling could reach parity (1:1) with the euro. However, if it does, it is very unlikely that the UK could quickly adopt the euro, because instability in the exchange rate between sterling and the euro would make the UK ineligible to adopt the euro. In order to adopt the euro, the UK would have to satisfy its convergence criteria, which include maintaining a stable exchange rate with the euro for a period of two years as part of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, or ERM II. Marco polo (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I’m curious why we are so careful not to offer legal or medical advice (or even do someone’s homework!), but giving unprofessional investment advice without any caveat is perfectly acceptable. After all, a questions about why one currency is moving against another is almost certainly primarily for the purposes of investment / speculation. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends who arrives at the question first and how interesting the question is. If it is a sexually orientated medical question there is no shortage of answers but a curious shortage of censors ;-) I agree however that accepting any advice about anything from complete strangers is fraught with danger. It is odd how Wikipedia proudly boasts a "no censorship" rule but is keen to censor views on these help desks - unlike other help fora. I expect the thought police will be along in a minute to whip these comments down because we mustn't rant either. Richard Avery (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's general disclaimer says "If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial, or risk management) please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area". I think the reason we don't have a specific RD guideline about handling financial advice requests (whereas we do have one for medical advice requests) is that requests for financial advice are not very common on the RDs.
Also note that, as it stands, this question is a request for information, but not a request for advice - the questioner does not indicate why he is seeking the information or how, if at all, he intends to act on it. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I laughed so much when I read the comment: "a questions about why one currency is moving against another is almost certainly primarily for the purposes of investment / speculation". AS the person posting the question in this case, I can say: No, not at all - I wish I had just a few hundred euros to invest, but alas no. I have no intention of speculating, I was merely trying to understand an important economic situation that is affecting us all as a normal person on the street, as I think practically all of us who ask questions here are doing. But very amusing paranoia, thanks for the laugh! Also, many thanks to the people who provided information, especially MarcoPolo who as usual gave me a very interesting explanation that can be easily understood even by an economics dumbo like me - muchas gracias! Alex --AlexSuricata (talk) 10:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of graphs that illustrate the interest rate differential. First, here are UK Rates [40] with the "repo rate" representing the BoE's key rate. Next, here are Eurozone rates [41].
Under uncovered interest rate parity, the expected change in an exchange rate pair between two countries (with a freely floating currency) must be such that an investor could not profitably expect to borrow in one currency, convert the borrowings to the other, invest for a period of time, and convert back to the original currency. If investors could profitably perform arbitrage of that kind, market pressures would force the currencies to adjust until it was no longer profitable. So if one economy has higher domestic rates than another, there must be an expectation that the lower-rate country's currency will depreciate against the higher-rate country's currency. Because 'uncovered' interest rate arbitrage includes some risk (as opposed to 'covered' interest rate arbitrage, which uses the forward market to instantly lock-in exchange rates.) there will always be some deviation from this exact parity, representing the risk premium. Although this risk premium is especially high right now, parity will still hold to some degree. The further and further from interest rate parity currencies go, the more profitable this sort of arbitrage is.
You can see from the graphs above that UK rates (for all maturities) started off the year absolutely higher, and (except for the ten-year; long term rates tend to be far removed from parity) ended absolutely lower than Eurozone rates. This relative change made holding pounds less attractive than euros, bidding down their value.
Currency speculation is certainly not investment. Currency positions can be used to manage risk or to simulate casino odds. Currency speculation produces no expected return, only a variance, and is not an investment or asset class.NByz (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 11

Need to contact Arabist

I used the email (tim@mackintosh-smith.com) on Tim Mackintosh-Smith's official website to send him a letter, however, I got a delivery error message. Does anyone know of a valid email for him? I usually contact authors via their publishers, but I figured someone out there might have his contact information already. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the error message? Not all errors are permanent. If your sure the errors was permanent, try e-mailing the webmaster and telling him? the e-mail is borked Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delivery error. I'll try the webmaster then. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early photoshopping question

File:Stalin-Lenin-Kalinin-1919.jpg

I think I've seen this picture before, but I'm not sure; it definitely shows a powerful trio: Stalin, Lenin, Kalinin. However, Stalin looks rather out of place: is this one of the many pictures where he's added in after the picture was taken? The image description includes a link to its source, but the URL is rotten. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a painting to me. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't been added in, no. It was doctored by cropping (to make Stalin and Lenin look closer), not by adding in people.
As for the "painting" look—many Soviet photographics reproductions from this period have this look. It has to do with the technology they used, I believe, and probably a purposeful style that was in vogue at the time. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found what seems to be an enlargement of part of the image. It nudges me toward the "portrait" point of view. You'd think those files Lenin has (on Kalinin, maybe) would throw some shadow. Still, I'm no expert; it could be an amateur photographer, like some Comm intern. --- OtherDave (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to stalinproject.com (see here) that is indeed a photograph of the March 1919 party congress, but it was "doctored so that only Stalin, Lenin and Kalinin appeared". We can suspect that the three of them were retouched at the same time, which would explain the painterly quality of the image. The site (stalinproject.com) goes on to say that Kalinin was "later erased" from the photograph. I notice the picture credits on that site are to the "David King Collection". No doubt this is the same David King who is the author of The Commissar Vanishes: The Falsification of Photographs and Art in Stalin's Russia (Metropolitan Books, 1997, ISBN 0805052941, ISBN 978-0805052947), which I think you'll find worth consulting, Nyttend. Xn4 (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several examples of this type of photo manipulation, including the "Vanishing Commissar", can be found at Censorship of images in the Soviet Union. — jwillbur 20:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly correct on all these fronts, though again, I think the "painting" effect is something indicative of technology in use at that time and place, not manipulation. It's extremely common on Russian "photos" even through WWII for them to have that complete hazy appearance, which again I suspect has something to do with the printing techniques, the paper, etc. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last Grand Duke of Russia

I know Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia (d. 1960) was the last living daughter/male-line granddaughter of a Russian Emperor. But who was the last Grand Duke? Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several living claimaints to the throne of Russia. See Line of succession to the Russian throne for more on these... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take the question to mean the last living son or male-line grandson; I'm rather sleepy and can't answer this now, but it shouldn't be hard for someone that's awake to discover. Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How should I understand this answer

Galaxia the Stories Of Ilusion

I added a request for an article how long I need to wait till the article actually appears on Wikipedia is it possible to request it here ? if so there's the material for the article: http://www.mediaminer.org/fanfic/view_st.php/158666

"In my view, this falls into the category of articles that should never appear in Wikipedia, for the reason of . . . well, non-notable seems too generous. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC) "

Can somebody explain to me what expression "Non-notable seems to generous" Means is this a probe of offending me !! My novel cannot be posted becuse it would be "To generous" ? Is this Wikipedist telling me that I have to give a bribe in order to get an article about my Novel here posted ??? Is Wikipedia corrupt ? Becuse this answer surrelly suggest it !

Can somebody more inteligent explain me the true reasons here's the Material: http://www.mediaminer.org/fanfic/view_st.php/158666 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not someone saying you should offer them a bribe. It's someone pointing out that this book doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (books) and doesn't seem likely to in the future, neither does it meet Wikipedia:Notability (web) (as it's an ebook). Nanonic (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "generous" quip seems to be that editor's way of rudely suggesting that your book is not only "non-notable", but that it's "very non-notable".
Obviously, this was unnecessary, but it was not a request for a bribe. Or a suggestion that you need to be more generous or anything like that. APL (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


So in other words Im too poor right say it!! First thing read the Material then comment ! Don't think Ill stop trying that easilly ! First i suggest you should read it than you can say is it notable ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please calme down, getting all upset isn't going to make a difference. Notability, for the purposes of Wikipedia, is not something that is inherent in your own novel; please read the links that Nanonic provided, which detail very precisely how notability is defined for Wikipedia. The original comment by DOR (HK) is regrettable, and could have been phrased much more civilly, so, to the extent that I can, I apologize for that. --LarryMac | Talk 15:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to reading about what books are considered important or "notable" enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia, please also read Wikipedia's rules about Conflicts of Interest. In general, You are not allowed to add links to books you have written yourself.
And finally, please refrain from doing things like this. This is uncivil. APL (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you define civil ? So Im not allowed to do so I should be quiet I do not belong to the "Civilisied " World and as such been said I have no regrets I still consider you should read it And decide for yourself those this match your taste first as of that article i thought that would be Awesome but seeing the reply of an "civilisied" wikipedist I feel only disquist hm interesting how can an Encyclopedia gather information if its not allowed ! If my town page does not exists I cannot create it (Why do you think i gived a link Don't you think I could have made an article my self !) First of all Im interested in your opinion on my Novel If Im not allowed it is like Im not allowed to gather Information !! Isnt that going against the principity of the Encyclopedia which is gathering information this is how this look in reality I gaved you a source a material for you to look and decide can it be used in this encyclopedia and yet you decided to do nothing So is that what your rules say ! ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be compounded problems here. 84.205 either does not understand English well enough to know the difference between, for example, the meanings of the words "civility" and "civilization", or the non-financial meanings of the word "generous", or he is seeking out conflict by reading offense into the words of others where no intended offense exists. Wikipedia policies such as WP:N are difficult to understand for new users since "notability" takes on a different quantifiable meaning at Wikipedia that does not exist outside of Wikipedia. However, I am not finding this dicussion terribly productive, given the numerous instances that 84.205 has refused to assume good faith of others... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(After Edit Conflict) -- You know, a couple people have pointed the policy guidelines to help you understand this, but you still want to take every comment as some kind of insult. That's not going to help the situation. You also seem to want to continue to make assumptions about what Wikipedia is and how it operates. Perhaps a review of About Wikipedia would be helpful. In a nutshell, and copied directly from that page - "Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with external sources, and neutrally presented, with external sources cited." We have already tried to show you the criteria for "notable". It is not for any of us, as Wikipedia editors, to read your novel and form an opinion, because that would constitute "Original Research" which is (as noted on the About page) not permitted. Other, external sources would have to do that, publish their own findings in reputable source, and then possibly an article would be created. Those are "our rules", and you are encouraged to read the provided links for more specific details. --LarryMac | Talk 19:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To possibly clarify even further: Wikipedia is not intended to be a collection of all the information in the world. We do not have an article about every book ever written, we never will, and we don't want to. Instead, we have specific rules about what can have a Wikipedia article, and what can't have a Wikipedia article. Please read the links which have been provided in this discussion, and you will see for yourself that your book does not fulfill our requirements. It might be a very good book, but that doesn't matter, because our requirements have nothing to do with being good or well-written. This is nothing personal against you; this is about rules that have been decided on by hundreds if not thousands of people, working together over a period of years. There are many places on the internet where you can publicize your book, and I wish you luck, but Wikipedia is simply not one of those places. I'm sorry if you've found this process confusing or upsetting. And incidentally, "civil", as used here, basically means "polite", and we have a rule about that, too. --Fullobeans (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You Offended me so Ill offend you but let me make a comment here Im not a number but s human being you offended me calling me a number ! a simple courtesy should allow you to go to the link and adleast check the authors name !! Second Youre rules are like water they can be changed be glad you stopped me for now but you won't be able to do so in 2012 ! whpipe yourself you know where with these rules Youre not collecting the information so what are you doing you lazy Bubms ! writing propaganda ! Everything you so work for and belive will end in 2012 Ill make it end than (the hysteria from that prophecy will help me ever wondered how many people belive this stuff) see you in 2012 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See you then! --Tango (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time I've really missed BJAODN, or however that was spelled .... --LarryMac | Talk 20:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I am not a number—I am a free man!" Deor (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
quoi? --Fullobeans (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the right forum for this... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

84.205.25.63,/ I’m sorry if I offended you; my comment was out of line and inappropriate. However, it does appear that you really wanted to be offended, at least in your persistence in coming back and rehashing the same points over and over.

Other people have explained what kinds of works are likely to be included in Wikipedia, and that authors are unlikely to be successful in promoting their own material here, so I will bow out of that discussion. Oh, and for the record, I did read your work, but couldn’t follow the story after the first page.

By the way, what was the threat about 2012 all about? DOR (HK) (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC) PS Thanks to LarryMac and others for covering my back.[reply]

It's the end of the world!!!. Or not. --LarryMac | Talk 13:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well something will end in 2012 thats certain don't worry nothing will happen to you ....The world will end in 2012 meaning the world as we know is coming to an end ! You see it in the news the financial crisis thats overflowned the world well Im living in the only country not affected by the finacial crisis (meaning our economy is not affected but our foreign deals suffered a bit) (Im from Poland) in 2012 Poland and Ukraine will host EUEFA Soccer tournament (If were able to ready everything on time) our economy might become one of the biggest if not the biggest economies in the world (replacing althought only for like few years the USA in the first place ) Buts that trivial ! In Eu currently there's no borders EU is becoming a super federal state that might be able to compete with the US however I think US at some point will want to merge it into its own alliance (All the members are already members of US lead NATO) If Russia will Join the EU and than EU will merge with the American union the first step of Globalisation will be ended ! Also some current institutions are loosing power (Like The church)and will have to move aside and not intefere with politics being simple faith organisation ! IM NOT SAYING IT WILL HAPPEN Exactly in 2012 but in my opinion than it will be quite visible thats something of this sort is happening ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The US economy is 34 times the size of the Polish one - it's going to take more than a minor recession and a football tournament to make a dent in that! --Tango (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I got what I wanted an apology from the first person that offended me so Ill leave it at that ! Try to read all the chapters and you should follow however I guess it can be good if you post things you didn't get they might be trivial (remember its a little bit grotesque especcially the way character narrates and its also an satire as well !) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would indeed be a trial. Like DOR (HK), I couldn't get through the first page. You need help from a native speaker with spelling, grammar, punctuation, style and flow. I promise you it will go nowhere without this. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im not a native speaker I just want a clear answer is the plot understanable by the way Im Polish and could use some grammar tips first of try to read more than one chapter than You'll be less confused ! By the way this was a direct Polish translaition and it is a trial I can guarantee you that if you force yourself threw the first three chapters the story will be much easier to understant also Watching an Anime show would be great this story and the way I wrote it its inspired by the Anime now answer me did you understand the plot becuse the plot is here the most important if you're looking for characters information you need to read the whole 10 chapters ! Also try reading Dziady if you get a chance you might be able to understand the style better sorry for all the troubles ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expecting your readers to "force themselves" to read your works is asking the impossible. If it doesn't interest them, it doesn't interest them, and there's no power on Earth (short of a re-write) than can change that. It's not like they're set texts at a university or school that people have no option but to read. In the real world, most people adopt the John le Carré philosophy: As a reader, I insist on being beguiled early or not at all, which is why many of the books on my shelves remain mysteriously unread after page 20. But once I submit to the author's thrall, he can do me no wrong.
I'd say le Carré's an over-achiever; there are books on my shelves that I never got past page 2. In some books, you're lucky to have anyone even finish page 1. It's the writer's job to make the writing so interesting that the reader can't put the book down. In that sense, the only "forcing" that goes on is the writer forcing the reader to read because he's written the story in such an irresistible way. For that, you have to be able to stand in the reader's shoes and imagine what it would be like if you were browsing in a bookshop, picked up the book, and glanced at page 1. You've got a way to go, but with help, I'm sure you can do it. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the word Egypt

Is there any reference or encyclopedia that might state that the word Egypt, means an stat of slavery ?--Lookinforgod00 (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Michael r. lewis--Lookinforgod00 (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)raymont260@msn.com[reply]

Well, Egypt#Etymology makes no mention of such an origin - it says the word comes originally (via lots of steps) from "Hat-ka-Ptah (ḥwt-k3-ptḥ), meaning "home of the ka (soul) of Ptah", the name of a temple to the god Ptah at Memphis." --Tango (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While (as far as I know) Egypt does not mean "slavery', The Bible frequently uses the word Egypt as a metaphor for slavery, as the Israelites were slaves in Egypt and were delivered out of there by God. Jeremiah 34:13 is an example randomly chosen out of many. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution to Arab Nationalism

I know that Lebanon, Syria, Palestine and Egypt have people who have contributed to Arab Nationalism, but what about the North African countries, Mauritania, Djibouti, Somalia and the Gulf area? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.114 (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about this topic, but I do know how to click on every single Wikilinked name in an article. Doing so over at Arab nationalism brought up: Ahmed Ben Bella (Algerian), Habib Bourguiba (Tunisian) and, of course, Muammar al-Gaddafi (Libyan), but nobody from the countries you mentioned. Hopefully somebody can come up with a better answer, but, if not, you can always read through the Wikipedia articles for the countries in question, which often link to even more helpful things like List of Somalis. --Fullobeans (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Early Arab nationalism was mainly motivated by resentments against European predominance and/or Ottoman rule, and was formulated by those who had enough exposure to European cultures to be influenced by 19th-century Romantic nationalism in Europe (so it's conspicuous that the two most prominent pre-WW2 theorizers, George Antonious and Michel Aflaq were both Christians, though the majority of Arabs are Muslims). Such areas as Mauritania were rather isolated from modernist intellectual currents within the Arab world (they had nothing corresponding to the American colleges in Beirut and Cairo, for example).
By the way, the Arabic language has two quite distinct and separate words for "nationalism": wataniyya وطنية and qawmiyya قومية . The Wataniyya version (which means loyalty to one's home region or country) has certainly achieved some modest practical successes, but in the case of Qawmiyya (i.e. pan-Arabism), the painful contrast between the grandiose broad sweeping claims and bombastic rhetoric usually associated with it vs. its obvious lack of specific concrete achievements was a significant destabilizing factor in middle-east politics for decades (though this now seems to have been mostly superseded by religious fundamentalism). AnonMoos (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 12

Line of succession for President Elects?

If Barack Obama were to be unable to take over the Presidency on Inauguration Day (perhaps due to implication in the Blagojevich mess), who would be inaugurated instead? Does the standard line of succession apply even before the new Prez takes office? Garrett Albright (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See President-elect of the United States#President-elect succession. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! I had read through United States presidential line of succession before posting, but didn't think to look on the President Elect article. Maybe a link to the latter article should be made on the former? Anyway, the article says…
In cases where a President has not been chosen by January 20 or the President-elect "fails to qualify", the Vice President-elect becomes Acting President on January 20 until there's a qualified President.
This implies that Joe Biden would become both Acting President and presumably would be sworn in as Vice President as well. But if Obama were unable to return to the office, who would be a "qualified President?" Would that mean Biden, or would it have to be someone explicitly elected to the presidency again (we'd have to have another election)? Garrett Albright (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Such provisions are generally untested, and therefore ambiguous until they are tested. For example, the first VP to assume the office of President was John Tyler. Before he styled himself "President" and not "Acting President" it was somewhat ambiguous as to whether a Vice President who took over for a dead president actually became the new president, or served as the acting president until the next election. The current situation (the VP becomes the actual President) is largely because that's how Tyler personally handled it, and no one ultimately objected (there were objections, but everyone pretty much backed down). Thus, by precedent and not statute, the VP became the actual President. The Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution and later Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution clarified the situation by essentially confirming established practices.
As to what would happen in the specific case of the death of a President-elect, it depends on when and how he is no longer availible to serve.
  • If he is permanently unable to serve (dead) and such a situation occurs before the electoral college meets to vote, the college members would be free to choose whoever they wished. They would likely elect Biden, and also would likely elect whoever Biden chose as VP to replace him.
  • If the same situation happened after the electoral college has already elected the president, then the VP-elect becomes the President-elect(under the 20th ammendment), and upon assuming office, will nominate a new VP (under the 25th ammendment)
  • If the president is only temporarily incapacitated, then the VP is first sworn is as VP, and serves as "Acting President" until the President-elect either recovers, at which point he will be sworn in and assume his elected duties, or becomes clearly permanently incapacitated (dead), at which point the VP is sworn in as ACTUAL President, nominates a new VP, and yada yada.
  • If BOTH the president-elect and VP-elect are unable to assume the office, then the Speaker of the House becomes president. Since the House of Representatives convenes on January 3rd, and the President is not sworn in until January 20th, the House essentially gets to select the new President from among its own members. Presumably, they would elect a putative "speaker" on January 3rd, or shortly thereafter, who would be who the House wants to be President, and then elect a new speaker on January 20th (or shoryly thereafter) for who they really want to be Speaker.
Any situation, however, involving both the simultaneous loss of the President and Vice President is entirely untested and likely to cause problems. The most recent law of presidential succession, which provides that the Speaker is second in line after the VP, may be unconsitutional, since the constitution requires that all successors to the president must be "officers" of the government, a term used elsewhere in the Constitution to refer ONLY to memebers of the Executive branch (i.e. cabinet members). Since it has never come up, the courts have never had to rule on the constitutionality of this law, but if it did you can bet your boopy that it will become a major legal battle... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've wondered about that myself because it seems to me that allowing a member of the legislative branch to assume an office in the executive branch because of death (no less) seems to be a violation of seperation of the branches (which the Founding Fathers went out of their way to avoid). If this is a law passed by Congress rather than a Constitutional amendment, I think it would be unconstitutional, but obviously that question is left to the Supreme Court by tradition. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does the speaker become President or Acting President? --Tango (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its entirely untested, so any answer would be speculation; however most sources that discuss it that I have read indicate that only the VP can become the actual President; any other official that assumes the office will only be "Acting President", even if both the VP and Pres are dead. Its really a semantic point, since the "Acting President" does not have any defined powers that would be different than the actual "President", or he may have no defined powers at all, and would just be a figure head. The constitution and applicable laws are quite vague on this. Or the Speaker could just do what John Tyler did, and demand to be sworn in and become President; it worked before and I don't see why it would be any different in that circumstance. Regardless, it would be a major "constitutional crisis", much like what you see happening in Canada right now... Expect a major mess if that ever happened. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Speaker would remain (Acting) President for the remainder of the current term, yes? So they are President for all extents and purposes, I guess. Usually as "Acting" position is only held until a permanent replacement can be found, but I don't think the US calls special elections to replace presidents. --Tango (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't kid yourself. if both Obama and Biden were dead, Nancy Pelosi, who is constitutionally qualified to serve as president, would be the president, with no "Acting" in the title. There would be no constitutional crisis at all. On the other hand, if either or both were expected to make a recovery, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates would be Acting President until superceded. Again, no cisis. B00P (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Secretary of State precedes the Secretary of Defense. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that particular case where the Speaker is from the same party as the deceased Pres and VP, you're probably right. Nobody important would complain about it and the crisis would be minimal. If the House is controlled by a different party to the presidency, then there would almost certainly be a legal challenge. Why would the party that is about to lose the presidency not try and prevent it? (Unless they decide to actually do what is in the country's best interests at a time of, what is likely to be, a national crisis, but who seriously expects that?) --Tango (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, anybody can claim a legal challenge, even if they are in the minority party. I would not expect the situation to go smoothly. I would expect a formal legal challenge to come from somebody, and for the Supreme Court to expedite the case and to make a ruling in short order. They may very well hold that the law is consitutional, and that the Speaker could become the actual President. But there are no assurances that they will reach either of those decisions, since the statutory guidance is so ambiguous. Since the courts cannot rule on a point of law if there is no legal case, the law stands, but there is a real possibility that someone may challenge it, should the provisions of the law be acted upon. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The minority party could challenge, but would they really care that much if the new president if the Speaker from the other party or a cabinet secretary from that same party? Either way, they don't get a presidency. If the House is controlled by a different party to the presidency, they the Supreme Court would be deciding what party the new president comes from, which is a much bigger deal and you can expect a far more thorough challenge. --Tango (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humlebaek landing 1700- inconsistent Wiki entries?

Hi,

Charles XII landed with an Anglo-Dutch-Swedish force on Zealand at Humlebaek in 1700.

In the Swedish Wiki, it says with 4300 men. In the English Wiki, with 8000 men. Both surely cannot be true. Where are the sources for this information, I would like to know as much as possible about the landing.

Thank you, Julian Roche —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian Roche (talk • contribs) 06:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your best bet is to raise these concerns on the talk-page of the entry that is correct. Or 'be bold' and make the changes yourself. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Talk page route suggested above is good. Another move you can make: go into the article's History in both language versions, find which editor wrote the text in question, and leave a message on that editor's Talk page with a link to your query on the article's Talk page, and check for responses. (If you need help with this, please provide the link to the page; I couldn't find it.) If you get no response, see if there's a Wikiproject related to the topic where you can canvass support. I would, however, advise against changing the page content until and unless you have a verifiable version from a citable source, and be sure to note it in the edit summary (and on the Talk page too, for others to follow up in either or other languages as may be necessary). --Deborahjay (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles in different languages are usually not translations. They are written independently. Charles XII of Sweden#Early Campaigns says: "Leading a force of 8,000 and 43 ships in an invasion of Zealand, ...". Humlebæk or a date is not mentioned. It is about the total force attacking Zealand during July and August. sv:Karl XII#Danmark says 4300 men landed at Humlebæk on 25 July 1700. I don't see an inconsistency. Are you referring to another English article? The sources I examined (mostly in Danish) vary a little on the exact numbers but agree that only a part of the total forces landed at Humlebæk on the first day. By the way, I live in Humlebæk! PrimeHunter (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation of the Netherlands in WWII - by whom?

I am having difficulties finding information on the liberation of the Netherlands in WWII. Was Market Garden the operation or was that just the start? Did the troops simply move on into Germany or did some stay behind? And who then, and did they do any more iberating? And what about the south (Limburg)? Which troops marched in there? In other words, simply put, who liberated the Netherlands and when? Of course there will be no simple answer to this, but I am mainly trying to get some idea of how many British, Canadians, Americans, Poles and even Moroccans and Mexicans (it seems) were involved. DirkvdM (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find Netherlands in the Second World War#The final year yet? From a quick reading, some parts of the south were liberated following Operation Market Garden, but the bulk of the country was later liberated from the east by the Canadians. Some areas were not liberated until the final German surrender. DuncanHill (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have read that section and looked at Market Garden and some more as well, but those don't fully answer my questions. Oh, I now see that 'Wesel and Rees' (towards the end of 'the final year') is a link to Operation Plunder. But that states that those were UK and US forces, whilst the text in 'the final year' claims they were Canadian. Or do I misread that? And still, the story is qualitative, not quantitative. I would specifically like to know how many soldiers were involved in the various operations, and from which armies. There are several separate bits of info, but no complete overview, as there is for many other battles. DirkvdM (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian forces are often lumped in with the British army in the literature. Apparently, they made quite a lasting impression - I occasionally see mentions of warm memories and feelings harbored by the Dutch even now (at least in Canadian newspapers). (P.S. "Iberating" would have taken place further south.) Clarityfiend (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Netherland were liberated by Polish forces surving under the command of allied forces UK,USA,Canada and so they were part of armies of these countries but in fact The Netherlands and Denmark were liberated by Polish armed forces ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Army_in_the_West read here ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_1st_Armoured_Division#Belgium_and_the_Netherlands read this one as well--84.205.25.63 (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't doubt that some of the troops liberating the Netherlands were probably Polish, a great many were Canadian, and some British. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Humphrey

Anyone heard of an American child actor named Thomas Humphrey, or know anything about him? This picture from the Deutschen Bundesarchiv shows a little boy that's apparently such an actor in Hollywood, although (1) the caption is in German, so I can't be sure of its meaning, and (2) there's no article on such a person, either in English or in German. Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The caption just says: "Thomas Humphrey, the new Hollywood movie star, refreshes himself with a bit of ice cream after work." Well, I think Sahnetüten is actually some kind of whipped cream in a cone, but whatever it is, it doesn't help answer your question. --Fullobeans (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it matters, but I believe that should be "Hollywood's youngest movie star." I too am drawing a blank in online searching, though a look at the list in 1931 in film suggests that we may be dealing with a bit player in something like The Champ or City Lights, or perhaps one of the Cagney gangster films. That is, if he didn't happen to be an Our Gang wannabe or in some other of the many shorts being cranked out at the time. "Filmstar" indeed, harrumph! Deor (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
imdb has no record of a Thomas Humphrey as an actor. There is a Tom Humphrey who has been an art director since 1998, a Tommy Humphreys with one role in 2000, and a Tom Humphrey with one uncredited role in 1956. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 13

Jack-gnat and jelly-tray

In reading The Rainbow, I came across the terms "jack-gnat" and "jelly-tray". I have searched online to find the meanings of these two terms, and while I have found instances of them, I have not been successful in finding definitions for them. Neelix (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Jack-gnat" appears in the "Explanatory notes" at the end of the book, online here. It is defined there as "a small gnat". The word does not appear in the current Oxford English Dictionary online. I suspect he made it up and borrowed the "jack" from "jack-snipe", but I would not be at all surprised to learn that it is in everyday use in some dialect or other of English. "Jelly-tray" is also in the notes, although it too is not in the OED, and means "an early duplicating method, using impressions made on a prepared gelatine surface". This is for real; see Hectograph. --Milkbreath (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I checked all ten entries for jack in the OED. One of them might be what we are after, the man's name 'Jack' used to mean the common man, as opposed to a gentleman: it's at least possible that Lawrence meant 'the common or garden gnat'. It makes sense, in context. Xn4 (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jellytray seems to be guessable from its use in The Rainbow: "At the table a thin man in shirt-sleeves was rubbing a paper on a jellytray. He looked up... and stripped the paper off the tray, glancing at the violet-coloured writing transferred..." This is happening in a teachers' room, and 'jellytray' seems to me to be a printing device, perhaps a simple form of stencil duplicator? Xn4 (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the OED: "Jellygraph An appliance used for multiplying copies of writing, etc., of which the essential part is a sheet of jelly. Also attrib. Hence jellygraph v. trans., to copy with a jellygraph; jellygraphed ppl. a." The instances offered by the OED include one from Keep the Aspidistra Flying (iii. 58): "They ran an unofficial monthly paper... duplicated with a jellygraph". Xn4 (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That answers my questions. Neelix (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely weird request

I know this sounds weird but is there any way I can find a list of all the U.S. presidents by order of birth dates? Preferably those born between July 23rd and August 22nd? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not weird at all, at least not by our standards. We have just such a ready-made list, List of United States Presidents by date of birth. Just click on the "Date of Birth" icon in the table and it will list them in the order you want. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a great list, and how odd that the only two to share a birth date should be one after the other (or vice versa) 86.4.188.125 (talk) 10:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading it right, they're just listed in that part so we know they add up to the right number; it says right below the only ones to share a birthdate are 70 years apart. Or, did you mean something else?Somebody or his brother (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Friend 86 misread "18th" and "19th", which refer to the century they belonged to, as "18th and 19th President". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler quote

I remember reading somewhere that Hitler made fun of America's military and lack of weaponry, something along the lines of "what are they going to fight us with, refrigerators and automobiles?". Could someone help me with the specifics on this quote like the exact wording. Thanks. Coolotter88 (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was an exchange between Goering and Rommel, according to World War II by C. L. Sulzberger. I have no idea how reliable that is. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olde euphemisms and dysphemisms for menstruation

Hi - can anyone provide euphemisms and dysphemisms for menstruation that might have been current, or precede, the European renaissance?

Thanks,

Adambrowne666 (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The King James Version of the Bible would be reasonably close to the Rennaissance, I think, as the term would have been in use for a while. It uses "the manner of women." The example I'm thinking of is dealintg with Sarah, and childbearing age, not menstruation specifically. However, since the two are connected, I think "the manner of women" would be viable.Somebody or his brother (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is Pranayama ?

What is PRANAYAMA ?what is the meaning of pranayama ,objects of pranayama.GEENA SAJITH (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something of this is revealed at Pranayama. Xn4 (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seating in the British House of Commons

I often notice that MPs in the house are scattered around on the benches during debates. Perhaps this is because the benches are full for things like PMQs, and then some MPs leave when it is over, and those that remain do not bother to shuffle together. I know there are not enough seats in the house for all of them, so that precludes a proper seating plan, but is there some sort of guide to where MPs should sit, say, by region? --Rixxin 12:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Different parties have different areas to sit (Government on one side, Opposition on the other, roughly speaking, there is sometimes some overflow depending on numbers, and the opposition benches are split between the different minority parties), and senior members of the party (cabinet ministers/shadow ministers) sit on the front bench, others sit further back (hence the name, "backbenchers"). Beyond that, I don't think there is a system. --Tango (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS Statistics

Does anyone have any sort of statistics for the number of US citizens that visit Africa for buisness, missions work, or pleasure and contract HIV/AIDS while there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.25.62 (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Brazilians

I want to do my NHD project on historic Brazilians, but I don't know any.

71.199.240.221 (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)What would be a good NHD project idea that is Brazilian?71.199.240.221 (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)What is a good website (besides Wiki) to research him/her71.199.240.221 (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know what an NHD project is, click the link below.

[42]

Please hurry: this is do next Friday!!!

Hi there. Please read our article on the History of Brazil, and then pick someone that interests you from that article, and read our article on that person. You will find links from there to other web sites. If you have other questions after that, come back here and ask and we may be able to help further. You might even find something of interest to put in one of our articles. -Arch dude (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bills

What are some common bills people have to pay for? I have thought of health insurance, auto insurance, internet, phone, cell phone, taxes, electricity, garbage. I am trying to think of things I will have to pay when I move out of my parents house. Thanks.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&oldid=257774826"