Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

July 10

Sophia descendants

What would happen if all the descendants of Sophia of Hanover died out? I know this is impossible since there is over 1000 of them, but what if they did? Who would be the next to take the British throne?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming you've checked Line of succession to the British throne? A very (very) brief read suggest that list is purely Sophia-based though. Maybe we'd get a King Ralph scenario!! That'd be entertaining (like the movie was, at least to me). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the Jacobites would get another chance. If so, Franz, Duke of Bavaria, would inherit the crown, which would eventually devolve upon Sophie, Hereditary Princess of Liechtenstein. But this is all pure speculations, because nobody knows what would happen. In fact, it is most likely that the UK would become a republic. Surtsicna (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no really authoritative source, but as the Royal Family website puts it, "...the Act of Settlement confirmed that it was for Parliament to determine the title to the throne." It would be up to Parliament to elect a new monarch. It's an interesting question whether the power to elect a ruler in the absence of an heir would entitle Parliament to declare a republic (the Finnish Parliament used just that argument in 1917, and we're happily republican since then, having been spared a German king). It's not immediately clear that it would, but then it was not immediately clear that it had the power to install William and Mary, either.--Rallette (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There's LOTS of legal and historical precedent to say that the Monarch of the UK serves at the pleasure of Parliament. I'm not saying that they would act arbitrarily in any situation, but they have supreme jurisdiction in matters concerning who is or is not elligible to be king or queen. See especially English Civil Wars, Act of Settlement 1701, Glorious Revolution, etc. etc. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Such an Act of Parliament would still need Royal Assent, so I'm not sure what would happen if they ran out of heirs suddenly and didn't have time to pass an Act before the monarch died. If there was some warning it would be simple enough to pass an act repealing the Sophia-clause (or abolishing the monarchy entirely). --Tango (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the Queen or King could withold Royal Assent; see again Charles I of England, James II of England. In most cases where there has been a constitutional crisis of this nature, parliament has made it abundantly clear that, when push comes to shove, it has supremacy in ALL matters, including this one. Again, I am not saying Parliament would take any act of this nature without just cause to do so, but it has shown in the past that where it deems necessary, it will make the ultimate decision about who will be King or Queen. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I know, but if there isn't a monarch there is no-one to give Royal Assent, even if it is just a formality. Some kind of extralegal action would be required - it would basically be a revolution or coup, albeit an extremely peaceful one. --Tango (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

We're forgetting that these days the UK monarch rarely personally puts pen to paper to give Royal Assent to bills. This action is taken by the Lords Commissioners in the name of the sovereign. Maybe they could do it on behalf of the crown, even if they could not name the occupier of that office. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What's your source for that, Jack? A few years ago there was a BBC documentary about the Queen, which showed her signing bills and giving her Royal Assent. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I’m confused, I must say. I have also seen photos of the Queen personally signing bills, but I thought it was nowadays an uncommon practice. I can’t find it now, but I was certain this topic was discussed here not that long ago, and it was generally understood that only certain special bills are sent to the Palace for the Queen’s personal signature, and that the others are done by the Lords Commissioners in her name. Royal Assent says that"... the Sovereign does not actually analyze the bill and make a decision on whether or not to grant Assent. In practice, the granting of Assent is purely ceremonial. Officially, Assent is granted by the Sovereign or by Lords Commissioners authorised to act by letters patent". But later on, it says: "During the 1960s, the ceremony of assenting by Commission was discontinued, and is now only employed once a year, at the end of the annual parliamentary session." This link talks about the LCs giving Royal Assent by Commission. If nothing else, it’s a fascinating insight into the sorts of arcane ritual that may still sometimes prevail. However, it seems to suggest that the LCs don’t have a standing commission to assent to any bills without reference to the sovereign, but each bill or group of bills has to be the subject of a separate commission under Letters Patent from the sovereign - which almost seems to defeat the purpose. It would be more time consuming to have Letters Patent created, which she has to sign anyway, than to simply sign the damn bills and be done with it. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think she would have to actually go to the Houses of Parliament if she were to assent to them herself. If you watch the clip of the new Speaker's recent approbation the commissioners said something along the lines of "It not being convenient for Her Majesty to be present at this time she has commissioned us to issue the following", I guess Royal Assent is a similar process, although apparently they don't go through the whole ritual every time (I don't know what legal fiction they use to get around that). --Tango (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the words are mentioned in the link I provided. But I don't understand why there'd be any such requirement for a queen, when it doesn't apply to her governors-general. They just sign bills into law in the comfort of their official residences, and brief messages are conveyed to the parliament that assent has been granted. The only time governors-general are ever required to physically appear in parliament is at the opening of a new parliament after a general election. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what effectively happens, but what legally happens may well be that the monarch/governor-general signs a commission authorising someone else to sign the actual bill into law, and that happens in parliament. --Tango (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not the case in Australia. The G-G personally signs the bill at home or wherever, and parliament is then informed that Royal Assent has been granted. See a recent example, page 40, 2nd column, where 10 bills have been assented to. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It's odd that no one has mentioned Alternate successions of the English crown. —Tamfang (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Question on Dow Industrial

Currently the Dow is something like 8000-8200 ish. It is not a simple average. So with the current values of the stocks, how much does 1 stock going down 1 point affect the Dow average? Say if Chevron dropped 1 point and everything else stayed constant? Googlemeister (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Each component stock has a calculated weighting factor. It changes when the stock splits, for instance. Edison (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So as it is now, how many points down will the dow average go if Chevron goes down 1 point and none of the others changed? Googlemeister (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As the article Dow Jones Industrial Average mentions, the Dow Jones is a price-weighted average, and then scaled to account for stock splits and indicator stock changes. The way it is calculated is given at Dow Jones Industrial Average#Calculation, which turns out to be the sum of the individual component prices, divided by the DJIA divisor (currently 0.132319125). So if the stock price of Chevron dropped one point, the DJIA should go down 1/(DJIA Divisor) or about 7.6 points currently. -- 128.104.112.84 (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks 128. Googlemeister (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Madame Ngô Đình Nhu a gunslinging Dragon Lady?

I have heard persistent stories for several years now that Madame Ngô Đình Nhu used those pistols she was often photographed with, upon those who incurred her wrath. Examples I've heard include her shooting a hairdresser who gave her a bad 'do, and sniping at strategic hamlets from a helicopter. Google search brings up nothing, maybe I don't have the right keywords, maybe the text is all in Vietnamese, which I can't read... Help? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned that even suggesting this is a WP:BLP violation - the subject of the question is still alive. Exxolon (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Asking a question is a violation? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You may have her (the hotty former 1st lady of Vietnam) with "Dragon Lady (character)" in Terry and the Pirates, a comic strip, radio program, and TV program. Edison (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't, I promise this is how it's put to me. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And once he has her, what should he do with the two of them? // BL \\ (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I omitted the "confused," but the sandwich might be interesting. Edison (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• I like your thinking. ;) Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Has this happened?

Is there some record in history of a case where two nations are at war, and the ruler (king, president, whatever) of one nation personally kills the ruler of the other one? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What an interesting question. I'm gonna probably spend the better part of the next hour thinking of possible answers to this. It is certainly the case where heads of state have died in battles where both were present, see Harold Godwinson, defending England at the Battle of Hastings, at which William the Conquerer, then ruling Duke of Normandy, was also present leading the invading army. But it is almost certain that William did not personally kill Harold in battle. It's a certainly interesting question... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, our article on the duel (different thing, I know) mentions that "In 1593 Siamese King Naresuan slays Burmese Crown Prince Minchit Sra, in a duel on the back of war elephants", which is altogether pretty close. I think he was the son of the King of Ayutthaya. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 18:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Single combat in warfare has been common at various times and places, but was normally fought between opposing champions rather than leaders. Naresuan's killing of the opposing prince in elephantback combat is the closest thing mentioned in that article. Algebraist 18:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Another close one, but not exactly the same, at the Battle of Corupedium, the last battle of the Diadochi, supposedly Lysimachus and Seleucus did face each other in hand-to-hand combat; but the same article also notes that ultimately Lysimachus was killed by a spear thrown by one of Seleucus' soldiers. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

In one account of the Battle of Megiddo, Josiah, king of Judah, was personally killed by the Pharoah of Egypt, Necho II, in battle. However, in a different account, Josiah was killed by Egyptian archers. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's one: Talorgan I of the Picts killed Dúnchad mac Conaing of Dalriada in battle. Not sure if this means personally, or just that Dunchad was killed doing battle with Talorgan's army. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. So there are a few battles where one of the leaders is killed, but it's not entirely clear whose actual hand did it. In the Biblical case, there are conflicting accounts. Then there's the war-elephant duel. I think I'm gonna go ahead and say that counts, per the "War-elephants Clause", (there always is one) which says that if war-elephants are involved, other rules might just change.

Talorgan I of the Picts and Dúnchad mac Conaing get an honorable mention for cool-sounding names, and obviously, Necho II wins "best dressed".

It is a fun question though, isn't it? I'm not sure what's compelling about it. On a comic-book level, I like the idea of killing someone and taking their country, but I would be horrified if I heard that Obama had gotten on an war-elephant, was vanquished, and now I'm Canadian, or Dutch or something.

Thanks for the replies - have a good weekend! Don't get on any war-elephants... -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Other than single combat in battle, another way this could happen is if a leader is captured and the opposing leader chooses to kill them personally. I have no idea whether this has actually occurred or not. Algebraist 19:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That would work, too. I wouldn't put it past a lot of those Roman Emperors, or Genghis. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The Bulgarian tsar Krum made a drinking cup out of Byzantine emperor Nikephoros I's skull, although he probably didn't kill him personally. Also, Saladin personally killed (or ordered someone to kill while he was standing right there) Raynald of Chatillon, who, although not the king of Jerusalem, was the most powerful noble of the kingdom. (He had captured the king too, though.) Adam Bishop (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Mstislav of Chernigov killed Rededya in a single combat. --Dr Dima (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Source? Our article, itself unsourced, just has 'vanquished', which might not involve death. Algebraist 20:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The Tale of Igor's Campaign; see also Russian version of Mstislav of Chernigov article. --Dr Dima (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Algebraist 03:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

According to our Battle of Vouillé article, Clovis I, King of the Franks killed Alaric II, King of the Visigoths. Exxolon (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No head of state has actually been killed while fighting in battle leading the army since Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden in 1632. A fighting leader would be subject to being captured and humiliated before being executed. This dictates against being in the final fight at all, and then there is the unlikelihood of being in a place to do single combat with the opposing leader. Edison (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Does a Roman consul count? Marcus Claudius Marcellus took the spolia opima from Viridomarus. As did Aulus Cornelius Cossus from Lar Tolumnius, king of the Veientes. I don't count Romulus, since he was a mythological figure, taking the spolia from Acro, king of the Caeninenses. Marcus Licinius Crassus Dives slew Deldo, king of the Bastarnae. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's an interesting take on the subject - Saul declined to kill Agag, King of the Amalekites, despite specific instructions to do so. The prophet Samuel was incensed, and did the job himself, before prophesying the end of Saul's short-lived dynasty, for his disobedience. --Dweller (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Monegasque royal family

Since Prince Albert of Monaco has no legitimate heirs, does Salic Law preclude his sister Caroline from succeeding him, or is she eligible for the throne? Since her daughter Princess Alexandra is being raised as a Protestant, would that cause any problems to Alexandra succeeding to the throne? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you read Albert II, Prince of Monaco#Succession issues? Algebraist 00:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

As Algebraist points out, Caroline is Albert's heir (unless he actually fathers a legitimate child). A fuller treatment is at Line of succession to the Monegasque throne. There is no religious requirement: Catholicism is the state religion, but there is no formal requirement in the Constitution of Monaco that the monarch be Catholic. :) - Nunh-huh 00:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't a royal family include a king somewhere? grumble grumble. —Tamfang (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

July 11

Argument based on the matter's unimportance

Not sure if this is a philosophy/logic question or a language one, but I'll ask here to start with. Is there a term for arguing that because something is unimportant, the person making the argument should get their way? For example, there are two people arguing over who should get the last box of candy, and one of them says: "It's only candy. Why do you care who gets it? Just let me have it." Similarly, a politician might say: "We propose that the law should say X, but the other party claims that it should say Y. However, there is no practical difference between the two, so they should stop being obstructive and support a law which says X." If this is the whole of the argument, it would seem to be poor logic — an issue may well be unimportant, but by itself, that doesn't constitute an argument for or against either of the options, does it? People are basically arguing "it doesn't matter, so I win", even though "it doesn't matter, so you win" seems to make just as much sense unless there are other factors involved. Is there a term to describe this sort of argument? -- 203.97.105.173 (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like a varient of Ignoratio elenchi, which is mainly about drawing illogical conclusions from true, but irrelevent arguements. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Since it really doesn't matter, let's just assume it's a variant of ignoratio elenchi. -Arch dude (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Who first wrote, "if you're so smart, how come you're not rich?"

I heard it was novelist Flannery O'Connor, or perhaps D.H. Lawrence, but cannot find it anywhere on the internet.

Please help, it's driving me crazy!

Thanks,

Jim Turner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.208.131.3 (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This page says it may come from vaudeville. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it took until the 1900s for someone to be the first to say (or even write) that. It sounds more like a phrase that would have its roots as a popular saying and with a much longer history. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Variants that may be useful for searching include "If you're so smart why aren't you rich?" and "If you're so smart why ain't you rich?" I vaguely recall the latter as the last line of a Eudora Welty story, though I don't remember the title. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be "Petrified Man." Good story. Deor (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Not the phrase itself, but the earliest example of this sentiment that I know is in Aristotle's politics. The target, Thales responded by making a small fortune in olive oil. Algebraist 18:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"If You So Smart, How Come You Ain't Rich?" is the title of a song by Louis Jordan. As Jordan was a major figure in American music, it was likely this that made the "If You So Smart, How Come You Ain't Rich?" line so well-known.

But I don't know who originated it. CBHA (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall us talking about this very song not too many months ago on here. It definitely is what popularized the phrase in US culture (there are zero newspaper references to it before the song came out, which is a decent barometer), but that of course is just a discussion about what popularized it, not originated (which is a dubious game to try and play anyway, as William Safire discussed in a recent column). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it the slogan of the Mensa society? Rhinoracer (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Touché. CBHA (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

river ford at Beeston Nottinghamshire

Prior to the building of the Beeston canal 1796, did a ford over the river Trent exist in a position below where the existing weir built with the canal is now. In August 2006 the river level was very low, so low in fact that a line of stones crossing the river appeared above the water level (I do have photographs of these stones). I have lived in Beeston for 70 years never before have i seen this "ford". can anyone help to determine if my assumption would be correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.222.111 (talk) 10:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably your local history society or municipal archives or librarian will have better access to sources than random people will be able to turn up by searching the Internet... AnonMoos (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the Netherlands the most Islamophobic country in the world?

Is the Netherlands the most Islamophobic country in the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.62.86 (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably not; however, it's the country where some political groups have currently gained electoral traction on an anti-Muslim-immigrant platform (partially based on the fact that in some cases Muslims rather conspicuously stand out in a small densely-populated country which used to be quite homogeneous in many respects). AnonMoos (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if the Netherlands as a nation actually discriminates against or persecutes Muslims as a matter of public policy, somehow I doubt it though, which is what I'd describe as an Islamophobic country. I'd say the country, the state, must be held seperate from the people who happen to live in it.

France has the no burqa in schools policy which is seen as officially anti-Muslim by many. (and the President's recent comment on banning them completely) The Netherlands had the nude sunbathers in the cultural video required viewing for immigrants that which some saw as officially anti-Muslim[1]. Rmhermen (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Islamophobic seems a bit hard to define, though I think Israel is likely to be a contender. AllanHainey (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much nonsense -- politicized Islamic ideology actually played a fairly small role in the Arab-Israeli conflict before the early 1980's, and over the last 60 years Muslims have had a lot more freedom to publicly worship in Israel than Jews have had freedom to publicly worship in Arab countries (there are a lot of mosques in Israel, but I would be surprised if the number of currently-functioning synagogues in all Arab-ruled countries other than Morocco was much beyond the single digits). AnonMoos (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

We can argue to great length what the criteria for measuring Islamophobia (or Antisemitism) would be, but the quantitive measuring of number of religious buildings is probably the least useful. The number of mosques in present-day Israel is primarily related to the fact that Palestine was a predominately Muslim country prior to Nakba. By similar argument, Bhutan would be far more antisemitic than Poland. If we are to measure Islamophobia (which probably will turn out to be an impossibility to find an objective set of criteria) then it ought to be more interesting to measure attitudes amongst the population towards Muslims (in terms of negative stereotypes, etc.). It's quite difficult to white-wash the fact that Islamophobic attitudes, and anti-Arab attitudes in general, are very prevalent in Israeli society today. --Soman (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it is NOT the case that "By similar argument, Bhutan would be far more antisemitic than Poland"! My observation was that the number of functioning synagogues in Arab countries has undergone a dramatic and catastrophically precipitous decline over the course of the 20th century, while the number of functioning mosques in Israel has moderately increased since the early 1950's. I really doubt whether there has been a corresponding DECLINE in the number of synagogues in Bhutan, so Thimphu is off the hook. It's not perfect, of course, but the fact of a decline in the number of functioning houses of worship of a particular religion in a particular country can be a roughly-approximate yet practically-useful indicator of big problems with freedom of religion in cases where opinion surveys are not available, or would not be all that helpful...

In any case, fighting wars with enemies who happen to be majority-Muslim is not the same thing as Islamophobia, and if there has been a rise in purely-religious odium theologicum in the Arab-Israeli conflict, it is because many Muslims have made a deliberate conscious intentional choice to emphasize that aspect over the last 30 years or so. During the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's, most Arab leaders were careful to state that the Arab-Israeli conflict was not a "religious war" as such... AnonMoos (talk) 10:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

A bit of a side-track, but anyway: according to the wiki article History of the Jews in Syria, Syria has a Jewish population of 200 and two running synagogues. If those estimates are in fact correct, thats a ratio of 1:100. An equal level of mosques in Israel, counting that Muslims are 16% of the Israeli population, would be 11857. Afghanistan under Taleban rule had 2 Jewish residents and one running synagogue. There are historical factors behind all of these developments. When we talk of Islamophobia in a modern context, it is not a measure of freedom of religious practice as such, but the way Muslims are perceived and stereotyped in society at large. --Soman (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That's nice; two synagogues in Syria does nothing to disturb my skepticism that the number of functioning synagogues in all Arab-ruled countries other than Morocco is not much beyond the single digits. Meanwhile, the same article you linked to points out that "When partition was declared in 1947, Arab mobs in Aleppo devastated the 2,500-year-old Jewish community. Scores of Jews were killed and more than 200 homes, shops and synagogues were destroyed." Such ethnic cleansing is a little bit more serious than the typical attitudes and stereotypes revealed in opinion surveys. And I completely fail to see on what basis people are concluding that that Israel an alleged hotbed of virulent Islamophobia, other than their personal political dislikes. The Kach Party has been banned and prohibited from competing in Israeli elections on a number of occasions, and has conspicuously failed to attract a mass following. Having a conflict of interest with people who are Muslims does not make you an Islamophobe, or else every war fought against a Christian-majority nation would be an incident of "anti-Christianism". Frankly, I would say that Israel is remarkably pluralistic, given the many decades of unremitting hostility and "throw the Jews into the sea" type rhetoric which it faced from all surrounding countries (and still faces from the "Jews are sons of dogs and pigs" preachers of Hezbollah and Hamas). -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is going beyond the original query at RD, i'm replying at AnonMoos' talk page instead. --Soman (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If the Queen of Denmark represents her country, then Denmark is likely more Islamophobic than the Netherlands. Surtsicna (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not an honest question with a possible answer, but simply an attempt to provide opportunity of venting personal points-of-view. It is entirely inappropriate to the Reference desk.--Wetman (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

+1 What Wetman said. I don't usualy use discussion boards language here, but this question, although probably posted in good faith, deserves it.TomorrowTime (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course a country includes the people living in the country. If you were a Muslim living in the Netherlands, how much prejudice and discrimination would you face? Compare with other countries. That is what I mean by Islamophobic. So Wetman, this is a relevant question.

Here is a report on a 2006 survey of attitudes toward Muslims in 13 countries (as well as Muslims' attitudes towards the West). Of the countries surveyed, Spaniards were the most likely to agree that Muslims are "fanatical;" (non-Muslim) Nigerians were the most likely to agree that Muslims are "violent;" and Indians were most likely to agree that Muslims are "arrogant." Interestingly, Americans and Britons were less likely to hold negative views of Muslims than people in other countries did. Some of the countries mentioned in this discussion, such as the Netherlands and Denmark, were not included in the survey. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This question is based on the classic logical fallacy known as the fallacy of many questions. "When did you stop beating your wife?". The fact that it presupposes a condition which is not yet shown to be true (the islamophobia of dutch society) makes it a loaded question, as Wetman notes above. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 03:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Jayron32 -- the original questioner was presumably at least partially motivated by the objective factual datum of the rise of the Party for Freedom of Geert Wilders in the European Parliament election, 2009 last month. The question may have been intended to be provocative, but it was not a fact-free closed logical circle... AnonMoos (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not plurium interrogationum. The questioner is clearly assuming that Holland is islamophobic, but this presupposition is not actually required to answer the question. If Holland is not in fact islamophobic, then the question can be answered with a simple 'no'. Algebraist 09:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me the question cannot be answered in any meaningful way without first answering this one.

What objective measures of "Islamophobia" are to be used?

Also, are some sort of statistics maintained that would allow comparing one country to another? Perhaps there is some agency that has such information. CBHA (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This looks like an interesting site. Iblardi (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

USA ? [2] Islamophobia#Islamophobic_Views —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say there is not any islamaphobic countries; Countries in the modern world only seem interested in being politicaly correct right down to the foundations of society; however if you flip that on its head you do not see this happening in a Muslim dominated society Muslim is right no matter what and there is no give and take for other people living in that country especially if you are a minority. There for only people with a phobia against a religion would be islamic countries (if your not a muslim and you dont become one you should be killed i think the mantra is)214.13.64.7 (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

How ironic, what 214 said is an example of Islamophobia. Like I said, how much prejudice and discrimination would a Dutch Muslim face compared to, say, a Singaporean Muslim? Prejudice and discrimination can range from negative stereotypes to hate speech to hate crimes to official discrimination. I believe there are ways to measure Islamophobia and compare the level of Islamophobia in different countries. For example, statistics on hate crimes, surveys about prejudice (I saw one above) and info on official discrimination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.64.28 (talk) 10:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that 214.13.64.7 was trying to point out (in his own rhetorically loose way) that the status of Christians in Pakistan (for example) is not an enviable one... AnonMoos (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Egypt.--Radh (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What about the discriminations of Muslim sects (Shia/Shiites) by one another? One could consider whether some Muslims are not discriminated the most in Muslim countries... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one nominated the Vatican City. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Dilip Barua

Which constituency did Industry Minister Dilip Barua win? or was it that Sheikh Hasina appointed him to that portfolio? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.124 (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

According to New Age National, Dilip Barua ran for the Chittagong-1 constituency in 2008. According to LCG Bangladesh, Mohammad Ali Jinnah won that seat. So presumably, Barua can't have won a seat at the last election --Saalstin (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Barua was selected from the 'technocrat quota'. --Soman (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

What is a 'technocrat quota'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.124 (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.7 (talk)

Bangladesh cabinet portfolios

Which political allies of Awami League got cabinet portfolios from Sheikh Hasina? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.158 (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If you mean in the current government, I believe this is a list of cabinet members (in Bengali). Algebraist 19:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Faulty logic in supporting the example of inelastic demand

While it is true that the demand for drinking water is inelastic and that for sugar is comparatively elastic, the argument put forward that it is so because there are many substitutes for sugar is faulty.If GUR, saccharine, or other substitutes are expected to replace sugar it is incorrect because no of them is cheaper than sugar.The reason why demand for sugar falls when prices go up too much is because poorer people forego its consumption.#REDIRECT [[Sharma_1932#REDIRECT Target page name]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharma1932 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are you posting this here? Algebraist 19:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The best place to ask this question, since it deals with the content of an article, is probably the article itself.. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 19:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Although jaggery and certainly saccharine might be more expensive than cane sugar, I'm pretty sure that corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup are sometimes cheaper, at least in some parts of the world. Red Act (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

July 12

Do the schools in the Ivy Leaugue or at any university have....

Does anyone know if any university has classes on the American Civil War? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 03:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You can access one of Yale's classes on the Civil War online at [3] - Nunh-huh 04:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I would guess that EVERY American university with a History Department has classes on the American Civil War, and many outside of the U.S. likely will as well. It is, without a doubt, one of the most studied aspects of American history. At many universities with a 2-semester "General U.S. History" sequence, the civil war generally takes up the last half of the first semester's class, probably at least one or two months. I would also almost guarantee that any sizable 4-year school will also have a specific class about the Civil War itself; and likely will have several classes, each from different perspectives. Looking at the history courses at my alma mater, I can see ones titled "Civil War and Reconstruction" and "United States Social and Cultural History: 1850-1929" and "Historical Archaeology of American Battlefields" just skimming a few which would probably have special emphasis on the Civil War. And this was not an Ivy League school, but a state university on the East Coast. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 04:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The American Civil War would be covered in the required courses at an Ivy, but there would likely not be a required course in the core curriculum at an Ivy which covered only that war. Edison (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Book

I remember reading a book in my childhood that had something with "Snake Island" in the title (though I might be wrong) and some stuff about manioc (tapioca, cassava) and a skeleton in a cave. That's sadly all I can remember. Does anyone know what it was? 80.123.210.172 (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Treasure Island perhaps? Lord of the Flies maybe. Coral Island? Google suggests The Mystery of Snake Island (1962) A novel by Phyllis Matthewman; D.Chub On Snake Island 1958, The Motor Boys After A Fortune or, The Hut On Snake Island 1912, Curse Of Snake Island by Brian James. 78.149.188.94 (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

These are all more-or-less children's books. I read the book in my childhood, but it definitely wasn't a children's book. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Geopolitics?

Why is Alaska part of the US instead of Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.92.24 (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The article History of Alaska gives a detailed explanation. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Alaska was settled by the Russians and western Canada by the British. The border between British and Russian America was established by treaty in 1825. In 1867, the U.S. bought Alaska from Russia. The adjacent areas of British America became part of Canada in the 1870s. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

July 13

English royal succession discrepency

Request comments:

Under Act of Parliament 1331, foreign title holders not born in England are not part of the royal line of succession. This not only barred the Portuguese allied Lancastrian heirs of Edward III (which included Henry the Navigator), but was reason for Henry VIII to bar the Scottish line via Margaret from succeeding Elizabeth, also should have been enough to keep Philip of Spain, William of Orange as well as Hanoverian descendants off of the throne, in self interest, rather than jure uxoris.

Foreign-born were, in order, from Denmark (Sweyn Forkbeard), then Hungary (Edgar Aetheling), Scotland (St. Margaret), Rome (Henry IV, Salian emperor), France (William the Conqueror), Acre (Princess Joan), Wales (Edward II), Portugal (Edward/Duarte of Portugal), etc. with repetitions from these nations, interwoven for the line of primogeniture.

I'm just digging now to see the Edwardian Portuguese line, considering the ancient alliance and it being the most recent foreign origin of royal blood, before the hypocritical & typical Tudor "approval" for interjection of the Scottish James VI on the basis of contrived religious policy, followed later with his foreign heirs, most of which, like James himself, were originally non-Anglo-Protestants, much less Anglo-Catholics. There was a vague accessory hope for uniting the two kingdoms into a more powerful "Britain", by allowing the Scottish male line to succeed in England, rather than the English male line to succeed in Scotland. (the Scots would never allow a reverse) A similar set of unions were to follow, under the Hanoverians, when the "official" construction of "Britain" occurred, or at least confirmed by Parliament, designer and architect of Protestant unifications, through the machinations of the Lords Cromwell, whether the Earl of Essex or his nephew the Lord Protector and their Prime Minister followers.

what's the question? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping for an analysis of the nativist legislation, before and after the unions and adoption of Protestantism. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 06:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty working through all your rhetorical flourishes to find the basic meaning, but having a foreigner come to rule one's country would seem to be a legitimate political concern in most contexts. However, in the post-medieval period foreign monarchs did in fact ascend to rule over England in 1603 (James I, Scottish), 1689 (William III, Dutch), and 1714 (George I, German)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the value of such legislation as the 1331 act of parliament and the succession act of Henry VIII, which bar foreigners, if Parliament simply overrides the code, without actually eliminating it? What present legal status is afforded legislation which has never been abolished? How else to put it, than a government which acts as if it is above its own laws? 70.171.239.21 (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of your analysis that Edward II was foreign-born, as England had annexed Wales by 1331 and made it part of England. I suspect the answer to your question lies in the English Reformation somewhere: if Henry VIII (or Elizabeth) had passed an edict saying only non-Catholics were eligible to take the throne, this may have included the intent that the 1331 law be rescinded. I'm also not sure of your point about the English male line taking over in Scotland: surely the point was that there was no English line of succession full stop so the question is not relevant. I would also point out that, until the English Revolution in the 1650s, Parliament was not the supreme legislator in this country: the King could still demand that his Subjects obey his own laws, and not those passed by Parliament. This was the very thing that got Charles I beheaded.--TammyMoet (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

How did Parliament override both the 1331 act and the Henrician succession acts (both of which were exclusionary), to import James and all the others in his wake, all the while presenting their case as though it was nativist, vis a vis Philip of Spain, or even the old French dynasties? If you point to the Reformation, then that is a further cause of inquiry: how do German ministers become more natural and customary than Roman priests, except by a coup d'etat via the "fidei defensor"? In addition, I wonder how you could say that the Tudors themselves were not a Parliamentarian faction which was supported by dissidents to overthrow the legitimate monarchy, with arguments similar to Simon de Montfort (rebellions can come from the Lords, not just Commons)? 70.171.239.21 (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I go back to the point that to all intents and purposes, the monarch during the 16th century was an absolute one, possibly as a legacy of the Wars of the Roses. Parliament was not as authoritative as you seem to think it was during this time: the monarch could do as he or she pleased and quite often did. An example of this was indeed the Reformation, which led to the Dissolution of the Monasteries, which was imposed on England by Henry VIII. Even though Parliament passed an Act making him Supreme Head of the Church, if they hadn't he had the power to have them all beheaded! Henry VIII was given the title of "fidei defensor" by the Pope before the schism with Rome, but chose to keep it after the schism to illustrate his defence of the new "true faith". The Act of Succession 1543 is the act that excluded Margaret Tudor's heirs in Scotland from succeeding, and I suspect that's the Act you're thinking of. However, James I's claims were not from Margaret Tudor, but via Lord Darnley, who was descended from Henry VII. Another thing you seem to discount was the antipathy between England and France/Spain, against whom we had fought wars for centuries - remember the Spanish Armada? the Hundred Years War? The schism with Rome was the event which crystallised the self-identity of England, and polarised thought against Catholic countries. The overriding concern during the 16th and 17th centuries was that no Catholic should ever rule England, and this is what drove succession policy. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That argument ignores the facts of the time. Protestantism in England was foisted by the new Lords (the reviled "new men"), those of whom had recently been part of mercantile links established on par with Richard II's imperial marriage to the Luxembourg dynasty and the Lollard connection to the Hussites...all of which was a result of the Black Death's ramifications. The majority of England was Catholic and so the Plantagenet lineage remained, even through Beaufort bastardy. It was the Parliamentarian betrayal of Richard III with an attainted earl that really set the course of future events along the same lines of a cultural revolution imposed from above. Most of England welcomed Papal support for their devotion, although they of course felt divided consciences and sentiments when their ex-king Philip would be somebody they'd have to fight and it would doom their cause. After all, England provided its own Pope (which gave them Ireland), Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Peter's Pence, Crusading troops and kings beginning even with the West Saxon dynasty and a royal family heavily invested in the affairs of Europe, such as Sicily, Castile, Germany, Cyprus and even Jerusalem itself. It can hardly be the Royal Family's own ambition to undo all they worked for so hard and long to achieve! It meant England would be shut out of Europe and Christendom by its own doing, through the machinations of private greed made national obsession. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 09:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If I understand what you're saying correctly, then perhaps the answer is that a family dynasty is sometimes more important than a nationality. James of Scotland became king because he was related to Elizabeth; the fact that he was Scottish was secondary. Same with the Hanoverians later, it didn't matter that they were German, only that they were the next closest bloodline. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You've got the right idea with your last sentence. Henry VIII indeed wanted to break away from Europe and Christendom if it meant he could marry Anne Boleyn, and the Spanish Armada ensured that Elizabeth reinforced the English national identity by means of her famous speech. When England provided a Pope it was 400 years before the Tudors: we'd had at least one civil war by that time and were on the way to another. Where I think your argument fails is its presumption that there was a concensus operating in England throughout those 400 years. History shows that there definitely wasn't. There were a number of families who all fancied a go at ruling England, and through marriage most of them were entitled to. By the time of James I's accession, most if not all Europeanism had died in England, as a result of the Protestant revolution (however it came about). To answer the question of why the Hanoverians were invited to take over the monarchy, the keystone is Protestantism and the extreme antipathy with which all Catholic countries were regarded. After the death of Anne, the last remaining Stuart monarch, there was very little choice available to the English Parliament - who, after all, had reinvented itself after the Commonwealth and didn't want to go back to being a Republic. That was within living memory, whereas all the things you mention (English Pope, Crusades...) were centuries old. So going to Anne's second cousin, because of his descent from the House of Stuart and his Protestantism, was the only real choice they had, having already deposed one king for his Catholicism. The Act of Settlement 1701 ensured that no Catholic would become the monarch of Great Britain. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, if only that made sense. There was a consensus about England's constitution and it was broken by the "new men", whom were considered evil by rich and poor alike. These "new men" slowly overturned the nation's course during the Wars of the Roses, seizing their opportunity as the nation was distracted by royal melodrama. These "new men" were civil servants who introduced bureaucracy as a way of life and means to all ends, being the bedrock behind modern day political systems. It was funded by pilfering from ecclesiastic institutions across the land, against the freedom of religion and conscience, mostly because they themselves didn't have either in one bone of their body. Another thing...you see, anti-Continentalism cannot make sense if your dynasties come from Europe! How blind can the people be made to be? It's like how the Nazis claimed to be White Supremacist and "Indo-Germanic" in particular, but their affection for the Japanese "honourary Aryans" (not that Indo-Aryan culture or heritage is European anyways, but the linguo-fascists never stop the perversion of science through racism, to appropriate foreign culture as its own) is continued by neo-nazis today who, whilst hating Jews and Blacks, find nothing but greatness in the IQ scores of NE Asians. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Stuarts were a curious choice (wolves in sheeps' clothing), including the above mention of Lord Darnley, sharing the same Tudor line as his wife. The Franco-Scottish Auld Alliance can be said to have triumphed over England and Portugal, for the combined forces of the Tudor lineage in both Mary Stewart and Henry Stuart, in the body of James, thoroughly swept away the old order, which Henry VII and VIII frantically tried to stamp out (having been traitors ever since Owen and Katherine of Valois tied the knot). Mary married Francis II and Darnley was heir to the Aubigny tradition of the Stuarts' privileged comfort with the Parisian-ruled French (ie the Capetian dynasty and offshoots), which the old Royals were explicitly against, as warming up to that partisanship of France meant canceling out the claim of Edward III, through the body of the Stuart house, always on comfortable terms with the Bourbons. Even though this was obviously enough to earn an ouster of their position on the Throne with James II, inviting all the Germans in would only please those who engineered, or profited from the changes wrought by Cranmer, Cromwell and all others with Hanseatic kontor or other ties to Saxony. This is obviously Parliament, champion of its own liberties and jealous of any royal dictation, citing some obscure Anglo-Saxonism which hardly existed before expedient excuses were wanting. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 09:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the compelling thing here is that the 1331 act is from 1331 and thus likely overridden by later Acts of Parliament. Over time, Parliament essentially established that it could do whatever the heck it darned well pleased with regards to the Monarchy; even when it gave lipservice to acting constitutionally, it's always generally been an after-the-fact justification. This is not to say that Parliament acts arbitrarily in these matters, but it is clear that when it comes down to it, they are fully willing to forgo ancient laws to reach a pragmatic solution which is for the best of the country. See Glorious Revolution... --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 16:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, except that Parliament invents protests of Royal powers, such as the contest over ship money during the Cromwellian Rebellion. Unlike the old order, which had well understood precepts, the new order plucked them out of thin air. That's what activist reformers do towards building a "pragmatic solution". It's almost as if the Royal families could be used and abused solely to afford Lutheran aims. One step from a Catholic constitution, to one with Lollard questions, to another which was officially schismatic, to uniting with a Genevan nation, to have the final construct of a Lutheran establishment, alien in both King and Parliament. I can hardly avoid seeing a common cause with the "British Revolution" aka American Independence (a domestic squabble fought overseas). 70.171.239.21 (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Was that a long whinge about parliament?? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume you are brainwashed into conformity by their propagandas wherever the Monarchy is concerned, but for all other purposes, you have either no opinion, or simply think they're rotten politicians, like any other? Perhaps you could provide a more substantial reply on par with those others here? They have had numerous important things to point out, but all you do is complain, twice. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well kudos to you for refusing to follow conventional wisdom. But I suspect that you are arguing from your prejudices. Come clean then: are you a Portuguese Catholic? Are you a pretender to the throne? Are you a revolutionary? Or are you just trying to use the RefDesk for an argument? --TammyMoet (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, woe is me for choosing to be devil's advocate. If only enough English people wouldn't allow themselves to be used as fodder for the rabble rousers, the puppet masters who always are actually against them. This self-deception is very odd and extremely tired, a coping skill used by the helpless and hapless English who are forced to put up with issues beyond their control. English pride means nothing ever since we lost France and were in turn, taken over by a Tudor fifth column who passed on their prize to the Scots, who continued on allying themselves against the English people, with their enemies in France and Geneva, passing the country further out of the hands of the natives upon the Hanoverian settlement, which meant it was never going to be normal again. Hey, if you want to object to criticism of those whose nativist rhetoric doesn't match up with their actions putting it to manifest, then perhaps you prefer the delusion and don't want to be reminded that the world's not all roses, that Merrie Englande isn't the product of Whig history and "progression". 70.171.239.21 (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, not a debating society, not a soap box, guys? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You have had nothing important to contribute, a critic from the start. This is your third belly-aching. Come now, if you could have provided something intelligent, then three strikes and you're out now. Don't add anything more to disrupt the discussion. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Those were three reminders that the reference desk is not a debating society, not a soap box. If a debate is what you are after, as you seem to have made clear - please go find an internet discussion forum. There are plenty out there. This isn't one. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

English translation for chain of law, police and forensic scientists

Hi all,

I'm looking for a nice translation of the Dutch word strafrechtsketen, or if that doesn't exist, ketenpartner. The word strafrechtsketen means something like "the chain of cooperating instances in law and order, like police, forensic institutes and law enforcement" or maybe something like "chain of criminal law"? The word ketenpartner might be translated as something like "chain of cooperating instances", or "partner in the chain". I would be very pleased if someone could help me with the correct word, since neither of them can be found in my dictionary.

Regards, 159.46.2.67 (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The language reference desk is probably a better place to ask this question. Red Act (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that (didn't know wiki had any). 159.46.2.67 (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you be referring to the chain of custody? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Two famous African Americans

From CNN: "They were the two most famous African-Americans in the world: President Barack Obama and Michael Jackson." Is Martin Luther King not one of the two most famous African-American?--Quest09 (talk) 10:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps they meant the ones with the most world-wide publicity on a given day? The most photos in that day's media circus? Certainly Martin Luther King's legacy is more important than Michael Jackson's, and will live on a lot longer....in fact if it were not for King it is unlikely Obama would be President today. Put it down to stupid TV hype. - 125.63.156.249 (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think MJ probably is more famous than MLK, both inside and outside the US. MLK’s legacy is clearly more important and long-lasting, but a living entertainer, that’s been in the news a lot in recent decades, is going to be recognized by more people than a civil rights leader who’s been dead for 41 years, that a lot of youngsters will only know about from history class. MLK is certainly well-known to the intellectual elite, but MJ is part of the modern US pop culture that inundates everybody on the planet. Red Act (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the CNN quote is in the past tense ("they were the two most famous", and not are the two most famous), the meaning seems to be that Jackson and Obama were the two most famous living African Americans, but are no longer, now that Jackson is dead. It was once often claimed that Muhammad Ali was the most famous living black American; maybe he's back at #2, though I think Oprah and Will Smith are on the short list. —Kevin Myers 12:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If Google hits are any indication of fame, it's 17 million for MLK, 208 million for MJ. --Sean 13:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It is rather American-centric to assume that a very important person in American history would be more known worldwide than a person who has spent the last 20 years breaking album records and doing sold-out shows all around the world. For example, Olusegun Obasanjo is an extremely important person in Nigeria and every person in Nigeria knows who he is. However, he is not well-known everywhere in the world. -- kainaw™ 13:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The question specifically regards "African-Americans"; Olusegun Obasanjo is not African-American. 87.114.25.180 (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Kainaw was illustrating his point with that example, not answering the question. Algebraist 15:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

During his heyday, Muhammad Ali was the most recognized person on the planet. I suspect Michael Jordon shared the same honour at the peak of his career. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

And did they base this on any poll? If not, this is just some journalist own's thoughts, hardly worth debating. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Does "Pele", the brazilian soccer player qualify as Afro American?--Radh (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the term "African American" is ever used to refer to residents of any parts of the Americas other than the United States, is it? Wikipedia's definition at African American is "citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa," but that is referenced to the United States Census Bureau so it doesn't necessarily cover usage of the term outside of the USA. --Stormie (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Lots of hyperbole and recentism. A music critic in the 1950's called trumpeter Louis Armstrong "the most famous man in the world" after tours of various countries. Muhammad Ali was in the 1970's "without question the most famous African American in history" per "The concise Oxford companion to African American literature" (2001) [4]. Strangely, W.E.B DuBois was also ""the nation's most famous African American." per "Metropolis in the making" (2001) [5]. Frederick Douglass was "the most famous African American of the 19th century" per "The Cambridge companion to the African American slave narrative" (2007) [6]. Booker T Washington was also "the most famous African American" in the late 19th century per "An African American miscellany selections from a quarter century of ...‎"(1996) [7]. A number of others were the most famous African American painter, poet, novelist, classical dancer, song and dance man, athlete, female impersonator, clergyman, activist, scientist, or jockey. "Most famous African American athlete" changes quite frequently." Jesse Owens to Jackie Robinson to Magic Johnson to Michael Jordan to whomever, with many in between. Ditto with recentism as to "Most famous African American entertainer" especially in crossover audience. Consider Louis Armstrong, Bill "Bojangles" Robinson, Nat "King" Cole, Ray Charles many rock musicians, eventually Michael Jackson. Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth were "arguably 'the most famous African-American women of the 19th century.' per "Harriet Tubman" (2007). Absent scientific public opinion surveys, it is the writer's opinion. Edison (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Treaty of Peace with Italy

I remember hearing something about different projects regarding the new boundary between Italy and Jugoslavia after WWII, but there are no mentions about it in this article or anywhere else on Wikipedia (as far as I know). For example I recall that Russia asked for a larger italian area to be annexed to Jugoslavia. I'd like to find somethig about it. --151.51.50.16 (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Treaty of Osimo may be of some interest to you. 87.114.25.180 (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but I was actually referring to ipotetical projects proposed just after WWII. The Treaty of Osimo is dated 1975. --151.51.2.141 (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ra-Horakhty

Hi, could someone please explain the link between Horus and the name Ra-Horakhty? If you also provide a good reference I will try to add it to the Horus article. At present the Ancient Egyptian Religion template lists a Ra-Horakhty link beside the Ra link and it redirects to Horus. There is no explaination or mention of Ra-Horakhty on Horus so it would be interesting to know exactly... ~ R.T.G 14:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking for reliable sources, I found this brief mention. I don't know if this is reliable, but it says that Ra-Horakhty means "Ra (is) Horus of the Horizon". See also this. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually those sources were telling me that Ra-Horakhty was a combined form of Ra and Horus. As it is not simply a different name for the same thing I will just consult the page before changing anything. Thanks, Who then was a gentleman. ~ R.T.G 01:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Terminology for Early Schools

What is the proper terminology for the early Greek schools? I am writing a paper and I want to refer to the concept of a mentor-student relationship in a college setting (similar to Socrates-Plato). It is a one-on-one relationship but it is not a technical school apprenticeship. The mentor does not teach the student to replace him. The mentor guides the student in the student's area(s) of study. -- kainaw™ 15:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with mentorship? Tutoring also seems to work; a tutor is a one-on-one instructor who does pretty much what you describe. I would say that one of those fits the bill. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 16:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The head of the school, either literally or in a more abstract philosophical sense, was the scholarch. One actual physical school was the Academy of Plato. For younger students there was also the gymnasium, and hence the leader of that school was the gymnasiarch. See also Education in ancient Greece. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I searched for an article about the education system in early Greece, but didn't expect it to have such an obvious name. -- kainaw™ 02:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wittgenstein and pragmat(ic)ism

In the article pragmatism it is stated that Stephen Toulmin calls Wittgenstein "a pragmatist of a sophisticated kind". I feel attracted to both pragmatism and later Wittgenstein. Therefore, I would like to ask (as a layperson, not a philosopher) what exactly are the connections and possibly influences between pragmatism and Wittgenstein. Samulili (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

1 possible answer might be: Late Wittgensteinianism is a kind of Lebensphilosophie. 2. More technical: the focus on the use of language (understood by W. in a strongly non-behaviorist way).--Radh (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Googgled: W. did not want to be called a pragmatist, but read a lot of William James and seems to have liked him.--Radh (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Van Gogh painting

According to this picture's caption and a sign visible in the picture, this is a van Gogh painting. Did he really complete such a large painting? Or is it perhaps a reproduction of one of his works? I know nothing of his works, so I don't know where to look to find for myself. Nyttend (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That original painting (Sunflowers, first version) by Van Gogh was Oil on canvas, 73.5 × 60 cm, so this is a reproduction. Googlemeister (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

And of course we have an article: Sunflowers (series of paintings). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

General half race families

Usually in half race families if half race is half Native Americans half Mexicians is usual mother side white or Native American or is geneal father side Native American. I know when I use to go to Chinese school, general half Asian family is father being Native American, while on mother side is Chinese. For half black family generally on father side is black, but mother side is white, example of Barack Obama. What about Indian family, in general of half Arabic family is father or mother side being white?--69.226.33.240 (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This article (http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/race/interractab1.txt) has the information you want. (added in...sorry linked directly to the data, it's from this page http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/interrace.html) ny156uk (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's a fantastic link Ny. Fascinating and thought provoking results. 86.140.144.220 (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This is US Census data, though, and I would hesitate to apply the results to other world populations. // BL \\ (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting. I didn't know Native American-Asian families were that common. I would have thought that White-Asian or even Black-Asian would be more common. Out of curiosity, OP, where in the US (I'm assuming this is the US we are talking about) was this? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

July 14

Cultural migration/adoption

I'm curious to know of some examples throughout history where conquerors ended up assimilating some or much of the culture of the people they conquered (as a brief example, when the Manchus overthrew the Ming dynasty and established their own, many Manchu women wore heels designed to imitate the bound feet of the Han ladies). Thanks.

It's controversial, but you could say that happened with the Normans in post-1066 England. There are examples of Roman writers bemoaning that Romans were picking up too much of the cultures that they had conquered, for example Celtic trousers instead of tunics and togas. I think Strabo was one of those writers. Steewi (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The crusaders were often considered by Europeans to have adopted a lavish, oriental lifestyle. There is one story where they sent ambassadors to Europe to beg for money and military aid, but they were dressed in flashy eastern clothes and didn't seem to need any money, so no one bothered to help. A more obvious example is probably the Germanic tribes who conquered the Roman Empire, they were almost entirely Romanized and even abandoned their own languages for Latin. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Romans copied many aspects of Greek culture following the conquest of Greece (see Roman Empire#Culture). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.19.20 (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Not too sure about your quoted example. Throughout the Qing Dynasty period, foot binding for Manchus was forbidden by imperial law.

But similar examples from Chinese history may include the other non-Han ruling ethnicities of China, who adopted Han culture and practices to a greater or lesser degree - examples including the Mongols, the Khitans, the Jurchens.

The adoption of mounted archery by the King Wuling of Zhao in the Warring States period from the HunsXiongnu was the first appearance of mounted cavalry in China.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a type of "going native" I suppose. Googling that might help. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 08:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Some people never feel cold?

In the very cold places of the world, the inhabitants still know what it's like to feel warm. They make fires and insulate their bodies and most of them now have heated houses and dwellings. However, in the tropics, is it possible someone could live his or her entire life without ever sensing coldness? There are places like the Dallol Depression in Ethiopia where the average temperature is over 90 F. What are some examples of cold things one could experience in a tropical place that is hot all year? 71.227.1.59 (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Fever often is accompanied by chills, and is everywhere that people are. There is also relative cold. For a bit of OR, I had a house guest (in southern Ontario) from Belize who needed to borrow a ski jacket every time the temperature went below about 22 degress C. The rest of us were walking about in short-sleeved shirts and shorts; he was wearing the ski jacket and long pants. // BL \\ (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A few years ago, I spent two weeks doing field work with hand tools in Florida in June, and upon returning to Ohio, I felt cold, even though it was normal for June in Ohio, where I'd spent all my life. To answer your first question: one could live in southern Kenya, but it's still quite possible to find a place where it's quite cold. Don't know about Ethiopia, however. Nyttend (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In many tropical places, it still gets relatively cold in the dead of night in certain seasons or when it rains. The Sahara desert, for example, is notorious for its cold nights, as the sand does not retain the heat accumulated from the sun during the day. In equatorial climates, a person could experience cold from contact with fast-moving water, even if the ambiant air never gets below 20° C or so. --Xuxl (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Land Mines between Countries

Which international borders have land mines? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 03:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Korean Demilitarized Zone for one. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And the Indo-Pakistani border. Algebraist 03:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Also the United Nations Buffer Zone in Cyprus if you're Turkish. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus isn't recognized by anyone else. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What if you're not Turkish? Do they disappear? (sorry, couldn't resist) Dismas|^(talk) 17:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I don't mined. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

According to Landmine Monitor, Uzbekistan has laid mines on its borders with Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Afghanistan. The Middle East has plenty of them. For example, there are Israeli minefields along its borders with Lebanon and Syria; Syrian mines; Jordanian mines on its Syrian border; etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And the Greco-Turkish border along the Evros river. It happens quite often that immigrants who try to cross into Greece from Turkey get caught in them. Constantine ✍ 10:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Why aren't there land mines between Bangladesh and India? Is India planning to put land mines between India and Bangladesh? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Why would there be? India and Bangladesh enjoy friendly relations, and I believe always have done. Algebraist 23:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Algebraist, Indo-Pakistani border has land mines, but Indo-Bangladesh border has no land mines. 174.114.236.41 (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Why are you telling me this? Algebraist 02:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the Anon was confused by your slight rhetorical flourish there, Algebraist.

Allow me to rephrase for the benefit of the Anon: "There are no landmines between India and Bangladesh because the two countries currently enjoy friendly relations, and Algebraist believes this has always been the case." --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the confusion can be that Bangladesh used to be called East Pakistan. Googlemeister (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Myanmar and Bangladesh don't have a friendly relation, but either side didn't put land mines on their border. Why is that? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Myanmar and Bangladesh have not fought a war. They have cross border trade and even cross-border highways.

I'm not sure why you would assume that any two countries who don't absolutely adore each other would pepper the border with landmines. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Bangladesh is also a party to the Ottawa Treaty. Algebraist 02:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Half breed people

Where would I find information on people of mixed races. The scientific name is what I'm looking for. In exapmple: Half White / Black, Hispanic / White, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.225.133.60 (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Multiracial is the usual word used, I think. ~ mazca ^talk 08:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Half-breed" is considered a demeaning and insulting term. And the idea that "Hispanic" is a sparate racial category is a particularly American form of foolishness.

The idea of "race" itself is a purely cultural construct, and has no basis in biology.Rhinoracer (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a cultural construct, that is why people believe in it. But "hispanic" seems to me to be undertstood basically as a sociological, religious, ethnical slot? At least since Franz Boas it is well known that racism has no basis in science, but still...--Radh (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Hispanic" is an ambiguous cultural category. It's use on the US census is purely a political compromise (as are all of the US census "racial" categories, which are rather arbitrary for the most part). (And whether something is a purely cultural concept or not does not, of course, indicate it is a useless or unimportant cultural construct. US census categories are used for particular types of political transactions, for example, and their use as such would remain valuable whether or not there is a strict biological component.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just answering an online survey and at the end, where they ask your ethnicity, for some reason, "Russian" was a separate ethnicity from "White/Caucasian". Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's odd. Especially considering "Russian" can mean anything from Caucasian to Middle-Eastern in the South and Asiatic in the East of the country. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

See Race and ethnicity in the United States Census: Hispanic status is not a racial issue, but an ethnic one. One can be both White and Hispanic, Black-or-African-American and Hispanic, or even Pacific Islander and Hispanic. Individuals calling themselves White and Asian are classified as two-or-more-races, but Asian and Hispanic (for example) are classified as Hispanic Asians. Nyttend (talk) 04:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Guess I should have asked "What is a hispanic?" That's what was answered. The term Half Breed People was used to get your attention. There are scientific names for people of mixed races. Those names were what my question was about.

Are there? I would doubt it... There used to be a common use of words like "Mulatto", "Quadroon", "Octaroon" etc. (and an even more baroque proliferation of such terminological classifications in Spain's colonial empire, some of which are conveniently listed on Template:Miscegenation in Spanish colonies), but the "scientific" support for such classifications is not great... AnonMoos (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Historic race crimes

Can the whites ever make up for all their crimes against blacks, Asians, Muslims and the rest of humanity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.64.248 (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. However, they cannot end racism against whites. There will always be uneducated people who are unable and unwilling to form a view of others based on the person and not the skin color. -- kainaw™ 11:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This question demands subjective answers or debate and is therefore outside the remit of the Ref Desks. But the answer really lies with the victims of this and any other crime, large or small. If a victim or their descendant considers the crime forgiven, it is. If not, no amount of "making up" can suffice. Cf the famous story of Holocaust survivor Simon Wiesenthal refusing to forgive the dieing Nazi. --Dweller (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I see that story is currently missing from the biog. Someone? --Dweller (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't all this lousy crying and whining about Western crimes (see above: Netherlands! most islamophobic country in the world,...) please stop on Reference desk? It is perfectly o.K. to be a Jammerlappen (wet blanket), but please do not bother Wikipedia.--Radh (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What blog? Dweller, this is not about forgiveness. It is about redressing the impact of centuries of white discrimination against blacks, Asians, Muslims and the rest of humanity. Blacks in the USA still face many problems - the result of centuries of discrimination. Note that I am not suggesting that blacks keep whites as slaves for centuries, unless only that is enough to redress the discrimination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.64.248 (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Biog" not "blog". You can only "make up" for something if the person who feels aggreived will consent to forgiving. Otherwise, no amount of "making up" will have any effect whatsoever. If you spit in my face and offer me £1,000,000 compensation, it still doesn't "make up" for the offense of what you did, unless I choose to say that it does. On the flip side, I may consent to forgive you in return for just an apology. So really the question is unanswerable, as there are countless people out there, each of whom will have their own subjective response to it. --Dweller (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, Dweller, you are totally misunderstanding my question. I will try to explain again. The worst discrimination against blacks in the USA, such as slavery, is over. But the discrimination still has long-term negative effect on the blacks in the USA now. They still face poverty, poor health and few get into good universities. My question is about dealing with these long-term effects. Note that my question is about more than blacks in the USA - you can talk about Asians in the USA, Muslims in the USA and Europe, or even South Africa and former Western colonies. I know measuring every single long-term effect of white discrimination against non-whites is impossible, so it is OK to make certain assumptions to make it simpler.

So, what is your question? This is a reference desk. I know it is very hard to understand the conceptual difference between a discussion forum and a reference desk, so I will make it painfully clear. If you want to discuss something, you use a discussion forum. If you want a reference, such as a link to a magazine article or some statistics, you use a reference desk. Nowhere in your ramblings have you made a single request for a reference. -- kainaw™ 15:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The question comes down to a determination of what it would mean to "make up" for past injustices in a materially way. Would paying someone today a large sum of money excuse doing something unspeakably horrible to their great-great-great-grandfather? That's not exactly an easy question to answer.

You could rephrase your query into something a little more concrete if you asked, could the USA adjust the status of Black Americans so that the effects of slavery and racism were not longer evident on their communities? Even that, though, is problematic—it relies on a counter-factual (an imagined, non-racism, non-slavery Black community) and makes rather broad assumptions about the basis for the current state of the Black community (something which is no doubt multi-faceted and caused by a number of factors).

I think most sensitive, empathetic individuals would say that redressing past atrocities is pretty hard if not impossible. A better goal might be to create the conditions by which racism and atrocity could no longer occur, and to increase the possibilities that majority of the members of a given ethnic group are able to achieve their "full potential." This is still subjective, but more focused. What one wants is for nobody to not get a job just because of their skin color, or for others to be hateful of someone just because of what their name is and where they were born. More comprehensively, one would want things like an educational system that actually educated, and opportunities not to be so limited simply because ones parents' opportunities are limited. These are broad goals that we in the USA are no way close to achieving, though things are better off today than probably they ever were before. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Can X make up for the harm done at any time in the past to Y? Show me any group that doesn't have some historical blood on its hands. Even on the slavery issue, what about the blacks (and Arabs) who captured the Africans in the first place? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

98.217.14.211, you understood my question! Can we eliminate all white discrimination against non-whites? Would that be enough or would the long-term effects of past discrimination still place non-white communities at a disadvantage? If eliminating all white discrimination against non-whites is not enough, how could all the long-term effects be redressed? Of course, my question is not just about whether it is possible, but how it can be done - especially if you answer "no, we cannot eliminate all white discrimination and its long-term effects" and change the "can we" to "to what extent can we". Kainaw, any links which explore these issues and help answer parts of my question are most welcome.

One reference I can offer for starting to explore this is Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack. It's from 1988, so hopefully things have changed somewhat in the US since it was written, but it should still help you to see some of the issues. 86.139.232.168 (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and this also explores some of the ideas you probably want to think about. 86.139.232.168 (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Which country has the highest living standard in the world for "blacks" etc.? Of course this does not try to excuse anything. Do people in the US know that the African slaves were not abducted from Africa, but sold and were not sold to the US, but to the Indies and Brazil etc.?--Radh (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to see how the 'questions' above are relevant, but the only way I can see them being so is if you were trying to suggest that African-Americans should be grateful even to be allowed to live in America, since it has a higher standard of living than many other countries in which black people live. The corollary being that they should shut up about any ill-treatment or prejudice they face. Since that would be an idiotic thing to suggest, I assume I have misunderstood you, Radh? After all, you would not reply to a comment on social services failing to act to save an abused child before their carer killed them (with a suggestion of class-prejudice on the part of the workers) by asking which country has the lowest child mortality rate, would you? Of course not, because it would be profoundly irrelevant to dealing with the issue at hand.

Could you clarify what you actually meant? Because I'm struggling to parse a relevant meaning. 86.139.232.168 (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The question is extremely relevant. You appear to be hinting at a question: What can be done to help blacks overcome constant and extreme racism from whites? In the United States, blacks have the highest standard of living compared to everywhere else in the world. That standard of living continues to improve. Therefore, something is being done in the United States to improve the standard of living for blacks. Comparing a black person who feels oppressed to the murder of a child is absurd. You are still failing miserably to ask a distinct question. All you appear to be doing is ranting about retributions for slavery. As I stated before, this a reference desk. This is not a discussion forum where you can rant as long as you like. Either ask for a specific reference or take your argument to a discussion forum. Attempting to continue this rant is clear vandalism of the reference desk and cannot be tolerated. Feel free to claim that being required to follow the rules is another dose of racism without taking time to consider the race of everyone else here. -- kainaw™ 16:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you have mistaken me for someone else, and on top of that have made strange assumptions about my race and motivations. All I have provided in this question is two references where people discuss some of the ideas the OP asked about, and then asked what the relevance of the 'questions' (which were not really questions, but rhetorical devices for providing information) were to the references I provided, since they were placed as a reply to them.

Kainaw, your reply seems as irrelevant to anything I said as Radh's. You also seem to have failed to understand where I used analogy. I'm really quite puzzled as to where this anger has come from, particularly that last sentence. What the hell? 86.139.232.168 (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. Due to the anon-IPs, I mistakenly assumed you were the original questioner who is purposely attempting to soapbox and rant on the reference desk. Any attempts to turn the reference desk into a pathetic discussion forum do make me angry - very angry. The original questioner has failed miserably to ask a question. The response from Radh is completely valid: Blacks in the United States have more assistance to improve their standard of living than anywhere else in the world. Radh is obviously answering the question: Is anything being done for blacks in the United States? I still feel that your analogy of comparing a black man who feels oppressed to child abuse is absurd. -- kainaw™ 17:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't comparing a black person who feels oppressed to child abuse, I was comparing the response. Just as (to use another analogy) if someone describes the scale of distances in the solar system using oranges and grapes spread over a field they are not comparing planets to fruit.

I didn't think the question asked was 'Is anything being done for blacks in the United States?'. I thought it was "Can we eliminate all white discrimination against non-whites? Would that be enough or would the long-term effects of past discrimination still place non-white communities at a disadvantage? If eliminating all white discrimination against non-whites is not enough, how could all the long-term effects be redressed?" which is a quite different set of questions, a set that asks for a thoughtful response and, ideally, references to allow the OP to explore the large number of complex ideas thrown up by these issues. 86.139.232.168 (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sons of Washington

I was passed down an original Society of the Cincinnati certificate signed by George Washington. Included were 2 Cincinnati gold Eagles and two commerative medallions.

I need help with one thing. Included is a gold locket about 1 1/2 by 1 inch oval. On side 1 is inscribed "Sons of Washington".

On side 2 is a picture of George Washington. Inscribed above G.W. is the name James Latimer (Dr. Henry Latimer's son-his picture hangs in the US Senate). Below the picture of GW is the date "Feb. 22, 1810". I've had no luck finding out about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Als1328 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You have a valuable item. Read about your locket and the Sons of Washington here and here. —Kevin Myers 14:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The first link is to a book that has only partial view, while it does seem to contain the answer to what "Sons of Washington" might be, it is not really discernable from the small fragments that is shown by Google Books. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the first link is to an old publication that is fully viewable on Google Books, unless your access to Google Books is different than mine. —Kevin Myers 03:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Snippet view only here. It is probably only available in full view in the US. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The above is assuming that you do not actually have a reproduction of an original. That is something that only an expert would be able to determine. Googlemeister (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, have it looked at by an expert, of course, and you might want to get more than one opinion. And don't ever try to clean it or "fix it up" by yourself. —Kevin Myers 03:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Chinese zodiac

For Chnese zodiac birtyear, this goes in 12-year cicyle. people born in 1957 would be year of chicken since Paul Kagame is born in 1957, then he is a fire chicken. Zodia isn't just "goat" sheep or horse. popel born in 1946 would be year of a dog what but dog, a golden dog, a water dog, earth dog? Do we have a site about Chinese zodiac year and which type of sign, water, gold, fir, wood, and earth? Since John Kufuor is born in 1938, he is year of tiger, but what tiger?--69.231.5.71 (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Does Chinese zodiac not answer these questions? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose Chinese calendar#The stem-branch cycle is also relevant. --Anonymous, 05:44 UTC, July 15, 2009.

It goes by Chinese years (which begin in late January through mid-February, depending on lunar phase), not by Gregorian years. A Japanese superstition that "fire horse" women (hinoeuma) are completely unmarriageable led to a significant increase in abortions and decline in the birth-rate in Japan in 1966... AnonMoos (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

What are MPs?

That is, what are the MPs mentioned in the 3rd paragraph of Governance of England?

The Transhumanist    22:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Members of Parliament. I'll add to the article. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 22:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

July 15

FOCAC

At first FOCAC the article said was held in 2000 with Jiang Zemin. At first time, is just few Africa leaders attend or it is attend by over 40 leaders in Africa went to Beijing. Daniel Arap Moi and Sam Nujoma and Benjamin Mkapa have been to Beijing. Did paul Biya, and throughout Africa peoples go like the 2006 one. 2003 FOCAC was at Egypt. Will they have another FOCAC? Or 2006 FOCAC is the last one.--69.231.5.71 (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

FOCAC is a permanent and ongoing institution. See the official website (English version) for more information. In particular, the 4th ministerial summit is in the planning stages. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

But is FOCAC done just by few leaders, or it is most of the peoples at once.--69.231.5.71 (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There are different components, e.g. the ministerial summit as well as bilateral meetings. See the about page for some details. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Irish Kings

Does anybody know the name of Donnchad Donn's third wife, Dublemna's father? And also which sept or clan did the King of Osraige belong to.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

What was wrong with Tad Lincoln?

Tad Lincoln, youngest son of Abraham Lincoln, was a runamuck lad who would not abide a tutor and never attended school or learned to read until he was past 13. He had a speech impediment. Has anyone figured out whether he was just "high spirited," spoiled , developmentally delayed, brain damaged, autism spectrum (Aspie), or what? He died at age 18.Edison (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[8] says he had Scarlet fever as a boy. How would that affect his speech and mentation so profoundly? His mother, Mary Todd Lincoln was "insane." Was it a case of the apple falling not far from the tree? Her mania seems far from the boy's eccentricity, speech impediment and slowness to learn reading and writing, as does the supposed depression of Abe Lincoln, who was highly intelligent, literate and articulate. Edison (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Scarlet fever can lead to rheumatic fever which can cause Sydenham's chorea "which causes emotional instability, muscle weakness and jerky movements of the hands, feet and face." Scarlet fever can also cause an auto-immune response which may worsen symptoms of "obsessive-compulsive disorder, Tourette syndrome and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)", though this effect is usually temporary.(Source: Mayo Clinic website) So it certainly could cause these things.--Boris straight (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A Question That Requires Language Deskers Too

It seems to me that Croats and Serbs have been locked in an epic feud that has spanned the beginning of their existence. Looking into the articles of Croatian language, Serbian language, Differences between standard Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian, Montenegrin language, they say that the languages are mutually intelligible. In the sample section, the differences seem even smaller than the differences between Danish and Norwegian. Looking into Croatian literature and Serbian literature, it would seem that Serbian emerged to follow Croatian more closely during Pre-Romantism or Modern literature.

This explains of the appearance of an epic feud: their languages are so similar, but it seems that the nationality can not be compromised to one. Notwithstanding the fact that language is crucial to nation formation, in a number of citations.174.3.103.39 (talk) 05:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, what's your question? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla was Serbian!!!!!! No, he was Croatian!!!!!!! No, he was Montenegran!!!!!!! (from the gallery of profoundly WP:LAME edit wars). [9], [10], [11], [12],[13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38] etc, month after month, year after year. It is sad when small countries have so few notable residents that they fight over the questionable countrymen. Actually he was born Austro-Hungarian, and died American, naturalized, naturally. The two "languages" seem to be more similar than the "languages" of Massachusetts and Texas. The edit wars are far less when discussing which of Thomas Edison's supposed ancestries we should celebrate: Dutch, Canadian, American (or less plausibly, Mexican).Edison (talk) 06:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh right, my question is why are the languages so similar? And why did 2 literary traditions emerge? From Croatian literature, it would seem that Croatian literature appeared before Serbian literature. What was the reason that Serbia had to start it's own literature, if they already had something strong? Or maybe serbian really wasn't croatian, until the Serbian language reform by Vuk Karadžić and Đuro Daničić?174.3.103.39 (talk) 09:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Czech and Slovakian are very similar, but they seem to get along without much bloodshed. Likewise Norwegian and Swedish, so I don't think language has anything to do with it. Most regions of Europe have different languages or dialects - Italy for instance has many different Italian dialects which are more or less mutually intelligible, while Switzerland, Austria and German regions have different versions of [{German]] - you could equally ask why Austrian German isn't considered a distinct language (presumably because of pan-German feeling, the Holy Roman Empire, etc). The difference between dialect and language is often a political one (nations have languages, regions have dialects), so the difference between languages spoken in what is now Serbia and what is now Croatia always existed, and without a central authority to impose a uniform language the differences will be free to express themselves.

For much of the history of Yugoslavia, Serbians held more power than Croatians, so it seems unlikely they would submit to Croatian cultural norms and traditions. Furthermore the nations have been politically separate at various times in their history (though not usually both independent, but parts of different empires), and have different religions (Catholicism versus Orthodox Christianity), so they have different cultures, which would lead to different traditions in literature and other areas. --Boris straight (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that spoken Serbian and spoken Croatian are not all that different, nor were they ever different enough to impede intelligibility. I see your examples in point, but all the examples provided are all dialect continuum. Am I wrong to say that South West Slavic (i.e. Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, and Montenegrin (yes, I know, this is not an accepted term, but I'm coining it)), is not a continuum?174.3.103.39 (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A language is a dialect with an army and navy. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It may have something more to do with Croatians being Catholic, and using the Latin alphabet, and Serbians being Orthodox, and using a Cyrillic alphabet. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very aware of the quote by that linguist (A language is a dialect with an army and navy). Obviously, this has nothing to do with linguistics and everything to do with politics. My question is not the political status or political dealings of these "languages", but the linguistics forces that have shaped these languages and linguistics differences & evolution (convergence and divergence) between the languages.174.3.103.39 (talk) 05:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Actually, that quote says it all. You simply cannot aproach this question from a purely linguistic point - there is plenty of politics involved as well (as is in all language formation, I suspect). Both Serbian and Croatian developed from Old Church Slavic, and they could have been merely dialects (and were treated as such in ex-Yugoslavia), if it wasn't for the long history and culture of both peoples, as has been said before. As things stand today, they are treated as two distinct languages - again, for historical, cultural and political reasons. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

How bout you give me a clear answer: We do not know why these languages are treated as languages, except for the fact they are likely not languages, but dialects because of extralinguistics reasons. Or that I'm wrong.174.3.103.39 (talk) 08:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you're probably right - from a purely linguistic point of view it would probably be correct to say that these are dialects of the same language. There remains, however, the fact that both languages are spoken in different, sovereign countries and these countries (or better, the nations of these countries) chose to call them languages, rather than dialects, for reasons that have little to nothing to do with linguistics. Meh, politics trumps science in this case, apparently. TomorrowTime (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that in Josip Tito's time, Croatian and Serbian (and Bosnian) were considered the same language, called "Serbo-Croatian." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Psychology / Lying Videos

There are plenty of studies on facial tics, or microexpressions related to lying, but I'm curious if anyone knows of a source of videos or other resources on the specific issue. What I'm ultimately interested in are source videos that compare people lying to those that aren't, and in high enough format that they're useful. Bonus points if they involve law enforcement. I realize this is a tall order, but if there are any good studies (even without video) outside of what I can find on pubmed/jstor I'd be interested. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Cross posted to the science page.

KQED video on Paul Ekman and the FACS Manual: [39] Pepso2 (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Proper titles of the Dukes of Schleswig and Holstein

A lot of questions. What were the proper titles of the all Dukes of consort Schleswig and Holstein? The Holstein-Gottrop line were originally Duke of Schleswig and Holstein in Gottorp, not Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp. But were the Sonderburg duchy and it many branches the same? Some Sonderburg branches had two or three other region besides Schleswig and Holstein, example:Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Beck and Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Plön-Rethwisch. Would the current duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg be Duke of Schleswig and Holstein in Sonderburg and Glücksburg? Why were the titular dukes of Schleswig and Holstein called Duke/Prince of Schleswig-Holstein, like Christoph, Prince of Schleswig-Holstein? I heard somewhere that Queen Margrathe II of Denmark renounce her right to the titles of Duchess of Schleswig and Holstein but when did she had a right to that title?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

cleanliness in japanese culture

i know japanese culture cares a lot about cleanliness and they have practises like keeping certain things inside the house and certain things inside. what do they call their concept of cleanliness and the practises? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.10.241 (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

They call it cleanliness and purity, in their own language of course. Vranak (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal question about The Wire

I'm currently making my way through watching The Wire (after being nagged on by umpteen friends of mine that it's the best show evar) and I had a question about some events that transpire during season two (I've seen the first four episodes so far). One of the major threads in this season is how a cargo-container containing thirteen suffocated girls winds up in the Baltimore docks. While they do realize pretty soon that it is in fact a homicide, at first the deaths were considered accidental (the container had an airtube that got crushed, presumably by shifting cargo, but it turns out that it was hammered down) and therefore there would be no extensive investigation. Essentially it would only be written up as thirteen accidental deaths.

This stunned me. How could this possibly be true? I mean, even if it isn't murder, surely human trafficking is a pretty darn serious crime, yes? And these girls were being smuggled into the country to be prostitutes, and last time I checked, forced prostitution and sex slavery was illegal too. And isn't there some legal thing where if someone dies because of someone else committing a crime, the culprit would still be charged with murder? Like if you rob a bank, and a shot goes off accidentally killing a by-stander, you're still charged with murder even if that's not the crime you were trying to commit?

Seriously, if a cargo-container filled with dead girls who were smuggled in to the country to be prostitutes was found in any American harbour, wouldn't there be a huge investigation, even if their deaths were technically accidental? I can't believe they would just be written off. 83.250.236.75 (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well it seems to me the problem wasn't that it wasn't considered a crime, but that it'd be extremely difficult for the police to successfully find who was responsible and so on. Further, because of this difficulty and because they were not even residents of the city, the Baltimore police (with their overstretched resources) weren't too pleased to be spending their time trying to find the perpetrators of an accident. Also, I think there was the other issue of whether it fell in their jurisdiction, or federal one. McNulty goes and forces it into their lap by showing they were murdered in the harbour rather than passing it off to other authorities, which the rest of the force would have rather done. The trafficking (unless i'm mistaken) is a federal crime that doesn't fall under Baltimore's responsibility. TastyCakes (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"How could this possibly be true?" Well, this is a work of fiction, so it's not true, and I don't think that it's an appropriate reaction to be "stunned" by Hollywood writers making mistakes when they write a script for a TV show. Tempshill (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wire isn't exactly "Hollywood" is the usual sense. TastyCakes has it right: many of the police characters on The Wire are homicide investigators—"murder police" in the parlance of the show—and so they won't get the case unless the deaths are murders. —Kevin Myers 23:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, human trafficking in the U.S. is covered by federal law and would generally be investigated by federal agents (likely ICE or FBI) and not by Baltimore City police. If my memory of The Wire serves me correctly, it wasn't that there'd be no investigation if it was an accident, but that the investigation would be handled by someone else. —D. Monack ^talk 00:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The jurisdictional question in that part of The Wire concerned where the crime had occurred, and was between the Baltimore PD (had it occurred in city waters) or the state police (had it not). WRT the feds, The Wire's feds pretty much cared only about terrorism; part of that season is about how the feds quit spending effort on organised crime and non-terrorism border stuff. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 03:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Fisting in American porn

Why does fisting considered as obscenity by the US authority and Ass-to-Mouth, Squirting, Bukkake and Gaping do not? Read Adam Glasser for more details. 21:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.55.231 (talk)

Is it really? Surely as long as you're not doing it in public there's no laws against it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and dunno. Fisting and piss very popular in germany aparently, but not US, often wondered myself. Just cultural differences I expect.83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

In US law, no certain acts are obscene and not obscene. Read Obscenity#United_States_obscenity_law for more information. The current standard is from Miller v. California: the Supreme Court ruled that materials were obscene if they appealed, "to a prurient interest," showed "patently offensive sexual conduct" that was specifically defined by a state obscenity law, and "lacked serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value." Decisions regarding whether material was obscene should be based on local, not national, standards. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, it would be interesting to see if a new obscenity test case ever reached the courts what would happen. Obscene is also about venue; having missionary-style sex in public is obscene in just about any jurisdiction; fisting porn watched in the privacy of your own home is likely unregulated and perfectly legal. Except for non-consensual sexual acts (minors, animals, and actual rape) I am pretty sure that ANYTHING done between two consenting adults is de facto legal anywhere in the U.S.; even if in a few places there are laws against it. If actually tested in court, I have doubts that such laws would actually be enforcable. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 01:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it falls afoul of U.S. porn laws because it is sick shit which clearly harms the female victim. Edison (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm female and I would NEVER want to do fisting because I fucking HATE the idea of anything inside me, but I can't really see that it harms the "victim" (who probably consented, yes?). I mean this is where entire babies come out if you're pregnant

Porn producer Max Hardcore was convicted on "10 counts of federal obscenity charges relating to 5 movies showing fisting, urination and vomiting" recently, and is doing four years in federal prison. I seem to recall another porn producer (with a similarly fanciful name) and his wife are also doing time for extreme-porn obscenity (you can't imagine how hard it is to fruitfully Google for that kind of thing). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it's Rob Zicari and Lizzy Borden (pornographic actress); see United States v. Extreme Associates. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 03:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Here I thought that "anything goes". I guess it doesn't. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 03:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

For a couple of decades that was largely true, but part of George W. Bush's platform was a crackdown on obscene porn - he and his supporters accused the Clinton administration of being "soft on porn" (I kid you not). They seem to have been mostly distracted by foreign affairs, but the latter years of their administration saw instructions to federal prosecutors to pursue matters (ref). That said, given the massive amount of commercial porn the US produces, the prosecutions seem to have moved the threshold of legality only marginally. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The thing about possible crime, particularly (as in this case) in the absence of much jurisprudence (and very hazily written legislation), is that something is illegal if a court says it is, and isn't illegal if it doesn't. As Mr. Hardcore and Ms. Borden now know to their cost, if a federal prosecutor can persuade any jury (anywhere in the US, not open-minded San Fernando) that something is illegal, then a federal conviction awaits. A few years ago the US porno industry engaged a lawyer (darned if I can remember who) and asked him to draft a list of activities that he thought might (given his understanding of the current state of federal law and the mood of federal prosecutors) attract. His list was very long (fnarr fnarr), and ranged from stuff commonly described as "extreme" (simulated rape, strangling, fisting, scat) to stuff that's common in the US porno industry. Notably he recommended against interracial porn (particularly black-man-white-woman, I think), not because it was "obscene", but because he felt a jury in certain areas would be more likely to find something obscene it it had an added racial element - a conviction in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama carries the same term as one in Oregon or Vermont. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 03:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What is so special about San Fernando, and do you mean mean the Spanish or American?174.3.103.39 (talk) 05:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The San Fernando Valley is where much of US porn is made; one might imagine that a jury there would be less offended by porn product that would one in other, more conservative parts of the US. That said, Seymore Butts (gosh, what names these people have) was prosecuted by California prosecutors for fisting obscenity in People of the State of California v. Adam Glasser, et al, although all but a very minor charge was dropped. Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, it's Van Nuys, which is widely considered the Hollywood of the porn industry. Almost the entire industry is based there. Our article (perhaps rightly) makes no mention of it, but a quick google search will confirm the fact. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 13:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The top 3 are Chatsworth, Canoga Park and Van Nuys. [40] 89.139.108.63 (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, This was a best selling book on Amazon.com for a while. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 03:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I know US porn companies don't sell fisting porn in American stores in order to avoid obscenity charges. But they are not afraid to sell other "naughty" stuff (like Ass-to-Mouth, Squirting, Bukkake and Gaping). Why? I know fisting scenes made in the US are distributed to Europe. 89.139.108.63 (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

July 16

Personal jurisdiction

Our article Personal jurisdiction makes it seem like this is a concept in American law only. Is this correct? If so, what is the equivalent concept elsewhere? (If not, the article should be reframed so it doesn't say "in United States law" in the first sentence.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a much more widespread concept. The article needs editing. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Careful, Calliopejen1 — you simply removed "In American law..." from the intro of that article, which was a bad idea because the article, to date, has been written to discuss the subject in the context of American law. Most of the article suddenly made no sense (references to constitutional aspects, individual case citations...) I'm going to revert your change, but leave the "globalize" tag at the top of the article until a knowledgeable editor can rewrite the entire intro. At that point the US content can be moved into a "In the United States" section. But it's a pretty big editing job, not just axing one sentence. And I'll shut up now because this kind of discussion belongs on the talk page of that article and not here on the Reference Desk. Tempshill (talk) 06:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

joe son

wad he aquited? ITs BEEN OVER A YEAR AND HES NOT ENTERED A PLEA? that means the charges were droped? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.3.30 (talk) 05:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This ironic article, not a reliable source even if it hadn't been ironic, says he's currently in jail. Our article Joe Son says that he was apparently charged in October 2008 but has not made any public comment or entered a plea. The article certainly needs updating. This link, which does not appear to be one of those reliable sources we like to use, says the charges are related to a 1990 gang rape, and claims that he was linked to the crime when he gave a DNA sample to authorities following a probation violation. Tempshill (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

And the band played on

In the book titled "And the band played on", is there evidence of professional dominance in the story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zel652 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --Dweller (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

GDP per capita (constant 2000 US$)

The World Bank's World Development Indicators has an indicator called "GDP per capita (constant 2000 US$)". What do they mean by constant?

If you for example express Britain's 1970 GDP in this way, would you adjust for British inflation 1970-2000 and convert at the 2000 GBP/USD exchange rate or would you convert at 1970 GBP/USD exchange rate and adjust for American inflation 1970-2000? Jacob Lundberg (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This article (http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=417) on 'constant prices' might help. ny156uk (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)