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

March 12

Has there ever been an actual, verifiable (or even strongly suspected) case...

...of a country purposefully bombing its own cities/attacking its own citizens in some manner, then blaming it on a foreign power - as a means to rile the People up into a sense of patriotic outrage and serve as an excuse to go to war? I've heard loads of conspiracy theories but in all of history, has it ever actually happened for real? I'm not thinking of any one event in particular here, just for what it's worth and I'm not trying to advance any conspiracy theories myself. Just interested in finding out more about it. Is there a given name for this type of ploy? --95.148.106.148 (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

See USS Maine (ACR-1). The ship sank in Havana Harbor in 1898; the cause of its sinking is still entirely unknown. It was likely not purposefully sunk, however the sinking was blamed on the Spanish by the U.S. government, and used as a pretext for the Spanish American War, which went somewhat disasterously for the Spanish. While it is proposed (but unlikely) that the Americans sunk their own ship, it is more likely that they knew it wasn't the Spanish that sunk it, but let the rest of the country believe that it was to drum up support for the coming war. --Jayron32 04:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

And then there was the Mukden Incident, which was the bombing of a section of Japanese-owned railway in Manchuria that the empire used as pretext to invade. It wasn't proven to be the Japanese, but the possibility of conspiracy is accepted as much stronger than that of the attack on the Maine. —Akrabbim^talk 04:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

see Category:False flag operations.—eric 05:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The Gleiwitz incident fits the bill. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Another famous example advocated by 9/11 conspiracy theorists is that 9/11 was a false flag operation. --Kvasir (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Similar people make a similar claim about Pearl Harbor. They claim that the U.S. government had full knowledge that Japan was going to attack, but felt that the attack would bolster support for entering the war. In the case of Pearl Harbor, they aren't claiming that the U.S. bombed their own ships. They are claiming that the U.S. knowingly let it happen. The funny thing is that there are conspiracy theorists on the opposite side that claim the Japanese government had full knowledge of the planned bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but felt they would bolster waning Japanese support for the war. It seems that every devastating event is prime ground for conspiracy theorists to pick through the evidence, throw away anything that makes sense, and use what is left to make up claims about conspiracy. -- kainaw™ 06:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There was an incident in Croatia in 1993 in which an artillery attack on the city of Šibenik was apparently staged by the Croatians, but this was done for show before a TV crew and did not (directly) cause any serious damage. See here.--Rallette (talk) 09:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

In the article on Operation Himmler there is mention that several Germans was killed by German undercover units (although probably unintentional), in the succesful attempt at creating a legitimate cause for the attack on Poland. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a pretext to the U.S. accelerating the Vietnam War, although that was not a case of the U.S. bombing itself, but was more like the Maine. There's a connection between Pearl Harbor and 9/11, in that opponents of the U.S. entry into World War II and the acceleration of the "War on Terror", respectively, made claims that the U.S. "let it happen" or even "made it happen"; namely, right-wing, isolationist Republicans, and left-wing conspiracy theorists, respectively. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Other suspected cases:

• The Russian apartment bombings are strongly suspected of being caused by the Russian government to justify the Chechen war.
• The strategy of tension in Italy saw right-wing groups conduct terrorist bombings and blame them on left wing organisations (who also carried out terrorist acts such as the murder of Aldo Moro); many people suspect that the US government, Greek right-wing junta, and possibly Italian governments were involved.
• Many people suspect that the Turkish government was responsible for the Taksim Square massacre.
• Reichstag fire. --Normansmithy (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Also see agent provocateur. StuRat (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Operation Susannah and the Lavon Affair is a similar, but not exact, instance to the one being asked for in the question. Operation Susannah was a failed Israeli attempt to bomb multiple American- and British-owned targets (both the United States and Great Britain were, and still are, Israeli allies) located in Egypt, in the hopes that "the Muslim Brotherhood, the Communists, 'unspecified malcontents' or 'local nationalists'" would be blamed for the attacks, resulting in harsher American and British foreign policies towards Egypt and closer relations with Israel. The operation, although somewhat successful at first, ultimately completely failed, resulting in the death of four Israeli operatives, the imprisonment of several others, a decline in relations between Israel and the United States and Great Britain, and some turmoil within the Israeli government, in which numerous Israeli leaders who knew about the operation beforehand resigned, including defense minister Pinhas Lavon. Laurinavicius (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Styles of authority or power

Some people or organisations treat people according to written or unwritten codes of conduct, laws etc. Others treat people according to the personal relationship they have with them, and laws or codes of conduct are disregarded or may not exist.

The latter would be called authoritarianism. But what would the former be called, in fields such as sociology, psychology, management, politics, and so on? Thanks 78.146.52.206 (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You'll probably find what you're after at Leadership#Leadership_styles.

ALR (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but none of the four types described there correspond to the former type above. 78.146.52.206 (talk) 11:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, personally I'd disagree with your characterisation of the latter point as authoritarian.

In leadership theory you'd consider relationships, explicit regulation, implicit regulation and archetypes within the organisation. You'd also consider a number of spectra; power distance, comfort with ambiguity, masculinity/ femininity.

Your question appears to hinge around the explicit/ implicit regulation issue and power distance. An authoritarian style would tend towards explicit regulation and high power distance ie a hierarchical structure. A style that works more with implicit regulation and low power distance would tend towards a more participative.

Without context for your question that's about as much as we can say for the moment.

ALR (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

See also guanxi for an example of one type of power system (and two closely related analogues: Wasta, Blat).--达伟 (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If it helps, a fictional example could be a traffic warden or traffic cop who tends to give out parking fines to people she does not like, while letting her friends relatives or men she fancies off. Another traffic cop does things by the rules and disregards any relationships, even fining her friends relatives and boyfriend if need be.

So the contrast is taking action or making decisions (including doing nothing) on the basis of attending to the rules or codes of conduct and disregarding the personal relationship; or doing so on the basis of the personal relationship and disregarding rules and codes of conduct. 78.147.136.183 (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That's clearer. I think what you're getting at is more around how one approaches the regulation applied to the authority relationship. There is some work around how closely individuals adhere to the regulations around their role, and wheat level of pragmatism is applied. There are two aspects to what you describe; situating the application and consistency around the application. In the example you're talking about the pragmatism is applied to the relationship, not the situation.

I don't recall seeing anything formal, although there is bound to be something as the whole issue of power relationships is quite a big area of psychological study. What you're essentially getting at is nepotism.

ALR (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What I was asking about was the non-nepotism (as you call it) case. Anyway, I'm not sure nepotism would be the best word for the fictional scenario I described. 84.13.30.185 (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The former could be legalistic or impartial or principled or simply just or fair. Or to use a slightly old-fashioned word untouchable, in the sense of The Untouchables. I'm not sure that the latter is authoritarian; authoritarianism implies ruthless enforcement of rules and controlling leadership, but if someone is letting their friends get away with murder then they're not being authoritarian, they're being biased, arbitrary, or corrupt.--Normansmithy (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think many people treat people in a personal way due to ignorance. I can imagine myself in their shoes and see that to them, it is a throughly good thing to be biased (although that is not a word they would use) to your friends and relations since they are good people and that's what frienship etc is about, while people you dislike are bad people. They have the idea that you should judge (their impression of) the whole person rather than just their behaviour. (Unfortunately their judgement of others is overwhelmed by their personal liking or disliking and the halo effect, and popular stereotypes and other folk-psychology).

As the OP, the real aim of this question is to find a vocabulary I can use to try to gently persuade such people that they must instead be objective and rule-based in their judgements. They do not see themselves as corrupt, they see themselves as good honest people, and may believe they have superior judgement to others. Telling them they are corrupt is just going to alienate them and not be believed. What vocabluary or form of words could I use? 78.149.193.118 (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

One mode would be being impartial - unfortunately that word seems little used now perhaps due to having been over-used in advertising in the recent past for "impartial advice" from brokers of various kinds. It could also be called being administrative. As APL above says that the other is not authoritarianism, then I'm wondering what it should be called. Perhaps its related to respect in a tough-minded sense of that word, or a power culture. 89.242.120.116 (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Paying mortgage off early

I pay a certain amount every month on my mortgage (which includes insurance as well). I was wondering what that math is that would let me calculate the impact of me paying extra (I think I can pay extra towards principal directly) on my monthly payments, and on the number of payments (years) I will be paying off my mortgage.

Basically I was looking for a way to confirm either:

• If I pay $50 more a month I will only pay for 29, instead of 30 years
• If I pay $50 more a month, my monthly payment will be X less a year.

Thanks! Chris M. (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you pay back interst and capital, the formula from present value is the following:

$Loan={X}{\frac {1-(1+i)^{-n}}{i^{(12)}}}\,$

where payments are made at the end of each month, Loan is the outstanding amount you borrowed, i is the current annual interest rate from your contract, n is the number of years left, X is your annual repayment and

$(1+{\frac {i^{(12)}}{12}})^{12}=1+i$

Using the current interest rate, you can set up the equation and then see what happens to n when X goes up by 12x$50 (I don't understand your second bullet). There will be all sorts of other funny fees/charges/stipulations which should be in your contract. This exercise will be much easier if you do it on a spreadsheet - you can use one line for each future cashflow and see what happens when things change. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Second bullet was a question of mine. I pay a certain amount that is interest every month. I would think if my principal were lower I would have less interest accumlated and then have to pay less. But then again, I clearly don't know how this works (hence the question). I'll try to work out a spreadsheet for you. Chris M. (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

My understanding was that you pay a fix amount each month: a portion of that goes to paying interest and a portion goes to paying off the principal you borrowed. But the monthly payment doesn't change over time. Is that right? If that is right, then the interest portion decreases over time but the principal portion increases over time so that total payment stays the same. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are right because I guess I've paid the same amount for 6 months. But I tried out your math above. I tried to calculate the principal with my rate and years and payment, with this in excel (C2 is year payment, B2 is interest, D2 is years left):

=C2*((1-POWER((1+B2),(-1)*D2))/POWER(B2,12))

What I got was a loan amount of 7.1621E+18. What did I do wrong? Chris M. (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I was counting escrow before, When I fix it to only count yearly principal and interest, I get 5.4E+18. Chris M. (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear - you need the second equation to work out the $i^{(12)}$. So if i is 5%, then $i^{(12)}=12*((1+5\%)^{\frac {1}{12}}-1)$, which is 4.889...%. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

So in your formula where it says

POWER(B2,12)

it should say

(12*((1+B2)^(1/12)-1))

. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Most lenders will do these calculations for you, if you either go for a visit or phone them. they will take the guesswork out of all this. Some lenders have online calculators that will do the work too. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way the answer to the second one is "If I pay $50 more a month, my monthly payment will be $50 more". DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As for whether paying your mortgage off early makes financial sense, that depends on what other interest rates you're paying. Since the interest rate on a home mortgage is usually the lowest interest rate anyone pays, it makes more sense to pay off higher interest rate loans, such as credit cards, first. Only after all those are payed off would increasing your mortgage payment be in your financial interest. StuRat (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think it prudent not only to eliminate all higher-interest debt before considering accelerated mortgage repayment, but also to amass enough savings to be able to cover one's expenses, including minimum mortgage payments, for at least a year. In this economic environment, you never know when you might face an extended period of unemployment. Marco polo (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If you Google "mortgage calculator prepayment" there are many calculators that will figure this out for you. Another thing I really recommend if at all possible is to refinance into a 15 year loan, which costs more per month, of course, but it saves an enormous amount of money over time. 74.212.140.226 (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget to consider the tax implications of paying down your mortgage early. In the United States, mortgage interest is (usually) deductible on your income taxes. See IRS Publication 936: Home Mortgage Interest Deduction. —D. Monack ^talk 01:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I paid off my mortgage early in the past, but now I think that was a mistake. What I should have done is to have used my spare cash (and the equity I had in my house) to buy more houses for buy to let. If I had done that I would have been much wealthier than I am now, due to rises in house prices since then. As someone is going to point out, if house prices were to fall then you would be much worse off. 78.149.193.118 (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Dehra Dun

Dehra Dun, India. There are several Tibetan refugee communities in the Dehra Dun area. In addition, there is the main monastery of the head of the Kargyu lineage. Finally, there are 3-4 Tibetan Residential Centers to provide Tibetan children a place to live while they are studying in Class I through Class XII. I believe that all of these items should be mentioned under the Wikipedia topic "Dehra Dun."

Phillips Kindy, Jr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.167.245 (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you think that this information belongs in our article, and particularly if you can cite sources for the information, then you should add it to the article. Marco polo (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

AMERICAN GRAND FATHER/BRITISH FATHER!

Hi Both my parents died by the time I was 15,and I have no other relatives alive today.I am trying to research my American grand father,and would like to obtain a copy of his birth certificate. HOW WOULD I DO THIS? I am living in London and i am a British citizen,my father was also born in Britain.

If i can obtain a copy of my fathers Birth certificate,with my Grand father noted on ths certificate,I presume with his name,and if noted his state of U.S. birth,I might then be able to contact that U.S. state office for a copy of my grand fathers birth certificate.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Fluter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.86.15.15 (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

First, you need to know your grandfather's name and place of birth. It is likely far easier to know his name and location of death. Death records are public records, so if you know where his death is recorded, you can simply ask for it. From there, you can search obituaries for further information that will (hopefully) lead to his place of birth. Then, you can ask for his birth certificate. -- kainaw™ 16:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The General Register Office on London Southport holds copies of birth certificates for England and Wales; the General Register Office for Scotland in Edinburgh holds them for Scotland and the General Register Office (Northern Ireland) (which goes by the delicious acronym GRONI) in Belfast holds them for Northern Ireland. All are well used to providing genealogical information, including providing copies of certificates. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 16:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You will not need a copy of you father's birth certificate in order to get your grandfather's. There is no central U.S. birth registry or even necessarily any statewide one. You may need to request the information from the county or town he was born in, depending on the local system the information may not be publically available at all. And birth records are not uniformly complete. In some places they do not exist for pre-1920. Sites like this one can help with the procedures. Rmhermen (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Father's BC may show grandfather's date and place of birth, which would help. —Tamfang (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry.com is a subscription website which allows quick searches of millions of records of birth, death, marriage, military service, and immigration, It has a great many family trees already assembled by genealogists. There are also bulletin boards where queries can be made. It might save you a lot of random poking through records. Old U.S. census records through 1930 are also online there. They also have UK records, including birth records showing mother's maiden name and presumably father's name. Edison (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry is a pay site: the initial searches are free, but then if you want to see anything you have to pay for the information. I'd make two suggestions, based on the fact you are based in London: the first is that your local library should have free access to Ancestry, so make a visit there. The other is to visit the National Archives in Kew [1]. Their really helpful (if increasingly overworked!) staff will be able to point you in the right direction. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Does Russia Railways observe daylight saving time? Need clarify.

Russia observes daylight saving time. Moscow is 3 hours ahead of GMT in winter and 4 hours ahead in summer. According to various sources on the web, Russia Railways use a single time zone, Moscow time, across the country. Does it mean Russian trains switch time zone twice a year every spring and autumn? How does the railway system do this during the daylight saving switch? Besides, for the international train K19 (China's code) / 019 (Russia's code) from Beijing to Moscow, since China does not observe daylight saving time, if Russia Railways does, does it mean the train spend one more hour in summer than in winter for the same trip from Beijing to Moscow? And it is weird, but according to the timetable at http://www.citsusa.com/train.htm , train K19/019 leaves Manzhouli in China at 07:01 Beijing time, and arrive Zabaikalsk in Russia at 02:26 Moscow time, if it was in summer, the train would leave at 23:01 GMT and arrive at 22:26 GMT, how can a train arrives before its departure? How does daylight saving apply to Russian railway system, need clarify. Thanks! Python eggs (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The times on that timetable really don't make sense. I suspect that they contain typos or calculation errors. I would look for a timetable from the Russian or Chinese railway authority. As for daylight savings time in Russia, see our article European Summer Time. Marco polo (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I am only interested in how daylight saving affect the railway system. If they follow the daylight saving time, how they switch between daylight saving and non-daylight saving in March/September. Python eggs (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to think that the railway system shifts to summer time differently from any other institution in Russia. The article I linked explains exactly when the change to summer time takes place in Russia. Barring any evidence to the contrary (and I can't find any), the change takes place at the same time on the railways. Marco polo (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Menstrual extraction

Is it legal? If so, up to how long after fertilization of an egg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.188.14 (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Menstrual extraction#Legality has a little information on the subject. --Tango (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Knee/leg movement; vibrating

Okay, trying again! This time without interfering with the above poster and wrecking the reference page... :) Dear Wikipedians... I, and many with me, can place the knee/leg at an angle to my thigh, and with a certain bit of circumstance produce a very vibrating knee. I guess it more jumps than vibrates. There is something happening, and I can't find the English term for it. =) Does Wikipedia have an article about the skiddy jumping sort of movement? Cramp-like, really. 77.18.1.69 (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

OP here. Okay I am dumbstruck. If someone can find out why I am apparently writing with a tiny font, I'd be much obliged. 77.18.1.69 (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The previous section was missing a "</small>". Clarityfiend (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I know exactly what you are asking. I'm interested in this as well. --Kvasir (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Does restless legs syndrome describe it? Astronaut (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No, RLS does not generally involve "vibration" so much as repeated need to move the leg every little bit. It sounds more like some sort of muscular tremor. Edison (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If i understand the OP's question correctly, I think he means that there's vibration that can be felt from underneath the kneecap when shifting leg and thigh at a certain angle. It feels like a creaking door hinge. --Kvasir (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sewing machine leg meltBanana 05:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic answer from MeltBanana. I conclude that if there is an article on Wikipedia about it, it does not go under the name of "Elvis syndrome" or "Sewing machine leg", nor is it mentioned in the calf muscle article. 77.18.77.254 (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

March 13

Is Microsoft a Monopoly?

hi there, I want to know on what basis did the U.S. Court of Appeal conclude that Microsoft was a monopoly? What was Microsoft's market share of Intel-compatible PC operating systems? Of all operating systems, including Apple computers? What evidence did the court cite in claiming that Microsoft changed above-competitive prices? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.139 (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Our article, Microsoft Windows says: "As of October 2009, Windows had approximately 91% of the market share of the client operating systems for usage on the Internet." I think "client operating systems for usage on the Internet" includes Macs, but not servers, mainframes and special purpose computers. I don't think there is a set market share that constitutes a monopoly in law, but rather you have a monopoly if you are able to use monopolistic practises (whether or not you actually do use them). --Tango (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to United States v. Microsoft? Because our article says that the Judge did find that Microsoft was a monopoly, and that they had unfairly used their market share to promote their other software (I think internet explorer was the chief issue). An appeal did significantly reduce the remedies, but didn't change the findings of fact (that is, the appeals court still held them to be a monopoly). If you're referring to a different case, then I don't know. Buddy431 (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be agreeing with the OP... the OP said "was a monopoly" not "wasn't". --Tango (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Does the OP mean "Is Microsoft a monopoly in fact?" or "Is Microsoft a monopoly under the law?" When it comes to economics, the law doesn't always coincide with reality. As far as the economic reality is concerned, it is unclear whether Microsoft is a monopoly (and many economists believe it is not). Market share isn't relevant -- what matters is market power. Given that Apple, Linux, and others exist as potential competitors, it is not possible for Microsoft to price monopolistically (in fact, Apple likely prices more like a monopoly than does Microsoft). Wikiant (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I see on re-reading the question that 76.64 mostly wants to know about the case itself. Here's the findings of fact from the case. I have not read it, so cannot answer your questions, but it looks like this contains the relevant information. Buddy431 (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The answer to the OP's 4th question would require thousands of words. Here is a partial answer to his first 3 questions, from the 1999 case cited above: "Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market.
Viewed together, three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is extremely large and stable. Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows.
... Microsoft possesses a dominant, persistent, and increasing share of the worldwide market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems. Every year for the last decade, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems has stood above ninety percent. For the last couple of years the figure has been at least ninety-five percent, and analysts project that the share will climb even higher over the next few years. Even if Apple's Mac OS were included in the relevant market, Microsoft's share would still stand well above eighty percent."
Here's 750 words of "evidence" -- if it's unforgivably too long, feel free to edit:
"... just as Microsoft's large market share creates incentives for ISVs to develop applications first and foremost for Windows, the small or non-existent market share of an aspiring competitor makes it prohibitively expensive for the aspirant to develop its PC operating system into an acceptable substitute for Windows. ... The cost to a would-be entrant of inducing ISVs to write applications for its operating system exceeds the cost that Microsoft itself has faced in inducing ISVs to write applications for its operating system products, for Microsoft never confronted a highly penetrated market dominated by a single competitor. ... The experiences of IBM and Apple, Microsoft's most significant operating system rivals in the mid- and late 1990s, confirm the strength of the applications barrier to entry. ....The inability of Apple to compete effectively with Windows provides another example of the applications barrier to entry in operation. Although Apple's Mac OS supports more than 12,000 applications, even an inventory of that magnitude is not sufficient to enable Apple to present a significant percentage of users with a viable substitute for Windows. ... The experience of the Linux operating system, ... similarly fails to refute the existence of an applications barrier to entry. ... That Microsoft's market share and the applications barrier to entry together endow the company with monopoly power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is directly evidenced by the sustained absence of realistic commercial alternatives to Microsoft's PC operating-system products. ....OEMs are the most important direct customers for operating systems for Intel- compatible PCs. .... Without significant exception, all OEMs pre-install Windows on the vast majority of PCs that they sell, and they uniformly are of a mind that there exists no commercially viable alternative to which they could switch in response to a substantial and sustained price increase or its equivalent by Microsoft. ... Microsoft did not consider the prices of other Intel-compatible PC operating systems when it set the price of Windows 98.... The license for one of Microsoft's operating system products prohibits the user from transferring the operating system to another machine, so there is no legal secondary market in Microsoft operating systems. This means that any consumer who buys a new Intel-compatible PC and wants Windows must buy a new copy of the operating system. ... while consumers might one day turn to network computers, or Linux, or a combination of middleware and some other operating system, as an alternative to Windows, the fact remains that they are not doing so today. Nor are consumers likely to do so in appreciable numbers any time in the next few years. Unless and until that day arrives, no significant percentage of consumers will be able to abandon Windows without incurring substantial costs. Microsoft can therefore set the price of Windows substantially higher than that which would be charged in a competitive market ... without losing so much business as to make the action unprofitable. ...Microsoft's actual pricing behavior is consistent with the proposition that the firm enjoys monopoly power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems. The company's decision not to consider the prices of other vendors' Intel-compatible PC operating systems when setting the price of Windows 98, for example, is probative of monopoly power. ... Another indication of monopoly power is the fact that Microsoft raised the price that it charged OEMs for Windows 95, with trivial exceptions, to the same level as the price it charged for Windows 98 just prior to releasing the newer product. ...Finally, it is indicative of monopoly power that Microsoft felt that it had substantial discretion in setting the price of its Windows 98 upgrade product .... A Microsoft study from November 1997 reveals that the company could have charged $49 for an upgrade to Windows 98 — there is no reason to believe that the $49 price would have been unprofitable — but the study identifies $89 as the revenue-maximizing price. Microsoft thus opted for the higher price. ... Given the size and stability of its market share, Microsoft stands to reap almost all of the future rewards if there are yet more consumers of Intel-compatible PC operating systems. ...Furthermore, Microsoft expends a significant portion of its monopoly power, which could otherwise be spent maximizing price, on imposing burdensome restrictions on its customers — and in inducing them to behave in ways — that augment and prolong that monopoly power. ...Microsoft's monopoly power is also evidenced by the fact that, over the course of several years, Microsoft took actions that could only have been advantageous if they operated to reinforce monopoly power. ...." 63.17.60.8 (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It's perhaps worth remembering that being a monopoly isn't in itself illegal in the vast majority of jurisdictions. It's only when you abuse your monopoly in some way according to the laws of the country you're operating that you get into trouble. Even when a monopoly is broken up, it only happens because the monopoly was considered to be abusing their monopoly, not because the monopoly existed. BTW, in terms of Apple, remember the case was in 1998. Apple Inc launched the iMac which started their recovery but this was after they'd had a massive decline and so were still a very minor player at the time even in the US. For example [2] "Market share of personal computers in the USA during October to December: ... Apple Computer 4.5%." (they were 3.4% or 4.3% in the last quarter of 1997 [3]) Nil Einne (talk) 07:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it only me?

Usually, whenever I come across someone I know, I and the other person simultaneously say "How are you?". It's really embarrassing and weird. One person should say that while the other person is listening, but that just doesn't happen for me. I don't think something like this happens so often for other people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.129.94 (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It happens very frequently for me. In the past, relative social rank would probably determine who spoke first, but we don't really have that kind of etiquette any more (I'm speaking for Britain and its colonies, I suppose, I don't know too much about etiquette elsewhere). --Tango (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I avoid simultaneous pleasantries by swearing at people I meet, instead. That method works in most places, but in New York City I run the risk of simultaneous unpleasantries. :-) StuRat (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Jerry Seinfeld once proposed getting around that by simply saying "Acknowledge" whenever you run into someone you know, especially in an office setting.←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

A smile and nod achieves the same goal without requiring a major change in etiquette. --Tango (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The same similar thing happens to me when you are walking towards someone else going the opposite way in the street, and both you and the other person try and move the same way to try and get out of their way, it can be mega embarrassing! Chevymontecarlo. 09:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Another difficult situation is when you ask someone how they are and you end up getting a complete medical history. It ought to be compulsory to say "fine thanks" unless you've just been run over by a bus. Alansplodge (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting one. I get that we're supposed to answer "Fine" or "Well", even if we're not remotely feeling fine or well (don't get me started about the answer "Good".) If I'm feeling unhappy or exhausted or stressed out, I give a 1 or 2 word honest answer that conveys my feelings, but I don't launch into a diatribe about it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

There can be a degree of cultural or superstitional mismatch operating also. Some cultures and individuals fear that it may "tempt fate" to say they are fine (when they are) and prefer to give a less positive answer. I have in mind Jewish culture in the UK (with which my family had some links) - If asked how business was going, a (successful) Jewish businessman would at least in former times typically reply "so-so" or the like - but I'm sure this is evinced in other contexts as well. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have heard that the expectation to a "How are you" in France (in French) is an honest, full answer, and they're offended by our Western untruthful, pithy answer of "fine" --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

How honest I am depends on the situation. If I'm going to a job interview and the interview asks how I am, I say "fine, thanks", or similar, regardless of the truth. In less formal situations, I tend to be more honest, but (as you say) concise. "A bit tired" or "I have a slight cold", that sort of thing (almost always with a diminutive in there somewhere - Brits like understatement!). I would usually follow it with "but I'll be fine" or similar. One doesn't want to come across as seeking sympathy. --Tango (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This is very important. When you detect that this is about to happen then do not make eye contact with the person you are approaching. Move to the nearest side giving the approaching person an obvious non-collision route to take. This works very well for me on my campus where biking is the normal transportation mode. I have never been involved in a bike-bike collision. Obviously this approach does not scale well but as long as it is relatively unknown it should be okay to use. Timhoooey (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that what everyone does when they walk, anyway? At least in the UK, this is what I expect other pedestrians to be doing as soon as we ping each other's (metaphorical) radar. 86.178.167.166 (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No, making eye contact activates a tractor beam, especially when the people involved are riding bikes. Timhoooey (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that's the eye contact specifically, but rather the turning of the head. If you turn your head in a particular direction you are likely to inadvertently steer in that direction when on a bike. The effect exists when walking, but is greatly reduced. --Tango (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"Hey, how are you?"

"I'm good."

"I know you're good, but how are you?" DOR (HK) (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The expected answer to "How are you?" is "Fine, thanks," unless it's clear the questioner actually wants a factual answer. "How are you?" is supposed to be an ice-breaker, so if you say it at the say time, it's good for a laugh, which is also an ice-breaker. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"How are you?" ... "Can't complain - they won't let me" (best used at work) --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I try only to say to friends 'How are you?' if Im prepared to be told about the personal health/well being. Some times to elicit that particular response from friends & family, I say 'how are you feeling?'. Otherwise, I find 'how are things?' or 'how is it going?' to be better (being a more generalised from of enquiry).--79.76.137.66 (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

How can there be a tie if you need 60 votes?

Firstly, excuse my ignorance of the American political system.

My understanding is that for a bill to be enacted it must be approved by at least 60 senators. As there are 100 senators, this means that quite a bit more than half the senate must approve of a bill for it to be enacted. I also understand that the Vice President can cast a vote if there is a tie. However, how can there be a 50-50 tie if you need 60% of the senate to approve anyway?--220.253.247.165 (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding is wrong. 60 votes are only needed for certain procedural votes, like imposing cloture to end a Filibuster in the Senate. Normal passage only requires a simple majority, so if 100 Senators vote, and the vote is 50-50, the Vice President of the US acting a president of the Senate, can cast the tiebreaking vote. Dick Cheney did this on occasion. If fewer Senators vote, the number for a majority decreases. Edison (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a lot of information about the evolution of the US filibuster. In general, a simple majority of the senate is all that is needed to do most things, but the rules allow for unlimited debate, so a small group of senators can just keep talking forever in order to stall a bill. Things have changed these days (for example, no one actually filibusters anymore, they just threaten it), and the 60% of senators needed to vote for cloture (to stop the filibuster) has become more important than the 50% needed to actually pass the bill. The modern party power dynamic in the US is probably responsible for this sudden change. Paul Stansifer 16:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

山楂酪

Does anybody know what 山楂酪 is? Its a Chinese fruity snack similar to fruit leather. What is it made from and anybody know anything else--172.191.130.40 (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like hawthorn fruit snack. 酪 here means it's like cheese-rubbery kinda of texture. I'm guessing it's a fruit roll-up. --Kvasir (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you (original poster) have a link or some document for context?--达伟 (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that 酪 in northern Mandarin traditionally meant a thick dessert soup. 奶酪, which is now used to translate "cheese", was one particular dairy variety. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hawthorn also comes in round pieces for a snack, and also sometimes in nectar (similar to juice, with the consistency of V8). ~AH1^(TCU) 17:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

King of Leon (in Spain, not the band)

In the article Kingdom of Leon it says that title King of Leon was the more superior title and that modern Kings of Spain are crowned Kings of Leon in public ceremonies. If this is true, how come in the full title of Isabella II of Spain, by the grace of God Queen (King) of Castille, León..., and the modern day full style of Juan Carlos I of Spain, His (Her) Catholic Majesty, the King of Spain, King of Castile, of León..., Leon always comes after Castile. Don't tell me the obvious about how Castile the center of power and Leon wasn't; I already know those reasons. Does anybody know?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Castile was originally a vassal state of Leon, so Leon would technically be superior even after Castile became a kingdom (though as you say, in practise this wasn't really true). I don't know why Leon comes after Castile now though. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Modern kings of Spain are not crowned at all. In fact, no King or Queen of Spain has been crowned as such. The last coronation ceremony performed in what is now Spain was the coronation of King John I of Castile. I have no idea what the Kingdom of Leon article is trying to say regarding "coronations". Surtsicna (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of copy/pasting Surtsicna's post to Talk:Kingdom of León.--Wetman (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the article could Use Somebody to add the information :-) 10draftsdeep (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

writer completing studies abroad

It's understood Willie Morris traveled by sea to get to the United Kingdom so he can complete his studies at Oxford University. After he graduated, he returned to the United States of America, also by sea. But what I'm trying to find out is which ocean liner did he travel aboard?24.90.204.234 (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can find out the exact date he sailed (or even the month), there are many ship passenger lists available at geneology websites; you can pinpoint possible ships and search for his name. Knowing the port of arrival or departure would be a big help as well (probably New York and Southhampton). Do you have a biography of him with any of these details? Best, WikiJedits (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried one passenger list from Southampton to New York. But that would cost me credits. I really need help in finding more information, please. Thank you.24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If you've got the date and just can't access the list because it's behind a paywall, you can try asking at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request in case someone there has a subscription to the site you need. If you're still looking for the date, perhaps you can try contacting Jack Bales - a librarian who has written a exhaustive biography of Morris. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibility of a Spanish default

Given this graphic, can someone please explain to me why there is more worry in the financial world concerning a default by Spain on its debt than there is for the UK? Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The - slightly flippant - answer is that financial analysts base their predictions on more than just those two numbers. I don't know the details, and no doubt someone who does will be along in a minute, but there's obviously something else about the Spanish economy which is pushing the wrong buttons at the moment. FiggyBee (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

there was a real "worry" about the idea of a default by Greece (I don't know why you mention Spain instead) but this was an orchestrated worry. I am not going to name names, but if you want more information you can leave an email address here in an altered form (so you don't get automatically spammed) and if you want I can give you more information. 82.113.121.167 (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of the crisis, although I understand Italy, Spain, and Portugal are considered a high risk after the Greeks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The current deficit isn't really important, it is the predicted future deficits that will (among other things) determine default risk. Also, the UK isn't in the Eurozone so can inflate its way out of debt, rather than default (and probably would if it needed to - inflation is less drastic than default. Default is an absolute, either you default or you don't and any default, however small, would destroy confidence. Inflation can take any value so you can inflate just a little bit and suffer only a little bit of reduced confidence). The other countries you mention all use the Euro, so they can't inflate it without the cooperation of the rest of the zone, which they won't get. --Tango (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

As Tango mentions, it's based on a number of issues. A very significant one is that the UK is in charge of its own fiscal policy: it manages its own currency and sets its own base interest rates; it can manipulate these to its advantage, so that exchange rates, interest rates, inflation, taxes, government bond rates etc all play to its advantage. Spain can't do that; it is forced into a communal fiscal policy which will be managed to suit the concerns of the stronger economies within the zone, and will likely exacerbate Spain's problems. Gwinva (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It would appear then that the left-of-center policies of reconciliation seen in the unification of the European currency merge poorly with the left-of-center policies which favor government spending. Certainly the implementation of the euro has made trade with Europe much easier, but the (all too sadly common) predilection of the continental Europeans to avoid conflict rather than confront an issue may in fact doom it - they would be much better reigning in their own members, but it would never have happened. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Regimental Combat Team

What was the need for a tactical formation called "Regimental Combat Team" (RCT), while there were others existing like Battalion, Regiment, Brigade etc?. I was reading about the Pacific War and noticed that a RCT of one formation would be detached and sent with a different division to a different place. What size was it usually? (bigger than a battalion or smaller than it?). What rank would be the CO of a RCT normally be (in the US millitary).--Sodabottle (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Bigger than a regiment: see Regimental combat team Rmhermen (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The 442nd had a size of 3800 and it appears that Regimental Combat Team were usually commanded by a full colonel or sometimes a general. Rmhermen (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!--Sodabottle (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Kievan Rus and the Black sea

There's always been something I've been wondering about... When you look at maps of Kievan Rus (Here is a good example) you see that they have control of certain ports in the Crimea and the sea of Azov even though they're separated by about 150 miles of nomadic lands from the rest of Kievan Rus. How did they keep control over those ports?.The True Wiki (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The nomads (Pechenegs and whoever else) weren't very numerous, and being pastoral steppe-people didn't really have much need for a port. The Rus were descended from Vikings, so rivers and seas were very important to them. They controlled the rivers as early as the 9th century, when they began to attack Constantinople. And like the Vikings they knew the importance of a good trade route - the ports on the Black Sea opened them up to trade from Byzantium and the Caliphate (there were also land routes though). A hundred and fifty miles isn't that far anyway, especially if the only other inhabitants are nomads who won't always be around. The Rus controlled the area through military might, economics, and lack of interest from other people in the area, the usual reasons (same as Genoa in the fourteenth century, really). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That should be edited into the respective articles, no?--Wetman (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be added. It would save some confusion.The True Wiki (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Article Tmutorokan... AnonMoos (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do some do-rags have a cape?

A do-rag with a cape

A do-rag with a cape

In the United States there are many people who wear a do-rag featuring a cape. The other day I was wondering what influenced this particular style of head covering. There is a nice article about do-rags on Wikipedia, but it doesn't discuss the cape variation. Timhoooey (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sun protection for the back of the redneck, as well as to keep detritus from falling inside your shirt collar: both legit reasons to reverse your baseball cap.--Wetman (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

True, but there is a particular ethnic community that does not suffer from having red necks yet male members of this community seem to wear caped do-rags the most. I suspect that the reason for wearing them is more of a social one than a practical one. Timhoooey (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

As for "suffer from" -- is there a (mistaken) insinuation here that darkskinned people are not suceptible to sunburn and don't require protection from UV radiation? -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, of course not. The parent comment gave a link to the redneck article, which talks about the derogatory slang term used to refer to poor white farmers. There are no poor white farmers that are also dark-skinned. Timhoooey (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

After reading my post again I guess it does seem like I made that insinuation. I offer my apologies to anyone I offended. My poor attempt at humor backfired. What I meant to convey is that in the United States I think the reason for wearing them is more social than practical (do-rags with capes seem to be worn more as a fashion statement here). That's not to say that they are not practical for anyone who needs to protect their neck from the sun. Timhoooey (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which, is there a special name for the cap you see in all the French Foreign Legion films, ze one with ze flap in back? Kepi doesn't mention it. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The French Foreign Legion version is a Kepi Blanc, which is in the article but the flap isn't. Comme ça[4]? I don't think it has been used in recent times. An omission. I have seen some pre-1920 British military caps with them too. Alansplodge (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A head- and neck-shading cloth attached to military headgear has a very long history, and was the original purpose of the mantling seen in an Achievement of arms. Although mantlings became very large and extremely ornate after armour fell out of practical use and heraldry was largely reduced to a paper art, UK heraldry in the second half of the 20th Century saw some revival of a simpler and more realistic style by artists like Don Pottinger. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Could the "particular ethnic community" be Sikhs? In which case, the head covering is known as a patka. Monty Panesar is a famous patka wearer. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The classic cape/scarf kepi might be influenced or inspired by the Keffiyeh. Was the scarfed kepi ever standard gear, or was it an unofficial modification to the standard-issue Foreign Legion kepi? Nimur (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a cape to me, merely the end of the scarf sticking out of the knot. A larger scarf will result in a larger "cape". FiggyBee (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The cloth used to protect the back of the neck from the sun is called a havelock, mainly used with the kepi and named after Henry Havelock. I have seen this as part of a drive-on rag used by tracked vehicle crewmen (I preferred a net scarf that could also be used as a dust mask). ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Blasphemy

When someone attributes words to God, is this blasphemy? Look at this video, which has been broadcast on a TV channel in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Here is a translation made by me.

God speaks to the Macedonians:
A divine blessing for you, My Macedonians! For thousands of years I have been waiting for you to call Me away. I populated your mother – the Earth – with three races: the white one – Macedonoids, the yellow one – Mongoloids, and the black one – Negroids. All the others are mulattoes. I conceived the white race from you, the Macedonians, the descendants of Macedon, and with you it all began – to as far as the Sea of Japan. All white people are your brothers because they carry the Macedonian gene. For thousands of years I have been sending czars for you and I now send them to you again. You give them away to everyone and keep no one of them for yourselves. The czars who are here with Me and the Macedonians are as many as the stars in the sky and the grains of sand in the sea. Now the Macedonian time has come. It is an honour and a blessing to be a Macedonian, a descendant of Macedon and a son of the God of the Universe. Amen!

Please note that Bulgaria and Greece officially do not recognise the existence of a Macedonian nation and a Macedonian language. They insist that the nation was invented in 1945 (this comment has not been posted by me) and the language they speak is a Serbian-influenced dialect of Bulgarian. So, my question is: is that video blasphemy or mockery towards religion? --Магьосник (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Blasphemy is "irreverence toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs, and beliefs" (and it should add toward God). Putting in the mouth of God words he did not say could be considered blasphemy, so it would really depend on whether you believe the speaker or not. That's a question the reference desk won't be getting in to. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

An example would be the movie Oh, God! which many found entertaining and thought-provoking, but which some considered blasphemous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

the video rant aside, attributing words to God ("Thus saith the LORD") is the stock-in-trade of prophets.--Wetman (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

...and wether they are blasphemers or prophets depends on their success, as per "a religion is a cult with an army". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"...The Lord's our Shepherd / Says the Psalm / But just in case / We'd better get a bomb..." -- Tom Lehrer ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not blasphemy, it's heresy.
Sleigh (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What is, specifically? The words of the guy on Macedonian TV? I don't see where he's contradicting the Bible as such, which is what heresy is. But then, it's a little hard to figure out what he's getting at anyway. Maybe something's lost in the translation. Anyway, Clayworth's definition of blasphmey is basically taken straight from the dictionary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Heresy is actually divergence from established dogma, not disagreement with the bible. Only a part of the bible is significant for the dogmas of current Christian churches, and plenty of Christian dogmas have no foundation in the bible - see e.g. immaculate conception for a famous example, or immortality of the soul for a more widespread belief. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Immortality of the soul has no biblical basis??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really. The original biblical model is bodily resurrection. An independent immortal soul entered early Christian thought via Platonic philosophy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There is immortality of the soul whether it inhabits a resurrected body or not. "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die." (John 11:25-26) seems pretty clear to me. Believers will live forever. --Tango (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

One clue is where Jesus, on the cross, said to one of his cross-mates, "Today you will be with me in paradise." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That passage could just as easily read "I say unto you today, you will..." as "I say unto you, today you...", since there is a lack of punctuation in the original Greek. Everything Jesus taught was in light of the Hebraic ideas of bodily resurrection. When he stated that someone "shall never die", he simply meant post-resurrection. There is a similar passage in Ps 115: "The dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any who go down into silence; But as for us, we will bless the Lord from this time forth and forever." He knew he couldn't praise God when he was dead, but knew that he could forever after resurrection. That's why Paul could say (in Heb 11) that "apart from us they [the dead] would not be made perfect". The concept of the immortality of the soul resulted from a Greek interpretation, not what the original writers believed. —Akrabbim^talk 19:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do you think is lost in the translation? --Магьосник (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A little hard to tell, since I can't make any sense of it, although if you substitute "American" for "Macedonian", you could well be quoting Jerry Falwell. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably not so good in translating such texts. After some googling I found a longer version of the same video. In the first part, a Macedonian man is complaining to God about the millenia-long suffering of his nation and about how the historical truth about the Macedonians has been hidden from the others (the others have been lied to about the historical facts). Then God replies to him with a text that is slightly different and more detailed than what I translated. It can be read in Macedonian here. Again, God speaks of the Macedonians' being the first population of the world, the predecessors of everyone else and the originators of everything. The video has been broadcast on the national television channel of the republic. Most of the comments below the video have been posted by Bulgarians and express that the Macedonians are to be pitied, that the video shows the Macedonians' inferiority complex, which is resulted by their having just a 60-year-old history. (By the way, that is the general idea about the Macedonians in Bulgaria, and the Macedonians themselves really claim that they are the oldest population (at least) of Europe and the Bulgarians originate from primitive peoples.) But there's also a comment in literal Macedonian, though written with the Latin alphabet. It has been posted by someone with the (nick)name Zarko Markovski and reads the following:

I am a Macedonian, but I renounce such acts of extremism. This is piteous to me too. I don't want you to associate Macedonia with this video.

--Магьосник (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean "denounce"? Renounce means you used to do it, but don't do it anymore. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's say it in that way: "I am a Macedonian too, but I disavow/dissociate myself from such acts of extremism. All this is tragical/piteous to me too. I wouldn't want you to associate Macedonia with this video." The line in Macedonian reads as follows: И јас сум Македонец, но се оградувам од вакви екстремизми. И мене сето ова ми е трагично. Не би сакал да ја асоцирате Македонија со оваа реклама. --Магьосник (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

March 14

Shandong cuisine

Shandong cuisine is one of the "four most influential among these ("Four Great Traditions", Chinese: 四大菜系; pinyin: Sì Dà Càixì).". Which are the others?174.3.107.176 (talk) 05:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

According to our Chinese cuisine article, there are eight great traditions. See bar on the right. --Kvasir (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is a conventional Eight Great Traditions and a Four Great Traditions, simultaneously, as the Shandong cuisine article states, but the sidebar ignores. The Four Great Traditions -- according to Chinese Wikipedia -- are 魯菜 (Shandong), 川菜 (Sichuan cuisine), 粵菜 (Cantonese cuisine), and 淮揚菜 (Huaiyang cuisine). The equivalent sidebar in Chinese Wikipedia mentions both the Four and the Eight.--达伟 (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there One Great Tradition to rule them all, and in the darkness kitchen bind them? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. Tevildo (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Not... traditionally. But try Manchu Han Imperial Feast. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Group psychology

Is there a specific word used in psychology to describe how similar people in unfamiliar settings will gravitate towards each other? For example, foreign exchange students from China who have never met gravitate towards each other in an American school. I am writing a paper on merchants in a foreign country during the 12th century and I would like to touch upon psychological reasons for grouping. Thank you. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There's probably a term for it, having to do with relative comfortableness or cultural familiarity. A term I would use is "neighborhooding", as groups of immigrants to the US tended to cluster together, leading to "the Jewish neighborhood", "Little Italy", etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it's "used in psychology," but how about tribalism? 63.17.50.41 (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a secondary question: Has there ever been an anthropological study done that showed how each proceding generation was more inclined to assimilate more aspects of the host culture than the last generation?

Thanks for the input so far. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think what you're looking for is affinity. It's one of a number of mechanisms that accelerate the forming and storming stages of group development.

ALR (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That is an interesting question that certainly seems to be normal human behavior. The adults who came from offshore still have their roots in their homelands. The younger ones who followed their parents are more likely to assimilate more easily and to become naturally bilingual. And the children born in the new land have no connection to the old country and its language except what their parents teach them about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Part of that has to do with the level of need. Fully grown adults might feel less of a need to assimilate and more of a need to simply be with "their own", and can get by otherwise. The younger they are, the greater the need might be to assimilate to the population at large, as clinging to the old country will tend to hold them back from advancement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There have, but I can't think of the search terms to find them. It's much more interesting than Bugs's guessing would suggest: there's stuff about later generations trying harder to differentiate themselves than earlier generations: it isn't linear. Hopefully one of the many people with experience in this area will find you some starting points. 86.178.167.166 (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Derailing comments moved to talk page. 86.178.167.166 (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I happened upon the Ethnic enclaves page and looked up a few articles relating to this. One word often used is "spatial assimilation." A paper I'm reading claims "segregation is natural as a group enters the United States. In the beginning, people's limited market resources and ethnically bound cultural and social capital are mutually reinforcing; they work in tandem to sustain ethnic neighborhoods ... immigrants entered American cities, in which working-class people had to live near their places of employment and had little contact with people outside their neighborhood." This perfectly describes what I believe happened to the subject of my study. The paper also mentions, "People with more financial resources and mainstream jobs avoid ethnic zones, and these areas are left behind by immigrants with more experience and by the second generation in search of the 'Promised Land.'" So there are economic reasons to be considered when studying how proceeding generations assimilate more than the last. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

During the time of the British Empire, english people would stick together in the same way. Of various reasons for this, a relevant one is that they all spoke the same language. 89.242.243.82 (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I contacted a psychology professor who suggested a paper, but I can't find it. Perhaps someone on here might be able to help:

There's a classic 1976 paper by William and Clare McGuire, probably could find it on a Google Scholar search, on 'situated identity' or 'contextual identity' that does account for your phenomenon. In the context of being in Paris, an English speaking American suddenly seems quite similar -- in the context of New York City, hardly so.

--Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

FOX News babes

Why FOX News anchors wear mini skirts showing their most of the upper part of their legs? Is is conservative value? --Fhhg (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sex sells and Fox News knows this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, Fox broadcasts Family Guy, which is often deliberately provocative and which receives plenty of morals-based criticism; the conservative Parents Television Council keeps naming it one of the "worst prime-time shows for family viewing". (See Criticism of Family Guy.) It has been argued that Fox's "conservative values" are just a form of counterprogramming against the perceived-liberal CBS, NBC, and ABC, in order to attract viewers. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Above all, Fox Entertainment Group is a business, and as such, is trying to make money. They may believe that they can do this and also reflect the views of their owners, and largely, they appear to succeed. Buddy431 (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As CT suggests, the OP is under the mistaken impression that Fox is conservative. I've had Christians tell me they find Fox programs such as The Simpsons offensive and they won't let their kids watch. Keep in mind that Fox was the brainchild of Ruppert Murdoch, who was originally a tabloid news guy, about whom Mike Royko once said, "No self-respecting fish would be wrapped in a Murdoch newspaper." Keep that in mind, and it tells you everything you need to know about the core nature of Fox. They are entertainers, first and foremost. The reason Fox News appears to be conservative-leaning is because the owners determined that this was a market they wanted to tap. They could switch to all-liberal tomorrow if they decided that's where the money is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Fox's parent company News Corporation is also responsible for Britain's leading form of soft porn, Page Three. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.14.1 (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. It's not for nothing that it's called "Foxy News". :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of Mr. Murdoch's personal opinions (as expressed during the 2008 Boyer Lectures) are extremely liberal. Fox News is just business. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Fox News (like most modern newscasts) is intended as a form of entertainment, despite their claims of reliable and responsible journalism. What matters first is attracting viewership; broadcast content is a distant second, and contingent on the demands of the first. --Ludwigs2 18:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Most modern newscasts in the US, maybe. In the UK, we watch the news to find out what is happening in the world. --Tango (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

<sarcasm>In the US we don't need to care what is actually happening in the world since the US is and always will be the greatest country in the world, no questions asked.</sarcasm>--达伟 (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That's why no one wants to come here anymore. And those who are here want to leave. Mexicans, for example, are fleeing south by the millions. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Baseball Bugs, good one! Because, see, Mexicans actually DO come here! It's irony! Get it? It has nothing to do with the fact that a brutally militaristic invading force attacked their country without provocation and took over most of its best land, conquering and occupying after illegally invading and killing, only a year before gold was discovered in the newly invaded and conquered and occupied and stolen territories! No! Because that never happened! And if it did, it's ancient history! Like Germany invading France! Which was a long time ago and doesn't count! So, again, great joke, baseball bugs! You must read "Al's ramblings" and other enlightened baseball-politics sources! Because everyone wants to come to the USA, because it's the greatest country on earth! In the past few decades, you just can't stop all the British and German and French and Norwegian and Swedish and Japanese and Swiss and Belgian and Italian and Australian and Spanish and Portuguese and ... (well the list goes on and on) people who want to come here and are just knocking down the door to get in! Because EVERYBODY wants to live here, right baseball bugs? 'Cause they're just like YOU! 63.17.48.33 (talk) 08:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not as simple as that. Look at Natasha Kaplinsky (lots of people do). AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No no, You watch the news to feel like you're learning about the world. That's a critical difference that's easy to exploit. Same concept for documentaries. APL (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not just Fox, other stations pore on the skin as well. Here is a pic of Robin Meade from Headline News. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

this is true. there's a local channel in my area where the news team look and dress like they just stepped off the set of The OC. First time I saw it my jaw dropped - I turned off the sound and the closed captioning and just watched for a few minutes. damnbuddy! --Ludwigs2 18:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Harvard Lampoon once had a fake cover of Time with a thinly-clad babe[5] holding up a copy of Time with her picture on it, etc., (infinite recursion) while standing in front of a newsstand loaded with copies of various magazines, each with her picture. And the punch line was that the cover story was titled, "Does SEX sell magazines?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

In the distant future, Fox will be the only news channel, and the newscasters will wear swim suits. Or so I've heard. —Kevin Myers 22:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

O'Reilly in a Speedo. Yeh, that'll boost the ratings. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

From what I've heard, Berlusconi has Murdoch all beat with regards to sexing up television -- and he has a near media monopoly, and he runs the country as well.. AnonMoos (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

See Naked News. The article, I mean. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

odd and interesting fact: naked is often not as sexually stimulating as provocatively clothed. Naked people just seem... ordinary... but a well-made cocktail dress or dress suit makes someone seem a little bit bigger than life. --Ludwigs2 03:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As can a well-placed rolled up sock...64.235.97.146 (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Auto Insurance

I have a hypothetical for you - let's say that I have no auto insurance. Let's also suppose that another driver, the one who will eventually hit me, does have auto insurance. Now let us further suppose that said insured driver backs into the front/left side of my vehicle, causing over $3000 of damage to my car. Let's continue supposing...let's say that this insured driver who hit me is 100% at fault, and the police report shows that. Now here comes the question: will his insurance pay for the damage to my car even though I have no auto insurance? I'm not exactly sure how these laws work. Let's also hypothetically say this accident occurred in Wisconsin. Thanks for the hypothetical responses! --98.108.40.138 (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You're onto the fact that the laws vary from state to state. For example, some states have a recoupment fund to cover uninsured drivers. Have you checked to see whether Wisconsin's insurance commission has a website that explains various scenarios? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No I have not, but I'm sure that's an excellent place to start. If I find what I'm looking for I'll report back here with the good news! --98.108.40.138 (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

In principle, if the other driver causes the damage, he has to make you good again. At that point, his insurance steps in to cover him. That's how it works in Germany and most European states, wether for vehicle damage or other damages. Your principle claim is against the person who caused the damage, not the insurance. In some US states, there is a concept of No-fault insurance, which means you have to recover damages from your own insurance. However, Wisconsin has, according to our article, a conventional system. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

In the UK driving without insurance means that the car is illegal, so an insurance company would have no obligation to pay out and could have a case for claiming from the illegal driver. I'd imagine that there are similar provisions throughout the EU.

ALR (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

In some US states, you have to have insurance in order to operate your car. In some other states, the state covers uninsured drivers via a recoupment fund which is contributed by the auto insurers who are licensed to operate in that state. One practical effect of the latter approach is that if an insured driver gets a ticket or is at fault in an accident, he helps contribute more to the recoupment fund, by his insurance premium skyrocketing. Also, every state has to allow for uninsured drivers, some way or another, because drivers can cross state lines freely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we may be talking at cross purposes, similarly there is provision for drivers to be compensated in the event of an incident with an uninsured driver in the UK. The details will vary but the general principle remains that a fund exists to provide that compensation without recourse to ones own insurance policy.

The question asked above is about whether the uninsured driver can be confident of being compensated for the accident. Clearly again the details vary, but in Europe there are provisions enacted by each of the member states, that prevent those using the roads illegally from being compensated, regardless of who is at fault. The vehicle was on the road illegally, therefore the second party's insurers need not compensate, the use of the uninsured vehicle is a criminal act therefore policing might show an interest.

Of course all that is moot if the uninsured vehicle was on private land and demonstrably not in current use.

ALR (talk) 11:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If the other driver is at fault, he is responsible for paying you to repair the damage to your car, whether or not you or he has insurance. See tort. The only reason the insurance company is going to get involved is because they have signed a contract with the driver saying that they (the insurance company) will pay in these circumstances. If you have any trouble getting paid, you will end up suing the driver (and possibly his insurer) to get your car repaired, for court costs, for lost wages due to the accident (to some extent), and maybe other stuff that the other driver is liable for in these cases in your state. You can sue him in small claims court if the total of all this stuff is under your state's limit in small claims court. Most likely you will just call his insurer on the phone and they will pay for everything but have you go to a place of their choice. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hypothetically this is a request for legal advice and hypothetically we are on very dangerous ground talking about it. Hypothetically you would be well advised to get a hypothetical lawyer. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hypothetical lawyers are the best lawyers because they let you pay the bill with hypothetical money Googlemeister (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

artist tao lengyue (1895-1985)

why could i not find any info on this artist67.115.155.175 (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I googled ["tao lengyue"] and found many references, the first few being sites trying to sell stuff. Have you already looked through the google references? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Because non-Chinese sources on this artist are scarce. Try [6] if you can read Chinese. Otherwise, you might want to consider getting someone to translate Chinese-language sources. The Chinese characters for the name Tao Lengyue are "陶冷月", if that helps you in your searches. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Harassment of Italians in World War II United States

My grandparents were harassed during WWII for being Italian, they had five sons in the war, but the U. S. said they were communist. Is there any documentation of this kind of treatment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.115.135 (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Check out Italian American internment. I added a section title for you. I'm not sure why the accusation of being communists would have been a problem during the middle part of the war. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Please don't type in all caps. It is read as shouting and considered rude, so I have gone ahead and formatted it for you. There is certainly documented discrimination against Italians in the U.S. (see United States home front during World War II#Role of minorities for some more info), but I don't think much of it was based on anti-commmunist reasons. The Second Red Scare did not begin until 1947. —Akrabbim^talk 22:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The fear of a creep towards communism was certainly alive in educated circles. F.A. Hayeks Road to Serfdom was written in this period, and Winston Churchill certainly never trusted the communist ideal.NByz (talk) 06:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

March 15

Ethical Eating- GM, meat, non-organic, chemicals, hormones...

I'm doing a debate on ethical eating, but I won't know which side of the moot my house will be given until the actual day.

What I'd like to know is, do you support ethical eating? In other words, do you selectively choose what you eat based on your beliefs or values?

If no, why not? Why are you endorsing the killing of innocent animals, cruelly? Why are you against GM? Hormones?

If yes, why? What is the big deal about GM? Do you still eat meat, but only "humanely" killed meat? Are you a vegetarian? Do you think the starving people in the slums should practice ethical eating in not killing the rats for their meals? Should we all boycott beef because methane is a greenhouse gas? SS✞^(Kay) 03:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

An excellent read on this is Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma. It explores the issues in detail: Pollan both follows an Iowan steer from its feedlot to McDonald's and, in the end hunter-gathers a boar and morels. Very informative, very readable. PhGustaf (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Your premise is flawed, as many would say that you definition of ethical is subjective. What has innocence got to do with livestock and why do you assume that killing animals necessarily involves cruelty? Evil is perpetrated only by man -- is the lioness evil when it catches a gazelle and crushes its trachea so as to suffocate it? That's not evil...that's instinct. Evil is purely motivation, and nothing can have evil intentions but man. So induced death is not, as a rule, evil -- but that's the way you seem to spin it. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the question is a little simplistic. Everyone eats what they do because of a wide range of values, some of which may include ethical values (for example, I put a high emphasis on my food being cheap, and some emphasis on my food being good tasting, and a little bit of emphasis on my food being nutritious, and significantly less emphasis on how my hamburger was treated when it was alive). So you really have two issues to deal with:

1. To what extent do people consider ethical considerations when they choose what to eat, as opposed to other values?

2. What are people's ethical values when it comes to food? As DRosenbach points out, many people would not consider the mere act of killing an animal to be un-ethical (though some certainly do). Some people would consider GM crops to be unethical (for various reasons), while others would feel that the potential for increased yields outweighs the negative considerations.

Wikipedia has articles on many of the topics you are interested in, and it would probably be good to check them out, especially if there's a "controversy" section. (example: milk#Bovine growth hormone supplementation). Buddy431 (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Buddy, I wouldn't be so quick to wikilink 'those who consider killing animals unethical' to 'vegetarian' -- I eat no fish of any kind because I find them unpalatable, but that doesn't make me an anti-piscovorian according to your definition (which would likely have something to do with ethics). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 06:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

DR, I don't think anyone is trying to push a POV here. There are issues about the ethics of food, but they're not about to be resolved, or effectively argued, on this reference list. The OP asked for pointers to information about the issue, and has got some, so the list is doing what it's supposed to do. Myself I eat food, not too much, mostly plants. PhGustaf (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps my comment was misunderstood -- I did not intend to appear as defending against POV. I was merely stating that even with the many errors already found in the OP's original proposition, yet another seemed to creep in with Buddy's link. The vast majority of mothers don't know enough about biochemistry to really know what a hormone is, and yet they might choose against hormone-supplemented milk not for any ethical reasons but because they might mistakenly assume that hormones would cause their child to develop autism. So the suggestion that anti-GM consumers necessarily have anything on their mind related to ethics is far from reality -- in fact, at least specific to GM, I never even considered ethics to be a thing to contemplate. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 07:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

One argument I've seen for free range chicken and such is that those confined to cages accumulate stress hormones, which humans who eat them then absorb. I have no idea if this can be proven. But, if it can, that would be an argument which would appeal to those who don't care a bit about animal ethics. StuRat (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As for genetically modified foods, one argument is that they are basically untested for their health implications. For example, many GM foods are modified to be more able to withstand pesticides, which means they may have much more pesticide on them than others. Is this good for people ? StuRat (talk) 07:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Your first comment isn't really correct. In fact regulatory requirements mean most GM food receive far more testing for health effects then foods produced via other techniques e.g. modern plant breeding (which nowadays often includes a large variety of things like chemical mutagens and radiation, modern plant breeding is definitely quite different from what we've been doing for thousands of years, unlike what some people seem to think). Now you can debate (somewhere else) whether the testing is sufficient, but the idea that they are 'basically untested for their health implications' doesn't really jive with reality. This dichotomy is a common complaint from those who are involved in research relevants areas [7], other interested observers, and it is something that is beginning to be addressed, for example, in Canada, plants with novel traits must be tested regardless of how they're produced [8]. Nil Einne (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There are several arguments to be made here (and note that I'm providing arguments for a debate, not passing judgment on whether they are correct or not). One is that genetically modified foods are not the same as those developed by breeding alone, and thus represent more of a potential risk, more in line with the risk from pharmaceutical products than foods, and should therefore be tested like meds. One reason for this is that foods produced by breeding are likely to have all the traits of the foods from which they were bred, which have been thoroughly tested for generations and are "Generally Recognized As Safe". GM foods, on the other hand, can incorporate genes from non-food organisms, even up to the point of producing drugs for the pharmaceutical industry. Thus, they should not fall under the GRAS category. There was a US Supreme Court ruling that says they should be treated the same as foods developed by breeding alone, but many people, perhaps a majority, disagree with that.

Another problem with GM foods is ownership. If not only the GM foods but any food ever produced from, or contaminated with, those genes then becomes the property of the manufacturer, you can eventually end up with a situation where all food on Earth is "owned" by a small number of corporations, such as Monsanto. This has particulary been a problem in Canada, where farmers who live near farms which use GM seed have been found to owe the manufacturer of the seed money, due to cross contamination. StuRat (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That isn't really true since extensive changes can occur due to mutation, and things like hybridisation with wild species, that have not been substanially consumed and a bunch of other things can occur with modern plant breeding that produces plants with traits that have not been thoroughly tested for generations. (I like to include a picture of a gamma radiation field not because I'm trying to say there's something wrong with it but because I suspect a lot of people have no idea this is part and parcel of modern plant breeding and would be uncomfortable with the idea in particular considering plants produced like this need no testing in most countries and know one generally knows what has changed in the plant other then something useful.)

Also some of the testing is designed to pick up minor problems that would likely not have been picked up even with 'generations of testing'. Finally the key point in what you said is can. Many regulations treat GM plants the same, whether they are cisgenic, are simply knocking out specific genes (e.g. FlavrSavr) or whatever. In other words, the issue as I mentioned in my original post is not so much about whether you should regulate GM crops at all, but whether it makes sense to include specific regulations that deal with any and all GM crops, regardless of what you've done yet include little or no regulation of other crops which to most intents and purposes substanially more often unknown new traits, coming from plants which have not been consumed for generations. ([9] is another interesting example I came across but forgot to include earlier.)

BTW, the second issue you mention somewhat conflates minorly related issues with GM (sadly a common problem in discussions involving GM). For starters plant variety rights have existed in a number of countries since long before GM which while generally allowing people to save seed for their own use often don't allow them to sell it to others. And while GM does allow the possibility of patents in some countries I'm pretty sure they're possible in some countries even without GM particularly with the wide availability of modern molecular biological techniques such as ability to identify useful genes and introduce them from related wild species into existing varieties without GM. And in particular it's an issue that, is largely distinct from the actual merits of GM. (If you disagree with whatever patents that are allowed, it doesn't in follow that you have to disagree with GM anymore that disagreeing with patents for software compression means you have to disagree with software compression.) Similarly for issues like Terminator genes (which some people feel should be compulsary for transgenic plants to avoid the transgenes getting into the environment) and other things that people like to say are a problem with GM (e.g. the overuse of roundup with roundup resistant varieties).

BTW as for Canada, I presume you're referring to Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, if so I suggest you read the article since I'm not sure if you understand the case correctly. But in brief, it wasn't a case where some poor shmuck farmer happened to be unknowingly growing GM crops due to accidential cross contamination and was liable but rather

Hidden for readibility since this is already long

on the balance of probabilities, the defendants infringed a number of the claims under the plaintiffs’ Canadian patent number 1,313,830 by planting, in 1998, without leave or licence by the plaintiffs, canola fields with seed saved from the 1997 crop which seed was known, or ought to have been known by the defendants to be Roundup tolerant and when tested was found to contain the gene and cells claimed under the plaintiffs’ patent. By selling the seed harvested in 1998 the defendants further infringed the plaintiffs’ patent. The courts at all three levels noted that the case of accidental contamination beyond the farmer's control was not under consideration but rather that Mr. Schmeiser's action of having identified, isolated and saved the Roundup-resistant seed placed the case in a different category. The appellate court also discussed a possible intermediate scenario, in which a farmer is aware of contamination of his crop by genetically modified seed, but tolerates its presence and takes no action to increase its abundance in his crop. The court held that whether such a case would constitute patent infringement remains an open question but that it was a question that did not need to be decided in the Schmeiser case.

The last note is an important issue. AFAIK, it remains an open question, in other words the only thing we definitely know is that if you intentionally collect, save and use seeds that you know you need a license to use in Canada, then yes, you are liable for infrigement. (I don't think it takes a lawyer or a lengthy court case to figure out this was likely, the only real issue may have been whether the patents were valid but as I understand it that too had already been tested.) Again whether or not you agree with the basic idea of patenting doesn't come in to it since what's being discussed here is whether there's an evidence accidental contamination of your field somehow leaves you liable.

Anyway I don't really want to continue this discussion any longer, but suffice to say if you really want to consider GM crops, you have to consider the wide variety of possibilities, the potential problems from each, the differences between real world non GM plant breeding and the variety of GM possibilities, and also avoid thinking something you feel is wrong with certain GM varieties or with certain possibilities or practices associated with GM means GM is bad (no it means those things are bad).

Of course a lot of this applies more generally, e.g. when considering how 'bad' something is, compare it to the alternatives, for example, the use of fungicides may have negative effects, but are these worse then Aflatoxin and other mycotoxins that may result with certain food products if you don't? Are the copper compounds used to produce many organic foods better for human health or the environment then the fungicides used for non-organic foods? Is it better to go for high yields at the expense of weeds and other things which may add to biodiversity leaving more land or low intensity techniques while allowing more weeds and biodiversity on the fields? Of course, as in most things of this sort, there'll be cases with competing interests, if something has an overall benefit to human health but also an overall negative effect on the environment how do you balance that? If it's beneficial to the consumer but harmful to the producer, who could be in some poor country what then? (And that surely leads into the obvious problem of whether in the long run it may be better for the producer as they get richer.) And a key question what research is there on all this to support your ideas and how strong is the research? (In particular don't fall into the trap that natural=good.)

Nil Einne (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Brevity isn't your strong suit, is it ? Certainly "natural" alone doesn't mean it's good, since arsenic and many other toxic substances are natural. But "we've been eating it for centuries" does tend to mean it can't be all that bad, or we've have noticed people dropping dead by now. So, anything substantially "new" should be thoroughly tested before it's fed to people. If some of the breeding practices in use now also create completely new foods, then they need such thorough testing, too. StuRat (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

An argument against organic foods is that they use manure as fertilizer, which tends to increase the risk of bacterial contamination with E. coli and other contaminants, and water run-off also tends to pollute the streams and lakes nearby. StuRat (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll pick up on a point started above. My ethics and values are to make sure my family eat healthily and well. My circumstances may dictate whether I buy, for example, Tesco's Value packs or Tesco's Finest range. But there is also an ethical component here: by shopping at Tesco's, am I making a decision not to buy from the local shop, or from the local farm shop, or to not grow my own vegetables (a far cheaper option as far as money goes)? There is much, much more to eating "ethically" than just considering how meat is farmed. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Any discussion regarding the ethics of food would have to consider the issues raised by fair trade and Slow Food movements, self-sufficiency ideals, and ideas on sustainable living. There are food miles to consider, versus the carbon footprint and pollution and deforestation caused through food production. Think about intensive farming versus mixed farming (no WP article, unfortunately), local food, food cooperatives. Also consider religious thoughts on halal, kosher, fasting (etc). "Ethical" eating must also consider concepts of greed (and taking more than your share of resources); the obesity epidemic and other food-related health problems (and how our food choices impact on a country's economy and health system).... It's a far bigger topic than merely "eating animals". Gwinva (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Communism

Inappropriate ref desk question
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do you support communism? 199.8.158.159 (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC) That's a wholly inappropriate question for the reference desk. We do not so surveys. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Does who support communism? Wikipedia as a whole doesn't have any political opinions, we aim to write everything from a neutral point of view. Individual Wikipedians can have whatever opinions they like. Some support communism, some don't. --Tango (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)This is a reference desk and so we do not give you our own opinions. Wikipedia has a wealth of relevant information at Portal:Communism - I suggest you read up there and make your own mind up. If you already have a good understanding of the topic and wish to discuss with others, I would recommend an online forum which you could find through google. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 199.8.158.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Before taking the IP's question too seriously, check out his other "contributions". Obviously pushing an agenda, and this section should be removed or boxed, as with the last guy that started a communism-related megillah. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Is it relevant then to note that David Lee Camp receives donations from health care companies? Sounds like guilt by association. 199.8.158.159 (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Joe McCarthy's ghost says: That's all just a weasely way of saying "Yes!" The correct answer is "No, sir! I stand by true American values: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC) See, I told y'all he had an agenda. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Also, accepting big bucks from health care companies and then opposing anything that would erode their profitibility is not "guilt by association", it's Congressional business-as-usual. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ecclestistic court decision on Indians having souls

Please provide information relating to a Roman Catholic ecclestistic court decision that Native Americans posessed souls. Your opinion as to whether the decision discouraged slavery of Native Americans would be appreciated.

I am in a senior citizen's class studying Constitutional issues. Slavery is one topic. Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.2.105.180 (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

See Sublimus Dei. --Tango (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Reference Desk doesn't do opinion. Woogee (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonagenarians who died before 1900

Presumably this would be an exceptional feat before the advent of modern medicine, the social safety net etc. I'm looking for a list, or just any individuals you can think of, who meet these criteria. Thank you. PS Nona = 90. Vranak (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't as uncommon as one might think. The lower life expectency of earlier generations was due in large part to a) infectious disease b) childhood illness and c) childbirth dangers to mothers. If you could avoid these three, you would likely live just as long as you do know (in fact, probably longer, due to modern diet and sedentary lifestyle and increased incidents of heart disease). We actually had this question asked a few months ago (I think it was centenarians, but a similar question). The article List of notable centenarians has not many, but still some people who died before 1900. A quick perusal turns up architect John Chessell Buckler, musical composer Surdas, explorer Jean-Frédéric Waldeck, jurist Sampson Salter Blowers, Roman General Marcus Valerius Corvus, British Admiral Provo Wallis, cellist Giacobbe Cervetto, singer Teresa Saporiti, statesman Joseph Frederick Wallet DesBarres, statesman Richard McHeffy, banker Moses Montefiore, Cicero's wife Terentia, Pope Agatho, Saint Anthony the Great, cleric Jorge da Costa, chemist Michel Eugène Chevreul, physician Edward Augustus Holyoke, etc. If we lower our requirements ten more years, we could likely turn up a LOT more. --Jayron32 17:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic answer, thank you Jayron. Vranak (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of medieval examples - as Jayron said, if you live past childhood, you have a good chance of living as long as anyone today. The only things that would be more likely to kill an medieval adult than a modern one were battle and disease. Usama ibn Munqidh, Pope Celestine III, and Enrico Dandolo are some others. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and List of longest reigning monarchs of all time might be useful - Pepi II Neferkare is the most ancient nonagenarian, apparently. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My husband and I are both researching our family history, and we both have ancestors who died in their 90s, others in their 80s. What brought average life expectancy down was infant mortality. Basically, if you got past the first six months of life you stood a reasonable chance of living as long as any "modern" person does. What I'm saying is, why do you think such people had to be notable? --TammyMoet (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well in my readings on famous historical figures, I'm not sure I've ever come across one who made it into their ninth decade. There is of course a long long list of modern figures who have. Vranak (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Could that be because historical figures are not really doing anything interesting at that age? Still, There were no popes that lived past 90 from 1500 until Leo XIII who died in 1903, so there is probably something to this. 80s did not seem uncommon through that time frame though. Googlemeister (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, historical figures don't have to be doing anything interesting in their 90s to be worth reading about. Vranak (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Grandma Moses published her autobiography at age 92. She was still painting and selling her works into the 1950s, which would have been in her 90's. --Jayron32 20:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Pepi II Neferkare! -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC) (Oops, didn't see he was already mentioned in a multiply-indented comment above...) AnonMoos (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've got our church burial records in a database, and of 442 people who died before 1900, 10 were aged over 90. --Phil Holmes (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

rise if the third world

please tell me the reasons behind the rise of the third world†↔# —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.6.5 (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In what sense has the third world risen? Are you asking why emerging economies have emerged? --Tango (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Or if you were interested in the rise of countries grouped according to one of the other meanings of Third World, you could look at our article. Marco polo (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If you mean to ask why European countries gave up their colonies in the Caribbean, Africa, Asia, and Oceania in the decades after WW2, contrasting with the nineteenth century when Europe seemed to dominate much of the world somewhat effortlessly, then there could be several reasons for this, including increasing western education among the native elites of the colonies, changing political views at home, etc. But one of the most important factors was probably the cumulative effects of WW1 and WW2 in lessening the overall predominance of Europe in the world... AnonMoos (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Simple leadership questionnaire

Hello. Could you please direct me to a basic leadership skills/abilities assessment questionnaire along with its scoring method? I have spent a lot of time on google, google scholar and online journals but I am just getting specialised or excessively large questionnaires. Thanks very much for your help. --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Name in Khmer

What is the name of the Long Beach Unified School District in Khmer? http://www.lbusd.k12.ca.us/Khmer/ has the name, but the text cannot be copied. Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If you have the correct character-set add-on to your browser, you could use the Wikipedia article Khmer script to work it out. Since many people do not have this character set loaded into their browser, it is likely why the website uses gif pictures of the text rather than the actual characters. If you see a bunch of question marks or squares when you view the article, you'll have to add the character set to your browser. --Jayron32 19:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My browser successfully displays the Khmer text. The thing is that I cannot make out where the "Long Beach Unified School District" part begins and where it ends... WhisperToMe (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Women and music, throughout the ages

A Lady Standing at a Virginal

I have not been able to find an article on this topic. A painting by Vermeer had me wondering if limitations on women's activities also largely extended to the recital of music. Vranak (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in "polite society" in English-speaking countries, young women of "respectable" families were generally expected to take up instruments that they could use to melodically accompany themselves while they sang, partly as a practical matter (since much music-making was solo). This meant most often keyboard instruments, sometimes the harp, occasionally the guitar or guitar-like instruments. Such young women would have played mostly somewhat informally for their own family members or their family's invited guests, or in other families' houses where they were invited guests (not really at "recitals" as we would think of them today). Not sure that other instruments were "limited" as such, but I would assume that they didn't fit in as well with the social purposes of music-making by young women of the middle and upper classes at that time... AnonMoos (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Vranak (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In the C18, see the only "semi-public" career of Vittoria Aleotti and the girl orchestra conducted by Antonio Vivaldi. In the C19, eing a woman constricted the careers of Fanny Mendelssohn and Clara Schumann.--Wetman (talk)

I know that in some tribal societies women sang, drummed or used small handmade instruments (like flutes). Often this was accompaniment to collective labor (gardening, weaving) - collective labor often fell on women in tribal groups, whereas men handled more solitary, wide-ranging tasks. of course, tribal histories (which were often passed on through song) were the more-or-less exclusive property of men... This is going to vary widely by culture, however, since the behaviors of women are often the focus of intense public scrutiny: a properly moral woman in the Elizabethan era was expected to play and sing; a properly moral woman in traditional Muslim culture would never touch a musical instrument. --Ludwigs2 21:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

One extraordinary female composer and musician, from a very long time ago, would be Hildegard of Bingen. PhGustaf (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Foreign language names of school district

The following names of Fairfax County Public Schools are needed to be placed in text on here:

• Arabic: http://www.fcps.edu/otherlanguages/arabic.htm
• Chinese: http://www.fcps.edu/otherlanguages/chinese.htm
  • It may be 費郡公立學校 - Would anyone mind confirming if this has all of the characters of the district's name in Chinese?
• Farsi: http://www.fcps.edu/otherlanguages/farsi.htm
• Korean: http://www.fcps.edu/otherlanguages/korean.htm
• Urdu: http://www.fcps.edu/otherlanguages/urdu.htm

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there a fundemental reason why the English wikipedia needs the foreign language names in the text of the article? If there are articles in foreign language Wikipedias on the subject, then an interwiki-language-link should suffice; there isn't really much of a reason for someone reading english Wikipedia to know what the name of the Fairfax County School District is in Urdu, is there? --Jayron32 20:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This is intended for commons categories, Jayron. For instance I used the reference desk to get texts for Commons:Category:Houston Independent School District - if you want you can read the previous thread about that discussion here: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2010_March_8#Name_question. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. In that case, you probably stand a better chance of getting language help at the languages reference desk or Wikipedia:Translation. The translation project is perused by people who speak various languages and are good at translating. Furthermore, you may be able to find a specific wikipedian to help by perusing Category:Wikipedians by language; each language is listed as "user XXX" where XXX is the 2 or 3 letter ISO code. For example, Category:User km is a list of Wikipedians who self-identify as speaking Khmer. That would probably net you better results than asking at the ref desks. --Jayron32 20:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'll try the languages ref desk first, and I'll see what happens from that point :) WhisperToMe (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What would have been the historical effects if Hitler had been successfully assassinated?

I know the answer would vary depending on exactly when and how it happened, but if Hitler had been successfully assassinated at the height of his power (not necessarily in the 20 July plot), what would the effects have been? It's a standard time-travel/alternate universe story idea, where Hitler is assassinated and the Second World War/Holocaust either never occurs or isn't as bad as it was. But it struck me today that surely the German armies' (initial) successes had to be ascribable to Hitler's advisors/generals, at least in part, and an assassination of a widely beloved leader probably would have spurred Germany on to more war, not less. So what are the likely effects of a successful assassination? (if anyone knows of a book, article, or website on this topic, please post it!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.163.175 (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There are a series of books titled What If? which are collections of "alternative history" essays by prominent historians. You could start with those books and see if the topic is covered. The study of Counterfactual history is a serious academic attempt at working out answers to these sorts questions (to be contrasted with the term "Alternate history", which are usually considered to be non-academically rigourous works of fiction). Our article on Counterfactual history actually uses the "What would have happened if Hitler had been assassinated" as an example question often answered by the field. You could follow external links from the Counterfactual history article or doo google searches for the term to help you along. --Jayron32 21:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

just IMO, It's unlikely there would have been much historical effect - the Reich was a state bureaucracy that had its own internal impetus and would have carried on in much the same fashion until it was defeated, regardless of who was present at the helm. The only exceptions I can think of would have been for things that Hitler insisted on over the objections of his advisors - possibly the decision to invade Russia? It would have dramatically altered the outcome of the war if the Germans had left the Russian front alone. However, I doubt that was solely Hitler's decision - the Nazi's had a long-standing expansionist policy, and it seems likely they would have attacked Russia eventually, regardless (either that, or an expansion into north Africa or the middle east, but north Africa and the middle east had almost nothing to offer at the time, whereas the Russians had an advanced economy and an already developed industrial base that made them both a threat and a prize). --Ludwigs2 21:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ooo, thanks for the links, Jayron! I didn't think realize there was even such a thing out there... awesome. And Ludwig, that's kind of what I was thinking. Presumably the people under him would've been good enough leaders to take his place, right? I mean, if they weren't good leaders, they wouldn't have become his seconds-in-command. (or whatever they were called. Minions? Underlings?) It's just that in books/movies/whatever, they always have Hitler's assassination has having this huge historical effect. 24.247.163.175 (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The importance of leaders is generally overestimated. A leader who is outstanding in some particular way (e.g. a military mastermind, or a great orator) can have a certain amount of impact, but in general leaders follow the inertia of the system more than they lead. The Nazis would have done pretty much what they did with or without Hitler. People focus on leaders because it's a lot easier to blame a person for something bad. If we didn't blame Hitler, who would we blame: The Nazi party? arguably true, but not satisfying. the German people? satisfying, but not meaningful. Human nature? meaningful, but unsettling. You should read Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem where she basically argues that all of the things the Nazis did weren't evil per se, but just a thoughtless A leads to B leads to C leads to... kind of process. --Ludwigs2 22:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That said, Hitler personally made some decisions that, in hindsight, drastically changed things. On top of the invasion of the USSR, I would add the decision to stop attacking British airfields and to focus on terror bombing in London (the outcome of the Battle of Britain may have otherwise been very different) and the decision to declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor (a decision that still befuddles me - perhaps others could explain why it was done) being the two that come to mind. I'm not saying having someone other than Hitler would have changed these events, but I think it certainly could have changed them. Even relatively late in the war, removing his meddling in ground level operations could have had large consequences. For example, I think a lot of his top generals recognized the war was lost and favoured a negotiated truce with the West. Had this happened, the whole post war Eastern Bloc could have been very different.

In general, I think Hitler differs from the type of leader Ludwigs is describing above: unlike a modern world leader, Hitler was really the ideological and political driver of his party. He created it, not the other way around, and if he was assassinated before 1933, I think it's quite possible the Nazis would never have become the ruling party. While later he may have been bound by the system he created, the effects of his personal decisions were (I think) undeniably far reaching, right to the end. TastyCakes (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read much history that discusses the German (originally Prussian) culture of "Hero Worship" preponderant at the time. When a man is a hero brand, his idiosyncrasies become increasingly relevant and the resulting culture can be pulled well off course by those who are trying to make their way to the center of that culture. In life, Alexander the Great's hero brand led an eventually unwilling army throughout the known world and all the way to India. In death - his influence dispersed - it took forty years of war for his hangers-on to sort out violently where to go next.NByz (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't suppose there's a list anywhere of what specific decisions were all (or mostly) Hitler, as opposed to widely supported by all of his generals? That'd be interesting to see... or if you just know which they were, that'd be good too. 24.247.163.175 (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a line of thought out there called "No Hitler, no Holocaust" (coined by Milton Himmelfarb) that's pretty self-explanatory. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

possible, but unlikely - the anti-Judaic sentiment was built into the Nazi ideology. plus, I've read arguments that claimed the holocaust was simply a natural progression: a bureaucracy charged with handling "aberrant" populations that was caught between increasing numbers of inmates and decreasing resources. if you have ten people and ten million dollars to spend you treat the people well, regardless of what you think of them; if you have ten million people and ten dollars to spend you open yourself to unsavory options. --Ludwigs2 06:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Number 3 on this Cracked article claims that the Nazis had no chance at all at defeating the Soviet Union. Page 2 makes the claim that Hitler was very lucky, and utterly incompetent. Perhaps the war would have gone better without him. Vimescarrot (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A previous discussion here[10] "What if WWII hadn't happened" includes a reference to Great Man theory. Other poor decisions by Hitlert that spring to mind are; the "stop" order at the Dunkirk perimeter, the pointless Battle of Stalingrad, failure to release the Panzer divisions from the Pas de Calais on D-Day and turning the Me 262 into a bomber instead of using it as a fighter earlier. Alansplodge (talk) 09:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Who was the editor of the Wonderful Adventures of Mrs. Seacole in Many Lands

Who was the editor of the Wonderful Adventures of Mrs. Seacole in Many Lands, the autobiography of Mary Seacole? He or she is identified only by the initials W. J. S. Thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone knows. The author of this note in 2008 calls W. J. S. "the unidentified editor" in a context in which the name would surely have been supplied if it were known. Deor (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspected as much, but agree that N&Q would be likely to reveal the information if known. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Angry or depressed at a disapointment?

What determines if someone becomes either A) angry or B) depressed as a result of a disapointment? I expect it may be determined by personality or the situation. Some people are perhaps more prone to one than the other. 92.24.26.120 (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Our disappointment article is surprisingly well supplied with references to literature on the subject. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The article does not answer or address my question at all. The article is not very good as it only just barely mentions anger (one or two words: "others mire in frustration") as a responce to a disapointing event, and seems to presuppose that the only responce to a disapointing event is depression, yet experience shows that anger is also common responce. 92.24.26.120 (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

When I studied psychology 30 years ago, I was taught "depression is anger turned inwards". In other words, anger is the original feeling, which we are prevented from expressing (maybe because of conditioning, or social norms), and which becomes internalised as depression. Does this help? By the way, I've just tried googling this saying, and there are countless references to it. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A topic similar to the above, where different people respond in different ways to adversity, is psychological resilience. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's accurate at all, TammyMoet — anger is a normal human reaction, whereas depression ranges from an adaptive mechanism to a DSM disorder. To the original poster, sorry if you didn't find the sub-links in the disappointment article useful. The obvious OR answer would be that I would agree with your observation, but I don't have a good reference. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

March 16

From where does the strength of the pro-Israel lobby come in American politics?

Please, please try to restrain your responses to factual statements, please. The article Religion in the United States says that only 1.7% of Americans identify as Jewish. Yet, there's an Associated Press headline today reading "US Israel criticism ignites firestorm in Congress" and going on to say:

The Obama administration's fierce denunciation of Israel last week has ignited a firestorm in Congress and among powerful pro-Israel interest groups who say the criticism of America's top Mideast ally was misplaced.

Since the controversy erupted, a bipartisan parade of influential lawmakers and interest groups has taken aim at the administration's decision to publicly condemn Israel for its announcement of new Jewish housing in east Jerusalem while Vice President Joe Biden was visiting on Tuesday and then openly vent bitter frustration on Friday.

I can understand Israeli diplomats pushing hard, but where does this domestic political strength come from? It runs wholly against the majority-rule nature of a vote-based form of governance. How can "a bipartisan parade" of politicians respond to the pro-Israel lobbying and expect to keep their seats in the next election? Is there widespread support for Israel among the other 98.3% of Americans? Someone please help me understand the basis for this seemingly-tremendously disproportionate political power? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

See Jewish lobby and Israel lobby in the United States. The first article also links to The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, a book that appears to deal with the issue (and has also been criticized for its handling of the issue). Buddy431 (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The "powerful American Jewish lobby" is a myth. If there were a powerful American Jewish lobby, there would be strict separation of church and state, a greater social safety net and lots of other stuff that there isn't. While the importance of Jews to the pro-Israel lobby should not be understated, you are right in assuming that without significant support from non-Jewish Americans, there would be little support for Israel among American politicians. The fact is, the great majority of Americans support Israel over the Arabs in the conflict. In a recent poll, 63% of respondents said their sympathies were with the Israelis and 15% said they sympathized more with the Palestinians. It is hard to get into an explanation of why without starting a debate into the whole conflict, but basically, most Americans see Palestinian violence, such as bus bombings, as attacks on innocent civilians (like 9/11) while they see Israeli retaliation as legitimate defense. Many American Christians also sympathize with the Jews as the people of the Old Testament and believe God gave them the land of Israel. (Christian Zionists tend to be more hard-core than the Jewish kind.) Many Americans see Israelis as being "like us" -- indeed, some are from America -- while the Arabs seem decidedly "un-American" in their attitudes and beliefs. Finally, Israel has been a staunch U.S. ally for 60 years, sometimes being among the only UN states to side with the U.S. in General Assembly votes and helping the U.S. out in ways such as slipping Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" to the CIA and not retaliating when Saddam Hussain attacked Israel with Scud missiles during the first Gulf War. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

For specific groups that lobby about U.S. policy towards Israel, see American Israel Public Affairs Committee and J street. For a broader look at an aspect of the issue, you can look at Diaspora politics in the United States. There are tons of articles in Wikipedia alone relating to this topic.

And of course, groups do not need to be large to have a significant impact on United States policy: see Lobbying in the United States. The system is such that a small, motivated group can have a disproportionate amount of influence. As an example, look at the farm lobby. <soapbox> Only about 2-3% of Americans are farmers, and yet they get congress to prop up prices and feed them subsidies at the expense of the other 97%. But the farmers have a large stake in such legislation, so they advocate strongly for it. Each individual consumer is only negatively affected to a small degree, so they do not form powerful groups to address the issue</soapbox>. It's not just the pro-Israel lobby, it's pretty much any US lobby. Buddy431 (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if the "Jewish Lobby" is a peculiarly US phenomenon. For example, would 63% of Europeans or Canadians say their sympathies were with the Israelis? Astronaut (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

According to Canada-Israel relations, no, it's not like that in Canada. Note the Gallup Poll link at the bottom. --Anonymous, 06:10 UTC, March 16, 2010.

I think that in Canada, and probably in the States, the answers to public opinion questions like "who do you sympathize with more" are wildly erratic. The poll mentioned in the article was taken in 2005, shortly after the 2004 Israel–Gaza conflict. If you had asked that same question just after any of the Arab-Israeli wars, say, I think you'd have gotten a much different answer, as you would have if it had followed a period of more intense Palestinian attacks. People's opinions on this issue are somewhat flexible, and tend to fall on the side that has most recently appeared as the victim. TastyCakes (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A couple of other points:

• The media in the U.S. covers the conflict in a different manner from the British media. For example, the British news agency Reuters regularly refers to all Israeli settlements as "illegal under international law" while the American Associated Press simply says the Palestinians consider the settlements illegal under international law. American journalists are generally more objective while British journalists are less hesitant to take sides on an issue.
• It's worth pointing out that the U.S. intervened militarily to defend the Muslim Albanians of Kosovo against the Christians of Serbia, yet there was no accusation of a "Muslim Lobby" manipulating U.S. policy. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Mwalcoff, it looks the other way to me - American journalists are much less likely to question the Israeli government and military line, British journalists more likely to report that most countries' governments consider the settlements illegal. Anyway, in answer to the original question, there is an extensive extreme-Christian lobby in the US, which while profoundly anti-Semitic in and of itself, sees the return of Jews to the Holy Land as a prerequisite for the return to earth of their sky-god's offspring. DuncanHill (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a big difference between saying most countries consider the settlements illegal (if indeed that is the case) and simply saying outright that the settlements are illegal (as Reuters does) or just calling them "illegal settlements" (as The Guardian does).

This is getting off-topic here (surprise), but U.S. journalists clearly value objectivity more so than do British journalists, and that shows in the reporting. I read that the British journalists' union had endorsed a boycott of Israeli products. The U.S. Newspaper Guild or Society of Professional Journalists would never endorse a stand on a political issue except one specific to its field, such as freedom of information laws. In fact, some U.S. journalists don't even vote because they think it would compromise their objectivity. I recently read about a meeting held by global warming skeptics during the Copenhagen summit on climate change. The New York Times reporter simply reported what the people said without injecting his or her opinion, but the Guardian reporter got up during the meeting and started yelling at the participants about typhoons in Bangladesh and what not. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

See also: Christian Zionism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Normansmithy (talk • contribs) 11:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A follow-up question to Mwalcoff's fine answer: Mwalcoff says (and I've often heard elsewhere) that Israel has been a staunch ally for 60 years. But I've heard in other quarters that, in recent years, the relationship has become increasingly one-sided. Have there really been good examples of Israel acting as a staunch ally in, say, the last 20 years? John M Baker (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, from 1948-1967 the U.S. kept Israel at semi-arm's-length in some respects, and certainly carefully avoided the appearance of any kind of open military alliance between the United States and Israel. It was in 1967, in response to what in the United States was then widely viewed as the Arabs' pathetic and repellent performance in the events connected with the 6-day war -- such as issuing a constant stream of vituperative bloodthirsty wannabe-genocidal bombastic threats before the war, then spectacularly collapsing in a cloud of military incompetence during the actual fighting -- that a wave of emotional support for Israel occurred inside the U.S. and broke down the old diplomatic inhibitions, so that after 1967 the U.S. was now willing to be seen as being in open military alliance with Israel. From 1967 on, Israel has been seen as a democratic country largely free of anti-American sentiment in a sea of autocratic or dictatorial regimes, and there has been useful cooperation between U.S. and Israeli intelligence services. As for the larger question of the "Israel lobby", American Jews have made support for the continuing existence of Israel (against threats of Policide from Ahmadinajad and many others before him) a kind of a test issue with respect to the status of the Jewish community in the United States -- major established Jewish organizations are of the opinion that those in the United States who question the right of Israel to exist are really questioning the right of Jews to be full citizens of the United States. In this respect, 1967 was also around the time that the power of the old-line "Arabists" (old style experts on the middle east) at Foggy Bottom was pretty much broken -- from the 1940s to 1967, the middle east desk at the State Department always invariably advised U.S. Presidents to sell out Israel because the Arabs had oil, more votes at the United Nations, etc., regardless of the circumstances of the diplomatic situation of the moment, and thus there were constant zero-sum "I win you lose" struggles between the American Jewish community and the Arabists over who could most influence presidential decisions. American Jewish leaders considered the Foggy Bottom Arabists to be largely supercilious pin-striped country-club WASPs of old northeastern "good" families who were partially motivated by a kind of genteel refined upper-class anti-Semitism of the Gentleman's Agreement kind (not to be confused with any kind of crude or vulgar anti-Semitism suitable for the lower orders of society, oh no). That's why breaking the power of the Foggy Bottom Arabists was viewed as an all-around unequivocal clear-cut victory for the American Jewish community as a whole (not just a matter of middle-east foreign-policy lobbying). AnonMoos (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, but at this point 1967 is going on toward the half-century mark. What has Israel done for U.S. lately? John M Baker (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that Israel had done anything for the U.S. in 1967, either (though it did defeat states allied with the Soviet Union and provide information about Soviet weapons). What I did say on that particular point was "From 1967 on, Israel has been seen as a democratic country largely free of anti-American sentiment in a sea of autocratic or dictatorial regimes, and there has been useful cooperation between U.S. and Israeli intelligence services." AnonMoos (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think not retaliating when Saddam Hussain attacked Israel with Scud missiles during the first Gulf War was a huge favor Israel did for the U.S. I can't think of another time when a country uninvolved in war was attacked and did absolutely nothing about it because its ally (which was fighting the war) didn't want it to. And although it wasn't a favor for the U.S. at the time, Israel's destruction of Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981 sure made it easier for the U.S. to defeat Saddam in two wars down the road. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Court of India appealing before itself

Recently, there has been a curious example in India where the Supreme Court of India appealed before itself against a judgement passed by the High Court. The High Court had ruled that the office of the Chief Justice of India came under the Right to Information Act, which the SCI has challenged.

1. Is the Supreme Court of India a legal person to sue and be sued or is this whole report a misunderstanding of the facts of the case? If the SCI can indeed sue, on what occasions can it be sued? Can it be sued for example (at courts at any position in the judicial hierarchy), when it passes a judgment that is against the constitution of India?
2. If this indeed is abnormal, does this indicate a flaw in the Indian constitution, or it something allowed deliberately by design? Is the conflict of interest objection valid?
3. Are there any examples from anywhere around the world, where such an incident has happened before?

Chancemill (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, a) SCI is not a separate entity that can be sued b)when a SCI judgement is questioned/appealed, it is usually given to a SCI bench with a higher number of judges than the one which pronounced the original judgement c)whenever COI issues arise (like the above given case), consensus is arrived at by the judges collegium and the law ministry. In the past, in case the govt wants to bypass the SCI, it enacts special legislation or amends the constitution. An example is Shah Bano case. d) The ninth schedule of the indian constitution is sometimes used to enact laws to bypass the judicial preview of SCI [11]. So if the govt wanted to go against the SCI, it enacted laws under nineth schedule. But in 2007, SCI made a judgement to close the loophole. So far no one has challenged that pronouncement. When that happens, during the next show down between the SCI and parliament, we will see what happens.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

this kind of thing is actually is kind of a semi-sub-field in political science. Political systems always have a curious tension. on one hand, they are always 'bootstrapped' entities: i.e. at some points the system or its parts must declare itself legal according to its own authority. The whole concept of Judicial Review in the US came about because the supreme court decided the judicial branch had that right, and no one disagreed until it was too late to do anything about it. You see the same thing in other branches, as well, e.g. the Bush Administration's rather liberal assertions about their immunity from investigation. On the other hand, political systems have a desperate need to appear legitimate: lack of legitimacy is a death knell for a political system, and almost always leads to deterioration and civil unrest. The logic here, I imagine, is that the Supreme Court bears the responsibility of properly interpreting the law, so this act is justified; however, they will be very careful in their decision to avoid giving any impression of impropriety, because a loss of legitimacy might mean that parliament or some other branch of government will step in to limit their power in future cases. bit of a tightrope, but not uncommon. --Ludwigs2 18:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Corsets for men in the 19th century

Does anyone out there have any information about corsets for men in the 19th century? Materials, design, etc. Trakorien (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think they were often sort of canvas tubes, intended to keep the paunch in check but without enforcing curvy shapes like women's corsets did. AnonMoos (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Banksy

Does anyone know with certainty the identity of the street artist Banksy? I have already checked out the references on his wiki-page. GerardLP (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a BBC article about how he was supposedly revealed (or maybe not): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7504132.stm -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Banksy hasn't confirmed any speculation over his identity, so there is no question of it being established beyond all doubt. However an enterprising BBC reporter following up one of the speculated identities appeared to come across corroborating evidence in his former home: see this video report. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I'm sure Banksy knows who he is! --TammyMoet (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Much of "his" work requires many people to organise and put together - such as the excellent exhibition in Bristol last year that I went along to. Those people (or, at least, many of them) "know" who he "is". But, to them and to Banksy himself (themselves?) there is a clear commercial value in maintaining the mystique of anonymity. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It would not surprise me if the publisher of his books knows who he is. And I suspect that HMIT know. -- SGBailey (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"HMIT" = HMRC, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes -- SGBailey (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Asatru

How many (approximately) active Ásatru societies are there in the world today?Antheafor (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Our article Ásatrú, and the articles it links to, may help you. DuncanHill (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Information about the artist Ib Geertsen?

Where can I find valid information on the danish artist Ib Geertsen? I have searched the net, and only found brief summaries. Both Scandinavian and English sources are ok. JennaJ82 (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A straightforward Google brought up this obituary, this home page, and many other reliable references (over 6,000 in fact). If you mean "Where on Wikipedia can I" find information, that is a different matter - there is no article (yet) in English because no-one has written one, but there is this over at Danish Wikipedia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

bigfoot

i have heard a lot of people saying bigfoot is hoax. but what i can see from Bigfoot#View_among_the_scientific_community is that there is no consensus among the scientific community on this issue. Is bigfoot real?? --Fovol (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Your reading of that section differs from mine. The consensus appears to be that it does not exist, but that we are lacking explanations for what evidence there is that has been offered in its support. I think by & large, we can agree there is no such thing, and that belief in bigfoot absent any compelling evidence is mere fancy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The first two sentences make this clear: "The scientific community overwhelmingly discounts the existence of Bigfoot, as there is little or no evidence supporting the survival of such a large, prehistoric ape-like creature. The evidence that does exist points more towards a hoax or delusion than to sightings of a genuine creature." Perhaps you are confused because they listed scientists who support the existence of Bigfoot or are unsure, and didn't list the millions who think it's a total hoax. StuRat (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The majority of scientists discount the possibility for the existence of Bigfoot; however a small number of cryptozoologists maintain that there is a possibility that some cryptids exist. One of the pieces of evidence that has received much scientific examination is the Patterson-Gimlin film. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

yeah - I think you need to separate the scientific and speculative viewpoints here. Most biologists would agree that it's not at all impossible to find an unknown species of animal - lots of new species are found annually, and while most of them are tiny little things, there's no reason to assume that there aren't any bigger unknown creatures out there. However, the bigfoot thing is driven more by fantasies about 'not-quite-people' sharing the world with us. it's the same thing that has made people fascinated by dwarves, elves, leprechauns, space aliens, intelligent dragons, afrit, angels, demons, etc., etc., etc. there's just something special and primordial about a true 'alien' (not just an animal, but something on our mental level, but different). It probably traces back to tens of thousands of years of sitting around campfires, staring off into the dark, and wondering about other tribes that might be hunting us - are they beasts, can they be reasoned with, what to do, what to do? --Ludwigs2 18:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Orang Pendek may be more plausible. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

My favorite "examination" of the Paterson-Gimlin film is this this version that compensated for camera movement. It's amazing how much a bouncy-camera causes us to use our imagination and see what we want to see. APL (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Many cryptids have folklore and hoaxes associated with them. But those alone don't completely invalidate the possibility for their existance. ~AH1^(TCU) 16:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Splitting Nigeria

I have just read that Gaddafi proposes splitting Nigeria into two separate countries [[12]] - is this a good/feasible idea? Thanks for info., --AlexSuricata (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The RD doesn't deal in speculation on the future, which is what we would need to do to answer this question. Gaddafi makes a good point, and partition has been achieved in other places, but not without enormous disruption. Quite what the unintended consequences would be, is difficult to fathom. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Gaddafi also proposes splitting Switzerland along language lines. Not to be taken very seriously.131.130.223.109 (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It has been tried before. It kinda-sorta failed miserably. See Biafra and Nigerian Civil War. The article on Biafra also discusses a modern revival of the secessionist movement. --Jayron32 13:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, take a look at this recent event: Libya's Gaddafi calls for holy war on Switzerland. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume he doesn't include in his successful examples Northern Ireland. SGGH ^ping! 08:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Africa (Petrarch)

According to Bergin and Wilson's English translation of Petrarch's Africa (p. xiii), It was not until 1397 in fact that Pier Paolo Vergerio gave to a world no longer quite so impatient the first "published" text of the "Africa." However in Pier Paolo Vergerio the Elder, who I assume is the person they are talking about, this important work does not seem to be mentioned in the article. Either

1. I missed seeing it in the article, maybe under another title.
2. it was not considered an important work of his works, although it seems important enough to mention in the article.
3. we are not talking of one and the same person as Bergin and Wilson mentions as "Pier Paolo Vergerio"; although the age seems right and he taught logic at Padua and Florence.

Which? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Or:

4. Wikipedia is not a finished work, and no one has yet added that information to the article. Since you apparently have access to a reliable source which mentions the fact, you could add the information to the article and cite your source using inline citations. --Jayron32 13:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thought of that - however just wanted to make sure Bergin and Wilson's "Pier Paolo Vergerio" is the same as Pier Paolo Vergerio the Elder. Bergin and Wilson book came out in 1977 and does not use the term "the Elder". Wikipedia's article came out initially in 2007 - however you think then we are talking of one and the same person? IF so, I'll be glad to add to the article and reference accordingly.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Two things: The 1397 date matches exactly the 1397 date mentioned, with cited reference, in the Africa (Petrarch) article, AND the date fits in the lifespan of Pier Paolo Vergerio the Elder (1370-1444), he'd have been 26-27 at the time, whereas the only other notable Pier Paolo Vergerio would not have been born for another century. If you are concerned, you could post the question on the talk pages of the various articles, and/or contact the people who heavily edit those articles and see what they say. The person who added the date to the Africa (Petrarch) article may still have access to the source of that date (its a print source, so I can't access it right now) and may be able to confirm your information. --Jayron32 15:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've updated Africa (Petrarch) and Pier Paolo Vergerio the Elder as I also feel I have the correct "Pier Paolo Vergerio", based on that print source I have.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Short stories dealing with sexual abuse

Where could I find some short stories, preferably in the public domain, that deal with the issue of sexual abuse, without being inappropriate for high school students?--99.251.239.89 (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Public domain is hard, because most professionally published stories that cover this subject overtly, in language accessible to teenagers, will still be in copyright in most jurisdictions. I can recommend Vandals by Alice Munro, which appears in her book Selected Stories. I also like The Tulip Touch by Anne Fine for tweens and younger teens, although this is a short novel rather than a story, and the focus is on the anger and dysfunctional behaviour caused by the abuse, rather than the abuse itself. I don't know whether any of the books listed here would be any help? Karenjc 22:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Another Canadian work; Rape Fantasies by Margaret Atwood is a good one. It doesn't really involve any abuse, but it's still relevant. Vranak (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Without knowing the age of the high school students, I was amazed to find The Color Purple used as a set text for A level English in the UK a few years ago. If that's suitable reading for 16 year olds then I'd recommend it. I know it's not a short story but it's quite short for a novel. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

March 17

How to cite The New York Times - under T or under N?

Hi. I am building my references list for an academic essay and I was wondering whether an articles by The New York Times goes under T - because "The" is part of the full name, The New York Times - or under N - because the article "the" is usually ignored when sorting alphabetically (just as the United Nations goes under u). Thanks for helping me out with this one :) --Tilmanb (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

New York Times, The would be the most correct. The is an intrisic element, in spite of Wikipedia's article title.--Wetman (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Communism 2

Why do people still support communism even though China, Cuba, North Korea, etc. have all shown that communism leads to nothing but totalitarianism? --70.250.214.164 (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Either because they disagree that China, etc., are totalitarianism or because they think they can do a better job. --Tango (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Or because they simply cannot agree with capitalism. --Tilmanb (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Or because they think totalitarianism is a good thing as it reduces the number of areas of life that they need to organise for themselves. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(OR) A former acquaintance of mine firmly maintained that your examples were all problems of scale - in other words, that at the township or farm level (see commune) the communist economic system is workable. The noteworthy difference therein is that the less people are participating (1,300,000,000 in China versus maybe 30 on a farm) the more likely it is that they all want to be there and believe in the system. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"Communism" has a pretty specific meaning, so the local cooperative spirit is more aptly called "communalism". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, primitive communism clearly states that small-scale pre-agrarian communities can have all of the features of a communist system but on a small scale. If someone says "communism never works" without the caveat of primitive communism, then they're basically wrong since "primitive" small-scale communism clearly does work. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 08:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Leaving aside North Korea, which is seems to be a hereditary monarchy, one might ask if the people of Chinese and Cuba are better off materially, in health care, and in education under communism than they were under the preceding regimes. I expect that they are, but with limited personal freedom. China has increasing classdistinctions and has developed an aristocracy with numerous billionaires, so their "communism" seem limited. Edison (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Frank Zappa once said, "Communism doesn't work, because people like to own stuff." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse a moment of complete of OR: I'm not a communist (not much of a capitalist either, but that's a different story), but I will say that one of the reasons why Marxist/communist/socialist philosophies persist is that they are really very sharp theories. For instance, the only explanation of the current economic collapse that actually fits the observed situation is the Marxist explanation (the financial class tried to extract just a bit too much surplus labor value from the lower classes; the lower classes' inability to cope with the extraction caused financial organizations to fail to meet their obligations to other financial organizations, causing a trust crisis, which causes markets to shut down in fear. the government - as guardian of the financial class - steps in and helps the worst-hit financial organizations meet their obligations by extracting more labor value from the lower classes in the form of taxes.) At heart, Marxism is a meta-theory that includes capitalism, and thus so long as you have a purportedly capitalist system you will have marxist/communist/socialist systems. a pure capitalist society, left to its own devices, would reduce itself to anarchy in a matter of months. --Ludwigs2 05:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Communism appeals to anyone who has ever lost a job or envied a neighbour, been evicted from their home or relied on the state for healthcare, distrusted career politicians or resented old money. But it appeals especially to those who haven't studied the 20th century.NByz (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you may mean "relied on a for-profit company for healthcare". It's the cases where a corporation has screwed you over on your healthcare that drive people to communism. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

One could argue that the 20th century showed how Communism won't work if you have a powerful group of anti-communists trying to undermine your nation's success. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 08:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: if you ask the communists, there never was communism in the Soviet Union, only socialism. Communism, in theory, is what is supposed to come naturally after socialism, a state in which the whole concept of "ownership" is obsolete, except perhaps for personal effects with sentimental value, irrelevant to the productive economy. Also, in communism there is no state or government in the modern sense. They never got that far in Russia. (As to whether it's possible to get there, that's another story.) The use of "communism" to describe the state of affairs that existed or exists in communist dictatorships is just name-calling, from the point of view of political philosophy.--Rallette (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And the form of socialism practised in the USSR was very different from the form practised in, say, Sweden for much of the 20th century. DuncanHill (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Lest we forget, there wasn't much personal freedom in Imperial China, and enormously lower standards of living, hygiene, caloric intake, information flow and participation in government. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hooray for propaganda! Lest we forget, personal freedom, lower standards of living, hygiene, caloric intake, information flow and participation in government were enormously lower in every single country around the world, with the exception perhaps of Somalia. 61.189.63.170 (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

My experience with people from China (who I met while they were visiting the U.S. to get an education) is that most of them do not feel that they are under totalitarian rule. On a day-to-day basis they do not worry about the state, about Big Brother, about Marxist economics. They feel that the government is a system that brings order to the world. They feel that it sometimes oversteps and does not listen to the will of the people, but they see that as an invitation for eventual reform, not revolution. They do "own things" and they do "work for a living."

I bring this up not because it is necessarily common (though I suspect it is) or that it makes their form of government "right", but just to point out that the view we are taught about such regimes from the U.S.—both in our schools and our culture—is that they are the proverbial iron foot stepping on a human face every day. And yes, for dissidents, for members of various religious or ethnic groups, that is what it probably feels like. But for the vast majority of the population, it doesn't look anything like the "evil officious Chinese" that we get in our movies. They don't necessarily see the U.S. model as leading to better political judgment, better economics, or better people (as moral or ethical beings). In the U.S., we like to believe that if you don't have "freedom" (vaguely defined), you don't have anything, and you should fight and fight until you have it. That makes for rousing cinema, but it's not how humans have generally lived their lives, and there are many degrees of "freedom". I think your average Chinese probably feels safer than your average American, in practically every realm except personal political expression, and even in that case, your average American is much more likely to voice controversial opinions only when they can do so anonymously, or amongst people they know agree with them 100%, because there are economic/social ramifications for mouthing off in a workplace, amongst friends, etc. I'm not trying to argue for any kind of equivalency, but I do think if you want to understand what the "other side" is thinking, you have to spend a little more time putting yourself in their shoes, and trying to reduce things to "how do they live their daily lives" and not "how do movies make it look." (I know little about Cuba so I don't know if this carries; North Korea is something else entirely, a slave population.) --Mr.98 (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Historically, we should also no forget that Russia was on the losing side of a war in 1917, then in a civil war sponsored by outside powers for the next 6 years, and only a few years later lost 27 million people in WW2 - about 15% of the population. As a comparison, that's 10000 9/11s (15000 if scaled up to the current US population - or about 1 per day for the entire existence of the Soviet union). These are not the best circumstances to build a blooming society brimming with civil rights. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Reference desk does not do opinions or forum discussions. I think we are done here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

See Socialism with Chinese characteristics for the Chinese style communism. --Kvasir (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

One argument for large-scale communism is that it's never been tried, if one considers the cases so far as simply totalitarian governments which pretended to be communists as a propaganda tool to control the masses. The reality was that the leaders of those nations were rich, and extracted that wealth from the masses. I suspect that true communism would require both democracy and a powerful work incentive to take the place of capitalism. A strong religion might work, as fear of eternal damnation for laziness should be effective. StuRat (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I added a "2" to the section title to differentiate it from another with the same title. StuRat (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It all depends on which regime the people grew up in. If people are born into a nation that holds Communist principles, then these people will generally support its perpetuation. ~AH1^(TCU) 16:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

From Will Rogers: "In Russia, they ain't got no income tax. But they ain't got no income!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Seventh-Day Adventist in China

How many Seventh-Day Adventists are there in the People's Republic of China today? Sonic99 (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Googling “Seventh Day Adventists, China” led me to this site, and a report dated May 18, 2009 entitled “Adventist president's visit to China first by a top church leader in decades “ which states in its closing sentence: Nearly 400,000 Adventists are believed to worship at thousands of locations across the nation. (The “nation” under discussion is China.) Bielle (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone explain this please? Finding out who you are...

Can someone please explain this in simple terms...

"Finding out WHO YOU ARE is not about being more, doing more, having more, manifesting more, creating more, being the best you can be, finding out your imagined mission or purpose in life, or having financial success. Finding our WHO YOU ARE is the realization that everything is made of the same substance, and YOU ARE THAT ONE SUBSTANCE." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.33.234 (talk) 06:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. It's nonsense. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 07:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Where did you come across this statement? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Something like this: "Finding out who you really are is not about self-improvement but about facing reality and the fact that you are part of it." A popular search engine reveals the quote to be from "The Beginner's Guide to Quantum Psychology", by Stephen H. Wolinsky - who in turn appears to be in the business of mixing particle physics with Indian thought. It's difficult to say from a quick glance what exactly he means by all this, but to quote from a bit further on in the book, "Quantum Psychology is not intended to make you better, more virtuous, teach you how to have great relationships, how to make more money, or even how to feel more comfortable in your life. Rather, it is concerned with developing awareness so that you can discover Who You Are, even beyond awareness itself." What can one say to this? Strong stuff, and there is a good deal of wisdom in the idea that if you want the truth about yourself, you must not expect it to make your life sweet. Do be cautioned that probably none of the book is particularly original, and what's original is probably not so good. You might do better with someone who has the sense to leave quantum mechanics out of it. For Indian philosophy, you would do well to go to the source first, and then work your own way to a synthesis with modern science, if that's what you want. And it's easy: we have a whole bunch of good articles right here on any number of related ideas in Buddhism and Hinduism.--Rallette (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Giving another perspective on this here, the equivalence of matter and energy has been established. If matter and energy are the same, and all we can perceive is made of matter including ourselves, then everything is energy. If everything is made of the same stuff, then that includes ourselves. According to this, finding yourself means recognising that you are not only connected to everything in the universe, but you are an integral part of the universe. (Note to the proper scientists here: I'm simplifying matter/energy equivalence but, for this purpose, the principle is the same.) --TammyMoet (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that simplification is misleading. Mass and energy are equivalent; in other words, mass - a measure of a body's resistance to acceleration - and energy - a measure of a system's capacity for doing work - are actually different ways of measuring the same thing. Mass has energy and energy has mass. Matter and energy are definitely not equivalent. Matter certainly has mass (and/or energy) as one of its attributes, but it also has other attributes such as volume and temperature. Matter is not equivalent to volume, temperature or energy. Saying "everything is made of the same substance" makes as much sense as saying "this bar of chocolate and that bar of gold both have a monetary value therefore they are both made of money". Gandalf61 (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to fix a few things there. Temperature is an energy expression (sort of); it measures the average kinetic energy on a molecular scale, normalized to the assymptotic condition known as absolute zero. Energy has volume as well (again, sort of), see field theory for the spatial nature of energy, though it is somewhat more complex than saying it occupies a space the same way matter does; but there is a dimensional and spatial nature to energy. The thing that seperates matter from energy is quantum numbers. Quantum numbers are what tell matter that its a proton or an electron or a quark (or even, say, you). Mass is the same thing as energy; in terms of conservation law, what is conserved universally is the sum of mass and energy. If we think of mass and energy as the exact same thing, than we can think of quantum numbers as the parameters that define the organization of those mass/energy values into all of the various forms we see in the universe. --Jayron32 14:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Most mystical faith (regardless of religious or cultural background) hold that identity - the separation of the self from the surrounding world - is a misperception of the true nature of the world. an extension of that is that the various efforts to heighten identity (to make ourself a better person, and more moral person, and more successful person, and etc) are misguided to the extent that they draw you away rom a true understanding of the world. some of the more New Agey thinkers have taken to reinterpreting the first concept in scientific/physics type terms, which starts to color how they talk about the second concept. this isn't a bad thing, in itself, but I think it leads to more confusions than it resolves.--Ludwigs2 15:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Back to the original question: The best translation is probably "If you give us money, you will feel better." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

lol - silliness... you think that a pro basketball player should get paid ten million a year to run around in short-shorts, but you accuse this guy of being greedy because he tries to make some money by telling people what he thinks are wise thoughts. what the hell kind of priorities are those? or do you think those short-shorts contribute more to society? --Ludwigs2 16:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The market itself has decided that the basketball player has contributed more to society, if you subscribe to the idea that wealth is a very rough indicator of how society has rewarded the contributions to society you (and your ancestors) have made. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It depends how short the shorts are and who's wearing them. Matt Deres (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ping Fu

This story http://www.inc.com/magazine/20051201/ping-fu.html is interesting but it just doesn't make sense- how does a Chinese political prisoner with no ties to the US get deported to the US and furnished with admission to the University of New Mexico? Usually deportation is to send people back to the original country they came from. Does the Chinese government have pull with the INS? And the University spot?20.137.18.50 (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This story simply says she came to the US as a student, so perhaps there was an application and acceptance that occurred which the reporter did not bother to write about. This NPR story says she was ordered to leave China, but similarly is vague on this detail you're asking about. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Comet Tuttle for those good references. The other strange thing is I thought it was the case that when on a student visa, the student had to prove that they had the financial resources to cover the entire education before they were given the visa. At least that's what I remember from talking with a Chinese student on a student visa when I was in College. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The original story, when talking about her deportation, says "she didn't know why New Mexico, any more than she knew why she wasn't dead" so presumably she didn't apply. What it sounds like to me - and I have no references to back this up - is a deal done behind the scenes. The US wanted her freed (possibly because of pressure from an expatriate Chinese lobby), China didn't want her free in China and probably didn't want the bad publicity of either keeping her imprisoned or killing her, so a compromise was reached. Remember that the story she was imprisoned for writing was a pretty big one. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Authorising use of logo

I have created a logo for a non-profit organisation. I've looked around online and seems like that it's best I keep the copyright of the artwork and AUTHORISE the group to use the artwork as the logo. Not really looking for legal advise here but where can I find a sample user agreement that basically says I authorise this group to use the logo under certain conditions and that it may not be altered, it's not for sale etc. I'm not looking for royalty from this logo but I also do not want misuse of the logo or release ownership of it. I want to make sure I cover all the clauses yet it gives me the owner the freedom to give permission case by case. thx in advance. --Kvasir (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I live in Alberta, Canada btw, not sure it's a federal or provincial matter. The said organisation is a provincial registered society. --Kvasir (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the point of Creative Commons licenses is to provide plain-English summaries of legally-cromulent licenses so that a non-expert can reasonably select terms suitable for their purposes. It looks to me like you'd be going for the by-nc-nd variety. The summary and full text of the latest revision can be found at creativecommons.org. That link is specific for Canadian jurisdictions. — Lomn 18:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

cynicism overload

Is there a case of power companies being known to give away cheaper than free incandascent bulbs in a given area, in any form, not just "you get paid to take and use them" but packaging them with baby formula and selling the package cheaper than the rest of the baby formulas in the grocery store (though obviously not less cheaply by enough to create an arbitrage situation where someone would just buy them all and resell them - just cheaper by enough that it would be "free money" to choose htat one). This is just one example, I am looking for anything that even vaguely fits my description.

I'm asking because this behavior is predicted by an exhaustive programmatic model I have made of human, employee and corporate behavior, and I would like to test its predictions. Thank you. 82.113.121.167 (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)